Romney article on "Letting Detroit go Bankrupt"

[MDC 5,892]

Actually, Obama is banking on the American public being ill-informed by taking Romney's position on managed bankruptcy and turning it into a strawman of "Romney wanted GM to go out of business." Exhibit A: Worms' belief that Romney wanted 1 million auto workers to lose their jobs.

 

Also, GM is not a huge success. Any success they are showing now is built on a house of cards. My BIL was an engineer there for 20 years, and he left a few months ago. Things are not as good as you may think.

 

I can't speak for Worms but I don't think anyone believes Romney wanted auto workers to lose their jobs. The problem is that he was parrotting the typical GOP line that private industry is always the solution to every problem. And in this case he was totally wrong. Assuming he actually believed what he wrote and these weren't just free marketeer talking points designed to excite a voter block.

 

For the life of me I can't tell what Etch-a-Sketch actually believes and what he just says for votes.

[Bruce Benedict 0]

I can't speak for Worms but I don't think anyone believes Romney wanted auto workers to lose their jobs.

 

How do you think he built his wealth? Union busting, leveraged buyouts, corporate raiding, selling off assets piecemeal after destroying companies and the lives of people he sees as beneath him and thus not worthy of consideration vis a vis his own bottom line.

 

When he says, over and over again, "I know how to fix the economy," he either (1) has no credibility, or (2) he is talking from personal experience. Assuming you want to give him SOME credit, and assume it's the second, he means he intends to fix the economy by focking blue collar guys out of jobs and maximizing revenues by whatever means possible.

 

Of course he wants auto workers to lose their jobs. Auto workers make too much. There's no place in Romneyworld for highly-paid, skilled American labor that could be more efficiently performed by sweatshop workers overseas.

[Casual Observer 597]

Really? Then why was he willing to let a million auto workers lose their job rather than bail out the industry? Hell, he WANTED those companies to go bankrupt so they could break the unions. I know you probably support union-busting but think what it would of meant for the families dependent on those middle class jobs.

 

1. Under what scenario would a million auto workers lose their jobs?

 

2. Were these companies insolvent? If so, what are/were the causes for their insolvency?

 

3. When you posted your comments what would you have envisioned for these companies in bankruptcy?

[donhaas 18]

For the life of me I can't tell what Etch-a-Sketch actually believes and what he just says for votes.

 

Neither can these American-hating librulrulz

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByzxFQSlyDA&feature=share

[Recliner Pilot 61]

1. Under what scenario would a million auto workers lose their jobs?

 

 

Worms ran away from this question long ago when Jerry brought it up. You won't get any answer out of him.

[Voltaire 4,560]

 

It's a very well written, thought out op/ed. Anyone that's been to business school will read it and appreciate it.

 

Meanwhile, anyone who lived through 2008 and looks at the auto industry today would read it as a bad idea of a magnitude on par with Mao's agriculture policy and celebrate that this path was not chosen.

 

They would also realize that private investment was frozen in a liquidity crunch and the only source of cash was the government.

 

Further they would see that both GM and Chrysler have thrived and the entire industry saved only because Bush/Obama ignored Mitt Romneys and went about things in a different manner.

[drobeski 3,061]

Worms ran away from this question long ago when Jerry brought it up. You won't get any answer out of him.

He does seem to worm away when cornered, which is in every thread he ever posts in.

[parrot 789]

I always turn to sports editors for my info on intricate financial matters. Thanks for the info.

 

How about the judge who oversaw the Chrysler proceeding?

 

“The record before the Court was clear that there were no other sources of lending,” said Arthur J. Gonzalez, who served as chief judge of the U.S. bankruptcy court for the Southern District of New York.

 

Before the bailout, former Chrysler chairman Robert Nardelli told Congress the automaker was “in a death spiral.” Without those government loans, Gonzalez told ABC News, Chrysler “would have had to liquidate.”

 

Federal Bankruptcy Judge: Bailout Was Only Way to Save Chrysler

[MedStudent 56]

Holy crap! What a beat down on rp!

[BunnysBastatrds 1,918]

It sounds to me like Romney wrote the article to come off like an Ayn Randian free marketeer back when he was running for the GOP nomination in 2008. Now that the auto bailout has been a huge success and he's running in the general election, he's trying to spin the Op/Ed as something it's not.

 

That's the problem with guys like Romney. He's taken every position on everything for the past 4 years and many of his former comments contradict his stated policies today. Shaking the Etch-A-Sketch doesn't remove articles you wrote and quotes you made.

 

Romney is banking on the American public being so ill-informed and stupid that they'll buy his latest act.

 

And yet you're voting for Obama. Do you seer the irony in that?

[MDC 5,892]

And yet you're voting for Obama.

 

Link?

 

Do you seer the irony in that?

 

No but I seer you being a dumbass as usual.

[parrot 789]

Actually, Obama is banking on the American public being ill-informed by taking Romney's position on managed bankruptcy and turning it into a strawman of "Romney wanted GM to go out of business." Exhibit A: Worms' belief that Romney wanted 1 million auto workers to lose their jobs.

 

 

Whereas Romney and the GOP are banking on the public being ill-informed on the fact that there was an actual managed bankruptcy proceeding with required concessions, including on the part of the UAW and there weren't just checks cut with no conditions. Call it a strawman fight I guess.

[BunnysBastatrds 1,918]

Link?

 

 

 

No but I seer you being a dumbass as usual.

 

 

You believe that Obama is being honest with the voting public?

[Casual Observer 597]

How about the judge who oversaw the Chrysler proceeding?

 

 

 

 

 

Federal Bankruptcy Judge: Bailout Was Only Way to Save Chrysler

 

Were gov't. guarantees of loans part of the equation?

[MDC 5,892]

You believe that Obama is being honest with the voting public?

 

I don't believe any politicians are being totally honest with the public.

 

But even among politicians the Human Etch-a-Sketch is particularly shameless about it. For example he spends 18 months talking about how we need to take a harder line on Iran and be tougher etc. Then in debate three he goes all moderate and talks about how his goal is a peaceful world etc. Behind closed doors he calls 47% of voters irresponsible entitled victims. Not a day goes by now where he doesn't say he cares about ALL voters, 100%! On the debate stage he says there are no policies of his to change abortion law. On his website he says the right to life begins at conception and he will work to overturn Roe v. Wade.

 

Even your slimiest politician would feel some embarrassment at being such a craven panderer. But Romney apparently has no principles or core whatsoever.

[KSB2424 3,083]

Whereas Romney and the GOP are banking on the public being ill-informed on the fact that there was an actual managed bankruptcy proceeding with required concessions, including on the part of the UAW and there weren't just checks cut with no conditions. Call it a strawman fight I guess.

I don't remember Romney or the GOP trying to 'hide' the fact that there was a bankrupcy proceeding. I don't understand your post.

 

All I remember reading was that Romney wanted to revisit the bankruptcy proceedings as many financial analyts who look at this stuff implied that it set a bad precedent as it was the largest in American history and gave unprecedented consessions (in favor of UAW).

 

I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

Question for you. Do you believe in the saying that A company is to big to fail.

[BunnysBastatrds 1,918]

I don't believe any politicians are being totally honest with the public.

 

But even among politicians the Human Etch-a-Sketch is particularly shameless about it. For example he spends 18 months talking about how we need to take a harder line on Iran and be tougher etc. Then in debate three he goes all moderate and talks about how his goal is a peaceful world etc. Behind closed doors he calls 47% of voters irresponsible entitled victims. Not a day goes by now where he doesn't say he cares about ALL voters, 100%! On the debate stage he says there are no policies of his to change abortion law. On his website he says the right to life begins at conception and he will work to overturn Roe v. Wade.

 

Even your slimiest politician would feel some embarrassment at being such a craven panderer. But Romney apparently has no principles or core whatsoever.

 

 

You make a strong argument about Romney's charcter. I could make the same about how Obama has lied about what's in the Obamacare law and how it was sold. Or about how Obama goes behind closed doors and mocks those who cling to their bibles and guns, which are far more than the 47% of the country that Romney supposedly mocked. I could waste your time with many more examples but I won't. You defend Obama but have no problem ripping Romney. What is it about politics and the need to defend their guy that turns normal people into complete dooshes?

[parrot 789]

Were gov't. guarantees of loans part of the equation?

 

No idea. But isn't the big complaint here that the administration stepped outside the norms of a standard bankruptcy proceeding by providing the financing? And wouldn't gov't guarantees have been a pretty similar step outside those norms? I think Obama would still have gotten beaten up over it. In either case you're not letting the true market mechanisms deal with it.

