 |
|
| Browse | Ask | Answer | Search | Join/Login |
|
|
||||
|
But we NEEDED to do it.
The cry of the Obama administration, and the Bush administration before it, is that we NEEDED to bail out the banks, AIG and the big three auto makers. They were all too big and important to fail.
Bull-puckey. This was never about these organizations being too big to fail. This has always been about government control of finance and industry. Want proof? Obama is talking about letting GM fail, letting them go through bankruptcy... which is exactly what conservatives like myself have been saying we should have done all along. But his argument until now has been that GM is too big to fail. What's changed? Why aren't they too big to fail now? Answer: Obama has control of the auto industry now. Now that he has control, there's nothing to big or too small to fail. Want some more proof? JP Morgan Chase wants to pay back the TARP money, but is not being allowed to do so until the government decides that it's OK to do so. What kind of lender doesn't want his borrower to pay back the loan that he made to them? Not a very good one. But Obama is that guy. He doesn't want TARP funds repaid, because then he can't control JP Morgan Chase. Suddenly, the guy who said that he has no intention or desire to take control of private businesses like GM or AIG or the banks is trying to get TARP funds invested in banks to be turned into equity ownership of those banks. That same guy is firing heads of private corporations (GM) and stating his intentions to pack the board of directors with his own guys. So much for "no desire and no intention" to control private businesses. We are moving toward socialism very quickly, and the excuse being used is "We needed to do it." We need to be more careful about what it is we really "need" for our economic health vs. what some people want for political idealism. We are changing the way our country works based on a non-existant "need". Be careful what you wish for, Obamaniacs. You might just get it. Elliot |
||||
|
||||
|
The gvt said that Strong banks will be allowed to repay federal bailout funds, but only if such a move passes a test to determine whether it is in the national economic interest. (as determined by Obama and Geithner) http://www.reuters.com/article/gc06/...53J03720090420 The latest scheme is to exchange TARP with equity in the banks. US may convert bank bailout to equity share - NYT | Markets | US Markets | Reuters Next ,like in the auto sector, they will make appointment decisions on the Board of Directors of the banks. They got their hooks into the financial industry and they will not let go. Consider the financial sector nationalized (ala Chavez). |
||||
|
||||
|
Inthebox,
Obama: GM, Chrysler Must Restructure or Face Bankruptcy - US News and World Report
Obama: GM, Chrysler Must Restructure or Face Bankruptcy
Obama said the carmakers need more radical changes to prevent them from becoming "wards of the state" By Amanda Ruggeri Posted March 30, 2009 In a dramatic move, the Obama administration announced today that restructuring plans issued by General Motors and Chrysler are untenable, upping the likelihood of bankruptcy among the Big Three and effectively launching one of the biggest instances of government intervention the recession has yet seen. "These companies and this industry must ultimately stand on their own, not as wards of the state," President Obama said this morning. "After careful analysis, we've decided that neither goes far enough." In rejecting the viability plans that were submitted by GM and Chrysler in response to a government stipulation to be met before the companies received any more federal funding, the administration laid out its own program. It includes continuing to pump money into the automakers for a brief period as they come up with better plans for restructuring. If those programs don't seem tenable, the companies may be left to file for bankruptcy. Although a bankruptcy filing could be part of the companies' "fresh start," Obama emphasized that it would not be "a process where a company is simply broken up and sold off to where it no longer exists." Instead, he said, it would mean "using our existing legal structure as a tool" that could help GM and Chrysler clear away their debts quickly, "even as workers are staying on the job." The company that could be headed for bankruptcy first is Chrysler, which, Obama said, "needs a partner to remain viable." The administration will continue propping up Chrysler for 30 more days to allow it to finalize an ongoing plan to merge with the Italian carmaker Fiat. If it's successful, Chrysler may get up to $6 billion in added loans from the government; otherwise, it won't see any more. Shortly after Obama's speech, Chrysler said in a statement that it had taken another step toward that final deal, having "reached agreement on a global alliance" with Fiat. But Chrysler has said it will have to declare bankruptcy by the end of the month unless it gets $11 billion in aid, on top of the $4 billion it has already received. Since GM has fared better in its efforts, the administration has given it two more months to present a plan that will cut costs significantly, during which time the company will be aided with an unspecified amount of "adequate working capital," Obama said. One step already taken was to oust CEO Rick Wagoner, who was in charge as GM lost nearly $73 billion between 2005 and 2008. Wagoner had been making a $1 annual salary. The Bush administration extended $17.4 billion in loans to GM and Chrysler in December, and the companies have asked for $22 billion more, which they say is necessary to survive through the year. <snip> Bankruptcy Leads Possible Plans for GM, Chrysler - WSJ.com
MARCH 30, 2009, 7:39 P.M. ET Bankruptcy Leads Possible Plans for GM, Chrysler
By JEFFREY MCCRACKEN, MONICA LANGLEY and JOHN D. STOLL WASHINGTON -- The Obama's administration's leading plan to fix General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC would use bankruptcy filings to purge the ailing companies of their biggest problems, including bondholder debt and retiree health-care costs, according to people familiar with the matter. The move would in essence split both companies into their "good" and "bad" components. The government would like to see the "good" GM to be a standalone company, according to an administration official. The "good" Chrysler would be sold to Fiat SpA, assuming that deal is completed, this person said. GM and Chrysler have had bankruptcy attorneys devising plans for such a move in recent months. President Barack Obama's task force has told both companies that the administration prefers this route as a way to reorganize the two auto makers, rather than the prolonged out-of-court process that has thus far frustrated administration officials. GM looks increasingly like it will be forced into filing for bankruptcy protection, sometime in mid-to-late May, in a plan where the automaker breaks into two companies, the surviving entity a "new GM" that maintains key brands such as Chevy and Cadillac and some international units, say several people familiar with the situation. Stakes in this new GM could be given to creditors and UAW members. It is also possible the new company could be sold whole or in parts to investors. The auto makers could avoid bankruptcy in the next two months. And there is some brinksmanship still going on in GM's high-level talks with bondholders, union members and creditors. A key ingredient is getting the UAW to agree to an entirely new labor contract, including major reductions in health-care benefits, according to several people involved in the matter. "That's the No.1 wildcard here," one of these people said Monday. Under this plan, the "good" GM would not be expected to hold the tens of billions of dollars in retiree and health care obligations that hurt the auto maker in recent decades. Instead, those obligations would be transferred to an "old GM," made up of less-desirable brands like Hummer and Saturn, and underperforming plants and other assets. This part of GM would likely sit in bankruptcy much longer while a buyer is sought for the parts or it is wound down. Proceeds from the sale of old GM would go to pay claims to various creditors, including GM retirees. "That is the plan, to the extent it comports with the bankruptcy laws," said one person familiar with the matter. Some of the New GM-Old GM is laid out in the GM viability plan the company sent to the federal government last month. In it, GM estimates that it would shrink from 22% of the U.S. market to about 19%. At Chrysler, bankruptcy would be used to force new labor contracts and rework debt deals with secured creditors. People working on Chrysler's behalf say the deal is risky, because the company is still not convinced that it could survive even a short-term bankruptcy. It could be done in order to meet the Obama administration's demand that Chrysler's creditors agree to huge reductions in their expected recoveries on Chrysler debt. Also Monday, new GM Chief Executive Frederick "Fritz" Henderson told employees and dealers that the company will end up in bankruptcy court if it does not significantly accelerate its restructuring efforts in the next 60 days, according to a dealer who watched a broadcast of a meeting with Mr. Henderson. Mr. Henderson said "we'll be in bankruptcy" if the company cannot meet the U.S. government's demands for faster progress on its turnaround plan, this dealer said. Mr. Henderson told employees that the Obama administration was disappointed with the company's viability plan, feeling it didn't move fast enough or cut deeply enough into the company's debt. GM was told it didn't leave enough money in the company's pockets to get it through a full business cycle, either, according to the dealer. GM was also told in no uncertain terms that it must learn to make money on smaller cars–not just trucks and sport-utility vehicles, the dealer said. Warning that they can't depend on unending taxpayer dollars, President Obama on Monday gave GM and Chrysler a brief window to craft plans that would justify fresh government loans. "We cannot, we must not, and we will not let our auto industry simply vanish," President Obama said at the White House. "What we are asking is difficult," he said. "It will require hard choices by companies. It will require unions and workers who have already made painful concessions to make even more. It will require creditors to recognize that they cannot hold out for the prospect of endless government bailouts." The remarks came a day after the administration ousted GM Chief Executive Rick Wagoner and rejected the restructuring plans that GM and Chrysler had hoped would lead to another infusion of government cash. Instead, the White House is giving GM 60 days to come up with a strategy for viability. Chrysler has a month to wrap up a partnership with Italy's Fiat. Under the revised terms of a proposed alliance between Chrysler and Fiat, the Italian company would take an initial 20% stake in the U.S. auto maker, down from a 35% stake under its January pact, a person familiar with the transaction said Monday. Fiat has been in negotiations with the Obama administration's task force, and the government said on Monday that Fiat is viewed as the only route to survival for Chrysler. "We believe we will arrive at a result that will establish a credible future for this crucial industrial sector," Fiat Chief Executive Officer Sergio Marchionne said in a statement. GM on Monday said it will address "the tough issues to improve the long-term viability of the company," including the restructuring of its financial obligations, as it responded to Washington's calls for stronger plans to stay afloat. The administration says a "surgical" structured bankruptcy may be the only way forward for GM and Chrysler, and President Obama held out that prospect Monday. "I know that when people even hear the word 'bankruptcy,' it can be a bit unsettling, so let me explain what I mean," he said. "What I am talking about is using our existing legal structure as a tool that, with the backing of the U.S. government, can make it easier for General Motors and Chrysler to quickly clear away old debts that are weighing them down so they can get back on their feet and onto a path to success; a tool that we can use, even as workers are staying on the job building cars that are being sold." GM said it prefers to complete its restructuring out of court, saying it would complete a more accelerated and aggressive restructuring to put the company on sound long-term financial footing. "We have significant challenges ahead of us, and a very tight timeline," said new GM CEO, Mr. Henderson. "I am confident that the GM team will succeed and that a stronger, healthier GM will play an important role in revitalizing America's economy and re-establishing its technology leadership and energy independence." The auto makers, hobbled by the economic downturn and years of reliance on sport-utility vehicles, will receive an unspecified amount of working capital from the government while they hone their new plans. Without a Fiat deal, the administration said Chrysler won't receive any more taxpayer dollars. The administration expressed confidence GM can survive with more drastic action. GM and Chrysler received a total of $17.4 billion in government loans in December and have requested roughly another $22 billion to keep them going through this year. President Obama's auto task force combed through the firms' restructuring plans to judge if they merit the additional funds. The verdict released Sunday is that in their current form, the plans don't justify any new taxpayer resources. If Fiat and Chrysler reach a definitive alliance agreement, the government would consider investing as much as $6 billion more in Chrysler. Despite the grim view of Chrysler, the administration's task force said it had no intention of replacing CEO Robert Nardelli. Unlike Mr. Wagoner, who had been at the helm of GM since 2000, Mr. Nardelli is considered an auto-industry outsider who has only been in charge at Chrysler since the company was acquired by Cerberus Capital Management LP in 2007. In addition to pushing out Mr. Wagoner, the task force said GM is in the process of replacing the majority of its directors. Kent Kresa, a longtime director, will serve as interim chairman. Mr. Wagoner will be replaced as CEO by Mr. Henderson, who has been serving as chief operating officer. Administration officials on Sunday made it clear that an expedited and heavily supervised bankruptcy reorganization was still very much a possibility for both companies. One official, speaking of GM, compared such a proceeding with a "quick rinse" that could rid the company of much of its debt and contractual obligations. The clearest losers appear to be the thousands of bondholders and lenders to both GM and Chrysler. In both cases, administration officials said that the companies were burdened by inordinate amounts of debt that would have to be scrubbed. Chrysler's survival, the administration said, would require "extinguishing the vast majority" of the company's secured debt and all of its unsecured debt and equity. To assure consumers reluctant to buy GM or Chrysler cars, the government plans to take the unusual step of guaranteeing all warrantees on new cars from either company. These guarantees would lapse back to the companies once they return to health. Mr. Wagoner had managed GM through some of its most difficult moments. The company hasn't logged a profit since 2004, reporting losses since then of $82 billion. It nearly ran out of money at the end of 2008 before the Treasury Department provided emergency loans. GM's stock was trading above $70 when Mr. Wagoner took over as CEO in June of 2000. The shares closed last week at $3.62, placing the company's market capitalization at $2.21 billion. In Monday trading on the New York Stock Exchange, GM shares were down 76 cents, or 21%, to $2.86. <snip>. Elliot |
||||
|
||||
 Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Psssst. Didn't you get the word? According to Saul Anuzis, the guy who LOST to Michael Steele, the word "socialism" isn't scary enough anymore. You're supposed to call him a fascist. Everybody hates fascist's, don't they? I guess since you redefined torture to mean "enhanced interrogation", you think you can change the meaning of any word. Then you have the balls to yell at the Democrats for their "political correctness". excon |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by excon
I haven't changed the meaning of "torture", YOU have. I have been using the traditional, historical meaning of the word, not the politically correct version that includes any discomfort as a being "torture". My 8-year-old son thinks doing his homework is "torture". My 7-year-old daughter thinks that not wearing the clothes she wants to wear is "torture". You seem to agree with this watered down definition of the word "torture". But some of us grew up past the age of 8, excon. And I don't just call Dems on their PC. I call Republicans on it too. Elliot |
||||
|
||||
|
Gal, from the technical point of view, Obama didn't fire him, he asked for his voluntary resignation. The difference is important from a labor law standpoint. Legally, Obama didn't fire anyone. It's how companies (and now Obama) skirt certain laws that kick into place if they would have fired him outright. In this case, Obama skirted the little issue that you bring up. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by galveston
But don't worry... Obama is fixing the problem before it comes up. He's going to stack the Board of Directors of GM with his own people. If a future CEO refuses to step down, he can have his Board vote on the issue and have them fire him. Elliot |
||||
|
||||
|
Don't believe for one minute that if the government let all those companies fail that we would still have a solvent economy. Were the government not to provide TARP money, Goldman Sacs, JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, Wachovia, Merrill Lynch, General Motors, Ford, Chrysler and too many others to name would put Americans out of work. We already have a problem in a significant number of States with an inability to pay unemployment insurance. You have just begun to see the problems that are going to occur as a result of conservative deregulation. People without jobs can't pay credit card bills, mortgages, or much else. As someone who has been frugal all my life and lived below my means, it would be relatively easy for me to take your position, and watch half the country go under. But, then, crime is going to be rampant. You better hope you live in a community like I do, that is able to support its population with employment or aid.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by amdeist
And now, some of them want to return the money and get free, but NO. They are not going to be allowed to do that! Sounds dictatorial to me! |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by amdeist
You, like most people who I have spoken to, see the economy as a zero-sum game. You think that if companies collapse, people end up out of work FOREVER and there's no changing it. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. As long as the populace, the concumers, still desire the product or service, someone will have to produce it or provide it. The loss of a company, or even a bunch of companies, doesn't change the demand for the product or service they provide. And someone will begin to provide it... which means jobs. The economy is not stagnant. It is constantly changing, and an economic downturn does not spell the complete end of the economy forever. Let the big companies go through bankruptcy. Let them collapse. What emerges from the rubble will be stronger, leaner and more efficient, and will create the jobs that are lost through the collapse of the old companies. And in fact, that is what the FDIC is now saying about some of the banks... they NEED to fail so that they can make way for new banks that can do their jobs better. Elliot |
||||
Not your question?
Ask your question
View similar questions
| Question Tools | Search this Question |
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
How much sun is needed
[ 2 Answers ]
Hi, can ERICA PALM tolerate sun all day
Help needed
[ 3 Answers ]
Hello, I am mum of 2 kids and I have been worried about my body and skin after 2 deliveries. I have developed darker skin down there. :eek: and its looks so :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: Can you help me get my skin back to normal color. I mean how can I get my pubic skin fairer . Help needed
New well needed
[ 5 Answers ]
Hi I am on a private well system. 2 days ago, after inadvertently running it on an outside tap for 24 hours, the water turned brown. This is the 3rd day and it continues to be brown. Do you think I need to have another well drilled or could this be a temporary problem?
Help needed
[ 4 Answers ]
I have taken my maltese to the vet and spent a mint to get her ear free of wax buildup but it continues to come back very often and I simply can't pay 100 dollars every time it builds up in her ear . I will get the wax out then it comes back and looks like the color of mud down deep in her ear...
Help needed
[ 1 Answers ]
I have decided to use a debt settlement to help with 13,000 debt. I need to know which company is the best for me. What questions do I ask? How do I know this company is going to produce what they say? Thank you in advance for your answers.
View more questions Search
|
