2012 Presidential Election Polls

[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?

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.

Maybe there was a reason no one privately wanted to loan money to GM. They were saddled with unsustainable UAW contracts, piss poor dealership distribution, and had a lack a leadership from top to bottom. We are talking about one of the top 3 car companies in the world, not being able to find an investor to stabilize their company. GM should have restructured 5 years prior to the bailout and it would have never been a problem.

 

[Ziggy]

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? And actually creditors do not have a rights to be reimbursed, at least not in whole, or really at all.

I obviously don't know the facts, please enlighten me.

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.

Since when are the government and private industry they same thing? That makes them apples and oranges. I know why creditors

 

[Ziggy]

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.

Taking a comment out of context, that is right out of the republican handbook, nicely done, Mr. "You didn't build that".

 

[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?

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)

There was some thought about that, yes. Kind of like how nature needs a forest fire once in a while to clear out the underbrush - it's a healthy thing.

Some think that TARP only pushed off an inevitable future collapse, and by pushing it off, made it worse when it finally arrives. I think there's some logic to this, and frankly it scares me. My finances aren't in the kind of order I'd like them to be in if something like this goes down.

The economy is a bit like a chemistry project, or baking a soufflé. There are many, many intricate parts, and mucking around with one could lead to disaster in another. How much did the housing crisis and the lending mistakes of the 1990s lead to 2008? I've seen the trail of bread crumbs.

I'll talk about all this and I'll google up some support for my opinions and all, but I'll also be the first to admit I'm no economist. Frankly, I think it's more political than anything anymore. Obama knew without TARP that he wouldn't get re-elected (or, at least, it wouldn't hurt). The funniest thing about TARP was that it started with Bush, but after the 2008 elections. His party had already lost, so it's not like pushing billions to GM would help the Republicans in the upcoming race - Obama had already won. So Bush shoved money at them through TARP after congress had already said no, and Obama took that ball and ran with it. Bush violated the law to get the money to GM in the first place, and rather than fix the problem (not sure how he could have) Obama doubled down by restructuring the deal, demanding the ouster of GM's president, and making various other stipulations - one of which was to benefit the UAW. Was this politically motivated? Of course - but what move by any president isn't?

So here we are today. "bin Laden is dead and GM is alive!" as the campaign slogans have been running. We needed bin Laden dead - and we got him. It's debatable whether or not we needed GM alive - manufacturers are awfully handy to have around in case the homeland is invaded, after all - but Darwinian business principles definitely weren't observed.

 

[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.

Taking a comment out of context, that is right out of the republican handbook, nicely done, Mr. "You didn't build that".

What was your intended context?

 

[carlfense]

Since when are the government and private industry they same thing? That makes them apples and oranges.

Why, yes! I'd love to play your oversimplification game! The government and private industry are both staffed with people. That makes them the same. Your move, Ziggy. :lol:

I know why creditors

You know why creditors what?

 

[sd'sker]

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.

Maybe there was a reason no one privately wanted to loan money to GM. They were saddled with unsustainable UAW contracts, piss poor dealership distribution, and had a lack a leadership from top to bottom. We are talking about one of the top 3 car companies in the world, not being able to find an investor to stabilize their company. GM should have restructured 5 years prior to the bailout and it would have never been a problem.

i agree, gm was ran poorly, no doubt about it. but too many jobs were at stake, as was our economy. bailing out gm was a triumph. americans banded together to pull an american institution (and all of the jobs with it) out of complete implosion.

also, did america not make back its money and some interest? this is a general question i was wondering earlier. i have heard differing stories.

 

[Ziggy]

The paragraph I wrote is called the context, you took the one sentence out that fits your agrument, as usual, and tried to make me look like "I was for it before I was against it."

 

[carlfense]

The paragraph I wrote is called the context, you took the one sentence out that fits your agrument, as usual, and tried to make me look like "I was for it before I was against it."

So how was it out of context? It was a rather clear statement that doesn't seem to be modified by what came before or after.

If it makes you feel better I don't think it makes it look like you were before it before you were against it. It just seems strange to be more concerned about the strings attached to the loans than the loans themselves.

 

[Ziggy]

Since when are the government and private industry they same thing? That makes them apples and oranges.

Why, yes! I'd love to play your oversimplification game! The government and private industry are both staffed with people. That makes them the same. Your move, Ziggy. :lol:

I know why creditors

You know why creditors what?

Its not oversimplification comparing a company to the US government. How much more complex can I go? It is the US freaking government. Although apples and oranges I suppose was a tad over simplified, an apple and a dinosaur egg, that's better.

Sadly I cut off the argument about creditors, and why they do not actually have a right to their money, I then was going to ask you to enlighten me about why you think they do.

 

[carlfense]

Sadly I cut off the argument about creditors, and why they do not actually have a right to their money, I then was going to ask you to enlighten me about why you think they do.

Why do I think that creditors have a right to their money? http://www.law.corne...or_and_creditor

That said, my opinion doesn't really govern the situation. "Why did the government give priority to the union creditors" would be a better question.

 

[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)

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.

Maybe there was a reason no one privately wanted to loan money to GM. They were saddled with unsustainable UAW contracts, piss poor dealership distribution, and had a lack a leadership from top to bottom. We are talking about one of the top 3 car companies in the world, not being able to find an investor to stabilize their company. GM should have restructured 5 years prior to the bailout and it would have never been a problem.

i agree, gm was ran poorly, no doubt about it. but too many jobs were at stake, as was our economy. bailing out gm was a triumph. americans banded together to pull an american institution (and all of the jobs with it) out of complete implosion.

also, did america not make back its money and some interest? this is a general question i was wondering earlier. i have heard differing stories.

Here is one opinion (of course it will be discounted because it's not "mainstream"), but it makes for some interesting numbers.....(data is about 2 weeks old)

Right now, the federal government owns 500,000,000 shares of GM, or about 26% of the company. It would need to get about $53.00/share for these to break even on the bailout, but the stock closed at only $20.21/share on Tuesday. This left the government holding $10.1 billion worth of stock, and sitting on an unrealized loss of $16.4 billion.

http://www.breitbart...-Abuse-Of-Power

 

[carlfense]

Here is one opinion (of course it will be discounted because it's not "mainstream"), but it makes for some interesting numbers.....(data is about 2 weeks old)

Right now, the federal government owns 500,000,000 shares of GM, or about 26% of the company. It would need to get about $53.00/share for these to break even on the bailout, but the stock closed at only $20.21/share on Tuesday. This left the government holding $10.1 billion worth of stock, and sitting on an unrealized loss of $16.4 billion.

http://www.breitbart...-Abuse-Of-Power

I don't see those numbers at your link...

 

[Ziggy]

They only have a right to money if there is money to have, if the first tier of creditors takes the money that is available, then the next 2 get nothing. I have ran into this situation at work, and it sucks to not be paid for services/products rendered. And furthermore that article said exactly what I did in post #169.

 

[carlfense]

They only have a right to money if there is money to have, if the first tier of creditors takes the money that is available, then the next 2 get nothing. I have ran into this situation at work, and it sucks to not be paid for services/products rendered.

Such are the vagaries of bankruptcies.