GM files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy

MR Touhy wrote:

<quoted text>
But I though GWB inherited a surplus. What happended?

Carguy wrote:

<quoted text>
If you didn't understand the difference in ownership structures between GM and Chrysler LLC, you're not informed enough to have an opinion on this matter that should be given any regard. GM was publicly owned on the market. Chrysler, on the other hand, was a private holding of Cerberus. I don't think they should have been eligible for federal loan money (not bailout money, as uninformed people like yourself seem to believe), but the fact is that the decision to sell to a foreign entity was that of their owner: Cerberus.
Are you saying that you support the idea that the government should be able to tell private companies whether they can sell their private assets, or are you simply playing the part of a hypocrite because, in spite of all your statements, you really don't have anything worthwhile to say? I'm going to guess that you just don't have any idea at all as to what the hell you're talking about.
The worst part about government ownership of GM is that, to a small degree, their future is now in the hands of people like you. Subjecting the company to the whims of people that are totally ignorant of the industry is not a good thing.

Joe wrote:

<quoted text>
The real question is: why do the conservatives hate america?

staci wrote:

<quoted text>
Like -- we still have such a confused and superficial voting populace they would have rather seen an idiot like Sarah Palin as president over an obviously intelligent man like Barrack Obama. Like -- the idiocy of these boards seems to permeate society and you can't buy an intelligent debate with a year's salary.

Econ 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
what difference does it make whether they were privately held or publicly traded. Both get treated the same in bankruptcy court and ownership structure is mostly not relevant. The problem was obama stepping in and negotiating the reorganized ownership structure and skrewing the bondholders who would have been much better off going through a full bankruptcy proceeding.
There was absolutely NO legal precedent for Obama to arbitrarily give the UAW such a disproportionate ownership stake at the expense of other creditors who legally deserved equal standing as per the contractual rights of any creditor ina chapter 11 proceeding. Most of you seem not to understand that a chapter 11 is merely a reorganization of the company and not the liquidation of it, which is a chapter 7. Both GM and Chrysler could have gone through a normal bankruptcy proceeding without the gov't intervention but it probably would have made the process longer but the UAW would not have benefitted so much.
I would love for anyone to try and provide a sound legal argument as to the basis for obama granting the uaw the amout of its ownership stake given that it held less debt than the bondholders.

smudge wrote:

<quoted text>
Like a Federal bailout of California?
It's apparent that your state has a monopoly on idiocy!
Meanwhile, Obama, the real CEO of Government Motors, patronizes terrorist sponsored nations, while chastising Israel. Will you ever see the light?
****!

collectivist drone wrote:

<quoted text>
Easy solutions. Stop your buddy maobama from spending so much, tell your congresspeople to vote against universal healthcare, nuke the middle east after we get those kids out of there.
The comment about obama being obviously intelligent made me **** myself laughing. You are easily fooled.

staci wrote:

<quoted text>
And you are easily led around by the nose spewing your talking points. Just a suggestion -- why don't you at least grow up to the point where you can address the man by his name?

staci wrote:

<quoted text>
And you are easily led around by the nose spewing your talking points. Just a suggestion -- why don't you at least grow up to the point where you can address the man by his name?

collectivist drone wrote:

<quoted text>
Spewing talking points? Really? Please point out where what I have typed is false.
bho is a marxist community organizer with no experience governing anything.
Of course, you can trot out any of the talking points you want that are spewed by you tools of the left. Give it a go.
You're a perfect example of the low level of intelligence among bho voters.

moreofthesame wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't remember the democrats being "grown up" when they called President Bush "w", along with a host of others.
Barry doesn't deserve any respect and won't receive any. Respect is earned, and I don't think barry ever earned a thing in his life.

staci wrote:

<quoted text>
Okey dokey -- I'm done with you. You're resorting to "he said it first". OMG, can you get any more juvenile?

staci wrote:

<quoted text>
Drone is such an apt name for you. Carry on.

My GGGeneration wrote:

<quoted text>
Initially, when Detroit began to have problems and the UAW started to make concessions, I thought maybe... just maybe... they were "getting it". In addition, I think it's unfair to hold current membership responsible for deals that were made decades ago. Besides, companies today attract GOOD, qualified employees with promises of higher pay, 401k's, day care, work at home, RETIREMENT FUNDS, and other perks. How else can they go into the marketplace and get the cream of the crop if they don'f offer more than the other guy? Anyway, the point here is that the UAW isn't the sole reason for all the issues in Detroit by any stretch... the biggest reason is once the mortgage crisis hit it became nearly impossible for them to obtain cash to operate day-to-day.
That said, it's still glaringly obvious the reason for the UAW stake is THEY VOTED FOR HIM.