Bailouts were profitable

[autigeremt 6,600]

"But we can prevent it as long as we stop believing the myth from Wall Street that being "too big to fail" is a necessary requisite for competing in the global market"

I'm afraid that train has left the station. It's "easier" for them to gamble our tax dollars than their own money...especially if there's an added "return" on an investment towards a campaign or political machine. I applaud Ford for not taking the money, but I know why GM and others did. "IF" we are to do this again with a manufacturer there needs to be a lock tight incentive to use that money in the US and not overseas. I for one am against using public dollars to bail out industry.

[homersapien 11,367]

"But we can prevent it as long as we stop believing the myth from Wall Street that being "too big to fail" is a necessary requisite for competing in the global market"

I'm afraid that train has left the station. It's "easier" for them to gamble our tax dollars than their own money...especially if there's an added "return" on an investment towards a campaign or political machine. I applaud Ford for not taking the money, but I know why GM and others did. "IF" we are to do this again with a manufacturer there needs to be a lock tight incentive to use that money in the US and not overseas. I for one am against using public dollars to bail out industry.

I agree. It's left the station but that doesn't mean it can't be derailed.

[DKW 86 7,419]

"But we can prevent it as long as we stop believing the myth from Wall Street that being "too big to fail" is a necessary requisite for competing in the global market"

I'm afraid that train has left the station. It's "easier" for them to gamble our tax dollars than their own money...especially if there's an added "return" on an investment towards a campaign or political machine. I applaud Ford for not taking the money, but I know why GM and others did. "IF" we are to do this again with a manufacturer there needs to be a lock tight incentive to use that money in the US and not overseas. I for one am against using public dollars to bail out industry.

I agree. It's left the station but that doesn't mean it can't be derailed.

homer you are so pathetic. You are insanely stoopid if you think this stuff is not now precedence for every corporate malfeasance case from this day forward.

It is now policy in the US. The same "horrible scenarios" will be repeated the next time and 'too big to fail/jail" is now policy from now on. So get over it. You are smoking crack if you think that it is not going to be Economics 101 next time this happens. The banks are bigger. The insurance companies are bigger. etc. The UAW more powerful than ever.

Lessons:

DO NOT BUY BONDS EVER, even collateralized bonds are essentially worthless in a downturn, the US Fed Govt says so.

DO NOT LET BIG CORPS OWE YOU MONEY. The debts will be wiped out and your company and your employees will be ruined.

Bankruptcy laws have been rewritten to forever benefit the donors of the party in power.

There is no criminalization of any action by any corporate executive anywhere in America.

No prosecutions, no investigations of any malfeasance or improper loans will ever occur again.

Caveat emptor baby...

[DKW 86 7,419]

The auto bailouts were not profitable in fact they lost right at $10 billion dollars. When losing $10 billion becomes profitable, Tex, let me know. The bank bailouts made money but, like I said, the auto stock purchases lost a LOT of tax payer money

When it averts a more costly collapse.

yea, because some economist was paid to make a study that stated that eleventy bajillions folks would lose their jobs if we didnt bend over and grab our ankles and let a bunch of corporate crooks go scot free...yea, thats the ticket.

I'll have some of what tex and homer are drinking as soon as i get off work today. I got to go make some money so i can pay my share of that $37BN that was stolen from the American Taxpayer and bondholders.

This was Govt Motors Welfare.

GM could be paying it back.

They never will though.

They were never going to be asked to either.

While you freakin retards continue defending the indefensible please ask yourselves this:

What could the US Govt have gotten for that repaid money?

VA Hospitals that work?

Disabled Veterans that are better cared for?

Better Care for the Elderly?

Maybe better student loan rates?

More jobs thru infrastructure financing?

Headstart funding?

Better prenatal care?

Better treatment of ebola patients?

Aids Research?

Cancer Research?

No, what we got was another bitch slap across the face of the rest of the US Workforce as GM was given another sweetheart deal with GM Welfare.

Chrysler and the banks, i am not upset about. They honestly repaid the debts. Should we have given them the money or just loan guarantees is a good question though.

But GM, a company fully capable now of repaying the borrowed money, will never do that. They will never be asked to either because it might embarrass someone...

[TexasTiger 12,835]

The auto bailouts were not profitable in fact they lost right at $10 billion dollars. When losing $10 billion becomes profitable, Tex, let me know. The bank bailouts made money but, like I said, the auto stock purchases lost a LOT of tax payer money

When it averts a more costly collapse.

yea, because some economist was paid to make a study that stated that eleventy bajillions folks would lose their jobs if we didnt bend over and grab our ankles and let a bunch of corporate crooks go scot free...yea, thats the ticket.

I'll have some of what tex and homer are drinking as soon as i get off work today. I got to go make some money so i can pay my share of that $37BN that was stolen from the American Taxpayer and bondholders.

This was Govt Motors Welfare.

GM could be paying it back.

They never will though.

They were never going to be asked to either.

While you freakin retards continue defending the indefensible please ask yourselves this:

Thanks for offering an example of how you're a changed man that doesn't have to bludgeon some in a debate anymore. Your newfound class and maturity is refreshing and a model for us all.

