• 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!

Treasury sells lasts shares. closes book on successful profitable auto bailout

eohrnberger said:
On the point of "no such things as to big to fail." this is incorrect, although not directly related to the thread.

Dodd-Frank has only created larger banks all of which are 'too bog to fail', as the cost of regulatory compliance has driven smaller banks to unprofitably and acquisition by larger banks.

ObamaCare has a bailout clause in the law which will have the government pay money to insurance companies that don't make enough profit from Obamacare.

So I don't see where your assertion that 'no such things as to big to fail.' is correct.
Click to expand...

If you run a bad business then you are expected to fail. someone else comes along and takes your place. I do not agree with the to big to fail mentality.
there is a reason that we set anti-trust laws.

I do not agree with "to big to fail" if you are "to big to fail" then there is a problem with the economy and regulation. chevy should have been allowed to fail.
someone else would have come in bought them up and done it better, just like hostess.

they failed someone else came in and bought them up and is doing it better.
 
Vern said:
Stop demanding I respond to something you cant even back up so grow up, make clear statements and back them up. Of course you demand I answer your questions because you cant back them up. You literally made up the "union" statement. and since you know its completely made up you will "courageously" refuse to back up your own "claims".
Click to expand...

:waiting:

As I suspected....:bolt
 
ludin said:
If you run a bad business then you are expected to fail. someone else comes along and takes your place. I do not agree with the to big to fail mentality.
there is a reason that we set anti-trust laws.
Click to expand...

I agree. Should have been allowed to fail, or bailed out and a forced monopoly reorganization. 1/2 assed is 1/2 assed.

ludin said:
I do not agree with "to big to fail" if you are "to big to fail" then there is a problem with the economy and regulation. chevy should have been allowed to fail.
someone else would have come in bought them up and done it better, just like hostess.
Click to expand...

Minor point of fact: Chevy, or more properly Chevrolet, is a car division of GM. GM went through bankruptcy.

ludin said:
they failed someone else came in and bought them up and is doing it better.
Click to expand...

Yup. Pretty much. And without the need for the government to corrupt the normal bankruptcy proceedings and processes to the reward of the UAW.
 
eohrnberger said:
I agree. Should have been allowed to fail, or bailed out and a forced monopoly reorganization. 1/2 assed is 1/2 assed.



Minor point of fact: Chevy, or more properly Chevrolet, is a car division of GM. GM went through bankruptcy.



Yup. Pretty much. And without the need for the government to corrupt the normal bankruptcy proceedings and processes to the reward of the UAW.
Click to expand...

that is what got me is that people that expected to be paid back got screwed while the UAW got handed a sweet deal and they were one of the main factors that caused the auto collapse to begin with.

I mean seriously who demands for Job banks where you have people show up do nothing for 4 hours and get paid a full day and full benefits?
i mean seriously? who agree's to that sort of thing to begin with but GM did.
 
ludin said:
that is what got me is that people that expected to be paid back got screwed while the UAW got handed a sweet deal and they were one of the main factors that caused the auto collapse to begin with.

I mean seriously who demands for Job banks where you have people show up do nothing for 4 hours and get paid a full day and full benefits?
i mean seriously? who agree's to that sort of thing to begin with but GM did.
Click to expand...

All they had to be was a reliable Democratic voting block.
 
Vern said:
Government sells the last of its GM stake: Treasury

mmmm, we lost 10 billion on the stock investment. If President Obama had let them fail as gullible cons were screaming we would lost at minimum 17 billion of the 20 billion bush gave them (can you believe some people still don’t know bush handed them 20 billion just so they wouldn’t fail on his watch). So right there, President Obama saved 7 billion dollars.

“
As a hypothetical exercise, though, the analysis is interesting: It found that in a fire sale, the largest United States automaker would likely yield less than $10 billion in net proceeds.

The costs of liquidating would be huge, according to the analysis — from $2 billion to $2.7 billion, the document says. Taking that into account, the amount left for creditors would be from $6.5 billion to $9.7 billion…..
And what would G.M.’s creditors get?

Bank lenders owed $5.4 billion would recover from 26.3 to 77.1 cents on the dollar. The United States Treasury, on the hook for $20.5 billion, fares even worse under this scenario, getting just 12.7 cents to 23.7 cents on the dollar for its claims. Unsecured creditors would get nothing.
"

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/imagining-a-gm-fire-sale/?_r=0

mmmmm, unsecured creditors would get nothing,mmmmmm
Click to expand...

Actually, the U.S. made money on the bailout, if you include cost avoidance:

GM: The Most Successful Bailout Bankruptcy | The Big Picture
The U.S. would have lost $28.6 billion in spending on social services and missing tax revenue if not for the bailout of GM, its former lending arm and Chrysler Group LLC, according to a study released Nov. 17 by the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Click to expand...
 
Blue_State said:
The ones who had the most to lose were the Unions. The technology would have been purchased by the highest bidder. Made in other factories around the US by non-union members.
Click to expand...
Sorry, GM tried to sell off the Saturn factories and got no bidders. But even if you were correct, which you are not, why do you cheer lower American wages?

But the complaint that I read is that you are annoyed that workers -- or more bluntly, your fellow Americans were saved. The fact that Americans got to hold onto their jobs instead of joining the unemployment lines, is a good thing.

The other beneficiaries were the parts suppliers, who are used by other auto companies. No matter how conservatives try to muddy the bailout, it was a good thing.
 
Last edited:
MTAtech said:
Sorry, GM tried to sell off the Saturn factories and got no bidders. But even if you were correct, which you are not, why do you cheer lower American wages?

But the complaint that I read is that you are annoyed that workers -- or more bluntly, your fellow Americans were saved. The fact that Americans got to hold onto their jobs instead of joining the unemployment lines, is a good thing.

The other beneficiaries were the parts suppliers, who are used by other auto companies. No matter how conservatives try to muddy the bailout, it was a good thing.
Click to expand...

Conservatives didn't muddy anything. The only group who muddied the GM deal was the Obama Administration who was all too eager to take over a major corporation at the command of organized labor.
 
MTAtech said:
Sorry, GM tried to sell off the Saturn factories and got no bidders.

But the complaint that I read is that you are annoyed that workers -- or more bluntly, your fellow Americans were saved. The fact that Americans got to hold onto their jobs instead of joining the unemployment lines, is a good thing.

The other beneficiaries were the parts suppliers, who are used by other auto companies. No matter how conservatives try to muddy the bailout, it was a good thing.
Click to expand...


No, and NO. See this is what bothers me about leftests. GM made it's own bed, and politicians paid for by unions made this all happen. I'm tired of bailing out people that did it to themselves, AND are doing it still to this day in almost the exact same way. GM's unfunded liabilities is going to hit them hard again, no matter how hard they try and hide it. It's a big fat elephant in the room, and everyone knows it. Look at California. They're trying to hide it as well, heck Gov Brown even reports that the state is running surpluses. LOL Surpluses, can you believe that? Capitlaism is structured in a free market in sucha way that provides for failure. Things fail for many reasons, but ultimately we as people tend to learn from our mistakes; even as a nation we will learn from the Obama mistake and progressive liberal ideology has and will take a big hit, knocking them back decades in my opinion, but the model is sound, the mechanism for evolution and change is solid. Things must fail in order to improve. If they don't fail, then there's nothing to improve upon. The environment accepts the present entity as suitable for existence. GM, or any kind of bailout is superficial, it's a manufacturing and tinkering with the mechanism for change, and it has lasting implications on economies, and environments, some of which is unknowable, or unforeseeable well into the future, but the effects are generally considered to be negative in the end.

Tim-
 
ludin said:
yep a 10 b loss that should have never been given.

chevy chrystler should have failed and went under gone throug proper bankruptcy procedings and or sold to competitors who would have improved the business.
Bush and obama were stupid to give them more money. sure they ran a short term market oppertunity, but now have pretty much given it back to ford, toyota, honda, and
hundai.



not to mention that the UAW are in their usual rants of wanting more more more.

only this time bailout 2.0 isn't coming. no such things as to big to fail.

i am not impressed with either ford or chevy. their style is blah their interiors are inferior and if i go to get another car it is going to be a mazda or nissan.
Click to expand...

My son bought a Nissan. I was angry at him. But after I have traveled alone in his new Altima, the anger disappeared. It is a decent car. Not a Lincoln, of course ...
 
loader said:
My son bought a Nissan. I was angry at him. But after I have traveled alone in his new Altima, the anger disappeared. It is a decent car. Not a Lincoln, of course ...
Click to expand...

why be mad at him? nissan, toyota, honda all build most of their cars in the US now. they have plants all over the place. mostly in the south.
the nissan altima is one of the top end mid-size cars out there. i love them. i am either going to get that or a mazda 6.

ford and GM have started producing crap. i had to take a trip to NJ and had a ford fusion i was not impressed. just bad design all the way around. i didn't like it.

no lincoln has made a huge come back with their mkz line.
 
Thrilla said:
I enjoy seeing people spin losing 10 billion into being "profitable"....:lol: :doh
Click to expand...

I heard that on the news. That is not what I call a success story. the government got back around 39 billion of the 50.1 billion given them. success would have been GM survival plus the whole 50.1 billion plus interest returned to the taxpayer's pockets.
 
Perotista said:
I heard that on the news. That is not what I call a success story. the government got back around 39 billion of the 50.1 billion given them. success would have been GM survival plus the whole 50.1 billion plus interest returned to the taxpayer's pockets.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Didn't the Gov. just fine JP Morgan A few billion for losing only 6 bn on investments ?? Will they fine themselves for lousy investment protocol ? Success ? Profitable ? pshaw

guppy hear, guppy believe WOW

Thom Paine
 
Thom Paine said:
Interesting. Didn't the Gov. just fine JP Morgan A few billion for losing only 6 bn on investments ?? Will they fine themselves for lousy investment protocol ? Success ? Profitable ? pshaw

guppy hear, guppy believe WOW

Thom Paine
Click to expand...

They ought too. When ever government steps in to something it is always the same, PPM piss poor management.
 
Blue_State said:
The ones who had the most to lose were the Unions. The technology would have been purchased by the highest bidder. Made in other factories around the US by non-union members.
Click to expand...

Actually, the ones that had the most to lose were probably the other car companies notably Ford. If GM went down, even a rough bankruptcy, the parts suppliers that supplied GM and the other automakers probably could not have made it. I believe something like over 51% of GM suppliers also supplied ford. and that could have meant higher process and difficulty getting parts to Ford.
 
jaeger19 said:
Actually, the ones that had the most to lose were probably the other car companies notably Ford. If GM went down, even a rough bankruptcy, the parts suppliers that supplied GM and the other automakers probably could not have made it. I believe something like over 51% of GM suppliers also supplied ford. and that could have meant higher process and difficulty getting parts to Ford.
Click to expand...

Not really. GM going out of business =\= less people buying cars. It just means no one buying GMs.

Presumably, sales would go UP for the autos left standing, which would equal greater demands for parts and supplies.
 
Perotista said:
I heard that on the news. That is not what I call a success story. the government got back around 39 billion of the 50.1 billion given them. success would have been GM survival plus the whole 50.1 billion plus interest returned to the taxpayer's pockets.
Click to expand...

Now stop making sense...:shock:

The other thing that never seems to be stated in these things is.. what if the money had been used for other purposes? Like instead of a bail out of a failing company, with the expectation that it would magically turn around. What if that money had been used to improve education opportunities, or for Manhattan like project for discovering alternative energy solutions.. or a number of things that in the long run.. would have been better than investing in a company that will likely end up in bankruptcy anyway?
 
KevinKohler said:
Not really. GM going out of business =\= less people buying cars. It just means no one buying GMs.

Presumably, sales would go UP for the autos left standing, which would equal greater demands for parts and supplies.
Click to expand...

Not in the recession because demand was going down as folks had less cash to spend. Suppliers already had a harder time coming anyway.. and GM might have tipped it over the edge.
 
Perotista said:
They ought too. When ever government steps in to something it is always the same, PPM piss poor management.
Click to expand...

They don't appear to think further than the end of their nose! But that gives them the excuse to "fix" their mistake, which usually seems to make things even worse! Go figure... :mrgreen:
 
First off O, you’ve not responded to any of the facts I’ve posted. And then you demand I answer your questions as if they prove something. then you literally cried when I said make a clear straight forward point and back it up. and then you finally attempt to do it, you fail

ocean515 said:
Gee whiz. An edit. Got you thinking did I?
Click to expand...

That statement alone proves you have a problem differentiating fact from fiction. To conclude that me editing a post is a sign you got me thinking is laughable. I routinely go back and edit typos and things that were not clear.

In your case I missed the delusional claim that I posted “laughable sources”. So I added the blurb asking you what were laughable and why? Now of course your brain is now screaming “waaaahhhh, you can ask questions” but I asked you about exactly what you posted. that’s a legitimate question. You demanded like a child that I respond to your vague and irrelevant points. See how T replied to my posts about what I posted and I replied back. that’s how adults have a discussion. You barging in demanding attention is rather childish. And ocean that request is still outstanding. Which ones are laughable and why?

Now please post the parts in your links that speak to the following, since they are certainly cost to taxpayers:
Click to expand...

Now first off, your WSJ link is a fail. It requires a log in. Now for some reason you have no explained you think I should count tax breaks against the profitability of the enterprise. This seems like a stretch. Businesses get tax breaks all the time. Is this news to you? do you think we should subtract of the depreciation deduction to calculate the profitability of the bailout. Simply put, you need to make a better case why they should count against the profitability of the bailout. If fact you’ve made no case. Sentence fragments do not a case make.

Well, sit down and let me show you some truths.
For example, how about GM's own earning reports. Remember, it was costs and libilities that got them into trouble.

Read their latest earning reports here. Talk to me about increased unfunded pension liabilities, and increased debt. (It's right there in their reports) Now, please point me towards comments in your links about these truths.
Click to expand...

Now your underfunded pension requirement is a total mystery. I’m sure it makes complete sense to you but how does GM’s balance sheet affect that the fact that we saved billions on UE and unspecified Medicaid costs? again, see how the question is directly related to your post. Just so you know fenton posts a lot of things that are true but he doesn’t explain how they relate to his claim. So please explain the connection. Don’t feign indignation and stomp away like a child, explain the connection.

So, step up Vern. As opposed the insults, try and inject some content.
Click to expand...

This kinda shows your lack of integrity. I’ve supplied content. You’ve flailed at that content like a child and you posted nothing relevant to the content.

ocean515 said:
I'll be looking forward to your rebuttal, or if history is any indicator, your dissappearance...
Click to expand...

Is this more dishonestly or just childish wishful thinking. I make clear straight forward statements and back them up. I neither need to nor do I run away.

ocean515 said:
:waiting:

As I suspected....:bolt
Click to expand...

oh that answers that question. I’ll file your posts under childish. Ocean, I’m sorry I was unable to respond in the timeframe you designated. were stomping your feet and crying while you had to wait?
 
KevinKohler said:
Not really. GM going out of business =\= less people buying cars. It just means no one buying GMs.

Presumably, sales would go UP for the autos left standing, which would equal greater demands for parts and supplies.
Click to expand...

actually not. The reason that Ford and even the transplants endorsed the bailout because a collapse of the supplier base would have impacted them also. It would have devastated ford.

"
Ford’s own plan stressed that its ability to survive a recession and return to profitability was not only contingent on how well the total market performs, but also on the shortterm survival of its domestic competitors, because “Our industry is an interdependent one. We have 80% overlap in supplier networks,” plus many dealers also have operations selling GM or Chrysler products. Accordingly, Ford requested a “stand-by” line of credit of up to $9 billion as “a back-stop to be used only if conditions worsen further and only to the extent needed
"
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40003.pdf
 
Blue_State said:
The ones who had the most to lose were the Unions. The technology would have been purchased by the highest bidder. Made in other factories around the US by non-union members.
Click to expand...

I've already proven that without financing GM gets liquidated. And in the above post, liquidation shuts down ford as well. And a real American would have been a little bit more concerned about the loss of 2 million jobs rather than defending his ideology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom