Romney's new auto ad

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Re: Romney's new auto ad

Post by _beastie »

Bob Loblaw wrote:
beastie wrote:Cinepro -

Aside from whether or not you agree with Romney's "let Detroit go bankrupt" proposition, do you think that the Romney ad was fair and honest?


It's no more or less dishonest and unfair than Obama's claim that Romney would have killed Detroit and lost 1 million jobs. I've already said I think the ad is misleading, and it's disappointing to see Romney following the president's lead on these cheap attacks.


Given that Romney's first ad "quoted" Obama saying "if we talk about the economy, we'll lose", as if he were saying that about himself and his own campaign instead of quoting McCain's campaign, I'd dispute your contention that Romney is "following" the President's lead.

However, I did know you disapproved of the ad already. I was wondering about cinepro's judgment on the ad, since he seemed to react positively to it in his response.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_krose
_Emeritus
Posts: 2555
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:18 pm

Re: Romney's new auto ad

Post by _krose »

That rancid stench wafting from the Romney camp is the unfortunate result of desperation combined with a willingness to say absolutely anything to win.
"The DNA of fictional populations appears to be the most susceptible to extinction." - Simon Southerton
_cinepro
_Emeritus
Posts: 4502
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:15 pm

Re: Romney's new auto ad

Post by _cinepro »

beastie wrote:Cinepro -

Aside from whether or not you agree with Romney's "let Detroit go bankrupt" proposition, do you think that the Romney ad was fair and honest?


No, I don't think the ad was fair and honest. And earlier this year, I committed to only vote for a Presidential candidate based on two things: whether their ads were "fair and honest", and whether they had a chance of winning. If I couldn't find a candidate who filled both those criteria, I would look at other factors, such as whether or not I thought they would make a good President.

Based on Romney's and Obama's campaigns so far, I've had to go to the third criteria.

And for what it's worth, Romney never said "let Detroit go bankrupt". Headlines are crafted by the newspaper editors, not the authors of the articles. The headline could have just as easily read "A Vision for the Future", or "A Fix for What Ails the US Auto Industry".

This is Romney's "proposition":

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.


I do heartily agree.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Re: Romney's new auto ad

Post by _beastie »

cinepro wrote:
beastie wrote:Cinepro -

Aside from whether or not you agree with Romney's "let Detroit go bankrupt" proposition, do you think that the Romney ad was fair and honest?


No, I don't think the ad was fair and honest. And earlier this year, I committed to only vote for a Presidential candidate based on two things: whether their ads were "fair and honest", and whether they had a chance of winning. If I couldn't find a candidate who filled both those criteria, I would look at other factors, such as whether or not I thought they would make a good President.

Based on Romney's and Obama's campaigns so far, I've had to go to the third criteria.

And for what it's worth, Romney never said "let Detroit go bankrupt". Headlines are crafted by the newspaper editors, not the authors of the articles. The headline could have just as easily read "A Vision for the Future", or "A Fix for What Ails the US Auto Industry".

This is Romney's "proposition":

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.


I do heartily agree.


How was this possible without private sources of funding, which were not available?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Bob Loblaw
_Emeritus
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:26 am

Re: Romney's new auto ad

Post by _Bob Loblaw »

beastie wrote:How was this possible without private sources of funding, which were not available?


Private sources were not available, but they may have been, given government loan guarantees. We will never know. Instead we spent $780,000 for each job that was allegedly saved and left two companies that are no more competitive or efficient than they were before. Look at what Chrysler has done: They had the Chrysler Sebring, which several auto magazines rated the worst sedan on sale in America. After the bailout, Chrysler changed the front and rear lights and grill, renamed the car "200," and got Eminem to pitch it. But underneath the surface, nothing changed. This is the third time in 30 years that Chrysler has been bailed out by the government--what incentive does it have to change at all?
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS

"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Romney's new auto ad

Post by _Kevin Graham »

That commercial encouraged me to re-read Romney's original op-ed from 2008. It reminded me of why he will make such a great President.


Someone who speaks on issues he clearly knows nothing about, that is what makes a great President for you? All you did was link his original argument which was subsequently refuted by not only Obama, but also one of his own Republican supporters. How do you deal with the refutation? You don't.

Romney would make a horrible President for many reasons, but not least of which is that he seems to think running the government successfully can be done simply because you have run businesses successfully. Romney's ideology, as indicated by his past rhetoric and the company he chooses to sleep with, is that Government needs to be reduced in all areas except military. That the free market corrects itself in all matters and everything should be left to the good intentions of all those privatized entities who only have our best interests at heart!

This guy is an anachronism. A relic who is so married to his preferred ideology that he can't let recent history and basic facts sway him. He needs to be humbled as was Allen Greenspan when he was forced to admit before the committee that his entire worldview, which drove him most of his life, was proved wrong by recent economic realities.

Again, all one needs to do to show how dumb it would be to elect Romney is to point out how his policies mirror those of George Bush. Romney has no unique businesslike savvy that is going to be a silver bullet for our economic woes. That is just a myth he and his ilk like to create based on his success as a businessman. But one thing has nothing to do with another. When it all boils down to it, Romney is an Ayn Rand pupil the same as his running mate. There should be no mystery what he plans to do. His past rhetoric says it all, and then he flips flops during the election to convince moderates that he's not really that extreme to the Right. He's making fools out of all of you who support him if you think he gives a flying damn about half this country he has already labeled a bunch of lazy moochers.
_cinepro
_Emeritus
Posts: 4502
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:15 pm

Re: Romney's new auto ad

Post by _cinepro »

Kevin Graham wrote:Romney would make a horrible President for many reasons, but not least of which is that he seems to think running the government successfully can be done simply because you have run businesses successfully. Romney's ideology, as indicated by his past rhetoric and the company he chooses to sleep with, is that Government needs to be reduced in all areas except military. That the free market corrects itself in all matters and everything should be left to the good intentions of all those privatized entities who only have our best interests at heart!


I would be more impressed with Romney if he also argued for a reduction in military spending.

As far as what it takes to "run the government successfully", I have to choose between Obama's business and government track record, and Romney's. I'm going with Romney's.

I've seen no indication that Romney supports a Randian libertarian view of government. Maybe it looks that way from where you're standing, but from over here, he's got a long way to go.
_cinepro
_Emeritus
Posts: 4502
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:15 pm

Re: Romney's new auto ad

Post by _cinepro »

beastie wrote:How was this possible without private sources of funding, which were not available?


"Private sources" of funding were not available to the car companies with their existing cost structures. The theory was that with reorganization, they would be much more palatable to people who are risking their own money (and with a confidence-boosting guarantee from the government, which isn't a whole lot better than just giving them tax-payer money, but maybe a little better).

As it is, the government has lost 50% of its investment (based on GM's current stock price). The people who had bought stock or bonds from "old" GM lost their money with Obama's deal. So I can't really fault the "private sources" for not being available. They obviously knew what they were doing.
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Romney's new auto ad

Post by _Kevin Graham »

So Michigan would have hit 40% unemployment had Romney been President and rejected the bailout. And Cinepro thinks his plan proves how insightful he is about the issues, and would make him a great President!

Six Romney Supporters Who Undermine His Claims About The Auto Bailout

As Mitt Romney struggles to gain ground with voters in Ohio, he has attempted to redefine his position on the federal auto rescue that saved as many as 1.3 million jobs. Romney released a highly misleading ad in Ohio this week that criticizes President Obama’s handling of the bailout and touts his own apparently unreleased plan to help the auto industry.

Romney’s actual plan was to oppose federal financing of the auto companies’ bankruptcy; instead, he wanted the private sector to finance the rescue while the government guaranteed post-bankruptcy loans. But private sector financing was “pure fantasy” at the time, according to industry insiders, because credit markets were “bone-dry” in the middle of the financial crisis.

