At 9/15/12 09:58 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 9/14/12 07:06 PM, Warforger wrote: The economic growth back then was shit in comparison to today,

Um, it was greatest period of economic growth in American history

That was unequally distributed and was frequently disrupted by some of the worst recessions and depressions we've ever been in. By comparison in the 40's and 50's after Liberal programs like the G.I. Bill the nation created its large Middle Class out of the shell of the old economic system.

Wages were terrible? America was basically a new country starting from scratch. Without the capital accumulation that takes centuries, of course wages aren't going to be good. The point is, the growth was enormous. That's what matters.

The point is on the other hand was that growth was concentrated in the rich. They could have payed people more but they didn't. It was a terrible time to live in if you weren't rich.

pro-tip; EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD HAD SHITTY WAGES. That was life. Except, nowhere else were things improving as much as in america.

Actually things were pretty well in the early 1800's, but things actually became worse in the Gilded age. For example, the Lowell factory system developed in the early 1800's, the conditions were good, the pay was good and the workers were housed. As the Gilded age commenced this was all the opposite.

Seriously though, if the taxation adn regulartory structure that is in place was enforced back then, america would never have gotten off the ground in the first place and would be a third-world country. Yes, really, because the gilded age made america industrialised, which is what makes higher wages and better standards of living possible.

Funny, because America achieved its greatest point in power and economic status right after that happened in the 40's and 50's. Otherwise, going by this logic Stalin was great because he industrialized the Soviet Union, and higher wages and better standard living isn't possible without it therefore he was a great leader.

This at the end of the day was not even mentioning working conditions, which often led to things like I said before with Sawdust in meat.

This has nothing to do with "regulations". Because America was in the middle of economic DEVELOPMENT they didn't have the productivity that they do today and so would have starved if they didn't eat shit.

.....What? Companies could have easily say kept sawdust out of meat but since it was cheaper not to do so they kept it. This un-regulated atmosphere lead to countless people dying due to tainted food which they had little other choice of getting.

Overall economic booms did not benefit everyone evenly, wages for the average worker would go up slightly but then go up ALOT

a lot*

This is why you don't send your kids to public school.

Yes, public schools crank out retard children, who are retarded because they make a couple of offhand spelling errors on a forum they can't edit.

In any case, the period of real wage increases of the poor during the gilded age has never been matched since. There are no absolutes in economics, only relatives, and relatively speaking, the poor never saw a greater rate of improvement after the gilded age.

.....Right because after the 1930's poor people just began disappearing because they began joining the Middle Class, by the 1960's they made up 20% of the population and by the end of the 60's due to both the programs of Johnson and Kennedy as well as the booming economy they only made up 10% of the population. During the Gilded age they made gains because they made up the majority of the population, which they would do so until the late 40's. By the way, their wages didn't keep up with prices, thus for all this talk of wages it didn't matter at the end of the day.

more for the upper class, this if of course why Labor Unions became large (despite winning no strikes) this is also why during the subsequent period criticism of Capitalism was very acceptable and why Socialist organizations reached such performance as taking a couple of seats in the House or taking the governorship of cities.

This just means there was inequality, it does not mean that the lasseiz-faire system was not optimal.

........What? The problem was that the lasseiz-faire system made this inequality worse, hence why it wasn't very popular.

So yah, in today's economic world things aren't great, but dear lord in the Gilded age you ate shit and who knows even literally back then. It was fucking terrible. To compliment on it being a success and calling the modern economy crap is just flat out ignorant.

I don't think you understand, the economy of today is only possible because of the gilded age.

NO COUNTRY was ever good right from the beginning. No system could have made live comparable to today during the gilded age without killing off most people and giving their resources to the ramining few, but this would have meant that there wouldn't have been economic development in the future.

Economic development had been going on during the entire time. But you're missing the entire point. The economics of the Gilded age were terrible, inequality was rampant and growing, wages did not keep up with prices, labor unions were outright ignored and so many people held a terrible living standard.

I really don't understand how you don't get it that until the means of production are built up, you can't have modern standards of living. And it was precisely the guilded age that led to this building up.

The reason things are so much better now has nothing to do with regulations, but because of productivity. We can produce way, way more things now at much better quality and much lower cost because of centuries of capital investment.

yah you've completely lost track of what I was saying. When businesses were un-regulated they made many practices which screwed over the consumer and the worker, regulations are now in place which keep them from doing such bullshit.

At 9/17/12 08:31 PM, HiryuGouki wrote: With Romney's latest attack on the 47% of Americans, I doubt he has even a sliver of a chance. He needs to drop out before he makes a fool of himself at the polls.

What does he have to lose? Sure, he will go home defeated, but he has 250 mil waiting for him back at home.

At 9/17/12 07:08 AM, TheMason wrote:

In all seriously War; how different are Obama's policies from Bush's?

Exactly. There is no difference between Bush, Romney or Obama

At 9/17/12 08:31 PM, HiryuGouki wrote: With Romney's latest attack on the 47% of Americans, I doubt he has even a sliver of a chance. He needs to drop out before he makes a fool of himself at the polls.

And what attack was that?

At 9/18/12 12:20 AM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 9/17/12 08:31 PM, HiryuGouki wrote: With Romney's latest attack on the 47% of Americans, I doubt he has even a sliver of a chance. He needs to drop out before he makes a fool of himself at the polls.

And what attack was that?

Google it. Look up, "Romney Attacks 47%" and you'll find a bunch of news stories on it. Here. Since you're so damn lazy, here's something for you:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/romney-faults-
those-dependent-on-government/

Lazy bastard.

I kid, I kid. But seriously...Would it kill ya to do some research?

And besides, would you REALLY want someone who said, "Let the auto industry die", keeps flip-flopping his views like a fry cook flipping burgers, or being born with a silver spoon in his mouth leading the 99%? The answer is: NO. You don't want that, and when you're out on the streets with no aid from the government, living in a box, you'll know why: Should've voted for Obama, shouldn't you? And NOW you're paying for it.

At 9/18/12 12:20 AM, LemonCrush wrote: And what attack was that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnB0NZzl5HA

At 9/18/12 12:37 AM, Feoric wrote:

At 9/18/12 12:20 AM, LemonCrush wrote: And what attack was that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnB0NZzl5HA

That is not an attack. It's factual numbers.

BTW, when Obama attacked "fat cats" did anyone care?

At 9/18/12 12:35 AM, HiryuGouki wrote:

And besides, would you REALLY want someone who said, "Let the auto industry die", keeps flip-flopping his views like a fry cook flipping burgers, or being born with a silver spoon in his mouth leading the 99%? The answer is: NO. You don't want that, and when you're out on the streets with no aid from the government, living in a box, you'll know why: Should've voted for Obama, shouldn't you? And NOW you're paying for it.

The auto industry wouldn't have died. And if they did, it would be a result of decisions THEY made. THEY made the decision to make shit cars. THEY decide to promise their employees retirement benefits for life. THEY should deal with the consequences. I've yet to hear an explanation on why I should pay for their bad business practices.

All presidents flip-flop. Except the libertarians. But they're "crazy" remember?

And if I'm ever out on the streets in a box, it will be because of politicians like Obama, Bush and Romney.

Obama has made remarks, and taken actions against the aviation industry...which happens to be the industry that puts food on my table. The "fat cats with private jets"....those people write my paycheck. When he thinks those people with private jets should pay more (endangering jobs of pilots, maintenance personal, etc), simply because [no actual reason] and threatens my livelihood for [no actual reason]...he can piss up a flagpole, and I'd spit on him if I could

At 9/18/12 02:49 AM, LemonCrush wrote: That is not an attack. It's factual numbers.

Hahahaha, oh man, you sure are something else. 47% of Americans don't pay income tax because they are retired or are children or are so poor that they qualify for enough deductions to avoid it. Therefore, they are moochers who feel entitled to food and housing.

BTW, when Obama attacked "fat cats" did anyone care?

People either agreed or disagreed with his position, in fact most people agreed, since lots of people seem to think raising taxes actually might be a good idea. Because, you know, people typically don't freak out when politicians go out and say reasonable things. They tend to freak out when politicians say unreasonable things. Like what Romney said.

At 9/18/12 02:58 AM, LemonCrush wrote: The auto industry wouldn't have died. And if they did, it would be a result of decisions THEY made. THEY made the decision to make shit cars. THEY decide to promise their employees retirement benefits for life. THEY should deal with the consequences. I've yet to hear an explanation on why I should pay for their bad business practices.

Jesus christ dude, how on earth do you say things like this with a straight face? The nationalization of the auto industry ended up working out extremely well and the UAW secured a very favorable contract with wage increases. They're basically some of the few workers in America doing well right now. Propping up the auto industry was an issue supported by both Republicans and Democrats alike. It was neither a conservative nor liberal issue, which may have forgotten, or you have a selective memory, or you have amnesia. Do you even comprehend the scale we're dealing with here? We're talking about the collapse of the entire fucking American auto industry, right down to the manufacturing plants to local dealerships. Do you know how many tens thousands of jobs that entails? And you're okay with that because "GM makes shitty cars!"? What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you like it when people suffer? And I guess it doesn't matter to you that the loan (yes, it wasn't a bailout, it was a loan from the government) that saved thousands of jobs, and thousands more from the nasty trickle-down unemployment that would have resulted from the U.S. auto industry going completely belly up, has been re-paid with interest and at zero cost to taxpayers? Just face it: it was a successful example of government stimulus.

Demonstrate to all of us how the implosion of the entire US auto industry really wouldn't have been all that bad with facts and numbers from reputable sources. I dare you.

All presidents flip-flop. Except the libertarians. But they're "crazy" remember?

Yes, you're all fucking nuts, if we're using your posts as any example.

When he thinks those people with private jets should pay more (endangering jobs of pilots, maintenance personal, etc)

hahahahahaha

Let's talk about GM and the auto-bailouts.

* GM paid back it's bail-out but did so with TAXPAYER money from another TARP account GM was given by the US and Canadian government to use for unexpected operating costs...and to pay back their loans to the US government if they could not. It wouldn't be quite so bad if this was a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul...instead it's robbing Paul to pay Paul. ABC News The New York Times

* Oh yeah...then the government decided to reduce the loan to $6.7 billion in the bankruptcy hearings of 2009. The would just take the remainder in the form of stock in the new GM. Good idea huh? Investing in stock, right? Too bad they sold the stock for a LOSS of $25.1 billion. NBC News

And all for what? GM still lost 22,500 jobs, closed 13 plants and 900 dealerships. Wiki So we saved a company that employed thousands of Union workers (ie: Democratic votes) that went on to produce such game changing cars like the Chevy Volt. (Please detect the sarcasm.) Meanwhile companies like Ford were able to weather the storm w/o government assistance and start producing the 2012 Focus which gets up to 40 MPG (if you get the manual) without the price tag of a hybrid (as well as not being a mobile HazMat incident waiting to damage people, property and the environment). And a truck that has great horsepower and torque...and gets 26-28 MPG.

Now I know the argument goes that so many ppl would be left without genuine Chevy parts. So? Do you really think that with all the Chevy and GM vehicles on the road...that no one would step in and fill the void? I'm pretty sure Ford would at least consider it, as well as other manufactures looking to make something to sell. That Obama and his administration is so out of touch with how business operates is just stupifying.

And not just the big boys...we let truly revolutionary cars that could've changed the game, like the Aptera whither and die on the vine all because of silly and nonsensical government red tape from the federal and California governments.

At 9/18/12 03:03 AM, Feoric wrote:

At 9/18/12 02:49 AM, LemonCrush wrote: That is not an attack. It's factual numbers.

Hahahaha, oh man, you sure are something else. 47% of Americans don't pay income tax because they are retired or are children or are so poor that they qualify for enough deductions to avoid it. Therefore, they are moochers who feel entitled to food and housing.

I think you are seeing things that are not there. I looked at your source. They are talking about filers and wage earners two categories that do not include retired or children. 22% of the 47% of Americans with an income that do not pay taxes are social security pensioners. (Source) According to your own source; 36% of single people and households who do file tax returns...do not pay any federal income tax. "There are millions of other Americans who have some income but not enough to be required to file a tax return. The Tax Policy Center has estimated that when these people are added to the 52 million nonpaying filers, some 47 percent of all households pay no income taxes at all." So while your assertion regarding retired people may be somewhat accurate (comes up to 12% of all wage earners, required or not to file), it lacks the punch you think it does. Also, children are not included here since if you are dependant working at McDonalds...you still have to file.

Also, look at my source. The federal government uses the tax code to hand out benefits to people. When I was married the first time claiming a child...my effective tax rate was -12% while I was making about $42K/yr. When I was single and the ex claiming the daughter and I was a full-time student...-7%. I'm a full-time student now (again) and remarried going into 2013. The wife makes just under $40K and I hope to be a first year teacher next August. So I expect a tax rate of around -10%.

So not only will I get everything I paid in back...I will get more in hand-outs! (Thank you George W. Bush...didn't get those under the Clinton tax code!)

BTW, when Obama attacked "fat cats" did anyone care?

People either agreed or disagreed with his position, in fact most people agreed, since lots of people seem to think raising taxes actually might be a good idea. Because, you know, people typically don't freak out when politicians go out and say reasonable things. They tend to freak out when politicians say unreasonable things. Like what Romney said.

No...Romney didn't say anything that was unreasonable or untrue at all. Furthermore, raising taxes may be a good thing right...but so would cutting many things in the federal budget such as:

* 80% of the Army
* The Joint Strike Fighter
* Repealing ACA
* Cutting back on the Navy's sub fleet
* The Dept of Education

At 9/18/12 12:36 PM, TheMason wrote: * GM paid back it's bail-out but did so with TAXPAYER money from another TARP account GM was given by the US and Canadian government to use for unexpected operating costs...and to pay back their loans to the US government if they could not. It wouldn't be quite so bad if this was a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul...instead it's robbing Paul to pay Paul. ABC News The New York Times

How is this in tune with "robbing"? There were both loans and a flat-out purchase of shares. The loans have been paid back, but the US still has a large amount of GM stock. GM could buy the shares back, but can't afford to at the moment. The government could sell them, but not too many, as it might drive the share prices back down.The bailout basically designed to be a managed bankruptcy. There was 6.7 billion in TARP loans which subjected GM to government oversight. That amount has been paid back with interest.

* Oh yeah...then the government decided to reduce the loan to $6.7 billion in the bankruptcy hearings of 2009. The would just take the remainder in the form of stock in the new GM. Good idea huh? Investing in stock, right? Too bad they sold the stock for a LOSS of $25.1 billion. NBC News

That is how much would be lost if the Treasury cashed in its GM stocks right now. The Treasury bought stocks in GM at a high of however many billion. Then the share price fell. However much they sell it for will constitute how much of a loss it will be. If they hold onto them long enough and GM stocks go higher than what the Treasury paid for them, then there will have been money gained. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of how the bailout went down. This wasn't money given away, this was a purchase, and the discussion of "loss" is a hypothetical based on if we sold right now. You may want to mention that because everyone on Wall Street knows that the Treasury is sitting on several billion dollars of stocks in GM that the country wants back, no one is buying GM. Why buy GM now, when the government is expected to unload their stocks in GM any day now, at a huge loss? This effect has actually artificially depressed GM's stock value over the last few years, as everyone's waiting for that jackpot to hit.

And all for what? GM still lost 22,500 jobs, closed 13 plants and 900 dealerships. Wiki So we saved a company that employed thousands of Union workers (ie: Democratic votes) that went on to produce such game changing cars like the Chevy Volt. (Please detect the sarcasm.)

GM would have lost every worker, ever. Every job. Every plant. Every dealership. Nice to see that you see this as a political issue (oh no! democratic union workers!) instead of an economic one. It's also nice to see that you let your car tribalism get in the way of rational thinking.

Meanwhile companies like Ford were able to weather the storm w/o government assistance

They got a low interest loan for R&D from the government, FYI.

Now I know the argument goes that so many ppl would be left without genuine Chevy parts. So? Do you really think that with all the Chevy and GM vehicles on the road...that no one would step in and fill the void? I'm pretty sure Ford would at least consider it, as well as other manufactures looking to make something to sell. That Obama and his administration is so out of touch with how business operates is just stupifying.

Considering the entire US auto industry would have collapsed, yeah, it's pretty safe to say the void would be a gaping maw for a pretty long time. I'm sure Ford would have employed those tens of thousands of workers, though.

At 9/18/12 01:02 PM, TheMason wrote: I think you are seeing things that are not there.

Okay but the point is that 47% figure includes the unemployed, disabled, elderly, and anyone else who doesn't pay income taxes because they don't have income, or not enough income. Which constitutes a massive chunk of that 47% figure. So it's pretty misleading when the candidate for President of the United States says "47% of Americans don't pay income tax" without any sort of clarification or breakdown of the statistic, which allows people to misconstrue that as proof that half the country are lazy poors who contribute nothing to society.

* 80% of the Army
* The Joint Strike Fighter
* Repealing ACA
* Cutting back on the Navy's sub fleet
* The Dept of Education

3/5 things I agree with. Can you guess which ones I don't?

At 9/18/12 01:05 PM, Feoric wrote: How is this in tune with "robbing"? There were both loans and a flat-out purchase of shares. The loans have been paid back,...There was 6.7 billion in TARP loans which subjected GM to government oversight. That amount has been paid back with interest.

Dude! Read the story! The loan that was paid back with interest was paid NOT from GM profits or revenue but rather a DIFFERENT TARP fund that Treasury has been holding in escrow in case GM needed additional or emergency operating funds! Treasury (ie: the Govt) approved GM tapping into this TARP account...to pay back the loans since GM cannot operate on its own!

So yeah GM is robbing Paul (ie: TARP) to repay Paul (ie: TARP). GM paid the government back the loan...with interest...with government money. Sorry...but while you are right that the loan is paid off...it's not because GM stabilizied itself to the point of being able to pay back the money itself.

That is how much would be lost if the Treasury cashed in its GM stocks right now. The Treasury bought stocks in GM at a high of however many billion. Then the share price fell. ... This wasn't money given away, this was a purchase, and the discussion of "loss" is a hypothetical based on if we sold right now.

