GM Bailouts Affect You

[BigRob]

I may buy some, too, but not more than I can afford to lose.

I would not run to do that. Typically when a company files for bankruptcy (as GM is going to do) the common stock holders will be wiped out. Typically as part of restructuring creditors are given new stock in the reorganized company which takes the place of the stock held previously, therefore making the stock before bankruptcy worthless.

Unless the government is going to ensure the common stock holders (which would be ridiculous) I would not be buying before they reorganize, unless you want to day trade it or something.

 

[Dr.Who]

I said that the new federal CAFE (fuel efficiency standards) and pollution standards will be across the board for any car sold in the United States domestic or import.

You may have meant that but it is not what you said. And if that is waht you meant then you were wrong becase the gov is going to be controlling GM in a socialistic manner.

Here is your quote:
"GM will not be run by the government anymore than any other car company that wants to sell cars in the US... the standards will be across the board."

And since the government is telling GM who to hire and who to give bonuses too that means that the gov will be telling other car companies whow to hire and who to give bonuses to.

IT WILL!!! Everybody will be better off compared to GM liquidating and going out of business.

we are all better off when weak failing companies go out of business rather than when taxpayer money is spent to prop them up to continue being failures or to go out of business anyway.

How about... to promote the general welfare? The government has done things like this many, many times. From the Great Depression to the more recent first Chrysler loan bailout 20 years ago. There's tons of precedent here my friend.

It has done this kind of thing before. do we need another general welfare thread. That clause was NEVER NEVER a reason for the government to do anything at all that if thought would be good. If it were then there could be no complaint from the left about an illegal war in Iraq. Bush could just invoke the General welfare clause and cite how the previous three or four presidents before him all agreed that it was in the best interest of our country for regime change in Iraq.

 

[Dr.Who]

Top Economists Agree Worst Financial Crisis Since Great Depression

Feb 15, 2009
From Business Wire:

Three Top Economists Agree 2009 Worst Financial Crisis Since Great Depression; Risks Increase if Right Steps are Not Taken

Three of the country’s most respected economists warned of a deepening economic crisis if the banking system is not quickly fixed in a wide-ranging conversation last night with Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) Chairman Daniel Yergin and an audience of nearly 1,000 people who filled the Westin Galleria ballroom at CERAWeek 2009.

Do you know the difference between a warning and saying that something has already happened?

The three economists warned that this could be bad.

they also said:

“This is the Great Recession, not the Great Depression 2.0 and not Japan in the last decade."

That is from your source that you did not provide a link to:

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/...d=news_view&newsId=20090213005161&newsLang=en

Meanwhile while economists who work for the banking industry bemoan how bad it WILL BE if tons of money is not handed over the the banks complain, this recessions that does not fit the traditional definition of a recession (but a newer and laxer definition), does not have worse unemployment than past recessions, worse inflation or deflation, worse collapse of housing, worse GDP, worse misery index, or really worse of any objective measure.

If you can name even one measure of the US economy that was not worse in a past recession since the great depression I'll take it all back. But there is none. Except for the amount of debt we have as a result of throwing money at it. That worse than at any time in the history of our country.

 

[top gun]

You may have meant that but it is not what you said. And if that is waht you meant then you were wrong becase the gov is going to be controlling GM in a socialistic manner.

Here is your quote:
"GM will not be run by the government anymore than any other car company that wants to sell cars in the US... the standards will be across the board."

I'm trying to be as clear as possible. I appologise if I'm not getting through for some reason.

I'm saying now (and was saying then) EVERYONE... THIS ENTIRE NATION will be better off with GM not closing it's doors and just going out of business.

And since the government is telling GM who to hire and who to give bonuses too that means that the gov will be telling other car companies whow to hire and who to give bonuses to.

I don't know where you're getting this stuff from? I said CAFE & emission standards will be set across the board for all companies domestic & import that want to sell cars in the US. That's simply saying American automaker won't be at a disadvantage.

Seriously you're spending way too much time trying to twist my meanings.

As far as the government wanting a hand in the restructuring plan WELL OF COURSE THEY WOULD!!!!!!!!!!!! You'd rather just hand piles of money to a company that's on it's own already put itself on the brink of going extinct and say hey... continue doing what you've been doing or anything else you like! That's a George Bush Wall street move... not doing that again I assure you!

All the government is doing is making sure by a huge team of both automotive and economic experts that GM will be stronger & viable after this whole situation of government loans, bankruptcy protection whatever is completed. Come on that's the very definition of REASONABLE & PRUDENT.

we are all better off when weak failing companies go out of business rather than when taxpayer money is spent to prop them up to continue being failures or to go out of business anyway.

Come on you know GM going out of business would be just a terrible thing for the US and this will be turned around to a very good thing. It might take a year or two but you have to know that. It's a HUGE employer and one of the biggest pieces of the US manufacturing base.

How about... to promote the general welfare? The government has done things like this many, many times. From the Great Depression to the more recent first Chrysler loan bailout 20 years ago. There's tons of precedent here my friend.

It has done this kind of thing before. do we need another general welfare thread. That clause was NEVER NEVER a reason for the government to do anything at all that if thought would be good. If it were then there could be no complaint from the left about an illegal war in Iraq. Bush could just invoke the General welfare clause and cite how the previous three or four presidents before him all agreed that it was in the best interest of our country for regime change in Iraq.

I'm simply saying this is neither a new or unheard of situation. The government steps in at various times of crisis and helps when great masses are being effected... and that does include ECONOMIC DISASTERS. You don't have to agree with it... but that is the precedent & the truth.

Let's just all be content to call it Hurricane Bush, stop whining about the fix it and fix it... LOL!

 

[Dr.Who]

I'm trying to be as clear as possible. I appologise if I'm not getting through for some reason.

I'm saying now (and was saying then) EVERYONE... THIS ENTIRE NATION will be better off with GM not closing it's doors and just going out of business.

The last time I was on this board I thought I may have misread what you wrote and was ready to come back here to say I was wrong.

Today with fresh eyes I can clearly see that in post #3 you said it would be the company that would be better off and in post 13 you said it would be America that would be better off and now you are saying that you always said it.

Meanwhile it is complete and utter silliness to think that spending 15 billion in tax dollars to maybe save a company that employs 244,000 people is better than letting that company go bankrupt.

I think it makes more sense to suppose that the President is willing to spend 15 billion dollars of other peoples money to save 244,000 unions jobs.

No one in his right mind would spend that much money per job and think it made any sense.

 

[Dr.Who]

[


I don't know where you're getting this stuff from? I said CAFE & emission standards will be set across the board for all companies domestic & import that want to sell cars in the US. That's simply saying American automaker won't be at a disadvantage.

Seriously you're spending way too much time trying to twist my meanings.

As far as the government wanting a hand in the restructuring plan WELL OF COURSE THEY WOULD!!!!!!!!!!!! You'd rather just hand piles of money to a company that's on it's own already put itself on the brink of going extinct and say hey... continue doing what you've been doing or anything else you like! That's a George Bush Wall street move... not doing that again I assure you!

All the government is doing is making sure by a huge team of both automotive and economic experts that GM will be stronger & viable after this whole situation of government loans, bankruptcy protection whatever is completed. Come on that's the very definition of REASONABLE & PRUDENT.


In post #3 the very first post you had here you said:


"GM will not be run by the government anymore than any other car company that wants to sell cars in the US... the standards will be across the board."


You said nothing about cafe standards! Not until later.

And still now you are admitting that the gov is goiing to want to "have their hand in restructuring". if they have their hand in restructuring GM and that includes deciding what dealerships get closed and which ones stay open AND they do the same for all companies then that is socialism imposed on other companies too not just GM.

If you want to say that you got ahead of yourself then by all means retract some of that as out of order.

It may be that you think they will only be imposing cafe standards on all companies but that is not what you first wrote. Own up man.

 

[top gun]

[


I don't know where you're getting this stuff from? I said CAFE & emission standards will be set across the board for all companies domestic & import that want to sell cars in the US. That's simply saying American automaker won't be at a disadvantage.

Seriously you're spending way too much time trying to twist my meanings.

As far as the government wanting a hand in the restructuring plan WELL OF COURSE THEY WOULD!!!!!!!!!!!! You'd rather just hand piles of money to a company that's on it's own already put itself on the brink of going extinct and say hey... continue doing what you've been doing or anything else you like! That's a George Bush Wall street move... not doing that again I assure you!

All the government is doing is making sure by a huge team of both automotive and economic experts that GM will be stronger & viable after this whole situation of government loans, bankruptcy protection whatever is completed. Come on that's the very definition of REASONABLE & PRUDENT.


In post #3 the very first post you had here you said:

"GM will not be run by the government anymore than any other car company that wants to sell cars in the US... the standards will be across the board."


You said nothing about cafe standards! Not until later.

And still now you are admitting that the gov is goiing to want to "have their hand in restructuring". if they have their hand in restructuring GM and that includes deciding what dealerships get closed and which ones stay open AND they do the same for all companies then that is socialism imposed on other companies too not just GM.

If you want to say that you got ahead of yourself then by all means retract some of that as out of order.

It may be that you think they will only be imposing cafe standards on all companies but that is not what you first wrote. Own up man.

When you look at my quote I'm answering a question about CAFE standards.

"GM will not be run by the government anymore than any other car company that wants to sell cars in the US... the standards will be across the board."

The standards of which I'm referring are CAFE standards. I didn't use the word CAFE because it was in the original subject I was addressing.

The person was saying (in part) we (the US automakers) would now be at a disadvantage because of Obama's raising of CAFE standards and I was making a reply to that.

The new standards will be imposed on all cars and trucks sold in the United States regardless of who makes them... didn't have to say CAFE... it was already the subject of reply.

As far as all that rhetoric about the government telling the manufacturer "what plants they had to shut down" and such... that is simply untrue.

The government with a whole host of automotive industry, corporate finance and union experts has set up an OVERALL REQUIREMENT FOR BUSINESS VIABILITY as it pertains to... necessary cash flow needs, credit to debt ratio, labor & management expenses and so on.

The government doesn't care if GM keeps Saturn and shuts down Buick or shuts down a plant in North Carolina or Ohio. As long as the VIABILITY IS THERE... which was obviously not there before BECAUSE THEY WENT BANKRUPT!

Now the corporation does have to look at what plants will best meet the needs of the new CAFE standards. But like I said ALL car companies wanting to sell cars in the US will have that exact same CAFE hurdle to clear.

Everything will be fine. In a year or 2 people will talk about this like they do the major league baseball strike. It happend... it was a bad thing at the time... it was resolved... everyone's back to playing ball as usual.

 

[Dr.Who]

When you look at my quote I'm answering a question about CAFE standards.



The standards of which I'm referring are CAFE standards. I didn't use the word CAFE because it was in the original subject I was addressing.

The person was saying (in part) we (the US automakers) would now be at a disadvantage because of Obama's raising of CAFE standards and I was making a reply to that.

The new standards will be imposed on all cars and trucks sold in the United States regardless of who makes them... didn't have to say CAFE... it was already the subject of reply.

You said that in post #3. Neither post #1 nor post #2 said anything about cafe standards.

 

[top gun]

You said that in post #3. Neither post #1 nor post #2 said anything about cafe standards.

Well I don't know what else I can tell ya... I know what I was referring to. You know sometimes in posts a statement gets read and then it's like quick back & forth. Not every word will be their because there's a theme so to speak.

If I wasn't clear then I should be by now which is... The CAFE standards will be exactly the same for all cars sold in America. The imports will have the exact same STANDARDS...

OOPS I did it again!

And even on the broader concept I could go that way as well. The government is an investor and one trustee with a stake in the companies success along with several others. That's basically the same as any board of directors. I can assure you if you know somebody that wants to buy the governments stake they'll gladly sell it to them.

If the government was designing the only cars that could be made, putting in all the investment and taking all the profits and controlling the day to day operations as a CEO of their corporation then you'd be stating a more accurate depiction of a government car company.

But that's not the case. This is much more like a glorified super sized Chrysler bailout in the 80's... which we got all our taxpayer money back on plus interest. I don't look to get every dime plus interest back this time. But we will recoup a good deal eventually.

 

[Dr.Who]

Well I don't know what else I can tell ya... I know what I was referring to. You know sometimes in posts a statement gets read and then it's like quick back & forth. Not every word will be their because there's a theme so to speak.

If I wasn't clear then I should be by now which is... The CAFE standards will be exactly the same for all cars sold in America. The imports will have the exact same STANDARDS...

OOPS I did it again!

Fair enough.

And even on the broader concept I could go that way as well. The government is an investor and one trustee with a stake in the companies success along with several others. That's basically the same as any board of directors. I can assure you if you know somebody that wants to buy the governments stake they'll gladly sell it to them.

The supreme court seems to be saying that the President does not have the authority to be doing any of that. Time will tell.


Article:

"The funds [plaintiffs] also challenged the constitutionality of the Treasury Department's use of Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, funds to supply Chrysler's bankruptcy protection financing. They say the Treasury did so without congressional authority."

"Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a stay just a week before Chrysler says the government-backed sale must go through. After June 15, Fiat could walk away from the deal and leave the struggling U.S. automaker with little option but to liquidate."

If the government was designing the only cars that could be made, putting in all the investment and taking all the profits and controlling the day to day operations as a CEO of their corporation then you'd be stating a more accurate depiction of a government car company.

The fact that the gov does not have 100% control of the company does not excuse that P. Obama has no authority to have any control of it.

 

[top gun]

Well I don't know what else I can tell ya... I know what I was referring to. You know sometimes in posts a statement gets read and then it's like quick back & forth. Not every word will be their because there's a theme so to speak.

If I wasn't clear then I should be by now which is... The CAFE standards will be exactly the same for all cars sold in America. The imports will have the exact same STANDARDS...

OOPS I did it again!

Fair enough.

Cool... if I was vague I didn't mean to be.

The supreme court seems to be saying that the President does not have the authority to be doing any of that. Time will tell.


Article:

"The funds [plaintiffs] also challenged the constitutionality of the Treasury Department's use of Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, funds to supply Chrysler's bankruptcy protection financing. They say the Treasury did so without congressional authority."

"Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a stay just a week before Chrysler says the government-backed sale must go through. After June 15, Fiat could walk away from the deal and leave the struggling U.S. automaker with little option but to liquidate."

I am confident that the stay is only so she can say she fully reviewed their claim. I would be absolutely amazed if the High Court let the Fiat deal tank so that a liquidation would possibly take place offering the plaintiffs who have only a 1% stake anyway even less.

My bet would be that the stay will be dropped in a week or so and the Fiat deal will go through before their deadline.

The fact that the gov does not have 100% control of the company does not excuse that P. Obama has no authority to have any control of it.

I think that's true if a corporation doesn't come to the government pleading for a taxpayer bailout. If a corporation is acting within the law and is self sufficient the government has no standing.

But to say that the government can be asked to come in and save a corporation using taxpayers dollars and then not have any say as to how that money is to be spent would be a breach of the governments fiduciary duty to try and protect taxpayer funds.

Once a company says... we're going out of business if you don't help... and the government helps... it's a different ball game.

I bet I'm right... let's see how it plays out. My batting average has been pretty good on these things.

 

[top gun]

Cool... if I was vague I didn't mean to be.

I am confident that the stay is only so she can say she fully reviewed their claim. I would be absolutely amazed if the High Court let the Fiat deal tank so that a liquidation would possibly take place offering the plaintiffs who have only a 1% stake anyway even less.

My bet would be that the stay will be dropped in a week or so and the Fiat deal will go through before their deadline.

I think that's true if a corporation doesn't come to the government pleading for a taxpayer bailout. If a corporation is acting within the law and is self sufficient the government has no standing.

But to say that the government can be asked to come in and save a corporation using taxpayers dollars and then not have any say as to how that money is to be spent would be a breach of the governments fiduciary duty to try and protect taxpayer funds.

Once a company says... we're going out of business if you don't help... and the government helps... it's a different ball game.

I bet I'm right... let's see how it plays out. My batting average has been pretty good on these things.

Hello... calling Dr. Who...

My batting average just went up again.

One day after I posted...

My bet would be that the stay will be dropped in a week or so and the Fiat deal will go through before their deadline.

I bet I'm right... let's see how it plays out. My batting average has been pretty good on these things.

Guess what? Front page of today's paper... SUPREME COURT LIFTS STAY CLEARING THE WAY FOR CHRYSLER'S SALE TO FIAT...


One down one to go. We get GM in and out and this is great news for our economy, our work force and America in general!

 

[Dr.Who]

Hello... calling Dr. Who...

My batting average just went up again.

One day after I posted...




Guess what? Front page of today's paper... SUPREME COURT LIFTS STAY CLEARING THE WAY FOR CHRYSLER'S SALE TO FIAT...


One down one to go. We get GM in and out and this is great news for our economy, our work force and America in general!

Bad news for the rule of law in our country. When people can't expect that laws will be used predictable they will not trust laws in general. Allowing bankruptcy laws to be abused will make investors skittish and less likely to invest in anything - bad for the economy.

 

[asur]

Todays News:

Henderson, 50, said General Motors Corp. will streamline its bureaucratic management structure, cutting U.S. salaried employment by 20 percent, or 6,150 positions, by the end of 2009. The cuts include 450 executive jobs.

Wow that's alot of good jobs down the drain to never be replaced.
Do you understand this thing of Obama's called CHANGE! now?

 

[PLC1]

Todays News:

Henderson, 50, said General Motors Corp. will streamline its bureaucratic management structure, cutting U.S. salaried employment by 20 percent, or 6,150 positions, by the end of 2009. The cuts include 450 executive jobs.

Wow that's alot of good jobs down the drain to never be replaced.
Do you understand this thing of Obama's called CHANGE! now?

It's called streamlining a company that was top heavy and losing money. It's too bad that the streamlining wasn't done by the bankruptcy procedure, thus saving taxpayers from having to bail out GM, but at least it's going the right direction now and downsizing its management staff.

It is still possible, likely even, that GM will begin to turn a profit and will pay back the taxpayer $$ that it has. This company isn't lost yet.