Hostess

[BigRedBuster]

 

Where was the private capital that would have been necessary to keep them afloat during that bankruptcy? Who was loaning that kind of money at that time?

 

AFTER a company files for bankruptcy protection - they can obtain special financing that is less risky to the creditor. No doubt the financial climate at the time likely would require them to apply for financing through the US Treasury to cover what couldn't be obtained through private financing.

 

But the GM bailout was backwards. The US Gov "financed" them BEFORE the bankruptcy.

 

There is a very large difference between "bailout" loans and bankruptcy financing.

 

--

 

back to Twinkies.

 

That's a wonderful post that does nothing to answer the question of who was going to loan GM the money to stay afloat at that time. This revisionist history where the money was just sitting there waiting to be loaned out, but instead the U.S. government swooped in to bail out GM anyway is fanciful, but not true. There was no private capital being made available.

 

Read post BEFORE reply works better.

 

If it's still not clear after all the bold and colors added.

 

The who you are asking for is still likely the US Treasury. I was agreeing with you on that point.

 

The difference is whether the loan is made as part of a bailout package pre-bankrupcy or part of a post-bankruptcy financing loan.

 

Us evil right-wing Republicans weren't against the US Gov being a part "saving" GM. It's how it was done that we don't agree with.

 

It's one thing to be the creditor financing a bankruptcy where the courts determine how the company is restructured and what happens to the debt.

 

It's another thing entirely bypassing the bankruptcy process and the Gov taking on the role of a bankruptcy court but without US Law to guide how the debt is handled.

 

 

And, this is the main difference between what Obama did and what Romney was saying needed done.

 

It should have been allowed to go bankrupt and then restructured through the bankruptcy court with the government financing.

[BigRedBuster]

The other side of the story . . . in case anyone wonders why the union was on strike:

After securing our hourly cash from the bankruptcy judge they set out on getting approval to force a new contract on us. They had already refused to negotiate outside of court. They received approval from the judge to impose the contract then turned it over to the Union for a vote. You read that right, they got it approved by the judge before ever showing to the Union.

What was this last/best/final offer? You'd never know by watching the main stream media tell the story. So here you go...

1) 8% hourly pay cut in year 1 with additional cuts totaling 27% over 5 years. Currently, I make $16.12 an hour at TOP rate of pay in the bakery. I would drop to $11.26 in 5 years.

2) They get to keep our $3+ an hour forever.

3) Doubling of weekly insurance premium.

4) Lowering of overall quality of insurance plan.

5) TOTAL withdrawal from ALL pensions. If you don't have it now then you never will.

 

Remember how I said I made $48,000 in 2005 and $34,000 last year? I would make $25,000 in 5 years if I took their offer.

It will be hard to replace the job I had, but it will be easy to replace the job they were trying to give me.

That $3+ per hour they steal totaled $50 million last year that they never paid us. They sold $2.5 BILLION in product last year. If they can't make this profitable without stealing my money then good riddance.

 

I keep hearing how this strike forced them to liquidate. How we should just take it and be glad to have a job. What an unpatriotic view point. The reason these jobs provided me with a middle class opportunity is because people like my father in law and his father fought for my Union rights. I received that pay and those benefits because previous Union members fought for them. I won't sell them, or my coworkers, out.

http://www.dailykos....Hostess-Bankery

 

 

So, let me get this straight. Being unemployed is better than taking this?

it looks like hostess got bain'd.

 

what???

[carlfense]

So, let me get this straight. Being unemployed is better than taking this?

Who said that they have to be unemployed?

 

If you read the article you probably saw the line that said " . . . it will be easy to replace the job that they were trying to give me."

[ZRod]

So, let me get this straight. Being unemployed is better than taking this?

Who said that they have to be unemployed?

 

If you read the article you probably saw the line that said " . . . it will be easy to replace the job that they were trying to give me."

If they really were going to be cutting pay to $25,000 then you could definitely find a similar paying full time job at just about any major retail store. So odds are they won't be unemployed long.

[2ndNnine]

there's always barber college