Jeep in China is pronounced Gee-poo-chu-ah by Hero

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Romney's actual words:

"I saw a story today that one of the great manufacturers in this state Jeep — now owned by the Italians — is thinking of moving all production to China."

So yeah, when he puts out a misleading ad essentially doubling down on that falsehood, he's going to get called on it.

And since when has Mittens had a problem with companies moving to China? Hell, his own company was a pioneer in doing just that! And that company is still doing it right now. Just ask the Sensata employees who were ordered to take down the American flag and train their Chinese replacements.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2012 9:15 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Romney's add never said 'move', he just said 'build'.

Quote:
Originally spoken by Romney:
"I saw a story today that one of the great manufacturers in this state Jeep — now owned by the Italians — is thinking of moving all production to China. "

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Isn't it nice when everybody is telling the truth?

I ask in all seriousness - how the fuck would YOU know?

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2012 9:27 AM

Quote:

Oh, it's today's truth. Tomorrow:

"Due to demand in world markets we have too many new Jeeps. We need to close a factory. Hmmm...we're making Jeeps in China and America. In China our labor cost's are one-tenth of America and America just keeps getting more expensive because of Obamacare, regulations, and taxes. Which one should we close?"

You don't need a minute to think or an economics degree to decide. Chrysler, now a foriegn-owned company (thanks President O), has no reason to keep those jobs here when the same work is being done cheaper in China.

So your solution to competing with China is... to become more like China?

Shall we build workers' dorms adjacent to the factories, too, complete with "suicide nets" to catch those who give up and jump?

And did you sleep through all those years when Chrysler was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Daimler (Mercedes-Benz)?

Can you really be as dumb as you act here?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2012 9:31 AM

"Romney has an add saying Jeep will begin building Jeeps in China."

If Romney has an ad saying that, then he's wrong yet again.

And if you misspoke, then you're wrong. Yet again.

Jeep has been building Jeeps in China from the Reagan era right through the Dubya years. They're not going to "begin" building Jeeps in China; they're going to CONTINUE building Jeeps in China.

But by all means, keep digging that hole.

Maybe someone will come along with a Jeep and offer to pull you out. Or at least help you pull your head out.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2012 9:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
I especially like the part where he tries to float the standard talking point lie that Obama is responsible for a foreign company owning Jeep - even though they were owned by a German company before he was elected.

That is partly true. Daimler and Chrysler merged, which is something different. In fact when the merged in 1998 it was called a "merger of equals" and each company remained free to pursue their own agenda and strategy.

The two never really got along well so Chrysler was sold to Cerberus Capital Management (Mass Effect?) in 2007. This is a US private equity fund based in New York City. This US company controlled Chrysler until it "voluntarily" gave up ownership to the United States govt in exchange for a large sum of cash from the bailout funds. Daimler had retained 20% ownership which it gave up at the same time. BTW, the date for all this was March of 2009.

Chrylser was sold to Fiat by the US Treasury in July of 2009 in a deal put together by Obama's car czar.

So yes, Obama was directly responsible for the sale of Chrysler to a foriegn company. Fiat has said it has no plans of moving production of Jeeps to China, but does plan to make Jeeps in China with new local factories. They have also said that they plan to open Jeep manufacturing plants in Italy. So Jeeps made in Ohio would no longer be sold in the Asian and European markets...I'm guessing that means they need fewer Jeeps from Toledo (unless sales dramatically increase).

If local manufacture opens up access to new markets then this could all be really good...for Fiat. If not will the Italian company shut down plants in China, Italy, or the US? Certainly not the US...cause that NEVER happens here...

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2012 10:29 AM

You realize that whole "merger of equals" was shown to be BS pretty much the day after Chrysler CEO Bob Eaton (who'd engineered that so-called "merger") retired, right?

It was an outright takeover, plain and simple. They didn't "part ways"; Daimler sold the Chrysler division to Cerberus, a pirate-equity vulture-capital firm much in the mold of Bain Capital.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2012 10:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You realize that whole "merger of equals" was shown to be BS pretty much the day after Chrysler CEO Bob Eaton (who'd engineered that so-called "merger") retired, right?

It was an outright takeover, plain and simple. They didn't "part ways"; Daimler sold the Chrysler division to Cerberus, a pirate-equity vulture-capital firm much in the mold of Bain Capital.

Those lawsuits were settled. One reason they split off Chrysler was they never managed to physically merge the companies despite years of effort.

Cerberus spent over $7 billion and had aggressive restructuring plans that came apart because they could not generate revenue due to the collapse of the auto market and they could not secure private financing due to the collapse of the banks. Their plan was to take Chrysler into bankruptsy and spin off profitable divisions (like Jeep) and restructure (which is what ultimately happened. This would have saved the jobs and the company but left the unions out. The Govt stepped in to save the union worker pensions, not the company (or the 20,000 nonunion workers in Ohio who lost their pensions because they did not contribute enough money to the President). The Govt showed up saying either take our bailout deal or we hold up ALL your credit and force the collapse of all your other businesses. They took the deal.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2012 10:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You realize that whole "merger of equals" was shown to be BS pretty much the day after Chrysler CEO Bob Eaton (who'd engineered that so-called "merger") retired, right?

It was an outright takeover, plain and simple. They didn't "part ways"; Daimler sold the Chrysler division to Cerberus, a pirate-equity vulture-capital firm much in the mold of Bain Capital.

Any thoughts on the rest of Heros post or are you done now that you got in your obligatory swipe at Romney?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2012 11:17 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Cerberus spent over $7 billion and had aggressive restructuring plans that came apart because they could not generate revenue due to the collapse of the auto market and they could not secure private financing due to the collapse of the banks. Their plan was to take Chrysler into bankruptsy and spin off profitable divisions (like Jeep) and restructure (which is what ultimately happened. This would have saved the jobs and the company but left the unions out. The Govt stepped in to save the union worker pensions, not the company (or the 20,000 nonunion workers in Ohio who lost their pensions because they did not contribute enough money to the President). The Govt showed up saying either take our bailout deal or we hold up ALL your credit and force the collapse of all your other businesses. They took the deal.

So how would have selling divisions left out the unions?

If Chrysler could not get private financing would selling off the profitable parts been enough the save the rest or would it meant a death nail?

Would there not been a chance that those profitable division not been bought because of the economic downturn at the time, or that they would not have gone to foreign buyers anyways?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2012 11:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You realize that whole "merger of equals" was shown to be BS pretty much the day after Chrysler CEO Bob Eaton (who'd engineered that so-called "merger") retired, right?

It was an outright takeover, plain and simple. They didn't "part ways"; Daimler sold the Chrysler division to Cerberus, a pirate-equity vulture-capital firm much in the mold of Bain Capital.

Any thoughts on the rest of Heros post or are you done now that you got in your obligatory swipe at Romney?

You may have noticed that this is a thread about Mitt Romney and his claims about Jeep and Chrysler.

Do try to keep up.

Did you have any thoughts on any of the substance of the thread or are you done now that you got in your obligatory swipe at me?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 1, 2012 11:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You realize that whole "merger of equals" was shown to be BS pretty much the day after Chrysler CEO Bob Eaton (who'd engineered that so-called "merger") retired, right?

It was an outright takeover, plain and simple. They didn't "part ways"; Daimler sold the Chrysler division to Cerberus, a pirate-equity vulture-capital firm much in the mold of Bain Capital.

Those lawsuits were settled. One reason they split off Chrysler was they never managed to physically merge the companies despite years of effort.

Thank you for confirming my point. Chrysler was SOLD, and Daimler got the money from selling them. That doesn't make them "equals".

Quote:

Cerberus spent over $7 billion and had aggressive restructuring plans that came apart because they could not generate revenue due to the collapse of the auto market and they could not secure private financing due to the collapse of the banks. Their plan was to take Chrysler into bankruptsy and spin off profitable divisions (like Jeep) and restructure (which is what ultimately happened. This would have saved the jobs and the company but left the unions out. The Govt stepped in to save the union worker pensions, not the company (or the 20,000 nonunion workers in Ohio who lost their pensions because they did not contribute enough money to the President). The Govt showed up saying either take our bailout deal or we hold up ALL your credit and force the collapse of all your other businesses. They took the deal.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

Wasn't the Cerberus plan essentially the same as Romney's plan?

How would that have saved Chrysler? As you said, there was no revenue because the auto market collapsed, and no private equity fund (including Bain Capital) was willing to put up money or credit, because the banks has collapsed.

So what would have become of Chrysler under such a plan? Stripped of assets, pension funds looted to give bonuses to vulture capitalists, and the workers left out of work, that's what.

So is your biggest gripe with Obama the idea that he forestalled the outsourcing of those jobs for a decade or so?

Were you this upset when Bush was giving out auto bailout money?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2012 3:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
So how would have selling divisions left out the unions?

Its a structured bankruptsy and would have done three things to hurt the unions. First, no more union contracts, oh they might get a new contract, but the existing contract would be gone. Their contract was with Chrysler who no longer exists (if you look at the history they spun all of Chrysler's parts into a holding company called 'New Chrysler' leaving old Chrysler with all the obligations but not assets). Second, no more contractual obligations...like paying pensions. Third, other creditors come first. This means when the company (or its parts, patents, trademarks, and real property) are split up and sold money is generated. That money is used to pay creditors, like the unions. There is an order of precedence and unions would be near the bottom (just above local municipal taxes). So while the unions would have gotten some money, it would have been pennies on the dollar.

Quote:

If Chrysler could not get private financing would selling off the profitable parts been enough the save the rest or would it meant a death nail?

Your misunderstanding how the banking collapse worked. Cerberus had a plan and needed several billion in financing to restructure the company. Keep in mind they'd just paid over $7 billion for the company. They had three sources for the money they needed. First, they wanted to borrow against the equity to finance the changes they needed, but the credit crunch stopped that. Second, they wanted more private investment, but most of this was tapped out from their raising money for the initial purchase. Third, they wanted to use revenue from the company, but the 2007-2008 new car market collapse dried up revenue.

So now they had a company that was worth billions but had no operating capital (they were rich but cash poor) and now the banks were no longer loaning operating capital so they had no choice but to shut down or sell.

Quote:

Would there not been a chance that those profitable division not been bought because of the economic downturn at the time, or that they would not have gone to foreign buyers anyways?

It's likely that given enough time another equity company like Cerberus (or Bain) would have bought some or all of Chrysler. The price would have been less meaning more money for restructuring on the back end. Also, having done this through bankruptsy the existing labor obligations would have been eliminated and this was the most signifigant problem the company had.

It's clear there were buyers out there because the company sold three months later to Fiat. Why didn't American investors buy the company? Because of Obama. When the govt took over Chrysler they strong armed Cerberus into selling by threatening their other corporations (Cerberus is very diversified). They also shafted the major creditors and all the stockholders in favor of the unions. They also put in place regulations on compensation, profit, and other issues. They did nothing to address the labor cost issues. In other words they so changed the rules and muddied the waters that other American companies were simply not willing to risk their capital in an uncertain enviroment (a problem that is entirely Obama's creation and which has been a leading factor in stalling the overall recovery).

Obama also structered a deal for Fiat so there was no competitive bidding. Fiat got a sweetheart deal with the taxpayers shouldering the burden, the unions reaping huge benefits, and Fiat getting a huge asset for a rock bottom price.

I also note for the record that when the govt gave out such huge benfits to Chrysler they were in fact hurting companies like Ford. It was not fair that Ford and other companies were forced to compete with a govt backed corporation. So they risked the entire American auto manufacturing industry to help the unions.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2012 3:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Wasn't the Cerberus plan essentially the same as Romney's plan?

How would that have saved Chrysler? As you said, there was no revenue because the auto market collapsed, and no private equity fund (including Bain Capital) was willing to put up money or credit, because the banks has collapsed.

No, Cerberus intended to restructure the existing company using revenue, investors, and financing.

Romney's plan was to enter a structured bankruptsy that would have eliminated many of the companies obligations by law (allowing a restructuring without the time and money that Cerberus would have needed to accomplish the same goal).

And your last point confuses the timing a bit but the main reason that other private equity didn't jump at the chance to buy Chrysler was because of how the Obama administration handled the takeover. It is generally recognized that there is right now hundreds of billions of dollars sitting on the sidelines because companies and investors are unwilling to invest because of the uncertain and overegulated economic climate President Obama has created.

Sure, says Joe Billionaire, I can invest 6 or 7 billion, but the profits will be taxed, the returns uncertain, I wont have control of my business because of regulations, and I might lose everything and have nothing to show for it because if things go south I'm the one the govt will throw under the bus and for all that I'll get treated like crap by the President, the unions, the occupiers, and anyone else who wants to blame me...who pays the vast majority of taxes and take all the risks...for not paying my fair share. So screw you...gold looks good to keep my money safe, so take your investment opportunity and your shovel ready jobs shovel them up your collective asses. And nobody is going to buy an overpriced, underpowered electric car you jackasses!

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2012 4:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You may have noticed that this is a thread about Mitt Romney and his claims about Jeep and Chrysler.

Do try to keep up.

Yes, but I'm not sure what Bain has to do with it.

Quote:

Did you have any thoughts on any of the substance of the thread or are you done now that you got in your obligatory swipe at me?

Bush made me do it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2012 4:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You may have noticed that this is a thread about Mitt Romney and his claims about Jeep and Chrysler.

Do try to keep up.

Yes, but I'm not sure what Bain has to do with it.

Can you quote back to me the part where I said Bain had anything to do with it?

Quote:

Quote:

Did you have any thoughts on any of the substance of the thread or are you done now that you got in your obligatory swipe at me?

Bush made me do it.

There you go again...

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2012 4:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Can you quote back to me the part where I said Bain had anything to do with it?

You didn't say Bain had anything to do with it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You realize that whole "merger of equals" was shown to be BS pretty much the day after Chrysler CEO Bob Eaton (who'd engineered that so-called "merger") retired, right?

It was an outright takeover, plain and simple. They didn't "part ways"; Daimler sold the Chrysler division to Cerberus, a pirate-equity vulture-capital firm much in the mold of Bain Capital.

Bain had nothing to do with it, you simply like to bring up non sequiturs to try to obfuscate any wrong doings by the present administration, IMHO.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2012 4:49 AM

Is it unfair to compare similar companies?

Quote:
Bain had nothing to do with it, you simply like to bring up non sequiturs to try to obfuscate...

You mean like this?

Quote:
Yes, but I'm not sure what Bain has to do with it.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2012 5:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Is it unfair to compare similar companies?

Not at all. Now please provide evidence that Bain Capital owned and than sold a major American based auto company.

Quote:

Quote:
Bain had nothing to do with it, you simply like to bring up non sequiturs to try to obfuscate...

You mean like this?

Quote:
Yes, but I'm not sure what Bain has to do with it.

So now you are positing that it was me who first brought up Bain?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2012 5:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Is it unfair to compare similar companies?

Not at all. Now please provide evidence that Bain Capital owned and than sold a major American based auto company.

Please provide evidence that "similar" means "identical".

You really don't know how vulture capitalism works, do you?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Bain had nothing to do with it, you simply like to bring up non sequiturs to try to obfuscate...

You mean like this?

Quote:
Yes, but I'm not sure what Bain has to do with it.

So now you are positing that it was me who first brought up Bain?

No, you first brought up the notion that I said Bain had anything to do with Cerberus simply because I noted that they are in the same kind of financial business.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2012 5:47 AM