• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GM Falls Below IPO Price as Rising Oil Dims Truck Outlook

GM due to the timing of it entering its trouble would have had a very hard time finding any bankrupcty funding to allow it to operate during bankruptcy. It was at the height of the financial crisis that GM went broke. Funding for profitable business's was hard to get, let alone business's losing billions of dollars. No financial institutions would have poured the billions of dollars into GM at that time. Leaving GM with one option, selling the company to another car company. No european car company would have wanted it, (other then certain parts), no US car maker could afford to. Nor would any Japanese company wanted it. Leaving various Chinese companies as the prime suitors for GM. GM would have been a good catch for SAIC, or Chery, Geely or some of the other Chinese main automakers. But I doubt the US would have allowed GM to be bought by a Chinese company

So at the time of the GM bankruptcy there would have been 4 options. Dissolving GM, government funded bankrupcty, governemnt funding outside of bankruptcy and selling the company to a chinese firm

I usually get a chuckle from the Lord's comments. As if the choices spelled out above are the onlu possible answers because he says so.
 
It said it MIGHT not work, not that it would not as you say. Yup sometimes in business it it hard to make something happen, but that is what good managers get paid to do.

Would you care to say what you do for a living to back up your comments?

You claimed I did not understand business because I didn't agree with you. The truth is there was a very good chance GM would not recover from filing bankruptcy. I didn't say that was a bad thing, just that it was a very good possiblity and I did not believe they would.
What does my occupation have to do with anything? I am semi retired.
 
Last edited:
You claimed I did not understand business because I didn't agree with you. The truth is there was a very good chance GM would not recover from filing bankruptcy. I didn't say that was a bad thing, just that it was a very good possiblity and I did not believe they would.
What does my occupation have to do with anything? I am semi retired.

Go to your post #34. You said they WOULD fail not that they might fail or probably would fail. The you show an article that said that the path would be hard and they could fail, big difference.

The reason I asked about your occupation, if you were a student who has taken some business classes or someone who took business in school and then worked in another field, I could understand the mistake. If however you really worked as an example as a manager at a fortune 500 company I would think you are just basing your comments on partisan junk that I don't want to waste time on.
 
Go to your post #34. You said they WOULD fail not that they might fail or probably would fail. The you show an article that said that the path would be hard and they could fail, big difference.

The reason I asked about your occupation, if you were a student who has taken some business classes or someone who took business in school and then worked in another field, I could understand the mistake. If however you really worked as an example as a manager at a fortune 500 company I would think you are just basing your comments on partisan junk that I don't want to waste time on.

I said they would fail. I believed that. You said they wouldn't fail since other companies come out of bankruptcy and prosper.
My sense is that the company, GM would be in BETTER shape if they can gone through reorg versus the bailout.
I don't see any difference.

You must be a student.
 
Last edited:
I said they would fail. I believed that. You said they wouldn't fail since other companies come out of bankruptcy and prosper.
I don't see any difference.

You must be a student.

I wish I was a student. I am retired. But my son is a student at a very good business school.

There is no way all of that productive capacity would have been scapped becuase we fell into a recession that cut back on production for a few years. This year it is estimated we will sell about 13 million cars and trucks. That might be missed a bit due to high fuel prices and if the economy takes a turn for the worse. In all probability the total will exceed 12 million. As I said earlier, GM is weaker for the fact they used TARP versus chapter where they could have cleaned up work rules, closed more plants and fixed their labor rates. That is water under the bridge. In 210 GM earned something like $4.7 billion, so they have little chance of failing again very quickly.
 
I wish I was a student. I am retired. But my son is a student at a very good business school.

There is no way all of that productive capacity would have been scapped becuase we fell into a recession that cut back on production for a few years. This year it is estimated we will sell about 13 million cars and trucks. That might be missed a bit due to high fuel prices and if the economy takes a turn for the worse. In all probability the total will exceed 12 million. As I said earlier, GM is weaker for the fact they used TARP versus chapter where they could have cleaned up work rules, closed more plants and fixed their labor rates. That is water under the bridge. In 210 GM earned something like $4.7 billion, so they have little chance of failing again very quickly.

They would(IMHO) not have made a profit without the government cash. No one would have invested in a GM that had filed bankruptcy without the bailout.
Who made the estimate of car sales? I would wager they are a little high. This economic downturn is not over and I believe it will get worse before it gets better if it ever does get better.
 
They would(IMHO) not have made a profit without the government cash. No one would have invested in a GM that had filed bankruptcy without the bailout.
Who made the estimate of car sales? I would wager they are a little high. This economic downturn is not over and I believe it will get worse before it gets better if it ever does get better.

OK it is fair enough that we disagree whether GM could have gotten financing or someone would have boght them out on the cheap in bankruptcy. It was Ford's estimate of the market for 2011. They are a bit higher than the average estimate. But the average in still in the mid 12 million number. I agree that we are still in recovery stage and will be for a number of years. Also remember that the high water mark for car sales was 16 plus million. With tighter credit and people trying to clean up their personal balance sheets I do not think we will hit that number anytime soon. But the industry seems to have redeuced costs to the extent they can make some money at around the 11 million level.
 
This thread is a pitiful piece of partisan hackery.
The whole market, and of course the auto stocks, have suffered because of the Libya Oil Price shock.
So let's blame that on Obama! Yeah!

GO FOX GOONS GO!

Obama said we would make a profit for bailing out the UAW..........

.......as soon as GM stock hits $140.00/pigs fly.......we can start reaping those profits.

and btw, without TARP there would be no Banks, No Market, no economy, and No jobs.
The Car companies and a few million Jobs down the supply and retail chain were saved rather cheaply.

Yes of course......without Obama it would have been worse.....and when its worse.....it would have been worser.

.......and 15% unemployment 8 years after the New Deal was a "success"........now lets all be good servants to the state.
.
.
.
 
This thread is a pitiful piece of partisan hackery.
The whole market, and of course the auto stocks, have suffered because of the Libya Oil Price shock.
So let's blame that on Obama! Yeah!

GO FOX GOONS GO!

and btw, without TARP there would be no Banks, No Market, no economy, and No jobs.
The Car companies and a few million Jobs down the supply and retail chain were saved rather cheaply.

Wrong without Obama the market and capitalism would have worked.
 
I usually get a chuckle from the Lord's comments. As if the choices spelled out above are the onlu possible answers because he says so.
My sense is that the company, GM would be in BETTER shape if they can gone through reorg versus the bailout.
OK it is fair enough that we disagree whether GM could have gotten financing or someone would have boght them out on the cheap in bankruptcy. It was Ford's estimate of the market for 2011. They are a bit higher than the average estimate. But the average in still in the mid 12 million number. I agree that we are still in recovery stage and will be for a number of years. Also remember that the high water mark for car sales was 16 plus million. With tighter credit and people trying to clean up their personal balance sheets I do not think we will hit that number anytime soon. But the industry seems to have redeuced costs to the extent they can make some money at around the 11 million level.

Lets back things up

Who would or could have bought GM? US automakers? European? Japanese? I certainly doubt any that would have liked to would have had the money, those that had the money would have been chinese. And for buying GM to make any sense GM would have had to offer something to the car maker something they did not have. No western car maker needs anything GM had. Chinese ones yes.

Financing. GM went tits up in the middle of the finincial crisis, the finacial institutions were getting massive bailouts from the government at the time, just where were they supposed to get money to lend to GM? The government?

As for the government bailout of GM, it involved a massive reorg as well

4 brands were shut down, nearly 1/3 of employees let go, about 25% of its US manufacturing plants were shut down, GM debt load went from 95 billion to 17 billion

I listed the options I did, because I actually gave the situation ration logical thought about potential possibilities, not pie in the sky ones like the possibility of Microsoft getting in the car manufacturing business. The options I listed were by far the most likely possibilities during that time frame. If GM was to have gone bankrupt in say 2005 the options would have been different as the economic situations would have been different.


As it stands GM came out of Bankrupcty fairly well (as you stated it made a 4.7 billion dollar profit in 2010.

If you have a better list of options for what could have happened to GM at that time, please present them with the reasoning behind them other then just other companies have gone into bankruptcy and gotten funding during it. That time frame was not normal and GM is not the same as most companies (it is rather far larger then most companies)
 
LOL!

the only links pasted in this thread are from businessweek, reuters, cnn, abc, the nyt and forbes

what are ya lookin at?
LOL away
The OP Link, Business Week, merely told us the stock fell below the IPO price.

The Poster did ALL the editorialization and withheld/Didn't know the reason for the price decline.

Instead made an empty FoxNews style Rabies attack on Obama.
 
Last edited:
Obama said we would make a profit for bailing out the ae UAW..........

.......as soon as GM stock hits $140.00/pigs fly.......we can start reaping those profits.
Really?
You have a Link for that claim?

Yes of course......without Obama it would have been worse.....and when its worse.....it would have been worser.

.......and 15% unemployment 8 years after the New Deal was a "success"........now lets all be good servants to the state.
Would have been worse without TARP.. absolutely.
CBO report: Stimulus package saved or created as many as 1.6 million jobs - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room


GM IPO: Auto Bailout Saved More Than 1 Million Jobs, Study Says - Deal Journal - WSJ
NOVEMBER 17, 2010, 3:13 PM ET
Shira Ovide
No matter what happens with Government Motors, the taxpayer intervention in the auto business appears to be a win for Americans, a new research report asserts.

The Center for Automotive Research said today the government’s bailouts of the U.S. auto industry spared more than 1.14 million jobs last year alone, and prevented “additional personal income losses” of nearly $97 billion combined for this year and last....

http://www.pressandguide.com/articles/2011/01/25/opinion/doc4d3f1f77e3b1d528573259.txt?viewmode=3

“There is a compelling case that Obamanomics has produced results. An economy that was shrinking in size and bleeding more than 700,000 jobs a month is now growing at 2.6 percent and added 1.1 million jobs last year. The [February 2009 Stimulus], produced or saved at least 1.9 million jobs and as many as 4.7 million last year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. ….. TARP started under Bush and continued by Obama, stabilized the financial sector, and the big banks have repaid the money with interest. …..TARP will cost taxpayers $28 billion instead of the $700 billion originally set aside. The nearly $80 billion bailout of the auto industry may cost taxpayers only $15 billion, as the restructured General Motors and Chrysler come back to life with strong sales. The stock market has surged; corporate profits are setting records.”

That's one TINY Price tag to prevent another 1929.
 
Last edited:
Really?
You have a Link for that claim?

From your bible.......G.M. Shares Must Hit New Heights to Pay Back U.S. - NYTimes.com


Would have been worse without TARP.. absolutely.
CBO report: Stimulus package saved or created as many as 1.6 million jobs - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room


GM IPO: Auto Bailout Saved More Than 1 Million Jobs, Study Says - Deal Journal - WSJ
NOVEMBER 17, 2010, 3:13 PM ET
Shira Ovide


Local Republican, Democrat square off:Global warming, real or imagined? - Opinion - Press and Guide

“There is a compelling case that Obamanomics has produced results. An economy that was shrinking in size and bleeding more than 700,000 jobs a month is now growing at 2.6 percent and added 1.1 million jobs last year. The [February 2009 Stimulus], produced or saved at least 1.9 million jobs and as many as 4.7 million last year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. ….. TARP started under Bush and continued by Obama, stabilized the financial sector, and the big banks have repaid the money with interest. …..TARP will cost taxpayers $28 billion instead of the $700 billion originally set aside. The nearly $80 billion bailout of the auto industry may cost taxpayers only $15 billion, as the restructured General Motors and Chrysler come back to life with strong sales. The stock market has surged; corporate profits are setting records.”

That's one TINY Price tag to prevent another 1929.

As stated before......a belief that without Obama (government) it would have been worse.......and when its worse.....it would have been worser.....

.....is to believe government has the solution to every government created disaster.
.
.
.
.
 
Wrong without Obama the market and capitalism would have worked.
Wrong.
Without Obama, Bush, Paulsen, Bernanke, TARP, it was OVER.
Capitalism FAILED.

Citibank was Broke
Bankamerica was Broke
Merrill Lynch was Broke.
Wachovia Broke.
Lehman Failed.
AIG Failed.
etc etc etc etc, etc, etc
And their failures would have chain-Collapsed the system.
GE and Goldman Sachs had to borrow money from Buffett.
Many other Banks, Insurance companies also down 80% or more.
It was selling pencils time/1929 without TARP.

Capitalism FAILED.
Consumers were over-leveraged, and banks failed on the most basic stewardishship/business of Capitalism.
 
Last edited:
What's that?

Here's YOU OP Claim:
BadMutha OP said:
Remember......Obama told us that "we would make a profit" from bailing out the UAW Union of Slobs.........the same for TARP.
Link for THAT "make a profit" Claim or Withdraw and Apologize to the board.


As stated before......a belief that without Obama (government) it would have been worse.......and when its worse.....it would have been worser.....

.....is to believe government has the solution to every government created disaster.
.
.
.
.
TARP was absolutely necessary.
It was all over.
There's no question to anyone with even ANY basic financial understanding whatsoever.

BTW, do you feel adding these dots/length
.
.
.
.
Gives your goofy claims any more weight?
 
Last edited:
Wrong.
Without Obama, Bush, Paulsen, Bernanke, TARP, it was OVER.
Capitalism FAILED.

Citibank was Broke
Bankamerica was Broke
Merrill Lynch was Broke.
Wachovia Broke.
Lehman Failed.
AIG Failed.
etc etc etc etc, etc, etc
And their failures would have chain-Collapsed the system.
GE and Goldman Sachs had to borrow money from Buffett.
Many other Banks, Insurance companies also down 80% or more.
It was selling pencils time/1929 without TARP.

Capitalism FAILED.
Consumers were over-leveraged, and banks failed on the most basic stewardishship/business of Capitalism.

So you really think that was "Capitalism" and "Free Markets" in 2007?

F&F--The Largest Mortgage Underwriters in the world.......and you think it was "Capitalism" that failed.......good gawd.
.
.
.
.
 
Wrong.
Without Obama, Bush, Paulsen, Bernanke, TARP, it was OVER.
Capitalism FAILED.

Citibank was Broke
Bankamerica was Broke
Merrill Lynch was Broke.
Wachovia Broke.
Lehman Failed.
AIG Failed.
etc etc etc etc, etc, etc
And their failures would have chain-Collapsed the system.
GE and Goldman Sachs had to borrow money from Buffett.
Many other Banks, Insurance companies also down 80% or more.
It was selling pencils time/1929 without TARP.

Capitalism FAILED.
Consumers were over-leveraged, and banks failed on the most basic stewardishship/business of Capitalism.

They were not broke. but keep believing the Obama hype.
 
So you really think that was "Capitalism" and "Free Markets" in 2007?
What do you think it was?
It certainly was NOT Obama in 2007.
And Democrats didn't win/populate Congress until January of 2007.
For the 6 years Previous we had a GOP President AND Congress.


F&F--The Largest Mortgage Underwriters in the world.......and you think it was "Capitalism" that failed.......good gawd.
.
.
.
.
I showed it DID fail-- while you merely make Goofy/EMPTY counterclaims.

You know NOTHING about the economy whatsoever. You just make absurd/Partisan posts.. as I said in my first post in this string.

Do you have ANYTHING substantial to say at all besides "goof Gawd" spaced with 4 dots?
 
Last edited:
What do you think it was?

The unintended consequences of an over-reaching government......

It certainly was NOT Obama in 2007.

....of course not.....nothing detrimental in world history is the fault of Obama.

And Democrats didn't win/populate Congress until January of 2007.

Well obviously they had absolutely nothing to do with it........it was all Bush and Republicans.....

Unemployment Rate Since Democrats Took Over Congress
LNS14000000_3545_1287975745344.gif



For the 6 years Previous we had a GOP President AND Congress.

The seeds of the mortgage collapse were planted long before 2000-2006.....

I showed it DID fail-- while hyou merely make Goofy/EMPTY counterclaims.

You know NOTHING about the economy whatsoever. You just make absurd/Partisan posts.. as I said in my first post in this string.

Do you have ANYTHING substantial to say at all besides "goof Gawd" spaced with 4 dots?

You showed what failed exactly?

Free Markets and Capitalism have long been extinct in this country.......
.
.
.
 
They were not broke. but keep believing the Obama hype.
They absolutely were broke and saved by the FED and Forced/arranged mergers.

And at least get your wrong claims straight. That was the BUSH/Paulson "hype"/FACT.

Another empty apparachik here.

This board is full of one-line, know-nothing, Partsian Hacks who can't back anything they say and have no clue what they're talking about.
It's Comical and sad.
 
And still waiting for Badmutha to Substantiate or Apologize to the board for his OP Claim that Obama "promised us a profit".

me said:
Badmutha said:
From your bible.......G.M. Shares Must Hit New Heights to Pay Back U.S. - NYTimes.com
What's that?

Here's YOU OP Claim:
BadMutha OP said:
Remember......Obama told us that "we would make a profit" from bailing out the UAW Union of Slobs.........the same for TARP.
Link for THAT "make a profit" Claim or Withdraw and Apologize to the board.

Badmutha said:
As stated before......a belief that without Obama (government) it would have been worse.......and when its worse.....it would have been worser.....

.....is to believe government has the solution to every government created disaster.
.
.
.
.
TARP was absolutely necessary.
It was all over.
There's no question to anyone with even ANY basic financial understanding whatsoever.

BTW, do you feel adding these dots/length
.
.
.
.
Gives your goofy claims any more weight?
 
Last edited:
And still waiting for Badmutha to Substantiate or APOLOGIZE to the board for his OP Claim that Obama "promised us a profit".

Big this is common knowledge........as Obama made the claims on numerous occasions........

After devoting two seconds of searching......

TARP for Fun, But Not Profit - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

During the economic policy speech he just wrapped up, President Obama said that the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) "is going to reap billions in profits."

Obama On Financial Stability, PAYGO - Forbes.com

And while we know that we will not escape the worst financial crisis in decades without some losses to taxpayers, it's worth noting that in the first round of repayments from these companies the government has actually turned a profit.--Barack HusSame Obama

Whenever you get that TARP dividend check or Government Motors profit sharing check........you let us know.
.
.
.
 
Whenever you get that TARP dividend check or Government Motors profit sharing check........you let us know.
.
.
.
TARP is now estimated to cost $28 Billion to save the whole US Financial and Jobs infrastructure.. down from the original Bush Price tag of 750 Billion.
It may Yet Yield a profit.

Even if it doesn't, this is UNBELIEVABLY Cheap to save the whole US and world economic system (Banks, Brokers, Car companies, etc) from total ruin of the Bush-caused Depression.
 
Last edited:
TARP is now estimated to cost $28 Billion to save the whole US Financial and Jobs infrastructure.. down from the original Bush Price tag of 750 Billion.
It may Yet Yield a profit.

Only on government stationary.....the same way PORKULUS created millions of jobs........

Even if it doesn't, this is UNBELIEVABLY Cheap to save the whole US and world economic system (Banks, Brokers, Car companies, etc) from total ruin of the Bush-caused Depression.

We passed unbelievably cheap about $14,000,000,000,000.00 ago.......

Now your mind is made up and its doubtful to change.......as nobody can say for certain what would of or wouldnt of happened.....there is no way for me to prove to you what would of happened without TARP and the GM bailout. But let me use PORKULUS as an example...........which also "saved us from a great depression"

This is what the Obama administration promised......

StimulusProj.jpg


.......Obama set the objective.....defined Success and Failure.....the goal posts were anchored.


This is the excrement sandwhich we received........

Unemployment Rate since Obama's Stimulus/"Jobs Bill"
UnemploymentRate.gif


....by any measurement..........an EPIC FAIL. But its the belief that without government it would have been worse.....and when its worse.....it would have been worser......is the reason government gets the green light to create Government disasters to solve Government created disasters.
.
.
.
.
 
Back
Top Bottom