Obama asking for fact check proves Obama wrong.

[dust1n]

"ROMNEY: Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world. It's their route to the sea."

At best, I can only assume it was the Mediterranean sea that was being referred to... why that matters is so beyond me, my mind exploded when I heard this...

 

[esmith]

Everything in bold is Romney's words from the very same article in the NY Times.

Ok, you had me confused. Will go back over it and comment on each one.

What he said was;

"IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed."

Basically he is saying that their management and current operating principles are wrong.

But he was completely wrong.

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.

Now, he says that they have to go through a managed bankruptcy to do what he sees as a fix for the auto industry. Ford decided that they could fix their problems on their own. Chrysler and GM took the bailout (started by President Bush) but conditions continued to deteriorate and they had to go through a managed bankruptcy overseen by the Obama Administration. You can read what happened at GM here
Obama Misrepresents Auto Bailout

But since the banks were really not in a position to loan large sums of money to save GM I hardly see how a managed bankruptcy would have saved GM without liquidating the entire company. GM was not the only company affected by their impending collapse. It would have had ripple effect on dozens of small businesses in Detroit, Ohio etc. which would have caused even more job loss than those employed by GM.

But GM did go through a managed bankruptcy under Obama, remember (see above link)

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

This is what Obama wanted fact checked in the debate....That Romney did not want the federal government to give money to the auto industry.

The key here is (post-bankruptcy). No private capital was available so the federal government steps in and did the opposite of what Romney was suggesting. He condemned what Obama did but here lately he want to claim credit for what the administration did.......just like his "binders full of women" LIE....

In the above copy and past from Romney's article in the NY Times he says that the government should assist after the managed bankruptcy. He wanted a managed bankruptcy with government assistance after the dust settled from the bankruptcy making GM stronger. Romney, did not think that what Obama forced GM to do was right. For one wiped out the Delphi non-union workers retirement fund, but topped off the Delphi union workers fund with taxpayers money. read the article I posted above: will relink here. It still repudiates Obama's saying that Romney didn't want government money used in a managed bankruptcy.

Obama Misrepresents Auto Bailout

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

I look at Obama as a supporter of the bourgeois order, who is merely more smart about it than Romney, and willing to throw the lower and middle classes some pittances for their slavery to capital.

That's why it's so funny to see righties like our buddy here revile Obama for his "socialist" policies. This is a president who didn't break up the big banks that caused the financial meltdown; never instituted any foreclosure moratorium or debt forgiveness; didn't take over BP after the Gulf oil spill or change the climate of self-regulation that led to it; didn't stump for the striking public employees in Wisconsin, and so on, and so on.

What we've got here is welfare capitalism, folks. If that's the best we can do, fine. But let's be honest about it.

-Nato

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Basically he is saying that their management and current operating principles are wrong.

His opinion was duly noted but proven to be wrong. The assistance the administration provided worked. You would have an argument if Romney was right. They received the funding and is much healthier than they were 4 years ago.

Now, he says that they have to go through a managed bankruptcy to do what he sees as a fix for the auto industry.

What it would have done was liquidate the company as well as employee pensions etc. That's the Bain way. This way of doing business isn't always good for the worker or the country.

Ford decided that they could fix their problems on their own.

That's great for FORD but don't think for a moment that because they decided against government help that has led them to be a profitable company. Don't get me wrong. They are a great company and I commend them for not seeking any fed funding but they're not doing so well in over seas market. They're doing "OK" here. I think it was back in July this year they reported a $1 Billion dollar loss. They're doing better now though. Their stock seems to trade in tandem with GM now.

Chrysler and GM took the bailout (started by President Bush) but conditions continued to deteriorate and they had to go through a managed bankruptcy overseen by the Obama Administration. You can read what happened at GM here
Obama Misrepresents Auto Bailout

I agree with your statement above but you'll have to excuse me for not reading the link you provided. I can tell right off the back reading some of it that it is really bias. The bottom line is much of what Romney was suggesting in the op-ed would not have worked for GM in a way that would have left the company solvent as well as protecting employee pensions.

But GM did go through a managed bankruptcy under Obama, remember (see above link)

And without the Obama Administration involved in the modified bankruptcy process GM would have gone through the regular bankruptcy process, liquidated all its assets, wiped out employee pensions (as Romney suggested)....and would not have been able to come back. Pieces of the company would have been sold off and there would be no more GM.

