America doesn't have a jobs issue, WE HAVE A WAGE ISSUE.

[airplanemechanic]

Everyone already knows the general welfare clause gives the feds the power to tax.

Please provide proof the founders were against this concept.

Prove that people were against a concept that didn't even come along until 150 years later? How about you do what you're supposed to do, and the burden is on you. YOU prove they were for welfare. As we use it today.

The general welfare clause has absolutely nothing to do with the confiscation of wealth from one group of individuals and the transferring of it another group of individuals by threat of force. Do you REALLY believe that our founding fathers, with the constitution as they wrote it, would support that concept?

 

[chikenwing]

The working poor are growing because our government punishes people for working.

Low wages are fine, if you aren't taxed up the ASS and if your food doesn't cost more than your life's blood is worth. And both of those conditions are creately SOLELY by the tyrannical, unconstitutional and communistic policies that punish people for working.

The working poor are growing because our government punishes people for working.

How so?

Low wages are fine, if you aren't taxed up the ASS and if your food doesn't cost more than your life's blood is worth. And both of those conditions are creately SOLELY by the tyrannical, unconstitutional and communistic policies that punish people for working.

Low wages and high food costs are created by corporate America.

Who's taxed 'up the ass?' It's not corporations. It's not the rich/wealthy.

Entrepreneurs are taxed up the ass.
Working class people are taxed up the ass. Gas is taxed up the ass. Our property is taxed up the ass. We are forced to purchase insurance at ridiculous and back breaking rates, which means we have less and less for our children and food.
And our wages aren't low, dumbass. High food costs are created by government interference with production and resource management.

Obviously you have never had a business or you were too dumb to understand all the tax write offs business owners get.

You...OBVIOUSLY do not understand tax write-offs. In your opinion, should tax write-offs be eliminated?

Obviously you are uneducated about tax write-offs and fishing for information.

What's obvious is your inability to stop spewing nonsense in an attempt to win an argument, business write offs are expenses,money spent,this notion that somehow they are an advantage ,just prove how much you don't know.

 

[Dragonlady]

The general welfare clause has absolutely nothing to do with the confiscation of wealth from one group of individuals and the transferring of it another group of individuals by threat of force. Do you REALLY believe that our founding fathers, with the constitution as they wrote it, would support that concept?

Since Reagan amended the tax code, taxes paid by middle class Americans, increasingly, have gone as a wage subsidy to low income workers, in the form of Medicaid, food stamps, and earned income credits. That has had the effect of transferring wealth from the middle class to the top 5%, such that the working poor no longer have savings of any kind, and the middle class, more and more are using savings and credit to maintain their life-styles.

It is long past the time when the middle class can afford to subsidize corporate America with cheap wages. Corporations need to pay their workers a living wage. The obscenely huge profits, and executive salaries need to end, and the money earned have a fairer division between the workers, and management and shareholders.

 

[chikenwing]

Large corps,don't employ the majority of workers, small companies do.

 

[fbj]

The general welfare clause has absolutely nothing to do with the confiscation of wealth from one group of individuals and the transferring of it another group of individuals by threat of force. Do you REALLY believe that our founding fathers, with the constitution as they wrote it, would support that concept?

Since Reagan amended the tax code, taxes paid by middle class Americans, increasingly, have gone as a wage subsidy to low income workers, in the form of Medicaid, food stamps, and earned income credits. That has had the effect of transferring wealth from the middle class to the top 5%, such that the working poor no longer have savings of any kind, and the middle class, more and more are using savings and credit to maintain their life-styles.

It is long past the time when the middle class can afford to subsidize corporate America with cheap wages. Corporations need to pay their workers a living wage. The obscenely huge profits, and executive salaries need to end, and the money earned have a fairer division between the workers, and management and shareholders.

What's the definition of a livable wage?

 

[EverCurious]

Dragonlady actually has that partially right, Welfare comes from the middle class not the rich no doubt. - The hard truth on that is that the rich are pretty much untouchable unless you /force/ them to stay in the 'offending' country. So unless you are going to restrain the wealthy to American Citizenship by threat of law, they simply leave when the tax burden gets too high.

Thing you've missed Dragon, is that businesses and corporations are the same way. This is no longer a world where they have no option to find profit but the US. If you make it too expensive to operate, or tax them too high, they leave. The only difference is that there is a little extra leverage against businesses via import/export taxation. However, when you raise wages without slapping on an import tax, you just basically told the business to get the fuck out - rather like OWS has told the wealthy...

