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

Vern said:

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



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 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.



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.



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.



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.



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?

Click to expand...

jaeger19 said:

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?

Click to expand...

polgara said:

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:

Click to expand...

jaeger19 said:

Well.. its nice to see that you're consistent with your BS and its not just me.

Click to expand...

He brought up several valid point regarding omissions that you made regarding the actual costs.. which you AGAIN have failed to address..

Click to expand...

And I will answer the question regarding why unfunded Pension funds are an important factor. Company Pension funds often take out government insurance on them. If the company goes bankrupt, and the pension fund is underfunded.. then you know who gets stuck with the bill? The TAXPAYER...

Click to expand...

Romney actually did this as a CEO of GS industries.

Click to expand...

Vern said:

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.

Click to expand...

Vern said:

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.

Click to expand...

Vern said:

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



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 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.



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.



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.



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.



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?

Click to expand...

ttwtt78640 said:

Obama doubles down on a Bush administration policy, loses only 20% on the "investment" and Obama gets all of the credit for that Bush idea. Does that basically sum up your position on this matter?

Click to expand...

DiavoTheMiavo said:

Not another person blaming Bush for what has happened on Obama's watch. My God, when is this man going to be responsible for his presidency?
End passive agressive sarcasm.

Click to expand...

ttwtt78640 said:

Or, looked at another way, each POTUS simply did not veto the decision made by the congress critters.

Click to expand...

Blue_State said:

You have proved nothing. Especially the fact that the jobs would just up and disappear. Talk about ideology.

Free market is my ideology.

Click to expand...

ttwtt78640 said:

Does your ideology apply to all businesses that fail, or only the big union using ones? If the gov't builds a new roadway, taking 75% of the traffic away from an existing gas station, does it owe that little guy a "bailout"? The GM situation did not happen overnight, those that mismanaged it got rewards, not jail time, for causing $10 billion in "damages". Crony capitalism is not for the commpn good, as some wish to assert, it is privatizing the profits while publicizing the losses.

Click to expand...

Vern said:

And for the cons parroting the "union bailout" narrative or the " all creditors have to be treated the same" here 's a nugget your conservative 'editorials' never mention. thanks to Reagan, retiree benefits get priority in bankruptcy. did I mention that conservative 'editorials' never mention this?

When Congress added section 1114 to the Bankruptcy Code in 1988, the idea was to make sure that retirees were paid their promised medical benefits, even though such benefits would otherwise be a relatively low priority in bankruptcy, as a pre-petition unsecured claim.96 The beauty of the section 1114 solution for Congress was that it gained political points for members who voted for the bill,97 but cost the U.S. Treasury nothing. Section 1114 did not commit tax dollars to bail out retiree benefits but simply reallocated resources within chapter 11 bankruptcies from one set of claimants to another

http://www.uiowa.edu/~ilr/issues/ILR_96-1_Keating.pdf

Click to expand...

ocean515 said:

As I stated Vern, there is nothing you could post of any interest. The personal opinions you've splayed about are worth as much as one paid for them.

Click to expand...

Waiting until hours later to comment is rather pathetic. Your argument in regards to the GM bailout is toast, as proven by the facts.

Click to expand...

Run along, as there is no purpose to participate in a debate where I bring annual reports and factual analysis, and you bring nothing.

Epic fail my friend.

Click to expand...

Vern said:

Mmmmm, this seems to be common theme to the empty factless rhetoric cons use to wail and flail at my posts. Read this slowly Ocean: I’ve backed up every point I made.



Oh Ocean, still with the childish and irrelevant responses. “ha you had to edit your post” and “wah wah you waited hours to respond” are the things a child would post. And it just proves how pathetic your points must be that feel the new to declare victory based on them.

Read this slowly. I made clear straight forward points. I back them up. You vaguely alluded to things but only even attempted to explain yourself until I mocked you. I can at least follow your “tax credit” point but your “unfunded liabilities” makes zero sense.



That’s the funny thing Ocean, you posted an annual report (finally) but you really didn’t explain how it affected the profitability of the bailout. But to say “I bring nothing” is either completely dishonest or completely childish (or both). I still have an outstanding request for you to specify which of my links are laughable and why. how hypocritical (and childish) would it be for to cry and whine and stomp your feet that I didnt respond to your vague questions but you don’t answer questions directly related to what you posted.

so here’s your chance to post an adult like reply. I’ve posted this math. Again, I’ve backed up every point in it (which probably explains your vague and childish responses). Here’s my latest profit calculation. Please fill in the numbers you think I’m leaving out.

26 billion in UE costs saved + 2 times some unspecified Medicaid costs saved + 10 billion in revenue in just one year – 10.5 billion loss on stock – (Ocean’s unspecified value of tax credit) – (Ocean’s vague and inexplicable narrative about pension liabilities)

Adults can be clear and specific. try it some time.

Click to expand...

exactly what have I posted that I have not backed up. Be clear and specific. (we already have a fenton)

Click to expand...

When Congress added section 1114 to the Bankruptcy Code in 1988, the idea was to make sure that retirees were paid their promised medical benefits, even though such benefits would otherwise be a relatively low priority in bankruptcy, as a pre-petition unsecured claim.96 The beauty of the section 1114 solution for Congress was that it gained political points for members who voted for the bill,97 but cost the U.S. Treasury nothing. Section 1114 did not commit tax dollars to bail out retiree benefits but simply reallocated resources within chapter 11 bankruptcies from one set of claimants to another

Click to expand...

And for the cons parroting the "union bailout" narrative or the " all creditors have to be treated the same" here 's a nugget your conservative 'editorials' never mention. thanks to Reagan, retiree benefits get priority in bankruptcy. did I mention that conservative 'editorials' never mention this

Click to expand...

When Congress added section 1114 to the Bankruptcy Code in 1988, the idea was to make sure that retirees were paid their promised medical benefits

Click to expand...

er uh jaeger, he only explained his points after I mocked him for being whining and crying. And I responded. Its the post you are responding to. (again, we already have a fenton)

Click to expand...

To your credit, at least you were clear about what you were responding to. My point was profitability of the bailout. He was claiming that GMs assets and liabilities prove the bailout wasn't as profitable as I stated.

Click to expand...

Perotista said:

Normally I don't get into these what if games, but yours sure does make sense.

Click to expand...

jaeger19 said:

Yep. I think if we were to look at the GM bailout objectively.. it really is a hard call to make financially. On one hand.. the idea that GM falling into bankruptcy would have caused everything to just shut down? with all those jobs lost? Highly highly unlikely because there was just too much value in GM. From its products to its people. Proof of that is the fact that with an influx of cash and some changes in management. GM though not on sure footing, is certainly better than it was prior to bankruptcy. So its highly unlikely that even if someone would not have bought GM in its entirety. The individual pieces of GM would have been bought up by separate companies and ended up doing well. If anything, that might have made the American car market more diverse and inherently stronger.
(one caveat to that.. is the question of whether anyone but Obama could have gotten the union to go along with the massive haircut that they did. I think that it could be argued that without Obama, the union might have held out and made a bankruptcy and emerging from bankruptcy much much worse)

On the flip side.. could the economy have sustained another hit as big as a bankruptcy of GM and stayed out of a depression? That's a pretty big "what if"?

Ultimately however, it boils down to politics.. and politically, neither the republicans nor democrats had a choice in the matter of the bailout of GM. It had to be done politically. Once it was decided by both parties to bail out the banking industry.. which had caused the problem in the first place? It would have been political suicide by either party to not bail out GM.

Click to expand...

ocean515 said:

:lamo

:screwy

Click to expand...

jaeger19 said:

Vern.. that's medical benefits.. not pensions...

Click to expand...

jaeger19 said:

No he explained his point quite well.. and you responded.. but not by actually addressing his points.. but by going off on your own little diatribe. That's why I responded the way I did.. because you avoided actually addressing his points.

Click to expand...

jaeger19 said:

And he's right... talk about "handwringing"... you are claiming that its profitable because it "avoided a bigger loss".. which is simply pie in the sky accounting.

Click to expand...

Vern said:

lets face it Ocean, you just proved my claims you were childish and couldnt respond.



Jaeger, the lying conservative narrative is that unions received special treatment in bankruptcy. That lying conservative specifically refers to what the union VEBA received. You are either ignorant not to know that or dishonest not to pretend not to know that.

Here let me be clear so will not attempt to deflect or “misparaphrase” or pretend not to understand again.

Reagan made retiree medical benefits a priority in banruptcy. Lying con editorials falsely called the what the VEBA received in bankruptcy “union bailout” “illegal /unfair treatment because bondholders are secured” as well as other blatant lies. And cons obediently parrot the lies. You babbling about pensions changes nothing I’ve posted. But thanks for admitting I post facts. But you have to “misparaphrase” my statements to say the facts don’t prove exactly what I say.

Click to expand...

ocean515 said:

You're a hoot Vern.
You've been buried, but you can't handle it can you? You can't allow yourself to view facts that prove your opinion has no basis in reality.

Click to expand...

BTW, Reagan?

Click to expand...

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...