By on January 22, 2015

gm_hq

Before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia this week, the Center for Auto Safety asked the judge to make public the U.S. Treasury’s role in the 2009 General Motors bailout.

Bloomberg reports the consumer safety advocacy group asked the judge to force the United States federal government into disclosing a number of documents linked to the Treasury’s role in the bailout, suggesting the department told GM to cast aside responsibility for any defects or accidents tied to said defects before receiving $49.5 billion in funding.

On the other side, the Treasury is asking the judge to dismiss president Clarence Ditlow’s 2011 lawsuit for the aforementioned information, warning that being forced to go public would harm the government’s chances to come to the aid of a company whose demise would greatly damage the overall economy.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

90 Comments on “Judge Asked To Make Treasury’s Role In 2009 GM Bailout Public...”


  • avatar
    Landcrusher

    What’s the logic on the harm? Isn’t the treasury in the position of the Coast Guard by the time they get involved? At least, isn’t that the story?

    • 0 avatar
      Landcrusher

      I see there are still no answers on how a revelation could prevent them from being able to help others in the future.

      I can only assume the whole truth would make someone look bad, or reveal something unsavory about the process which would change the public’s view of these scams.

  • avatar
    highdesertcat

    “…being forced to go public would harm the government’s chances to come to the aid of a company whose demise would greatly damage the overall economy…”

    The only damage would be to the UAW.

    America could get along famously without GM. America got along even better without Chrysler. And Chrysler is doing great under new ownership.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      2008.

      Greatest downturn since 1929.

      Lehmann.

      Liquidity crisis.

      No DIP available.

      Do we really have to go through these points again? Really?

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        What’s a DIP? Is that like ranch dressing or something?

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        psarh, there are still a lot of people in America who will not buy a GM product precisely because of the bailouts, handouts and nationalization.

        They’ll buy Fiatsler but not GM. They’ll buy Fiatsler because it is no longer a dead American company — the names are the same but the products have changed.

        I expect that this topic will remain of interest to a great many Americans while others, like you, would counter with the question, “At this point, what difference does it make!?”

        • 0 avatar
          Landcrusher

          Lol, good one.

          Amazing how there isn’t a lot of interest in “facts” on this story from the pragmatic, scientific, and non ideological crowd.

          You guys against transparency here? Why?

          • 0 avatar
            psarhjinian

            This isn’t about being against transparency, it’s about being against showboating.

            This is like the automotive equivalent of Benghazi.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Sometimes….. it is better to leave things alone because opening this can of worms again will be red meat for one s!de, depending on political beliefs.

            The precedence was set, bailouts, handouts and nationalization.

            It was ill-advised, partisan and only to the benefit of the UAW, who got to keep their jobs and outrageous wages and benefits while other Americans died on the vine.

            I’m OK with it if you’re OK with using your tax dollars to prop up a failed public company. I don’t pay any income taxes. Don’t have to. My income is below the poverty level. Don’t even have to file!

            Had Benghazi happened during Shrub’s term, the Dems would all be up in arms to get to the bottom of it all.

            If a person believes in bailouts, handouts and nationalization, they buy GM.

            If they don’t believe in it, they buy something else.

            Personally, I buy what I believe to be the best value in reliability, durability, dependability and retains the most worth at trading time.

            Toyota!

          • 0 avatar
            psarhjinian

            “The precedence was set, bailouts, handouts and nationalization.”

            What nationalization? Renault was nationalized; what happened with GM was very much not nationalization.

            I wish it was.

            “It was ill-advised, partisan and only to the benefit of the UAW, who got to keep their jobs and outrageous wages and benefits while other Americans died on the vine.”

            Umm, no. It was done so that, hot on the heels of Lehmann and a lockup of credit, that a company responsible for a seventh to a fifth of the employment didn’t implode.

            I’m sure the government would have preferred a Cerberus or FIAT to pick up GM, but no one had the money, and no one was going to lend anyone the money, so a GM bankruptcy would have turned into a Chapter-7.

            The UAW VEBA was a creditor, and literally the only agency willing to operate GM as a going concern.

            “I’m OK with it if you’re OK with using your tax dollars to prop up a failed public company.”

            I’m okay with my taxes propping up a company that props up a lot of other companies, including the ones I work for. I like not experiencing life in a Depression.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            “I’m okay with my taxes propping up a company that props up a lot of other companies, including the ones I work for”

            I’m not. That’s why I never went to work for anyone after I retired. Plenty of work available to keep me busy.

            I am not my brother’s keeper and I detest having to pay someone else’s way with my blood, sweat and tears.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Psar,
            It may or may not be like Benghazi, but with Benghazi some people made some explanations of why transparency could lead to bad outcomes. All I’ve heard here is unsupported rationales. We all want national security, but the difference here is the enemy isn’t identified and neither really is the bad outcome. A lot of us don’t think the treasury should be saving companies.

          • 0 avatar
            PonchoIndian

            HDC
            Chrysler got bailout money, so I’m not sure what the heck you’re talking about.

            I thought it was un-America to not contribute to society, apparently it is only American to lie cheat and steal in your America.

            You don’t even realize what a contradiction you are vs. the words you type.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            PonchoIndian, Chrysler is now wholly-owned by a foreign company. And I own a 2012 Grand Cherokee. Excellent vehicle. In fact, there are two in my immediate family: our 2012 Overland Summit and my son’s 2012 SRT8.

            Both have held up real well. Surprising for a Chrysler product but not since Daimler mixed some of its DNA/RNA into the mix.

            GM, OTOH, is now in the throes of massive recalls. Had we bribed the Chinese to take GM’s carcass off our hands, like we did with Fiat taking in Chrysler, things would be better.

          • 0 avatar
            PonchoIndian

            HDC
            Yes Chrysler is now part of Fiat. They also were given money by the government and went through the same bk process as GM. Debts were forgiven and the US tax payers gave them money.

            You have complained multiple times about the quality of your Grand Cherokee, and you purchased your Grand Cherokee that went through the same situation that GM went through. Can’t make it much simpler than that. Kind of hypocritical don’t you think?

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            I have never complained about our 2012 Grand Cherokee! It’s been a great car and is now the daily driver for my 23-yo grand daughter. Her dad, my oldest son, owns a 2012 Grand Cherokee SRT8, so it seemed natural to let him maintain it.

            I don’t interpret situations the way you do, but it is immaterial to me if we disagree. I don’t pay your bills and you don’t pay mine.

            You are entitled to the world as you interpret it, and I will continue to live my life based on my assessment of real life around me.

            I think we, the people, did the right thing bribing Fiat with $1.3B to take Chrysler’s carcass off our hands. I wish we would have liquidated, chopped up and redistributed GM’s parts among the automakers of the world.

            I used to be a GM fan, for decades. But no more.

          • 0 avatar
            PonchoIndian

            HDC
            You’re right, we don’t agree. I interpret things based on fact and reason, you, for lack of a better way of putting it, interpret things from lala land.

            I could care less about you hating on GM. But bitching about using tax payers money (money you don’t contribute to because you manipulate your income numbers or whatever) and then buying a vehicle from a company that went through exactly the same situation as GM (except worse because Chrysler was privately owned, so we, the real tax payers, bailed out a privately owned Chrysler and a publicly traded/owned GM) and trying to look all high and mighty about it makes it very difficult to respect your opinion on just about anything.

            I’m just not sure how you can sit back and look at all the FACTS (no interpretation needed) and then still repeat what you’ve said with a straight face. You’re a unique dude, I respect that you’re a unique dude, but come on man…

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            PonchoIndian, you may already know that I used to own a number of GM shares prior to mid-2008. GM did very well for me. And my brothers used to sell GM prior to their retirement from the industry.

            Where I live, a lot of people think the way I do, and interpret real life around us the way I do.

            Bottom line, you have to live by the tenets you believe in. And if we can’t agree, we can agree to disagree. You do your thing. I do mine.

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            What difference do dead Americans make?

        • 0 avatar
          psarhjinian

          “psarh, there are still a lot of people in America who will not buy a GM product precisely because of the bailouts, handouts and nationalization.”

          And that’s fine. They’re entitled to do that.

          But the reasons behind the bailout* and the legality of it are all well-discussed, debated and litigated. It wasn’t illegal, and there’s nowhere that it says they’re entitled to not being called purveyors of sour grapes.

          * It wasn’t nationalization. Nationalization is what I was hoping for, but didn’t get.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            psar, same facts, different interpretations.

            Like the stock market. One party decides its time to sell. Another party decides its time to buy.

            Same facts, different interpretations.

            Just because something is not illegal does not make it immoral.

            Tax evasion is illegal. Tax avoidance is not illegal but Democrats call it immoral, unless they are the ones getting caught doing it.

            Every GM product comes with a taxpayer subsidy. Too bad you can’t tell by the price. But that is because the buyers have to pay for the padding on the MSRP to fund the UAW.

          • 0 avatar
            PonchoIndian

            Highdesert,

            How can you talk morality when you have claimed to hire “illegals” to work for you?

            Hello pot, meet kettle

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Poncho, HDC is also in favor of curbstoning practices, and sees them as legal.

            He has his own definitions of “legal,” which are the opposite of what said word actually means.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            PonchoIndian, dude! Those are the only laborers that will work in the Great State of New Mexico!

            Americans doing menial labor!? Unheard of! Unless the minimum wage is raised to $25 per hour with free health benefits.

            The unemployed Americans don’t have to work because they are couch potatoes on welfare.

            Illegals have to eat too and by giving them a job, a drivers license, a bank account just gets them to leave NM sooner for the greener pastures in the North and East Blue States.

          • 0 avatar
            PonchoIndian

            HDC
            You mean those are the only ones who will work for the under the table wage you pay them and I’m sure you don’t have any kind of workman’s comp insurance for them.

            What ever gets you to sleep at night, justify away. Just pointing out that there is a slight disconnect and gray area when you say “illegal”.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Hah, they get paid a Benjamin a day for however long I’m working on a project. And they get to keep ALL of it.

            In case you don’t know it, the underground economy in America is huge.

            But this is not the venue to detail it. That’s why O* resorted to Executive action re illegals because he wanted to bring them out in the open and get them to pay taxes on their earnings.

            And, you know, that may just work in the North and East Blue States. Not so much in CA, AZ, TX, NM, NV, OK and CO.

          • 0 avatar
            PonchoIndian

            HDC, way to skirt the questions.

            I completely understand the “underground economy”. I also completely understand how illegal it is, but that doesn’t fit your definition of illegal. It’s cool with me.

            I won’t even get into the “I don’t pay income taxes because I don’t make enough” comment. I find it interesting that a family who doesn’t have to pay income taxes because of such low income can afford to buy $50k vehicles (Tundra, Grand Cherokee, Sequoia etc) every couple of years as well as provide new vehicles for children and grand children.
            I suppose it’s all just part of the underground economy. I’m in what used to be a blue state, and I bleed blue…so I guess I couldn’t get it.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            PonchoIndian, I think you nailed it. And for your information, the underground economy of NM pales by comparison to that of CA, TX, and AZ. Can’t even hold a candle to it.

            It’s not illegal. It is a fact of every day life on every street corner where day-laborers gather.

            Even NV has a thriving underground economy, mostly manifested in the hospitality industry and private homes like those in Henderson and other outlying communities.

            The bottom line though, we all have to use what works for us. And for your information, my daughter-in-law in TX WAS an illegal alien. She had to become a US citizen when my son got his commission in the US Army.

            But the rest of her family never did; never became US citizens.

            A particularly awkward situation, you should agree, since my son became a supervisory agent for the border patrol after his retirement from the US Army.

          • 0 avatar
            PonchoIndian

            so just to clear things up. You are upset that the US government used tax money (not your tax money because you don’t pay taxes and cheat the system) to keep hundreds of thousands of legal US citizens keep their jobs and even keep those not directly involved keep their jobs. Because of this you won’t use your non-taxed undeclared income on a car built by GM because you don’t think they should have been help using that tax money you don’t pay.

            hmmm. Carry on sir. It’s not you it’s me.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “But this is not the venue to detail it. That’s why O* resorted to Executive action re illegals because he wanted to bring them out in the open and get them to pay taxes on their earnings.”

            Imagine that…the President of the United States trying to enforce a law that says that people who work here pay taxes here. How dare he? Who does he think he is – the chief executive or something? Impeach now!

            I’ll tell ya what, HDC…don’t bother lecturing the rest of us who actually follow the rules about illegality, immorality or anything else. Far as I’m concerned, if you’re hiring illegals, you should be wearing an orange jumpsuit.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            PonchoIndian, again, you nailed it. Selective bailouts and handouts are not what America is about. There were a lot of small businesses that died when GM and the UAW got to carry on in their grandiose lifestyle. At least we, the people, dumped Chrysler’s carcass, and look at ‘m go now!

            I thought the bailouts started under Shrub were a bad idea, even worse when O* doubled down on it. But it is a fact of life now and par for the course so I have learned to adjust and accept it; As long as I don’t have to pay for it, contribute to it, or support it.

            This is what America wanted. This is what America voted for. Not once, but twice. This is exactly what America deserves. Don’t worry, be happy. Relish in paying your taxes. I’ll continue to keep a very low profile, as will millions of others.

            ——————————

            FreedMike, I do not presume to lecture anyone — I don’t care about anyone except me and mine. Maybe that’s why I can’t buy into any of this phony business that purports itself to be America’s political parties.

            We each live by what we believe in. I live by what works for me.

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    Are we still beating this 6 year old dead horse? Yet little is to be found about the big Toyota recall involving fuel leaks and fires or the Takata air bag fiasco also involving Honda. Interesting! If this involved GM it would be flashing in banners right on the front page as your first article of the day!

    • 0 avatar
      Landcrusher

      First, the Japanese stories seem pretty straightforward. People acted badly to avoid losing money and reputation and it blew up and hurt people. It’s nothing to dwell on since the usual system will likely punish the companies and the responsible executives will likely keep working in the industry. Almost everyone gets this and apparently does not care.

      Second, the GM story is about government breaking the rules. Some think it’s okay because they were doing the right things while others think it’s a moral issue and needs to be prevented to stop even worse events in the future. It’s not settled.

      It’s not a conspiracy, it’s just what makes something newsworthy.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      The issues with Toyota and Takata/Honda ultimately have to do with disclosure. The scandal, such as there is, is because they didn’t reveal the issues in a timely fashion and instead just sat on it.

      That’s why they were fined: inaction.

      The GM story, well, I have to say at this point it’s just sour grapes and clickbait. If it were illegal, someone would have successfully sued them by now. But it makes great red meat for the political right wing.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        This story has some odd bedfellows. Clarence Ditlow is firmly on the left — CAS was formed by Ralph Nader — and his goal is to get the new GM to pay claims that belong to the old bankrupt GM.

        (The legal argument for making the new company responsible for old company liabilities is lacking, but this is presumably more about PR pressure than the law.)

        The conservatives apparently hate GM more than they do Ditlow and his fondness for regulations. Conservatives speak of their passions for “the rule of law,” yet their desire to see basic bankruptcy principles applied here is notably absent.

        The good news is that Ditlow makes a fraction of what the guys at NLPC are paying themselves. At least Ditlow’s heart is in the right place.

        • 0 avatar
          Landcrusher

          Nice way to spin it.

          The rule of law crowd doesn’t agree the law was followed and the folks for principles are sure it was a scam illegal or not.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            You don’t know the first thing about bankruptcy law. You have no knowledge of the “rule of law,” you’re only regurgitating what you’ve read from pundits who share your ignorance of bankruptcy law.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Amazing how you leap right into an attack and miss the point completely yet again. My knowledge of anything, nor the source of that knowledge, has nothing to do with the veracity of my statement.

            People still disagree and think there was a scam. They could be wrong or right, but there still is a disagreement. As you are well aware, I believe the current BK system is terrible. I am not alone. Why does this make you so angry?

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            It’s not “disagreement,” it’s delusion.

            The facts are all there. You’ve had six years to sort it out. I doubt that another six years are going to help — you would rather complain about it than understand it.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Ah, so we shouldn’t get to see these hidden records because it will only feed our delusions? Your so thoughtful.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          “The conservatives apparently hate GM more than they do Ditlow and his fondness for regulations.”

          They don’t hate GM. It’s just another mindless soundbite they can use to get the dittoheads lathered up.

      • 0 avatar
        Landcrusher

        Miss the point much?

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          An ironic comment, indeed. Your “points” are invariably off the mark and come from some far-off corner of Bizarroland.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            the point is that there is disagreement lingering in the GM issue and not the others. It’s not partisan until you guys make it so.

            In spite of your vitriol, I still believe you are entitled to an opinion, but you don’t always have to start with the insults.

      • 0 avatar
        jrmason

        “The issues with Toyota and Takata/Honda ultimately have to do with disclosure.”

        What do you consider the cover up of the ignition failures of the last 10 years?

        I have no problem of GM taking the bailout as no actions would have resulted in the supporting industry to fall like a house of cards. I do have a problem with all the debts that were forgiven and the tax breaks GM continues to get to this day. And they show their gratitude by dumping 5 billion in manufacturing south of the border.

        Gracias, Government Motors.

        • 0 avatar
          psarhjinian

          “What do you consider the cover up of the ignition failures of the last 10 years?”

          A failure to disclose, which is why GM is getting grilled over it. The issue is that new GM didn’t exist during a lot of the issue’s lifetime. What has to be determined is how much new GM knew and should have disclosed.

          “I do have a problem with all the debts that were forgiven and the tax breaks GM continues to get to this day.”

          Well, this is really hard to reconcile: on the one hand, GM went through bankruptcy, and what happened to it’s debt and legal liability was part of that.

          We can’t, on one hand, say that bankruptcy law wasn’t followed when it very clearly was, then complain when it is and say it’s unfair that they benefitted from the law.

          “And they show their gratitude by dumping 5 billion in manufacturing south of the border.”

          So you’re saying we should be telling corporations what to do? I mean, I’m okay with that. I’d prefer it. I’d be all over it like syrup on pancakes.

          I don’t think that’s what someone who uses the term “Government Motors” really wants, though.

          • 0 avatar
            jrmason

            “We can’t, on one hand, say that bankruptcy law wasn’t followed when it very clearly was, then complain when it is and say it’s unfair that they benefitted from the law”

            Getting a 45 billion dollar tax break after being cleared of your debts is not what I consider fair. I work an average of 1500 hours overtime a year to support my children and get RAPED in taxes. Every year I get almost nothing in the form of a tax return, and have actually owed 2 seperate years. I suppose this is “fair” to you as well.

          • 0 avatar
            psarhjinian

            “I work an average of 1500 hours overtime a year to support my children and get RAPED in taxes.”

            Then you can declare bankruptcy. That’s what GM did.

            Now, mind you, I once would have liked to see corporations pay taxes, but I’m also not the young idiot-communist I used to be and I understand “flow-through” now.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          “And they show their gratitude by dumping 5 billion in manufacturing south of the border.”

          So do Ford and Chrysler. They were doing it before the 2008 recession and they’re doing it afterwards.

          I don’t see your point.

  • avatar
    ZoomZoom

    I am one of hundreds of thousands of people who’s sense of right and wrong will prevent me from buying either Chrysler or GM products. I’m still outraged, and will be for a long time to come. Full transparency and disclosure would help, but not until it can be proven that all money has been repaid, and even then I’ll probably make them wait 30 years (a full generation, to ensure that the beneficiaries of my purchase are NOT the same people who got the bailouts) before I ever buy one of their products.

    The problem is, I’ve owned both GM and Chrysler crap products which have at times inconvenienced and at other times put me at risk for injury or death, and have had time and time again the displeasure of dealing with dealer/repair center bullshit, so I will probably always have suspicions and will probably always find some reason to buy a Toyota, BMW, Mercedes, Nissan, Lexus, Acura, or ANYTHING not made by GM or Chrysler.

