Like I said earlier in the thread, the idea was good, the execution sucked balls

Um, the bailout happened in 2008, Barry wasn't the president till 2009. So what you're doing is praising Bush for his work? Just checking!!

i hate all journalists there brainwashing garbage never read it

interesting. given your reply to me was that nobody could prove the stimulus did anything. I pull out some economics, you reply to change my meds. Then WIG points out your confusion, & suddenly, it was a good idea.

i'll leave you to your opinions. good luck.

Bush fucked it up; Obama cleaned it up.

Thank you.

Vendzilla: If it turns out the bailout worked, then thank Bush.

Vendzilla: If it turns out the bailout failed, then blame Obama.

Vendzilla: I am an Independent voter. I never choose sides.

Raised the debt ceiling 18 or 19 times ????

ChrisT, did not mean to kill that fun thread ....:Oh crap:disgust:1orglaugh

I am going to through you a bone dipshit...

Of course you are going to get all happy about this, but the fact is that this would have been done under any president and has been done by many presidents, but it represents the lies that our governments tell us and the little sheep like yourself that believe the lies..

I just found out about this yesterday and this is why we need to stop bailing out companies and lose the mentality "too big to fail"...


The truth behind Chrysler’s fake auto bailout pay back
By: Conn Carroll | Senior Editorial Writer Follow Him @Conncarroll | 05/24/11 4:26 PM
It is not every day that the White House and Democratic National Committee celebrate a supposedly private company’s debt restructuring plan, but such is the marriage of big government and big business under the Obama administration. The New York Times reports: “Chrysler said Tuesday that it had paid back $7.6 billion in loans from the American and Canadian governments, marking another significant step in the revival of the company, the smallest of the Detroit automakers.”

But as The Truth About Cars reports, the loan pay back is just another Obama con job:

Back in November of 2009, when GM announced that it would repay its government loans, it didn’t take much investigation to realize that The General was simply shuffling government money from one pocket to the other and that true “payback” was still a ways off. … And now that our government finds itself “contemplating a runaway deficit and getting rid of its 8 percent of Chrysler’s equity,” would you believe that a similar federal money-shuffle is under way? Believe it.

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. TTAC comments:

Now, technically the DOE loan program is supposed to be used for specific, qualifying retooling projects, so Fiat can’t literally take the DOE money and use it to pay back the government loans. But freeing up $3.5b in capital that would otherwise be spent on retooling with low-cost loans will make it infinitely easier for Chrysler to secure the $3.5b in debt refinancing it needs. And, in light of the GAO’s pointed criticisms of the DOE loan program’s fairness and transparency, it’s hard to overlook the coincidental nature of Chrysler’s need for $3.5b and the government’s allocation of extra funds to apparently guarantee a low cost loan to Chrysler for precisely the same amount. After all, we’ve seen this movie before..

So, to recap, the Obama Energy Department is loaning a foreign car company $3.5 billion so that it can pay the Treasury Department $7.6 billion even though American taxpayers spent $13 billion to save an American car company that is currently only worth $5 billion.

Oh, and Obama plans to make this “success” a centerpiece of his 2012 campaign.







.

updated 7/21/2011 2:16:42 PM ET


WASHINGTON ? The Treasury Department said Thursday it has exited its investment in Chrysler LLC after Italian automaker Fiat SpA purchased the U.S. government's remaining holdings in the auto company.

Fiat paid $560 million to the Treasury Department for the government's 98,000 shares. Fiat has run the company since it emerged from bankruptcy protection in June 2009.

Treasury provided a total of $12.5 billion to Chrysler and its financing arm after the recession hampered auto sales and sent Chrysler and General Motors to the brink of collapse. The funds came from the government's $700 billion bank bailout fund.

Since then, $11.2 billion of the assistance has been repaid, Treasury says. Chrysler repaid $5.1 billion in loans from the government in May. Treasury said it likely won't recover the remaining $1.3 billion.

Also Thursday, the Canadian federal and Ontario governments announced that they have sold their remaining stakes in Chrysler to Fiat for $140 million. The money is the final repayment of Canadian government loans that were given to the U.S. automaker two years ago.

The purchase of the U.S. and Canadian governments' stakes gives Fiat 53.5 percent ownership of Chrysler. That's likely to rise to 57 percent before the end of the year when Chrysler begins producing a 40 mpg small car in the U.S.

Chrysler has made a remarkable turnaround from two years ago, when it was rescued by the government.

The company earned net income of $116 million in the first quarter and is forecasting 2011 earnings of $200 million to $500 million. Under the leadership of Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne, the company has cut costs and revived its sales by refurbishing most of its lineup of Jeep, Chrysler, Dodge and Ram vehicles.

Its sales rose 30 percent in June compared to the previous year.

Fiat received a 20 percent stake in Chrysler after the bankruptcy in exchange for management expertise and technology. The Italian automaker has gradually raised its stake by meeting benchmarks set by the government.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43843822/ns/business-autos/

i believe that is a lie. the 11.2 includes the 4 billion that was forgiven when chrysler filed chapter 11..

so, total loss and cost to taxpayers is 5.3 billion....

i will deduct my portion of that from my taxes next year... :1orglaugh




.

Wouldn't that be a fail on Rep. Mo Brooks part? The guy has a degree in economics but totally fails to see that a total world market collapse wouldn't have caused depression? That's a fail like no other....

The bailouts and the stimulus all suck, from the first president that did it to the current.

.....

Marketsmart, just to note, the bailout for Chrysler happened under Bush, rather it was signed into law as he was coming out, leaving Obama with the job of dishing out what had been setup. While he did have to decide several things, what happened afterward is a mute point compared to the bailout itself.

The bailout couldn't be stopped, the legislation was already signed, hands were already tied... I'm pretty sure if either of us got that mess handed to us, we would be working our asses off to cover it up as well, and overall it's not really in that bad of a spot, it's making money.

Still sucks it we bailed them out AGAIN.... I think this is our 2nd bailout of them, maybe 3rd.

So what you're saying it was a good idea, but the execution of it sucks balls?
Yet you're calling me names for agreeing with what I said?

All this I've heard before, and people wonder why I hate Barry.

I never praised Bush, just seemed that BlackMonsters did by calling it Barry's bailout, it was Bushs, Barry took it over and fucked us over with it.

Bailout chart from 1970 up to the 2009 BoA bailout, and a great little bubble chart to go with it.

http://www.propublica.org/special/government-bailouts

One thing that should be noted, under the Bush watch about 1.8 TRILLION in bailouts happened, which is like 4-5 times more than "all" other bailouts added together, including Obama's stimulus package.

LOL, I guess you can't read can you?

Replying to yourself gave me the idea about meds, nobody can prove the stimulus did anything, I have no confusion, both are money ill spent by our government.

It was a good idea, but badly executed.

And why is everyone blaming sides, it's the government period that has fucked us over.

And then some idiot says in the middle of all this that Reagan raised the debt limit, always on point with the conversation, NOT

Your hate for Obama blinds you.

The terms of the bailout were laid out before Obama came along, at that he didn't technically do crap until after the bankruptcy, which he had nothing to do with, rather the courts and a judge determined the outcome of it based on law.

It's not even possible to twist it that Obama took it over and fucked us over with it and equally he can't be given credit for it making money today. He can only take credit for making it appear that the tax payer got some money back, which is something any of us would do if we were handed a bum deal as well.

no, i am saying it was not a good idea..

these companies think that they can get so big that the govt will have to bail them out..

i believe in letting companies fail and that includes banks..

what really pisses me off about this chrysler bailout is that all the pensioners and shareholders got fucked by the chap 11 re org..

there is no reason why the govt should have to forgive one cent of the money that was given to them.. :2 cents:






.

So you must have envisioned that allowing the banks (and other companies that were directly linked to systemic credit flow) to fail would not have resulted in a world-wide deflation and collapse.

Or did you envision that outcome but were willing to accept it?



.

Plenty of proof running around showing where the stimulus did help and continues to help today. It did not help across everything they wanted to, but it did help.

Saying the stimulus was badly executed shows you've never researched it. It's being micro managed and adjusted/changed continually, and it's still going on, 3 years later and it is still not done, and most of the issues it did have are now gone.

Obama can force a State to spend it on the schools for example, but he can't ever force a state not to spend its own school budget and use the stimulus for the schools only, making those same Governor's ask the fed for more money when they run out because now they have none, then them turn around bitch that the stimulus did not improving the schools, when they're the ones that fucked it up, and technically it did greatly help them, saving shit tons of jobs, improvements, etc.

All bailouts in all forms, suck ass for the tax payer... doesn't make a shit what it's for or why, we all take it in the ass when it happens... I think all but 1 president from 1970 to current has done a bailout of some type - and they all sucked, but they did not all fail.

how is losing 5.3 billion dollars making money?

did you even read the article?

there is no reason this should be allowed..




.

A lot of excuses, thats how Barry rolls

The idea was sound, they spent way too much and they didn't do it right. Looking back on it where hindsight is 20/20 isn't going change things.
Just as usual the government got a lot of money and spent.

I just think it could have been done differently

i did... i dont fully believe the story that was sold to the people..

funny how when the govt started requiring all kinds of strings attached to the tarp money, banks start paying back the money...

the truth is that no one knows what would have happened because it didnt play out that way, but i will choose not to trust the govt when it comes to telling the truth..

you are welcome to your own opinion..





.

pwned....

the idea was not sound.. and looking back on what is 20/20? how is forgiving 4 billion dollars and losing another 1.5 billion = to the govt's pitch of making investments in these companies and promising taxpayers that they would see a profit?




.

They aren't losing 5.3 billion.

Yep, it's an article on debt shifting.

Never said it should have been allowed, but nothing Obama or us could have done to stop it.

So what's your excuse for not actually researching it, and what excuses has he made up? If you researched it, you would find very little excuses and a shit ton of action..... but you haven't looked at it, ever.

Did you call Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton or Bush by first names or nick names, in basically every conversion you had about them? I know you hate the man, but do you really have to disrespect our president and country, as well?

You are jumping from " I believe it is a lie " to " this is now a fact " ...

Your article is an opinion piece , the one I posted an article ...

Now, you could be right , but that would require that you research it ( instead of maybe an urban legend ) and post proof :2 cents:

the govt forgave $4 billion, that is a fact..

http://www.christonium.com/automotiv..._Case_Analysis

"Under the proposed agreement with all stakeholders, Fiat will own up to 35% of the new company. The UAW healthcare trust will own approximately 55% of the new company with the US and Canadian government controlling the remaining 10%. Daimler and Cerberus will forgive $2 billion in debt, the US government its original $4 billion bridge loan and the UAW's $6 billion in cash that was to go to the healthcare trust fund. It should be noted that the UAW will not own Chrysler but the shares will be place in trust.


+ the loss incurred with the sale of shares to fiat...

i did my research before i made the post... :thumbsup




.

No simpleton, the drooling idiot is the one that thinks that he's contributing where in reality he's just another clueless assclown with "Hello, my name is Village Idiot" tag on his stained shirt. And that would be you my little brain child.
I find it absolutely useless to argue with idiots like you. Its a waste of time. :2 cents:

the funny thing about the republican party is the way which they rail against the idea that government can do anything good. But when shit hits the fan, they turn to the government to fix all the problems created by the abysmal way republicans actually run the government.

shit was so bad in 2008, even the republicans were like...OK we need to sell out our own principles here. bailouts for everybody!

Then these revisionists, like the congressman cited in this thread, have the balls to question the bailout their party engineered in the first place.

seems even more !!!!

Meanbwhile, I like my Chrysler ... :)

wow.. thats even worse...

i will make sure i deduct more portion on my next tax return..

i'm not paying for that shit.. :thumbsup




.

I've seen that in comedy movies....but when I was in college I NEVER saw or heard of that.

And college wasn't just writing "papers" and sitting in a big hall while a professor "lectures" (like they do in the movies)

No, college was a lot of very interactive classrooms and in class testing. (and no, I never saw any big "frat parties" with naked bitches and people wearing beer helmets and shit like they do in the movies)

Yep, there is no way to know for sure. I'm basing my opinion that it would have dominoed to a deflation, which would have been a disaster, as follows...

This opinion is based on my understanding of the markets and credit (I was in investment banking for 12 years and my take seems to be consistent with most independent analysts), the fact that countries and healthy companies woke up to find they could not meet their obligations because the credit markets were frozen, and the fact that deflation was a reality as was reflected in 2009 still ending in - 0.04% despite the intervention.

If you have something more than "i dont fully believe the story that was sold to the people", I would be interested to hear it.



.

You were probably too drunk to remember. We had 2 guys get kicked out because they paid some indian guys to take a test for them. Number of people got busted for buying essays off the web. I have been asked by number of people that I tutored in the lab, to do their work.

This is exactly why I try and stay a-political. In the big picture, they are all too similar with only minor differences, and there is no group that represents my views -- mostly because our motives and necessities are in opposition.

The thing that irks me the most, and it is displayed from both sides blatantly, is the people who use politics to inform their understanding of other domains rather than the other way around.

Kudos to you for not coming across as one of them. :thumbsup


.

yeah. you & i made the same exact point to vendzilla...the bailout was necessary & proper. To me, all he did was call me names, then you step in & suddenly it was a good idea. i suppose you made the point in a way he finally understood.

& he continues to confuse the bailout & stimulus in all his comments, regardless that they are completely separate entities. Its intellectually lazy. I really need to stop debating people who cant think beyond one sentence.

i just find it depressing, the intellectual bankruptcy of republicans. The constitution is a document largely based on limiting the scope of government power. But todays republican is an unprincipled twit, railing against government even when they use it to prevent the collapse of the entire economy. Its a fucking joke.

He's not open to alternative explanations on areas where he appears to have sub par command of the data/facts.

IOW, he's not open to learning anything, only arguing regardless of whether he has to contradict himself or hand wave away prior misstatements.

It's a mental earmuffs type of approach akin to most religious adherents.


.

Yet thats all you do, argue with nothing but insults, what a moron!