Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
what youre failing to acknowledge in this case is that no bank would lend to GM due to the financial crisis. the company was willing to purchase GM due to the lack of an ability to secure a loan and lastly, if GM had failed and been dismantled, 1-1.4 million people would have lost their jobs. would you have been ok if unemployment spike by another million people? would you have blamed Obama for not stepping in at that point in time?Anyone who believes otherwise is easily fooled in my opinion.
Had the bailout that both Bush and Obama were for worked, the company wouldn't have gone bankrupt anyway. All Obama ultimately did was steal wealth from the bond holders and line the pockets of the unions with it. The company itself remained in the red until the bankruptcy judge allowed certain debts to be dumped and restructured the remaining debts.
Bankruptcy saved GM. Obama saved union votes and wasted our tax dollars.
Where was the private equity going to come from?
Reallocation of debt through bankruptcy. Any funds needed beyond that should have come from outside sources, not my tax revenue. I don't pay taxes so our govt can choose who wins and who loses. Success or failure is supposed to be based on the merits of your own choices not the govts.
And those that say only Obama saved the jobs, NONSENSE. Obama picked and chose who got to keep q job and who didn't. Ie: dealers, their sales staff, their secretaries, their mechanics, and on down the line all lost jobs but the union didn't. That is not how the free market is supposed to work.
The company simply would have reorganized under chapter 11. Some would win, some would lose. That's how real, fair business is conducted.
And the rich do not create jobs the consumers buying stuff does.
A reasonable point.
So when does the bag lady open that mom and pop whatever?
what youre failing to acknowledge in this case is that no bank would lend to GM due to the financial crisis. the company was willing to purchase GM due to the lack of an ability to secure a loan and lastly, if GM had failed and been dismantled, 1-1.4 million people would have lost their jobs. would you have been ok if unemployment spike by another million people? would you have blamed Obama for not stepping in at that point in time?Where was the private equity going to come from?
Reallocation of debt through bankruptcy. Any funds needed beyond that should have come from outside sources, not my tax revenue. I don't pay taxes so our govt can choose who wins and who loses. Success or failure is supposed to be based on the merits of your own choices not the govts.
And those that say only Obama saved the jobs, NONSENSE. Obama picked and chose who got to keep q job and who didn't. Ie: dealers, their sales staff, their secretaries, their mechanics, and on down the line all lost jobs but the union didn't. That is not how the free market is supposed to work.
The company simply would have reorganized under chapter 11. Some would win, some would lose. That's how real, fair business is conducted.
what youre failing to acknowledge in this case is that no bank would lend to GM due to the financial crisis. the company was willing to purchase GM due to the lack of an ability to secure a loan and lastly, if GM had failed and been dismantled, 1-1.4 million people would have lost their jobs. would you have been ok if unemployment spike by another million people? would you have blamed Obama for not stepping in at that point in time?Where was the private equity going to come from?
Reallocation of debt through bankruptcy. Any funds needed beyond that should have come from outside sources, not my tax revenue. I don't pay taxes so our govt can choose who wins and who loses. Success or failure is supposed to be based on the merits of your own choices not the govts.
And those that say only Obama saved the jobs, NONSENSE. Obama picked and chose who got to keep q job and who didn't. Ie: dealers, their sales staff, their secretaries, their mechanics, and on down the line all lost jobs but the union didn't. That is not how the free market is supposed to work.
The company simply would have reorganized under chapter 11. Some would win, some would lose. That's how real, fair business is conducted.
what youre failing to acknowledge in this case is that no bank would lend to GM due to the financial crisis. the company was willing to purchase GM due to the lack of an ability to secure a loan and lastly, if GM had failed and been dismantled, 1-1.4 million people would have lost their jobs. would you have been ok if unemployment spike by another million people? would you have blamed Obama for not stepping in at that point in time?Reallocation of debt through bankruptcy. Any funds needed beyond that should have come from outside sources, not my tax revenue. I don't pay taxes so our govt can choose who wins and who loses. Success or failure is supposed to be based on the merits of your own choices not the govts.
