BillieTheKid and Rubicon insist that there was plenty of private money to save the auto manufacturers, but they have yet to post a link to all these private equity firms so that I can delve into their facts and figures.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Heck with that. 40 years ago? I want to go back to the founding principles, and thats a lot longer than 40 years ago.

The only people we're trying to p-ss off, as you so eloquently put it, are the liberals. I hope we're succeeding.

So you admit that you don't want women or African Americans or American Indians to have the right to vote or own property?

Yes, it does seems as though the Dumpublicans who say they want the country to be like the founding fathers envisioned do forget that slavery was allowed, women could not vote as neither could minorities.

I like to remind them that the 2nd amendment about having the right to bear arms was part of the militia (National Guard of their day) and that the writers of the Constitution did not envision M-16's, Glock 9mm's, AK-47's and the other semi-automatics that are now part of their arsenal. If these people want a firearm, let it be the firearm that the writers of the constitution had in mind - a flintlock musket or pistol.

Well, Caribou Barbie, Cowboy Ariapo, and Christine O'Donnell have stood up for the principles of slavery, women and minorities as second class citizens, and an automatic weapon in every house. Good for them. Typical for Dumpublicans, isn't it?

someday you will put up a post addressing the subject and without the endless labeling, nasty name referrals and just plain outright being rude.

It adds no value and only continues to marginalize any commentary that might be of value. But if others are like me, when I see the the malicious adjectives, I rarely finish reading the post.

btk

Originally Posted by billethkid

someday you will put up a post addressing the subject and without the endless labeling, nasty name referrals and just plain outright being rude.

It adds no value and only continues to marginalize any commentary that might be of value. But if others are like me, when I see the the malicious adjectives, I rarely finish reading the post.

btk

Are you talking to me? Asking for a link to support your position can hardly be construed as being rude.

Originally Posted by billethkid

someday you will put up a post addressing the subject and without the endless labeling, nasty name referrals and just plain outright being rude.

It adds no value and only continues to marginalize any commentary that might be of value. But if others are like me, when I see the the malicious adjectives, I rarely finish reading the post.

btk

May I ask to whom you have directed this reply?

If it is not to VK, then may I ask if you have any response to his last comments about the auto industry bailout?

Nor janmcn; not ijusluvit.

Regarding VK's...I accept we agree to disagree.

We all have differing experiences to recount. My comments about GM obtaining financing was based on my experience of aiding companies that were headed into bankruptcy with comments like, not a prayer of getting anybody to back the deal. In three different situations a white knight came forward. Very costly financing but the alternative to liquidate was the least attractive return. As per usual we flushed all the corporate execs. Cleaned up the income statement and balance sheet. Got suppliers to work with us to be able to keep their processes running and extended payment terms. Did not lay off anybody directly involved in the manufacturing process. Wound up selling the companies to folks in like businesses.

I just happen to one of many who believe there would have been a rescue effort of some kind from some body or some organization.

I love being reminded by some that Bush made the initial loan. I do not recall any discussion required about who started or finished it. My comments or position on the matter are not affected by who was in the WH when ever. I would not support having done it.

btk

Originally Posted by janmcn

BillieTheKid and Rubicon insist that there was plenty of private money to save the auto manufacturers, but they have yet to post a link to all these private equity firms so that I can delve into their facts and figures.

Actually, Chrysler was owned by private equity firm Cerebus Capital Management when the government bailed them out and forced the sale of the company to Fiat. It was the worst investment ever made by a private equity firm. Cerebus lost their entire investment as a condition of the Treasury Department's bailout of Chrysler in 2009.

In 2007, Cerberus purchased an 80% stake in Chrysler for $7.4 billion, promising to bolster the auto maker’s performance by operating it as an independent company. In 2008, the Cerebus plan collapsed due Chrysler's inability to meet any of the Cerebus financial projections and a lack of capital. In response to questioning at a hearing before a House committee in December, 2008, Chrysler President and CEO Robert Nardelli said that Cerberus' fiduciary obligations to its other investors and investments prohibited it from injecting any more capital in Chrysler. Those were fancy words for saying that Cerebus had no intention of throwing good money after bad.

In March, 2009, it was announced that Cerberus Capital Management would lose its entire equity stake and ownership in Chrysler as a condition of the Treasury Department’s bailout deal. Cerberus, which continued to own Chrysler Financial was required by Treasury to inject the first $2 billion in proceeds from its planned sale of Chrysler Financial to secure a $4 billion Treasury Department loan made to Chrysler. In exchange for obtaining that loan, Cerebus was forced to promise many concessions including surrendering equity, foregoing profits and fees, and giving up board seats. Cerebus no longer has anything to do with Chrysler or Chrysler Financial. The firm, named after the mythological three-headed dog who guarded the gates of Hell exited what was the worst investment on record by any private equity firm with their tails between their legs.

Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. is one of the largest private equity investment firms in the United States. The firm is based in New York City, and run by financier Steve Feinberg. Former U.S. Vice President Dan Quayle is a senior partner with Cerebus. The firm's headquarters are located at 299 Park Avenue in New York City.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Actually, Chrysler was owned by private equity firm Cerebus Capital Management when the government bailed them out and forced the sale of the company to Fiat. It was the worst investment ever made by a private equity firm. Cerebus lost their entire investment as a condition of the Treasury Department's bailout of Chrysler in 2009.

In 2007, Cerberus purchased an 80% stake in Chrysler for $7.4 billion, promising to bolster the auto maker’s performance by operating it as an independent company. In 2008, the Cerebus plan collapsed due Chrysler's inability to meet any of the Cerebus financial projections and a lack of capital. In response to questioning at a hearing before a House committee in December, 2008, Chrysler President and CEO Robert Nardelli said that Cerberus' fiduciary obligations to its other investors and investments prohibited it from injecting any more capital in Chrysler. Those were fancy words for saying that Cerebus had no intention of throwing good money after bad.

In March, 2009, it was announced that Cerberus Capital Management would lose its entire equity stake and ownership in Chrysler as a condition of the Treasury Department’s bailout deal. Cerberus, which continued to own Chrysler Financial was required by Treasury to inject the first $2 billion in proceeds from its planned sale of Chrysler Financial to secure a $4 billion Treasury Department loan made to Chrysler. In exchange for obtaining that loan, Cerebus was forced to promise many concessions including surrendering equity, foregoing profits and fees, and giving up board seats. Cerebus no longer has anything to do with Chrysler or Chrysler Financial. The firm, named after the mythological three-headed dog who guarded the gates of Hell exited what was the worst investment on record by any private equity firm with their tails between their legs.

Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. is one of the largest private equity investment firms in the United States. The firm is based in New York City, and run by financier Steve Feinberg. Former U.S. Vice President Dan Quayle is a senior partner with Cerebus. The firm's headquarters are located at 299 Park Avenue in New York City.

VERY INTERESTING. Thanks for the post Kahuna!

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Lots of economists would debate whether the recession we experienced was more like the Great Depression than any recession since 1950. It absolutely was different in the sense that home values declined so precipitously and dramatically. Most economists, all of them that I've read recently, have opined that recovery from the deep economic recession the U.S. experienced during 2007-2009 can't happen until home values stabilize and begin to increase again.

I won't argue that all of the actions taken on Obama's administration so far are good and effective in creating economic recovery and jobs. Both Dodd-Frank and the healthcare reform bill are Rube Goldberg abominations, in my opinion. But let's not forget that both those bills were the product of hot negotiations between two political parties in a Congress widely divided by both ideology and political motives. I will blame his administration for the installation of regulations which I don't believe are helpful, like blocking the oil pipeline from Canada for no good reason. And I definitely think that the president's fiscal policies will have long-term negative effects. But to say that President Obama slowed an economic recovery that might have proceeded at a faster pace is conclusion that can't be assigned solely to the POTUS and fully supported by the facts.

Hi VK: you recollect that old saw "Believe nothing you hear and half of what you read". Well given rapid assimilation of information ( there is more information on line every day then had been accumulated from the beginning of time until 2003. and given the fact that far too many people in authority or the public trust ignore ethics...people are best to trust but verify all communication.

I preface this because ask any question and you will get a variety of answers.

My manner of coping is to keep faith in those things that have proven reliable.
I know free is not free. I know profit is a good motivator. I do not believe that we should look to the government to slove our problems .

When the horseless carriage moved to the assembly line horse drawn wagons
disappeared. Many many companies went under and resurrected under new names etc better and more relevant to society.

The auto bailouts IMHO were unnecessary because nature should have taken its course and these companies would have ressurected better. yes they have profits but only because taxpayers paid off their liabilities , they continue to deduct operating expesnes and pay no taxes on their profits and will not be taxed for years to come. Hell who could make a profits.
When I blog here I share my opinion. I desire to learn others points of view. i really have no interest in upmanship

succintly stated the present presidential battle is about government control vis a vis a free enterprise system. i am a pro growh guy and believe that private sector is far more financially savvy...all the government needs to do is get out of the way......and this addresses one of your comments concerning the housing market. TheFHA chair made it clear Fannie and Freddie conti ue to offersubprime mortgages and for his efforts the Obama Admin stifle his efforts. these subprime mortgages should be divided up in the private market and they will soon disappear. On a smaller scale the requirement for more labeling info by the government on raw meat is another example of hiw the governement destroys an economy.

Personal Best Regards:

Originally Posted by janmcn

So you admit that you don't want women or African Americans or American Indians to have the right to vote or own property?

I can bring myself to answer your idiotic question, sorry.

Originally Posted by buggyone

Yes, it does seems as though the Dumpublicans who say they want the country to be like the founding fathers envisioned do forget that slavery was allowed, women could not vote as neither could minorities.

I like to remind them that the 2nd amendment about having the right to bear arms was part of the militia (National Guard of their day) and that the writers of the Constitution did not envision M-16's, Glock 9mm's, AK-47's and the other semi-automatics that are now part of their arsenal. If these people want a firearm, let it be the firearm that the writers of the constitution had in mind - a flintlock musket or pistol.

Well, Caribou Barbie, Cowboy Ariapo, and Christine O'Donnell have stood up for the principles of slavery, women and minorities as second class citizens, and an automatic weapon in every house. Good for them. Typical for Dumpublicans, isn't it?

More liberal idiocy. Please look up "founding principles" before you embarrass yourself further, my friend. I don't think you're going to find "protection of slavery" in the Declaration or the Constitution.

All your other points are just standard leftist drivel. Of course that's only in this American's humble opinion.

Originally Posted by billethkid

someday you will put up a post addressing the subject and without the endless labeling, nasty name referrals and just plain outright being rude.

It adds no value and only continues to marginalize any commentary that might be of value. But if others are like me, when I see the the malicious adjectives, I rarely finish reading the post.

btk

He can't do it, no liberal can. They have nothing, only diversion and ridicule. We've been over this again and again.

Originally Posted by buggyone

I like to remind them that the 2nd amendment about having the right to bear arms was part of the militia (National Guard of their day) and that the writers of the Constitution did not envision M-16's, Glock 9mm's, AK-47's and the other semi-automatics that are now part of their arsenal. If these people want a firearm, let it be the firearm that the writers of the constitution had in mind - a flintlock musket or pistol.

Not *entirely* true.

The "militia" of the time meant any person who could answer the call to the town common. A member of the militia could leave at any time (unlike if you were in the Continental Army and had signed up for a specific period of time).

The phrase is "well-regulated militia". Back then "well-regulated" meant what we would think of today as "well-trained" - meaning you COULD hit the broad side of a barn. But later on, the Ammendment reinforces the meaning with "the right of the *people*" to bear arms being clearly stated.

And as far as weaponry.. Well, let's remember that the flintlock muskets WERE the assault weapon of the day.

Not that Richie needs *me* defending him - but there's a difference between a principle and the way it's executed.

Consider how far a leap the Founding Fathers made from what they came from as British subject to what they went to as Americans. No, the implementation was not perfect - flawed in many ways. But we've spent over 200 years trying to implement that grammatical error - "In order to form a more perfect Union".