First of all, this was NOT a purchase. Instead the government converted their loan into shares of GM stock based upon the value of the loan...not the fair market value of GM. Therefore the US government not only bought high...they artifically inflated the price so when the IPO hit the price tanked to adjust to GM's real value on the open market.

So yeah...in a very real sense this was money given away. Stupidly by people who don't know what they are doing in Washington.

...Treasury is sitting on several billion dollars of stocks in GM that the country wants back, no one is buying GM. Why buy GM now, when the government is expected to unload their stocks in GM any day now, at a huge loss? This effect has actually artificially depressed GM's stock value over the last few years, as everyone's waiting for that jackpot to hit.

1) That ppl are waiting to buy GM stock because a govt sell-off will cause GM shares to plummet is true. Which is why we should've never done the stock for loan forgiveness scheme in the first place. The govt never has any incentive to sell of the stock because A) prices will take forever to reach $53/share since ppl are waiting for government action before they take action themselves. B) Even after share prices reach $53/share...they can't sell because someone selling that much stock usually triggers a panic and could destabilize the stock. C) The government can get stock prices to $53/share through inflation so on paper the taxpayer makes the money back...but with grossly devalued dollars so they take a loss in terms of purchasing power. D) We've already sold off some stock...for a loss. Everytime we do this means the next benchmark we have to clear creeps up. Today $53/share...what's next after the Obama brain trust makes another stellar decision...$67/share?

2) GM's stock is underperforming because GM makes a crappy product and poor business decisions such as the Chevy Volt.

GM would have lost every worker, ever. Every job. Every plant. Every dealership. Nice to see that you see this as a political issue (oh no! democratic union workers!) instead of an economic one. It's also nice to see that you let your car tribalism get in the way of rational thinking.

Any you're naive to think electoral calculus is ever far from Obama's (or an president's) decision making process.

Furthermore, I am the one being rational and not emotional. Those jobs would be transferred to other segments of the economy. Time and time again, whenever the government gets involved with saving jobs...they just transfer the misery to some other segment of the economy. For example Bush intervened in the steel market when we were loosing market share to foreign steel. The problem is we lost more jobs than we saved in other sectors of the economy.

Also, there is a substantial difference between loans made to a healthy company...and money foolishly thrown at people who do not build a good product.

Now I know the argument goes that so many ppl would be left without genuine Chevy parts. So? Do you really think that with all the Chevy and GM vehicles on the road...that no one would step in and fill the void? I'm pretty sure Ford would at least consider it, as well as other manufactures looking to make something to sell. That Obama and his administration is so out of touch with how business operates is just stupifying.

Considering the entire US auto industry would have collapsed, yeah, it's pretty safe to say the void would be a gaping maw for a pretty long time. I'm sure Ford would have employed those tens of thousands of workers, though.

It wouldn't have just been Ford. Kia, Toyota, Honda, BMW...all of whom are free from the constraints of a major auto manufacturer failing. All of whom are coming over here with better business practices (one of which being modern labor-management relationships) and opening plants.

Oh...and I noticed that you opted for attacking me for my 'Tribalism' (I also own a GM product, 2005 Jeep, and in the past have owned several KIAs)...instead of mentioning the reference to Aptera. I'd rather see the government, if they are hellbent on giving money away in the form of 'loans' to shitty companies, just give grants to up and coming start-ups like Aptera.

At 9/18/12 01:16 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 9/18/12 01:02 PM, TheMason wrote: I think you are seeing things that are not there.

Okay but the point is that 47% figure includes the unemployed, disabled, elderly, and anyone else who doesn't pay income taxes because they don't have income, or not enough income. Which constitutes a massive chunk of that 47% figure. So it's pretty misleading when the candidate for President of the United States says "47% of Americans don't pay income tax" without any sort of clarification or breakdown of the statistic, which allows people to misconstrue that as proof that half the country are lazy poors who contribute nothing to society.

I think the misonstruing here is on your part and you're reading that into Romney's statement. He simply said that they don't have an incentive to vote for anyone but Obama. As for it constituting a massive chunk...it's not that much. Maybe 44% of the 47% (or about 20-22% of all Americans with some source of income).

* Repealing ACA

ACA isn't going to do what you hope it will. It just staves off the collapse of Medicare a little while longer while providing higher insurance costs to working families. (I'm experiencing this now with my daughter's insurance.) Furthermore, it will force ppl into government run programs that will be highly inefficent.

* The Dept of Education

All this agency does is take dollars out of the states to cycle them through Washington where money is lost to bureaucracy and wasteful spending so that a reduced amount may be returned to the states...with a hole host of silly strings attached. We see absolutely no value out of this agency and it has nothing but a track record of failure. It is the JSF of social spending.

3/5 things I agree with. Can you guess which ones I don't?

Yeah...too bad you're vision is obscured by those rose colored glasses you're wearing!

Obama 2012 all the way. Romney can go suck a giant DICK. Period. Nuff said' Point blank!

In regards to Romney saying 47% of the people are willingly dependent on the government. <- how he likely should've phrased it). I really don't find it more damning than Obama saying in '08 that small town folks are bitter and cling to guns and religion. I don't think the media backlash for Obama was that great outside of Fox News, and i doubt the media backlash for Romney will be that great outside MSNBC. Hell this will blow over in a week seeing how the middle east is in a perpetual state of disarray and they'll shift attention to that again.

At 9/18/12 01:54 PM, TheMason wrote: ACA isn't going to do what you hope it will. It just staves off the collapse of Medicare a little while longer while providing higher insurance costs to working families. (I'm experiencing this now with my daughter's insurance.) Furthermore, it will force ppl into government run programs that will be highly inefficent.

Which parts exactly are going to be the problem? The ACA is very big and does a mass of different things.

All this agency does is take dollars out of the states to cycle them through Washington where money is lost to bureaucracy and wasteful spending so that a reduced amount may be returned to the states...with a hole host of silly strings attached. We see absolutely no value out of this agency and it has nothing but a track record of failure. It is the JSF of social spending.

Takes money from the states? How so? As in the form of Fed taxes instead of state taxes? Well, if I trusted the states to actually use that money for education without the Federal government looking over their should, then you'd have a poin there. Thing is, the states wouldn't.

At 9/18/12 03:22 AM, Feoric wrote:

Jesus christ dude, how on earth do you say things like this with a straight face? The nationalization of the auto industry ended up working out extremely well and the UAW secured a very favorable contract with wage increases. They're basically some of the few workers in America doing well right now. Propping up the auto industry was an issue supported by both Republicans and Democrats alike. It was neither a conservative nor liberal issue, which may have forgotten, or you have a selective memory, or you have amnesia. Do you even comprehend the scale we're dealing with here? We're talking about the collapse of the entire fucking American auto industry, right down to the manufacturing plants to local dealerships. Do you know how many tens thousands of jobs that entails? And you're okay with that because "GM makes shitty cars!"? What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you like it when people suffer? And I guess it doesn't matter to you that the loan (yes, it wasn't a bailout, it was a loan from the government) that saved thousands of jobs, and thousands more from the nasty trickle-down unemployment that would have resulted from the U.S. auto industry going completely belly up, has been re-paid with interest and at zero cost to taxpayers? Just face it: it was a successful example of government stimulus.

Demonstrate to all of us how the implosion of the entire US auto industry really wouldn't have been all that bad with facts and numbers from reputable sources. I dare you.

You can't have numbers and soruces for things that never happened. Notice how Ford didn't need bailout money? Notice how Chrysler ended up selling to overseas marques? Clearly, the auto industry was nowhere near collapse. If that were the case, all US auto makers would've needed bailouts. Notice how most other auto makers didn't really need to lay off "tens of thousands of people"? Again, I fail to see how I need to take responsibility for GM fucking up? I don't like to be people suffer (they wouldn't have anyway), but I fail to see how it's my fault. Why should I pick up GM's slack?

Now, sure, things worked great for unions. But again, if the Unions were what mattered, why didn't GM make better cars and not run their business into the ground? Why didn't the Unions budge on their demands? Because they knew the federal. BTW GM stock is in the toilet, and the money is will never be repaid. We're getting down to the real root of the American economy. Special groups are being favored and propped up by the government, when other people are told to eat shit. My father has lost a business...where was his bailout? Why should the American taxpayer have to support a company who couldn't even support themselves?

Yes, you're all fucking nuts, if we're using your posts as any example.

No, you're delusional and naive.

hahahahahaha

Unemployment. Hilarious.

At 9/18/12 02:11 PM, HiryuGouki wrote: Obama 2012 all the way. Romney can go suck a giant DICK. Period. Nuff said' Point blank!

Yeah, fuck jobs. Fuck having money. Fuck freedom. Fuck world peace?

Who needs all that shit, right?

At 9/18/12 01:47 PM, TheMason wrote: Dude! Read the story! The loan that was paid back with interest was paid NOT from GM profits or revenue but rather a DIFFERENT TARP fund that Treasury has been holding in escrow in case GM needed additional or emergency operating funds! Treasury (ie: the Govt) approved GM tapping into this TARP account...to pay back the loans since GM cannot operate on its owns

So yeah GM is robbing Paul (ie: TARP) to repay Paul (ie: TARP). GM paid the government back the loan...with interest...with government money. Sorry...but while you are right that the loan is paid off...it's not because GM stabilizied itself to the point of being able to pay back the money itself.

You're misunderstanding the purpose of the escrow account. This wasn't some elaborate debt-for-equity swap. The escrow account was created as part of the restructuring plan. The funds in the escrow account came from a portion of the loan from the Treasury and the Canadian government, and while the Treasury retained approval rights over GM's usage of the funds, it was still property of GM. The escrowed funds were expected to be used for extraordinary purpose expenses, and as it turned out, GM didn't need it and repaid it to the Treasury. Of the $52.4 billion dollars of assistance from the Treasury, only $6.7 billion was in the form of loans. GM was already making several installments in paying back the $6.7 billion loan prior to then GM announced that it had paid back the entirety of the remaining $4.7 billion in loans from the U.S. government (and another $1.1 million to the Canadian government). GM had until 2015 to pay back those loans. The point is this: GM was doing well enough to not need the escrow funds and used it to repay the loans, which was actually the purpose of the escrow account to begin with. Under the loan agreement, GM was to pay back any remaining funds in the escrow account to the Tresury/Canadian government by June 30th 2010. So, yes, GM was stable enough to pay it back. If they weren't they would have held on to the escrow account. They had five years to pay it back, they payed it back in 9 months.

First of all, this was NOT a purchase. Instead the government converted their loan into shares of GM stock based upon the value of the loan...not the fair market value of GM. Therefore the US government not only bought high...they artifically inflated the price so when the IPO hit the price tanked to adjust to GM's real value on the open market.

Most of the government's GM investment was converted to an ownership stake in GM; $2.1 billion in preferred stock; and 60.8% of the company's common equity. You're right, we're probably going to lose some money on this, but not nearly as much as we originally thought. There was no profit motive for this deal: the loss we'd take for bailing out GM is going to be far far less than the loss of the American auto industry. Realistically, the IPO isn't going to bring in 52 billion dollars.

1) The govt never has any incentive to sell of the stock because A) prices will take forever to reach $53/share since ppl are waiting for government action before they take action themselves.

There will be a massive surge in stock price when there are rumors of the government starting to sell the stock as people are going to start buying dirt cheap stock in massive quantities before anyone else. People will short it and the price will normalize to actual market value despite the efforts of underwriters trying to keep the price as high as possible, as it is with any major IPO. It's doubtful if it will hit 53 dollars a share, my guess is no, not right away, but I think the loss will be minimized as times goes on if GM continues to be profitable.

B) Even after share prices reach $53/share...they can't sell because someone selling that much stock usually triggers a panic and could destabilize the stock.

Except the market will know the government is the one selling the shares? It wouldn't be a panic, it would be a feeding frenzy.

C) The government can get stock prices to $53/share through inflation so on paper the taxpayer makes the money back...but with grossly devalued dollars so they take a loss in terms of purchasing power.

This makes zero sense to me and I'll need you to clarify that. How do you adjust stock prices via inflation? Stocks are a reflection of the price of ownership in a company.

D) We've already sold off some stock...for a loss. Everytime we do this means the next benchmark we have to clear creeps up. Today $53/share...what's next after the Obama brain trust makes another stellar decision...$67/share?

Again, we never intended to make a profit. In fact the popular opinion at the time was that GM was never going to be able to repay the loans.

2) GM's stock is underperforming because GM makes a crappy product and poor business decisions such as the Chevy Volt.

Funny, last I heard they made a record profit last year.

Any you're naive to think electoral calculus is ever far from Obama's (or an president's) decision making process.

Huh? What does that have to do with the effects of letting GM go bankrupt?

Furthermore, I am the one being rational and not emotional. Those jobs would be transferred to other segments of the economy.

Yeah, shipped overseas.

At 9/18/12 03:31 PM, 24901miles wrote:

At 9/18/12 12:35 AM, HiryuGouki wrote: "Romney Attacks 47%"

This actually deserves its own thread

Nothing is stopping you from making it. If you build it, they will come.

At 9/18/12 05:55 PM, 24901miles wrote: I'm still researching it, and I don't really need a bunch of NGers telling me what they think about Romney's Politics.

Keep in mind you're posting in the politics forum.

Welp, I thought Obama would win, but I didn't think he'd win by Romney committing political suicide. Well done, Mitt.

Yeah, fuck jobs. Fuck having money. Fuck freedom. Fuck world peace?

Who needs all that shit, right?

Well, apparently Romney likes to fire people...A lot. Remember KB Toys? They were shut down when Bain came in. Guess who's in charge of Bain? Romney.

At 9/18/12 06:40 PM, HiryuGouki wrote:

Yeah, fuck jobs. Fuck having money. Fuck freedom. Fuck world peace?

Who needs all that shit, right?

Well, apparently Romney likes to fire people...A lot. Remember KB Toys? They were shut down when Bain came in. Guess who's in charge of Bain? Romney.

As much as I despise the crimes committed by Bain, I think KB pretty much dug themselves into a hole.

At 9/18/12 12:36 PM, TheMason wrote: Let's talk about GM and the auto-bailouts.

* GM paid back it's bail-out but did so with TAXPAYER money from another TARP account GM was given by the US and Canadian government to use for unexpected operating costs...and to pay back their loans to the US government if they could not. It wouldn't be quite so bad if this was a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul...instead it's robbing Paul to pay Paul. ABC News The New York Times

* Oh yeah...then the government decided to reduce the loan to $6.7 billion in the bankruptcy hearings of 2009. The would just take the remainder in the form of stock in the new GM. Good idea huh? Investing in stock, right? Too bad they sold the stock for a LOSS of $25.1 billion. NBC News

And all for what? GM still lost 22,500 jobs, closed 13 plants and 900 dealerships. Wiki So we saved a company that employed thousands of Union workers (ie: Democratic votes) that went on to produce such game changing cars like the Chevy Volt. (Please detect the sarcasm.) Meanwhile companies like Ford were able to weather the storm w/o government assistance and start producing the 2012 Focus which gets up to 40 MPG (if you get the manual) without the price tag of a hybrid (as well as not being a mobile HazMat incident waiting to damage people, property and the environment). And a truck that has great horsepower and torque...and gets 26-28 MPG.

Now I know the argument goes that so many ppl would be left without genuine Chevy parts. So? Do you really think that with all the Chevy and GM vehicles on the road...that no one would step in and fill the void? I'm pretty sure Ford would at least consider it, as well as other manufactures looking to make something to sell. That Obama and his administration is so out of touch with how business operates is just stupifying.

And not just the big boys...we let truly revolutionary cars that could've changed the game, like the Aptera whither and die on the vine all because of silly and nonsensical government red tape from the federal and California governments.

The main concern the government and U.S. citizens had about the auto industry crisis was the fear of a monopoly. With a potential collapse of Chrysler and Gm, Ford would be the only major domestic car company left in America. Personally, I prefer Ford out of the three brands for many reasons. To name a few more efficient engines, reliability, the types of cars it chooses to build (more emphasis on cars rather than suv's, of corse with the exception of the F-150 and even that is comparatively more more efficient than Dodge or GM trucks), and the fact that they didn't need a bailout. Economically, Ford deserves to be the thriving company, it out-competed the other two fair and square.

The decision was weighed upon the idea, "should the government spend tax-payer's dollars to bailout and possibly stabilize Chrysler and GM, or should the government let those companies fail and guarantee a monopoly?" Putting yourself back into that time period, yes, it was a controversial and difficult decision. Although the approaches to bailing out each company were different, we can see the results now.

Chrysler heavily refined its auto line-up, its v-6 and later on i-4 engines, and is posting awesome profits, having repaid its outstanding loans to our government.

GM has also posted immense profits and repaid the government's loans, however our government now has a huge holding in the company after the bailout. How GM has managed this increase in sales, I don't know. They have only refined a few v-6 engines, and introduced a few more small sedans with crappy i-4's. My guess would be advertising. I recall seeing far less Silverado adds compared to sedan adds of all kinds, from Buick, GM's hybrids, and small sedans after the bailout.

I personally would have had no problem with allowing GM to fail, if it didn't leave Americans with a monopoly within the American auto industry.

How this all relates to the topic, Obama, and the majority of congress, Democrats and Republicans alike were in favor of salvaging the industry and were responsible for the bailout. With us having once again given them a second chance, we can be thankful that the bailout was immensely successful, not only in restoring these companies to former grace, but by revitalizing our American spirit.

At 9/18/12 06:40 PM, HiryuGouki wrote:

Well, apparently Romney likes to fire people...A lot. Remember KB Toys? They were shut down when Bain came in. Guess who's in charge of Bain? Romney.

And Obama likes to tax employers into firing people. And likes detaining (not arresting) people for making a movie. And likes funding revolutionaries who end up attacking US soil and killing one of our embassidors.

Guess why Bain fired people at KB Toys? Because the company was already going under when Bain came in the picture.

Not saying Romney is any better (he also believes in high taxation, the Patriot Act, and war), but to pretend that Obama is better in any aspect is a joke.

At 9/18/12 08:38 PM, TB1ZZL3 wrote:

As much as I despise the crimes committed by Bain, I think KB pretty much dug themselves into a hole.

That was the case with every company they got involved with. That's was WHY they got involved.