General Motors Is Headed For Bankruptcy -- Again

[fmccap]

Please tell us exactly what is owed and by whom so we can make a judgement.

Here is an article that will explain how you and many others were hoodwinked.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/23/general-motors-economy-bailout-opinions-columnists-shikha-dalmia.html

In short, GM is using government money to pay back government money to get more government money. And at a 2% lower interest rate at that. This is a nifty scheme to refinance GM's government debt--not pay it back!

[Langston Hughes]

You're not paying attention (or you're purposely diverting - hard to tell). If the government sold all their stock there would still be a $16B shortfall at GM. Why should GM be allowed to keep profits while the government is $16B in the red.

 

Unless you're proposing that GM buys back the stock at $53/share which would make the government whole - in that case I agree that would be the right thing to do. It will never ever happen though.

 

That was exactly my thought. Taking a percentage of the profit and purchasing stock back from the government at the original price.

[goinbroke2]

"In short, GM is using government money to pay back government money to get more government money. And at a 2% lower interest rate at that. This is a nifty scheme to refinance GM's government debt--not pay it back!"

 

It's allowed when the governement is picking winners and losers....

[Die Wahrheit]

"In short, GM is using government money to pay back government money to get more government money. And at a 2% lower interest rate at that. This is a nifty scheme to refinance GM's government debt--not pay it back!"

 

It's allowed when the governement is picking winners and losers....

 

Typical right winger. Hate to see an American company succeed. You would have no problem with Toyota outselling anyof the domestic auto companies. You right winger tried your best to bash the Chevy Volt, an American product built by american workers. You right wingers despise american workers that much that you would attempt to damage the reputation of a american built product. AWFUL> But you guys are so AMerican and this is so your country. Why is there so much hate for the middle class? This is just astounding.

[NickF1011]

Typical right winger. Hate to see an American company succeed. You would have no problem with Toyota outselling anyof the domestic auto companies. You right winger tried your best to bash the Chevy Volt, an American product built by american workers. You right wingers despise american workers that much that you would attempt to damage the reputation of a american built product. AWFUL> But you guys are so AMerican and this is so your country. Why is there so much hate for the middle class? This is just astounding.

 

Holy crap, Die. Let the political crap rest already! Not everyone is out to get you.

[fmccap]

Typical right winger. Hate to see an American company succeed. You would have no problem with Toyota outselling anyof the domestic auto companies. You right winger tried your best to bash the Chevy Volt, an American product built by american workers. You right wingers despise american workers that much that you would attempt to damage the reputation of a american built product. AWFUL> But you guys are so AMerican and this is so your country. Why is there so much hate for the middle class? This is just astounding.

I love seeing them succeed. After all they went through and received why are they on the verge of bankruptcy again? Why don't you complain about there executives getting bonuses?

 

Who bashed the Volt? "an American product built by american workers", shall I finish this for you? THAT AMERICANS DON'T WANT!!!

[cal50]

Holy crap, Die. Let the political crap rest already! Not everyone is out to get you.

 

 

Has he ever posted anything different?

[grbeck]

Typical right winger. Hate to see an American company succeed. You would have no problem with Toyota outselling anyof the domestic auto companies.

 

Considering that GM has gone from about 45 percent of the market in 1978-79 to 18 percent today, I'd say that it isn't just "right wingers" refusing to buy its vehicles. Go to a college campus or a liberal suburb of a large metropolitan area and count the number of Toyotas and Lexuses you see. Do you really believe that they are all driven by Republicans?

 

In the real world, Americans don't care whether Toyota outsells GM or any other company. They just want a reliable, affordable vehicle. Given the long-term trends of GM's market share versus that of Toyota, I'd say that the latter is doing a better job of meeting customer expectations than the former. "Right wing" versus "left wing" has nothing to do with that.

 

You right winger tried your best to bash the Chevy Volt, an American product built by american workers. You right wingers despise american workers that much that you would attempt to damage the reputation of a american built product.

 

Since the Toyota Camry and Tundra and Honda Accord and Civic are all built by American workers, I assume that you won't be bashing them, either.

 

But you guys are so AMerican and this is so your country. Why is there so much hate for the middle class? This is just astounding.

 

You appear to be confused. The "middle class" and "GM" are not synonymous.

 

This just in - Ford, Honda, Hyundai, Nissan, Toyota and VW all employ Americans to build vehicles here in the United States. I'm assuming that those workers are drawn from the middle class, unless the transplant operations are employing heiresses and trust fund babies on the assembly line.

