re: #95 reine.de.tout

Operating profit by all three domestics? Not exactly.

Ford had an operating profit without any federal involvement.

GM pulled an operating profit, but it’s underlying numbers are still putrid. The company is betting the farm on a loss-leader with the Chevy Volt, the economics of which isn’t going to make a profit for the company anytime soon. And the name of the game is making profits. If the company can’t produce cars at a profit on a consistent basis, then it will again slide into the red in a big way.

Chrysler somehow managed an operating profit as well.

How did those occur? The bankruptcy reorganizations allowed both to shed bad contracts and rejigger their finances, including some parts of awful deals with the unions (including the jobs bank). However, the companies are anything but on solid financial footing.

And the same result could have been had without federal intervention had the companies sought bankruptcy reorganization prior to the federal infusion of funds (the Bush bailouts - which were followed by Obama’s own bailouts). Bush didn’t want the bankruptcy/reorganizations on his watch, so he pushed the bailout to dump the mess in Obama’s lap. Obama doubled down with his own bailout putting taxpayer dollars on the hook.

No - the bailouts didn’t save jobs and the Obama Administration didn’t save 55,000 jobs as they’re contending.

The reorganizations of both companies that enabled them to shed the bad deals did. And all that bad debt is still around - in Old GMCo, which consolidated all the bad debts and liquidated facilities under one toxic entity.

Reorganization could have been done in 2009 without affecting the Treasury and without the federal interference. Heck, GM and Chrysler could have followed Ford’s route in 2007-2009 by making substantive and serious changes to their entire corporate operations. Instead, they limped into government’s open arms.

So no, I don’t buy into the WH line that they saved jobs.