(01-25-2012 10:34 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 10:15 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Insolvent Companies: That's why we have Bankruptcy Courts in every Federal Courthouse.

Yes because putting ten or hundreds of thousands out of work is a wonderful idea.

Robert, you obviously don't understand how bankruptcy works. Putting tens or hundreds or thousands out of work is not what happens in bankruptcy.

(01-25-2012 10:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 10:34 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 10:15 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Insolvent Companies: That's why we have Bankruptcy Courts in every Federal Courthouse.

Yes because putting ten or hundreds of thousands out of work is a wonderful idea.

Robert, you obviously don't understand how bankruptcy works. Putting tens or hundreds or thousands out of work is not what happens in bankruptcy.

Please tell me how GM would get the funding to get out of bankruptcy. It wasn't going to happen and even their rightwing CEO admitted that. So keep trying.

(01-25-2012 10:51 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 10:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 10:34 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 10:15 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Insolvent Companies: That's why we have Bankruptcy Courts in every Federal Courthouse.

Yes because putting ten or hundreds of thousands out of work is a wonderful idea.

Robert, you obviously don't understand how bankruptcy works. Putting tens or hundreds or thousands out of work is not what happens in bankruptcy.

Please tell me how GM would get the funding to get out of bankruptcy.

To state again. You don't understand how bankruptcy works.

(01-25-2012 10:34 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 10:15 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 09:12 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 08:15 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 06:56 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Great speech if you agreed with the president, fine speech if you were neutral and Marxist indoctrination if you were a wingnut. He reminded the nation that under his administration we had ended a war, killed Bin Laden and saved the U.S. auto industry within the first two minutes. The presidents delivery was perfect but the substance was on par with Dubya's mission to mars. The GOP doesn't have a single candidate that can occupy the same stage as President Obama.

The problems with claiming the benefits of "winning" in Iraq and killing Bin Laden is that he won't be able to do it for long without giving Bush credit. Obama continued the policies that GWB installed. He never got rid of the Patriot Act - like he promised he would - and he never shut down Guantanimo - again like he promised in the last campaign. He utilized the same surge strategy in Afghanistan that GWB crafted for Iraq. Again, Obama will have to acknowledge GWB for giving him all of the tools and strategies needed to fight the terrorists.

Regarding the auto industry...did he really "save" it? Remember, the gov't bailed out 2 of the Big 3 auto companies. The one that didn't get an actual bailout was Ford. Guess which auto company out of the Big 3 has the best financial stability? Ford is the most stable of the 3 by far. How can that be? It's simple. When you allow the free market to work unencumbered, capital will be distributed much more efficiently and thus those companies that are doing business the right way will benefit. Obama did a huge disservice to Ford by bailing out GM and Chrysler. Ford could have grown its market share and possibly picked up additional resources from GM and Chrysler on the cheap. As a result, Ford could have become significantly stronger and the U.S. would have a stronger auto maker headquartered in the U.S. Since the free market was hindered, we have a moderately strong auto company and 2 weak companies that still need help.

As scary as it sounds, we would be much further ahead today with an economic recovery if the gov't allowed the free market to operate during this downturn. The up front costs would have been significantly higher, but most of our problems would have been behind us. Today, we can't say that because in the end we still have to deal with the same problems because the markets are not allowed to flush out the, bad loans, bad debt and bad companies. It's quite sad, actually.

Agreed. I've said this before and I might have been the first one...Economic Natural Selection. Let the strong survive and the weak go under. We would have been out of this by now had the bailouts not happened...IMO.

Insolvent Companies: That's why we have Bankruptcy Courts in every Federal Courthouse.

Yes because putting ten or hundreds of thousands out of work is a wonderful idea.

Do you realize that when you put capital towards a company to prop it up, that the capital is not available to more deserving entities? When you spend this capital to save jobs at otherwise failing firms, you end up preventing that same capital from going to other firms to create tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of jobs. These other jobs could have been created by companies that are either better managed or have better long term prospects.

(01-25-2012 10:57 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 10:51 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 10:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 10:34 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 10:15 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Insolvent Companies: That's why we have Bankruptcy Courts in every Federal Courthouse.

Yes because putting ten or hundreds of thousands out of work is a wonderful idea.

Robert, you obviously don't understand how bankruptcy works. Putting tens or hundreds or thousands out of work is not what happens in bankruptcy.

Please tell me how GM would get the funding to get out of bankruptcy.

To state again. You don't understand how bankruptcy works.

Robert, there are a number of different bankruptcy filings that GM could have made. If GM could not go the Chapter 11 route due to an inability to attract private equity, it could have went via other routes - where the most likely scenario would have had it sold off in pieces to other firms to continue manufacturing autos. Remember Ford? Perhaps they could have bought a few plants and those plants would currently be operating better under Ford than they currently are under GM. Plus there are a variety of other auto companies or private capital groups that would have bought those assets and kept most of these GM employees working.

Wasn't a "normal" Obama speech. Filled with almost too many specifics to be honest. As usual, some stuff I agree with in principle but not the approach he wants to take. I don't think we should be making the tax code even more complicated than it is and just about every specific he included took some form of tax deduction. Instead of giving new tax shelters, how about having comprehensive tax reform that simplifies the system and creates certainty for business and our citizens.

Of the his entire speech, the one thing that I would be whole-heartedly behind is a stronger ban on Insider Trading for Congressmen and a ban on Congressmen and Administration officials possessing investments in companies and industries they directly effect. Oh yea, also I would be for a ban on fundraising bundlers also being lobbyists.

(01-25-2012 10:51 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 10:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 10:34 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 10:15 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Insolvent Companies: That's why we have Bankruptcy Courts in every Federal Courthouse.

Yes because putting ten or hundreds of thousands out of work is a wonderful idea.

Robert, you obviously don't understand how bankruptcy works. Putting tens or hundreds or thousands out of work is not what happens in bankruptcy.

Please tell me how GM would get the funding to get out of bankruptcy. It wasn't going to happen and even their rightwing CEO admitted that. So keep trying.

Imagine that...someone bending the truth in order to get to suck on the gov't teat. Funny how you'll trust what corporations say when it fits your agenda.

I got an A in Bankruptcy in law school so I think I know how bankruptcy works. Robert's basically right. Thousands of jobs would have been lost and communities would have collapsed. If GM and Chrysler went under at that moment in time it very well could have sunk us into a depression.

Miko is right that there are different types of bankruptcy, but it astounds me that he thinks Chapter 7 liquidation would not have been a complete disaster to our economy. Liquidation (selling the assets off piece by piece to various vultures to pay the creditors) would made those jobs disappear. The argument that the capital will be put to better use because the invisible hand of the free market knows best how to allocate resources is naive at best. Selling all the assets isn't going to carry those jobs with it. Even if it were true, that process would have taken years to see this awesome productivity realized. Foreign car manufacturers would have bought some of the plants, maybe, and used them to assemble their own cars here, but the void in the market would have been filled with millions of imports, and the money from the sales would have flowed back overseas.

Chapter 11 reorganization would not have been possible if the US government didn't step in. No one else would have bought the assets. The GOP plan to just let Chapter 7 take its course would have been disastrous and economists were estimating it would measurably shrink the GDP. We can't let an entire American industry collapse because they're slow to adapt to fuel efficiency.

Of course, two years later, GM and Chrysler have paid back their loans and are turning profits, and GM is now the largest car manufacturer in the world. And I hate to sound like a partisan hack, but all no thanks to Republicans.

(01-25-2012 10:22 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  That's the difference. Republicans give out of their own pockets, dems just want to take out of our pockets and then give it away while keeping their own money.

Romney gave millions to the Mormon church. Republicans want to choose who they give to because they're selfish. If they had their way, they'd allocate some of their taxes to old white men with SS but decline to give their taxes to poor minorities via food stamps or section 8 housing. Democrats want money given to everybody in need regardless of who they are, and the state to not pick and choose.

(01-25-2012 11:50 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 10:22 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  That's the difference. Republicans give out of their own pockets, dems just want to take out of our pockets and then give it away while keeping their own money.

Romney gave millions to the Mormon church. Republicans want to choose who they give to because they're selfish. If they had their way, they'd allocate some of their taxes to old white men with SS but decline to give their taxes to poor minorities via food stamps or section 8 housing. Democrats want money given to everybody in need regardless of who they are, and the state to not pick and choose.

Its funny you think the State is a charitable organization...

(01-25-2012 11:42 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I got an A in Bankruptcy in law school so I think I know how bankruptcy works.

I thought you worked in a factory? Are you a factory lawyer?

Quote:Of course, two years later, GM and Chrysler have paid back their loans and are turning profits, and GM is now the largest car manufacturer in the world. And I hate to sound like a partisan hack, but all no thanks to Republicans.

Only a partisan hack would actually either had actually paid back their loans. GM paid back their loan with another loan they took out from...wait for it.. the Government. It did not use earnings to pay back the loan, though you and Obama would love for people to believe they did. When you combine that with the fact that the government still owns a huge portion of both companies in the form of common stock, you realize that no such payback has actually occurred.

As with most things, the devil is in the details.

(01-25-2012 11:04 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 10:57 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 10:51 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 10:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 10:34 AM)RobertN Wrote:  Yes because putting ten or hundreds of thousands out of work is a wonderful idea.

Robert, you obviously don't understand how bankruptcy works. Putting tens or hundreds or thousands out of work is not what happens in bankruptcy.

Please tell me how GM would get the funding to get out of bankruptcy.

To state again. You don't understand how bankruptcy works.

Robert, there are a number of different bankruptcy filings that GM could have made. If GM could not go the Chapter 11 route due to an inability to attract private equity, it could have went via other routes - where the most likely scenario would have had it sold off in pieces to other firms to continue manufacturing autos. Remember Ford? Perhaps they could have bought a few plants and those plants would currently be operating better under Ford than they currently are under GM. Plus there are a variety of other auto companies or private capital groups that would have bought those assets and kept most of these GM employees working.

Yeah, they could have sold all those pieces to their competetors. Now that would be great, right?

(01-25-2012 11:42 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Chapter 11 reorganization would not have been possible if the US government didn't step in. No one else would have bought the assets.

What's your basis for this? Of course, what happened was not a true Chapter 11. Obama cronyism allowed unions to jump in line in front of creditors.

Quote:We can't let an entire American industry collapse because they're slow to adapt to fuel efficiency.

...as if that were the only factor. Union and pension obligations (among other things) were a major part of their demise. From looking at their financial statements, that's indisputable.

(01-25-2012 11:50 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Romney gave millions to the Mormon church.

Given your hatred of religious people it's no shock you take issue with this.

Quote:Republicans want to choose who they give to because they're selfish.

The nerve of republicans. Believing that they should be able to decide what to do with the money they earn.

Quote:If they had their way, they'd allocate some of their taxes to old white men with SS but decline to give their taxes to poor minorities via food stamps or section 8 housing. Democrats want money given to everybody in need regardless of who they are, and the state to not pick and choose.

Perhaps you missed it, but that 16% Romney paid was in addition to his taxes. Democrats want to take more money from people because, as you have put it, people are selfish and need to be told who their money should go to.

Someone once said you give a liberal enough time they'll tell you who they really are. Thank you for having that ring true in your above post. People simply can't be trusted with what they earn. So the government must take care of it.

(01-25-2012 11:57 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 11:04 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 10:57 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 10:51 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 10:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Robert, you obviously don't understand how bankruptcy works. Putting tens or hundreds or thousands out of work is not what happens in bankruptcy.

Please tell me how GM would get the funding to get out of bankruptcy.

To state again. You don't understand how bankruptcy works.

Robert, there are a number of different bankruptcy filings that GM could have made. If GM could not go the Chapter 11 route due to an inability to attract private equity, it could have went via other routes - where the most likely scenario would have had it sold off in pieces to other firms to continue manufacturing autos. Remember Ford? Perhaps they could have bought a few plants and those plants would currently be operating better under Ford than they currently are under GM. Plus there are a variety of other auto companies or private capital groups that would have bought those assets and kept most of these GM employees working.

Yeah, they could have sold all those pieces to their competetors. Now that would be great, right?

Not so bad. A plant here employs people here...If US companies can't get their shitake straight let them go under...I own a BRAND NEW 2011 JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE LIMITED AND IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP. I SHOULD HAVE BOUGHT A TOYOTA OR HONDA OR LEXUS OR RANGE ROVER OR FORD OR ANYTHING THAT ISN'T MADE BY GM OR CHRYSLER. American cars generally speaking SUCK. When they fix that issue they will again be competitive.

(01-25-2012 11:57 AM)RobertN Wrote:  Yeah, they could have sold all those pieces to their competetors. Now that would be great, right?

That's how the free market works fool. I know you don't like the free market, but the reality is this is how it's supposed to work.

