Romney Taking Credit for Auto Industry Success

[Midtowner]

By STEVE PEOPLES, Associated Press – 8 hours ago

EUCLID, Ohio (AP) — Campaigning in the backyard of America's auto industry, Mitt Romney re-ignited the bailout debate by suggesting he deserves "a lot of credit" for the recent successes of the nation's largest car companies.
That claims comes in spite of his stance that Detroit should have been allowed to go bankrupt.
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee told a Cleveland television station on Monday that President Barack Obama followed his lead when he ushered auto companies through a managed bankruptcy soon after taking office.

"I pushed the idea of a managed bankruptcy, and finally when that was done, and help was given, the companies got back on their feet," Romney said in an interview inside a Cleveland-area auto parts maker. "So, I'll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry has come back."
Romney has repeatedly argued that Obama ultimately took his advice on the auto industry's woes of 2008 and 2009. But he went further on Monday by saying he deserves credit for its ultimate turnaround.

The course Romney advocated differed greatly from the one that was ultimately taken. GM and Chrysler went into bankruptcy on the strength of a massive bailout that Romney opposed. Neither Republican President George W. Bush nor Democratic President Barack Obama believed the automakers would have survived without that backup from taxpayers.

Romney opposed taxpayer help.

"If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye," Romney wrote in a November 2008 opinion article in the New York Times. "It won't go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed."

General Motors posted a record profit last year.

I'm guessing the strategy will be to repeat the lie until it becomes canon?

[Curly Bill]

Is this anything like Brack taking credit for getting Osama?

[Midtowner]

Is this anything like Brack taking credit for getting Osama?

Only if the President had told military that Pakistan was off limits in the search for Bin Laden.

Nice attempt at deflecting and changing the subject though. Guess you haven't been told what to say by your spin machine.

[okie52]

I'm guessing the strategy will be to repeat the lie until it becomes canon?

Romney must be taking his cue from Obama on oil and gas and then the trip to Cushing. LOL, very humorous indeed.

[Midtowner]

Oil and gas, mostly oil is extremely successful and gas' lack of success comes only from the fact that they're producing way too much. Cushing had nothing to do with taking credit for anything. It was about his ongoing energy policy and that they were going to expedite the completion of the southern leg of the Keystone XL. The northern half, it looks like is shaping up for approval as we speak--and in a win-win way with regard to the environment.

Again.. deflect, try to change the subject. Is something in the water today?

[okie52]

Again.. deflect, try to change the subject. Is something in the water today?

You mean your subject wasn't about someone taking illegitimate credit???? Seemed like Obama was a perfect example.

Something in the water you say? Maybe you've been listening to the EPA a little too often.

[Curly Bill]

Only if the President had told military that Pakistan was off limits in the search for Bin Laden.

Nice attempt at deflecting and changing the subject though. Guess you haven't been told what to say by your spin machine.

So, what you're saying is since I don't agree with you I'm deflecting? That's a nice attempt at deflection on your part comrade.

[okie52]

Oil and gas, mostly oil is extremely successful and gas' lack of success comes only from the fact that they're producing way too much. Cushing had nothing to do with taking credit for anything. It was about his ongoing energy policy and that they were going to expedite the completion of the southern leg of the Keystone XL. The northern half, it looks like is shaping up for approval as we speak--and in a win-win way with regard to the environment.

Again.. deflect, try to change the subject. Is something in the water today?

Sure it did unless you didn't listen to his campaign speech the night before he hit Cushing. Its part of his "all of the above" approach to energy and he stated that at Cushing. He has very little to do with the southern leg of the pipelines approval which is again comical for his claiming credit.

Of course, his banning offshore drilling off the east and west coasts may not quite fit with "all of the above'.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/543274_10150769094728802_332730348801_9664217_1512 658371_n.jpg

[Midtowner]

Of course, his banning offshore drilling off the east and west coasts may not quite fit with "all of the above'.

That's the only prudent thing to do until industry and the EPA can settle on a course of action for responsible and safe drilling. We tried self-regulation by the industry. That sure went well.

[REDREX]

Oil and gas, mostly oil is extremely successful and gas' lack of success comes only from the fact that they're producing way too much. Cushing had nothing to do with taking credit for anything. It was about his ongoing energy policy and that they were going to expedite the completion of the southern leg of the Keystone XL. The northern half, it looks like is shaping up for approval as we speak--and in a win-win way with regard to the environment.

Again.. deflect, try to change the subject. Is something in the water today?---Barack does not have anything to do with the Southern end of the Keystone pipeline it does not need his approval-----If you believe Barack is doing anything to improve this countries energy position you have your head in the sand

[Midtowner]

---Barack does not have anything to do with the Southern end of the Keystone pipeline it does not need his approval-----If you believe Barack is doing anything to improve this countries energy position you have your head in the sand

And we're quickly heading towards a win-win route for the northern route which doesn't place Nebraska's water in jeopardy. Well done, Mr. President.

[REDREX]

And we're quickly heading towards a win-win route for the northern route which doesn't place Nebraska's water in jeopardy. Well done, Mr. President.--- The old route would have worked just fine---Do you plan on digging up the thousands of miles of pipeline that already cross the acquifer ? If not what have you accomplished with the new route?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

We tried self-regulation by the industry. That sure went well.

It does...

[Midtowner]

--- The old route would have worked just fine---Do you plan on digging up the thousands of miles of pipeline that already cross the acquifer ? If not what have you accomplished with the new route?

No risk is better than some risk.

A few month's delay is all that's being asked here. The promise was that the administration would expedite the approval of the northern portion and that's happening. Much to the GOP's chagrin, unless the GOP House or Senators block the XL with some silly amendments, it's going to happen.

[Midtowner]

It does...

Yeah, Deepwater Horizon was such an astounding success.

[Midtowner]

And see? Attack attack attack. Can't make a point in defense of your guy? Great, say something totally unrelated, even if disingenuous to tar and feather the other guy. The partisan hackery here always impresses.

Romney's still full of ****. If the President had followed Romney's advice, everyone agrees GM and Chrysler would no longer exist and many Americans would be out of work.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Yeah, Deepwater Horizon was such an astounding success.

And Apple is great at avoiding taxes and being a 1 percenter. Why don't you go after their profits and make them pay more U.S. taxes...

[REDREX]

No risk is better than some risk.

A few month's delay is all that's being asked here. The promise was that the administration would expedite the approval of the northern portion and that's happening. Much to the GOP's chagrin, unless the GOP House or Senators block the XL with some silly amendments, it's going to happen.--- The move to delay it was nothing more than a political move----If the public was not in favor of it and it was not an election year Barack would never approve it---don't kid yourself

[REDREX]

And see? Attack attack attack. Can't make a point in defense of your guy? Great, say something totally unrelated, even if disingenuous to tar and feather the other guy. The partisan hackery here always impresses.

Romney's still full of ****. If the President had followed Romney's advice, everyone agrees GM and Chrysler would no longer exist and many Americans would be out of work.---Who is "everyone"---as I recall GM did go bankrupt and they are still in business----With the current ownership it is a matter of time before they are broke again

[sappstuf]

--- The old route would have worked just fine---Do you plan on digging up the thousands of miles of pipeline that already cross the acquifer ? If not what have you accomplished with the new route?

The NYTimes had an article about a guy who was a hydrogeologist at the University of Nebraska for something like 40 years say the original plan posed little threat to the aquifer..

Pffffttttt

Obviously his 40 year career was just the setup from Big Oil for this exact moment....

EDIT:

Here is the link.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/10/03/what-are-the-risks-of-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-project/the-pipeline-poses-minimal-risk-to-the-ogallala-aquifer

[jkjsooner]

---Who is "everyone"---as I recall GM did go bankrupt and they are still in business----With the current ownership it is a matter of time before they are broke again

You just made Midtowner's point. They went bankrupt but stayed in business. Without some financial backing bankruptcy is often the end game - i.e. out of business.

It's not easy to find capital to stay in business after bankruptcy. Bankruptcy often eliminates some of the bad debt but that alone would not have saved the auto companies.

[jkjsooner]

You mean your subject wasn't about someone taking illegitimate credit???? Seemed like Obama was a perfect example.

Your comment would hold a lot more weight if you first admitted that Romney is taking illegitimate credit. Unless you admit that before turning the attention to Obama then you're simply deflecting.


Even given your premise that Obama does it as well, isn't that the same as the liberals saying "but Bush did it too" all the time. Don't we hear you guys screaming about liberals deflecting in the same way?


to be honest there ain't one bit of difference between the arguing styles of either side. I remember back in 2000/2001 the conservatives on the SoonerTimes political board blaming the economy on Clinton and using the "but Clinton did it too" line.

[REDREX]

You just made Midtowner's point. They went bankrupt but stayed in business. Without some financial backing bankruptcy is often the end game - i.e. out of business.

It's not easy to find capital to stay in business after bankruptcy. Bankruptcy often eliminates some of the bad debt but that alone would not have saved the auto companies.---I didn't make his point at all----GM went backrupt and is still in business----Go look at the entire airline industry they have all been bankrupt. When in bankruptcy you are a much better credit risk

[Midtowner]

---Who is "everyone"---as I recall GM did go bankrupt and they are still in business----With the current ownership it is a matter of time before they are broke again

You obviously don't understand the subject matter being discussed. Not all bankruptcies are the same. GM and Chrysler, without government bailout money would have ceased to exist. There is no argument against that and that is why Romney is wrong to take credit here. Had the government actually done what Romney recommended, i.e., managed bankruptcy without bailout money, those two companies would have gone the way o the dodo.

With the current ownership, I don't see how you can give such a grizzly prediction. They're posting record profits. If you're going to maintain these positions, facts are not your friend.

[Curly Bill]

You obviously don't understand the subject matter being discussed. Go educate yourself and come back later.

Is this kinda like saying: I'm gonna request you not post in this thread again?

...because we got a lot of mileage out of that one.

Seems the person who said that was also a pansy-a** lib.

[REDREX]

You obviously don't understand the subject matter being discussed. Go educate yourself and come back later.--- And you are obviously an arrogant Prick

[Curly Bill]

--- And you are obviously an arrogant Prick

Well...that, and a pansy-a** lib. ;)

[Midtowner]

Is this kinda like saying: I'm gonna request you not post in this thread again?

...because we got a lot of mileage out of that one.

Seems the person who said that was also a pansy-a** lib.

So now you've gone from unsubstantiated attacks on the President to unsubstantiated attacks on me? Coolio.

It's a fact. You don't understand the subject matter. That or you refuse to accept reality.

[Curly Bill]

So now you've gone from unsubstantiated attacks on the President to unsubstantiated attacks on me? Coolio.

It's a fact. You don't understand the subject matter. That or you refuse to accept reality.

...or there's another option: I don't take this innerwebs business near so serious as you.

[pphilfran]

They waited too long to bail out GM and Chrysler...shoulda been done at the end of Bush's watch...the delay just let them burn through billions of available cash...

Selling Chrysler to Fiat was a travesty...

[Midtowner]

...or there's another option: I don't take this innerwebs business near so serious as you.

So you don't care, but you responded anyway just so you could let me know you didn't care? Then you further register your lack of caring by negative spek? As per usual, you are totally full of ****.

[Midtowner]

They waited too long to bail out GM and Chrysler...shoulda been done at the end of Bush's watch...the delay just let them burn through billions of available cash...

Selling Chrysler to Fiat was a travesty...

Agreed.

[Curly Bill]

So you don't care, but you responded anyway just so you could let me know you didn't care? The first rule of getting out of a hole is to stop digging.

I guess. Didn't know I was in a hole, but if it makes you feel better, or you get to win for me to say so, then I guess so.

[okie52]

That's the only prudent thing to do until industry and the EPA can settle on a course of action for responsible and safe drilling. We tried self-regulation by the industry. That sure went well.

With thousands of wells and over 60 years of drilling history in the Gulf thats a pretty good track record...of course to those that don't want oil and gas drilling at all it won't ever be good enough. These are the limited thinkers incapable of seeing anything beyond bicycling to work. They are approving permits again in the gulf (thanks largely to court orders demanding Obama permit the wells). Over half the Gulf economy is from oil and gas. But there are some brilliant people that don't want those same opportunities on the east and west coast.

But importing oil is good...look at all of the advantages.

[okie52]

Your comment would hold a lot more weight if you first admitted that Romney is taking illegitimate credit. Unless you admit that before turning the attention to Obama then you're simply deflecting.


Even given your premise that Obama does it as well, isn't that the same as the liberals saying "but Bush did it too" all the time. Don't we hear you guys screaming about liberals deflecting in the same way?


to be honest there ain't one bit of difference between the arguing styles of either side. I remember back in 2000/2001 the conservatives on the SoonerTimes political board blaming the economy on Clinton and using the "but Clinton did it too" line.

I thought my quote was quite clear as I was laughing at both of them.



Romney must be taking his cue from Obama on oil and gas and then the trip to Cushing. LOL, very humorous indeed.

Maybe it wasn't clear enough for you.

[diverdog]

So you don't care, but you responded anyway just so you could let me know you didn't care? Then you further register your lack of caring by negative spek? As per usual, you are totally full of ****.

Pretty much Curley's MO.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Wholly mackerel! There's FAR TOO MANY posts in this shameful thread.

[KABOOKIE]

Another news cycle and maybe you'll be on to your next OMG OUTRAGE.

ZOMG!!!! OUTRAGE!!!!



I'm guessing the strategy will be to repeat the lie until it becomes canon?

[Sooner5030]

Not sure why Romney or anyone would want to be associated with the "success" of the US auto industry. If success is determined by a few great quarters/years post BK then we have a f-ing stupid electorate. Let me jettison my debt.....get free or discounted loans that can be converted later into stock sales and my income statement would improve dramatically. Chrysler did much better following their last bailout in 79? We should have let these shiaty companies be darwin'd out in order to cleanse the industry of bad practices.

If toyota, nissan, honda ever got into the 3/4-1 ton diesel truck market I would never have a reason to buy another "american" auto.

[East Coast Bias]

I guess. Didn't know I was in a hole, but if it makes you feel better, or you get to win for me to say so, then I guess so.

That some funny **** there....I think he just bent over for you....

[Fraggle145]

You mean your subject wasn't about someone taking illegitimate credit???? Seemed like Obama was a perfect example.

Something in the water you say? Maybe you've been listening to the EPA a little too often.

There's a lot of **** in the water these days. And you know it.

[sappstuf]

I'm guessing the strategy will be to repeat the lie until it becomes canon?

I love one sentence quotes, so the truth can be spun in any direction. Let's quote a couple of paragraphs from Romney and see what the big picture is shall we?


But let me make a couple of points in this regard. One is, we want the U.S. auto industry to survive, to grow, to thrive. Two is that if we just send money to Detroit and say, Keep playing the game the way you have, that’s not going to happen. What’ll happen is the industry will decline and decline over the years until it doesn’t exist anymore.

So what is needed is the opportunity to dramatically restructure the costs of making cars by Ford, Chrysler and General Motors. And for that to happen, you’re going to have to have either a very powerful czar of some kind who can step in and open up contracts and change the basic structure of the industry, or go through a pre-packaged, managed bankruptcy. The government is going to be part of this process either through the courts or through a super-powerful car czar, if you will. But business as usual is not the way to preserve these jobs and to build a brighter future for the many people who work in the auto industry…

If the car czar, which exists in the current bill — and I haven’t read the current bill, so I can’t be too specific in that regard. But if that car czar doesn’t have the authority to actually reduce the costs in the industry and make these companies competitive, then we will just be throwing good money after bad.

]And the right thing to do here is to make sure that we do restructure these costs. That happens in bankruptcy. There are some down sides in bankruptcy, too. They could be alleviated by government participating in the process, either through a pre-packaged bankruptcy, they call it, where you agree to terms beforehand, go through bankruptcy to dot the I’s and cross the T’s. Or it could be done through a special piece of legislation, giving — giving this car czar real authority.[/B]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465286,00.html#

That interview was given on December 10th, 2008. Well before the bailout actually happened. What he was suggesting was a quick bankruptcy that could have the government's backing.

Let us skip ahead to April 1st of 2009.


President Barack Obama believes a quick, negotiated bankruptcy is the most likely way for General Motors Corp. to restructure and become a competitive automaker, people familiar with the matter said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aA3.YrmEsfdA&refer=home

Hmmm.. Sounds awfully similar doesn't it?

Since you have already agreed with Phil that the bankruptcy took too long and burned through billions of dollars unnecessarily, then we can all agree that it would have been better to follow Romney's suggestion in December of 2008 instead of delaying it almost 4 months.. Right?

[diverdog]

I love one sentence quotes, so the truth can be spun in any direction. Let's quote a couple of paragraphs from Romney and see what the big picture is shall we?



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465286,00.html#

That interview was given on December 10th, 2008. Well before the bailout actually happened. What he was suggesting was a quick bankruptcy that could have the government's backing.

Let us skip ahead to April 1st of 2009.



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aA3.YrmEsfdA&refer=home

Hmmm.. Sounds awfully similar doesn't it?

Since you have already agreed with Phil that the bankruptcy took too long and burned through billions of dollars unnecessarily, then we can all agree that it would have been better to follow Romney's suggestion in December of 2008 instead of delaying it almost 4 months.. Right?

They are not similar and he did not suggest cash infusions.

[sappstuf]

They are not similar and he did not suggest cash infusions.


The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

Sounds like cash to me.

He suggested a quick bankruptcy backed by the government. That is exactly what happened.

[okie52]

There's a lot of **** in the water these days. And you know it.

Probably a turbine blade...pay no attention to it.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Not sure why Romney or anyone would want to be associated with the "success" of the US auto industry. If success is determined by a few great quarters/years post BK then we have a f-ing stupid electorate. Let me jettison my debt.....get free or discounted loans that can be converted later into stock sales and my income statement would improve dramatically. Chrysler did much better following their last bailout in 79? We should have let these shiaty companies be darwin'd out in order to cleanse the industry of bad practices.

If toyota, nissan, honda ever got into the 3/4-1 ton diesel truck market I would never have a reason to buy another "american" auto.No price is too dear to protect the unions and their votes.

[Midtowner]

Sounds like cash to me.

He suggested a quick bankruptcy backed by the government. That is exactly what happened.

With no bailout funds, which would have meant failure.

Glad to see you've received your marching orders. Took long enough!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

With no bailout funds, which would have meant failure.

Glad to see you've received your marching orders. Took long enough!Are you really voting Beary? for real?

[sappstuf]

With no bailout funds, which would have meant failure.

Glad to see you've received your marching orders. Took long enough!


The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

Reading is fundamental...


On March 29, 2009 The U.S Treasury committed to fund a government guarantee of General Motors' warranty liabilities, up to US$ 360.6 million.

You know that second part about shoring up the warranties.. Pretty good idea.


Obama Administration’s New Warrantee Commitment Program

Today, the Treasury Department announced an innovative new program to give consumers who are considering new car purchases the confidence that even in this difficult economic period, their warrantees will be honored..

http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Warrantee_Commitment_Program.pdf

I hadn't realized Romney was so far ahead of the 8 ball in this matter. Thank you for bringing this topic up, so I could research it and bring it to the attention of those on this board.

Good job.

[diverdog]

Sounds like cash to me.

He suggested a quick bankruptcy backed by the government. That is exactly what happened.

Read it again. Guarantees are different than cash.

Your boys OPED.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

[sappstuf]

Read it again. Guarantees are different than cash.

Your boys OPED.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

Bush was responsible for $17 billion in loans to GM. Can't really count that since Obama had nothing to do with it.

I can only assume you mean the buying of GM stock at absurd prices. No, Romney doesn't mention that one way or the other in that OPED, but I don't think anyone was talking about that at the time.

By the way, for the government to break even they would need to sale their stock at around $57 per share... Current price? $22.30.

But back to the OP, since I'm don't feel like posting again...


IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye.

The bailout that the executives went in front of the Senate and asked for, to which Romney was responding, were to avoid bankruptcy completely.. GM didn't avoid bankruptcy. So the kind of bailout Romney was warning about didn't happen and makes the entire conversation academic.

[Midtowner]

And Apple is great at avoiding taxes and being a 1 percenter. Why don't you go after their profits and make them pay more U.S. taxes...

Legally avoiding taxes isn't the same as lobbying for corporate welfare. It would probably help if federal law caught up to this trend by ensuring there's an equitable method for collecting taxes. Corporations are supposed to pay taxes where they're at because corporations cost the state a lot of money to keep in business via infrastructure, security, labor concerns, etc. What Apple is doing is taking advantage of existing laws. Compare that to Exxon, who has the laws rewritten so the average American is subsidizing their growth.

[Midtowner]

Bush was responsible for $17 billion in loans to GM. Can't really count that since Obama had nothing to do with it.

And it hardly counts since to avoid disappearing entirely, GM required a $50 billion bailout in 2009.

I can only assume you mean the buying of GM stock at absurd prices. No, Romney doesn't mention that one way or the other in that OPED, but I don't think anyone was talking about that at the time.


By the way, for the government to break even they would need to sale their stock at around $57 per share... Current price? $22.30.

Probably won't happen. Bailouts cost money. In this case, for the American worker, this was money well spent.


The bailout that the executives went in front of the Senate and asked for, to which Romney was responding, were to avoid bankruptcy completely.. GM didn't avoid bankruptcy. So the kind of bailout Romney was warning about didn't happen and makes the entire conversation academic.

Except that Romney is taking credit for the success of GM. This is much like Al Gore's invention of the internet.

[pphilfran]

I am so confused...

I consider myself a slight lean to the right....

I tend to agree with Mid on most points...

Mid is a "flaming liberal"

I am confused....

[sappstuf]

And it hardly counts since to avoid disappearing entirely, GM required a $50 billion bailout in 2009.

I can only assume you mean the buying of GM stock at absurd prices. No, Romney doesn't mention that one way or the other in that OPED, but I don't think anyone was talking about that at the time.

Probably won't happen. Bailouts cost money. In this case, for the American worker, this was money well spent.

Except that Romney is taking credit for the success of GM. This is much like Al Gore's invention of the internet.

Since when does 34% of anything hardly count?

This is probably my biggest problem with the Democratic party... Their math skills suck.

[okie52]

Legally avoiding taxes isn't the same as lobbying for corporate welfare. It would probably help if federal law caught up to this trend by ensuring there's an equitable method for collecting taxes. Corporations are supposed to pay taxes where they're at because corporations cost the state a lot of money to keep in business via infrastructure, security, labor concerns, etc. What Apple is doing is taking advantage of existing laws. Compare that to Exxon, who has the laws rewritten so the average American is subsidizing their growth.

You've really struggled in this area...let me give you a hand:


Just one problem. Those "subsidies" are not subsidies. They are tax breaks. Of the $4 billion in alleged subsidies to Big Oil, $1.7 billion derives from a domestic manufacturing tax deduction intended to keep factories in the U.S. It is available to every company, not just oil companies. Another $850 million comes from another tax provision, also available to every U.S. corporation, that gives a credit for taxes paid to foreign countries—just as you can deduct your state taxes from your federal income taxes. Yet another $1 billion comes from tax rules that let oil companies treat oil in the ground as capital equipment for write-down purposes, and the rest comes from rules that let oil companies write off certain business costs immediately.

Maybe these are dumb rules. Maybe they need changing. But in no sense can they be called subsidies—i.e., money taken from Smith and given to Jones. The failure to tax Exxon more does not increase your payment to the IRS by one red cent.

[okie52]

I am so confused...

I consider myself a slight lean to the right....

I tend to agree with Mid on most points...

Mid is a "flaming liberal"

I am confused....

Ya dam lib.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Compare that to Exxon, who has the laws rewritten so the average American is subsidizing their growth.

I claim Bull****. What law did ExxonMobil have rewritten to make an advantage for them? Link please. I know the XOM uses the same manufacturing tax rule that is available to every manufacturer in the country. You want to keep XOM from using that tax rule, then withdraw it from use by everyone, not just a company or industry...

[Midtowner]

Since when does 34% of anything hardly count?

Because everyone admits that if the $50 billion didn't happen, GM and Chrysler go poof. This is getting a little circular. Either you're just not accepting the reality that Obama gets a lot of credit for GM's success, whereas Romney's contribution was writing an op-ed in 2008 which no one seemed to care much about until Romney claimed credit for the bailouts.


This is probably my biggest problem with the Democratic party... Their math skills suck.

Want to go to a thread where some conservative drone is waxing eloquent about our extremely high corporate tax rates while leaving effective rates entirely out of the picture? Or how about those math skills when it came to counting Iraq's WMDs?

[Midtowner]

I claim Bull****. What law did ExxonMobil have rewritten to make an advantage for them? Link please. I know the XOM uses the same manufacturing tax rule that is available to every manufacturer in the country. You want to keep XOM from using that tax rule, then withdraw it from use by everyone, not just a company or industry...

You don't really understand how lobbying works. That's okay. You don't seem to understand much of anything.

Companies like Exxon hire lobbying firms to do their bidding. This has resulted in upwards of 4 billion in windfalls to the oil and gas industry per year.

It does increase our tax because it increases our debt by 4 billion per year. Someone's going to have to pay that money back to China someday. Let's continue to reward shareholders while making deep cuts to public education and obtaining medicine for children unfortunate enough to be born to low-income parents.

[sappstuf]

Because everyone admits that if the $50 billion didn't happen, GM and Chrysler go poof. This is getting a little circular. Either you're just not accepting the reality that Obama gets a lot of credit for GM's success, whereas Romney's contribution was writing an op-ed in 2008 which no one seemed to care much about until Romney claimed credit for the bailouts.



Want to go to a thread where some conservative drone is waxing eloquent about our extremely high corporate tax rates while leaving effective rates entirely out of the picture? Or how about those math skills when it came to counting Iraq's WMDs?

If Bush wanted GM to go under they would have without the $17billion in loans he gave them before Obama ever took office.. Hardly matters? That is just silly.

WMDs?? That is your second strongest point that conservatives have bad math skills? Oh brother.

Never hold back from a man what he has rightfully earned, I always say. Here goes...

http://www.bcbusinessonline.ca/sites/default/files/The-gong-show_1.jpg?1307655688

Not that I think you will actually read all of the following quote... It might disturb your world with a little thing we call reality.



"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John

Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." <BR>
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force &mdash; if necessary &mdash; to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.

He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

[okie52]

You don't really understand how lobbying works. That's okay. You don't seem to understand much of anything.

Companies like Exxon hire lobbying firms to do their bidding. This has resulted in upwards of 4 billion in windfalls to the oil and gas industry per year.

It does increase our tax because it increases our debt by 4 billion per year. Someone's going to have to pay that money back to China someday. Let's continue to reward shareholders while making deep cuts to public education and obtaining medicine for children unfortunate enough to be born to low-income parents.

So a company should have to pay taxes on the taxes it payed in another country...brilliant.


GM made record $7.6 billion in 2011

I'm sure with that incredible logic you will be campaigning along with Hussein for GM to lose those same writeoffs that are enjoyed by all in the Manufacturing industry.

You know, someone has to pay.

[Midtowner]

It's a good thing we have a President who didn't buy into the groupthink/highly charged politicization of that issue. And going clear back to '98, Hussein may have been doing exactly what they said he was doing. In '02 though? Nope. And was at least some of the evidence showing ongoing WMD activity manufactured or misinterpreted? Yep.

[Midtowner]

I'm sure with that incredible logic you will be campaigning along with Hussein for GM to lose those same writeoffs that are enjoyed by all in the Manufacturing industry.

I'd agree with that. Corporations need to pay more tax and we need to reward countries for domestic manufacturing and make foreign manufacturing very unattractive from a tax standpoint instead of doing all of this free trade nonsense. It's great for corporate profits, but it kills the American worker.

[sappstuf]

It's a good thing we have a President who didn't buy into the groupthink/highly charged politicization of that issue. And going clear back to '98, Hussein may have been doing exactly what they said he was doing. In '02 though? Nope. And was at least some of the evidence showing ongoing WMD activity manufactured or misinterpreted? Yep.

Your math is a little off, but that should come as no surprise.


Repeatedly in the transcripts, Saddam and his lieutenants remind each other that Iraq destroyed its chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990s, and shut down those programs and the nuclear-bomb program, which had never produced a weapon.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,91737,00.html[/quote]

I guess 1998 could be considered early nineties depending on a person's math skills...

[okie52]

I'd agree with that. Corporations need to pay more tax and we need to reward countries for domestic manufacturing and make foreign manufacturing very unattractive from a tax standpoint instead of doing all of this free trade nonsense. It's great for corporate profits, but it kills the American worker.

So corporations need to pay more taxes but we need to reward them for domestic manufacturing. So if these corporations only manufactured domestically we shouldn't or should raise their taxes?

[sappstuf]

So corporations need to pay more taxes but we need to reward them for domestic manufacturing. So if these corporations only manufactured domestically we shouldn't or should raise their taxes?

Yes.

;)

[Curly Bill]

So corporations need to pay more taxes but we need to reward them for domestic manufacturing. So if these corporations only manufactured domestically we shouldn't or should raise their taxes?

Mid's a lib. Of course he thinks corporations should pay more taxes. He thinks we should all pay more taxes.

That sum it up for ya there good buddy mid?

[okie52]

Yes.

;)

LOL.

[okie52]

Mid's a lib. Of course he thinks corporations should pay more taxes. He thinks we should all pay more taxes.

That sum it up for ya there good buddy mid?

LOL. Well I am not sure even Hussein would support his tax ideas.

[Curly Bill]

LOL. Well I am not sure even Hussein would support his tax ideas.

That's cause Hussein still has one more election to run for. If he wins I think we'll see even more of the socialist, marxist, fascist, communist Obama come out. He can be even more of his true self.

[okie52]

That's cause Hussein still has one more election to run for. If he wins I think we'll see even more of the socialist, marxist, fascist, communist Obama come out. He can be even more of his true self.

That is scary. Hopefully he won't win but if he does I sure want the repubs to control congress.

[Curly Bill]

That is scary. Hopefully he won't win but if he does I sure want the repubs to control congress.

Agreed

[diverdog]

If Bush wanted GM to go under they would have without the $17billion in loans he gave them before Obama ever took office.. Hardly matters? That is just silly.

WMDs?? That is your second strongest point that conservatives have bad math skills? Oh brother.

Never hold back from a man what he has rightfully earned, I always say. Here goes...

http://www.bcbusinessonline.ca/sites/default/files/The-gong-show_1.jpg?1307655688

Not that I think you will actually read all of the following quote... It might disturb your world with a little thing we call reality.

Their opinions were not the opinion of the majority of the Democratic party.

[diverdog]

Bush was responsible for $17 billion in loans to GM. Can't really count that since Obama had nothing to do with it.

I can only assume you mean the buying of GM stock at absurd prices. No, Romney doesn't mention that one way or the other in that OPED, but I don't think anyone was talking about that at the time.

By the way, for the government to break even they would need to sale their stock at around $57 per share... Current price? $22.30.

But back to the OP, since I'm don't feel like posting again...



The bailout that the executives went in front of the Senate and asked for, to which Romney was responding, were to avoid bankruptcy completely.. GM didn't avoid bankruptcy. So the kind of bailout Romney was warning about didn't happen and makes the entire conversation academic.

Sapp:

The bailout proposals by Bush, Romney and Obama were all different.

I am in a wait and see mode on Romney. I wish he was the same as he was as Governor instead of pandering to the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

You don't really understand how lobbying works. That's okay. You don't seem to understand much of anything.

Companies like Exxon hire lobbying firms to do their bidding. This has resulted in upwards of 4 billion in windfalls to the oil and gas industry per year.

It does increase our tax because it increases our debt by 4 billion per year. Someone's going to have to pay that money back to China someday. Let's continue to reward shareholders while making deep cuts to public education and obtaining medicine for children unfortunate enough to be born to low-income parents.

How sad and small you are...

You or your minions have yet to post a link where XOM directly changed a tax law to directly benefit them or the oil industry in exclusion of the other manufacturers in this country. There is no windfall profit, only profit made on manufacturing (or upgrading if you will) a raw product mined from underground and then sold to the comodity market in a changed fashion. Same thing Apple does, GM does, Joe Blow tool and Die and many other consumer based businesses do. They all get tax breaks on the equipment and items used in the manufacturing of their product. You even get one if you have a home office - depreciation...

So how does this cause China to buy our debt? I would argue we spend to much on crap rather than not collect enough.

[Midtowner]

So corporations need to pay more taxes but we need to reward them for domestic manufacturing. So if these corporations only manufactured domestically we shouldn't or should raise their taxes?

I say that's just fine. Stop giving any deductions of any kind for activity which hurts the American worker. We're all in this together, not all in this for the benefit of the shareholders.

[Midtowner]

Sapp:

The bailout proposals by Bush, Romney and Obama were all different.

I am in a wait and see mode on Romney. I wish he was the same as he was as Governor instead of pandering to the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party.

The man believes in whatever will get him elected that day. He's a blank slate... an etch-a-sketch.

I might be convinced if Romney told all of the Tea Party folks to screw off, but that ain't gonna happen.

[olevetonahill]

The man believes in whatever will get him elected that day. He's a blank slate... an etch-a-sketch.

I might be convinced if Romney told all of the Tea Party folks to screw off, but that ain't gonna happen.

So Kinda like Obammy huh ?

President Obama today announced that he now supports same-sex marriage, reversing his longstanding opposition amid growing pressure from the Democratic base and even his own vice president.

[LiveLaughLove]

So Kinda like Obammy huh ?

President Obama today announced that he now supports same-sex marriage, reversing his longstanding opposition amid growing pressure from the Democratic base and even his own vice president.

Which is the position he had before he ran for president the first time. Wonder why he changed his tune during the first election? political expedience maybe? Nah surely not.

[okie52]

I say that's just fine. Stop giving any deductions of any kind for activity which hurts the American worker. We're all in this together, not all in this for the benefit of the shareholders.

Sappstuff you were right....yes is the correct answer.

[LiveLaughLove]

Mid's a lib. Of course he thinks corporations should pay more taxes. He thinks we should all pay more taxes.

That sum it up for ya there good buddy mid?

Mid's not a lib. How dare you accost him with that slander. He simply thinks his opinion and intelligence are superior to, well, pretty much everyone's (except Obama's).

He is the quint-essential "you little people need a big government with smart people like me to lead you by the nose because you are too ignorant and stupid to do things for yourselves" person. He accepts no labels, and for shame on you for trying to do so.

I will say, if I had a nickel for every time he has posted how ignorant or stupid we all are, I'd be a richer man. Of course, I'm just a tea party nutjob that's ruining America so what do I know.

[olevetonahill]

Mid's not a lib. How dare you accost him with that slander. He simply thinks his opinion and intelligence is superior to, well, pretty much everyone's (except Obama's).

He is the quint-essential "you little people need a big government with smart people like me to lead you by the nose because you are too ignorant and stupid to do things for yourselves" person. He accepts no labels, and for shame on you for trying to do so.

I will say, if I had a nickel for every time he has posted how ignorant or stupid we all are, I'd be a richer man. Of course, I'm just a tea party nutjob that's ruining America so what do I know.

So yer sayin hes a ****in Lib.

[LiveLaughLove]

So yer sayin hes a ****in Lib.
pretty much. :welcoming:

[olevetonahill]

pretty much. :welcoming:

Thot so.

[Midtowner]

Mid's not a lib. How dare you accost him with that slander. He simply thinks his opinion and intelligence are superior to, well, pretty much everyone's (except Obama's).

He is the quint-essential "you little people need a big government with smart people like me to lead you by the nose because you are too ignorant and stupid to do things for yourselves" person. He accepts no labels, and for shame on you for trying to do so.

I will say, if I had a nickel for every time he has posted how ignorant or stupid we all are, I'd be a richer man. Of course, I'm just a tea party nutjob that's ruining America so what do I know.

My goodness, that's a lot of butthurt there.

You're right though. I'm no liberal. Those labels are pretty meaningless these days. Saying that things like "tort reform" (a nebulous concept), being pro-death penalty, pro-gun, anti-abortion, etc. have anything to do with a cohesive moral position is ludicrous. Just as saying that the opposite folks, those self-identifying as liberal believe the exact opposite and that there's no middle ground is also absurd.

Labels divide and here, are being used very inaccurately to describe someone who simply doesn't agree with you. There's nothing innately liberal or conservative about whether Romney was full of **** when he took credit for the auto industry's revival, just as there's nothing remotely liberal or conservative about Al Gore's claiming to have invented the internet. Both were stupid claims with no basis in fact. Still, the right wing stooges defend Romney's stupid remark and the lefty stooges defend Gore's stupid remark.

A reasonable response by a conservative to this thread would not have been to defend Romney, it would have been to acknowledge that he was full of ****, probably pandering to a certain audience and that we should move on to other issues. An Obama supporter would probably seize on the fact that pandering is pretty much Romney's M.O. (as I noted with the etch-a-sketch comment on page 1), and we move on.

This nonsense about some folks actually arguing that Romney was in fact responsible for the success of the industry is demonstrably false and darn near pathetic.

[okie52]

My goodness, that's a lot of butthurt there.

You're right though. I'm no liberal. Those labels are pretty meaningless these days. Saying that things like "tort reform" (a nebulous concept), being pro-death penalty, pro-gun, anti-abortion, etc. have anything to do with a cohesive moral position is ludicrous. Just as saying that the opposite folks, those self-identifying as liberal believe the exact opposite and that there's no middle ground is also absurd.

Labels divide and here, are being used very inaccurately to describe someone who simply doesn't agree with you. There's nothing innately liberal or conservative about whether Romney was full of **** when he took credit for the auto industry's revival, just as there's nothing remotely liberal or conservative about Al Gore's claiming to have invented the internet. Both were stupid claims with no basis in fact. Still, the right wing stooges defend Romney's stupid remark and the lefty stooges defend Gore's stupid remark.

A reasonable response by a conservative to this thread would not have been to defend Romney, it would have been to acknowledge that he was full of ****, probably pandering to a certain audience and that we should move on to other issues. An Obama supporter would probably seize on the fact that pandering is pretty much Romney's M.O. (as I noted with the etch-a-sketch comment on page 1), and we move on.

This nonsense about some folks actually arguing that Romney was in fact responsible for the success of the industry is demonstrably false and darn near pathetic.

A reasonable response and more importantly an objective response would be to laugh at both Romney and Obama when they pander, which they both have done and will continue to do. To note just Romney's pandering or to imply he is the only one doing it without mentioning Obama's seems disingenuous at best.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

A reasonable response and more importantly an objective response would be to laugh at both Romney and Obama when they pander, which they both have done and will continue to do. To note just Romney's pandering or to imply he is the only one doing it without mentioning Obama's seems disingenuous at best....and, seeming to try to create an illusion that Romney is not any better candidate than our Transformer of America.

[okie52]

...and, seeming to try to create an illusion that Romney is not any better candidate than our Transformer of America.

Well that would be the point, wouldn't it?

[ictsooner7]

I love one sentence quotes, so the truth can be spun in any direction. Let's quote a couple of paragraphs from Romney and see what the big picture is shall we?

But let me make a couple of points in this regard. One is, we want the U.S. auto industry to survive, to grow, to thrive. Two is that if we just send money to Detroit and say, Keep playing the game the way you have, that’s not going to happen. What’ll happen is the industry will decline and decline over the years until it doesn’t exist anymore.

So what is needed is the opportunity to dramatically restructure the costs of making cars by Ford, Chrysler and General Motors. And for that to happen, you’re going to have to have either a very powerful czar of some kind who can step in and open up contracts and change the basic structure of the industry, or go through a pre-packaged, managed bankruptcy. The government is going to be part of this process either through the courts or through a super-powerful car czar, if you will. But business as usual is not the way to preserve these jobs and to build a brighter future for the many people who work in the auto industry…

If the car czar, which exists in the current bill — and I haven’t read the current bill, so I can’t be too specific in that regard. But if that car czar doesn’t have the authority to actually reduce the costs in the industry and make these companies competitive, then we will just be throwing good money after bad.

And the right thing to do here is to make sure that we do restructure these costs. That happens in bankruptcy. There are some down sides in bankruptcy, too. They could be alleviated by government participating in the process, either through a pre-packaged bankruptcy, they call it, where you agree to terms beforehand, go through bankruptcy to dot the I’s and cross the T’s. Or it could be done through a special piece of legislation, giving — giving this car czar real authority.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465286,00.html#

That interview was given on December 10th, 2008. Well before the bailout actually happened. What he was suggesting was a quick bankruptcy that could have the government's backing.

Let us skip ahead to April 1st of 2009.



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aA3.YrmEsfdA&refer=home

Hmmm.. Sounds awfully similar doesn't it?

Since you have already agreed with Phil that the bankruptcy took too long and burned through billions of dollars unnecessarily, then we can all agree that it would have been better to follow Romney's suggestion in December of 2008 instead of delaying it almost 4 months.. Right?



You are really stupid. Anything that comes out of republican or fox news or some right wing blogs mouth your believe it. Let's look at what he WROTE:

Let Detroit Go Bankrupt

By MITT ROMNEY

Published: November 18, 2008

Times Topics: Automotive Industry Crisis | Mitt Romney

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.[/B]

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.

The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.

Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

[B]In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

[hawaii 5-0]

I stayed out of this one because Romney's comment about claiming success for the auto industry was just too absurd.


I should be shocked that some defend this one.

Then again, I'm not. Continue the idiocy.

5-0

[ictsooner7]

Ford didn't even ask for one! what a joke he is

[ictsooner7]

I stayed out of this one because Romney's comment about claiming success for the auto industry was just too absurd.


I should be shocked that some defend this one.

Then again, I'm not. Continue the idiocy.

5-0

Why would you be shocked? These people will defend anything anyone on the right does. Remember "I support unwed mothers"?

[Curly Bill]

Someone broke their troll back out!

[olevetonahill]

Someone broke their troll back out!

Dean dint give the idiot a Perma Yet

[Curly Bill]

Dean dint give the idiot a Perma Yet

I'll give the troll til Monday to be bained again.

...that might be being generous though.

[Midtowner]

I'll give the troll til Monday to be bained again.

...that might be being generous though.

Aww you're back? Thought you didn't care?

[Curly Bill]

Aww you're back? Thought you didn't care?

I post on here most days. Have been for a while now. It kills time. You on the other hand seem to take this innerwebs real serious. Do you brag to your life partner when you think you have a winning argument?

[olevetonahill]

Aww you're back? Thought you didn't care?

He's like Icky only smarter, just cant stay away :cupcake:

[Curly Bill]

He's like Icky only smarter, just cant stay away :cupcake:

I get on here cause I care SOOOOOO much!

[olevetonahill]

I get on here cause I care SOOOOOO much!

Like a sore Peter its hard to beat

[Curly Bill]

Once I get my marching orders from tea party headquarters every morning I just like to get on here and raise hell! ;)

[olevetonahill]

Once I get my marching orders from tea party headquarters every morning I just like to get on here and raise hell! ;)

I knew we could count on ya

[Curly Bill]

I knew we could count on ya

Ima loyal soldier, ready to fight the innerwebs fight against those nasty commies and libs!


....though that's kind of redundant! ;)

[Curly Bill]

Hey Vet, how's your mators looking anyway? Growing em in one of those upside down bucket thingys again?

[olevetonahill]

Hey Vet, how's your mators looking anyway? Growing em in one of those upside down bucket thingys again?

Naw last year I bot 2 ten foot feed troughs , filled em up with Manure and pottin soil. Instant raised garden, Theres about 15 green maters on the vine right now.
Blooms every where

[Curly Bill]

Naw last year I bot 2 ten foot feed troughs , filled em up with Manure and pottin soil. Instant raised garden, Theres about 15 green maters on the vine right now.
Blooms every where

Genius!

[OULenexaman]

Hey Vet, how's your mators looking anyway? Growing em in one of those upside down bucket thingys again? I laugh at that commercial......wonder if the damn thing actually works?

[Curly Bill]

I laugh at that commercial......wonder if the damn thing actually works?

We got the expert right here. Vet's tried em before, so he can tell us.

[olevetonahill]

We got the expert right here. Vet's tried em before, so he can tell us.

I used Red Neck Topsy Turveys
' Tooka5 gal buckets drilled a hole in the bottom and put my mater plants thru em, then filled em up with dirt
Worked alright but quit it after 2 years, wasnt gettin the yield I expected

So I went to my Feed troughs they seem to be werkin Great

Dint get anything last year hardly cause of way to much rain in May and June then Went str8 to over 100 degree days for ever

[pphilfran]

ICT...I am missing your point....

[Curly Bill]

I'm waiting for one of the self-appointed innerwebs police to complain we've threadjacked this thing!

[Sooner5030]

Last year I had a pretty bad horn worm problem with my maters. And they liked them all, grape, cherry, bigger boy and better boy. I had never seen horn worms before as it was my first time gardening in that particular state. Anyway, I am missing this season as I am in a transient status until the fall.

[Curly Bill]

I too am in a somewhat transitory situation. Good thing those little old dudes/ladies park by the side of the road to sell their goods out of the backs of pickups and what have ya.

[olevetonahill]

Last year I had a pretty bad horn worm problem with my maters. And they liked them all, grape, cherry, bigger boy and better boy. I had never seen horn worms before as it was my first time gardening in that particular state. Anyway, I am missing this season as I am in a transient status until the fall.


Just another reason to hate HORNs.. They hit mine 3 years ago, Before I knew they bout had one stripped bare
I just went an Picked em off and tossed em to the chickens i had at the time. They not hard to control just gotta watch fer em

[Mississippi Sooner]

Just another reason to hate HORNs.. They hit mine 3 years ago, Before I knew they bout had one stripped bare
I just went an Picked em off and tossed em to the chickens i had at the time. They not hard to control just gotta watch fer em

LOL Oh yeah, chickens will kill each other to get those things.

[OULenexaman]

while most call 'em maters....I'm sure some wanna cal 'em mottos. Ima guess Mid would call 'em mottos.