Romney: Let Detroit go bankrupt
posted at 12:20 pm on November 19, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Or, if you prefer the way Democrats will be spinning this, “Romney to Detroit: Drop Dead.” You’ve read the op-ed, now see the video. Should an unprofitable, uncompetitive industry be forced to restructure or should the feds dump a few billion more into the national money hole? Mitt’s squarely within the conservative mainstream on this one (which wasn’t true of his position on the financial bailout), but when a would-be party standard-bearer whose family made its name running an auto company pipes up, it carries a little extra weight. At least, it does on a slow news day.
Exit question: Can we reach any conclusions about his intention in 2012 from this? Supporting a bailout would have exploded his economic cred within the party, but he could have chosen to simply duck the issue lest he alienate Michigan voters. As it is, given the Republican orthodoxy on this subject to which he’s lending his name, the state’s a mortal lock to go blue again in four years no matter who the nominee is.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
conservative voice I agree, I’m just curious..
twiggman on November 19, 2008 at 1:20 PM
GM could build nothing but 50 MPG cars and it would still be dying. It is all about the $73 an hour labor costs folks. When GM pays $73 and Toyota pays $50, you don’t need a PhD in economics to figure out who will survive and who won’t.
angryed on November 19, 2008 at 1:20 PM
He’s right. Screw em’. Detroit as well for that matter. Can we give it to Canada?
ronsfi on November 19, 2008 at 1:21 PM
hawksruleva on November 19, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Amen! Its called shaping the behavior. Whenever they take a step to the right…cheer! And whenever they step to the left, boo!
Conservative Voice on November 19, 2008 at 1:21 PM
lol @ “limits it to 25 billion”.
How fiscally conservative of him.
The problem right now isn’t R&D. It’s labor costs, management and unions. Until those are reformed/fixed then the automotive industry is doomed.
Focusing on R&D is akin to what Voinovich is proposing. Ick.
DJ Tablesauce on November 19, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Detroit already is bankrupt – morally, ethically, politically and spiritually. Might as well make it a royal flush.
J.J. Sefton on November 19, 2008 at 1:22 PM
That’s what competition is for. That 4% will be taken up rapidly by the domestic branches of Toyota and Nisan.
Count to 10 on November 19, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Attention all haters:
This man could have been President-elect. When the financial tsunami hit, who do you REALLY think the people would have picked? Romney or Obama? The economy decided the election. And we wasted our nomination on McCain.
WE MUST CLOSE REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES IN THE FUTURE!
JustTruth101 on November 19, 2008 at 1:22 PM
GM is going to release the new Obama Model: It goes backwards and has no interior.
Firebird on November 19, 2008 at 1:24 PM
What do you mean by closing primaries?
YellowDawg on November 19, 2008 at 1:24 PM
DJ Tablesauce on November 19, 2008 at 1:22 PM
You know, here is some good advice, when you can’t admit that there is some good with people you disagree with, you are a small bitter man…Huck is that you?
Conservative Voice on November 19, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Interesting thing on that. I just read a piece where someone was lamenting that the UAW had reduced its hourly wage to $27. So, does that mean the union workers are seeing only one third of the actual cost to employ them?
Count to 10 on November 19, 2008 at 1:24 PM
To a certain degree that is nothing but a non-sequitor commonly used as the opening salvo in a class warfare tirade against the free market. There are so many variables built in to individual contracts that the answer is blurry at best.
A more relevant question is how much the UAW executives made last year in compensation and bonuses. Followed up by asking about the average salary for unskilled labor in unionized auto plants compared to the average salary in non-union operations. And finished with a question about how many workers are required to assemble an automobile in a union plant verses a non-union facility.
What you will find is a systemic and institutionalized pattern of greed by unions that makes it all but impossible for auto manufacturers to operate profitably let alone efficiently. If the industry wants federal tax dollars they need to come to the table with a reform plan that eliminates inefficiencies, focuses on new technology, and has a realistic plan in terms of salaries and size of the workforce.
highhopes on November 19, 2008 at 1:25 PM
twiggman on November 19, 2008 at 1:20 PM
My point is the execs at least earn it. Asking the question is playing the class envy card.
Conservative Voice on November 19, 2008 at 1:25 PM
They don’t have to simply cease operating if they declare ch. 11 bankruptcy. They can do what the airlines did, leep operating while in bankruptcy.
phronesis on November 19, 2008 at 1:26 PM
phronesis on November 19, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Huck? No thanks.
I prefer fiscal conservatives with strong character. Give me a Jindal or a Palin next time around and I’ll be happy.
And since you keep moving the goalposts, let me refocus…my main issue is with this being a clear example of Romney changing his talking points to fit his targeted constituency…whether it be Michigan GOP voters, or fiscal conservatives, or whomever.
He may “evolve” his position into a good one now and again…but he is not a man of strong character.
DJ Tablesauce on November 19, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Well said.
Count to 10 on November 19, 2008 at 1:28 PM
DJ Tablesauce on November 19, 2008 at 1:27 PM
We aren’t voting! What is your problem that you can’t say good job?
Conservative Voice on November 19, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Youngs, don’t buy into that antiquated argument. There is no way a Ford or GM could be quickly converted to producing the sophisticated and highly integrated weapon systems we currently deploy. Would you fly a Ford F-35? Or drive a Buick M1-A1 Abrams tank?
common sensineer on November 19, 2008 at 1:31 PM
DJ, the Huck reference was that you were acting small like Huck
Conservative Voice on November 19, 2008 at 1:31 PM
No I’m talking about the fact that McCain was actually the one articulating the conservative economic position last winter not Romney. (Of course, it was in the blunt and incredibly impolitic way that McCain always talks, but the substance was pretty realistic and valid). Mittens used McCain’s position against him and basically came out in favor of bailing out the Big Three in order to win the MI primary and salvage his Presidential campaign.
Illinidiva on November 19, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Illinidiva on November 19, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Wrong again. Mitt was not for a bailout back in the primaries. If you are going to be critical get your facts straight.
Conservative Voice on November 19, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Apples and oranges. The hourly wage is not the same thing as the hourly labor cost. The former doesn’t include the cost to the employer for things like employee benefits and pension obligations.
highhopes on November 19, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Conservative Voice on November 19, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Small like Huck? What the hell are you talking about? If we can’t discuss the character of our Party leaders, what CAN we talk about?
Your blind devotion towards him and inability to see the forest for the trees is telling.
Furthermore, I DID earlier say the points are generally good. I then took the point further. The idea here is to generate discussion, right? Not to simply be cheerleaders.
DJ Tablesauce on November 19, 2008 at 1:36 PM
She’s not posting about this yet today, but for all things Detroit and Michigan I trust the lady there who is a modern Habakkuk in her watchpost:
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/
About Mitt’s position on the auto industry-
Liberals want to share the wealth until there isn’t any,
Conservatives like Mitt call for the sharing of burden, of everyone tightening belts from the top CEOs to the lowest line workers.
I still like Mitt. He has the right idea on this auto industry debacle which in part is a problem because the Dems screwed up the financials to the point where no one can afford new cars anymore.
Doug on November 19, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Judge Napalitano had a great point on the union stranglehold on F&F this morning. Let other unions be formed and compete with the UAW! Some of these workers would take a pay cut to save their jobs unlike the UAW thugs!
Ofc, that isn’t going to happen because the democrats have stacked the deck for the unions. We don’t have a true free market.
lodge on November 19, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Ding! Ding! We have a winner. By 2012, Romney’s position on auto bailouts will change again when he needs a win in MI to revive his floundering Presidential campaign. It’s nice that he’s now being a conservative, but not likely to last.
Illinidiva on November 19, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Currently many states allow democrats and independents to vote in republican primaries. As a result, our opposition voted in numbers enough to propel McCain to the nomination, assisted, of course by Huckabee who didn’t have a chance at winning but stayed in to split the conservative vote.
