how about that mitt romney, pretty funny huh, nd that win in new york cant wait for obama to win 2012

 

See this comment is pot stirring, you completely lost the argument you were trying to make, so you resort to trying to get a rise out of someone. I for one really hope you get a vacation from this site, preferably a permanent one.

 

OK, Let's calm down here.

It all depends on how you define "paying back". GM, and now Chrysler has paid back the money they were obligated to return to the Government. BUT, they BOTH got additional money that they don't have to pay back. And the Government still owns about 1/4 of GM I think and it's going to be hard to sell those shares if suddenly the Government wants to dump them. Will the Government ever get ALL the money back? Probably not.

Since Chrysler is a subsidiary of a foreign company, things are even more complicated there.

BUT, if you talk to employees of either company, you get nothing but thankfulness for the "bailout". It's easy, when you're on the outside, to complain about propping up failing companies, but these companies employed Americans. And, the "bailouts" came at the height of the recession, when people were facing financial ruin.

Additionally, the Government "bailed out" a goodly number of companies (and their employees) that supply parts to GM and Chrysler.

I honestly think it would have been disastrous if the Government had not acted, and, it's good to see that Mitt Romney agrees - to the point of wanting credit for the success. If you don't like his position, don't support him. It's all really very simple and there's no need to get upset over what a politician does.

Now let's stop slinging barbs at each other. I've been building a computer today and I resent being taken away from that task.



- Jack

 

So Jack, can I borrow $63.3 billion? I promise to pay you back $6.7 billion. I know it's not the full amount but it should be good enough. You can keep some pretty worthless stock but it will be ok, just steal it from some other poor suckers.

I don't care who you are that's a good deal.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you Wookie. But, was the "bailout" good for the common man (and the rest of us?). Sometimes, the Government HAS to step in and help people who are in a jam.

And, guess what? They're going to be doing it again with NO payback to help the poor souls in "Tornado Ally". And, I'm all for it.

You really can't have things both ways. You either let your fellow human sink or, you help him swim. Either way, there's a cost.

- Jack

 

And we're still on the hook for 33% of GM. In the end, GM is just a name. They should've been allowed to fail and the pieces sold to profitable companies like Ford. Heck, the GM name probably would've even made a comeback building products that people actually want to buy. GM's loss would've been Ford's gain.

 

Depends on who you consider the "common man". For the guy making more than the market can bear putting doors on a Silverado it was a good thing. He can keep is lucrative paycheck, Cadillac health care plan and top shelf retirement.

For my boss who was heavily invested in GMAC bonds it sucks. He lost everything he had inherited from his parents and a large part of his net worth went to pay for GM's mistakes. What about another of my coworkers who had invested a good chunk on GM stock? The O'bama administration left him with nothing to show for it. Both of these people are common working guys too but it certainly wasn't good for them.

Most of the time when a company goes bankrupt they divide what is left to make partial payments to the creditors. In this case the government wiped out all the shares of the investors and left them with nothing. They kept the shares for themselves instead of offering them to the rightful owners. If the company is bought out (which is really more like what the gov did) the shareholders are offered a payment.

If I kicked the door of your house in and took your stuff under the excuse that I needed it more than you do and it really is better this way. You would call the sheriff on me, rightfully so. That is no different than what the government did to the public shareholders of GM. What they did is completely criminal. Some people might say that O'bama was so helpful the auto industry because of the $2 billion the UAW had donated to Democrat campaign efforts the year before, but that would only be speculation...

Any way you cut it I think we were lied to about the damage GM's bankruptcy would have caused. Yes, there would have been a lot of problems for a short while but there will still be cars built and sold here. Those factories were already built and supply chains established. Their assets are worth a considerable amount of money and someone would have stepped up and re-established GM. However, they would be free to create new contracts that could cut the UAW out of the loop. I know of $2 billion reasons the people in power would not like that to happen. The way they did it, a considerable power base of theirs was protected.

 

Agreed with Wookie.

Bailing out bad practices leads to more bad practices.

 

So the people in tornado ally are getting a "bailout" just like UAW got a bailout? The mismanagement is a natural disaster?

Promote the general welfare can be interpreted in many ways. There are many of us who don't believe that it's intent was to prop up companies that are failing, with our tax dollars, in order to ensure that it's employees continue to collect their healthy salary. Helping people stand back up after being slammed by a natural disaster seems more like the original intent.

Odd analogy.

 

I can actually agree with Jack on this...there were a lot of jobs saved by their bailout I think. Most companies success rely on the little people doing a good job and they have no say on the decisions made financially. they are there to make a paycheck to support there families and thats it....So i figure if a lot of them got to keep there jobs then thats a good thing. However those slapnuts at the top bringing in 7 figures and not doing their jobs should be the ones held accountable. make them sell off a few of there malibu houses and yachts. Anyway whats done is done, hopefully America will get there crap together and stop making bad life decisions

 

Wookie this is what usually happens when businesses go bankrupt. The stockholders take the biggest hit and their equity is wiped out. Bondholders often lose out too.

I agree in principle that the situation stinks and I feel bad for those that lost their investments.

On the other hand, had there not been a bailout, lots of people would lose their jobs. Not just the guys on the assembly lines but there are so many jobs interwoven into that, it is unfathonable. Everyone from the dealerships to local businesses in every community would suffer dramatically.

Not everything is cut and dry.

I doubt anyone would have swooped in and bought much of GMs stuff. Let's face it, most auto manufacturers have excess capacity and could fairly easily replace the loss of GM in principle.

Look at the items GM dumped...no one ended up buying Pontiac, Saturn, or Hummer...they were allowed to die.

Would Ford, Honda, Toyota, etc benefit from GMs demise...maybe...maybe not. Many of the suppliers to GM also produce for the rest and it could hurt them bad too.

In the end, many jobs were saved and I believe the economy and our country would be much worse off had they not been saved.

 

Thank you Big_Smokey - That was EXACTLY what I meant in my post.

It's interesting though. Ford saw the problems coming and they mortgaged virtually everything they had so that they'd have the cash to tide them through the coming storm. As a result, they didn't take bailouts and are stronger now than ever. Good for Ford! But, had they not been so "brilliant", how many of you would have wanted them to fail too (leaving only the foreign carmakers to take up the slack)?

- Jack

 

Ah, but that is precisely my point. Ford was "brilliant" while GM and Chrysler was not.

Let's not kid ourselves, GM and Chrysler's problems didn't begin in 2007-2008. They began over 30 years ago when they made a conscious decision to build lower quality vehicles than the competition and expect Americans to keep buying them like trained monkeys. Ford, and others, decided to change course and build higher quality vehicles.

People that think that there would have been huge permanent job losses over the loss of GM and/or Chrysler are mistaken. The auto bailouts were nothing but union welfare/payback for election votes disguised as "doing the right thing." The American way would've been to let them fail, the socialist way was the bailouts.

 

how about that mitt romney fellas???? Changing his mind and trying to get credit for something Obama did. Got to love republican politicians


OBAMA '12

 

http://www.industryweek.com/articles...ico_22462.aspx
GM took this bailout, kept their head above water, and started building plants in Mexico. They're not going to continually provide American jobs, but luberals have never understood the big picture. Trickle down, fellas, trickle down. As long as corporations are run by greed and greed alone, this will not change. GM wants the almighty dollar and they want it now. At least Ford is willing to put some back to look towards the future. Not saying they aren't also greed driven, but they are at least smart enough to keep a residual cash flow, unlike the CEOs at some other places who want to bleed it dry, then cut and run.
Romney wasn't against the plan entirely, he thought it should be clearly defined what the money was for and have a ore structured payback. He should not get credit for it, though, not at all.
Edited to add that Mexico didn't contibute to the bailout, the workers there make $2.80 an hour, and they have more production there than they do in Canada. NAFTA was also a liberal deal, might I remind you.
http://www.time.com/time/business/ar...908205,00.html