Mitt Romney

I heard some of what he said on the radio this morning....interesting.

I too trust him.

We need to let them file bankruptcy first then the UAW contract would be null and void then give them the money with Mitt overseeing the process.

There is no fixing the industry as long as the UAW is involved.

Basically if you give them the bailout (as requested by the big three's top brass) you can kiss the American auto industry goodbye...

He said let em go bankrupt.

I think he wrote an op-ed.....I'll look for it.

I think he should be the head of all our finances -- secratary of treasury??

Found it - NYT yesterday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=1

Ive been thinking about the whole US automaker bailout thing, and the more I think on it the more it stinks bad. Has it ever occurred to anyone that perhaps in todays business climate we do not need that many options anymore? That we are just plain overbuilt in regard to how many different brands the consumer can support? With all the imports being sold here, Toyota, Kia, Hyundai, Honda, Nissan and all the others Im forgetting right now, it just may be to a point in the history of automaking where the USA Big 3 are old relics and need to pass into antiquity just like T-Rex and the Dodo bird.

There are reasons why these 3 all are in the shitter. Giving them money isnt going to change those reasons. Further, they have been charging us consumers out the ass for thier vehicles, and now they wanna get our tax dollars to bail them out also? I dont owe them Union assclowns anything. They are already making cars & trucks that are ridiculously high and its insane what they are charging. Most Americans have been simply mumbling to themselves about price and taking it up the pooper because the Big 3 have been using all manner of creative financing to help you get your ass into huge debt over a POS vehicle that isnt worth 1/3 of what they charge. And the typical lazy American, with thier maxed out Visa card, second mortgage doesnt say anything because they have allowed themselves to be brainwashed into thinking you need all those new vehicles with all the gadgetry and superflous crapola. Well guess what, you dont need that stuff. Look at the interior of a 1973 car, any brand, and look at what amenities were in there. You can get by with that just fine.

Let the ship sink and let capitalism do its job.

Yeah I wonder Mitt would say if there were a Michigan primary tomorrow

Good read...

A British Lesson on Auto Bailouts

IMO, the only reason the government should get involved is because these aren't normal times. Normally, GM would go Chapter 11, get DIP financing and reorganize itself. With credit being so tight that they can't borrow and the economy being so poor that they can't sell cars, they have no options. The only way they can go Chapter 11 is if the government does the DIP financing - and if they're going to do that, why put GM in a bad spot in the marketplace? Would you go out in these times and buy a car from a company that is likely to go away in a month or two? Not many other people will, either.

In a robust, growing economy, let GM do what everyone else does. In this economy, GM just doesn't have that option.

They will be back for more $'s in 8-12 months, why prolong the agony. Those mfuckers flew to Washington on private jets to beg for $'s, what makes you believe anything will change until they lose their jobs and throw the thugs out ( the union's)? Hey, but don't worry, Barack will save us.

Did I say that? and where, if so.

Because Barack and his thugs want to do away with secret ballots, therefore making it easier for companies to unionize and SENDING this country into a bigger tailspin than it already is. NOW DO YOU REALIZE WHY I BRING HIM IN?

What don't you understand, do you agree with lifting secret ballots? I'm not fascinated, just thought you were into transvestites, that's all.

No, you're also a racist.

hey fartbag, why?

It will in GMs case. GM would need at least 30 billion dollars in DIP financing, and they probably can't get it on the open market because they don't have nearly that much collateral; and once they declare bankruptcy it'll be hard to give their cars away. People see an automobile as a long term investment, and they're not going to buy a car that is made by a bankrupt company - if the company closes its doors, they're stuck with an Edsel, and the automobile market is pretty thin right now to begin with. That's why I say they might be able to make it work during times when credit is available and the economy is good, but they can't do it now.

GM is making car's no one wants, it's so simple.

Has nothing to do with people buying car's from a bankrupt company.

They're are making throw back car's today, that person who approved that project should be hung on national TV for all to see.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=3

Let Detroit Go Bankrupt

By MITT ROMNEY
Published: November 18, 2008


IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.

The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.

Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. 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 federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. 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.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was a candidate for this year’s Republican presidential nomination.

Do you honestly believe people in this country look at NEW automobile as a "long term investment"?

Really? Because everywhere I look, people are getting new cars every couple of years....seems pretty short term to me.

The only people I know that buy NEW cars as a long term investment are my grandparents, who purchase one new Ford truck every 15 years or so...and have done so since the 60's (they bought a 1969 Ford, a 1985 Ford, and a 1999 Ford). Everyone else that buys new cars (myself included) buy them knowing it's going to be a two year deal, then get another new car.

Used cars are a different story...

I guess it depends on what you mean by "long term", but I'm confident that people aren't going to buy a car from a company that's going out of business.

Then how did GM get to be the largest auto manufacturer in the world, and how did they manage to sell more cars per year than any other manufacturer in the world every single year for the last 77 consecutive years? And how did they sell 9.4 million cars world-wide last year? Sounds like your "common knowledge" needs a dose of reality check. Lots of "common" but not much "knowledge".