[TheRealVille]

I got this email from GM today, they are paid in full plus interest.

We value and appreciate your loyalty more than anything. We are proud to announce we have repaid our government loan – in full, with interest, five years ahead of the original schedule. We realize we still have more to do. Our goal is to exceed every expectation you've set for us. We're designing, building and selling the best cars and trucks in the world. Like the award-winning Chevy Malibu, the all-new Buick LaCrosse, the versatile Cadillac CTS Sport Wagon and the innovative GMC Terrain, just to name a few. As we move into the future, we're thankful to have loyal owners like you. We invite you to learn more about the new GM and join our community, by visiting gm.com. And once again, thank you for your support.

[Wildcatk23]

I got this email from GM today, they are paid in full plus interest.

:Thumbs:

[Hoot Gibson]

What GM did not tell you is where the money came from to repay the loan. Here is a hint. The money did not come from GM's profits.

[Wildcatk23]

The answer is a $16.4 billion escrow account set up by the Obama administration during GM’s bankruptcy. Those funds are in exchange for the GM shares that make up part of the government’s stake in the company.

[lawrencefan]

Yeah, it may have something to do with 65,000 layoffs and elimination of the pensions associated with those jobs......

[NEXT]

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/2...efore+June

"Once the loans are paid back, GM would still owe $45.3 billion to the government. That will be repaid with the stock offering, which GM Chief Financial Officer Chris Liddell said would take place “when the markets and the company are ready.”

Liddell said earlier this month that GM could report a profit as early as this year. GM said it lost $3.4 billion in the fourth quarter of 2009 on revenues of $32.3 billion.

The U.S. government owns about 61 percent of the Detroit automaker, which came in exchange for the aid."

This reads that loans are paid back, but the government still owns 61% and if the other $45B is repaid in stock the government will increase its ownership. Paying back the loans is like paying back bonds. And to get the bond-like loans GM had to give the Federal Government contolling interest. As I read the article the Federal Government will continue to have controlling interest.

[Old School]

Paying back TARP loans with TARP money, not a bad idea if you don't get caught.
But Grassley said in his letter that a Securities and Exchange Commision[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/22/grassley-slams-gm-administration-loans-repaid-bailout-money/#"]

[/URL]form filed by GM showed that $6.7 billion of the tens of billions the company received was sitting in an escrow account and available to be used for repayment. He called on Geithner to provide more information about why the company was allowed to use bailout money to repay bailout money, and how much of the remaining escrow money GM would be allowed to keep.

"The bottom line seems to be that the TARP loans were 'repaid' with other TARP funds in a Treasury escrow account. The TARP loans were not repaid from money GM is earning selling cars, as GM and the administration have claimed in their speeches, press releases and television commercials," he wrote.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/...out-money/

[thecavemaster]

Just so we're all clear, Right Wing Flirties: it is your position that GM should have been allowed to fail? The indicators are that GM is going to recover, going to become solvent and profitable. One would hope that they pay back the monies they owe via profits they earn, which, of course, requires some oversight and regulation. Picture a house on fire. A man in pajamas stands outside and waves the fire department folks go away, saying, "I am a libertarian."

[NEXT]

Just so we're all clear, Right Wing Flirties: it is your position that GM should have been allowed to fail? The indicators are that GM is going to recover, going to become solvent and profitable. One would hope that they pay back the monies they owe via profits they earn, which, of course, requires some oversight and regulation. Picture a house on fire. A man in pajamas stands outside and waves the fire department folks go away, saying, "I am a libertarian."

I think everything that could have failed should have been allowed to fail.

People who saved and had no debt would be rewarded and wealth would be built when the economy recovered.

[thecavemaster]

I think everything that could have failed should have been allowed to fail.

People who saved and had no debt would be rewarded and wealth would be built when the economy recovered.

As if the economy worked in the simplistic, reward/punishment way you deem? A consumer driven economy needs spenders... Also, I think your "remedy" here would have sunk the country as a response to the Great Depression.

[notamoocher]

Just so we're all clear, Right Wing Flirties: it is your position that GM should have been allowed to fail? The indicators are that GM is going to recover, going to become solvent and profitable. One would hope that they pay back the monies they owe via profits they earn, which, of course, requires some oversight and regulation. Picture a house on fire. A man in pajamas stands outside and waves the fire department folks go away, saying, "I am a libertarian."

YES, that business would have moved to companies like Ford and others. And the man standing in his pajamas, if he had not been taxed so much, he would not have been using that space heater trying to save money.

[Hoot Gibson]

Having the federal government running GM and watching Government Motors repay a loan "with interest" using federal bailout money is failure. General Motors is no longer a viable private sector company.

[Old School]

Just so we're all clear, Right Wing Flirties: it is your position that GM should have been allowed to fail? The indicators are that GM is going to recover, going to become solvent and profitable. One would hope that they pay back the monies they owe via profits they earn, which, of course, requires some oversight and regulation. Picture a house on fire. A man in pajamas stands outside and waves the fire department folks go away, saying, "I am a libertarian."

Is it your position that every business large or small should be bailed out even if there's gross mismanagement? or Should every citizen be bailed out whenever they fail to manage their own finances?

Should we be responsible for everyone who can't or won't properly manage their finances?

[thecavemaster]

Is it your position that every business large or small should be bailed out even if there's gross mismanagement? or Should every citizen be bailed out whenever they fail to manage their own finances?

Should we be responsible for everyone who can't or won't properly manage their finances?

Just so we're clear, and crystal, your continual either/or, black/white reasoning is flawed. The issue isn't that because we bailed out GM that Fred and Mary Krump, wasteful spenders and extrvagant borrowers now get bailed out. GM is a huge automaker that casts a huge boulder of ripple in the economic pond. No, we should not be responsible in your above rhetorical for each and all instance of mismanagement. However, surely we can make distinctions broader than you're either/or parameter indicates.

[Old School]

Just so we're clear, and crystal, your continual either/or, black/white reasoning is flawed. The issue isn't that because we bailed out GM that Fred and Mary Krump, wasteful spenders and extrvagant borrowers now get bailed out. GM is a huge automaker that casts a huge boulder of ripple in the economic pond. No, we should not be responsible in your above rhetorical for each and all instance of mismanagement. However, surely we can make distinctions broader than you're either/or parameter indicates.

What do you suggest?

[thecavemaster]

[/COLOR]

What do you suggest?

A measure of the magnitude of the ripple on the overall economy of a region, of a state, of the nation. Also, if GM reasons faultily that SUV's are the way to go, calculating that fuel costs will go down or that Americans don't care, etc. etc., it seems different to me than a couple buying a house at $350,000 when their "real value" position would have suggested a $150,000 home to have been appropriate. Of course, the whole housing/foreclosure crisis has a lot of folk lining up at the culpability trough.

[Old School]

A measure of the magnitude of the ripple on the overall economy of a region, of a state, of the nation. Also, if GM reasons faultily that SUV's are the way to go, calculating that fuel costs will go down or that Americans don't care, etc. etc., it seems different to me than a couple buying a house at $350,000 when their "real value" position would have suggested a $150,000 home to have been appropriate. Of course, the whole housing/foreclosure crisis has a lot of folk lining up at the culpability trough.

Shouldn't the magnitude either to bailout or not, been considered before proceeding with the bailout? To date the government has bailed out banks, and auto industries. Since then many others have ask for bail outs, example, Ford wanted money until they realized that they would also become government motors II. Several other industries ask for bail outs, and it has now become the norm for everyone to expect help from the government for their bad decisions or management failures.

How can GM or anyother auto maker calculate fuel cost when we have no idea what the cost per gallon will be next month let alone 3 years from now.

[thecavemaster]

Shouldn't the magnitude either to bailout or not, been considered before proceeding with the bailout? To date the government has bailed out banks, and auto industries. Since then many others have ask for bail outs, example, Ford wanted money until they realized that they would also become government motors II. Several other industries ask for bail outs, and it has now become the norm for everyone to expect help from the government for their bad decisions or management failures.

How can GM or anyother auto maker calculate fuel cost when we have no idea what the cost per gallon will be next month let alone 3 years from now.

I don't necessarily disagree with your point, Old School, in your first paragraph. As to the "fuel cost" point, that was the point I was making: business decisions at the level GM is/was making them often require projections and assumptions that aren't viewed as risky within the business model.... thus, culpability might be assessed as a bit lower than the Krumps. However, Obama's motive was NOT to move the country toward socialism, that argument is scare tactics politics plain and simple.

[Hoot Gibson]

Financial projections and business plans devised in the private sector are sometimes flawed but they are almost never as wildly inaccurate as government cost projections. Obama does not want to save the private sector, he seeks to control it - pure and simple. Central planning failed in the old Soviet Union Union and it will not work here either.

[Old School]

I don't necessarily disagree with your point, Old School, in your first paragraph. As to the "fuel cost" point, that was the point I was making: business decisions at the level GM is/was making them often require projections and assumptions that aren't viewed as risky within the business model.... thus, culpability might be assessed as a bit lower than the Krumps. However, Obama's motive was NOT to move the country toward socialism, that argument is scare tactics politics plain and simple.

When companies sign union contracts through out the years knowing that they could lead them into bankruptcy, or agreeing to pay huge benifit packages even while they are losing money is bad management period. These numbers are not assumptions they know the contract requirements, however I realize they do have to assume/predict what will be the hot ticket down the road.

Concerning Barry and his socialist agenda, I strongly disagree. Because he's thinks the libs may lose their majority this year, he is pushing harder toward socialism.

[thecavemaster]

When companies sign union contracts through out the years knowing that they could lead them into bankruptcy, or agreeing to pay huge benifit packages even while they are losing money is bad management period. These numbers are not assumptions they know the contract requirements, however I realize they do have to assume/predict what will be the hot ticket down the road.

Concerning Barry and his socialist agenda, I strongly disagree. Because he's thinks the libs may lose their majority this year, he is pushing harder toward socialism.

Barack Obama is NOT a socialist, does not believe in the nationalizing of industry and such. The point was made by a prominent presedential historian recently that Barack Obama is pretty much what a moderate Republican would have looked like in the 1970's... remember, Gerald Ford appointed John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court. To think on that for a while is to gain some perspective on the tremendous idealogical shifts IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY over the last thirty years.

[Hoot Gibson]

Barack Obama is NOT a socialist, does not believe in the nationalizing of industry and such. The point was made by a prominent presedential historian recently that Barack Obama is pretty much what a moderate Republican would have looked like in the 1970's... remember, Gerald Ford appointed John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court. To think on that for a while is to gain some perspective on the tremendous idealogical shifts IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY over the last thirty years.

Some of us are old enough to have lived through the Nixon and Ford years. Obama is far to the left of either of them and he is even to the left of the 70s version of Jimmy Carter. Nixon, Ford, and Carter were lousy presidents but that is about all that they had in common with the socialist residing in the White House today.

As for "historians" - well when they are not writing history, they are attempting to revise it. Trying to paint Obama as the new Ford is a feeble attempt at a total rewrite.

[Beetle01]

Bigger, larger companies have failed in this country before and we are still here. Bailouts are ridiculous. I could maybe understand it if some natural disaster severely affected a large company, but poor business management and wastefulness is not a reason for the tax payers to have to carry the burden of a company like GM.

[Wildcatk23]

Bigger, larger companies have failed in this country before and we are still here. Bailouts are ridiculous. I could maybe understand it if some natural disaster severely affected a large company, but poor business management and wastefulness is not a reason for the tax payers to have to carry the burden of a company like GM.

No Matter who the president is!

[thecavemaster]

Some of us are old enough to have lived through the Nixon and Ford years. Obama is far to the left of either of them and he is even to the left of the 70s version of Jimmy Carter. Nixon, Ford, and Carter were lousy presidents but that is about all that they had in common with the socialist residing in the White House today.

As for "historians" - well when they are not writing history, they are attempting to revise it. Trying to paint Obama as the new Ford is a feeble attempt at a total rewrite.

Barack Obama is not a socialist. He is a "fair scales" capitalist. Have you noticed, Hoot, in the last thirty years how much more monopoly exists in this country in several key industries? How do you explain that?

[Hoot Gibson]

Barack Obama is not a socialist. He is a "fair scales" capitalist. Have you noticed, Hoot, in the last thirty years how much more monopoly exists in this country in several key industries? How do you explain that?

If Obama were a "fair scales" capitalist, then he would let large, bloated, unprofitable corporations fail instead of raiding the non-existent public treasury to keep them afloat.

As for monopolies, the only real monopolies that I have seen rise involve the government. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Government Motors, SEIU - to name a few. What are the monopolies of which you speak?

[thecavemaster]

If Obama were a "fair scales" capitalist, then he would let large, bloated, unprofitable corporations fail instead of raiding the non-existent public treasury to keep them afloat.

As for monopolies, the only real monopolies that I have seen rise involve the government. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Government Motors, SEIU - to name a few. What are the monopolies of which you speak?

Media outlets, telecommunications industry, energy industry... By the way, did you see the CNN report on the retired guy who had no insurance who needed a thyroid operation? Price in America: $33,000 average Price in Wales (where he eventually had it done... including air fare): $3,300. He's fine; in fact, he's great.

[thecavemaster]

I'm not sure a "fair scales" capitalist is going to allow thousands upon thousands of American workers to float in the breeze. Time will tell, Hoot, but I've got a hunch that GM is going to thrive, with a help from the kings of secret, Toyota... oh what a secret!

[Hoot Gibson]

Media outlets, telecommunications industry, energy industry... By the way, did you see the CNN report on the retired guy who had no insurance who needed a thyroid operation? Price in America: $33,000 average Price in Wales (where he eventually had it done... including air fare): $3,300. He's fine; in fact, he's great.

What evidence do you have that any of the industries you mentioned are dominated by monopolies? Years ago, if you wanted to watch the news, you had three choices - ABC, NBC, or CBS. If you wanted to make a long distance phone call, then your choice was AT&T. As for energy, you could not be any more wrong. This nation's largest oil company is dwarfed by the largest oil company in the world, which is run by the Chinese government. Our oil companies are relatively minor players in the market. As for coal companies, government regulators have put many small companies out of business, so there has been some consolidation in the industry but no company holds anything approaching a monopoly.

To ask me if I saw a CNN report is crazy. CNN does not have a monopoly on the news, so fortunately I do not need to depend on it for news. However, I did watch Obama's own HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, admitting in a Congressional hearing televised by C-SPAN that money set aside for high risk insurance pools will run out several years early and that the administration has no idea what the true cost of the program will be.

Government attempts to control costs never work. Either costs go up anyway, black markets emerge to fill the demand, or rationing of services takes place - or all of the above. Maybe the taxpayers of Wales subsidized the surgery in your example or maybe the patient simply got lucky. However, people willing to pay a cash fee for services can almost always negotiate a better deal than when an insurance company is footing the bill.

[thecavemaster]

What evidence do you have that any of the industries you mentioned are dominated by monopolies? Years ago, if you wanted to watch the news, you had three choices - ABC, NBC, or CBS. If you wanted to make a long distance phone call, then your choice was AT&T. As for energy, you could not be any more wrong. This nation's largest oil company is dwarfed by the largest oil company in the world, which is run by the Chinese government. Our oil companies are relatively minor players in the market. As for coal companies, government regulators have put many small companies out of business, so there has been some consolidation in the industry but no company holds anything approaching a monopoly.

To ask me if I saw a CNN report is crazy. CNN does not have a monopoly on the news, so fortunately I do not need to depend on it for news. However, I did watch Obama's own HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, admitting in a Congressional hearing televised by C-SPAN that money set aside for high risk insurance pools will run out several years early and that the administration has no idea what the true cost of the program will be.

Government attempts to control costs never work. Either costs go up anyway, black markets emerge to fill the demand, or rationing of services takes place - or all of the above. Maybe the taxpayers of Wales subsidized the surgery in your example or maybe the patient simply got lucky. However, people willing to pay a cash fee for services can almost always negotiate a better deal than when an insurance company is footing the bill.

Funny stuff.... you know, man, it's interesting: I find you just as big a trip as you find me. We're so far apart we may well meet where the wrap around effect occurs. "To ask me if I saw a CNN report is crazy".... It was a rhetorical question, bro. The patient didn't get lucky. He paid the going rate in Wales after a price check and beat the US price by $30,000. Quit paddling in a river in Africa, man.