BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

JohnH[_4_]

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 09:14:07 -0600, wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:59:58 -0500, Eisboch wrote:

A Chapter 11 filing does not, in itself, reorganize a company and
certainly is *not* a means for "getting people to do the same things,
only cheaper". All it does is protects the company from involuntary
bankrupcy by putting the vendor bill collectors, banks and lawsuits at
bay while an effort is made to reorganize and satisfy current finanical
obligations via negotiation. While protected in Chapter 11 a plan is
developed to reorganize, refinance, and re-negotiate existing (and in
GM's case - obsolete) contracts. Overseen by a bankruptcy court, the
plan, agreed to by all concerned parties is generated and when
implimentated, the company emerges from Chapter 11. If a plan cannot be
produced that is approved by all concerned parties, the company usually
goes belly up in Chapter 7.

Sure, but the end result is "getting people to do the same thing, only
cheaper". Let me ask you something, does the bankruptcy court take into
consideration America's interests? Under normal circumstances, I would
readily agree GM should go Chapter 11, but these are not normal
circumstances. We are in recession, and it's looking like it could be a
severe one. Personally, I don't think we can afford to let GM go into
bankruptcy at this time.

Barney Frank's bill limits the ability to truly reorganize the auto
companies. It's simply throwing money into the same sink hole.
Six-eight months from now they'll be back, needing more survival money.

The auto industry's contracts and historical ways of doing business need
a complete overhauling in order to be a viable, competitive entity in
today's global markets. Chapter 11 reorganization, prepackaged with a
government bridge loan to keep the beast breathing during the process,
makes sense to me.

You know, we have already spent $350 billion to bail out the *******s
that caused this mess. We've let them keep their millions in bonuses,
but we're quibbling about spending 1/10 of that to save an industry that
provides 1-3 million jobs. I don't get it. And, I would point out, it
was the incompetence of Wall Street that brought Detroit's troubles into
crisis.

Obama's already talking about major infrastructure spending with the
intent of creating jobs. It seems to me, saving GM's jobs, might in the
long run, be cheaper.

If the demand for the autos is there, the supply will be furnished by the
companies remaining in business. If those companies must gear up to meet
the new demand, they will do so. If doing so means hiring people, then
people will be hired.

Let GM go.

Infrastructure spending makes much more sense than bailing out a failing
auto company. And, it solves one of the problems - gets people working.
--
John H.