GM to add 2,000 jobs in Michigan

"And if Mitt Romney had had his way, none of this would be happening, because without the federal bailout he so bluntly opposed, GM would have gone under."

The level of complete, fundamental economic ignorance on the Left is absolutely mind boggling. Then again you have to be an idiot in order to embrace an economic philosophy that comes with a 100% guaranteed fail, and is so awful even the ChiComs and Vietnamese have abandoned it in favor of free enterprise
No proof, of course, eh Crusader. No economist believed GM or Chrysler would have come out of a managed bankrupcy. Just politicians. And apparently they never lie, if they are repubs, eh crusader.
China and Vietnam. Really. Fraid that just won't pass the giggle test.
Do you ever say anything that makes any sense at all to other than other cons???
dipshit.

Bullshit! Total fucking bullshit!!

GM needed to restructure its labor and pension costs and other liabilities, that's why it filed a Reorganization bankruptcy.

GM filed for reorganization, not liquidation.

Repeat after me: GM filed for reorganization, not liquidation.

Can you say that? Do you understand any of the words?
And again, crusader, you have no ability to understand the english language. So, here is your drivel:L
Bullshit! Total fucking bullshit!!

GM needed to restructure its labor and pension costs and other liabilities, that's why it filed a Reorganization bankruptcy.

GM filed for reorganization, not liquidation.

Repeat after me: GM filed for reorganization, not liquidation.

Can you say that? Do you understand any of the words?

Sounds to me like you may be having a coronary. And yes, I do understand the words. What your problem is me poor con retard, is that you think that because they FILED for reorganization did not mean that they had any chance at ACCOMPLISHING reorganization. Most companies that file for reorganization under Chapter 11 bankruptcy procedures do not come out as a company. Assets are sold, pieces of the company may be sold, but no company remains. It all depends on the state of the company. And in the case of GM, there was no possibility of coming out as a working company. They, and Chrysler, and hundreds of other companies would be history. Which, apparently, would have made you happy.
Should you care to understand, you could look at the history from a non partial standpoint. But then, it would not look good for you con dogma. dipshit.

So yes, Crusader, I do indeed understand your words. And they are, indeed, bullshit. Just as you said.
 
No proof, of course, eh Crusader. No economist believed GM or Chrysler would have come out of a managed bankrupcy. Just politicians. And apparently they never lie, if they are repubs, eh crusader.
China and Vietnam. Really. Fraid that just won't pass the giggle test.
Do you ever say anything that makes any sense at all to other than other cons???
dipshit.

Bullshit! Total fucking bullshit!!

GM needed to restructure its labor and pension costs and other liabilities, that's why it filed a Reorganization bankruptcy.

GM filed for reorganization, not liquidation.

Repeat after me: GM filed for reorganization, not liquidation.

Can you say that? Do you understand any of the words?
And again, crusader, you have no ability to understand the english language. So, here is your drivel:L
Bullshit! Total fucking bullshit!!

GM needed to restructure its labor and pension costs and other liabilities, that's why it filed a Reorganization bankruptcy.

GM filed for reorganization, not liquidation.

Repeat after me: GM filed for reorganization, not liquidation.

Can you say that? Do you understand any of the words?

Sounds to me like you may be having a coronary. And yes, I do understand the words. What your problem is me poor con retard, is that you think that because they FILED for reorganization did not mean that they had any chance at ACCOMPLISHING reorganization. Most companies that file for reorganization under Chapter 11 bankruptcy procedures do not come out as a company. Assets are sold, pieces of the company may be sold, but no company remains. It all depends on the state of the company. And in the case of GM, there was no possibility of coming out as a working company. They, and Chrysler, and hundreds of other companies would be history. Which, apparently, would have made you happy.
Should you care to understand, you could look at the history from a non partial standpoint. But then, it would not look good for you con dogma. dipshit.

So yes, Crusader, I do indeed understand your words. And they are, indeed, bullshit. Just as you said.





I noticed you havn't addressed my point there buckwheat. Ever going to address that one?:eusa_whistle:
 
Yeah, who needs them anyway?

stingrayc7_lead.jpg


01-2013-mustang-cobra-jet-daytona.jpg
 
No proof, of course, eh Crusader. No economist believed GM or Chrysler would have come out of a managed bankrupcy. Just politicians. And apparently they never lie, if they are repubs, eh crusader.
China and Vietnam. Really. Fraid that just won't pass the giggle test.
Do you ever say anything that makes any sense at all to other than other cons???
dipshit.

Bullshit! Total fucking bullshit!!

GM needed to restructure its labor and pension costs and other liabilities, that's why it filed a Reorganization bankruptcy.

GM filed for reorganization, not liquidation.

Repeat after me: GM filed for reorganization, not liquidation.

Can you say that? Do you understand any of the words?
And again, crusader, you have no ability to understand the english language. So, here is your drivel:L
Bullshit! Total fucking bullshit!!

GM needed to restructure its labor and pension costs and other liabilities, that's why it filed a Reorganization bankruptcy.

GM filed for reorganization, not liquidation.

Repeat after me: GM filed for reorganization, not liquidation.

Can you say that? Do you understand any of the words?

Sounds to me like you may be having a coronary. And yes, I do understand the words. What your problem is me poor con retard, is that you think that because they FILED for reorganization did not mean that they had any chance at ACCOMPLISHING reorganization. Most companies that file for reorganization under Chapter 11 bankruptcy procedures do not come out as a company. Assets are sold, pieces of the company may be sold, but no company remains. It all depends on the state of the company. And in the case of GM, there was no possibility of coming out as a working company. They, and Chrysler, and hundreds of other companies would be history. Which, apparently, would have made you happy.
Should you care to understand, you could look at the history from a non partial standpoint. But then, it would not look good for you con dogma. dipshit.

So yes, Crusader, I do indeed understand your words. And they are, indeed, bullshit. Just as you said.

Let me see if I understand your insane rambling. GM could not have survived a reorganization that would have lowered their labor and pension costs because that would have made them a more competitive company, but they can only survive by fucking over the Senior secured creditors, maintaining the unsustainable labor and pension obligation and reward the UAW for bankrupting GM and Detroit....is that what you're saying?
 
Bullshit! Total fucking bullshit!!

GM needed to restructure its labor and pension costs and other liabilities, that's why it filed a Reorganization bankruptcy.

GM filed for reorganization, not liquidation.

Repeat after me: GM filed for reorganization, not liquidation.

Can you say that? Do you understand any of the words?
And again, crusader, you have no ability to understand the english language. So, here is your drivel:L
Bullshit! Total fucking bullshit!!

GM needed to restructure its labor and pension costs and other liabilities, that's why it filed a Reorganization bankruptcy.

GM filed for reorganization, not liquidation.

Repeat after me: GM filed for reorganization, not liquidation.

Can you say that? Do you understand any of the words?

Sounds to me like you may be having a coronary. And yes, I do understand the words. What your problem is me poor con retard, is that you think that because they FILED for reorganization did not mean that they had any chance at ACCOMPLISHING reorganization. Most companies that file for reorganization under Chapter 11 bankruptcy procedures do not come out as a company. Assets are sold, pieces of the company may be sold, but no company remains. It all depends on the state of the company. And in the case of GM, there was no possibility of coming out as a working company. They, and Chrysler, and hundreds of other companies would be history. Which, apparently, would have made you happy.
Should you care to understand, you could look at the history from a non partial standpoint. But then, it would not look good for you con dogma. dipshit.

So yes, Crusader, I do indeed understand your words. And they are, indeed, bullshit. Just as you said.

