• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GM's return to top continues as it rejoins S&P 500

You must have gone insane with rage when Obama shut down offshore drilling.
Domestic oil and energy production has, in fact, increased during Obama's term, while imports have dropped.

If his goal was to kill the US oil industry, he did a pretty shoddy job of it.
 
While that might be true in a sense, think about the jobs the government saved...
Actually, I'd say EB does have a point. It's likely the US government will take a loss on the investment.

However, there are lots of issues to balance out, including how long anyone actually wants the government to own huge tranches of private company stock. IMO it's better for the government to divest itself of ownership sooner rather than later, although it means a loss.
 
There are other automobile manufacturers in the United States, Ford among them, who now have to compete against the deep pockets of government.
The problem with your argument here is that if GM and Chrysler went under, so would most of the companies that supply parts to all of the Big 3. Ford would have been sunk right along with GM & Chrysler.


There was the same logic about "creating jobs" in solar companies, remember the speeches?, and billions just went to friends of the government....
Actually, the kinds of busts we saw are entirely typical of investment in a new field, regardless of whether the investment is public, private or both.

The Dot Com boom, for example, was a wholly private affair, with venture capitalists throwing money at companies with no track record, run by kids with no experience, and no goals beyond issuing an IPO whose stock price pops on the first day (aka the "exit strategy"). Nepotism, favoritism, drug use, insane wastes of money, unsustainable stock prices, unjustifiable speculation -- the excess was off the scale, and very few companies actually survived. The investment in renewable energy is downright tame compared to the Dot Com explosion.
 
Without the help, first from President Bush, then President Obama GM would likely be gone now.

In the mean time, the only one of the former great three American automakers to still deserve to be considered as such, Ford continues to prosper and thrive on the quality and value of its products and the soundness of its business decisions rather than on its ability to beg for and receive government handouts.
 
Allot of GM bond owners got burned by Obama. People that invested in GM, that helped them grow and in the end the Union, who caused their bankruptcy wound up getting the spoils.

I still say GM's heading for the inevitable bankruptcy. Obama's free money just pushed the inevitable down the road a bit.

It wasn't Obama's money, and it wasn't free. It was your money and my money and every other taxpayer's money
 
Domestic oil and energy production has, in fact, increased during Obama's term, while imports have dropped.

If his goal was to kill the US oil industry, he did a pretty shoddy job of it.

The invrease in production has nothing to do with Obama's policies. You can thank Bush for that.

Drilling is the job creator, not production
 
Domestic oil and energy production has, in fact, increased during Obama's term, while imports have dropped.

If his goal was to kill the US oil industry, he did a pretty shoddy job of it.

Are you saying this was a specific policy of Obama's ?

Most of the new production comes from shale and fracking, two things Obama's been trying to shut down since he's been in office.

So to imply that it's occurence equates to his election is dishonest and misleading.
 
Without the help, first from President Bush, then President Obama GM would likely be gone now.

General Motors is rejoining the club, the rarified air of the Standard & Poor's 500.

It's a dose of good news not only for GM's comeback story, but for stockholders who have seen a modest stock price bump from the milestone.

Standard & Poor's announced that GM, which reigned as the biggest company in the index from 1927 to 1958, will be back in after the close of trading on Thursday. The news is sure to buoy the mood at GM's stockholders' meeting the same day. And it will mark another milestone since GM filed for bankruptcy reorganization in 2009 and, as a result, was kicked out of the S&P 500 slot it had held since the index began in 1925.

The Detroit-based global automaker will rejoin at 130 among the 500 companies on the list ranked by the value of their shares available for trading, or float. It replaces Heinz, which is out because of its acquisition by Berkshire Hathaway. Financial services provider American International Group, which, like GM, received government assistance to stay in business during the recession, also will rejoin.

MORE: Treasury to sell 30 million shares of GM stock

GM shares closed at $34.96 Tuesday, up 1.6%. In the past year, it has ranged from $18.72 to $35.48.

"The GM team has been working very hard to earn the business of customers around the world and to win the confidence of investors, and rejoining the S&P 500 shows we're very much on track," said GM CEO Dan Akerson in a statement.

GM's return to top continues as it rejoins S&P 500

Geee....let's see, if they sold the shares at rounded up $35.00 a share that means taxpayers ONLY lost about $20.00 a share. Only the union employees got their pensions saved. Stockholders were illegally put behind the unions during the bankruptcy. Wooooohooooooooooo yep a bailout "saved" gm! lol Long live the low information voters.
 
Geee....let's see, if they sold the shares at rounded up $35.00 a share that means taxpayers ONLY lost about $20.00 a share. Only the union employees got their pensions saved. Stockholders were illegally put behind the unions during the bankruptcy. Wooooohooooooooooo yep a bailout "saved" gm! lol Long live the low information voters.
Are you saying that if some buddy voted for Obama they're low information voters? I bet up would be singing a differently tune if you worked for GM when the **** hit the fan.

Edit: speaking of low information voters GM's IPO was $33.00 :cool:
 
Last edited:
While that might be true in a sense, think about the jobs the government saved, and the faith in the government to keep major corporations afloat in a time of need. Who knows what would have happened to the American car market if GM went under. Do we simply import and lose all manufacturing jobs? While I agree monetarily that the government has not broken even yet the physiological boost GM's recovery has given the American manufacturing industry is something that cannot be priced.

well first and foremost for me its unconstitutional.

and why do people get mad when Washington bails out banks, but don't when they bail out GM, the government is not suppose to bail anyone out.
 
Geee....let's see, if they sold the shares at rounded up $35.00 a share that means taxpayers ONLY lost about $20.00 a share.
It's actually not really news that the government will lose a bit on the bailout. Again, the alternative to exiting early is the government holding onto GM stock for years. Either option has its downsides and will draw criticism.

Meanwhile, about a million decent-paying jobs were saved. Let's say the average auto industry worker nets $50,000 a year, and the average tax rate is 13% -- let's cut that to 10% to account for deductions. So, keeping those people employed produced $5 billion in federal tax revenues alone. It also prevented them from requiring unemployment insurance, food stamps, welfare, disability, early retirement or other entitlements. And of course they pay sales taxes and real estate taxes to the cities and states, and their purchases have multiplier effects....

Of course, it would be better if the bailout broke even. But overall, it doesn't strike me as a terrible move, assuming the companies have actually gotten on track. (Not an easy task during a major recession and a slow recovery.)


Stockholders were illegally put behind the unions during the bankruptcy.
No, they weren't.

Stockholders always get wiped out in a bankruptcy. They are officially the owners of the company, which means they are the ones who owe the creditors.

The unions, by the way, made numerous concessions leading up to and as a result of the bankruptcy. Eye and dental coverage were axed. New hires are paid at almost half the wages as before ($17/hr instead of $29/hr), and they also get 401(k)'s instead of pensions. They no longer have guaranteed annual raises; they now get profit sharing, so if the company is not profitable, they don't get a raise or bonus. The "job bank" -- where union employees who were temporarily laid off would get paid regardless -- got axed. Strikes have been banned. The stock received by the UAW is non-voting, and because of that setup, the companies cut their health care obligations to pensioners by 50-70%.

They got to keep their jobs, and pensions didn't get demolished. But they hardly came out unscathed.
 
Did you read it?

I guess you missed this part of the site I quoted. Not only was the trillion dollar stimulus a complete failure, the "shovel ready" part of the stimulus that Obama promised never happened.

But the stimulus ultimately failed to bring about a strong, sustainable recovery. Money was spread far and wide rather than dedicated to programs with the most bang for the buck. “Shovel-ready” projects, those that would put people to work right away, took too long to break ground. Investments in worthwhile long-term projects, on the other hand, were often rushed to meet arbitrary deadlines, and the resulting shoddy outcomes tarnished the projects’ image.


Lets try this

Obama Jokes at Jobs Council: 'Shovel-Ready Was Not as Shovel-Ready as We Expected' - Fox Nation
 
Are you saying that if some buddy voted for Obama they're low information voters? I bet up would be singing a differently tune if you worked for GM when the **** hit the fan.

Edit: speaking of low information voters GM's IPO was $33.00 :cool:

Yeah, unions and Obama could care less about stockholders and bond holders and the tax payer as long as they get theirs. Liberals have turned this country into a society driven by entitlements, nanny state and freebies. In the case of GM union members are "entitled" above anyone else. GM should have been left to fail, but no, unions are entitled to their entitlement, nanny and freebies, all at the expense of others. Shareholder, bond holders and the good old poor tax payer.
 
This is silly, what I said here at DP has no bearing on whether it was a bribe. And to imply the stimulus package was about shovel-ready jobs is clearly wrong.

stimpackage.jpg


Did you read it?

I guess you missed this part of the site I quoted. Not only was the trillion dollar stimulus a complete failure, the "shovel ready" part of the stimulus that Obama promised never happened.

But the stimulus ultimately failed to bring about a strong, sustainable recovery. Money was spread far and wide rather than dedicated to programs with the most bang for the buck. “Shovel-ready” projects, those that would put people to work right away, took too long to break ground. Investments in worthwhile long-term projects, on the other hand, were often rushed to meet arbitrary deadlines, and the resulting shoddy outcomes tarnished the projects’ image.


Lets try this

Obama Jokes at Jobs Council: 'Shovel-Ready Was Not as Shovel-Ready as We Expected' - Fox Nation
My point was the amount dedicated to "shovel-ready" projects was so low (note the pie charts I provided) that it was incorrect to characterize the stimulus as all about "shovel-ready" projects. The opinion piece you provided back that notion up. I agree with the writer that the amount should have been much higher.
 
Yeah, unions and Obama could care less about stockholders and bond holders and the tax payer as long as they get theirs. Liberals have turned this country into a society driven by entitlements, nanny state and freebies. In the case of GM union members are "entitled" above anyone else. GM should have been left to fail, but no, unions are entitled to their entitlement, nanny and freebies, all at the expense of others. Shareholder, bond holders and the good old poor tax payer.
Obama cared about "Jobs" who spend their earnings and pay taxes.
 
My point was the amount dedicated to "shovel-ready" projects was so low (note the pie charts I provided) that it was incorrect to characterize the stimulus as all about "shovel-ready" projects. The opinion piece you provided back that notion up. I agree with the writer that the amount should have been much higher.

It would not have made any difference no matter how much more money they wanted to borrow, they didn't use what they had on shovel ready anything.
 
Obama cared about "Jobs" who spend their earnings and pay taxes.

All the while throwing the job creators under the bus. You know all those greedy shareholders that invested in GM to make a strong company and the bond holders that lent GM money to grow and pay bills so that GM could be profitable and pay taxes. And give dividends to the shareholders that are taxed once again after GM already paid tax on that money already. The bond holders lost everything so that lost can now not be reinvested into new businesses that create jobs.

Last the tax payer laid out billions of dollars to this stupid Obama to keep the union working that they would never in hell repay in taxes what the tax payer already laid out. You have that backward liberal logic.
 
It would not have made any difference no matter how much more money they wanted to borrow, they didn't use what they had on shovel ready anything.
LOL According to the article you provided a link to, they picked the wrong projects.

After trumpeting shovel-ready projects as the bedrock of his stimulus plan, President Obama admitted famously that “there’s no such thing.” But there were, and are, shovel-ready projects. The administration just needed to find them. Case in point: the nuclear cleanup at the Savannah River Site in Aiken, S.C., which received $1.6 billion in stimulus money. As soon as the money arrived in the summer of 2009, the retired cold war nuclear plant hired thousands of workers to decommission reactors, install pumps in the liquid waste tanks and ship barrels of solid waste to a salt formation in the Chihuahuan Desert. Workers from out of town filled up nearly all of the area’s apartments, hotels and restaurants. The county’s unemployment dropped to 8.5 percent from 10.2 percent in a matter of months.

Why did it work? Because the government could immediately send billions of dollars to contractors who were already in place for a project that had well-established plans.

The problem with most of the projects was that the Obama administration and Congress had defined “shovel ready” too broadly. The original plan called for putting “shovels in the ground” within 90 days. But when the rules were written, states ended up with 120 days to have their road projects “approved.” It often took six more months to a year before most of the projects were under construction.​
 
All the while throwing the job creators under the bus. You know all those greedy shareholders that invested in GM to make a strong company...?
Shareholders ALWAYS lose out in a bankruptcy.

Nothing about this process specifically targeted the shareholders. No matter what happened, they were going to lose. If GM closed its doors, they'd lose. If GM got reorganized without government intervention, they'd still lose.


And give dividends to the shareholders that are taxed once again after GM already paid tax on that money already.
Nope. They took their risks, they lost out. Those are the risks you take when you buy stocks.


The bond holders lost everything so that lost can now not be reinvested into new businesses that create jobs.
Not even close.

The bondholders did get a little more of a haircut than usual, but they did not "lose everything."


Last the tax payer laid out billions of dollars to this stupid Obama to keep the union working that they would never in hell repay in taxes what the tax payer already laid out.
Ok, first of all, you can hardly fault Obama for saving both 1 million jobs AND a crucial American industry. Everyone has been screaming about jobs for years, and he saved those jobs. The private sector refused to participate in the bankruptcy, period.

Second, it won't take all that long for those employees to generate enough taxes to cover the loss -- it could be as soon as 4 years. PLUS those employees, because they didn't lose their jobs, did not wind up collecting unemployment, food stamps, TANF, early retirement or other benefits.
 
Shareholders ALWAYS lose out in a bankruptcy.

Nothing about this process specifically targeted the shareholders. No matter what happened, they were going to lose. If GM closed its doors, they'd lose. If GM got reorganized without government intervention, they'd still lose.

Sure they lost their investment, but who got bailed out????????????? The union, not the shareholders

Nope. They took their risks, they lost out. Those are the risks you take when you buy stocks.

That's the same risk when a person go to work for any company, if it goes barnrupt, the owners loose a company and the employees lose a job.

Not even close.

The bondholders did get a little more of a haircut than usual, but they did not "lose everything."

OK show me for every dollar they loaned GM what did they receive back for that dollar?

Ok, first of all, you can hardly fault Obama for saving both 1 million jobs AND a crucial American industry. Everyone has been screaming about jobs for years, and he saved those jobs. The private sector refused to participate in the bankruptcy, period.

What are you talking about, sure I can fault Obama, first 1 million jobs is a crock and a crucial American industry, is nothing but liberal spin. That is the biggest lie of liberal BS. GM under bankruptcy would have been sold off in whole or in pieces at a bargain price to make the future owners be able to make a reasonable profit without billions of tax payer money. We're talking some of my money

The private sector never had a chance, GM was never up for sale in part or whole. GM never put up any of it's operations for sale to pay debtors. It was held in whole for Obama to take it over with part of my tax dollars.

Speaking of the private sector that refused to participate, who do you think all those shareholders and bond holders were that lost all their money. Yep the private sector. They sure the hell did participate by losing everything they had

Second, it won't take all that long for those employees to generate enough taxes to cover the loss -- it could be as soon as 4 years. PLUS those employees, because they didn't lose their jobs, did not wind up collecting unemployment, food stamps, TANF, early retirement or other benefits.

Sorry, but that is as naive as it gets, the billions of lost tax payer money will never be returned, it's dead and gone. The union worker instead of working for GM would be working for brand X and they would still be working and paying taxes. The tax dollars are lost the same as a shareholder. :doh
 
LOL According to the article you provided a link to, they picked the wrong projects.

After trumpeting shovel-ready projects as the bedrock of his stimulus plan, President Obama admitted famously that “there’s no such thing.” But there were, and are, shovel-ready projects. The administration just needed to find them. Case in point: the nuclear cleanup at the Savannah River Site in Aiken, S.C., which received $1.6 billion in stimulus money. As soon as the money arrived in the summer of 2009, the retired cold war nuclear plant hired thousands of workers to decommission reactors, install pumps in the liquid waste tanks and ship barrels of solid waste to a salt formation in the Chihuahuan Desert. Workers from out of town filled up nearly all of the area’s apartments, hotels and restaurants. The county’s unemployment dropped to 8.5 percent from 10.2 percent in a matter of months.

Why did it work? Because the government could immediately send billions of dollars to contractors who were already in place for a project that had well-established plans.

The problem with most of the projects was that the Obama administration and Congress had defined “shovel ready” too broadly. The original plan called for putting “shovels in the ground” within 90 days. But when the rules were written, states ended up with 120 days to have their road projects “approved.” It often took six more months to a year before most of the projects were under construction.​

I see you laugh at the stupidity of your beloved Obama, not picking the right project.

Then in Red, Obama and Congress, which translated is 100% stupid democrats that not one republican voted for this failed trillion dollar stimulus. All the changes and stupidity of this failed stimulus was all 100% democrats. Read above "The administration just needed to find them." and who's is this administration, it's Obama's and you and he laugh about "geeee I guess there was no shovel ready anything, yes I am stupid"
 
You first. Show me that first lien holders position matters based on the type of bankruptcy.

Nah, Ill toss a few sources at you. I expect the same in return.

Bondholder furious over GM bankruptcy – American Morning - CNN.com Blogs
G.M. Bondholders: We're Not Seeking Bankruptcy - NYTimes.com
The Auto Bailout and the Rule of Law > Publications > National Affairs
Old GM Bondholders Getting Shares in New General Motors May Depress Price - Bloomberg

Some excerpts:
When U.S. Bankruptcy Court releases the warrants and stock through a trust, bondholders will collectively get 136.4 million warrants for one share each at $10 a share and an equal amount at $18.33 a share, said Wilmington Trust, which is based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Owners of old GM bonds must notify Wilmington Trust by April 15 to get stock and warrants on April 21. If they notify Wilmington later, the bondholders will get their shares and warrants at a later date.

Currently, Motors Liquidation has about $30 billion in claims allowed by bankruptcy court, of which about $29 billion are from the bondholders, said a person familiar with the matter.






Depends on what source you use, and what the valuation of the stocks are, but the unions were given better position in the new company than their agreements warranted...legally.

Just an FYI but current GM stock is $34.95/share.

Sure they lost their investment, but who got bailed out????????????? The union, not the shareholders



That's the same risk when a person go to work for any company, if it goes barnrupt, the owners loose a company and the employees lose a job.



OK show me for every dollar they loaned GM what did they receive back for that dollar?



What are you talking about, sure I can fault Obama, first 1 million jobs is a crock and a crucial American industry, is nothing but liberal spin. That is the biggest lie of liberal BS. GM under bankruptcy would have been sold off in whole or in pieces at a bargain price to make the future owners be able to make a reasonable profit without billions of tax payer money. We're talking some of my money

The private sector never had a chance, GM was never up for sale in part or whole. GM never put up any of it's operations for sale to pay debtors. It was held in whole for Obama to take it over with part of my tax dollars.

Speaking of the private sector that refused to participate, who do you think all those shareholders and bond holders were that lost all their money. Yep the private sector. They sure the hell did participate by losing everything they had

Post 75 Born Free. Most bondholders got under 30cents on the dollar. Under a normal, legal, uninfluenced bankruptcy proceeding, they were to be made whole ahead of any other entity, thats what first lien means and its why its a low yield bond. Its safe but low return---until Obama ****ed with it.

Which brings up another problem. Due to Obama's interference in the bond market, blue chips, or those too large to fail without government stepping in, are having credit issues. Because no one is willing to buy first lien positions now that precendence has been set breaking that contract for the first time in 200 years. So investment is down....you dont say.
 
I see you laugh at the stupidity of your beloved Obama, not picking the right project.

Then in Red, Obama and Congress, which translated is 100% stupid democrats that not one republican voted for this failed trillion dollar stimulus. All the changes and stupidity of this failed stimulus was all 100% democrats. Read above "The administration just needed to find them." and who's is this administration, it's Obama's and you and he laugh about "geeee I guess there was no shovel ready anything, yes I am stupid"

Yes, he could have done much better with the $787 billion (not trillion dollar) stimulus, but according to the CBO the stimulus was a success.

Congressional Budget Office defends stimulus - Washington Post

Did the stimulus work?

Certainly not according to Republicans, who regularly blast President Obama’s “failed” economic policies on the campaign trail. GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has called the $787 billion package of temporary tax cuts and spending hikes “the largest one-time careless expenditure of government money in American history.”

But on Wednesday, under questioning from skeptical Republicans, the director of the nonpartisan (and widely respected) Congressional Budget Office was emphatic about the value of the 2009 stimulus. And, he said, the vast majority of economists agree.

In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, 80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise.

“Only 4 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed,” CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee. “That,” he added, “is a distinct minority.”
 
Post 75 Born Free. Most bondholders got under 30cents on the dollar. Under a normal, legal, uninfluenced bankruptcy proceeding, they were to be made whole ahead of any other entity, thats what first lien means and its why its a low yield bond. Its safe but low return---until Obama ****ed with it.

Which brings up another problem. Due to Obama's interference in the bond market, blue chips, or those too large to fail without government stepping in, are having credit issues. Because no one is willing to buy first lien positions now that precendence has been set breaking that contract for the first time in 200 years. So investment is down....you dont say.

Excellent post.

Those dumbed down by a head full of corrupt ideology never look at the future consequences of their left wing activism, ( essentially what Obama did to the GM Bond holders ).

So any private corporation loaded with left wing Union influence would seemingly have a hard time drumming up any credit ( unless it was FORCED UPON them ) .
 
Yes, he could have done much better with the $787 billion (not trillion dollar) stimulus, but according to the CBO the stimulus was a success.

Congressional Budget Office defends stimulus - Washington Post

Did the stimulus work?

Certainly not according to Republicans, who regularly blast President Obama’s “failed” economic policies on the campaign trail. GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has called the $787 billion package of temporary tax cuts and spending hikes “the largest one-time careless expenditure of government money in American history.”

But on Wednesday, under questioning from skeptical Republicans, the director of the nonpartisan (and widely respected) Congressional Budget Office was emphatic about the value of the 2009 stimulus. And, he said, the vast majority of economists agree.

In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, 80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise.

“Only 4 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed,” CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee. “That,” he added, “is a distinct minority.”

Calling Elmendorf non partisan isnt the only falsehood in the above quote.
 
Back
Top Bottom