Biden isn't taken his Presidency seriously.

So OBammy gave our hard earned monies away to GM so they could build cars in Mexico and China, who most likely is leveraging slave labor for much of it. I'm not sure I see the benefit there, let alone the government even taking control of the means of production - kinda like they do in Chyyyna - which as you may recall is a Communist country. Eh Comrade? Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Actually Bush gave them 17 billion...then turned it over to Obama.

You should read what Bush gave AIG....I say gave, they paid it back.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122156561931242905

New agey idea - spending your own money on things you want/need.
What happens when you go to the grocery store and are out of money? You go hungry.
What happens when you go to restaurant and their food sucks? They go hungry.
Maybe an esoteric and technical financial point here, but uhhmm - he gave them money from my pocket. Aside from that, if the company is building products that nobody wants? They go hungry. If they make sound business decisions and make things people want - they eat like Kangs!

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

1. Your argument (above) and the arguments raised by Nevergiveitathought in post #57 are two different arguments.

2. Let's just stick to the points you raised above.
a. The concept of TARP started with Bush43 and Hank Paulsen.
b. Without the 30 billion from Obama and Canada you can't do the the chapter 11. You would have to a chapter 7.
c. Many would argue that GM was too big a piece of the american auto industry to let them go under and do a chapter 7.

d. if the chapter 7 route was taken then your tax dollar would gone towards unemployment benefits for 200,000 people for two years. Because of the Wall street melt down of 2008 unemployment was extended from 6 months to a full year for 2009 and 2010. Would you rather your tax dollar go for that?

Controlling the means of production with tax payer dollars is not Capitalism. It's Communism. Comrade. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

1. You did not read the link that was provided. The US treasury department sold all the shares of GM that the government owned back in 2013 during Obama's second term. So, the US government did not control means of production for a long time. It was just temporary.

2. Pure Capitalism has not existed in the USA or anywhere in the world for quite some time, Comrade.

3. Bush43 tried to save GM before he left office. GM operating reserves got smaller. Bush left office Jan 20, 2009.

4. It was June of 2009 that GM asked the government for more assistance. Obama is in office and took them through a chapter 11 bankruptcy. What some eccie reputards complain about is that the auto workers union got a small equity stake in the new GM.

...d. if the chapter 7 route was taken then your tax dollar would gone towards unemployment benefits for 200,000 people for two years. Because of the Wall street melt down of 2008 unemployment was extended from 6 months to a full year for 2009 and 2010. Would you rather your tax dollar go for that? Originally Posted by adav8s28

Short answer: why_yes_i_do


The longer answer is: If you run a bad business model without knowing what the market wants - you won't be in business very long. Have you considered how many times they have gone bankrupt in the past? More than 2? How's Solyndra working out for you? What about Fiskar?

Nice deflection.

Short answer: why_yes_i_do


The longer answer is: If you run a bad business model without knowing what the market wants - you won't be in business very long. Have you considered how many times they have gone bankrupt in the past? More than 2? How's Solyndra working out for you? What about Fiskar? Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Saying that you would want your tax dollar go towards unempolyment benefits for 200,000 people for two years instead of a new leaner and meaner GM is flawed logic. Just do the math for 200,000 people on unemployment for 2 years. Assume unemployment is $400 per week for each individual (some states it's higher some states its lower).

200,000 * $400 * 104 (weeks) = 8,320,000,000.

This 8 billion dollars is almost half of the money Obama gave GM to keep GM going during the Chapter 11 bankruptcy procedure. The USA and Canada gave GM 30 billion, to keep it running.

The 8 billion that would have been paid out in unemployment benefits is not recoverable. Starting a new GM with an IPO that was profitable, the government got it's money back when the Treasury department sold all the GM stock that it held from new GM in 2013. That was a win win for GM and the US taxpayer.

The comparison of GM to Solendrya is an apples to oranges comparison. GM was an established company that was one of the companies that made up the DJIA. Solyndra was a government sponsored startup. Solyndra is not the first government sponsored startup to fail. It get's more press because Obama happened to be president.

Have you considered how many times they have gone bankrupt in the past? More than 2? How's Solyndra working out for you? What about Fiskar? Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Or Electric Last Mile Solutions?

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote...ng-R-40707527/

Or Electric Last Mile Solutions?

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote...ng-R-40707527/ Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Is this LLC a government sponsored startup of the Obama administration? If not, than this is a totally different issue from what Why_Yes_I_do was trying to debate. Plus, GM and Solendra is apples to oranges and totally unrelated to the Wall Steet meltdown of 2008.

in a normal bankruptcy,

if its an 11. there would be a workout and settlement with creditors and a gm would have arisen

in a chptr 7 the creditors would have owned the assets and a gm would have arisen

in obama's gm, he took out the shareholders..which ok maybe thats ok but not to give equity to the union

1. The bondholders were not taken out. They had a 10% equity stake in the new GM.

2. The UAW made concessions to GM to allow GM to keep running until the bankruptcy procedure could be completed. Hourly workers worked at $20/hr instead of their normal $30/hr.

he also took out the creditors though who should have been protected

he used taxpayer money as a payoff for the union.

Not true. The UAW made concessions to keep GM running instead of shutting down.

why did the union get anything and the existing gm shareholders received stock in something called "motors liquidating company"?

why did the union get stock in the new gm? thats the question

See above.

while the motors liquidating company was worthless

and for obama, it was a campaign trick, using the taxpayer for his own benefit

the bailout was an opportunity to suggest that government, if it's done right, can be a good thing

he got to present himself as a chief executive who cared, in contrast to the messaging flowing out of his campaign about his GOP opponent, Mitt Romney.

here's a reliable quote

The real loser in the General Motors deal is the legitimacy of the economic system in the United States. Although there were large profits to be made from the launch of the new GM IPO, a precedent has been set whereby a government administration can confiscate the ownership of a company, reorganize it, and pay off its political supporters. The former investors were betrayed by political decree, and once betrayed, the legitimacy of the system will never be the same. Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

The legitimacy of the economic system was not the loser. In normal times a struggling GM would have gotten a loan from a bank. Fourth quarter 2008 there were not any banks that were in a position to loan GM 50 billion dollars. The US treasury department sold all of its shares of the NEW GM stock in 2013. The Obama GM as you called it was a win win for GM and the US taxpayer.

Saying that you would want your tax dollar go towards unempolyment benefits for 200,000 people ... Originally Posted by adav8s28

Clearly we are not working from the same document(s). While mine may be older at ~250 years, yours seems to be about 70 years newer, not counting the outtakes and similarities, i.e. blatant plagiarism more like, of it from BLM and Antifa. Clearly you are a fan of all three iterations. I don't do Commi-pinko math either.

First of all it's called unemployment insurance, meaning it gets payed into by employers proactively and may get paid out to laid off workers. I believe a company's rate of contribution increases if they have multiple lay offs and there are laws governing lay offs. But there are no words in the US Constitution that says the Federal government is everybody's Sugar Daddy, especially if they are incompetent boobs.

Austin Ellen is an ignorant, uneducated woman.

uneducated i dont know

but she has what most conservatives have

which most people used to have, before people who think they are educated came along as products of leftist universities

which is why what she has is what once had been called "common" sense

common dunce...

common dunce... Originally Posted by royamcr

U practice common dunce all the time!

Oh dear! Another princess with anger issues. I fucking love it when these libturds have a melt down and all they can do is issue an insult. Sugartits, just put your hair in a man bun,grab your man purse and have a good day sir.

Austin Ellen is an ignorant, uneducated woman. Originally Posted by txpilot3