US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Faun]

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.

You're the one who's clueless. It would not have just been another, oh well, a company went bankrupt. It would have been an entire industry as all 3 major U.S. automotive companies would have gone down. Even worse, that industry would have gone under while the country was amidst a massive recession and trying to avoid slipping into a recession.

 

[Rshermr]

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.

You're the one who's clueless. It would not have just been another, oh well, a company went bankrupt. It would have been an entire industry as all 3 major U.S. automotive companies would have gone down. Even worse, that industry would have gone under while the country was amidst a massive recession and trying to avoid slipping into a recession.

Now, if you think Faun does not know something, go ahead and tell us what. You are, me boy, simply lying. It was clear as glass. And to everyone with half a brain, bankruptcy was only an option if you wanted mass unemployment (in the millions) and disolution of the american auto industry, to be replaced by foreign auto makers. Which, of course, you did. Really, it is plain obvious, calling people ignorant who are simply stating the truth makes you look like what you are: A CON TOOL.
Pretty obvious, as you well know. Totally political arguments. Under no circumstances did it make any sense to see the auto industry go down the tube. All rational impartial sources agreed that was somewhere between a really good possibility and a probability. Republican politicians who hated labor unions and loved sending republican governors in southern states which paid the poorest salaries foreign auto manufacturing plants. And the net, to the conservatives great sorrow, the auto industry is now thriving, and millions of jobs have been saved.
It is un-american to pursue losses to the people of the US for your own political goals. And conservative talking points and lies will never make it rational.

So again, we can believe a conservative tool, or we can believe the CEO of Ford Motor Company.

 

[Rshermr]

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.

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.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps, me poor ignorant con tool, you would like to explain where I was wrong. But you will not, because you do not know. You are a congenital idiot. I know you can not explain where I was wrong, because what I tried to explain to your poor troubled mind is what the people trying to take GM on a "normal" bankruptcy" found it was not possible. Which, apparently, is too complex for you to understand.

Sitting back and calling people ignorant but being unable to explain why is tacky, me boy. Shows you have neither knowledge nor integrity.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

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]
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.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps, me poor ignorant con tool, you would like to explain where I was wrong. But you will not, because you do not know. You are a congenital idiot. I know you can not explain where I was wrong, because what I tried to explain to your poor troubled mind is what the people trying to take GM on a "normal" bankruptcy" found it was not possible. Which, apparently, is too complex for you to understand.

Sitting back and calling people ignorant but being unable to explain why is tacky, me boy. Shows you have neither knowledge nor integrity.[/QUOTE]

You can't seem to make up your mind, Georgie! Is a GM bankruptcy going mean the company ceases to exist...or is it going to be bought up by investors? I'm rather amused by your concept that because of a recession that there wouldn't be "suitors" out there with working capital to invest in General Motors...one of the iconic corporations of modern times...one that was back showing a profit rather quickly following the Government bailout...but no investors would be interested? Here's a novel concept for you, Sparky...during recessions and depressions fortunes are made by people who have capital because they can buy for pennies on the dollar. Someone would have bought GM because it's a strong brand in the world's most stable economy.

 

[Oldstyle]

And I still am waiting to hear the explanation as to why Ford would somehow crash and burn because it lost all of it's domestic competition? How does elimination your competition make you vulnerable as the only remaining major car brand in the US? It's a novel concept. It doesn't make any sense at all...but you and Faun snapped it up, hook, line and sinker!

 

[Faun]

And I still am waiting to hear the explanation as to why Ford would somehow crash and burn because it lost all of it's domestic competition? How does elimination your competition make you vulnerable as the only remaining major car brand in the US? It's a novel concept.

Sadly, it seems you'll be waiting for the remainder of your life. Not to receive said explanation; that's already been provided to you -- you'll be waiting to understand it.

Oh well, c'est la vie.

It doesn't make any sense at all...but you and Faun snapped it up, hook, line and sinker!

Well clearly, it made perfect sense to Ford's CEO since he did appear before Congress to get money to bail out his competitors. And equally as clear -- Ford's CEO was infinitely more economically savvy than you.

 

[Oldstyle]

Throughout history...free markets have self adjusted to cope with recessions...yet when John Maynard Keynes declares that it is government who needs to solve the recession problem...that somehow becomes a carved in stone fact?

Now it's also a progressive "fact" that if the US government hadn't bailed out GM that the entire US car industry would have gone belly up...including Ford? Sorry, Faun but I'm not buying the bullshit...

 

[Oldstyle]

What I'll be "waiting" for is an explanation from Georgie Costanza on what the formula was the Obama Administration used to come up with their "jobs saved" figures! A-B=Jobs Saved? Gotta love it when idiots try to bullshit their way out of a lie.

 

[Faun]

Throughout history...free markets have self adjusted to cope with recessions...yet when John Maynard Keynes declares that it is government who needs to solve the recession problem...that somehow becomes a carved in stone fact?

Now it's also a progressive "fact" that if the US government hadn't bailed out GM that the entire US car industry would have gone belly up...including Ford? Sorry, Faun but I'm not buying the bullshit...

You're funny, gramps. Like what you "buy" matters.

No rational person is going to accept the idiotic musings if a con tool like you over the actions of the CEO of one of America's auto industry giants.

 

[Oldstyle]

Throughout history...free markets have self adjusted to cope with recessions...yet when John Maynard Keynes declares that it is government who needs to solve the recession problem...that somehow becomes a carved in stone fact?

Now it's also a progressive "fact" that if the US government hadn't bailed out GM that the entire US car industry would have gone belly up...including Ford? Sorry, Faun but I'm not buying the bullshit...

You're funny, gramps. Like what you "buy" matters.

No rational person is going to accept the idiotic musings if a con tool like you over the actions of the CEO of one of America's auto industry giants.

You know what I find rather amusing, Faun? You folks on the left absolutely RANT about "evil" CEO's of American corporations and their "greed" but because Ford's CEO went along with a Federal bailout of the auto industry...you for some reason see HIM as a good guy? Yeah, THAT'S rational all right!

 

[Faun]

Throughout history...free markets have self adjusted to cope with recessions...yet when John Maynard Keynes declares that it is government who needs to solve the recession problem...that somehow becomes a carved in stone fact?

Now it's also a progressive "fact" that if the US government hadn't bailed out GM that the entire US car industry would have gone belly up...including Ford? Sorry, Faun but I'm not buying the bullshit...

You're funny, gramps. Like what you "buy" matters.

No rational person is going to accept the idiotic musings if a con tool like you over the actions of the CEO of one of America's auto industry giants.

You know what I find rather amusing, Faun? You folks on the left absolutely RANT about "evil" CEO's of American corporations and their "greed" but because Ford's CEO went along with a Federal bailout of the auto industry...you for some reason see HIM as a good guy? Yeah, THAT'S rational all right!

Did I say he was a "good guy?"

No, of course not. This would be yet another example of you lying because facts and truth are once again not on your side.

I do say he's knowledgeable in the automobile industry. More so than you by an incalculable magnitude.

 

[Oldstyle]

Yet you can't explain why Ford losing it's main competitor would make it go down the tubes as well? Your only "explanation" for that is the CEO of Ford SAID it would? That's pretty weak, Faun...and I think you know it! You resort to calling me a liar for the same reasons, Rshermr does...because I ask questions that you have no answers for.

 

[Faun]

Yet you can't explain why Ford losing it's main competitor would make it go down the tubes as well? Your only "explanation" for that is the CEO of Ford SAID it would? That's pretty weak, Faun...and I think you know it! You resort to calling me a liar for the same reasons, Rshermr does...because I ask questions that you have no answers for.

Sadly, the con tool loon continues to lie.

No, con tool loon, that is not all I posted. I also quoted some of his reasons.

See that? I'm not calling you a liar because I can't answer your questions (that too is a lie by you). I call you a liar because you lie. You lied when you falsely inferred I didn't answer even though I actually did answer by quoting Ford's CEO at the time. Now you at least admit I quoted him; but now you lie by falsely claiming I didn't cite his reasons.

As I often say, if the truth and facts were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like ya do.

 

[Oldstyle]

What's interesting is that Mulally himself has come out and stated that he didn't feel that Ford was in danger of having to file bankruptcy back in 2008 and 2009.

Yet you can't explain why Ford losing it's main competitor would make it go down the tubes as well? Your only "explanation" for that is the CEO of Ford SAID it would? That's pretty weak, Faun...and I think you know it! You resort to calling me a liar for the same reasons, Rshermr does...because I ask questions that you have no answers for.

Sadly, the con tool loon continues to lie.

No, con tool loon, that is not all I posted. I also quoted some of his reasons.

See that? I'm not calling you a liar because I can't answer your questions (that too is a lie by you). I call you a liar because you lie. You lied when you falsely inferred I didn't answer even though I actually did answer by quoting Ford's CEO at the time. Now you at least admit I quoted him; but now you lie by falsely claiming I didn't cite his reasons.

As I often say, if the truth and facts were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like ya do.

The REASON that people like you and Rshermr have to resort to calling others "liars", Faun is that you struggle so much to explain how your progressive agenda works in the real world! I ask a very simple question...why Ford would go out of business simply because GM went bankrupt...and you really don't have an answer to that question other than to ask me why the CEO of Ford would push for a bailout! As if THAT somehow explains something that goes counter to what I've learned running businesses for 40 years!

 

[Faun]

What's interesting is that Mulally himself has come out and stated that he didn't feel that Ford was in danger of having to file bankruptcy back in 2008 and 2009.

Yet you can't explain why Ford losing it's main competitor would make it go down the tubes as well? Your only "explanation" for that is the CEO of Ford SAID it would? That's pretty weak, Faun...and I think you know it! You resort to calling me a liar for the same reasons, Rshermr does...because I ask questions that you have no answers for.

Sadly, the con tool loon continues to lie.

No, con tool loon, that is not all I posted. I also quoted some of his reasons.

See that? I'm not calling you a liar because I can't answer your questions (that too is a lie by you). I call you a liar because you lie. You lied when you falsely inferred I didn't answer even though I actually did answer by quoting Ford's CEO at the time. Now you at least admit I quoted him; but now you lie by falsely claiming I didn't cite his reasons.

As I often say, if the truth and facts were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like ya do.

The REASON that people like you and Rshermr have to resort to calling others "liars", Faun is that you struggle so much to explain how your progressive agenda works in the real world! I ask a very simple question...why Ford would go out of business simply because GM went bankrupt...and you really don't have an answer to that question other than to ask me why the CEO of Ford would push for a bailout! As if THAT somehow explains something that goes counter to what I've learned running businesses for 40 years!

I am struggling with nothing, ya con tool. Sadly for you, you lie because truth and facts are not on your side.

 

[Oldstyle]

Both you and Rshermr are struggling to answer simple questions, Faun...it's why Georgie pretended to put me on ignore and you pepper your posts with "con tools" and accusations of lying! Rshermr couldn't come up with the economic formula that the Obama Administration used to figure out "jobs saved" so he ran away and hid behind the ignore feature. You can't explain why losing your competitors would make Ford go out of business so you get abusive.

Simple questions that you can't deal with. That says volumes about the truth in your positions.

 

[Rshermr]

What's interesting is that Mulally himself has come out and stated that he didn't feel that Ford was in danger of having to file bankruptcy back in 2008 and 2009.

Yet you can't explain why Ford losing it's main competitor would make it go down the tubes as well? Your only "explanation" for that is the CEO of Ford SAID it would? That's pretty weak, Faun...and I think you know it! You resort to calling me a liar for the same reasons, Rshermr does...because I ask questions that you have no answers for.

Sadly, the con tool loon continues to lie.

No, con tool loon, that is not all I posted. I also quoted some of his reasons.

See that? I'm not calling you a liar because I can't answer your questions (that too is a lie by you). I call you a liar because you lie. You lied when you falsely inferred I didn't answer even though I actually did answer by quoting Ford's CEO at the time. Now you at least admit I quoted him; but now you lie by falsely claiming I didn't cite his reasons.

As I often say, if the truth and facts were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like ya do.

The REASON that people like you and Rshermr have to resort to calling others "liars", Faun is that you struggle so much to explain how your progressive agenda works in the real world! I ask a very simple question...why Ford would go out of business simply because GM went bankrupt...and you really don't have an answer to that question other than to ask me why the CEO of Ford would push for a bailout! As if THAT somehow explains something that goes counter to what I've learned running businesses for 40 years!

I am struggling with nothing, ya con tool. Sadly for you, you lie because truth and facts are not on your side.

The thing is, with Oldstyle around, all conversations about economic subjects go out the window. But we all get a thorough lesson on advanced lying techniques. While most take the evidence provided to them, and have the integrity to admit their error, Oldstyle NEVER admits anything. He just ignores the evidence and keeps on lying. With no problem at all, because if you have no integrity, it makes no difference if you are spreading your agenda by lying or telling the truth. Just a con tool trait.

 

[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.

You're the one who's clueless. It would not have just been another, oh well, a company went bankrupt. It would have been an entire industry as all 3 major U.S. automotive companies would have gone down. Even worse, that industry would have gone under while the country was amidst a massive recession and trying to avoid slipping into a recession.

With the typically closed mind of a Progressive, you are incapable of grasping the TRUTH AND FACTS. Perhaps, just perhaps, someone else can explain it in a way understandable to you. Highly doubtful though since Progressives routinely refuse to read opposing views...unlike Conservatives.

Bailouts and Bankruptcy
By Walter E.Williams
December 9, 2008 5 Min Read

Let's not allow Congress and members of the bailout parade panic us into allowing them to do things, as was done in the 1930s, that would convert a mild economic downturn into a true calamity. Right now the Big Three auto companies, and their unions, are asking Congress for a $25 billion bailout to avoid bankruptcy. Let's think about that a bit.

What happens when a company goes bankrupt? One thing that does not happen is their productive assets go poof and disappear into thin air. In other words, if GM goes bankrupt, the assembly lines, robots, buildings and other tools don't evaporate. What bankruptcy means is the title to those assets change. People who think they can manage those assets better purchase them.

Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, where the control of its business operations are subject to the oversight and jurisdiction of the court, gives companies a chance to reorganize. The court can permit complete or partial relief from the company's debts and its labor union contracts.

A large part of the problem is the Big Three's cozy relationship with the United Auto Workers union (UAW). GM has a $73 hourly wage cost including benefits and overtime. Toyota has five major assembly plants in the U.S. Its hourly wage cost plus benefits is $48. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out which company will be at a competitive disadvantage. Then there's the "jobs bank" feature of the UAW contract where workers who are laid off workers get 95 percent of their base pay and all their benefits. Right now there's a two-year limit but in the past workers could stay in the "jobs bank" forever unless they turned down two job offers within 50 miles of their factory. At one time job bank membership exceeded 7,000 "workers." GM, Ford and Chrysler face other problems that range from poor corporate management and marketing, not to mention costly government regulations.

Two vital marketplace signals are the profits that come with success and the losses that come with failure. When these two signals are not allowed to freely function, markets operate less efficiently. To be successful a business must take in enough revenue not only to cover wages, rents and interest but profits as well. In order to accomplish that feat executives must not only satisfy customers but they must do it in a manner that efficiently utilizes all of their resources. If they fail to cover costs, it means that resources are not being used efficiently and/or consumers don't value the good being produced relative to some other alternative. When a firm routinely fails to turn a profit, there are bankruptcy pressures. The firm's resources, workers, building and capital become available to someone else who might put them to better use. When government steps in with a bailout, it enables executives to continue mismanaging resources.

How much congressional involvement do we want with the Big Three auto companies? I'd say none. Congressmen and federal bureaucrats, including those at the Federal Reserve Board, don't know anymore about the automobile business than they know about the banking and financial businesses that they've turned into a mess. Just look at the idiotic focus of congressmen when the three auto company chief executives appeared before them. They questioned whether the executives should have driven to Congress rather than flown in on corporate jets. They focused on executive pay, which is a tiny fraction of costs compared to $73 hourly compensation to 250,000 autoworkers. The belief that Congress poses the major threat to our liberty and well-being is why the founders gave them limited enumerated powers. To our detriment, today's Americans have given them unlimited powers.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

Bailouts and Bankruptcy by Walter E.Williams

 

[Rshermr]

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.

You're the one who's clueless. It would not have just been another, oh well, a company went bankrupt. It would have been an entire industry as all 3 major U.S. automotive companies would have gone down. Even worse, that industry would have gone under while the country was amidst a massive recession and trying to avoid slipping into a recession.

With the typically closed mind of a Progressive, you are incapable of grasping the TRUTH AND FACTS. Perhaps, just perhaps, someone else can explain it in a way understandable to you. Highly doubtful though since Progressives routinely refuse to read opposing views...unlike Conservatives.

Bailouts and Bankruptcy
By Walter E.Williams
December 9, 2008 5 Min Read

Let's not allow Congress and members of the bailout parade panic us into allowing them to do things, as was done in the 1930s, that would convert a mild economic downturn into a true calamity. Right now the Big Three auto companies, and their unions, are asking Congress for a $25 billion bailout to avoid bankruptcy. Let's think about that a bit.

What happens when a company goes bankrupt? One thing that does not happen is their productive assets go poof and disappear into thin air. In other words, if GM goes bankrupt, the assembly lines, robots, buildings and other tools don't evaporate. What bankruptcy means is the title to those assets change. People who think they can manage those assets better purchase them.

Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, where the control of its business operations are subject to the oversight and jurisdiction of the court, gives companies a chance to reorganize. The court can permit complete or partial relief from the company's debts and its labor union contracts.

A large part of the problem is the Big Three's cozy relationship with the United Auto Workers union (UAW). GM has a $73 hourly wage cost including benefits and overtime. Toyota has five major assembly plants in the U.S. Its hourly wage cost plus benefits is $48. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out which company will be at a competitive disadvantage. Then there's the "jobs bank" feature of the UAW contract where workers who are laid off workers get 95 percent of their base pay and all their benefits. Right now there's a two-year limit but in the past workers could stay in the "jobs bank" forever unless they turned down two job offers within 50 miles of their factory. At one time job bank membership exceeded 7,000 "workers." GM, Ford and Chrysler face other problems that range from poor corporate management and marketing, not to mention costly government regulations.

Two vital marketplace signals are the profits that come with success and the losses that come with failure. When these two signals are not allowed to freely function, markets operate less efficiently. To be successful a business must take in enough revenue not only to cover wages, rents and interest but profits as well. In order to accomplish that feat executives must not only satisfy customers but they must do it in a manner that efficiently utilizes all of their resources. If they fail to cover costs, it means that resources are not being used efficiently and/or consumers don't value the good being produced relative to some other alternative. When a firm routinely fails to turn a profit, there are bankruptcy pressures. The firm's resources, workers, building and capital become available to someone else who might put them to better use. When government steps in with a bailout, it enables executives to continue mismanaging resources.

How much congressional involvement do we want with the Big Three auto companies? I'd say none. Congressmen and federal bureaucrats, including those at the Federal Reserve Board, don't know anymore about the automobile business than they know about the banking and financial businesses that they've turned into a mess. Just look at the idiotic focus of congressmen when the three auto company chief executives appeared before them. They questioned whether the executives should have driven to Congress rather than flown in on corporate jets. They focused on executive pay, which is a tiny fraction of costs compared to $73 hourly compensation to 250,000 autoworkers. The belief that Congress poses the major threat to our liberty and well-being is why the founders gave them limited enumerated powers. To our detriment, today's Americans have given them unlimited powers.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
Bailouts and Bankruptcy by Walter E.Williams

Wow. Were you so stupid as not to know that George Mason University is a joke among the open minded? And Williams is the tip of the joke, an admitted Libertarian.
"Walter E. Williams (b. 1936) is John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University and libertarian media pundit."
Walter E. Williams - SourceWatch

I should go get some information from the Democratic Underground. Ah, no, I prefer to have integrity. dipshit.

Or I could list a left wing funded and managed University like George Mason University. Except there are none. Only cons like Koch pay universities to teach what he wants them to as a condition for his contributions.
"George Mason University is a Virginia-based public university near Washington, D.C. A "magnet for right-wing money" [1] and heavily Koch-funded[1], it is notable for hosting over 40 libertarian research centers and affiliates including the Institute for Humane Studies and the Mercatus Center."
George Mason University - SourceWatch

Now, me boy, do you have an impartial site???

 

[Oldstyle]

What's interesting is that Mulally himself has come out and stated that he didn't feel that Ford was in danger of having to file bankruptcy back in 2008 and 2009.

Yet you can't explain why Ford losing it's main competitor would make it go down the tubes as well? Your only "explanation" for that is the CEO of Ford SAID it would? That's pretty weak, Faun...and I think you know it! You resort to calling me a liar for the same reasons, Rshermr does...because I ask questions that you have no answers for.

Sadly, the con tool loon continues to lie.

No, con tool loon, that is not all I posted. I also quoted some of his reasons.

See that? I'm not calling you a liar because I can't answer your questions (that too is a lie by you). I call you a liar because you lie. You lied when you falsely inferred I didn't answer even though I actually did answer by quoting Ford's CEO at the time. Now you at least admit I quoted him; but now you lie by falsely claiming I didn't cite his reasons.

As I often say, if the truth and facts were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like ya do.

The REASON that people like you and Rshermr have to resort to calling others "liars", Faun is that you struggle so much to explain how your progressive agenda works in the real world! I ask a very simple question...why Ford would go out of business simply because GM went bankrupt...and you really don't have an answer to that question other than to ask me why the CEO of Ford would push for a bailout! As if THAT somehow explains something that goes counter to what I've learned running businesses for 40 years!

I am struggling with nothing, ya con tool. Sadly for you, you lie because truth and facts are not on your side.

The thing is, with Oldstyle around, all conversations about economic subjects go out the window. But we all get a thorough lesson on advanced lying techniques. While most take the evidence provided to them, and have the integrity to admit their error, Oldstyle NEVER admits anything. He just ignores the evidence and keeps on lying. With no problem at all, because if you have no integrity, it makes no difference if you are spreading your agenda by lying or telling the truth. Just a con tool trait.

Integrity? From you, Georgie? You ran and hid from my request that you provide the formula that the Obama Administration used to determine "jobs saved" after embarrassing yourself with A-B=Jobs Saved! You were shown to be so clueless you pretended that you had me on ignore in a rather pathetic attempt to save face. Then you come here and pontificate about "lying techniques"? That's a hoot!