 

[OnePercenter]

Yes they do. High skilled worker make good money. Burger flippers do not.

Without 'burger flippers,' wouldn't the restaurant fail?

They will have burger flippers either way, forced wage increases or not. The wage increase will simply speed up automation.

They will have burger flippers either way, forced wage increases or not. The wage increase will simply speed up automation.

No it won't. Automation is stuck because of technology.

Technology is not stuck. Humans are stuck. The only reason everything isnt automated yet is because it has to be phased in. As the older generation (which needs human interaction) dies out look for more and more automation.

Technology is not stuck. Humans are stuck. The only reason everything isnt automated yet is because it has to be phased in. As the older generation (which needs human interaction) dies out look for more and more automation.

Technology is stuck because human's haven't figured out a way to advance it. Do you think for one minute if their was a burger flipping robot that someone, somewhere, wouldn't be using it?

WOW...I am shocked...SHOCKED I SAY that humans need interaction. What that has to do with robots...I have no clue. American car makers were crushed by imports because the American Auto Unions fought automation (robots) tooth and nail. That and many other things they demanded and were given.

Your comment that it is THE OLDER GENERATION (me) is holding up automation is showing you as a fool.

WOW...I am shocked...SHOCKED I SAY that humans need interaction. What that has to do with robots...I have no clue. American car makers were crushed by imports because the American Auto Unions fought automation (robots) tooth and nail. That and many other things they demanded and were given.

Your comment that it is THE OLDER GENERATION (me) is holding up automation is showing you as a fool.

American car manufacturers were 'crushed' because Nixon allowed Japan to product dump in trade for air bases in southern Japan. That, along with Detroit making crap starting in 1973, and continuing until the mid 90's. Today, everyone except Tesla are making crap.

 

[OnePercenter]

FORCED higher wages would crash the growth. Keep in mind, Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama is the first president in history to NOT have a single year of his administration with a growth rate of over 3% and it was all of... 0.5 percent this past quarter. Dismal!

Higher wages have NEVER crashed growth in the United States.

Poppycock. Uneconomically viable costs of labor deter growth. We have that already in the forms of requiring Union Labor, Regulations, and Taxes. I bet you whinge that Multinationals have moved labor offshore. Now why would they do that if Higher Wages cause growth?

Poppycock. Uneconomically viable costs of labor deter growth. We have that already in the forms of requiring Union Labor, Regulations, and Taxes. I bet you whinge that Multinationals have moved labor offshore. Now why would they do that if Higher Wages cause growth?

You're being suckered.

My favorite example of your 'suckering' comes from Levi-Strauss & Company who moved operations off-shore stating they couldn't make $26.00 501's in the US. So now 501's are made in slave wage countries and selling for $60.00, but the good news is that the company has enough monies to put their name on a stadium.

Every business in this country CAN afford to pay living wages, they don't want too.

Your sentence is incomplete. They don't want to... lose money and go out of business.

Your sentence is incomplete. They don't want to... lose money and go out of business.

List a business bankruptcy filing that read excessive wages as being the reason for the filing.

General Motors, Chrysler would be two that come to mind without even looking.

General Motors, Chrysler would be two that come to mind without even looking.

Try real estate failures.

 

[chikenwing]

I agree but I am a liberal so that pretty much discredits parts of your post. Companies could make it work as long as they were making a profit. However, we know they wish to maximize their profits so they prefer to pay as little as possible.

Would you invest in a company that was just barely earning a profit? Of course not.

Workers are paid what they are worth to their employer. Why would you or I pay someone more than their value?

I wouldnt invest in any company. i only invest in myself.

Of course workers are paid at maximum what they are worth to their employers. Most of the time a lot less. No i wouldnt pay anyone more than their current value unless I wanted to keep them and groom them for more future value.

I wouldnt invest in any company. i only invest in myself.

Of course workers are paid at maximum what they are worth to their employers. Most of the time a lot less. No i wouldnt pay anyone more than their current value unless I wanted to keep them and groom them for more future value.

How much do you pay someone that makes you all of your monies?

I pay myself very handsomely.

I pay myself very handsomely.

Good for you!

After the post about tax write offs,don't believe he pays himself anything, more than patting his own back.you can't be a business owner, and post nonsense like that.this one is just like many fakes that show up

 

[OnePercenter]

FORCED higher wages would crash the growth. Keep in mind, Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama is the first president in history to NOT have a single year of his administration with a growth rate of over 3% and it was all of... 0.5 percent this past quarter. Dismal!

Higher wages have NEVER crashed growth in the United States.

