Governing through Reason
Republican Convention: Day 4
Tonight’s the night. (Apologies to Neil Young.)
Mitt Romney was a working swain
He used to fire to Economize Bain.
A sparkle was in his eye
‘Cuz Romination was in his hands.
His father, George Romney, never did it, though he came close in 1968. Tonight, former Massachusetts Governor Willard “Mitt” Romney accepts the Republican Party’s nomination to be their candidate for President of the United States of America.
Leading up to that, there’s a Special Mystery Guest (according to FOX News, that will be Clint Eastwood), sandwiched between Taylor Hicks and Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL). Hicks clearly “built it himself” having won fame on a rigged talent contest.
Like New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice did earlier this week, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush will lay down his marker for the 2016 (or 2020) Republican Presidential nomination. The grandson of former Planned Parenthood treasurer and Nazi sympathizer Prescott Bush certainly “built it himself” without access to the family’s connections or oil money, just like his brother, George W., who built the Texas Rangers (and their stadium) himself. Jeb’s father, President George H.W. Bush, was born on third base (convinced he hit a triple) so he bought W a baseball team. A little-known fact about President George W. Bush is that he played all nine positions on the Rangers, outpitching Nolan Ryan, and far outstripping his father’s ability to “build it himself”.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who built the Capitol building himself using well-paid non-union labor, will also speak.
Here’s the rundown for tonight. Come join us and make comments as the night moves to its inevitable Rominatory conclusion.
7:00 PM EDT
- Representative Connie Mack, IV (R-Fort Myers, FL)
- Video on the Reagan Legacy
- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Callista Gingrich
- Craig Romney
8:00 PM EDT
- Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush
- Romney campaign chairman Bob White
- Grant Bennett
- Tom Stemberg
9:00 PM EDT
- Former Massachusetts Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey
- Former Massachusetts Secretary of Workforce Jane Edmonds
- Olympians Michael Eruzione, Derek Parra and Kim Rhode
10:00 PM EDT
- Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL)
- Mitt Romney
Related articles
- Jeb Bush To Republicans: Stop Being Stupid On Immigration (outsidethebeltway.com)
- Jeb Bush chides Republicans to stop ‘acting stupid’ with Hispanic voters (mcclatchydc.com)
- Clint Eastwood To Speak At Republican Convention on Thursday: Report (deadline.com)
- Mitt’s choice: Dis Marco Rubio in primetime, or let Jeb Bush give Ann Romney RNC speaking slot? (miamiherald.typepad.com)
- GOPers to Mitt: Avoid immigration (politico.com)
- As FBI and questions swirl, Marco Rubio keeps distance from “Nixonian” pal David Rivera (miamiherald.typepad.com)
- Final Night of the Republican Convention Features Rubio and Romney (whitehouse12.com)
-
-
#303 written by GROG 9 months ago
-
#304 written by Max 9 months ago
GROG,
And you don’t have to act as though you don’t know what was being discussed! So either you DO know and are playing games simply to hold on to your untenable position. (The very definition of “dick”), or you were ignorant of DIP. The evidence supports the former.
Someone must “fund” a loan. But hey, you’re back to playing word games.
Beware of calling others names when YOU get called out for YOUR dissembling!
-
#305 written by GROG 9 months ago
-
#306 written by shortchain 9 months ago
GROG,
I seem to remember that, in 2009, there was a bit of an issue with the availability of money for loans. You may have heard something about this. Something about a financial blip involving mortgage-backed securities which caused banks to tighten up credit for everyone.So when you ask why GM had difficulty finding some private source of multi-billion-dollar loans to a troubled industrial giant, you may have forgotten about that.
Oh, and BTW — companies who are about to undertake chapter 11 filings don’t wait until they’ve filed to obtain a guarantee of credit to finance it.
-
No, he said early on that (see the NYT op-ed) they should go through
bankruptcy instead of receiving government bailouts. In the end
they wound up filing bankruptcy. That’s very simple and easy to
understand.And yet, Romney continues to complain about the President’s actions, continues to disapprove, and continues to call it a “bailout” — while also wanting to claim credit for the auto industry having been saved. You also continue to call it a “bailout”, except when you want to claim that the industry was saved through Romney’s prescription.
So, make up your mind. Was it a failed bailout? Or was the industry saved through a manged bankruptcy? If the latter, then you do approve of the President’s actions, right? If the former, then why is GM again one of the largest and most successful auto companies on the planet? And finally, if you approve of some of the President’s actions, and disapprove of some others — isn’t that the very definition of “compromise”? Why are you opposed to finding common ground?
-
#308 written by rgbact 9 months ago
DC–
I don’t see what your disconnect is. The bankruptcy of GM may succeed (although their stock is plummeting), but Romney just thinks they should’ve done it without the govt buying the company, like American Airlines (and many companies) are doing it.
I honestly don’t see how the party that constantly rails about the evils of corporations.….happily touts being responsible for the biggest corporate bailout in US history. So maybe you can explain that contradiction. Is it because Michigan is a swing state.…so that makes it OK?
-
The bankruptcy of GM may succeed (although their stock is
plummeting), but Romney just thinks they should’ve done it without
the govt buying the company,Short-term fluctuations in stock price are hardly the only measure of corporate health.
The government didn’t “buy the company.” Shares of stock were purchased to provide operating capital. The shares purchased did not constitute 100%, so the government didn’t “buy the company.”
I understand that Romney disapproves of government action. As Max, shortchain, and Michael have pointed out, there was no other available source of funding. The alternative was for GM to stop operating, and to liquidate its assets.
So I’ll ask you what I asked Grog. Since you say the President did some of what you wanted, and also did some things you didn’t want, isn’t that how compromise is supposed to work? Since the outcome was, without question, better than doing nothing, what’s your beef?
-
I honestly don’t see how the party that constantly rails about the
evils of corporations.….happily touts being responsible for the
biggest corporate bailout in US history. So maybe you can explain
that contradiction. Is it because Michigan is a swing state.…so that
makes it OK?On your second point …
There is no party that “rails about the evils of corporations” (except maybe the socialists, but I don’t think you meant them). I defy you to produce any such quote. You may find complaints about the activities or policies of some corporations. But you seem to be implying that someone here thinks corporations should not exist. Get a grip.
Corporate “bailout”? Define “bailout”. Grog is insisting that GM and Chrysler went through managed bankruptcies, just as Romney wanted them to. Get your story straight so I know what it is you’re complaining about.
As far as why I personally think it was a good idea to save the auto industry — somewhere around a million jobs. Ask the governor of Ohio, who was bragging about his state’s economy last week at the Republican convention. His entire state would now be bankrupt had it not been for the President’s actions as regards the auto industry. So would Michigan. Quite likely, so would Indiana.
And not only were those jobs saved, so were the pensions and healthcare programs — that is, the contracts with the people who actually do the work that makes money for those corporations. Since Republicans are the party of loving corporations, why are you complaining that the auto industry was saved?
-
#311 written by shortchain 9 months ago
(puts on socialist hat) Hey — even us socialists don’t “rail against the evils of corporations” — we just think that corporations shouldn’t be allowed to own the means of production. They can bid on and operate the mines, the farms, the factories. But the people in common should own the land, the natural resources, and so on, and they should be managed for the good of the people in common, not for just a tenth of 1 percent of the population. (takes off socialist hat)
-
GROG,
Since they didn’t file Chapter 11 at that time, how do you know?
Because they would have filed Chapter 11 if they could have lined up the DIP financing. How do I know this? Because they had to give up any say in the reorganization under the government-underwritten version, which would not have been the case under traditional DIP financing. One at that level doesn’t give up control lightly.
-
#314 written by GROG 9 months ago
Because they would have filed Chapter 11 if they could have lined up the DIP financing.
Then funds from TARP should have and could have been used to lend or guarantee DIP financing. The whole purpose of TARP was to address liquidity problems in lending markets.
The way TARP was used as a bailout most likely violated the law in the first place. TARP authorized the secretary of the Treasury, “to purchase…troubled assets from any financial institution, on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Secretary”. It did not authorize the funds to be used to bailout automakers.
-
#315 written by Max 9 months ago
Then funds from TARP should have and could have been used to lend or guarantee DIP financing. The whole purpose of TARP was to address liquidity problems in lending markets.
The way TARP was used as a bailout most likely violated the law in the first place. TARP authorized the secretary of the Treasury, “to purchase…troubled assets from any financial institution, on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Secretary”. It did not authorize the funds to be used to bailout automakers.
All that and not a word included that TARP was a Bush entity and the ” Secretary of the Treasury” was Paulson.
-
So, Grog, was the action taken as regards GM and Chrysler a “bailout”, or a “managed bankruptcy”? If the former, why is Romney taking credit for it? If the latter, why is Romney complaining about it? In either case, why is Romney BOTH taking credit for it AND complaining about it?
Further, in the final analysis, it worked. So Republicans can stop claiming it “failed”. It clearly didn’t.
If you want to claim it “violated the law”, then hire a lawyer. Take it to court. And tell Darrell Issa to get off his ass and do something about it. (What an idiot he must be for having missed this, huh?)
-
#317 written by GROG 9 months ago
DC,
So, Grog, was the action taken as regards GM and Chrysler a “bailout”, or a “managed bankruptcy”?
The $70 billion infusion into the auto industry was a bailout. The subsequent bankruptcy filings was a “managed bankruptcy”. The problem is, the “managed bankruptcy” was a complete disaster by the Obama administration.
If the former, why is Romney taking credit for it?
I don’t know. I know what he was trying to say, though. He recommended a managed bankruptcy from the beginning instead of a bailout, and in the end, they wound up filing bankruptcy despite the bailout. But there is nothing to take credit for regarding the state of GM. They’re in a lot of trouble. The “managed bankruptcy” did not happen as Romney suggested it should in the 2008 op-ed.
Further, in the final analysis, it worked.
It “worked” in the short run. Pumping $70 billion into any business is going to help in the very short run, but it did nothing to address the problems so ingrained in GM that will continue to cause the long term effects that Romney warned about from the beginning.
If you want to claim it “violated the law”, then hire a lawyer. Take it to court.
Why? That would be pointless.
-
You must be logged in to post a comment.
- Comment Feed for this Post
Max,
You don’t have to act like such a dick all the time.
DIP fiancing is nothing more than a loan (or loans) to an entity who filed a Chapter 11 petition. Michael was talking about “funding a bankruptcy”. If he was talking about nobody wanting to provide loans to GM or Chrysler while in the midst of Chapter 11, fine. That’s why I asked for clarification.
I’ll wait for his response.