-
Posts
41,307 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
83
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by Warhippy
-
Liberal Government Writes off Billion Dollar Loan to Chrysler
Warhippy replied to Warhippy's topic in Off-Topic General
"sound fiscal management" How much money did they really give away? Ottawa never really expected the “Old Chrysler” loan to be repaid. It just wasn’t clear when the final lumps would be delivered. Now, rubbing our bruises, we know. We’ve seen this lame re-run too many times already. Just consider EDC’s Canada Account, through which the loan to “Old Chrysler” was funneled. It’s a fund with the stated goal of supporting businesses and projects that are deemed in the “national interest,” so not surprisingly it’s a favourite plaything for governments of all political stripes when things get rocky. A look at the Canada Account’s transaction list since 2002 is like taking a walk down Boondoggle Rd. There’s Chrysler’s financing (listed conveniently and ambiguously at “1 billion +”, allowing for the sum to balloon) along with $1 billion plus to General Motors, which has been repaid. Davie shipyards makes several appearances on the Canada Account list. In 2008 Ottawa funnelled $380 million to the company by way of financing and loan guarantees. Two years later Davie was in bankruptcy protections—a position where it has spent a considerable amount of time over the last three decades during which it has absorbed billions in taxpayer money. EDC ended up writing off $350 million on that most recent adventure in 2014. The Canada Account was used to kick $100 million over to Air Canada in 2009, part of Ottawa’s $250 million bailout package for the airline—a move which angered competitors like WestJet, which had no need of rescuing. (In that case, Air Canada repaid the $100 million the following year.) -
Liberal Government Writes off Billion Dollar Loan to Chrysler
Warhippy replied to Warhippy's topic in Off-Topic General
By 2011 the Harper government was trumpeting Chrysler’s repayment of its loans—that would be the loan to “New Chrysler”—seemingly signalling to Canadian taxpayers that they’d been made whole. Of course that wasn’t the case. In 2014 an auditor general report found the two governments had only recovered $5.4 billion of the $13.7 billion in bailout funds. Ottawa and Ontario had also taken equity stakes in the two companies, but even after those were later sold, taxpayers were still out by billions. https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/canadian-taxpayers-secretive-2-6-billion-gift-to-chrysler/ -
As well all remember, 2008 saw the largest financial crisis seen in the world since the great depression. Resulting in millions of lost jobs worldwide and trillions of lost dollars in the global economy. Governments were desperate to salvage what they could and threw money at everything. The then Conservative government and US government gave billions to the auto sector to help save it. One of these loans from Canada was to Chrysler as a term loan. Chrysler then separated pre merger in to two division, "old Chrsyler" and Chrysler Fiat. Old Chrysler then dissolved after bankruptcy proceedings and new Chrysler/Fiat carried on. This leads us to now. The US and current Canadian Liberal government eventually exhausted all efforts to recover these loans as the company that received this loan no longer existed. There was no money, nobody to sue and the tale gets really murky but essentially with the inital loan and interest canadians are almost out $3 billion dollars The most egregious and ridiculous thing is that today in question period and on various talk shows of political nature today that the former government and current members of the former government are attacking the Liberals over this. For writing off a loan that had literally no hope of being repaid. You cannot make this stuff up people. I hated these loans then and I hate them now. This for once is not the fault of the current government but is being labeled as such and it makes me sick because nobody will accept guilt and we're out billions to a company that doesn't exist as that entity anymore but is STILL generating billions in profit https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/chrysler-auto-loan-canada-account-write-off-edc-bailout-taxpayer-wudrick-milke-1.4871648?__vfz=profile_comment%3D5978100017745# The Liberal government has quietly written off a $2.6-billion auto-sector loan that was cobbled together to save Chrysler during the 2009 global economic meltdown. The write-off, among the largest ever for a taxpayer-funded bailout, is buried in a volume of the 2018 Public Accounts of Canada, tabled in Parliament on Friday. The reference contains no explanation for the write-off, identifying neither the business that received the loan nor the sector of the economy. But CBC News has confirmed the money was lent on March 30, 2009, to Chrysler LLC by the federal government – a non-performing loan that grew with interest over the following nine years. The loan was made by the Harper government, in co-operation with the Ontario government. "After exhausting all potential avenues for recovery, a $1.125 billion US principal plus accrued interest write-off in respect of 'Old Chrysler' occurred in March," said John Babcock of Global Affairs Canada, the department responsible. "This amount is reflected in the Public Accounts." At the time of the 2009 auto-sector bailouts in Canada and the United States, Chrysler was split in two: an "Old Chrysler" that went into bankruptcy and a "New Chrysler" that became viable and remains in operation today. Now called Fiat Chrysler, the international firm reported net profits of $4.3 billion US for 2017. Auditor General Michael Ferguson has previously slammed Ottawa's auto bailouts for lack of transparency.