• 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!

More Democrats break with Obama on tax cuts

Obnoxious Obama isnt raising taxes on the middle class. He wants to leave the tax cuts for the middle class, and tax the richest top 2% in America. Please, quit spreading lies and get your facts straight.


but wait a minute, wasn't it also Obama and liberals that preached that the Bush tax cuts were "only for the rich"? You can't have it both ways there.


j-mac
 
An effect? Maybe. But not a positive one. They are incoherent and ignore reality. And have led to some real nutter candidates winning.


Joe, are you going to be posting on Nov 3? Or just hiding out in severe depression like all the other partisans will be? lol.

j-mac
 
gm had its worst august in decades

So did everyone else. What's your point?

ipo is principal to recouping taxpayers

As it should be.

aint gonna happen

Except that it looks like it will.

54% told scott rasmussen (founder of espn) they're less likely to buy gm cuz the federal govt is majority owner

sorry

Go check out GM's sales per month and tell me if that matters.
 
how many of the 54% who say they won't buy a gm car are gonna buy its stock?
 
how many of the 54% who say they won't buy a gm car are gonna buy its stock?

Plenty. Besides, you are ignoring (among a great number of things you either do not like or cannot refute) that the majority of stock held in this nation is held by a relatively small percentage of people. It does not matter if that 54% doesn't buy a car because they aren't the large stock purchasers in the first place. Insitutional money far outweights individuals in most mutual funds and hedge funds by leaps and bounds. What matter is future cash flows. And GM looks like it's seeing large positives. That is what matters. Do some thinking for a change rather then swallowing whatever the pundits tell you.
 
Plenty. Besides, you are ignoring (among a great number of things you either do not like or cannot refute) that the majority of stock held in this nation is held by a relatively small percentage of people. It does not matter if that 54% doesn't buy a car because they aren't the large stock purchasers in the first place. Insitutional money far outweights individuals in most mutual funds and hedge funds by leaps and bounds. What matter is future cash flows. And GM looks like it's seeing large positives. That is what matters. Do some thinking for a change rather then swallowing whatever the pundits tell you.

I am curious-where do you get off telling someone else to do some thinking? it appears that the poster you attacked has done plenty of that
 
jkohn51192 said:
Obnoxious Obama isnt raising taxes on the middle class. He wants to leave the tax cuts for the middle class, and tax the richest top 2% in America. Please, quit spreading lies and get your facts straight.
but wait a minute, wasn't it also Obama and liberals that preached that the Bush tax cuts were "only for the rich"? You can't have it both ways there.

j-mac
Sure he can... he's a liberal ;)
 
I am curious-where do you get off telling someone else to do some thinking? it appears that the poster you attacked has done plenty of that

And you got that notion where? He argued that GM sucked because sales were down while ignoring that the same time period showed all major manufactures down. The fact that I cited GM's rising sales numbers as to why prof's argument on the poll was crap and he reciting it does not suggest prof has done much of any thinking. And it frankly doesn't matter if 54% of those who say they wouldn't buy a car from GM (despite rising sales numbers) wouldn't buy the stock. That's not how securities purchase are centered in this market. Basing his argument on the poll while reality does not support his position does not suggest thinking was done. At all. In any way shape or form.
 
from the pundits at reuters:

* Treasury to sell first shares below break-even-sources

* 61 pct Treasury sale could take several years-sources

* Taxpayer break-even is around $70 bln GM market value

By Clare Baldwin, Soyoung Kim and Kevin Krolicki

NEW YORK/DETROIT, Sept 3 (Reuters) - The U.S. government is likely to take a loss on General Motors Co in the first offering of the automaker's stock, six people familiar with preparations for the landmark IPO said.

Subsequent offerings of the government's holdings may be profitable depending on how investors trade the newly listed stock, the sources said.

But the question of whether taxpayers are ultimately made whole on GM's $50 billion bailout could be left open for years, the people said.

The Obama administration has pledged to exit its investment in GM as quickly as possible while holding out the prospect that taxpayers could ultimately be paid back in full.

GM in August filed paperwork for an IPO that could potentially be worth as much as $20 billion, making it one of the biggest IPOs of all time.

UPDATE 2-Taxpayers likely to face initial loss on GM IPO-sources | Reuters

from the spin meisters at wapo:

In order for the United States to recoup all of its $50 billion investment in General Motors, it must sell its ownership stake at $134 a share, according to the special inspector general of the government's bailout programs.

The price needed for a full recovery of the U.S. investment is far higher than shares of the automaker have ever reached, and some analysts and government officials have expressed doubts that the United States will be able to recover the money.

GM must sell for $134 a share for U.S. to recover investment

BUY!
 
Last edited:
who's gonna buy stock in a company he or she knows won't sell to 54%?

70 billion dollars is a lot of recouping geithner needs from YOU

get BUYING!

hurry up and buy MORE!

do your part, now
 
who's gonna buy stock in a company he or she knows won't sell to 54%?

Someone who looks at future cash flows and sees profit.

I noticed you didn't bother to research anything recently:

General Motors sales jump 22 percent; company sells 516 Chevrolet Cruzes; Ford and Chrysler sales skyrocket | cleveland.com

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- General Motors sales jumped 22 percent in September for the company's four remaining brands, driven primarily by big increases in sales of mid-sized crossovers such as the Chevrolet Equinox.

GM Gets Better Rating From S&P Than Ford on Cash Flow - Bloomberg

GM has good prospects for generating cash from its operations in China and Brazil and has an improved balance sheet after emerging from bankruptcy in July 2009, he said.

Future capacity to generate profits suggests you are (as usual) wrong.

70 billion dollars is a lot of recouping geithner needs from YOU

get BUYING!

hurry up and buy MORE!

do your part, now

If it nets me a decent return, why not? Try analyze things on something other then your partisan bias for a change.

Btw, do your research. Look up GM's position in Asia.
 
Someone who looks at future cash flows and sees profit.

you mean like the analysts and govt officials who "expressed doubts that the us will be able to recover" the 70B necessary to make the taxpayer whole?

If it nets me a decent return, why not?

don't tell me, don't tell the pundits at reuters and wapo

BUY!
 
you mean like the analysts and govt officials who "expressed doubts that the us will be able to recover" the 70B necessary to make the taxpayer whole?

Your over the top partisan behavior is becoming tiring. You do not even bother to think or analyze. Nor do you even try to hide the fact you didn't think about the subject. The government is likely to face a loss on the bailout because it is trying to get out as fast as possible. They are doing what YOU want them to do.

Other investors however, particularly institutions do not have the same time frame. Long term cash flows suggest that GM over time does offer fairly decent returns. Investment grade if you will. The fact they got a better rating on cash flow then Ford suggests that they will have money to make improvements and generate dividends and capital gains to investors.

don't tell me, don't tell the pundits at reuters and wapo

BUY!

Well, capital markets are suggesting you (as usual) are wrong.

Taxpayers may profit on GM bailout, despite weak IPO market - Sep. 27, 2010

I see you failed to look up GM's position in Asia.

Just repeat the Partisan Vomit from pundits. You don't need to think.

Put some effort into your posts for a once in your posting career here.

Let's recap.
GM made a sizable 2nd Q profit
GM is seeing significant jumps in sales
GM has a strong position in Asia and South America
GM just shed huge amounts of debt and large amounts of Union crap
GM revamped its production processes and streamlined design

What made GM total crap in the past is largely gone. And you think it's still a loser. Tell me, how did Ford's stock price do? Because it has more problems then GM.
 
Last edited:
The government is likely to face a loss on the bailout because it is trying to get out as fast as possible.

reuters:

The Obama administration has pledged to exit its investment in GM as quickly as possible while holding out the prospect that taxpayers could ultimately be paid back in full.

It could take more than three years for the Treasury to sell down its remaining stake in GM after the IPO, one person said. That would push a final accounting into the next presidential term.

A decision to price the initial GM shares below the cost to taxpayers would follow the usual Wall Street practice of giving the first investors in a new stock a discount, but it could also help allay investor concern in the face of the slow recovery of the U.S. economy and flat auto sales.

holding out the prospect, huh?

that taxpayers could be ultimately paid back in full?

well, i'm glad the president didn't slam shut THAT door

aren't you?

but that investor concern, hmm...

and those flat auto sales...

They are doing what YOU want them to do.

i've expressed no preferences, i've merely quoted the pundits (LOL!) from reuters and the post

Long term cash flows suggest that GM over time does offer fairly decent returns. Investment grade if you will.

bloomberg, your link (thanks):

The credit service today said it assigned Detroit-based GM a BB- rating with a stable outlook. It had previously given Ford a B+ rating with a positive outlook. GM’s rating is three levels below investment grade.

GM just shed huge amounts of debt and large amounts of Union crap.

reuters:

At the same time, GM will have to confront a pension shortfall that remains a liability from its pre-bankruptcy operations.

GM eliminated about $40 billion in unsecured debt and other obligations in bankruptcy, but the automaker still needs to address a pension shortfall estimated at about $26 billion.

What made GM total crap in the past is largely gone. And you think it's still a loser.

not as much as those analysts and govt officials and pundits (LOL!) at wapo, bloomberg and reuters

Tell me, how did Ford's stock price do?

nowhere near well enough to recoup 70B

Because it has more problems than GM.

not enough reason for most to invest

but, by all means, don't let that stop YOU
 
holding out the prospect, huh?

that taxpayers could be ultimately paid back in full?

If they sell the stock over a significant period of time, there is a possibility, coupled with dividends that tax payers could make a profit like they did on the Visa and Chrysler bailouts. But if we get out now, there's no way that the proceeds from the sales will break even. So we can get out now like people like you want and lose money, or stick it out over a couple years and net some gains from dividends.

well, i'm glad the president didn't slam shut THAT door

Didn't you want government out of GM ASAP?

and those flat auto sales.

You mean like a 22% increase? Flat you say. I question your (and everyone else here)'s capacity to do basic math.

i've expressed no preferences, i've merely quoted the pundits (LOL!) from reuters and the post

You're not fooling anyone here.

bloomberg, your link (thanks):

Proving what? Do you even understand what that means? I seriously doubt it.

But many of the other problems are gone. I see you deliberately ignored those. Really, have you just stopped caring that your extreme partisan behavior isn't concealed anymore?

not as much as those analysts and govt officials and pundits (LOL!) at wapo, bloomberg and reuters

That begs the question if you even bothered to read the articles
. The only people laughing here are those laughing at you.

nowhere near well enough to recoup 70B

Only if you have no idea what a dividend is. Which is highly likely.

Ford has more problems then GM. Tell me, what was the percent gain Ford had in the past year?

Not that you bother to look up anything relevant anyways.

not enough reason for most to invest

LOL. Apparently a massive % increase isn't "a reason for most to invest."

I guess turning $1.6 into $13 isn't something you'd be in on.

You really have no idea what actually happened do you?

I see you are still failing at looking up GM's position in Asia.

Can you define CASH FLOW for me? I'm betting not.
 
Last edited:
If they sell the stock over a significant period of time, there is a possibility, coupled with dividends that tax payers could make a profit like they did on the Visa and Chrysler bailouts.

a possibility, huh?

obama calls it, "holding out a prospect"

Didn't you want government out of GM ASAP?

"the obama administration has pledged to exit its investment in gm as quickly as possible while holding out the prospect that taxpayers could ultimately be paid back in full"

You mean like a 22% increase? Flat you say.

no, that'd be the financial times

"gm's market share dropped to 19.1% from 19.4% in january-august 2009"

"the draft prospectus for gm's ipo warns that 'many of the economic and market conditions that drove the [earlier] drop in vehicle sales, including declines in real estate and equity values, increases in unemployment, tightened credit markets, depressed consumer confidence and weak housing markets, continue to impact sales.'"

FT.com / Companies / Automobiles - GM sales dip casts shadow over IPO

I question your (and everyone else here)'s capacity to do basic math.

who cares, this isn't about you

You're not fooling anyone here.

it's not about me, grow up

Proving what? Do you even understand what that means? I seriously doubt it.

3 levels below investment grade, a pension shortfall of 26B, what's to prove?

But many of the other problems are gone.

the pensions remain, as do declines in real estate, increased unemployment, tight credit and depressed consumer confidence, all of which are "continuing to impact sales" (according to gm's prospectus)

"ford's senior economist said the carmaker interpreted recent data 'as a moderation of the pace of recovery, but not a collapse"

Ford has more problems then GM.

ford doesn't owe the taxpayer 50B

Apparently a massive % increase isn't "a reason for most to invest."

an increase over the worst august in 30 years isn't much to get excited about

Can you define CASH FLOW for me? I'm betting not.

quit personalizing, you're demeaning yourself and everyone who reads this

Toyota, GM, Ford Sales Slump as Buyers Shun New Cars - Bloomberg

GM executives expect a slow recovery in the economy and in auto sales, said Don Johnson, GM vice president of U.S. sales operations. He said sales rates will pick up only modestly through the end of the year. He said that GM will not respond to the slow recovery with incentive deals.

“We know it’s going to continue to be bumpy,” Johnson said on a conference call today. “We’re not panicking. We don’t want to get back to putting incentives into the marketplace to keep plants going.”

Compared with a year earlier, GM reduced its incentives and sold vehicles for an average of $5,600 more, Johnson said.

That doesn’t match with TrueCar’s analysis, which found that GM increased sales discounts 18 percent to $3,763 per vehicle in August.

BUY!

buy a cruze, get a discount

buy the stock, make a killing

hurry!
 
Last edited:
a possibility, huh?

obama calls it, "holding out a prospect"

Yeah. Between capital gains and dividends, there's a distinct possibility. Do the math. Seriously. Stop being so lazy. Examine future cash flows. Examine growth overseas. Do the math. Do your homework. Jesus. The sheer lack of any effort in your posts is alarming.

"the obama administration has pledged to exit its investment in gm as quickly as possible while holding out the prospect that taxpayers could ultimately be paid back in full"

So they're basically going to get as much money as they can over as short of a period as possible. What I'd expect. And what is responsible. Apparently Obama being responsible is bad to you. :shock:

no, that'd be the financial times

Which is reporting sales from parts of the worst of the recession. Missing the notion of "context" are we?

If you look at recent news, you find a different picture.

Car sales up from '09: September numbers hint at cautious optimism | courier-journal.com | The Courier-Journal

Furthermore, you are looking solely at the American market. I KEEP telling you to research GM's China and South America positions which you repetitively refuse to do.

who cares, this isn't about you

But it is partially about your inability to do math.

it's not about me, grow up

The funny thing is you think you're fooling anyone into thinking you're not a hyper partisan.

3 levels below investment grade, a pension shortfall of 26B, what's to prove?

Know the difference between bonds and stocks? :lamo (I'm betting not)

the pensions remain

In a significantly smaller form. Furthermore, Ford has the same problem. I see you haven't looked up Ford's stock price over the last year. Why are you so adamantly against research?

as do declines in real estate, increased unemployment, tight credit and depressed consumer confidence, all of which are "continuing to impact sales" (according to gm's prospectus)

If you look at the past 6 months. Tell me, can you project future cash flows when the variables you are looking at aren't the same as the incoming ones? No. You cannot. So why do you think you can do just that?

GM's Shanghai sales up 57 pct in first 8 months - International Business Times

Shanghai General Motors saw its auto sales rise 57 percent to 641,351 units in the first eight months of2010, the company said in a statement on Wednesday.

Brazil accounts for 10 percent of GM’s global sales volume and the carmaker has made a profit in the country for five years, Ardila said. Rising income and favorable loan conditions are helping GM accelerate growth from about 9 percent currently.

General Motors Predicts 68% Jump in Brazil Sales - Bloomberg

Hmmmm. A partial reason why your argument is so poor is because you refuse to address anything but historical North American data.

"ford's senior economist said the carmaker interpreted recent data 'as a moderation of the pace of recovery, but not a collapse"

I wasn't aware that the only market GM operated was in North America. Please show me how this is true. 44% of GM's sales are overseas. Aside from Europe are relatively profitable.

ford doesn't owe the taxpayer 50B

It owes its banks $27.4 billion. Furthermore, GM's "debt" is not actually bonds. Unlike Ford's banks who can actually force a bankruptcy, GM's "debt" is largely preferred shares. Learn the difference. GM can simply not issue dividends. Ford cannot miss a payment. That is radically different for cash flow.

an increase over the worst august in 30 years isn't much to get excited about

Which basically proves you will never happy with anything because it's a Democrat in office.

quit personalizing, you're demeaning yourself and everyone who reads this

LOL. Is that the best you got? I get it. You don't know cash flows means. It's okay.

And your links says what exactly to support your argument? Is GM only going to be selling cars for 1 more year? :2razz:

I guess you still aren't in on turning $1.6 into $13. Btw, that's the price increase Ford's stock saw.

I see you are still failing at looking up GM's position in Asia.
 
cautious optimism?

LOL!

how bully bully bullish!

U.S. auto sales rose last month compared to an unusually weak September 2009 when demand dried up after the federal Cash for Clunker rebates.

Ford reported selling 46 percent more vehicles last month and Chrysler's increase was 61 percent. General Motors saw its sales rise 11 percent while Toyota reported sales rose 17 percent.

Automakers said they were not getting excited about the sales bump.

I would not read too much into sales increases in September,” Ford Vice President of Marketing Ken Czubay said of disruption from auto-buying incentives. “We are in a tough period to try to make sense of year-to-year comparisons.”

Still, he added the economy appears to be improving slightly.

GM's U.S. sales chief, Don Johnson, agreed.

Jeremy Anwyl, chief executive of Edmunds.com, an auto website, said he's less optimistic, doubting that new-vehicle sales can maintain the current pace.

Reports of the recovery have been vastly exaggerated,” Anwyl said. “Without Labor Day, September was a weak month — —and because it was so late in the month, it gave an unusually high boost to September because sales did not bleed into August.”

http://www.courier-journal.com/arti...9-September-numbers-hint-at-cautious-optimism

BUY!
 
It's quite pathetic how much of my posts you will ignore to suit your bias.

Shanghai General Motors saw its auto sales rise 57 percent to 641,351 units in the first eight months of2010, the company said in a statement on Wednesday.

SAO PAULO, Aug 18 (Reuters) - Industrywide automobile sales in South America should reach a record high this year, buoyed by relatively low interest rates in some countries and strong economic growth in most of the region, the chief executive of General Motors' South American unit said on Wednesday.

UPDATE 1-GM exec sees record industrywide S.America sales | Reuters

It's exceptionally sad that you only look at what suits your views.
 
This is the other reality.

"But regardless of what any of us think should be, no politician was going to let them fail. And if one did, that politician would be unemployed the next election cycle"

This not allowing any business to fail is a rather new concept to the United States and obviously not a healthy one for the people. It's amazing to me that there are so many who speak out against "Big Business" on the one hand who appear to support their bailouts with the other.

So you are a fan of large multinational corporations then?

The Tea Party is against bailouts while you and many others are for them. The line appears clear enough.

How many times has the autio industry been bailed out? It's no that new.

And it is not support for bailing them out that I'm arguing. I'm merely noting reality. Our leaders have more to fear from us, the voter, if they don't bail these people out than if they do. We're a fickle bunch. Hard to ever make us happy on these types of issues. there's a real disconnect with the voter.

And no, the tea party is just angry and incoherent. There against bailouts, but want the government to do something; against big government, but don't want their government programs touched. They're a sad sign of our times and the disconnect I speak of.
 
but wait a minute, wasn't it also Obama and liberals that preached that the Bush tax cuts were "only for the rich"? You can't have it both ways there.


j-mac

Another misreading of the argument. I know such isreadings make silly comments easier, but the argument was that the rich benefitted more and not that there were only cuts to the rich.
 
How many times has the autio industry been bailed out? It's no that new.

And it is not support for bailing them out that I'm arguing. I'm merely noting reality. Our leaders have more to fear from us, the voter, if they don't bail these people out than if they do. We're a fickle bunch. Hard to ever make us happy on these types of issues. there's a real disconnect with the voter.

And no, the tea party is just angry and incoherent. There against bailouts, but want the government to do something; against big government, but don't want their government programs touched. They're a sad sign of our times and the disconnect I speak of.


Mornin' Joe....heh, heh....See that I made a funny! :mrgreen: Anyway, let's go back to the time that GM and Chrysler were bailed out. As well as the other times that Chrysler was on the take from the government.

Was it in the past, or necessary now for the government to own the stock?

j-mac
 
Mornin' Joe....heh, heh....See that I made a funny! :mrgreen: Anyway, let's go back to the time that GM and Chrysler were bailed out. As well as the other times that Chrysler was on the take from the government.

Was it in the past, or necessary now for the government to own the stock?

j-mac

J, be honest. Did we get any of our money back in the past? All the stock purchase did was give a mechanism to get our money back, not a bad thing. Any of claim is dishonest. The US is not running GM.
 
Back
Top Bottom