In response to:

The Auto Bailout Failure Is Now Complete

lee2012 Wrote: Dec 20, 2012 1:08 PM
After reading some of the comments I get the impression people believe the Gov't was conducting itself as an authentic corporate entity. All it ever was in this saga was a "last gasp" measure. For example, a parent who bails out their 30 yr daughter who gets too far into credit card debt and is close to losing her apartment /lights etc. You don't really expect to get the money back, you just don't want your daughter out on the street sleeping on borrowed sofa cushions. That's all this really was. Too many people here are not willing to "balance" the anger over using taxpayer dollars with the impending devastation of the auto industry during a big sell off. Gov't Motors sounds a lot better than China Motors. Glass half full guys...
Demosthenes5 Wrote: Dec 20, 2012 6:28 PM
Considering that you're demonstrably too stupid to even pay income taxes, ie, part of the 47%, I can understand why you're so cavalier w/ your betters' income tax dollars. Does being semi-useless fill you w/ glee?
AZhot Wrote: Dec 20, 2012 5:01 PM
Moron! Who the hell do you think is calling the shots at Garbage Motors but the Chinese?
Snarkasterous1 Wrote: Dec 20, 2012 2:02 PM
The point, lee, is:

- There would have been no "impending devastation" had bankruptcy law simply been allowed to apply as it has for over a century. GM's assets, brand, and the demand for their products didn't disappear. A restructuring - a real one not centered upon paying back Obozo's union pals that donated hundreds of millions to his campaigns - would quite likely have produced a GM that can actually compete.

They'll be back to the trough for more taxpayers' dollars....and your hugely-simplistic chalking up of opposition to this union/libbie evisceration of bankruptcy law to "anger" utterly misses the point.

- Snark
lee2012 Wrote: Dec 20, 2012 3:13 PM
Ok. Let's agree that neither one of has a time machine nor a crystal ball. That means my assessment & yours is really our "guess" at what GM would have looked post-restructure. With that said, perhaps we can agree that GM would have shrank considerly, with fewer brands. Is that okay? If so, are we not also saying many many jobs go up in smoke? My guess is you have seen a restructure or two & so have I. That's devastation considering the size of GM and all of the tertiary vendors etc. Again, you are using a business perspective (mentioned in the original post) & I think its like judging a movie like The Matrix with a Citizen Kane yardstick. See it for what it was... a bailout!
71 911E, TX Wrote: Dec 20, 2012 10:00 PM
No Lee, GM would have "shrunk" considerably. And it wouldn't have taken my money to do it. And the UAW wouldn't have survived, either. Which would resulted in my money not being used to perpetuate a bunch of overpaid pot-smoking drunks.
lee2012 Wrote: Dec 20, 2012 1:13 PM
By the way, I have always wanted more accountability around all of the "no-bid" military contracts handed out that totaled billions of taxpayer dollars. I believe that was a far worse use of tax dollars. Paying $600 to a contractor to do military laundry... the list is endless. One day, someone is going to do a really good documentary about Haliburton, Black Watch etc.
arpiem Wrote: Dec 20, 2012 1:21 PM
Yep, it's still all Bush's fault. You people are relentless. Maybe someday someone will do a really good documentary about why the president has all of his records sealed. Does no one smell a rat?
Snarkasterous1 Wrote: Dec 20, 2012 2:05 PM
Great point! The violation of bankruptcy law, at the cost of billions to taxpayers, who were lied to at every step of the process by Obozo and his libbie/union/media cronies, is as nothing compared to the evil libbie bogeyman of Halliburton (which you've misspelled, BTW).

Libbies - endlessly blinded by their ideology, law, facts, and actual results notwithstanding.

Go ahead - explain how it all depends on the "meaning of 'is.'"

- Snark
lee2012 Wrote: Dec 20, 2012 2:57 PM
I did not mention Bush's name once. I would feel the same under any administration. No bid contracts are typically a bad deal ... I tried to make my post neutral.
Demosthenes5 Wrote: Dec 20, 2012 6:32 PM
As opposed to the $90B of DOE funding wasted on useless "green energy" companies owned by BHO cronies? One day someone is going to generate a good documentary about the biased, corrupt MSM that influenced idiots like you to vote that fascist into the Whitehouse.
Demosthenes5 Wrote: Dec 20, 2012 6:33 PM
Just like $90B in DOE "green energy" investment funding wasted on BHO cronies.

You may recall that during the presidential election, the Treasury Department refused requests by General Motors to unload the government's stake in the giant automaker.

Taxpayers had sunk $50 billion into a union bailout in 2009 and were now proud owners of 26.5 percent of the struggling company. Reportedly, GM had growing concerns that the stigma of "Government Motors" was hurting sales in the United States. At the time, any transaction would have come at a steep loss to taxpayers and undermined the president's questionable campaign assertions that the auto union rescue had been a huge success.