Page 1 of 10 12 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 137
  1. #1
    10,000+ Long term follower
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,967

    Default Awesome, I own 60% of a bankrupt company

    I'm so happy we printed all that money to save the auto industry only to have GM and chrysler both declare bankruptcy.

    I mean, why have them declare bankruptcy right away when hundreds of billions can be wasted first?

    Obama-Bush retards of the year.

  2. #2
    4000+
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Porn Town
    Posts
    4,923

    Default

    because by letting these companies crash and burn would have cost a lot more thatn the billions they have already pumped into it

    you have to consider the business implications of this

    50,000 jobs
    Dealerships (all the staff gone)
    Auto parts manufaturers who supply theses companies (no orders, no money, lay offs)

    Its the same reason they couldnt let the banks collapse, the wider implication to teh economy would have been disastrous
    Quote Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
    You're already popping in our radar for the creation of this thread. There is a red flag by your name that calls for extra monitoring for all of your actions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aacevedo View Post
    You're a sick fuck
    that is awesome
    Quote Originally Posted by gloryhound View Post
    You're a fucking genius. I vote for this.

  3. #3
    4000+
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Strong Island
    Posts
    4,783

    Default

    Well, I am never buying a car from GM.

  4. #4
    12,000+
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    NYC, Beta Tester
    Posts
    12,845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Badem View Post
    because by letting these companies crash and burn would have cost a lot more thatn the billions they have already pumped into it

    you have to consider the business implications of this

    50,000 jobs
    Dealerships (all the staff gone)
    Auto parts manufaturers who supply theses companies (no orders, no money, lay offs)

    Its the same reason they couldnt let the banks collapse, the wider implication to teh economy would have been disastrous
    You working on the faulty assumption that their competition is going to say "Well here is a cheap as fuck capital over here BUT fuck it I will buy/make my own."
    "What, you think just because you need it means you have a right to take mine?"


    Breakdown: Achiever 20.00%, Explorer 26.67%, Killer 93.33%, Socializer 60.00%

    Quote Originally Posted by Methuselah View Post
    I should get ahead of the curve and ban you now then...

  5. #5
    10,000+ Long term follower
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Badem View Post
    because by letting these companies crash and burn would have cost a lot more thatn the billions they have already pumped into it

    you have to consider the business implications of this

    50,000 jobs
    Dealerships (all the staff gone)
    Auto parts manufaturers who supply theses companies (no orders, no money, lay offs)

    Its the same reason they couldnt let the banks collapse, the wider implication to teh economy would have been disastrous
    Wake the fuck up. They are failing anyway. Jobs are going to be lost anyway. Parts companies and dealerships are going to close anyway.

    Nothing was prevented.

    Maybe you missed the speech this morning, should give you the benefit of the doubt there. Check it out when you get a chance. Didn't see it on youtube yet though. GM is in ch. 11 now just like Chrysler.
    Last edited by StainlessSteelRat; 06-01-2009 at 17:41.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Badem View Post
    because by letting these companies crash and burn would have cost a lot more thatn the billions they have already pumped into it

    you have to consider the business implications of this

    50,000 jobs
    Dealerships (all the staff gone)
    Auto parts manufaturers who supply theses companies (no orders, no money, lay offs)

    Its the same reason they couldnt let the banks collapse, the wider implication to teh economy would have been disastrous
    so whats worse?

    losing 50,000 jobs in 3 months or losing 50,000 jobs in 3months and spending $100 billion.

    failing companies should be allowed to fail. as for you bank reference. the government were the ones that told them to make those loans. shutting them down after forcing them to make those loans would be funny eh?

  7. #7
    6000+
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    6,650

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by kylan View Post
    as for you bank reference. the government were the ones that told them to make those loans. shutting them down after forcing them to make those loans would be funny eh?

    do link your source for ANY example of the FEd forcing someone to make a loan..

    i fucking dare you...find it and link the exact factual example...not hearsay, or op-ed or blog, but the actual fact that's been confirmed

    it ain't there

    it's a fun excuse, but full of shit
    QFT -- survived JTT -- "little less hostile please" - Viranth -- Doc's radio

    "I can't say what I want to, even if I'm not serious..." - TooL

  8. #8
    1000+
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Santiago, Chile
    Posts
    1,803

    Default

    Where are the wolverines when you need them?
    Quote Originally Posted by Fro View Post
    This is off topic, if you don't like it get the fuck out.
    Quote Originally Posted by popsaregood230 View Post
    Kill 'em and grill 'em. Cannibalize these fat bitches.
    Quote Originally Posted by Darklily
    When you see a woman, do you lunge for her boobs or her brain? Only zombies go for women for their brains

  9. #9
    Normal User
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Why aren't we out there rioting?

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DocGonzo View Post
    do link your source for ANY example of the FEd forcing someone to make a loan..

    i fucking dare you...find it and link the exact factual example...not hearsay, or op-ed or blog, but the actual fact that's been confirmed

    it ain't there

    it's a fun excuse, but full of shit
    i'm not going to do your homework for you and reference everything i say. i suppose you also think that bank of america wasn't forced to buy merrill.

    edit: just a quick search: The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria.

    Thats just one of many. Look at ACORN.
    Last edited by kylan; 06-01-2009 at 18:22.

  11. #11
    6000+
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    6,650

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by kylan View Post
    i'm not going to do your homework for you and reference everything i say. i suppose you also think that bank of america wasn't forced to buy merrill.

    edit: just a quick search: The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria.

    Thats just one of many. Look at ACORN.
    now, read the entire law in question...there's a clause in there that clearly states "qualified applicants"

    you do know what a qualified applicant is, yes?

    if not qualified, no loan

    far different from "forcing" and institution to make a "bad loan" to an "unqualified borrower" ain't it?

    that's my point...not this loaded "forcing" bit, but a regulation for certain criteria to be met....a far different thing than a mandate to make bad loans, or create "new financial instruments" that were used and fucked up the system

    see the difference yet?
    QFT -- survived JTT -- "little less hostile please" - Viranth -- Doc's radio

    "I can't say what I want to, even if I'm not serious..." - TooL

  12. #12
    4000+
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Your mama
    Posts
    4,795

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drift0ner View Post
    Why aren't we out there rioting?
    Because most of the smarter people who can actually get riots going understand why the government is bailing out and supporting companies.

    The car companies don't really deserve it, but its a choice between thousands of jobs in a few days, or thousands of jobs in months while some of the jobs are preserved by supporting the company until it can either fix itself or sell off its pieces.

    Idiots like silverhand assume, thats right, ASSUME companies will always exist to buyup other failing companies. It just doesn't happen overnight, nor does it happen all the time.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DocGonzo View Post
    now, read the entire law in question...there's a clause in there that clearly states "qualified applicants"

    you do know what a qualified applicant is, yes?

    if not qualified, no loan

    far different from "forcing" and institution to make a "bad loan" to an "unqualified borrower" ain't it?

    that's my point...not this loaded "forcing" bit, but a regulation for certain criteria to be met....a far different thing than a mandate to make bad loans, or create "new financial instruments" that were used and fucked up the system

    see the difference yet?
    the fact that it was brought to pass should be enough to realize that if one is "qualified" or not is bullshit. there should be no act of congress to determine if a bank should make a loan or not.

    nobody would make a loan to someone they thought couldn't pay it back. repackaging and selling the loans was a way that they thought they could make money out of loans they were forced to make.

  14. #14
    10,000+ Long term follower
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DocGonzo View Post
    now, read the entire law in question...there's a clause in there that clearly states "qualified applicants"

    you do know what a qualified applicant is, yes?

    if not qualified, no loan

    far different from "forcing" and institution to make a "bad loan" to an "unqualified borrower" ain't it?

    that's my point...not this loaded "forcing" bit, but a regulation for certain criteria to be met....a far different thing than a mandate to make bad loans, or create "new financial instruments" that were used and fucked up the system

    see the difference yet?
    OK, he may not have a point w/ CRAs being responsible or a huge factor in the recession, but you are not naive enough to believe what you just wrote about 'qualified applicants'.

    Knowing Fannie and Freddie will be buying up a large portion of all loans reduces a bank's risk immensely which allows for lowering of standards to determine who is 'qualified'.

    There have been many threads already that have disputed if not shown that the effect of CRAs was small to negligible, however.

  15. #15
    10,000+ Long term follower
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SSguy View Post
    Because most of the smarter people who can actually get riots going understand why the government is bailing out and supporting companies.

    The car companies don't really deserve it, but its a choice between thousands of jobs in a few days, or thousands of jobs in months while some of the jobs are preserved by supporting the company until it can either fix itself or sell off its pieces.

    Idiots like silverhand assume, thats right, ASSUME companies will always exist to buyup other failing companies. It just doesn't happen overnight, nor does it happen all the time.
    If its an assumption, why is Chrysler being bought up? Seems like you are the idiot in this instance.

    Everyone in business KNOWS, not assumes, that assets of value will be bought. Which is what everyone in business predicted would happen when chapter 11 was filed.

    You want to talk about assumptions:

    The car companies don't really deserve it, but its a choice between thousands of jobs in a few days, or thousands of jobs in months while some of the jobs are preserved by supporting the company until it can either fix itself or sell off its pieces.

    Right there's a dandy. I suggest you do some reading on chapter 11 bankruptcy and how it works.

Posting Permissions

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