US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Rshermr]

What's idiotic is people like you believing that any company is too big to fail!

Hardly, of course, Everyone with a rational mind noticed that they DID fail. All of their management is GONE. But then, you know that, and you do not care.
You see, dipshit, GM hollds no one's mortgage.

I hate to tell you this Sparky but when upper level management leaves one company...they generally end up going to another one. They aren't "GONE"!

And I don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about with GM holding a mortgage! Do you?

Really, me boy. No idea. You see, you lie so often, there is no reason to believe you.
All of the rest of the bailout efforts were for financial companies, who controlled people's lives due to owning their mortgages. GM just makes cars. Dipshit.

 

[Rshermr]

Neither do you, Faun...or you'd explain it to me!

Neither do you, Faun...or you'd explain it to me!

Uh, which of the many, many, many explanations that you have asked for and Faun has provided to you are you talking about now. You see, there is no way to tell from your post, dipshit.
Or are you just trying to prove your dishonesty. Here is a clue, me boy. You already proved it,over and over and over.

 

[Rshermr]

I'm still waiting to hear from you how Ford would have been taken down by a GM or Chrysler bankruptcy!

You were given the Mulally explanation. You know, the one you suggested was just Mulally working to get future bankruptcy funds. When you made yourself look, again, like an ignorant con tool.
Mulally already explained it to you. Saying you are still waiting is like saying you missed the bus that ran over you. You know better, of course. You are just lying again.

 

[Rshermr]

Those airline bankruptcies simply illustrate what happens when huge businesses go into bankruptcy. Their viable parts are snatched up by competitors and their market share is absorbed by other companies. Pan Am going bankrupt didn't kill United.

So you pretend that you have not had that explained to you. Faun explained it, I explained it, and you lie and say no one will help poor little you understand. Now, a normal thinking person would not need an explanation from us. They would simply google it and understand.

So what is it. There are only two options, me boy. Are you playing games and lying, or are you simply really, really stupid.

 

[Rshermr]

What's idiotic is people like you believing that any company is too big to fail!

Hardly, of course, Everyone with a rational mind noticed that they DID fail. All of their management is GONE. But then, you know that, and you do not care.
You see, dipshit, GM hollds no one's mortgage.

I hate to tell you this Sparky but when upper level management leaves one company...they generally end up going to another one. They aren't "GONE"!
Ah, but they are gone from GM, dipshit. That was, by the way, a really stupid post.

 

[Oldstyle]

Those airline bankruptcies simply illustrate what happens when huge businesses go into bankruptcy. Their viable parts are snatched up by competitors and their market share is absorbed by other companies. Pan Am going bankrupt didn't kill United.

That's cute. You actually think the predicament the U.S. auto industry faced in 2008 was "simple."

That's what I love about con tools. Because you only care about your agenda and not reality, you'll say anything, no matter how stupid, to defend your moronic positions.

Where did I ever contend that bankruptcy is "simple"? There are very smart lawyers and accountants out there who do nothing else but handle complex bankruptcies. The person here who's dumbed this down in his usual fashion in Rshermr...who doesn't seem to grasp that you can go bankrupt and not close up business forever!

So, more personal attacks. More lies. I said, me boy, no such thing, as you know.
Now, pay attention, me poor ignorant con tool. As I said, the problem with the auto makers going through a normal bankruptcy was that there was no trustee to finance it, as there MUST BE TO AVOID A COMPLETE LIQUIDATION. As has been stated, no financing was available, so no normal bankruptcy was possible. So in that case, the companies would have been liquidated. Plain and simple.
Now, me poor ignorant con tool, under NORMAL conditions, a bankruptcy with normal results could have and would have occurred.
Really, oldstyle, you lie all the time. And it simply proves again that you have no integrity.

You seem to be taking on the discredited Romney idea. (problem is, even he has abandoned it):
"Let's say that Governor Romney's plan was adopted in November 2008:
1. GM would have filed a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, seeking reorganization.
2. A Chapter 11 Bankruptcy would have required post-bankruptcy-petition financing by lenders to keep GM going. As stated above, there was no private post-petition financing (and therefore nothing for the government to guarantee).

3. In the absence of post-petition financing, GM would have stopped functioning and the company would have been liquidated -- either under a Trustee under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code or by its management under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

4. As a result, GM would have gone out of business, with all of the attendant consequences.

The Obama plan provided government financing, and therefore the automakers were able to successfully reorganize in Chapter 11.
At the debate, Governor Romney said, "And the idea that has been suggested that I would liquidate the industry — of course not. Of course not. …" Again, to say this is literally "true" is misleading. As the analysis above shows, taking Romney's advice in the Times Op-ed would unquestionably have led to liquidation. Therefore to "suggest" that Romney would liquidate the industry is true."
A Bankruptcy Lawyer (Me), Corrects Factcheck.Org On the Auto-Bailout (Updated, re Private Funding.)

