AIG Update: PROFITS, that's right, I said PROFITS

[Vast LWC]

the government should not be allowed to do that...our government was never set up to allow that. and it is socialism, just because we would allow a private party to buy out the government share, doesn't mean its not socialism while the government owns it....

"Socialism" means the government grabs control of the means of production.

In this case, the government does not want to keep control of the means of production, they're just trying to protect the money they loaned out.

If this were meant to be socialism, they would have taken GM off the public exchange.

 

[Vast LWC]

When the Government has hiring and firing power over the CEO of a private company I call that socialism, or at least closer to it than i want to see.

I'll accept that it is indeed closer to it than many people want to see.

But it was always stated that it was an emergency, temporary, measure. There was never any intention of nationalizing the auto industry.

 

[hortysir]

ok...why does the government still own a 60% share then? i really don't think GM will ever show a profit until they change their quality controls and their design staff. toyota went from the underdog to the topdog because they had great quality control and good design staff....then, like GM, they got too cocky or comfortable and thus, tried to cut corners....they got smacked hard this year...GM should have been smacked hard too, not bailed out

but alas, i must admit i appear to be wrong on the bush bailouts, because they appear to have worked....i think more time is need to tell though

It is indeed possible that GM will not get their shit together enough, and that the taxpayer will never see a return on their investment.

I like to believe that that will not be the case.

But that's the risk that you take with any investment.

GM has been trying to scale down operational costs and implement some of the stuff you're talking about though. Especially after they saw how well it worked for Ford. And Ford is doing effing great by the way. Go Ford!

Should our government be allowed to take that risk with our money?

 

[Vast LWC]

Should our government be allowed to take that risk with our money?

It does all the time. It invests Social Security funds in the market to maximize profit.

That's pretty much the same thing.

 

[Yurt]

the government should not be allowed to do that...our government was never set up to allow that. and it is socialism, just because we would allow a private party to buy out the government share, doesn't mean its not socialism while the government owns it....

"Socialism" means the government grabs control of the means of production.

In this case, the government does not want to keep control of the means of production, they're just trying to protect the money they loaned out.

If this were meant to be socialism, they would have taken GM off the public exchange.

nice try....but you're trying to input "intent" into the definition....there is no intent, the government has in fact grabbed control of the means of production here....there is no dispute about that, its really sad you would try to weasel out of it by claiming its only temporary

 

[Yurt]

ok...why does the government still own a 60% share then? i really don't think GM will ever show a profit until they change their quality controls and their design staff. toyota went from the underdog to the topdog because they had great quality control and good design staff....then, like GM, they got too cocky or comfortable and thus, tried to cut corners....they got smacked hard this year...GM should have been smacked hard too, not bailed out

but alas, i must admit i appear to be wrong on the bush bailouts, because they appear to have worked....i think more time is need to tell though

It is indeed possible that GM will not get their shit together enough, and that the taxpayer will never see a return on their investment.

I like to believe that that will not be the case.

But that's the risk that you take with any investment.

GM has been trying to scale down operational costs and implement some of the stuff you're talking about though. Especially after they saw how well it worked for Ford. And Ford is doing effing great by the way. Go Ford!

is this your answer to my question about why the government still owns 60% of GM, despite the claim GM paid back all the money? i don't get it...you claimed in another post that the government doesn't want to own it forever or some strange weasel excuse like that.....

yet here....the taxpayers have allegedly been paid back, and the government still owns 60% of the company....thats socialism

 

[Vast LWC]

nice try....but you're trying to input "intent" into the definition....there is no intent, the government has in fact grabbed control of the means of production here....there is no dispute about that, its really sad you would try to weasel out of it by claiming its only temporary

The government seized control of a failed corporation that was about to default on tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer money.

Instead of liquidating it, like it normally would have in a bankruptcy situation, it took a hand in making it solvent again.

If you want to call that "Socialism", fine, but we shall have to disagree on our definitions.

It seems to me that if that is "Socialism" than any liquidation of a company by the government would also be "Socialism", and you guys never complained about that in the past.

 

[Vast LWC]

is this your answer to my question about why the government still owns 60% of GM, despite the claim GM paid back all the money? i don't get it...you claimed in another post that the government doesn't want to own it forever or some strange weasel excuse like that.....

yet here....the taxpayers have allegedly been paid back, and the government still owns 60% of the company....thats socialism

But only because the stock levels have not risen enough yet to cover their investment.

Do you want the taxpayers to take a loss?

All of the other similar "Bailouts" have gone this way. Once the value of the stock has reached the point where it is profitable for the government to sell, the government sells.

That's why we're making 8 billion dollars from Citibank.

 

[hortysir]

Should our government be allowed to take that risk with our money?

It does all the time. It invests Social Security funds in the market to maximize profit.

That's pretty much the same thing.

Link/source?
I remember the debate of allowing taxpayers to invest, but I don't recall hearing that SS is already investing our money

 

[Vast LWC]

Link/source?
I remember the debate of allowing taxpayers to invest, but I don't recall hearing that SS is already investing our money

Actually, you know what? I'm wrong there. The SS money is invested in government bonds.

My bad.

I still support the theory though. I LIKE it when my tax dollars make money.

 

[The T]

Should our government be allowed to take that risk with our money?

It does all the time. It invests Social Security funds in the market to maximize profit.

That's pretty much the same thing.

Link/source?
I remember the debate of allowing taxpayers to invest, but I don't recall hearing that SS is already investing our money

Exactly. Isn't it illegal? Didn't the Statists cry like stuffed pigs when GWB fronted a plan to invst a small portion of Socialist Security so SS would be a bit more solvent?

-Nah- Can't have the people making money for their retirement.

How does AIG get away with it? They Told us that Investing in 'Evil Corporations" And 'Evil WALL Street' was wrong for taxpayers whose SS Funds were being taken from them BY law without there sayso as to how the funds are expended? A.K.A. Government Ponzi Scheme in it's own right?

 

[hortysir]

Link/source?
I remember the debate of allowing taxpayers to invest, but I don't recall hearing that SS is already investing our money

Actually, you know what? I'm wrong there. The SS money is invested in government bonds.

My bad.

I still support the theory though. I LIKE it when my tax dollars make money.

The government bonds it holds are simply a form of IOU, a measure of how much money the government owes the system. It says nothing about where the government will get the money to pay back those IOUs.
Project on Social Security Choice

 

[The T]

Link/source?
I remember the debate of allowing taxpayers to invest, but I don't recall hearing that SS is already investing our money

Actually, you know what? I'm wrong there. The SS money is invested in government bonds.

My bad.

I still support the theory though. I LIKE it when my tax dollars make money.

Social Security is being invested? Is this what you're saying?

 

[Yurt]

nice try....but you're trying to input "intent" into the definition....there is no intent, the government has in fact grabbed control of the means of production here....there is no dispute about that, its really sad you would try to weasel out of it by claiming its only temporary

The government seized control of a failed corporation that was about to default on tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer money.

Instead of liquidating it, like it normally would have in a bankruptcy situation, it took a hand in making it solvent again.

If you want to call that "Socialism", fine, but we shall have to disagree on our definitions.

It seems to me that if that is "Socialism" than any liquidation of a company by the government would also be "Socialism", and you guys never complained about that in the past.

??? do you even realize what you're saying....what if wanted to default on my student loans (by law almost impossible now), but what if....that is taxpayer money....your position is that the government should actually give me MORE money, so i don't default

let's take a regular bankruptcy....many people owe money to other taxpayers...yet, the government lets those loans go 'away' if it is chapter 7. those taxpayers who loaned that money will never see that money...

why is GM so special?

 

[Yurt]

is this your answer to my question about why the government still owns 60% of GM, despite the claim GM paid back all the money? i don't get it...you claimed in another post that the government doesn't want to own it forever or some strange weasel excuse like that.....

yet here....the taxpayers have allegedly been paid back, and the government still owns 60% of the company....thats socialism

But only because the stock levels have not risen enough yet to cover their investment.

Do you want the taxpayers to take a loss?

All of the other similar "Bailouts" have gone this way. Once the value of the stock has reached the point where it is profitable for the government to sell, the government sells.

That's why we're making 8 billion dollars from Citibank.

what? if they paid back their "loans"....then it shouldn't matter what the stock price is....unless you're finally admitting the government hasn't actually been paid back in full....if you are....congrats

"we"....good lord, do you even know where that supposed profit for the government goes? our debt continues to climb....yet you keep saying the government is making money off the bailouts....

no family, no person, no corporation could ever survive using the government's accounting and profit/loss methods....face it LWC....you and i pay for their lofty lifestyles....you demonize corporations without even realizing how much power and money you give the biggest corporation on earth.........the US government

 

[Oddball]

...face it LWC....you and i pay for their lofty lifestyles....you demonize corporations without even realizing how much power and money you give the biggest corporation on earth.........the US government

It's even worse than that....The District of Columbia Corporation merely takes the money when they want it, irregardless of consequence.

 

[Oddball]

Link/source?
I remember the debate of allowing taxpayers to invest, but I don't recall hearing that SS is already investing our money

Actually, you know what? I'm wrong there. The SS money is invested in government bonds.

My bad.

I still support the theory though. I LIKE it when my tax dollars make money.

Social Security is being invested? Is this what you're saying?

Yeah..."Invested" in the hypothetical earnings of taxpayers who, in many cases, haven't even been born.

Hell, at least 19th century cotton plantationers waited until their slaves were able bodied enough to produce before putting them under the lash.

 

[The T]

nice try....but you're trying to input "intent" into the definition....there is no intent, the government has in fact grabbed control of the means of production here....there is no dispute about that, its really sad you would try to weasel out of it by claiming its only temporary

The government seized control of a failed corporation that was about to default on tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer money.

Instead of liquidating it, like it normally would have in a bankruptcy situation, it took a hand in making it solvent again.

If you want to call that "Socialism", fine, but we shall have to disagree on our definitions.

It seems to me that if that is "Socialism" than any liquidation of a company by the government would also be "Socialism", and you guys never complained about that in the past.

??? do you even realize what you're saying....what if wanted to default on my student loans (by law almost impossible now), but what if....that is taxpayer money....your position is that the government should actually give me MORE money, so i don't default

let's take a regular bankruptcy....many people owe money to other taxpayers...yet, the government lets those loans go 'away' if it is chapter 7. those taxpayers who loaned that money will never see that money...

why is GM so special?

Why is Chrysler so special? And why is FORD so special...? That's right...they refused to take Taxpayer funds...and latest report shows it payed off handsomely for the Company courtesy of those that saw it and bought FORD vehicles...

Imagine that.

 

[Vast LWC]

??? do you even realize what you're saying....what if wanted to default on my student loans (by law almost impossible now), but what if....that is taxpayer money....your position is that the government should actually give me MORE money, so i don't default

let's take a regular bankruptcy....many people owe money to other taxpayers...yet, the government lets those loans go 'away' if it is chapter 7. those taxpayers who loaned that money will never see that money...

why is GM so special?

They didn't "Give" anyone money. They invested the money expecting a return on the investment.

 

[The T]

Actually, you know what? I'm wrong there. The SS money is invested in government bonds.

My bad.

I still support the theory though. I LIKE it when my tax dollars make money.

Social Security is being invested? Is this what you're saying?

Yeah..."Invested" in the hypothetical earnings of taxpayers who, in many cases, haven't even been born.

Hell, at least 19th century cotton plantationers waited until their slaves were able bodied enough to produce before putting them under the lash.

Holy crap! The ramifications of what you wrote boggle the mind...! ( )

Talk about indentured servitude! Holy mackerel there Andy!