Ax Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR2009110203479.html Just a little blurb from today's Business Digest page. Taxpayers are unlikely to recover their full investment in General Motors or Chrysler, U.S. government investigators said Monday in the latest review to cast doubts that the government will recoup the $80 billion it poured into the two automakers.The Government Accountability Office concluded that General Motors and Chrysler likely will not be valuable enough for the Treasury Department to break even on its investment in the two auto companies that went through bankruptcy earlier this year. The GAO also revealed that the Obama administration is closely scrutinizing the finances of GM and Chrysler and has set some requirements on production even though it has said it will maintain a hands-off approach on the automakers' daily operations. Shocking. Not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 A more interesting question would be will they get benefits from the UAW;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 A more interesting question would be will they get benefits from the UAW;) It was a bailout of the unions anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I thought the Detroit bailouts were wrong and still do. However, I'm not sure that report is so damning. It says we probably won't break even on the investment. So, how much are we going to lose? Also, does that loss take into account nay collateral effects of the investment (e.g., jobs saved by the investment)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I thought the Detroit bailouts were wrong and still do. However, I'm not sure that report is so damning. It says we probably won't break even on the investment. So, how much are we going to lose? Also, does that loss take into account nay collateral effects of the investment (e.g., jobs saved by the investment)? I don't know how the common person, Joe Public, can view this as anything other than a net loss. Even when GM comes back it's not like I'm going to find a check in my mailbox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 The great money flush. What a trip. Where is that onion piece about The Great American Money Hole at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I don't know how the common person, Joe Public, can view this as anything other than a net loss. Even when GM comes back it's not like I'm going to find a check in my mailbox. Sorry, I didn't flesh that idea out. If the investment saved jobs, that will save tax revenue and money that otherwise would have been spent on unemployment insurance claims. Again, I don't know if there are any positive collateral effects of the investment and I didn't care for the bailouts. But, the article doesn't say we're going to lose the entire investment and it doesn't discuss the collateral effects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Yeah, I was wary of the auto bailout too, but what was scary was the ripple or domino effect that would have followed their failure. I wonder now with Ford emerging if that threat is gone and if it comes to it again we can let the others die. Both Reagan and Bush/Obama decided in different eras that the US couldn't let an automaker fail, but what will we do tomorrow when this question arrives again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Last week GMAC was rumored on NPR to be asking for an additional 6 billion. I haven't heard anything since then but I wonder how public sentiment will greet that if it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I think there will be a storm against it. Both Ds and Rs, Ls and Cs were unhappy with the first but we swallowed the medicine because we were told it was essential. A second dosing will be a very hard sell esp as midterms get closer. Remember, the Obama mandate was probably 60% anti-incumbant and that mood of anti-incumbancy hasn't really gone away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I was tempted to bump the bailout threads of yesteryear, but I wont. It's very apparent who was right back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I was tempted to bump the bailout threads of yesteryear, but I wont. It's very apparent who was right back then. You were opposed to the bailouts, as were about 60% of your fellow Americans. I would venture to guess that the other 40% didn't think the taxpayers would make money on the Detroit bailouts. So, doesn't that mean we were all right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 You were opposed to the bailouts, as were about 60% of your fellow Americans. I would venture to guess that the other 40% didn't think the taxpayers would make money on the Detroit bailouts. So, doesn't that mean we were all right? selective memories? LOL again, I wont bump the thread, but you're crazy if you think that there werent many here that thought the bailouts were a grand idea and that it would be cost even for the taxpayer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.