PDA

View Full Version : Obama Taxpayers lost $6.44 billion on Chrysler bailout


HonestChieffan
06-03-2011, 05:52 PM
Liar in Chief has no clue about telling the truth. Either he is a complete Liar or he is just totally uniformed, out of touch and ignorant.


Taxpayers lost $6.44 billion on Chrysler bailout

By: Conn Carroll 06/03/11 3:17 PM
Senior Editorial Writer

http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/ojeep-550x360.jpg
President Obama told a Chrysler plant in Toledo, Ohio, today: “Chrysler has repaid every dime and more of what it owes the American taxpayer from the investment we made during my watch.” That is just not true. Here is the math.

Chrysler received the following loans from the federal government:
January 2009: Chrysler receives $4 billion loan from TARP
January 2009: Chrysler financial receives $1.5 billion from the Treasury Department
May 2009: Chrysler receives a $1.9 billion debtor in possession loan from the Treasury Department
June 2009: Chrysler receives a $6.6 billion loan from the Treasury Department
Total loaned to Chrysler: $14 billion

Chrysler made the following payments to the federal government:
May 2010: Chrysler pays the Treasury Department $1.9 billion to settle their January 2009 loan.
May 2011: Chrysler pays the Treasury Department $5.1 billion as partial settlement for June 2009 loan.
June 2011: Chrysler pays the Treasury Department $560 million to settle the rest of the June 2009 loan.
Total paid back by Chrysler: $7.56 billion

Total loss to taxpayers ($14 billion – $7.56 billion) = $6.44 billion.

Also not mentioned by Obama in Toledo today, the latest jobs report showing unemployment up to 9.1% including a 3,400 job drop in the auto sector.



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/06/taxpayers-lost-644-billion-chrysler-bailout?utm_source=feedburner+BeltwayConfidential&utm_medium=feed+Beltway+Confidential&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BeltwayConfidential+%28Beltway+Confidential%29#ixzz1OGC0pf7q

orange
06-03-2011, 06:12 PM
Your Head-Needing-To-Be-Examiner seems to be forgetting something. We received - and have sold - tons of Chrysler stock. Most recently, $560 million to FIAT just today, for example.

[edit] The U.S. government, with this deal and previous loan repayments, interest and canceled commitments, will have recovered $11.2 billion of the $12.5 billion it gave Chrysler in the bailout. The Treasury said it is unlikely to recover the remaining $1.3 billion.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-03/fiat-to-pay-u-s-treasury-500-million-for-government-s-6-chrysler-stake.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-celebrates-chrysler-revival/2011/06/03/AG20KPIH_story.html

HonestChieffan
06-03-2011, 06:16 PM
Yea? Did we get it free? No Oh damn.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-03-2011, 08:23 PM
Wait a minute HCF i thought you were for the bailouts? or is that only to the bankers and The Goldman Sachs?

mnchiefsguy
06-04-2011, 05:09 PM
Your Head-Needing-To-Be-Examiner seems to be forgetting something. We received - and have sold - tons of Chrysler stock. Most recently, $560 million to FIAT just today, for example.

[edit] The U.S. government, with this deal and previous loan repayments, interest and canceled commitments, will have recovered $11.2 billion of the $12.5 billion it gave Chrysler in the bailout. The Treasury said it is unlikely to recover the remaining $1.3 billion.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-03/fiat-to-pay-u-s-treasury-500-million-for-government-s-6-chrysler-stake.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-celebrates-chrysler-revival/2011/06/03/AG20KPIH_story.html

11.2 billion is still less than 12.5 billion, so the President was not correct when he said Chrysler paid back "every dime and more" of what it was loaned.

orange
06-04-2011, 05:57 PM
11.2 billion is still less than 12.5 billion, so the President was not correct when he said Chrysler paid back "every dime and more" of what it was loaned.

If Obama actually said that, you would be on to something. Of course, you know that he didn't.

President Obama told a Chrysler plant in Toledo, Ohio, today: “Chrysler has repaid every dime and more of what it owes the American taxpayer from the investment we made during my watch.”

Why did you feel compelled to change it?

In an interview with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on May 24, 2011, Ron Bloom, assistant to President Obama in charge of manufacturing policy, broke it down more plainly:

"Today, Chrysler is reducing their obligation to the U.S. taxpayer by $8 billion. They have previously provided us with $2.6 billion of funds. So, that $10.6 (billion) stacks up against $8.5 billion that the president invested in Chrysler and $4 billion from the prior administration. So, that's over 100 percent of all monies that this administration invested and about 85 percent of the total invested funds by the United States government."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/26/sergio-marchionne/ceo-says-chrysler-group-now-square-american-taxpay/

...Because Obama bad man...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5f/Obama_Joker_Poster.jpg

Chief Faithful
06-04-2011, 07:49 PM
Billions of tax payer money sunk, the union thrives, and the cars still suck.

redsurfer11
06-04-2011, 09:44 PM
Liar in Chief has no clue about telling the truth. Either he is a complete Liar or he is just totally uniformed, out of touch and ignorant.


Taxpayers lost $6.44 billion on Chrysler bailout

By: Conn Carroll 06/03/11 3:17 PM
Senior Editorial Writer

http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/ojeep-550x360.jpg
President Obama told a Chrysler plant in Toledo, Ohio, today: “Chrysler has repaid every dime and more of what it owes the American taxpayer from the investment we made during my watch.” That is just not true. Here is the math.

Chrysler received the following loans from the federal government:
January 2009: Chrysler receives $4 billion loan from TARP
January 2009: Chrysler financial receives $1.5 billion from the Treasury Department
May 2009: Chrysler receives a $1.9 billion debtor in possession loan from the Treasury Department
June 2009: Chrysler receives a $6.6 billion loan from the Treasury Department
Total loaned to Chrysler: $14 billion

Chrysler made the following payments to the federal government:
May 2010: Chrysler pays the Treasury Department $1.9 billion to settle their January 2009 loan.
May 2011: Chrysler pays the Treasury Department $5.1 billion as partial settlement for June 2009 loan.
June 2011: Chrysler pays the Treasury Department $560 million to settle the rest of the June 2009 loan.
Total paid back by Chrysler: $7.56 billion

Total loss to taxpayers ($14 billion – $7.56 billion) = $6.44 billion.

Also not mentioned by Obama in Toledo today, the latest jobs report showing unemployment up to 9.1% including a 3,400 job drop in the auto sector.



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/06/taxpayers-lost-644-billion-chrysler-bailout?utm_source=feedburner+BeltwayConfidential&utm_medium=feed+Beltway+Confidential&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BeltwayConfidential+%28Beltway+Confidential%29#ixzz1OGC0pf7q

Chrysler is run by idiots. They push cars with 356 Hp when gas prices are hitting $4.00

Bob Nardelli will bring the company to ruin.

Silock
06-05-2011, 03:54 AM
If Obama actually said that, you would be on to something. Of course, you know that he didn't.



Why did you feel compelled to change it?

In an interview with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on May 24, 2011, Ron Bloom, assistant to President Obama in charge of manufacturing policy, broke it down more plainly:

"Today, Chrysler is reducing their obligation to the U.S. taxpayer by $8 billion. They have previously provided us with $2.6 billion of funds. So, that $10.6 (billion) stacks up against $8.5 billion that the president invested in Chrysler and $4 billion from the prior administration. So, that's over 100 percent of all monies that this administration invested and about 85 percent of the total invested funds by the United States government."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/26/sergio-marchionne/ceo-says-chrysler-group-now-square-american-taxpay/

...Because Obama bad man...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5f/Obama_Joker_Poster.jpg

Semantics is not a fun game.

mnchiefsguy
06-05-2011, 10:31 AM
If Obama actually said that, you would be on to something. Of course, you know that he didn't.



Why did you feel compelled to change it?

In an interview with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on May 24, 2011, Ron Bloom, assistant to President Obama in charge of manufacturing policy, broke it down more plainly:

"Today, Chrysler is reducing their obligation to the U.S. taxpayer by $8 billion. They have previously provided us with $2.6 billion of funds. So, that $10.6 (billion) stacks up against $8.5 billion that the president invested in Chrysler and $4 billion from the prior administration. So, that's over 100 percent of all monies that this administration invested and about 85 percent of the total invested funds by the United States government."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/26/sergio-marchionne/ceo-says-chrysler-group-now-square-american-taxpay/

...Because Obama bad man...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5f/Obama_Joker_Poster.jpg

This is a quote from an Obama advisor to Andrea Mitchell, not something the President himself actually said. What the President actually said at the Chrysler factory is quoted in the article in the original post. Are you saying the President did not say that in his speech and the reporter is lying? I did not hear the speech, so I don't know if the quote is accurate or not, but if this reporter altered a quote of the President, I think he and his editors would probably be joining the other 9.1% of the public that is in the unemployment line.

HonestChieffan
06-05-2011, 10:38 AM
Orange draws a huge Oh Goody that Obama is quoted as referring to 100% that was loaned on his watch. He ignores a couple elements....the country, you, me, Orange, Obama...all of us are still down $6.44 Billion.

He, Like Obama, assumes any payment made during Obama's tenure applies first to Obama Loans even if they came after the the Bush allocations. Its an odd sort of accounting but it reflects well on Obama and allows him to say the unpaid balance belongs to Bush.

The key point is as long as the country takes it in the ass its ok if it can be deflected form Obama.

scott free
06-05-2011, 11:37 AM
and the cars still suck.

Thats horseshit.

Psyko Tek
06-05-2011, 11:41 AM
where's my fuckin' Viper?

give me that and I'm OK

stevieray
06-05-2011, 12:30 PM
This is a quote from an Obama advisor to Andrea Mitchell, not something the President himself actually said. What the President actually said at the Chrysler factory is quoted in the article in the original post. Are you saying the President did not say that in his speech and the reporter is lying? I did not hear the speech, so I don't know if the quote is accurate or not, but if this reporter altered a quote of the President, I think he and his editors would probably be joining the other 9.1% of the public that is in the unemployment line.

It's from Ron Bloom, the manufacturing czar who thinks the free market is nonsense.

orange
06-05-2011, 01:47 PM
This is a quote from an Obama advisor to Andrea Mitchell, not something the President himself actually said. What the President actually said at the Chrysler factory is quoted in the article in the original post. Are you saying the President did not say that in his speech and the reporter is lying? I did not hear the speech, so I don't know if the quote is accurate or not, but if this reporter altered a quote of the President, I think he and his editors would probably be joining the other 9.1% of the public that is in the unemployment line.

No YOU altered the quote - right here in plain sight.

OP - “Chrysler has repaid every dime and more of what it owes the American taxpayer from the investment we made during my watch.”

The Andrea Mitchell thing just clarifies that.

What does "during my watch" mean? And why did you leave it out when you paraphrased Obama?


A further issue is that he's talking about THIS company - NOT the former one. THIS company did not get all the money and never owed it. Also explained in that FactCheck article.

And the Examiner writer Conn Carroll is a total liar. Is he going to be in the unemployment line? I laugh.

Here's DCF, still quoting the lie. The LIE.

...all of us are still down $6.44 Billion.


The U.S. government, with this deal and previous loan repayments, interest and canceled commitments, will have recovered $11.2 billion of the $12.5 billion - Bloomberg

HonestChieffan
06-05-2011, 01:55 PM
Spin bitch spin. Ride for 8 seconds and u get a belt buckle that says Champion Shill.

orange
06-05-2011, 02:08 PM
Bob Nardelli will bring the company to ruin.

Bob Nardelli, hmm? You mean the Bob Nardelli who hasn't been with the company since 2009? That one?

banyon
06-05-2011, 02:10 PM
This is a quote from an Obama advisor to Andrea Mitchell, not something the President himself actually said. What the President actually said at the Chrysler factory is quoted in the article in the original post. Are you saying the President did not say that in his speech and the reporter is lying? I did not hear the speech, so I don't know if the quote is accurate or not, but if this reporter altered a quote of the President, I think he and his editors would probably be joining the other 9.1% of the public that is in the unemployment line.

The quote is actually right at 13:21 in this video, so the Examiner article indeed is a misquote (perhaps intentional).

<object id='cspan-video-player' classid='clsid:d27cdb6eae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000' codebase='http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,0,0' align='middle' height='500' width='410'><param name='allowScriptAccess' value='true'/><param name='movie' value='http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlayer.swf?pid=299861-1&start=-10&end=1621'/><param name='quality' value='high'/><param name='bgcolor' value='#ffffff'/><param name='allowFullScreen' value='true'/><param name='flashvars' value='system=http://www.c-spanvideo.org/common/services/flashXml.php?programid=253368&style=full&start=-10&end=1621'/><embed name='cspan-video-player' src='http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlayer.swf?pid=299861-1&start=-10&end=1621' allowScriptAccess='always' bgcolor='#ffffff' quality='high' allowFullScreen='true' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' flashvars='system=http://www.c-spanvideo.org/common/services/flashXml.php?programid=253368&style=full&start=-10&end=1621' align='middle' height='500' width='410'></embed></object>

banyon
06-05-2011, 02:12 PM
Spin bitch spin. Ride for 8 seconds and u get a belt buckle that says Champion Shill.