[homersapien 11,367]

"But we can prevent it as long as we stop believing the myth from Wall Street that being "too big to fail" is a necessary requisite for competing in the global market"

I'm afraid that train has left the station. It's "easier" for them to gamble our tax dollars than their own money...especially if there's an added "return" on an investment towards a campaign or political machine. I applaud Ford for not taking the money, but I know why GM and others did. "IF" we are to do this again with a manufacturer there needs to be a lock tight incentive to use that money in the US and not overseas. I for one am against using public dollars to bail out industry.

I agree. It's left the station but that doesn't mean it can't be derailed.

homer you are so pathetic. You are insanely stoopid if you think this stuff is not now precedence for every corporate malfeasance case from this day forward.

It is now policy in the US. The same "horrible scenarios" will be repeated the next time and 'too big to fail/jail" is now policy from now on. So get over it. You are smoking crack if you think that it is not going to be Economics 101 next time this happens. The banks are bigger. The insurance companies are bigger. etc. The UAW more powerful than ever.

Lessons:

DO NOT BUY BONDS EVER, even collateralized bonds are essentially worthless in a downturn, the US Fed Govt says so.

DO NOT LET BIG CORPS OWE YOU MONEY. The debts will be wiped out and your company and your employees will be ruined.

Bankruptcy laws have been rewritten to forever benefit the donors of the party in power.

There is no criminalization of any action by any corporate executive anywhere in America.

No prosecutions, no investigations of any malfeasance or improper loans will ever occur again.

Caveat emptor baby...

So, you are clearly a defeatist and I am "insanely stoopid" for thinking we are capable of doing better.

Funny, I don't even have kids to motivate me to improve our future. Guess I am just an idealist.

[homersapien 11,367]

The auto bailouts were not profitable in fact they lost right at $10 billion dollars. When losing $10 billion becomes profitable, Tex, let me know. The bank bailouts made money but, like I said, the auto stock purchases lost a LOT of tax payer money

When it averts a more costly collapse.

yea, because some economist was paid to make a study that stated that eleventy bajillions folks would lose their jobs if we didnt bend over and grab our ankles and let a bunch of corporate crooks go scot free...yea, thats the ticket.

I'll have some of what tex and homer are drinking as soon as i get off work today. I got to go make some money so i can pay my share of that $37BN that was stolen from the American Taxpayer and bondholders.

This was Govt Motors Welfare.

GM could be paying it back.

They never will though.

They were never going to be asked to either.

While you freakin retards continue defending the indefensible please ask yourselves this:

What could the US Govt have gotten for that repaid money?

VA Hospitals that work?

Disabled Veterans that are better cared for?

Better Care for the Elderly?

Maybe better student loan rates?

More jobs thru infrastructure financing?

Headstart funding?

Better prenatal care?

Better treatment of ebola patients?

Aids Research?

Cancer Research?

No, what we got was another bitch slap across the face of the rest of the US Workforce as GM was given another sweetheart deal with GM Welfare.

Chrysler and the banks, i am not upset about. They honestly repaid the debts. Should we have given them the money or just loan guarantees is a good question though.

But GM, a company fully capable now of repaying the borrowed money, will never do that. They will never be asked to either because it might embarrass someone...

Again, your take on this is too narrow. Apparently you didn't read the WSJ pieces. Here are the key parts you are missing:

http://www.thestreet...bet-it-was.html

It's important to realize the interconnected nature of the entire domestic auto industry of U.S.-based and foreign-owned manufacturers as well as large and small parts suppliers in addition to dealers. If GM had been allowed to close, and presumably Chrysler along with it, revenue at hundreds if not thousands of auto parts suppliers would have been reduced by 35% or more, forcing many into bankruptcy, according to the CAR study led by Sean McAlinden.

Taken together, that's a cost to the federal government of $105.3 billion. That's a lot larger than $11 billion.....

The bailout of General Motors makes clear that the role of the U.S. government is to act in the best interests of the wider economy.....

All told, the U.S. Treasury, has recovered $433 billion in TARP money after the Obama administration took the lead in spending about $422 billion.

Any complete cost-benefit assessment of the federal assistance to GM in its restructuring must consider the total net returns to the public investment in GM in the U.S. economy because that is an actual role of the federal government as defined by Congress," said the CAR report. "In other words, the U.S. government is not a simple investor in companies but an active particpant, when needed, in the overall U.S. economy on the behalf of all of the U.S. citizenry."

http://www.wsj.com/a...es/BL-234B-3161

In a new study, CAR says the government will likely end up with a loss of $11.8 billion on the $50 billion it pumped into GM. But CAR also estimates that saving GM alone saved 1.2 million jobs in 2009 and an additional 674,000 in 2010. If the automaker had shut down in January 2009, when it was pleading for government help, hundreds of suppliers would have done the same, CAR notes.

The loss of those jobs would have taken $79.5 billion in personal income out of the U.S. economy in 2009, and $49.7 billion in 2010. The government would also have lost billions in lower social security receipts and lower person income tax revenue, and had higher spending for transfer payments.

CAR says the sum total in bailing out GM alone was $39.4 billion positive impact on net government spending and revenue.....

The latest CAR study looked at the wider impact if GM and Chrysler had shut down and it concluded employment would have been lowered by 2.6 million jobs in 2009, and 1.5 million jobs in 2010. Its estimate of the total positive impact on government spending and revenue for those two years: $105.3 billion.