GM Really Didn't Pay Back Loan

foxpaws said:
The taxpayers get it back, because our taxes won't increase trying to pay off a huge deficit.
Click to expand...
Now we all know you're lying, Vickster.

A non increase is a tax cut now? Who do you think you're fooling? What about inflation caused by the lack of capital in the market? Maybe you should study finance!

Not to mention the FACT that Bush's tax cut is due to expire, resulting in a huge middle class tax increase. Oh, but that's a cut too, right? :rolleyes:

Obama has got to raise taxes to pay for this. Hence the tax increases in Obamacare, and the proposed VAT tax, and Crap and Tax...

But there isn't enough money in the pockets of the highest earners to pay this TWENTY TRILLION DOLLAR BILL, not by a long shot.

How are companies supposed to make money to pay back debts when there isn't any?

You really think we're this gullible?
 
foxpaws said:
I am saying that if GM went under without paying us back a dime we would have been out $59 billion dollars (I think that is the amount - 52 trillion in future stock options and a 6.7 billion dollar loan).
Click to expand...

THEY NEVER PAID US BACK.

All they did was took money out of our wallets and hand it to us to pay off the debt. That is not paying us back.
 
shagdrum said:
THEY NEVER PAID US BACK.

All they did was took money out of our wallets and hand it to us to pay off the debt. That is not paying us back.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking maybe she's a bit thick, you know? She's swallowed her leftist Soros Ayers talking points so thoroughly that she can't understand what she believes.
 
New GM Cars Run on Efforts of U.S. Taxpayers

Detroit, Michigan--After the Inspector General of the TARP taxpayer bailout program said that General Motors' partial repayment of its government loan did not come from earnings but rather from another pool of taxpayer TARP money, GM announced its latest vehicle, which will be powered exclusively by the energy and drive of the U.S. taxpayer.

"Taxpayer subsidies are keeping GM afloat," said a GM spokesperson, "so we thought it best to cut out the middle man and have taxpayers themselves power GM cars."
Taxpayer+Powered+GM+Car.jpg


Just for the record, I will NEVER buy a GM or Chrysler.

EVER.
 
I wish we'd given GM 100 Billion dollars, then they could buy the government's $50B interest in the company.

This is the same logic that a compulsive shopper uses-
"I saved 70% off the price.
Sure it cost me $300, but I saved $700!! That was a $400 profit!"
 
fossten said:
It's funny how you say "screw the stockholders, it's their dumb fault" and yet you support the bailouts, which remove the gamble/risk that companies take.

You're a walking mass of contradictions.
Click to expand...

i do agree with fossten on that one foxy...but at the end of the day...i'm taking you to dinner :p
 
foxpaws said:
So, you do finally understand that getting any money back, even if it is our 'own' money is better than getting nothing back... glad I could clear that up for everyone. Our risk in GM is 6.7 billion dollars less than it was...



The CTS Coupe isn't a show car - it will be in the showrooms in 2 months - for a price of around $38,000... a cow catcher front end MKS runs $41,000

I have owned many GM cars - they don't break any more than the Fords (Found on Road Dead) I have owned. However, both break more than the import cars I have owned (Japanese and German).

And GM is still selling more than Ford (as of April 1st), a pretty good feat after going into bankruptcy - hard to sell a car if people don't think you will be around next year.

GM will do just fine... We will be getting back our money. The fact that they didn't need that 6.7 billion they paid back is a pretty good indication...
Click to expand...

you're comparing a CTS to a Lincoln Flagship? the Cadillac DTS is Cadillacs flagship..compare that instead.....what's its sticker price?

MSRP: $46,280 - $59,475
Invoice: $43,735 - $56,204
 
PetesSweets86 said:
i do agree with fossten on that one foxy...but at the end of the day...i'm taking you to dinner :p
Click to expand...

So Pete - when you take me out to dinner, let's say I'll have to loan you the $300...

However, dinner only costs $280 - so you have $20 remaining.

Now, you could starting paying me back right away with that $20 - so now my outlay is only $280.

Or you could take the skank down the street out to Denny's with that $20 - then my outlay is still $300...

I would rather you be in debt to me for only $280 rather than $300.

Because, I soon as I loan you the money - that money is yours, it isn't mine any more. You can decide to pay me back, or not. It isn't secured... I have no recourse.

So, since I really do get the whole MKX/MKZ/MKS... mixed up. I thought the DTS (Deville Touring Sedan) was comparable to a Town Car, not a MKS.

Maybe the MKS is a better match to the STS (Seville Touring Sedan).

At least Cadillac's initials sort of mean something. Or maybe someone can explain what Lincoln's names mean...

Even Cadillac XLR mostly means something - Luxury Roadster (not sure what the X means though)

CTS - Catera Touring Sedan. However they are holding the 's' even in the coupe... don't like that - it should be a CTC...
 
foxpaws said:
So Pete - when you take me out to dinner, let's say I'll have to loan you the $300...

However, dinner only costs $280 - so you have $20 remaining.

Now, you could starting paying me back right away with that $20 - so now my outlay is only $280.

Or you could take the skank down the street out to Denny's with that $20 - then my outlay is still $300...

I would rather you be in debt to me for only $280 rather than $300.

Because, I soon as I loan you the money - that money is yours, it isn't mine any more. You can decide to pay me back, or not. It isn't secured... I have no recourse.
Click to expand...
Bad example that in no way resembles the truth, foxpaws. I can't believe you're still trying to foist this bullcrap on people after you've already been shown to be wrong on this. And the amazing thing is that you NEVER ONCE addressed my example, which is the truth, or Cal's or Shag's examples. You just ignore and persist with your ad nauseum bull.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
fossten said:
Still can't tell the truth, eh?

We're STILL under risk for ALL of it.

YOU. CANNOT. PAY. SOMEONE. BACK. WITH. THEIR. OWN. MONEY.

Too fast for you?
Click to expand...

OK Foss - we are not under the risk for 'all of it'. All of it was at one time 59 billion dollars (or close)

We are now under the risk for 52 billion dollars. What part of less risk don't you understand?

And it isn't our money any longer. We gave it to GM - it is now their money- don't you get that?
 
shagdrum said:
THEY NEVER PAID US BACK.

All they did was took money out of our wallets and hand it to us to pay off the debt. That is not paying us back.
Click to expand...

Our debt is less - if you don't understand that shag - go back to finance 101.

It is now their money - if you can't get that through your head, then don't lend anyone any money that isn't secured.

They didn't have to pay us back - ever. We would have been holding a 59 billion dollar debt.

Now we hold a 52 trillion dollar debt -

see the difference - our exposure is less... duh...
 
Calabrio said:
I wish we'd given GM 100 Billion dollars, then they could buy the government's $50B interest in the company.

This is the same logic that a compulsive shopper uses-
"I saved 70% off the price.
Sure it cost me $300, but I saved $700!! That was a $400 profit!"
Click to expand...

That is spending Cal - not return on loans.

Remember - that money is now GMs - it is no longer ours.

The 6.7 billion dollars was an unsecured loan.

If we had given the GM 100 billion dollars and then they turned around and gave us 50 billion back - we then would only have 50 billion in outstanding debt. That is ever so much better than 100 billion dollars in outstanding debt.

We gave them 59 billion dollars - I am ever so happy that now they only have 52 billion of our dollars.
 
foxpaws said:
OK Foss - we are not under the risk for 'all of it'. All of it was at one time 59 billion dollars (or close)

We are now under the risk for 52 billion dollars. What part of less risk don't you understand?

And it isn't our money any longer. We gave it to GM - it is now their money- don't you get that?
Click to expand...
No, 'we' didn't 'give' anything to anybody. It was stolen from us, you STATIST, and now you've just admitted that GM HASN'T PAID BACK ANYTHING.

Keep trying, Marxist.

Don't you get that IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY?
 
fossten said:
No, 'we' didn't 'give' anything to anybody. It was stolen from us, you STATIST, and now you've just admitted that GM HASN'T PAID BACK ANYTHING.

Keep trying, Marxist.

Don't you get that IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY?
Click to expand...

Our elected officials represent us - 'we' in that form gave it to GM.

If you don't like what the government is doing vote them out - but they do represent us - it is how it works.

GM has paid back 6.7 billion dollars. I still can't believe none of you get the basic concept that now GM owes us only 52 billion dollars which is better than them owing us 59 billion dollars.

How is this paying us back 6.2 billion dollars a bad thing? It isn't. It results in less risk, it results in less deficit. Even though they took the 6.7 billion from the escrow - it doesn't make any difference, the net result is the same. The amount GM owes the government is less than they did 2 weeks ago.

Using Reason's numbers - GM was on the hook to the US for 50 billion 2 weeks ago. Today GM is on the hook to the US for 42.3 billion. The exposure (which is what matters in debt) is far less.

And the 10 billion loan hasn't been accepted - and it looks like it won't...
 
Is it better for them to give back some of the money given to them.
Yes.

Does it really make a difference?
Not really.

Is it a sign of GM's strength or a recovery?
No.

Is the advertising designed to mislead the public.
Absolutely.
 
That I will agree with - it is a marketing tool - it may help them sell cars - 'see - we are getting more financially stable'.

However, if they were willing to give back part of their escrow fund - they must be feeling a little more positive about the future. GMs first quarter numbers will be released mid May - it will be interesting to see what they have done.

Remember - Ford has about 35 billion in debt, compared to what Reason seems to think that GM has in 42.7 billion. Ford's debt lies in the fact they mortgaged their property to the hilt right before the crisis. They are carrying almost as much debt to the private sector, and their legacy costs are higher right now.

I think both Ford and GM can come out of this - they both build good vehicles.
 
foxpaws said:
So Pete - when you take me out to dinner, let's say I'll have to loan you the $300...

However, dinner only costs $280 - so you have $20 remaining.

Now, you could starting paying me back right away with that $20 - so now my outlay is only $280.

Or you could take the skank down the street out to Denny's with that $20 - then my outlay is still $300...

I would rather you be in debt to me for only $280 rather than $300.

Because, I soon as I loan you the money - that money is yours, it isn't mine any more. You can decide to pay me back, or not. It isn't secured... I have no recourse.

So, since I really do get the whole MKX/MKZ/MKS... mixed up. I thought the DTS (Deville Touring Sedan) was comparable to a Town Car, not a MKS.

Maybe the MKS is a better match to the STS (Seville Touring Sedan).

At least Cadillac's initials sort of mean something. Or maybe someone can explain what Lincoln's names mean...

Even Cadillac XLR mostly means something - Luxury Roadster (not sure what the X means though)

CTS - Catera Touring Sedan. However they are holding the 's' even in the coupe... don't like that - it should be a CTC...
Click to expand...

I don't see why I'd pay you back with your 20 dollars as that would reasonably be used for the gas I used to take you out and drive you around. I make my own money for working as that is what I pay you with...I work long as hard so tha'ts plenty of money to spare. If I couldn't afford to pay you back I wouldn't of taken up this so called loan you offered me.


or you never know.....that 20 bucks could be used for some condoms, scented candles and KY lotion :p
 
foxpaws said:
OK Foss - we are not under the risk for 'all of it'. All of it was at one time 59 billion dollars (or close)

We are now under the risk for 52 billion dollars. What part of less risk don't you understand?

And it isn't our money any longer. We gave it to GM - it is now their money- don't you get that?
Click to expand...

we didn't give it, lobbyists and obama took it from us. It wasn't a public poll on who you'd like to see survive and the least of the 2 could die off and the one who won got bailout money to appease the public
 
We gave it - our elected officials did. It is how a representative government works. We don't vote on everything - we elect representatives to do that. When they don't do what we want, we elect someone else who we believe will better represent 'us'.

I am glad my $20 won't be going to the skank at Dennys...;)
 
na foxy, you're special....just count on a sore night ;-)

just try and tie me up hehe
 
Uh oh, now the NYT has *owned* Vinnie...

AS we inch closer to a clearer understanding of the products and practices that unleashed the credit crisis of 2008, it’s becoming apparent that those seeking the whole truth are still outnumbered by those aiming to obscure it. This is the case not only on Wall Street but also in Washington.

Truth seekers the nation over, therefore, are indebted to Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, who in recent days uncovered what he called a government-enabled “TARP money shuffle.” It relates to General Motors, which on April 21 paid the balance of its $6.7 billion loan under the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

G.M. trumpeted its escape from the program as evidence that it had turned the corner in its operations. “G.M. is able to repay the taxpayers in full, with interest, ahead of schedule, because more customers are buying vehicles like the Chevrolet Malibu and Buick LaCrosse,” boasted Edward E. Whitacre Jr., its chief executive.

G.M. also crowed about its loan repayment in a national television ad and the United States Treasury also marked the moment with a press release: “We are encouraged that G.M. has repaid its debt well ahead of schedule and confident that the company is on a strong path to viability,” said Timothy F. Geithner, the Treasury secretary.

Taxpayers are naturally eager for news about bailout repayments. But what neither G.M. nor the Treasury disclosed was that the company simply used other funds held by the Treasury to pay off its original loan.
Click to expand...
But why should we be surprised that a tax cheat running the Treasury would be dishonest about paying back money owed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 124 (members: 0, guests: 124)
Back
Top