Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by g8orbill, Dec 10, 2013.
I believe they call that Return on Investment. Not ours, the unions' support for Obama.
Did GM buy the shares back themselves or where they sold in the marketplace?
I said that almost all or the stimulus money (and any future stimulus money) will/would end up in the DNC coffers one way or another.
I'm sure this is phony math, but regardless, $10B is a rounding error in the federal budget.
I'm sure the return to the economy keeping all those folks working at a living wage was that number tenfold or more.
Good to see you can be so dismissive with 10 Billion as a "rounding error", just FYI if an avg family pays $3,000 in Federal income taxes, it takes over 3 million families to pay that "rounding error" I'm sure it warms their hearts to know their hard earned money was taken to pay off the Unions.
BTW what is I living wage? Give me a number or stop using the phrase, please.
Don't forget the bond holders and other investors who's legal claims were summarily dismissed by the feds without proper legal proceedings in favor of handing over the company to the unions. The money was taken from the taxpayers pockets and GM investor's pockets.
But I guess that's OK with you, Fred, greedy capitalists and all that...
Funny thing there is some of those bond holders were Retirement plans of........you guess it Teacher Unions...
What the statists want the statists will take....unless they are beat down.
This was an investment in the union pure and simple.
And that's not the end of it. Obama will reap millions for speeches from some of the same campanies that got millions in bailout. The Clintons are also reaping huge benefits from THEIR terms in the office. Hillary recently received $450,000 for one speech. They are now worth many many millions.
The left loves corporate welfare ... and all welfare for that matter.
The bond situation should be the thing that gives any and all investors pause going forward. To play it safe by going with bonds so that your money is first in line for repayment and then be told "not so fast" then anything can happen in the name of "National Security." Precious metal certificates and 401k plans are as good as the paper they are printed on.
And as an aside, if we got caught taking our eye off the ball and had to prop up GM, the banking system, etc., because they were to big to fail, exactly WHAT have we done to make sure it doesn't happen again so that moral hazard doesn't raise its ugly head in the future?
The only thing I see is their spending money to get more political support. Right after the debacle, Capitol One started growing their banking system and why? The only plausible answer is because they want to be one of the big boys WHEN the next financial crisis hits, so that they can get some of that backstop money. Not a pretty picture for our future.
This will obviously be a bitter pill for some to swallow, though it shouldn't be. But it appears that both the GM bailout and TARP worked.
From the LA Times
From the NY Times:
Yeah, or it amounts to about $90 for every man woman and child in America.
They have to be the first politicians from either party to do that. Right?
Noooo. Obama was the first president from any party in the U.S. to break the law (in peacetime) to hand assets to the UAW that belonged to bondholders. It was a theft of assets by executive order, without due process or compensation. Most tragically, it was apparently done to buy votes and further a pro-union agenda. Try to focus, shabby.
The GM debacle was completely unnecessary. Lots of large corporations that are poorly run and beset by greedy unions or management go bankrupt and stay open for business. A judge gets involved with all of the major decisions regarding the company until the company can petition its way out of bankruptcy. Many non-essential personnel get laid off (which also happened with the GM bailout), the union contracts get torn up and re-negotiated, and poorly-performing divisions get shut down. Employees still get paid, taxes are still levied It's another option for companies instead of getting bought by a corporate raider (like Bain Capital), but the end result is often the same. If the company can turn a profit, it can emerge from bankruptcy and resume normal operations. People that say otherwise do not know what they are talking about.
First off, my response you quoted was about politicians accepting $ for speeches, not the GM bailout.
Second, you conveniently ignore the worldwide economic calamity going on when the bailout occurred. Had GM been allowed to go under, the ripple effects would have been nasty in a crippled economy, and not just for GM. Also for suppliers, dealers and anyone who did business with employees who would have been jobless.
You'll have to wait until the next GOP prez for the next round of union busting.
Well, Obama has run up the federal debt by about $7 trillion with all of his rounding errors. I'm sure that Fast & Furious and Solyndra (et al) and Cash for Clunkers were all incompetent rounding errors, too. And he has very little to show for all the spending. Have we started construction on the oil pipeline from Canada? How about high-speed rail (anywhere)? Smart electrical grid? Any nuclear power reactors break ground? Have we increased solar power production or wind power production by an order of magnitude?
You really displayed your ignorance on how bankruptcies work with that statement. I feel sorry for you, talking with such certainty and no real knowledge to back it up.
Don't want to interject, but can I ask from where are you getting your "facts"? Obama did not give assets to the UAW that belonged to the bondholders. That is not what happened. As GM was coming out of bankruptcy reorganization (having gone in despite receiving 10s of billions from Bush), a trust was established to fund the health benefits of UAW retirees, not to hand assets over to the UAW, bondholders were also given a portion of this trust, as was the Canadian govt. And a judge was involved in the bankruptcy--in fact a judge is still involved in it.
The union had no legal rights to be given anything. And Obama had no reason to be involved with any of it. There was a process available that could have been used without federal intervention. I've seen a relatively large-sized chemical company go through that exact process. It took about 5-6 years to emerge from bankruptcy, but they were ultimately successful.