[parrot 789]

I don't remember Romney or the GOP trying to 'hide' the fact that there was a bankrupcy proceeding. I don't understand your post.

 

Fair enough. I was kind of going off this letter, which was written before a lot of it actually played out.

 

All I remember reading was that Romney wanted to revisit the bankruptcy proceedings as many financial analyts who look at this stuff implied that it set a bad precedent as it was the largest in American history and gave unprecedented consessions (in favor of UAW).

 

I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

Romney has done a little more than that; he has protrayed it as Obama "gave" these companies to the UAW. That's a pretty misleading statement in its own right.

 

Question for you. Do you believe in the saying that A company is to big to fail.

 

No. But I certainly understand why the President was willing to take fairly unprecedented measures to try and head off the potential collapse of a major industry when the economy was already hemorrhaging jobs all over the place.

[Casual Observer 597]

No idea. But isn't the big complaint here that the administration stepped outside the norms of a standard bankruptcy proceeding by providing the financing? And wouldn't gov't guarantees have been a pretty similar step outside those norms? I think Obama would still have gotten beaten up over it. In either case you're not letting the true market mechanisms deal with it.

 

My question was really directed at the BK Judge's comments re "in the record". If the option of gov't. guarantees of post-bankruptcy lending were not offered, then of course they wouldn't be in the record before the Court.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

How about the judge who oversaw the Chrysler proceeding?

 

 

 

 

 

Federal Bankruptcy Judge: Bailout Was Only Way to Save Chrysler

\

What part of this line in Romney's 2008 letter confuses you?

 

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

 

You don't think financing would be available if the Govt was backing it?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Whereas Romney and the GOP are banking on the public being ill-informed on the fact that there was an actual managed bankruptcy proceeding with required concessions, including on the part of the UAW and there weren't just checks cut with no conditions. Call it a strawman fight I guess.

 

 

But the Obama administration ignored bankruptcy laws and screwed the bondholders of Chrysler and GM. Who ended up taking the place of the bondholders? The UAW.

 

Politics trumps seniority for bondholders in GM, Chrysler bankruptcies

Bondholders, who traditionally end up with the best deal in bankruptcy proceedings since they hold senior debt, appear to be losing out in both the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies. In an unusual twist, the government and employees will likely end up with a bigger share of the two companies as political expediency trumps traditional bankruptcy laws.

 

"They are rewriting law, and certainly bond markets never priced in an interpretation that you can rewrite things because it's in the best interest" of unintentional stakeholders -- taxpayers, the company's employees, and municipalities that will be affected, Kingman Penniman, president of KDP, told MarketWatch.

 

If, as now expected, GM's path to bankruptcy follows that of Chrysler's, bondholders will likely end up with a smaller stake in the reorganized business even though they are senior creditors. This trade off ensures employees will have a bigger stake in the new company.

 

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/06/02/politics-trumps-seniority-for-bondholders-in-gm-chrysler-bankru/

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Romney has done a little more than that; he has protrayed it as Obama "gave" these companies to the UAW. That's a pretty misleading statement in its own right.

 

And he is correct.

 

 

House Ways and Means Committee chairman Rep. Dave Camp threatened Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and President Barack Obama on Tuesday: Cough up the Delphi documents or get served with subpoenas.

 

“This is my third letter requesting that the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) come clean about its involvement in the decision-making that led to certain Delphi pension beneficiaries being treated differently during the 2009 General Motors Company (GM) bailout,” Camp wrote in a Tuesday letter to Geither. “To date, Treasury has provided two demonstrably incomplete productions consisting of little more than publicly available documents, redacted e-mails, ex post facto rationale for Treasury actions, and incomplete productions prepared for other inquiries. Despite my request, Treasury has refused to certify that it has produced all responsive documents or provide a privilege log for any documents withheld. This pattern of stonewalling is inconsistent with the high standards you have set for Treasury.”

 

“Thus far, and on the basis of documents produced both by Treasury and third parties, my investigation has found that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) advocated that GM take over both the Delphi hourly and salaried pension plans at a time when GM had raised doubts about its ability to afford the plans,” Camp continued. “Ultimately, under the watchful eye and perhaps influence of Treasury officials, GM decided to provide pension top-up benefits to hourly but not salaried retirees.”

 

 

Camp warned Geithner that if he doesn’t “provide all responsive documents and/or a privilege log” to the Ways and Means Committee by October 30, he’ll “be forced to consider using compulsory process to secure production of the documents.”

 

During the 2009 auto bailout, a decision was made to terminate the pension plans for 20,000 non-union autoworker retirees from auto parts manufacturer Delphi. While those non-union retirees lost significant portions of their pensions, health care and life insurance benefits from this deal, their union colleagues saw their benefits completely topped up.

 

For years since, the Obama administration has claimed the PBGC made the decision on its own, free of administration influence. Email evidence obtained and published by The Daily Caller in early August shows that’s not the case. Among other things, that new evidence prompted Camp’s investigation.

 

In a second Tuesday letter written to White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler, Camp said her Oct. 12 response to his investigative inquiries about the “extent to which the Executive Office of the President of the United States (EOP)” was involved in the Delphi pension decision was “both unresponsive and perplexing.”

 

“You claim that the September 7, 2012, Department of the Treasury (Treasury) response ‘did address the … [EOP]‘s role in the Delphi pension matter,’” Camp wrote to Ruemmler, adding that he only found two such EOP references in that document dump. The first, Camp said, was a description of President Obama’s “decision to create the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry (Auto Task Force),” and the second was a “redacted e-mail chain including EOP personnel.”

 

 

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/23/obama-admin-threatened-with-subpoenas-for-details-on-delphi-pensions/#ixzz2AFbmk8nr

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Holy crap! What a beat down on rp!

Beating?

 

Romney's letter clearly exposes Obama's blatant lies during the debate.

 

So far the only rebuttals have been "Romney wanted the auto industry to go out of business". Nothing of proof offered on this one.

 

And "They couldn't get financing in the private sector". Strawman argument as Romney said in his letter in my OP he advocated loans backed by the govt.

 

Please see my posts above where I destroy these positions.

 

 

Now, take your lumps I just dished out and fukk off, Med.

[parrot 789]

\

What part of this line in Romney's 2008 letter confuses you?

 

 

 

You don't think financing would be available if the Govt was backing it?

 

Maybe the "post-bankruptcy" part?

 

 

As for the second part;

Bob Lutz, the vice chairman of GM at the time and an outspoken Republican himself, said the loan guarantees Romney talks about would not have made a difference due to the cash crunch at the time.

 

"The banks were even more broke than we were. Who had the money?" he told the Detroit Free Press in February. "Loan guarantees don't do any good if the banks don't have any money."

 

 

When he expanded on his views, he didnt' say anything about government guarantees during the bankruptcy process. He said it should be a "private bankruptcy process" with a "private sector bailout" and implied that the capital markets we had in place could have handled it.

 

“My view with regards to the bailout was that whether it was by President Bush or by President Obama, it was the wrong way to go. I said from the very beginning they should go through a managed bankruptcy process, a private bankruptcy process. We have capital markets and bankruptcy, it works in the U.S.,” he said. “My plan, we would have had a private sector bailout with the private sector restructuring and bankruptcy with the private sector guiding the direction as opposed to what we had with government playing its heavy hand.”

 

 

Then there's this;

 

It would have been best not to have had the president and government put their hands on the bankruptcy process. ... Bailouts are not the answer.

 

Would loan guarantees not have constituted the gov't "put(ting) their hands on the bankruptcy process"?

 

 

It seems to me that Romney wants to have it both ways; he wants to have the companies go through the tough-love, unsentimental process of a "private bankruptcy" that would force the required changes and concessions, but then he wants the government to underwrite the whole thing on the back side to make sure that there's really no threat to the industry or to the financiers, so the gov't bears all the risk, which essentially removes the impetus for making those necessary changes. Either that, or he didn't want the government involved at all until they emerged from bankruptcy, which apparently was not an option.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

 

It seems to me that Romney wants to have it both ways; he wants to have the companies go through the tough-love, unsentimental process of a "private bankruptcy" that would force the required changes and concessions, but then he wants the government to underwrite the whole thing on the back side to make sure that there's really no threat to the industry or to the financiers, so the gov't bears all the risk, which essentially removes the impetus for making those necessary changes. Either that, or he didn't want the government involved at all until they emerged from bankruptcy, which apparently was not an option.

 

Your opinion doesn't change the fact he wanted govt backed loans for GM, and nowhere has he said he wanted the auto industry to go out of business. Obama lied, and he has been caught.

 

No amount of spin, or links to other's opinions will change that.

 

HTH

[parrot 789]

Your opinion doesn't change the fact he wanted govt backed loans for GM, and nowhere has he said he wanted the auto industry to go out of business. Obama lied, and he has been caught.

 

No amount of spin, or links to other's opinions will change that.

 

HTH

 

The only thing he said about gov't backed loans was "post-bankruptcy". 'Post' means after, as in 'after bankruptcy'. That's not an opinion. A chapter 11 bankruptcy can go on for years. I don't see exactly how "post-bankruptcy" guarantees would help them survive in the interim.

 

But yes, Obama saying he wanted the auto industry to go out of business is a lie. No argument here. I don't think anyone really believes that, including Obama. I think Romney wanted exactly what he says; for the companies go through the painful restructuring process, and for the unions feet to be held to the fire as part of that process, forcing concessions. The question is whether that was possible without some heavy involvement by the federal. Romney suggests it was. Others intimately involved in the situation, whose opinions I'm basing my statements on, suggest it was not.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

The only thing he said about gov't backed loans was "post-bankruptcy". 'Post' means after, as in 'after bankruptcy'. That's not an opinion. A chapter 11 bankruptcy can go on for years.

 

But yes, Obama saying he wanted the auto industry to go out of business is a lie. No argument here.

 

From your link:

 

But Gonzalez, who retired from the federal bench on March 1, told ABC News: “One thing is clear, without government support in one fashion or another, there were no sources of funding.”

 

You really don't think they could have found financing if the Govt said the loans would be backed if certain conditions were met in the reorganization? So, Romney's scenario not being an option is an opinion.

[Casual Observer 597]

The only thing he said about gov't backed loans was "post-bankruptcy". 'Post' means after, as in 'after bankruptcy'. That's not an opinion. A chapter 11 bankruptcy can go on for years. I don't see exactly how "post-bankruptcy" guarantees would help them survive in the interim.

 

But yes, Obama saying he wanted the auto industry to go out of business is a lie. No argument here. I don't think anyone really believes that, including Obama. I think Romney wanted exactly what he says; for the companies go through the painful restructuring process, and for the unions feet to be held to the fire as part of that process, forcing concessions. The question is whether that was possible without some heavy involvement by the federal. Romney suggests it was. Others intimately involved in the situation, whose opinions I'm basing my statements on, suggest it was not.

 

When we're talking "post-bankruptcy" what is meant is after confirmation of a plan of reorganization. Once the plan is confirmed, a new entity emerges in the eyes of the law. Here that new entity would be on the hook for the private financing going forward, gov't. guaranteed or not. The process and contents of the plan are more complicated than I've described here, but I mention it for clarity's sake.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

I can't speak for Worms but I don't think anyone believes Romney wanted auto workers to lose their jobs.

 

I don't think Romney WANTED auto workers to lose their jobs, but I don't think he gave a damn if they did lose them. I believe that he did want to bust the unions.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

He does seem to worm away when cornered, which is in every thread he ever posts in.

 

I didn't "worm away", I had to do some actual work today (unfortunately).

 

Here's one of many links: http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/06/autos/auto-bailout/index.html

 

Here's the quote:

 

But many auto industry experts, including the Obama administration's former car czar, Steven Rattner, a Democrat, and former GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz, a Republican, say there was no private-sector financing available in 2009 and the bailout was the only way to keep the companies alive.

 

"He thinks we didn't try to borrow money from the banks?" Lutz told the Detroit Free Press in February. "The banks were even more broke than we were. Who had the money?"

 

Without financing during bankruptcy, GM and Chrysler would have had to go out of business, taking down many suppliers. That would have likely caused bankruptcies at the healthier automakers such Ford Motor (F, Fortune 500), who would not have been able to get the parts they needed to build cars. That is why Ford went to Capitol Hill in late 2008 pushing for the rescue of its rivals.

 

The Center for Automotive Research, a well-respected Michigan think tank estimates that the bailout therefore saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs by keeping GM, Chrysler and the companies that depended on them in business.

 

Even if one assumes private financing could have been found, what's clear from Romney's own criticism of the bailout is that the autoworkers at GM and Chrysler today would have been far worse off today than they were with the bailout.

 

Eat it, dooshbag. You and RP and casual observer can all suck my fat liberal cack

 

 

skids - you may want to take a look at that too

[jerryskids 5,206]

I didn't "worm away", I had to do some actual work today (unfortunately).

