Say What You'd Like...

[Guest]

...about the involvement of the federal government in the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies, but I'm convinced the companies would not have--could not have--come out of bankruptcy so quickly without the government's intervention.

Had the two companies been left alone to simply declare bankruptcy without the intervention of the government, the creditors would NEVER have agreed on a plan of reorganization necessary for the companies to come out of bankruptcy. Without the plan derived by the government, the pressure applied to the creditors to accept that plan, and the financing provided by the government in lieu of debtor-in-possession financing typically provided by banks, both companies would have quickly run out of money, with liquidation being the only possible result.

Personally, I don't agree with how the government pressured the various creditors--I think they were far too harsh on the banks and other secured creditors and generous with the UAW--but I'll be the first one to admit that these companies could not have accomplished the "pre-packaged" bankruptcies and come out so quickly on their own.

The results of the liquidation of these two companies would have had disastrous effects on our economy over a long period of time. Say what you will, I don't think any other conclusion can be reached other than that the Obama administration did a superb job in saving these two companies and avoiding the economic nightmare that would have resulted if they had just stood by and permitted them to fail and be liquidated. It was expensive for the taxpayers and set some bad precedents, but overall it was the right thing to do--and it worked!

[Guest]

OMG Looks like baiting to me.:boxing2:

[Guest]

OMG Looks like baiting to me.:boxing2:Say what you will, Keedy. But if you don't agree, give me an argument for why what the government did was so wrong? More importantly, what would have worked better?

[Guest]

Say what you will, Keedy. But if you don't agree, give me an argument for why what the government did was so wrong? More importantly, what would have worked better?

The government shouldn't have wasted our money and let them die a natural death. They gave in to the unions. They should have let them go bankrupt last fall. Seems like alot of money was wasted so the union could keep their cushy jobs and pensions.
What makes you think anybody is going to buy their cars? Pity? The Big Three are now from Japan...not Detroit!!!
http://www.youtube.com/v/vDwzCB7zk4A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1

[Guest]

...about the involvement of the federal government in the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies, but I'm convinced the companies would not have--could not have--come out of bankruptcy so quickly without the government's intervention.

Had the two companies been left alone to simply declare bankruptcy without the intervention of the government, the creditors would NEVER have agreed on a plan of reorganization necessary for the companies to come out of bankruptcy. Without the plan derived by the government, the pressure applied to the creditors to accept that plan, and the financing provided by the government in lieu of debtor-in-possession financing typically provided by banks, both companies would have quickly run out of money, with liquidation being the only possible result.

Personally, I don't agree with how the government pressured the various creditors--I think they were far too harsh on the banks and other secured creditors and generous with the UAW--but I'll be the first one to admit that these companies could not have accomplished the "pre-packaged" bankruptcies and come out so quickly on their own.

The results of the liquidation of these two companies would have had disastrous effects on our economy over a long period of time. Say what you will, I don't think any other conclusion can be reached other than that the Obama administration did a superb job in saving these two companies and avoiding the economic nightmare that would have resulted if they had just stood by and permitted them to fail and be liquidated. It was expensive for the taxpayers and set some bad precedents, but overall it was the right thing to do--and it worked!

Not being able to read the future and not being able to play "what if" I have no idea if you surmise is correct or not. It may be and then again it may be way off....I DO know one thing...

The UAW is a lot stronger today than it was last week or month and that bothers me !

[Guest]

No one has ever presented any numbers which show that taking money from all of our collective pockets to prop up any company is better than letting the companies resolve their problems on their own. The problem is still there - unsold inventory which is just increasing without restriction.

In the end, it would seem cheaper to pay the companies NOT to build.

Anyway, these companies are going to continue heading down the drain. Nothing has really changed. Debt may have been restructured and a brand name or two sold off or retired, but the market for the product remains as it was. Without a market inspired to buy the product, this was just placing a bandaid on an amputated limb.

The same "quality" products will soon be coming from China and India anyway and at a 70% unit cost. What happens then? The consumer will go for the "best buy" no matter what the politicians (driving their Lexus, BMW, Mercedes, Audi or Prius) say.

[Guest]

Now that GM has emerged from bankruptcy, do you suppose the government in their wisdom, will eventually transfer their 61% ownership back to the company?... or will they continue to dictate how many and of what models will be made?... and how many and where the dealers will be located?

[Guest]

Now that GM has emerged from bankruptcy, do you suppose the government in their wisdom, will eventually transfer their 61% ownership back to the company?... or will they continue to dictate how many and of what models will be made?... and how many and where the dealers will be located?

I'll bet you that not many will be in republican districts.:o

[Guest]

Yep, Michigan's unemployment could hit 20% because of Obama.
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/07/10/michigan-could-hit-20-jobless-thanks-to-obama-congressman/

[Guest]

I'll bet you that not many will be in republican districts.:o Based on the last election, there weren't very many of those. That might be a pretty good business strategy.

[Guest]

Yep, Michigan's unemployment could hit 20% because of Obama.
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/07/10/michigan-could-hit-20-jobless-thanks-to-obama-congressman/Interesting article, Keedy. It's amazing how much unemployment Obama caused in just 171 days as President. I wonder how he was able to do that?

But even now, as the article states, Michigan "hasn't yet exceeded its previous record for unemployment in modern history, when it reached 16.9 percent in November of 1982." I wonder who the incompetent was that was President in those days? Ronald Reagan? The father of conservative economics? No, tell me it isn't true.

[Guest]

Interesting article, Keedy. It's amazing how much unemployment Obama caused in just 171 days as President. I wonder how he was able to do that?

But even now, as the article states, Michigan "hasn't yet exceeded its previous record for unemployment in modern history, when it reached 16.9 percent in November of 1982." I wonder who the incompetent was that was President in those days? Ronald Reagan? The father of conservative economics? No, tell me it isn't true.

In 1982, Detroit was still reeling from the lousy cars they made in the 70's and the devastating situation that Carter was responsible for. Think 20% interest rates for mortgages. The mid 70's to around 1983 were the worst years I ever experienced. It was so bad that it took Reagan about 3 years to straighten it out.

[Guest]

...The mid 70's to around 1983 were the worst years I ever experienced. It was so bad that it took Reagan about 3 years to straighten it out.And you're only giving Obama 171 days before ragging on him? Ahh, I know. It must be that Republican-Democrat thing again.

[Guest]

And you're only giving Obama 171 days before ragging on him? Ahh, I know. It must be that Republican-Democrat thing again.

Nope...His socialistic policies that have been proven in the past to stunt growth and enlarge government.

[Guest]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjIwZmQ2MjRjM2IxMWJkZGQwZWVhMDNkZjZkNWUwMmY=

[Guest]

And you're only giving Obama 171 days before ragging on him? Ahh, I know. It must be that Republican-Democrat thing again.

Funny. I guess everyone's got to start ragging sometime.

[Guest]

And you're only giving Obama 171 days before ragging on him? Ahh, I know. It must be that Republican-Democrat thing again.
Reagan didn't fix anything, anymore than Obama will make positive change or Bush broke things. To give them that credit is to consider them dictators or kings. So many things happen during any president's term that credit for all good is claimed and blame for everything wrong is levied on the predecessor.

Throwing a ton of money at the auto industry never fixed THE problem - a bloated inventory (which keeps increasing) of unsellable product. Sales solves all business problems, and lack of sales is the death knell for every business. Detroit is making 21st Century buggywhips or products not cost competitive for the quality. The marketplace for cars - without tariff protection - is only going to get worse once products from India and China enter the scene, just like what happened from Japan and then Korea. The government is scared of levying tariffs for fear of retaliation, so the competitive environment for autos is going to get tougher.

Again, what has changed other than a phony image of "it's rosy now" because the money faucet got turned on to short-term bailout of some failing businesses which still are stuck with product-on-the-shelf which they can't sell and are daily deteriorating in value?

So, before "Mission Accomplished" banners are placed next to the signs saying "Entering Detroit City Limits," let's be clear on the mission, what was accomplished, and what' going to keep the US from "investing" more money into Detroit for each of the next eight years....

And what are we going to do with the umteen thousands of unsold 2007, 2008, and 2009 model-year cars still sitting in storage lots? They won't go away by themselves. The HazMat disposal costs aren't in any figures I've seen.

[Guest]

Funny. I guess everyone's got to start ragging sometime.

Well, it is a political forum. Despite VK's efforts to transfer the "ragging" on Obama.....It is the policies that he and the congress together that have most right thinking people in a tither. As has been said many times, the 500+ people that we vote into congress are willing partners in the bills that are being pushed by Obama and Pelosi.

[Guest]

Reagan didn't fix anything, anymore than Obama will make positive change or Bush broke things. If there's anyone in the current government who should legitimately be blamed for grossly outspending our revenue stream it's Charley Rangel, Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee.

The President can recommend a budget or veto bills passed by Congress, but beyond that he has no power whatsoever to substantially change the fiscal policies of the U.S. or even substantially change the size of government, for that matter. Even the President's bully pulpit seldom works to change things one way or another. And I've seen little evidence that President Obama, along with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, have formed some sort of evil cabal to change the U.S. into a socialist state. Even if cooperation between them might work for the benefit of the country every now and then, the three of them all seem to be going their different ways--each with the primary objective of being re-elected to their respective positions.

The guy that can really change things in the country is Charley Rangel. How often do you hear his name mentioned as one of the "bad guys"? Even here on this forum, where we're really supposed to be watching out for misdeeds by our elected representatives and discussing them.

Shame on us for being inattentive...again.

[Guest]

Based on the last election, there weren't very many of those. That might be a pretty good business strategy.

Not really. If I were a GM competitor, I would be very happy if they conceded all of the red counties.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/election/uscounties.html

[Guest]

Reagan didn't fix anything, anymore than Obama will make positive change or Bush broke things. To give them that credit is to consider them dictators or kings. So many things happen during any president's term that credit for all good is claimed and blame for everything wrong is levied on the predecessor.

Throwing a ton of money at the auto industry never fixed THE problem - a bloated inventory (which keeps increasing) of unsellable product. Sales solves all business problems, and lack of sales is the death knell for every business. Detroit is making 21st Century buggywhips or products not cost competitive for the quality. The marketplace for cars - without tariff protection - is only going to get worse once products from India and China enter the scene, just like what happened from Japan and then Korea. The government is scared of levying tariffs for fear of retaliation, so the competitive environment for autos is going to get tougher.

Again, what has changed other than a phony image of "it's rosy now" because the money faucet got turned on to short-term bailout of some failing businesses which still are stuck with product-on-the-shelf which they can't sell and are daily deteriorating in value?

So, before "Mission Accomplished" banners are placed next to the signs saying "Entering Detroit City Limits," let's be clear on the mission, what was accomplished, and what' going to keep the US from "investing" more money into Detroit for each of the next eight years....

And what are we going to do with the umteen thousands of unsold 2007, 2008, and 2009 model-year cars still sitting in storage lots? They won't go away by themselves. The HazMat disposal costs aren't in any figures I've seen.

I spent some time this morning on a woodworking forum that was discussing the foreign vs domestic vehicle choices. There was much talk about what constitutes "foreign" because Japanese have plants here in the USA. Also, American vehicles have many parts manufactured all around the globe.
Despite all those nuances, the poll was basically between domestic (GM, Chrysler and Ford) and foreign (vehicles with other country labels)
Let me say that this is a very diverse group representing every income level in the USA. Most of these woodworkers really expressed a desire to buy "American."
The results? (drum roll..please...) 3 out of every 4 owned a foreign vehicle.
So, is it a sound investment for the United States of America to invest our money (taxpayers) into a domestic company with a lousy track record?

[Guest]

Not really. If I were a GM competitor, I would be very happy if they conceded all of the red counties.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/election/uscounties.html

Indeed...The so-called blue counties are notorious for purchasing foreign vehicles. A while back there was an informal count of vehicles in the parking lots close to the White House and BMW's, Volvo's , Mercedes, etc., etc. were the favored means of transportation among our leaders and government employee's.

[Guest]

The bailouts were paybacks to the unions not a noble attempt to save the car companies or America.

Not only is nothing fixed, it's getting worse. Nothing BO and congress have done is working and in fact is having a negative effect on the economy.

But I'm sure if we keep printing, spending, taking over and bailing out it will work. Of course a dollar will be worth about 5 cents when he's done.

[Guest]

If there's anyone in the current government who should legitimately be blamed for grossly outspending our revenue stream it's Charley Rangel, Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee.

The President can recommend a budget or veto bills passed by Congress, but beyond that he has no power whatsoever to substantially change the fiscal policies of the U.S. or even substantially change the size of government, for that matter. Even the President's bully pulpit seldom works to change things one way or another. And I've seen little evidence that President Obama, along with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, have formed some sort of evil cabal to change the U.S. into a socialist state. Even if cooperation between them might work for the benefit of the country every now and then, the three of them all seem to be going their different ways--each with the primary objective of being re-elected to their respective positions.

The guy that can really change things in the country is Charley Rangel. How often do you hear his name mentioned as one of the "bad guys"? Even here on this forum, where we're really supposed to be watching out for misdeeds by our elected representatives and discussing them.

Shame on us for being inattentive...again.

:agree::agree:

I hope some of the energy in this forum is also spent sending you congressman and senators feedback on what you think should be done....... I know I do..

[Guest]

Palin, Palin.

Keedy writes, "The government shouldn't have wasted our money and let them die a natural death. They gave in to the unions. They should have let them go bankrupt last fall. Seems like alot of money was wasted so the union could keep their cushy jobs and pensions. What makes you think anybody is going to buy their cars? Pity? The Big Three are now from Japan...not Detroit!!!

If I didn't know better, and I obviously don't, you guys (Bucco, SteveZ included) must go to sleep praying that the United States collapses rather than you being wrong that government may just possibly, possibly be able to help its peolpe sometimes. It must kill you to see when Government works!

[Guest]

Palin, Palin.

Keedy writes, "The government shouldn't have wasted our money and let them die a natural death. They gave in to the unions. They should have let them go bankrupt last fall. Seems like alot of money was wasted so the union could keep their cushy jobs and pensions. What makes you think anybody is going to buy their cars? Pity? The Big Three are now from Japan...not Detroit!!!

If I didn't know better, and I obviously don't, you guys (Bucco, SteveZ included) must go to sleep praying that the United States collapses rather than you being wrong that government may just possibly, possibly be able to help its peolpe sometimes. It must kill you to see when Government works!

You mean like France? That's where were heading. Show me a socialist government that has "worked" for very long. Our founding father's knew that the less government...the better.

[Guest]

Palin, Palin.

Keedy writes, "The government shouldn't have wasted our money and let them die a natural death. They gave in to the unions. They should have let them go bankrupt last fall. Seems like alot of money was wasted so the union could keep their cushy jobs and pensions. What makes you think anybody is going to buy their cars? Pity? The Big Three are now from Japan...not Detroit!!!

If I didn't know better, and I obviously don't, you guys (Bucco, SteveZ included) must go to sleep praying that the United States collapses rather than you being wrong that government may just possibly, possibly be able to help its peolpe sometimes. It must kill you to see when Government works!

I find this post offensive and mean spirited at best !!!

How dare you make such a statement about me !! This country has always been about helping people and to make such a brazen elitiest statment and include me in it is highly insulting !

I love this country...I served this country....I have and do work very hard in endeavors to help people and for someone who obviously has his nose up in the air to accuse me of what you did simply because I oppose the policies of the current President is just wrong.

You obviously only read what you want and read into other things what you want.

My opposition to the current policies do not in anyway make me someone who "prays that the US collapses" ! If you read everything or paid closer attention you would have seen me say MANY MANY times during the campaign and since that I would be more than happy to come on here and admit I am wrong if the current President could pull off half of what he promised.

You probably objected during the Iraq war being told you were un patriotic if you opposed the war in Iraq and you should have felt that way.

So please dont be so insulting to people that you dont even know.

As far as the government working as you say, you obviously have not been paying attention lately. The government is at the root of most of our problems and I, unlike you obviously, dont give a rats behind what party is involved.

[Guest]

Palin, Palin.

Keedy writes, "The government shouldn't have wasted our money and let them die a natural death. They gave in to the unions. They should have let them go bankrupt last fall. Seems like alot of money was wasted so the union could keep their cushy jobs and pensions. What makes you think anybody is going to buy their cars? Pity? The Big Three are now from Japan...not Detroit!!!

If I didn't know better, and I obviously don't, you guys (Bucco, SteveZ included) must go to sleep praying that the United States collapses rather than you being wrong that government may just possibly, possibly be able to help its peolpe sometimes. It must kill you to see when Government works!
It darned near killed me a couple times, and did take a number of good friends. If I wanted it to collapse, I would never have invested the years I have into its success, especially the last five.

Your choice of words explains the difference in how we think. To me it's "the people's government." To you, it's "the government's people." I don't "belong" to anyone, least of all to any government.

I'm just not naive enough to believe that when politicians with no business experience and too lazy to read what they're voting on which leads to spending boatloads of other peoples' money, that the spending is done with the taxpayer's benefit as the first concern. If there was true concern, then it would have been done RIGHT - read the bill, debate it, run the numbers, understand what it all means, and then vote. The BS that it was too important to spend the time to read legislation with that price tag is scurrilous.

"The Government" isn't helping anyone. Select folk in appointed/elected positions are helping themselves, their friends, their supporters, with everyone's money - today's and tomorrow's.

[Guest]

it is the government does so well.
Amtrak?
USPS?
Social Security?
Medicare?
And some examples of what it is the government does that sets a good example for we the people?
Make the cae companies better? Check out what make cars the car Czar has? What others that are involved in making GM better.

Fortunately the free enterprise system has a way of keeping the US afloat and bailing the government out from time to time.

And before giving any thought to the examples, maybe you could throw in the governments intentions on deficit spending?

We await patiently!!!!!!

btk

[Guest]

Your choice of words explains the difference in how we think. To me it's "the people's government." To you, it's "the government's people." I don't "belong" to anyone, least of all to any government.


Steve my man.....well said...

[Guest]

here is all I know. I have been a GM guy all my life and I will never buy a GM again.
Benj