Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-26-2013, 08:00 AM
 
2,635 posts, read 3,515,220 times
Reputation: 1686

Advertisements

Quote:
The GM and Chrysler bailouts saved more than 1 million jobs, the Center for Automotive Research said in 2010, including both GM and Chrysler workers and employees of the companies' suppliers. The actions also prevented the loss of $96.5 billion of personal income in 2009 and 2010, the Center estimated, and let the government save a combined $28.6 billion by reducing entitlement spending on unemployed workers and collecting taxes on wages of those still working.
While no one is happy the U.S. is selling at a loss, the alternative to a bailout would have been much more expensive and damaging to the economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-26-2013, 08:06 AM
 
Location: Fredericktown,Ohio
7,168 posts, read 5,373,764 times
Reputation: 2922
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Well they did. They borrowed from the government under a different program to pay back the loan that was the focus of media press. They just didn't tell you.

The banks did the same thing. They borrowed from other government programs to pay back TARP.
I do not call that being paid back when the gvt is selling shares at a lost and almost anyone from a mile away would know that would be the outcome. Would you buy GM shares after they shafted the investors the first time?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2013, 08:11 AM
 
9,855 posts, read 15,218,665 times
Reputation: 5481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoke_Jaguar4 View Post
While no one is happy the U.S. is selling at a loss, the alternative to a bailout would have been much more expensive and damaging to the economy.
No...we should have allowed GM to go through a legal bankruptcy and come out a clean, healthy company instead of publicly taking the debt.

How on earth is a government bailout better than bankruptcy to save a company?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2013, 08:15 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,583,836 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swingblade View Post
I do not call that being paid back when the gvt is selling shares at a lost and almost anyone from a mile away would know that would be the outcome. Would you buy GM shares after they shafted the investors the first time?
Only if you trade stocks and know how it works would you understand what they did.
Shafting the bondholders in favor of the union was a major rule breaker.
Bondholders have precedence over employees.
And that's why GM didn't go through the normal bankruptcy process.
The government changed the rules of the game.

Only speculators went into GM..no sane investor would purchase GM with thoughts of future appreciation/income.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2013, 08:16 AM
 
Location: WY
6,266 posts, read 5,080,354 times
Reputation: 8006
Quote:
Originally Posted by rorqual View Post
So why were Romney and the GOP trying to take credit for the auto-industry recovery? As usual the GOP is shallow, clueless and willing to do whatever it takes and sit on both sides of an issue..
How is your post even remotely related to the topic of this thread?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2013, 08:17 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,583,836 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
No...we should have allowed GM to go through a legal bankruptcy and come out a clean, healthy company instead of publicly taking the debt.

How on earth is a government bailout better than bankruptcy to save a company?
It was to save the union.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2013, 08:22 AM
 
Location: Jawjah
2,468 posts, read 1,921,971 times
Reputation: 1100
Quote:
Originally Posted by juneaubound View Post
How is your post even remotely related to the topic of this thread?
Because the OP is complaining about selling the stock at a "loss", yet the overall actions that lead to this were the right path as evidenced by the GOP wanting to take credit for the bail out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2013, 08:24 AM
 
12,967 posts, read 13,701,057 times
Reputation: 9695
Every article written about this sell uses words like ;Potentially, Likely, or may lose money.
I think the fat lady hasn't sung yet on this deal. Maybe we'll know in 15 months.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2013, 08:26 AM
 
Location: Dallas
31,292 posts, read 20,773,122 times
Reputation: 9330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoke_Jaguar4 View Post
While no one is happy the U.S. is selling at a loss, the alternative to a bailout would have been much more expensive and damaging to the economy.
No it would not.

Failing companies should be allowed to fail. It's a natural process that weeds out the losers. They are soon replaced with new companies or expansion by better run companies.

The demand for skilled workers would not have changed, so other companies would have picked up many of the workers to meet increased demand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2013, 08:29 AM
 
Location: Dallas
31,292 posts, read 20,773,122 times
Reputation: 9330
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Only if you trade stocks and know how it works would you understand what they did.
Shafting the bondholders in favor of the union was a major rule breaker.
Bondholders have precedence over employees.
And that's why GM didn't go through the normal bankruptcy process.
The government changed the rules of the game.

Only speculators went into GM..no sane investor would purchase GM with thoughts of future appreciation/income.
Correct. Left alone, the market will balance risk and reward. When the government socializes risk for selected businesses, the market is dysfunctional and encourages businesses to sit on the sidelines. Uncertainty is bad for the economy.

We don't need the government to pick winners and losers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:59 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top