If only registered republicans voted in primaries, we would have nominated Romney.
I’m not proposing a “loyalty oath” because that’s crazy, just a simple verification that the voter is registered republican at least 30 days before the primary. Of course they can register then change back to democrat afterward, and if they want to go to that much trouble, fine, whatever. I think most democrats are too lazy to do that, plus they don’t get to vote for their own candidate.
But closing the primaries tamps down the possibility that the opposition picks our candidate for us.
JustTruth101 on November 19, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Oooh, nice. I need to pass that comment on to my Detroit-native friend. Also, what has Detroit’s population decline been the last 20 years?
m064404 on November 19, 2008 at 1:37 PM
You forgot the part about it running on hopes and dreams instead of gasoline.
m064404 on November 19, 2008 at 1:38 PM
A bailout just delays the inevitable.
Bankruptcy isn’t the end of the road. Delta has declared bankruptcy and has emerged a healthier company. GM can too.
chris00nj on November 19, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Based on the quote provided by DJ Tablesauce above from Mittens in January, it sure seems like he was selling an auto bailout back then.
Illinidiva on November 19, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Oh how soon we forget that it was not even a year ago when Mitt Romney was saying he would give Detroit money during the Michigan primaries. He chastised McCain for saying the auto industry was dying and those jobs weren’t coming back but Mitt promised to send them money to keep them a float. Another flip-flop? I say yes.
Mitt Romney also, apparently, supported the $700 billion bailout.
jparks1972 on November 19, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Romney just goes with whatever popular breeze is blowing. So now he thinks they should be cut loose… before during the primaries he was suggesting that Washington was the answer and that the government should help out with their costs (pensions and health care).
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/13/america/repubs.php
Now he is saying let them fail. It will be interesting to see what he will say to get elected the next time around.
lexhamfox on November 19, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Here in VA, we have open primaries. Any registered voter can vote for whomever they please, regardless of party affiliation. But ya can’t vote twice.
riverrat10k on November 19, 2008 at 1:39 PM
DJ Tablesauce on November 19, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Is Romney our party leader? Is he running for President? No and No. He wrote an opt ed. He expressed his view in the media. And instead of cheering what he said right…you called him a flip flopper and a person with little character. That is Huckleberry small. Huck is a bitter small man who hates and loathes everything about Romney, he can’t say anything good about Romney without following it with a “but”. You are doing the same thing.
Conservative Voice on November 19, 2008 at 1:40 PM
My point is the execs at least earn it. Asking the question is playing the class envy card. How did they earn it, buy running the companies into the ground…
twiggman on November 19, 2008 at 1:41 PM
That’s a good way to put it. The sad thing is that Democrats can swoop in and destroy everything that is good and blame the resulting problems on the Republicans. It works because he media helps it, and because many people just don’t even want to hear anything bad about Democrats.
Grafted on November 19, 2008 at 1:42 PM
But would Romney be saying anything close to that if he held elected office right now?
YYZ on November 19, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Illinidiva on November 19, 2008 at 1:38 PM
jparks1972 on November 19, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Wrong. He has not flip flopped. Again, he has always said government should be partners with Detroit and help with research and development. It isn’t the same as a bailout.
Now I disagree with Romney with his wanting to partner…but I will cheer him for at least saying the right thing concerning this bailout.
Conservative Voice on November 19, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Who knows. But he’s spot on with his analysis today.
BacaDog on November 19, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Go Mitt.
November 9, 1992 cover of Time.
The Race Card on November 19, 2008 at 1:45 PM
twiggman on November 19, 2008 at 1:41 PM
Sometimes a pilot still gets paid the big bucks when he crash lands, because he skillfully crashes to minimize damage versus everyone dying.
Conservative Voice on November 19, 2008 at 1:46 PM
How primaries are run are oftentimes state mandated since the state is picking up the bill. Here’s a better reform idea.
The GOP elites intentionally engineered a victory for “the liberal one” by the way delegates were distributed. It was supposed to be Rudy’s year but he folded like a cheap suit and we ended up with the “cranky old liberal one.” In delegate rich places like Florida the primaries were winner take all, the real Republican vote was split among several candidates leaving McCain with the highest total for a single candidate and thus taking all the delegates even though the totals of all votes cast would show McCain really didn’t have that kind of support.
I’d suggest all delegates be apportioned according to the outcome of the vote. No more letting a liberal bastard trounce the voice of the party and then campaign on the idea that somehow being a consistent traitor to the GOP core values was just being “mavericky.” John McCain was more willing to work with liberals like Kennedy or Feingold than he is willing to build a coalition within the GOP. That’s why he lost the election.
highhopes on November 19, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Conservative Voice on November 19, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Sheesh. Apparently you went to the Romney School of Debate. Avoid the issue and belittle your opponent.
Anyways, to your point…the mere fact that we’re discussing him right now shows he is a Party Leader, and therefore a spokesman for our Party. With that in mind, his character is open for discussion.
DJ Tablesauce on November 19, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Conservative Voice on November 19, 2008 at 1:44 PM
So free markets and private sectors are dependent upon how well they are doing? If they are struggling, the Government should help? Do the taxpayers that fund the Government get any reward when companies in the private sector do really well, such as Exxon? I must of missed my profit sharing check from them this quarter.
jparks1972 on November 19, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Hey UAW, how would you like it if I demanded the same benefits, and drove, say, all your relatives companies out of business.
Really, the only reason I can think of for you guys to keep demanding $30 per hour in benefits is you want this country to go belly up.
I’d love to have your pension plan and benefits. But no one could afford to hire me.
eaglesdontflock on November 19, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Indirectly, I guess. More tax revenue from Exxon may mean they’ll lay off of my paycheck for a time. I wish they’d lay off of Exxon’s too and just show some restraint in spending.
BacaDog on November 19, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Perhaps someone could provide an answer for me concerning bankruptcy. My dad is one of the GM retirees. I assume that he will lose his pension and health care, but he also owns stock. That stock isn’t worth anything now, but under bankruptcy would there be a chance that the stocks would eventually come back or would they continue to be worthless?
Rose on November 19, 2008 at 1:50 PM
That’s what I was referring to. Are two thirds of the cost of each worker going to something besides paying the worker?
Count to 10 on November 19, 2008 at 1:51 PM
DJ Tablesauce on November 19, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Hahaha, something Huck would say
Go ahead and be small Huck. I think its hilarious that you are concerned about chewing on Romney’s character and got all upset when I chewed on yours. There is a word for that…hypocrite.
Meanwhile, I will cheer with what I agree with and boo with what I don’t agree with.
Conservative Voice on November 19, 2008 at 1:53 PM
BacaDog on November 19, 2008 at 1:49 PM
My point was, Government has no business sticking its nose in the private sector, especially to lend a helping hand. Kinda defeats the whole purpose of a free market in the first place.
jparks1972 on November 19, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Common stock could “come back” if they emerge from chapter 11. If they don’t, it’ll be worthless. Your dad’s pension is partly protected by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation so he’d get up to $54,000 per year. Health care would likely cease to exist.
BacaDog on November 19, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Detroit is like the 400-lb. man with a cholesteral level of 350; a heart attack is the only thing that will get their attention, and cause them to change their ways.
To those accusing him of a flip-flop: go back and read his comments in Michigan… all about “transforming” the industry, investing in green technology to revitalize the car industry, etc. He was Don’t ask/Don’t tell on labor agreements.
VastRightWingConspirator on November 19, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Conservative Voice on November 19, 2008 at 1:53 PM
More namecalling. Stay classy, CV.
Romney made his character relevant when he tried to take two sides of an issue and when he embraced his role as Party leader. Your resistance to addressing his shortcomings is telling.
DJ Tablesauce on November 19, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Hey, I’m with you. I forgot to add the sarc/.
BacaDog on November 19, 2008 at 1:57 PM
jparks1972 on November 19, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Wow jparks, you must make a habit of reacting to a post instead if reading it. Read my post again, and you will see that I disagree with Romney on his “partnership” points.
I was pointing out that he wasn’t flip flopping and saying we should reward where he is right, and boo where he is wrong, instead of attacking his intentions because we are mind readers and have no sin.
Conservative Voice on November 19, 2008 at 1:58 PM
More kool-aid please! My cup is empty.
jparks1972 on November 19, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Somebody, and Romney could do it as well as anyone, needs to explain to the American people and Congress that “bankruptcy” for a huge company like GM or Ford doesn’t mean “out of business and gone forever”.
It means that a plan must be submitted to reduce debts and restore the company to profitability in a few years, and old contracts MUST be re-negotiated, including UAW contracts. Given a choice between $70/hour salary+benefits for six months, or $40/hour salary+benefits until retirement, what would the average autoworker choose?
American autoworkers can build cars that can be sold for a profit–they are doing it now, except many of those cars are called Toyota and Honda, but they’re built in America.
GM is drowning under high wages, excessive benefits packages, and pensions paid to people who haven’t worked in 10 or 20 years, based on contracts negotiated when gasoline was 30 cents per gallon and Japanese cars were only slightly better than rickshaws.
Bail out GM now, and it will continue its downward spiral, with the same old management and same old unions, with the can kicked down the road for a few months, and taxpayers on the hook. Let it go bankrupt, under new management with the unions de-fanged, and it will rise from its ashes stronger than ever, and its workers will have jobs.
It’s probably better to let it go bankrupt NOW, rather than later. Would an Obama administration have the courage to let it go bankrupt, or would taxpayers be financing quarterly bailouts for four years? If it goes bankrupt under the lame-duck Bush Administration, which has nothing to lose politically, GM might be back up and running in two years, and taxpayers would be that much richer (or less poor).
Steve Z on November 19, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Its a shame this is going to get tossed on the ridiculous flip-flop pile just because people can’t be bothered to research Romney’s actual proposal in January rather than a few choice excerpts which STILL don’t mention a bailout. You choose to read more into what he said than what he said, and then accuse him of flip-flopping.
thecountofincognito on November 19, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Which is basically an indirect bailout/ corporate welfare program.
Most posters here pointing out Mittens’ hypocrisies are also not fans of CHuckles. I’m frankly not a fan of either and would prefer that they take their personal feud elsewhere and let someone like Palin or Jindal emerge as the 2012 nominee.
Illinidiva on November 19, 2008 at 1:59 PM
With standard equipment of two 19 inch tires on the left side and two 12 inch tires on the right side.
MB4 on November 19, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Romney’s plan, if instituted, would be a win for Michigan (and the rest of the country) in the long run, so I don’t even buy the premise that his turnaround plan would cost him votes there 4 years from now.
As for ‘ducking the issue’, there is no way he was going to do that. He’s laid out what needs to be done to turn things around on many occasions, so why would he stop now? He knows that his leadership matters very much on this issue and his voice needs to be heard, regardless of the consequences in 2012.
Buy Danish on November 19, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Amen.
redfoxbluestate on November 19, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Illinidiva on November 19, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Personal feud? Where do you see Romney attacking the Huckster? Way back during the primaries when it was appropriate?
thecountofincognito on November 19, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Actually, no. Filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy will with government support save the auto industry in the long run since restructuring, better management, and renegotiations of labor contracts/pension and health benefits is better business practice for a strengthened manufacturing sector and the economy overall.
Putting a bailout bandaid on the Big Three is a short-term panacea.
The Dems’ pandering to the UAW as payback for political support and the Dems’ intrusive green car standards and other mandates will spiral the automobile sector of manufacturing into the memory hole. These do-gooders have no idea of the costs involved in re-tooling and the expenses that their mandates place in driving up the cost of cars.
