Govt sells last of GM shares, taxpayers 10.5 billion loss

[Cap'n Cat]

So my questions aren’t legitimate? Gov should run around and throw money at private companies all on a whim so long as they are “too big to fail”?

Yes, you're absolutely right. I'm a dumbass for arguing with you.

[Grizalltheway]

So my questions aren’t legitimate? Gov should run around and throw money at private companies all on a whim so long as they are “too big to fail”?

They didn't do it on a whim, and the financial companies were "too big to fail" thanks to Conk (and Clinton) deregulation.

[SDHornet]

Way to take all the fun out of it.

[kalm]

So my questions aren’t legitimate? Gov should run around and throw money at private companies all on a whim so long as they are “too big to fail”?

We do that all the time in the form of subsidies. Other countries have bailed out large manufactures and banks with some success. And as mentioned earlier, the interconnectedness of the auto industry is vastly under appreciated. Think of the dealerships and vendors they use alone...janitorial, fuel, parts, pop machines, uniforms and custodial supply....

I have a buddy who owns a coffee shop in Seattle next to two dealerships. A quarter of his business came from their employees and customers.

Not saying it was right but to let GM fail would have been significant.

[Grizalltheway]

Way to take all the fun out of it.

Facts aren't always fun.

[AZGrizFan]

So my questions aren’t legitimate? Gov should run around and throw money at private companies all on a whim so long as they are “too big to fail”?

They didn't do it on a whim, and the financial companies were "too big to fail" thanks to Conk (and Clinton) deregulation.

Love how you threw (and Clinton) in parentheses.

[AZGrizFan]

So my questions aren’t legitimate? Gov should run around and throw money at private companies all on a whim so long as they are “too big to fail”?

We do that all the time in the form of subsidies. Other countries have bailed out large manufactures and banks with some success. And as mentioned earlier, the interconnectedness of the auto industry is vastly under appreciated. Think of the dealerships and vendors they use alone...janitorial, fuel, parts, pop machines, uniforms and custodial supply....

I have a buddy who owns a coffee shop in Seattle next to two dealerships. A quarter of his business came from their employees and customers.

Not saying it was right but to let GM fail would have been significant.

It's a slippery slope to socialism....and we're well down that slope now...accelerating at an ever increasing pace thanks to actions like Obama's and beliefs like yours that it's "acceptable".

[SDHornet]

Way to take all the fun out of it.

Facts aren't always fun.

My post was meant for Cappy. And the only justification for the $10B loss seems to be "people would have lost their jobs. Oh the horror."

[kalm]

They didn't do it on a whim, and the financial companies were "too big to fail" thanks to Conk (and Clinton) deregulation.

Love how you threw (and Clinton) in parentheses.

Clinton bought into reagan/greenspanonomics hook line and sinker.

[SDHornet]

So my questions aren’t legitimate? Gov should run around and throw money at private companies all on a whim so long as they are “too big to fail”?

We do that all the time in the form of subsidies. Other countries have bailed out large manufactures and banks with some success. And as mentioned earlier, the interconnectedness of the auto industry is vastly under appreciated. Think of the dealerships and vendors they use alone...janitorial, fuel, parts, pop machines, uniforms and custodial supply....

I have a buddy who owns a coffee shop in Seattle next to two dealerships. A quarter of his business came from their employees and customers.

Not saying it was right but to let GM fail would have been significant.

So any industry with a lot of interconnectedness will be first in line for a bail out if that industry falters (yes I understood the interconnectedness of the auto-industry prior to my posts in this thread)? Where is that line drawn and how much cost/risk is the Gov willing to expose the taxpayers to? Private industry gambling with house (taxpayer) money can’t be a good thing but that seems to be the precedent we are going with here on out.

[kalm]

We do that all the time in the form of subsidies. Other countries have bailed out large manufactures and banks with some success. And as mentioned earlier, the interconnectedness of the auto industry is vastly under appreciated. Think of the dealerships and vendors they use alone...janitorial, fuel, parts, pop machines, uniforms and custodial supply....

I have a buddy who owns a coffee shop in Seattle next to two dealerships. A quarter of his business came from their employees and customers.

Not saying it was right but to let GM fail would have been significant.

So any industry with a lot of interconnectedness will be first in line for a bail out if that industry falters (yes I understood the interconnectedness of the auto-industry prior to my posts in this thread)? Where is that line drawn and how much cost/risk is the Gov willing to expose the taxpayers to? Private industry gambling with house (taxpayer) money can’t be a good thing but that seems to be the precedent we are going with here on out.

Yes, and also which industries have the political power/cash. See unions and banks.

[AZGrizFan]

So any industry with a lot of interconnectedness will be first in line for a bail out if that industry falters (yes I understood the interconnectedness of the auto-industry prior to my posts in this thread)? Where is that line drawn and how much cost/risk is the Gov willing to expose the taxpayers to? Private industry gambling with house (taxpayer) money can’t be a good thing but that seems to be the precedent we are going with here on out.

Yes, and also which industries have the political power/cash. See unions and banks.

There IS no line. That's the problem. If it's politically expedient to do so, they will do it.

[Grizalltheway]

They didn't do it on a whim, and the financial companies were "too big to fail" thanks to Conk (and Clinton) deregulation.

Love how you threw (and Clinton) in parentheses.

Clinton signed off on the repeal of Glass-Steagel, but we all know conks are the all-time champs of deregulation.

[BDKJMU]

So my questions aren’t legitimate? Gov should run around and throw money at private companies all on a whim so long as they are “too big to fail”?

We do that all the time in the form of subsidies. Other countries have bailed out large manufactures and banks with some success. And as mentioned earlier, the interconnectedness of the auto industry is vastly under appreciated. Think of the dealerships and vendors they use alone...janitorial, fuel, parts, pop machines, uniforms and custodial supply....

I have a buddy who owns a coffee shop in Seattle next to two dealerships. A quarter of his business came from their employees and customers.

Not saying it was right but to let GM fail would have been significant.

No we don't. What you call a subsidy (taking less) isn't the same giving.

[kalm]

We do that all the time in the form of subsidies. Other countries have bailed out large manufactures and banks with some success. And as mentioned earlier, the interconnectedness of the auto industry is vastly under appreciated. Think of the dealerships and vendors they use alone...janitorial, fuel, parts, pop machines, uniforms and custodial supply....

I have a buddy who owns a coffee shop in Seattle next to two dealerships. A quarter of his business came from their employees and customers.

Not saying it was right but to let GM fail would have been significant.

No we don't. What you call a subsidy (taking less) isn't the same giving.

Yes it is.

[BDKJMU]

No we don't. What you call a subsidy (taking less) isn't the same giving.

Yes it is.

If someone takes $100 from you every year, and then one year they take $50, is that giving you $50?

[kalm]

Yes it is.

If someone takes $100 from you every year, and then one year they take $50, is that giving you $50?

If someone overpays you for your grain and helps you out with crop insurance or sends their Navy to insure safe passage of your product and helps pay for the clean up of your contaminants while charging a teacher a higher tax rate on her income, are you a capitalist?

[AZGrizFan]

No we don't. What you call a subsidy (taking less) isn't the same giving.

Yes it is.

Classic donk ideology.

[kalm]

Yes it is.

Classic donk ideology.

[AZGrizFan]

Classic donk ideology.

allowing you to keep more of YOUR money is not the same as giving.

[CID1990]

If GM had produced a competitive product in the last 30 years they wouldn't have needed a bailout in the first place.

Cadillac Cimmaron

Pontiac Aztec

I will just leave those right there.

[Chizzang]

allowing you to keep more of YOUR money is not the same as giving.

Meh... Kind of
We pay taxes to have the worlds most powerful military
which we use to secure global resources (see Afghanistan and Iraq)

A huge percentage of our personal money goes towards this bloated Military budget
But it is why we have some of the lowest fuel prices in the world

It's all the same / same
When I bitch about the military but eat bananas at 60 cents a pound and drive a Ford F-150 without second thought I am living in a slightly delusional state of rebellion

Now don't get me wrong - I like living there - but I get it...
If we don't have the brutal foreign policy that we have in Central and South America
Then we then pay higher prices

If we don't keep a fully functional military in Afghanistan
Then we don't get all the rare earth goodies and the oil
We can't be all things at once...

We are a Military Industrial Complex
and we live like kings because of it
Is this giant military taking more money from me in the form of taxes than it saves me elsewhere

I do not know...
And I don't like it (ethically)
but I love it when I purchase pomegranates and coffee

[SDHornet]

Love how you threw (and Clinton) in parentheses.

Clinton signed off on the repeal of Glass-Steagel, but we all know conks are the all-time champs of deregulation.

Which is why when the Dems held all of Congress it re-enacted G-S...oh wait...

[SDHornet]

If GM had produced a competitive product in the last 30 years they wouldn't have needed a bailout in the first place.

Cadillac Cimmaron

Pontiac Aztec

I will just leave those right there.

This, which is an issue I failed to point out earlier. The Gov selected to back a company that couldn’t keep pace in the global economy. Instead of letting it go under and letting the vultures pick the profitable/useful pieces off of its rotting bones, we as taxpayers are keeping the whole broke dick company afloat. Time will tell if GM can get its shit together and compete with other auto manufacturers but bailing them out offered them no such favors. If GM fails again, does the Gov step in again?

[Chizzang]

If GM had produced a competitive product in the last 30 years they wouldn't have needed a bailout in the first place.

Cadillac Cimmaron

Pontiac Aztec

I will just leave those right there.

This, which is an issue I failed to point out earlier. The Gov selected to back a company that couldn’t keep pace in the global economy. Instead of letting it go under and letting the vultures pick the profitable/useful pieces off of its rotting bones, we as taxpayers are keeping the whole broke dick company afloat. Time will tell if GM can get its shit together and compete with other auto manufacturers but bailing them out offered them no such favors. If GM fails again, does the Gov step in again?

Agreed ^
It was imperative that it be left to fail
And as you said, the good bits get re-sorted and re-launched
under better management and new labor deals

The GM debacle will go down in U.S. History as a failed government intervention