I thought GM had paid us back Libs, another Obama lie?

[Zander]

It's all about semantics for GM supporters.
BOTTOM LINE: GM will end up costing the taxpayers $15- 20 billion or more. How anyone can call that a "resounding success" is beyond me.

I never said I was a supporter or I wasn't! I'm just repeating the facts... (You know, those things you can't really dispute)... Over, and over, and over, and people keep trying to dispute them!

If we sell today at $31.60 we lose about $8B. Whether or not that's worth the hit to manufacturing that was prevented is a matter of dispute, or even opinion (slippery slope et al).

But the point I'm trying to make is that GM doesn't 'Owe' that money. The slice of the GM pie that we owe is ours to do with what we please.

I have no quarrel with you Cuyo- I understand your point. At the end of the day, we the Taxpayers, are going to lose a bundle on both GM and Chrysler. I supported TARP and the bailouts when it was happening, I felt like we needed the government to backstop the financial system and also allow great American manufacturing companies like GM and Chrysler a chance to survive. I only got angry when GM started using deceptive ads touting their "payback" of loans "in full, 5 years ahead of schedule" when they were simply using money from other government loans. It was sleazy as hell.

 

[bripat9643]

They didn't survive without handouts.

If GM collapsed, Ford would have gone too.

ROFL! How do you figure? How does subsidizing its competitors help Ford?

It's amazing how little some people know how these things work.

Yeah. take you, for instance.

 

[bripat9643]

So a better outcome would have been having the auto industry collapse and having former tax payers on un-employment lines?

Paying them unemployment would have been cheaper than paying the $80 billion.

Yes, that would have been better. Bankruptcy is the way capitalism clears away mistakes and bad management.

The bailout solidified a huge mistake in concrete and left the bad management in place.

 

[bripat9643]

As did I. So let me get this right you're saying that by giving GM an unfair advantage of Billions in operating capital it helped Ford Survive? Is that really what you're trying to suggest?

It's hard to believe anyone could post something that stupid, isn't it?

 

[bripat9643]

Apparently it IS that hard to understand because you don't get it. They used an escrow account to pay back the 5+/-B tarp loan. Why would they use profits or anything else when they can use an extremely low interest escrow while using five straight quarterly profits to expand operations?

The "escrow account" contained money it borrowed from the government.

it's fun watching Obama drones wriggling on their hooks as they try to spin this as something somehow positive for the taxpayers.

 

[bripat9643]

No another SOS talking point. The loan was paid back. The stock the Gov. owns, if sold off right now would still result in a huge loss. If I remember correctly the price of the stock need to be around 50 buck per share to break even. Today it's trading around 31.

If the government tried to sell its interest in the company, the share price would plunge to $5/share.

 

[bripat9643]

It's not the lack of competition that would have hurt Ford.

It was the lack of supply chain that a collapse of GM would have created.

The utter bullshit you minsinformed simpletons peddle is hilarious.

Ford has its own supply chain, nitwit.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, everyone...except you. and the people at Reason.

You know where the money in the escrow account held by treasurycame from, right Robert?

Right?

hint: It wasn't part of the TARP fund.

Right. GM pulled it out of one pocket and put it in another. And you expect us to believe it's not the same money.

Liberal gullibility would be hilarious if it wasn't so scary.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

GM's Profits are Still a Huge Net Loss For Taxpayers - Megan McArdle - Business - The Atlantic
This is a good story and a very bad event.
The GOP is going to have a field day with this stuff in 2012

"Despite the potential for improved proceeds, the government is unlikely to turn a profit on its $49.5 billion bailout of the troubled automaker, fashioned in late 2008 and early 2009. Treasury officials are currently projecting a $10.8 billion loss from investments in G.M.

“We’re going to lose money in the auto industry,” though less than originally expected, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner told the Detroit Economic Club last month. But, he added, “We didn’t do these things to maximize return. We did them to save jobs. The biggest impact of these programs was in the millions of jobs saved.”

If the Treasury is able to sell off its remaining stake later this year, it would be a major political victory for the Obama administration. Many analysts had projected that the government would be entangled with G.M. for years."

G.M. Stock Sale​

$ $ $ $

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI2iTCjW6ac]YouTube - GM invests $2B in 17 plants, adds 4K jobs[/ame]

 

[bripat9643]

No. GM owes the tax payers nothing. The US Government bought a large amount of GM stock to infuse capital into the company. The Government can sell it's shares if it wants to, but that would be on the open market not something that GM has to buy?

So what you're saying is the taxpayers got screwed when the government bought shares of GM for far more than they are worth.

But you think that makes GM a profitable business?

How stupid can you possibly be?

 

[bripat9643]

This has been covered.

Technically speaking, GM does not owe the government money. They have an ownership stake. Same as if you buy stock in Microsoft, Microsoft does not "Owe you money." It doesn't work that way.

If the government sold today they'd lose in the range of $6-$10B. But the purpose of the rescue was not to turn a profit. It was to save 200-some-odd thousand manufacturing jobs for the U.S. It appears the taxpayer will ultimately make a profit, but that wasn't the motivation.

The move was necessary and successful.

The taxpayers will never make a profit. The government cannot sell its shares without flushing the share price down the toilet.

 

[bripat9643]

No private investors had the means nor the inclination to do so.

Sorry, but there are plenty of other auto manufacturers with the means and the inclination. Of course, the first thing they would have done is shed all their UAW contracts and shut down all those factories in Detroit and moved the assembly lines to right-to-work states.

 

[Cuyo]

This has been covered.

Technically speaking, GM does not owe the government money. They have an ownership stake. Same as if you buy stock in Microsoft, Microsoft does not "Owe you money." It doesn't work that way.

If the government sold today they'd lose in the range of $6-$10B. But the purpose of the rescue was not to turn a profit. It was to save 200-some-odd thousand manufacturing jobs for the U.S. It appears the taxpayer will ultimately make a profit, but that wasn't the motivation.

The move was necessary and successful.

The taxpayers will never make a profit. The government cannot sell its shares without flushing the share price down the toilet.

Is there anything at all you're basing that assertion on?

Yes, unloading 27% of GM all at once is likely to lower the stock price, but what does that have to do with making a profit or not? (worth mentioning that it's unlikely to happen like that, but irrelevant to the question)

 

[bripat9643]

No another SOS talking point. The loan was paid back. The stock the Gov. owns, if sold off right now would still result in a huge loss. If I remember correctly the price of the stock need to be around 50 buck per share to break even. Today it's trading around 31.

So GM still owes the US tax payer until that stock can be sold...... That's all that needs to be said

No, they don't, as I've outlined above.

The stock can be sold today. But why would the taxpayer take a loss when they're poised to make a profit?

Every investor thinks every share he owns is "poised to make a profit." Unfortunately, it often doesn't work out that way. Furthermore, since the federal government owns such a huge stake in GM, it can't sell its shares without driving the price way down.

The taxpayers will get screwed on this deal.

There's no doubt about that.

 

[bripat9643]

If the government sold the stock today, would they lose money? Yes. To the tune of $6-$10 Billion.

Wrong. As I have already pointed out, your claim depends on the price of the stock not declining when the government sells its shares. When the government unloads its interest in the company, the share price will head towards the bottom of the Marianas Trench. The taxpayers will lose far more than $10 billion.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

"General Motors Co. (GM) has a relatively high standing among Wall Street analysts even though shares of the largest U.S. automaker have fallen during their first six months of trading.

The CHART OF THE DAY compares the overall rating on GM, as compiled by Bloomberg from brokerage recommendations, with the stock’s price since its market debut on Nov. 18.

GM is rated higher than 90 percent of the companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index, according to Bloomberg’s data. The Detroit-based company stands at 4.47 on a 1-to-5 scale, with 5 meaning unanimous “buy” ratings. Even so, the stock has fallen as low as $29.17, down 12 percent from the original price.

“Few analysts seem concerned” that GM is struggling to live up to expectations at the time of the automaker’s initial public offering, H. Peter Nesvold, an analyst at Jefferies & Co., wrote two days ago in a report.

Nesvold, who made Zacks Investment Research’s All-Star Analyst Survey list while at Bear Stearns Cos., has rated GM “hold” since he began following the automaker on March 18. In the next 12 months, he sees the stock reaching $36, the lowest projection of 12 analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg."

GM Support From Analysts
Belies Post-IPO Drop​

.

.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I thought GM had paid us back Libs, another Obama lie?

.

.

.

.

​

 

[bripat9643]

Ah, britpat? You know that GM declared bankruptcy right? June 1, 2009.

Please do keep up.

that wasn't a real bankruptcy. That was a legalized hold up of the stock holders and bond holders that the Obama administration disguised as a bankruptcy. In a real bankruptcy, the union thugs would have last claim on the company assets, not be first in line. And there wouldn't be any federal government tossing in $90 billion.

 

[JRK]

I thought GM had paid us back Libs, another Obama lie?

.

.

.

.

​

Mr Shaman it is unclear to me what the loss of 40+- billion dollars of tax payers wealth is funny
Thats my money
thats my sons money
thats not BHO nor the UAWs
GM 50 billion
GMAC 18 billion and the best i can tell we have got 23 billion back so far
GM Raises $23 Billion in Stock Sale

 

[8537]

Yes, that would have been better. Bankruptcy is the way capitalism clears away mistakes and bad management.

Huh?! Bankruptcy is just the plan to let equity holders off the hook for mistakes.