LMAO..Occupy Democrats...that come in your daily email?
Pretty sure they could just walk up from South Africa or Madagascar.You are aware that Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer?
Sorry for interrupting, go on with your cute little story. I'm all ears. I like the part where the penguins make it from Antarctica to the Middle East.
You are aware that Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer?
Sorry for interrupting, go on with your cute little story. I'm all ears. I like the part where the penguins make it from Antarctica to the Middle East.
You are comparing bailing out the auto industry to Hitler?
I feel to se
Religious intolerance....explain that please.
And I fail to see where bailing out banks and the auto industry was a bad thing.
Striving for a one party system.......I've never heard that or seen evidence of that from either party
Let's take your SS away. That is a good place to start
I fail to see where bailing out banks and the auto industry was a bad thing.
Personally I would have preferred them to take the route available to most companies that are struggling financially.
Bankruptcy laws.
Chapter 7, 11, chapter 13, any of those to me would have been preferable to sticking taxpayers with the bill for their mismanagement.
Restructure, reorganize, rebuild, reinvest, come back stronger, leaner, more disciplined, and recapitalized with more sound business plans and models.
Too many folks in that bailout got away Scott free with our money, and not much really changed in terms of how they operate.
GM is still billions in debt particularly with legacy contracts, banks are still writing bad loans and have bad loan portfolios, financial houses are still sitting on massive liquidity bubbles, and we still have excess capacity in real estate depressing prices or restricting access to commercial or private homeowner consumer loans.
The comparison is to the ridiculous OP. You continue to wander around in your own head, IMO.You are comparing bailing out the auto industry to Hitler?
It was bad because it didn't force them to go through the necessary changes required when a business declares Bankruptcy. Understand, filing for one of the chapters doesn't mean the doors close to the business.I feel to se
Religious intolerance....explain that please.
And I fail to see where bailing out banks and the auto industry was a bad thing.
Striving for a one party system.......I've never heard that or seen evidence of that from either party
Let's take your SS away. That is a good place to start
It likely would have pushed the pensions to the PBGC. That would have messed up that agency in a big way. I'm not sure about Chrysler, but GM's plan is severely underfunded.It was bad because it didn't force them to go through the necessary changes required when a business declares Bankruptcy. Understand, filing for one of the chapters doesn't mean the doors close to the business.
They have already paid back the federal government every penny borrowed.
Bankruptcy would have enabled them to avoid paying their creditors and could have left retirees without pensions.
Actually the retirees are already screwed because their pension money was stolen by the Obama administration by the way those pension funds were repaid. Taxpayers and union members lost billions.
Legacy contracts and health care costs related to Grandfathered Union contracts are still causing tremendous strain on GM's bottom line, and as I said as a result they are still looking at billions in unfunded liabilities.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/18/obamas-union-bailout/
http://www.heritage.org/testimony/a...er-losses-came-subsidizing-union-compensation
GM has had billions in unfunded liabilities since the 90's when I worked as a pension actuary, probably before then.Actually the retirees are already screwed because their pension money was stolen by the Obama administration by the way those pension funds were repaid. Taxpayers and union members lost billions.
Legacy contracts and health care costs related to Grandfathered Union contracts are still causing tremendous strain on GM's bottom line, and as I said as a result they are still looking at billions in unfunded liabilities.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/18/obamas-union-bailout/
http://www.heritage.org/testimony/a...er-losses-came-subsidizing-union-compensation
The government bailout was clearly the better option as I previously pointed out; creditors get repaid, retirees get their full pension and the federal government has been repaid.
GM has had billions in unfunded liabilities since the 90's when I worked as a pension actuary, probably before then.
Why do you do that? Every time someone clearly shows you are wrong, you continue to argue some stupid nonsense
Agreed.Honestly, I'm torn on the bail out. It did save jobs, and the government has gotten their money back. Those are good things. It was a gamble though.
Is GM "healthy"?
No.
Did the bailout "save" the company money or save taxpayers?
No.
GM remains mired in debt.
Is the company able to operate profitably?
Not really.
And tell me countryroads89 why do you get to decide my opinions are "stupid"?
You certainly have that right, but that doesn't automatically make it fact.
I have an opinion that bankruptcy would have been better for GM in the long term both for the company and taxpayers.
It's OK to disagree with that, but why am I "stupid" for believing that?
What are the results?
Is GM "healthy"?
No.
Did the bailout "save" the company money or save taxpayers?
No.
GM remains mired in debt.
Is the company able to operate profitably?
Not really.
Management agreed to those deals. You act as if they had no choice in the matter. I've seen numerous examples of companies giving big concessions in pension benefits because they view those as future costs, less impactful to the current bottom line. It's a foolish tactic, but it isn't uncommon. The fact that GM has severely underfunded their pension plan means that they haven't been putting money toward that issue. They aren't hamstrung for investment in infrastructure because they are under funded. They are under funded because they have ignored their responsibilities with respect to funding the promises they made in the pension plan.True, and that's what was putting pressure on their bottom line. (in addition to a lousy product mix, and excess capacity in their manufacturing operations)
Bankruptcy would have allowed them to renegotiate those legacy contracts and adjust to terms both more affordable to them and pensioners, as well as restructure their base manufacturing operations to get rid of excess capacity and streamline their supply chains, hard assets, machinery, and labor costs.
Management agreed to those deals. You act as if they had no choice in the matter. I've seen numerous examples of companies giving big concessions in pension benefits because they view those as future costs, less impactful to the current bottom line. It's a foolish tactic, but it isn't uncommon. The fact that GM has severely underfunded their pension plan means that they haven't been putting money toward that issue. They aren't hamstrung for investment in infrastructure because they are under funded. They are under funded because they have ignored their responsibilities with respect to funding the promises they made in the pension plan.
I'm making a statement that people make stupid comparisons of our leaders to have negative connotations on both sides. Plus I referenced Hitler.