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.
Had it been me then I would have let GM fail. I have not seen any evidence that the bail-out has fixed any of the structural problems that have plagued GM for years both in terms of the unions and management.
It would not have "failed"..it would have been broken up, reorganized, sanitized, de-unionized into a better company.
"Saving GM was a harder call, but, with the benefit of hindsight, the right one. The lesson for governments is that for a bail-out to work, it must be brutal and temporary. The lesson for American voters is that their president, for all his flaws, has no desire to own the commanding heights of industry. A gambler, yes. An interventionist, yes. A socialist, no."
The problem with the GM takeover was that Obama protected the interests of the Union (which basically WAS the main problem with GM) while totally ignoring the interests of the shareholders. Remember, the shareholders are not Bill Gates and other ultra-rich people (they would have made their deals and ensured getting all their money back, plus much more). The shareholders were institutional pension funds, and individuals who had retirement accounts they hoped would at least keep their value.
My great-aunt had bought shares of GM way back, and they were handed down to, eventually, me. Of course, while they sat in probate after my Dad's death, their value went to "0" thanks to Obama. Government is supposed to balance the interests of those concerned when intervening--not pick whatever Special Interest who contributed to their campaigns most and give them everything at the expense of all the other parties.
Just once in my life, I would like government to protect my interests, instead of sacrificing my taxes and investments to reward others who already were doing far better than I ever will.
Lets not forget Obama gave a good portion of the company to his benefactors, the UAW. I think the taxpayers are due an apology.
No, no he did not. If you actually knew anything about the case, which it is clear you don't, you'd know that the UAW was one of the largest bond holders of GM and so like all debt holders they became part of the new ownership. I'd like to say I'm astounded that someone can be so misinformed but I can't. Believing provably wrong nonsense seems to be standard issue for the right wing these days.
The problem with the GM takeover was that Obama protected the interests of the Union (which basically WAS the main problem with GM) while totally ignoring the interests of the shareholders. Remember, the shareholders are not Bill Gates and other ultra-rich people (they would have made their deals and ensured getting all their money back, plus much more). The shareholders were institutional pension funds, and individuals who had retirement accounts they hoped would at least keep their value.
Dude. They went bankrupt, and not because of Obama. Are you saying the tax-payer should have paid the stockholders? Why? The purpose of the bailout was not to appease the stockholders, but to keep the company in business and let the workers keep their jobs. If you are invested in the stocks, then you run a risk of losing your money. That is pretty basic. You failed to diversify and paid the price. I lost money with Lehmann Bros bankruptcy too, but never expected the government to cover my losses.
No, no he did not. If you actually knew anything about the case, which it is clear you don't, you'd know that the UAW was one of the largest bond holders of GM and so like all debt holders they became part of the new ownership. I'd like to say I'm astounded that someone can be so misinformed but I can't. Believing provably wrong nonsense seems to be standard issue for the right wing these days.
You got that right! It's astonishing that so much ignorance still prevails on this topic. Even if the government hadn't gotten involved, the UAW still would have gotten a share of the liquidation threw a normal bankruptcy because they were a major bondholder. Do they think any bankruptcy court in the land would have favored stockholders over bondholders? Not going to happen. And as the OP article said, given the hard economy condition that the world was in back when this happened, no other company would have bought GM thus all those jobs would have been lost forever.
No, no he did not. If you actually knew anything about the case, which it is clear you don't, you'd know that the UAW was one of the largest bond holders of GM and so like all debt holders they became part of the new ownership. I'd like to say I'm astounded that someone can be so misinformed but I can't. Believing provably wrong nonsense seems to be standard issue for the right wing these days.
Yikes talk about misinformed. The UAW wasn't a bond holder they were given the company because of the health fund for retire workrs.
"GM wants investors holding $27.2 billion of the company's bonds to swap them in exchange for 10 percent of the equity shares of the restructured company. The United Auto Workers would get up to 39 percent of the company in return for half of the $20 billion GM owes to a health fund for retired workers. Current shareholders would get 1 percent of the new shares."
Bondholder got screwed and Obama's beefactors got a sweetheart deal.
You got that right! It's astonishing that so much ignorance still prevails on this topic. Even if the government hadn't gotten involved, the UAW still would have gotten a share of the liquidation threw a normal bankruptcy because they were a major bondholder. Do they think any bankruptcy court in the land would have favored stockholders over bondholders? Not going to happen. And as the OP article said, given the hard economy condition that the world was in back when this happened, no other company would have bought GM thus all those jobs would have been lost forever.
Simply not so, It s amazing the lefties think they can make things up and get away with it.
"GM wants investors holding $27.2 billion of the company's bonds to swap them in exchange for 10 percent of the equity shares of the restructured company. The United Auto Workers would get up to 39 percent of the company in return for half of the $20 billion GM owes to a health fund for retired workers. Current shareholders would get 1 percent of the new shares."
Bondholder got screwed and Obama's beefactors got a sweetheart deal.
Silly lefties are cluless!
Do you not understand that the health care trust fund due to workers was covered by a BOND when they turned over responsibility for health care to the UAW back in 2007? That bond made them a bondholder long before the bankruptcy occurred and it was all but shoved down the UAW's throat at the time. Are you suggesting that some bondholders should be more important than other bondholders or shareholders in a bankruptcy court? Like it or not the UAW was a major bondholder and giving them stock in company in lieu of the cash due did not make the UAW any happier than it made the general public. Unless that stock can be sold off at a good price the UAW won't be able to sustain the VEBA program that covers health care for GM workers.
Last edited by Wayland Woman; 11-05-2010 at 07:57 AM..
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.
