Originally posted by LeatherNLace
Originally posted by FlyersFan
Originally posted by buster2010
And Romney pretty much screwed himself with the let the car companies go bankrupt comment. .
He didn't say 'let the companies go bankrupt' .. he said to use restructuring that is available through the use of chapter 11 bankruptcy. That is
different from 'let the companies go bankrupt and liquidate'. One (the restructuring) keeps the companies in business and they are healthier .. the
other (liquidate) makes them go bye-bye.
Seeing your post, I took the time to look up Romney's "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" article and read it for myself. While reading the article, I read
something that stood out to me...
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. I believe Washington should raise energy
research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and
even through public-private collaboration.
The reason the above quote stood out to me is because this is exactly what Obama did and then Romney chose to attack Obama on this during the debates.
I'm not going to go find the transcript of the debate; but it went something like this... Romney: "blah, blah, blah....Solyndra...blah, blah,
blah....out of business...blah, blah, blah".
Anyway, I read the article and I encourage others to read it too.
Thank you for posting this op-ed...it was very instructive. I had not read it before.
First, what is written in this piece is exactly what Romney said during two of the debates, in response to Obama's claims that Romney's plan was to
shut down the auto industry. Reading this article now, I can clearly see just how fundamentally dishonest Obama's "attack" on Romney was.
The key difference between Obama and Romney on this issue is that Romney says that Governments should invest in education and scientific
research...thereby indirectly, over time, conferring technology development benefits than can be exploited by American industry - but should not
invest in technology-based companies directly. Romney says, don't try to pick the Corporate "winners and the losers".
In the article, he says that the energy research budget should go from $4 billion to $20 billion, a five-fold increase, but only amounting to an
additional $16 billion. On Solyndra alone (since you mentioned it) Obama gambled and lost over $500 million of the tax payer's money - and anyone
who understands the solar industry could have told Obama this company was not going to be able to fly (their tech was noncompetitive even before the
Chinese slashed PV prices).
Romney's position was that the Big 3 should go through a controlled bankruptcy process (this does not mean they go out of business...it means it
allows them to fend off creditors while they get reorganized). After they have got their ships righted, then
provide Federal Loan Guarantees
so that they can find the debt financing needed to implement the new strategies.
In other words, protect the Companies through a legal bankruptcy process...which will force them to deal with the internal and external problems that
got them to Chapter 11's door...and then give them some support. His position was that to simply write them a check, was only going to "feed them
for a day" - and would not force them to restructure.
How that equates to Romney advocating for the Auto industry to be simply cast adrift and allowed to completely fail is beyond me.
What it really is, is a very dishonest attempt to bamboozle the American public by making a false statement that would resonate with the vast
majority of Americans who do not understand the nuances associated with taking Companies through the Chapter 11 process - which is designed to keep
them in business, not the other way around.
In my opinion, Obama would have been much father ahead to have simply said that Romney had recommended a different course on the Auto industry...and
we will never know for sure if it would have worked or not...because Obama tackled the problem in another way - and these industries are healthier
today as a result.
Romney would then have been in the difficult position of having to argue against success. Instead, Obama took the low road, and left himself exposed
to criticism for having twisted his opponents words.