Mitt Romney's in the Motor City Pretending He Never Stabbed Detroit In the Back

Mitt Romney’s in the Motor City Pretending He Never Stabbed Detroit In the Back

By: Sarah JonesJun. 8th, 2011more from Sarah Jones

GD Star Rating
loading...

Mitt Romney’s in the Motor City Pretending He Never Stabbed Detroit In the Back was written by Sarah Jones for PoliticusUSA.

A Hilarious Fox Fail Ensues When They Try to Blame Democrats for Detroit's Problems
Steve Doocy desperately tried to get reporter/author Charlie LeDuff to blame Democrats for Detroit's pro ...
Late Night Snack: Clint Eastwood's Halftime Pep Talk to America
Clint Eastwood's Chrysler Super Bowl XLVI Commercial: It's Halftime in America Walking down a dark tu ...
Obama Releases Devastating New Ad Targeting Romney's Cynicism
CHICAGO says, "Just a few days from the election, Mitt Romney isn't where he wanted to be. As a result, ...
Mo' Money, No Personality: Watch Mitt Romney Get Palined
Every presidential election, Saturday Night Live jumps back into mainstream relevance with scathing skit ...
Detroit Vows To Close The Door On Emergency Financial Manager
On Monday, Jan. 2, to start the New Year off right and hit the ground running, a loudly vocal Detroit cr ...

By Blogsdna

Loading Facebook Comments ...

21 Responses to Mitt Romney’s in the Motor City Pretending He Never Stabbed Detroit In the Back

The Platzner Post

Jun. 9th, 2011 at 12:43 am

Liar liar pants on fire!!!

GD Star Rating
loading...
Sammy

Jun. 9th, 2011 at 2:02 am

And yet the morans whose jobs the President saved will run over the neighborhood children in their rush to vote for this guy.

GD Star Rating
loading...
F Joy

Jun. 9th, 2011 at 2:21 am

Why does America have such memory loss when it comes to the GOP?

GD Star Rating
loading...
- Reynardine
  
  Jun. 9th, 2011 at 5:32 am
  
  From the diligent efforts of the presstitute corps at reality design and memory remodelling.
  
  GD Star Rating
  loading...
  - Nasty Liberal
    
    Jun. 9th, 2011 at 7:31 am
    
    Mmmm, presstitution here’s nothing more titillating!
    
    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  - Phillip E. Banks
    
    Jun. 9th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
    
    I LOVE that term “presstitute”; I’ll credit you if I use it. Great description!
    
    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    - Reynardine
      
      Jun. 9th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
      
      Actually, I didn’t invent the term, but saw it so long ago I can’t recall who did. It aptly describes the current state of the fourth estate.
      
      GD Star Rating
      loading...
Anne

Jun. 9th, 2011 at 8:45 am

He is one of the biggest flip-floppers ever in politics. The one thing he did right in Massachusetts, health care reform, is what he is running away from in his bid to be accepted by the nutcases who have taken over his party. In addition, he is also alleged to have supported corporations against their employees, so as far as I’m concerned, he is still going by the Republican playbook.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Uni

Jun. 9th, 2011 at 8:32 pm

He was right in what he said.. the companies had bad policies, were being run badly, and bankruptcy would’ve ended up being a good thing so the companies could reform themselves and work on what wasn’t working..

He should’nt have to backtrack on anything he said, he didn’t “backstab” DETROIT.. he didnt’ support the company structure and the waste.

Use your brain when you watch this video and read these articles.. totally out of context, DON’T FORGET WHAT THESE COMPANIES WERE DOING. only after they got a kick in the pants do they start producing good products and actually doing what they COULD have done a long time ago

GD Star Rating
loading...
- Shiva (Moderator)
  
  Jun. 9th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
  
  I would have to disagree. GM products were high on the list of JD Powers prior to the needed bailouts. The big three have built quality cars for some time. Remember many compare them to Toyota who lied about their warranty claim numbers for just as long.
  
  The companys DID reform themselves.
  
  GD Star Rating
  loading...
  - Uni
    
    Jun. 9th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
    
    The fact that they needed a bailot is probably an indication that you are WRONG.
    
    Yes the build quality was better than others.. but they had more potential and had to restructure everything. The bolt finally came out.. it could’ve come out a long time before.. but that product was in the works for years and onnly after they got the kick in the pants did they go to the next level.
    
    Staying on topic.. Mitt Romney was not wrong in not supporting the bailout. I own a business.. and NOBODY IS bailing me or my employees out.. if i fail it was probably meant to be.
    
    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    - Sarah Jones
      
      Jun. 9th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
      
      You are trying to prove a negative using nothing but your own business as the example, when the reality is that it already happened. They got bailed out and it worked, so how can you prove that Mitt was right in not supporting it? Can you prove that his way would have worked at all, let alone as well, using something other than your own ideas about business. A small business isn’t comparable to the running of a global company as I’m sure you can understand, and I’m sure if your company was going bankrupt and entire economies depended on it, you might be wise enough to accept a loan which then, with prudent business decisions, you would be able to repay.
      
      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    - Uni
      
      Jun. 10th, 2011 at 12:53 am
      
      I agree Sarah.. like.. AIG.. it needed that bailout.. but that’s because one of its businesses made really really bad decisions that could’ve brought the whole system down. Now.. the GM bailout.. i don’t disagree that it helped.. but what i’m arguing is that Romney is NOT wrong for not supporting the bailout. Because GM had been doing the same goddamn thing for years.. that along with other companies.. letting it go bankrupt would’ve been appropriate.. it is good that it didn’t.. and they got in line. But Romney shouldn’t be punished for not supporting the bailout. Now as far as my small business.. it’s relative.. my business feeds families.. just like GM.. but it’s relative. We’re talking business now.. losing .. being in the hole.. needing GOVERNMENT help to get out of the the hole… not acceptable. The bailout was not the reason why GM got itself into shape.. it was teh pressure behind teh bailout.. you need to recognzie that.. giving them a bailout simply got them out the hole.. and once they were out.. they were like.. OH DAMN THAT WAS CLOSE.. and they learned.. growing pains.
      
      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    - Sarah Jones
      
      Jun. 10th, 2011 at 1:29 am
      
      I get what you’re saying now. Aside from his supporting it or not supporting it, he campaigned in Michigan as someone who would do whatever he could to support the auto industry. He’s going to have a problem there. I agree that they restructured due to the pressure that came with the bailout, no one is arguing you on that one. Here’s the question we should be asking: Why haven’t the banks restructured? They do what they are forced to do (what we have been able to get passed to force them to do) – but on their own? Once again, we see them pushing for the same deregulation that got us into this mess. Now, a lot of faux conservatives have been taught that all regulation is bad, and yet in reality, no true conservative would agree to that. It’s a balancing act, for sure – but one that is too heavily swayed toward deregulation, which has been proven too many times for anyone with a cursory understanding of corporations to deny. I’ve run my own business as well, and we were subject to many regulations. They were a PIA but we dealt with them and in the end, they often saved us from unscrupulous subs and the hungry bottom line. There is no reason why a reasonable profit can’t be made within the bounds of reasonable regulations. I’d like to know why corporations are getting so many subsidies while making such huge profits and I’d like to know how the GOP justify that. Free market? Not so much. Also, why wouldn’t a true free marketer understand that if people can unionize and bargain together, that is part of the free market. It gives them a power at the table due to the need for their skills. And yet we see “free marketers” trying to kill collective bargaining – in essence, killing the free market on the other side. They want to rig the other side while they get special treatment via subsidies.
      
      GD Star Rating
      loading...
- Sarah Jones
  
  Jun. 9th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
  
  And from where did they get that kick in the pants? Are they or are they not now doing much better than before the auto bailout? Clearly they are. They attribute this to the bailout and their efforts to restructure. So, explain what that has to do with Mitt Romney, who is not president and whose advice to let them go bankrupt we did not take.
  
  GD Star Rating
  loading...
  - Uni
    
    Jun. 9th, 2011 at 9:16 pm
    
    The bailout helped.. but he was not wrong in his opinion.. he is not wrong in not supporting them. The bailout itself was not the reason they survived, it was the crisis mode, it was the pressure to change, it was the fact that everyone had to step up their game and unions had to compromise and people had to start earning their money. The bailout came with conditions.. with or without the bailout these companies HAD TO CHANGE. But Mitt Romney, who i don’t care for, was not wrong in not supporting them. He didn’t “BACKSTAB” anyone.
    
    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    - Sarah Jones
      
      Jun. 9th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
      
      But you can’t prove that and studied economists disagreed with you and Mitt Romney. We did it this way and it worked. You can’t prove something that never happened. That said, it is legitimate to debate the entire concept of too big to fail (no way could this be covered in one article, but I haven’t met many people who are pro-too big to fail, and yet I find many people who were against the auto bailout are pro the bank bailout), but if we are to do that, we must ask Mitt why it’s OK for banks to be too big to fail. If we are going to truly be free market conservatives, then we need to get rid of subsidies to the oil companies, ethanol, etc. If we are truly fiscal conservatives, I can only assume that Mitt is against giving tax breaks to corporations on a state basis, which monkeys with the very relationships between states and alters a truly free competitive free market.
      
      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    - Uni
      
      Jun. 9th, 2011 at 9:30 pm
      
      Sarah.. i’m sorry.. i don’t know you or your background.. but this is what i know.. if you are a company.. and you are losing money.. it’s not good. There is probably something wrong. If you are losing BILLIONS of dollars.. and you are not in the black.. if you are not making money.. this is not good. Do i have to prove or does there need to be a study on that? Something was wrong. The biggest expense that companies have always is marketing and payroll.. and when it comes to marketing it is a must for a car comopany.. but what had to be restructed was teh payroll and all those expenses. Only through this CRISIS that resulted in CHANGE.. FORCED CHANGE. A bankruptcy would’ve achieved that.. the company doesn’t disappear from one day to the next after a bankruptcy.. but it is forced to make drastic changes. Now the bailout worked because all eyes were on these companies.. and teh goverment put conditions and pressures on them. So like i said, the bailout itself isn’t what helped the change, it perhaps facilitated.. but it was not the end all. Something for free never worked.. and what the government did was put conditions on the company.. and it got its ass in line.
      
      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    - Shiva (Moderator)
      
      Jun. 9th, 2011 at 10:44 pm
      
      “The biggest expense that companies have always is marketing and payroll..”
      
      Ahem.
      
      Materials
      
      GD Star Rating
      loading...
Reynardine

Jun. 9th, 2011 at 9:24 pm

Actually, I sourced it. I’ll say it’s old. It was first used November 3, 1941, almost exactly two years before I even occurred, and the coinage was Walter Winchell’s.

GD Star Rating
loading...
- Reynardine
  
  Jun. 9th, 2011 at 9:40 pm
  
  Misposted: reference is to term, “presstitute”.
  
  GD Star Rating
  loading...