Are you serious? It happens every day in Bankruptcy Court by Trustees overseeing reorganizations. Maybe not 1005, but sometimes so damn near there is no difference.

Also happens in Bankruptcy Court every day when businesses liquidate. All assets are sold-off. Old owners come back with new investors, buy back all the assets for pennies on the dollar, reorganize on their own, change their name (iften just slightly) and continue on with business.

rfenst wrote:

The issue is the bond holders got the shaft in an unprecedented way while the union employees got bailed out and now they're getting bonuses.

By themselves the bonuses aren't something that bother me. Its what's led up to this that does. The bond holders rightfully should have gotten theirs first. Now UAW are rubbing it ib their faces.

ZRX1200 wrote:

Then it shouldn't have been run into the ground. Actions have consequences.


Big middle finger for "too big to fail".

ZRX1200 wrote:

You DO understand ownership in a company, right? The Gubmint isn't sitting around waiting for GM to send them a check. Da gubmint has already recouped approximately half the money already and as the stock of GM rises in price, the gubmint will recoup the rest. From everything I've read, GM has cut costs, streamlined itself, and is doing ok. I just can't see how an American company posting record profits and sharing the wealth with it's American employees can be a bad thing. Is it because you aren't getting a check, DMV, that you have such a problem with it? Gaddam, bro...you are one of the bitterest, most pessimistic people I've ever been exposed to. The Dow is going to hit 13k today, and the sun is shining. Get yourself a beej, light a cigar and go outside.

JadeRose wrote:

Trust me, ....on one hand the whole mess stinks, but on the other hand the ramifications of letting such a large corporation with so many directly and indirectly employed by them go belly up is a scenario that noone wants to live through.

Pheloniousmunk wrote:

Yeah, I was serious.

Being a bondholder up till the US government's intervention used to mean that if a company filed for bankruptcy there was an order that people would be paid out. In the simplest of terms they would've been able to recoup "some" money and would be at the top of the pile getting it because they paid a premium.

You didn't answer the question. Then because I'm going to guess you didn't know that there are several ways a company can file for bankruptcy. Depending on the filing they would be protected. It's not the US taxpayer's fault they couldn't manage an auto manufacturing company and turn RECORD PROFIT!

DrMaddVibe wrote:

You DO understand ownership in a company, right? The Gubmint isn't sitting around waiting for GM to send them a check. Da gubmint has already recouped approximately half the money already and as the stock of GM rises in price, the gubmint will recoup the rest. From everything I've read, GM has cut costs, streamlined itself, and is doing ok. I just can't see how an American company posting record profits and sharing the wealth with it's American employees can be a bad thing. Is it because you aren't getting a check, DMV, that you have such a problem with it? Gaddam, bro...you are one of the bitterest, most pessimistic people I've ever been exposed to. The Dow is going to hit 13k today, and the sun is shining. Get yourself a beej, light a cigar and go outside.

JadeRose wrote:

The issue is the bond holders got the shaft in an unprecedented way while the union employees got bailed out and now they're getting bonuses.

By themselves the bonuses aren't something that bother me. Its what's led up to this that does. The bond holders rightfully should have gotten theirs first. Now UAW are rubbing it ib their faces.

ZRX1200 wrote:

Who ran it into the ground ZRX?.

Pheloniousmunk wrote:

No, I guess I don't. Consequences have no bearing. Responsibility has been abolished. Everything is turned upside down in front of your face and when I hold the mirror up I get accused of being bitter? Of course the govt. isn't sitting around waiting for a check...just like when the banks got their bailout...it was supposed to go out the door for lending and spur the machine back into gear...like them there were no "strings". There was no concrete contract, no agreement. They entitled these corporations to do whatever they wanted because, well you get back to me on that one. I cannot find where the government has ever stepped in front of a corporation facing bankruptcy and wiped out bond/shareholders equity and put the union in a position of more power at the Board of Directors. That is what I was asking, and was given a "Are you kidding?"...Like I didn't know the answer. This has nothing with being bitter or even pessimistic. It has everything to do with the letter of the law. In this instance we allowed the US government to overstep its authority. History has shown us that when you do that one time it now becomes precedent. Precedent becomes practice. Now, and in the future the govt. can and will seize anything, devoid the value of market price and declare who can and cannot sit in the Big Chairs at the top.

It has absolutely nothing to do with what I do or don't get. What we have here is not Capitalism and you'd best recognize it now because your complacent attitude allowed it. When it comes to your sector perhaps you'd think differently about it, but as a nation predicated on laws we've done a disservice. Sorry, but if GM can now declare that they made RECORD PROFITS then why did they need the bailout? Seems like they could've done what Ford has been doing for over 10 years. Ford put a plan in place that wasn't popular. They knew the business model wasn't conducive to any kind of long term success. They sucked it up and took the pain on their terms and the fruits are paying off for them. There was and is a difference. A real shame you cannot see the difference.

DrMaddVibe wrote: