• 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

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.

Pssst: it isn't hindsight, it's what the experts said at the time (and still say). No serious economist believes that there was sufficient private capital to prevent an asset sale of GM, meaning the end of the company.

Romney is lying now to cover up his radical right comments at the time. He does that alot.
 
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

You just don't get it. Romney said the government could then come in and guarantee the loans and guarantee the warranties. This would free up the credit as the loans would be backed by the federal government. Remember Romney is an attorney.
 
Pssst: it isn't hindsight, it's what the experts said at the time (and still say). No serious economist believes that there was sufficient private capital to prevent an asset sale of GM, meaning the end of the company.

Romney is lying now to cover up his radical right comments at the time. He does that alot.

When the capital is guaranteed against loss by the US government, money will pour out of the banks vaults, banks love no risk loans.
 
It was a liquidation. I'm starting to get the impression that you're having this conversation without really being all that familiar with what transpired. Wikipedia is a good place to start - General Motors Chapter 11 reorganization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just for the record, from your link:

General Motors Corporation, upon sale of its major assets, trademarks and intellectual property on July 10, 2009, pursuant to the provisions of section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, was renamed as Motors Liquidation Company.[85] It continued its bankruptcy court proceedings which will ultimately lead to settling liability claims.[85] Motors Liquidation Company announced on July 10, 2009 in relation to its equity and debt investors:[85]
Management continues to remind investors of its strong belief that there will be no value for the common stockholders in the bankruptcy liquidation process, even under the most optimistic of scenarios. Stockholders of a company in chapter 11 generally receive value only if all claims of the company's secured and unsecured creditors are fully satisfied. In this case, management strongly believes all such claims will not be fully satisfied, leading to its conclusion that the common stock will have no value.
None of the publicly owned stocks or bonds issued by the former General Motors Corporation (now renamed "Motors Liquidation Company"), including its common stock formerly traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "GM", are or will become securities of General Motors Company (the "new GM"), which is an independent separate company. All of these securities relate to Motors Liquidation Company, and will be treated in accordance with the provisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and the rulings of the Bankruptcy court.
Motors Liquidation Company's stock symbol was changed from GMGMQ to MTLQQ, effective July 15, 2009.
 
When the capital is guaranteed against loss by the US government, money will pour out of the banks vaults, banks love no risk loans.

So Romney WAS for using taxpayer dollars and the whole issue is bogus!

Make up your mind
 
Liquidation occurs under Chapter 7 -- not Chapter 11. :roll:

Oh FFS......some times it's a good idea to just browse the damned link you're referring to before hitting the reply button.
 
No one was in a position to buy much of anything at the time.

Except the Chinese who bought the bonds that paid for the bailouts, who as it so happens, are very interested in diving head first into car manufacturing hoping to become the world's leader in the field.....
 
Just for the record, from your link:

It wasn't sold to third parties and broken up., which is the issue. If Romney had his way, that would have been the result. The OP is nothing but rightwing talking points.
 
Oh FFS......some times it's a good idea to just browse the damned link you're referring to before hitting the reply button.

I posted the link earlier in the day. I don't need to see it to know that GM went through Chapter 11 reorganization -- not Chapter 7 liquidation.
 
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.

It is not a conservative scorched earth agenda from which my opinion flows. I think the stock market is so highly manipulated and artificially maintained that the government needs to keep taxpayer money out of it to keep it from becoming even worse. It is why I also oppose privatization of SS. Google loses $20B in value on a 3 hour early earnings announcement that was below expectations--really? Does that give you a clue as to how out of whack the stock market is? Failing companies need to fail and their employees need to be employed elsewhere.
 
Except the Chinese who bought the bonds that paid for the bailouts, who as it so happens, are very interested in diving head first into car manufacturing hoping to become the world's leader in the field.....

Yeah, can you imagine the rightwing talking points then: GM sold to China under Obama!
 
I posted the link earlier in the day. I don't need to see it to know that GM went through Chapter 11 reorganization -- not Chapter 7 liquidation.

So you posted the link but, apparently, didn't read it then or now and completely blew past the post where Maggie even posted the pertinent section of the summary yet you "know" that GM didn't liquidate...something about horses and water is coming to mind but I just can't seem to nail it down.
 
