Reply With Quote
Well, he didn't -- so your straw thread fails.
You can show a great profit if you do business this way...
The only reason Chrysler and GM are profitable today is because the government allowed them to discharge huge amounts of debt. Vendors, shareholders--including many retirement acount vehicles like mutual funds--were forced to take HUGE losses on their GM stock holdings when the previous version of GM, was for all intents and purpose, dismantled.
Then there's our tax dollars at work...
From Obama's weekly radio address in early 2010:
“It wont be too long before the stock the Treasury is holding in GM could be sold. As essential as it was that we got in I’m glad to see that we’re getting out.”
Two and half years later, we the people still own over 26% of GM.
And, they still owe over $50 billion in TARP bailout money.
Finally, there's the matter of product...which ties in with his over all green industry nonsense...Of the top bailout recipients, GM is the biggest laggard, the TARP watchdog says in his latest quarterly report to Congress. Bank of America, Citigroup, Chrysler and Chrysler Financial all have paid off their debt and left the TARP program. Even AIG has paid back more than 75% of what it owes taxpayers.
GM, on the other hand, still owes more than half the $50 billion in federal funds it received when the combination of the recession and its costly union contracts drove it into bankruptcy. And its lending arm, GMAC (now Ally Financial), still owes $14.5 billion.
What's worse, it's not clear that GM actually repaid what it's gotten credit for repaying. Check out this note buried in the inspector's report: "As part of a credit agreement with Treasury, $16.4 billion in TARP funds were placed in an escrow account that GM could access only with Treasury's permission."
As it turns out, GM got Treasury's OK to "repay" more than $6.7 billion "using a portion of the escrow account that had been funded with TARP funds." So GM is merely paying the government back with government money, not money GM is earning selling cars, as the administration has claimed.
The Chevy Volt has sucked big time. After pouring tens of millions of dollars into the damn thing, they've sold how many? Someone calculated the cost to tax payers in the mid $100K range -- excluding purchase price.
Like I said, if Obama proposed to do the same for other industries, no thanks.
Well, he didn't -- so your straw thread fails.
Why are you so cynical?
Tell me. If you saw a failing business, and had a chance to make it work, would you without making sure you got profit along the way?
Don't expect me to believe that you would do it with no profit, or losing money yourself.
Exactly... garbage thread indeed.
crofl mad GM is making money
On my and the rest of taxpayers' backs? Your damn right I'm mad.
Where would their profit go if they paid back the TARP? Where would their profit go if Obama offloaded our 26%? By the way, am I getting any dividends off that investment? Where would their profit be if government hadn't propped them up, enriched it's union cronies, screwed a bunch of non-union Delphi employees and car dealers around the country?
And, by the way, their profits are falling...
GM Earnings Q2 2012: Profits Fall 41 Percent On Europe, South America Losses.
And, management is squabbling...
GM CEO Akerson Fired Opel Head on Europe Trip, Handelsblatt Says
And, now, they want to bring the magic of subprime loans to the car industry...
GM Ramps Up Risky Subprime Auto Loans To Drive Sales
Why would a financially successful and stable company need to resort to subprime loans to sell inventory?
Barely.
You should look at their income statements quarter by quarter.
lol the only thing that makes you seething mad is that you can't say they're losing money and pinning THAT on Barry
Treasury: U.S. to lose $25 billion on auto bailoutlol the only thing that makes you seething mad is that you can't say they're losing money and pinning THAT on Barry
Like I said, they would be losing money if they would pay their bills. Instead, I'm losing money.
Again, if he proposes to do this with the rest of American industry, no thanks.
Eh, Iraq cost, what? $800 billion?
Not a peep from you about that -- but translating do ents does cost money.
Again, he doesn't.Again, if he proposes to do this with the rest of American industry, no thanks.
stock price != paying bills
The non-sequitur is be pretty evident, but this thread already kicked in on a fallacy, so no surprises there...
So, who's losing $25 billion, ElNono?
You can call them losing, I'll call them investing in turning around an important industry in the country and saving jobs not just on the companies themselves, but on the related businesses.
When can argue on the merits of how it was done, but GM today is a profitable company and that drives you up a wall...
As CD said, I don't hear you ing about the $800+ billions tossed in Iraq with nothing to show for it.
lol paying bills with your money
And, our "investment" is losing money and has lost money since it was made...and, it doesn't appear to be turning around.
Not necessarily... that $25 billion is merely the stock price difference. It doesn't include the taxes paid by the different companies, employees, sales taxes from the car sales, the unemployment benefits the government would've had to write checks out to, etc. All revenue and savings that wouldn't be there if the industry would not exist anymore.
$25 billion? Bargain.
How many people's jobs are being saved by that $25 billion?
My God...
We need to stop the bailouts. Fix the problems, not keep applying such costly bandages.
As for the war. It's over. The world is a better place. It had tremendous support going into it, and you can't just stop and pull out like we did in Viet Nam when the public grows tired of what they started.
Why are we still in Afghanistan?
Why are we spending to bring down other government?
Somewhere around 1 million.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Romn...2/15/id/429591
Like I said, 25 billion is a bargain.
newsmax
TB
what next, Fox?
WND?
Here:
http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iagauto.htm/
The number units are in thousands (ie: where it shows 1, it means 1,000).
I couldn't find a breakdown on a per-company basis, but with GM being one of the top car makers in the world, it's not a stretch to say it would've had a major impact. We're talking millions of jobs.
I know the industry as a whole employs about 6 million jobs (per here: http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iagauto.htm/). Would be surprised GM is only 1/6 of that.
It was quoting Bob Lutz, dumbass.newsmax
TB
what next, Fox?
WND?
:facepalm
Stop stalking me!
The bot-approved NYT pegs it north of 500,000
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/10/bu...pagewanted=all
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