 

Here's one of many links: http://money.cnn.com...lout/index.html

 

Here's the quote:

 

 

 

Eat it, dooshbag. You and RP and casual observer can all suck my fat liberal cack

 

 

skids - you may want to take a look at that too

I see it, but it isn't relevant. The estimate is comparing the bailout to GM and Chrysler going out of business. You can argue that Romney underestimated the availability of private financing, but it wasn't his plan for them to die.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

I see it, but it isn't relevant. The estimate is comparing the bailout to GM and Chrysler going out of business. You can argue that Romney underestimated the availability of private financing, but it wasn't his plan for them to die.

 

That whole point is built into the estimate. They don't assume GM et al would've gone away forever. The point is, doing it Romney's way would've cost over a million jobs even if the auto industry wasn't officially killed off in the process.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I didn't "worm away", I had to do some actual work today (unfortunately).

 

Here's one of many links: http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/06/autos/auto-bailout/index.html

 

Here's the quote:

 

 

 

Eat it, dooshbag. You and RP and casual observer can all suck my fat liberal cack

 

 

skids - you may want to take a look at that too

 

That link was already posted. Don't worry.....you get a pass because it's the first link you ever brought to the bored.

 

As I said last time it was posted: It offers nothing but the opinions of the guy who ran Gm into the ground, and the guy who got his job because of the govt bailout.

 

There is nothing, nothing in there that proves Romney's plan of govt backed loans would have cost any more jobs than what happened.

 

Keep trying, Matlock.

[Bruce Benedict 0]

That link was already posted. Don't worry.....you get a pass because it's the first link you ever brought to the bored.

 

As I said last time it was posted: It offers nothing but the opinions of the guy who ran Gm into the ground, and the guy who got his job because of the govt bailout.

 

There is nothing, nothing in there that proves Romney's plan of govt backed loans would have cost any more jobs than what happened.

 

Keep trying, Matlock.

"THERE IS NOTHING IN YOUR LINK THAT PROVES ANYTHING, BUT MY LINK BY ROMNEY IS YENIUS AND HIGHLY RELEVANT!"

[jerryskids 5,206]

That whole point is built into the estimate. They don't assume GM et al would've gone away forever. The point is, doing it Romney's way would've cost over a million jobs even if the auto industry wasn't officially killed off in the process.

No it's not; read your own link again.

 

Without financing during bankruptcy, GM and Chrysler would have had to go out of business, taking down many suppliers. That would have likely caused bankruptcies at the healthier automakers such Ford Motor (F, Fortune 500), who would not have been able to get the parts they needed to build cars. That is why Ford went to Capitol Hill in late 2008 pushing for the rescue of its rivals.

 

The Center for Automotive Research, a well-respected Michigan think tank estimates that the bailout therefore saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs by keeping GM, Chrysler and the companies that depended on them in business.

I already said that it is fair to question the availability of private financing. What's NOT fair is to presume that Romney's proposal was all of the words that followed the initial qualifier. HTH

[parrot 789]

When we're talking "post-bankruptcy" what is meant is after confirmation of a plan of reorganization. Once the plan is confirmed, a new entity emerges in the eyes of the law. Here that new entity would be on the hook for the private financing going forward, gov't. guaranteed or not. The process and contents of the plan are more complicated than I've described here, but I mention it for clarity's sake.

 

Appreciate the clarification from a lawyer. This may be exactly what Romney meant.

[Casual Observer 597]

I didn't "worm away", I had to do some actual work today (unfortunately).

 

Here's one of many links: http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/06/autos/auto-bailout/index.html

 

Here's the quote:

 

 

 

Eat it, dooshbag. You and RP and casual observer can all suck my fat liberal cack

 

 

skids - you may want to take a look at that too

 

A member of the administration and a direct beneficiary of gov't. largesse in the GM bailout both say "Yup, no financing available, the gov't. had to do it." I think it's more likely that lenders were approached and said no thanks because GM is a loser. After all, Fiat was able to cobble together financing to buy a huge stake in Chrysler.

 

I had three questions for you boychek. You reversed yourself on one, try tackling the other two.

[MDC 5,892]

Romney demonstrates his complete lack of business expertise once again.

[Casual Observer 597]

Appreciate the clarification from a lawyer. This may be exactly what Romney meant.

 

I'm sure Mitt is very familiar with the workings of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, but I'm not sure that the general public is.