Get HuskerMax™ on your iPhone. Click here for details. Get tickets for all home and away games here.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 31

Thread: Forget Bain — Obama’s public-equity record is the real scandal

  1. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Husker Mort View Post
    Ford actively lobbied for the automotive bail-out and requested up to a $9Bn line of credit had the economy gotten worse. They did not go into bankruptcy, but DID receive $5.9Bn from the Fed that they used (and subsequently repaid) to retool a few of their production lines for smaller, more efficient cars. What pool it came out of is semantics -- they took money at the same time others were and paid it back as others have. They were also a major proponent and benefactor of the Cash for Clunkers program.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2011/09/for...n-on-bailouts/

    As for the bailout, Fla, you're rushing to judgment too quickly. Payback is ahead of schedule and the citizens have actually made $41Bn so far in interest. Obviously, some of those that took funds will not be able to pay it back fully, so while you may ultimately be right it is incorrect to say anybody has lost money at present. It would be like saying my bank has lost a ton of money because I have yet to pay off my house.

    http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/main/summary
    To me, the real question is whether the bailout was a superior solution to a structured bankruptcy without the bailout. GM and Chrysler would be in basically the same financial position now if they had instead gone through structured bankruptcy but with no bailout. The basic difference between the two scenarios is that the unions would have fared worse and the secured bondholders would have fared better in a non-bailout structured bankruptcy.

    It is a simple, undeniable fact, that the UAW's contracts with GM and Chrysler are not competitive with how auto manufacturing employees are compensated elsewhere in the world, or in non-union shops in the United States.
    "The distinctive mark of the Christian, today more than ever, must be love for the poor, the weak, the suffering." Pope John Paul II


  2. #17
    Guest

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    6,962
    Quote Originally Posted by Husker Mort View Post
    This post is a massive failure. You must not be following the news, but Ford and Chrysler have repaid the debt (with interest) and GM has a timeline to do so.
    Quote Originally Posted by FLA4NEB View Post
    Ford didn't get bailed out and didn't go into bankruptcy.
    Quote Originally Posted by HuZkurZ View Post
    Dude, Ford didn't get a bail out and is doing great.
    Quote Originally Posted by Husker Mort View Post
    They did not go into bankruptcy, but DID receive $5.9Bn from the Fed that they used (and subsequently repaid) to retool a few of their production lines for smaller, more efficient cars.
    http://www.factcheck.org/2011/09/for...n-on-bailouts/


    From factcheck.org:

    the only one of the Big Three not to receive a bailout (Ford)
    It’s true that Ford was not “bailed out by our government,” as Chris says
    Ford did not receive any money under AIFP
    Somtimes it's better to just say you are wrong and own it.

  3. #18
    The Tech Support Guy
    Huskermedic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, United States
    Posts
    21,910
    Quote Originally Posted by ChitownHusker View Post
    To me, the real question is whether the bailout was a superior solution to a structured bankruptcy without the bailout. GM and Chrysler would be in basically the same financial position now if they had instead gone through structured bankruptcy but with no bailout. The basic difference between the two scenarios is that the unions would have fared worse and the secured bondholders would have fared better in a non-bailout structured bankruptcy.

    It is a simple, undeniable fact, that the UAW's contracts with GM and Chrysler are not competitive with how auto manufacturing employees are compensated elsewhere in the world, or in non-union shops in the United States.
    This.

  4. #19
    Varsity
    Husker Mort's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    10,101
    Quote Originally Posted by ChitownHusker View Post
    To me, the real question is whether the bailout was a superior solution to a structured bankruptcy without the bailout. GM and Chrysler would be in basically the same financial position now if they had instead gone through structured bankruptcy but with no bailout. The basic difference between the two scenarios is that the unions would have fared worse and the secured bondholders would have fared better in a non-bailout structured bankruptcy.

    It is a simple, undeniable fact, that the UAW's contracts with GM and Chrysler are not competitive with how auto manufacturing employees are compensated elsewhere in the world, or in non-union shops in the United States.
    That's true, Chitown, but don't discount contextual advantages as well. Neither of the big three have the advantage that Nissan and Toyota have in their home countries: universal health care. How much more successful would American manufacturing be if employer-provided healthcare was taken off the table?
    "OK. Appreciate the info." Bo Pelini

  5. #20
    Varsity
    Husker Mort's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    10,101
    Quote Originally Posted by Husker Mort View Post
    Ford actively lobbied for the automotive bail-out and requested up to a $9Bn line of credit had the economy gotten worse. They did not go into bankruptcy, but DID receive $5.9Bn from the Fed that they used (and subsequently repaid) to retool a few of their production lines for smaller, more efficient cars. What pool it came out of is semantics -- they took money at the same time others were and paid it back as others have. They were also a major proponent and benefactor of the Cash for Clunkers program.
    Quote Originally Posted by HuZkurZ View Post
    Somtimes it's better to just say you are wrong and own it.
    Sometimes it's better to read and comprehend a post before trying to discredit it.
    "OK. Appreciate the info." Bo Pelini

  6. #21
    Blackshirt

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    15,661
    Quote Originally Posted by FLA4NEB View Post
    Ford didn't get bailed out and didn't go into bankruptcy.

    The tax payers are still losing money on the bailout.

    I am not poo pooing GM or Chrysler but the fact that we were told that by the Obama administration that bailing GM and Chysler out would keep them from going into bankruptcy. What got GM back into the saddle wasn't the bailout but the re-org under bankruptcy.

    The million jobs claim is a bogus number there wouldn't have been millions of jobs lost if they didn't get the bailout. They would have gone into bankruptcy and about he same number of jobs would have been lost.
    So the jobs number is bogus just because you say so? The bailout money allowed a structured bankruptcy to happen. There was no private money so the auto industry wouldn't have been able to go into bankruptcy they would have gone under.
    I cried because I had no shoes until I saw a man that had no feet.

  7. #22
    Scout Team
    RedRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Amarillo, TX
    Posts
    3,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Husker Mort View Post
    As for the bailout, Fla, you're rushing to judgment too quickly. Payback is ahead of schedule and the citizens have actually made $41Bn so far in interest. Obviously, some of those that took funds will not be able to pay it back fully, so while you may ultimately be right it is incorrect to say anybody has lost money at present. It would be like saying my bank has lost a ton of money because I have yet to pay off my house.

    http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/main/summary
    I thought the majority of this payback was in the stock issuance and projected increases in value. With the stock price down 1/3, the government would not recoup the money it lent.

    I believe GM got $41 billion total and that is not interest received.

    GM also received a huge advantage over bankruptcy. They were allowed to carry forward $16 billion in tax-loss carryforwards, so instead of paying $2 billion in federal income tax last year, they received a $134 million tax refund after applying it. There are other state tax breaks as well where the automakers get to keep the state income taxes taken from their employees paychecks.

  8. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Husker Mort View Post
    That's true, Chitown, but don't discount contextual advantages as well. Neither of the big three have the advantage that Nissan and Toyota have in their home countries: universal health care. How much more successful would American manufacturing be if employer-provided healthcare was taken off the table?
    Well, it's hard to say. It's not like the health care expenditure of companies like Ford would just disappear if we went to a single payer plan. They would have to pay the government higher taxes to support universal health care. In effect, Ford would just be switching providers from whatever insurance company that they use now to the government. That's not to say that it wouldn't be a net advantage to a company like Ford, just that it's health care expenses would not disappear.
    "The distinctive mark of the Christian, today more than ever, must be love for the poor, the weak, the suffering." Pope John Paul II


  9. #24
    All Big 10
    FLA4NEB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Central FLA
    Posts
    19,515
    Quote Originally Posted by Warhorse View Post
    So the jobs number is bogus just because you say so? The bailout money allowed a structured bankruptcy to happen. There was no private money so the auto industry wouldn't have been able to go into bankruptcy they would have gone under.
    Is the million job number true just because a lot of politicals quote it over and over?

    GM and Chrysler should have gone through bankruptcy first. It wouldn't have caused any more job loss than accrued in the actual bankruptcy.

    Remember after the bailout and the Obama admin structured bankruptcy thousands of people lost their jobs and business. Thousands of pensioners lost value in their funds (most of them teachers and public worker retires by the way). GM returned to its old ways that put them into bankruptcy. The tax payers have not been paid back and GM has been given special tax privlage (as well as status for government fleet sales).

    The millions don't add up because it would mean all their suppliers and dealers would have to go belly up. Almost all suppliers produce components for every other auto manufacture. Most dealers franchise multiple auto manufactures or be long to a group. Going into bankruptcy doesn't mean out of business...one million job loss is bogus number meant to scare the weak minded sheeple.
    I am Fred Lawrence Anderson and I approve this post.

  10. #25
    All Big 10
    FLA4NEB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Central FLA
    Posts
    19,515
    Do you know who made at really well on the bail out...FIAT. We tax payers sure sweetened that deal for them.
    I am Fred Lawrence Anderson and I approve this post.

  11. #26
    Scout Team
    RedRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Amarillo, TX
    Posts
    3,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Husker Mort View Post
    That's true, Chitown, but don't discount contextual advantages as well. Neither of the big three have the advantage that Nissan and Toyota have in their home countries: universal health care. How much more successful would American manufacturing be if employer-provided healthcare was taken off the table?
    Does GM receive a tax credit for providing heath care? Are they self-insured? I don't know the answer to this, but would expect that to be the case. So GM would likely set a market place premium and get 1/2 of it from their employees as a contribution to the plan. The employees portion comes out tax free. GM would then pay claims themselves trying to keep costs lower than their half of the premium and deduct what they pay as an expense.

    So lets say the average plan was $20,000 and GM paid out $10,000. They may have a net impact of $7,000 per year or about $3.25 per hour. So how is it that GM was estimating around $1,500 per car in insurance costs as an average worker would put out more than 4 or 5 cars per year? They had almost 3 retirees on the plan for every worker. In their reorganization, the union now takes on health insurance and they are claiming a $2k savings per vehicle.

    I think this was always a crutch for GM. Nissan, Honda and Toyota don't make a cheaper car, they make a better car. A $1,500 difference would not have made most buyers change their pick of vehicles.

  12. #27
    Husker Fan

    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Posts
    40,855
    maybe the real scandal is the Politicians themselves in DC...hmm.

  13. #28
    Red Shirt

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Not Chicago anymore
    Posts
    2,450
    Quote Originally Posted by Husker Mort View Post
    That's true, Chitown, but don't discount contextual advantages as well. Neither of the big three have the advantage that Nissan and Toyota have in their home countries: universal health care. How much more successful would American manufacturing be if employer-provided healthcare was taken off the table?
    I agree with you. Almost all of the issues that we face as a nation and often times individually can be traced back to the enormous black hole that is American healthcare.

    But, I also agree with Chitown#1 (I give deference to the intellect) that privately funded healthcare expense would just be supplanted by publicly funded healthcare expense in the form of truly massive tax hikes. Our government cannot even hope and pray to pay for the commitments they have already made in the healthcare arena.

    The only solution is REAL healthcare reform to make things less expensive. That is going to be one sticky mess. There are so many ethical issues it is mind boggling. In addition, given that I think 1/6th of the nation is employed in healthcare business, things could get really messy. It is sort of "THE bubble". You want to continue to encourage innovation and new technology, but that is driving a lot of the spiking costs today. Also, you don't want to leave people hung out to dry as is the case with our current system.

    Frankly, I don't have a good answer. I do know that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is not it.

  14. #29
    Guest

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    6,962
    Quote Originally Posted by Husker Mort View Post
    Sometimes it's better to read and comprehend a post before trying to discredit it.
    Comprehend?

    They didn't take the bail out and did not go through bankruptcy, period. However, despite your own link saying so you still can't comprehend it.

  15. #30
    Varsity
    Husker Mort's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    10,101
    Thanks to the several posters who salvaged the thread and made a good discussion out of it.
    "OK. Appreciate the info." Bo Pelini







Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •