GM's Lt. Dan makes sense

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 7:36 AM GMT
    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/akerson-bailout-general-motors/2012/05/01/id/437704

    http://www.newsmax.com/video/viewid/04024609-ce3c-497f-adc6-fa74abaf3b9b
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 02, 2012 11:21 AM GMT
    Goodness ... then why would Willard say that he would have let GM go bankrupt?

    .... and as an aside I have a strange recollection where the republican contingent here criticized OBAMA for bailing them out icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 11:25 AM GMT
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2330431
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 11:29 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidhttp://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2330431


    John -

    You may want to read the article FIF posted before trying to send folks to your thread:

    "Let me state a fact: The first $13 billion that was put in the company, George Bush, a Republican, put it in. The second [payment] came in with President Obama. So we had two administrations, two presidents of reasonably disparate points of view politically, economically, philosophically, decide that this is in the best interest of the American economy and American jobs.

    “Now President Obama had the obligation to decide whether [the company] would go through bankruptcy or not, and therefore he was more involved in the restructuring of it. But in fact there were two separate efforts to make sure the company survived.”

    Critics have charged that because of the bailout the Obama administration has dictated how General Motors conducts business. Akerson says it’s not true, countering: “There is no factual basis in what the critics say. It’s just speculation.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 12:28 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness saidhttp://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2330431


    John -

    You may want to read the article FIF posted before trying to send folks to your thread:

    "Let me state a fact: The first $13 billion that was put in the company, George Bush, a Republican, put it in. The second [payment] came in with President Obama. So we had two administrations, two presidents of reasonably disparate points of view politically, economically, philosophically, decide that this is in the best interest of the American economy and American jobs.

    “Now President Obama had the obligation to decide whether [the company] would go through bankruptcy or not, and therefore he was more involved in the restructuring of it. But in fact there were two separate efforts to make sure the company survived.”

    Critics have charged that because of the bailout the Obama administration has dictated how General Motors conducts business. Akerson says it’s not true, countering: “There is no factual basis in what the critics say. It’s just speculation.

    Christian - your comment to me is irrelevant. Given the overall context of discussion beyond the specific articles, there is an implied message that Obama did what Romney would not have done, and that the success of the auto industry from the fact that Obama was elected. The point was not the money put into the companies by both Presidents, but about the method of restructuring, which was completely under Obama's watch, along with the distortions by the left of Romney's position. The fact is the survival of the companies did not require doing what Obama did, namely bypass the protections to creditors afforded by Chapter 11. These protections were bypassed to provide a favored position for the UAW, screwing other creditors in the process. Those screwed in the case of Chrysler included the pension funds of public union employees, specifically Indiana teachers and police. This further illustrates that Obama and the Democrats care more about union bosses than union workers, because the bosses are the ones in position to offer favors to the Democrats.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 12:50 PM GMT
    Bush provided just enough money to kick auto industry bankruptcies into early 2009. He had no other choice.

    Otherwise, Bush would have added "Killed the US auto industry" to his long resume of failures.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 02, 2012 1:00 PM GMT
    But the fact REMAINS

    Most of the republican establishment AT THE TIME SAID LET THEM GO BANKRUPT

    Bush also instituted TARP

    Something else THAT HAD TO BE DONE and saved us from catastrophic bank failure
    BUT MOST OF THE REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT also was against that as well

    The policies of Bush helped speed along the recession but him and his administration knew they had a firestorm on their hands and were responsible if they misstepped ......
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 1:00 PM GMT
    Actually, GM has to come out and say this. Rush Limbaugh has been out there beating the drums for 2 years telling his listeners not to buy a GM or Chrysler car. I'm sure some Republican GM owners have taken Rush's advice and traded their GM car for a Toyota, Honda, VW or Hyundai, in hopes of making GM and Chrysler look as bad as possible.

    In fact, I copied an excerpt from Rush's website. The caller is a loyal GM customer, and Rush tells him that buying GM is like making a campaign contribution to Obama.

    Rush's graphic, tying GM to Obama >>>> 01125111.Par.4584.ImageFile.jpg

    CALLER: I think it's official, Rush. I think we can actually take down the signs. They've changed Washington into Chicago. And the reason why I'm calling, I have a little moral dilemma. I've only owned GM cars, and I want to know from you, if I buy a GM or Chevy now, is that the same as making a campaign contribution to Barack Obama?

    RUSH: Hmm. Hmm. Hmm.

    CALLER: The money is directly going to the unions who only support Democrats.

    RUSH: I'd have to say that you're right. I have to say that buying a General Motors or Chrysler car is a campaign donation in kind.

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2010/04/21/is_buying_a_gm_car_like_making_an_obama_campaign_contribution





  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 1:05 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness saidhttp://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2330431


    John -

    You may want to read the article FIF posted before trying to send folks to your thread:

    "Let me state a fact: The first $13 billion that was put in the company, George Bush, a Republican, put it in. The second [payment] came in with President Obama. So we had two administrations, two presidents of reasonably disparate points of view politically, economically, philosophically, decide that this is in the best interest of the American economy and American jobs.

    “Now President Obama had the obligation to decide whether [the company] would go through bankruptcy or not, and therefore he was more involved in the restructuring of it. But in fact there were two separate efforts to make sure the company survived.”

    Critics have charged that because of the bailout the Obama administration has dictated how General Motors conducts business. Akerson says it’s not true, countering: “There is no factual basis in what the critics say. It’s just speculation.

    Christian - your comment to me is irrelevant. Given the overall context of discussion beyond the specific articles, there is an implied message that Obama did what Romney would not have done, and that the success of the auto industry from the fact that Obama was elected. The point was not the money put into the companies by both Presidents, but about the method of restructuring, which was completely under Obama's watch, along with the distortions by the left of Romney's position. The fact is the survival of the companies did not require doing what Obama did, namely bypass the protections to creditors afforded by Chapter 11. These protections were bypassed to provide a favored position for the UAW, screwing other creditors in the process. Those screwed in the case of Chrysler included the pension funds of public union employees, specifically Indiana teachers and police. This further illustrates that Obama and the Democrats care more about union bosses than union workers, because the bosses are the ones in position to offer favors to the Democrats.


    Obama did do what Romney wouldn't have done - as Romney himself stated in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

    Further, this article (from Newsmax of all places!) states from reps of GM itself that everything you've tried to place at the feet of Obama is complete BS.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 1:07 PM GMT
    White4DarkerFL saidActually, GM has to come out and say this. Rush Limbaugh has been out there beating the drums for 2 years telling his listeners not to buy a GM or Chrysler car. I'm sure some Republican GM owners have taken Rush's advice and traded their GM car for a Toyota or Ford, in hopes of making GM and Chrysler look as bad as possible.

    In fact, I copied an excerpt from Rush's website. The caller is a loyal GM customer, and Rush tells him that buying GM is like making a campaign contribution to Obama.

    Rush's graphic, tying GM to Obama >>>> 01125111.Par.4584.ImageFile.jpg

    CALLER: I think it's official, Rush. I think we can actually take down the signs. They've changed Washington into Chicago. And the reason why I'm calling, I have a little moral dilemma. I've only owned GM cars, and I want to know from you, if I buy a GM or Chevy now, is that the same as making a campaign contribution to Barack Obama?

    RUSH: Hmm. Hmm. Hmm.

    CALLER: The money is directly going to the unions who only support Democrats.

    RUSH: I'd have to say that you're right. I have to say that buying a General Motors or Chrysler car is a campaign donation in kind.

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2010/04/21/is_buying_a_gm_car_like_making_an_obama_campaign_contribution



    God, are Rush's listeners epically stupid.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 1:12 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    White4DarkerFL saidActually, GM has to come out and say this. Rush Limbaugh has been out there beating the drums for 2 years telling his listeners not to buy a GM or Chrysler car. I'm sure some Republican GM owners have taken Rush's advice and traded their GM car for a Toyota or Ford, in hopes of making GM and Chrysler look as bad as possible.

    In fact, I copied an excerpt from Rush's website. The caller is a loyal GM customer, and Rush tells him that buying GM is like making a campaign contribution to Obama.

    Rush's graphic, tying GM to Obama >>>> 01125111.Par.4584.ImageFile.jpg

    CALLER: I think it's official, Rush. I think we can actually take down the signs. They've changed Washington into Chicago. And the reason why I'm calling, I have a little moral dilemma. I've only owned GM cars, and I want to know from you, if I buy a GM or Chevy now, is that the same as making a campaign contribution to Barack Obama?

    RUSH: Hmm. Hmm. Hmm.

    CALLER: The money is directly going to the unions who only support Democrats.

    RUSH: I'd have to say that you're right. I have to say that buying a General Motors or Chrysler car is a campaign donation in kind.

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2010/04/21/is_buying_a_gm_car_like_making_an_obama_campaign_contribution



    God, are Rush's listeners epically stupid.


    Yes, they're asking a guy who owns something like 5 Maybachs what type of car to buy.

    For people who don't know cars, the Maybach is a $300,000 joke car. It was built on an old Mercedes platform, and was such an epic failure that Mercedes is cancelling it.

    And speaking of political people and their cars, they say Rick Santorum drives an Audi A6 and Gingrich drives a Mercedes S class AMG. As far as I'm concerned, they can all ride together in one big German clown car.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 1:23 PM GMT
    Rick-Santorum-drives-German-Audi-A6.jpg

    Not bad for a failed Senator now cashing in.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 1:24 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness saidhttp://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2330431


    John -

    You may want to read the article FIF posted before trying to send folks to your thread:

    "Let me state a fact: The first $13 billion that was put in the company, George Bush, a Republican, put it in. The second [payment] came in with President Obama. So we had two administrations, two presidents of reasonably disparate points of view politically, economically, philosophically, decide that this is in the best interest of the American economy and American jobs.

    “Now President Obama had the obligation to decide whether [the company] would go through bankruptcy or not, and therefore he was more involved in the restructuring of it. But in fact there were two separate efforts to make sure the company survived.”

    Critics have charged that because of the bailout the Obama administration has dictated how General Motors conducts business. Akerson says it’s not true, countering: “There is no factual basis in what the critics say. It’s just speculation.

    Christian - your comment to me is irrelevant. Given the overall context of discussion beyond the specific articles, there is an implied message that Obama did what Romney would not have done, and that the success of the auto industry from the fact that Obama was elected. The point was not the money put into the companies by both Presidents, but about the method of restructuring, which was completely under Obama's watch, along with the distortions by the left of Romney's position. The fact is the survival of the companies did not require doing what Obama did, namely bypass the protections to creditors afforded by Chapter 11. These protections were bypassed to provide a favored position for the UAW, screwing other creditors in the process. Those screwed in the case of Chrysler included the pension funds of public union employees, specifically Indiana teachers and police. This further illustrates that Obama and the Democrats care more about union bosses than union workers, because the bosses are the ones in position to offer favors to the Democrats.


    Obama did do what Romney wouldn't have done - as Romney himself stated in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

    Further, this article (from Newsmax of all places!) states from reps of GM itself that everything you've tried to place at the feet of Obama is complete BS.

    You like to create false arguments. No one disputed the issue of how GM does business. The role of creditors in the restructure is a different matter.

    Again, your departure from the truth:

    Read about the Democrat lies about Romney's position which folks here eat up like lap dogs:
    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/02/obamas_auto_industry_lies_about_romney.html

    Both agreed on a "managed bankruptcy," meaning the government would maintain financial lines of credit, honoring contracts in bankruptcy so that suppliers would keep operating. "A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs," Romney wrote in a 2008 New York Times op-ed that has been willfully distorted by Obama & Media.

    One other thing: When you hear from a retired Indiana schoolteacher in a wheelchair whose pension was impacted because her union is not as influential as the UAW, you can also say she is lying. Can't wait for the ads.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 1:25 PM GMT
    Newt_gingrich_drives_a-Mercedes-Benz.jpg

    His campaign is millions in debt, but Newt loves the good life.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    May 02, 2012 1:33 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    Obama did do what Romney wouldn't have done - as Romney himself stated in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

    Further, this article (from Newsmax of all places!) states from reps of GM itself that everything you've tried to place at the feet of Obama is complete BS.


    That may be true, however we will never really know if a managed bankruptcy, the type we saw in the airline industry after 9/11, might have had the same, even more long-lasting effect on saving the auto industry. Yes, some may have failed, however that might not have been the worst thing. That is how free enterprise and capitalism works -- the strong survive, the weak do not.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 1:55 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 said
    Obama did do what Romney wouldn't have done - as Romney himself stated in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

    Further, this article (from Newsmax of all places!) states from reps of GM itself that everything you've tried to place at the feet of Obama is complete BS.


    That may be true, however we will never really know if a managed bankruptcy, the type we saw in the airline industry after 9/11, might have had the same, even more long-lasting effect on saving the auto industry. Yes, some may have failed, however that might not have been the worst thing. That is how free enterprise and capitalism works -- the strong survive, the weak do not.

    Both options came under bankruptcy laws and could be considered managed bankruptcy. The difference is Obama administration used Chapter 363 to bypass the protections of Chapter 11 to favor the UAW.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 2:19 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness saidhttp://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2330431


    John -

    You may want to read the article FIF posted before trying to send folks to your thread:

    "Let me state a fact: The first $13 billion that was put in the company, George Bush, a Republican, put it in. The second [payment] came in with President Obama. So we had two administrations, two presidents of reasonably disparate points of view politically, economically, philosophically, decide that this is in the best interest of the American economy and American jobs.

    “Now President Obama had the obligation to decide whether [the company] would go through bankruptcy or not, and therefore he was more involved in the restructuring of it. But in fact there were two separate efforts to make sure the company survived.”

    Critics have charged that because of the bailout the Obama administration has dictated how General Motors conducts business. Akerson says it’s not true, countering: “There is no factual basis in what the critics say. It’s just speculation.



    Well, that's not quite true. According to Bob Lutz, Rattner forced them to drop Pontiac. Lt. Dan wasn't there yet.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 2:21 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 said
    Obama did do what Romney wouldn't have done - as Romney himself stated in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

    Further, this article (from Newsmax of all places!) states from reps of GM itself that everything you've tried to place at the feet of Obama is complete BS.


    That may be true, however we will never really know if a managed bankruptcy, the type we saw in the airline industry after 9/11, might have had the same, even more long-lasting effect on saving the auto industry. Yes, some may have failed, however that might not have been the worst thing. That is how free enterprise and capitalism works -- the strong survive, the weak do not.

    Both options came under bankruptcy laws and could be considered managed bankruptcy. The difference is Obama administration used Chapter 363 to bypass the protections of Chapter 11 to favor the UAW.


    Favoring the UAW was probably a smart move in terms of GM survival.

    Survival looks like a no brainer now, but you must go back in time to 2009 to get perspective. Even with the bailout, survival was iffy as best.

    Now that the rank and file own part of GM, they're going to work their hearts out to make better cars, reduce costs on the assembly line, etc. No way they're going to let their investment dry up. This pretty much guaranteed that GM will survive until the end of time.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 2:24 PM GMT
    White4DarkerFL said
    socalfitness said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 said
    Obama did do what Romney wouldn't have done - as Romney himself stated in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

    Further, this article (from Newsmax of all places!) states from reps of GM itself that everything you've tried to place at the feet of Obama is complete BS.


    That may be true, however we will never really know if a managed bankruptcy, the type we saw in the airline industry after 9/11, might have had the same, even more long-lasting effect on saving the auto industry. Yes, some may have failed, however that might not have been the worst thing. That is how free enterprise and capitalism works -- the strong survive, the weak do not.

    Both options came under bankruptcy laws and could be considered managed bankruptcy. The difference is Obama administration used Chapter 363 to bypass the protections of Chapter 11 to favor the UAW.


    Favoring the UAW was probably a smart move in terms of GM survival.

    Survival looks like a no brainer now, but you must go back in time to 2009 to get perspective. Even with the bailout, survival was iffy as best.

    Now that the rank and file own part of GM, they're going to work their hearts out to make better cars, reduce costs on the assembly line, etc. No way they're going to let the investment dry up. This pretty much guaranteed that GM will survive until the end of time.

    Favoring the UAW screwed others, including other union members. Maybe giving a company to the union will make workers work harder, but the downsides are considerable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 2:29 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness saidhttp://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2330431


    John -

    You may want to read the article FIF posted before trying to send folks to your thread:

    "Let me state a fact: The first $13 billion that was put in the company, George Bush, a Republican, put it in. The second [payment] came in with President Obama. So we had two administrations, two presidents of reasonably disparate points of view politically, economically, philosophically, decide that this is in the best interest of the American economy and American jobs.

    “Now President Obama had the obligation to decide whether [the company] would go through bankruptcy or not, and therefore he was more involved in the restructuring of it. But in fact there were two separate efforts to make sure the company survived.”

    Critics have charged that because of the bailout the Obama administration has dictated how General Motors conducts business. Akerson says it’s not true, countering: “There is no factual basis in what the critics say. It’s just speculation.

    Christian - your comment to me is irrelevant. Given the overall context of discussion beyond the specific articles, there is an implied message that Obama did what Romney would not have done, and that the success of the auto industry from the fact that Obama was elected. The point was not the money put into the companies by both Presidents, but about the method of restructuring, which was completely under Obama's watch, along with the distortions by the left of Romney's position. The fact is the survival of the companies did not require doing what Obama did, namely bypass the protections to creditors afforded by Chapter 11. These protections were bypassed to provide a favored position for the UAW, screwing other creditors in the process. Those screwed in the case of Chrysler included the pension funds of public union employees, specifically Indiana teachers and police. This further illustrates that Obama and the Democrats care more about union bosses than union workers, because the bosses are the ones in position to offer favors to the Democrats.


    Obama did do what Romney wouldn't have done - as Romney himself stated in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

    Further, this article (from Newsmax of all places!) states from reps of GM itself that everything you've tried to place at the feet of Obama is complete BS.


    Obama admin. pretty much did what Romney recommended. Not exactly, but close. I think back in the day, Romney made it sound overly simple given that there was ZERO DIP financing available. That was the giant challenge with this was coming up with enough DIP financing that they truly had the money to keep funding product development going in this hugely competitive industry.

    I don’t agree with the Obama administration on much, but this one I sure do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 2:34 PM GMT
    White4DarkerFL saidActually, GM has to come out and say this. Rush Limbaugh has been out there beating the drums for 2 years telling his listeners not to buy a GM or Chrysler car. I'm sure some Republican GM owners have taken Rush's advice and traded their GM car for a Toyota, Honda, VW or Hyundai, in hopes of making GM and Chrysler look as bad as possible.

    In fact, I copied an excerpt from Rush's website. The caller is a loyal GM customer, and Rush tells him that buying GM is like making a campaign contribution to Obama.

    Rush's graphic, tying GM to Obama >>>> 01125111.Par.4584.ImageFile.jpg

    CALLER: I think it's official, Rush. I think we can actually take down the signs. They've changed Washington into Chicago. And the reason why I'm calling, I have a little moral dilemma. I've only owned GM cars, and I want to know from you, if I buy a GM or Chevy now, is that the same as making a campaign contribution to Barack Obama?

    RUSH: Hmm. Hmm. Hmm.

    CALLER: The money is directly going to the unions who only support Democrats.

    RUSH: I'd have to say that you're right. I have to say that buying a General Motors or Chrysler car is a campaign donation in kind.

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2010/04/21/is_buying_a_gm_car_like_making_an_obama_campaign_contribution




    Well, I guess I'll continue making campaign contributions then because I'm certainly not buying other than an American domiciled brand. Never have, never will.

    If Rush really said this then I vigorously disagree with him
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 2:37 PM GMT
    White4DarkerFL saidRick-Santorum-drives-German-Audi-A6.jpg

    Not bad for a failed Senator now cashing in.


    All things being equal, which of course they generally aren't, that would make me NOT vote for someone.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 2:45 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    White4DarkerFL said
    socalfitness said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 said
    Obama did do what Romney wouldn't have done - as Romney himself stated in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

    Further, this article (from Newsmax of all places!) states from reps of GM itself that everything you've tried to place at the feet of Obama is complete BS.


    That may be true, however we will never really know if a managed bankruptcy, the type we saw in the airline industry after 9/11, might have had the same, even more long-lasting effect on saving the auto industry. Yes, some may have failed, however that might not have been the worst thing. That is how free enterprise and capitalism works -- the strong survive, the weak do not.

    Both options came under bankruptcy laws and could be considered managed bankruptcy. The difference is Obama administration used Chapter 363 to bypass the protections of Chapter 11 to favor the UAW.


    Favoring the UAW was probably a smart move in terms of GM survival.

    Survival looks like a no brainer now, but you must go back in time to 2009 to get perspective. Even with the bailout, survival was iffy as best.

    Now that the rank and file own part of GM, they're going to work their hearts out to make better cars, reduce costs on the assembly line, etc. No way they're going to let the investment dry up. This pretty much guaranteed that GM will survive until the end of time.

    Favoring the UAW screwed others, including other union members. Maybe giving a company to the union will make workers work harder, but the downsides are considerable.


    I agree completely. Attorneys for investors and creditors could make a great case here.

    But from a public policy perspective, I think it was a best plan out of terrible alternatives. They had the tricky job of getting union workers to make better cars for lower pay. Making them part owners in the deal was a guaranteed way to do that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 2:48 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 said
    Obama did do what Romney wouldn't have done - as Romney himself stated in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

    Further, this article (from Newsmax of all places!) states from reps of GM itself that everything you've tried to place at the feet of Obama is complete BS.


    That may be true, however we will never really know if a managed bankruptcy, the type we saw in the airline industry after 9/11, might have had the same, even more long-lasting effect on saving the auto industry. Yes, some may have failed, however that might not have been the worst thing. That is how free enterprise and capitalism works -- the strong survive, the weak do not.


    That wasn’t going to work in this instance because of the giant dollars required for product development. It could have (likely) put them behind to the point it just would have been another Studebaker Packard.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 2:54 PM GMT
    White4DarkerFL said
    socalfitness said
    White4DarkerFL said
    socalfitness said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 said
    Obama did do what Romney wouldn't have done - as Romney himself stated in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

    Further, this article (from Newsmax of all places!) states from reps of GM itself that everything you've tried to place at the feet of Obama is complete BS.


    That may be true, however we will never really know if a managed bankruptcy, the type we saw in the airline industry after 9/11, might have had the same, even more long-lasting effect on saving the auto industry. Yes, some may have failed, however that might not have been the worst thing. That is how free enterprise and capitalism works -- the strong survive, the weak do not.

    Both options came under bankruptcy laws and could be considered managed bankruptcy. The difference is Obama administration used Chapter 363 to bypass the protections of Chapter 11 to favor the UAW.


    Favoring the UAW was probably a smart move in terms of GM survival.

    Survival looks like a no brainer now, but you must go back in time to 2009 to get perspective. Even with the bailout, survival was iffy as best.

    Now that the rank and file own part of GM, they're going to work their hearts out to make better cars, reduce costs on the assembly line, etc. No way they're going to let the investment dry up. This pretty much guaranteed that GM will survive until the end of time.

    Favoring the UAW screwed others, including other union members. Maybe giving a company to the union will make workers work harder, but the downsides are considerable.


    I agree completely. Attorneys for investors and creditors could make a great case here.

    But from a public policy perspective, I think it was a best plan out of terrible alternatives. They had the tricky job of getting union workers to make better cars for lower pay. Making them part owners in the deal was a guaranteed way to do that.


    I agree with this one. I'd prefer to look forward and not keep refighting this. It's done so let’s move on. I’ll give credit where credit is due. Bush for the bridge financing and Obama for the restructure. It worked!