Poppycock. Uneconomically viable costs of labor deter growth. We have that already in the forms of requiring Union Labor, Regulations, and Taxes. I bet you whinge that Multinationals have moved labor offshore. Now why would they do that if Higher Wages cause growth?

Poppycock. Uneconomically viable costs of labor deter growth. We have that already in the forms of requiring Union Labor, Regulations, and Taxes. I bet you whinge that Multinationals have moved labor offshore. Now why would they do that if Higher Wages cause growth?

You're being suckered.

My favorite example of your 'suckering' comes from Levi-Strauss & Company who moved operations off-shore stating they couldn't make $26.00 501's in the US. So now 501's are made in slave wage countries and selling for $60.00, but the good news is that the company has enough monies to put their name on a stadium.

Every business in this country CAN afford to pay living wages, they don't want too.

Your sentence is incomplete. They don't want to... lose money and go out of business.

Your sentence is incomplete. They don't want to... lose money and go out of business.

List a business bankruptcy filing that read excessive wages as being the reason for the filing.

Easy peasy lemon squeezy: General Motors. The liabilities owed under union contracts were a major cause of insolvency.

On the March 30, 2009 deadline President Barack Obama declined to provide financial aid to General Motors, and requested that General Motors produce credible plans, saying that the company's proposals had avoided tough decisions, and that Chapter 11 bankruptcy appeared the most promising way to reduce its debts, by allowing the courts to compel bondholders and trade unions into settlements.[24] GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner was also forced to resign.[25] GM bondholders rejected the government's first offer, but the unions agreed to the preferential terms.[26] A bondholder debt to equity counteroffer was ignored.[27]...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization

Easy peasy lemon squeezy: General Motors. The liabilities owed under union contracts were a major cause of insolvency.

Due to hundreds of billions lost through GMAC Mortage and DiTech.

 

[OnePercenter]

America doesn't have a Wage issue, it has a Lack of Growth one.

America doesn't have a Wage issue, it has a Lack of Growth one.

Higher wages would promote growth.

FORCED higher wages would crash the growth. Keep in mind, Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama is the first president in history to NOT have a single year of his administration with a growth rate of over 3% and it was all of... 0.5 percent this past quarter. Dismal!

FORCED higher wages would crash the growth. Keep in mind, Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama is the first president in history to NOT have a single year of his administration with a growth rate of over 3% and it was all of... 0.5 percent this past quarter. Dismal!

Higher wages have NEVER crashed growth in the United States.

Your lack of comprehension is duly noted!

As you intentionally posted: "Higher wages have NEVER crashed growth in the United States" is a lie, I did not post that phrase did I?

I posted: "FORCED higher wages would crash the growth."

Your desperation is duly noted!

Your lack of comprehension is duly noted!

As you intentionally posted: "Higher wages have NEVER crashed growth in the United States" is a lie, I did not post that phrase did I?

I posted: "FORCED higher wages would crash the growth."

Your desperation is duly noted!

You can write it ten different ways.....you are still wrong.

 

[boedicca]

Poppycock. Uneconomically viable costs of labor deter growth. We have that already in the forms of requiring Union Labor, Regulations, and Taxes. I bet you whinge that Multinationals have moved labor offshore. Now why would they do that if Higher Wages cause growth?

Poppycock. Uneconomically viable costs of labor deter growth. We have that already in the forms of requiring Union Labor, Regulations, and Taxes. I bet you whinge that Multinationals have moved labor offshore. Now why would they do that if Higher Wages cause growth?

You're being suckered.

My favorite example of your 'suckering' comes from Levi-Strauss & Company who moved operations off-shore stating they couldn't make $26.00 501's in the US. So now 501's are made in slave wage countries and selling for $60.00, but the good news is that the company has enough monies to put their name on a stadium.

Every business in this country CAN afford to pay living wages, they don't want too.

Your sentence is incomplete. They don't want to... lose money and go out of business.

Your sentence is incomplete. They don't want to... lose money and go out of business.

List a business bankruptcy filing that read excessive wages as being the reason for the filing.

Easy peasy lemon squeezy: General Motors. The liabilities owed under union contracts were a major cause of insolvency.

On the March 30, 2009 deadline President Barack Obama declined to provide financial aid to General Motors, and requested that General Motors produce credible plans, saying that the company's proposals had avoided tough decisions, and that Chapter 11 bankruptcy appeared the most promising way to reduce its debts, by allowing the courts to compel bondholders and trade unions into settlements.[24] GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner was also forced to resign.[25] GM bondholders rejected the government's first offer, but the unions agreed to the preferential terms.[26] A bondholder debt to equity counteroffer was ignored.[27]...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization

Easy peasy lemon squeezy: General Motors. The liabilities owed under union contracts were a major cause of insolvency.

Due to hundreds of billions lost through GMAC Mortage and DiTech.

Linky?

 

[OnePercenter]

Poppycock. Uneconomically viable costs of labor deter growth. We have that already in the forms of requiring Union Labor, Regulations, and Taxes. I bet you whinge that Multinationals have moved labor offshore. Now why would they do that if Higher Wages cause growth?

You're being suckered.

My favorite example of your 'suckering' comes from Levi-Strauss & Company who moved operations off-shore stating they couldn't make $26.00 501's in the US. So now 501's are made in slave wage countries and selling for $60.00, but the good news is that the company has enough monies to put their name on a stadium.

Every business in this country CAN afford to pay living wages, they don't want too.

Your sentence is incomplete. They don't want to... lose money and go out of business.

Your sentence is incomplete. They don't want to... lose money and go out of business.

List a business bankruptcy filing that read excessive wages as being the reason for the filing.

Easy peasy lemon squeezy: General Motors. The liabilities owed under union contracts were a major cause of insolvency.

On the March 30, 2009 deadline President Barack Obama declined to provide financial aid to General Motors, and requested that General Motors produce credible plans, saying that the company's proposals had avoided tough decisions, and that Chapter 11 bankruptcy appeared the most promising way to reduce its debts, by allowing the courts to compel bondholders and trade unions into settlements.[24] GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner was also forced to resign.[25] GM bondholders rejected the government's first offer, but the unions agreed to the preferential terms.[26] A bondholder debt to equity counteroffer was ignored.[27]...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization

Easy peasy lemon squeezy: General Motors. The liabilities owed under union contracts were a major cause of insolvency.

Due to hundreds of billions lost through GMAC Mortage and DiTech.

Linky?

Linky?

You mean link?

GM profits dive 90% after subprime losses - FT.com

GMAC Made Risky Subprime Mortgage Loans

 

[boedicca]

Your sentence is incomplete. They don't want to... lose money and go out of business.

Your sentence is incomplete. They don't want to... lose money and go out of business.

List a business bankruptcy filing that read excessive wages as being the reason for the filing.

Easy peasy lemon squeezy: General Motors. The liabilities owed under union contracts were a major cause of insolvency.

On the March 30, 2009 deadline President Barack Obama declined to provide financial aid to General Motors, and requested that General Motors produce credible plans, saying that the company's proposals had avoided tough decisions, and that Chapter 11 bankruptcy appeared the most promising way to reduce its debts, by allowing the courts to compel bondholders and trade unions into settlements.[24] GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner was also forced to resign.[25] GM bondholders rejected the government's first offer, but the unions agreed to the preferential terms.[26] A bondholder debt to equity counteroffer was ignored.[27]...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization

Easy peasy lemon squeezy: General Motors. The liabilities owed under union contracts were a major cause of insolvency.

Due to hundreds of billions lost through GMAC Mortage and DiTech.

Linky?

Linky?

You mean link?

GM profits dive 90% after subprime losses - FT.com

GMAC Made Risky Subprime Mortgage Loans

Futile spin, bub. The excessive liabilities due to union contracts caused GM to get rid of dealerships and car lines. If the situation were due only to the GMAC Mortgage and DiTech businesses, separating from them would have meant that the auto business in an of itself was healthy. It wasn't. It was bankrupt due to a bloated cost structure.

General Motors bankruptcy: End of an era - Jun. 1, 2009

 

[Asclepias]

Everyone already knows the general welfare clause gives the feds the power to tax.

Please provide proof the founders were against this concept.

Prove that people were against a concept that didn't even come along until 150 years later? How about you do what you're supposed to do, and the burden is on you. YOU prove they were for welfare. As we use it today.

The general welfare clause has absolutely nothing to do with the confiscation of wealth from one group of individuals and the transferring of it another group of individuals by threat of force. Do you REALLY believe that our founding fathers, with the constitution as they wrote it, would support that concept?

I know you can read so that was a silly question. Please provide proof the founders were against this concept.

 

[Asclepias]

I find it interesting the complete disconnect here... The correlation of wages paid is not just "what's important for the business," it's between the paying rate for labor and labor availability. If there are 100 burger flipper's then that is a labor glut, it deflates the paying worth of that labor. If there are 10 managers, that is a labor shortage which inflates the paying worth of that labor. I am baffled that folks cannot see this, simple, common, everyday correlation.

If there are 1,000 widgets on the market the selling price would be less than if there were only 500. This is the exact same concept.

I agree in principal but you forget there are exceptions to that. Look at the cost of iphones and tell me they will go down if they have a surplus of them.

Here is the problem in this comparison:

You cannot compare a commodity with people. Yes, if there is a glut of widgets on the market, the price will fall.

And similarly, if there are more people available to do a job, the price falls for their labor too, but there's a difference. If the price on the widget falls, it doesn't affect the widget's ability to provide for its family. When workers earn less than they need to support their families, it becomes a societal problem.

I wasnt comparing a widget with people. Where did you get that idea from?

When workers earn less and need to support their families I have no issue paying higher taxes so they can have a wage subsidy/welfare but making the business pay the additional cost in the form of higher wages falsely inflates the value of the employees job. If you flip burgers for a living thats not really all that valuable as most people can do that. If you can build an IP network from the ground up you are more valuable as less people can do that.

Why should I be forced to pay someone for work from which I do not benefit? Why am I responsible for their bad decisions?

You should be forced to pay because you live in a society that allows you to get ahead. Your price to participate in that society is your tax.

 

[OnePercenter]

Your sentence is incomplete. They don't want to... lose money and go out of business.

List a business bankruptcy filing that read excessive wages as being the reason for the filing.

Easy peasy lemon squeezy: General Motors. The liabilities owed under union contracts were a major cause of insolvency.

On the March 30, 2009 deadline President Barack Obama declined to provide financial aid to General Motors, and requested that General Motors produce credible plans, saying that the company's proposals had avoided tough decisions, and that Chapter 11 bankruptcy appeared the most promising way to reduce its debts, by allowing the courts to compel bondholders and trade unions into settlements.[24] GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner was also forced to resign.[25] GM bondholders rejected the government's first offer, but the unions agreed to the preferential terms.[26] A bondholder debt to equity counteroffer was ignored.[27]...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization

Easy peasy lemon squeezy: General Motors. The liabilities owed under union contracts were a major cause of insolvency.

Due to hundreds of billions lost through GMAC Mortage and DiTech.

Linky?

Linky?

You mean link?

GM profits dive 90% after subprime losses - FT.com

GMAC Made Risky Subprime Mortgage Loans

Futile spin, bub. The excessive liabilities due to union contracts caused GM to get rid of dealerships and car lines. If the situation were due only to the GMAC Mortgage and DiTech businesses, separating from them would have meant that the auto business in an of itself was healthy. It wasn't. It was bankrupt due to a bloated cost structure.

General Motors bankruptcy: End of an era - Jun. 1, 2009

Futile spin, bub. The excessive liabilities due to union contracts caused GM to get rid of dealerships and car lines. If the situation were due only to the GMAC Mortgage and DiTech businesses, separating from them would have meant that the auto business in an of itself was healthy. It wasn't. It was bankrupt due to a bloated cost structure.

General Motors bankruptcy: End of an era - Jun. 1, 2009

If GM hadn't gone into the mortgage business they wouldn't have had an issue.

 

[Asclepias]

why the fuck would a grown person apply for a minimum wage job? WHY?

Probably to feed themselves, family, etc instead of being on welfare.

Nope, only one reason. THEY made bad decisions all their life and are now in the exact place where they made plans to be.

What percentage of workers, earning the minimum wage, are the sole earners in their household?

So your claim is that people plan to be on minimum wage for fun and not to feed their families?

 

[boedicca]

And even BLOOMBERG

Your sentence is incomplete. They don't want to... lose money and go out of business.

List a business bankruptcy filing that read excessive wages as being the reason for the filing.

Easy peasy lemon squeezy: General Motors. The liabilities owed under union contracts were a major cause of insolvency.

On the March 30, 2009 deadline President Barack Obama declined to provide financial aid to General Motors, and requested that General Motors produce credible plans, saying that the company's proposals had avoided tough decisions, and that Chapter 11 bankruptcy appeared the most promising way to reduce its debts, by allowing the courts to compel bondholders and trade unions into settlements.[24] GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner was also forced to resign.[25] GM bondholders rejected the government's first offer, but the unions agreed to the preferential terms.[26] A bondholder debt to equity counteroffer was ignored.[27]...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization

Easy peasy lemon squeezy: General Motors. The liabilities owed under union contracts were a major cause of insolvency.

Due to hundreds of billions lost through GMAC Mortage and DiTech.

Linky?

Linky?

You mean link?

GM profits dive 90% after subprime losses - FT.com

GMAC Made Risky Subprime Mortgage Loans

Futile spin, bub. The excessive liabilities due to union contracts caused GM to get rid of dealerships and car lines. If the situation were due only to the GMAC Mortgage and DiTech businesses, separating from them would have meant that the auto business in an of itself was healthy. It wasn't. It was bankrupt due to a bloated cost structure.

General Motors bankruptcy: End of an era - Jun. 1, 2009

And even BLOOMBERG gets it right:


After decades of decline, GM (GM) was finally brought to its knees by the recession and frozen credit markets, forcing the company into the arms of the federal government. But the money the government gave to keep GM upright—$19.4 billion to date and as much as $30.1 billion more down the line—came with big strings. President Barack Obama wanted GM to completely restructure so it could become competitive again. The only way to get the savings the carmaker needed from bondholders and its sprawling dealer network was under the umbrella of court supervision.

With the bankruptcy, GM will get a chance at a new start. Management and its government overseers hope GM can wipe away decades of outsized retiree and labor costs and brand-and-marketing strategy, both of which were designed for an era that had long passed. The result will be a much smaller GM, one that won't even challenge Toyota (TM) for the crown of world's biggest car company. But with far less debt and a reworked labor contract that will get costs closer to foreign-owned auto plants in the U.S., the new GM has a shot at regaining profitability and becoming competitive again...

GM Files for Bankruptcy


GM started unwinding itself from GMAC a few years before GM filed for bankruptcy:

In 2006, General Motors Corporation sold a 51% interest in GMAC to Cerberus Capital Management, a private equity company. Also in 2006, GMAC divested a controlling interest of GMAC Commercial Holdings, its real estate division, Capmark Financial Group, Inc. to Goldman Sachs, KKR and Five Mile Capital Partners.[10]

In 2009, Capmark filed for bankruptcy and its North American loan origination and servicing business was acquired by Berkadia, a joint venture of Leucadia and Berkshire Hathaway. .[11]

On 24 December 2008, the Federal Reserve accepted then-GMAC's application to become a bank holding company.[12]

As a result of losses in the company's former ResCap subsidiary, in 2008-2009, the United States Treasury invested $17.2 billion in Ally. The Treasury later recovered $19.6 billion from this investment by selling its remaining stake in the company in December 2014. [13]

On May 15, 2009, GMAC's banking unit changed its name to Ally Bank.

On May 10, 2010, GMAC Inc. announced that it re-branded itself as Ally Financial Inc.[14]...

Ally Financial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[boedicca]

Easy peasy lemon squeezy: General Motors. The liabilities owed under union contracts were a major cause of insolvency.

On the March 30, 2009 deadline President Barack Obama declined to provide financial aid to General Motors, and requested that General Motors produce credible plans, saying that the company's proposals had avoided tough decisions, and that Chapter 11 bankruptcy appeared the most promising way to reduce its debts, by allowing the courts to compel bondholders and trade unions into settlements.[24] GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner was also forced to resign.[25] GM bondholders rejected the government's first offer, but the unions agreed to the preferential terms.[26] A bondholder debt to equity counteroffer was ignored.[27]...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization

Easy peasy lemon squeezy: General Motors. The liabilities owed under union contracts were a major cause of insolvency.

Due to hundreds of billions lost through GMAC Mortage and DiTech.

Linky?

Linky?

You mean link?

GM profits dive 90% after subprime losses - FT.com

GMAC Made Risky Subprime Mortgage Loans

Futile spin, bub. The excessive liabilities due to union contracts caused GM to get rid of dealerships and car lines. If the situation were due only to the GMAC Mortgage and DiTech businesses, separating from them would have meant that the auto business in an of itself was healthy. It wasn't. It was bankrupt due to a bloated cost structure.

General Motors bankruptcy: End of an era - Jun. 1, 2009

Futile spin, bub. The excessive liabilities due to union contracts caused GM to get rid of dealerships and car lines. If the situation were due only to the GMAC Mortgage and DiTech businesses, separating from them would have meant that the auto business in an of itself was healthy. It wasn't. It was bankrupt due to a bloated cost structure.

General Motors bankruptcy: End of an era - Jun. 1, 2009

If GM hadn't gone into the mortgage business they wouldn't have had an issue.

Wrong again. Excessive liabilities owed for pensions and union contracts caused the Auto Business bankruptcy, as I have already proven in other posts.