Your View On Todays Obama's "If We Hadn't Bailed Out GM & Chrysler" VS 9.1% Jobs ?

[boedicca]

And don't forget the $45B of Net Operating Losses that should have been voided during the bankruptcy proceedings. Instead, the Obama Administration allowed GM to keep the entire $45B, which will reduce their future taxes by at least $14B.

 

[daveman]

And don't forget the $45B of Net Operating Losses that should have been voided during the bankruptcy proceedings. Instead, the Obama Administration allowed GM to keep the entire $45B, which will reduce their future taxes by at least $14B.

That's in the link in my last post.

In summary, Obama screwed the American public so he could pay back the UAW for their support.

The left used to screech about this sort of thing when Bush was President.

Now, they support it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's say you loan me ten thousand dollars. I never pay it back. Would you consider that a success?

That's because you don't know how to think.

Can you prove that there is money that will never be recouped in the auto 'bailout'?

Yes.

Given such realities, Bloomberg’s survey of 21 auto analysts put the average projected price for GM at $42.85 per share a year from now. This means that, outside of miracle, taxpayers will lose anywhere from $13 to $19 billion on their principal and another $15 billion on taxes for a grand total of up to $28 to $34 billion* in losses. And that’s just for GM. Chrysler is whole different—and equally sordid—story. Even Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner acknowledged last month: “We’re going to lose money in the auto industry.”​

Can you disprove it? Please note that Obama press releases will not be accepted.

Can you prove that taking into account increased tax revenues from saved or created jobs and corporate profits that may occur thanks to the bailout?

If they had filed bankruptcy as the law allows, none of these would be in question.

Can you prove that Iraq will eventually pay us back all the money we spend there?

No, and I have no obligation to, because I never claimed they would.


You really have to start questioning Obama. But that would require a degree of critical thinking skill that, frankly, I doubt you possess.

So you can't prove it. All you did was cite a potential 14 billion loss in one aspect of the bailout, while not in any way taking into account where that might be made up,

in the area I highlighted above. That's why I included it.

I didn't say you claimed anything about Iraq. I was merely applying your measure of what constitutes a failure, i.e., never getting back the money you put in.

By your own measure then, Iraq has been a failure. That would be, eventually, about a 3 trillion dollar failure, compared to your claim of a 14 billion dollar failure in the auto bailout (which you can't prove).

You supported the war in Iraq. By your own measure you supported a multi-trillion dollar failure. Maybe you're not quite qualified to pass judgment on what constitute good or bad investments.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are making a false assumption that they would have "gone under".

The two likely scenarios are:

1. Reorganization under bankruptcy to reduce debt and cost structure (which would have meant renegotiating the unions deals).

2. Sale of assets to qualified buyers who could better manage them.

Either of these would have been better than the damaging Cronyism performed by the Obama Administration.

What damage was caused?

Bankruptcies are just bailouts with a different name btw.

Bankruptcies aren't funded by the taxpayers, you dolt.

That's a distinction without a difference.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's say you loan me ten thousand dollars. I never pay it back. Would you consider that a success?

That's because you don't know how to think.

Can you prove that there is money that will never be recouped in the auto 'bailout'? Can you prove that taking into account increased tax revenues from saved or created jobs and corporate profits that may occur thanks to the bailout?

Can you prove that Iraq will eventually pay us back all the money we spend there?

They should have filed for bankruptcy instead of the taxpayers footing the bill...It would have forced the unions to renegotiate...instead they keep what they have at the expense of the US Taxpayer.

GM, Chrysler Win Union Concessions to Bolster Aid Bid (Update3) - Bloomberg

 

[daveman]

Can you prove that there is money that will never be recouped in the auto 'bailout'?

Yes.

Given such realities, Bloomberg’s survey of 21 auto analysts put the average projected price for GM at $42.85 per share a year from now. This means that, outside of miracle, taxpayers will lose anywhere from $13 to $19 billion on their principal and another $15 billion on taxes for a grand total of up to $28 to $34 billion* in losses. And that’s just for GM. Chrysler is whole different—and equally sordid—story. Even Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner acknowledged last month: “We’re going to lose money in the auto industry.”​

Can you disprove it? Please note that Obama press releases will not be accepted.

If they had filed bankruptcy as the law allows, none of these would be in question.

Can you prove that Iraq will eventually pay us back all the money we spend there?

No, and I have no obligation to, because I never claimed they would.


You really have to start questioning Obama. But that would require a degree of critical thinking skill that, frankly, I doubt you possess.

So you can't prove it. All you did was cite a potential 14 billion loss in one aspect of the bailout, while not in any way taking into account where that might be made up,

in the area I highlighted above. That's why I included it.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and screeching "LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!" really isn't a valuable debate skill.

It won't be made up. You can believe Obama's unicorns-and-rainbows speeches all you like, but they have no bearing on reality.

I didn't say you claimed anything about Iraq. I was merely applying your measure of what constitutes a failure, i.e., never getting back the money you put in.

And don't forget the War on Poverty. That's a dismal failure, too, then, using your standards.

By your own measure then, Iraq has been a failure. That would be, eventually, about a 3 trillion dollar failure, compared to your claim of a 14 billion dollar failure in the auto bailout (which you can't prove).

Yes, I proved it. Your childish refusal to accept it is meaningless.

You supported the war in Iraq. By your own measure you supported a multi-trillion dollar failure.

Investing in freedom is never a bad thing. Apparently, you disagree. Not at all surprising.

Maybe you're not quite qualified to pass judgment on what constitute good or bad investments.

This coming from someone who automatically and unthinkingly agrees with everything Obama says? Priceless!

 

[daveman]

What damage was caused?

Bankruptcies are just bailouts with a different name btw.

Bankruptcies aren't funded by the taxpayers, you dolt.

That's a distinction without a difference.

Wrong. Oh so very wrong.

But I understand why you dismiss it. It destroys your position.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bankruptcies aren't funded by the taxpayers, you dolt.

That's a distinction without a difference.

Wrong. Oh so very wrong.

But I understand why you dismiss it. It destroys your position.

Bankruptcy laws are government enforced protections of individuals and companies that serve in effect to interfere with the free market's ability to decide who sinks or swims.

In that sense they are no different than a government bailout.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes.

Given such realities, Bloomberg’s survey of 21 auto analysts put the average projected price for GM at $42.85 per share a year from now. This means that, outside of miracle, taxpayers will lose anywhere from $13 to $19 billion on their principal and another $15 billion on taxes for a grand total of up to $28 to $34 billion* in losses. And that’s just for GM. Chrysler is whole different—and equally sordid—story. Even Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner acknowledged last month: “We’re going to lose money in the auto industry.”​

Can you disprove it? Please note that Obama press releases will not be accepted.

If they had filed bankruptcy as the law allows, none of these would be in question.

No, and I have no obligation to, because I never claimed they would.


You really have to start questioning Obama. But that would require a degree of critical thinking skill that, frankly, I doubt you possess.

So you can't prove it. All you did was cite a potential 14 billion loss in one aspect of the bailout, while not in any way taking into account where that might be made up,

in the area I highlighted above. That's why I included it.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and screeching "LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!" really isn't a valuable debate skill.

It won't be made up. You can believe Obama's unicorns-and-rainbows speeches all you like, but they have no bearing on reality.

And don't forget the War on Poverty. That's a dismal failure, too, then, using your standards.

Yes, I proved it. Your childish refusal to accept it is meaningless.

You supported the war in Iraq. By your own measure you supported a multi-trillion dollar failure.

Investing in freedom is never a bad thing. Apparently, you disagree. Not at all surprising.

Maybe you're not quite qualified to pass judgment on what constitute good or bad investments.

This coming from someone who automatically and unthinkingly agrees with everything Obama says? Priceless!

The Bush administration promised us the cost of the Iraq war would be paid for in Iraqi oil revenues.
It will not happen. That makes the Iraq war a failure, according to you.

 

[boedicca]

Can you prove that there is money that will never be recouped in the auto 'bailout'?

Yes.

Given such realities, Bloomberg’s survey of 21 auto analysts put the average projected price for GM at $42.85 per share a year from now. This means that, outside of miracle, taxpayers will lose anywhere from $13 to $19 billion on their principal and another $15 billion on taxes for a grand total of up to $28 to $34 billion* in losses. And that’s just for GM. Chrysler is whole different—and equally sordid—story. Even Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner acknowledged last month: “We’re going to lose money in the auto industry.”​

Can you disprove it? Please note that Obama press releases will not be accepted.

If they had filed bankruptcy as the law allows, none of these would be in question.

Can you prove that Iraq will eventually pay us back all the money we spend there?

No, and I have no obligation to, because I never claimed they would.


You really have to start questioning Obama. But that would require a degree of critical thinking skill that, frankly, I doubt you possess.

So you can't prove it. All you did was cite a potential 14 billion loss in one aspect of the bailout, while not in any way taking into account where that might be made up,

in the area I highlighted above. That's why I included it.

I didn't say you claimed anything about Iraq. I was merely applying your measure of what constitutes a failure, i.e., never getting back the money you put in.

By your own measure then, Iraq has been a failure. That would be, eventually, about a 3 trillion dollar failure, compared to your claim of a 14 billion dollar failure in the auto bailout (which you can't prove).

You supported the war in Iraq. By your own measure you supported a multi-trillion dollar failure. Maybe you're not quite qualified to pass judgment on what constitute good or bad investments.

And there is an additional $14B cost to taxpayers due to the exception made that allowed them to keep $45B in tax loss carryforwards. The minimum cost to taxpayers is $28B.

 

[Claudette]

Let's say you loan me ten thousand dollars. I never pay it back. Would you consider that a success?

That's because you don't know how to think.

Can you prove that there is money that will never be recouped in the auto 'bailout'? Can you prove that taking into account increased tax revenues from saved or created jobs and corporate profits that may occur thanks to the bailout?

Can you prove that Iraq will eventually pay us back all the money we spend there?

They should have filed for bankruptcy instead of the taxpayers footing the bill...It would have forced the unions to renegotiate...instead they keep what they have at the expense of the US Taxpayer.

Thats exactly what should have happened.

Instead we the taxpayer and the people who actually had money invested in those companies got hosed and the Unions made out like bandits.

Payback? You betcha.

 

[daveman]

That's a distinction without a difference.

Wrong. Oh so very wrong.

But I understand why you dismiss it. It destroys your position.

Bankruptcy laws are government enforced protections of individuals and companies that serve in effect to interfere with the free market's ability to decide who sinks or swims.

In that sense they are no different than a government bailout.

Yes, but they're funded by the creditors and the bankrupt company -- NOT the taxpayers.

Keep weaseling, moron, but it changes nothing.

 

[daveman]

So you can't prove it. All you did was cite a potential 14 billion loss in one aspect of the bailout, while not in any way taking into account where that might be made up,

in the area I highlighted above. That's why I included it.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and screeching "LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!" really isn't a valuable debate skill.

It won't be made up. You can believe Obama's unicorns-and-rainbows speeches all you like, but they have no bearing on reality.

And don't forget the War on Poverty. That's a dismal failure, too, then, using your standards.

Yes, I proved it. Your childish refusal to accept it is meaningless.

Investing in freedom is never a bad thing. Apparently, you disagree. Not at all surprising.

Maybe you're not quite qualified to pass judgment on what constitute good or bad investments.

This coming from someone who automatically and unthinkingly agrees with everything Obama says? Priceless!

The Bush administration promised us the cost of the Iraq war would be paid for in Iraqi oil revenues.
It will not happen. That makes the Iraq war a failure, according to you.

But according to you, it's a success, since we won't recoup the money.

Now surprise me. Don't respond with an impotent variation of "That's different. Somehow. It just is!!"

 

[daveman]

Yes.

Given such realities, Bloomberg’s survey of 21 auto analysts put the average projected price for GM at $42.85 per share a year from now. This means that, outside of miracle, taxpayers will lose anywhere from $13 to $19 billion on their principal and another $15 billion on taxes for a grand total of up to $28 to $34 billion* in losses. And that’s just for GM. Chrysler is whole different—and equally sordid—story. Even Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner acknowledged last month: “We’re going to lose money in the auto industry.”​

Can you disprove it? Please note that Obama press releases will not be accepted.

If they had filed bankruptcy as the law allows, none of these would be in question.

No, and I have no obligation to, because I never claimed they would.


You really have to start questioning Obama. But that would require a degree of critical thinking skill that, frankly, I doubt you possess.

So you can't prove it. All you did was cite a potential 14 billion loss in one aspect of the bailout, while not in any way taking into account where that might be made up,

in the area I highlighted above. That's why I included it.

I didn't say you claimed anything about Iraq. I was merely applying your measure of what constitutes a failure, i.e., never getting back the money you put in.

By your own measure then, Iraq has been a failure. That would be, eventually, about a 3 trillion dollar failure, compared to your claim of a 14 billion dollar failure in the auto bailout (which you can't prove).

You supported the war in Iraq. By your own measure you supported a multi-trillion dollar failure. Maybe you're not quite qualified to pass judgment on what constitute good or bad investments.

And there is an additional $14B cost to taxpayers due to the exception made that allowed them to keep $45B in tax loss carryforwards. The minimum cost to taxpayers is $28B.

That's a success -- in Carbyland.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can you prove that there is money that will never be recouped in the auto 'bailout'? Can you prove that taking into account increased tax revenues from saved or created jobs and corporate profits that may occur thanks to the bailout?

Can you prove that Iraq will eventually pay us back all the money we spend there?

They should have filed for bankruptcy instead of the taxpayers footing the bill...It would have forced the unions to renegotiate...instead they keep what they have at the expense of the US Taxpayer.

Thats exactly what should have happened.

Instead we the taxpayer and the people who actually had money invested in those companies got hosed and the Unions made out like bandits.

Payback? You betcha.

Obama Campaigning: Is the UAW Better off now than it was 4 years ago?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sticking your fingers in your ears and screeching "LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!" really isn't a valuable debate skill.

It won't be made up. You can believe Obama's unicorns-and-rainbows speeches all you like, but they have no bearing on reality.

And don't forget the War on Poverty. That's a dismal failure, too, then, using your standards.

Yes, I proved it. Your childish refusal to accept it is meaningless.

Investing in freedom is never a bad thing. Apparently, you disagree. Not at all surprising.

This coming from someone who automatically and unthinkingly agrees with everything Obama says? Priceless!

The Bush administration promised us the cost of the Iraq war would be paid for in Iraqi oil revenues.
It will not happen. That makes the Iraq war a failure, according to you.

But according to you, it's a success, since we won't recoup the money.

Now surprise me. Don't respond with an impotent variation of "That's different. Somehow. It just is!!"

You can't prove we won't recoup the money (which is probably not even a good number I don't have the ambition right now to research it). You insist on ignoring one of the most important factors in recouping the money, tax revenues from saved or created jobs.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wrong. Oh so very wrong.

But I understand why you dismiss it. It destroys your position.

Bankruptcy laws are government enforced protections of individuals and companies that serve in effect to interfere with the free market's ability to decide who sinks or swims.

In that sense they are no different than a government bailout.

Yes, but they're funded by the creditors and the bankrupt company -- NOT the taxpayers.

Keep weaseling, moron, but it changes nothing.

'Yes' means I was right with the point I made. That was all I was trying to do.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Actually the bankruptcy courts were there to protect the Senior Secured Creditors but Obama fucked them over

 

[daveman]

The Bush administration promised us the cost of the Iraq war would be paid for in Iraqi oil revenues.
It will not happen. That makes the Iraq war a failure, according to you.

But according to you, it's a success, since we won't recoup the money.

Now surprise me. Don't respond with an impotent variation of "That's different. Somehow. It just is!!"

You can't prove we won't recoup the money (which is probably not even a good number I don't have the ambition right now to research it).

Then your "Nuh-UH!!" is based solely on emotion and can be discarded. It's billions, and your petulant feet-stamping is not going to change it.

You insist on ignoring one of the most important factors in recouping the money, tax revenues from saved or created jobs.

Saves jobs, yes. But you haven't proven there were any jobs created.

How many jobs does it take to get few billion dollars in taxes from? Spend just a few minutes with a calculator, and I think you'll find your claim is ridiculous -- but you won't admit it.

 

[daveman]

Bankruptcy laws are government enforced protections of individuals and companies that serve in effect to interfere with the free market's ability to decide who sinks or swims.

In that sense they are no different than a government bailout.

Yes, but they're funded by the creditors and the bankrupt company -- NOT the taxpayers.

Keep weaseling, moron, but it changes nothing.

'Yes' means I was right with the point I made. That was all I was trying to do.

The point is where the money comes from. You failed. Deal with it.