Auto task force's Steve Rattner on Mitt Romney and the GM and Chrysler loans.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2012 9:01 AM GMT
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/opinion/delusions-about-the-detroit-bailout.html?_r=4

    This remains the big issue where I parted company with many on the right and supported the liberals Bush and Obama on this issue.

    Did it work? In this instance, yes. No question it worked. It could have been done without government intervention, but not at that time as there was NO …. Zero ….. Zelch DIP financing.

    This IMO, is the major accomplishment of this administration and one of the top five of the Bush administration although I give Obama 75% of the credit and Bush 25% on this one.

    And I hugely disagree with all the Ron Paul fan bois out there on this one. It’s so rare that government intervention works on anything so this one really deserves to be applauded.

    "As a presidential aspirant, Mr. Romney evidently hasn’t felt a need to be consistent or specific as to what should have been done to address the collapse of the auto industry starting in late 2008. But the gist is that the government should have stayed on the sidelines and allowed the companies to go through what he calls “managed bankruptcies,” financed by private capital.

    That sounds like a wonderfully sensible approach — except that it’s utter fantasy. In late 2008 and early 2009, when G.M. and Chrysler had exhausted their liquidity, every scrap of private capital had fled to the sidelines.

    I know this because the administration’s auto task force, for which I was the lead adviser, spoke diligently to all conceivable providers of funds, and not one had the slightest interest in financing those companies on any terms. If Mr. Romney disagrees, he should come forward with specific names of willing investors in place of empty rhetoric. I predict that he won’t be able to, because there aren’t any.

    Without government financing — initiated by President George W. Bush in December 2008 — the two companies would not have been able to pursue Chapter 11 reorganization. Instead they would have been forced to cease production, close their doors and lay off virtually all workers once their coffers ran dry. "

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2012 10:54 AM GMT
    Hey FIF I saw that in yesterdays NY Times - a well written case that basically says Mitt is trying to have it well...I dont know because his alternate narrative that he now supported a managed BK could never existed!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2012 11:18 AM GMT
    Very generous to Obama with the 75% credit for it. Are you also satisfied with his administration giving significant ownership to UAW ahead of others?

    In depth discussion:

    http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-auto-bailout-and-the-rule-of-law
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2012 11:26 AM GMT
    And what irritates me even more is that the fact that Mitt is too sharp NOT to know that he's wrong on this issue. I can understand a Democrat not getting it, but there’s no excuse with Mitt. This issue was my one big falling out with many republicans …. Sen. Bob Corker comes to mind as one.

    Even if somehow they could have survived an 11 with no DIP financing, the lack of the hugely expensive five or so years of product development funding in the tens of billions would have put them under anyway and taken all the tier one through three suppliers with them. What a nightmare scenario it would have been. I understand the opposition, but not this time in this instance. And I understand all that about Obama and the UAW and labor's support and all that shit, but this time I had to put that aside and hope for the best for all and not give a damn who got credit.

    It’s that thing I keep talking about supporting what’s in the long term best interests of the United States of America ..... party affiliation be damned
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2012 11:27 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidVery generous to Obama with the 75% credit for it. Are you also satisfied with his administration giving significant ownership to UAW ahead of others?

    In depth discussion:

    http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-auto-bailout-and-the-rule-of-law


    I'm of course concerned with that. However, I'm more concerned with their new UAW president Bob King that it will be the 70s all over again.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2012 11:29 AM GMT
    freedomisntfree saidAnd what irritates me even more is that the fact that Mitt is too sharp NOT to know that he's wrong on this issue. I can understand a Democrat not getting it, but there’s no excuse with Mitt. This issue was my one big falling out with many republicans …. Sen. Bob Corker comes to mind as one.

    Even if somehow they could have survived an 11 with no DIP financing, the lack of the hugely expensive five or so years of product development funding in the tens of billions would have put them under anyway and taken all the tier one through three suppliers with them. What a nightmare scenario it would have been. I understand the opposition, but not this time in this instance. And I understand all that about Obama and the UAW and labor's support and all that shit, but this time I had to put that aside and hope for the best for all and not give a damn who got credit.

    It’s that thing I keep talking about supporting what’s in the long term best interests of the United States of America ..... party affiliation be damned

    Giving ownership to the UAW is not something to be ignored. Was not necessary. Also added a link to an article in earlier message.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2012 11:33 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    freedomisntfree saidAnd what irritates me even more is that the fact that Mitt is too sharp NOT to know that he's wrong on this issue. I can understand a Democrat not getting it, but there’s no excuse with Mitt. This issue was my one big falling out with many republicans …. Sen. Bob Corker comes to mind as one.

    Even if somehow they could have survived an 11 with no DIP financing, the lack of the hugely expensive five or so years of product development funding in the tens of billions would have put them under anyway and taken all the tier one through three suppliers with them. What a nightmare scenario it would have been. I understand the opposition, but not this time in this instance. And I understand all that about Obama and the UAW and labor's support and all that shit, but this time I had to put that aside and hope for the best for all and not give a damn who got credit.

    It’s that thing I keep talking about supporting what’s in the long term best interests of the United States of America ..... party affiliation be damned

    Giving ownership to the UAW is not something to be ignored. Was not necessary. Also added a link to an article in earlier message.


    I read just a bit of the article in National Affairs and I can pick a bunch of that one apart, given time to do it.