Actually it's unspinning that Orange is doing.

Since your article misled, the accurate figure would be $12.5 billion - 11.2 billion.

Now we all know you're a math whiz, right? see if you can do the math and if it still means $6.44 billion.

HonestChieffan
06-05-2011, 02:27 PM
You have to wait your turn. After the bull throws him, you can try as well.

banyon
06-05-2011, 02:30 PM
You have to wait your turn. After the bull throws him, you can try as well.

Great reply as always. I love how you backed up the substance of your claim. :thumb:

HonestChieffan
06-05-2011, 06:48 PM
Orange draws a huge Oh Goody that Obama is quoted as referring to 100% that was loaned on his watch. He ignores a couple elements....the country, you, me, Orange, Obama...all of us are still down $6.44 Billion.

He, Like Obama, assumes any payment made during Obama's tenure applies first to Obama Loans even if they came after the the Bush allocations. Its an odd sort of accounting but it reflects well on Obama and allows him to say the unpaid balance belongs to Bush.

The key point is as long as the country takes it in the ass its ok if it can be deflected form Obama.

Banyon....help me see the error.

We, the taxpayer are still down 6.44 bil.
Obama only gives credit for repayment to his tenure, not Bush.

Thus he can say they repaid every dollar loaned "on his watch".

Its spin. Its bullshit.

You buy this? Really?

banyon
06-05-2011, 06:59 PM
Banyon....help me see the error.

We, the taxpayer are still down 6.44 bil.
Obama only gives credit for repayment to his tenure, not Bush.

Thus he can say they repaid every dollar loaned "on his watch".

Its spin. Its bullshit.

You buy this? Really?

I think you are having trouble between the two distortions, so let me help:

1) There was a distorted claim that the taxpayers are down 6.44 billion from the Chrysler bailout.

1-A) This is not true, because the figures used in the article did not include the stock warrants which the government has also sold. Including the value of the stock sale gets you to the $1.3 billion figure (with more loans possibly remaining to be repaid-see the Bloomberg link posted by Orange).

2)There was a mistaken claim that Obama said "the President was not correct when he said Chrysler paid back "every dime and more" of what it was loaned" (mnchiefsfan).

2-A) This is incorrect because it leaves out the context of "during his tenure" which was a part of the quote. It's simply inaccurate.

The former claim was yours through the OP, the latter not yours. Both, however, are inaccurate for the reasons listed.

HonestChieffan
06-05-2011, 07:01 PM
Freaking tool.

banyon
06-05-2011, 07:03 PM
Freaking tool.

Don't know what else I could do to answer your question.

Tool indeed. Pot, kettle.

HonestChieffan
06-05-2011, 08:08 PM
Facts bother you. It is ok. Just ignore them. Restate them in a new way.

BigMeatballDave
06-05-2011, 08:18 PM
Wait. So, its OK for Wall Street to keep our money, since Obama didnt have anything to do with that?

This is why I hate politics. This Partisan shit is fucking petty.

banyon
06-05-2011, 08:22 PM
Facts bother you. It is ok. Just ignore them. Restate them in a new way.

Is this some Orwellian way of pretending you replied to my post?

Fact - your figures didn't include the stock sale.

Fact - Obama's statement was correct about repayment during his tenure.

Fact- Honest Chieffan has run out of ammo.

Jenson71
06-05-2011, 08:30 PM
I think you are having trouble between the two distortions, so let me help:

1) There was a distorted claim that the taxpayers are down 6.44 billion from the Chrysler bailout.

1-A) This is not true, because the figures used in the article did not include the stock warrants which the government has also sold. Including the value of the stock sale gets you to the $1.3 billion figure (with more loans possibly remaining to be repaid-see the Bloomberg link posted by Orange).

2)There was a mistaken claim that Obama said "the President was not correct when he said Chrysler paid back "every dime and more" of what it was loaned" (mnchiefsfan).

2-A) This is incorrect because it leaves out the context of "during his tenure" which was a part of the quote. It's simply inaccurate.

The former claim was yours through the OP, the latter not yours. Both, however, are inaccurate for the reasons listed.

Freaking tool.

This neat exchange pretty much shows how much of a worthless poster you are, HCf. Completely shitty.

Silock
06-05-2011, 08:31 PM
It's disingenuous because he voted for the bailouts and such while he was still a senator. Breaking down a time period where he supported the action and where he was "in control" in order to fudge the numbers is stupid.

banyon
06-05-2011, 08:42 PM
It's disingenuous because he voted for the bailouts and such while he was still a senator. Breaking down a time period where he supported the action and where he was "in control" in order to fudge the numbers is stupid.

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/1aabailvote.jpg

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/12/12/final-roll-call-vote-on-the-uaw-bailout/

Technically, his Senate seat was vacant by rule at the time of the vote, but he did offer support in campaign statements.

HonestChieffan
06-05-2011, 09:05 PM
It's disingenuous because he voted for the bailouts and such while he was still a senator. Breaking down a time period where he supported the action and where he was "in control" in order to fudge the numbers is stupid.

Not really stupid politically. He sells himself to stupid/simple people who will accept anything Obama says regardless of the facts. The guy is a master at the spin. He suckers the simple minded and those who are enamored with the style points. That is what makes him dangerous. When you see people as educated and informed as Orange and Banyon buying this fabricated line of shit spin, you see how good Obama is.

banyon
06-05-2011, 09:13 PM
Not really stupid politically. He sells himself to stupid/simple people who will accept anything Obama says regardless of the facts. The guy is a master at the spin. He suckers the simple minded and those who are enamored with the style points. That is what makes him dangerous. When you see people as educated and informed as Orange and Banyon buying this fabricated line of shit spin, you see how good Obama is.

I didn't "buy it". I opposed the bailouts and still do. I just pointed out the inaccuracies in this thread.

Why is it so many people in this forum make the mistaken assumption that "if they criticize my post, they must be for the opposite"? It's a pretty basic point of logic that (Being against A) doesn't = (Being for B).

It's like
A: "There's a giant zombie horde coming toward town, run for your lives!"

B: (looks through telescope at lookout tower) "Uh no, there's not"

A: "He's pro-zombie get him!"

|Zach|
06-05-2011, 10:40 PM
Banyon....help me see the error.

We, the taxpayer are still down 6.44 bil.
Obama only gives credit for repayment to his tenure, not Bush.

Thus he can say they repaid every dollar loaned "on his watch".

Its spin. Its bullshit.

You buy this? Really?

I think you are having trouble between the two distortions, so let me help:

1) There was a distorted claim that the taxpayers are down 6.44 billion from the Chrysler bailout.

1-A) This is not true, because the figures used in the article did not include the stock warrants which the government has also sold. Including the value of the stock sale gets you to the $1.3 billion figure (with more loans possibly remaining to be repaid-see the Bloomberg link posted by Orange).

2)There was a mistaken claim that Obama said "the President was not correct when he said Chrysler paid back "every dime and more" of what it was loaned" (mnchiefsfan).

2-A) This is incorrect because it leaves out the context of "during his tenure" which was a part of the quote. It's simply inaccurate.

The former claim was yours through the OP, the latter not yours. Both, however, are inaccurate for the reasons listed.



Freaking tool.

Hilarity.

Silock
06-05-2011, 11:30 PM
http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/1aabailvote.jpg

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/12/12/final-roll-call-vote-on-the-uaw-bailout/

Technically, his Senate seat was vacant by rule at the time of the vote, but he did offer support in campaign statements.

I was referring to the original TARP bailout (from which Chrysler and GM drew their bailouts), which he did vote yes on.

Just because he didn't vote on the specifics of it doesn't make it any less disingenuous, considering he, as you said, was a very vocal supporter of it.

Silock
06-05-2011, 11:30 PM
I didn't "buy it". I opposed the bailouts and still do. I just pointed out the inaccuracies in this thread.

Why is it so many people in this forum make the mistaken assumption that "if they criticize my post, they must be for the opposite"? It's a pretty basic point of logic that (Being against A) doesn't = (Being for B).

It's like
A: "There's a giant zombie horde coming toward town, run for your lives!"

B: (looks through telescope at lookout tower) "Uh no, there's not"

A: "He's pro-zombie get him!"

Wait, WTF is wrong with being pro-zombie? THIS FORUM SUCKS.

Amnorix
06-06-2011, 06:16 AM
Chrysler is run by idiots. They push cars with 356 Hp when gas prices are hitting $4.00

Bob Nardelli will bring the company to ruin.

:spock:

Wait, is it 2009?

Nardelli is out already. http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2009/04/21/chrysler-the-end-of-bob-nardelli-again/

Fiat now owns most of Chrysler and is well positioned to help push small cars.

dirk digler
06-06-2011, 06:33 AM
I think you are having trouble between the two distortions, so let me help:

1) There was a distorted claim that the taxpayers are down 6.44 billion from the Chrysler bailout.

1-A) This is not true, because the figures used in the article did not include the stock warrants which the government has also sold. Including the value of the stock sale gets you to the $1.3 billion figure (with more loans possibly remaining to be repaid-see the Bloomberg link posted by Orange).

2)There was a mistaken claim that Obama said "the President was not correct when he said Chrysler paid back "every dime and more" of what it was loaned" (mnchiefsfan).

2-A) This is incorrect because it leaves out the context of "during his tenure" which was a part of the quote. It's simply inaccurate.

The former claim was yours through the OP, the latter not yours. Both, however, are inaccurate for the reasons listed.

LMAO Complete ownage.

I guess this makes hcf either a complete Liar or he is just totally uniformed, out of touch and ignorant. :D

Velvet_Jones
06-06-2011, 07:00 AM
LMAO Complete ownage.

I guess this makes hcf either a complete Liar or he is just totally uniformed, out of touch and ignorant. :D

Dirk calling someone stupid and a liar? - WTF. Does no-one around here find that ironic? Dirks a dumbass and he is quoting banyon who is a mildly educated dubmass. What the **** is going on here?

mlyonsd
06-06-2011, 07:01 AM
:spock:

Wait, is it 2009?

Nardelli is out already. http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2009/04/21/chrysler-the-end-of-bob-nardelli-again/

Fiat now owns most of Chrysler and is well positioned to help push small cars.

US taxpayers bailed Chrysler out so a foreign car company could take them over? Awesome.

Amnorix
06-06-2011, 07:35 AM
US taxpayers bailed Chrysler out so a foreign car company could take them over? Awesome.

As you know, the reason(s) we bailed out Chrysler and GM were fundamentally the same -- the US economy, and the world economy, was on the rocks, and there was a serious concern that a big three car company going into conventional bankruptcy would be yet another body blow. A blow which could lead to yet more problems rippling through the system. Same for AIG. Prop up a foundation stone because when those start to crumble, the entire building might come down.

And, owned by Fiat or not, the Chrysler plants, dealerships, part suppliers, etc. ad infinitum continue to be in place where they are, which is largely in America.

It's easy now to point and laugh, or criticize, but if letting AIG, GM and Chrysler fail would've resulted in a dramatically worse economy for many years, more on the scale of the Great Depression, on a worldwide basis, then I think the right decision was made. Of course, we'll never know that for certain. Obviously, there can be benefits to letting companies fail also -- redistribution of monies into more efficient operations, consolidation, reward the successful and punish the failures, etc. But at that particular point in time, it was viewed by many (especially in government) that those benefits outweighed the difficult-to-calculate risks of systemic failure.

We will also never know whether the moral hazard we incurred as a result of the bailouts was too great.

mlyonsd
06-06-2011, 01:07 PM
As you know, the reason(s) we bailed out Chrysler and GM were fundamentally the same -- the US economy, and the world economy, was on the rocks, and there was a serious concern that a big three car company going into conventional bankruptcy would be yet another body blow. A blow which could lead to yet more problems rippling through the system. Same for AIG. Prop up a foundation stone because when those start to crumble, the entire building might come down.

And, owned by Fiat or not, the Chrysler plants, dealerships, part suppliers, etc. ad infinitum continue to be in place where they are, which is largely in America.

It's easy now to point and laugh, or criticize, but if letting AIG, GM and Chrysler fail would've resulted in a dramatically worse economy for many years, more on the scale of the Great Depression, on a worldwide basis, then I think the right decision was made. Of course, we'll never know that for certain. Obviously, there can be benefits to letting companies fail also -- redistribution of monies into more efficient operations, consolidation, reward the successful and punish the failures, etc. But at that particular point in time, it was viewed by many (especially in government) that those benefits outweighed the difficult-to-calculate risks of systemic failure.

We will also never know whether the moral hazard we incurred as a result of the bailouts was too great.

I think the auto bailouts were more about using tax payer dollars to cover union benefit shortfalls than anything. And that's fine, but I don't have a problem pointing it out.

So what if Chrysler tanks again? Now that Fiat is a major owner do we bail it out again? Or should Italy?

RNR
06-06-2011, 01:09 PM
US taxpayers bailed Chrysler out so a foreign car company could take them over? Awesome.

Don't you love it when a plan comes together?

Silock
06-06-2011, 01:17 PM
http://factcheck.org/2011/06/chrysler-paid-in-full/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook

Taxpayer beware: You have to read the fine print to know what the president means when he says Chrysler has paid back "every dime" of loans it received "during my watch." The company got $12.5 billion in bailout funds under the Bush and Obama administrations, but — despite what the president said — isn't expected to pay about $1.3 billion of it.

President Barack Obama visited a Chrysler plant in Toledo, Ohio, on June 3 to discuss the recent announcement that the Chrysler Group LLC repaid $5.1 billion in outstanding loans. That brought the total repayment, as of May 24, to $10.6 billion — about $1.9 billion less than the $12.5 billion the company borrowed under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

In his speech, the president said:

Obama, June 3: And today, I’m proud to announce the government has been completely repaid for the investments we made under my watch by Chrysler because of the outstanding work that you guys did. Because of you. Chrysler has repaid every dime and more of what it owes the American taxpayer from the investment we made during my watch. And by the way, you guys repaid it six years ahead of schedule.

Notice the president — sounding very much like a used-car salesman — used the phrases "during my watch" and "under my watch" when describing the TARP loans as being "completely repaid." That's because Chrysler received $4 billion on Jan. 2, 2009, (18 days before Obama took office) and $8.5 billion on April 30 (when Obama was president), according to this Government Accountability Office report (page 9) on TARP.

The Obama administration claims that its investment in Chrysler has been "completely repaid" because the $10.6 billion repaid is larger than the $8.5 billion loan the company received while Obama was in office.

To help us understand the math, the White House directed us to a statement made on May 24 by Ron Bloom, who heads the president's Auto Task Force, in an interview with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell:

Bloom, May 24: Today, Chrysler is reducing their obligation to the US taxpayer by $8 billion. They have previously provided us with $2.6 billion of funds. So that 10.6 stacks up against 8.5 billion that the president invested in Chrysler and $4 billion from the prior administration. So, that's over 100% of all moneys that this administration invested and 85% of the total invested funds by the United States government.

But this is fuzzy math, at best. The fact is that the Obama administration "wrote off" part of the original loan issued under Bush.

When Chrysler filed for bankruptcy on April 30, 2009, the "new Chrysler" that emerged assumed only some of the $4 billion loaned by the Bush administration. In a new report issued last month, the GAO explained that Treasury — under the Obama administration — "wrote off $1.6 billion" of the "original $4 billion loan extended to the old Chrysler."

In its May 24 announcement touting Chrysler's final repayment, Treasury acknowledged that it is "unlikely to fully recover" about $1.9 billion.
Treasury, May 24: Treasury committed a total of $12.5 billion to Chrysler under TARP’s Automotive Industry Financing Program (AIFP). With today’s transaction, Chrysler has returned more than $10.6 billion of that amount to taxpayers through principal repayments, interest, and cancelled commitments. Treasury continues to hold a 6.6 percent common equity stake in Chrysler. As previously stated, however, Treasury is unlikely to fully recover its remaining outstanding investment of $1.9 billion in Chrysler.

Since then, the administration has announced that it will sell its remaining Chrysler shares to Fiat, the Italian automaker that will now own a majority of the U.S. car company. Taxpayers will reap about $560 million from the stock sale, Treasury says. That still leaves taxpayers about $1.3 billion in the hole, and Treasury doesn't expect to ever get it back.

Treasury, June 2: Treasury is unlikely to fully recover the difference of $1.3 billion. Treasury has the right to recover proceeds from the disposition of the liquidation trust associated with the bankruptcy of Old Chrysler, but does not expect a material recovery from those assets.

We take no position on whether the government's investment in Chrysler was good public policy. We leave that for you to decide. But before you do, you should have all the facts. And the facts are that the automaker has not completely repaid the investments made by U.S. taxpayers, and that's the result of a decision by the Obama administration to forgive a significant portion of the original loan made by the previous administration.

Amnorix
06-06-2011, 01:53 PM
I think the auto bailouts were more about using tax payer dollars to cover union benefit shortfalls than anything. And that's fine, but I don't have a problem pointing it out.

So what if Chrysler tanks again? Now that Fiat is a major owner do we bail it out again? Or should Italy?

So Bush approved auto bailouts to save union benefits? You find that likely?

orange
06-06-2011, 04:12 PM
Since then, the administration has announced that it will sell its remaining Chrysler shares to Fiat, the Italian automaker that will now own a majority of the U.S. car company. Taxpayers will reap about $560 million from the stock sale, Treasury says. That still leaves taxpayers about $1.3 billion in the hole, and Treasury doesn't expect to ever get it back.


So, my post in the very first reply on this thread remains TRUE:
The U.S. government, with this deal and previous loan repayments, interest and canceled commitments, will have recovered $11.2 billion of the $12.5 billion it gave Chrysler in the bailout. The Treasury said it is unlikely to recover the remaining $1.3 billion.

And the original post remains a LIE:
Taxpayers lost $6.44 billion on Chrysler bailout


Thank you so much for clearing that up.

mlyonsd
06-06-2011, 05:25 PM
So Bush approved auto bailouts to save union benefits? You find that likely?As we both know, the deal the union workers brokered happened under Obama, not Bush.

Amnorix
06-07-2011, 06:15 AM
As we both know, the deal the union workers brokered happened under Obama, not Bush.

Yes, but Bush had already moved to inject massive funds into Chrysler. Regardless of the specific deals that were negotiated with the unions, and when, the fact is that the US government consistently determined, over both the Bush and Obama Administrations, to ensure that the auto industry didn't suffer any serious collapse during that two or so year timeframe when the housing bubble was bursting.


You indicated "I think the auto bailouts were more about using tax payer dollars to cover union benefit shortfalls than anything." There was in fact an auto bailout under Bush as well as Obama....

http://www.globalcrisisnews.com/usa/bush-bails-out-gm-and-chrysler/id=146/

mlyonsd
06-07-2011, 07:08 AM
Yes, but Bush had already moved to inject massive funds into Chrysler. Regardless of the specific deals that were negotiated with the unions, and when, the fact is that the US government consistently determined, over both the Bush and Obama Administrations, to ensure that the auto industry didn't suffer any serious collapse during that two or so year timeframe when the housing bubble was bursting.


You indicated "I think the auto bailouts were more about using tax payer dollars to cover union benefit shortfalls than anything." There was in fact an auto bailout under Bush as well as Obama....

http://www.globalcrisisnews.com/usa/bush-bails-out-gm-and-chrysler/id=146/

Yes I understand that. But the scope of the bailout dramatically changed under Obama. Tax payers bailed out union pensions. As it turns out to the tune of 14 billion. If the auto companies want to fork over that 14 billion I'll drop it.

And I notice you didn't answer my question of Chrysler tanking again.

Amnorix
06-07-2011, 11:31 AM
And I notice you didn't answer my question of Chrysler tanking again.


I thought it was rhetorical, to be honest. But you're suggesting it's not, so...


So what if Chrysler tanks again? Now that Fiat is a major owner do we bail it out again? Or should Italy?

Fiat is a major owner, but that's pretty irrelevant really. When the US bailed out GM and Chrysler, the "owners" (stockholders) were not the winners. In fact, they were wiped out.

So if another bailout were necessary, God forbid, then Fiat's ownership isn't all that relevant. They would presumably be wiped out, just as the owners in the recent bailout were, with the goal being to help keep jobs in place, etc., and not to save the stockholders, who after all are last in line to get anything in a worst-case scenario.

mlyonsd
06-07-2011, 05:13 PM
Fiat is a major owner, but that's pretty irrelevant really. When the US bailed out GM and Chrysler, the "owners" (stockholders) were not the winners. In fact, they were wiped out.

So if another bailout were necessary, God forbid, then Fiat's ownership isn't all that relevant. They would presumably be wiped out, just as the owners in the recent bailout were, with the goal being to help keep jobs in place, etc., and not to save the stockholders, who after all are last in line to get anything in a worst-case scenario.

I stand corrected on Fiat.

I still stand by my union bailout statement though.:p