Which Among You Dupes Thought GM and Chrysler Would -- Or Could -- Pay Back Your Tax Dollars?

Post by God'sLittleAnus
Digest
The Washington Post
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
AUTOMOTIVE
"U.S. investment likely lost, GAO says"
TAXPAYERS are unlikely to recover their full investment in General
Motors or Chrysler, U.S. government investigators said Monday in the
latest review to cast doubts that the government will recoup the $80
billion it poured into the two automakers.
The Government Accountability Office concluded that General Motors and
Chrysler likely will not be valuable enough for the Treasury
Department to break even on its investment in the two auto companies
that went through bankruptcy earlier this year.
The GAO also revealed that the Obama administration is closely
scrutinizing the finances of GM and Chrysler and has set some
requirements on production even though it has said it will maintain a
hands-off approach on the automakers' daily operations.
To recover the loans Treasury gave Chrysler and GM to keep them
afloat, the automakers would have to reach valuations they did not
approach even when they were healthier.
GM spokesman Greg Martin said "if we get our job done, the government
has an excellent chance of getting a return on its investment."
Chrysler declined to comment.
-- Associated Press
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR200...

What value do you put on keeping the economy running?

John Galt

2009-11-03 22:16:53 UTC

What value do you put on keeping the economy running?

Are you seriously suggesting that there were no alternatives to the
government investing in the automakers?

JG

Mike Hunter

2009-11-04 17:49:27 UTC

Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds had lowered tax
RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the economy, rather than taking
money from us to give it too others. Why does the government never learn
from history? When Kennedy, Reagan and Bush got the Congress to lower tax
RATES, the income to the US Treasury when UP. BO and the Dim Congress
prefer to spend money we do not have to try to get the same result, not so
smart. Did they not TAKE Economics 101, or are they just stupid?

What value do you put on keeping the economy running?

Are you seriously suggesting that there were no alternatives to the
government investing in the automakers?
JG

John Galt

2009-11-04 16:55:43 UTC

This to me seemed obvious --- we moved into recession because 70% of our
economy is consumer spending, and the consumers were scared as shit so
they quit spending. Whatever we did, there needed to be consumer relief
in there, too -- and a lot of it, if you wanted a quick recovery.

Unfortunately, "tax cuts", which is really a nonpartisan economic issue,
has taken on partisan meaning in this country. So, if you're a Dem,
you'd rather die than cut taxes (even if it's the right thing to do).

Why does the government never learn

Post by Mike Hunter
from history? When Kennedy, Reagan and Bush got the Congress to lower tax
RATES, the income to the US Treasury when UP. BO and the Dim Congress
prefer to spend money we do not have to try to get the same result, not so
smart. Did they not TAKE Economics 101, or are they just stupid?

Neither. The most important thing is being ideologically pure, and if
the ideologic goal is to grow government, you never give anything back.

JG

Post by Mike Hunter

What value do you put on keeping the economy running?

Are you seriously suggesting that there were no alternatives to the
government investing in the automakers?
JG

Lamont Cranston

2009-11-04 18:22:53 UTC

Post by Mike Hunter
Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds
had lowered
tax RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the economy

Tax cuts are among the least effective ways to stimulate the
economy. For every dollar that taxes are cut, only about 30
cents of stimulus is created. Food stamps are the most
effective way. For every dollar of food stamps issued,
$1.73 of economic stimulus is created.

http://www.movingupusa.org/?tag=food-stamps

John Galt

2009-11-04 18:24:14 UTC

Post by Mike Hunter
Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds had lowered
tax RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the economy

Tax cuts are among the least effective ways to stimulate the economy.
For every dollar that taxes are cut, only about 30 cents of stimulus is
created.

You're off by half, according to both the Fed (and Christina Romer).
Greenspan's data prior to 2002 also showed the same ROI.

Regardless, in a consumer-driven slump, you're not going to get recovery
until the consumers are better off.

There are no hard and fast rules about what the right way to increase
economic activity is in a given recession. They are all different.
YOu'll remember that one of the most famous quotes of Keynes is "When
the facts change, I change my mind."

Food stamps are the most effective way.

That's correct, but you're not going to reboot consumer spending in that
fashion. This is a consumer led downturn, it doesn't reverse until the
consumer's personal balance sheets are unwound and back in order. They
have tons of debt to pay off before they start spending again.

JG

For every dollar of

food stamps issued, $1.73 of economic stimulus is created.
http://www.movingupusa.org/?tag=food-stamps

Day Brown

2009-11-07 23:25:28 UTC

Post by John Galt
Food stamps are the most effective way.

There is another.

Post by John Galt
That's correct, but you're not going to reboot consumer spending in that
fashion. This is a consumer led downturn, it doesn't reverse until the
consumer's personal balance sheets are unwound and back in order. They
have tons of debt to pay off before they start spending again.

Machiavelli said oligarchs always corrupt republics until they have all
the money and the masses are so broke they no longer have anything to
loose in a revolution. Which is why Solon, in setting up the Athenian
democracy, burned all the mortgages.

He also banned slavery so that the large landowners would no long have a
source of cheap labor to work the fields. Thus, land ownership fell back
into the hands of those competent enuf to work it themselves.

For similar reasons, the counties in my neck of Ozark woods SECEEDED
from the Confederate government in Little Rock. They were not going to
fight to protect the property rights of landed estates and slave owners.

Whether we like it or not, when the consumer class feels poor enuf, they
will find the leadership to seize the assets of the rich to rebalance
the books. And when the masses again feel they have some investment in
the system to protect and hand down to their kids, then they will be far
more energetic in developing the resources and assets to do so.

And whether we like it or not, cosumer/workers will form coops to buy,
at wholesale the same as corporations, whatever their members need, and
sell what they produce into the global market with a far lower cost of
management.

Beam Me Up Scotty

2009-11-04 18:26:19 UTC

Post by Mike Hunter
Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds had lowered
tax RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the economy

Tax cuts are among the least effective ways to stimulate the economy.
For every dollar that taxes are cut, only about 30 cents of stimulus is
created. Food stamps are the most effective way. For every dollar of
food stamps issued, $1.73 of economic stimulus is created.
http://www.movingupusa.org/?tag=food-stamps

So food stamps are worth more than the U.S. Dollar?

HHHHHhhhmmmmm?

I might actually believe that.

Lamont Cranston

2009-11-04 20:40:25 UTC

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by Lamont Cranston

Post by Mike Hunter
Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds
had lowered
tax RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the
economy

Tax cuts are among the least effective ways to stimulate
the economy.
For every dollar that taxes are cut, only about 30 cents
of stimulus
is created. Food stamps are the most effective way. For
every
dollar of food stamps issued, $1.73 of economic stimulus
is created.
http://www.movingupusa.org/?tag=food-stamps

So food stamps are worth more than the U.S. Dollar?

Your reading comprehension seems to be extremely faulty.
Neither I nor the cited article makes any such statement.

dr_jeff

2009-11-05 00:53:39 UTC

Post by Mike Hunter
Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds had lowered tax
RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the economy, rather than taking
money from us to give it too others. Why does the government never learn
from history? When Kennedy, Reagan and Bush got the Congress to lower tax
RATES, the income to the US Treasury when UP. BO and the Dim Congress
prefer to spend money we do not have to try to get the same result, not so
smart. Did they not TAKE Economics 101, or are they just stupid?

Yet Bush left the country with the biggest deficit and national debt in
history.

The big difference is that Bush was not spending the money of people
paying taxes, he was spending future taxes.

Jeff

Post by Mike Hunter

What value do you put on keeping the economy running?

Are you seriously suggesting that there were no alternatives to the
government investing in the automakers?
JG

Jeff Strickland

2009-11-05 01:03:05 UTC

Post by Mike Hunter
Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds had lowered tax
RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the economy, rather than
taking money from us to give it too others. Why does the government
never learn from history? When Kennedy, Reagan and Bush got the
Congress to lower tax RATES, the income to the US Treasury when UP. BO
and the Dim Congress prefer to spend money we do not have to try to get
the same result, not so smart. Did they not TAKE Economics 101, or are
they just stupid?

Yet Bush left the country with the biggest deficit and national debt in
history.
The big difference is that Bush was not spending the money of people
paying taxes, he was spending future taxes.
Jeff

Obama has grown the deficit by four times. Obama's debt after just 10 months
has dwarfed the debt of all eight years of the Bush Administration. And
Obama is still going.

PS
By definition, ALL deficits are funded by future taxes. Obama is spending
four times the amount of future taxes that Bush spent.

dr_jeff

2009-11-05 01:07:55 UTC

Post by Mike Hunter
Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds had lowered tax
RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the economy, rather than
taking money from us to give it too others. Why does the government
never learn from history? When Kennedy, Reagan and Bush got the
Congress to lower tax RATES, the income to the US Treasury when UP. BO
and the Dim Congress prefer to spend money we do not have to try to get
the same result, not so smart. Did they not TAKE Economics 101, or are
they just stupid?

Yet Bush left the country with the biggest deficit and national debt in
history.
The big difference is that Bush was not spending the money of people
paying taxes, he was spending future taxes.
Jeff

Obama has grown the deficit by four times. Obama's debt after just 10 months
has dwarfed the debt of all eight years of the Bush Administration. And
Obama is still going.
PS
By definition, ALL deficits are funded by future taxes. Obama is spending
four times the amount of future taxes that Bush spent.

Not true. Bush's last budget's deficit was nearly as big as Obama's
first. The big difference is that Obama has a plan to help the economy.
Unfortunately, stimulus is required.

Jeff

dr_jeff

2009-11-05 01:08:50 UTC

Jeff Strickland wrote:

<...>

Post by Jeff Strickland
PS
By definition, ALL deficits are funded by future taxes. Obama is spending
four times the amount of future taxes that Bush spent.

Not true. If the government funds have surplus, you can spend that.
Unfortunately, I don't think the gov't ever has a surplus.

Roy Blankenship

2009-11-05 01:28:07 UTC

Post by Mike Hunter
and the Dim Congress prefer to spend money we do not have to try to get
the same result, not so smart. Did they not TAKE Economics 101, or are
they just stupid?

Yet Bush left the country with the biggest deficit and national debt in
history.
The big difference is that Bush was not spending the money of people
paying taxes, he was spending future taxes.
Jeff

Obama has grown the deficit by four times. Obama's debt after just 10 months
has dwarfed the debt of all eight years of the Bush Administration. And
Obama is still going.
PS
By definition, ALL deficits are funded by future taxes. Obama is spending
four times the amount of future taxes that Bush spent.

Your post is disingenuous. Bush grabbed money and gave it to Wall St,
overseas interests, no-bid contracts, KBR, etc. Obama is trying to spend
money HERE on US to get the economy going, and you are objecting? Were you
objecting when Bush was spending us into this mess?

Jeff Strickland

2009-11-05 01:39:00 UTC

Post by Mike Hunter
Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds had lowered

tax

Post by Mike Hunter
RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the economy, rather than
taking money from us to give it too others. Why does the government
never learn from history? When Kennedy, Reagan and Bush got the
Congress to lower tax RATES, the income to the US Treasury when UP.

Post by Mike Hunter
and the Dim Congress prefer to spend money we do not have to try to get
the same result, not so smart. Did they not TAKE Economics 101, or

are

Post by Mike Hunter
they just stupid?

Yet Bush left the country with the biggest deficit and national debt in
history.
The big difference is that Bush was not spending the money of people
paying taxes, he was spending future taxes.
Jeff

Obama has grown the deficit by four times. Obama's debt after just 10

months

Post by Jeff Strickland
has dwarfed the debt of all eight years of the Bush Administration. And
Obama is still going.
PS
By definition, ALL deficits are funded by future taxes. Obama is spending
four times the amount of future taxes that Bush spent.

Wake up. Obama is doing the same thing. If he really wanted to get the
economy going, he'd be slashing yours and my taxes. He'd make sure the banks
didn't raise our credit card rates ESPECIALLY after giving them billions in
stimulous dollars -- dollars that if you and I had, we would spend stuff we
need and that would give somebody a job to make so we could buy it.

Obama is driving straight at the cliff with his foot firmly planted on the
gas pedal, AND he appears to have drained the fluid from the braking system.

Oil prices are going up because the value of the dollar is going down.
Supplies are high, demand is low, yet the price of oil is going up. That can
only happen if the value of the currency used to buy and sell oil is going
down.

Roy Blankenship

2009-11-05 04:47:34 UTC

Post by Mike Hunter
Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds had lowered

tax

Post by Mike Hunter
and the Dim Congress prefer to spend money we do not have to try to get
the same result, not so smart. Did they not TAKE Economics 101, or

are

Post by Mike Hunter
they just stupid?

Yet Bush left the country with the biggest deficit and national debt in
history.
The big difference is that Bush was not spending the money of people
paying taxes, he was spending future taxes.
Jeff

Obama has grown the deficit by four times. Obama's debt after just 10

months

Wake up. Obama is doing the same thing. If he really wanted to get the
economy going, he'd be slashing yours and my taxes. He'd make sure the banks
didn't raise our credit card rates ESPECIALLY after giving them billions in
stimulous dollars -- dollars that if you and I had, we would spend stuff we
need and that would give somebody a job to make so we could buy it.
Obama is driving straight at the cliff with his foot firmly planted on the
gas pedal, AND he appears to have drained the fluid from the braking system.
Oil prices are going up because the value of the dollar is going down.
Supplies are high, demand is low, yet the price of oil is going up. That can
only happen if the value of the currency used to buy and sell oil is going
down.

You are projecting a lot of what happened in the Bush era to Obama. Weren't
oil prices AND gas prices through the roof during the Bush reign?
And, actually, it got people started on a good path, conserving and looking
at alternative fuels and transportation.

I think there is something happening bigger than the people we see running
the country. We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, why? The money going to
Iraq could resolve health-care by itself, $12,000,000,000 a month? Why is
there no outcry about this? There is something happening that the American
people are not being told. We are there to benefit some bigger picture and
regardless of who seems to be running the store, the will of the American
people is not being assuaged. No, everyone is worried about people they will
never meet getting married, as if their relationship affects them. Geez...

Jeff Strickland

2009-11-05 16:14:28 UTC

Post by Mike Hunter
Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds had lowered

tax

Post by Mike Hunter
RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the economy, rather than
taking money from us to give it too others. Why does the

government

Post by Mike Hunter
never learn from history? When Kennedy, Reagan and Bush got the
Congress to lower tax RATES, the income to the US Treasury when UP.

Post by Mike Hunter
and the Dim Congress prefer to spend money we do not have to try to get
the same result, not so smart. Did they not TAKE Economics 101, or

are

Post by Mike Hunter
they just stupid?

Yet Bush left the country with the biggest deficit and national debt

Post by dr_jeff
history.
The big difference is that Bush was not spending the money of people
paying taxes, he was spending future taxes.
Jeff

Obama has grown the deficit by four times. Obama's debt after just 10

months

Post by Jeff Strickland
has dwarfed the debt of all eight years of the Bush Administration. And
Obama is still going.
PS
By definition, ALL deficits are funded by future taxes. Obama is

spending

Post by Jeff Strickland
four times the amount of future taxes that Bush spent.

you

Post by Jeff Strickland
objecting when Bush was spending us into this mess?

Wake up. Obama is doing the same thing. If he really wanted to get the
economy going, he'd be slashing yours and my taxes. He'd make sure the

banks

Post by Jeff Strickland
didn't raise our credit card rates ESPECIALLY after giving them billions

Post by Jeff Strickland
stimulous dollars -- dollars that if you and I had, we would spend stuff

Post by Jeff Strickland
need and that would give somebody a job to make so we could buy it.
Obama is driving straight at the cliff with his foot firmly planted on the
gas pedal, AND he appears to have drained the fluid from the braking

system.

Post by Jeff Strickland
Oil prices are going up because the value of the dollar is going down.
Supplies are high, demand is low, yet the price of oil is going up. That

can

Post by Jeff Strickland
only happen if the value of the currency used to buy and sell oil is going
down.

You are projecting a lot of what happened in the Bush era to Obama. Weren't
oil prices AND gas prices through the roof during the Bush reign?

Yes, prices were high, but demand was high and supply was low. Today, we
have little demand and full reserves. High supply and low demand _ought_ to
bring prices down.

Post by God'sLittleAnus
And, actually, it got people started on a good path, conserving and looking
at alternative fuels and transportation.
I think there is something happening bigger than the people we see running
the country. We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, why? The money going to
Iraq could resolve health-care by itself, $12,000,000,000 a month? Why is
there no outcry about this? There is something happening that the American
people are not being told. We are there to benefit some bigger picture and
regardless of who seems to be running the store, the will of the American
people is not being assuaged. No, everyone is worried about people they will
never meet getting married, as if their relationship affects them. Geez...

That argument pretends that if we weren't in Iraq there would be no health
care problems. The facts are clear, we had the same "health care problems"
before we went to Iraq as we have today, therefore there is nothing to
support the assertion that we would divert the dollars from Iraq to health
care.

Health care is poised to be taken over by government, and this represents
1/6 (17%) of the GDP. The military is about 3% of GDP.

Lamont Cranston

2009-11-09 17:22:04 UTC

Post by Mike Hunter
Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds
had
lowered tax RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow
the economy,
rather than taking money from us to give it too others.
Why does
the government never learn from history? When Kennedy,
Reagan and
Bush got the Congress to lower tax RATES, the income to
the US
Treasury when UP. BO and the Dim Congress prefer to
spend money
we do not have to try to get the same result, not so
smart. Did
they not TAKE Economics 101, or are they just stupid?

Yet Bush left the country with the biggest deficit and
national debt
in history.
The big difference is that Bush was not spending the
money of people
paying taxes, he was spending future taxes.
Jeff

Obama has grown the deficit by four times.

Wrong. The CBO projected the 2009 deficit at $1.2 trillion
based on Bush's 2009 budget and 2009 tax revenue estimates
weeks before Obama took office. The 2009 deficit belongs to
Bush.

John Galt

2009-11-05 04:25:31 UTC

Post by Mike Hunter
Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds had lowered
tax RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the economy, rather
than taking money from us to give it too others. Why does the
government never learn from history? When Kennedy, Reagan and Bush
got the Congress to lower tax RATES, the income to the US Treasury
when UP. BO and the Dim Congress prefer to spend money we do not
have to try to get the same result, not so smart. Did they not TAKE
Economics 101, or are they just stupid?

Yet Bush left the country with the biggest deficit and national debt in
history.

Yes, but tax receipts indeed increased under the lower rates. Receipts
are only one side of the equation.

Post by dr_jeff
The big difference is that Bush was not spending the money of people
paying taxes, he was spending future taxes.

Yes. But if Bush pioneered this practice, the current guy is perfecting it.

JG

Post by Mike Hunter

What value do you put on keeping the economy running?

Are you seriously suggesting that there were no alternatives to the
government investing in the automakers?
JG

alt.politics.bush

2009-11-11 15:20:23 UTC

What value do you put on keeping the economy running?

Are you seriously suggesting that there were no alternatives to the
government investing in the automakers?
JG- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I think a superior investment would be for the US military to order
upwards to 3,000 V-22 Osprey, with the option to sell delivery slots
to commerical operators and/or to surplus delivered a/c as they exceed
mission requirements.

