Bin Laden is dead.........General Motors is alive

[bripat9643]

I believe the CBO's latest estimate is that we the taxpayers will be losing in excess of 30 billion dollars on the GM bailout. Hard to paint that as a "success".

The drones will claim that we haven't really lost the money because the government owns stock in GM. Of course, the minute the government sells that stock, the price will go into the tank.

 

[IndependntLogic]

How is the GM bailout a good move for the taxpayers "historically speaking?"

The GM bailout was payback to the UAW.

I know, but I want IndependntLogic to explain how the taxpayer benefited. I'm sure the answer will be hilarious.

I'm really trying to refrain from returning all the petty insults and negative bs that people engage in here, so I'll just discuss and you can tell me what you find so "hilarious".

Historically speaking, when the US government has bailed out financial institutions, the money has not been paid back over 90% of the time, which means the taxpayer ended up footing the bill.
Historically, when the government has bailed out the manufacturing sector, the loans have been paid back and usually even with dividends or interest over 90% of the time, so the taxpayer has not been stuck with the bill and even earned an ROI.
Examples include Penn Railroad (earned $580M dividend), Lockheed (earned $120M loan fees) and Chrysler ($600M+ profit).
Additionally, whereas bailout the financial sector rarely saves a large number of Middle class jobs, bailing out the manufacturing sector definitely and measurably saves Middle Class jobs, in addition to providing payback and / or profit on the investment.

Of course, there is the possibility that someone here has an open mind but I'm not holding my breath... But in any case historically speaking, we have benefitted from bailouts like the one given to GM by Bush and Obama.

I look forward to your reply, which I'm sure will contain insightful, well-reasoned and verifiable counterpoints or (not holding my breath) the acknowledgement that someone with a differing opinion could actually be right about something.

 

[Oldstyle]

The GM bailout was payback to the UAW.

I know, but I want IndependntLogic to explain how the taxpayer benefited. I'm sure the answer will be hilarious.

I'm really trying to refrain from returning all the petty insults and negative bs that people engage in here, so I'll just discuss and you can tell me what you find so "hilarious".

Historically speaking, when the US government has bailed out financial institutions, the money has not been paid back over 90% of the time, which means the taxpayer ended up footing the bill.
Historically, when the government has bailed out the manufacturing sector, the loans have been paid back and usually even with dividends or interest over 90% of the time, so the taxpayer has not been stuck with the bill and even earned an ROI.
Examples include Penn Railroad (earned $580M dividend), Lockheed (earned $120M loan fees) and Chrysler ($600M+ profit).
Additionally, whereas bailout the financial sector rarely saves a large number of Middle class jobs, bailing out the manufacturing sector definitely and measurably saves Middle Class jobs, in addition to providing payback and / or profit on the investment.

Of course, there is the possibility that someone here has an open mind but I'm not holding my breath... But in any case historically speaking, we have benefitted from bailouts like the one given to GM by Bush and Obama.

I look forward to your reply, which I'm sure will contain insightful, well-reasoned and verifiable counterpoints or (not holding my breath) the acknowledgement that someone with a differing opinion could actually be right about something.

I don't think we'll see the money returned to us from GM because the company is trading at around $28 dollars a share and we would need to sell at about $54 (if memory serves) to break even. Sorry but I don't see that happening anytime soon. History is a wonderful thing. I'm a history major. It doesn't always predict the future however and in this case I don't think it will.

 

[IndependntLogic]

I know, but I want IndependntLogic to explain how the taxpayer benefited. I'm sure the answer will be hilarious.

I'm really trying to refrain from returning all the petty insults and negative bs that people engage in here, so I'll just discuss and you can tell me what you find so "hilarious".

Historically speaking, when the US government has bailed out financial institutions, the money has not been paid back over 90% of the time, which means the taxpayer ended up footing the bill.
Historically, when the government has bailed out the manufacturing sector, the loans have been paid back and usually even with dividends or interest over 90% of the time, so the taxpayer has not been stuck with the bill and even earned an ROI.
Examples include Penn Railroad (earned $580M dividend), Lockheed (earned $120M loan fees) and Chrysler ($600M+ profit).
Additionally, whereas bailout the financial sector rarely saves a large number of Middle class jobs, bailing out the manufacturing sector definitely and measurably saves Middle Class jobs, in addition to providing payback and / or profit on the investment.

Of course, there is the possibility that someone here has an open mind but I'm not holding my breath... But in any case historically speaking, we have benefitted from bailouts like the one given to GM by Bush and Obama.

I look forward to your reply, which I'm sure will contain insightful, well-reasoned and verifiable counterpoints or (not holding my breath) the acknowledgement that someone with a differing opinion could actually be right about something.

I don't think we'll see the money returned to us from GM because the company is trading at around $28 dollars a share and we would need to sell at about $54 (if memory serves) to break even. Sorry but I don't see that happening anytime soon. History is a wonderful thing. I'm a history major. It doesn't always predict the future however and in this case I don't think it will.

That's a valid point and again, I said "historically speaking" this is a good move for the taxpayer. When we have bailed out the manufacturing sector, we have been able to (as in the case of GM) measure the number of jobs saved in very concrete terms (as opposed to the BS that Bush or Obama state about bank bailouts or stimulus - which is anyone's guess). So all those people are not on UnEmployment and seriously, I think we have more than enough people there right now. Additionally, we have always done better in getting our money back from the manufacturing sector (I seem to recall we got screwed by an airline once but not too badly).
So will the GM bailout specifically pay off dividends etc... ? I doubt it. But the historical reasoning behind it was much more sound than for abiling out the banks. They have pretty much ALWAYS screwed us.

 

[daveman]

As long as you finally admit that W did NOT KILL Bin Laden. That is fine...

Nobody's been saying that, Captain Strawman.

 

[daveman]

Historically speaking, bailing out GM was a good move for the taxpayer...

Why? We're never going to get our money back.

General Motors Will Never Repay Taxpayers - Reason Magazine

On edit: Yes, I agree, historically it has proven beneficial.

But not this time. This time it's a failure.

 

[daveman]

What else do you need to know?

GM should have been allowed to fail... the unfunded pension liabilities will sink them yet... unless of course the American taxpayer is once again forced to bail the unions out..

I never have and never will buy GM.

I also will never buy GM, and I even like some of the cars they've been building lately.

Buy a used one. Corporate won't get any of that money.

 

[daveman]

Do wingnuts seriously believe that their tedious, convoluted woulda coulda shoulda attempts to tear down the indisputable success of the auto industry bailout are going to resonate with normal people out there?

Seriously?

You people are a riot.

well as long as one accepts the fact that the billions they have still not paid back may never be paid back, sure, everything is rosy , of course others who think that that is not cool, well yea, we are idiots I guess........

He probably thinks Solyndra was a good investment, too.

 

[Rinata]

The right wing would rather the country was destroyed rather than give any credit to President Obama. A truly sick bunch. I think a Republican will again be president when a chicken flies out of Romney's ass.

 

[daveman]

The right wing would rather the country was destroyed rather than give any credit to President Obama. A truly sick bunch. I think a Republican will again be president when a chicken flies out of Romney's ass.

You don't think at all.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Historically speaking, bailing out GM was a good move for the taxpayer...

Why? We're never going to get our money back.

General Motors Will Never Repay Taxpayers - Reason Magazine

On edit: Yes, I agree, historically it has proven beneficial.

But not this time. This time it's a failure.

Probably not. I still think we should have done it anyway. We have enough people on long-term unemployment and if you added GM, then all the service industries that would have tanked overnight, what we have now would look like paradise.
I would have put in the condition that each division be broken up (remember Ma Bell). Then, if Buick doesn't build a car people want, they're not too big to fail. Same with Cadillac etc... I would also have told GMAC (now Ally Bank) to go screw themselves.
As structured, it was nothing more than a reward for incompetent management with no incentive to improve.

 

[Rinata]

The right wing would rather the country was destroyed rather than give any credit to President Obama. A truly sick bunch. I think a Republican will again be president when a chicken flies out of Romney's ass.

You don't think at all.

I don't like you, Dave. What you think of me is so unimportant to me, save your breath.

 

[The T]

Do wingnuts seriously believe that their tedious, convoluted woulda coulda shoulda attempts to tear down the indisputable success of the auto industry bailout are going to resonate with normal people out there?

Seriously?

You people are a riot.

well as long as one accepts the fact that the billions they have still not paid back may never be paid back, sure, everything is rosy , of course others who think that that is not cool, well yea, we are idiots I guess........

He probably thinks Solyndra was a good investment, too.

Fasilure is all they have to latch onto...must be so terrible to be so self-loathing and to hate America so much they applaud such failure as success.

 

[The T]

The right wing would rather the country was destroyed rather than give any credit to President Obama. A truly sick bunch. I think a Republican will again be president when a chicken flies out of Romney's ass.

You don't think at all.

I don't like you, Dave. What you think of me is so unimportant to me, save your breath.

Feeling is mutual. Do you really thrive on failure and demand more? For what purpose? Are you that lazy?

 

[The T]

GM should have been allowed to fail... the unfunded pension liabilities will sink them yet... unless of course the American taxpayer is once again forced to bail the unions out..

I never have and never will buy GM.

I also will never buy GM, and I even like some of the cars they've been building lately.

Buy a used one. Corporate won't get any of that money.

Independent dealers will.

 

[Rinata]

You don't think at all.

I don't like you, Dave. What you think of me is so unimportant to me, save your breath.

Feeling is mutual. Do you really thrive on failure and demand more? For what purpose? Are you that lazy?

What?? Can't Dave speak for himself?? Apparently not.

 

[theunbubba]

What else do you need to know?

There's a lot of fail in that.
Bin Laden should have been watched to trace his network. It was a complete fail to kill him when they did without gathering more information. We could have been much further on the way to rounding up the rest of Al Qaida and would still have a good rapport with the Pakistani government. Yes, I know they are a corrupt bunch of liars, but we would have been in charge of information they didn't know we had. We could have exposed them as liars to their faces later and embarrassed them into better control of their internal politics. We might have even aided them in eliminating some of their own internal scum.

General Motors successor corporation would have been much more successful had they been forced through normal bankruptcy reformation. They would have been freed from all of those contracts and obligations in a reorganization under normal rules and the taxpayer would have had less of a bill for it.

 

[theunbubba]

The right wing would rather the country was destroyed rather than give any credit to President Obama. A truly sick bunch. I think a Republican will again be president when a chicken flies out of Romney's ass.

Santorum will have more to say about that than you ever will.

 

[theunbubba]

Historically speaking, bailing out GM was a good move for the taxpayer...

Why? We're never going to get our money back.

General Motors Will Never Repay Taxpayers - Reason Magazine

On edit: Yes, I agree, historically it has proven beneficial.

But not this time. This time it's a failure.

Probably not. I still think we should have done it anyway. We have enough people on long-term unemployment and if you added GM, then all the service industries that would have tanked overnight, what we have now would look like paradise.
I would have put in the condition that each division be broken up (remember Ma Bell). Then, if Buick doesn't build a car people want, they're not too big to fail. Same with Cadillac etc... I would also have told GMAC (now Ally Bank) to go screw themselves.
As structured, it was nothing more than a reward for incompetent management with no incentive to improve.

Ahem. Normal Bankruptcy procedure would have done just that.

When a bank fails they don't just close the doors and that's the end. They are bought by another bank and kept operating in some ways. Debts are covered by insurance and the assets sold to the successor bank along with depositors accounts. Much the same thing happens with most bankrupt manufacturers. You can still buy Levi's even though they went bankrupt.


I ,for one, would at least confiscate the $1billion strike fund the UAW still has. They did get rescued by us didn't they?
Where is their sacrifice?

 

[IndependntLogic]

What else do you need to know?

There's a lot of fail in that.
Bin Laden should have been watched to trace his network. It was a complete fail to kill him when they did without gathering more information. We could have been much further on the way to rounding up the rest of Al Qaida and would still have a good rapport with the Pakistani government. Yes, I know they are a corrupt bunch of liars, but we would have been in charge of information they didn't know we had. We could have exposed them as liars to their faces later and embarrassed them into better control of their internal politics. We might have even aided them in eliminating some of their own internal scum.

General Motors successor corporation would have been much more successful had they been forced through normal bankruptcy reformation. They would have been freed from all of those contracts and obligations in a reorganization under normal rules and the taxpayer would have had less of a bill for it.

Both bias and ignorance of how our Intel / SOFs work are evident in your claim about taking out OBL.
That was the one thing Obama did really, really well.