Another Failed Gov Venture at the expense of the Tax payer and bond holders of GM. The scum bag Parasites waste more tax payers money. Thats ok America, you idiots keep voting for the PARASITES.
I don't quite see it like that. If you have a business, generally you see the gov't screwing you at every corner. If you have a large enough business, as a private vs gov't enterprise one might see this as an opportunity for payback. Now this brings us to the little people, the taxpayer, well, we are collateral damage, oh well.
Don't forget all the money given to those Wall Street firms (the original intention of TARP) that will never be paid back too.
Looks like GM will wind up costing us around $11 Billion. Not a small chunk of change for just one company.
Are we really subsidizing $6K for each vehicle GM builds and sells in China? What is this.. special interest on our Chinese Debt? What is our Govt's role and participlation in SAIC being GM's majority and controlling shareholder but minority partner with China's SAIC?
This is the kind of thing that trump should be able to eviscerate obama over. Obama pumped billions into GM to pay off the UAW. He ran roughshod over bankruptcy law and creditors' rights laws in the process. Now we see the taxpayers will take a $22 bill hit, which probably far understates the true cost. We will take a trillion dollar hit on the democrat's slush funds, FNM and FRE. We have already taken a trillion plus hit on obama's so-called stimulus plan, which was nothing but a payoff to government unions. Obama is employing a crude version of Chicago-school economics, but not the version identified with the university of Chicago. It is Boss Daley's chicago, where you steal from your political enemies and pay off your supporters.
GM made 2,981,000 cars in the US... the tax payers lost 23.6B... WTF $7847 PER CAR!!! 27% owned by US Govt 12% owned by Canadian Govt. How much Chinese Govt ownership is via SAIC? How about giving each tax payer a $7500 tax credit not to buy a GM vehicle? http://www.detnews.com/article/2011...S.-boosts-estimate-of-auto-bailout-losses-to-$23.6B The Treasury Department dramatically boosted its estimate of losses from its $85 billion auto industry bailout by more than $9 billion in the face of General Motors Co.'s steep stock decline. In its monthly report to Congress, the Treasury Department now says it expects to lose $23.6 billion, up from its previous estimate of $14.33 billion. The Treasury now pegs the cost of the bailout of GM, Chrysler Group LLC and the auto finance companies at $79.6 billion. It no longer includes $5 billion it set aside to guarantee payments to auto suppliers in 2009. The big increase is a reflection of the sharp decline in the value of GM's share price. The current estimate of losses is based on GM's Sept. 30 closing price of $20.18, down one-third over the previous quarterly price. GM's stock closed Monday at $22.99, up 2 percent. The government won't reassess the estimate of the costs until Dec. 30. The government has recovered $23.2 billion of its $49.5 billion GM bailout, and cut its stake in the company from 61 percent to 26.5 percent. But it has been forced to put on hold the sale of its remaining 500 million shares of stock. The new estimate also hikes the overall cost of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program costs to taxpayers. TARP is the emergency program approved by Congress in late 2008 at the height of the financial crisis. In total, the government used $425 billion to bailout banks, insurance companies and automakers, and provided $45 billion in housing program assistance. The government now expects to lose $57.33 billion, including the full cost of the housing program, up from $36.7 billion. The new estimate means the government doesn't believe it will make an overall profit on its bailouts. Republican presidential candidates, including former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, have seized on the auto bailout losses estimates, as evidence that the Bush and Obama administrations "wasted" money. Matt Anderson, a spokesman for the Treasury Department, said, "Both TARP and the auto industry rescue are still on track to cost a fraction of what was originally expected during the dark days of the financial crisis." In 2009, the government initially forecast it would lose $44 billion on its auto industry bailout. It revised it down to $30 billion, and later to as low as $13.9 billion earlier this year.The administration and President Barack Obama have argued that any losses on the auto bailout were worth the hundreds of thousands of jobs saved. "The investment paid off. The hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been saved made it worth it," he said at an appearance last month at GM's Orion Assembly plant. "I want to especially thank the people of Detroit for proving that, despite all the work that lies ahead, this is a city where a great American industry is coming back to life and the industries of tomorrow are taking root, and a city where people are dreaming up ways to prove all the skeptics wrong and write the next proud chapter in the Motor City's history." The new bailout forecast also represents an increase in the government's forecast in its losses from its $17.2 billion bailout of Detroit-based auto and mortgage lender Ally Financial Inc. The government holds a 74 percent stake in Ally, which has been forced to put its planned initial public offering on hold because of market conditions. dshepardson@detnews.com (202) 662-8735 From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20111114/AUTO01/111140434/U.S.-boosts-estimate-of-auto-bailout-losses-to-$23.6B#ixzz1dtOpQaR6
99% of TARP to banks has already been paid back. The government expects to make a $20 Billion profit on those loans. The TARP losses are on Obama's mortgage bailouts to the likes of Fannie and Freddie. http://www.housingwire.com/2011/03/16/treasury-99-of-tarp-paid-back Now, Obama's stimulus and automaker bailouts are another story. Those were all just payoffs to unions and other Obama/Democrat donors.
AAA, you are smart guy, and you are correct, in theory. In reality. Can Trump win? No. And he is astute enuf to know that. Forbes has openly questioned his billionaire status, and that means a lot to him. He will not open his books, bottom line.