Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

Rant

GM's "success story" cost $9.26B to taxpayers

Jan 4, 2015 8:00PM PST
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2015/01/04/government-says-it-lost-only-926-billion-on-auto-bailout-n1938328?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=

ONLY??????????

How much more have they lost due to millions/billions in recalls because they're so incompetent or because they don't have 'quality' care/pride in their work anymore since they have no reason to. The 'entitlement' mentality extends to union jobs as much as any other 'social experiment' has........if you personally have no skin in the game, you don't HAVE to care.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
RE: if you personally have no skin in the game,
Jan 4, 2015 8:20PM PST

How does an individual have "skin in the game" in America?

How does an individual have "MORE skin in the game" than any other person in America?

Does a working American have more/less 'skin in the game" than a retired person in America.

Does a retired person in America have any more "skin to put in the game" OR are they skint?

- Collapse -
they skin a Canadian
Jan 5, 2015 2:49AM PST

and drag it back here, that puts more "skin" into it.

- Collapse -
So you don't want to put your own skin in the game
Jan 5, 2015 2:52AM PST

Typical.

- Collapse -
RE: ONLY??????????
Jan 4, 2015 9:17PM PST

Complain to the author of the article.....THEY picked the word "only". I couldn't find "only" anywhere else.

Did you notice they also state 926 Billion NOT 9.26 Billion in your hyperlink. Perhaps "only" is also a typo.

townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2015/01/04/government-says-it-lost-only-926-billion-on-auto-bailout-n1938328?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=

I did find this though

Last year, the Ann Arbor, Mich.-based Center for Automotive Research estimated that the U.S. would have had 2.6 million fewer jobs in 2009 and 1.5 million fewer jobs in 2010 if the two auto companies had disappeared. The study also estimated the government "saved or avoided the loss of" $105 billion in lost taxes and social service expenses, such as food stamps, unemployment benefits and medical care.

- Collapse -
I'd question the reality of that research
Jan 4, 2015 9:46PM PST

If people who like Chevys could no longer acquire them, do they buy bicycles instead?...or do they grudgingly buy Chrysler, Ford and other products? If they switch brands, doesn't that increase the production needs of companies that make them? Don't they need to add jobs to their workforce? This reality is nothing new and it doesn't mean that folks who once worked for a failed company are relegated to being on the dole henceforth.

- Collapse -
That is going on the assumption
Jan 4, 2015 10:18PM PST

that 'the two auto companies had disappeared'............they wouldn't have disappeared. They would have been forced by necessity to revamp their companies, renegotiate contracts, change accounting/spending methods, replace heads of departments if necessary (like when Ioccocca (sp) took over, file bankruptcy (which they had to do in the end anyhow but waiting until AFTER the bailout to do so), and start over. They had done it before and could have done it again if they didn't have a super ally who owed favors to the unions running this country and gave them much more than even the Bush administration had considered doing with the TARP money.

As for the hyperlink that didn't have the . (dot) in it......I reported the correct amount when I posted MY topic line because the story itself had the same as I reported. What's your problem? Still picking scabs rather than deny the story itself?

NO company is 'too big to fail'........and NONE should have been bailed out if the government wasn't also willing to bail out the home owners who lost their homes and small businesses that had to go under and all the people who lost their entire retirement investments.

- Collapse -
RE:they wouldn't have disappeared.
Jan 4, 2015 11:13PM PST
they wouldn't have disappeared. .........NO company is 'too big to fail'..........

Too big to disappear, not too big to fail? Just in that "sweet spot"? Fail without disappearing.

I guess you can have it both ways.

As for the hyperlink that didn't have the . (dot) in it......I reported the correct amount when I posted MY topic line because the story itself had the same as I reported. What's your problem?

It wasn't about YOU it was about THEM. It's not always about you.
- Collapse -
And once again I have NO clue what you are ranting about....
Jan 5, 2015 12:26AM PST

I gave you all the reasons why they wouldn't have disappeared as you said.....

And they were NEVER too big to fail..........NO company is..........they either make it without a bailout or they don't.

So what's your problem with the 'only' and the dollar amount reported? You still haven't clarified that rant. I reported correctly. I have no control over what the article's hyperlink said. Would you have been happier if I had NOT stated the correct amount in MY post? Afterall, it would have given you even MORE to pick at if I HAD, right? Did I disappoint you and take away your desire to pick at every single single post I make?

If it's NOT about ME, then why do you insist on being so antagonistic when it comes to MY posts......even when they are RIGHT? You have an obsessive desire to rip anything I post down to a word or a phrase that suits your stalking mentality and you can't quite bring yourself to actually post anything worthwhile to the conversation.

- Collapse -
We have this parakeet
Jan 5, 2015 2:53AM PST

and as long as you keep making a sound at him, he'll keep making a sound back. It doesn't make any sense, but he seems to feel a need to reply, to anything. If he's ignored, he mostly just sits on his perch, quietly.

- Collapse -
REIf he's ignored, he mostly just sits on his perch, quietly
Jan 5, 2015 2:58AM PST

Are you going to give it a try?

- Collapse -
RE: investments.
Jan 4, 2015 11:22PM PST

AAaahhh...investments....and they were guaranteed were they?

- Collapse -
Was our forced 'investment' into GM
Jan 5, 2015 12:32AM PST

guaranteed to come back to the Treasury? Obviously not. Was the forced Sylindra (sp) 'investment' guaranteed to come back to the taxpayers? Obviously not. You have so little empathy for the millions of people who lost their investments and yet you can't see the OTHER forest for the trees in the way............When people lose their investments, you chalk it up to poor judgment. When the Government DELIBERATELY loses our investments, what is that? Another C'est la vie moment for the Dems?

- Collapse -
RE: You have so little empathy
Jan 5, 2015 2:28AM PST
You have so little empathy for the millions of people who lost their investments and yet you can't see the OTHER forest for the trees in the way

I guess we're more alike than either of us want to admit?
- Collapse -
(NT) Did the banks give their's back.
Jan 5, 2015 3:29AM PST
- Collapse -
Yes....actually, they were forced to
Jan 5, 2015 4:06AM PST

pretty rapidly. BOA was the first to pay it all back.....because they didn't want it in the first place and were forced into taking it.

And, to add insult to injury, the Feds then FINED the bank BILLIONS for taking on those risky loans from defunct banks/lenders like Countrywide after the Feds pretty much forced them into taking them on.......then Freddie and Fannie forced the banks to turn over the home loans, including the toxic/risky loans, and accused the banks of doing it deliberately to recoup their money that they had to spend by taking them.

Vicious circle with the Feds all behind it......all so they could make a profit by getting the bailouts repaid by the banks PLUS the massive fines they imposed later on.

- Collapse -
Found an interesting site
Jan 6, 2015 2:35AM PST
- Collapse -
As for the 'blatant lie' reported as well
Jan 4, 2015 10:20PM PST

GM took a SECOND bailout in order to 'repay' the FIRST bailout. We actually lost much more than is reported because they have never paid back the second bailout, and BO sold off the stock we owned at a huge loss.

- Collapse -
Looking at "The Big Picture"
Jan 5, 2015 4:15AM PST
The State of the Bailout



OUTFLOWS: $613 billion This includes money that has actually been spent, invested, or loaned.

INFLOWS: $667 billion Money returned and paid to Treasury as interest, dividends, fees or to repurchase their stock warrants.


The Bailout Scorecard

Last update: Jan. 2, 2015

Altogether, accounting for both the TARP and the Fannie and Freddie bailout, $613B has gone out the door—invested, loaned, or paid out—while $390B has been returned.

The Treasury has been earning a return on most of the money invested or loaned. So far, it has earned $278B. When those revenues are taken into account, the government has realized a $53.8B profit as of Jan. 2, 2015.
- Collapse -
Your big picture
Jan 5, 2015 4:42AM PST

doesn't include the $30B that GM never paid back, the $10B or more that was lost by selling off the GM stock that the government owned while the market was still way down, nor does it include the billions lost to green energy crap that folded immediately that never got paid back, and it doesn't include the BILLIONS (JPMorgan Chase and BOA alone had fines that were staggering amounts) that the government fined the banks for doing what they were instructed to do BY the Feds in the first place. The FINES (you might politely call them 'fees') were the ONLY profits made and not accounted for in the budget that could have been used to pay down our National Debt.

IF you're going to toss numbers around, at least make sure they're accurate and reflect the TRUE big picture.

- Collapse -
RE; Your big picture doesn't include
Jan 5, 2015 5:22AM PST
Your big picture doesn't include the $30B that GM never paid back,

YES...It does. Auto Companies $79.7B THAT's GM right? Over in the right margin of my link...SEE IT? I can, of course I have my glasses on and blinders are off.

A "BIG picture" does include the $30B that GM never paid back,

*big picture
the whole story of something; a complete view of something


YOUR "small picture" doesn't.

The lowly investor invests in a group of investments ...some make money...others lose money....in the "big picture (if they're lucky/smart investor) they make more money than they lose....In the "big picture" they come out ahead financially.

In you previous life you were a bookie....How did you figure out how much profit you made?

Subtract you took in, from what you paid out.

At the end of the year IF you're ahead...do you go into morning because you lost some money on a couple of things or celebrate because you're ahead of the game.

You want to cherry pick bailouts...go for it. Cherry picking is NOT "big picture"
- Collapse -
I'll correct myself
Jan 5, 2015 5:26AM PST

NOT Subtract you took in, from what you paid out.

should be

Subtract what you paid out from what you took in,

too many cuts and pastes...curses!!

- Collapse -
Now here are the REAL numbers....
Jan 5, 2015 5:42AM PST
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2012/12/19/its-official-taxpayers-will-lose-big-on-the-gm-bailout

>>>But once the government sells its shares, GM will still be tainted by the fact that it failed to pay back all the taxpayer money used to save it back in 2009. GM initially got $49.5 billion from the U.S. government, and it paid back $23.1 billion of that after its stock went public in 2010. That left $26.4 billion GM still owed the government.>>>

Then they got a SECOND bailout to the tune of about $30B and they used THAT money to pay back the $26.4 they still OWED.....they have NEVER paid the $30B back AND we took a huge hit on the stock sold at a loss.

http://nlpc.org/stories/2012/10/18/obama%E2%80%99s-gm-bailout-nothing-brag-about
- Collapse -
RE:Now here are the REAL numbers..
Jan 5, 2015 5:51AM PST

REAL numbers from...

Dec. 19, 2012 | 10:41 a.m. EST

I really don't know where to begin shooting holes in THAT argument..

- Collapse -
Shoot this one instead then
Jan 5, 2015 6:38AM PST
- Collapse -
RE: Shoot this one instead then
Jan 5, 2015 11:01AM PST

OK

Published April 23, 2010

- Collapse -
RE: GM initially got $49.5 billion
Jan 5, 2015 7:13PM PST
GM initially got $49.5 billion Then they got a SECOND bailout to the tune of about $30B

49.5 + 30 = $79.5B?

Not according to this. They claim $50.7 B

http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/entities/233-general-motors

GM

$50.7B Disbursed
$38.6B Returned
$694M Revenue to Gov't
$11.4B Net Outstanding


This $79B figure you're throwing around includes Chrysler AND GMAC(now ALLY Financial), GMAC paid everything back and the Gov made a few billion on the deal
- Collapse -
You're wrong
Jan 5, 2015 7:37PM PST

Initially all three got a total of $79B....(Ford took nothing).....GM got an ADDITIONAL $30B all by themselves. And they haven't paid it back and Government LOST billions on the deal.

Did you even READ the new link I gave you that is only a couple of weeks old? I noticed you didn't 'shoot' it and instead found a link that supports your incorrect information.

EOD

- Collapse -
I just showed you a source...
Jan 5, 2015 8:47PM PST

that disproves your claim...

You just say...that I'm wrong and offer no proof of your claim.


Did you even READ the new link I gave you that is only a couple of weeks old?

You don't got no links that are only a couple weeks old Dec. 19, 2012 AND Published April 23, 2010

Here are all references to "30" in your link.

That is why we were told at the Senate Finance Committee hearing that TARP losses related to the auto companies are expected to exceed $30 billion.

The Office of Management and Budget, and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, estimate that overall taxpayer TARP losses will exceed $100 billion, and the auto companies will account for over 30 percent of that amount, more than $30 billion.

NO mention of and "extra" $30 Billion for GM.

IN Fact From YOUR link

The truth is that GM originally received over $49 billion from the US government and many billions remain to be recouped. That is why we were told at the Senate Finance Committee hearing that TARP losses related to the auto companies are expected to exceed $30 billion.

IF you took it upon yourself to add 49 and 30 after reading the above statement( and come to the conclusion that GM got an extra $30 billion)....Don't ever complain about the reading ability of kids today.

- Collapse -
Do you dispute the fact that
Jan 5, 2015 9:31PM PST

GM got $50B out of the original $79B and then got an ADDITIONAL $30B that it used to 'repay' the first bailout?

- Collapse -
RE: Do you dispute the fact that
Jan 5, 2015 10:25PM PST

Do you dispute the fact that GM got $50B out of the original $79B and then got an ADDITIONAL $30B that it used to 'repay' the first bailout?

That is a 2 part question.

Do you dispute the fact that GM got $50B NO I don't dispute that...GM received 50.7B

then got an ADDITIONAL $30B YES...I dispute that...

So 50 + 30 = 80...I dispute that GM received approx $80B (GM is NOT part of GMAC, and even IF you want to include it as part of GM they DID NOT receive $30 Billion)


Automotive Industry Financing Program
Loans to the Auto Industry


Now, this is where YOU provide proof that GM received approx $79 billion dollars.