(01-25-2012 12:00 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 11:57 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 11:04 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 10:57 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 10:51 AM)RobertN Wrote:  Please tell me how GM would get the funding to get out of bankruptcy.

To state again. You don't understand how bankruptcy works.

Robert, there are a number of different bankruptcy filings that GM could have made. If GM could not go the Chapter 11 route due to an inability to attract private equity, it could have went via other routes - where the most likely scenario would have had it sold off in pieces to other firms to continue manufacturing autos. Remember Ford? Perhaps they could have bought a few plants and those plants would currently be operating better under Ford than they currently are under GM. Plus there are a variety of other auto companies or private capital groups that would have bought those assets and kept most of these GM employees working.

Yeah, they could have sold all those pieces to their competetors. Now that would be great, right?

Not so bad. A plant here employs people here...If US companies can't get their shitake straight let them go under...I own a BRAND NEW 2011 JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE LIMITED AND IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP. I SHOULD HAVE BOUGHT A TOYOTA OR HONDA OR LEXUS OR RANGE ROVER OR FORD OR ANYTHING THAT ISN'T MADE BY GM OR CHRYSLER. American cars generally speaking SUCK. When they fix that issue they will again be competitive.

Technically Jeep is no longer an American car company.

(01-25-2012 12:02 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 12:00 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 11:57 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 11:04 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 10:57 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  To state again. You don't understand how bankruptcy works.

Robert, there are a number of different bankruptcy filings that GM could have made. If GM could not go the Chapter 11 route due to an inability to attract private equity, it could have went via other routes - where the most likely scenario would have had it sold off in pieces to other firms to continue manufacturing autos. Remember Ford? Perhaps they could have bought a few plants and those plants would currently be operating better under Ford than they currently are under GM. Plus there are a variety of other auto companies or private capital groups that would have bought those assets and kept most of these GM employees working.

Yeah, they could have sold all those pieces to their competetors. Now that would be great, right?

Not so bad. A plant here employs people here...If US companies can't get their shitake straight let them go under...I own a BRAND NEW 2011 JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE LIMITED AND IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP. I SHOULD HAVE BOUGHT A TOYOTA OR HONDA OR LEXUS OR RANGE ROVER OR FORD OR ANYTHING THAT ISN'T MADE BY GM OR CHRYSLER. American cars generally speaking SUCK. When they fix that issue they will again be competitive.

Technically Jeep is no longer an American car company.

LOL...Made my Americans...Americans make crap cars.

(01-25-2012 12:04 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 12:02 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 12:00 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 11:57 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 11:04 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Robert, there are a number of different bankruptcy filings that GM could have made. If GM could not go the Chapter 11 route due to an inability to attract private equity, it could have went via other routes - where the most likely scenario would have had it sold off in pieces to other firms to continue manufacturing autos. Remember Ford? Perhaps they could have bought a few plants and those plants would currently be operating better under Ford than they currently are under GM. Plus there are a variety of other auto companies or private capital groups that would have bought those assets and kept most of these GM employees working.

Yeah, they could have sold all those pieces to their competetors. Now that would be great, right?

Not so bad. A plant here employs people here...If US companies can't get their shitake straight let them go under...I own a BRAND NEW 2011 JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE LIMITED AND IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP. I SHOULD HAVE BOUGHT A TOYOTA OR HONDA OR LEXUS OR RANGE ROVER OR FORD OR ANYTHING THAT ISN'T MADE BY GM OR CHRYSLER. American cars generally speaking SUCK. When they fix that issue they will again be competitive.

Technically Jeep is no longer an American car company.

LOL...Made my Americans...Americans make crap cars.

Minus a few models by Ford yes they do. Of course, it doesnt help when you combine it FIAT who makes cars that can rival Alfa Romeo's in unreliability.

(01-25-2012 11:54 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 11:50 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 10:22 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  That's the difference. Republicans give out of their own pockets, dems just want to take out of our pockets and then give it away while keeping their own money.

Romney gave millions to the Mormon church. Republicans want to choose who they give to because they're selfish. If they had their way, they'd allocate some of their taxes to old white men with SS but decline to give their taxes to poor minorities via food stamps or section 8 housing. Democrats want money given to everybody in need regardless of who they are, and the state to not pick and choose.

Its funny you think the State is a charitable organization...

What I think is sad is you are so uncaring.