America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 11 years ago by DrafterX. 16 replies replies.
The Truth about the GM and Chrysler Bailouts
DrMaddVibe Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,681

The Truth about the GM and Chrysler Bailouts


Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan has been accused of lying when he claimed that Obama broke a promise by letting a Wisconsin auto factory close, when in fact the factory closed before Obama took office. Although that isn’t precisely what Ryan said, there is some validity to the accusation that his statement was deceptive.

But numerous Obama supporters are playing just as loose with the facts when they say that, if Obama hadn’t rescued GM and Chrysler, far more factories would have closed permanently. That is simply untrue. While news agencies have fact-checked some of the things being said at the Democratic convention, I haven’t seen any challenges of this claim.

Both GM and Chrysler were headed for bankruptcy. If they had gone bankrupt under chapter 11, most of their factories would have stayed open and they would have continued making and selling cars. Bankruptcy would have allowed the companies to avoid interest and dividend payments for a time, and to renegotiate union contracts. Under bankruptcy laws, stockholders would have lost the value of their stocks, but bond owners–who have first claim to company assets and profits–would have been paid off, if not in whole than at least in part.

Instead of letting the companies declare bankruptcy, Obama decided to “bail them out” by taking them over. Once the administration had control of the companies, it had them file for bankruptcy, just as they would have done without the government takeover. Stockholders still lost everything, but so did Chrysler’s bond holders. Instead of renegotiating union contracts, the administration gave the unions greater say over the companies. In other words, the administration didn’t bail out the companies; it bailed out the unions at the expense of (in Chrysler’s case) the bondholders.

In doing so, the administration created uncertainty in the bond market. Bonds were supposed to be safer investments than stocks. But who would want to invest in long-term bonds if the government could step in at any time and void the legal rights of the bond owners? The result is that bond sellers must be willing to pay more interest to attract buyers.

In short, the Obama auto bailout probably didn’t save many jobs (though it probably did keep worker pay uncompetitively high). Instead, it is more likely that the Obama administration’s action prolonged the recession by discouraging private investment in American industry.


http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-truth-about-the-gm-and-chrysler-bailouts/




So, taxpayers...how'd you like the payoffs?
DrafterX Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,628
That Bassard..!! Mad
ZRX1200 Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,703
DWD here in 5.....4.......3........2.....
DrMaddVibe Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,681
Will the UAW’s King talk about Obama’s discrimination of Delphi retirees & another GM bankruptcy at #DNC2012?

A word of advice: If you happen to be watching the DNC convention tonight, don’t hold your breath in anticipation of honesty during the United Auto Workers’ top union boss Bob King’s speech. You’ll waste your time if you’re expecting an honest discussion about how the Obama Administration was ‘fair’ to the workers during Barack Obama’s taxpayer-funded bailout of General Motors and Chrysler.

The UAW’s King likely won’t touch the way the Obama administration discriminated against the union-free retirees of Delphi. Nor, will he discuss how GM may fall back into bankruptcy.

[By the way, have you noticed how unions Democrats like to call fleecing taxpayers of their money to keep UAW jobs a "rescue"? It sort of goes along with the union Democrats' "We all belong to government"—"You didn't build that" mindset.]

In any case, back in 2009, when the union-backed Obama Administration took over General Motors and Chrysler and “structured” their bankruptcies, there were a lot of casualties—collateral damage, as some might say.

Bondholders got shafted.

Conservative car dealers (allegedly) got closed.

Taxpayers shelled out $85 billion and, despite Obama’s promises to the contrary, lost $25 billion…so far.

Today, GM’s stock is $21.76. [When the government took GM public, its shares were $33.]

And, to make matters worse Government Motors may go bankrupt…again.

It’s doubtful that the Obama administration would attempt to sell off the government’s massive position in GM while the stock price is falling. It would be too embarrassing politically. Accordingly, if GM shares continue to decline, it is likely that Obama would ride the stock down to zero.

GM is unlikely to hit the wall before the election, but, given current trends, the company could easily do so again before the end of a second Obama term.

The entire auto bailout, as has been said time and again, was designed to be nothing more than a bailout of the UAW, a union that has given “99 percent of its $25.4 million to Democratic federal candidates in the past 20 years.” Yet, the UAW’s Bob King won’t discuss this tonight as he touts the “success” of Obama’s “rescue” bailout.

Despite all of this, however, there has yet to be a personal face to the absolute absurdity of Obama’s auto “rescue” bailout until recently.

A group of 22,000 retirees from former GM-subsidiary Delphi have put a personal face to the the absurdity of Obama’s UAW bailout. This group of retirees lost up to 70% of their pensions, all of their health care and all of their life insurance. Why? Because they were not members of the UAW.

According to e-mails obtained by the Daily Caller, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner drove the effort to strip union-free Delphi retirees of their pensions, while maintaining them for Delphi workers who happened to be UAW members.

This has enraged the union-free Delphi retirees, who have launched an online petition, according to news reports.

The group claims the cuts are a result of President Obama’s re-organization of the American auto industry, who although cut their benefits, used government financing to meet the pre-bankruptcy pensions of more than 500,000 union retirees.

“They can’t be choosing winners and losers by saying we like this group, but we don’t like that group,” explained Delphi Salaried Retirees Association Vice-Chairman Bruce Gump. “That’s what they did in this case and the whole community has been damaged as a result.”

The retirees have even put a face to their message by appearing on this on line ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXsUXhWphA8

Will Bob King address any of this tonight at the DNC Convention?

Don’t hold your breath.

http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/05/will-the-uaws-king-discuss-obamas-discrimination-of-delphi-retirees-and-another-gm-bankruptcy-at-dnc2012/
drywalldog Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 06-19-2007
Posts: 5,536
Will king address the Delphi management workers, why the f would he? He doesnt work for them, they dont pay him. What is your interest here Doc, you hate labor, must be because of the injustice of it. Zrx, sorry I was late.
drywalldog Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 06-19-2007
Posts: 5,536
Guess if they were union, he would have represented them.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,681
What a piece of work you are DWD.


You moaned how you couldn't find work on this site because illegal aliens standing around a Home Depot parking lot could do your job for pennies on the dollar. You screamed for fairness!

Here we have a company...a company that was stolen away from bond and shareholders by the US government. You think that's fine. A company ran by the government that says these employees keep their same pay, benes, and because they're union...we're gonna give them more power of this company when we relinquish control. Those other employees...the management types...the clerks...the secretaries...the engineers...the support personnel that have invested the same in their 401K's as a union employee (why not...they both work for the SAME company...it's not my fault if one of them invests and the other blows their money at the bowling alley!) they have to take it in the ass. Sure they did what they were told, they did a great job...that's not the issue is it? The problem is these employees...these ones...they're UAW...they donate to OUR coffers every election cycle...a union so damn powerful that when they feel like it they drag a auto manufacturing company to the bargaining table and hold them hostage for more of the "golden goose". Now these companies...and their subsidiaries...the ones that got BILLIONS form the American taxpayer...have lost market share, stock share and are once again teetering on the verge of bankruptcy!! Have no fear Mr. Fairness...those employees...the UAW...they keep their jobs, their pay and benes.

This is what diametrically opposes me to the Democratic party anymore. I will not ever support a person with a D next to their name no matter WHAT they want, because I know they'll vote in a second to takeover privatized companies! We have a legal system designed to support companies that are going bankrupt. There are winners and losers all over Wall Street. A failed business model is a failed business model and shouldn't be allowed to thrive. It shouldn't exist. A well run company that does the right thing for a consumer, a shareholder and it's employees should be allowed to make a profit. The free enterprise system that our Founding Father, and quite possibly one of the greatest President's this nation has had at it's helm; Thomas Jefferson believed in Laissez-faire. That is being ignored. No help. No picking winner and losers by a government entity, and no propping up a failed business model. I don't expect you to even grasp these ideals. You're tainted. Jaded by the free handouts a government can give it's economy at the expense of only the rich. You can't see for a second that the base of the system isn't designed like that. Now its all up for grabs and guess what? This very system will pick winners and losers because precedent has been set. You're failing to see that the 1%...those evil evil bastards...they're untouchable! No matter what. They will always pay more into the system than those with their hands out EXPECTING to be taken care of from cradle to grave. That's the failed system that GM created too.

No, keep on doing what you're doing...bumping around like a ship without a rudder...expecting the government to tuck you in at night and make sure you're warm. In your fantasy world this is the way it's supposed to be. No personal responsibility...no maturity...no punishment. Just lollipops, rainbows and unicorn rides. We're NOT getting the 97+ BILLION paid back that was ripped away from your kid's future. Each child is now saddled with a 50K yoke that they have to pay down to see ground level. That's called being a slave to the debt. A debt they didn't ask for. I can't expect you to grasp that philosophy though. It's all what was that line..."Tears in the rain"...yeah that's it, tears in the rain with you. Today whatever side you think "won" got theirs. One day you'll be screaming for fairness again...precedent has been set and they will point to it and take more. This great nation that was carved out because we were being taxed without representation by an oppressive government (only 13% I might add!!!!) has gone astray. They've forgotten it's roots. They're wiping their feet and butt with the very same spirit that gave us the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. No, the yoke has been put upon the children. The political promises broken. The ramrod has worn smooth the rifling of the barrel. The Pavlovian expectation has been set. Conditioning and response. Take your "treat", you've earned it by slobbering on the feet of your Master.
drywalldog Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 06-19-2007
Posts: 5,536
Doc, you wanted to know why King wouldnt address the fairness, I told you. Most times mamagement are anti union, and negotiate for themselves. As far as fairness goes, guess you wont be voting for the corporate raider in this election?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,681
drywalldog wrote:
Doc, you wanted to know why King wouldnt address the fairness, I told you. Most times mamagement are anti union, and negotiate for themselves. As far as fairness goes, guess you wont be voting for the corporate raider in this election?



Slobber some more.

drywalldog Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 06-19-2007
Posts: 5,536
Thats the best you got, who are you voting for?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,681
drywalldog wrote:
Thats the best you got, who are you voting for?


The best? Pearls before swine.

Why in the world would I waste the best on the likes of you?

You can't even grasp the fact that I posted a link to a supporting post...you "think" I was asking for something!!
drywalldog Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 06-19-2007
Posts: 5,536
Not voting then?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,681
drywalldog wrote:
Not voting then?


Who's a good lil' doggie...YOU are...look at that little doggie wag it's tail...who's a good lil' dog...YOU are!
drywalldog Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 06-19-2007
Posts: 5,536
Doc, you are so mature, wipe the snot off your nose.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,681
drywalldog wrote:
Doc, you are so mature, wipe the snot off your nose.



Rollover boy.


So, I ask again...


DrMaddVibe wrote:
So, taxpayers...how'd you like the payoffs?
DrafterX Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,628
Mellow
Users browsing this topic
Guest