In the television interview, however, Romney takes his role further than just proposing an idea. Here’s what he said:
“ My own view, by the way, was that the auto companies needed to go through bankruptcy before government help. And frankly, that’s finally what the president did. He finally took them through bankruptcy. That was the right course I argued for from the very beginning. It was the UAW and the president that delayed the idea of bankruptcy. 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. So I’ll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry’s come back.”
But where was Romney when the actual work was taking place on the bailout? As far as I could tell at the time, when I was reporting on the story on a daily basis for The Times, he was not involved in any visible way, beyond speaking about it.
There were Republican players who took part in the discussions, including Tenn. Sen. Robert Corker, who insisted that UAW members’ compensation be adjusted to reflect that of transplant auto workers, such as those he represented. Michigan’s former Republican governor, John Engler, now president of The Business Roundtable, did his best to round up support on Capitol Hill, before a Congressional bailout died in the Senate.
And of course, President George W. Bush got things rolling with the first assistance to the car companies, which kicked in just before Barack Obama took office and moved the ball further down the field.
In light of the new comments made by Romney, I thought it would be interesting to ask Conservatives if Romney deserves credit for the new revitalization seen in the Detroit auto industry.
Mitt Romney Takes Credit For The Auto Bailout. Say, What? - Forbes
It seems that the people who had a role in this were President Bush and later President Obama. So why is Romney giving himself credit for bringing the auto-industry back up after suggesting they should be allowed to fail?
To clarify, Romney never suggested that the auto-industry should fail. He suggested it should go bankrupt. That's a huge distinction. And if you look at the process that Romney described in his Op-Ed, the government actually followed a lot of what he said.
What is the difference between allowing a company to fail and allowing a company to go bankrupt? I´m dying to hear this.
It seems that the people who had a role in this were President Bush and later President Obama. So why is Romney giving himself credit for bringing the auto-industry back up after suggesting they should be allowed to fail?
No and unlike Hussein Obama he would never try and take credit for it.
Mitt Romney did absolutely nothing other then flip flop his opinions on this issue.
No and unlike Hussein Obama he would never try and take credit for it.
In light of the new comments made by Romney, I thought it would be interesting to ask Conservatives if Romney deserves credit for the new revitalization seen in the Detroit auto industry.
Mitt Romney Takes Credit For The Auto Bailout. Say, What? - Forbes
It seems that the people who had a role in this were President Bush and later President Obama. So why is Romney giving himself credit for bringing the auto-industry back up after suggesting they should be allowed to fail?
I'll do my best to summarize the differences here, but you really need to read up on what bankruptcy is if you don't see the distinction.
What makes you think that GM and Chrysler wouldn't be liquidated by its majority shareholders and bondholders?
Given the necessary levels of capital, the unfriendly union, stiff competition and ocean of red ink, what reasonable argument is there to give to suggest that GM and Chrysler could survive a chapter 11 bankruptcy?
No one in their right mind in the private sector would pony up the kind of money to sustain the firms during a chapter 11. They certainly didn't have the money to do it themselves. I honestly see only one outcome without bailout money: chapter 7.
What makes you think that GM and Chrysler wouldn't be liquidated by its majority shareholders and bondholders?
Given the necessary levels of capital, the unfriendly union, stiff competition and ocean of red ink, what reasonable argument is there to give to suggest that GM and Chrysler could survive a chapter 11 bankruptcy?
No one in their right mind in the private sector would pony up the kind of money to sustain the firms during a chapter 11. They certainly didn't have the money to do it themselves. I honestly see only one outcome without bailout money: chapter 7.
If GM and Chrysler could have found capital backers, then it really wouldn't have matter what the bondholders wanted. Once a company goes into a debtor in possession bankruptcy, they are basically freed of forced liquidation.
I mean, ultimately, GM and Chryslers shareholders could, right now, decide to liquidate the companies, but they aren't doing that.
GM was still doing quite well for itself considering the economic climate in 2008/2009. At least in the case of GM, I don't think the shareholders would have wanted the company liquidated. It was making money, just not enough relative to its debts.
The time it takes.What is the difference between allowing a company to fail and allowing a company to go bankrupt? I´m dying to hear this.
Let me add to your position here that the much longer time chapter 11 bankruptcy would have taken would have taken down Ford too.What makes you think that GM and Chrysler wouldn't be liquidated by its majority shareholders and bondholders?
Given the necessary levels of capital, the unfriendly union, stiff competition and ocean of red ink, what reasonable argument is there to give to suggest that GM and Chrysler could survive a chapter 11 bankruptcy?
No one in their right mind in the private sector would pony up the kind of money to sustain the firms during a chapter 11. They certainly didn't have the money to do it themselves. I honestly see only one outcome without bailout money: chapter 7.
No and unlike Hussein Obama he would never try and take credit for it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?