    And true, it wasn't perfect, but we didn't have years to perfect it either. We had days or maybe a few weeks.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2012 12:12 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidVery generous to Obama with the 75% credit for it. Are you also satisfied with his administration giving significant ownership to UAW ahead of others?

    In depth discussion:

    http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-auto-bailout-and-the-rule-of-law


    Can we calculate the standing of the pension/health obligations vs. the bondholders? Its egregrious how people talk up how the govt "gave" UAW the stake. And I note the Supreme Court had the opportunity to rule on this and declined.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2012 2:31 PM GMT
    NJDewd said
    socalfitness saidVery generous to Obama with the 75% credit for it. Are you also satisfied with his administration giving significant ownership to UAW ahead of others?

    In depth discussion:

    http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-auto-bailout-and-the-rule-of-law


    Can we calculate the standing of the pension/health obligations vs. the bondholders? Its egregrious how people talk up how the govt "gave" UAW the stake. And I note the Supreme Court had the opportunity to rule on this and declined.


    It's just the usual anti-worker claptrap from conservaposse.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2012 2:49 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree saidI read just a bit of the article in National Affairs and I can pick a bunch of that one apart, given time to do it.

    You are quite confident that you can easily dismantle the professor's arguments, even though from the depth of the article he has invested considerable research. Tell you what, take your time, take your best shot and post it. I'd be quite happy if you didn't want to, to send him your critique and let him respond.

    Did something similar about a year ago on a different topic. A team of economics professors wrote an article, and one of our RJ members, also with academic credentials but in a completely different field made derogatory, condescending remarks. I sent them to the professors, and both responded.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2012 3:01 PM GMT
    Additional reading:

    http://libertyworks.com/obama-and-the-uaw-trample-indiana-pensioners/

    http://www.openmarket.org/2009/05/21/retirees-taxpayers-ripped-off-to-subsidize-uaw/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2012 3:05 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidAdditional reading:

    http://libertyworks.com/obama-and-the-uaw-trample-indiana-pensioners/

    http://www.openmarket.org/2009/05/21/retirees-taxpayers-ripped-off-to-subsidize-uaw/


    It's clear from the fact that you're posting only from extremist crank blogs, that there's no credible source that sees UAW's involvement in the bailout as untoward.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2012 3:15 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness saidAdditional reading:

    http://libertyworks.com/obama-and-the-uaw-trample-indiana-pensioners/

    http://www.openmarket.org/2009/05/21/retirees-taxpayers-ripped-off-to-subsidize-uaw/


    It's clear from the fact that you're posting only from extremist crank blogs, that there's no credible source that sees UAW's involvement in the bailout as untoward.

    It's also clear that you never consider any opposing content, and just discount based on the source, even WSJ and IBD. That's why you are so brainwashed with your far left including socialist sources. Easier to parrot than think. Why don't you also take apart the professor's article? Can send him your comments too.

    BTW - as those articles point out, it's not about protecting the union members, even the public employee union members. The Indiana retired teachers did not matter too much to the Administration because their union was not in a position to funnel money to the Democrats. Looking out for workers is only a smokescreen. The mutually beneficial relationship is between the Democrats and the union bosses. Money from the unions, favored treatment from the Democrats. Both corrupt as hell, and both will pay the price in the election.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2012 4:49 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    freedomisntfree saidI read just a bit of the article in National Affairs and I can pick a bunch of that one apart, given time to do it.

    You are quite confident that you can easily dismantle the professor's arguments, even though from the depth of the article he has invested considerable research. Tell you what, take your time, take your best shot and post it. I'd be quite happy if you didn't want to, to send him your critique and let him respond.

    Did something similar about a year ago on a different topic. A team of economics professors wrote an article, and one of our RJ members, also with academic credentials but in a completely different field made derogatory, condescending remarks. I sent them to the professors, and both responded.


    " Tell you what, take your time, take your best shot and post it."

    You know what, it's like many of the arguments on RJ regarding old issues .... I've argued this one SO many times with my right wing buddies that I'm tired of it. I'd frankly prefer spending my time generating new business, business that someday puts some money in my pocket. I may get around to reading the entire article, but that’s about it. All three are doing very well so that’s about all that counts right now. Big threat right now is Bob King who thinks its the UAW of the 70s.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2012 7:00 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    socalfitness said
    freedomisntfree saidI read just a bit of the article in National Affairs and I can pick a bunch of that one apart, given time to do it.

    You are quite confident that you can easily dismantle the professor's arguments, even though from the depth of the article he has invested considerable research. Tell you what, take your time, take your best shot and post it. I'd be quite happy if you didn't want to, to send him your critique and let him respond.

    Did something similar about a year ago on a different topic. A team of economics professors wrote an article, and one of our RJ members, also with academic credentials but in a completely different field made derogatory, condescending remarks. I sent them to the professors, and both responded.


    " Tell you what, take your time, take your best shot and post it."

    You know what, it's like many of the arguments on RJ regarding old issues .... I've argued this one SO many times with my right wing buddies that I'm tired of it. I'd frankly prefer spending my time generating new business, business that someday puts some money in my pocket. I may get around to reading the entire article, but that’s about it. All three are doing very well so that’s about all that counts right now. Big threat right now is Bob King who thinks its the UAW of the 70s.


    I trust that is not the case as he agreed to the two tier wage schedule.