(The Canadian Press/Sean Kilpatrick) Another 2009 loan, to the restructured Chrysler Corp., was repaid in 2011, when the company paid $1.7 billion in principal and interest to the governments of Canada and Ontario. CBC News reported earlier this year, drawing on heavily censored documents obtained through the Access to Information Act, that the Liberal government had forgiven a large auto-sector loan. Similarly opaque Officials at the time refused to provide details, including the amount or the business that benefited, saying they were protecting "commercial confidentiality." Friday's Public Accounts documents were similarly opaque about the write-off, referring only to the precise value, $2,595,974,536 in Canadian funds. Canada's auditor general has previously cited a lack of transparency over the bailouts. "We found it impossible to gain a complete picture of the assistance provided, the difference the assistance made to the viability of the companies, and the amounts recovered and lost," Michael Ferguson said in his fall 2014 report. "There was no comprehensive reporting of the information to Parliament." The now-defunct Chrysler loan was administered by Export Development Canada (EDC), which manages the Canada Account, a financial vehicle for making large loans and loan guarantees backed directly by the Government of Canada. The Canada Account, for example, was used to finance Ottawa's multibillion-dollar purchase of Trans Mountain Pipeline on Aug. 31, 2018, from Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, in an effort to assure the construction of a pipeline expansion from Alberta to British Columbia. EDC's Canada Account transactions currently show an outstanding loan to GM Corp. for more than $1 billion, originally made on April 29, 2009. The loan also appears to be attributed to a bankrupt version of the firm that was split off from a viable version of GM that year. As part of GM's restructuring, the federal and Ontario governments also took multibillion-dollar equity stakes in the company. They sold the last of their GM shares in 2015. Aaron Wudrick of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation says it “defies common sense” that a taxpayer should be on the hook for a government mistake. (Brian Morris/CBC) A political scientist who has studied the auto-sector bailouts, Mark Milke, said in 2015 that the $13.7 billion that Ottawa delivered in 2009 eventually cost Canadian taxpayers about $3.7 billion in money that was never repaid. In the dark Industry Canada itself warned in 2014 that "neither Canada nor the U.S. expected any of the loans to be recovered from 'Old Chrysler'." It was not clear why the non-performing loan remained on the Canada Account books for four more years. Aaron Wudrick, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, said the Chrysler write-off is yet another example of governments keeping citizens in the dark about how their tax dollars bail out corporations. "While our organization opposes taxpayer bailouts of private businesses as a rule, I think even for those who take a less stringent view, this case highlights the importance of transparency in government expenditures," he said. Auto bailout details difficult to piece together, AG says Ottawa doesn't regret GM bailout Federal government, Ontario agree on $3.3B auto bailout package "In short, the bare minimum condition for taxpayer support should be transparency — for the amount given and the terms attached to it. If a business is not even willing to meet that basic requirement in order to receive what are in many cases billions of free taxpayer dollars, they shouldn't get it at all." Word of the Chrysler write-off comes as the Liberal government has been bracing for possible U.S. tariffs against Canada's auto exports, threatened by the Trump administration.
-
Pffft not a chance, Crosby had 109 points and was only +15 one year Subban had 51 points in Nashville and was only a +4 one year Hedman had 72 points! Only a +3 Obviously +/- is super important as only one of those players was drafted outside of the top 3
-
Hope you drive an electric vehicle I kid I kid. I agree, the same rules should apply as cigarette smoke in public areas but due to the psychotropic affects of the smoke should probably be more readily pushed outside of public areas where kids would be present. Although, seeing some people's children...maybe smoking near them wouldn't be the worst idea
-
*sips whiskey and smokes a players light at 8 am* I find your comment fascinating, tell me more
-
So, in all honesty. Starting to hear some significant chatter about Kaapo Kakko potentially being the #1 overall choice for some scouts 1 point in 6 games a barely 16 year old in the TPS Liiga last year. 55 points in 39 games in the TPS U20 Jr A SM Liiga and 11 points in 6 games at the TPS U18 JrB Sm Liiga Now he's 17 years old and almost a PPG in the TPS Liiga mens league with 9 points in 11 games as a RW. 6 foot 1, 181 pounds as of mid August 10 points in 7 games at the WJC-18 and essentially a near PPG player in the playoffs or tournaments at almost every level he's played at I get the love for Hughes, the guy looks good but with some pundits claiming he's potentially more of a winger at the NHL level and with Kaapo Kakko's production being what it is, speed, stick handling and all around ability and size at bloody 17 years old and on pace to shatter Laines point totals at the same age is THIS the guy we should be seriously looking at? Laines draft year was 46 games 33 points Kakko is on pace for 40ish points in the same amount of games played while being a better skater and smaller bodied Just reference is all
-
I agree. Appointing people with no accountability simply to score political points and stack the deck is wrong But the Canadian Supreme Court doesn't have the hyper political issues that the US does thankfully.
-
Or are you completely ignoring that he PERHURED himself in front of a senate committee? Did you drink beer? No. Oh excwept all those times I drank beer Did you ever black out? No...except for those times I don't remember Did you ever physically acost anyone? No. Except for that time with that bar fight and all those people that are saying otherwise. I mean, is it just being pissy that someone "won something" or is it just a complete and utter end to the patience for people like yourself that like to spin the facts because you really cannot argue otherwise and refuse to accept that you might be wrong? As for not being able to remember a time where this level of whining was this close to this scale. need I remind you of the time the GOP held a sit in to ensure Obama couldn't pass the ACA by shutting down the government while reading green eggs and ham at nearly midnight to their kids? Oh how about the buying starbucks to pour it out? Wait no buying Nikes to burn them? Ohhhh buying taylor swift merch today and burning it? Or even better my personal fave, being mad at a dude in tites refusing to stand for a song I mean I don't want to say your memory is selectively short but hey...we don't need merrick garland in the room continually bringing up her emails do we
-
At this point I believe he is getting confirmed. even though the GOP KNOWS he is unfit they don't care. But a part of me hopes that 2 or 3 GOP members vote against him just to see Trumps epic twitter meltdown blaming Soros and the Clintons
-
Seriously, what happened to "I dare you to say that on the field" attitudes. This is why I wouldn't be able to be a politician. Some arsehole in a media room would make a comment like this, looking like that guy does and I'd say something he'd say something back and the next thing you know I'd be saying on behalf of my constituents I cannot allow this to stand, back that up at 3 pm behind the woodshed . It's dueling time I mean, where's the damned passion? I daresay people will take you FAR more seriously while you sit in your appointed seat drinking from the skull of your most recent victim
-
Ever wish the days of the duel still existed? I'd love to see a firebrand of a democrat challenge him on the field. Think he'd cave?
-
Claims Bezos so it must be biased Claims fox report with unknown person with ridiculously incorrect timelines is reason enough to discredit said alleged victim. Also. Timeline. 30 years ago. Veracity and authenticity of the story. Innocent until proven guilty Just sayin
-
Wait...what? Hiring a prosecutor but refusing to allow her to do her own job and interrupting her when it came to serious questions then telling her her time was up and to not cross examine the alleged attacked holds...weight? Kinda contradicting your prior statements but ok
-
it's 4D chess my man, 4 D
-
How do I really feel? I feel as though Kavanaugh is in fact guilty of quite a lot. That's inarguable. I feel as though that even IF perchance that Ford is mistaken that the GOP and Trump are sharting on survivors everywhere. Anyone in defense of the GOP or kavanaugh is essentially accepting the deridement of assault survivors the world over I feel as though you're trying to stir up attention by posting an article by FOX news that is so easily picked apart it makes me question your intelligence because if you HAVE a history of arguing the same statements over and over again yet veer in to this kind of nonsense you are one of two things. 1. Easily misinformed 2. Easily misled Subtly different yet at the same time egregious for their own reasons. As well, claiming that his being a white male has anything to do with it raises all sorts of new questions regarding your motives for defense. Anyways, the idea that a redacted and easily debunked statement from FOX News of an unnamed ex boyfriend whos timeline not only doesn't fit but also is so laughably easily debunked is credible enough to cast aspersions on Dr Fords credibility is sad. Just sad. it is essentially fodder for the illiterate and easily misled yokels that cheer and applaud trump mocking sexual assault survivors
-
Cut her credibility to shreds? Based on who's opinion? By ALL accounts even those of professional experts Ford was VERY credible on the stand. The only people saying otherwise are politicians and political pundits on the right. Anne Coulter thinks she's lying of course, but the experts brought in for independent analysis think she's being truthful. Rachel Mitchell, the hand picked person brought in by the GOP to question her says that her testimony simply does not hold enough weight for criminal proceedings. Not that she isn't credible The polygraph thinks she is being truthful. The masses think she is being truthful She offered to take another polygraph, be investigated by the FBI You know who didn't? Kavanaugh Him being a white male doesn't make him a victim, but thanks for posting your reasoning for your doubt. But just for fun, here is what multiple independent experts have stated. Just for fun of course As former federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York who prosecuted and supervised cases involving human and sex trafficking as well as child exploitation, we find her analysis to be incomplete and deeply flawed. As an initial matter, many questions exist about Mitchell’s claimed independence, including whether and how much she is being paid, and by whom; what Senate Republicans talked to her about before the hearing; and why she ceased asking questions shortly after Kavanaugh began testifying. Indeed, although Mitchell cross-examined Ford on behalf of the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee — quite unsuccessfully in our view — the committee chairman, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, cut off her questioning of Kavanaugh shortly after his testimony began. Notably, this happened right after Mitchell questioned Kavanaugh about the possibly incriminating July 1 entry on his calendar. The end result was that Mitchell did not question Kavanaugh in the same way that she did Ford, nor did the Republicans make any attempt to do it for her. This alone severely undermines her assessment. Moreover, we are stunned that a career prosecutor like Mitchell would not acknowledge that, at least prior to the hearing, no meaningful, independent investigation had yet been conducted. Nor did she call for such an investigation. We can confidently say that no “reasonable prosecutor” in this country — state or federal — would ever assess the merits of a case without conducting a basic investigation. Such an investigation would always include interviewing any other persons alleged to have been in the room at the time of the incident in question. A reasonable prosecutor evaluating this case would attempt to corroborate the stories of both Ford and Kavanaugh by interviewing other witnesses, tracking down alleged witness Mark Judge’s employment records and by drilling down on Kavanaugh’s calendar to see if it could corroborate the party in question. These are all basic investigative steps that would need to be completed before assessing the credibility of allegations such as Ford’s. And yet none of these steps were taken before Mitchell wrote her memo. Mitchell’s memo also fails to address a central question that any reasonable prosecutor would examine: motive. There can be no doubt that Ford’s life has been turned upside down — no one would want to endure what she has since her allegations have been made public. Moreover, when she first told her couples therapist about the assault — prompted by her irrational but understandable desire to feel secure in her own home — Kavanaugh was not, contrary to Mitchell’s assessment, on the short list of Supreme Court candidates. On the other hand, Kavanaugh has said numerous times that being on the Supreme Court was a lifelong ambition of his, and it became clear that the only thing standing between him and that seat are the current allegations against him. Similarly, any reasonable prosecutor would also weigh the fact that Ford has repeatedly requested an FBI investigation and has submitted to a lie-detector test, while Kavanaugh repeatedly refused to directly call for either despite being pressed at the hearing to ask for an investigation. Mitchell’s failure to even address these issues is stunning. Worst of all, the Mitchell memo does not even address Kavanaugh’s testimony. It is one thing for a purportedly neutral prosecutor to misleadingly frame Ford’s allegations as a case of “he said, she said.” It is something else altogether to ignore what “he” actually said. Mitchell does not address Kavanaugh’s evasiveness, his combativeness, his anger, his highly suspect answers to questions about whether he had ever blacked out from drinking or his suspect responses to questions about specific references in his yearbook.
-
See when people who claim to be centrists or "not on the right" make these claims that are so EASILY picked apart and then latch on to them like this weasel Grassley it is beyond laughable. Because they're usually the same people who support mocking the families of dead soldiers, using dead soldiers to push racist narratives, deride sexual assault survivors and cheer a president who mocks everyone, lies about everything and has allegations from almost 2 dozen women against him. Now I'm not saying that people like that are essential Offal, I am just saying that these people are simply [Redacted} of human [Redacted] that should go [Reacted] in a chemical fire after being [redacted] so they can't conceive children But that's just me
-
You mean information that is already out there and easy to find online but somehow someway was not mentioned ONCE before she took the stand right? Just curious. Who is the attention seeker again? Obviously it's her right. I mean she only fought to keep her identity secret but OBVIOUSLY wants attention. Not the magical ex boyfriend who seems to somehow miss the marriage/engagement as well as her date of polygraph and therapy notes. Why do their timelines not meet up? He says time X, but the reports indicate time Y But hey, Fox news right, super credible. They've only doctored speeches, lied about results and of course mocked the families of dead vets to protect their president. Why not believe them too. Kill off that vile MeToo movement you seem to not approve of or appreciate Edit** My favorite part is how the boyfriends name is redacted but the friends isn't. Way to go FOX, way to go
-
Oh gee FOX News found someone they refuse to name who spoke up and out against Dr Ford. An Ex boyfriend no less But...wait. How long was she married again? Since 2002, after dating for 4 years. An ex boyfriend who is unnamed, directly contradicting her citing a time period before she took the polygraph and before the sessions with her therapist. Hmmm Now I am not saying FOX news is not credible, but maybe just maybe they're not credible at all
-
Nice moustache
-
A real man....
-
Benefit of the doubt pfft. All of these people are obviously lying and paid trolls. Democratic conspiracy!!!!