Discussion in 'Off Topic 2' started by tenacious, Mar 2, 2019.
Don’t sell yourself short pozo.
Your posts prove it's "possible to be this stupid"...
WASHINGTON — President George W. Bush announced Friday that he would extend up to $17.4 billion in emergency loans to prevent the collapse of General Motors and Chrysler, but he left it up to the next administration to determine how much sacrifice to demand from the hobbled automakers and their workers as part of the government's effort to nurse Detroit back to health.
You aren’t smart enough to ask yourself how he could “leave it up to the next administration...?” What rights does an administration have over a company in the first place? Zero...but wait, did GW Bush take rights when he gave them a loan? Like a piece of the company maybe and controls over the business? You still haven’t figured out where it started? You may not like the way Obama exercised those rights, but they arose initially from Bush’s loan. Not from Congress either...
Bankruptcy would have done the same job. Only better.
In other words bankruptcy.
What does bankruptcy have to do with a bailout? Now you know.
You people are simpletons. You’re the worst of all of them because you act like you know anything.
GM, Chrysler Get Ultimatum From Obama on Turnaround
President Obama asserted unprecedented government control over the auto industry Monday, rejecting turnaround plans from General Motors and Chrysler and raising the prospect of controlled bankruptcy for either ailing auto giant.
Eager to reassure consumers, Obama also announced the federal government would immediately begin backing the warranties that new car buyers receive _ a step designed to signal that it is safe to purchase U.S.-made autos and trucks despite the distress of the industry.
In a statement read at the White House, Obama said he was "absolutely committed" to the survival of a domestic auto industry that can compete internationally. And yet, "our auto industry is not moving in the right direction fast enough," he added.
With his words, Obama underscored the extent to which the government is now dictating terms to two of the country's iconic corporations, much as it has already taken an ownership stake in banks, the insurance giant AIG and housing titans Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac .
In an extraordinary move, the administration forced the departure of Rick Wagoner as CEO of General Motors over the weekend, and implicit in Obama's remarks was that the government holds the ability to pull the plug on that company or Chrysler.
The Bush administration late last year approved $17 billion in federal funds to help GM and Chrysler survive. It also demanded both companies submit restructuring plans that the Obama administration would review.
Even as he pronounced their effort unsatisfactory, the president said the administration will offer General Motors "adequate working capital" over the next 60 days to produce a reorganization plan acceptable to the administration.
He said Chrysler's situation is more perilous, and the government will give the company 30 days to overcome hurdles to a merger with Fiat, the Italian automaker. If they are successful "we will consider lending up to $6 billion to help their plan succeed," Obama said.
He also announced several steps to reassure consumers, and improve the chances that U.S. automakers will be able to sell their cars and trucks. The president said the government will now stand behind warranties issued by the carmakers, a sweeping new guarantee that some in Congress had sought.
Maybe if you make the font bigger people will stop mocking you.
Bankruptcy = Bailout was your last understanding. You should just admit that you didn’t know what you were talking about. Neither did Bush and ‘Bama.
I made it bigger so those blinded by their own ignorance might read it...apparently that includes you Magoo...
He was bored
It didn't work. People are still mocking you.
And those would be ignorant people... like you.
Who Magoo? You? Daffy? Your child messy? Those people? BFD.
You sound like you agree with the government takeover of GM.
Why don't you tell us where you stand on the government taking over businesses and dictating company policies and philosophies?
Do you need larger script or perhaps more meds?
From Forbes in 11/2014:
The White House forced policies on GM’s management that were oriented toward its own ideology rather than market factors. Obama himself bragged about it at a town hall meeting in Minnesota in 2011: “What we said was, if we’re going to help you, then you’ve also got to change your ways. You can’t just make money on SUV’s and trucks….And so what we’ve now seen is an investment in electric vehicles.”
That “investment” gave us the money-losing Chevy Volt, and political control of the company led to a series of other policy decisions that sapped the energy out of GM’s rebirth. These decisions including everything from union pension policies to advertising campaigns that did more for Obama’s reelection than GM’s market share.
We’ll never know where GM would be today if it had been allowed to go through bankruptcy in the ordinary way. But there’s no reason to believe the current management, appointed by Washington politicians, has been more competent than the executives who might have taken over following a Chapter 11 reorganization.
The National Legal Policy Center survey underscores the prevalence of the distaste in one state alone. Clearly, the “Government Motors” moniker is still hurting GM. For the company, the bailout resulted in bad business policies and bad public relations. The government never should have done it, and should get out as fast as it can. Maybe then, General Motors can begin its real recovery.
Fortunately for GM the government did get out and GM made a "real" recovery.
Now Chevrolet offers the Bolt --
I haven't bought a new car since 1990 (not counting the new cars my wife bought), but if I were in the market today for a new car it would be for a plug-in hybrid even though I would have to pay a premium for the electricity at the plugin station at the bus stop since there is no practicalway to do it in the apartment where we live now. I am currently trying to sell and/or donate my 1996 Toyota T100 pickup (don't need to haul big loads any more) and I am driving a 2009 Chevy HHR which gets much better gas mileage than the pickup, has a big enough carrying capacity for anything I am doing now, and only cost me $2200.
At the time of the GM takeover I was pissed at what a decade of fairytale economics had done to our retirement funds and real estate values, and doing anything seemed to be better than toying with the possibility of a 21st Century Depression. My parents both told me that they didn't see much impact of the 30's Depression because they were both living on farms so their parents' employment was unaffected and were already poor so the government recovery programs all seemed like improvements to their condition.
No new revelations today from your tech-savvy son's web archive searches?
Had W not given them the money in the first place, they would be gone now. But they suck anyway.
Not true. Cash for clunkers would have bailed them out. Lol!
"But they suck anyway".....what are you twelve?
NO they would not be gone now..they would have gone through BK court like many others did...
I have no problem saving GM.
I have a problem with the governments "unprecedented" take over...