http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...m-annual-profit-soars-4th-quarter-disappoints GM said 47,500 blue-collar workers in the U.S. will get $7,000 profit-sharing checks in March
http://www.bailoutcost.com/ That comes out to what, slightly over $250K per blue collar employee we as tax payers lost to get those 47,500 blue collar employees a $7K check? Such a deal!
And 47,000 is just the number of workers getting that bonus. If GM went kaput the economy would have lost a lot more jobs than that! I don't even like GM but I think that was the best money spent!
I can think of better ways to piss away $13,000,000,000.00 and counting. Just like bailing out the fat cats on Wall Street with TARP, should never have been done. This is not capitalism, this is the government using American tax payer's money and deciding on winners and losers. That's just not right.
Discounting for a moment that employing people who spend their income in the US where it is then taxed by the US government isn't exactly the same as pissing it away - let's hear your ideas on a better way to spend 13 billion.
Wall Street bail out -- we saw it passed by Reagan and Bush. I wouldn't mind so much as long as the rules were fixed such that the idea of 'too big to fail' was the new norm. Perhaps one could word it as anti-monopoly laws were a good idea last time and they need to be extended. As much as I hate TARP I can't think of a much better idea. Had McCain dumped TARP (unlikely BTW) we would have hit a depression. As for the GM bailout... Had this not been done the harm to the economy would have been more immediate. It's always a question of what is better a deep drop off a cliff to the ocean or a slow walk downhill to the ocean. Economies effect real people. The slow walk is often more manageable. That GM total is only if the US doesn't see a return on investment. We've already seen many soft returns, small manufacting that supply GM didn't go out of business, and hard returns 50K people are still employed who spend monies on taxes, food, housing, etc. Personally had we not seen GM bailed out then US automanufacturing would be dead. While we have those Republicans here that love the US so much they think driving German manufactured cars in Mexico is a good idea that hardly supports US economy or US industry. I want to see the US drive industry through battery technology and other innovations the auto manufacturing is a big part of this.
Says who? Yeah, it would have been bad times, just like South Korea went though with their finances but they are better off for taking it head on. Now we have to pay the piper plus interest when it all comes tumbling down. All it was for was the unions who financially support Obama with massive spending on campaign adds, end of story. 50,000 isn't a drop in the ocean when you are talking 23,000,000 who would like to be working full time. Ford would have survived, and probably been far better off if GM and Chrysler bought the farm. If you take a look at the parts your "American" car is made from, it's from Mexico and other countries. If you think if it's assembled by American, makes it an American car, then Honda and Toyota are "American" car companies. I drive a Honda, I wouldn't think of buying a GM or Chrysler, ever. Yes, Honda is a Japanese company, and Japan loves bailing out failed Japanese companies, and their economy has sucked for 20 years by not allowing Japanese companies to go under when they should. Is that a fate you want America to enjoy? I sure don't. US Government can not afford to continue on in it's death spiral, but that is exactly what the Elites want, in order to destroy America as we know it and bring her down to her knees. Obama is cheerfully obeying his masters, he and the rest of his fellow Progressives thinks America has had it too good for too long and needs to be hobbled for the sake of the rest of the world. What good that will do with China as the world's new economic super power, I have't a clue but I can sure see a whole hell of lot of evil China has been and will cause for the rest of this century. Yes Faether, but put me down as 99% who resents corporate welfare and the destruction of the America and her values.
The government bailed out GM to the tune of $82 billion dollars in 2009. breaking the rule of law screwing bondholders another $30B, while blatantly favoring union cronies. Priority one for Obama was serving the interests of the UAW when the White House's auto task force engineered the bankruptcy. Thanks to a generous share of GM stock obtained in the company's 2009 bankruptcy settlement the union's health care and pension trust fund earned $3.4 billion through the sale of one-third of its shares in GM. Analysts estimate that the UAW would break even if it sells the remaining two-thirds of its shares at an average price of $36. For taxpayers to break even, GM stock would have to rise to as high as $103 per share. Union pension claims are by law to be paid after bondholders in bankruptcies. Feb 2009: GM loses $9.6 billion in the fourth quarter 2008
Receivership. Government takes over the institution, issues bonds to itself to cover short term operating costs - as receiver has the right to go deep into the books and can start chucking out all the things that are obviously garbage and make the ones who bought it eat the cost, uncover any and all frauds, prosecute all who were involved - make sure the guys who ran the business never get to run anything bigger than an ice cream stand for the rest of their lives. Since the financial companies were worse than broke it he government wouldn't have to pay a thing to take it over.
George W Bush says that as one of his last acts he loaned GM $13Billion. AND he'd do it again. http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/...ident-Bush-Says-Hed-Bail-Out-Automakers-Again
Tell me, what do you think bond holders would have got out of a company that took 82 billion dollars just to bring it back up to the water line? There was no value left in the company for bond holders to realize.
You are guessing as much as I or the economists. Time will tell. Unions are the 50K workers. This union wasn't taking over the nation they were working jobs. Do you really perfer your fellow 50K+ Americans to be unemployed and on the streets? I think it's very unlikely Ford would have survived. They were able, in part, to take out a loan. This loan would have had to been much larger. And likely they would have faced delays as some of their parts providers would have gone belly up. True cars are made all over. The Toyota Camry for example is mostly US sourced. As a leading seller it probably supports more US jobs than the much poorer selling American vehicles. Though this question is not only based on manufacturer but model. I think my statement was perfectly fair - buying a VW made with German parts, assembled in Mexico and shipped to the US is a very good example of the low end of scale of USA support. Honda sources most of their transmissions in Japan. And even if the rest of the car is assembled in the USA they manufacture the same model overseas and ship some here. So it depends on what you're talking as to whether the Honda supports the USA more than GM. As for quality the new GM cars are seriously improved and even rivaling Honda. http://www.leftlanenews.com/study-ford-gm-quality-surpass-honda.html IMO part of this question is always determine by owner impressions. Those are biased. I bought a 99 Mustang and a friend a 99 Acura. He loved this car. He thought the Mustang pretty but he'd never give up Acura quality. Turned out he went to the shop far more than I did. He had electronic problems and a passenger side door that was never right. I went through brakes and tires quicker. 3 years ago 1 employee told me how wonderful her Honda is and how bad American cars are. Only to trade it in 6 months later due to the problems she was having. (And I'm still driving the same F150 which hasn't seen the shop for 4 years. Though there is now a gas tank strap recall which I should do as preventative.) --- Personal bias in quality pools is always hard to weed out in those sorts of studies. I prefer news, like the above, the use actual shop records. What I find interesting of this attitude is it's unfairly applied. 0 American airline companies would exist without the government's help. Yet no one is crying for them to go under. You make it sound one sided. Certainly Obama grew spending in his first budget - up 11%. But, far better than Bush's previous budget which increased spending -- up 18%. In a down economy when money is cheap is the best time for investment. We should be making major improvements to our transportation systems, our buildings, etc. Labor is cheap, materials cheap, and borrowing is cheap. Unfortunately much of the government spending isn't wise. (BTW this is what Ford did. Borrow lots of money cheaply to accelerate quality improvements.) A fully government controlled market is dangerous for a nation. A fully unregulated market is dangerous for a nation. The best done is a lightly regulated market to help ensure competition and fairness for the consumer.
Bingo. The bailout and how it was handled was a completely blatant CRIMINAL act now matter how you look at it. Obama is not acting as POTUS, he is acting like a Chicago style mafia boss.
Of the 23,000,000 Americans that would like to get full time work, what percentage is that 50,000? 50K doesn't even really add up in the weekly jobless reports. Ford didn't take out the loan. Yes, some of the parts providers were going to be in trouble. Those I would have agreed to see having some type of government hand out for them to survive long enough to be merged or bought out right. Only took them what, three decades? Good for them, still wouldn't buy a car from them either. Well you lucked out and bought a Ford, which is the only "domestic" car company I would buy from. I sold off my last Ford about 18 months ago, probably still going strong. Horsefeathers, plenty of airlines would have survived 911 aftermath. They might have had to go into bankruptcy to reorganize their debt and redo their existing labor contracts, but most of them would have survive, and those that didn't would be replaced by small airlines. Problem is the stimulus went into the yearly base line budgeting so every year, we get that same amount of spending PLUS an automatic increase of 5%-7%. Obama has managed to piss away $4.5T (heading well into the $5T in a few months) in borrowed money in little over 3 years while we have more unemployed/underemployed then when he started. Took Bush 8 years, Obama did it in less then 4 years. Wrong, that is not the time to do stupid things with money you have to borrow, you let private industry keep their money so they can create new jobs which lifts the economy out of a depression. FDR tried this failed economic model that Obama is so hyped about and we know how badly it did, even FDR's Sec of Treasury testified before Congressional committee that all the spending they had done for the past 8 years didn't create a single job. So what loans did Ford get from TARP? Which is what Obama/Pelosi/Reid made damn sure didn't happen by over regulating stuff that shouldn't be over regulated while ignoring the stuff that should be regulated and wasn't because their master's wanted to continue to reap unheard of profits. Did they do a proper investigation of criminal misconduct of Freddie/Fannie? Why of course not, too many of members of the Obama Admin were involved back during those days, can't have that, wouldn't look right.
