"Government Motors: As GM shares near record low, taxpayer loss on bailout rises to $35 billion"
http://news.investors.com/article/61...hares-fall.htm
- Whirlaway
- 07-03-2012, 08:10 AM
Obamanomics, the gift that keeps giving.........
"Government Motors: As GM shares near record low, taxpayer loss on bailout rises to $35 billion"
http://news.investors.com/article/61...hares-fall.htm
"Government Motors: As GM shares near record low, taxpayer loss on bailout rises to $35 billion"
http://news.investors.com/article/61...hares-fall.htm
- i'va biggen
- 07-03-2012, 09:06 AM
I am glad G M was saved,and you look good in your Kia.
- CuteOldGuy
- 07-03-2012, 10:05 AM
Obama didn't save GM. He saved the unions. GM would have been just fine, maybe better, had they filed Chapter 11 like most businesses would have had to.
- Whirlaway
- 07-03-2012, 11:04 AM
Saved the unions and fucked us middle class taxpayers that funded the bailout of the unions.
- i'va biggen
- 07-03-2012, 02:45 PM
You wingers don't even take into consideration the satellite companys serving G M dealerships ect.There would have been massive unemployment as the result.Of course that would have been guess who's fault.
- BigLouie
- 07-03-2012, 05:01 PM
All of you are too much. I guess this part does not bother you at all
"the 43rd President argued that, “The immediate bankruptcy of (Chrysler and GM) could cost more than a million jobs, decrease tax revenues by $150 billion and set back America’s Gross Domestic Product by hundreds of billions of dollars.”
Here is the rest of the story on the topic.
By Paul A. Eisenstein, The Detroit Bureau
It has become one of the rare things that binds the two men, the controversial automotive bailout that was begun by former President George W. Bush and completed by his successor, President Barack Obama.
The latter defended his actions during the recent state-of-the-union address, during which he declared “The U.S. auto industry is back.” His predecessor used a meeting of the nation’s auto dealers to defend his own actions, insisting he had no other choice but to completely sink the American economy.
“I’d do it again,” proclaimed Bush, speaking to the annual convention of the National Automobile Dealers Association.
The bailout, which ultimately totaled $85 billion, was originally begun during the waning days of the Bush administration. With a specific rescue effort rejected by Congress, the former Commander-in-Chief decided to tap into a separate, $700 billion fund Capitol Hill did approve for the bailout of Wall Street and the banking industry.
“Sometimes circumstances get in the way of philosophy,” said the ex-president, during his speech in Las Vegas, referring to his normal stand in favor of free trade. “If you make a bad decision, you ought to pay,” he said, referring to the collapse of both General Motors and Chrysler.
But Bush also noted that coming on top of the failure of Lehman Brothers, the meltdown of the banking industry and the collapse of the housing market, a painful shift in policy was needed.
“I didn’t want there to be 21 percent unemployment,” he stressed, echoing forecasts at the time that the loss of GM, Ford and the automotive lenders also covered by the bailout could lead to the loss of 1 million jobs.
The former president has kept a low-key profile since leaving office in January 2009 – though he did call the bailout “the only option” in his 2010 book, “Decision Points” — leaving his successor to field much of the criticism.
In that book, the 43rd President argued that, “The immediate bankruptcy of (Chrysler and GM) could cost more than a million jobs, decrease tax revenues by $150 billion and set back America’s Gross Domestic Product by hundreds of billions of dollars.”
Republican president candidate Mitt Romney is among those who have said they would have rejected a bailout.
“My view with regards to the bailout was that, whether it was by President Bush or by President Obama, it was the wrong way to go,” said Romney – whose father George once ran Detroit-based American Motors – during a GOP presidential debate last November.
In all, the Bush Administration provided $25 billion in emergency assistance, $13.4 billion going to GM, another $4 billion to Chrysler. The Obama Administration added another $60 billion shortly after taking office.
Chrysler wrote off the money provided under Bush but last year paid back the loans the company received in 2009. General Motors, meanwhile, has returned $23 billion to the Treasury, partly by repaying loans and also by selling off more than half the shares taxpayers held in the automaker.
The government still holds a 26 percent stake, however, and GM officials appear to be waiting for a stock market recovery before staging a second stock offering. The maker’s shares plunged to less than $20 a share after the $33 price set during GM’s November 2011 IPO. The stock has rebounded recently, currently trading at just over $26 a share. But to break even, the Treasury would need to get more than $50 a share on its remaining GM holdings.
"the 43rd President argued that, “The immediate bankruptcy of (Chrysler and GM) could cost more than a million jobs, decrease tax revenues by $150 billion and set back America’s Gross Domestic Product by hundreds of billions of dollars.”
Here is the rest of the story on the topic.
By Paul A. Eisenstein, The Detroit Bureau
It has become one of the rare things that binds the two men, the controversial automotive bailout that was begun by former President George W. Bush and completed by his successor, President Barack Obama.
The latter defended his actions during the recent state-of-the-union address, during which he declared “The U.S. auto industry is back.” His predecessor used a meeting of the nation’s auto dealers to defend his own actions, insisting he had no other choice but to completely sink the American economy.
“I’d do it again,” proclaimed Bush, speaking to the annual convention of the National Automobile Dealers Association.
The bailout, which ultimately totaled $85 billion, was originally begun during the waning days of the Bush administration. With a specific rescue effort rejected by Congress, the former Commander-in-Chief decided to tap into a separate, $700 billion fund Capitol Hill did approve for the bailout of Wall Street and the banking industry.
“Sometimes circumstances get in the way of philosophy,” said the ex-president, during his speech in Las Vegas, referring to his normal stand in favor of free trade. “If you make a bad decision, you ought to pay,” he said, referring to the collapse of both General Motors and Chrysler.
But Bush also noted that coming on top of the failure of Lehman Brothers, the meltdown of the banking industry and the collapse of the housing market, a painful shift in policy was needed.
“I didn’t want there to be 21 percent unemployment,” he stressed, echoing forecasts at the time that the loss of GM, Ford and the automotive lenders also covered by the bailout could lead to the loss of 1 million jobs.
The former president has kept a low-key profile since leaving office in January 2009 – though he did call the bailout “the only option” in his 2010 book, “Decision Points” — leaving his successor to field much of the criticism.
In that book, the 43rd President argued that, “The immediate bankruptcy of (Chrysler and GM) could cost more than a million jobs, decrease tax revenues by $150 billion and set back America’s Gross Domestic Product by hundreds of billions of dollars.”
Republican president candidate Mitt Romney is among those who have said they would have rejected a bailout.
“My view with regards to the bailout was that, whether it was by President Bush or by President Obama, it was the wrong way to go,” said Romney – whose father George once ran Detroit-based American Motors – during a GOP presidential debate last November.
In all, the Bush Administration provided $25 billion in emergency assistance, $13.4 billion going to GM, another $4 billion to Chrysler. The Obama Administration added another $60 billion shortly after taking office.
Chrysler wrote off the money provided under Bush but last year paid back the loans the company received in 2009. General Motors, meanwhile, has returned $23 billion to the Treasury, partly by repaying loans and also by selling off more than half the shares taxpayers held in the automaker.
The government still holds a 26 percent stake, however, and GM officials appear to be waiting for a stock market recovery before staging a second stock offering. The maker’s shares plunged to less than $20 a share after the $33 price set during GM’s November 2011 IPO. The stock has rebounded recently, currently trading at just over $26 a share. But to break even, the Treasury would need to get more than $50 a share on its remaining GM holdings.
- CJ7
- 07-03-2012, 05:29 PM
does anyone remember the actual date the auto bailouts took place ?
- trynagetlaid
- 07-03-2012, 05:47 PM
Ford was in good shape...probably could have taken up a lot of the slack, used a lot of the facilities and workers. But I don't know anyone who doesn't agree we are better off with the Big 3. It was a wonderful thing that government did and shouldn't be credited to either party. There is some hope for bipartisan politics in this country after all.
What depresses me most is that simpletons like Whirlaway come on a whore board and try to make everyone else feel sorry they happen to be patriotic Americans with fucktard statements like OBAMANOMICS HOSES US AGAIN AND AGAIN...
What depresses me most is that simpletons like Whirlaway come on a whore board and try to make everyone else feel sorry they happen to be patriotic Americans with fucktard statements like OBAMANOMICS HOSES US AGAIN AND AGAIN...
- joe bloe
- 07-03-2012, 05:56 PM
- i'va biggen
- 07-03-2012, 07:13 PM
- Sidewinder
- 07-03-2012, 07:28 PM
One good thing did come out of the government takeover of General Motors.
For some years now, the GM board has been trying to kill the Corvette. They were on the verge of finally doing it, when the bankruptcy occurred and the government people took over.
The first thing the government guys did was look at product profitability numbers. They discovered something that Corvette owners have known for decades: the Corvette is GM's most profitable product. Corvettes ALWAYS sell out their entire annual production run. They NEVER need dealer incentives ("cash back") to sell. They almost always sell at OR ABOVE sticker price. And the people who buy Corvettes generally come back to buy more Corvettes.
The government guys looked at the GM board, presented the numbers, said the governmentese equivalent of "This is your cash cow. You guys are IDIOTS to even THINK about killing it", and made it understood by all and sundry that the Corvette was NOT going away as long as the government had anything to say about it.
Full disclosure: I'm a former Corvette owner. I hope to be one again, one of these days, but it may be a while. I honestly did not know, and would not have believed, that an American car company could build a car as good as the Corvette, until I became a Corvette owner.
Ten years later, I'm driving a Chevy Impala, and almost all of the cockpit instrumentation came straight off the Corvette from ten years earler. The Corvette has always been GM's technology testbed. It is part of the reason why Corvette development is expensive: integrating new technology is always expensive, the first time. It is also the case that the new technology, when it proves out, goes to the entire fleet. The 5th generation Corvette pioneered hydroformed frame members. GM now uses that on ALL of their product line, AND THEY LICENSE THE TECHNOLOGY TO HARLEY-DAVIDSON FOR MOTORCYCLE FRAMES.
So at least one good thing did come out of the takeover: Common sense prevailed over blind idiocy.
For some years now, the GM board has been trying to kill the Corvette. They were on the verge of finally doing it, when the bankruptcy occurred and the government people took over.
The first thing the government guys did was look at product profitability numbers. They discovered something that Corvette owners have known for decades: the Corvette is GM's most profitable product. Corvettes ALWAYS sell out their entire annual production run. They NEVER need dealer incentives ("cash back") to sell. They almost always sell at OR ABOVE sticker price. And the people who buy Corvettes generally come back to buy more Corvettes.
The government guys looked at the GM board, presented the numbers, said the governmentese equivalent of "This is your cash cow. You guys are IDIOTS to even THINK about killing it", and made it understood by all and sundry that the Corvette was NOT going away as long as the government had anything to say about it.
Full disclosure: I'm a former Corvette owner. I hope to be one again, one of these days, but it may be a while. I honestly did not know, and would not have believed, that an American car company could build a car as good as the Corvette, until I became a Corvette owner.
Ten years later, I'm driving a Chevy Impala, and almost all of the cockpit instrumentation came straight off the Corvette from ten years earler. The Corvette has always been GM's technology testbed. It is part of the reason why Corvette development is expensive: integrating new technology is always expensive, the first time. It is also the case that the new technology, when it proves out, goes to the entire fleet. The 5th generation Corvette pioneered hydroformed frame members. GM now uses that on ALL of their product line, AND THEY LICENSE THE TECHNOLOGY TO HARLEY-DAVIDSON FOR MOTORCYCLE FRAMES.
So at least one good thing did come out of the takeover: Common sense prevailed over blind idiocy.