Michigan Auto Bailout: Dunderhead Mitt Romney Got it 100% Wrong!!

LoL Earlpearl. How many ways are there to slant a $250k/car subsidy. If the source of the information allows you to ignore it, more power to you.

 

I think that is a great point. Business experience and the perspective to make solid decisions based on experience. There are strong indications that with Romney's education, connections, and experience he is little more than a Wall Street toadie, and locked into a perspective that was solidly ignorant. Weigh first $20-25 billion then a total of $85 billion in loans/investments against a potential best business estimate for a $150 billion loss, which is what Bush faced and those were the best numbers he worked with.

For most people it would be a no-brainer. Make the loans, save the industries, keep them running and eliminate the potential loss of another 800,000 to 2 million loss of jobs, crushing destruction of the entire supply chain to the auto industry....and a potential loss of $150 billion.

Only extremists or toadies would say what Romney said.

Now how is Romney an obvious toadie to Wall Street? Connect the dots.

When Rush Limbaugh made his grotesque comments about a young woman, calling her a slut, prostitute, and wanting to see sex videos of her, Mitt Romney meekly responded "he wouldn't have said that".

It turns out Rush's show is carried by Clear Channel Communications. Clear Channel is a private entity which was purchased by an investment group substantially developed by Bain Capital, the business that Romney used to work at and lead. Much if not substantially most of Romney's current income comes from Bain investments. His income has to substantially come from those investments in that his tax rates were so low.

Bain and its investors own Clear Channel. Clear Channel is Rush Limbaugh's employer and syndicator of his show. Rush is now losing advertisers at a rapid pace. Income is down. Clear Channel, whose income is private has been identified as possibly one of the biggest problem Leveraged Buyouts; it was made just before the huge recession hit and advertising income tanked enormously.

A subsidiary of Clear Channel, is being accused of improperly sending money to the debt laden Clear Channel parent. Clear Channel is a business that evidently has been hurting for cash since the LBO and has been teetering ever since source.

Meanwhile besides Romney's income being tied to Bain investments, many of the people that have funded his Super Pac that is the only thing keeping his campaign alive are ex Bain, or current Bain employees or investors.

Romney is too much of a toadie to say anything but the most meaningless comment about Rush Limbaugh's comments. He is a toadie to a Wall Street leveraged buyout that could go sour and hurt his income and that of his wealthy supporters.

It appears that Romney's judgement is totally wrapped up in the best interests of Wall Street and his wealthy best friends. That is not the kind of business judgement I'd depend upon going forward, especially after this last incredible recession was brought upon us and heightened by Wall Street excesses in risky deal making.

 

Once again, we are faced with the left talking about something that is ONLY a big deal because the RIGHT did it !!!!!

The whole thing with Sandra Fluke is an absolute joke.. Why ? Because if you take a look at how people have destroyed Sarah Palin and compare it to what Rush Limbaugh "said" about her -- it's not even comparable.. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

 

Yes Sarah Palin has been attacked repeatedly. In fact lots of Republicans have attacked her, and repeatedly. She keeps making actions and making communications that generate attacks. She is a highly paid political celebrity like so many other public figures that get attacked. The Right Wing Extremists have attacked Obama for his connections to his former minister and for being a Muslim....figure that out. They've attacked the color of his skin, his place of birth, his education etc. Rick Perry labeled Romney a vulture capitalist. Bush and Cheney were attacked. Barney Frank has been attacked because he is openly gay. Bill Clinton was viscerated by Newt Gingrich for playing around with an intern while Gingrich was having an affair while married.

They are all in the public eye and compensated in $$ and power for it.

Lots of politicians and public figures get attacked. The difference with Sandra Fluke is she is not a highly paid public figure. She is a college student called a prostitute, slut, and on top of that in an amazing example of how Rush Limbaugh thinks,...he wants to see sex videos of her.

Meanwhile when it comes to business judgement, Romney's response to Limbaugh's comments were a real tough guy response. "I wouldn't say that" he whimpered.

Meanwhile, Clear Channel, owned by Bain, with enormous leverage and relatively low rated junk bonds, makes money off of Rush. Advertising $$$$ are dropping. A couple of stations have dropped Rush's show....and Romney's income and that of his heavyweight political supporters, who represent the Wall Street 1/10 of 1% and are the sole support for his campaign....are investors in Bain's deals....they have to include Clear Channel.

Romney simply showed he is a toadie of Wall Street. Romney's judgement on the Detroit Bailout were 100% wrong. As the Michigan primary occurred Romney issued the weaslyest comments one could imagine trying to explain the absolutely crazy op ed he wrote back in 2008.

As a business guy Romney seems to show both miserable judgement and appears to be a toadie of Wall Street. His basic campaign funded by campaign contributions limited to $2500/person is running out of $$$. Meanwhile his shadow attack campaign via the Super Pac is flush with cash funded by million dollar contributions, many from Bain cohorts, including ones wherein they completely tried to hide their source of funds.

Mitt Romney toadie of Wall Street. Its quite obvious.

 

Earlpearl, your diatribe seems to be losing its edge. Your last post was an incoherent and noxious mixture of the same nonsense you've been mindlessly repeating across at least five other threads. Even if repeating it makes it more true for you, the rambling nature of it really makes it hard to read. And then there was this little gem:

Isn't blaming the victim what Islamists do? After all the 9-11 victims had it coming, didnt they? Hey, I'm with you man. She had it coming. You know the only thing worse than a male chauvinist pig? A woman who wont shut up.

 

FTR, I doubt she's an actual prostitute, though if she is really going broke purchasing birth control stuff during the rigors of law school there's a fair argument to be made that she actually IS a tremendous slut. [OMG... Rob attacked this poor child who innocently wandered into harms way and has been bullied by everyone!]

C'mon... she's a plant. Deep down you know she's a plant. They didn't grab some random chick from the law school, she's an activist and for some odd reason nobody is willing to say how she got picked to show up and have Nancy Pelosi's heart bleed all over her. So in a sense, yeah... she's a prostitute too, just not in the sexual sense. You think Palin's fair game, then this one is too. Go ahead and excoriate me for my heartlessness. Hey, I don't have sponsors to lose.

 

Rob: you may not have sponsors to lose, but clearly others do. Others have noted the connection between Romney and his big big supporters. Here is info far more comprehensive connections on his connections to clear channel beyond the Bain connection: Very interesting. lot of Clear Channel connections

The Bain and partner inspired leveraged buyout of Clear Channel is a big one that is pretty risky. The company lives off of debt and its debt ratings are in the C junk bond category.

Romney, as the article noted, responded on the Rush Limbaugh deal with a wuss of a response. Clear Channel gave Rush Limbaugh a $400 million contract over 8 years. Now that is a company that can't afford to lose sponsors on the Limbaugh show, especially with its massive debt, lousy credit ratings and high interest rates.

Looks to me like business experienced Mitt Romney might well be taking his marching orders from a lot of wealthy investors, who have an enormous amount of money at risk.

Is that the kind of guy whose judgement should be representing the US???

 

So anyone who doesn't get their panties in a twist over your contrived and hypocritical crisis must have some ulterior motive?

Yes? Obviously? Perhaps the better question is, why are the hypocrites who are whining so loudly about this, even permitted to operate a vehcile, no less the levers of government. In view of their behavior, I'd be impressed if they could operate toilet paper.

 

Oh no... let's go with:
-- The guy that doesn't understand the law of supply and demand {aka: see also... the Volt, Soylyndra, A123, Fisker, et al}.
-- The guy that claimed "god damn america" reverend Wright was his mentor, then claimed he didnt know his "mentor" ever expressed such views.
-- The the one whose first fundraiser was held in the home of a former member of the FBIs most wanted list... who got off on a rich dad and a technicality.
-- The guy that just told one of our primary allies he'd help IF they subject their national security to his reelection timetable.
-- The guy that appointed an energy czar that admitted his preference is for our gas prices to reach Europes level.
-- The guy who promised the most transparent administration in history, and delivered transparent handouts to donors who plead the 5th after stealing the money.
-- The guy that criticizes Limbaugh but accepts a million dollars from Maher, who has done worse.

Seriously, that isn't even a full short list. Obama's judgment is way more than weak, it's scary.
He spent his whole campaign saying "Yes we CAN!..." then his entire administration explaining "Why He Couldn't."

 

Someone enjoys typing the same things over and over again, eh ?

Rush didn't "ask for sex tapes", he simply said that if we are paying for the birth control / condoms / alcohol / escorts for Fluke - sy then we might as well get the whole deal. Again, something taken wayyyyyy overboard by the left, not a big deal though - used to it by now. ;-)


The topic of "Wall Street" is an entire issue on it's own.

 

On a side note: I love Private Equity firms like Bain Capital and Wall Street - I love everything about it..

What a silly question, considering the muppet we have in office now. I'd honestly vote for my dog, before Obama.

 

And, of course, YOU never write in a style that is entirely reflective of extremist politics - DO you, Earl?

 

So was Mitt Romney 100% wrong or 200% wrong as March was another great month for auto sales, with more increases for US auto manufacturers, more people working, more factory production, etc. etc. Hey Mitt how does this reconcile with your incredibly dumb destructive speech

 

Earl, WTF is your point?

 

Corwin: If you took the time to read the Opening Post and the title you would know what the point is. I suspect like every commentator that has attacked the thread you won't respond specifically to the title and the opening post:

Mitt Romney totally got it wrong when he attacked the auto bailout in a deliberately placed high visibility site.

The American auto industry has strongly rebounded,(he said it was going to fail) its revolutionized and dramatically changed its way of operating...(he specifically claimed that wouldn't occur.

Its putting growing numbers of people to work.

Romney wrote this piece in 2008. It was shortly after the financial institution bailout. In September of that year with financial institutions failing miserably and liquidity and credit vanishing from the American economy Congress initially voted to deny the bailout. Financial markets in the US and around the world collapsed and interest rates were headed skyward.

A couple of days later faced with an incredible crisis Congress reversed its decision. Fed money flooded the financial institutions and the worst financial crisis in modern times was mitigated.

The right wing extremist position, that Romney was purposefully articulating in probably the most widely read US media source, proved to be wrong in Sept of that year...and Romney was wrong again a few months later.

If you believe Romney was correct say so. If you wish to write about something else, create another thread.

 

Ya this is why Detroit is such a nice city

 

As I was saying...nobody has yet to comment directly on whether they agree or disagree with Romney's quotes.

All these comments and nobody who has addressed this thread is willing to defend Romney's comments.

 

How dare you call me nobody .

Seriously Earl, I dismantled your OP in the first page over a month ago. Why try and resurrect it? The "War on Women" seems to be getting more traction, perhaps you should go with that angle.

Off topic, if Obama had a son, what do you think he would name him?

 

O_Nation: People should read your posts. You never responded to the thread. You wrote about, Ford, Chrysler as a vehicle you can't stand, democratic policy, compared obama to bush.....and published one of the most deceitful--outrageously political pieces masquerading as think tank data...which was compiled simply as a misleading attack piece full of horrendous information.

But.....you didn't say whether Romney's claims were correct or not.

Now you did rave about Ford. hey I like them also. keep american companies working in a huge industry hiring american workers...and working with other american companies with still more American workers.

What you fail to acknowledge is that Ford Motor itself knew it would go down if GM and Chrysler went down. If GM and Chrysler had collapsed the much of the auto parts manufacturing industry
would have collapsed thereby seriously damaging Ford's ability to build cars. I know you'd hate to acknowledge this...but more American factory workers that take part in the auto industry manufacturing work for businesses (parts manufacturers) than do people who work for the 3 Detroit companies. Letting GM and Chrysler die would have killed the parts industry --which would have killed Ford.

Now don't believe me....here it from Ford itself: http://www.autoblog.com/2012/03/02/book-ford-secretly-partnered-with-toyota-honda-during-economic/

As to the think tank data that proclaimed that the government subsidized Volt's to the tune of $250,000/car here are some responses.

1. The total so called subsidy was divided by 6,000 cars to arrive at that total. Lets see a decade or so ago the Toyota Prius a hybrid car received the same kind of Right Wing attacks as the Volt is getting today. Its sales in the first year in the US were about the same as Volt to date. Over a decade later the Prius has sold about 1 million cars in the US.

So if the Volt has sales progress like the Prius....how are you going to rewrite that stupid politically generated "think tank" piece....

2. The so called subsidies the Think tank added up included tax breaks, including future tax breaks which may or may not ever be applied. That comprised a lot of its numerator.

(btw--Mr. smarty pants---do you understand numerators and denominators? If not I'll tutor you. )

If the GOP wants to describe tax breaks and tax cuts as government subsidies...than it appears that the top 25 hedge fund operators over the past 2 years basically were provided socialized communist type government subsidies....as they receive a 20% tax break on their average $1 billion/person incomes.

So based on the reasoning of you and the "think tank" the government is subsidizing in a communistic socialistic way....25 hugely rich people. of course that is to the detriment of the rest of the nation. Also that means that the government is subsidizing businesses for providing health care to the tune of about $200++ billion per year.

Why, according to your reasoning is the federal government acting like a communist/socialist entity providing subsidies and benefits to 25 hugely rich guys and generally bigger companies....to the exclusion of the rest of the nation.

But lets get back to the main topic. Do you agree with Romney's claims:

Were they correct or not?

 

I believe a numerator is an evil device invented by Professor Doofenshmirtz to defeat his arch rival, perry the platypus. What did I win?

Interesting take on the idiotic "your a socialist" mantra perpetuated by many. Unfortunately for you, I don't sing to that tune. Labels such as "extremist" and "socialist" actually have widely accepted meanings, none of which are applicable in most of our discussions, though I have noticed you absolutely love the word "extremist", applicable or otherwise.

To be specific, a subsidy is defined at dictionary.com as follows:

1. a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.
2. a sum paid, often in accordance with a treaty, by one government to another to secure some service in return.
3. a grant or contribution of money.
4. money formerly granted by the English Parliament to the crown for special needs.
​

Notice that in every definition, money actually flows from the government to someone else. If you are going to start calling tax deductions subsidies, then by definition, any portion of the money I earn that the government allows me to keep could be called a subsidy. Like most people, that rubs me the wrong way.

That aside, tax breaks can, and often are insidious. I would greatly prefer a simpler tax code with fewer deductions and a lower overall rate. Perhaps you've heard of Paul Ryan who proposes just such a thing.

And regarding 20% tax breaks for the mega wealthy, I find it irritating that anyone is paying over 20%. For the mega wealthy to get a 20% tax break, I can only assume they were over taxed to start with. Take away the deductions and tax all income and gains, corporate and indivual, at 15%. That would be fair. If you really feel the need to help the poor, make the newly simplified rate progressive based on total annual earnings, and range it from 0-20%.

38% corporate and 35% individual tax rates are immoral.

For the answer to that question, you have only to look at the relationship between Jeffery Immelt and Barack Obama.

At the time they were. That deal evolved quite a bit from the time those claims were made. He was right then to oppose the bailouts, and he is right now to say that they were wrong. Like BofA, GM should have been carved up and sold off.


Now my question to you. Like many people, I lost about 95% of everything I owned in 2001 when the Nasdaq dropped to 20% of it's high and didn't bounce back. Also like those many people, I didn't get a bailout from the Bush admin. Oh no. My money was in a market that came with risks, and I got told to suck it. Roll the clock forward 8 years and we have Barack Obama basically gifting money to all his political contributors(Auto Unions) and other wealthy people (over leveraged home owners). My risk was no different than theirs, yet apparently, with the right political contributions, risk is meaningless. Ask Goldman. Ask BofA. Ask GM.

In what world is it somehow moral to give taxpayer money to your political contributors as if they need it more than all the people who absolutely f*cking hate your politics?

When you can figure out the answer to that question, you will have taken a step closer to understanding what most people already understand about the auto bailouts.