GM is doing AWESOME

[Nemo]

He did some "backpedaling" when GM emerged from Chapter 11; and actually tried to take credit for the successful reorganization. See Forbes article:
Mitt Romney Takes Credit For The Auto Bailout. Say, What? - Forbes

 

[Too Tall]

It wasn’t a government takeover; it was a bankruptcy reorganization. The General Motors (GM) Chapter 11 case was filed at the height of the economic recession; and there were no banks or other commercial lenders that could provide the DIP (Debtor in Possession) financing necessary to continue business operations during the reorganization proceedings; and without the government assistance (and that of Canada as well) GM would have been DOA (dead on arrival) on the first day, forcing the liquidation of the company, and loss of thousands of jobs as happened in the Circuit City bankruptcy that cost over 35,000 jobs. The liquidation of GM would in turn precipitate the failure of hundreds of related industry manufacturers and suppliers resulting in a flood of business bankruptcy cases across the country, and loss of millions of jobs. And, as it turned out, the reorganization was a success; witness the profitability of the company today.

It might have taken a couple of weeks before a venture capitalist bought all of GM's assets and got the production lines running again and the taxpayers wouldn't be out Billions of dollars.

 

[buckeye45_73]

You are certainly the Libtard exception, then:

Liberal Democrats Most Likely to Drive Imports

Liberal Democrats Most Likely to Drive Imports | Be John Galt

so who should I thank for buying American?

You do realize what,subprime is? People who cant pay. This is cooking the books. You know the mortgage crises

 

[Nemo]

The taxpayers are not out any money. The GM reorganization, which was one of the biggest bankruptcy cases in our history, was a huge success. Alternatively, letting GM fail would have been a catastrophic loss with consequential damage to the economy, and at the worst possible time. It was just not an option.

 

[Too Tall]

Mitt Romney recently made a speech criticizing President Obama for the government “bailout” of General Motors. He would have preferred to see GM fail; which would have precipitated the failure of hundreds of industry related manufacturing and supply businesses, and the loss of millions of jobs. That's what Mitt Romney would do. Does that make good economic sense? Does it make any sense at all?

It is within living memory that it was said: "What is good for General Motors is good for America." President Obama was right to intervene in the GM bankruptcy reorganization; he did it for the good of the country; he did it to save American jobs. It says a lot about his leadership priorities. Mitt Romney says that he "likes being able to fire people. . . ." What does that say about him? Surely, it does not speak well.

I 'like being able to fire people' as well. I recently fired Directv for constantly raising my bill. I am reasonably sure you are bright enough to realize that was the context of Romneys remark, but prefer the Dem talking point.

However, I could be wrong about your mental capacity.

 

[Nemo]

Direct TV has been sued for its business practices; and there has been a recent arbitration award against the company for millions of dollars in damages.

 

[Too Tall]

The taxpayers are not out any money. The GM reorganization, which was one of the biggest bankruptcy cases in our history, was a huge success. Alternatively, letting GM fail would have been a catastrophic loss with consequential damage to the economy, and at the worst possible time. It was just not an option.

As I previously stated, venture capitalists would have had the production lines running in no time.

FactCheck.org : General Motors’ Debt

Many readers have asked us about the White House-touted news that General Motors, and Chrysler, repaid loan money from the Treasury Department, with interest, ahead of schedule. GM launched an ad boasting of the news, and President Obama talked about it in his weekly address on April 24.

We wrote about this, too, on April 26 in a review of the Sunday political talk shows. Here’s the deal for those who missed that post:
■Yes, it’s true that GM paid back its loan from the Treasury Department, in full, ahead of schedule.
■But the debt was only part of the automaker bailout package. Through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the Treasury gave GM $49.5 billion, most of which was converted into an ownership stake in the form of stock. Through this equity stake, the government still owns 61 percent of GM.
■Some Republicans, including Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa have pointed out that GM used TARP money to pay back its TARP debt. That’s true, but GM simply handed back TARP money it had been lent and hadn’t used. Those funds had been sitting in an escrow account, should the automaker need them. (The company didn’t borrow new money to pay back an older loan.)

Grassley has argued that this wasn’t a "meaningful" repayment of a loan, since it didn’t come from earnings. That’s an opinion, and we’ll leave it to readers to agree or disagree with the senator. The TARP special inspector general, Neil Barofsky, has said the repayment was "good news," since it meant the automaker didn’t need to use those funds held in escrow. In testimony before the Senate Finance Committee on April 20, Barofksy made it clear GM still was operating with government help:

As for Treasury’s equity stake, worth $40 billion-plus, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said the Treasury won’t fully recoup that money. The total automaker bailout, including TARP money given to Chrysler, CBO estimates, will cost taxpayers about $34 billion.

 

[buckeye45_73]

The taxpayers are not out any money. The GM reorganization, which was one of the biggest bankruptcy cases in our history, was a huge success. Alternatively, letting GM fail would have been a catastrophic loss with consequential damage to the economy, and at the worst possible time. It was just not an option.

that sound alot like trickle down

 

[Truthseeker420]

You are certainly the Libtard exception, then:

Liberal Democrats Most Likely to Drive Imports

Liberal Democrats Most Likely to Drive Imports | Be John Galt

so who should I thank for buying American?

You do realize what,subprime is? People who cant pay. This is cooking the books. You know the mortgage crises

Subprime is not cooking the books. Now if Wall Street was fraudulently inflating car prices, bribing appraisers, packaging loans and betting on their loss....then you might be able to make a comparison.

 

[WillowTree]

You are certainly the Libtard exception, then:

Liberal Democrats Most Likely to Drive Imports

Liberal Democrats Most Likely to Drive Imports | Be John Galt

so who should I thank for buying American?

Not me. I'll never buy a sleazy corrupt GM product. We bailed their asses out once and what did they do? They opened ******* plants in Mexico and China. I'll buy Toyota. They're built right here in America.

 

[candycorn]

GM is alive. Bin Laden is dead.

Our 'Conservatives' are unhappy with both outcomes.

It would appear.

 

[Nemo]

I doubt there is any danger that the government won’t be repaid through the stock repurchase. The only possible exposure in the GM deal was the government guarantee of the company’s warranty liability made prior to the Chapter 11 case; however my recollection is that these executory contracts were assumed by the reorganized debtor in a separate trust set up as under the confirmed plan, and the government does not have any contingent liability for the warranty program.

 

[Truthseeker420]

You are certainly the Libtard exception, then:

Liberal Democrats Most Likely to Drive Imports

Liberal Democrats Most Likely to Drive Imports | Be John Galt

so who should I thank for buying American?

Not me. I'll never buy a sleazy corrupt GM product. We bailed their asses out once and what did they do? They opened ******* plants in Mexico and China. I'll buy Toyota. They're built right here in America.

so you're not voting for Mitt Romney?

 

[candycorn]

Mitt Romney recently made a speech criticizing President Obama for the government “bailout” of General Motors. He would have preferred to see GM fail; which would have precipitated the failure of hundreds of industry related manufacturing and supply businesses, and the loss of millions of jobs. That's what Mitt Romney would do. Does that make good economic sense? Does it make any sense at all?

It is within living memory that it was said: "What is good for General Motors is good for America." President Obama was right to intervene in the GM bankruptcy reorganization; he did it for the good of the country; he did it to save American jobs. It says a lot about his leadership priorities. Mitt Romney says that he "likes being able to fire people. . . ." What does that say about him? Surely, it does not speak well.

While I am no fan of the policies Governor Romney would propose, I will take Mr. Obama to task a bit here.

The reason that we were given for this bail out, the bank bail out, the AIG bail out etc--and thats what they were: BAILOUTS--was that these entities were "too big to fail."

It's been a few years later now and these entities are as large as ever. Chase (an example of a large bank) opens a new branch seemingly every week. GM is still GM, AIG (as far as I know) is still around and they have a retirement planning rep who basically camps in our cafeteria at work!!!! Unlike 90 percent of the people here (or more correctly Unlike 90% of the people here would cop to understanding), I understand there are many factors involved and Presidents can't just wave a magic wand and make their wishes come true on this or any other topic. However, I have not heard a peep from the President on the "too big to fail" status of these companies that the US Taxpayers bailed out. They are still there. One has to assume that protecting us from the next time there is a financial crisis and the leadership of these "too big to fail" organizations appeal to the government or the government inserts themselves into the equation is not a big priority of this administration.

If I were advising Governor Romney, I would make this an issue.

 

[Zxereus]

GM is alive. Bin Laden is dead.

Our 'Conservatives' are unhappy with both outcomes.

Baloney. We are happy Bin Laden is dead, we just don't alocate as much credit to the no-brainer decision that Obama made. The CIA did the painstaking work and planning, Obama happened to be in the White House.

As far as GM, I don't think any American is sad they are alive.
The difference is most conservatives would have nolt given them a bailout.
GM was in the shape they were due mainly to poor quality that over time drove more and more of it's customer base to other car manufacturers.
Most conservatives view the bailouts as rewarding poor business decisions.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Since when do liberals love big And make arguements for trickle down economics......
And when did they go for kiling terrorists?
they'll say anything to support Obama

 

[candycorn]

GM is alive. Bin Laden is dead.

Our 'Conservatives' are unhappy with both outcomes.

Baloney. We are happy Bin Laden is dead, we just don't alocate as much credit to the no-brainer decision that Obama made. The CIA did the painstaking work and planning, Obama happened to be in the White House.

As far as GM, I don't think any American is sad they are alive.
The difference is most conservatives would have nolt given them a bailout.
GM was in the shape they were due mainly to poor quality that over time drove more and more of it's customer base to other car manufacturers.
Most conservatives view the bailouts as rewarding poor business decisions.

Which is why Obama will win Michigan in a walk.

Mudwhistle called it a mistake to kill Bin Laden

 

[Nemo]

Banking and business are not the same. The government has no choice but to bail out the banks because they are part of the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve is an independent centralized bank system established under the Federal Reserve Act with quasi-legislative, quasi-judicial powers that has jurisdiction over banking institutions. Under the Glass-Steagal Act, Congress created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as an independent agency to insure deposit accounts and enforce regulation of banks under the Federal Reserve System. Unlike their parent companies (e.g., Washington Mutual, Inc. vs. Washington Mutual Bank), banks are ineligible for bankruptcy reorganization. 11 U.S.C. § 109(b)(2). An insolvent bank is taken over by the FDIC; which is why there needs to be a clear dividing line between bank investment that is insured, and market trading that is not. This is why Dodd-Frank does not allow proprietary trading by bank entities under the Volcker Rule.

 

[rightwinger]

GM is alive. Bin Laden is dead.

Our 'Conservatives' are unhappy with both outcomes.

Baloney. We are happy Bin Laden is dead, we just don't alocate as much credit to the no-brainer decision that Obama made. The CIA did the painstaking work and planning, Obama happened to be in the White House.

As far as GM, I don't think any American is sad they are alive.
The difference is most conservatives would have nolt given them a bailout.
GM was in the shape they were due mainly to poor quality that over time drove more and more of it's customer base to other car manufacturers.
Most conservatives view the bailouts as rewarding poor business decisions.

Yea....decisions are no brainers until they turn out horribly wrong. What would have happened if Bin Laden was not there? What would have happened if the compound was heavily defended and booby trapped? What would have happened if Pakistan shot down the helicopters that were invading their territory unannounced?

Yea...no brainers are like that

 

[Meister]

It wasn’t a government takeover; it was a bankruptcy reorganization. The General Motors (GM) Chapter 11 case was filed at the height of the economic recession; and there were no banks or other commercial lenders that could provide the DIP (Debtor in Possession) financing necessary to continue business operations during the reorganization proceedings; and without the government assistance (and that of Canada as well) GM would have been DOA (dead on arrival) on the first day, forcing the liquidation of the company, and loss of thousands of jobs as happened in the Circuit City bankruptcy that cost over 35,000 jobs. The liquidation of GM would in turn precipitate the failure of hundreds of related industry manufacturers and suppliers resulting in a flood of business bankruptcy cases across the country, and loss of millions of jobs. And, as it turned out, the reorganization was a success; witness the profitability of the company today.

If it was such a success, why do they need the subprime loans?