Yeah, can you imagine the rightwing talking points then: GM sold to China under Obama!

probably so, but people are going to have to takes losses on their 401K's and be unemployed and all the ugly stuff if we are going to have a market not subject to neurotic reactionary swings that can wipe out fortunes in a blink of an eye. Has nothing IMO to do with Dem-GOP, but in leveling the playing field that underpins our entire economy.
 
probably so, but people are going to have to takes losses on their 401K's and be unemployed and all the ugly stuff if we are going to have a market not subject to neurotic reactionary swings that can wipe out fortunes in a blink of an eye. Has nothing IMO to do with Dem-GOP, but in leveling the playing field that underpins our entire economy.

Well, there are simpler answers: regulate the financial sector; raise taxes on the rich to prevent bubbles and speculation.
 
Well, there are simpler answers: regulate the financial sector; raise taxes on the rich to prevent bubbles and speculation.

There was an even simpler answer but Bill Freaking Clinton had to sign the freaking Financial Services "Modernization" Act repealing the Glass Steagall Act, and enacting 300+ free trade agreements, that have crapped all over the 21st Century but yet the left holds him up as some great liberal hero because the perfect storm happened to have happened on his woefully underqualified successor's watch. Guess what, Obama would be winning by a landslide if it had not been for Clinton. Guess what, I would probably be supporting Obama but for the mandates in healthcare and that he seems to have no plan for the economy that reverses the damage Clinton did to it other than subsidize the victims instead of stopping the flood of woes.
 
There was an even simpler answer but Bill Freaking Clinton had to sign the freaking Financial Services "Modernization" Act repealing the Glass Steagall Act, and enacting 300+ free trade agreements, that have crapped all over the 21st Century but yet the left holds him up as some great liberal hero because the perfect storm happened to have happened on his woefully underqualified successor's watch. Guess what, Obama would be winning by a landslide if it had not been for Clinton. Guess what, I would probably be supporting Obama but for the mandates in healthcare and that he seems to have no plan for the economy that reverses the damage Clinton did to it other than subsidize the victims instead of stopping the flood of woes.

So Clinton was wrong with agreeing with conservative ideas about deregulation, is that your argument? I agree: conservative economic policy sucks and should always be rejected by Democrats.

You conservatives need to make up your mind instead of posting talking points.
 
So Clinton was wrong with agreeing with conservative ideas about deregulation, is that your argument? I agree: conservative economic policy sucks and should always be rejected by Democrats.

You conservatives need to make up your mind instead of posting talking points.

<<<does not say conservative does it? Regardless, in what world would "conservative talking points" ever defend Obama?

When NAFTA was passed, for instance, there was supposed to be follow up legislation to protect textiles and furniture manufacturing in the US but "Let's wait until we know exactly how they are impacted to be sure what is needed" and the followup protections on vulnerable industries never materialized, and there went most of those 2 vulnerable industries out the door.
 
So Clinton was wrong with agreeing with conservative ideas about deregulation, is that your argument? I agree: conservative economic policy sucks and should always be rejected by Democrats.

You conservatives need to make up your mind instead of posting talking points.

he didnt just agree with it,he promoted it,read up on the cfma.

if it were not for clintons gun control policy,he would have went down as the most conservative president ever,his whole record of deregulation,free trade,lowering capital gains etc were all opposed by liberals,yet they blindly defend what they hate simply because he was a democrat,the same as conservatives defended bushs austrian economics even though he practiced keynesian economics,yet the r next to his name refused to allow them to see otherwise.

it shows that people like you simply care not by actions but by words,or things like the fact in practice obama is to the right of romney,yet leberals opposse romney and conservatives oppose obama despite the fact he has reproduced bushs presidency.
 
<<<does not say conservative does it? Regardless, in what world would "conservative talking points" ever defend Obama?

When NAFTA was passed, for instance, there was supposed to be follow up legislation to protect textiles and furniture manufacturing in the US but "Let's wait until we know exactly how they are impacted to be sure what is needed" and the followup protections on vulnerable industries never materialized, and there went most of those 2 vulnerable industries out the door.

You mean you're not aware that the GOP voted for the bill in lockstep and only a minority of Dems did? You mean you don't know who was behind the repeal of Glass-Steigall? Come now
 
You mean you're not aware that the GOP voted for the bill in lockstep and only a minority of Dems did? You mean you don't know who was behind the repeal of Glass-Steigall? Come now

Still does not matter what party people had or have and most of those people are well gone by now, and that is what your talking points don't allow for. Obama is losing because of Bill Clinton. It isn't because of his race, GOP dirty tricks, negative ads, being outspent or anything else other than he is now bent over the toilet in the prison bathroom by Bill Clinton not the GOP.
 
Back
Top Bottom