(01-25-2012 09:26 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 06:56 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 03:42 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  It was just your typical campaign speech

Great speech if you agreed with the president, fine speech if you were neutral and Marxist indoctrination if you were a wingnut. He reminded the nation that under his administration we had ended a war, killed Bin Laden and saved the U.S. auto industry within the first two minutes. The presidents delivery was perfect but the substance was on par with Dubya's mission to mars. The GOP doesn't have a single candidate that can occupy the same stage as President Obama.

You really really are bat sh!t Stupid

That means a lot, coming from you

(01-25-2012 07:33 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Why? You're the one who won't admit you don't know what you're talking about.

All evidence to the contrary.

Let's play a game fool.

Government loans tax payer money to GM in the amount of $1 (using small amounts for your sake).

GM now owes a debt to the government of $1

GM takes another loan of tax payer money from the government in the amount of $1. Their debt owed to the government of tax payer money is now $2. They use $1 of their $2 loan and give it back to the government. So their debt is now back to $1. So, contrary to your assertion, GM has, in point of fact, not paid back their loan of $1 of tax payer money because they still owe $1 of tax payer money.

The stupidity in saying that it doesn't matter because it came out of a different account is mind boggling because IT'S STILL TAX PAYER MONEY!!!

1+1-1= wait for it....1! See how that works boo boo?

This is not something that can be spun. This is not something that can be be disputed. GM took a loan out of tax payer money that they still owe. You and Obama can lie about it and hope people are stupid enough to believe it, but it doesn't change the reality. No doubt you will reply to this with more stupidity, and that of course is your right. But let's not pretend it's me that doesn't know what they are talking about. You either know I'm right and are just a liar, which speaks to your character, or you don't know that I'm right which speaks to your stupidity. Either way, it's not good.


ABC Article on the subject

Quote:The Treasury Department announced Thursday that it sold its stake in Chrysler, which is owned by Italian automaker Fiat, resulting in a $1.3 billion loss.

As far as GM goes:

Quote: The government has yet to recoup roughly $27 billion from GM, although it holds 500 million shares in the company’s stock. The value of that stock when the government sells it will determine just how much taxpayers stand to lose.

At its current price, the stock is work roughly $15 billion, meaning a potential $12 billion loss. But don’t expect the price to jump anytime soon, experts say, despite the new profitability of the business.

“The primary reason the stock isn’t doing well because the market knows the shareholder –- Treasury -– wants to dump 500 million shares,” CATO Institute analyst Dan Ikenson said. “No one wants to buy the stock knowing that there’s going to be this huge sale. So, it’s suppressing the price.”

There is nothing to support your argument in this situation. In fact, everything we know disproves what you are trying to argue. This can't be disputed. You will only further your glaring stupidity if you try. So no doubt you will.

Haha. You still don't understand. You completely ignore the bankruptcy and debt-for-equity swap, or you simply don't understand it. Maybe it's my fault for not explaining it plainly enough. Here's my last attempt. I've fixed your post below. Read carefully.

(01-26-2012 09:26 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 07:33 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Why? You're the one who won't admit you don't know what you're talking about.

All evidence to the contrary.

Let's play a game fool.

Government loans tax payer money to GM in the amount of $1 (using small amounts for your sake).

GM now owes a debt to the government of $1

GM files Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The $1 debt held by the government is waived as part of an asset sale to a brand new corporation jointly held by the government, UAW and other unsecured creditors, who waive all the debt they hold too (because they would get nothing if liquidation were to happen). The assets not sold to the brand new corporation are left with the old corporation to pay out to other creditors (like judgment lien holders, who would have had priority over unsecured creditors). Simply put, what you should take away from this is that the new corporation OWES NO DEBT TO THE GOVERNMENT AT THIS TIME. Instead of walking away from the bankruptcy holding debt, the government walks away owning a large piece of the brand new corporation. That money that they once loaned to the old corporation, is now simply the property of the new corporation they hold a majority stake in.

The new GM takes their first loan of tax payer money from the government in the amount of $1. Their debt owed to the government of tax payer money is now $1. They post $1 in profits in 2010 and use $1 of their $2 they now hold and give it back to the government. So their debt is now back to $0. So, you are correct and smarter than me.

