Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 80
  1. #1
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    18,736
    vCash
    500

    GM and Chrysler Bailouts 3.5 yrs after

    Just an FYI for whomever wants to know.

    The loan was started by Bush as a quick hit, to save GM and Chrysler from going under. Ford was included in the discussions about a bailout, but wanted nothing to do with the governments ability to control things. The bailout was handled mostly by Obama, of which shortly thereafter, he put it on steroids, claiming more government control than was ever intended. Along the way, came more bailouts, more bailouts, and more bailouts, and insider croniism in the form of

    1)bailout for Union pensions

    Ford doesn't have this welfare

    2)bailout for the Unions insurance plan

    Ford doesn't have this welfare

    3)No taxes paid by GM

    Ford doesn't have this welfare

    4)a guarantee of no Union labor negotiations in the near future

    Ford doesn't have this luxury

    5)stocks of GM and Chrysler were stripped from their original owners, pennys on the dollar, and then sold to Union cronies at a reduced price.

    Ford's stockholders were not stolen from, and a hypothetical set of new stockholders weren't given this luxury.

    GM and Chrysler have paid back their loan and part of their bailout, but still owe the American taxpayer a monumental amount of money that will, quite frankly, never be paid back. Because of this never ceasing and continual government funding of GM and Chrysler, they are now able to offer

    6)extended base warranty

    and

    7)extra rebates of more dollar value

    that Ford cannot offer.

    Along the way, our government is able to

    8)negotiate with China in building GM and Chrysler products

    where Ford doesn't have that insider connection, nor the want of having their image of outsourcing to another country, especially China.

    9)Publicly push their green agenda through GM (the Volt)

    and

    10)give hefty tax incentives to anyone that buys a Volt

    continuing the circle of propping up the failure.

    It is easily found in news articles that there were three CEO's of GM that wanted to pay off the governments bailout, but were subsequently fired by the controlling entity(our government) from their position because of their outspoken will of wanting to be out from under the control of the government and the image of the crony capitalism from Obama.

    As it is, the group that caused the downfall of GM and Chrysler is now the group in control. The Unions are being paid a heavy salary and bonuses, as we the tax payer foot the bill. It's really one of the greatest scams ever, but I doubt most people know the truth, or really even care.

    Oh yes, don't forget..

    11) GM just recently announced they will not be hiring or giving any raises to blue collar workers. They will be saving all their hand out, tax payer funded, cash flow to fund to political idealoges in the Union, only.

    For a greater look into the mess, check out the site below. Here's some tidbits of what they say, and the amount of money still owed by GM. As it is, GM owes close to $100 Billion to the American taxpayer, and the debt is getting larger, not smaller.


    Quote:
    The United States Treasury owns roughly 500 million shares of common stock in General Motors. (Source: U.S. Treasury) The Treasury would need to sell these shares at roughly $53 per share in order to "break even" on the investment. (Source: WSJ) Using Google Finance API, we multiply the current GM stock price by 500,065,254, and subtract that total from $26,503,458,462 (or, 500,065,254 x $53).

    Our calculations estimate the loss taxpayers would suffer if UST sells its GM common stock shares at the current ticker price. We track the common stock price and update our calculations on an ongoing basis, providing an up-to-the-minute snapshot of the money the UST lost in Government Motors.

    Quote:
    General Motors and Barack Obama misled the American people about the auto bailout. They told us they would manage our money wisely, that it would be a good investment, that we would even make a return on our investment. Instead, we have been stuck with a massive bill.

    America's loss on GM's stock market investment ALONE:

    $13,636,779,476.58

    http://www.bailoutcost.com/
    __________________
    Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.

  2. #2
    Vacuums eat while yelling

    badger's Avatar
    Location
    Doing my nails
    Posts
    41,561
    vCash
    0

    Re: GM and Chrysler Bailouts 3.5 yrs after

    I am quite convinced that when they had that "Cash For Clunkers" program that Ford had such large sales because the U.S. taxpayers wanted to thank Ford for not taking a bailout. I think that it was the best PR move that they could possibly have done.

    One thing I remembered about the bailout that Republicans can appreciate though, is that there was a "no strike" clause signed by the unions to ensure that the taxpayer money was going to a company that was going to be at work, not one with a workforce on strike.

  3. #3
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    18,736
    vCash
    500

    Re: GM and Chrysler Bailouts 3.5 yrs after

    Quote Originally Posted by badger View Post
    One thing I remembered about the bailout that Republicans can appreciate though, is that there was a "no strike" clause signed by the unions to ensure that the taxpayer money was going to a company that was going to be at work, not one with a workforce on strike.
    I can appreciate that the unions were given a fortune in exchange for backing the Obear. They aren't foolish enough to tell him to go fly a kite, after he gave them the company.
    Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.

  4. #4
    Vacuums eat while yelling

    badger's Avatar
    Location
    Doing my nails
    Posts
    41,561
    vCash
    0

    Re: GM and Chrysler Bailouts 3.5 yrs after

    Quote Originally Posted by RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone! View Post
    I can appreciate that the unions were given a fortune in exchange for backing the Obear. They aren't foolish enough to tell him to go fly a kite, after he gave them the company.
    Very true, but I don't think such a deal would have materialized period if the unions and company didn't bend over backwards to make the Obama admin happy.

    Can you see any positives out of the auto bailouts? Any at all? Try.

  5. #5
    Sooner All-Big XII-2-1+1-1+1
    Location
    OKC, OK
    Posts
    4,730
    vCash
    500

    Re: GM and Chrysler Bailouts 3.5 yrs after

    Heck, 13 billion is a small price to pay to continue to have two large auto manufacturers (both of which are now profitable) remain in the U.S.

    I'm not surprised by the partisan wonks trying to spin a huge positive into a negative though. I guess there might be a valid ideological complaint, but that's where the validity of the far right's argument here fails. The bailouts are a great example of where government spending has led to major economic growth and benefit for everyone.

  6. #6
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member OU_Sooners75's Avatar
    Location
    Graceland of College Football
    Posts
    9,881
    vCash
    500

    Re: GM and Chrysler Bailouts 3.5 yrs after

    Quote Originally Posted by Midtowner View Post
    Heck, 13 billion is a small price to pay to continue to have two large auto manufacturers (both of which are now profitable) remain in the U.S.

    I'm not surprised by the partisan wonks trying to spin a huge positive into a negative though. I guess there might be a valid ideological complaint, but that's where the validity of the far right's argument here fails. The bailouts are a great example of where government spending has led to major economic growth and benefit for everyone.
    Im not far right in my ideology, but I think the Government should not have bailed out any business or bank or anything!

    If a company cannot make sound decisions to compete with the rest of the market, then they need to fail. Not be bailed out!

    Companies fail every day. Why are auto companies any different? Why are big banks and lending institutions any different? Why are big insurance companies any different?

    IMO, it was money that should not have been spent. We as taxpayers will never see the money returned to the government at the same amount that it took to save them.


    Quote Originally Posted by bornnbredou View Post

    and before you tear into me remember, BOOMER SOONER!

    Skip Bayless, is that you?

  7. #7
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member
    Posts
    5,168
    vCash
    50000

    Re: GM and Chrysler Bailouts 3.5 yrs after

    Quote Originally Posted by OU_Sooners75 View Post
    Im not far right in my ideology, but I think the Government should not have bailed out any business or bank or anything!

    If a company cannot make sound decisions to compete with the rest of the market, then they need to fail. Not be bailed out!

    Companies fail every day. Why are auto companies any different? Why are big banks and lending institutions any different? Why are big insurance companies any different?

    IMO, it was money that should not have been spent. We as taxpayers will never see the money returned to the government at the same amount that it took to save them.
    I can see your argument about companies failing all the time.(As a former small business owner that got hung out to dry when
    those for whom I was a vender, took out bankruptcy. I was so far down the line that I got 1.5% of what I was owed from
    the bankruptcy proceedings). Where I think your argument fails is the magnitude of attendant businesses that would have
    been affected by GM and Chrysler "shutting down" as many Republicans say should have happpened. Not only the GM and
    Chrysler workers would have been furloughed and/or laid off, the many thousands, possibly a million or more parts company
    workers, packers, shippers, et al would have been thrown out of work. Smaller venders would simply close up shop, which
    means workers laid off, vacant real estate, lost commercial property taxes, more impact on unemployment, greater strain
    on the health system (ER's are the medical care providers for the poor, unemployed, uninsured) so, in my opinion, expanding
    Dubya's program to the point that Obama did was not only the right thing to do, it was the necessary thing to do.

  8. #8
    Sooner All-Big XII-2-1+1-1+1 dwarthog's Avatar
    Posts
    1,627
    vCash
    500

    Re: GM and Chrysler Bailouts 3.5 yrs after

    Quote Originally Posted by Midtowner View Post
    Heck, 13 billion is a small price to pay to continue to have two large auto manufacturers (both of which are now profitable) remain in the U.S.

    I'm not surprised by the partisan wonks trying to spin a huge positive into a negative though. I guess there might be a valid ideological complaint, but that's where the validity of the far right's argument here fails. The bailouts are a great example of where government spending has led to major economic growth and benefit for everyone.
    Your laying on a bit of that spin yourself with statements like "major economic growth", and "benefit for everyone". Do you have some non-partisan data which supports these assertions?

  9. #9
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member OU_Sooners75's Avatar
    Location
    Graceland of College Football
    Posts
    9,881
    vCash
    500

    Re: GM and Chrysler Bailouts 3.5 yrs after

    Quote Originally Posted by rock on sooner View Post
    I can see your argument about companies failing all the time.(As a former small business owner that got hung out to dry when
    those for whom I was a vender, took out bankruptcy. I was so far down the line that I got 1.5% of what I was owed from
    the bankruptcy proceedings). Where I think your argument fails is the magnitude of attendant businesses that would have
    been affected by GM and Chrysler "shutting down" as many Republicans say should have happpened. Not only the GM and
    Chrysler workers would have been furloughed and/or laid off, the many thousands, possibly a million or more parts company
    workers, packers, shippers, et al would have been thrown out of work. Smaller venders would simply close up shop, which
    means workers laid off, vacant real estate, lost commercial property taxes, more impact on unemployment, greater strain
    on the health system (ER's are the medical care providers for the poor, unemployed, uninsured) so, in my opinion, expanding
    Dubya's program to the point that Obama did was not only the right thing to do, it was the necessary thing to do.
    double space man.

    Anyway...so it is the taxpayers responsibility to bail out big business if they look like they are going to go into bankruptcy?

    Sometimes, bankruptcy show more responsibility than doing nothing or asking for a handout.

    My point is this. If a business, no matter how big, fails, it is going to effect other businesses. Its just the way it works. And you said yourself you can attest to that.

    But it should never be the taxpayers helping companies out!

    If a company as big as GM is failing, then the board should have done something to make it where they get the proper leader in place to turn it around. They didn't. But now they know the American people have invested too much money into the business, it won't fail...because now, the US government owns it!

    Not the way it should be.

    Call me what you will or think what you want...but if a business fails, it fails...those that it effects is screwed either way you look at it. So let it fail!


    Quote Originally Posted by bornnbredou View Post

    and before you tear into me remember, BOOMER SOONER!

    Skip Bayless, is that you?

  10. #10
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member
    Posts
    6,164
    vCash
    500

    Re: GM and Chrysler Bailouts 3.5 yrs after

    Let's see...

    You statement about Ford not wanting the bailout because it would have the fed in it's business is misleading...Ford didn't take the bailout because it sold off assets, mortgaged it's name, and negotiated a large line of credit...GM and Chrysler did not so they needed the money, not Ford...

    The Volt was on the drawing board years before the bailouts...

    Chrysler is majority owned by the Italians, not the union...

  11. #11
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member OU_Sooners75's Avatar
    Location
    Graceland of College Football
    Posts
    9,881
    vCash
    500

    Re: GM and Chrysler Bailouts 3.5 yrs after

    Quote Originally Posted by pphilfran View Post
    Let's see...

    Chrysler is majority owned by the Italians, not the union...
    Which runs the unions nowadays.


    Quote Originally Posted by bornnbredou View Post

    and before you tear into me remember, BOOMER SOONER!

    Skip Bayless, is that you?

  12. #12
    Sooner All-Big XII-2-1+1-1+1
    Location
    Off the Grid
    Posts
    1,785
    vCash
    500

    Re: GM and Chrysler Bailouts 3.5 yrs after

    F bailouts.

    Another company (with good management and fewer ties to cartels....I mean unions) would have purchased certain truck lines from GM/Dodge during a normal BK process. Then we could have rid ourselves of the shiaty GM/Dodge cars and actually had more efficient labor (toyota/nissan/honda) build the same amount of vehicles in the US.

    We just rewarded/guaranteed shiaty businesses with shiaty practices.

  13. #13
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    18,736
    vCash
    500

    Re: GM and Chrysler Bailouts 3.5 yrs after

    Quote Originally Posted by OU_Sooners75 View Post
    Im not far right in my ideology, but I think the Government should not have bailed out any business or bank or anything!

    If a company cannot make sound decisions to compete with the rest of the market, then they need to fail. Not be bailed out!

    Companies fail every day. Why are auto companies any different? Why are big banks and lending institutions any different? Why are big insurance companies any different?

    IMO, it was money that should not have been spent. We as taxpayers will never see the money returned to the government at the same amount that it took to save them.
    Muchos Kudos. The above is absumlutely correct!
    Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.

  14. #14
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    18,736
    vCash
    500

    Re: GM and Chrysler Bailouts 3.5 yrs after

    Quote Originally Posted by OU_Sooners75 View Post
    double space man.

    Anyway...so it is the taxpayers responsibility to bail out big business if they look like they are going to go into bankruptcy?

    Sometimes, bankruptcy show more responsibility than doing nothing or asking for a handout.

    My point is this. If a business, no matter how big, fails, it is going to effect other businesses. Its just the way it works. And you said yourself you can attest to that.

    But it should never be the taxpayers helping companies out!

    If a company as big as GM is failing, then the board should have done something to make it where they get the proper leader in place to turn it around. They didn't. But now they know the American people have invested too much money into the business, it won't fail...because now, the US government owns it!

    Not the way it should be.

    Call me what you will or think what you want...but if a business fails, it fails...those that it effects is screwed either way you look at it. So let it fail!
    Duh!, huh? We're kicking the can down the road, as well as other major problems with the bailout and Obear's subsequent payoffs.
    Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.

  15. #15
    Administrator
    8timechamps's Avatar
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    19,085
    vCash
    1500

    Re: GM and Chrysler Bailouts 3.5 yrs after

    Quote Originally Posted by OU_Sooners75 View Post
    Im not far right in my ideology, but I think the Government should not have bailed out any business or bank or anything!

    If a company cannot make sound decisions to compete with the rest of the market, then they need to fail. Not be bailed out!

    Companies fail every day. Why are auto companies any different? Why are big banks and lending institutions any different? Why are big insurance companies any different?

    IMO, it was money that should not have been spent. We as taxpayers will never see the money returned to the government at the same amount that it took to save them.
    I generally agree with your position, however, had the taxpayers not bailed out the banks, the economy of the world would have essentially failed. The problem is, it seems that the banks didn't learn much from the first go around.

  16. #16
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member OU_Sooners75's Avatar
    Location
    Graceland of College Football
    Posts
    9,881
    vCash
    500

    Re: GM and Chrysler Bailouts 3.5 yrs after

    Quote Originally Posted by 8timechamps View Post
    I generally agree with your position, however, had the taxpayers not bailed out the banks, the economy of the world would have essentially failed. The problem is, it seems that the banks didn't learn much from the first go around.
    We are capitalist...one fails and another steps in to take over.

    The way it should be. Our government should not be in the business of buying out businesses.


    Quote Originally Posted by bornnbredou View Post

    and before you tear into me remember, BOOMER SOONER!

    Skip Bayless, is that you?

  17. #17
    Sooner All-Big XII-2-1+1-1+1 diverdog's Avatar
    Posts
    4,330
    vCash
    500

    Re: GM and Chrysler Bailouts 3.5 yrs after

    Quote Originally Posted by OU_Sooners75 View Post
    We are capitalist...one fails and another steps in to take over.

    The way it should be. Our government should not be in the business of buying out businesses.
    Do you have any idea what would have happened if AIG and the other big banks failed? You would standing in a soup line along with the rest of us. It would have made the great depression look like a walk in the park. And given the pussified state of the American public they would have had an incredibly hard time making it.

  18. #18
    Baylor Ambassador SicEmBaylor's Avatar
    Location
    74434
    Posts
    21,870
    vCash
    500

    Re: GM and Chrysler Bailouts 3.5 yrs after

    Quote Originally Posted by Midtowner View Post
    Heck, 13 billion is a small price to pay to continue to have two large auto manufacturers (both of which are now profitable) remain in the U.S.

    I'm not surprised by the partisan wonks trying to spin a huge positive into a negative though. I guess there might be a valid ideological complaint, but that's where the validity of the far right's argument here fails. The bailouts are a great example of where government spending has led to major economic growth and benefit for everyone.
    Major growth?? It was modest artificially inflated growth at best. The claim that the auto industry would have gone completely belly-up without a bailout is speculation at best and an outright lie at worst. The auto industry should have been forced to go through the same sort of bankruptcy that airlines routinely go through in order to restructure their business model. If the auto industry fails then it's because of the auto industry and there is absolutely no excuse in the world for the taxpayers to subsidize the bad business practices of large corporations or banks.

    It's criminal.

  19. #19
    Sooner All-Big XII-2-1+1-1+1 diverdog's Avatar
    Posts
    4,330
    vCash
    500

    Re: GM and Chrysler Bailouts 3.5 yrs after

    Quote Originally Posted by Sooner5030 View Post
    F bailouts.

    Another company (with good management and fewer ties to cartels....I mean unions) would have purchased certain truck lines from GM/Dodge during a normal BK process. Then we could have rid ourselves of the shiaty GM/Dodge cars and actually had more efficient labor (toyota/nissan/honda) build the same amount of vehicles in the US.

    We just rewarded/guaranteed shiaty businesses with shiaty practices.
    Who would have bought them? The credit markets were essentially frozen and there were not big banks in the wind to put a deal together. Somehow everyone seems to forget the economy was incredibly messed up at the time.

  20. #20
    Sooner All-Big XII-2-1+1-1+1
    Location
    OKC, OK
    Posts
    4,730
    vCash
    500

    Re: GM and Chrysler Bailouts 3.5 yrs after

    Quote Originally Posted by SicEmBaylor View Post
    Major growth?? It was modest artificially inflated growth at best. The claim that the auto industry would have gone completely belly-up without a bailout is speculation at best and an outright lie at worst. The auto industry should have been forced to go through the same sort of bankruptcy that airlines routinely go through in order to restructure their business model. If the auto industry fails then it's because of the auto industry and there is absolutely no excuse in the world for the taxpayers to subsidize the bad business practices of large corporations or banks.

    It's criminal.
    Well.. now it's profitable. Pensions are funded and the Big 3 are making money again. You may disagree with the methods, but the results are kind of hard to dispute. Ideology ought to take a backseat when it will measurably result in a smaller economy and huge job losses. Allowing an ordinary Chapter 11 for GM and Chrysler would not have resulted in the sort of situation we have today with both being profitable again.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •