Auto Bailouts - We lost money

I was wrong. . Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You are wrong all the time Tinkerbell, you are just to stupid to know.

Hey WTFaggotbreath - Remember the $15k deposit you put down for delivery of a brand new 2014 Camaro? The dealer is tight on funds right now so he converted it into a bailout loan. No difference, huh? Sorry about the car. Originally Posted by lustylad

Can you tell me the difference between congressmen buying votes by having the DoD buy tanks it does not need and the auto bailout or the bank bailout?

Oh and what idiot puts a deposit down on a car? I buy a car that is there and drive it out the dealership. It ain't an Camaro either. I'm a truck guy. You see one of these and it might be me.

Wow in case anyone is wondering I can vouch that is his actual truck in front of his actual house.

It ain't an Camaro either. Originally Posted by WTF

Using A and An
There is sometimes confusion about whether to use an or a (particularly with abbreviations). The sound of a word's first letter determines which to use. If the word starts with a vowel sound, you should use an. If it starts with a consonant sound, you should use a.


Go back to grammar school, WTFlunkee.

Using A and An
There is sometimes confusion about whether to use an or a (particularly with abbreviations). The sound of a word's first letter determines which to use. If the word starts with a vowel sound, you should use an. If it starts with a consonant sound, you should use a.


Go back to grammar school, WTFlunkee. Originally Posted by lustylad

Continue dick sucking lustlad , I promise not to cum Iin your mouth. Where did you steal that from lusyladyboy? The Pittsburgh Sandbox? Hif you do not properly source things COG will try and jack you off for years to come.

You will know it when unemployment gets down below 6% and Democrats win the House. Originally Posted by Bert Jones

I've got news for you. The current unemployment rate of 7.1% or so it a fiction.

If the workforce participation rate today was the same as it was when he took office, the unemployment rate would still be over 10%.

The only reason that it is pegged at 7.1% is because so many people of GIVEN UP looking for work and therefore do not count as unemployed.

That reason people think the recovery is shitty is because it IS shitty.

my bet is all you drive fords. you all have no clue what the cost would have been with no chevys and gm Originally Posted by skirtchaser79411

Yeah, it just astonishes me that someone as on the ball as xnyer is clueless to this tidbit.

Unless you are a gung-ho, whack-o pure market asshat....you have got to understand what the consequences of GM failure would have meant to the American economy. When you look at the balance sheet....the loss referred to in the OP...and the potential destruction of the market based on the failure of GM.....I dunno, I'm not an economist and unlike all the other idiots on here, don't claim to be. But, the downside on a GM failure could have been a disaster of epic proportions. I get that it's a guess...and I suppose things could have turned out all rosy in the absence or a bailout. But, I fucking doubt it.

GM would not have disappeared. Geez, you people are stupid. GM would have reorganized pursuant to bankruptcy law. It would be stronger than it is now. And if it wasn't, somebody would buy it, and make it so.

And you want an American made truck? Buy a Toyota Tundra.

Yeah, it just astonishes me that someone as on the ball as xnyer is clueless to this tidbit.

Unless you are a gung-ho, whack-o pure market asshat....you have got to understand what the consequences of GM failure would have meant to the American economy. When you look at the balance sheet....the loss referred to in the OP...and the potential destruction of the market based on the failure of GM.....I dunno, I'm not an economist and unlike all the other idiots on here, don't claim to be. But, the downside on a GM failure could have been a disaster of epic proportions. I get that it's a guess...and I suppose things could have turned out all rosy in the absence or a bailout. But, I fucking doubt it. Originally Posted by timpage

Thanks for the backhand compliment, but I'm not clueless about any of it.

There was a liquidity crisis that had to be addressed for GM and Chevy. But the government could have taken care of that with a few billion and given the parts suppliers some confidence.

Then both GM and Chrysler should have been shoved into bankruptcy and sold off to new creditors for a fraction of the stock value.

Stock holders AND unions would have taken a bath, but behavior and expectations would have been corrected on both sides.

We had a perfectly healthy foreign car industry that makes cars all over the South. And Ford was fine.

A newer, leaner GM would have emerged, Chrysler would have folded, and a couple of hundred thousand more people would have been unemployed.

Since we lost MILLIONS of jobs, those couple of hundred thousand jobs would have been what? - another 0.2% added to the unemployment rate?

You overstate the harm and undervalue the benefit of letting a company like GM face the music.

When - not IF, but WHEN - the next economic downturn puts GM or Ford on the ropes, they will point to GM in 2009 and demand to be rescued on the same terms. After all, if the US did it once, it should do it again. Right?

By providing a lifeline, all we do is encourage bad behavior by both the unions and the management. Read up on "moral hazard" and you will understand better.

Any company that is too bit to fail is too big to exist.

That goes for GM and for the big Wall Street banks.

The big Wall Street banks should be broken up into many smaller units and something akin to Glass-Stegall needs to be revived to keep them from merging back together. We need more firewalls in the economy.

Thanks for the backhand compliment, but I'm not clueless about any of it.

There was a liquidity crisis that had to be addressed for GM and Chevy. But the government could have taken care of that with a few billion and given the parts suppliers some confidence.

Then both GM and Chrysler should have been shoved into bankruptcy and sold off to new creditors for a fraction of the stock value.

Stock holders AND unions would have taken a bath, but behavior and expectations would have been corrected on both sides.

We had a perfectly healthy foreign car industry that makes cars all over the South. And Ford was fine.

A newer, leaner GM would have emerged, Chrysler would have folded, and a couple of hundred thousand more people would have been unemployed.

Since we lost MILLIONS of jobs, those couple of hundred thousand jobs would have been what? - another 0.2% added to the unemployment rate?

You overstate the harm and undervalue the benefit of letting a company like GM face the music.

When - not IF, but WHEN - the next economic downturn puts GM or Ford on the ropes, they will point to GM in 2009 and demand to be rescued on the same terms. After all, if the US did it once, it should do it again. Right?

By providing a lifeline, all we do is encourage bad behavior by both the unions and the management. Read up on "moral hazard" and you will understand better.

Any company that is too bit to fail is too big to exist.

That goes for GM and for the big Wall Street banks.

The big Wall Street banks should be broken up into many smaller units and something akin to Glass-Stegall needs to be revived to keep them from merging back together. We need more firewalls in the economy. Originally Posted by ExNYer

You must be some kind of vulture capitalist or bankruptcy attorney. Otherwise, how can you argue with all the jobs that were saved. Those are real families that aren't on welfare, getting food stamps, divorcing and harming the kids, etc. Have a heart, you filthy mick.

You must be some kind of vulture capitalist or bankruptcy attorney. Otherwise, how can you argue with all the jobs that were saved. Those are real families that aren't on welfare, getting food stamps, divorcing and harming the kids, etc. Have a heart, you filthy mick. Originally Posted by Bert Jones

Blow me, asswipe.

I don't care how many jobs were saved. The only issue is how much money was spent saving those jobs.

There was almost certainly a better way to spend $45 billion dollars that would have added more jobs to the economy than would have been lost at GM..

Blow me, asswipe.

I don't care how many jobs were saved. The only issue is how much money was spent saving those jobs.

There was almost certainly a better way to spend $45 billion dollars that would have added more jobs to the economy than would have been lost at GM.. Originally Posted by ExNYer

The spending, if you will, was about the 10 billion paper loss on the stock. Keeping them in business, the workers paying taxes, the company paying taxes again someday - that far exceeds the 10 billion.

Blow me, asswipe.

I don't care how many jobs were saved. The only issue is how much money was spent saving those jobs.
Originally Posted by ExNYer

WRONG! There were projects that if GM and Chrysler were allowed to go under that the result would be 40% unemployment in the US as all the support vendors closed also. The cost in terms of lost taxes, increased public assistance and the hit to the financial markets would have thrown the country into another great depression. EVERYONE says it was the right thing to do, well except you.

Fuck 'em and buy a Ford.

Bottom line is if all you care about is money it was wrong, if you care about people it was right.