It's not about whether a given loan/bailout can ultimately be measured as a success or not, in this case where a loan will be repaid in x amount of time. Even IF this were to be annointed a success on the surface, it's still not inconsistent to question the practice.
The question is whether the government should step in and attempt to "save" a private business to begin with, and if this is an appropriate role for government. You have to be careful not to get into a habit of rewarding failing industries and penalizing successful ones. Though an extreme example, but pre-1990 Eastern Europe learned this the hard way.
You mean they were able to pay back a near 0% interest loan? Well golly gee willickers, I'm shocked.
More to the point .... where did the money come to make that loan? Printed out of thin air. So the capital was created by robbing a little bit of the purchasing power of everybody who saved. Gee that's not amoral at all.
And the other message here is ... if you're a foreign auto maker and you've come to the United States to create jobs, factories, and cars ... that's fine, just understand that the deck will ALWAYS be stacked against you politically, your competitors will ALWAYS get sweetheart deals, and your competitors will ALWAYS get bailed out if you've delivered such a vastly superior product that they're nearly bankrupt. And yet the same people who support this bailout say out of the other side of their mouth that they are allllllllll for the creation of jobs.
(05-26-2011 05:24 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: You mean they were able to pay back a near 0% interest loan? Well golly gee willickers, I'm shocked.
More to the point .... where did the money come to make that loan? Printed out of thin air. So the capital was created by robbing a little bit of the purchasing power of everybody who saved. Gee that's not amoral at all.
And the other message here is ... if you're a foreign auto maker and you've come to the United States to create jobs, factories, and cars ... that's fine, just understand that the deck will ALWAYS be stacked against you politically, your competitors will ALWAYS get sweetheart deals, and your competitors will ALWAYS get bailed out if you've delivered such a vastly superior product that they're nearly bankrupt. And yet the same people who support this bailout say out of the other side of their mouth that they are allllllllll for the creation of jobs.
So I looked into this, and it's the same gimmick GM pulled. They didn't pay off jack.
They merely took out OTHER loans and issued bonds to close out the bailout loan. So Chrysler is in fact still swimming in debt.
And more over ... the interest rate they paid on their bailout loans was 8.25%. With their credit status, it should have been nearly twice that figure. If you have below average credit today even in the age of the fire hose of Fed liquidity, you'd have to fight hard to get 8.25% on a mortgage from a commercial bank. (Nevermind the bank gets to borrow at near zero from the Fed, I digress....) Chrysler has replaced their loans with loans from London Interbank at 4.75%.
In summation: Chrysler has still had only one profitable quarter since 2006. Forgive me if I don't start masturbating furiously.
(05-26-2011 05:42 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: They merely took out OTHER loans and issued bonds to close out the bailout loan. So Chrysler is in fact still swimming in debt.
You won't gain any traction with liberals on this one. They don't understand what's wrong with taking out new debt to pay for existing debt.
Well, they already are playing this up as a big success. The DNC released this ad.
Conn Carroll of the Washington Examiner:
Quote:American taxpayers have already spent more than $13 billion bailing out Chrysler. The Obama administration already forgave more than $4 billion of that debt when the company filed for bankruptcy in 2009. Taxpayers are never getting that money back. But how is Chrysler now paying off the rest of the $7.6 billion they owe the Treasury Department?
The Obama administration’s bailout agreement with Fiat gave the Italian car company a “Incremental Call Option” that allows it to buy up to 16% of Chrysler stock at a reduced price. But in order to exercise the option, Fiat had to first pay back at least $3.5 billion of its loan to the Treasury Department. But Fiat was having trouble getting private banks to lend it the money. Enter Obama Energy Secretary Steven Chu who has signaled that he will approve a fuel-efficient vehicle loan to Chrysler for … wait for it … $3.5 billion.
Consrvatives have allowed their hate for the president to overtake their love of country and they will deny any positive news for America. The decision Obama made was a sound one that not only saved jobs but saved an industry. Bad for the United States = good for the GOP.
Where did the income to pay back 7.6 billion dollars in loans come from? Does critical thinking come into play at all with your posts? I can at least understand RWT's glee in reporting this shell game as he's just passing on news, but after it's been exposed as a scam, here comes Mr. P to proclaim it as "positive news for America". Ok, Mr. P ... if it's good news, where did they get the money to pay this back?
The automaker said it expects to earn between $200 million to $500 million in net income this year, which would be the first annual profit for the company since 2005.
(05-27-2011 04:28 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote: Consrvatives have allowed their hate for the president to overtake their love of country and they will deny any positive news for America. The decision Obama made was a sound one that not only saved jobs but saved an industry. Bad for the United States = good for the GOP.
Total utter bullsh*t.
The decision did not save an industry. Bankruptcy does not mean the end, despite the disingenuous efforts to incite a panic that would not be allowed to go to waste. If they had gone through a real bankruptcy, they'd still be here today, still making about as many cars, still employing about the same number of workers. Just like United Airlines. Or Delta. Or Donald Trump. Or hundreds of others who have done the same thing. Remember, they actually did go through a bankruptcy to pull this deal off.
And all of this good economic performance we are celebrating still has a pretty good chance to prove more illusory than real. It's way too early to go counting any chickens.
All the decision did was screw the bondholders and reward the union. We've sent a very strong message to foreign investors that the deck may be stacked against you here--just like in Venezuela. Given the way that we are running up debt and trade deficits, we'll probably need some of those very investors to step up and lend us more money in the future. If they tell us to f**k off, we brought it on ourselves. Sooner or later, you run out of other people's money; we took a giant step in that direction with this deal, just as we are taking other giant steps elsewhere. That is all we accomplished here, other than a huge reward for political cronies. If you think that's good for the country, then I think you're letting your crush on Obama blind you to reality.
(This post was last modified: 05-27-2011 06:33 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
(05-27-2011 04:28 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote: Consrvatives have allowed their hate for the president to overtake their love of country and they will deny any positive news for America. The decision Obama made was a sound one that not only saved jobs but saved an industry. Bad for the United States = good for the GOP.
Total utter bullsh*t.
The decision did not save an industry. Bankruptcy does not mean the end, despite the disingenuous efforts to incite a panic that would not be allowed to go to waste. If they had gone through a real bankruptcy, they'd still be here today, still making about as many cars, still employing about the same number of workers. Just like United Airlines. Or Delta. Or Donald Trump. Or hundreds of others who have done the same thing. Remember, they actually did go through a bankruptcy to pull this deal off.
And all of this good economic performance we are celebrating still has a pretty good chance to prove more illusory than real. It's way too early to go counting any chickens.
All the decision did was screw the bondholders and reward the union. We've sent a very strong message to foreign investors that the deck may be stacked against you here--just like in Venezuela. Given the way that we are running up debt and trade deficits, we'll probably need some of those very investors to step up and lend us more money in the future. If they tell us to f**k off, we brought it on ourselves. Sooner or later, you run out of other people's money; we took a giant step in that direction with this deal, just as we are taking other giant steps elsewhere. That is all we accomplished here, other than a huge reward for political cronies. If you think that's good for the country, then I think you're letting your crush on Obama blind you to reality.
In 2001 George W. Bush and the Republican Congress Bailed out the airline industry to the tune of 15 Billion Dollars (5 billion in cash and 10 billion in loan guarantees) The truth is Ron Paul, Herman Cain or Mitt Romney would make the same call in about two seconds, the congress would follow and I would applaud.
(05-27-2011 04:28 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote: [Liberals] have allowed their hate for [Bush] to overtake their love of country and they will deny any positive news for America. Bad for the United States = good for the [Democrats].
And you do agree that this quote could've been trotted out time and time again during the Bush era, correct? I was no fan of Bush either. But let's not create some fantasy world where liberals are more apt to sticking to principled ideology as opposed to party line. For example, you understand that if McCain won and had any hand/support in bombing Libya, the left would be far more vocal.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, many people on here are pretty consistent in their skepticism when it comes to large government bailouts and 'stimulus packages', regardless who's in the White House. Do a board search during the last year of Bush's presidency when these things started becoming all the rage, and you'll find little love for them.
(05-27-2011 04:28 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote: [Liberals] have allowed their hate for [Bush] to overtake their love of country and they will deny any positive news for America. Bad for the United States = good for the [Democrats].
And you do agree that this quote could've been trotted out time and time again during the Bush era, correct? I was no fan of Bush either. But let's not create some fantasy world where liberals are more apt to sticking to principled ideology as opposed to party line. For example, you understand that if McCain won and had any hand/support in bombing Libya, the left would be far more vocal.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, many people on here are pretty consistent in their skepticism when it comes to large government bailouts and 'stimulus packages', regardless who's in the White House. Do a board search during the last year of Bush's presidency when these things started becoming all the rage, and you'll find little love for them.
I have NEVER and will NEVER wish ill on our country just because I disagree with the policies of anyone who happens to be in office at the time.
(This post was last modified: 05-27-2011 08:41 AM by Mr. Peanut.)
(05-27-2011 07:32 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote: I have NEVER and will NEVER wish ill on our country just because I disagree with the policies of anyone who happens to be in office at the time.
Well, I didn't say you, personally. Just in general.
And it's not necessarily "wishing ill" on the US. It's more complicated than that. Very few on the left would want some right-wing Tea Partier to commit some heinous shooting or act of domestic terrorism. But you can't deny the amount of political gain that would be completely and shamelessly exploited from such a scenario. i.e, Daily Kos tweet - "Sarah Palin, Mission Accomplished!" after mental case Loughner, with no evidence of conservative influence or any stable politics for that matter, shot Giffords.
Remember the female news reporter who expressed disappointment that the arrested would-be Times Square bomber wasn't some home-grown rightwinger, but an Islamist? Or Michael Bloomberg predicting that the bomber arrested was "probably someone upset with the heath care bill or something"?
It's all an ugly side to partisan politics that both 'sides' are guilty of. Equally.
(05-27-2011 07:32 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote: I feel sure there are petty people on both sides but just as with racists and sexual deviants the vast majority seem to be on the right
(05-27-2011 06:55 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote: In 2001 George W. Bush and the Republican Congress Bailed out the airline industry to the tune of 15 Billion Dollars (5 billion in cash and 10 billion in loan guarantees) The truth is Ron Paul, Herman Cain or Mitt Romney would make the same call in about two seconds, the congress would follow and I would applaud.
So, because Shrub did something that was superficially similar, but very different in terms of the specific objections I raised, that somehow makes this right?
