PDA

View Full Version : Obama You, if you pay taxes, Lost $14 Billion so Obama could Own GM


HonestChieffan
06-01-2011, 05:33 PM
Is there anything this assclown has done that worked out for the good?

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Obama administration said Wednesday that the government will lose about $14 billion in taxpayer funds from the bailout of the U.S. auto industry.

In a report from the president’s National Economic Council, officials said that figure is down from the 60 percent the Treasury Department originally estimated the government would lose following its $80 billion bailout of Chrysler and General Motors in 2009.

The report’s release coincides with the administration’s efforts to tout the bailout’s role in the revitalization of the U.S. auto industry after last week’s announcement that Chrysler is repaying $5.9 billion in U.S. loans and a $1.7 billion loan from the Canadian government. Those payments cover most of the federal bailout money that saved the company after it nearly ran out of cash in and went through a government-led bankruptcy.

GM previously announced that it had repaid a little more than half of the $50 billion it received in federal aid.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said U.S. auto companies are now at the forefront of a comeback in American manufacturing.

“We cannot guarantee their success, and at some point they may stumble. But we’ve given them a better shot,” Geithner wrote in an opinion piece in Wednesday’s edition of The Washington Post.

banyon
06-01-2011, 05:58 PM
Er, what do you mean "so Obama could own gm?"

Did you forget that the bailouts were approved by congress and agreed to by his predecessor before he ever took office?

ClevelandBronco
06-01-2011, 06:16 PM
Don't blame Obama. He was just there because his ride took him there, right?

In fact, that's all that fuck head has ever done.

HonestChieffan
06-01-2011, 07:27 PM
Oh damn. Sorry. Its Bush's fault.

My bad.

mnchiefsguy
06-01-2011, 09:34 PM
Oh damn. Sorry. Its Bush's fault.

My bad.

In this case, there is some truth to that. My greatest criticism of Bush would be the whole bailout situation. I think it was the worst thing he did in his entire presidency.

banyon
06-01-2011, 09:47 PM
Oh damn. Sorry. Its Bush's fault.

My bad.

It's not about fault.

It's that "So Obama could own GM" is ridiculously misleading and inaccurate, particularly since it's recent history.

You acted like that was a motive for the government's actions when it couldn't be further from the truth.

chiefforlife
06-01-2011, 09:50 PM
How fucking stupid are you? (HCF)

Jenson71
06-01-2011, 09:53 PM
Is there anything this assclown has done that worked out for the good?

The very ****ing article you posted indicates that this bailout has worked better than expected.

Do you read the stuff you post? I mean, do you read beyond the headline?

I'm trying to imagine a liberal equivalent to you here. Someone who posts good articles about Bush with headlines about how Bush is a murderer.

BigMeatballDave
06-01-2011, 10:28 PM
This is stupid. You can't trash Barry for this without trashing Bush for bailing out Wall Street.

ClevelandBronco
06-01-2011, 10:38 PM
This is stupid. You can't trash Barry for this without trashing Bush for bailing out Wall Street.

As you wish...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_XAWRh-cWdds/S4cfovfZNxI/AAAAAAAABdo/p8IK6SyyMsA/s400/111+obama_garbage_can.jpghttps://d3qcduphvv2yxi.cloudfront.net/assets/2087702/original/bush.gif?1284442344

Chocolate Hog
06-01-2011, 11:32 PM
BUT WHEN OBAMA TOOK OVER WE WERE LOSING JOBS!!1!

FD
06-01-2011, 11:34 PM
Whats really ironic is the only reason they will lose money on the deal is because the govt is in a hurry to unload their shares because they don't believe they should be in the business of "owning" a company. The thread title should be "taxpayers lose $14 billion because Obama doesnt want to own GM."

BucEyedPea
06-02-2011, 08:13 AM
Whats really ironic is the only reason they will lose money on the deal is because the govt is in a hurry to unload their shares because they don't believe they should be in the business of "owning" a company. The thread title should be "taxpayers lose $14 billion because Obama doesnt want to own GM."