Canuck57

2009-11-04 00:56:02 UTC

What value do you put on keeping the economy running?

A lot. That is why GM must go down. It is too much of a drag on the
good parts of the economy to keep this welching, belching big fat
diseased porker going.

Clean house of the corruption garbage and the economy will right itself.
Too much dead weight and corruption in the system. Robs from the rest
of us too.

Roy Blankenship

2009-11-04 21:25:16 UTC

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR200...

Post by alt.politics.bush
What value do you put on keeping the economy running?

A lot. That is why GM must go down. It is too much of a drag on the
good parts of the economy to keep this welching, belching big fat
diseased porker going.
Clean house of the corruption garbage and the economy will right itself.
Too much dead weight and corruption in the system. Robs from the rest
of us too.

The ramifications of GM going down would be much more broad than most people
realize. Automakers do not have dump trucks of ore going in one end and spit
cars out the other, there are hundreds of vendors that would be adversely
affected. GM makes more than cars, their divisions and subsidiaries would
die, too. I lived in northern Wisconsin in a small town of 500 people at one
point in my life, the community was fed by a plastics plant that made wiper
parts for Ford. There are hundreds of similar scenarios across the country.
The Wikipedia article on GM gives a different perspective of the global
impact the company has.

Canuck57

2009-11-07 00:12:38 UTC

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR200...

Post by alt.politics.bush
What value do you put on keeping the economy running?

A lot. That is why GM must go down. It is too much of a drag on the
good parts of the economy to keep this welching, belching big fat
diseased porker going.
Clean house of the corruption garbage and the economy will right itself.
Too much dead weight and corruption in the system. Robs from the rest
of us too.

What a crock of shit. So one city can survive we will screw everyone
coast to coast to subsidize it. Because the government is so horny for
taxes, they will leave less in everyones pocket. And everyone will buy
less. Sort of like a dog eating it's tail.

Sure, GM going down will affect a very small percentage of the economy.
But the notion that government stealing from other workers to bailing
out GM is going to work as simple as that is a dumb assed brainwashed
sheeple fodder.

The fact is families and workers coast to coast will do without to keep
the GM corruption and losses going.

It would be far cheaper to put $5 billion into an
unemployment/relocation fund and let GM sink. Any production needed to
fulful what America needs could be fulfilled by any one of a dozen auto
makers that are not welcher grubs. Want an Amercan name? Buy a Ford,
Chrysler is now foreign owned.

Just GM bullshit. Let Buffet pick GM in bankruptcy chater 7 and he will
fix GM. Start by firing everyone.

Lamont Cranston

2009-11-09 17:20:02 UTC

On Nov 3, 4:49 pm, "God'sLittleAnus"

Post by God'sLittleAnus
Digest
The Washington Post
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
AUTOMOTIVE
"U.S. investment likely lost, GAO says"
TAXPAYERS are unlikely to recover their full
investment in General
Motors or Chrysler, U.S. government investigators said
Monday in
the latest review to cast doubts that the government
will recoup
the $80 billion it poured into the two automakers.
The Government Accountability Office concluded that
General
Motors and Chrysler likely will not be valuable enough
for the
Treasury Department to break even on its investment in
the two
auto companies that went through bankruptcy earlier
this year.
The GAO also revealed that the Obama administration is
closely
scrutinizing the finances of GM and Chrysler and has
set some
requirements on production even though it has said it
will
maintain a hands-off approach on the automakers' daily
operations.
To recover the loans Treasury gave Chrysler and GM to
keep them
afloat, the automakers would have to reach valuations
they did not
approach even when they were healthier.
GM spokesman Greg Martin said "if we get our job done,
the
government has an excellent chance of getting a return
on its
investment." Chrysler declined to comment.
-- Associated Press

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR200...

What value do you put on keeping the economy running?

A lot. That is why GM must go down. It is too much of a
drag on the
good parts of the economy to keep this welching,
belching big fat
diseased porker going.
Clean house of the corruption garbage and the economy
will right
itself. Too much dead weight and corruption in the
system. Robs
from the rest of us too.

The ramifications of GM going down would be much more
broad than
most people realize. Automakers do not have dump trucks
of ore going
in one end and spit cars out the other, there are
hundreds of
vendors that would be adversely affected. GM makes more
than cars,
their divisions and subsidiaries would die, too. I lived
in northern
Wisconsin in a small town of 500 people at one point in
my life, the
community was fed by a plastics plant that made wiper
parts for
Ford. There are hundreds of similar scenarios across the
country.
The Wikipedia article on GM gives a different perspective
of the
global impact the company has.

What a crock of shit.

Yet another economically illiterate raises his ridge-browed
head. Home schooled, huh?

Canuck57

2009-11-13 04:53:26 UTC

Post by God'sLittleAnus
Digest
The Washington Post
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
AUTOMOTIVE
"U.S. investment likely lost, GAO says"
TAXPAYERS are unlikely to recover their full investment in General
Motors or Chrysler, U.S. government investigators said Monday in
the latest review to cast doubts that the government will recoup
the $80 billion it poured into the two automakers.
The Government Accountability Office concluded that General
Motors and Chrysler likely will not be valuable enough for the
Treasury Department to break even on its investment in the two
auto companies that went through bankruptcy earlier this year.
The GAO also revealed that the Obama administration is closely
scrutinizing the finances of GM and Chrysler and has set some
requirements on production even though it has said it will
maintain a hands-off approach on the automakers' daily operations.
To recover the loans Treasury gave Chrysler and GM to keep them
afloat, the automakers would have to reach valuations they did not
approach even when they were healthier.
GM spokesman Greg Martin said "if we get our job done, the
government has an excellent chance of getting a return on its
investment." Chrysler declined to comment.
-- Associated Press

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR200...

Post by alt.politics.bush
What value do you put on keeping the economy running?

A lot. That is why GM must go down. It is too much of a drag on the
good parts of the economy to keep this welching, belching big fat
diseased porker going.
Clean house of the corruption garbage and the economy will right
itself. Too much dead weight and corruption in the system. Robs
from the rest of us too.

The ramifications of GM going down would be much more broad than
most people realize. Automakers do not have dump trucks of ore going
in one end and spit cars out the other, there are hundreds of
vendors that would be adversely affected. GM makes more than cars,
their divisions and subsidiaries would die, too. I lived in northern
Wisconsin in a small town of 500 people at one point in my life, the
community was fed by a plastics plant that made wiper parts for
Ford. There are hundreds of similar scenarios across the country.
The Wikipedia article on GM gives a different perspective of the
global impact the company has.

What a crock of shit.

Yet another economically illiterate raises his ridge-browed head. Home
schooled, huh?

Nope, basic economics. By keeping GM alive everyone else is poorer, and
thus spends less including auomobilies. Like a fish eating its own
tail. Just a shift of wealth, taking more from people all over our
nations for corporations and corruption.

Hey, I got laid off in this mess in 2008 and in auto and my head office
was in Wisconsin (but I live in Canada, long story). Like many, we find
out that bailouts are for the rich, the insiders, the executives and
some dark hole which no one seems to know where it goes.

Bet the founders of the united states would roll over in their graves to
know the US tax system is now used by corporations for revenue.

And from an investment perspective, no wonder Chinese blow us away, they
don't have to support bailouts, corruption and Government Motors, t'll
debt do us part.

jose el fontanero

2009-11-04 23:33:39 UTC

What value do you put on keeping the economy running?

A lot. That is why GM must go down. It is too much of a drag on the
good parts of the economy to keep this welching, belching big fat
diseased porker going.
Clean house of the corruption garbage and the economy will right itself.
Too much dead weight and corruption in the system. Robs from the rest
of us too.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

You must be referring to the US Federal government. Right?

jose el fontanero

2009-11-03 22:25:54 UTC

Obviously, the dupes who voted for the Obama.

Canuck57

2009-11-04 00:54:01 UTC