This is what Obama wanted fact checked in the debate....That Romney did not want the federal government to give money to the auto industry.

But he didn't.

ROMNEY: "IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check."

In the above copy and past from Romney's article in the NY Times he says that the government should assist after the managed bankruptcy. He wanted a managed bankruptcy with government assistance after the dust settled from the bankruptcy making GM stronger.

This would not have made GM stronger. Employee pensions would have been gone. They would have to have laid off most if not all their workforce and sale much of their assets (Chapter 11- section 363). GM would have been decimated. What the Obama Administration did was allow the (New GM Motor Co.) to purchase the continuing operational assets of the old GM's Normal operations. It allowed them to keep the employee compensations intact, warranties, and other customer services weren't interrupted during the bankruptcy proceedings.

Romney, did not think that what Obama forced GM to do was right.

But he was wrong.

For one wiped out the Delphi non-union workers retirement fund

I suggest you research who owned Delphi before you go any further. This article is from (The Nation). It's definitely a (Right) leaning publication and this is what they wrote about Romney, his wife, BAIN Capital and the billions the government gave Delphi to bail them out and the millions the Romney's made. Basically all involved with delphi (Romney and Bain) made millions off the federal government bailout. Delphi is pretty much and outsourced/offshored operation now.

Mitt Romney's Bailout Bonanza | The Nation

So while Romney can criticize Obama on how he helped GM he really doesn't have a leg to stand on because his own record shows he benefited from such auto bailouts. Just as Paul Ryan slammed the administration for the stimulus he too receive a decent chunk of the stimulus pie that went to business owners. Both men (Romney/Ryan) have had their hands in the federal government's pocket all along with plenty of other republicans.

but topped off the Delphi union workers fund with taxpayers money. read the article I posted above: will relink here. It still repudiates Obama's saying that Romney didn't want government money used in a managed bankruptcy.

Read the article I posted and you'll see that Romney is entangled with the whole Delphi debacle...as well as going to profit off off SENSATA...a company that he has $8 Million dollars invested in where Bain owns 51% of the company. The company is due to shut its doors here in the US and the WHOLE company (MINUS the 170 employees) will be shipped to China. The company has reported 2nd. quarter revenues of $500 Million dollars and a 3rd. quarter revenue earnings report of around $420 Million dollars. It's a profitable company yet Bain is shipping it to China. Instead of paying $17 per hour to the employees here...Bain is shipping the company to China where they will be paying the workers there 99 CENTS an hour. And to add insult to injury...the US SENSATA workers that are losing their jobs had to train the Chinese how to do their jobs....Romney stands to make hundreds of thousands if not millions on this deal and as long as he stays invested in the company he'll continue to make money since the automotive parts SENSATA makes will be sold to US car companies but now from China.

Do you really..really know who Romney is..???

 

[esmith]

I agree with your statement above but you'll have to excuse me for not reading the link you provided. I can tell right off the back reading some of it that it is really bias.

Unfortunately that is the biggest problem I see with people that are so enamored with their economic and political views that they refuse to even read something that bring forth FACTS and OPINION. Everything that you have put forth in your argument is nothing more than YOUR OPINION. Therefore why should I even listen to what a, excuse me, biased opinion has to say. Oh, by the way I can tell right off the bat (not back) reading some of the article you provided that it is really biased.

 

[tytlyf]

Basically he is saying that their management and current operating principles are wrong.

And you believe him? I don't know why people think his slick business principles are trustworthy or that he even knows what he's talking about.
Willard is dangerous. Very.

 

[esmith]

And you believe him? I don't know why people think his slick business principles are trustworthy or that he even knows what he's talking about.
Willard is dangerous. Very.

You a business guru? Probably not, just expressing your opinion. I don't know why people think Obama's with his narcissistic character flaw, that he has never ran a business in his life, that will do almost anything to get elected, even cover up events that could damage his chance to get re-elected could ever trust this very dangerous elitist.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Unfortunately that is the biggest problem I see with people that are so enamored with their economic and political views that they refuse to even read something that bring forth FACTS and OPINION.

I'm all about the facts and I don't mind some opinions but the person you linked is a blogger with an agenda. I'm not saying that's a defining point and I won't accept what the person is saying but you posted the article putting all your eggs in one blogger's basket. As I'm reading the blog post it became quite clear that I, personally, need to investigate more qualified sources.

Everything that you have put forth in your argument is nothing more than YOUR OPINION. Therefore why should I even listen to what a, excuse me, biased opinion has to say.

I will accept that critique...but so you know...TheNation.com skews its bias in your favor considering it's a conservative tabloid. I think it's owned by Rupert Murdock. Personally I found the article to be very informative and it gave more insight on how two faced and shady Romney truly is.

reading some of the article you provided that it is really biased

Like I said, it was bias in your favor but your glossing over what I wrote say more about you than me..:sad:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You a business guru? Probably not, just expressing your opinion. I don't know why people think Obama's with his narcissistic character flaw, that he has never ran a business in his life, that will do almost anything to get elected, even cover up events that could damage his chance to get re-elected could ever trust this very dangerous elitist.

Then again...this is just "OUR OPINION".....

Here's mine.....

"I don't know why people think Romney with his narcissistic character flaw, that has run businesses into the grown for wealth throughout his life, that will do almost anything to get elected, even cover up events that could damage his chance to getting elected, could you could ever trust this very dangerous elitist."

 

[tytlyf]

You a business guru? Probably not, just expressing your opinion. I don't know why people think Obama's with his narcissistic character flaw, that he has never ran a business in his life, that will do almost anything to get elected, even cover up events that could damage his chance to get re-elected could ever trust this very dangerous elitist.

A lot of right-wing fearmongering in that post. What does running a business have to do with being president? If you think Willard is so great at jobs creation, why was he ranked near the bottom (47) as governor? We have a record of his governing ability and it isn't pretty.
Yet that makes no difference to you. As I've said before, I'll take the community organizer who was a senior constitutional law professor over a slick businessman who evades taxes on purpose. The man won't even release his tax returns because it will destroy his chances.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

A lot of right-wing fearmongering in that post. What does running a business have to do with being president? If you think Willard is so great at jobs creation, why was he ranked near the bottom (47) as governor? We have a record of his governing ability and it isn't pretty.
Yet that makes no difference to you. As I've said before, I'll take the community organizer who was a senior constitutional law professor over a slick businessman who evades taxes on purpose. The man won't even release his tax returns because it will destroy his chances.

And if Willard was so instrumental of a leader in Massachusetts then we must ask ourselves..why is the state going for Obama in the polls....it's obvious they know him better than the rest of the nation and feel as though he's not worthy of their vote.

"binders full of women"....such a liar..!!

 

[Revoltingest]

A lot of right-wing fearmongering in that post. What does running a business have to do with being president?

For me, it's critical that we have a prez who knows what makes an economy tick when we're enduring one in decline relative to the developing world.
Willard has this experience in spades. Obama is utterly lacking, & it shows. But of course, this isn't the whole story. We face a big risk factor in the
likelihood of either getting us mired in continued or new economically devastating wars. The choice can be a murky one, & I see both as dangerous.

If you think Willard is so great at jobs creation, why was he ranked near the bottom (47) as governor? We have a record of his governing ability and it isn't pretty.

Since results are a function of so many other factors, I focus instead upon whether the candidate's agenda makes sense to me.

As I've said before, I'll take the community organizer who was a senior constitutional law professor over a slick businessman who evades taxes on purpose. The man won't even release his tax returns because it will destroy his chances.

We should note that Obama was never a "senior constitutional law professor".
FactCheck.org : Obama a Constitutional Law Professor?
There is also no credible evidence that Willard ever evaded income taxes.
(Note: There is a great legal distinction between "evade" & "avoid".)
Tax avoidance is a wonderful thing. Starve the beast!

 

[tytlyf]

For me, it's critical that we have a prez who knows what makes an economy tick when we're enduring one in decline relative to the developing world.
Willard has this experience in spades.

What experience does Willard have that shows he knows how to make the economy tick?

Since results are a function of so many other factors, I focus instead upon whether the candidate's agenda makes sense to me

What makes sense to you about Mitt's plan? Spending more and taxing less doesn't make much sense.

We should note that Obama was never a "senior constitutional law professor".
FactCheck.org : Obama a Constitutional Law Professor?

Ok, I used the wrong word. He was a senior constitutional law lecturer.

"Furthermore, Obama was not merely an "instructor" as Phil Singer stated. As a "senior lecturer," Obama was in good company: The six other faculty members with the title include the associate dean of the law school and Judge Richard Posner, who is widely considered to be one of the nation’s top legal theorists."

