g48150 Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 First the link to the Blackstone IPO: Blackstone IPO This is where things get tricky. It's called the recapitalization of Detroit, and it's happening now guys! Blackstone is soon going to have all the cash it needs in an open market, of all the "private equity" companies out there, Blackstone will NOW have the most liquidity. Blackstone is no stranger to automotive either, they bought TRW Auto from Northrop Grumman, they seem to be doing fairly well there on Plymouth Road in Livonia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g48150 Posted March 25, 2007 Author Share Posted March 25, 2007 Chrysler Article Well at least I'M not the only one that thinks Blackstone is after Chrysler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaSVT Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 Chrysler Article Well at least I'M not the only one that thinks Blackstone is after Chrysler. Umm, yes you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g48150 Posted May 22, 2007 Author Share Posted May 22, 2007 Umm, yes you are. Ahh grasshopper, not so fast... The Chinese Government just announced plans to invest in the Blackstone Group, which currently owns TRW, as well as many other auto and non-auto companies... Once the UAW has been properly "dealt" with and Hillary gets closer to being in office, expect to see more and more of Chrysler's "business" being sold off... Red up on your Mao lately? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 (edited) Ahh grasshopper, not so fast... The Chinese Government just announced plans to invest in the Blackstone Group, which currently owns TRW, as well as many other auto and non-auto companies... Once the UAW has been properly "dealt" with and Hillary gets closer to being in office, expect to see more and more of Chrysler's "business" being sold off... Red up on your Mao lately? $3 Billion Hillary ain't perfect, but you're walking on thin ice trying to link the sell-out of America to the Democrats. Reagan was the first one to declare open season on the unions, and it hasn't stopped since. Edited May 22, 2007 by retro-man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 $3 Billion Hillary ain't perfect, but you're walking on thin ice trying to link the sell-out of America to the Democrats. Reagan was the first one to declare open season on the unions, and it hasn't stopped since. Rightly so when national safety was at stake. No union should be able to hold the country hostage. They had fair warning before the President did the only thing he could do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 National safety was never at stake, but it is now. The planes could have been grounded. Now you have air traffic controllers working too many hours, trying to keep track of way too many planes on severely outdated equipment. Taking away the unions constitutional right to strike to force changes to better safety, it is a ticking time bomb. They have a constitutional right to strike. They also have a constitutional right to get fired for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68Cougar Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Ahh grasshopper, not so fast... The Chinese Government just announced plans to invest in the Blackstone Group, which currently owns TRW, as well as many other auto and non-auto companies... Once the UAW has been properly "dealt" with and Hillary gets closer to being in office, expect to see more and more of Chrysler's "business" being sold off... Red up on your Mao lately? What does Blackstone have to do with Chrysler? Cerberus does not equal Blackstone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 (edited) Rightly so when national safety was at stake. No union should be able to hold the country hostage. They had fair warning before the President did the only thing he could do. There've been enough incidents over the last 25 years to see what gutting PATCO has done for "national safety". This is only the latest of many many. WTF alternate universe do you inhabit anyway? You were joking, is that it? And PATCO was only the first volley in reversing 100 years of the labor movement. The results can be clearly seen on this graph: Admittedly, this is an old graph. It covers only the first 20 years of the Reagan revolution. The 10 years since have only seen an acceleration of the trends. Edited May 23, 2007 by retro-man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g48150 Posted May 24, 2007 Author Share Posted May 24, 2007 $3 Billion Hillary ain't perfect, but you're walking on thin ice trying to link the sell-out of America to the Democrats. Reagan was the first one to declare open season on the unions, and it hasn't stopped since. I'm not saying the Democrats are going to mop the floor with the UAW, but then again, look who signed NAFTA... What I am saying is look when Big Steel underwent privatization, the steelworkers are doing WAYYY better now than they were in the 80's no? Albeit there are ten thousands fewer now than in the 80s... All I am saying... Is give the Chinese a chance, they may not be the smartest, but they've got the most people Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted May 27, 2007 Share Posted May 27, 2007 (edited) I'm not saying the Democrats are going to mop the floor with the UAW, but then again, look who signed NAFTA... What I am saying is look when Big Steel underwent privatization, the steelworkers are doing WAYYY better now than they were in the 80's no? Albeit there are ten thousands fewer now than in the 80s... All I am saying... Is give the Chinese a chance, they may not be the smartest, but they've got the most people Well, the Democrats and the Republicans are barely distinguishable from each other in terms of what they've done to the American worker. Perot was the last almost-main-stream candidate that made any sense. But, since Reagan created his "revolution" - the results of which we've had 25 years now to assess: link - the Democrats have spent most of the time playing catch-up rather than driving the agenda in any real sense. That could change. The evidence of how wrong the road we are on is just keeps rolling in. I hope to see the death of denial soon. Edited May 28, 2007 by retro-man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 I hope to see the death of denial soon. Ladies and Gentlemen, it's my pleasure to present to you, once again, the triumph of hope over experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 Only thing that keeps me going Rich. Only thing that keeps me going. :P . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 Only thing that keeps me going Rich. Only thing that keeps me going. :P . I'm a Minnesota Vikings fan, so it's with an inner twinge that I needle anyone who keeps shoveling horse manure out of the stable, thinking that if there's that much manure, there's bound to be a horse somewhere... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted May 29, 2007 Share Posted May 29, 2007 There've been enough incidents over the last 25 years to see what gutting PATCO has done for "national safety". This is only the latest of many many. WTF alternate universe do you inhabit anyway? You were joking, is that it? And PATCO was only the first volley in reversing 100 years of the labor movement. The results can be clearly seen on this graph: Admittedly, this is an old graph. It covers only the first 20 years of the Reagan revolution. The 10 years since have only seen an acceleration of the trends. 1. Are you suggesting that all airports were fully manned on shift before Reagan fired the Controllers? If not, what is your point? 2. That is a skewed graph. Who pays the most taxes? 3. IMHO, no one that serves in or for the Federal or State Government should be allowed to form or work in an union. If the person in the government supported job doesn't like the pay or conditions, they can go to the privet sector. Anyone that threatens to interrupt the safety or welfare of this nation should be removed. 4. The universe I inhabit is serving in the USAF since 1982. Show me the numbers were flying has become unsafe since Reagan fired the Controllers. You can't. In fact, it is more safe now than ever before to fly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted May 29, 2007 Share Posted May 29, 2007 "That is a skewed graph. Who pays the most taxes?" It is perhaps worth noting that government policies that benefit the wealthy benefit the treasury. If the wealthiest Americans furnish a staggering percentage of the overall tax receipts, then the U.S. government, in order to fund its own actions needs lots of wealthy people and lots of wealth creation at the highest levels. It is perhaps an indication of the unintended consequences of easing middle-class tax burdens (which have, I believe, trended downward for at least the past two-three decades), that the U.S. government's interest in middle-class wages has also decreased. There may not be a connection here, but the presence of these two facts (government and monetary policy that has benefited the wealthy, and increased dependence on the wealthy for tax revenue) seems intriguing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted May 29, 2007 Share Posted May 29, 2007 "That is a skewed graph. Who pays the most taxes?" It is perhaps worth noting that government policies that benefit the wealthy benefit the treasury. If the wealthiest Americans furnish a staggering percentage of the overall tax receipts, then the U.S. government, in order to fund its own actions needs lots of wealthy people and lots of wealth creation at the highest levels. It is perhaps an indication of the unintended consequences of easing middle-class tax burdens (which have, I believe, trended downward for at least the past two-three decades), that the U.S. government's interest in middle-class wages has also decreased. There may not be a connection here, but the presence of these two facts (government and monetary policy that has benefited the wealthy, and increased dependence on the wealthy for tax revenue) seems intriguing. Concur. The wealthy provides the VAST majority of our nations revenue. Not the middle class like many here might believe. It is indeed "intriguing" and there is a connection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 Unfortunately, it is not in the best interests of the country to derive too much revenue from too small a source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 Nor is it in the interest of the country to create a wealthy plutocracy. We are now enjoying a level of economic stratification that was hitherto associated with the age of the robber barons over 100 years ago, or with certain Latin American countries. Either way, how can any thinking person suggest that this is a move in the right direction? Certain scholars (ivory tower socialist intellectuals - there mettech, I did your work for you), have suggested that the stratification of wealth, and the decline of class mobility are endangering the very basis of democracy in this country. Or, to put it in simpler terms, we now truly have the best government money can buy. And I think just about anybody reading this knows that it's true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
630land Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 Well one things for sure, Plymouth aint coming back! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 (edited) $3 Billion Hillary ain't perfect, but you're walking on thin ice trying to link the sell-out of America to the Democrats. Reagan was the first one to declare open season on the unions, and it hasn't stopped since. So, one is guilty passively and the other openly, neither one works for the union. The bulk of the contributions come from the coin holders. But if they can dupe the union than that's more butter on the bread! Forget the democrats also, What have they done for the working man? Edited June 9, 2007 by Furious1Auto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.