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.
You do realize that GM had been in the works with Congress for over a year trying to get an auto loan package correct? That wasn't the first time they had to be bailed out either. And it was 50 billion, not 100, half of which was spent by the Almighty Bush. No surprise that the facts would be fudged given the right wing rag you are using as a source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RecentlyMoved
No, I don't. I think both Bush and Obama are a bunch of tools.
[MOD CUT/off topic]
Yes, Bush gave a TARP loan to GM for what would actually be just over $18 Billion.
Obama came in and gave them over $80 Billion without forcing them to make structural changes.
The company is worth less than what Obama gave them in free cash that they don't have to pay back...
...wouldn't the rational thing be to force GM to have structural changes?
As DEMOCRAT Steve Rattner (Obama's Auto Czar) has said, as GM's past CEO has said - they didn't do enough to restructure properly. The government should have made them - in return for the money.
It is highly irrational for you to be satisfied by solving a problem by throwing more money at it then the entire company is even worth without trying to solve the major structural problems. We see some of the same GM problems before the bailout already resurfacing.
Perhaps they will need another bailout under the next president - hopefully that president will force changes. I imagine the letter after the president's name R or D will go a long way in whether you recognize this point in the future.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 10-11-2014 at 09:26 AM..
Reason: edited quoted post
I could care less which inept crook gave GM our money, it was wrong, period.
If we are going to give free money to a failing company that doesn't have to be paid back -- more than the company is even worth today, should we at least force major structural changes to prevent another bailout?
Last edited by michiganmoon; 10-11-2014 at 07:26 AM..
If we are going to give free money to a failing company that doesn't have to be paid back -- more than the company is even worth today, should we at least force major structural changes to prevent another bailout?
No company should ever be bailed out or subsidized by taxpayers.
GM's problem -- and it was their problem from approximately 1973/4 to at least the mid-to-late 1990's -- is that they were poorly run. Poorly run companies do not produce products that the general public is interested in buying, and as such, those companies encounter financial difficulties.
The right thing to do with GM would have been let them enter into bankruptcy negotiations with their creditors, and let THE PARTIES INVOLVED negotiate. The US government should not be in the business of bailing out companies who are in trouble because of their own incompetence.
The fact that Barack Obama -- a male bimbo in terms of meaningful knowledge of how businesses function -- was president at the time only made matters worse. GM has essentially learned nothing, the equivalent of a teenager who was grounded for a day after getting a ticket for reckless driving.
All told, the Obama administration has given GM $100 Billion.
$100 Billion to a company currently worth $46 Billion...
I posit that any company will turn around at least a bit when they get a mountain of cash thrown their way, reduced taxes, erasure of bonds owed etc....
Yes, but Obama said that GM paid back it's loan, isn't that a big deal.
You are forgetting that Obama is a pathological liar and is highly disingenuous.
Well, didn't Obama say that the bailout of GM saved 1 million jobs? That makes it worth it! Except, remember, Obama is a pathological liar. There are only 717,000 total auto jobs in the country and that includes Ford, Toyota, small suppliers, etc.... AND Obama's own advisers said that if GM went through a normal bankruptcy, they would only lose 10 to 20% of GM's jobs and GM's supplier companies...
Per Obama's own economic adviser's the best case scenario is that the bailout cost $780,000 per GM/GM supplier job saved.
But, at least they fixed problems with GM right? Actually the GM CEO at the time and Obama's car czar both said that they didn't do enough to address the problems that led GM to go through bankruptcy during the bail out.
That is Hope and Change right there -- throwing money at it, reducing taxes, eliminating some bonds owed, etc...and not fixing enough of the structural problems. You have a problem? We have a mountain of cash!
GM is on life support. Al Qaeda lives...
Last edited by Ibginnie; 10-11-2014 at 09:29 AM..
Reason: formatting
Obama indirectly gave GM money through a $7,500 tax credit to people who bought the Volt.
Obama indirectly gave GM money through cash for clunkers.
Of TARP money, Bush gave GM 18.4 Billion of the $50 Billion - the rest was from Obama.
President Bush provided LOAN GUARANTEES. Barack cancelled the loans and made it a direct payment that will never be recovered. Barack also gave ownership of the company to the unions who should have had to stand on their own. The company should have been allowed to go through a normal bankruptcy hearing and reformed.
You do realize that GM had been in the works with Congress for over a year trying to get an auto loan package correct? That wasn't the first time they had to be bailed out either. And it was 50 billion, not 100, half of which was spent by the Almighty Bush. No surprise that the facts would be fudged given the right wing rag you are using as a source.
It was Obama that set the terms of the bailout, not Bush. It's entirely irrelevant that GM had been in the works with Congress for over a year trying to get a loan. Note that the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress that entire time. It was Obama in office when they got the loan and the terms were set. It was Obama who insisted that the government get to restructure a private sector company as part of the bailout and it was Obama who protected the pensions of the union employees but not the pensions of the non-union employees, and it was Obama who wiped the GM shareholders out. So your attempt to deflect blame doesn't work, and the fact that you acted so arrogantly in the attempt makes it all the more of a failure. But then, as a liberal, I'm sure you're no stranger to failure.
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.
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.
