Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And what about the the sub industries that were reliant on them? should they had filed bankruptcy as well? mitt did not care and still does not, his interest is and will always be about corp greed and distroying unions
How things are paid back would be up to the courts. How many times does it have to be noted that GM ended up going through bankruptcy?
And what about the the sub industries that were reliant on them? should they had filed bankruptcy as well? mitt did not care and still does not, his interest is and will always be about corp greed and distroying unions
The auto industry DID go bankrupt, did that close all the sub industries?
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- General Motors filed for bankruptcy protection early Monday, a move once viewed as unthinkable that became inevitable after years of losses and market share declines capped by a dramatic plunge in sales in recent months.
...
In the end, even $19.4 billion in federal help wasn't enough to keep the nation's largest automaker out of bankruptcy. The government will pour another $30 billion into GM to fund operations during its reorganization.
There are many moderates in this country who might be willing to consider giving the Republicans a shot at trying to fix the economy, but the thing that stops them cold is the horrible reputation the Republicans have on social issues. They don't want to give Rebulicans control because they see what Republicans do and have desires to do to suppress women (subject them to invasive medically unnecessary vaginal ultrasounds, fight against equal pay for equal work, return to the practice of allowing medical insurance companies to charge more for women), suppress gays (by denying them the opportunity to marry and have their marriages recognized), suppress minorities (by passing laws that make every Hispanic looking person a suspect of being here illegally), suppress the poor (by cutting safety nets), suppress the elderly (by ruining Social Security through privitization and undermining Medicare), suppress voters (by trying every way they can to suppress voter turn-out and make it more difficult for citizens to vote). And on top of all that, you want to pad the bank accounts of the rich.
That is just too much to handle. The costs are too high to give the Republicans the White House to see if they could do a better job than Obama on the economy.
If Republicans were just fiscally conservative, that would be one thing. But, the socially conservative oppressive positions make Republicans completely repulsive. They take away freedoms and take away opportunities for advancement, and you lose a lot of votes you might otherwise get because of that.
This post is spot on. They stink big time because of their Klanish positions on social issues. They try to ignore this aspect by focusing on the economy, something they don't know anything about. Republicans don't know how to run an economy, except into the ground.
A bigoted, regressive party that wants to undo the 20th century, has no business having a representative in the White House. Their influence in Congress should be minimal, so they don't screw things up like they have done these past 4 years. They don't belong on the Supreme Court because they will wrongly decide key issues as was the case in Citizen's United.
THEY WENT BANKRUPT. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY WENT OUT OF BUSINESS.
Look at Sears, KMart, USAIR, Hershey, Disney, for examples of how businesses file bankruptcy BUT DO NOT CLOSE THEIR DOORS!!!
It only was able to hang on because the gov't loaned then $19 billion.
Quote:
Months into the financial crisis, rapidly running out of cash, the auto companies couldn’t find anyone interested in buying their assets. Even if they could, no banks were in a position to lend to would-be acquirers, nor would they provide the financing needed to keep the automakers operating during the Chapter 11 process. When G.M. filed for bankruptcy in June 2009, a Federal District Court ruled that the Treasury was the only potential source for the $15 billion in DIP financing G.M. needed to continue operating. The court also oversaw and approved G.M.’s emergence from bankruptcy, contrary to Mr. Gingrich’s contention that G.M.’s reorganization was a “violation” of bankruptcy law. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/10/bu...pagewanted=all
It only was able to hang on because the gov't loaned then $19 billion.
There are two sides to every story. The NYTimes have never seen a government spending program they didn't like.
The Obama administration's auto bailout plan that both Senator Santorum and Governor Romney rightly opposed is clearly an example of unjustified, dangerous, and (despite all the hoopla from the media regarding its supposed "success") counterproductive and wasteful government action. Proponents of the plan argue that without the government bailout, tens of thousands of GM and Chrysler workers would have lost their jobs, and thousands more employed by suppliers to the automakers would have lost theirs, too. Instead, all these jobs were saved, GM is now profitable, and the cost to taxpayers is minimal. The problem with this justification is that it is wrong on every point. The government bailout did not prevent GM and Chrysler from going into bankruptcy. And just as if they had gone into bankruptcy without the government plan, GM and Chrysler continued to operate while they reorganized. The essence of the bailout plan was not "saving jobs" or a portion of the dwindling U.S. manufacturing base, but rather paying off a Democratic constituency, big labor, by forcing a pre-bankruptcy deal whereby the holders of senior debt had their legal positions stripped from them so as to hand whatever value remained over to the UAW and the UAW's pension plan. Chrysler got over $10 billion in taxpayer assistance, was taken over by Fiat, who somehow then got a $3.5 billion loan from the U.S. Department of Energy. The Obama administration gave GM $60 billion in taxpayer cash -- $10 billion in a loan and $50 billion as an equity stake (at a highly inflated value) -- plus another $15 billion in tax benefits. GM has since paid back the $10 billion loan. Hurray. For taxpayers to be made whole on their equity investment, the price of GM stock will need to double.
I think most Americans would not have an issue with a Republican President who was fiscally conservative but quiet in regard to social issues. My question for conservatives on this forum. How do most of you justify cutting social programs that help the poor, like school free lunch but are willing to dump billions upon billions into military hardware like F22's and carriers. America has 11 carrier groups and the rest of the world has less than 5.
But you b*tch and moan about money being spent on social programs that pale in comparison to the money spent on our military. Do we really need another carrier? There is one currently under construction that cost tens of billions of dollars. But we can't even invest in our country's infrastructure because of republicans. This is hypocrisy and is why most moderate Americans have a hard time voting for someone like Mitt.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Best post of the year!
