You talk in circles. Now all those banks and auto manufacturers are corrupt, more reason for regulating them. You still don't think that giving the auto industry a hand wasn't a good thing? They saved, I believe 100k related auto industry jobs, and the big three, have paid their debts. Actually Ford didn't need any, or so it was said. If you think this is "a bad thing", I guess there is no way to change your view.
If by "paid their debts" you mean "a large chunk owned by US government", you're right, but what did I just say about the message being sent when bailing out failing businesses and how it doesn't fix the problem? Speaking of circles..http://www.forbes.co...nkruptcy-again/
President Obama is proud of his bailout of General Motors. That’s good, because, if he wins a second term, he is probably going to have to bail GM out again. The company is once again losing market share, and it seems unable to develop products that are truly competitive in the U.S. market.Right now, the federal government owns 500,000,000 shares of GM, or about 26% of the company. It would need to get about $53.00/share for these to break even on the bailout, but the stock closed at only $20.21/share on Tuesday. This left the government holding $10.1 billion worth of stock, and sitting on an unrealized loss of $16.4 billion.Right now, the government’s GM stock is worth about 39% less than it was on November 17, 2010, when the company went public at $33.00/share. However, during the intervening time, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen by almost 20%, so GM shares have lost 49% of their value relative to the Dow.http://www.factcheck...r-paid-in-full/
General Motors Is Headed For Bankruptcy -- Again
Chrysler Paid in Full?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 its May 24 announcement touting Chrysler's final repayment, Treasury acknowledged that it is "unlikely to fully recover" about $1.9 billion.
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, 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.
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.
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.
Then we have..http://online.wsj.co...2149103202.html
General Motors Co. will drive away from its U.S.-government-financed restructuring with a final gift in its trunk: a tax break that could be worth as much as $45 billion.GM, which plans to begin promoting its relisting on the stock exchange to investors this week, wiped out billions of dollars in debt, laid off thousands of employees and jettisoned money-losing brands during its U.S.-funded reorganization last year.
GM Could Be Free of Taxes for Years
Now it turns out, according to documents filed with federal regulators, the revamping left the car maker with another boost as it prepares to return to the stock market. It won't have to pay $45.4 billion in taxes on future profits.
The tax benefit stems from so-called tax-loss carry-forwards and other provisions, which allow companies to use losses in prior years and costs related to pensions and other expenses to shield profits from U.S. taxes for up to 20 years. In GM's case, the losses stem from years prior to when GM entered bankruptcy.
Usually, companies that undergo a significant change in ownership risk having major restrictions put on their tax benefits. The U.S. bailout of GM, in which the Treasury took a 61% stake in the company, ordinarily would have resulted in GM having such limits put on its tax benefits, according to tax experts.
But the federal government, in a little-noticed ruling last year, decided that companies that received U.S. bailout money under the Troubled Asset Relief Program won't fall under that rule.
Then we get into Ford, which while technically didn't take a bailout, was the one who started the process of attaining bailout funds for the big 3.. why? Simple, they had the same suppliers and would be heavily impacted by another bankruptcy for GM and Chrysler necessitating a bailout as well. Life isn't without irony and the irony here is Ford soon after put out a marketing campaign slamming the other two of the big 3 for accepting bailout funds while it was Ford's idea, and Ford would have been screwed if the other two went to bankruptcy.
How this mess is good for the taxpayers to absorb is beyond me, looks like it's a typical money grab at the behest of taxpayers. This moronic level of acceptance of excessive government intervention in the economy has it's consequences some of which we are already seeing with the devaluation of the US dollar and higher costs, and certainly will be exacerbated as the US continues to lose currency value, furthermore as countries continue diversifying away from the dollar, and of course as the US credit rating continues plummeting as well. Thankfully there's plenty of Obama sycophants who will re-elect him to give more money to his corporate masters, or the Romney rebels who think changing over to Romney will be any different whatsoever either. It's gonna be even more entertaining seeing the more dramatic results of so many stupid election choices.
Edited by zaibatsu, 09 September 2012 - 07:33 AM.