What is the most viewed story on The New York Times website right now?
It’s an Op-Ed piece from nearly four years ago, November 18 2008. The author is one Mitt Romney, who may regret the headline: Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.
The reason, of course, is that the piece came up in Monday night’s debate, followed by a long debate over What Mitt Meant.
Romney argued that he had written that the auto companies:
…can get government help and government guarantees, but they need to go through bankruptcy to get rid of excess cost and the debt burden that they’d — they’d built up.
This was followed by a lot of crosstalk and cross talk:
OBAMA: Governor Romney, that’s not what you said…(CROSSTALK)
OBAMA: Governor Romney, you did not…
ROMNEY: You can take a look at the op-ed…
(CROSSTALK)
OBAMA: You did not say that you would provide government help.
ROMNEY: I said that we would provide guarantees, and — and that was what was able to allow these companies to go through bankruptcy, to come out of bankruptcy. Under no circumstances would I do anything other than to help this industry get on its feet. And the idea that has been suggested that I would liquidate the industry, of course not. Of course not.
(CROSSTALK)
OBAMA: Let’s check the record.
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: That’s the height of silliness…
(CROSSTALK)
OBAMA: Let — let — let’s…
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: I have never said I would liquidate…
(CROSSTALK)
OBAM: …at the record.
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: …I would liquidate the industry.
(CROSSTALK)
OBAMA: Governor, the people in Detroit don’t forget.
A lot of fact-checkers have weighed in on what Romney actually wrote and on whether his idea of private but government-backed financing for Detroit (as opposed to Obama’s government loans) was possible when Detroit was sinking and finance was frozen, and they tend to agree with Obama on this one.
On the narrow question of whether Romney recommended any government help, FactCheck.org recognizes that he did:
In fact, Romney called for a “managed bankruptcy” that would include federal “guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing,” which qualifies as indirect government assistance by any definition. What Romney opposed was the direct federal aid Obama implemented.
Clearly, Romney wrote this:
But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.
And anyway, readers are checking the piece out for themselves.
I wish more voters would fact check what the two are saying. I find that a sitting President who Lies very, very bad and it now brings into question his entire tenure. I have been offended by his thinking that the American public is so ignorant and do not understand just how unethical and divisive that he and his administration are.
When someone can’t do the job they are removed from the job but when someone lies and is deceitful, trying to cover up their incompetence, they need to be more harshly penalized! Now that is a piece of legislation that needs to be enacted and this practice would come to an immediate halt.
#1 Posted by Roy, CJR on Wed 24 Oct 2012 at 12:11 PM
Who can really believe what u read the old sying believe half what u see nothing what u read. There all out for themselves
#2 Posted by sharon, CJR on Wed 24 Oct 2012 at 12:54 PM
I don't know where the comments from the first post are coming from. It sounds like he or she is operating on anger. To the point I am glad the Presidenent suggested to the people to fact check. Too many people make up their mind on emotions. We need to take responsibly to fact check from a reliable source. Romney is like trying to nail jello to the wall. In this case he wanted private financing with government backing. If he is the smart business man he claims he is, he would have known no private source was going to fund this
#3 Posted by Darla Rehmer, CJR on Wed 24 Oct 2012 at 01:26 PM
It's very unfortunate that Mitt didn't elaborate on what he wrote in the article. How about Obama trying to slam him for cutting R&D? Read the article, Mitt is suggesting the funding to be increased from $4B to $20B. Virtually everything in the article defies what Obama tried to hold Mitt at task for.
Obama HAS TO GO!!!!!!
#4 Posted by Ken, CJR on Wed 24 Oct 2012 at 01:30 PM
The President did not lie, he made sure that we had a major shareholding stake in GM. Had this been left to private enterprise the chances are that some others would have been getting richer by creaming of any guranteed monies and all workers and shareholder woukld have ben left holding the empty bag as usual.
#5 Posted by Drax, CJR on Wed 24 Oct 2012 at 01:35 PM
Yes you are right Roy everyone who intends to vote in this election should check out the facts but they should have been checking out the facts from day one. Soon as Mitt Romney deceided to run for President he has told lie after lie. Any jobs he create will be for the high class. Any taxes he cut will be for the rich. He will mess with Medicare where you get a couple of dollars and when that is gone you can deceided to buy food or medicine. He have no problem cutting jobs for teachers, firemen and policemen. He don't care about the USA he just want to be the first Mormon President. He also can watch his shares in the stocks he has in CHINA. If Mitt Romney becomes Pressident he gonna take this COUNTRY back to not only no rights for women but no rights for the poor. What kind of person would pay money to have a platform built so he can stand on it just to tell people that are fired. Oh i forgot HE like firing people. The truth is the republicans said the day President Obama became President they would do everything they could to make sure he didn't get a second term. BOTTOM LINE THEY DON'T WANT A BLACK PRESIDENT OR A PRESIDENT WHO WILL KEEP THEM FROM KEEP GETTING RICH AT THE EXPENSE OF THE POOR. He don't believe in helping the poor or the people who loses their jobs at no fault of their own. If you don't have a rich daddy then you are on your own.
#6 Posted by sandra jones, CJR on Wed 24 Oct 2012 at 02:12 PM
Fact checking 101.The president did the right thing. Look at Bane's record. Beef up the company. Borrow against it. Remove the profits and let it fold. If this had taken place in Detroit the auto industry along with the suppliers would have all failed which would have moved the deep recession into a depression if not for the nation then for Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Iowa.
#7 Posted by Willie, CJR on Wed 24 Oct 2012 at 02:13 PM
The fact is, there was absolutely no money available to borrow in order to keep the auto companies open for business. In order for Romney's suggestion to work, the companies needed to have the cash to pay their current bills for electricity, supplies etc. No such (pre bankruptcy )loan money was available so they woulod have had to close their doors before they could file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
#8 Posted by Scheier, CJR on Wed 24 Oct 2012 at 02:37 PM
God will have his say. I will do my best to be informed, but it is ultimately his decision.
#9 Posted by Tawny, CJR on Wed 24 Oct 2012 at 02:54 PM
Geeze, I thought you'd get into how Romney profited from the GM bailout:
http://www.thenation.com/article/170644/mitt-romneys-bailout-bonanza
Or how Romney's fortunes kinda relied on federal bailouts of both the Olympic Games and Bain.
#10 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 24 Oct 2012 at 03:02 PM
ROMMNEY FITS PERFECT WITH DONALD TRUMP. THEY ARE ALWAYS OFF TRACK WITH WHAT POLITICS IS ALL ABOUT. THINK ABOUT THE ECONOMY AND PEOPLE SUFFERING AND NOT YOUR INDIVIDUAL GAINS AND PROFITS FROM THE POOR.
GO OBAMA GO ALL THE WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AMERICA IS COMING BACK AFTER WE WERE LEFT IN A PIT HOLE BECAUSE OF TWO WARS AND OVER 3,000 SOLDIERS KILLED INCLUDING THE ONES WHO LOST THEIR LIVES AT THE TWIN TOWERS IN NEW-YORK, THE PENTAGON, AND ALSO THE PLANE CRASHES IN VIRGINIA. AMERICA WAKE UP HOW QUICK WE FORGET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GO OBAMA GO ALL THE WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#11 Posted by eve atlas, CJR on Wed 24 Oct 2012 at 03:07 PM
If anyone has any questions of what the GM restructure would have looked like under Romney, look no further than Reader's Digest.
http://www.lohud.com/article/99999999/NEWS02/110719001/Reader-s-Digest-s-golden-era-recalled-last-workers-leave
"The Wallaces died in the 1980s, and in 1990 the company, with a circulation still more than 16 million in the U.S., went public. Within days, said Frank Ronnenberg, who was the vice president of data processing, there was a meeting between executives and about 15 to 20 young MBAs representing investors who had bought stock in the initial public offering. They were there to talk about how the Digest was going to maintain quarterly profit growth.
As the 1990s wore on, the way the Wallaces did business began to be seen as quaint and old-fashioned. Where DeWitt Wallace would subsidize foreign editions that were losing money instead of closing them, the new leadership began launching reorganizations and cutting staff in waves of layoffs.
They also started changing the magazine, doing away with the condensed articles and adding features about celebrities.
"There's 100 magazines that do that better than the Digest," Thompson said.
One day after the company went public, Kelly remembered, employees were asked to clean out their work spaces by throwing out anything more then 5 years old. For her, that was the turning point.
"They weren't concerned with where the company came from," she said.
In 2004, a much smaller Digest sold its headquarters property in Chappaqua and took out a 20-year lease for part of the building. Then in 2007 an investment group led by Ripplewood Holdings took the company private. In 2009, the company filed for bankruptcy to reduce billions in debt, and the filing allowed the Digest to break its lease.
The last employees moved out this month. The company is still trying to remake itself with successful titles like Every Day with Rachael Ray and websites like Allrecipes.com, and many people who remember the old days hope it succeeds."
Welcome to Detroit.
#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 24 Oct 2012 at 03:13 PM
The facts are often forgotten by Mr. Romney. At the end of the day, politicians use rhetoric and I can understand that. I even can give Mr. Murdock thumbs up for standing up to his beliefs about abortion. But when a politician changes his or her convictions to win an election, that my friends is about character and integrity, and those you cannot take to the bank when discussing Willard Romney.
#13 Posted by callowaymc, CJR on Thu 25 Oct 2012 at 01:30 PM
Hey look! Another Ripplewood brand bites the dust:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/hostess-has-a-lot-of-debt-but-few-in-finance/
http://dealbreaker.com/2012/01/if-only-twinkies-maker-had-had-someone-whose-job-it-was-to-remember-not-to-go-bankrupt/#more-63917
Funny how all that's being talked about is the strike causing the liquidation and not the management. (Or the inability to change up the bakery products from crappy clog your heart twinkies to something healthy when it could have counted)
#14 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 16 Nov 2012 at 03:03 PM