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

[Yurt]

??? 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.

dude....you are not usually this stupid

they gave them money, it was a BAILOUT....that they got anything back is a fuckingmazing....no bank on earth would loan them money, which WHY the US government had to GIVE them money....this was not a traditional loan transaction

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

Ford took loans from the government too. They didn't "refuse to take taxpayer funds", they just refused to let the government invest in their company with the bailout.

5.9 Billion in government loans to be exact.

Ford Gets $5.9 Billion Government Loan - Auto - FOXNews.com

 

[Vast LWC]

dude....you are not usually this stupid

they gave them money, it was a BAILOUT....that they got anything back is a fuckingmazing....no bank on earth would loan them money, which WHY the US government had to GIVE them money....this was not a traditional loan transaction

The money they "Gave" them bought the government shares of the company, that's what is commonly known as "Investing".

 

[Yurt]

dude....you are not usually this stupid

they gave them money, it was a BAILOUT....that they got anything back is a fuckingmazing....no bank on earth would loan them money, which WHY the US government had to GIVE them money....this was not a traditional loan transaction

The money they "Gave" them bought the government shares of the company, that's otherwise known as "Investing".

when a government does this....its called socialism

and in this case....admit it, no bank, other than the US taxpayer bank, would give them money....hence the bailout

 

[Vast LWC]

when a government does this....its called socialism

and in this case....admit it, no bank, other than the US taxpayer bank, would give them money....hence the bailout

While that might be true, another investor may have come in and bought up cheap shares with the thought that they would increase in value at some future point, thus propping up the company just like the government did.

If the government were truly being socialist here, they would have simply nationalized the company, and called it the "bureau of manufacturing" or something like that, not allowing for future public sales of company shares. The government didn't "Take Over" GM, it essentially BOUGHT GM, with the intention of reselling it.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Still general Motors no longer exists as a Private Company. We all understand they are now Government Motors.

 

[Yurt]

when a government does this....its called socialism

and in this case....admit it, no bank, other than the US taxpayer bank, would give them money....hence the bailout

While that might be true, another investor may have come in and bought up cheap shares with the thought that they would increase in value at some future point, thus propping up the company just like the government did.

If the government were truly being socialist here, they would have simply nationalized the company, and called it the "bureau of manufacturing" or something like that, not allowing for future public sales of company shares. The government didn't "Take Over" GM, it essentially BOUGHT GM, with the intention of reselling it.

you're doing nothing but hypothesizing, guessing, maybes....as to what some proverbial investor might do....FACT: no investor did that, thus, the us government felt it had to step in and socialize the company in order to save it from failing. thats a fact, you can spin all you want about names of companies etc.....FACT: the us owns the means and production of a us car company

why you can't accept that, is beyond me

 

[hortysir]

when a government does this....its called socialism

and in this case....admit it, no bank, other than the US taxpayer bank, would give them money....hence the bailout

While that might be true, another investor may have come in and bought up cheap shares with the thought that they would increase in value at some future point, thus propping up the company just like the government did.

If the government were truly being socialist here, they would have simply nationalized the company, and called it the "bureau of manufacturing" or something like that, not allowing for future public sales of company shares. The government didn't "Take Over" GM, it essentially BOUGHT GM, with the intention of reselling it.

you're doing nothing but hypothesizing, guessing, maybes....as to what some proverbial investor might do....FACT: no investor did that, thus, the us government felt it had to step in and socialize the company in order to save it from failing. thats a fact, you can spin all you want about names of companies etc.....FACT: the us owns the means and production of a us car company

why you can't accept that, is beyond me

A private investor did not do that because they could SEE how insolvent they are.
The Fed saw a power grab

 

[Vast LWC]

you're doing nothing but hypothesizing, guessing, maybes....as to what some proverbial investor might do....FACT: no investor did that, thus, the us government felt it had to step in and socialize the company in order to save it from failing. thats a fact, you can spin all you want about names of companies etc.....FACT: the us owns the means and production of a us car company

why you can't accept that, is beyond me

It does, but not by choice. It was either watch the existing taxpayer investment in GM dissappear, or get involved.

We would have lost billions of dollars in loaned money if GM had gone belly up, not to mention all the other problems that would have ensued due to direct and indirect job losses.

Now there's a good chance we will see a profit when the shares held by the government are sold off.

I'm really not seeing why you are against us making money instead of losing it. The Government has every intention of selling it's shares of GM again, THAT'S HOW THEY WILL MAKE THEIR MONEY BACK.

 

[Vast LWC]

A private investor did not do that because they could SEE how insolvent they are.
The Fed saw a power grab

Apparently they weren't as "insolvent" as people thought, because they seem to be doing much better than they were before.

 

[Vast LWC]

Still general Motors no longer exists as a Private Company. We all understand they are now Government Motors.

No, they are a private company that has the majority of it's shares currently held by the government. Publicly tradeable shares.

If you guys have such a problem with this, get a bunch of your buddies together and buy the shares from the government.

After all GM is doing much better than it was, and is just about out of the hole it had gotten itself into. Seems like a good investment.

 

[rdean]

I liked this part of the article:

Jobs: Employers added 290,000 jobs to their payrolls in April, the government said, surprising economists who expected 187,000 new jobs. It was the biggest one-month gain since March 2006. March's number was revised up to 230,000 from the originally reported 162,000.

 

[WillowTree]

CNNMoney.com Market Report - May. 7, 2010

Troubled insurer AIG (AIG, Fortune 500) reported a quarterly profit Friday morning, versus a year-ago loss, as the company's insurance business continued to stabilize. The company's shares are up 23% this year on hopes it can pay back the more than $120 billion in loans it owes taxpayers.

Interesting.

can't they send fannie and freddie a few billion so we don't have to asked the suckered to the suckface?

 

[SFC Ollie]

I liked this part of the article:

Jobs: Employers added 290,000 jobs to their payrolls in April, the government said, surprising economists who expected 187,000 new jobs. It was the biggest one-month gain since March 2006. March's number was revised up to 230,000 from the originally reported 162,000.

And that would be meaningless since even though they counted the temporary census workers as employed Unemployment actually went up. Nice try.

 

[Vast LWC]

can't they send fannie and freddie a few billion so we don't have to asked the suckered to the suckface?

LOL, that is an interesting idea.

In fact, are they insuring Fannie and Freddie's bad mortgages? I don't know, maybe they are.

 

[Vast LWC]

I liked this part of the article:

Jobs: Employers added 290,000 jobs to their payrolls in April, the government said, surprising economists who expected 187,000 new jobs. It was the biggest one-month gain since March 2006. March's number was revised up to 230,000 from the originally reported 162,000.

And that would be meaningless since even though they counted the temporary census workers as employed Unemployment actually went up. Nice try.

Umm, unemployment went up because of people returning to the workforce. This is being discussed in another thread.

Temporary census workers only accounted for 66,000 of the 290,000 jobs created, leaving a total of 224,000 jobs created. Which is pretty damn good considering the past two years.

 

[rdean]

So I'm just curious. Republicans say over and over again the entire cause of the collapse was "Freddie/Fannie".

Can someone explain how "Freddie/Fannie" were connected to AIG?

Oh, and while they're at it. Explain derivatives.

 

[hortysir]

So I'm just curious. Republicans say over and over again the entire cause of the collapse was "Freddie/Fannie".

Can someone explain how "Freddie/Fannie" were connected to AIG?

Oh, and while they're at it. Explain derivatives.

re-run......
Not even similar to the discussion at hand.
Just like your last post....

But if it makes you feel superior to spout the complexities of derivatives then, by all means, have at it.
In a relevant thread.

 

[Vast LWC]

So I'm just curious. Republicans say over and over again the entire cause of the collapse was "Freddie/Fannie".

Can someone explain how "Freddie/Fannie" were connected to AIG?

Oh, and while they're at it. Explain derivatives.

re-run......
Not even similar to the discussion at hand.
Just like your last post....

But if it makes you feel superior to spout the complexities of derivatives then, by all means, have at it.
In a relevant thread.

Well, to be fair, the Fannie/Freddie post that Willow make was also a non-sequitor, and this poster was responding to that.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

AIG profits? ha h aha ha ha ha ha ha ha...you ain't seen nothing yet...wait until they get on the government healthcare teet!!!!!