The Dems are determined to nationalize nearly every sector of our economy and impose their central-planning mindset wherever they can. Yet not one of their party spokesmen speaks with knowledge or experience in running a business or corporation.
onlineanalyst on November 19, 2008 at 2:01 PM
I am saying he is flip-flopping. He pandered to Michigan voters during the Primary that as President, he would be their savior. He said he would give $20 billion to the auto industry in the guise of research and development money.
Now, he claims to be all free market and let them fend for themselves, which I guess I should applaud since it is the correct stance. But it doesn’t make up for getting it wrong in the first place, especially when it was pandering for votes.
jparks1972 on November 19, 2008 at 2:01 PM
DJ Tablesauce on November 19, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Take your own advice dj. Stay classy. We aren’t voting for Romney, he isn’t running for 2012 ( yet ). Hence cheer what he says right, and boo what he says wrong…leave the arguments of character assignations for when he runs again ( if he runs again ).
You were wrong that he flip flopped, yet continue with the gossip.
Conservative Voice on November 19, 2008 at 2:01 PM
And, a free tire guage
BacaDog on November 19, 2008 at 2:02 PM
onlineanalyst on November 19, 2008 at 2:01 PM
That’s a problem stemming from most people just reading the headlines and going off like they know what they’re talking about. (I’m referring to her, not you.)
thecountofincognito on November 19, 2008 at 2:03 PM
jparks1972 on November 19, 2008 at 2:01 PM
He never said he would give it to the auto-industry, just that it would benefit the auto-industry, which it would.
thecountofincognito on November 19, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Conservative Voice on November 19, 2008 at 2:01 PM
So this is what it’s like to talk to a brick wall.
DJ Tablesauce on November 19, 2008 at 2:06 PM
How ’bout, it leans perpetually left and has extra front seat passenger room?
Sorry, that was mean.
BigD on November 19, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Hey, UAW, congrats on that SUH-WEEEEEET labor deal:
Pyrrhic Victory
CDeb on November 19, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Wage may be $27. Add in pension, health insurance, vacation, holiday pay, etc and it’s $73 an hour.
And come on, $27 an hour for tightening a lug nut? Those jobs require practically no skills and absolutely no education. Anything over $12 an hour is too much.
angryed on November 19, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Thank you BacaDog. My dad retired in the late 70’s. He is only receiving $1,000 a month. But it is helpful. It’s interesting that he has actually been receiving his pension longer than he was employed.
Rose on November 19, 2008 at 2:07 PM
It figures that Mitt Romney would like to see the poor black folks of detroit suffer from starvation after their welfare benefits are denied.
Meanwhile…bailout my multi billion dollar bank and give me money(not to loan out like intended) but to buy more banks with..and oh yeah, give me a $10M bonus for the criminal CEO who tanked the company too.
SaintOlaf on November 19, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Illinidiva on November 19, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Basically indirect isn’t the same as is direct, agree? ( and in fact your interpretation of what a bail out means is faulty, but can see why you would be confused ) Look I am not thrilled with the idea of Mitt’s partnership language. But he did not flip flop. He is being consistent.
And calling dj Huck, was due to him being small, not because he agrees with Huck’s political solutions.
Conservative Voice on November 19, 2008 at 2:09 PM
SaintOlaf on November 19, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Excellent parody of a deranged lefty!
thecountofincognito on November 19, 2008 at 2:11 PM
DJ Tablesauce on November 19, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Yea, you can learn! :)
Conservative Voice on November 19, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Most entry level finance and accounting jobs pay $20-$25 hour when you convert them to hourly wages.
Illinidiva on November 19, 2008 at 2:12 PM
It seems like somebody “forgot” that Mitt Romney was the guy foaming at the mouth fighting to get the bailout passed..
SaintOlaf on November 19, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Meanwhile HUCK was the one guy getting lots of airtime trying to stop the bailout..
SaintOlaf on November 19, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Illinidiva on November 19, 2008 at 2:12 PM
And doesn’t finance and accounting jobs require more education?
Conservative Voice on November 19, 2008 at 2:15 PM
SaintOlaf on November 19, 2008 at 2:13 PM
It seems that someone forgot not every black person is on welfare.
thecountofincognito on November 19, 2008 at 2:15 PM
SaintOlaf on November 19, 2008 at 2:14 PM
If it was a bailout of Tyson chicken while he was governor of Arkansas, he’d be all for it.
thecountofincognito on November 19, 2008 at 2:15 PM
The stock would almost certainly be worthless under bankrupcy. Stockholders’ claims are behind those of the company’s wages and benefits, accounts payables and creditors. What usually happens in a ch. 11 bankrupcy is that stockholders are wiped out and the debtholders become the new stockholders as the company emerges from bankrupcy. I believe pension and health care benefits are at least partially garunteed by an organization backed by the government, but I’m not an expert on this.
phronesis on November 19, 2008 at 2:16 PM
thecountofincognito on November 19, 2008 at 2:15 PM
lol, or fried squirrel
Conservative Voice on November 19, 2008 at 2:17 PM
A few thoughts from the bankruptcy and creditor’s rights world on this:
1. Filing for Chapter 11 as a business typically requires what’s called debtor in possession (DIP) financing. It’s basically a loan to the debtor entity to meet current requirements while the case proceeds. Thanks to the credit crisis, those are hard to come by.
2. Bankruptcy can only do so much to restructure union contracts and offload pension obligations over the objections of the unions. So union labor may kill the Big Three yet.
3. Because of the massive shockwaves that would ripple through the economy (i.e., Ohio, Michigan and Indiana all going bankrupt almost overnight from the sudden double-digit unemployment and loss of tax receipts caused by the spontaneous failures of all the suppliers and associated industries that go along with the Big Three), the Big Three cannot be allowed to just close up and fail. That means government money is going to come in one way or the other. By virtue of Item #2 on my list, this is going to come down to whether our Glorious Leader, Barack the Benevolent, is able to stand up to the unions. This is a true test of our Glorious Leader’s mettle.
Outlander on November 19, 2008 at 2:18 PM
There was systemic risk in that case. Where’s the systemic risk here?
phronesis on November 19, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Conservative Voice on November 19, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Maybe he had to tighten his belt and eat fried squirrel cause his welfare payments ran out! One can only assume from the comments of his supporters.
thecountofincognito on November 19, 2008 at 2:19 PM
No, it’s not. But, hey, are you prepared to say that we should not give another dime to anyone ever again for research? Like, say, the DOD?
Why don’t you tell us specifically what he’s for or against now that he wasn’t for or against during the Michigan primary? Thanks in advance.
Buy Danish on November 19, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Buy Danish on November 19, 2008 at 2:20 PM
What does it matter? A vote for Satan is a vote for Satan!
/s
thecountofincognito on November 19, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Its the Pension Benefit Guaranty Trust, but the solvency of that trust could be in question if GM and Ford both go 11. It has taken hits from other bankruptcies like Enron and textiles in the past several years. If PBGT is in trouble, then all pensions of member companies are in question.
Vashta.Nerada on November 19, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Sorry, but this is the exact opposite of the pledges he was making during the Michigan primary. And yes he is running for office.
kcewa on November 19, 2008 at 2:23 PM
kcewa on November 19, 2008 at 2:23 PM
No, its not the exact opposite. Read the op-ed he wrote, rather than just the headline.
thecountofincognito on November 19, 2008 at 2:23 PM
http://www.conservativeusa.org/mega-cong.htm
Email your congressman/woman
reshas1 on November 19, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Doesn’t that just mean that Uncle Sam is on the hook, or can the government let PBGT fail?
phronesis on November 19, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Thank you Phronesis.
Rose on November 19, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »