barry looks to Amnesty to Progressive Rule...

[Oilerman1957]

So just because they saved your pension and your health care it is alright to dump the debt on the tax payers while there are other companies that have been in trouble and no one came to their rescue?

What about letting pensions go unless there is a need to rescue them when someone like Denny McClain steals the money?

Should the credit go to the union or GM "management" themselves?

Shouldn't the credit be handed to the American People who have tolerated this unneeded cost to them in order to help less than .3% of the population?

What about the rest of us?

Will the Government bail me out when my 401K goes bust because we trusted GM to remain solvent instead of handing a Union all the new stock who has no investment into the company at all?

I owned GM stock just as many workers there did. Pbgc could not afford the GM pensions or they would have gone broke and therefore affect everyone that the pbgc covers now.

Im an american to and have seen my taxes been used for many things i dont support, such is life as a taxpayer.

The union only received 17% of the stock and that was to cover the VEBA which by the way was a claim just as much as a bondholder had. And the stock they received was alot less then they would have received in cash had GM not filed BK. Who knows, my VEBA may not be worth a dime in 5 yrs

[layoutshooter]

It would be interesting to know which part of your tax dollars are spent on things that are required spending under our Consitution and what is spent on things that are not legal, like welfare, Social Security and all that other socialist fluff that is not working.

[greg334]

They were going to get screwed any way it went. Stockholders always get screwed in a bancruptcy.

That's not the way it works. The stock holders only get screwed when one of two things happen, there is no hope for a company or the judge decides to shift the assets to a new company because of a bond holder (see Kmart's history) holds a large amount of company debt and they do not want to liquidate the remaining assets.

There was hope for GM, it would have come out of it better for it if it was left in together BUT the problem was the workers who were owed nothing because of their investment into the company was ZERO. The judge was told that the labor agreements were to be left alone and renegotiation instead of breaking all the contracts as it normally is done.

As for the bondholders, most of them bought at a discount rate on GM so they didnt lose as much as you think they just didnt make as much as they wanted,

It doesn't matter, those bond holders were not just a number of speculators but pension holders and other institutional investors. It doesn't matter what they purchased the bonds for, discount or no discount, the fact is they held the debt, not the employees.

and as far as the taxpayer, how much would it have cost to just take away pensions n health from all those people?

The pensioners wouldn't have cost the tax payers a dime, they would have had to deal with what a lot of people have to deal with - living on social security.

I owned GM stock just as many workers there did. Pbgc could not afford the GM pensions or they would have gone broke and therefore affect everyone that the pbgc covers now.

True, they couldn't affford it and be solvent so I say that the rule should be this - unless the company has stolen the money (like Denny McClain) or anything illegal, then the PBGC should step in and help but if the company like GM knows that they can rid themselves from taking care of their obligation they agreed to or the union doesn't take care of the pension directly, then the PBGC shouldn't do a thing.

See Oiler, I know a lot of unions take care of the pension - the International Brotherhood of Operating Engineers is one that actually does everything from collection to investing to paying the retiree. They are responsible and if a company tanks and doesn't take care of their obligations, then they either stand in line as everyone else or make up the difference through their funds. I think because other unions do this, then the UAW should be the ones who guarentee the pension - not the tax payers.

Im an american to and have seen my taxes been used for many things i dont support, such is life as a taxpayer.

It doesn't matter, the case is that GM could have failed unless there were major changes and those changes have yet to happen. The people won't flock to the product just because they 'own' some of the company but want something that they want. By making this a special case, it seems that the people at the top in both organizations are getting away with the mess and we have to pay. Remember that the entire mess is for .3% of the population, not for 10% of the population.

The union only received 17% of the stock and that was to cover the VEBA which by the way was a claim just as much as a bondholder had. And the stock they received was alot less then they would have received in cash had GM not filed BK. Who knows, my VEBA may not be worth a dime in 5 yrs

Don't matter the UAW had no investment in the company as no worker had an investment in the company so they deserve ZERO. The bond holders, regardless who they are, invested in the company. The stock holders invested in the company but not the workers had an investment - they were compensated for their work.

[TeamDriven]

If I am wrong here, I am sure you folks will let me know.
Wern't the retirees and workers who had been promised insurance and retirement packages in a sense creditors? Putting them farther up the food chain than bond holders?

[layoutshooter]

I don't know the answer to that one. I do know one thing. The Federal Government, including Barry and this Congress, have made it quite clear that legal binding contracts mean nothing and are not subject to being upheld.

[Oilerman1957]

That's not the way it works. The stock holders only get screwed when one of two things happen, there is no hope for a company or the judge decides to shift the assets to a new company because of a bond holder (see Kmart's history) holds a large amount of company debt and they do not want to liquidate the remaining assets.

There was hope for GM, it would have come out of it better for it if it was left in together BUT the problem was the workers who were owed nothing because of their investment into the company was ZERO. The judge was told that the labor agreements were to be left alone and renegotiation instead of breaking all the contracts as it normally is done.



It doesn't matter, those bond holders were not just a number of speculators but pension holders and other institutional investors. It doesn't matter what they purchased the bonds for, discount or no discount, the fact is they held the debt, not the employees.



The pensioners wouldn't have cost the tax payers a dime, they would have had to deal with what a lot of people have to deal with - living on social security.



True, they couldn't affford it and be solvent so I say that the rule should be this - unless the company has stolen the money (like Denny McClain) or anything illegal, then the PBGC should step in and help but if the company like GM knows that they can rid themselves from taking care of their obligation they agreed to or the union doesn't take care of the pension directly, then the PBGC shouldn't do a thing.

See Oiler, I know a lot of unions take care of the pension - the International Brotherhood of Operating Engineers is one that actually does everything from collection to investing to paying the retiree. They are responsible and if a company tanks and doesn't take care of their obligations, then they either stand in line as everyone else or make up the difference through their funds. I think because other unions do this, then the UAW should be the ones who guarentee the pension - not the tax payers.



It doesn't matter, the case is that GM could have failed unless there were major changes and those changes have yet to happen. The people won't flock to the product just because they 'own' some of the company but want something that they want. By making this a special case, it seems that the people at the top in both organizations are getting away with the mess and we have to pay. Remember that the entire mess is for .3% of the population, not for 10% of the population.



Don't matter the UAW had no investment in the company as no worker had an investment in the company so they deserve ZERO. The bond holders, regardless who they are, invested in the company. The stock holders invested in the company but not the workers had an investment - they were compensated for their work.

Part of the compensation was benes. You dont know the whole story. you just dont like uaw and they shouldnt have gotten anything as far as your concerned, and people do buy there products, they still outsell toyota so thats not true. Im sure now the uaw wish they had a systen like that, im sure school teachers and such are beginning to wish theres was like that, but it wasnt. Your ideas are based are things that just arent there

[TeamDriven]

I don't know the answer to that one. I do know one thing. The Federal Government, including Barry and this Congress, have made it quite clear that legal binding contracts mean nothing and are not subject to being upheld.

Shirley you can back up these claims, but in this instance it appears that they were forcing GM to live up to their agreement.

[Oilerman1957]

If I am wrong here, I am sure you folks will let me know.
Wern't the retirees and workers who had been promised insurance and retirement packages in a sense creditors? Putting them farther up the food chain than bond holders?

You are correct when talking about the health care, it was set up in a VEBA and therefore was treated to the same treatment as the bondholders, Its GM were talking about, nothing was simple

[layoutshooter]

Shirley you can back up these claims, but in this instance it appears that they were forcing GM to live up to their agreement.

Of course those claims can be backed up. Just look at the AIG bonuses. Those were legal, binding contracts. Look what happened. It matters not if you agreed, liked or even cared. The fact was that those people did have both legal and binding contracts. Those are just the facts.

Always keep in this one idea in the back of your head. The best protection of your freedom is the protection of the freedoms of everyone else. The same can be said of your contract.

I am so disgusted with this government that I just am now putting whatever efforts I can to getting them ALL out, party does not matter they are ALL corrupt.

[Oilerman1957]

Of course those claims can be backed up. Just look at the AIG bonuses. Those were legal, binding contracts. Look what happened. It matters not if you agreed, liked or even cared. The fact was that those people did have both legal and binding contracts. Those are just the facts.

Always keep in this one idea in the back of your head. The best protection of your freedom is the protection of the freedoms of everyone else. The same can be said of your contract.

I am so disgusted with this government that I just am now putting whatever efforts I can to getting them ALL out, party does not matter they are ALL corrupt.

now see, thats a program i can back instead of this its all the democrats fault .

[layoutshooter]

If you pay attention to what I write you will see that it is always what I say. I have never claimed to back the ReBumLiCans or the Dumb-O-Crats.

I will say this, since the 70th Congress (1927-29) the Dumb-O-Crats have had far more chances to screw us than the ReBumLiCans have. So, therefore, they are responsible for more of the problems.

Control of the House during that time was 32 congress periods for the Dumb-O-Crats to 12 for the ReBumLiCans.

Control of the Senate during that time was 28 for the Dumb-O-Crats to 20 for the ReBumLiCans.

Thems who is in charge the most are the bigger screw ups. Needless to say, neither party is worth the price of used toilet paper and both of them need to go, and soon.

Looking at how poorly the real working man has done over that time frame I don't think that you can say that the Dumb-O-Crats look after them too well.

sources for those numbers:

http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/h.../partyDiv.html

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/his...s/partydiv.htm

[Oilerman1957]

If you pay attention to what I write you will see that it is always what I say. I have never claimed to back the ReBumLiCans or the Dumb-O-Crats.

I will say this, since the 70th Congress (1927-29) the Dumb-O-Crats have had far more chances to screw us than the ReBumLiCans have. So, therefore, they are responsible for more of the problems.

Control of the House during that time was 32 congress periods for the Dumb-O-Crats to 12 for the ReBumLiCans.

Control of the Senate during that time was 28 for the Dumb-O-Crats to 20 for the ReBumLiCans.

Thems who is in charge the most are the bigger screw ups. Needless to say, neither party is worth the price of used toilet paper and both of them need to go, and soon.

Looking at how poorly the real working man has done over that time frame I don't think that you can say that the Dumb-O-Crats look after them too well.

sources for those numbers:

Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives Party Divisions

U.S. Senate: Art & History Home > Origins & Development > Party Division

nice info, any on the presidents during that time frame?

[layoutshooter]

I did not look that up, I will. Man, you can sure tell that I am not on a run in rainy California!!

[Oilerman1957]

I did not look that up, I will. Man, you can sure tell that I am not on a run in rainy California!!

lmao, i hear ya, i never have posted so much crap in 2 yrs here, hahahaha, sitting here at home stuck in the snow

[layoutshooter]

Here ya go, it is an even split by numbers, not terms. 7 to 7. The main power in domestic issues under our Constitution in government goes to the congress. They are the main cause for our problems.

source:


Presidents — Infoplease.com