GM- Government Motors

Poconoeagle · By: **Poconoeagle** On: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:33 am

fords suck

Dann757 · By: **Dann757** On: Wed Aug 22, 2012 8:18 am

wsherrick wrote:homecomfort wrote:
If Big O had let Gm die off, the GM that is part of America's manufacturing backbone, a really important asset for the country to possess, then all you crybaby republicans would be pissing yerselves that Prez. O does not have the skills to revive a troubled company, which he in fact very skillfully accomplished, unlike "Gut and kick in the Butt" romney, who only can strip viable companies to suck out the profit for himself, and chosen few investors. suckers. is romney dragging down gop, or is gop dragging down romney? chickens for checkups, gop so laughable. legitimate rape, more gop mind set, criminal minds.

Never mind, it's just not worth it.

Righto Wsherrick; the only way to beat a troll is to ignore it.

samhill · By: **samhill** On: Wed Aug 22, 2012 8:42 am

Can't figure you cons out you want to let at least two of the automakers fail but you want to keep Americans employed, don't know how the loss of many thousands of jobs will create jobs but you guys claim to have all the answers except they are super secret answers that nobody has come up with yet.

SMITTY · By: **SMITTY** On: Wed Aug 22, 2012 9:01 am

Here's a concept for your lefties: It's called THE FREE MARKET. If a business gets in trouble, it fails, restructures, and comes back better than ever.

Your way bails them out, FORCES them to produce "green" *censored* nobody wants, AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE, mind you, selling for a loss, and failing again anyway.

So, how much is enough?? 3 bailouts? 20 bailouts??? When is enough enough for you libbies?

From the size of our deficit, I already know the answer to that one. :mad:

franco b · By: **franco b** On: Wed Aug 22, 2012 9:03 am

samhill wrote:Can't figure you cons out you want to let at least two of the automakers fail but you want to keep Americans employed, don't know how the loss of many thousands of jobs will create jobs but you guys claim to have all the answers except they are super secret answers that nobody has come up with yet.

We don't believe in subsidy for big business at taxpayer expense. GM would have been taken over in whole or part by someone else and most of the jobs would remain. That's what happened to Chrysler. By bailing out GM there is no pressure to change poor practices by both management and labor. In fact they are encouraged.

SMITTY · By: **SMITTY** On: Wed Aug 22, 2012 9:07 am

Exactly. It's just like Worcester & Boston -- both cities loaded with people with their hand out not wanting to work .... and the state of MA is more than willing to "help" them out (in exchange for votes, of course).

You think anyone in those 2 cities is going to find a job?? Why would they? Those 2 cities will continue spiraling down that path of destruction.

Same deal with GM - nothing will change.

samhill · By: **samhill** On: Wed Aug 22, 2012 9:43 am

Even Bain wouldn't or couldn't take over GM, at that time very few countries were in good shape, China would have been one of the few & would you want a foreign country taking over an American business on American soil? We have way too much of that sort of thing already even if most seem to play by the rules I hardly think a Communist country would play fair.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics ... -gm/48909/

franco b · By: **franco b** On: Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:11 am

samhill wrote:Even Bain wouldn't or couldn't take over GM, at that time very few countries were in good shape, China would have been one of the few & would you want a foreign country taking over an American business on American soil? We have way too much of that sort of thing already even if most seem to play by the rules I hardly think a Communist country would play fair.

That's what is called setting up a straw man so it's easy to knock him down. First you say China is the only possibility, which is not true, then show how bad that would be.

Just plain old bankruptcy would also have been an option. Protection from creditors and time to reorganize the company and get rid of wasteful practices. Failing that any of the other car companies could have taken over in whole or part. How about a bankrupt K Mart taking over Sears. Google and Microsoft are sitting on barrels of money. Stranger things have happened. GM would still exist, it would not disappear. Any takeover company would be crazy to let that happen, just as Chrysler still remains after being taken over first by Mercedes and now by Fiat. Cars would still be produced here no matter who owned the company.

samhill · By: **samhill** On: Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:26 am

At that time no banks were doing any better than the automakers, just who was there to take over the Co.? Chrysler? Ford,( downsizing themselves), don't think Walmart or God Fathers Pizza were interested.

franco b · By: **franco b** On: Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:59 am

samhill wrote:At that time no banks were doing any better than the automakers, just who was there to take over the Co.? Chrysler? Ford,( downsizing themselves), don't think Walmart or God Fathers Pizza were interested.

That's where companies like Bain come in. They exist because they are better at estimating true worth of a company and pinpointing where the problems are, also in raising the capital needed. Sometimes they sell it off in parts or sometimes they correct the problems and make the company prosperous, like Staples. Their self interest lies in making a company more efficient and more valuable. That's what they are good at and if they judge wrong they go out of business too. The companies that Bain took over got themselves in trouble not Bain. Sometimes they can be saved, other times not.

Didn't I read that you ran a company that did estate sales? How accurately you judged prices would have major effect on your commission. Too high and not enough sales. Too low and lower commission. Very similar to what Bain does. If you prospered it was because your judgement was good.

samhill · By: **samhill** On: Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:02 pm

No Franco, Bain made their money either way & for the most part they used other peoples money, my business the more we made for the client the more we made. No other investors, if somehow we would have taken a beating then it was our loss, didn't make much but it was something we enjoyed doing. Read up on just how Bain did business, they drove some clients out so they would make more. They had the chance with GM & refused just like everyone else because of the economy at that time.

franco b · By: **franco b** On: Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:55 pm

I did say a company like Bain, and of course they use mostly other peoples money. If their track record was not good they would not get any. People invest their money where they think a profit can be made. If that means dismantling a company, so be it. If it can be saved that's OK too.

My point is that government bailout of GM was not the only option or even the best one, especially now that it looks like they will fail again.

samhill · By: **samhill** On: Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:02 pm

Franco, like I had asked to begin with at that time what other options were out there, they tried Bain which is one of if not the largest & were turned down so what private source was there? It' always easy to second guess afterwards but at that given point & time I don't think there were many options.

franco b · By: **franco b** On: Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:45 pm

Like I said bankruptcy. They would keep on producing cars and get their act together and in time come out of bankruptcy a better company. Under those conditions a sure money loser like the Volt would not be produced. Management is now under the control of the union and government and that just about guarantees they will go under again. So how are they better off? They will be if subsidies continue but the taxpayer and the country will not. It's not as if they have some special technology vital to the country. The're not too big to fail and they most likely will. What makes them so special while the rest of the country suffers?

You witnessed the steel industry go down and it made a mess and it still is a mess. Would it have been any better with government artificially keeping up prices, and would it have lasted?

Coalfire · By: **Coalfire** On: Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:49 pm

samhill wrote:Franco, like I had asked to begin with at that time what other options were out there, they tried Bain which is one of if not the largest & were turned down so what private source was there? It' always easy to second guess afterwards but at that given point & time I don't think there were many options.

Do you think Bain may have turned it down cause romney was going to run for president? He has nothing to do with bain now, but there was no problem running that ad about where the lady got cancer years after romney left bain eluding that he was responsible for her death. I could just see the democrats using an ad if Bain had gone into GM, against romney. As much as you can say there was no other option I can say there was.

Eric

GM- Government Motors

Re: GM- Government Motors

Re: GM- Government Motors

Re: GM- Government Motors

Re: GM- Government Motors

Re: GM- Government Motors

Re: GM- Government Motors

Re: GM- Government Motors

Re: GM- Government Motors

Re: GM- Government Motors

Re: GM- Government Motors

Re: GM- Government Motors

Re: GM- Government Motors

Re: GM- Government Motors

Re: GM- Government Motors

Re: GM- Government Motors