There really are a lot of similarities....

Dec 7, 2010
20,602
120
0
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
46,692
1,761
113
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.
Pretty sure they could just walk up from South Africa or Madagascar.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,006
1,931
113
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.

I thought he said he was a "climatologist"...

Was going to explain how we adjust the earth's thermostat to our personal comfort level?

Maybe I'm giving him too much credit?
 
Aug 27, 2001
63,466
198
0
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
 

TarHeelEer

Redshirt
Dec 15, 2002
89,286
37
48
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
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,006
1,931
113
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.
 
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
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.

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.
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
46,692
1,761
113
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 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.
 

mule_eer

Freshman
May 6, 2002
20,438
58
48
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.
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.

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.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,006
1,931
113
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
 
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
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

Why do you do that? Every time someone clearly shows you are wrong, you continue to argue some stupid nonsense from a fake news site.

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.

It's an "I hate Obama" thing. Your life must be really miserable to have to constantly twist the truth and scour for fake news to justify your hatred for Obama. I feel sorry for you (I sincerely mean that, not just board smack).
 

mule_eer

Freshman
May 6, 2002
20,438
58
48
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.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,006
1,931
113
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.

I didn't challenge your assertion that the Government was repaid countryroads89, I posted more details on GM's total financial health to indicate how much money they still lost as well as taxpayers.

If you bothered to read the Heritage study, it's not "fake news". It has actuarial tables of where pension funds and other liabilities stand relative to GM's overall balance sheets.

If the company was allowed to restructure those contracts as would have been the case under the bankruptcy laws, those liabilities would not be putting the pressure on GM'S bottom line as they are now. GM has to remain profitable in order to stay open and keep growing.

So I'm not sure the bailout was the best deal we could have arranged for GM, because if the company is not profitable or growing and still folds due to fiscal insolvency who's jobs will be "saved"?

More Leftist "feel good" intentions with poor actual results.
 
Last edited:

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,006
1,931
113
GM has had billions in unfunded liabilities since the 90's when I worked as a pension actuary, probably before then.

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.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,006
1,931
113
Why do you do that? Every time someone clearly shows you are wrong, you continue to argue some stupid nonsense

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.

Those legacy contracts for older workers and funding their health care as well as pensions for their Family members will continue to place pressure on GM's bottom line.

The Federal government cannot afford to step in and "bail out" companies that are either run poorly or are hopelessly inefficient as GM was.

That's what the bankruptcy Laws are for, and if GM survives it will be in spite of that bailout not because of it.
 
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
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.

General Motors Co. raised its 2016 guidance and posted record second-quarter earnings of $2.9 billion, beating analysts’ estimates by a wide margin as truck sales increased in North America and its European business managed a small profit.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...profit-guidance-as-2q-earnings-beat-estimates
 
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
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.


 

mule_eer

Freshman
May 6, 2002
20,438
58
48
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.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,006
1,931
113
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.

Correct...all true Mule_eer. So why do we ask the taxpayers to subsidize their mismanagement?

You correctly point out, GM made a strategic decision regarding those legacy contracts. Their failure to invest just as you said, streamline their product mix, and restructure their manufacturing operations led to them bleeding red ink...

The "too big to fail" argument sets a dangerous precedent because it's not the Federal government's role to recapitalize every poorly run company no matter how big it is.

And as I pointed out to countryroads89, nothing was really solved. We just handed them a check to cover up their mismanagement.

Ford faced the same problem, but Ford refused to go crying to the taxpayers. Ford executives issued a challenge to company management.

Let's re think how we operate. Let's restructure our labor costs. Let's streamline our operations. Let's develop more exciting products which will make our company profitable.

Ford went to its dealers, suppliers, labor leaders, and investors with a remodeled business plan that emphasized better business practices and better products by renegotiating contracts, prices, retooling its machinery, and closing non productive operations.

Results?

Ford erased it's debt and became profitable in a very short time. Ford now profitably builds products equal to or superior to its competitors, and Ford didn't take one dime from taxpayers.

That's the way to rescue a struggling company, and short of that you accomplish what Ford did through the bankruptcy laws or you simply fold up and go out of business.
 
Last edited:

MountaineerWV

Sophomore
Sep 18, 2007
26,324
191
0
I'm making a statement that people make stupid comparisons of our leaders to have negative connotations on both sides. Plus I referenced Hitler.

Were you aware that Henry Ford was awarded the German Cross, and I believe may be the only American citizen to have ever been granted that....just a little bit of history for some on here......