RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Democrat Leaders Want Automaker Bailout

MEM, I'm curious as to why you think that the other "promises" made pre bankruptcy are ok to be discarded?

GM borrowed and owed many individuals and companies billions that was discarded by bankruptcy. All those contracts are just as much a promise as the Delphi contract. You didn't seem to think it was a broken promise to discard them in bankruptcy, why do you only consider it a promise with UAW members?

GM borrowed and owed many individuals and companies billions that was discarded by bankruptcy. All those contracts are just as much a promise as the Delphi contract. You didn't seem to think it was a broken promise to discard them in bankruptcy, why do you only consider it a promise with UAW members?

You do understand that the company isn't financially able to do that thus the bankruptcy. The company could have just been liquidated and everyone would have gotten less ...

So you admit that, in a normal situation, everyone would have shared the pain equally. However, under the Obama plan, the UAW got more than the others.

Therefore, you admit that the UAW got special treatment.

at least you know it was a political payout.

When did you imagine that?

Reading comprehension is clearly no friend of yours.

Made to both, but kept to only the union members. Again, the very definition of a special favor.

...Delphi has said it must shed its pension obligations to emerge from bankruptcy protection. GM, in the contract that won UAW support for the Delphi spin off in 1999, promised those workers it would make up for any shortfall in their pension payments while they worked for Delphi.


The automaker did not make that same promise to Delphi’s salaried workers. GM, which has been operating on government money, has said it cannot afford to do the same for salaried retirees.
...
freep.com

Reading comprehension is clearly no friend of yours.

Made to both, but kept to only the union members. Again, the very definition of a special favor.

...Delphi has said it must shed its pension obligations to emerge from bankruptcy protection. GM, in the contract that won UAW support for the Delphi spin off in 1999, promised those workers it would make up for any shortfall in their pension payments while they worked for Delphi.


The automaker did not make that same promise to Delphi’s salaried workers. GM, which has been operating on government money, has said it cannot afford to do the same for salaried retirees.
...
freep.com

No. As previously discussed not everyone is treated equally under bankruptcy. (remember how you were for the miniority creditors who wanted to get paid first?) Even with the pension bailout the government doesn't distribute funds equally. Those that were with a company longer get more.

You're talking out of your ass again. Those minor creditors where people who gave GM and Chrysler money to keep the companies going so that they could keep those UAW workers employed. They were secured debt holders who were supposed to get priority over the unsecured holders (i.e. the unions) but weren't because they aren't considered necessary votes to the DNC and Obama.

He made this argument before and was discredited back during the Chrysler bankruptcy. The only "promises" MEM finds binding are the ones to big contributors to the DNC.

You're talking out of your ass again. Those minor creditors where people who gave GM and Chrysler money to keep the companies going so that they could keep those UAW workers employed. They were secured debt holders who were supposed to get priority over the unsecured holders (i.e. the unions) but weren't because they aren't considered necessary votes to the DNC and Obama.

Made to both, but kept to only the union members. Again, the very definition of a special favor.

...Delphi has said it must shed its pension obligations to emerge from bankruptcy protection. GM, in the contract that won UAW support for the Delphi spin off in 1999, promised those workers it would make up for any shortfall in their pension payments while they worked for Delphi.


The automaker did not make that same promise to Delphi’s salaried workers. GM, which has been operating on government money, has said it cannot afford to do the same for salaried retirees.
...
freep.com

MEM thinks that, if he stretches a thread out long enough no one will remember/read the parts where he gets his rhetorical ass handed to him. So he makes some specious claim, it gets disproven, and then he waits until a few pages later in the thread (or days or weeks) to make it again as if it had never been discussed before.

Since I posted this G-man has yet to cite anything to back up his claim that both union and non-union were promised the same thing.

....the tranny pics ....

The government offered a deal that the majority of debtors accepted. That's how the law works.

The government isn't to be questioned when it's controlled by the Democrats. That's how the law works.

Public opposition to the auto bailouts may translating into consumer buying decisions, with 46% of Americans now saying they are more likely to buy a car from Ford because it did not take government money to stay in business.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 13% say they are less likely to buy a Ford because the company didn’t receive a bailout, and 37% say it has no impact on their car buying.

At the same time, nearly one-out-of-five Americans (19%) say someone in their family or a friend has chosen not to buy a car from GM or Chrysler because they took bailout money. Fifty-six percent (56%) say family or friends have not steered clear of GM or Chrysler for this reason, but 26% are not sure.

Most Americans (53%) continue to believe that it is at least somewhat likely that the government, now that it has substantial ownership stakes in GM and Chrysler, will pass laws and regulations giving those two automakers an unfair advantage over Ford. Thirty percent (30%) say it’s very likely. This suspicion has lessened slightly since May.

However, one-out-of-three investors (33%) say it is very likely that the government will give an unfair advantage to the bailed-out automakers.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter.

GM’s recent emergence from bankruptcy with government help seems to have done little to change Americans’ minds. Only 17% say they are more likely to buy a GM car now that the company is out of bankruptcy, while 22% say they are less likely to do so. Fifty-nine percent (59%) say the end of GM’s bankruptcy has no impact on their buying decisions.

Just 13% of Americans say someone in their family or one of their friends has bought a car from Ford recently because it did not take a government bailout. For 73%, that’s not the case, and 14% aren’t sure.

Fifty-one percent (51%) of investors are more likely to buy a Ford, compared to 41% of non-investors. Those working in the private sector by 11 points over government employees give the nod to Ford because it didn’t seek a bailout.

Investors and private sector employees also are less likely to buy a GM car even though the automaker has emerged from bankruptcy.

In June, only 42% of those who currently own a GM car said they were even somewhat likely to buy a GM product for their next car.

Forty-one percent (41%) of Americans expect the quality of GM cars to get worse now that the federal government is the company’s majority owner. Just 19% believe the quality of GM cars will improve.

Most Americans have consistently opposed bailouts for the troubled automakers since they were first proposed late last year.

the UAW was not a secured creditor, thus you admit it was wrong.

Here's my take. Obama is buying time for his government power grab law to get passed, he'll have Geitner grab GM thus preserving the high paid union jobs, and political friends will get the exec jobs.

But if you really don't know a secured creditor owns a lien on the debt loaned, an unsecured creditor does not have a lien. While both creditors are promised repayment in a contract on secured creditors are issue a lien which historically and legally have been the preferred creditors in bankruptcy, until the great UAW payback of '09.