2012 Presidential Election Polls

[carlfense]

Nice twist try again Carl, but the response was to the point of Obamacare solving all our heath care problems (nowhere in the post was a side by side comparison)

And if you think we are out of the fiscal woods with the debt crisis, entitlement solvency issues, and a world wide economic collapse all imminent............well...........??

Nobody is making this assertion. Anywhere.

:yeah

I don't think I've ever said anything even close to that.

Post #135 where I was responding to sd'Husker who stated that we were saved from a fiscal collapse by Obama. I was pointing out that we have not been saved from anything, we have only postponed the really touch decisions.

So where was the part where someone said that Obamacare would solve all of our health care problems?

(It'd probably save you some time if you would just admit that it was a product of your imagination.)

Still wondering why Comish abandoned this . . . so . . . *bump*

 

[knapplc]

So when the US government steps in to offer loans in a bankruptcy and determine creditor priority (giving priority to a union creditor) . . . it's evidence of some sort of pro-union conspiracy.

When Bain Capital steps in to offer loans in a bankruptcy and determines creditor priority (giving priority to Bain) . . . it's capitalism.

Congrats, carlfense. I think you've got it.

 

[sd'sker]

Not EVERYTHING you say...............for instance on Husker football matters you seem much more lucid.....

as crazy as my political views are, we both know this is not true.

 

[sd'sker]

i want to reply, but honestly i do not have the energy. i will keep it short. the stimulus did help, people forget how close we were to the brink of utter collapse. WE ARE CURRENTLY ON THE BRINK OF COLLAPSE. hell, bush was considering nationalizing the banks.????

Bush outlines radical plan to part-nationalise banks

President describes move as 'unprecedented and aggressive'

Wall Street humiliated by nationalisation of banks

we are no where near where we were 4 years ago. also, some advisers were pushing bush to full-on nationalize the banking system.

Rescue of Banks Hints at Nationalization

 

[Ziggy]

To Carl and Knapp, I know its fun to try and twist every little comment other people make to try and make a point on you side, but when you do it so blatantly you appear below your own intelligence.

When people and companies go through a court bankruptcy they have their assets divided up to pay their debts. When a company can not pay all of their debts the list of debtors get into a line. The line is divided into 3 parts, first secured creditors(banks with outstanding loans), then General Creditors (suppliers/bond holders/other lenders), lastly stockholders. It is all based on assumed risk of investment. Least amount of risk gets paid first down to the most risk usually getting nothing. How does GM restructure and come out with the UAW getting partial ownership. If anything UAW's contracts should have been voided, and once the restructure was done, they could renegotiate terms.

 

[carlfense]

When people and companies go through a court bankruptcy they have their assets divided up to pay their debts. When a company can not pay all of their debts the list of debtors get into a line. The line is divided into 3 parts, first secured creditors(banks with outstanding loans), then General Creditors (suppliers/bond holders/other lenders), lastly stockholders. It is all based on assumed risk of investment. Least amount of risk gets paid first down to the most risk usually getting nothing. How does GM restructure and come out with the UAW getting partial ownership. If anything UAW's contracts should have been voided, and once the restructure was done, they could renegotiate terms.

And what distinction do you draw between the GM/UAW story and Bain collecting their fees before the remnants were distributed to the creditors?

And what exactly do you think that means?

 

[Ziggy]

no please Carl with all your understanding of bankruptcy, tell me the difference. Please tell me how the UAW has any right to ownership of the post restructured GM.

 

[carlfense]

no please Carl with all your understanding of bankruptcy, tell me the difference.

You are the one arguing that they are different.

Apples and Oranges . . .

Don't ask others to prove your own argument for you. It makes it look like you haven't thought it through.

Please tell me how the UAW has any right to ownership of the post restructured GM.

Because they were a creditor . . . you could have seen that just from the single quote posted by Comish. :facepalm:

 

[knapplc]

So... you'd rather have another bailout, this time of VEBA, or just let VEBA go under, than have the deal structured in this way? GM was a cluster and some deals had to be struck, or it was going down. One more domino in the chain. But they decided to halt the collapse, and giving the UAW a larger stake of GM than they already owned is how it panned out.

How should GM have been saved if not this way? Which alternative would have kept GM alive and yet been more palatable?

 

[Comish]

So... you'd rather have another bailout, this time of VEBA, or just let VEBA go under, than have the deal structured in this way? GM was a cluster and some deals had to be struck, or it was going down. One more domino in the chain. But they decided to halt the collapse, and giving the UAW a larger stake of GM than they already owned is how it panned out.

How should GM have been saved if not this way? Which alternative would have kept GM alive and yet been more palatable?

Didn't many "experts" believe they should have just been allowed to go into regular bankruptcy and then follow the steps from there? (I'll admit I'm no expert in bankruptcy laws)

 

[Ziggy]

no please Carl with all your understanding of bankruptcy, tell me the difference.

You are the one arguing that they are different.

Apples and Oranges . . .

Don't ask others to prove your own argument for you. It makes it look like you haven't thought it through.

Please tell me how the UAW has any right to ownership of the post restructured GM.

Because they were a creditor . . . you could have seen that just from the single quote posted by Comish. :facepalm:

The quote states that they were a non secured creditor, and got preferential treatment over secured creditors. YOU should have seen that. Being a creditor is a generalization that doesn't properly explain when they would get any compensation. Your the one telling people they don't have much experience with bankruptcy law (post #157). I made an argument why UAW shouldn't have been given ownership and had their contracts voided to make GM a healthier company. Then Knapp brings up a completely different situation and tried to compare the two, that's apples and oranges. My argument needed nothing to be proven, its factual information. So stop attacking the poster, and make a real argument.

 

[carlfense]

So... you'd rather have another bailout, this time of VEBA, or just let VEBA go under, than have the deal structured in this way? GM was a cluster and some deals had to be struck, or it was going down. One more domino in the chain. But they decided to halt the collapse, and giving the UAW a larger stake of GM than they already owned is how it panned out.

How should GM have been saved if not this way? Which alternative would have kept GM alive and yet been more palatable?

Didn't many "experts" believe they should have just been allowed to go into regular bankruptcy and then follow the steps from there? (I'll admit I'm no expert in bankruptcy laws)

The problem was that no one but the US government would give them the necessary loans. The private market was unwilling and/or unable to provide the loans.

 

[Ziggy]

So... you'd rather have another bailout, this time of VEBA, or just let VEBA go under, than have the deal structured in this way? GM was a cluster and some deals had to be struck, or it was going down. One more domino in the chain. But they decided to halt the collapse, and giving the UAW a larger stake of GM than they already owned is how it panned out.

How should GM have been saved if not this way? Which alternative would have kept GM alive and yet been more palatable?

No GM should not have been bailed out in the way it was done. GM should have applied for bankruptcy, aimed to restructure their company and paid the AW fair market value for their time. If they needed help getting through it, I have no problem with the government giving money to GM to make itself profitable again with the intention of repaying the debt in a structured and timely way (with interest). Ford seemed to do a pretty good job of restructuring without any government help, and they were not far off of GM financially.

 

[carlfense]

The quote states that they were a non secured creditor, and got preferential treatment over secured creditors. YOU should have seen that. Being a creditor is a generalization that doesn't properly explain when they would get any compensation.

I did see that . . . do you need me to explain why a creditor has a right to compensation?

I made an argument why UAW shouldn't have been given ownership and had their contracts voided to make GM a healthier company. Then Knapp brings up a completely different situation and tried to compare the two, that's apples and oranges. My argument needed nothing to be proven, its factual information.

No . . . "apples and oranges" is your opinion regarding the two examples. That's not "factual information." If you want to explain how and why they are different, please do so. If not, don't ask others to do it for you.

 

[carlfense]

If they needed help getting through it, I have no problem with the government giving money to GM to make itself profitable again with the intention of repaying the debt in a structured and timely way (with interest).

So you don't have a problem with the government bailing out GM . . . but you do have a problem with the fact that the government assistance had strings attached?

That's odd.