• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

an Explanation of Bankruptcy

MaggieD said:
You'll pardon me if I don't laugh, won't you? Don Sutherland, one of the most (if not THE most) respected posters on Debate Politics said this:



You'll excuse those of us who put more faith in a less partisan view, won't you? Take off your partisan sunglasses and learn, Joaquin.

Edit: I'm NEXT, Joaquin. Read and take off your partisan shades.
Click to expand...

No, I won't excuse willful ignorance of the facts. Facts matter to all but conservatives.

Why The Right Is Wrong About Saving Detroit | Research | Media Matters for America
 
Fisher said:
Typically the current stock gets voided and reissued which sends money flowing into the company's accounts via the trustee to fund the plan. I am sure if people had the opportunity to buy new GM stock, they would.
Click to expand...

How much GM stock do you own? Why would anyone buy stock in a failed company? The U.S. Govt. bought that stock when no one else would.
 
iguanaman said:
How much GM stock do you own? Why would anyone buy stock in a failed company? The U.S. Govt. bought that stock when no one else would.
Click to expand...

None because I don't buy stocks--I buy land. But if you think the market wouldn't appreciate a slimmed down GM with far fewer debts, overhead, and contractual obligations to it employees, then I think you are being pessimistic.
 
I've explained this to the conservative members of the forum countless times, but they do not have the knowledge to understand it and they aren't interested in the facts. The fact is that there is no credible source with knowledge of the situation -- including the past and present CEO's of GM -- who believes that GM and Chrysler could have gone through Chapter 11 without the federal bailout. This is just fact and conservative mewling to the contrary is fantasy.
 
Fisher said:
None because I don't buy stocks--I buy land. But if you think the market wouldn't appreciate a slimmed down GM with far fewer debts, overhead, and contractual obligations to it employees, then I think you are being pessimistic.
Click to expand...

***SIGH***

It was never going to happen. Both GM and Chrysler tried every conceivable means to avoid the federal bailout. Both of them sought out mergers with multiple partners. GM even broached the subject of merging with Ford. Chrysler offered to sell itself to the federal government for $1. The last thing in the world they wanted was Washington looking over their shoulders, but there was simply no other choice. It was either the bailout or bust.
 
AdamT said:
***SIGH***

It was never going to happen. Both GM and Chrysler tried every conceivable means to avoid the federal bailout. Both of them sought out mergers with multiple partners. GM even broached the subject of merging with Ford. Chrysler offered to sell itself to the federal government for $1. The last thing in the world they wanted was Washington looking over their shoulders, but there was simply no other choice. It was either the bailout or bust.
Click to expand...

Then it should have gone bust with the good parts purchased by the Tesla dude and his foreign capital. And just for the record even though it has not been brought up, I think Bush was an idiot for saving the airlines and bailing out anybody other than AIG.
 
AdamT said:
I've explained this to the conservative members of the forum countless times, but they do not have the knowledge to understand it and they aren't interested in the facts. The fact is that there is no credible source with knowledge of the situation -- including the past and present CEO's of GM -- who believes that GM and Chrysler could have gone through Chapter 11 without the federal bailout. This is just fact and conservative mewling to the contrary is fantasy.
Click to expand...

Conservatives post from a Totally Fact-Free Zone.
 
Fisher said:
Then it should have gone bust with the good parts purchased by the Tesla dude and his foreign capital. And just for the record even though it has not been brought up, I think Bush was an idiot for saving the airlines and bailing out anybody other than AIG.
Click to expand...

And 2M jobs with it.

Thanks for admitting the real conservative scorched earth agenda. Take it up with the OP, which tried to conceal the agenda behind a smokescreen of talking points and factoids.
 
Fisher said:
Then it should have gone bust with the good parts purchased by the Tesla dude and his foreign capital. And just for the record even though it has not been brought up, I think Bush was an idiot for saving the airlines and bailing out anybody other than AIG.
Click to expand...

No one was in a position to buy much of anything at the time.
 
head of joaquin said:
Psssst: Facts matter

The bipartisan Congressional Oversight Panel, the government-appointed watchdog for the $700-billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, backs Obama on this. It said in a January 2011 report that private financing was not available for General Motors and Chrysler in late 2008.

The panel said “the circumstances in the global credit markets in November and December 2008 were unlike any the financial markets had seen in decades. U.S. domestic credit markets were frozen in the wake of the Lehman bankruptcy, and international sources of funding were extremely limited.”

Steven Rattner, a former Wall Street executive who headed Obama’s auto task force, has been outspoken that private financing was not available for General Motors and Chrysler.

“In late 2008 and early 2009, when GM and Chrysler had exhausted their liquidity, every scrap of private capital had fled to the sidelines,” Rattner wrote in the New York Times in February.

Fact check: Obama, Romney trade charges over federal auto bailout - latimes.com

Why The Right Is Wrong About Saving Detroit | Research | Media Matters for America
Click to expand...

Perhaps you missed the part where they DID go bankrupt. GM went away and we now have a "new" GM. I won't bother to contest whether government assistance was required or not to facilitate this reorganization but the way that the assistance was provided is one of the many issues that made this "bailout" decidedly unseemly.
 
head of joaquin said:
And 2M jobs with it.

Thanks for admitting the real conservative scorched earth agenda. Take it up with the OP, which tried to conceal the agenda behind a smokescreen of talking points and factoids.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, and yet the hypocritical progressives have no problem with losing the jobs in the defense industry. Gotcha, I see how that works. You're transparent.
 
Lutherf said:
Perhaps you missed the part where they DID go bankrupt. GM went away and we now have a "new" GM. I won't bother to contest whether government assistance was required or not to facilitate this reorganization but the way that the assistance was provided is one of the many issues that made this "bailout" decidedly unseemly.
Click to expand...

Pssst: with government capital so it could reorganize and not liquidate.

You've sort of missed the whole point of the discussion.
 
clownboy said:
Hmmm, and yet the hypocritical progressives have no problem with losing the jobs in the defense industry. Gotcha, I see how that works. You're transparent.
Click to expand...

I think this thread is officially toast and at this point the conservatives are just trying to save face.
 
head of joaquin said:
I think this thread is officially toast and at this point the conservatives are just trying to save face.
Click to expand...

It's not toast; there's no face to be saved. Romney has said QUITE CLEARLY that he values GM as a company and that its survival is in the best interests of the United States. His op-ed piece QUITE CLEARLY said that he would support them going through the bankruptcy process and emerging with Federal loan guarantees.

To those who say that would have been impossible? If it were going to be impossible any other way, there is absolutely no reason on earth to believe that Romney would not have changed his strategy. He did not want GM to be liquidated. Bankruptcy and liquidation are two very different things.

I realize you are the new referee at Debate Politics, but still . . . you may want to hold back about declaring a thread toast.
 
head of joaquin said:
He may and the creditors may object if the payment is reduced too much or takes too long to pa, and then the judge or the trustee orders the selling off of the assets.

And that was the facts of the GM bankruptcy. Everybody but rightwing posters on internet forums agrees on that. By the way I'm an attorney so in fact I do know a thing or two about bankruptcy law. But I do love it when tea partiers pretend to know stuff.
Click to expand...

Did you not know the stock holders went first then the bond holders lost everything, Obama did not bail out the bond holders just the unions. An attorney, WOW, that and a $100 may get you a bag of popcorn.

By the way Romney is also attorney. But my guess is you think Romney does not know what he's talking about.
 
It was grotesquely false for Obama to claim he saved GM and Chrysler from bankruptcy - when IN FACT both DID go into bankruptcy under Obama's actions. So that was a LIE.
In addition, Romney DID say he would have the federal government guarentee loans if both went thru Chapter 11 reorganization. That also was a LIE by Obama. But, then Obama is a pathological liar when comparing his 2008 promises to what he did after being elected - usually 100% exactly opposite what he promised.

What Obama did is CONDITION GM and Chrysler getting loans directly from the government IF GM and Chrysler did it Obama's way. Rather than the typical Chapter 11 Bankruptcy that many, many companies have gone thru and come out profitable on the other side, Obama demanded that GM and Chrysler stiff creditors and stockholders, and instead protect the unions.

As a result, GM and Chrysler came out of bankruptcy essentially in debt as going into it - the reason GM and Chrysler and still losing money. In addition, NO ONE wants to invest in GM or Chrysler since Obama circumvented normal bankruptcy laws that would protect them - slashing the value of the stock of both and making both permanently dependent upon more government money and by necessity stiffing the government on repayment - instead "paying" with stock giving the government ownership rights of both companies.

For the obvious long terms disaster it would bring to the company, Ford refused to participate. As a result, Ford is experiencing record profits while GM and Chrysler continue to lose money.

In addition, GM earned the name "Government Motors" and millions of Americans won't buy cars from the Obama Car Company. GM tried to buy out the governmen because that reputation is a marketing disaster, but Obama refused.

OBAMA PUT GM and CHRYSLER INTO BANKRUPTCY, NOT ROMNEY.
Romney had said the government should back up loans after a normal Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
Obama's alternative government-take-over and pay off of the unions is a disaster for both companies.
The money to GM mostly went to building factories in China and most the money to Chrysler went to France's Fiat.

Obama did not save the US auto industry. He crippled GM and Chrysler forcing them to shift resources and jobs to other countries to try to survive.
 
joko104 said:
It was grotesquely false for Obama to claim he saved GM and Chrysler from bankruptcy - when IN FACT both DID go into bankruptcy under Obama's actions. So that was a LIE.
In addition, Romney DID say he would have the federal government guarentee loans if both went thru Chapter 11 reorganization. That also was a LIE by Obama. But, then Obama is a pathological liar when comparing his 2008 promises to what he did after being elected - usually 100% exactly opposite what he promised.

What Obama did is CONDITION GM and Chrysler getting loans directly from the government IF GM and Chrysler did it Obama's way. Rather than the typical Chapter 11 Bankruptcy that many, many companies have gone thru and come out profitable on the other side, Obama demanded that GM and Chrysler stiff creditors and stockholders, and instead protect the unions.

As a result, GM and Chrysler came out of bankruptcy essentially in debt as going into it - the reason GM and Chrysler and still losing money. In addition, NO ONE wants to invest in GM or Chrysler since Obama circumvented normal bankruptcy laws that would protect them - slashing the value of the stock of both and making both permanently dependent upon more government money and by necessity stiffing the government on repayment - instead "paying" with stock giving the government ownership rights of both companies.

For the obvious long terms disaster it would bring to the company, Ford refused to participate. As a result, Ford is experiencing record profits while GM and Chrysler continue to lose money.

In addition, GM earned the name "Government Motors" and millions of Americans won't buy cars from the Obama Car Company. GM tried to buy out the governmen because that reputation is a marketing disaster, but Obama refused.

OBAMA PUT GM and CHRYSLER INTO BANKRUPTCY, NOT ROMNEY.
Romney had said the government should back up loans after a normal Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
Obama's alternative government-take-over and pay off of the unions is a disaster for both companies.
The money to GM mostly went to building factories in China and most the money to Chrysler went to France's Fiat.

Obama did not save the US auto industry. He crippled GM and Chrysler forcing them to shift resources and jobs to other countries to try to survive.
Click to expand...

FACTS MATTER (except in bizarro conservative world):

Why The Right Is Wrong About Saving Detroit | Research | Media Matters for America
 
head of joaquin said:
Pssst: with government capital so it could reorganize and not liquidate.

You've sort of missed the whole point of the discussion.
Click to expand...

They did liquidate. If you owned GM stock from 2007 it's now trading under MTLQQ and it's worthless....not that the new GM stock is any great shakes.
 
MaggieD said:
It's not toast; there's no face to be saved. Romney has said QUITE CLEARLY that he values GM as a company and that its survival is in the best interests of the United States. His op-ed piece QUITE CLEARLY said that he would support them going through the bankruptcy process and emerging with Federal loan guarantees.

To those who say that would have been impossible? If it were going to be impossible any other way, there is absolutely no reason on earth to believe that Romney would not have changed his strategy. He did not want GM to be liquidated. Bankruptcy and liquidation are two very different things.

I realize you are the new referee at Debate Politics, but still . . . you may want to hold back about declaring a thread toast.
Click to expand...

Facts matter! Almost 50 posts and not one rebuttal of these facts from the cons.

An emerging myth being pushed by the right contends that federal spending to rescue GM and Chrysler was unnecessary, and that the companies instead should have gone through a "traditional" bankruptcy. In fact, economists at the time explained that frozen credit markets made private financing for a "traditional" bankruptcy impossible.

Why The Right Is Wrong About Saving Detroit | Research | Media Matters for America
 
Lutherf said:
They did liquidate. If you owned GM stock from 2007 it's now trading under MTLQQ and it's worthless....not that the new GM stock is any great shakes.
Click to expand...

It was not an asset liquidation. Stop with the talking points. They don't work here.
 
head of joaquin said:
Facts matter!

An emerging myth being pushed by the right contends that federal spending to rescue GM and Chrysler was unnecessary, and that the companies instead should have gone through a "traditional" bankruptcy. In fact, economists at the time explained that frozen credit markets made private financing for a "traditional" bankruptcy impossible.

Why The Right Is Wrong About Saving Detroit | Research | Media Matters for America
Click to expand...

Hindsight is always 20/20, my friend. With the facts that Romney had at the time, his position was perfectly reasonable. He did not want GM to fail. That is what the left claims. They are 100% wrong.
 
Now let's use some common sense here. Romney has been in the business of helping failing companys. Who do you thiknk knows more about bankruptcy? Obama or Romney?
 
Dusty Rhodes said:
Now let's use some common sense here. Romney has been in the business of helping failing companys. Who do you thiknk knows more about bankruptcy? Obama or Romney?
Click to expand...

Clearly Romney knows about bankruptcy which mean he's lying. He's pretending GM wouldn't have liquidated. It would have. End of GM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom