As you are no doubt aware -- Mitt Romney has been taking flack for his article in the New York Times from 2008 titled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt." But what was so bad about that?
Read the article here -- and see the ideas that he lays out.
His ideas are basically:
1) Bring labor costs under control
2) Bring in new management
3) Make long term investments for the future
4) Send GM through a "managed bankruptcy"
5) Dump brands that don't work
In fact in the debate last night -- President Obama claimed Romney was lying when he stated his plan all along was a "managed bankruptcy" with government assurances. From the op-ed:
"The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk."
"In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check"
But let's look at what happened despite the bailout:
1) GM sold off brands that were not working for them
2) GM brought in new management
3) GM underwent a managed Chapter 11 bankruptcy
4) GM negotiated to bring down labor costs and pension plans to make them more competitive
So..President Obama says Mitt Romney is a liar because he changed his original position from the op-ed -- but where is that change? And then GM underwent a managed bankruptcy anyway 7 months after Romney's article.
I don't see the difference here in Mitt Romney's opinion then and now -- and what actually occurred. What am I missing?
Read the article here -- and see the ideas that he lays out.
His ideas are basically:
1) Bring labor costs under control
2) Bring in new management
3) Make long term investments for the future
4) Send GM through a "managed bankruptcy"
5) Dump brands that don't work
In fact in the debate last night -- President Obama claimed Romney was lying when he stated his plan all along was a "managed bankruptcy" with government assurances. From the op-ed:
"The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk."
"In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check"
But let's look at what happened despite the bailout:
1) GM sold off brands that were not working for them
2) GM brought in new management
3) GM underwent a managed Chapter 11 bankruptcy
4) GM negotiated to bring down labor costs and pension plans to make them more competitive
So..President Obama says Mitt Romney is a liar because he changed his original position from the op-ed -- but where is that change? And then GM underwent a managed bankruptcy anyway 7 months after Romney's article.
I don't see the difference here in Mitt Romney's opinion then and now -- and what actually occurred. What am I missing?