Let me see if I understand your insane rambling. GM could not have survived a reorganization that would have lowered their labor and pension costs because that would have made them a more competitive company, but they can only survive by fucking over the Senior secured creditors, maintaining the unsustainable labor and pension obligation and reward the UAW for bankrupting GM and Detroit....is that what you're saying?
Well, crusader, that would be an affirmative. So let me say this again. Slowly. You Can Not Have A Successful Reorganization Under Chapter 11 Without A Suitor Willing To Provide The Capital. Slow enough, dipshit. There were no takers with sufficient capital. You would have ended up with what you and a few other fools wanted, a dead auto industry. The competitors that would have made hay with GM and the other companies going out of business would have been in Japan, Korea, Germany, and a few other countries.

Try studying the issue as it was, rather than what you would like it to have been. In other words, quit acting like a con.

Here is a quote:
. In late 2008 and early 2009, when GM and Chrysler had exhausted their liquidity, every scrap of private capital had fled to the sidelines.

I know this because the administration's auto task force, for which I was the lead adviser, spoke diligently to all conceivable providers of funds, and not one had the slightest interest in financing those companies on any terms. If Romney disagrees, he should come forward with specific names of willing investors in place of empty rhetoric. I predict that he won't be able to, because there aren't any.

Without government financing - initiated by President George W. Bush in December 2008 - the two companies would not have been able to pursue Chapter 11 reorganization. Instead they would have been forced to cease production, close their doors and lay off virtually all workers once their coffers ran dry.

Read more here: Driving reasons for the auto bailout - Other Views - NewsObserver.com

I am sure you will not change your mind. You have your opinions, eh. And you know how much I value your opinions!!!
 
There were no takers with sufficient capital. You would have ended up with what you and a few other fools wanted, a dead auto industry.


of course that is utter BS. Had the socialists not bailed GM out the unions, pensions, health plans, and other liberal remnants would have disappeared in bankruptcy until the price was competitive!

Then, we would have had a new GM, not an old GM heading straight back into bankruptcy!

Moreover, the socialist precedent , to big to fail, is contrary to our basic American principles and begs the question, do we want to be socialist and allow liberals to pick all the winners and losers?

Why do liberals love the GM bailout and stay dead still about the bank bailouts??? Do they have any idea what they are doing?
 
Last edited:
There were no takers with sufficient capital. You would have ended up with what you and a few other fools wanted, a dead auto industry.


of course that is utter BS. Had the socialists not bailed GM out the unions, pensions, health plans, and other liberal remnants would have disappeared in bankruptcy until the price was competitive!

Then, we would have had a new GM, not an old GM heading straight back into bankruptcy!

Moreover, the socialist precedent , to big to fail, is contrary to our basic American principles and begs the question, do we want to be socialist and allow liberals to pick all the winners and losers?

Why do liberals love the GM bailout and stay dead still about the bank bailouts??? Do they have any idea what they are doing?
And Ed bathers on. Ed is a self described libertarian. And all libertarians are idiots. Always wondered why any rational person would support a political/economic system that has never, ever worked. Always ends up as a cesspool. And, of course, ed can not name a successful libertarian economy. Asked him before, and he said the US was the closest. But, ed continues in pursuit of his ideal. The libertarian ideal. Which answers the question of why a rational person would support libertarianism. Obvious, actually. It is because there are NO rational supporters of libertarianism. Only cons like ed. So stupid that they blindly follow their heroes, who make the bucks while ed continues on looking like an idiot. Ed has the basic head shape of a head of lettuce, but less intelligence. Poor ed.
 
Last edited:
Always ends up as a cesspool. And, of course, ed can not name a successful libertarian economy. Asked him before, and he said the US was the closest.


too stupid by 1000%!! Why be so afraid to tell us what cesspool you are talking about???? What does your fear tell you??

IF the USA is not the most libertarian and the richest in human history then why are you so afraid to tell us why on earth that is so.

What does your fear tell us about the liberal IQ and character??
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top