The stupidity in saying that it doesn't matter because it came out of a different account is not in fact stupidity at all because money is fungible, meaning every dollar in the world is the same, and so the fact that the money paid out of an account that held money once tied to debt is completely irrelevant to anything and everything and only idiots like me and Fox News talking heads think it makes a difference.

Now you can debate the merits of the government's decision to make the debt-for-equity swap, but the fact is GM doesn't owe the government any more money. Also it doesn't matter where the money to pay off the loan came from because that money isn't tied to debt anymore (and in fact specific accounts aren't tied to debt anyway because money is fungible). The loan is paid off and the rest is now in the form of an ownership interest in GM, and the recoupment of the investment remains to be seen.

I don't think you're a stupid person, or even being dishonest here. It's simply that you don't know what you're talking about. Which is very funny and ironic because you accused someone else in this thread about not understanding bankruptcy.

You fail...again.

Though clearly it's your character and lack of intellectual honesty that's the issue, not your stupidity.

GM's Phony Loan Claims

Quote:But when Whitacre says GM has paid back the bailout money in full, he means not the entire $49.5 billion—the loan and the equity. In fact, he avoids all mention of that figure in his column. He means only the $6.7 billion loan amount.

But wait! Even that's not the full story given that GM, which has not yet broken even, much less turned a profit, can't pay even this puny amount from its own earnings.

So how is it paying it?

As it turns out, the Obama administration put $13.4 billion of the aid money as "working capital" in an escrow account when the company was in bankruptcy. The company is using this escrow money—government money—to pay back the government loan.

The fact remains the same and unchanged. GM had not paid the tax payer back anything. They had still taken from tax payers the same amount they did at the start. This can't be disputed. The fact that you continue to try shows you really are a blind partisan with zero credibility.

Quote:In short, GM is using government money to pay back government money to get more government money. And at a 2 percent lower interest rate at that. This is a nifty scheme to refinance GM's government debt—not pay it back!

Your position is indefensible. The more you try, the more you humiliate yourself. Which, don't get me wrong, I enjoy a great deal. And since you clearly have no shame at all, it doesn't seem to bother you. So, please, carry on.

You're completely hopeless. The "government money" was purchased by the new GM corporation as part of the asset sale! It's not debt! It's no longer "government money!" It's just property of the new GM corporation! I think I'm done here.

(01-26-2012 10:40 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I think I'm done here.

You were done numerous posts ago. You just didn't know it.

I was done before I started because it's no use explaining anything to you.

(01-26-2012 10:54 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I was done before I started because it's no use trying to explain my lies to you.

FIFY.

And you're right.

(01-26-2012 10:54 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I was done before I started because it's no use explaining anything to you.

I have no idea why you even bother with these morons. I just laugh at them because they can't seem to understand reality.

(01-26-2012 11:43 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 10:54 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I was done before I started because it's no use explaining anything to you.

I have no idea why you even bother with these morons. I just laugh at them because they can't seem to understand reality.

There are some who are thoughtful and want to have intellectually honest arguments. Others like Niner will just call you names and repeat the word "fail" over and over and repeat Fox talking points. Niner has no idea what bankruptcy or a debt-for-equity swap is. He probably thinks I was just using those words to trick people and make it look like GM had paid back the money. He doesn't understand why I don't agree with the Reason blog's demagoguery. While it's technically true this money came from the government, it's not government money anymore and the debt was traded for equity, and it's fungible, so it really doesn't matter. GM is square with us and we should all be rooting for its continued success.

(01-26-2012 02:15 PM)Max Power Wrote:  There are some who are thoughtful and want to have intellectually honest arguments.

Hilarious coming from you who spent pages trying to argue you didn't say what you clearly said about the Ayatollah not believing in the Hidden Imam. You were shown then to be wrong as well, by virtue of your own words, yet you contorted yourself in every which way to try and deflect from it. You are incapable of intellectual honesty.

Quote:While it's technically true this money came from the government, it's not government money anymore and the debt was traded for equity, and it's fungible, so it really doesn't matter. GM is square with us and we should all be rooting for its continued success.

I fully understand all of it. And you agreed with my point in the bolded statement. Where you are intellectually dishonest is in your claim that they are square with us when they aren't. They still possess tax payer money they have not paid back. They still paid back one loan of tax payer money with another loan of tax payer money. These are the facts, they are not in dispute, even by you. You just choose to try and argue that the facts don't really mean what they really mean. It's your MO.

And I still maintain you're full of sh!t about making an A in anything in law school. I seriously doubt you ever attended mr "I work in a factory."

I will say you and Robert make a cute couple. You're both disconnected from reality, you're just far better at hiding it behind words than he is. At least you both hate Jews and Christians. I'm sure that makes for great pillow talk.

(01-26-2012 02:24 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  I seriously doubt you ever attended...

He did. I've seen his bio on his employers website.

(01-26-2012 02:27 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 02:24 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  I seriously doubt you ever attended...

He did. I've seen his bio on his employers website.

Great. Provide it to the rest of us to see.

So is he a factory lawyer? Cause in another thread he said he worked in a factory.

(01-26-2012 02:28 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 02:27 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 02:24 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  I seriously doubt you ever attended...

He did. I've seen his bio on his employers website.

Great. Provide it to the rest of us to see.

So is he a factory lawyer? Cause in another thread he said he worked in a factory.

Negative. If he wants to maintain his anonymity, that's his choice.

(01-26-2012 02:30 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 02:28 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 02:27 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 02:24 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  I seriously doubt you ever attended...

He did. I've seen his bio on his employers website.

Great. Provide it to the rest of us to see.

So is he a factory lawyer? Cause in another thread he said he worked in a factory.

Negative. If he wants to maintain his anonymity, that's his choice.

If true my opinion of what it takes to make it through law school just took a deep nose dive.

Jesus Christ you're dumb. First of all, it's a completely different corporation ("new GM"). They bought that money in the bankruptcy-approved asset sale. The lender (US government) willingly became the new owner (of the new corporation). As a condition of the asset sale, the lender (US government) is no longer the lender because it would rather become the owner. They are completely square with the government. They don't have to pay back anything. There is nothing to pay back. That's what it means to be completely square.

And when did I ever say I worked in a factory? You are completely insane.

(01-26-2012 02:38 PM)Max Power Wrote:  And when did I ever say I worked in a factory? You are completely insane.

In one of the threads you were b!tching about what Romney paid in taxes and you spoke in the first person about how you worked your ass on in a factory and had to pay more in taxes than Romney. Perhaps it was a rhetorical device you were using. But when I first read it it looked like you were saying you worked in a factory.

Oh, and you're still stupid on the BK. The Reason article points it out. You have yet to address anything in that piece.

GM is still floating on the tax payer dime. You're a liar to claim otherwise. They paid one loan back by taking out another one, both from the government. That is a fact. How does the government become the owner fool? With tax payer money. Yes they formed a new corporation. But the point you, and Obama, are trying to convey is that they have paid back all the tax payer money. That is false. The tax payer continues to lose money on GM.

Keep dancing fool.

http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=54...pid7443128

Post #58

Ha, yes it was a rhetorical device using a hypothetical factory worker. I could have been more clear but Owl 69/70/75 seemed to understand what I was doing in his response. Though to be fair he already knows I'm a lawyer (which is why he keeps bashing ambulance chasers), as I'd mentioned a couple times before and just assumed everybody knew already.

Quote:Ignoring the fact that if he hadn't invested that $250 million in 1988, and millions of others hadn't done the same, neither that factory nor the job that goes with it would be there for our complainer to enjoy.

The left does not understand risk-reward. Yes the factory worker may bust his ass for his salary, but he doesn't have to risk any of his own money to keep that job.

Bill Clinton has an interesting comment about this in his new book. Yes, he's a democrat and he believes in making the "rich" pay more in taxes, but he cautions that we should not go so high as to drive them away from investing. My point is that we're already there, or have you not noticed the jobs leaving the US since at least the 1960s.

Clinton also includes a couple of charts of job growth and economic growth under different presidents. He uses it to state his case that the economy has done better under democrats. But I look at it a little differently. Under either democrats or republicans, since the time of LBJ, job growth and economic growth have been generally microscopic compared to what they were before then.

IMO, our economic has essentially stagnated over what is approaching half a century, and we're not on the right track to turning that around.