    I even request non-GM and non-Chrysler cars whenever I have to travel and rent a vehicle. I want NONE of my money going to benefit these two corporations beyond what I’ve already paid (and will continue to pay) in taxes and the intangible penalties we are all paying for keeping these rickety ships afloat.

    I’m still infuriated by 2009, and my conservatism or liberalism has NOTHING to do with it. I will be intractable and stubborn on this maybe until the day I die. Certainly at least until the day the last pre-2009 GM/Chrysler employee no longer draws a pension.

    I say this with all good nature, but with hard determination so that you’ll know that there are a lot of people like me. GM/Chrysler can stick that feather in their collective cap, or better yet, where the sun doesn’t shine.

    No more bailouts!

    • 0 avatar
      S2k Chris

      I mentally distilled your post down to “I don’t understand macroeconomics!”

      The bailout was a terrible choice, except for all the other possible choices.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    I’m in favor, make it public. We paid for it, let us see.

  • avatar
    50merc

    Exactly how would “disclosure … hurt [the government’s] chances of negotiating a future rescue of a company considered essential to the economy”?

    If the disclosure revealed Treasury wanted New GM to be free of liabilities tied to Old GM, I wouldn’t be disturbed. I’d consider that to be a prudent policy for the public purse.

    Alternatively, if the disclosure showed GM and Treasury knowingly colluded to maintain secrecy of the ignition switch debacle (or other hidden offenses), thereby putting more motorists at risk, then I’d consider that to be a scandal. To hell with protecting the guilty.

    • 0 avatar
      wsn

      “If the disclosure revealed Treasury wanted New GM to be free of liabilities tied to Old GM, I wouldn’t be disturbed. I’d consider that to be a prudent policy for the public purse.”

      But you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

      You see, the new GM was given all the loss write offs of the old GM. As a result, the new GM won’t need to pay any tax for a very long time. I.e. new GM = old GM.

      On the other hand, the new GM denied all the accident claims of old GM. I.e. new GM != old GM.

      Essentially, GM took public money (including tax break) for the bailout, and refuse to pay liability to the public. You can make your choice about whether the new GM is the same as old GM. I am OK with either choice. But don’t revert back when the topic changes.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      “If the disclosure revealed Treasury wanted New GM to be free of liabilities tied to Old GM, I wouldn’t be disturbed”

      That’s the entire point of filing bankruptcy.

      Perhaps we could launch a new investigation into the wetness of water.

  • avatar
    50merc

    Yes, the objective was to create a viable New GM. Inevitably, some had to sacrifice. But it is not unreasonable to ask the Treasury to defend what happened. So make it do that.

    In all the years I worked in state government, I never saw secrecy serving any purpose other than keeping politicians and bureaucrats out of hot water.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      The purpose of bankruptcy is to discharge previous liabilities. If bankruptcy didn’t purge a company of previous obligations, then there wouldn’t be much point in filing it.

      This is like expressing shock and dismay that someone got wet by taking a shower, when that was the point. There is nothing to investigate.

      GM actually took on more liabilities than it had to by agreeing to handle recalls for pre-BK vehicles and to accept liability for defects related to those cars when the incidents occurred post-BK. The internet illiterati have it backwards.

      • 0 avatar
        Landcrusher

        Apparently, the judge gets to be the arbiter of whether the case is out of bounds, and not Justice PCH, the self proclaimed expert on all things bankruptcy.

        Of course, a bankruptcy is supposed to get rid of liabilities, but as everyone not drowning in the Kool Aid seems to understand, this was no normal bankruptcy.

        We now pause for an ad hominem attack from his honour…

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          As noted, you don’t know enough about bankruptcy to know the difference between “normal” and “abnormal.” Throwing around the word “normal” is your attempt to slam the process without conceding that you don’t grasp how it works.

          In any case, where is this customary right-wing passion for “tort reform”? CAS is doing what every other tort plaintiff does — it throws stuff at the wall in the hopes that some of it will stick, even though the motion should be tossed. That sort of thing “normal”ly upsets you, but you’re being quite “abnormal” about it when it suits you.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Yeah, not normal, everyone knows it, some hacks deny it. Not even a nice try.

            I’m still for tort reform. I reserve the right to review the suit and call it ridiculous. No hypocrisy in this at all. Nor would there be hypocrisy in your failing to demand justice for the poor peasants from the evil corporation and their cronies in Washington.

            In the meantime, feel free to point out why the information requested should be withheld. We are all still waiting.

            Apart from whatever the law is here, the government became a party with the defense didn’t they? They married up. Doesn’t seem fair to now claim secrecy for your process of shielding against liability while claiming a shield against liability. Rather double secret probationish.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I do love the jargon.

            “Tort reform” essentially interferes with the right of a plaintiff to negotiate payment terms with his own lawyer.

            The right wing doesn’t care what you pay your lawyer if you pay him by the hour or put him on your payroll.

            But negotiate a contingency agreement, and suddenly they want to stick their noses into it. I would think that in a free country that I would be free to negotiate the terms that I want with my own lawyer.

            If that’s what small government looks like, then I’ll take the big government that leaves me alone, thanks very much.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Lol, you bring up tort reform to try to change the argument? Nice try. Not buying. Now that we agree this isn’t a case of hypocrisy, want to explain why the secrecy?

            Either you don’t know (most likely since you love to toss out anything you think you know to bolster your self esteem), or you know and it’s deadly to your position (we’ve been there with you o many times).

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The point of raising “tort reform” is to show the hypocrisy in your camp.

            You whine about trial lawyers who waste court time, yet you applaud them when they serve your agenda.

            You talk about “the rule of law” when you don’t possess even a basic understanding of the law.

            You demand “transparency” when the issue at hand is as clear as day and is no secret.

            The government didn’t reduce GM’s liability for pre-BK vehicles, it expanded it. If you had an even basic understanding of the case, then you would already know this.

            People who devote as much energy as you do to this subject should know what you’re talking about. Yet you don’t. Why all of the effort if you aren’t going to learn anything?

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Denial and obfuscation. No hypocrisy anyway. Your MSNBC version of Tort Reform is silly anyway.

            This story is about withheld documents from the Treasury. Why not disclose the documents?

            Don’t know or afraid? Which is it?

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I would explain it, but (a) I already have and (b) it’s clearly a waste of time.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Honestly, can’t find even an attempt at explanation. I’ll be happy to apologize if you can quote yourself giving an explanation but all I see is smoke and bile.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            If you haven’t figured it out by now, then you never will.

            It’s pretty clear that you want to be agitated about this topic. The facts aren’t going to change that.

            There are people who have earned bachelor’s degrees in less time than it has taken you to still not understand this. I can’t possibly fix that.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            I see now I’ve been trolled. Any reasonable explanation would take less time than you’ve spent avoiding it.

            I don’t get the trolling thing, and no, I don’t want an explanation. I don’t get all sorts of stupidity.

        • 0 avatar
          Lie2me

          “his honour…”

          honour? I didn’t know Landcrusher was Canadian

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            That could explain the lack of knowledge of American bankruptcy law, eh?

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            Ya think?

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            I felt the English spelling would come off as more pompous.

            And there is nothing wrong with being Canadian.

            And, I bet I could find a Canadian who actually DOES know our bankruptcy laws unlike you two. Likely he or she could have a reasonable discussion as well.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            “And there is nothing wrong with being Canadian”

            Of course not, but it’s nothing short of rude to second guess another country’s laws as it applies to their citizens. None of your business

            “I felt the English spelling would come off as more pompous”

            I don’t find Canadians the least bit pompous, not sure why you would say that

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Lol, where did you get the Canadian thing anyway? It’s not a Canadian spelling.

            Still think PCH in a wig, snorting some snuff, demanding he be respected and referred to as “His Honour” or “His Majesty” would fit fine.

            Also, I’m not second guessing anything, and my point stands. I’m sure there are plenty of actual experts on the subject who weren’t born here who wouldn’t need to be rude having respectfully studied the subject and not be guessing at it.

            BTW, It’s not rude to second guess necessarily. Why would you even say that?

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        I’m not convinced there isn’t legal obligation. Never mind the moral obligation for a sec, of not turning their back on the former GM’s cars with deadly flaws, plus making things right with victims.

        Point is the New GM assumed the original “GM” trademark and Chevrolet/Cadillac/etc branding. The New GM resumed where the old GM left off.

        So the new GM made a smooth, seamless transition to not disrupt what the old GM had going for itself. Legacy, heritage, etc. They wanted all the “good” from the old GM, but not the bad/ugly. Kinda convenient, no?

        Had they let the old GM brand/marques/logos/etc, die and started with a new name/brand, say “Average Motor Co” or “Normal Motors”, and renamed all their vehicles, only then would they be legally/morally absolved. Maybe.

        But there’s the lingering sense, the old GM sat on the revelation that their cars were killing Americans, except they knew GM was sinking ship, and at one point, it wouldn’t matter anymore. Just a matter of time. Like a boat taking on more water than it could pump out, GM was losing far more millions a day, than was coming in. Day in, day out.

        So no one executive at the old GM was making rational decisions, based on long term. And while pretending nothing was wrong so employees wouldn’t jump ship, consumers wouldn’t shop elsewhere, and stockholders not dump GM.

        Americans died because of this.

        It reminds me of the Concordia ship, while it was sinking and its crew reassuring passengers everything was just fine, not to worry. This while the ship was leaning so much, they could walk on the walls just as easily as the floor.

        Both events make me sick just to think about. I will never again go on a cruise. Or buy another GM.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          The liability limitations are in the bankruptcy plan approved by the court.

          GM accepted more liability than was required under the law. Not a matter of opinion, just a fact.

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/28/AR2009062802466.html

  • avatar
    an innocent man

    It’s fun watching my friends on the left defend Big Corporations.

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      Yeah, well, we found out that ‘corporations are people too, my friend’, and now we feel obligated to help them out.

      • 0 avatar
        an innocent man

        Next up:

        But Exxon made the tanker SAFER than they had to!

        But McDonalds put LESS pink slime in than they were allowed!

        The Koch brothers paid MORE in taxes than they had to!

      • 0 avatar
        Landcrusher

        VoGo,
        What is the big hang up on that tag line? I really don’t get it. Isnt it just a legal technicality? The position of conservatives seems to be that a corp is just a piece of paper and that they are made up of people. The most common usage seems to be in opposition to corporate taxes as in “Corporations don’t pay taxes…”

        IfI could get an honest reply, I promise not to attack the answer.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          Landcrusher,
          I’m not hung up on the line, but I know it was a popular refrain just before the 2012 election.

          My take is that the line, even taken out of context, demonstrated Mitt’s character – that he was a man of the corporations, not a man of the people.

    • 0 avatar
      Lie2me

      You have “friends on the left”? Perhaps they’re defending the law and not the big corporations. I understand, my “friends on the right” have comprehension difficulties with the law, the constitution, human rights and all that other left agenda stuff

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        The “rule of law” thing that they talk about so much only applies when it’s convenient.

      • 0 avatar
        an innocent man

        Oh, I agree L2M. My friends on the right have all of those problems you mentioned. They are for the most part absolute shills for corporations. I’m just humored when my friends on the left act like they aren’t just as big of shills. And for the record, I mostly support the bailout the way it went down. The least bad of mostly not good choices. It’s just hard to swallow because they really did it to themselves. (And though they deserve some of the blame, I’d put the UAW’s portion of the blame at less than 5%).

  • avatar
    Conslaw

    The government’s position is ridiculous. Hiding the decision making process is more likely to lead to good ideas being lost and bad ideas being repeated.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Jeff S: Yes I see where you are coming from but lets see what Ford does with the Mustang and Bronco brand. Ford is...
  • tomLU86: I think you mean the 2007 Malibu (not the 1997). It was an excellent car, I agree. Better than the CamCords?...
  • Jeff S: Tried to view this truck but the posting has been deleted which most likely means it sold.
  • Jeff S: @Nate–Without rust, low mileage, and good interior you would easily get 5k to 6k where I live and it...
  • Lie2me: ” no one more than 10 miles from a Mazda dealership seems to buy” Lol, you can always tell when...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber