If Jesus had been an American

[pocketfullofshells]

Do you mean let them restructure in bankruptcy? Something they had to do anyway.



The Republican position (while certainly split) was to use mechanisms already in place to let these companies restructure. That is what needed to occur -- and what occurred anyway after the bailouts.

They would not have been able to just "restructure" without backing. The Mechanism you talk about that was in place...would in the end...have not done anything to save them...

""The immediate bankruptcy of (Chrysler and GM) could cost more than a million jobs, decrease tax revenues by $150 billion and set back America’s Gross Domestic Product by hundreds of billions of dollars."

I didn’t want there to be 21% unemployment

"forecasts at the time that the loss of GM, Ford and the automotive lenders also covered by the bailout could lead to the loss of 1 million jobs"

That was of course the COmmunist G W Bush. ( who started the auto bail out)
http://autos.yahoo.com/news/bush-would-do-it-again-on-auto-bailouts.html

Both GM and Chrysler were ready to enter bankruptcy under Chapter 11 proceedings, which protect firms from creditors while they reorganize their finances.
But they needed billions of dollars in bridging financing to do that, and it was not available, said Gary Burtless of Brookings Institution.
"There was no creditor in the private sector that could step up with the amount of money that Chrysler and General Motors needed if they were to keep on functioning," Burtless told AFP.
"The only outcome if the government didn't step in was that those companies were going to be liquidated."

http://news.yahoo.com/us-auto-bailout-necessary-analysts-225204153.html

Both companies' bankruptcies required money on a scale not seen in legal history. Unlike airlines, which can keep running with much smaller short-term loans while they restructure, automakers need massive amounts of up-front capital to pay suppliers and workers while they build cars; their finance companies need even more to keep making car loans that can bring in revenues. The potential damage wasn't just layoffs; Chrysler executives testified on the first day of bankruptcy that without immediate cash the company risked destroying hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of equipment.
Even after Obama took office, GM and Chrysler searched frantically for paths to avoid bankruptcy, including a possible merger. Chrysler held a one-week garage sale of its assets in February 2009, inviting anyone with enough money to bid for parts of the company. No one bit.

http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motora...ng-detroit-automakers-bailouts-154006392.html

 

[cashmcall]

I agree...however given the choice of let piece of crap banks die, and take the US econ down with it costing many many people there jobs ...I would rather keep people working and the econ from complete disaster.

Do you know who was making that choice?Our Politiians
Politicians are in general only a little above average in intelligence so the idea that they can make better decisions for us that we can make ourselves is laughable

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Do you know who was making that choice?Our Politiians
Politicians are in general only a little above average in intelligence so the idea that they can make better decisions for us that we can make ourselves is laughable

that is true...but there are non republican politicians as well.

 

[dogtowner]

that is true...but there are non republican politicians as well.

and they drop the average notably. (you KNEW that was coming)

 

[cashmcall]

that is true...but there are non republican politicians as well.

Yes, there were a few who voted for the bail-outs..

 

[BigRob]

They would not have been able to just "restructure" without backing. The Mechanism you talk about that was in place...would in the end...have not done anything to save them...

If bridge financing is not available -- then the company gets liquidated -- that is how the process works.

""The immediate bankruptcy of (Chrysler and GM) could cost more than a million jobs, decrease tax revenues by $150 billion and set back America’s Gross Domestic Product by hundreds of billions of dollars."

Yes -- it would have hurt. But bad business must be allowed to fail.

I didn’t want there to be 21% unemployment

Then ask the leaders of GM etc why they so poorly managed their companies.

"forecasts at the time that the loss of GM, Ford and the automotive lenders also covered by the bailout could lead to the loss of 1 million jobs"

That was of course the COmmunist G W Bush. ( who started the auto bail out)
http://autos.yahoo.com/news/bush-would-do-it-again-on-auto-bailouts.html

I believe I said at the time that Bush was dead wrong on this issue.

Both GM and Chrysler were ready to enter bankruptcy under Chapter 11 proceedings, which protect firms from creditors while they reorganize their finances.
But they needed billions of dollars in bridging financing to do that, and it was not available, said Gary Burtless of Brookings Institution.
"There was no creditor in the private sector that could step up with the amount of money that Chrysler and General Motors needed if they were to keep on functioning," Burtless told AFP.
"The only outcome if the government didn't step in was that those companies were going to be liquidated."

http://news.yahoo.com/us-auto-bailout-necessary-analysts-225204153.html

Both companies' bankruptcies required money on a scale not seen in legal history. Unlike airlines, which can keep running with much smaller short-term loans while they restructure, automakers need massive amounts of up-front capital to pay suppliers and workers while they build cars; their finance companies need even more to keep making car loans that can bring in revenues. The potential damage wasn't just layoffs; Chrysler executives testified on the first day of bankruptcy that without immediate cash the company risked destroying hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of equipment.
Even after Obama took office, GM and Chrysler searched frantically for paths to avoid bankruptcy, including a possible merger. Chrysler held a one-week garage sale of its assets in February 2009, inviting anyone with enough money to bid for parts of the company. No one bit.

http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/mitt-romney-gets-wrong-detroit-automakers-bailouts-154006392.html[/quote]

No one bit because it was a bad business model that made no sense to get involved in.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

If bridge financing is not available -- then the company gets liquidated -- that is how the process works.



Yes -- it would have hurt. But bad business must be allowed to fail.



Then ask the leaders of GM etc why they so poorly managed their companies.



I believe I said at the time that Bush was dead wrong on this issue.

yes, and see the whole point is...having FORD GM Chrysler tire companies, many parts companies all going liquid at the same time as you just let the banks go liquid...at the same time houseing market is tanking...

1. if you did this not only can you never win reelection..your party is dead for 20 years.

2. How many peoples lives have to be wrecked before living up to your perfect world that does not exist of a free market utopia ...before your willing to say hey you know what..maybe we should try to not tank the econ and cost millions of jobs...for the sake of living up to your idea that only works in a book but not real life..( like Communism)

 

[Gipper]

The auto bailouts SOLVED nothing. The poor business model still exists..only now its worse. The unsustainable benefits and salaries given auto workers will once again sink these companies and the American taxpayer will have to bail them out AGAIN. As soon as the economy tanks again, and it will, maybe soon, the auto companies will be in trouble AGAIN. All of this would have been avoided, if bankruptcy laws were followed instead of socialist policies.

How is it going to work at GM, when the UAW owns a portion of the company? Does anyone think the union is going to accept a reduction of their rich benes when they have ownership? How will the UAW impact business strategy? And with the feds essentially controlling GM, we see the wasteful and idiotic decision to build a car that doesn't sell...see Chevy Volt.

Whenever the heavy hand of government gets involved, invariably unfairness and waste result. See GM bondholders...

 

[dogtowner]

If bridge financing is not available -- then the company gets liquidated

If bridge financing was needed then they could do as Iococca did and approach government for it. Government had no need to become the owner. Well unless government had greater plans than just keeping the doors open. And we know how that went.

 

[BigRob]

yes, and see the whole point is...having FORD GM Chrysler tire companies, many parts companies all going liquid at the same time as you just let the banks go liquid...at the same time houseing market is tanking...

If we don't ever allow for a true correction -- we are simply going to live in a cycle of harder booms and quicker busts.

1. if you did this not only can you never win reelection..your party is dead for 20 years.

So politics trumps all?

2. How many peoples lives have to be wrecked before living up to your perfect world that does not exist of a free market utopia ...before your willing to say hey you know what..maybe we should try to not tank the econ and cost millions of jobs...for the sake of living up to your idea that only works in a book but not real life..( like Communism)

Who is "we" -- those who caused these problems are those that were saved -- how does that solve anything?

 

[cashmcall]

I think we know what Jesus would do ..The Bible tells us what he did do..Remember those WWJD bracelets? They made a big splash in the 80s pop-culture pool, becoming a permanent addition to American lingo. Even the Occupiers pose the question, supposedly proving the righteousness of their cause. But no need to idly speculate. We know "What Jesus Did." And it'll surprise you.
The WWJD craze, a grassroots phenomenon that was the brainchild of youth pastor Dan Seaborn, went viral before there was an internet, saturating American pop culture anddprompting both lost and found alike to add their take to His story.
The movie What Would Jesus Buy? assaulted consumerism in general and national retail chains in particular. According to Michael Moore, apparently (involved in this movie), you'd have never seen Jesus at the Walmart.
"What would Jesus Eat?" reminded us that Jesus adhered to a healthy Mediterranean diet.
Did He have much choice, really? And don't the Scriptures say that everything God created is good? And should be received with thanksgiving?
Jesus, according to the author, Don Colbert, wouldn't have approved of the dining choices at your basic church social. Although one reviewer offered the observation that longevity wasn't exactly a hallmark of many biblical figures either.
What would Jesus do? the Bible tells us.
Luke 24 begins with the discovery of the empty tomb and then describes another incident. One that happened "that same day”:

"Now behold, two of them were traveling that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was seven miles from Jerusalem. And they talked together of all these things which had happened. So it was, while they conversed and reasoned, that Jesus Himself drew near and went with them. But their eyes were restrained, so that they did not know Him." ​

"And He said to them, “What kind of conversation is this that you have with one another as you walk and are sad?” Then the one whose name was Cleopas answered and said to Him, “Are You the only stranger in Jerusalem, and have You not known the things which happened there in these days?” ​

You can’t help but love Jesus when you see Him here being so human. Jesus looks His friends in the face yet manages to keep His own straight while He asks innocently: “What things?”
The disciples explain to the "stranger" that the Messiah had come, but had been executed. The stone had sealed the tomb and all seemed lost. But on the third day they had found the tomb empty, and Jesus again walked the earth. He had risen from the dead!
"What things?", indeed.
The point here, though, is that this was Jesus first interaction with these disciples after His resurrection, and what does He do?Beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.What Jesus did, first chance He got, was hold a Bible study.
And its subject was prophecy. It was an especially memorable study.."And they said to one another, “Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us on the road, and while He opened the Scriptures to us?
This study fired them up because they realized that the Old Testament is largely prophetic made the scriptures understandable. Otherwise the Old Testament is a record of largely incomprehensible rituals and biographical sketches of men who largely fell short.
Adam and Eve turned their backs on paradise. Moses never entered the promised land. Joshua didn't quite finish the job. The everlasting kingdom promised David was overrun by its enemies. Where's the happy ending?
The study opened up the Scriptures because they finally saw that the Scriptures weren't a random collection of dos, don'ts, and didn't wins. The study revealed the Scriptures as, front to finish, a prophecy of Messiah. Their hearts burned within them because they finally beheld the Scriptures as one glorious story of redemption, promised by a God who loved the world and whose plans will not ultimately be thwarted.
That's what Jesus did. First chance He had after He had finished His work on the Cross.
So what would Jesus do? If He were here today?
One Huffington Post commentator opined that if Jesus were here, He'd be sitting in a tent on Wall Street.
I think He'd be telling the occupiers to make sure they had some oil in their lanterns.
But that's the lost, ostensibly.
What about the found? What about the church?
A Google search of "Christian Diet Books" pulls up 68 million hits.
A search of "Bible Prophecy" (which is, after all, nothing more than God keeping his promises) pulls up 2 million.
What would Jesus do?
I think He'd weep.