And those that say only Obama saved the jobs, NONSENSE. Obama picked and chose who got to keep q job and who didn't. Ie: dealers, their sales staff, their secretaries, their mechanics, and on down the line all lost jobs but the union didn't. That is not how the free market is supposed to work.
The company simply would have reorganized under chapter 11. Some would win, some would lose. That's how real, fair business is conducted.
Why do you keep claiming people wouldv'e lost there jobs? Do you honestly believe that no one would have bought GM? Or that other Auto manufacturers wouldn't have filled the void? Even if they lost there jobs with GM others would have hire them as they are skilled labor.
It would help if you two knew what you were talking about.
Gov't bailout turns tables for auto union
From your article..
But things got more complex when the government bailed out General Motors and Chrysler two years ago in a deal that left the union with big chunks of stock in both companies.
By what right did the government take the stock from the investors who had paid for it and give it to the union? And how is it not a conflict of interest for the union?
Never said it was right or wrong. Only that the union did not make out like bandits and actually took concessions.
From your article..
By what right did the government take the stock from the investors who had paid for it and give it to the union? And how is it not a conflict of interest for the union?
Never said it was right or wrong. Only that the union did not make out like bandits and actually took concessions.
If the damn union had taken their 'concessions' years ago when they should have, GM would have never been in the position they were in the first place. The unions caused the mess to begin with and in the end, ended up with ownership of the company. What a fucked up world we live in whenever people defend that.
whos fault is that? is that the unions fault for winning the negotiation? or is the GM's fault for not negotiating better?From your article..
By what right did the government take the stock from the investors who had paid for it and give it to the union? And how is it not a conflict of interest for the union?
Never said it was right or wrong. Only that the union did not make out like bandits and actually took concessions.
If the damn union had taken their 'concessions' years ago when they should have, GM would have never been in the position they were in the first place. The unions caused the mess to begin with and in the end, ended up with ownership of the company. What a fucked up world we live in whenever people defend that.
Never said it was right or wrong. Only that the union did not make out like bandits and actually took concessions.
If the damn union had taken their 'concessions' years ago when they should have, GM would have never been in the position they were in the first place. The unions caused the mess to begin with and in the end, ended up with ownership of the company. What a fucked up world we live in whenever people defend that.
Wrong. There were a lot of factors. This "blame the blue collar worker" bullshit is getting old.
whos fault is that? is that the unions fault for winning the negotiation? or is the GM's fault for not negotiating better?Never said it was right or wrong. Only that the union did not make out like bandits and actually took concessions.
If the damn union had taken their 'concessions' years ago when they should have, GM would have never been in the position they were in the first place. The unions caused the mess to begin with and in the end, ended up with ownership of the company. What a fucked up world we live in whenever people defend that.
Anyone who believes otherwise is easily fooled in my opinion.
Had the bailout that both Bush and Obama were for worked, the company wouldn't have gone bankrupt anyway. All Obama ultimately did was steal wealth from the bond holders and line the pockets of the unions with it. The company itself remained in the red until the bankruptcy judge allowed certain debts to be dumped and restructured the remaining debts.
Bankruptcy saved GM. Obama saved union votes and wasted our tax dollars.
Where was the private equity going to come from?
Reallocation of debt through bankruptcy. Any funds needed beyond that should have come from outside sources, not my tax revenue. I don't pay taxes so our govt can choose who wins and who loses. Success or failure is supposed to be based on the merits of your own choices not the govts.
And those that say only Obama saved the jobs, NONSENSE. Obama picked and chose who got to keep q job and who didn't. Ie: dealers, their sales staff, their secretaries, their mechanics, and on down the line all lost jobs but the union didn't. That is not how the free market is supposed to work.
The company simply would have reorganized under chapter 11. Some would win, some would lose. That's how real, fair business is conducted.
what youre failing to acknowledge in this case is that no bank would lend to GM due to the financial crisis. the company was willing to purchase GM due to the lack of an ability to secure a loan and lastly, if GM had failed and been dismantled, 1-1.4 million people would have lost their jobs. would you have been ok if unemployment spike by another million people? would you have blamed Obama for not stepping in at that point in time?Reallocation of debt through bankruptcy. Any funds needed beyond that should have come from outside sources, not my tax revenue. I don't pay taxes so our govt can choose who wins and who loses. Success or failure is supposed to be based on the merits of your own choices not the govts.
And those that say only Obama saved the jobs, NONSENSE. Obama picked and chose who got to keep q job and who didn't. Ie: dealers, their sales staff, their secretaries, their mechanics, and on down the line all lost jobs but the union didn't. That is not how the free market is supposed to work.
The company simply would have reorganized under chapter 11. Some would win, some would lose. That's how real, fair business is conducted.
Why do you keep claiming people wouldv'e lost there jobs? Do you honestly believe that no one would have bought GM? .
whos fault is that? is that the unions fault for winning the negotiation? or is the GM's fault for not negotiating better?If the damn union had taken their 'concessions' years ago when they should have, GM would have never been in the position they were in the first place. The unions caused the mess to begin with and in the end, ended up with ownership of the company. What a fucked up world we live in whenever people defend that.
I know it certainly wasn't the shareholders, who were the ones that got screwed in the end.
@ Newby - agreed, it wasnt the shareholders. they did infact get the short end of the stick. but that is what happens when a company goes bankrupt.who should really get the blame is GM for having an unsustainable business model. Had GM in fact had a better management staff, (such as when Ford secured a huge loan prior to the financial collapse) maybe in fact they would not have needed public assistance. be that as it may, this doesnt change the fact the blaming the union for having better negotiators than GM is silly.
whos fault is that? is that the unions fault for winning the negotiation? or is the GM's fault for not negotiating better?
I know it certainly wasn't the shareholders, who were the ones that got screwed in the end.
The shareholders got screwed? Please explain to me what the owners of a company should receive when that company collapses. Should the government subsidize the owners just for kicks, or perhaps to mitigate the risk of investing?
the union got shares as part of their concessions. which also included paying more for their pensions and benefits. the reason the union got shares was to provide incentives for the future to bargain for what is in the best interest of the company. this if the union makes a deal in which GM stock rises, they union as a whole benefits. if they make a deal that hurts the company, it hurts the union as well. this ties their fate and cooperation together.I know it certainly wasn't the shareholders, who were the ones that got screwed in the end.
The shareholders got screwed? Please explain to me what the owners of a company should receive when that company collapses. Should the government subsidize the owners just for kicks, or perhaps to mitigate the risk of investing?
Go back earlier in the thread where this was explained pretty clearly. Can you explain to me how the union ended up with ownership of the company since it was obviosly 'collapsing'?
Remember when Michael Moore staked out Roger Moore of General Motors in Roger and Me, claiming that GMs brutal capitalism earned the company profits while it mistreated workers? Well, wheres Moore when you need him?
Yesterday, the largely Treasury Department-owned GM (32%) announced that it would freeze the pay of all 26,000 of its US employees, and would dump its pension contributions, as well as slashing bonuses. This even as it announced that it had posted an $8 billion profit in 2011.
So whats happening with GM? It seems that the government has recognized that companies cannot run indefinitely while granting enormous pension benefits. GM still suffers from massive pension underfunding theyre short some $8.7 billion and so they need to cut costs. Theyre doing that by tamping down their employees and by yes, you read this right outsourcing.
So wheres the left in all of this? Theyre silent, because they want the government takeover to be seen as a success, even if it hurts the workers they supposedly prize.
.
.
what youre failing to acknowledge in this case is that no bank would lend to GM due to the financial crisis. the company was willing to purchase GM due to the lack of an ability to secure a loan and lastly, if GM had failed and been dismantled, 1-1.4 million people would have lost their jobs. would you have been ok if unemployment spike by another million people? would you have blamed Obama for not stepping in at that point in time?
Why do you keep claiming people wouldv'e lost there jobs? Do you honestly believe that no one would have bought GM? .
Oh my!
Who was going to buy GM's production lines and keep them open? Hint: If anyone was interested in buying GM, someone would have made an offer on GM.