Dude...now you're claiming to be a bankruptcy lawyer? Is this like when George Costanza claimed to be a Marine Biologist as well as an Architect?

Then you wonder why people bust your chops for lying?

 

[Rshermr]

Those airline bankruptcies simply illustrate what happens when huge businesses go into bankruptcy. Their viable parts are snatched up by competitors and their market share is absorbed by other companies. Pan Am going bankrupt didn't kill United.

That's cute. You actually think the predicament the U.S. auto industry faced in 2008 was "simple."

That's what I love about con tools. Because you only care about your agenda and not reality, you'll say anything, no matter how stupid, to defend your moronic positions.

Where did I ever contend that bankruptcy is "simple"? There are very smart lawyers and accountants out there who do nothing else but handle complex bankruptcies. The person here who's dumbed this down in his usual fashion in Rshermr...who doesn't seem to grasp that you can go bankrupt and not close up business forever!

So, more personal attacks. More lies. I said, me boy, no such thing, as you know.
Now, pay attention, me poor ignorant con tool. As I said, the problem with the auto makers going through a normal bankruptcy was that there was no trustee to finance it, as there MUST BE TO AVOID A COMPLETE LIQUIDATION. As has been stated, no financing was available, so no normal bankruptcy was possible. So in that case, the companies would have been liquidated. Plain and simple.
Now, me poor ignorant con tool, under NORMAL conditions, a bankruptcy with normal results could have and would have occurred.
Really, oldstyle, you lie all the time. And it simply proves again that you have no integrity.

You seem to be taking on the discredited Romney idea. (problem is, even he has abandoned it):
"Let's say that Governor Romney's plan was adopted in November 2008:
1. GM would have filed a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, seeking reorganization.
2. A Chapter 11 Bankruptcy would have required post-bankruptcy-petition financing by lenders to keep GM going. As stated above, there was no private post-petition financing (and therefore nothing for the government to guarantee).

3. In the absence of post-petition financing, GM would have stopped functioning and the company would have been liquidated -- either under a Trustee under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code or by its management under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

4. As a result, GM would have gone out of business, with all of the attendant consequences.

The Obama plan provided government financing, and therefore the automakers were able to successfully reorganize in Chapter 11.
At the debate, Governor Romney said, "And the idea that has been suggested that I would liquidate the industry — of course not. Of course not. …" Again, to say this is literally "true" is misleading. As the analysis above shows, taking Romney's advice in the Times Op-ed would unquestionably have led to liquidation. Therefore to "suggest" that Romney would liquidate the industry is true."
A Bankruptcy Lawyer (Me), Corrects Factcheck.Org On the Auto-Bailout (Updated, re Private Funding.)

Dude...now you're claiming to be a bankruptcy lawyer? Is this like when George Costanza claimed to be a Marine Biologist as well as an Architect?

Then you wonder why people bust your chops for lying?

No one, me boy, ever busts my chops for lying. You, of course, try,. But just more of your lying, which you know I can prove.
Then, speaking of lies, I have never claimed to be a bankruptcy lawyer. Again, you lie. As I have said, you lie all the time, and have no concern about doing so. Had I said I was a lawyer of any kind it would be easy for anyone to prove. But, of course, I did not.
But, it is nice that you see that you are caught again, saying that GM could have taken normal private bankruptcy. Though I am sure you will lie again, and pretend that you do not understand.

 

[Rshermr]

Those airline bankruptcies simply illustrate what happens when huge businesses go into bankruptcy. Their viable parts are snatched up by competitors and their market share is absorbed by other companies. Pan Am going bankrupt didn't kill United.

That's cute. You actually think the predicament the U.S. auto industry faced in 2008 was "simple."

That's what I love about con tools. Because you only care about your agenda and not reality, you'll say anything, no matter how stupid, to defend your moronic positions.

THAT IS ABSOLUTELY, COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH OLDSTYLE AND OTHER CON TROLLS. Take a look at their characteristics:
1. They make everything as simple as possible so that they can understand it.
2. They do not react to anything that takes them away from their simplistic belief.
3. They are absolutely uninterested and incapable of any changes in their belief.
4. They simply repeat what they want to believe over and over and over. They are not interested in truth.
5. They can and do lie as easily as they can tell the truth, as long as it fits their agenda.
6. They have absolutely NO integrity, no interest in integrity, or class.
7. They do as told and stick to the talking points strictly, because they are weak minded and want to be told what to believe.
8. Their belief system is based on believing what they want to believe, and what their group believe.
9. They want to be angry, so they are.

Which makes them completely worthless. Luckily there are not enough of them to win the day.

Yet YOU are the guy who comes here and pretends to be something he's not? Obviously, Georgie...you have issues with your own self worth! If you didn't you wouldn't be claiming things like teaching college level economics as an undergrad!

You need to accuse others of being liars because you're such a fraud yourself. It's what your participation in every string eventually evolves into because sooner or later your lies become unsustainable!

I never, ever lie. That is your activity. Only yours. I know no one else who lies like you.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Those airline bankruptcies simply illustrate what happens when huge businesses go into bankruptcy. Their viable parts are snatched up by competitors and their market share is absorbed by other companies. Pan Am going bankrupt didn't kill United.

agreed but why would anyone disagree?? A bankruptcy court is simple there to provide an orderly way to proceed forward when a company can no longer pay its bills.

 

[Faun]

Those airline bankruptcies simply illustrate what happens when huge businesses go into bankruptcy. Their viable parts are snatched up by competitors and their market share is absorbed by other companies. Pan Am going bankrupt didn't kill United.

That's cute. You actually think the predicament the U.S. auto industry faced in 2008 was "simple."

That's what I love about con tools. Because you only care about your agenda and not reality, you'll say anything, no matter how stupid, to defend your moronic positions.

Where did I ever contend that bankruptcy is "simple"? There are very smart lawyers and accountants out there who do nothing else but handle complex bankruptcies. The person here who's dumbed this down in his usual fashion in Rshermr...who doesn't seem to grasp that you can go bankrupt and not close up business forever!

So, more personal attacks. More lies. I said, me boy, no such thing, as you know.
Now, pay attention, me poor ignorant con tool. As I said, the problem with the auto makers going through a normal bankruptcy was that there was no trustee to finance it, as there MUST BE TO AVOID A COMPLETE LIQUIDATION. As has been stated, no financing was available, so no normal bankruptcy was possible. So in that case, the companies would have been liquidated. Plain and simple.
Now, me poor ignorant con tool, under NORMAL conditions, a bankruptcy with normal results could have and would have occurred.
Really, oldstyle, you lie all the time. And it simply proves again that you have no integrity.

You seem to be taking on the discredited Romney idea. (problem is, even he has abandoned it):
"Let's say that Governor Romney's plan was adopted in November 2008:
1. GM would have filed a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, seeking reorganization.
2. A Chapter 11 Bankruptcy would have required post-bankruptcy-petition financing by lenders to keep GM going. As stated above, there was no private post-petition financing (and therefore nothing for the government to guarantee).

3. In the absence of post-petition financing, GM would have stopped functioning and the company would have been liquidated -- either under a Trustee under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code or by its management under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

4. As a result, GM would have gone out of business, with all of the attendant consequences.

The Obama plan provided government financing, and therefore the automakers were able to successfully reorganize in Chapter 11.
At the debate, Governor Romney said, "And the idea that has been suggested that I would liquidate the industry — of course not. Of course not. …" Again, to say this is literally "true" is misleading. As the analysis above shows, taking Romney's advice in the Times Op-ed would unquestionably have led to liquidation. Therefore to "suggest" that Romney would liquidate the industry is true."
A Bankruptcy Lawyer (Me), Corrects Factcheck.Org On the Auto-Bailout (Updated, re Private Funding.)

Dude...now you're claiming to be a bankruptcy lawyer? Is this like when George Costanza claimed to be a Marine Biologist as well as an Architect?

Then you wonder why people bust your chops for lying?

He didn't claim to be a bankruptcy attorney.

How many times are you going to demonstrate for the forum that you have shit for brains? You don't think the forum already knows this?

 

[Rshermr]

Those airline bankruptcies simply illustrate what happens when huge businesses go into bankruptcy. Their viable parts are snatched up by competitors and their market share is absorbed by other companies. Pan Am going bankrupt didn't kill United.

That's cute. You actually think the predicament the U.S. auto industry faced in 2008 was "simple."

That's what I love about con tools. Because you only care about your agenda and not reality, you'll say anything, no matter how stupid, to defend your moronic positions.

Where did I ever contend that bankruptcy is "simple"? There are very smart lawyers and accountants out there who do nothing else but handle complex bankruptcies. The person here who's dumbed this down in his usual fashion in Rshermr...who doesn't seem to grasp that you can go bankrupt and not close up business forever!

So, more personal attacks. More lies. I said, me boy, no such thing, as you know.
Now, pay attention, me poor ignorant con tool. As I said, the problem with the auto makers going through a normal bankruptcy was that there was no trustee to finance it, as there MUST BE TO AVOID A COMPLETE LIQUIDATION. As has been stated, no financing was available, so no normal bankruptcy was possible. So in that case, the companies would have been liquidated. Plain and simple.
Now, me poor ignorant con tool, under NORMAL conditions, a bankruptcy with normal results could have and would have occurred.
Really, oldstyle, you lie all the time. And it simply proves again that you have no integrity.

You seem to be taking on the discredited Romney idea. (problem is, even he has abandoned it):
"Let's say that Governor Romney's plan was adopted in November 2008:
1. GM would have filed a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, seeking reorganization.
2. A Chapter 11 Bankruptcy would have required post-bankruptcy-petition financing by lenders to keep GM going. As stated above, there was no private post-petition financing (and therefore nothing for the government to guarantee).

3. In the absence of post-petition financing, GM would have stopped functioning and the company would have been liquidated -- either under a Trustee under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code or by its management under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

4. As a result, GM would have gone out of business, with all of the attendant consequences.

The Obama plan provided government financing, and therefore the automakers were able to successfully reorganize in Chapter 11.
At the debate, Governor Romney said, "And the idea that has been suggested that I would liquidate the industry — of course not. Of course not. …" Again, to say this is literally "true" is misleading. As the analysis above shows, taking Romney's advice in the Times Op-ed would unquestionably have led to liquidation. Therefore to "suggest" that Romney would liquidate the industry is true."
A Bankruptcy Lawyer (Me), Corrects Factcheck.Org On the Auto-Bailout (Updated, re Private Funding.)

Dude...now you're claiming to be a bankruptcy lawyer? Is this like when George Costanza claimed to be a Marine Biologist as well as an Architect?

Then you wonder why people bust your chops for lying?

He didn't claim to be a bankruptcy attorney.

How many times are you going to demonstrate for the forum that you have shit for brains? You don't think the forum already knows this?

HA! There it is. PROOF.

 

[Oldstyle]

Those airline bankruptcies simply illustrate what happens when huge businesses go into bankruptcy. Their viable parts are snatched up by competitors and their market share is absorbed by other companies. Pan Am going bankrupt didn't kill United.

That's cute. You actually think the predicament the U.S. auto industry faced in 2008 was "simple."

That's what I love about con tools. Because you only care about your agenda and not reality, you'll say anything, no matter how stupid, to defend your moronic positions.

Where did I ever contend that bankruptcy is "simple"? There are very smart lawyers and accountants out there who do nothing else but handle complex bankruptcies. The person here who's dumbed this down in his usual fashion in Rshermr...who doesn't seem to grasp that you can go bankrupt and not close up business forever!

So, more personal attacks. More lies. I said, me boy, no such thing, as you know.
Now, pay attention, me poor ignorant con tool. As I said, the problem with the auto makers going through a normal bankruptcy was that there was no trustee to finance it, as there MUST BE TO AVOID A COMPLETE LIQUIDATION. As has been stated, no financing was available, so no normal bankruptcy was possible. So in that case, the companies would have been liquidated. Plain and simple.
Now, me poor ignorant con tool, under NORMAL conditions, a bankruptcy with normal results could have and would have occurred.
Really, oldstyle, you lie all the time. And it simply proves again that you have no integrity.

You seem to be taking on the discredited Romney idea. (problem is, even he has abandoned it):
"Let's say that Governor Romney's plan was adopted in November 2008:
1. GM would have filed a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, seeking reorganization.
2. A Chapter 11 Bankruptcy would have required post-bankruptcy-petition financing by lenders to keep GM going. As stated above, there was no private post-petition financing (and therefore nothing for the government to guarantee).

3. In the absence of post-petition financing, GM would have stopped functioning and the company would have been liquidated -- either under a Trustee under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code or by its management under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

4. As a result, GM would have gone out of business, with all of the attendant consequences.

The Obama plan provided government financing, and therefore the automakers were able to successfully reorganize in Chapter 11.
At the debate, Governor Romney said, "And the idea that has been suggested that I would liquidate the industry — of course not. Of course not. …" Again, to say this is literally "true" is misleading. As the analysis above shows, taking Romney's advice in the Times Op-ed would unquestionably have led to liquidation. Therefore to "suggest" that Romney would liquidate the industry is true."
A Bankruptcy Lawyer (Me), Corrects Factcheck.Org On the Auto-Bailout (Updated, re Private Funding.)

Dude...now you're claiming to be a bankruptcy lawyer? Is this like when George Costanza claimed to be a Marine Biologist as well as an Architect?

Then you wonder why people bust your chops for lying?

No one, me boy, ever busts my chops for lying. You, of course, try,. But just more of your lying, which you know I can prove.
Then, speaking of lies, I have never claimed to be a bankruptcy lawyer. Again, you lie. As I have said, you lie all the time, and have no concern about doing so. Had I said I was a lawyer of any kind it would be easy for anyone to prove. But, of course, I did not.
But, it is nice that you see that you are caught again, saying that GM could have taken normal private bankruptcy. Though I am sure you will lie again, and pretend that you do not understand.

Since "normal private bankruptcy" isn't a THING...then no...GM couldn't have taken it! Please do us all a favor, Rshermr...don't pretend to know about bankruptcy like you pretend to know about economics! One can only take so much BULLSHIT at any given time!

 

[Oldstyle]

Those airline bankruptcies simply illustrate what happens when huge businesses go into bankruptcy. Their viable parts are snatched up by competitors and their market share is absorbed by other companies. Pan Am going bankrupt didn't kill United.

That's cute. You actually think the predicament the U.S. auto industry faced in 2008 was "simple."

That's what I love about con tools. Because you only care about your agenda and not reality, you'll say anything, no matter how stupid, to defend your moronic positions.

Where did I ever contend that bankruptcy is "simple"? There are very smart lawyers and accountants out there who do nothing else but handle complex bankruptcies. The person here who's dumbed this down in his usual fashion in Rshermr...who doesn't seem to grasp that you can go bankrupt and not close up business forever!

So, more personal attacks. More lies. I said, me boy, no such thing, as you know.
Now, pay attention, me poor ignorant con tool. As I said, the problem with the auto makers going through a normal bankruptcy was that there was no trustee to finance it, as there MUST BE TO AVOID A COMPLETE LIQUIDATION. As has been stated, no financing was available, so no normal bankruptcy was possible. So in that case, the companies would have been liquidated. Plain and simple.
Now, me poor ignorant con tool, under NORMAL conditions, a bankruptcy with normal results could have and would have occurred.
Really, oldstyle, you lie all the time. And it simply proves again that you have no integrity.

You seem to be taking on the discredited Romney idea. (problem is, even he has abandoned it):
"Let's say that Governor Romney's plan was adopted in November 2008:
1. GM would have filed a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, seeking reorganization.
2. A Chapter 11 Bankruptcy would have required post-bankruptcy-petition financing by lenders to keep GM going. As stated above, there was no private post-petition financing (and therefore nothing for the government to guarantee).

3. In the absence of post-petition financing, GM would have stopped functioning and the company would have been liquidated -- either under a Trustee under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code or by its management under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

4. As a result, GM would have gone out of business, with all of the attendant consequences.

The Obama plan provided government financing, and therefore the automakers were able to successfully reorganize in Chapter 11.
At the debate, Governor Romney said, "And the idea that has been suggested that I would liquidate the industry — of course not. Of course not. …" Again, to say this is literally "true" is misleading. As the analysis above shows, taking Romney's advice in the Times Op-ed would unquestionably have led to liquidation. Therefore to "suggest" that Romney would liquidate the industry is true."
A Bankruptcy Lawyer (Me), Corrects Factcheck.Org On the Auto-Bailout (Updated, re Private Funding.)

Dude...now you're claiming to be a bankruptcy lawyer? Is this like when George Costanza claimed to be a Marine Biologist as well as an Architect?

Then you wonder why people bust your chops for lying?

He didn't claim to be a bankruptcy attorney.

How many times are you going to demonstrate for the forum that you have shit for brains? You don't think the forum already knows this?

What he did was use the work of someone else and not put it in quotations so I thought it was Georgie making the statement! Of course I should have known better because it was actually something that made sense!

 

[Oldstyle]

Why don't you go back to pretending to have me on ignore, Rshermr? Or did you forget that was what you claimed? Oh, that's right I keep forgetting that you spout so much crap on this site it's hard for you to keep track of the bullshit you said today let alone yesterday.

 

[Rshermr]

That's cute. You actually think the predicament the U.S. auto industry faced in 2008 was "simple."

That's what I love about con tools. Because you only care about your agenda and not reality, you'll say anything, no matter how stupid, to defend your moronic positions.

Where did I ever contend that bankruptcy is "simple"? There are very smart lawyers and accountants out there who do nothing else but handle complex bankruptcies. The person here who's dumbed this down in his usual fashion in Rshermr...who doesn't seem to grasp that you can go bankrupt and not close up business forever!

So, more personal attacks. More lies. I said, me boy, no such thing, as you know.
Now, pay attention, me poor ignorant con tool. As I said, the problem with the auto makers going through a normal bankruptcy was that there was no trustee to finance it, as there MUST BE TO AVOID A COMPLETE LIQUIDATION. As has been stated, no financing was available, so no normal bankruptcy was possible. So in that case, the companies would have been liquidated. Plain and simple.
Now, me poor ignorant con tool, under NORMAL conditions, a bankruptcy with normal results could have and would have occurred.
Really, oldstyle, you lie all the time. And it simply proves again that you have no integrity.

You seem to be taking on the discredited Romney idea. (problem is, even he has abandoned it):
"Let's say that Governor Romney's plan was adopted in November 2008:
1. GM would have filed a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, seeking reorganization.
2. A Chapter 11 Bankruptcy would have required post-bankruptcy-petition financing by lenders to keep GM going. As stated above, there was no private post-petition financing (and therefore nothing for the government to guarantee).

3. In the absence of post-petition financing, GM would have stopped functioning and the company would have been liquidated -- either under a Trustee under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code or by its management under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

4. As a result, GM would have gone out of business, with all of the attendant consequences.

The Obama plan provided government financing, and therefore the automakers were able to successfully reorganize in Chapter 11.
At the debate, Governor Romney said, "And the idea that has been suggested that I would liquidate the industry — of course not. Of course not. …" Again, to say this is literally "true" is misleading. As the analysis above shows, taking Romney's advice in the Times Op-ed would unquestionably have led to liquidation. Therefore to "suggest" that Romney would liquidate the industry is true."
A Bankruptcy Lawyer (Me), Corrects Factcheck.Org On the Auto-Bailout (Updated, re Private Funding.)

Dude...now you're claiming to be a bankruptcy lawyer? Is this like when George Costanza claimed to be a Marine Biologist as well as an Architect?

Then you wonder why people bust your chops for lying?

No one, me boy, ever busts my chops for lying. You, of course, try,. But just more of your lying, which you know I can prove.
Then, speaking of lies, I have never claimed to be a bankruptcy lawyer. Again, you lie. As I have said, you lie all the time, and have no concern about doing so. Had I said I was a lawyer of any kind it would be easy for anyone to prove. But, of course, I did not.
But, it is nice that you see that you are caught again, saying that GM could have taken normal private bankruptcy. Though I am sure you will lie again, and pretend that you do not understand.

Since "normal private bankruptcy" isn't a THING...then no...GM couldn't have taken it! Please do us all a favor, Rshermr...don't pretend to know about bankruptcy like you pretend to know about economics! One can only take so much BULLSHIT at any given time!

Ah, but me poor ignorant con tool, are you suggesting that the auto bailout was based on the use of private trustees to govern the bankruptcy?? Are you suggesting that the federal government acting as trustee was normal??
No, of course not. You are just trying to find some way to attack. Normal for you. And, me boy, bullshit is your gig. You are suggesting that what I said was not true. But you loose, again. Unless you want to try to convince someone that the bankruptcy path taken by the auto industry was normal. Dipshit.

 

[Rshermr]

That's cute. You actually think the predicament the U.S. auto industry faced in 2008 was "simple."

That's what I love about con tools. Because you only care about your agenda and not reality, you'll say anything, no matter how stupid, to defend your moronic positions.

Where did I ever contend that bankruptcy is "simple"? There are very smart lawyers and accountants out there who do nothing else but handle complex bankruptcies. The person here who's dumbed this down in his usual fashion in Rshermr...who doesn't seem to grasp that you can go bankrupt and not close up business forever!

So, more personal attacks. More lies. I said, me boy, no such thing, as you know.
Now, pay attention, me poor ignorant con tool. As I said, the problem with the auto makers going through a normal bankruptcy was that there was no trustee to finance it, as there MUST BE TO AVOID A COMPLETE LIQUIDATION. As has been stated, no financing was available, so no normal bankruptcy was possible. So in that case, the companies would have been liquidated. Plain and simple.
Now, me poor ignorant con tool, under NORMAL conditions, a bankruptcy with normal results could have and would have occurred.
Really, oldstyle, you lie all the time. And it simply proves again that you have no integrity.

You seem to be taking on the discredited Romney idea. (problem is, even he has abandoned it):
"Let's say that Governor Romney's plan was adopted in November 2008:
1. GM would have filed a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, seeking reorganization.
2. A Chapter 11 Bankruptcy would have required post-bankruptcy-petition financing by lenders to keep GM going. As stated above, there was no private post-petition financing (and therefore nothing for the government to guarantee).

3. In the absence of post-petition financing, GM would have stopped functioning and the company would have been liquidated -- either under a Trustee under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code or by its management under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

4. As a result, GM would have gone out of business, with all of the attendant consequences.

The Obama plan provided government financing, and therefore the automakers were able to successfully reorganize in Chapter 11.
At the debate, Governor Romney said, "And the idea that has been suggested that I would liquidate the industry — of course not. Of course not. …" Again, to say this is literally "true" is misleading. As the analysis above shows, taking Romney's advice in the Times Op-ed would unquestionably have led to liquidation. Therefore to "suggest" that Romney would liquidate the industry is true."
A Bankruptcy Lawyer (Me), Corrects Factcheck.Org On the Auto-Bailout (Updated, re Private Funding.)

Dude...now you're claiming to be a bankruptcy lawyer? Is this like when George Costanza claimed to be a Marine Biologist as well as an Architect?

Then you wonder why people bust your chops for lying?

He didn't claim to be a bankruptcy attorney.

How many times are you going to demonstrate for the forum that you have shit for brains? You don't think the forum already knows this?

What he did was use the work of someone else and not put it in quotations so I thought it was Georgie making the statement! Of course I should have known better because it was actually something that made sense!

Un, as you can see, the quote was within quotation marks. For the past several hundred years, me boy, that has meant that the writer is quoting someone. Always. Then, the fact that the quote was in red makes it obvious to anyone that the quote was......A QUOTE. So, odd, I did not see an admission of your mistake. Dipshit.

 

[Rshermr]

Why don't you go back to pretending to have me on ignore, Rshermr? Or did you forget that was what you claimed? Oh, that's right I keep forgetting that you spout so much crap on this site it's hard for you to keep track of the bullshit you said today let alone yesterday.

I did not put you on ignore, I decided instead not to pay any attention to you. Look it up. That, me boy, is the definition of ignore. But you could not stop lying about me, and so I just thought I would correct some of your lies. Sorry that bothers you so much. Most people, those with integrity, would stop lying.

So, me boy, did you have anything to say about the subject of this thread, or are you planning on just continuing your personal attacks and lies???

 

[Markle]

That would be your opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion.

Do you really think that people want to see all of your posts, which say absolutly NOTHING. You are really wasting space and people's time.
You see, me boy, you and I and others can compare expert opinions of whether cash for clunkers was a good idea or not. I believe it worked, and you don't..
So, do you know what the point is, me boy. The point is, there is now a very successful auto industry in the us. That is all that really matters. So, you do not want to believe that it is important, any rational source does. That leaves just republicans, con tools, and idiots on your side of the issue.
If you think saving the auto industry was a bad idea, please try to tell us why, me boy.And try to respect the time of others by not posting long, meaningless posts.

Thank you son.

How many FEWER NEW CARS, would have been sold in the United States had General Motors and Chrysler declared the same bankruptcy laws available to all companies and individuals. You know, instead of the form of bankruptcy they were allowed to use.

Go for it son, I know you can do it!

No one knows, me boy. But they would not have been cars made by american companies. They would not be by GM, Ford, or Chrysler. Yup, even Ford would have been gone.
So, what is your answer, me boy??? Are you just continuing to post talking points??

See, that's where you are wrong...again. I know how many cars would have been bought and anyone knowledgeable knew too.

By now son, you should know that Progressives can't deal in the real world.

Had GM gone into bankruptcy, it would not have disappeared into thin air. Numerous airlines have gone into bankruptcy. Is there a shortage of seats, to go anywhere? No, of course not.

GM would have been auctioned off. Investors, not the government, would have decided which brands should survive. Those companies would have been bought, and continued to exist. The union contracts would have gone by the wayside along with the poor management. New, better management would have taken over. Cars would have continued to be produced and the United States would have bought the same number of cars.

Keep up the good work.[/QUOTE]

That would be your opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion.

Do you really think that people want to see all of your posts, which say absolutly NOTHING. You are really wasting space and people's time.
You see, me boy, you and I and others can compare expert opinions of whether cash for clunkers was a good idea or not. I believe it worked, and you don't..
So, do you know what the point is, me boy. The point is, there is now a very successful auto industry in the us. That is all that really matters. So, you do not want to believe that it is important, any rational source does. That leaves just republicans, con tools, and idiots on your side of the issue.
If you think saving the auto industry was a bad idea, please try to tell us why, me boy.And try to respect the time of others by not posting long, meaningless posts.

Thank you son.

How many FEWER NEW CARS, would have been sold in the United States had General Motors and Chrysler declared the same bankruptcy laws available to all companies and individuals. You know, instead of the form of bankruptcy they were allowed to use.

Go for it son, I know you can do it!

No one knows, me boy. But they would not have been cars made by american companies. They would not be by GM, Ford, or Chrysler. Yup, even Ford would have been gone.
So, what is your answer, me boy??? Are you just continuing to post talking points??

See, that's where you are wrong...again. I know how many cars would have been bought and anyone knowledgeable knew too.

By now son, you should know that Progressives can't deal in the real world.

Had GM gone into bankruptcy, it would not have disappeared into thin air. Numerous airlines have gone into bankruptcy. Is there a shortage of seats, to go anywhere? No, of course not.

GM would have been auctioned off. Investors, not the government, would have decided which brands should survive. Those companies would have been bought, and continued to exist. The union contracts would have gone by the wayside along with the poor management. New, better management would have taken over. Cars would have continued to be produced and the United States would have bought the same number of cars.

Keep up the good work.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Well, nice try, me boy. What you apparently do not know, even today, is that to get to the point of auctioning, a purchaser must agree to provide operating capital. At that point., you can try to find a buyer, or, you could choose to auction the assets.
In the case of airlines, the companies were enerally sold AFT

That would be your opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion.

Do you really think that people want to see all of your posts, which say absolutly NOTHING. You are really wasting space and people's time.
You see, me boy, you and I and others can compare expert opinions of whether cash for clunkers was a good idea or not. I believe it worked, and you don't..
So, do you know what the point is, me boy. The point is, there is now a very successful auto industry in the us. That is all that really matters. So, you do not want to believe that it is important, any rational source does. That leaves just republicans, con tools, and idiots on your side of the issue.
If you think saving the auto industry was a bad idea, please try to tell us why, me boy.And try to respect the time of others by not posting long, meaningless posts.

Thank you son.

How many FEWER NEW CARS, would have been sold in the United States had General Motors and Chrysler declared the same bankruptcy laws available to all companies and individuals. You know, instead of the form of bankruptcy they were allowed to use.

Go for it son, I know you can do it!

No one knows, me boy. But they would not have been cars made by american companies. They would not be by GM, Ford, or Chrysler. Yup, even Ford would have been gone.
So, what is your answer, me boy??? Are you just continuing to post talking points??[/QUOTE]



See, that's where you are wrong...again. I know how many cars would have been bought and anyone knowledgeable knew too.

By now son, you should know that Progressives can't deal in the real world.

Had GM gone into bankruptcy, it would not have disappeared into thin air. Numerous airlines have gone into bankruptcy. Is there a shortage of seats, to go anywhere? No, of course not.

GM would have been auctioned off. Investors, not the government, would have decided which brands should survive. Those companies would have been bought, and continued to exist. The union contracts would have gone by the wayside along with the poor management. New, better management would have taken over. Cars would have continued to be produced and the United States would have bought the same number of cars.

Keep up the good work.[/QUOTE]
wow. You ARE ignorant.
No sale could have occurred. No companies could have continued to exist. None of your happy fairy rail would or could have existed.
So, let me explain the basics about bankruptcy, me boy. The problem is, in a normal private bankruptcy, you have a suitor who takes over a company, provides working capital to keep the company function long enough to sell or liquidate it, and administers the bankruptcy process. Without a suitor, there is NO WAY TO HAVE A BANKRUPTCY. And, during the recession, there were no suitors for gm or Chrysler. HENSE, NO BANKRUPTCY. So, in your simplistic little Airline bankruptcy, there were suitors capable of financing the bankruptcy. But not in the auto case.
So, no, me boy. You loose. There would have been no American auto companies selling any cars, unless ford survived. And they did not expect to.
So, nice try. But simple con talking points just won't help you here.[/QUOTE]

You really have no clue as to how a bankruptcy works do you? Which is fine, if you were not spouting off about that which you know nothing.

 

[Markle]

Georgie isn't smart enough about economics to understand that a company filing for bankruptcy protection doesn't mean that they are closing their doors and laying off all their workers!

Ford would have been gone? Ford didn't take part in the Obama Auto Industry Bailout...so why would they have been "gone"?

I think it's fairly evident that Rshermr is back on his pain killers again...

Yet even more ignorance spewed by the con tool.

Had GMC and Chrysler gone down, Ford would have gone down too.

Why do you think Ford's CEO went with the CEO's of GMC and Chrysler to beg Congress for bailout money even though they weren't asking for any money for themselves? They want GMC and Chrysler, their rivals, to receive the money.

You really do have shit for brains. Can't you con tools do any better than you?

So let me see how this would work...General Motors and Chrysler "go down"...and that would somehow make their competitor, who one would assume would pick up a whole lot of additional sales, go down as well? I would love to hear how that works, Faun! How does losing your competition make you go belly up as well?

Sorry, shitferbrains, you failed to answer the question....

Why do you think Ford's CEO went with the CEO's of GMC and Chrysler to beg Congress for bailout money even though they weren't asking for any money for themselves? Why would they want their competitors to be bailed out?

The answer to that question reveals just how stupid you are.

Ever heard the name Mulally, me boy. Look up the name with the term auto bailout. You will learn who he is and why ford would have gone down also.

So, Faun, con tools do not understand supply chains and their ramifications. I am sure the boy will come back saying Mullaly is wrong.

You do pride yourself on knowing nothing about subjects...yet still pretending you do. What fun!

 

[Markle]

What's idiotic is people like you believing that any company is too big to fail!

It wasn't just "any company," ya moron ... it was the American automotive industry.

And had the big three gone done, it would have taken a huge portion of the economy with it. Not that you con tools care. Slipping into a depression would have merely been another talking point for you.

You seem proud to display your ignorance as to how a bankruptcy works. Yet you can't help yourself by making a fool of yourself by constantly showing what you do not know.