MT truck of the year - Page 3 - PowerStrokeNation : Ford Powerstroke Diesel Forum
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 40 (permalink) Old 12-14-2010, 08:41 PM
PSN Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 674
Re: MT truck of the year

Whatever.
Have a good day.

2008 F-350
345 KEM
2011 Silverado
2010 Tahoe
George C is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 40 (permalink) Old 12-14-2010, 09:00 PM
Diesel Therapist
 
Greenshield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Easton, MD
Posts: 153
Re: MT truck of the year

One small addition. The original debt (bond holders) financiers before the Government takeover, were forced to take a loss on their money invested by said Government. The Obama administration illegally broke a PRIVATE contract that was agreed upon between GM and it's bond holders. Had GM gone through bankruptcy instead, these holders would have gotten their money. They lost all money put in and were never reimbursed. Basically they absorbed all prior GM debt. To boot those same bond holders were not allowed any purchase of stock at all after the IPO. Wall Street traders would have been locked up and the key thrown away for doing the same thing.

08' Job 2, F-250 CC SB Lariat two tone 3.73 4X4
S&B CAI, Spartan 300 (DD), Recon smoke cab lights
Powerstroke67/ homebuilt 4" DPF/CAT delete w/6"rolled tip and 4"SS exhaust (all home installed),Dual Headrest DVD, Rhino liner.
Amsoil 5w40 EOI (10K)

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Greenshield is offline  
post #23 of 40 (permalink) Old 12-14-2010, 09:22 PM
PSN Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 674
Re: MT truck of the year

I can't explain the big picture because you can not see it, and you probably never will..
BTW, GM did go into Bankruptcy..
Said investors of any company lose when bankruptcy occurs. This isn't breaking news. When there is a takeover, the bondholders have little to say, and they are damn lucky there was anything left on the table.
Just what is your point?
If your GM's "bondholders" were paid while the company died, and the rest of the nations's GM subcontractors were not, would that be OK in your book?
Do you think GM should have been left for dead, and just toss GM's 252,000 direct employees, and millions of subcontractor employees out on the street??
Would you, or our nation be better off because of it?

Our Government did absolutely the right thing.

2008 F-350
345 KEM
2011 Silverado
2010 Tahoe
George C is offline  
 
post #24 of 40 (permalink) Old 12-14-2010, 09:52 PM
Diesel Therapist
 
Greenshield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Easton, MD
Posts: 153
Re: MT truck of the year

They most certainly did not go into bankruptcy, otherwise their would not have been a need for a bail out

Do you even understand what a bond holder is? They were funding GM via purchasing bonds. This capital was used to pay employees and run the entire company. This was in return for money paid back plus a percentage agreed upon at the purchase of the bond later. Our own Government does this as do most every state and city (ever hear of a bond rating?) These persons whom, I guess foolishly, agreed to fund GM's debt lost every last dollar they put in, the same money GM used to operate. When the Government confiscated the company via a GOVERNMENT, not private takeover (a private takeover would have meant the bond holders get their money back plus agreed upon fee) they told the bond holders, whom had put theirs, many other persons money ( retirement funds from every day people for example) etc. to pack sand and that their money was forever gone. Under bankruptcy none of this would have occurred. The company was poorly run, UAW bled it dry, and they went belly up because of it. Why is it any different now. Eventually they will go up again, this time with billions of public dollars with it. Furthermore it is not a Governments place to "allow" success or failure. No where in the 18 enumerated powers is this written.

As for tossing people out in the street. I would not be doing any of that. The UAW would be, and the other automobile companies would grow do to the now bigger market share they have. If they could not meet the needs of buyers, then a new evil investor would start another company via evil "bond holders" and fill whatever void there were. You and I, in the end, get a better product for it and new jobs are formed. Do you think that all these companies around today just came out of nowhere? They came from market need.

What is the big picture that I seem to be not able to grasp? BTW were in not for bond holders, GM and most every company would never have existed in the first place.

08' Job 2, F-250 CC SB Lariat two tone 3.73 4X4
S&B CAI, Spartan 300 (DD), Recon smoke cab lights
Powerstroke67/ homebuilt 4" DPF/CAT delete w/6"rolled tip and 4"SS exhaust (all home installed),Dual Headrest DVD, Rhino liner.
Amsoil 5w40 EOI (10K)

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Greenshield is offline  
post #25 of 40 (permalink) Old 12-15-2010, 01:49 AM
PSN Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 674
Re: MT truck of the year

I guess you consider only Chapter 7 true bankruptcy, and maybe so.
Unfortunatly, some companies are too big to fail. Do I agree with it? No.
But, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and I agree with the bail out.
It certainly doesn't change my opinion of the product.

Not only will GM face the same demons down the road, but so will any union automaker, given the right amount of time..
Yes, I understand bonds, and yes, I know you understand the risk involved.
And no, I don't feel sorry for the bondholders who lost their capitol. That's the game..

2008 F-350
345 KEM
2011 Silverado
2010 Tahoe
George C is offline  
post #26 of 40 (permalink) Old 12-15-2010, 03:03 AM
Diesel Therapist
 
Greenshield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Easton, MD
Posts: 153
Re: MT truck of the year

Quote:
Originally Posted by George C View Post
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with these bailouts


Quote:
Originally Posted by George C View Post
But, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and I agree with the bail out.



They lost the bonds at the hands of the Government whom illegally interfered with and broke a private contract, you think this is OK?

Quote:
Originally Posted by George C View Post
But, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few
Karl Marx wrote, and I quote.....
"from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

You claim to understand the bond market, thus the only conclusion is you don't care about the thousands whom lost allot illegally. Therefore ( in your eyes it seems) they are not as important as the "252,000" workers and "millions" ( I would love to see the break down of that info) of subcontractors, why? Millions of citizens will, by your own admission be minus their monies in the future:
Quote:
Originally Posted by George C View Post
Not only will GM face the same demons down the road
for the "good" of a few million (in your words). Is then the few million not the few and the citizens the many? Does this jive with your saying? Why or why not?

08' Job 2, F-250 CC SB Lariat two tone 3.73 4X4
S&B CAI, Spartan 300 (DD), Recon smoke cab lights
Powerstroke67/ homebuilt 4" DPF/CAT delete w/6"rolled tip and 4"SS exhaust (all home installed),Dual Headrest DVD, Rhino liner.
Amsoil 5w40 EOI (10K)

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Greenshield is offline  
post #27 of 40 (permalink) Old 12-15-2010, 12:48 PM
PSN Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 674
Re: MT truck of the year

[quote=Greenshield;1263459]

I also said the bail outs were the right thing to do, Do you want to argue?
I hold my nose over the whole thing, but Obama did the right thing, is that clear enough?

Quote:
They lost the bonds at the hands of the Government whom illegally interfered with and broke a private contract, you think this is OK?
Yes, in this case I DOOOOO agree with the move. YESS, it sucks for the Bondholders.......
A little is better than nothing. What would the bonds be worth today if the company no longer exists? Duh....

Do I agree with Eminent Domain? Hell no, but if it betters the world for all, such as an Interstate highway to be built or not to be built, or if it somehow delivers security for others, be it jobs of services, then that's the price some poor individual must pay and it will be the right move for our Govt, do you get it?.
It's the same thing with your Bond arguement.



Karl Marx wrote, and I quote.....
"from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

Quote:
You claim to understand the bond market, thus the only conclusion is you don't care about the thousands whom lost allot illegally. Therefore ( in your eyes it seems) they are not as important as the "252,000" workers and "millions" ( I would love to see the break down of that info) of subcontractors, why? Millions of citizens will, by your own admission be minus their monies in the future: for the "good" of a few million (in your words). Is then the few million not the few and the citizens the many? Does this jive with your saying? Why or why not?
First, lets fix some spelling..It's spelled in two words, "a lot", not allot.
Two words..
I think you just want to argue your point to death. Although I see your frustration, I have to disagree with your arguement. I'm not really feeling the need to convince you, nor do I really care about your feelings on the matter. We agree to disagree. I'll continue to buy Fords, I just bought a new Chevy for my wife, and I also bought a new Jeep Liberty for my kid. Is it OK to invest in a Chrysler product, or are they on your fail list also?

But just to help you see my point a little clearer.
GM is alive, people are still working and supporting their families. People are buying the product, and it seems the product may be pretty good..
You obviously feel that it would be a better world to let this company fail. Maybe in your own private world, but since the cost of failure doesn't affect you, your family or your life, you are really in no position to lose anything therefore can not see both points clearly, case in point here....
I have nothing to lose either, but many people arouind me have "a lot" to lose.. It's called "big picture"...

2008 F-350
345 KEM
2011 Silverado
2010 Tahoe
George C is offline  
post #28 of 40 (permalink) Old 12-15-2010, 02:11 PM
Diesel Therapist
 
Greenshield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Easton, MD
Posts: 153
Re: MT truck of the year

Arguing with a big government true believer is probably the hardest thing to do in today's country (you ought to try it). It is even harder with voice to text software. Typing is a little difficult at this juncture. I ask for some courtesy in the matter of homonyms or even homophones as it takes a little while to catch them all. You seem to believe that something is only good, true, and possible if it happens through the Federal Government or government in general. Taking from one and giving to another is not charity, it is larceny. No matter if you do it or a group of elected officials do it. You are free to believe as you wish, the problem I have is that under our current Federal Government, your vote AFFECTS (not effects, just saving you some time) my family and it's future. If we were under our Constitution, then what you did in your State would not have an EFFECT in mine. Don't take from my children's future so your wife can drive a certain brand of vehicle. Ford, Honda, Toyota, and many others do not do this, why can Chrysler and GM?

The Interstate Highway System, you really want to argue this was a function of the Federal Government? Claim national defense, as was the original "reason" for it being done, and you can then argue that our Federal Government is limitless. Which would probably suit you fine. Again believe as you must but divorce it from me, my family, and my State. You will find that your system requires my participation, but mine does not reciprocate this necessity. Which is better? Opinions may differ, keep in mind that under mine and our founder's this question is academic at best. Under yours and other statists the question is essential.

If you prefer to parse grammar, spelling, and the matter we can. I am sure quite a few prepositions, run-on and fractured sentences have graced the pages of both of our postings. If you prefer to debate the merits of big government taking from people and then claiming to be helping people at the same time, we can.
I buy based on what is not just a well built and backed product, but what is free market. Given this, one could easily research and find my rants against Ford and Navistar. Were Ford to take bailouts or participate in any other form of fascism tomorrow, then tomorrow they would lose a customer. They would still get some of my labor, risk, and time away from my family in the form of taxed monies. Would this be just, right, or Constitutional?

08' Job 2, F-250 CC SB Lariat two tone 3.73 4X4
S&B CAI, Spartan 300 (DD), Recon smoke cab lights
Powerstroke67/ homebuilt 4" DPF/CAT delete w/6"rolled tip and 4"SS exhaust (all home installed),Dual Headrest DVD, Rhino liner.
Amsoil 5w40 EOI (10K)

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Greenshield is offline  
post #29 of 40 (permalink) Old 12-15-2010, 02:38 PM Thread Starter
PSN Local
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 114
Re: MT truck of the year

Quote:
Originally Posted by D2HP View Post
Did anyone notice the 0-60 times for the Dually w/ the Duramax? Motortrend claimed 7.0 seconds, and at the shootout (Pickuptrucks.com)the time was 8.3 seconds with the same axle ratios and everything. That doesn't sound right at all. I think anyone that is going to put down over 50K will drive both trucks unless they only buy one brand. If they drive both I think they will end up with a blue oval in their driveway.
So far every one I know of that drove both bought the govmotors trucks.
99f250pows is offline  
post #30 of 40 (permalink) Old 12-15-2010, 02:45 PM Thread Starter
PSN Local
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 114
Re: MT truck of the year

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenshield View Post
Are you serious? Private as in not Government owned, bailed out, etc.
There is a huge difference between PUBLICLY TRADED ( as almost all major corporations are) and PUBLICLY OWNED.

BTW in Government owned ( to prevent confusion ) GM, the IPO went to bailed out banks whom then determined whom could buy stocks. Guess what? Private citizens whom bailed out GM were not among those allowed to buy stock or even given stock in exchange for use of their seized income in the form of Federal Income Tax. Only more bailed out banks, CHINA, and the UAW. China bought tons of stock in GM. hmmm
Just FYI Ford credit took more government money than gmac...
99f250pows is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the PowerStrokeNation : Ford Powerstroke Diesel Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome