Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

About a week old news..

"Government sells last of its GM shares

U.S. taxpayers no longer own any of automaker General Motors. The Treasury sold the last of its remaining 31.1 million GM shares today. It started with 500 million shares in 2010.

The taxpayer loss on the GM bailout is $10.5 billion. The Treasury department said it recovered $39 billion from selling its GM stake, and had put $49.5 billion of taxpayer money directly into the GM bailout.

The total bailout rises to $51 billion, including another $1.5 billion that Treasury put into programs to keep GM suppliers afloat and to make sure owners' warranties were honored, plus some into the old GMAC finance company that's now known as Ally — separate from a much larger Ally bailout...."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/car ... e/3925515/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ProPublica shows 11.4 billion loss:
http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm more interested to see how Mary Barra does as the new CEO. She's a GM "lifer" with a strong interest in new product development.

I won't ever buy a GM product.

Hope they fail again.

Cluck U wrote:I won't ever buy a GM product.

Hope they fail again.

I've never bought a GM product. I really admire Ford for refusing bailout money and look where it's gotten them.


I just wish I had held onto my Ford and Citi stock. I bought Ford around $2 and Citigroup around $11.

Oh well, hopefully i'll have more money to invest the next time the economy tanks.

Drop in the bucket in terms of government waste. The government did need an extra deduction this year anyways.

BDKJMU wrote:About a week old news..

"Government sells last of its GM shares

U.S. taxpayers no longer own any of automaker General Motors. The Treasury sold the last of its remaining 31.1 million GM shares today. It started with 500 million shares in 2010.

The taxpayer loss on the GM bailout is $10.5 billion. The Treasury department said it recovered $39 billion from selling its GM stake, and had put $49.5 billion of taxpayer money directly into the GM bailout.

The total bailout rises to $51 billion, including another $1.5 billion that Treasury put into programs to keep GM suppliers afloat and to make sure owners' warranties were honored, plus some into the old GMAC finance company that's now known as Ally — separate from a much larger Ally bailout...."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/car ... e/3925515/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course, from the same article and conveniently edited from BJUNK's post.......

The Obama administration emphasized today that the loss it took on GM shares was far less costly than allowing GM to fail.

"Inaction could have cost the broader economy more than one million jobs, billions in lost personal savings, and significantly reduced economic production," Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said in a statement.

A majority of people found the bailout to be a positive thing, you whackjob Conk mouth-breather.

Dumb fucking superficial Conks........

Phew, thanks for putting my mind at ease Capn. I knew all would be well and that this administration has a stellar economic track record; you know what with the Obama Administration also telling us things like the ACA would lower health insurance costs and wisely investing money in green energy firms that wouldn't fail; just to name a few. All is well.

I fail to understand how inaction would have cost us billions while action actually did/will cost us billions. Can someone make sense of this for me?

SDHornet wrote:Phew, thanks for putting my mind at ease Capn. I knew all would be well and that this administration has a stellar economic track record; you know what with the Obama Administration also telling us things like the ACA would lower health insurance costs and wisely investing money in green energy firms that wouldn't fail; just to name a few. All is well.

I fail to understand how inaction would have cost us billions while action actually did/will cost us billions. Can someone make sense of this for me?

Are you THAT dumb, Horny?

SDHornet wrote:Phew, thanks for putting my mind at ease Capn. I knew all would be well and that this administration has a stellar economic track record; you know what with the Obama Administration also telling us things like the ACA would lower health insurance costs and wisely investing money in green energy firms that wouldn't fail; just to name a few. All is well.

I fail to understand how inaction would have cost us billions while action actually did/will cost us billions. Can someone make sense of this for me?

With GM going under, all those employees would be out of work and going on unemployment (most of them.) Also, all the domestic suppliers, people involved in transportation, car dealerships, finance companies would all lose the economic impact of the vehicles not being built, not to mention the loss of all State and Federal taxes.

What's that impact? I don't know. Is immediate impact worth more than $10B? I don't know. But still, $10B is a lot of money to lose.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/danbigman/2 ... facturing/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ibanez wrote:

SDHornet wrote:Phew, thanks for putting my mind at ease Capn. I knew all would be well and that this administration has a stellar economic track record; you know what with the Obama Administration also telling us things like the ACA would lower health insurance costs and wisely investing money in green energy firms that wouldn't fail; just to name a few. All is well.

I fail to understand how inaction would have cost us billions while action actually did/will cost us billions. Can someone make sense of this for me?

With GM going under, all those employees would be out of work and going on unemployment (most of them.) Also, all the domestic suppliers, people involved in transportation, car dealerships, finance companies would all lose the economic impact of the vehicles not being built, not to mention the loss of all State and Federal taxes.

The key group is the highlighted. Every bolt and screw manufacturer, glass companies, composite suppliers, vinyl manufacturers, headlamps, audio, EVERY little thing that goes in a car.....not to mention the hundreds, thousands of different vendors that service each and every supplier from uniform services to laundry to tool repair to electricians to restocking the vending machines to temp workers. The list goes on and on and on......

You want "trickle down, SuperHorny? You got it by not bailing out those automakers.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:About a week old news..

"Government sells last of its GM shares

U.S. taxpayers no longer own any of automaker General Motors. The Treasury sold the last of its remaining 31.1 million GM shares today. It started with 500 million shares in 2010.

The taxpayer loss on the GM bailout is $10.5 billion. The Treasury department said it recovered $39 billion from selling its GM stake, and had put $49.5 billion of taxpayer money directly into the GM bailout.

The total bailout rises to $51 billion, including another $1.5 billion that Treasury put into programs to keep GM suppliers afloat and to make sure owners' warranties were honored, plus some into the old GMAC finance company that's now known as Ally — separate from a much larger Ally bailout...."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/car ... e/3925515/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course, from the same article and conveniently edited from BJUNK's post.......

The Obama administration emphasized today that the loss it took on GM shares was far less costly than allowing GM to fail.

"Inaction could have cost the broader economy more than one million jobs, billions in lost personal savings, and significantly reduced economic production," Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said in a statement.

Turned a "possible" into an absolute certainty. Congratulations, Donks.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:




Of course, from the same article and conveniently edited from BJUNK's post.......

The Obama administration emphasized today that the loss it took on GM shares was far less costly than allowing GM to fail.

"Inaction could have cost the broader economy more than one million jobs, billions in lost personal savings, and significantly reduced economic production," Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said in a statement.

Turned a "possible" into an absolute certainty. Congratulations, Donks.

That all you got?

What a dork. YOU KNOW it was the right thing to do, Z. Your Conk portfolio would be flatter than a 9 yr old girl without that rescue!

Cap'n Cat wrote:YOU KNOW it was the right thing to do, Z. Your Conk portfolio would be flatter than a 9 yr old girl without that rescue!

And YOU know I've been against any/all bailouts from the very beginning. This country is going to eventually need a "reset" and we're ultimately just delaying the inevitable with these faux "bailouts". Who's going to bail out America? Because that day is rapidly approaching...

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:YOU KNOW it was the right thing to do, Z. Your Conk portfolio would be flatter than a 9 yr old girl without that rescue!

And YOU know I've been against any/all bailouts from the very beginning. This country is going to eventually need a "reset" and we're ultimately just delaying the inevitable with these faux "bailouts". Who's going to bail out America? Because that day is rapidly approaching...

And I don't disagree.

Z, regardless, it was something that had to happen at the time. It was an investment in our nation. Yeah, it appears there was a loss, but it could have/would have been much worse. I know a sharp guy like you can see that.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
With GM going under, all those employees would be out of work and going on unemployment (most of them.) Also, all the domestic suppliers, people involved in transportation, car dealerships, finance companies would all lose the economic impact of the vehicles not being built, not to mention the loss of all State and Federal taxes.

The key group is the highlighted. Every bolt and screw manufacturer, glass companies, composite suppliers, vinyl manufacturers, headlamps, audio, EVERY little thing that goes in a car.....not to mention the hundreds, thousands of different vendors that service each and every supplier from uniform services to laundry to tool repair to electricians to restocking the vending machines to temp workers. The list goes on and on and on......

You want "trickle down, SuperHorny? You got it by not bailing out those automakers.

Americans would be buying just as many cars. There would have been even more growth of auto manufacturers in the south, most of which aren't GM plants, where there has been tremendous growth in auto manufacturing. The trickle down would have been a trickle shift from the upper midwest to the south...

BDKJMU wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:
The key group is the highlighted. Every bolt and screw manufacturer, glass companies, composite suppliers, vinyl manufacturers, headlamps, audio, EVERY little thing that goes in a car.....not to mention the hundreds, thousands of different vendors that service each and every supplier from uniform services to laundry to tool repair to electricians to restocking the vending machines to temp workers. The list goes on and on and on......

You want "trickle down, SuperHorny? You got it by not bailing out those automakers.

Americans would be buying just as many cars. There would have been even more growth of auto manufacturers in the south, most of which aren't GM plants, where there has been tremendous growth in auto manufacturing. The trickle down would have been a trickle shift from the upper midwest to the south...

Would have accelerated the inevitable in Detroit, which would have been a good thing.

Who can argue with that logic?

Ibanez wrote:

SDHornet wrote:Phew, thanks for putting my mind at ease Capn. I knew all would be well and that this administration has a stellar economic track record; you know what with the Obama Administration also telling us things like the ACA would lower health insurance costs and wisely investing money in green energy firms that wouldn't fail; just to name a few. All is well.

I fail to understand how inaction would have cost us billions while action actually did/will cost us billions. Can someone make sense of this for me?

With GM going under, all those employees would be out of work and going on unemployment (most of them.) Also, all the domestic suppliers, people involved in transportation, car dealerships, finance companies would all lose the economic impact of the vehicles not being built, not to mention the loss of all State and Federal taxes.

What's that impact? I don't know. Is immediate impact worth more than $10B? I don't know. But still, $10B is a lot of money to lose.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/danbigman/2 ... facturing/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And that is my point. Either way it looks like a bad move. Did this GM bailout only delay the inevitable? Time will tell but it GM goes under than all that has happened was a waste of more money and the time a recovery could have taken hold in.

Our government has taken a position that some companies are "too big to fail". That philosophy is a death spiral to our economy, our government and our way of life. It's ALL inevitable now, SD.

AZGrizFan wrote:Our government has taken a position that some companies are "too big to fail". That philosophy is a death spiral to our economy, our government and our way of life. It's ALL inevitable now, SD.

Then move to Russia, you Conk mort. They got it figgered out.

SDHornet wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
With GM going under, all those employees would be out of work and going on unemployment (most of them.) Also, all the domestic suppliers, people involved in transportation, car dealerships, finance companies would all lose the economic impact of the vehicles not being built, not to mention the loss of all State and Federal taxes.

What's that impact? I don't know. Is immediate impact worth more than $10B? I don't know. But still, $10B is a lot of money to lose.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/danbigman/2 ... facturing/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And that is my point. Either way it looks like a bad move. Did this GM bailout only delay the inevitable? Time will tell but it GM goes under than all that has happened was a waste of more money and the time a recovery could have taken hold in.

You're still a bozo, Horny. The pain of those companies failing woulda been catastrophic.

Assholes here jump on government as somehow "bad", which is a lie (politics is bad). The bailout was a grand portrait of government working in concert with American business - come in, help, get out. We should applaud this sort of thing. Government isn't going away, rubes.

Cap'n Cat wrote: You're still a bozo, Horny. The pain of those companies failing woulda been catastrophic.

Assholes here jump on government as somehow "bad", which is a lie (politics is bad). The bailout was a grand portrait of government working in concert with American business - come in, help, get out. We should applaud this sort of thing. Government isn't going away, rubes.

So then the answer to this question should be relatively easy to answer:

Has the economy fully recovered or is steadily recovering from all the government money infused into it? If yes then what economic indicators support this?

The idea that gov stepped in and got out and everything worked out well doesn't seem right when taxpayers are eating a $10B loss.

SDHornet wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote: You're still a bozo, Horny. The pain of those companies failing woulda been catastrophic.

Assholes here jump on government as somehow "bad", which is a lie (politics is bad). The bailout was a grand portrait of government working in concert with American business - come in, help, get out. We should applaud this sort of thing. Government isn't going away, rubes.

So then the answer to this question should be relatively easy to answer:

Has the economy fully recovered or is steadily recovering from all the government money infused into it? If yes then what economic indicators support this?

The idea that gov stepped in and got out and everything worked out well doesn't seem right when taxpayers are eating a $10B loss.

Sorry, Horned Up. There is no benefit trying to convince you. Keep loading that bowl.

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”?