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. 

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?)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 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?