Reporters and auto insiders aren't alone in their criticism of Romney’s stance on the auto rescue, though. Here are six Romney supporters who have also contradicted his view of the auto bailout or criticized his plan:

1. Michigan Rep. Fred Upton: In February, Upton told Western Michigan University’s WMUK radio that only the government could have saved the auto industry. “There was no one that was willing to come up not only with the cash to keep them afloat but also to serve the warranties of everyone, you and I that drive all these cars,” Upton said. “There was no one that could have picked up those pieces other than the federal government.” He also contradicted Romney’s claim that the rescue was a bailout of auto unions, saying it was “bi-partisan from the get-go.” Without the bailout, Upton said, Michigan “would have hit 40 percent unemployment rates.”

2. Michigan Rep. Thad McCotter: “There was no choice” but to use government funds to save the auto industry, McCotter told MSNBC in February. “So to my fellow Republicans I’ll simply remind them, if you were in Congress at the point in time or if you were President Bush, you could leave all $700 billion of taxpayers hard-earned money with the Wall Street people, or you could take some back to Main Street to keep America a balanced, vibrant economy,” McCotter said. “To me there was no choice.”

3. Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder: In November 2011, Snyder urged Republicans to stop second-guessing the auto rescue, even if they disagreed with how it was done, because it had delivered incredible results for Michigan and the auto industry. “I would have had some differences on how they did it, but I’m not going to second-guess it,” Snyder told the New York Times. “The more important thing is the results. And the auto industry is doing very well today.”

4. Auto Industry Task Force member Harry Wilson: Wilson, a member of Obama’s Auto Industry Task Force who has run for office as a Republican in New York, criticized Romney’s view of the bailout last week. “I’m, as you know, a Republican who supports the governor. But I think on this issue, I think he’s really mishandled it,” Wilson told Bloomberg. “He came out both in 2008 and earlier in 2012, in a piece in one of the Detroit newspapers, and said he wouldn’t have supported any government capital because private capital was available. That’s simply not true.”

5. The Detroit News editorial board: A self-described “conservative newspaper,” the Detroit News endorsed Romney for president last week. But in its endorsement editorial, the paper blasted Romney for his “wrong-headedness on the auto bailout.” Romney “was wrong in suggesting the automakers could have found operating capital in the private markets,” the editors wrote. “Romney suggested government-backed loans to keep the companies afloat post bankruptcy. But what GM and Chrysler needed were bridge loans to get them through the process, and the private credit markets were unwilling to provide them.”

6. Ex-Chrysler CEO Lee Iaccoca: Iaccoca has endorsed Romney, but he also has praised the auto bailout for its rescue of the industry. “Two years ago, it looked like Detroit and Michigan and the car business was in the toilet,” Iacocca told the Detroit News this month. But after the bailout, he said, “things have turned out pretty well.” And even if Iaccoca has criticisms of pieces of the bailout, the paper said he “praised the government actions over the past two years that gave two of Detroit’s Big Three automakers another chance.”
_cinepro
_Emeritus
Posts: 4502
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:15 pm

Re: Romney's new auto ad

Post by _cinepro »

Kevin Graham wrote:So Michigan would have hit 40% unemployment had Romney been President and rejected the bailout. And Cinepro thinks his plan proves how insightful he is about the issues, and would make him a great President!


GM and Chrysler were sick, and all Obama did was turn them into government owned zombies. They'll be back for more tax-payer money soon enough.

The car companies are in trouble because their deals with the UAW make them uncompetitive, and they make cars that people don't want to buy. All Obama did was give them taxpayer money so they could keep paying out on those awful UAW deals, and keep making cars no one want to buy. If that's "success", you can have it.

But hey, people still got to go into work and punch a card and collect a paycheck, all fully funded by the American taxpayer. And we don't even get the employee discount if we buy a Chevy. :(
Post Reply