Interesting "Candidate-Agreement" site...

[Mallard]

IMO they should still be scared. The company has been a mess since 2007 and even with the bailout that the taxpayers still haven't been made whole on they were very mismanaged and ended up in bankruptcy.

 

 

 

 

Sounds like someone needs to "get tough with China" :gabe:

Don't forget that this "Key US Company" was owned by the Germans until ~2007. The mis-management of Chrysler started with them. When Cerberus took control they tried to stop the bleeding and they were changing all the product, but they just didn't have the time before the economy dropped out. Chrysler's bankruptcy was due to DIAMLER'S mis-management of the company. All the 2011 refreshed models that hit the market and have earned high marks are mostly Cerberus's work, not Fiat's. Although, Sergio has done a hell of a managing Chrysler.

 

Also, don't forget that Fiat was the ONLY company to step forward to take on Chrysler. Without Fiat's committment the company would have been liquidated.

 

I honestly don't care who anyone votes for, as long as they are voting for that person for the right reason's. That's why I like the link from the OP. If the person you plan to vote for is not the number one result from the survey, you should figure out why. Seeing total BS being fed to people, while they admit that they're feeding total BS, pisses me off. This all started for me a couple nights ago on Facebook with some people's political posts, and it just angers me as to why some people are supporting their candidate.

[o0n8]

http://imgs.isidewith.com/results-image/202575162.jpg

[TTQ B4U]

Also, don't forget that Fiat was the ONLY company to step forward to take on Chrysler. Without Fiat's committment the company would have been liquidated.

 

I honestly don't care who anyone votes for, as long as they are voting for that person for the right reason's. That's why I like the link from the OP. If the person you plan to vote for is not the number one result from the survey, you should figure out why. Seeing total BS being fed to people, while they admit that they're feeding total BS, pisses me off. This all started for me a couple nights ago on Facebook with some people's political posts, and it just angers me as to why some people are supporting their candidate.

 

Chrysler's been mis managed for decades. They were about to go belly up and took gov't taxpayer money back when I was a kid too. This time, the entire Chrysler debacle cost the tax payers $1.3B and even at the onset the whole auto bailout was estimated to ultimately be a big loss to the public. I blame the UAW for the issues that we are paying for and I support Mitt's view on handling unions. They put us in in a no win situation. That's what pisses me off and they really should be held to paying us back for many years to come.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/22/business/us-sheds-its-stake-in-chrysler.html

[Diamonds]

93% Romney

[Mallard]

Chrysler's been mis managed for decades. They were about to go belly up and took gov't taxpayer money back when I was a kid too. This time, the entire Chrysler debacle cost the tax payers $1.3B and even at the onset the whole auto bailout was estimated to ultimately be a big loss to the public. I blame the UAW for the issues that we are paying for and I support Mitt's view on handling unions. They put us in in a no win situation. That's what pisses me off and they really should be held to paying us back for many years to come.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/22/business/us-sheds-its-stake-in-chrysler.html

From your link,

 

The unpaid portion is on the balance sheet of the “old Chrysler” — a collection of unwanted assets being liquidated in bankruptcy.

 

In May, Chrysler repaid $7.6 billion to the American and Canadian governments, satisfying its full obligations to the countries.

 

The company has repaid ever dollar it was asked to and the unpaid portion is from the separate company created during the bankruptcy for the purpose of liquidating assets. This was an expected loss. It's akin to a large scale storage wars. We bought what was behind door number 1 and haven't been able to cover the cost with what could be sold off. Again, this was expected from the start. How much would the government have paid out in unemployment, food spamps, welfare, etc. if all those jobs were lost? How much in taxes have been collected from all of those workers wages that would have been lost? How much money have we gotten back from all the banks we gave much larger sums of money to?

 

I guess that's the difference between us. I don't see this as "the entire Chrysler debacle." While I don't think it's a good thing to need a government bailout, i think saving these company's was a very good thing for the economy and the gains outweigh the losses. The cascading effects of GM and Chrysler liquidating would have been drastic. Not only to unemployment and government assistance but it would have caused many suppliers to shut down, a lot more foreclosures, and the local economy (restaurants, catering, etc) would have taken a huge hit.

[TTQ B4U]

From your link,

 

The company has repaid ever dollar it was asked to and the unpaid portion is from the separate company created during the bankruptcy for the purpose of liquidating assets.

 

in a bankruptcy liquidation there's often far more debt than money received in a liquidation. I highly doubt the American Gov't broke even and as noted they didn't even expect to. The bad debt was likely rolled into the trillions Obama has racked up. Again, he was in a no lose situation. His plan all along was to try and spend his way out. If he gambled on the auto industry and lost, he didn't care and if he won, he'd be seen as a hero for gambling with taxpayer money. He's a master at catering to the masses of blue collar and poor and billing those in the middle class and wealthy while at the same time pushing debt onto the future kids and administrations.

 

 

This was an expected loss. It's akin to a large scale storage wars. We bought what was behind door number 1 and haven't been able to cover the cost with what could be sold off. Again, this was expected from the start.

 

I agree and as noted above, Obama doesn't care if he invests in a loss or racks up debt. That's how he's been running this country for his first term. Give tax breaks to look good, borrow from others and add to the debt to do it and know that in the end, the people he helps short term will vote him back in and are too dumb too think long term. He's doing the equiv. of racking up credit card debt and making minimum payments.

 

How much would the government have paid out in unemployment, food spamps, welfare, etc. if all those jobs were lost? How much in taxes have been collected from all of those workers wages that would have been lost? How much money have we gotten back from all the banks we gave much larger sums of money to?

 

America would have absorbed another 1M unemployed and the companies in the end would either bounce back or the industry need would have been fulfilled in the end by someone. If there is / was in fact a viable need for the company and what they produced then they would go on in one form or another. If not, then they shouldn't exist to begin with. The net result is we as taxpayers pay in one way or another.

 

The UAW is a powerful group and needs to go. They fear Romney because he would not be their friend. Even today, there's no reason the cost of building a car should be as high as it is. That high cost to consumers is just as impactful if not more so than all the bad shit that would have come from seeing the auto companies restructure on their own. If anything letting them hit bottom would be better in the end. Better for all of us. No way do I condone the $70+ per hour rates and labor costs associated with building cars. Uncalled for an a greater waste to us the consumers.

 

I guess that's the difference between us. I don't see this as "the entire Chrysler debacle." While I don't think it's a good thing to need a government bailout, i think saving these company's was a very good thing for the economy and the gains outweigh the losses.

 

You're right, we likely see it differently. IMO we don't need Chrylser products and the who debacle that the auto industry went through and to a certain level still is going through is due in part to their cost structure and lack of demand. I'm so glad GM Closed down as many of the lines as they did because honestly, it was their self created mess that they finally needed to clean up.

 

The cascading effects of GM and Chrysler liquidating would have been drastic. Not only to unemployment and government assistance but it would have caused many suppliers to shut down, a lot more foreclosures, and the local economy (restaurants, catering, etc) would have taken a huge hit.

 

That hit is needed like it or not. IMO all we've done is prolonged the inevitable. If these companies can't manage and run themselves effectively putting bandaids on them isn't going to help do anything long term. The difference in Obama and Romney is that Obama is a band aid fixer that is just simply putting off things until he's gone and claiming the short term win. Romney spent his entire career getting companies viable again and in cases where his group wasn't able to be effective, he let them run the economic course dealt to them. Obama believes in bigger gov't, more spending and incurring necessary losses for one group only to force those losses on others. He lowers the bar to allow some to survive vs encouraging raising the bar and real effective change.

 

Hey, in the end, those that support him will get exactly what they are voting for and those that don't and can afford otherwise will move on just the same. In a few years most will be on the gov't insurance with waiting to be served by less than the best and others will be paying more for the better quality care. But hey, at least everyone will be covered. We're fast on our way to a two group economy and he's going to continue to bring the lower portion of the middle class down and push the lower class upwards to meet and form a collective have-not group and the stronger yet smaller portion of the middle class will move up as normal and join the have's.

[Mallard]

in a bankruptcy liquidation there's often far more debt than money received in a liquidation. I highly doubt the American Gov't broke even and as noted they didn't even expect to. The bad debt was likely rolled into the trillions Obama has racked up.

 

My point was that GM and Chrysler re-paid every penny of the governement loans, which was their obligation. The ~1.2 Billion in losses referenced in that NYT article you posted is from the "old Chrysler," which was split from the company operating today for the purposes of liquidating assets that were not transferred to the new company.

 

Again, he was in a no lose situation.

 

Again, I don't see it that way. To me, large numbers of people, businesses, and the economy would have lost, in a very big way, if they were given no assistance. Don't forget that the bankruptcy process and reorganization GM and Chrysler went through is the same as Romney proposed in his "let GM go bankrupt" article. The only difference is he wanted the loans to come from private sources and not the governemet. The government would provide loan guarantees, but no actual funding. This route was attempted, but no bank stepped forward, as they were in the middle of being bailed out themselves, credit was tight for everyone, and no one was willing to accept that risk (monetarily or politically). President Bush gave them enough money to table the issue until after Obama took office.

 

Without the US government supplying the funding, these companies would have slipped into Ch 7. Sure, during liquidation there is a chance portions of each would live on under new ownership, but given the economic situation at the time where do you think that would come from? I'll give you an idea.

 

When GM and Chrysler went through Ch 11 they were each split in two; "new" and "old." The new company would reorgainize, while the old would hold all of the 'troubled' assets and begin liquidation. The "old" companies held auctions at some of their properties in order to sell off equipment, tools, scrap, office supplies, etc. Most of the heavy equipment used for production (stamping presses, weld cells, ...) was purchased by the Chinese and shipped across the Pacific. Also, the Chinese are very eager to enter the US automotive market.

 

So on one hand you chastize the current administration for 'allowing' American companies to be bought up by the Chinese, while the automotive bailouts most likely prevented exactly that from happening.

 

That's why I see the situation ans win-lose, not win-win. You could A) provide funding and prevent 1M people from joing the unemployment lines during an already tight market and poor economic situation, prevent a possible cascading effect of suppliers and competitors going under, and keeping two large American companies from being bought up by the Chinese. Or B) Not provide any assistance, allow them to be liquidated, put 1M out of work, resulting in additional suppliers going under due to lost business and unpaid debt, which then effects all other OEM's, shutting down production around the world. These 1M people default on their mortgage's, causing an even worse real estate market and more losses for the banks, and they would continue to leach of the system still today.

 

Keeping these people at work, paying their mortage's, and collecting taxes from them is better than having them live of government assistance and I have no doubt it's been a net gain for the government. And the government has actually gotten paid back for most of it, which can't be said for the much larger bank bailout.

 

America would have absorbed another 1M unemployed and the companies in the end would either bounce back or the industry need would have been fulfilled in the end by someone. If there is / was in fact a viable need for the company and what they produced then they would go on in one form or another. If not, then they shouldn't exist to begin with.

 

Again, I have to disagree. Today's automotive industry is heavily entwined with suppliers. The large, tier 1, suppliers that send parts to GM and Chrysler also supply most, if not all other brands around the world. When the shit hit the fan, the company I worked for had somewhere around $30M in outstanding debt from GM. When a company builds hundereds of thousands of vehicles per month and you supply parts on a Net 30 or Net 60 (sometimes more) pay schedule you can see how some companies could be left with huge losses. Some would be able to cope, others wouldn't. Small tier 2 or 3 shops would have the most difficult time.

 

 

Hey we agree on something.

 

They fear Romney because he would not be their friend.

 

I don't see the president having any impact on the UAW. Is Romney (or any president) going to sit across the table fromthe UAW when their contracts come up for renegotiation?

 

 

IMO we don't need Chrylser products and the who debacle that the auto industry went through and to a certain level still is going through is due in part to their cost structure and lack of demand.

 

Again, I disagree. Their poor sales and shitty product was due to the German management gutting the brands. Today, their sales are improving every quarter, their product is actually pretty good, and they have very little overhead compared to other companies. Their break-even point is much lower, which has allowed them to turn big profits on a fraction of the sales.

 

Hey, in the end, those that support him will get exactly what they are voting for and those that don't and can afford otherwise will move on just the same. In a few years most will be on the gov't insurance with waiting to be served by less than the best and others will be paying more for the better quality care. But hey, at least everyone will be covered.

The problem is, Romeny has flipped his position on so many issues in order to get the Republican nomination. He even changed his position on several issues between the first and third debate (NBC Nightly News even did a piece on this). Now he's openly lying to voters with his "Chrysler's sending jobs to China" ad's in a cheap ploy to try and win votes. I really don't know what he truely stands for other than saying what he needs to in order to win votes. Obama-care used Romney-care as a base, but when he did it it was good, for Obama it was bad. He's against gay marriage, but he believes one man can marry multiple women. He says he's against abortion now, but he wasn't previously. So far he just seems like a talking head that's spewing out the party line, and ended his governorship with a dreadfully low approval rating.

 

I'm sure you'll have a field day with that, but I am truthful when I say I really don't care WHO anyone votes for, as long as they are voting for that person for the right reasons. Obviously, I cannot see myself voting for Romeny since his policy's would have left my state and my industry in ruin, he continues to spread lies about the auto industry still today, and I just don't trust him due to his constant flip-flopping.

[SPL_Josh]

http://imgs.isidewith.com/results-image/204352540.jpg

[TTQ B4U]

My point was that GM and Chrysler re-paid every penny of the governement loans, which was their obligation. The ~1.2 Billion in losses referenced in that NYT article you posted is from the "old Chrysler," which was split from the company operating today for the purposes of liquidating assets that were not transferred to the new company.

 

Our gov't is still stuck with over $26B in potential losses due to the fact that it still owes quite a bit of stock in GM. So really, no they have not made themselves whole with the taxpayers. Obama recently declined GM's request to sell and relinquish control of that stock due to doing so would mean a loss and that won't happen under Obama. He'll let that loss hit the next guy and yet again, pass along the debt.

 

In terms of Chrysler, the US Treasury committed a total of $12.5 billion to Chrysler under TARP. You're correct that Chrysler will have returned more than $11.2 billion of that amount to taxpayers through principal repayments, interest, and cancelled commitments but the treasury never fully recovered the difference of $1.3 billion. They pursued the right to recover proceeds from the liquidation trust associated with the bankruptcy of Old Chrysler, but it did not nor did it expect a material recovery from those assets. Cliffs: We the taxpayers were fucked out of the $1.3B and ate it as part of as you say, the greater good of preventing further losses. Again, Obama business school 101.

 

Don't forget that the bankruptcy process and reorganization GM and Chrysler went through is the same as Romney proposed in his "let GM go bankrupt" article. The only difference is he wanted the loans to come from private sources and not the governemet. The government would provide loan guarantees, but no actual funding. This route was attempted, but no bank stepped forward, as they were in the middle of being bailed out themselves, credit was tight for everyone, and no one was willing to accept that risk (monetarily or politically). President Bush gave them enough money to table the issue until after Obama took office.

 

I didn't forget. I happen to agree with Romney that using taxpayer money was not the answer. We shouldn't have bailed out the banks who were a part of the mess they and Clinton's "American Dream and Homes for Everyone" BS program...nor should we be stuck with what we are today, which is $26B in GM Stock that isn't worth what we invested and the $1.3B loss we took on Chrysler. Both have still cost of plenty and will continue to do so, thus why we're still sucking ass in terms of getting the country back on it's feet drowning ourselves in $17T in debt.

 

Without the US government supplying the funding, these companies would have slipped into Ch 7. Sure, during liquidation there is a chance portions of each would live on under new ownership, but given the economic situation at the time where do you think that would come from? <snip>

So on one hand you chastize the current administration for 'allowing' American companies to be bought up by the Chinese, while the automotive bailouts most likely prevented exactly that from happening.

 

I said it before and it came true....Obama is just putting off the inevitable. The Italians bought Chrysler's so does it really matter if we saved them or not? You're correct I am blaming the current administration for letting the Chinese buy up everything, but bailing out the companies to prevent that from happening isn't the answer. Obama has to failed to do what he said he would and solve the real problems and underlying causes that are causing US Companies to struggle. Putting us into debt at an unprecedented rate of $1T per year with more to come with Obamacare, isn't the answer or helping.

 

Keeping these people at work, paying their mortage's, and collecting taxes from them is better than having them live of government assistance and I have no doubt it's been a net gain for the government. And the government has actually gotten paid back for most of it, which can't be said for the much larger bank bailout.

 

I wouldn't call it a gain. They mitigated their losses with no real fix for the underlying problem.

 

 

 

Again, I have to disagree. <snip>.....When a company builds hundereds of thousands of vehicles per month and you supply parts on a Net 30 or Net 60 (sometimes more) pay schedule you can see how some companies could be left with huge losses. Some would be able to cope, others wouldn't. Small tier 2 or 3 shops would have the most difficult time.

 

Again, some of the suppliers would have gone away but many would have struggled and likely ended up surviving with the Italian or Chinese or whoever else would have bought into GM and Chrylser. The Japanese and Koreans are already here and doing well and using many of these same suppliers.

 

In the end, GM and Chrysler did most of the damage to themselves. The UAW, $70hr+ line workers, Crazy pensions and more put them in this situation so yes, I do hope most all of them feel the pain we're going through and going forward hopefully will change their ways.

 

I don't see the president having any impact on the UAW. Is Romney (or any president) going to sit across the table fromthe UAW when their contracts come up for renegotiation?

 

He definitely has plans to force changes that will impact unions in ways that are 180* from Obama who is in tight with the Unions all over from the UAW to the teachers unions.

 

Again, I disagree. Their poor sales and shitty product was due to the German management gutting the brands. Today, their sales are improving every quarter, their product is actually pretty good, and they have very little overhead compared to other companies. Their break-even point is much lower, which has allowed them to turn big profits on a fraction of the sales.

 

Meh...... For the second quarter of 2012, Chrysler noted a net income of $436 million on net revenue of $16.8 billion. If they call that big profits, that's scary.

 

I really don't know what he truely stands for other than saying what he needs to in order to win votes. Obama-care used Romney-care as a base, but when he did it it was good, for Obama it was bad.

 

We can discuss said flip/flops in another thread, likely healthcare too. However, there' are significant differences between what Romney passed in MA and what Obama wants for the nation. I'll let you do the research before starting that thread.

 

He's against gay marriage, but he believes one man can marry multiple women. He says he's against abortion now, but he wasn't previously. So far he just seems like a talking head that's spewing out the party line, and ended his governorship with a dreadfully low approval rating.

 

Where do you find he supports Polygamy?

He's not saying he isn't against abortion, he isn't however going to make it a focus of his work as president. There I agree, social issues aren't what we need to be jerking around with.

 

I'm sure you'll have a field day with that, but I am truthful when I say I really don't care WHO anyone votes for, as long as they are voting for that person for the right reasons. Obviously, I cannot see myself voting for Romeny since his policy's would have left my state and my industry in ruin, he continues to spread lies about the auto industry still today, and I just don't trust him due to his constant flip-flopping.

 

The end will be interesting....and I'll leave the end for perhaps a four year form now marker. IMO if Obama is left in office, it's going to get much worse before it gets better. Hang on people......

[Mensan]

I think we can all agree with what this guy has to say:

 

[Mallard]

We can discuss said flip/flops in another thread, likely healthcare too. However, there' are significant differences between what Romney passed in MA and what Obama wants for the nation. I'll let you do the research before starting that thread.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/gohealth-infographic-obamacare-vs-romneycare-144100781.html

While similarities between the two plans are undeniable, the major differences show up in the details:

 

•ObamaCare requires companies with 50 or more full time employees to provide health insurance coverage, while RomneyCare sets a stricter minimum of 11 full time employees.

•One of the most talked about goals of ObamaCare is the provision designed to close the Medicare donut hole. Since Medicare is a federal program and not state-run, there obviously is no mention of the donut hole in RomneyCare.

•ObamaCare provides Medicaid to Americans earning less than 133 percent of the federal poverty level, while RomneyCare sets the cap at 150 percent to receive free health insurance.

•ObamaCare requires health insurers to spend 80 to 85 percent of premiums on medical care, while RomneyCare has no requirements for premium expenditures

 

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/fieldclinic/Obamacare-vs-Romneycare-Is-there-a-difference.html

Did Romneycare raise taxes? No, but the state didn’t need to. It covered the cost of reform with larger payments that it negotiated from the federal government for its Medicaid program.

 

Does Romneycare have an unelected board that tells people what kinds of health care they can have? It does. The Massachusetts Connector Authority serves as the state’s insurance exchange. It sets standards for the types of plans that may be sold, thereby determining the kind of access residents will have to health care services.

 

Is Obamacare any different? Not really.

 

It will extend coverage to 30 million more people, which will reduce the country’s rate of uninsurance by about half to roughly 8 percent. Not too different from Romneycare.

 

It does raise taxes in a number of ways, including new levies on tanning salons, medical devices, and high-end insurance policies. But, unlike Massachusetts, it doesn’t have a higher level of government to turn to for help, so it needs a new source of revenue to cover the cost.

 

It does let unelected officials determine what kind of insurance people can receive by setting standards for coverage under the state exchanges that will sell it. Just like Romneycare.

 

...

 

After all is said and done, these aspects of the plans are relatively minor, anyway. In their underlying structure, Obamacare and Romneycare are almost identical.

 

Both expand coverage in the same three ways. They reform the market for individual insurance by creating exchanges to sell it, subsidizing those with low incomes, and mandating that everyone maintain coverage in some form. They expand Medicaid to cover more people. And they penalize employers who don’t offer coverage to their workers.

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/romneycare-facts-and-falsehoods/

■The major components of the state and federal law are similar, but details vary. The federal law put a greater emphasis on cost-control measures, for instance. Massachusetts is just now tackling that.

■The state law was successful on one big goal: A little more than 98 percent of state residents now have insurance.

■Claims that the law is “bankrupting” the state are greatly exaggerated. Costs rose more quickly than expected in the first few years, but are now in line with what the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation had estimated.

■Small-business owners are perhaps the least happy stakeholders. Cheaper health plans for them through the state exchange haven’t materialized, as they hoped.

■Despite claims to the contrary, there’s no clear evidence that the law had an adverse effect on waiting times. In fact, 62 percent of physicians say it didn’t.

■Public support has been high. One poll found that 68.5 percent of nonelderly adults supported the law in 2006; 67 percent still do.

 

...

 

Both laws have an individual mandate, requiring persons to have insurance or pay a penalty; subsidies for low-income persons; an expansion of Medicaid; an exchange where individuals can buy insurance; and requirements for employers. But the national law puts a greater emphasis on small businesses by providing tax credits for those who want to offer insurance, and it includes many potential cost-control measures that Massachusetts lawmakers are only now tackling in separate legislation. Yes, those are largely experimental ideas, and as we’ve said before, it’s unclear whether the bundled payments and pilot projects President Obama touts will have a big impact on costs. But the national law included many steps aimed at decreasing the growth in health spending, while the law Romney signed purposefully did not.

 

You're right in that the health care debate could probably take up an entire thread. Are they really that different? Not from what I've seen. Are the differing details enough for him to pledge a complete repeal of the law (in favor of his own plan), if elected? I don't think so. And, again, Romney gives a mixed message on his own stance.

 

"Well of course I’m going to repeal Obamacare," Romney told the conservative radio host on Monday. "I’ve said that on the campaign trail, I think, every single day. Obamacare must be repealed –- in its entirety. It’s bad policy, it’s bad law, and frankly, a $2 trillion entitlement we don’t want and we certainly can’t afford. I have my own health care plan, and it does not require Obamacare to make our health care system work better. Obamacare is a disaster in my opinion, and has to be repealed entirely."

 

...

 

This, of course, is a different answer than the one Romney gave "Meet the Press" on Sunday, when he declared he is "not getting rid of all of health care reform," and that "there are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I'm going to put in place." The fairly abrupt turn in rhetoric has led to criticism that he's delivering a more moderate message to national audiences, while giving another to the conservative media.

 

 

 

 

He's not saying he isn't against abortion, he isn't however going to make it a focus of his work as president. There I agree, social issues aren't what we need to be jerking around with.

 

He's taken pretty much every possible position on the issue, including saying he would love to sign legislation and supports a Constitutional Amendment banning it.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/mitt-romneys-abortion-evolution/story?id=17443452

2002: 'I Will Preserve and Protect a Woman's Right to Choose'

 

2005: 'I Am Pro-Life'

 

2007: 'We Should Overturn Roe v. Wade'

He also said he would be "delighted" to sign a bill as president that would outlaw abortion, if there "was such a consensus in this country that we said we don't want to have abortion in this country at all, period."

 

2011: 'I Will Support Efforts to Prohibit Federal Funding for Any Organization Like Planned Parenthood'

"If I have the opportunity to serve as our nation's next president, I commit to doing everything in my power to cultivate, promote, and support a culture of life in America," Romney wrote in a National Review Op-Ed in June 2011.

 

While Romney said repeatedly that abortion laws should be left up to the states, he told Fox's Mike Huckabee in October 2011 that he "absolutely" supports a Constitutional amendment banning abortion.

 

2012: 'There's No Legislation With Regards to Abortion That I'm Familiar With That Would Become Part of My Agenda'

[\quote]

[TTQ B4U]

If you think Obamacare is going to offer a free lunch without costing more then you're sadly mistaken. I've worked the Medical Arena and Insurance arena for years and there are countless indications from both sides that the middle class and above are going to be paying for all the Obama subsidies for the lower income people of our nation.

 

Obamacare is going to require all insurance plans cover essential benefits so just one example...birth control. Fuck the idea that I should have to cover everyone's birth control. Bullshit to the fullest and yes we're going to be paying for it. Add in all the high-risk pools of people and yes, we're going to be paying for them too. Add in the fact that the young are going to be paying for the reduced costs of the old and yes, once again, we are going to be paying for that too.

 

Obamacare is forcing insurance co's to offer more benefits, spend more on health expenses and to subisidize the packages. Who's paying for all that? It's going to be passed down to middle class and above consumers. The back breaker will be pre-existing conditions. There will be no choice but to raise premiums to cover these previously excluded conditions. The individual mandate "taxes" or penalties aren't going to cover said costs. Once in full swing, every crack-head today will be flooding offices of doctors with their health issues and we'll be paying for it to be covered.

 

And if you think the average college student or lower income average person is going to contribute right from start they won't. In 2014 the penalty/tax is only $95...you're better off paying the fee than buying insurance. 2015 $325, same deal and even in 2016, $695....again, the vast majority of people who can't afford it won't buy it thus they won't be helping cover those costs. Instead those of us with decent incomes that can't afford to not pay because each of the above has an "or" xx% of your income will have to. So yes, our premiums will begin to rise fast. In the mean time, good luck to the insurance companies who will also not likely be able to survive covering their costs without the added lives paying in.

 

The dems voted to have a limit to costs for the elderly who use way more insurance than the young, thus their added expenditures will in turn be covered by the younger generations. Again, more fuel to the rising costs for them.

 

Back when Obama announced his plan he initially said we'd all be able to keep our existing plans and that's not possible because costs will skyrocket and even people noted that 80% of small businesses will likely drop their existing plans within the first 3 years. Again, I stand by the fact that most here on CR will be sucking from the tit of a Gov't run plan via a state exchange and limited to a lower class of doctors and options. Sure, everyone will have greater access, but it won't be better, it will be worse in terms of quality care. Don't believe me, ask any doctor....let Kirk chime in on this. I have 3 MD's in the family and they have all said that to take reimbursements under Obamacare will not be worth it and that they are better off moving to cash only or private plans of their own and make more off less patients. I lived in Toronto and saw/see it up there too. It won't be long before we pay their levels of taxes to cover the costs.

Interesting survey especially towards the end as related to accepting medicare: http://www.physiciansfoundation.org/uploads/default/Physicians_Foundation_2012_Biennial_Survey.pdf

 

No other system around has figured out how to pull off the BS Obamacare is slinging as the next great thing without passing on higher costs and worse care. Yep....I look forward to more Obama Trillions in Debt and all of the above. Oh joy....

Edited November 4, 2012 by TTQ B4U

[JuicedH22]

Democrat/liberal fiscal policy runs the economy into the ground. Period.

 

 

/no dissertation required.

[thorne]

http://imgs.isidewith.com/results-image/205430744.jpg

[Mallard]

I thought this was a different take on the auto bailout, which I had not heard before.

 

http://www.thenation.com/print/article/170644/mitt-romneys-bailout-bonanza

 

The high points:

 

Altogether, in direct and indirect payouts, the government padded these investors’ profits handsomely. The Treasury allowed GM to give Delphi at least $2.8 billion of funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to keep Delphi in business. GM also forgave $2.5 billion in debt owed to it by Delphi, and $2 billion due from Singer and company upon Delphi’s exit from Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The money GM forgave was effectively owed to the Treasury, which had by then become the majority owner of GM as a result of the bailout. Then there was the big one: the government’s Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation took over paying all of Delphi’s retiree pensions. The cost to the taxpayer: $5.6 billion. The bottom line: the hedge funds’ paydays were made possible by a generous donation of $12.9 billion from US taxpayers.

 

In Rattner’s memoir of the affair, Overhaul, he describes a closed-door meeting held in March 2009 to resolve Delphi’s fate. He writes that Delphi, now in the possession of its hedge fund creditors, told the Treasury and GM to hand over $350 million immediately, “because if you don’t, we’ll shut you down.” His explanation was corroborated by Delphi’s chief financial officer, John Sheehan, who said in a sworn deposition in July 2009 that the hedge fund debt holders backed up their threat with “an analysis of the cost to GM if Delphi were unwilling or unable to provide supply to GM,” forcing a “shutdown.” It would take “years and tens of billions” for GM to replace Delphi’s parts. At that bleak moment, GM had neither. The automaker had left the inventory of its steering column and other key components in Delphi’s hands. If Delphi laid siege to GM’s parts supply, the bailout would fail and GM would have to be liquidated or sold off—as would another Delphi dependent, Chrysler.

 

Rattner could not believe that Delphi’s management—now effectively under the hedge funders’ control—would “want to be perceived as holding GM hostage at such a precarious economic moment.” One Wall Street Journal analyst suggested that Singer was treating Delphi “like a third world country.” Rattner likened the subsidies demanded by Delphi’s debt holders to “extortion demands by the Barbary pirates.”

 

Romney has slammed the bailout as a payoff to the auto workers union. But that certainly wasn’t true for the bailout of Delphi. Once the hedge funders, including Singer—a deep-pocketed right-wing donor and activist who serves as chair of the conservative, anti-union Manhattan Institute—took control of the firm, they rid Delphi of every single one of its 25,200 unionized workers.

 

Of the twenty-nine Delphi plants operating in the United States when the hedge funders began buying up control, only four remain, with not a single union production worker. Romney’s “job creators” did create jobs—in China, where Delphi now produces the parts used by GM and other major automakers here and abroad. Delphi is now incorporated overseas, leaving the company with 5,000 employees in the United States (versus almost 100,000 abroad).

 

Gores, Delphi and UAW officials declined to respond to queries about the deal on the record, but the sworn deposition [1] by Delphi CFO Sheehan (confidential then, but later posted on Scribd.com) lets us in on the tense negotiations culminating in a twenty-hour showdown between Delphi, GM, the UAW, the Auto Task Force and the US pension agency, on the one hand, and Singer’s hedge fund group, on the other. Delphi said it would dump the Platinum deal if the hedge funds would agree to terms that would take care of all stakeholders, including the following stipulation: “Agree on plan structure to maximize job preservation.”

 

The hedge funders said no, since they had a billion-dollar ace up their sleeve. According to Sheehan, Singer and company’s controlling interest allowed them to force the bankruptcy judge to hold an auction for all of Delphi’s stock. The debt holders outbid the Michigan Man’s team, offering $3.5 billion. But it wasn’t $3.5 billion in cash: under the rules of Chapter 11 bankruptcy, debtors-in-possession may bid the face value of their bonds rather than their current market value, which at the time was significantly lower. Under the Platinum deal, Delphi would have had much more in real money for operations: $250 million in cash from Gores, another $250 million in credit, and $3.1 billion in “exit financing” from GM, all of it backed up by TARP. Still, under Chapter 11 rules, the Platinum bid was technically lower. And that’s how Singer’s funds—which included the Romneys’ investment—came to buy Delphi for the equivalent of only 67 cents a share.

 

Rattner and GM, embarrassingly outmaneuvered, tried to put a good face on it. As Rattner wrote in his memoir, “In truth we didn’t care who got Delphi as long as GM could extricate itself from the continual drain on its finances and assure itself of a reliable supply of parts.”

 

In their 2011 and 2012 Federal Financial Disclosure filing [2], Ann Romney’s trust lists “more than $1 million” invested with Elliott. This is the description for all of her big investments—the minimal disclosure required by law. (Had Romney kept the holding in his own name, he would have had to reveal if his investment with Singer had made more than $50 million.)

 

It is reasonable to assume that Singer treated the Romneys the same as his other investors, with a third of their portfolio invested in Delphi by the time of the 2011 initial public offering. This means that with an investment of at least $1 million, their smallest possible gain when Delphi went public would have been $10.2 million, plus another $10.2 million for each million handed to Singer—all gains made possible by the auto bailout.

 

...

 

But what if the Romneys invested a bit more with Singer: let’s say a mere 3 percent of their reported net worth, or 
$7.5 million? (After all, ABC News reported—and Romney didn’t deny—that he invested “a huge chunk of his vast wealth” with Singer.) Then their take from the auto bailout so far would reach a stunning $115 million.

 

The Romneys’ exact gain, however, remains nearly 
invisible—and untaxed—because Singer cashed out only a fragment of the windfall in 2011. And the Singer-led hedge funds have been able to keep almost all of Delphi’s profits untaxed 
by moving Delphi’s incorporation from Troy, Michigan, to the Isle of Jersey, a tax haven off the coast of France.

[TTQ B4U]

I thought this was a different take on the auto bailout, which I had not heard before.

 

http://www.thenation.com/print/article/170644/mitt-romneys-bailout-bonanza:

 

So a third party Equity Co. took over Delphi and the Fed gave them money to do their job and save Delphi. Ok. I follow. And the Fed did so with no provisions or terms related to keeping the jobs in the states so in the end if those jobs were outsourced, no one should really be surprised. Again, not the job of an Equity co. to worry about who's doing the work, but it is interesting the Fed subsidized them to get the job done with what appears to be at any cost. Ok, I follow that too.

 

Now the Fed/Dems gave this money to Elliot a known Republican supporter who then in turn got more investment money from Romney. Okay, I follow that too, Dems gave money to someone who was less than appreciative of them doing so and more appreciative to the Republicans and namely Romney who further funded their investment to save Delphi. I do like how Fortune calls Elliot (The Guy the Treasury hired to do this) as a vulture investor. Why, because he does what, negotiates deals from a position of strength and makes money? Yeah, how horrible. At least they hired a savvy guy.

 

So unlike the dems who used Federal money to "save" the auto industry and paid Elliot in hopes for him supporting them are trying to "spin" the fact that Romney also funded him but with his own checkbook? How's what he did any different other than this guy obviously prefers to support the republicans who gave less money? I follow that too....sounds like the dems got burned and aren't happy about it so they are trying to spin it as if Romney did something wrong. They aren't happy because they see a Republican who's betting on this deal working out and potentially making money from it. Damn this shit they call captialism!

 

The article then goes on to show again how more capital venture groups who support the republicans bought up more of the bad debt at pennies on the dollar and made huge profits over the course of the next couple years. What cracks me up is they spin this as "as courtesy of the US Taxpayer" ??? I'm confused, so the Fed can give money to a private equity company with no real strings attached to go save a key company that's part of the auto bailout yet they criticize them for making a shit ton of money in the process and then try and say somehow that because they did so with TARP money the gov't gave them it's wrong? WOW! Sounds to me like a serious case of gov't butt-hurt. If the gov't was so smart why didn't they just do all these things on their own with their own "smart" savvy financial minds?

 

One more time....so now that the equity firm got Delphi back in the black and had it trading well and in turn managed to effectively do their job and 4x their investment that too is being spun as wrong? So next GM who was effectively saved by the Treasury again, without obviously knowing how to control the beast they were funding forgave some money and the investors once again profited and all this was essentially something the gov't created and made possible. Sounds to me like the Govt fucked up big time and allowed some profits to be made without covering their own basis very well. Perhaps they learned how to structure deals and protection for future dealings that may be similar. I won't hold my breath though.

 

The "piracy" and strong arm tactics used by the Delphi fund managers sounds like they created the perfect storm and again, the Gov't didn't realize that when swimming with sharks that can win you will get bit if you have NO CLUE WTF you're doing. Key being NOT HAVING A FUCKING CLUE on what they are doing.

 

I laugh a how they call these equity companies and people "Romney's job creators" when in fact the gov't is the one that hired them in the first place. Romney didn't have anything to do with that decision. Those equity investors did their job and made money doing it. Hey, like it or not, this whole deal so far proves that the current administration has no idea how business is done nor how to effectively control the sharks they deployed to achieve said goals. Romney absolutely understands how it's done and stands a way better chance of not fucking it up like the Dems did. Obama rightfully really is to blame for those workers losing their pensions as his decision to bring in who he did and lack of agreements on how the deals were to have been done is with his administration.

 

I don't agree with all or how it all ended up but again, put someone in charge who hasn't a fucking clue and that's what you get. He put in the majority of the money and just because Mitt put in a few bucks doesn't means he's at all liable for what transpired. It wasn't his firm nor was he anything more than 1/12th the investor the gov't was. Mitt had no decision power at Bain during the sale of Delphi in 2009. In fact his severance package expired in 2009. Just because he was invested in Elliotts firm doesn't make him wrong. He's allowed to invest just like anyone else and again, the Fed gave that same firm the TARP Money and should have better outlined what they wanted the deals to look like if they knew some potentially bad things could have gone down.

 

Once again, it's a crime to know how to make money in the US and take advantage of all the legal rules in place and if Obama and company were going to indeed bailout the auto industry, yes, he did the American Business thing to do and got his piece of the pie. OMG how horrible. Again with this darn capitalism. You can't blame Romney. He wasn't President at that time. Perhaps he should have been? Or perhaps we should have put a President in place who knew what the hell he was doing and how the bailout money was to be used. Someone who knows how business is done.

 

Reason 1,234 to send Obama home.

Edited November 5, 2012 by TTQ B4U

[Ramsey]

im 95% gary

[Earl1647545488]

95% Romney here.

[Veritas]

Thankfully, the country is 100% Obama now... so all this crap can fade away.

[oh8sti]

Thankfully, the country is 100% Obama now... so all this crap can fade away.

 

I've never seen 100% of anything divided as much as our country is now.

[JuicedH22]

No shit!

 

 

And, um no, at "thankfully"