cameroncrazy1984: I think Romney really does believe in the Etch-A-Sketch thing. His programming doesn't allow him to understand that his words are still out there in full view of the public.

Or that not everyone has a memory of a goldfish.

sammyk: I just don't get it. This is such a losing issue for Rmoney. It only serves to highlight how Bain would have bankrupted GM and sold the pieces. Fark the poor saps that lost jobs and the communities that would have turned to just another rustbelt town with no hope. I also do not think for a second that if Bain handled the "rescue" of GM that they would be dumping the stock before a full recovery of GM.

But have at it....dumbarse

But it was his idea! Except for when it wasn't. Then it was a complete disaster that Obama created.

I came here to comment, but this ad I got distracted me.

Rapmaster2000: [img-cdn.mediaplex.com image 0x0]

I came here to comment, but this ad I got distracted me.

If only there was something you could get to block ads, some sort of ad blocking software.

Romney is the true socialist from which Obama gets all his ideas.

Romney says he would sell off the remaining U.S. shares in General Motors,
If the U.S. Treasury sold its remaining stake at GM's current share price, it would amount to a $16 billion loss on the $49.5 billion bailout

If your business experience is the only part of your resume you want to talk about, you just might not want to spout off about how you'd like to take a $16 billion dollar loss by selling a stock when you could wait for the price to go back up.

Karac: Romney says he would sell off the remaining U.S. shares in General Motors,
If the U.S. Treasury sold its remaining stake at GM's current share price, it would amount to a $16 billion loss on the $49.5 billion bailout

If your business experience is the only part of your resume you want to talk about, you just might not want to spout off about how you'd like to take a $16 billion dollar loss by selling a stock when you could wait for the price to go back up.

"The president is delaying the sale of the shares to try and avoid the story that the taxpayer took another loss," Romney told the Detroit News.

Are you farking kidding me? Mr. Private Equity, Mr. 'only paid in capital gains', is saying that because we haven't sold the stock yet, we already have taken a loss?

This is the most disingenuous I think I've ever seen Romney. We haven't taken a loss until we sell the damn thing, you numbskull.

King Something: Rapmaster2000: [img-cdn.mediaplex.com image 0x0]

I came here to comment, but this ad I got distracted me.

If only there was something you could get to block ads, some sort of ad blocking software.

You know how I know you are teh ghey?

"the government pushing too many cars that the market doesn't want, such as electric vehicles." fark the Romney campaign. That one sentence alone is retarded. Why doesn't he just say "American's love paying high gas prices!" Given the chance American's would seize the opportunity to kick the oil addiction, I don't care if your the leftiest leftist that ever did left or the just to the right of Attila the Hun. How out of touch is that asshat?

Romney's infamous op-ed Link on the auto bailout has been shamelessly twisted, deconstructed and deceptively regurgitated by the Obama campaign and his loyalists.

In their spin, it looks like this:

Romney wanted the automakers to go out of business, forcing thousands to the unemployment lines.

Truth is, Romney saw a way out for automakers - managed bankruptcy - that didn't have them beholding to, or owned by, the government. It also had the industry being forced to change its business model.

Obama's bailout went through and even at a $16 billion loss to the government it still is a bargain when compared with the rate of return on the rest of his stimulus spending.

Romney's dire predictions of doom for the industry under the bailout were long-term so it's hard to quantify if he was right or wrong.

Obama can take credit for the survival of the auto industry under his bailout but the way his people are attacking Romney is shadow politics as usual.

How dare the government not sell something that would be a loss when waiting a while would result in a gain.

King Something: Rapmaster2000: [img-cdn.mediaplex.com image 0x0]

I came here to comment, but this ad I got distracted me.

If only there was something you could get to block ads, some sort of ad blocking software.

I don't get all the mew mewing about ads. I don't even notice them unless it's an ass-shaking gif, and then it's a good thing.

Using ad-block is more about asserting nerd cred than anything else. It's so you can fool with someone's computer and say "You mean you don't use ad block? Pfft... amateur."

/yeah, i'm stereotyping

Rapmaster2000: Using ad-block is more about asserting nerd cred than anything else. It's so you can fool with someone's computer and say "You mean you don't use ad block? Pfft... amateur."

Cletus C.: Romney's infamous op-ed Link on the auto bailout has been shamelessly twisted, deconstructed and deceptively regurgitated by the Obama campaign and his loyalists.

In their spin, it looks like this:

Romney wanted the automakers to go out of business, forcing thousands to the unemployment lines.

Truth is, Romney saw a way out for automakers - managed bankruptcy - that didn't have them beholding to, or owned by, the government. It also had the industry being forced to change its business model.

Obama's bailout went through and even at a $16 billion loss to the government it still is a bargain when compared with the rate of return on the rest of his stimulus spending.

Romney's dire predictions of doom for the industry under the bailout were long-term so it's hard to quantify if he was right or wrong.

Obama can take credit for the survival of the auto industry under his bailout but the way his people are attacking Romney is shadow politics as usual.

The only spinning going on is that drivel you just posted. Though I must admit I admire your previous work with "Litte Miss Can't be Wrong" & "Two Princes"

LasersHurt: Cletus C.: Romney's infamous op-ed Link on the auto bailout has been shamelessly twisted, deconstructed and deceptively regurgitated by the Obama campaign and his loyalists.

In their spin, it looks like this:

Romney wanted the automakers to go out of business, forcing thousands to the unemployment lines.

Truth is, Romney saw a way out for automakers - managed bankruptcy - that didn't have them beholding to, or owned by, the government. It also had the industry being forced to change its business model.

Obama's bailout went through and even at a $16 billion loss to the government it still is a bargain when compared with the rate of return on the rest of his stimulus spending.

Romney's dire predictions of doom for the industry under the bailout were long-term so it's hard to quantify if he was right or wrong.

Obama can take credit for the survival of the auto industry under his bailout but the way his people are attacking Romney is shadow politics as usual.

God, you just hate reality, don't you?

Admittedly, some reality can be a bit hard to stomach.

Karac: Romney says he would sell off the remaining U.S. shares in General Motors,
If the U.S. Treasury sold its remaining stake at GM's current share price, it would amount to a $16 billion loss on the $49.5 billion bailout

If your business experience is the only part of your resume you want to talk about, you just might not want to spout off about how you'd like to take a $16 billion dollar loss by selling a stock when you could wait for the price to go back up.

Given what Rmoney actually said, I agree entirely. And in any event it probably makes the most sense to sit on it and hope for some ROI, but... the one caveat I can see would be weighing how much money was tied up in the investment, and do we count that as deficit-contributing funds? If so, are we paying more in interest at a certain point than we can hope to regain by a positive stock sale? Perhaps there's a point where we "lose the least" grand scale by selling before the price goes up because the net loss of continued and compounded interest erase the sale's gains.

To be clear, this is not what Rmoney said, but would have been how I imagine a business man might approach the argument were they capable in that field. It's just further proof that Mittens is about as good at business as he is at running for president. He relies on you presuming he should be there rather than earning or proving his place.

good job Romney, keep focusing on the issues that you lose on.

LasersHurt: Cletus C.: Romney's infamous op-ed Link on the auto bailout has been shamelessly twisted, deconstructed and deceptively regurgitated by the Obama campaign and his loyalists.

In their spin, it looks like this:

Romney wanted the automakers to go out of business, forcing thousands to the unemployment lines.

Truth is, Romney saw a way out for automakers - managed bankruptcy - that didn't have them beholding to, or owned by, the government. It also had the industry being forced to change its business model.

Obama's bailout went through and even at a $16 billion loss to the government it still is a bargain when compared with the rate of return on the rest of his stimulus spending.

Romney's dire predictions of doom for the industry under the bailout were long-term so it's hard to quantify if he was right or wrong.

Obama can take credit for the survival of the auto industry under his bailout but the way his people are attacking Romney is shadow politics as usual.

God, you just hate reality, don't you?

It's hilarious that people still think there was private bankruptcy financing available to GM.

Romney logic:

I supported the New England Patriots in the last Superbowl so I take credit for the NY Giants win.

Karac: Romney says he would sell off the remaining U.S. shares in General Motors,
If the U.S. Treasury sold its remaining stake at GM's current share price, it would amount to a $16 billion loss on the $49.5 billion bailout

If your business experience is the only part of your resume you want to talk about, you just might not want to spout off about how you'd like to take a $16 billion dollar loss by selling a stock when you could wait for the price to go back up.

Came to say this. Plus, he's saying Americans don't want better gas mileage. Is Romney deliberately trying to look bad, or is his software broken again?

Cletus C.:

I'll have what you're snorting.

qorkfiend: LasersHurt: Cletus C.: Romney's infamous op-ed Link on the auto bailout has been shamelessly twisted, deconstructed and deceptively regurgitated by the Obama campaign and his loyalists.

In their spin, it looks like this:

Romney wanted the automakers to go out of business, forcing thousands to the unemployment lines.

Truth is, Romney saw a way out for automakers - managed bankruptcy - that didn't have them beholding to, or owned by, the government. It also had the industry being forced to change its business model.

Obama's bailout went through and even at a $16 billion loss to the government it still is a bargain when compared with the rate of return on the rest of his stimulus spending.

Romney's dire predictions of doom for the industry under the bailout were long-term so it's hard to quantify if he was right or wrong.

Obama can take credit for the survival of the auto industry under his bailout but the way his people are attacking Romney is shadow politics as usual.

God, you just hate reality, don't you?

It's hilarious that people still think there was private bankruptcy financing available to GM.

Only in GOP fantasy land could GM secure financing to the tune of $50 billion in the largest credit crunch in 80 years.

And there are morons that legitimately believe Romney would make a good President. It actually pains me to think there exists people dumb enough to want to put him in the White House.

max_pooper:

And there are morons that legitimately believe Romney would make a good President. It actually pains me to think there exists people dumb enough to want to put him in the White House.

i don't think there are that many that legitimately believe that, they just want Obama out of office at all costs.

the way the primary played out is a testament to that.

I expected mor Li'l Jon or LMFAO.

Romney's still gonna lose Michigan.

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: I expected mor Li'l Jon or LMFAO.

Ahhhhhh
Girl look at that Romney!
Ahhhhhh
Girl look at that Romney!
Ahhhhhh
Girl look at that Romney!
He hates bailouts!

When he rides in his yacht, this is what he sees
Michigan has got the right height of trees
He's got hundreds in his pants and he ain't afraid to show it, show it, show it....

He's wealthy and he knows it!

Cletus C.: Romney's infamous op-ed Link on the auto bailout has been shamelessly twisted, deconstructed and deceptively regurgitated by the Obama campaign and his loyalists.

In their spin, it looks like this:

Romney wanted the automakers to go out of business, forcing thousands to the unemployment lines.

Truth is, Romney saw a way out for automakers - managed bankruptcy - that didn't have them beholding to, or owned by, the government. It also had the industry being forced to change its business model.

Obama's bailout went through and even at a $16 billion loss to the government it still is a bargain when compared with the rate of return on the rest of his stimulus spending.

Romney's dire predictions of doom for the industry under the bailout were long-term so it's hard to quantify if he was right or wrong.

Obama can take credit for the survival of the auto industry under his bailout but the way his people are attacking Romney is shadow politics as usual.

Who besides the federal government had both the money and the desire to take on GM's debt?

max_pooper: qorkfiend: LasersHurt:
Only in GOP fantasy land could GM secure financing to the tune of $50 billion in the largest credit crunch in 80 years.

And there are morons that legitimately believe Romney would make a good President. It actually pains me to think there exists people dumb enough to want to put him in the White House.

The availability of the financing is a legitimate question. It may not have happened. Some form of government-backed guarantees maybe?

Anyway, your dogmaic trench will become a bitter, lonely place where your ulcers will fester and your zest for life fade away like Jack Black's career if you don't watch it.

Karac: Cletus C.: Romney's infamous op-ed Link on the auto bailout has been shamelessly twisted, deconstructed and deceptively regurgitated by the Obama campaign and his loyalists.

In their spin, it looks like this:

Romney wanted the automakers to go out of business, forcing thousands to the unemployment lines.

Truth is, Romney saw a way out for automakers - managed bankruptcy - that didn't have them beholding to, or owned by, the government. It also had the industry being forced to change its business model.

Obama's bailout went through and even at a $16 billion loss to the government it still is a bargain when compared with the rate of return on the rest of his stimulus spending.

Romney's dire predictions of doom for the industry under the bailout were long-term so it's hard to quantify if he was right or wrong.

Obama can take credit for the survival of the auto industry under his bailout but the way his people are attacking Romney is shadow politics as usual.

Who besides the federal government had both the money and the desire to take on GM's debt?

According to the GM execs their at the time that otherwise support Romney? There was absolutely no one besides the feds.

Leo Bloom's Freakout: Mayhem of the Black Underclass: I expected mor Li'l Jon or LMFAO.

Ahhhhhh
Girl look at that Romney!
Ahhhhhh
Girl look at that Romney!
Ahhhhhh
Girl look at that Romney!
He hates bailouts!

When he rides in his yacht, this is what he sees
Michigan has got the right height of trees
He's got hundreds in his pants and he ain't afraid to show it, show it, show it....

He's wealthy and he knows it!

Karac: Romney says he would sell off the remaining U.S. shares in General Motors,
If the U.S. Treasury sold its remaining stake at GM's current share price, it would amount to a $16 billion loss on the $49.5 billion bailout

If your business experience is the only part of your resume you want to talk about, you just might not want to spout off about how you'd like to take a $16 billion dollar loss by selling a stock when you could wait for the price to go back up.

Yeah! Close your eyes and hope the price goes up so you won't have to admit a loss. That's a great idea.

/the price can go down too, you know

Cletus C.: Some form of government-backed guarantees maybe?

Socialize the risk, privatize the profit? No, thanks. With government loan guarantees, who's on the hook if things go bad? The taxpayer. Who gets the benefits if things go well? JP Morgan Chase.

LarryDan43: Romney is the true socialist from which Obama gets all his ideas.

Then why is it that Obama is a bad President?

Debeo Summa Credo: Karac: Romney says he would sell off the remaining U.S. shares in General Motors,
If the U.S. Treasury sold its remaining stake at GM's current share price, it would amount to a $16 billion loss on the $49.5 billion bailout

If your business experience is the only part of your resume you want to talk about, you just might not want to spout off about how you'd like to take a $16 billion dollar loss by selling a stock when you could wait for the price to go back up.

Yeah! Close your eyes and hope the price goes up so you won't have to admit a loss. That's a great idea.

/the price can go down too, you know

If the price goes down, then just have the Treasury Department start charging GM management fees until we make back our initial investment.

Gyrfalcon: LarryDan43: Romney is the true socialist from which Obama gets all his ideas.

Then why is it that Obama is a bad President?

Stealing ideas and putting them to work are vastly different. When Romney wins we will see some real uncompromising socialism.

So wise businessman Romney wants to sell for a loss? This shows how business savy he really is.

Karac: Romney says he would sell off the remaining U.S. shares in General Motors,
If the U.S. Treasury sold its remaining stake at GM's current share price, it would amount to a $16 billion loss on the $49.5 billion bailout

If your business experience is the only part of your resume you want to talk about, you just might not want to spout off about how you'd like to take a $16 billion dollar loss by selling a stock when you could wait for the price to go back up.

He'd do it just to "win" a victory over a democrat....the GOP doesn't care about the country they just want to win an argument. It's really annoying because the whenever anyone else argues with them they are handicapped by having to make sense.

Cletus C.: max_pooper: qorkfiend: LasersHurt:
Only in GOP fantasy land could GM secure financing to the tune of $50 billion in the largest credit crunch in 80 years.

And there are morons that legitimately believe Romney would make a good President. It actually pains me to think there exists people dumb enough to want to put him in the White House.

The availability of the financing is a legitimate question. It may not have happened. Some form of government-backed guarantees maybe?

Anyway, your dogmaic trench will become a bitter, lonely place where your ulcers will fester and your zest for life fade away like Jack Black's career if you don't watch it.

It may very well be a legitimate question but it was answered years ago. Only morons keeps asking it in an partisan attempt to rewrite history.

There was no financing available. None. The only entity capable of providing the resources to keep GM and Chrysler from closing up shop was the federal government.

Cletus C.: The availability of the financing is a legitimate question. It may not have happened. Some form of government-backed guarantees maybe?

I'm curious (actually curious, not using that phrasing as an argument tactic), what is the important difference between the government-backed guarantee and what the government did? It sounds like in both cases the government is putting up the money since private companies weren't willing to, and in both cases there's a repayment plan. Does having the private firm involved make a big difference that I'm not seeing?

FlashHarry: Cletus C.: Truth is, Romney saw a way out for automakers - managed bankruptcy - that didn't have them beholding to, or owned by, the government. It also had the industry being forced to change its business model.

ok, let's try this one more time:

THERE WAS NO PRIVATE CREDIT TO FINANCE A MANAGED BANKRUPTCY IN 2008. ROMNEY'S APPROACH WOULD HAVE NECESSITATED CHAPTER 7 LIQUIDATION, NOT CHAPTER 11 REORGANIZATION.

Said liquidation (of both GM and Chrysler) would probably have looked something like this:

1. Jeep would be sold to somebody, probably Toyota or Volkswagen.
2. GMC/Chevy's large SUV/pickup lines would be sold to somebody, probably a private equity group, hedge fund, or the like.
3. Corvette would be sold to somebody, probably a similiar but different group.
4. Everything else would be shut down. This would result in the layoffs of hundreds of thousands of people (if you include parts makers and dealers which would close as well, as well as people who, say, ran businesses whose main customers worked for any of the above).
5. The land, patents, and trademarks would be sold to the highest bidder. This probably would result in Chinese made "Dodges" and "Pontiacs" and "Cadillacs" arriving on our shores by now.
6. All the remaining companies (Ford and the foreign companies) that have plants in the US would suffer severe production disruption and higher costs due to the parts makers all going bankrupt at the same time due to 50% of their business disappearing overnight.
7. Due to higher costs due to #6 and the disappearance of a lot of competition, all the remaining automakers would raise prices and/or cheapen their product. The Chinese automakers would have an opportunity to sell their crap here for the first time.
8. The nationwide unemployment rate would be at least a full percentage point higher than it is in our world where the automakers were bailed out.

Geotpf: FlashHarry: Cletus C.: Truth is, Romney saw a way out for automakers - managed bankruptcy - that didn't have them beholding to, or owned by, the government. It also had the industry being forced to change its business model.

ok, let's try this one more time:

THERE WAS NO PRIVATE CREDIT TO FINANCE A MANAGED BANKRUPTCY IN 2008. ROMNEY'S APPROACH WOULD HAVE NECESSITATED CHAPTER 7 LIQUIDATION, NOT CHAPTER 11 REORGANIZATION.

Said liquidation (of both GM and Chrysler) would probably have looked something like this:

1. Jeep would be sold to somebody, probably Toyota or Volkswagen.
2. GMC/Chevy's large SUV/pickup lines would be sold to somebody, probably a private equity group, hedge fund, or the like.
3. Corvette would be sold to somebody, probably a similiar but different group.
4. Everything else would be shut down. This would result in the layoffs of hundreds of thousands of people (if you include parts makers and dealers which would close as well, as well as people who, say, ran businesses whose main customers worked for any of the above).
5. The land, patents, and trademarks would be sold to the highest bidder. This probably would result in Chinese made "Dodges" and "Pontiacs" and "Cadillacs" arriving on our shores by now.
6. All the remaining companies (Ford and the foreign companies) that have plants in the US would suffer severe production disruption and higher costs due to the parts makers all going bankrupt at the same time due to 50% of their business disappearing overnight.
7. Due to higher costs due to #6 and the disappearance of a lot of competition, all the remaining automakers would raise prices and/or cheapen their product. The Chinese automakers would have an opportunity to sell their crap here for the first time.
8. The nationwide unemployment rate would be at least a full percentage point higher than it is in our world where the automakers were bailed out.

Assuming liquidation, which was not all what Romney was proposing. So, assume a meteor as well.

Stefanwulf: Cletus C.: The availability of the financing is a legitimate question. It may not have happened. Some form of government-backed guarantees maybe?

I'm curious (actually curious, not using that phrasing as an argument tactic), what is the important difference between the government-backed guarantee and what the government did? It sounds like in both cases the government is putting up the money since private companies weren't willing to, and in both cases there's a repayment plan. Does having the private firm involved make a big difference that I'm not seeing?

The government would not have put up any money. But would have been exposed if the automakers defaulted on their loans.

The lenders, not being the government, likely would have required a business plan from the automakers, which likely would have required reopening collective bargaining agreements and far more concessions from the unions.

Going the government way went much easier on both the companies and union workers but thus far has resulted in a $7 billion government write-off on the bailout with about another $37 billion outstanding. So, the profitability of the companies since the bailout really should be balanced against that write-off and continued debt.

But overall, it was a very unstable time and the auto industry needed help badly. Obama deserves credit for continuing the bailout that began under Bush, using TARP funds.

Given Romney's record, I'm tempted to vote for him as the more liberal candidate. Then I remember that we need veto power to stop the TeaBaggers and bible pounders that seem to think penis goes where legislation is more important than passing a budget or fixing the economy.

Stefanwulf: Does having the private firm involved make a big difference that I'm not seeing?

Government loan guarantees privatize the profit and socialize the risk. If the government backs the loans and the plan doesn't work out, the taxpayers are on the hook for those loans. If the government backs the loans and the plan works, the taxpayers get nothing.

propasaurus: Translation: 'I got my ass handed to me on my regurgitated GOP talking points, so I'm going to shift the goalposts and try to spin this into a Bush win.

Okey-dokey then. We'll just declare all that is good and righteous the winner and move along.

Game over, man. Game over.

Cletus C.: Stefanwulf: Cletus C.: The availability of the financing is a legitimate question. It may not have happened. Some form of government-backed guarantees maybe?

I'm curious (actually curious, not using that phrasing as an argument tactic), what is the important difference between the government-backed guarantee and what the government did? It sounds like in both cases the government is putting up the money since private companies weren't willing to, and in both cases there's a repayment plan. Does having the private firm involved make a big difference that I'm not seeing?

The government would not have put up any money. But would have been exposed if the automakers defaulted on their loans.

The lenders, not being the government, likely would have required a business plan from the automakers, which likely would have required reopening collective bargaining agreements and far more concessions from the unions.

Going the government way went much easier on both the companies and union workers but thus far has resulted in a $7 billion government write-off on the bailout with about another $37 billion outstanding. So, the profitability of the companies since the bailout really should be balanced against that write-off and continued debt.

But overall, it was a very unstable time and the auto industry needed help badly. Obama deserves credit for continuing the bailout that began under Bush, using TARP funds.

one of the concessions would have been terminating the pension plans in bankruptcy, with the PBGC taking over the pensions of GM and Chrysler

the widely held view in financial circles was that the PBGC would have been unable to absorb the losses (even before this is was operating at a $30 billion deficit, even with haircuts the deficit would have doubled)

guess who is liable when the PBGC needs a bailout? oh yes, the taxpayer.

but you see, that didn't happen

oh, and here is a link for the PBGC's problems

Link

So based on what quorkfiend and Cletus C are saying, would it be fair to characterize these proposed government-backed loans as equivalent to the financial companies loaning the government the money needed to finance the auto industry, in exchange for the ability to set the terms and keep any profit that might come out of it?

It seems that the loans fail, the government pays the same amount, so I'm not sure it mitigates risk. Rather, the government-backed loans would have saved the government the time-value of the loan money in case of a default, in exchange for the profits in case of a full repayment. Is this sounding accurate to both of you?

and even with a guarantee, its unknown where the money would have come from

I guess no one remembers that GE, with its AAA rating, needed $139 billion in loan guarantees in 2008

Link

Stefanwulf: So based on what quorkfiend and Cletus C are saying, would it be fair to characterize these proposed government-backed loans as equivalent to the financial companies loaning the government the money needed to finance the auto industry, in exchange for the ability to set the terms and keep any profit that might come out of it?

It seems that the loans fail, the government pays the same amount, so I'm not sure it mitigates risk. Rather, the government-backed loans would have saved the government the time-value of the loan money in case of a default, in exchange for the profits in case of a full repayment. Is this sounding accurate to both of you?

My head hurts.

Simply use the Solyndra model.

You want to talk about goalposts, propasaurus? You can't even find those goalposts.

Stefanwulf: proposed government-backed loans as equivalent to the financial companies loaning the government the money needed to finance the auto industry, in exchange for the ability to set the terms and keep any profit that might come out of it?

I think this is slightly backwards; the loan guarantees are to encourage the lenders to make a loan they might deem too risky otherwise.

Cletus C.: Stefanwulf: So based on what quorkfiend and Cletus C are saying, would it be fair to characterize these proposed government-backed loans as equivalent to the financial companies loaning the government the money needed to finance the auto industry, in exchange for the ability to set the terms and keep any profit that might come out of it?

It seems that the loans fail, the government pays the same amount, so I'm not sure it mitigates risk. Rather, the government-backed loans would have saved the government the time-value of the loan money in case of a default, in exchange for the profits in case of a full repayment. Is this sounding accurate to both of you?

My head hurts.

Simply use the Solyndra model.

You want to talk about goalposts, propasaurus? You can't even find those goalposts.

so now you're attempting to change the subject?

how cute.

Cletus C.: Stefanwulf: So based on what quorkfiend and Cletus C are saying, would it be fair to characterize these proposed government-backed loans as equivalent to the financial companies loaning the government the money needed to finance the auto industry, in exchange for the ability to set the terms and keep any profit that might come out of it?

It seems that the loans fail, the government pays the same amount, so I'm not sure it mitigates risk. Rather, the government-backed loans would have saved the government the time-value of the loan money in case of a default, in exchange for the profits in case of a full repayment. Is this sounding accurate to both of you?

My head hurts.

Simply use the Solyndra model.

You want to talk about goalposts, propasaurus? You can't even find those goalposts.

The Solyndra model?

qorkfiend: Stefanwulf: proposed government-backed loans as equivalent to the financial companies loaning the government the money needed to finance the auto industry, in exchange for the ability to set the terms and keep any profit that might come out of it?

I think this is slightly backwards; the loan guarantees are to encourage the lenders to make a loan they might deem too risky otherwise.

you are correct in where the money goes, where as Stefanwulf is correct as to who would set the terms and collect the profit.

lenders transfer all risk to the taxpayer, the companies transfer their pension liabilities to the taxpayer, and all potential profit goes to the lenders.

this is preferable to a $16 billion paper loss on GM for the taxpayer? a potential loss that has shrunk by $8 billion since November?

Link

LarryDan43: Gyrfalcon: LarryDan43: Romney is the true socialist from which Obama gets all his ideas.

Then why is it that Obama is a bad President?

Stealing ideas and putting them to work are vastly different. When Romney wins we will see some real uncompromising socialism.

HAVING ideas and putting them to work are also vastly different. Rmoney hasn't yet done anything to convince me he's a better president.

GM should have gone through bankruptcey court, re-orged and been fine. We would have saved $60B. Obama just bailed out the unions. Someone needs to clean up his mess.

Porsche914: Someone needs to clean up his mess.

/there are armed and there are victims

urban.derelict: Porsche914: Someone needs to clean up his mess.
[lh6.googleusercontent.com image 640x532]
/there are armed and there are victims

Cletus C.: Romney's infamous op-ed Link on the auto bailout has been shamelessly twisted, deconstructed and deceptively regurgitated by the Obama campaign and his loyalists.

From that article:

I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research - on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like - that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others.

Hey, waitafugginminute, isn't that zOMG SOOOOOOOOCIALISM?!

Geotpf: FlashHarry: Cletus C.: Truth is, Romney saw a way out for automakers - managed bankruptcy - that didn't have them beholding to, or owned by, the government. It also had the industry being forced to change its business model.

ok, let's try this one more time:

THERE WAS NO PRIVATE CREDIT TO FINANCE A MANAGED BANKRUPTCY IN 2008. ROMNEY'S APPROACH WOULD HAVE NECESSITATED CHAPTER 7 LIQUIDATION, NOT CHAPTER 11 REORGANIZATION.

Said liquidation (of both GM and Chrysler) would probably have looked something like this:

1. Jeep would be sold to somebody, probably Toyota or Volkswagen.
2. GMC/Chevy's large SUV/pickup lines would be sold to somebody, probably a private equity group, hedge fund, or the like.
3. Corvette would be sold to somebody, probably a similiar but different group.
4. Everything else would be shut down. This would result in the layoffs of hundreds of thousands of people (if you include parts makers and dealers which would close as well, as well as people who, say, ran businesses whose main customers worked for any of the above).
5. The land, patents, and trademarks would be sold to the highest bidder. This probably would result in Chinese made "Dodges" and "Pontiacs" and "Cadillacs" arriving on our shores by now.
6. All the remaining companies (Ford and the foreign companies) that have plants in the US would suffer severe production disruption and higher costs due to the parts makers all going bankrupt at the same time due to 50% of their business disappearing overnight.
7. Due to higher costs due to #6 and the disappearance of a lot of competition, all the remaining automakers would raise prices and/or cheapen their product. The Chinese automakers would have an opportunity to sell their crap here for the first time.
8. The nationwide unemployment rate would be at least a full percentage point higher than it is in our world where the automakers were bailed out.

How did Ford motor company survive?