BS! If it was never done to begin with we'd still save that money. You never save more than you spend.

petegz28
06-02-2011, 10:48 AM
It's not about fault.

It's that "So Obama could own GM" is ridiculously misleading and inaccurate, particularly since it's recent history.

You acted like that was a motive for the government's actions when it couldn't be further from the truth.

You're right. It was a gift to the Union Workers who support Obama. So call it ownership by proxy if you will.

HonestChieffan
06-02-2011, 10:55 AM
You're right. It was a gift to the Union Workers who support Obama. So call it ownership by proxy if you will.


And the outright rape of bondholders....

alpha_omega
06-02-2011, 11:39 AM
The very ****ing article you posted indicates that this bailout has worked better than expected.



But the taxpayers still lost money, right?

FD
06-02-2011, 11:42 AM
But the taxpayers still lost money, right?

No. On paper the gov't lost $14 billion, but if the auto industry had failed the repercussions would have been enormous and the taxpayers would have been much harder hit.

petegz28
06-02-2011, 11:47 AM
No. On paper the gov't lost $14 billion, but if the auto industry had failed the repercussions would have been enormous and the taxpayers would have been much harder hit.

Here we go, the Gov't lost me and only on paper. :thumb:

petegz28
06-02-2011, 11:48 AM
And the outright rape of bondholders....

We won't mention how the bondholders got bent over but yet Goldman Sach's was promised $1-$1 on what was owed them from the AIG fallout.

ClevelandBronco
06-02-2011, 12:02 PM
No. On paper the gov't lost $14 billion, but if the auto industry had failed the repercussions would have been enormous and the taxpayers would have been much harder hit.

That is the craziest bag of crap I've seen in a while.

FD
06-02-2011, 12:04 PM
That is the craziest bag of crap I've seen in a while.

Having hundreds of thousands of autoworkers and auto parts manufacturers go on unemployment doesn't cost the taxpayer anything? Having a whole supply chain shut down and stop paying taxes doesn't cost the taxpayer anything?

ClevelandBronco
06-02-2011, 12:32 PM
No. On paper the gov't lost $14 billion, but if the auto industry had failed the repercussions would have been enormous and the taxpayers would have been much harder hit.

Having hundreds of thousands of autoworkers and auto parts manufacturers go on unemployment doesn't cost the taxpayer anything? Having a whole supply chain shut down and stop paying taxes doesn't cost the taxpayer anything?

Would you post the details of the "enormous" amount more than $14 billion this would have cost the federal government had they not bailed out GM? I have no idea myself, or I wouldn't ask. You're quite certain, though, so you must have the figures handy.

• Don't include the "loss" of taxes that wouldn't be owed to the government from business that aren't doing business. Taxes that aren't owed in the first place are not the same as revenue that is lost. The government can project whatever number they wish to conjure in any given year based on the revenue they hope they might collect, but they have no claim to that projected revenue until it is actually owed to them. Besides, you'd have to project the much higher taxes Ford would pay when they stepped in to service the market that GM would fail to service. Sounds like such an imprecise bother.

• Don't include any claims for "extended" unemployment insurance. I don't support the federal government's bailout of the unemployed, either — a bailout that is just a federal welfare program masquerading as extended unemployment insurance payments.

There are probably other line items I will reject as well, but you're free to put up your wish list.

ClevelandBronco
06-02-2011, 12:35 PM
Oh, and please do include all costs from servicing this debt. All costs.

FD
06-02-2011, 01:01 PM
Would you post the details of the "enormous" amount more than $14 billion this would have cost the federal government had they not bailed out GM? I have no idea myself, or I wouldn't ask. You're quite certain, though, so you must have the figures handy.

• Don't include the "loss" of taxes that wouldn't be owed to the government from business that aren't doing business. Taxes that aren't owed in the first place are not the same as revenue that is lost. The government can project whatever number they wish to conjure in any given year based on the revenue they hope they might collect, but they have no claim to that projected revenue until it is actually owed to them. Besides, you'd have to project the much higher taxes Ford would pay when they stepped in to service the market that GM would fail to service. Sounds like such an imprecise bother.

• Don't include any claims for "extended" unemployment insurance. I don't support the federal government's bailout of the unemployed, either — a bailout that is just a federal welfare program masquerading as extended unemployment insurance payments.

There are probably other line items I will reject as well, but you're free to put up your wish list.


Foregone tax revenue is a cost to the government. I agree its difficult to precisely know the size of this, but that doesn't change the fact that its a significant cost.

As for the unemployment benefits paid to the hundreds of thousands of autoworkers who would have lost their jobs, whether or not you personally support it seems to be about the least relevant thing I can possibly imagine.

ClevelandBronco
06-02-2011, 01:56 PM
Foregone tax revenue is a cost to the government. I agree its difficult to precisely know the size of this, but that doesn't change the fact that its a significant cost.

No. It's not.

As for the unemployment benefits paid to the hundreds of thousands of autoworkers who would have lost their jobs, whether or not you personally support it seems to be about the least relevant thing I can possibly imagine.

That's convenient, and my opposition to the bailout would probably be the second least relevant thing that you could possibly imagine.

I'm waiting for your list of things that makes up a number that "enormously" surpasses $14 billion.

Do not include taxes that would never be owed to the government to begin with.

Do not include welfare payments.

FD
06-02-2011, 02:48 PM
No. It's not.



That's convenient, and my opposition to the bailout would probably be the second least relevant thing that you could possibly imagine.

I'm waiting for your list of things that makes up a number that "enormously" surpasses $14 billion.

Do not include taxes that would never be owed to the government to begin with.

Do not include welfare payments.

I already listed two enormous costs, the fact that you don't like them doesn't mean they aren't real.

ClevelandBronco
06-02-2011, 02:59 PM
I already listed two enormous costs, the fact that you don't like them doesn't mean they aren't real.

And the fact that you haven't put any actual numbers on those "enormous" and fictitious costs doesn't help support your original point at all, now does it?

Looks like you were just pulling a crazy bag of crap out of your ass.

FD
06-02-2011, 03:11 PM
And the fact that you haven't put any actual numbers on those "enormous" and fictitious costs doesn't help support your original point at all, now does it?

Looks like you were just pulling a crazy bag of crap out of your ass.

The costs aren't fictitious. They are very real. The fact that its difficult to estimate the size of them under the counterfactual doesn't change that.

But lets just try a little. Lets say 300,000 workers lose their jobs, thats a very conservative estimate (the auto sector employs 3 to 4 million workers). Thats $11 billion in unemployment benefits right there.

The larger cost to the government would be the foregone tax revenue from the industry failing, and all the industries that rely on it failing, which is a huge chunk of our economy. This is difficult to measure but very real, and very large. Whether you like it or not, the auto industry rescue was ultimately good for taxpayers.

ClevelandBronco
06-02-2011, 03:21 PM
The costs aren't fictitious. They are very real. The fact that its difficult to estimate the size of them under the counterfactual doesn't change that.

But lets just try a little. Lets say 300,000 workers lose their jobs, thats a very conservative estimate (the auto sector employs 3 to 4 million workers). Thats $11 billion in unemployment benefits right there.

The larger cost to the government would be the foregone tax revenue from the industry failing, and all the industries that rely on it failing, which is a huge chunk of our economy. This is difficult to measure but very real, and very large. Whether you like it or not, the auto industry rescue was ultimately good for taxpayers.

Obviously we won't be able to find common ground. You think you're saying something real and I think your pulling a crazy bag of shit out of your ass.

ClevelandBronco
06-02-2011, 03:25 PM
I project that Forward Dante will give me $500.

FD
06-02-2011, 03:29 PM
Obviously we won't be able to find common ground. You think you're saying something real and I think your pulling a crazy bag of shit out of your ass.

So you really think the roughly $11 billion of unemployment benefits the government would have been on the hook for aren't real? If so, why not?

ClevelandBronco
06-02-2011, 03:34 PM
So you really think the roughly $11 billion of unemployment benefits the government would have been on the hook for aren't real? If so, why not?

Just so I understand, you're saying that the federal share of what is primarily a state unemployment insurance program would be $11 billion. Is that right? Do you have a source, or are you just pulling a craz...well, you know.

petegz28
06-02-2011, 03:40 PM
Having hundreds of thousands of autoworkers and auto parts manufacturers go on unemployment doesn't cost the taxpayer anything? Having a whole supply chain shut down and stop paying taxes doesn't cost the taxpayer anything?

Well JFC, WTF then didn't we bail out the other MILLIONS of people who were laid off? Using your logic every company that laid people off should have been bailed out. Unlilke GM and Chrysler, a lot of good run companies had to lay people off because business quit walking in the door. Instead we chose to bailout companies that ran themselves into the ground and deserved to go under.

petegz28
06-02-2011, 03:41 PM
So you really think the roughly $11 billion of unemployment benefits the government would have been on the hook for aren't real? If so, why not?

so you are saying we could have paid $11 bil in unemployment vs. the $14 bil loss we took? HMMM, maybe my math is off but I think we come out $3 bil better by paying unemployment.

FD
06-02-2011, 03:50 PM
Well JFC, WTF then didn't we bail out the other MILLIONS of people who were laid off? Using your logic every company that laid people off should have been bailed out. Unlilke GM and Chrysler, a lot of good run companies had to lay people off because business quit walking in the door. Instead we chose to bailout companies that ran themselves into the ground and deserved to go under.

First of all, my hats off to you to making a decent counterargument to me. Arguing with clevelandbronco is like arguing with an infant.

I absolutely agree that bailouts should be avoided almost at all costs, and should be undertaken only in extremely exceptional circumstances. I was very skeptical of the auto rescue at the time, but it does appear, in retrospect, that it was the right choice.

As for your other post, the $11 billion in unemployment benefits (conservative estimate) are a small chunk of the total cost to taxpayers that would result from the auto industry failing.

ClevelandBronco
06-02-2011, 03:55 PM
First of all, my hats off to you to making a decent counterargument to me. Arguing with clevelandbronco is like arguing with an infant.

I absolutely agree that bailouts should be avoided almost at all costs, and should be undertaken only in extremely exceptional circumstances. I was very skeptical of the auto rescue at the time, but it does appear, in retrospect, that it was the right choice.

As for your other post, the $11 billion in unemployment benefits (conservative estimate) are a small chunk of the total cost to taxpayers that would result from the auto industry failing.

It's easier when you think you might have a chance to bluff your way through, eh?

Just so I understand, you're saying that the federal share of what is primarily a state unemployment insurance program would be $11 billion. Is that right? Do you have a source, or are you just pulling a craz...well, you know.

go bowe
06-02-2011, 03:57 PM
hey now, bluffing is as american as apple pie and superman...

FD
06-02-2011, 04:03 PM
Just so I understand, you're saying that the federal share of what is primarily a state unemployment insurance program would be $11 billion. Is that right? Do you have a source, or are you just pulling a craz...well, you know.

Who cares which part falls on the state government and which on the federal? Again, its a conservative estimate.

ClevelandBronco
06-02-2011, 04:10 PM
Who cares which part falls on the state government and which on the federal?

Me and Michigan.

You don't really want me to pay Michigan's bill, do you?

petegz28
06-02-2011, 04:13 PM
First of all, my hats off to you to making a decent counterargument to me. Arguing with clevelandbronco is like arguing with an infant.

I absolutely agree that bailouts should be avoided almost at all costs, and should be undertaken only in extremely exceptional circumstances. I was very skeptical of the auto rescue at the time, but it does appear, in retrospect, that it was the right choice.

As for your other post, the $11 billion in unemployment benefits (conservative estimate) are a small chunk of the total cost to taxpayers that would result from the auto industry failing.

It's the law of free enterprise. The unions and execs at the automakers ran themselves into their own situation and their bed should have been lied in instead of us bailing them out. Yes it would have hurt but that is how it goes.

Frankly, they should have had to file an unfettered bankruptcy where bond holders were given their legal rights, etc. Instead we fed the monster and gave it more power. The unions should have been broken. There are millions of people out of work who would have taken those jobs as non-union employees and GM and Chrysler would have been better off for it and the tax payer would not be on the hook. They were saved and laws were ignored because the union was involved. It was more political than it was anything, imo.

Fish
06-02-2011, 04:14 PM
hey now, bluffing is as american as apple pie and superman...

Actually, Superman renounced his American citizenship. But at least we still have pie.....

ClevelandBronco
06-02-2011, 04:16 PM
Actually, Superman renounced his American citizenship. But at least we still have pie.....

I don't know. That shit might be going down to hot fudge sundae in the Dessert War.

Saul Good
06-02-2011, 09:37 PM
The costs aren't fictitious. They are very real. The fact that its difficult to estimate the size of them under the counterfactual doesn't change that.

But lets just try a little. Lets say 300,000 workers lose their jobs, thats a very conservative estimate (the auto sector employs 3 to 4 million workers). Thats $11 billion in unemployment benefits right there.

The larger cost to the government would be the foregone tax revenue from the industry failing, and all the industries that rely on it failing, which is a huge chunk of our economy. This is difficult to measure but very real, and very large. Whether you like it or not, the auto industry rescue was ultimately good for taxpayers.

Your argument hinges on the idea that demand for automobiles would decrease in the same proportion as GM's auto sales represented. That's simply not the case, though. If GM failed, people would still need cars. They would just buy them from companies that were better managed.

Those companies would see increased demand. This increased demand would lead to increase hiring (presumably from the newly-created labor pool of laid off workers). They would need to purchase additional components as well.

Essentially, nothing would have changed other than the strongest companies would have survived and taken over market share of the weakest companies.

mlyonsd
06-03-2011, 10:49 AM
Your argument hinges on the idea that demand for automobiles would decrease in the same proportion as GM's auto sales represented. That's simply not the case, though. If GM failed, people would still need cars. They would just buy them from companies that were better managed.

Those companies would see increased demand. This increased demand would lead to increase hiring (presumably from the newly-created labor pool of laid off workers). They would need to purchase additional components as well.

Essentially, nothing would have changed other than the strongest companies would have survived and taken over market share of the weakest companies.
GM and Chrysler would have risen again if they had gone through bankruptcy.

This was about bailing out the unions with taxpayer money. Nothing but a political almost illegal stunt.

FD
06-03-2011, 11:46 AM
GM and Chrysler would have risen again if they had gone through bankruptcy.

This was about bailing out the unions with taxpayer money. Nothing but a political almost illegal stunt.

GM did go through bankruptcy. The reason the government had to step in is that the amount of DIP financing GM needed at that time simply did not exist. GM wouldn't have risen again, it would have shut its doors for good.

gblowfish
06-03-2011, 01:16 PM
Barry ought to get a sweet Corvette out of the deal, anyway....

alpha_omega
06-03-2011, 01:24 PM
Barry ought to get a sweet Corvette out of the deal, anyway....

Well...he had better get one now before they become Europeanized small-block, mid-engine cars.

HonestChieffan
06-03-2011, 01:44 PM
hey now, bluffing is as american as apple pie and superman...

Superman was an alien. Come to think of it, he was here illegally too. Apple Pie rules.

whoman69
06-03-2011, 03:21 PM
The very ****ing article you posted indicates that this bailout has worked better than expected.

Do you read the stuff you post? I mean, do you read beyond the headline?

I'm trying to imagine a liberal equivalent to you here. Someone who posts good articles about Bush with headlines about how Bush is a murderer.

I think he glossed right over the portion where the government expected to lose 60% of the $80 billion.

HonestChieffan
06-03-2011, 09:42 PM
I think he glossed right over the portion where the government expected to lose 60% of the $80 billion.

And this is a good thing why? Do you Obots ever think? Question?

The Mad Crapper
07-03-2011, 06:26 PM
Is there anything this assclown has done that worked out for the good?

Nope.