So there’s not a lot of options for GM. I’m going to assume that both Dems and Repubs would have taken the exact same course of action given the circumstances. In my mind that’s sorta a wash then.
Say what you will about FDRs policies at least we were able to accomplish some great things such as Hoover Dam. I can’t even get some local potholes filled these days.
james
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
Say what you will about FDRs policies at least we were able to accomplish some great things such as Hoover Dam. I can’t even get some local potholes filled these days.
james[/quote]
I have read convincing arguments for both sides of the FDR deal… I have no idea. I know what I feel is right.
But so true about the potholes, lol.
And even more scary, if GM had gone under (as in no more GM under) what would have happened to that massive pension fund?
I’m sure Rommney will win and I’m sure he’ll be a two term pres if he plays the taxes right. Frankly I think that’s the only issue that people truly care about anymore. We’ve all become complacent on our liberties and we talk a good game about the deficit but the only answer is to cut benefits to the poor. But that’s not going to be enough.
I think that if nothing else FDR gave a lot of people something to do and that counts for a lot considering how important the act of working is to most men (and especially back then when manual labor was still an important feature). But the war definitely rocketed us ahead.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
But Ford didn’t ask them to be saved. Ford went to them after GM and Chrysler received the bailout because it didn’t want to be at a complete disadvantage. And Ford didn’t take any money.
I was under the impression that GM wasn’t just looking at bankruptcy it was looking at actually being out of business since nobody had the money to finance a bankruptcy. But I’m not a finance guy so please correct me if I’m wrong.
james[/quote]
Beat me to it. From what I’ve read it was bailout or bust.[/quote]
Well, there is financing a chapter 11 and then there is buying enough stock to be an owner…
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
And even more scary, if GM had gone under (as in no more GM under) what would have happened to that massive pension fund?
I’m sure Rommney will win and I’m sure he’ll be a two term pres if he plays the taxes right. Frankly I think that’s the only issue that people truly care about anymore. We’ve all become complacent on our liberties and we talk a good game about the deficit but the only answer is to cut benefits to the poor. But that’s not going to be enough.[/quote]
atypical:
I agree with you on this on a lot of levels.
Anyone remember Gingrich’s “Bain Capital” film, and how the closing of one small (I think washing machine?) factory set off a chain of event’s that had a region looking like it was in a War Zone?. Multiply that by a thousand fold…then multiply it again if GM closes.
In a VERY simplistic way; “GM” is basically an “assembly” company, with parts provided from all over the country. Those suppliers are in many cases the main employer of many small communities. (Dephi, TRW and Autoliv come to mind. They make Airbags, with facilities all over the Country).
I don’t think that we can even BEGIN to appreciate the impact, from Coast to Coast, that the closing of “GM” would have had. It would have been devastating (even for Ford, by the way).
As you know, I also think that Romney will win.
While a lot of what he proposes has a good sound…I find myself saying “How is he going to do that?”
It’s THOSE answers that scare a lot of people as much as a second term for the President scares others.
Mufasa
Am I missing something? GM did file bankruptcy.
My folks got fucked in the bondholder cram-down.
This article says 30-40 cents on the dollar, but I think it is less than that or to be determined:
My folks are pretty tight-lipped about it but I know it was really bad.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
And even more scary, if GM had gone under (as in no more GM under) what would have happened to that massive pension fund?
I’m sure Rommney will win and I’m sure he’ll be a two term pres if he plays the taxes right. Frankly I think that’s the only issue that people truly care about anymore. We’ve all become complacent on our liberties and we talk a good game about the deficit but the only answer is to cut benefits to the poor. But that’s not going to be enough.[/quote]
If it’s him against Hillary, I think Hillary would have the edge unless the economy really really picked up under him. But, I’ll wait for the just under 30 days before I start thinking that one out into too much depth.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…Those suppliers are in many cases the main employer of many small communities. (Dephi,…
[/quote]
So very nice of you to mention Delphi.
[/quote]
Based on that article, Push…there should have been across the Board cuts in Pensions; and I will be the LAST to come to the defense of Unions.
So…no argument here.
That doesn’t change the fact that a lot of these Suppliers are major Employers in many towns across the nation.
Mufasa
I knew my post would inflame the ire of the severely conservative Republicans here. I expected that.
“Jewbacca”? What the hell kind of comment is this?
I have lived in several states in the country and in 4 other countries (Egypt, Philippines, Japan, and Great Britian). My opinions and philosophy are shaped by my experiences. I do not think in isolation and the world does not function in isolation. I fear that those that do not look past their own biased view (Jewbacca!) will continue to remain fixed and unyielding - unwilling even to see past their prejudices and consider anything outside their narrow vision. I know I’m making some generalizations here, but racist name calling adds nothing to the conversation.
[quote]mudshark wrote:
I knew my post would inflame the ire of the severely conservative Republicans here. I expected that.
“Jewbacca”? What the hell kind of comment is this?
I have lived in several states in the country and in 4 other countries (Egypt, Philippines, Japan, and Great Britian). My opinions and philosophy are shaped by my experiences. I do not think in isolation and the world does not function in isolation. I fear that those that do not look past their own biased view (Jewbacca!) will continue to remain fixed and unyielding - unwilling even to see past their prejudices and consider anything outside their narrow vision. I know I’m making some generalizations here, but racist name calling adds nothing to the conversation.[/quote]
Jewbacca is one of the brighter posters here who can explain the cultural differences between the west and the area of the world he lives in much better than I can.
And his description of the culture “over there” tends to lend itself to you being the one with a biased view.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
My folks got fucked in the bondholder cram-down.
This article says 30-40 cents on the dollar, but I think it is less than that or to be determined:
[/quote]
Two points on this:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
And even more scary, if GM had gone under (as in no more GM under) what would have happened to that massive pension fund?
I’m sure Rommney will win and I’m sure he’ll be a two term pres if he plays the taxes right. Frankly I think that’s the only issue that people truly care about anymore. We’ve all become complacent on our liberties and we talk a good game about the deficit but the only answer is to cut benefits to the poor. But that’s not going to be enough.[/quote]
atypical:
I agree with you on this on a lot of levels.
Anyone remember Gingrich’s “Bain Capital” film, and how the closing of one small (I think washing machine?) factory set off a chain of event’s that had a region looking like it was in a War Zone?. Multiply that by a thousand fold…then multiply it again if GM closes.
In a VERY simplistic way; “GM” is basically an “assembly” company, with parts provided from all over the country. Those suppliers are in many cases the main employer of many small communities. (Dephi, TRW and Autoliv come to mind. They make Airbags, with facilities all over the Country).
I don’t think that we can even BEGIN to appreciate the impact, from Coast to Coast, that the closing of “GM” would have had. It would have been devastating (even for Ford, by the way).
As you know, I also think that Romney will win.
While a lot of what he proposes has a good sound…I find myself saying “How is he going to do that?”
It’s THOSE answers that scare a lot of people as much as a second term for the President scares others.
Mufasa[/quote]
The main issue is propping up GM is just like propping up the housing market with the 8k credits they did. All it does is prolong the pain. GM is, by a few different accounts, heading right back down the same path of not being able to survive.
These suppliers would have been better off if GM was forced to sell off weak divisions and become “lean and mean”.
Instead, now we have a bloated company, that will prove to be millions of tax payer dollars wasted. And this massive depression and destruction of local economies will come when the rest of the world is healing. So rather than be healing themselves, they will die.
It is just typical government kicking the can down the road.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I was really thinking hard about voting for Romney early this year. This was based on his record as governor and his experience in business in the private sector. But the more he campaigns, the more inconsistency I see in his views many of which I still don’t know what they are because they seem to change so much and the excessive pandering to the base. I think in gathering money to support his campaign, he made too many promises and has been pulled too far to the far right’s ideologies much like Mccain. At this point, my vote will just be a ‘not Romney’ vote. Not a ‘for Obama’ vote. [/quote]
But now that you got to see more of Romney and learned his views you decided to vote for a guy who has had four years as President and has done almost nothing right.
I see.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I for one will now be voting for Romney. See Benghazi arguments above.[/quote]
You’re in a swing state where Romney needs your vote.
I’m not.[/quote]
You have a chance to strike a blow against Obama by voting FOR Romney…and you’re passing that up?
Come on Push.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Obama … If anyone cares to dig into the stimulus package (that didn’t work) they’ll find billions of dollars literally handed to Obama supporters unions, green energy folks etc.
[/quote]
SOmeone before mentioned the evils of “supply-side” economics.
How was Obama’s stimulus NOT “supply-side” economics? How is every liberal’s favorite Paul Krugman’s Keynesian ways not “supply-side” economics?
[/quote]
They accused Reagan of using “trickle down” economics, but here’s a news flash: IT WORKED!
Is wealth supposed to trickle up?
Has a poor person every offered you a job?
The liberals may hate the rich, but they are the ones who create jobs there is no denying that. And if they have more money in their hands it does trickle down to those that they employ.
And what is the left’s alternative?
Pay more to the government so that THEY can create government job.
As Romney said in the first debate, this is government trickle down economics…and it’s a horrible idea for many reasons. Not the least of which is that for every dollar you pay to the government in taxes only about a dime of it reaches new hires. The other 90 cents goes to the government workers.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
My folks got fucked in the bondholder cram-down.
This article says 30-40 cents on the dollar, but I think it is less than that or to be determined:
[/quote]
Two points on this:
Paulson forced AIG to pay Goldman Sachs 100 cents on the dollar for the credit default swaps they held, without discussion or debate, rather than declaring the investments fraudulent or forcing a cram-down, which he easily could have done. 100 cents on the dollar with immediate payment! But that happened under Bush, and then Obama kept crooks including some of Paulson’s Goldman cronies like Geithner on the payroll. Guess which two candidates from which two major parties I won’t be voting for come November?
I just talked to my mom, she said her bonds are actually now worth zero because they weren’t packaged in with an institutional investor and she didn’t get a stock-swap deal.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
I just talked to my mom, she said her bonds are actually now worth zero because they weren’t packaged in with an institutional investor
[/quote]
Sigh… But Obama is so awesome for saving Detroit and fights for the little guy…