 

[Dirty Penguin]

For me, it's critical that we have a prez who knows what makes an economy tick when we're enduring one in decline relative to the developing world.
Willard has this experience in spades. Obama is utterly lacking, & it shows. But of course, this isn't the whole story.

While I can list plenty of Obama economic accomplishments I would like to know from you what accomplishments has Obama done that meet your standards.....

We face a big risk factor in the
likelihood of either getting us mired in continued or new economically devastating wars. The choice can be a murky one, & I see both as dangerous.

Romney has surrounded himself with "questionable" foreign policy advisers. 17 of the 24 are from the Bush administration including Dan Senor. Paul Ryan is out and about with Condaleeza Rice and Dick Cheney is fundraising for Romney. I might be a little more concerned about this than you are which is why from Monday night's foreign policy debate (Romney's Presidential Bear Hug Campaign) and the people on his administration means I can't vote for this man.....amongst a myriad of other reasons.

 

[tytlyf]

I've been thinking about this. A Romney presidency could create World War 3

 

[Revoltingest]

What experience does Willard have that shows he knows how to make the economy tick?
What makes sense to you about Mitt's plan? Spending more and taxing less doesn't make much sense.

Having been in business, particularly venture capital funding, he would have experience making the innumerable tough decisions, & living with the consequences.
Such hard won experience would illuminate which gov policies hurt & which would help. One who has never played the game (Obama) should not be making the rules.

"Furthermore, Obama was not merely an "instructor" as Phil Singer stated. As a "senior lecturer," Obama was in good company: The six other faculty members with the title include the associate dean of the law school and Judge Richard Posner, who is widely considered to be one of the nation’s top legal theorists."

I wouldn't argue that Obama's knowledge of constitutional law is diminished by not being a professor. But I do object to the media's efforts to puff up his accolades.
My legal differences with Obama are based upon different views on the Constitution's intent...not the extent of his knowledge.

 

[Alceste]

I've been thinking about this. A Romney presidency could create World War 3

You are probably right. This war Bibi wants to start with Iran world force a lot of people to take sides. Iran's not some isolated, lonely renegade state with no capacity for self-defense and no allies, like Iraq and Afghanistan. It's arguably the most influential state in the Arab world, with links to vast organizations with decades of experience with asymmetric warfare. And they have an army, and weapons, and common interests with Russia and China. If Romney is elected and Netanyahu is reelected, war with Iran is a certainty, and with conservatives in power in Canada and the UK, we'll all be dragged into it. The question is, who is Iran likely to drag into it?

 

[esmith]

I've been thinking about this. A Romney presidency could create World War 3

What makes you think this? As a "businessman" war is bad for business. What makes you think that Obama would not involve the US in another conflict? Is he really the "peace loving" person you make him out to be. The drone attacks he is utilizing has the consequences of "collateral damage". He has stated that "Iran will not get nuclear weapons". Is he lying or would he use military force to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons?

 

[Alceste]

What makes you think this? As a "businessman" war is bad for business. What makes you think that Obama would not involve the US in another conflict? He really is the "peace loving" person you make him out to be. The drone attacks he is utilizing has the consequences of "collateral damage". He has stated that "Iran will not get nuclear weapons". Is he lying or would he use military force to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons?

What are you talking about? War is great for business, if your business is making wars, like Romney's foreign policy advisors. He said on camera he believes businessmen have to "go where the money is" and "the money is in Washington". That extra two trillion dollars of your money and your grandchildren's money that he wants to spend on the military, even though the pentagon hasn't asked for it, that's going into the pockets of private businessmen. People who make weapons, armored vehicles, planes, boats, etc. In other words, his buddies. The folks he was talking to when he said you have to "go where the money is" to make a lot of money.

 

[esmith]

What are you talking about? War is great for business, if your business is making wars, like Romney's foreign policy advisors. He said on camera he believes businessmen have to "go where the money is" and "the money is in Washington". That extra two trillion dollars of your money and your grandchildren's money that he wants to spend on the military, even though the pentagon hasn't asked for it, that's going into the pockets of private businessmen. People who make weapons, armored vehicles, planes, boats, etc. In other words, his buddies. The folks he was talking to when he said you have to "go where the money is" to make a lot of money.

You still haven't answered the question. Is Obama really the peace loving person you think he is? Why wouldn't he not keep his promise to insure Iran doesn't get nukes, even if it means military action? Oh, I see,you don't believe he really believes what he says. Ok, whatever you believe is fine with me.