 

Of course, in every case except for Ford, those workers aren't UAW members, which is your real beef. In the real world people buying vehicles ceased to care about that a long time ago.

[NickF1011]

Not to throw more political mud in the mix, but I believe there have been studies that show conservatives buy more "American" vehicles than liberals. :shrug:

[grbeck]

Not to throw more political mud in the mix, but I believe there have been studies that show conservatives buy more "American" vehicles than liberals. :shrug:

 

This is anecdotal experience, but I know diehard conservatives who can't stand the UAW but will still only buy a vehicle made by GM, Ford or Chrysler.

Edited September 7, 2012 by grbeck

[TomServo92]

Not to throw more political mud in the mix, but I believe there have been studies that show conservatives buy more "American" vehicles than liberals. :shrug:

 

I guess that makes me an independent since I've owned both American and foreign makes.

[Trimdingman]

GM is a global company. GM vehicles are built and supplied parts by all races all over the world. Toyotas are also built in America by American workers. In Canada, Toyota is hiring at $21 an hour to start rising to $34 an hour. An American company should be paying Americans more than a foreign company is paying Americans; or is it that the only difference is that one is non-union? The one that pays the higher wage, that is. What did your union do for you lately besides allowing your jobs to be outsourced or two-tiered away?

Edited September 8, 2012 by Trimdingman

[Versa-Tech]

 

 

I was pointing out that the auto bailouts saved the jobs of conservatives too in rebuttal to Mettech's comments about occupy supporters connected to the auto bailouts.

A vast majority of conservatives vote for the countries best interest. That's what liberals don't understand. Self preservation is simply indignant, which is why your point only appeals to liberals.

[Ron W.]

A vast majority of conservatives vote for the countries best interest.

 

From then to now, was the "tarp" bailout in the countries best interest? Is unemployment lower? Is the federal debt lower? Is the "free" market better off? Are the "rich" sending more or less of their money to tax havens? Is the middle class better off? Do I need a vacation? I can answer one of those for 100% sure.

 

500 MILION per day in interest is in no way helping our economy.

 

edit: yes I realise that the 500 million a day in interest was not brought on soley by the "tarp" bailout.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Ron W.

[Langston Hughes]

A vast majority of conservatives vote for the countries best interest. That's what liberals don't understand. Self preservation is simply indignant, which is why your point only appeals to liberals.

 

What i don't understand is why conservatives think they have the countries best interests in mind when it's merely their own self-preservation and greed. And as evidence I offer up the point that Cal50 has posted that the bailouts allowed GM to keep market share that should have gone to Ford. Knowing that he works for Ford, we can see that if Ford gained market share and sold more cars in the US his job would be more secure, his profit sharing check would increase and that would lead to less overall risk for him. So i'm sure you can forgive me if I don't believe he has the nation in mind, but instead his own self-preservation both from a more secure job and the idea that he would like to pay less taxes thereby enriching himself to a greater extent.

 

My take on the auto bailout is that it saved not only GM and Chrysler, but Ford and many many small job shop factories which are suppliers to all three in many many cities and towns across America which helped keep the economies of states and municipalities in better shape than if they hadn't occurred. This not only directly benefited myself, but both liberals and conservatives all over the country. So I feel that my support of the bailouts was as rooted in the best for not only the nation but the state and region I live in. And it kept Cal and I working which is win-win all the way around.

[Langston Hughes]

"In short, GM is using government money to pay back government money to get more government money. And at a 2% lower interest rate at that. This is a nifty scheme to refinance GM's government debt--not pay it back!"

 

It's allowed when the governement is picking winners and losers....

 

When are we going to get past this particular stupidity. The government will always pick winners and losers. It always has and always will. Mitt Romney will pick them and Obama will pick them. Are you naive enough to believe that his supporters spent millions more in the primary not to get a piece of the pie? It's one thing to debate the theoretical that government shouldn't pick them in whatever economy you believe we should have, (Is that ironic, you a Canadian wanting us Americans to have a certain style of economic policy? All i want out of Canadians is to stop all the clutching and grabbing, it ruins the game.) it's a complete other to thing that any politician will get elected who will not succumb to taking care of his backers.

[Versa-Tech]

 

 

What i don't understand is why conservatives think they have the countries best interests in mind when it's merely their own self-preservation and greed. And as evidence I offer up the point that Cal50 has posted that the bailouts allowed GM to keep market share that should have gone to Ford. Knowing that he works for Ford, we can see that if Ford gained market share and sold more cars in the US his job would be more secure, his profit sharing check would increase and that would lead to less overall risk for him. So i'm sure you can forgive me if I don't believe he has the nation in mind, but instead his own self-preservation both from a more secure job and the idea that he would like to pay less taxes thereby enriching himself to a greater extent.

 

My take on the auto bailout is that it saved not only GM and Chrysler, but Ford and many many small job shop factories which are suppliers to all three in many many cities and towns across America which helped keep the economies of states and municipalities in better shape than if they hadn't occurred. This not only directly benefited myself, but both liberals and conservatives all over the country. So I feel that my support of the bailouts was as rooted in the best for not only the nation but the state and region I live in. And it kept Cal and I working which is win-win all the way around.

You notice I said a vast majority of conservatives, not all. Even so, there's nothing wrong with cal profiting from smart decisions he made in the past to work for a superior company. Those profits would be earned from a natural market occurence; with marketshare being transfered from a failure to a successful business, requiring no government involvement.

 

You prefer to manipulate the market, to steal the fruits of men's labor to artificially support a company that can't survive. You're arguing the point of a government that, literally, STOLE pensions, 401ks, mutual funds, and stock options from deserving americans to pay off the unions. THOSE PEOPLE ARE FUCKED.

 

You don't care though, because they are the wrong kind of americans... The ones that risk everything to invest in this country and vote republican.

 

 

[Langston Hughes]

You notice I said a vast majority of conservatives, not all. Even so, there's nothing wrong with cal profiting from smart decisions he made in the past to work for a superior company. Those profits would be earned from a natural market occurence; with marketshare being transfered from a failure to a successful business, requiring no government involvement.

 

You prefer to manipulate the market, to steal the fruits of men's labor to artificially support a company that can't survive. You're arguing the point of a government that, literally, STOLE pensions, 401ks, mutual funds, and stock options from deserving americans to pay off the unions. THOSE PEOPLE ARE FUCKED.

 

You don't care though, because they are the wrong kind of americans... The ones that risk everything to invest in this country and vote republican.

Perhaps it would be fair to make the same accusations against you, that you don't care that the fruit of a man's labor is being stolen from him, that he's losing what was promised and deferred only to find himself pushed on to government safety nets so that Billionaires can save as much of their investment as possible. But you wouldn't care because those are people you don't like, the unionized employees who are primarily democrat.

 

If your not sure what i am talking about perhaps you should see what happens to the workers and the retirees who stand to lose more than a percentage of their hedge fund balance. No, those people lose a majority of their retirement and also healthcare they worked for and were promised. Those people are fucked.

 

But we can save the teenage drama, there will always be winners and losers, we just relate to the plights of different losers.

[cal50]

You notice I said a vast majority of conservatives, not all. Even so, there's nothing wrong with cal profiting from smart decisions he made in the past to work for a superior company. Those profits would be earned from a natural market occurence; with marketshare being transfered from a failure to a successful business, requiring no government involvement.

 

You prefer to manipulate the market, to steal the fruits of men's labor to artificially support a company that can't survive. You're arguing the point of a government that, literally, STOLE pensions, 401ks, mutual funds, and stock options from deserving americans to pay off the unions. THOSE PEOPLE ARE FUCKED.

 

You don't care though, because they are the wrong kind of americans... The ones that risk everything to invest in this country and vote republican.

 

 

 

I love it when someone para phrases my words for their own statement of sorts........

 

When I said the bail outs were a bad move it has ZERO to do with my personal gain (Ford workers gave up more in benefits than GM workers so go figure). There is a place for bailouts or restructuring to happen and that is the court system. My gripe is Obama and people even more stupid trumpeting what a great thing it was with billions lost.

I think Biden (?) make a comment of saving over 1 million jobs yet there is supposed to be 700,000 actual autoworkers. Joe is not the sharpest crayon in the box....

 

How anyone can say with a straight face that the 25+ billion loss is a success should not be anywhere near a working successful business.

 

What and how it shakes out for Ford is a separate issue but I am not in the practice of helping the competition on my own dime. If I wanted to do that I would either WORK for them, buy a vehicle, or invest in them, not having Obama & the UAW do it for me by proxy. There is nothing selfish about trying to beat your competition. I do not want to see them go out of business BUT I do not want them dragging me or Ford down with them either. If they fail its their failure or blame it on lack of product people WANT to buy.

 

"Only the strong survive" is true for African species and business. Blaming failure on others or outside forces is a juvenile move.

Our government gave GM & Chrysler a HUGE free roll of the dice and if its looses again whats the next play? Bailout 2.0??

[grbeck]

Perhaps it would be fair to make the same accusations against you, that you don't care that the fruit of a man's labor is being stolen from him...

 

What, exactly, was "stolen" from GM and Chrysler workers?

 

They received a paycheck and benefits in exchange for their labor. Given the market rate for people with a similar level of education and skills, they were very generously compensated for their labor.

 

If the jobs go away, so do the pay and benefits. That is the way things work in the real world.

 

...that he's losing what was promised and deferred only to find himself pushed on to government safety nets...

 

The only "promise" to workers was made by GM and Chrysler management, not by the taxpayers, or by the people who decided to buy a Honda instead of a Chevrolet or a Lexus instead of a Chrysler.

 

The ability to fulfill that promise depended on enough customers wanting to buy a GM or Chrysler vehicle that said companies could turn a profit. If that failed to happen...then one of two things should happen. Either the promise has to be renegotiated in the face of the new financial realities (the Ford approach) or the promise ends when the parent corporation goes bankrupt.

 

You need to realize that taxpayers did not make any promises to GM or Chrysler UAW workers. Neither did anyone who wanted a Toyota instead of a Chevrolet or Dodge.

 

And it is not the responsibility of car buyers to choose a GM or Chrysler vehicle so that no UAW member ever loses a job or has to pay more for benefits.

 

...so that Billionaires can save as much of their investment as possible. But you wouldn't care because those are people you don't like, the unionized employees who are primarily democrat.

 

It wasn't only billionaires who owned GM stock. Given the stock's poor performance over the past decade, and the failure of the North American auto unit to consistently make money, I would wager that any billionaire with an ounce of investment sense had dumped it by the fall of 2008. That is because while the stockholders are the owners of the company, if the company goes bankrupt, they lose everything.

Edited September 11, 2012 by grbeck

[Imawhosure]

Perhaps it would be fair to make the same accusations against you,

 

So here I come back for a quick visit, and what do I find? Why my friend Langdad putting forth a ludicrism. (ludicrism is ludicrous liberalism, which liberals put forth when their derrieres are nailed to the wall with facts)

 

He wants to put forth the LUDICRISM of fairness-)

 

OK, how about this fairness------->if our hero; langdaddy, works in a plant where they have hired anyone, these poor people are now working for 14, 15, 16, or 17 bucks an hr, while Mr Langdaddy is working the same.......or thinking about Langy, doing less, for around 30 bucks an hr. These poor people probably don't have medical insurance either, while Langy does.

 

Listening to our hero Langy write on here, we know it is all about FAIRNESS; just ask him, and he will tell ya.

 

So then, how many posters on here think that the bastion of liberalism, hero of the downtrodden, proffesor of Karl Marx, doctor of fairness, town cryer of people paying their fairshare, supporter of equal work for equal pay, supporter of taxpayer money for GM to save autoworkers jobs.....even if it means losing 25 billion with a B, and most of all.......story teller that all this inequality is conservatives fault; is splitting up his extra cash every paycheck and giving it to the underpaid workers in the same factory, who are working as hard, or harder than him?!?!?!?!?!?! Any takers?

 

Didn't think so! Langy is so full of strawmen, he could make it in hollywood easily if they decide to make another series of Wizard of Oz. Guess which character he would be hired to play!

[Mark B. Morrow]

Link

 

Treasury: U.S. to lose $25 billion on auto bailout

 

 

So then about 10 weeks of what we spent in Afghanistan in 2011. At least we have cars from Detroit.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Mark B. Morrow

[akirby]

So then about 10 weeks of what we spent in Afghanistan in 2011. At least we have cars from Detroit.

 

But why did we have to lose the $25B? Why can't it be paid back in full now that the companies involved are making profits again?

 

I'm not against the baillouts as a loan but dammit - pay it back!

[cal50]

So then about 10 weeks of what we spent in Afghanistan in 2011. At least we have cars from Detroit.

 

 

At least Afghanistan is safer ...

 

Paste-

 

Total number of troops killed since 2001 in the war in Afghanistan (This includes from all coalition troops from all countries involved in the war NOT just US casualties) (Through 2012)

3131

 

Total number of murders in the city of Detroit from 2001 to 2010 (Does not include 2011 or 2012):

 

3695

 

Where do we need troops?

[fmccap]

So then about 10 weeks of what we spent in Afghanistan in 2011. At least we have cars from Detroit.

We spent money there? I could have sworn Obama said elect him in 08 and he was going to end that war. Maybe I missed something.