Forward!

#76
#76
volinbham said:
But then Mitt and Obama are both wrong. Mitt is saying it could be done without the government and Obama is saying they did it the only way that it could be done and without that specific plan the American auto industry would be gone.

Both are taking absolutist positions but only Mitt seems to be getting called out for it.
Click to expand...

I don't see it that way. Obama basically goes out and says that the only reason GM still exists is because of government intervention, which is true -- intervention that happened to be packed full of hookups to his political supporters.

They both suck, but for different reasons. Romney is talking out of both sides of his mouth while Obama paid back political favors.
 
#77
#77
milohimself said:
I don't see it that way. Obama basically goes out and says that the only reason GM still exists is because of government intervention, which is true -- intervention that happened to be packed full of hookups to his political supporters.

They both suck, but for different reasons. Romney is talking out of both sides of his mouth while Obama paid back political favors.
Click to expand...

Agree to disagree - no way Obama would have supported only doing a bridge loan and then letting normal bankruptcy occur. No effin' way. To me it is emblematic of his view of what government intervention means.
 
#78
#78
volinbham said:
Agree to disagree - no way Obama would have supported only doing a bridge loan and then letting normal bankruptcy occur. No effin' way. To me it is emblematic of his view of what government intervention means.
Click to expand...

According to some on here, even a bridge loan would have constituted a bailout, and definitively that's correct. I agree it was too large and went too far, but once one comes to the conclusion that GM needed to survive, then there was no logical extension of that that didn't include some sort of intervention. I doubt Romney would be where he is right now if he even said that much.
 
#79
#79
544963_10100469376288129_17810148_45086440_733072070_n.jpg
 
#80
#80
On the GM bailout subject. Didn't the stockholders, people like you and me, lose all intrest in the company with the bailout?
 
#81
#81
hog88 said:
On the GM bailout subject. Didn't the stockholders, people like you and me, lose all intrest in the company with the bailout?
Click to expand...

If you're a stockholder, you should probably know the answer. Did you?
 
#82
#82
Danl said:
If you're a stockholder, you should probably know the answer. Did you?
Click to expand...

No, I wasn't that's why I asked. I meant ordinary people, 401k plans that held GM stock.
I have been a stockholder in a company that filed for BR and when they emerged I still had my shares.

As I understand GM is a whole different company now than before the bailout?
 
#83
#83
hog88 said:
No, I wasn't that's why I asked. I meant ordinary people, 401k plans that held GM stock.
I have been a stockholder in a company that filed for BR and when they emerged I still had my shares.

As I understand GM is a whole different company now than before the bailout?
Click to expand...

I would guess that GM stock, like the stock of all companies that go bankrupt, went to zero or near-zero. If true, this would have happened whether or not there was a bailout of GM. If anyone knows better, I would be curious.
 
#84
#84
^^After research it appears the common stockholder lost all investment in the company, under BR there was a chance this would not happen. The bailout demanded it, it's the (new) GM, completely new company.
 
#85
#85
Danl said:
I would guess that GM stock, like the stock of all companies that go bankrupt, went to zero or near-zero. If true, this would have happened whether or not there was a bailout of GM. If anyone knows better, I would be curious.
Click to expand...

weren't the GM bond holders told to pound sand as their shares were given to the uaw?
 
#89
#89
hog88 said:
On the GM bailout subject. Didn't the stockholders, people like you and me, lose all intrest in the company with the bailout?
Click to expand...

The old GM traded under the symbol MTLQQ. It was around $1 but now it doesn't even have a bid/ask. Aka it's worthless. The new GM trades under the ticker GM and that is a totally separate company
 
#90
#90
Danl said:
I would guess that GM stock, like the stock of all companies that go bankrupt, went to zero or near-zero. If true, this would have happened whether or not there was a bailout of GM. If anyone knows better, I would be curious.
Click to expand...

True that it goes to zero, but you still own it and it will increase in value again if the company comes out of BR. What GM/BHO did was to totally screw the public owners of GM stock and especially the bond holders.
 
#91
#91
volinbham said:
Agree with the first part but not the second. We would have all been knee deep in canine and bovine crap without some form of TARP. Some crap on our shoes without GM bailout.

I have my idealistic side (no bailouts) and practical (we have to do something to prevent an all out collapse) side.
Click to expand...


Was the moral hazard worth it?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top