- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
So, now you're saying the following post is BS?
On the contrary, the two fit together very snugly.
So, now you're saying the following post is BS?
Except would GM have actually dissolved? I highly doubt that, what is more likely is those sweetheart labor deals wouldn't have been so sweetly protected.
Without government money being involved GM would not likely have survived. With a lot of government guarantees it probably would have but the government still could have lost a lot of money
Without government money being involved GM would not likely have survived. With a lot of government guarantees it probably would have but the government still could have lost a lot of money
Considering the probably costs of letting GM close, 11 billion is not bad
The cost would be, increased medicare and Medicaid bills, welfare and UI payments not just to GM workers and retirees, but to dealership and suppliers as well
Without government money being involved GM would not likely have survived. With a lot of government guarantees it probably would have but the government still could have lost a lot of money
And yes, that is actually a role for government on occasion -- especially when "doing nothing" would plunge the nation into a depression. In particular, many Asian governments provide extensive financial support to local companies; it's one reason why they often out-compete US companies.
A normal bankruptcy was not an option, period. No one in the private sector was willing to bail out the auto companies. If GM alone had gone under, it would have decimated one of the largest manufacturing industries in the US.
Creditors would still have gotten screwed in a normal bankruptcy. And the unions made concessions for years before the bankruptcy, and made some additional ones during the bailout.
GM has also posted profits for the last 15 quarters; it's a more nimble company; it shed a bunch of dead-weight brands. Like it or not, the bailout has succeeded.
Again, it would still have been a bailout
Taxpayer dollars being used to prop up a failed company with no guarantee of being paid back. It could have cost the government (ie taxpayer) $11 billion dollars or more, or less depending on the size of the loan
On the contrary, the two fit together very snugly.
Born Free said: "the bond holders would get something on their dollar", but you said "Moody's is linked to investors. Of course they want to avoid bankruptcy. Just protecting the BHO gang's financiers."
You can't have it both ways.
Do you support the bank bailouts, too?
Let me guess, GM was, "too big to fail"?
Yes in NORMAL economic times it is a great time to do so. But in this case no companies were willing to step up and risk the money that would have been required to do so. Or those that would have been willing would not have gotten financing from the banks. With the exception of Chinese ones. I doubt SAIC would have been allowed to buy GM so it does not matter
Certainly not
The only reason I would have supported the GM bailout is because of the economic conditions at that time. If GM was to go bankrupt today, I would say they should not get any government money
Certainly not
The only reason I would have supported the GM bailout is because of the economic conditions at that time. If GM was to go bankrupt today, I would say they should not get any government money
To buy the whole company maybe so. But the company would have been broken up and their would have been several buyers. You do know GM had factories all over the world, or in markets they wanted to be in. So there was plenty of economic opertunity for many buyers of parts of GM at a good price and a union force that would have had to make huge concessions.
How are they the same thing?
The economic conditions are no better now.
So according to your logic because of the economic conditions at that time, the tax payer lost over 10 billion, for what??????
Anyone here realize WE paid the 10 billion??
What a waste of money. This is a great example of squandering tax payer dollars and all we did really was to save union jobs with bloated contracts that will make GM fail again. If GM had been allowed to go bankrupt and these contracts could have been renegotiated so that the company stood a long term chance of surviving and us tax payers would not be 10 billion in the hole.
The European operations were and are in a loss making situation. South America is ok for GM but not great. GM does very well in China with its main partner of SAIC, so its Chinese ops would have sold very easily.
Domestically the only part that could have been sold piece meal is the truck making operations. The car manufacturing parts would have been of no interest to any other auto company but the Chinese. That would present certain risks regarding IP rights and who would own what patents
OK, let's put this in perspective (as we know our friends on the right have no perspective).... Had we not bailed out GM (and Chrysler) the estimate loss of jobs from GM, Chrysler and their respective supply chains would have been more than 1,000,000 jobs. If each one of those collected $10,000 in unemployment benefits would be.... guess what $10B. That says nothing about the lost income tax revenue from these workers (assume they make, on average, 50K per year.... is another $10B per year, plus lost payroll taxes, assumption of pension costs by the PBGC.... and those are just the obvious direct costs... all in, for $10B, the US got to keep their auto industry and keep the economy from free falling. All in, it was an incredible investment (when compared to the alternatives...which were not very good)
In contrast, the very avoidable government shut down, which served no purpose, took $24B out of GDP... given the federal government gets 18% of GDP in the form of taxes, cost the federal government $4.3B. Then, laying off federal workers but paying them anyway cost the government $2B for services not rendered... meaning our elective government shutdown cost $6.3B.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/u...e-puts-price-on-government-shutdown.html?_r=0
Sorry, being against the $10B bailout of the auto industry but for the $6.3B shut down of government is being against reason. Thinking that it all would have worked out another way? ------Clueless.
What a ridiculous post. The shutdown is a complete red herring. No one here advocates it. The NYT's doomsday scenario is scare-tactic propaganda. Next.eace
OK, let's put this in perspective (as we know our friends on the right have no perspective).... Had we not bailed out GM (and Chrysler) the estimate loss of jobs from GM, Chrysler and their respective supply chains would have been more than 1,000,000 jobs. If each one of those collected $10,000 in unemployment benefits would be.... guess what $10B. That says nothing about the lost income tax revenue from these workers (assume they make, on average, 50K per year.... is another $10B per year, plus lost payroll taxes, assumption of pension costs by the PBGC.... and those are just the obvious direct costs... all in, for $10B, the US got to keep their auto industry and keep the economy from free falling. All in, it was an incredible investment (when compared to the alternatives...which were not very good)
In contrast, the very avoidable government shut down, which served no purpose, took $24B out of GDP... given the federal government gets 18% of GDP in the form of taxes, cost the federal government $4.3B. Then, laying off federal workers but paying them anyway cost the government $2B for services not rendered... meaning our elective government shutdown cost $6.3B.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/u...e-puts-price-on-government-shutdown.html?_r=0
Sorry, being against the $10B bailout of the auto industry but for the $6.3B shut down of government is being against reason. Thinking that it all would have worked out another way? Clueless.