Belly35 wrote: GM ......Government Motor via the Obama Administration Bail-out with taxpayer money is now paying back the money plus interest 5 year sooner with TRAP money via the taxpayer provide by the Obama Administration .....OK

I was in the market for a truck I was looking for used but have decided to go new really liked the Chevy Crew Cab ....... I will not be going to any Chevy dealer and when those that call me ...Sorry I'm taking my business to Ford, Nissan, Toyota

I totally get what you're saying and can't say you're wrong in doing that. It just really sucks that this is the case, it's hurting the little guy (dealership owners) who aren't any part of these bullshit corporate shenanigans.

SQ_Crazies wrote:

Belly35 wrote: GM ......Government Motor via the Obama Administration Bail-out with taxpayer money is now paying back the money plus interest 5 year sooner with TRAP money via the taxpayer provide by the Obama Administration .....OK

I was in the market for a truck I was looking for used but have decided to go new really liked the Chevy Crew Cab ....... I will not be going to any Chevy dealer and when those that call me ...Sorry I'm taking my business to Ford, Nissan, Toyota

I totally get what you're saying and can't say you're wrong in doing that. It just really sucks that this is the case, it's hurting the little guy (dealership owners) who aren't any part of these bullshit corporate shenanigans.

Wowee...Square with a really good post.........spot on. The small car dealers have gotten royally screwed over the past few years....and they had no control over it.

Zero control. In fact, I haven't seen business owners get dicked around by the corporation as badly as they did ever in my life. A close family friend owns a Chevy dealership, I heard all about all the BS they went through.

SQ_Crazies wrote: Zero control. In fact, I haven't seen business owners get dicked around by the corporation as badly as they did ever in my life. A close family friend owns a Chevy dealership, I heard all about all the BS they went through.

Like I said Square...you are spot on. I had a high school friend call me up about a month ago....he lost 300K with his car dealership and went belly up. He was a successful business guy his entire life....mainly in retail.

He lost it all...and is starting over at the age of 55 selling gravestones and caskets.

The auto industry misery is a microscosm in the overall skepticism of the entreprenneur. People are frightened to invest in themsekves anymore because of bullshit like this.

Tragedies abound.

Yeah GM might be going in the right direction now, not necessarily on the right track but the right direction. And even then they're in an uphill battle because it's going to be hard to find people willing to invest in them.

My grandpa lost a small fortune when GM went down. Luckily for him it was just one of many small fortunes he had invested.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
I know conservatives will rail the decision still, but it worked: It kept GM open, reorganized, and allowed them to start anew. Not saying it should be the norm, but that maybe it wasn't such a bad idea.

Was it constitutional? That is the only question that matters.

HAHAHAHAHa

believer wrote:

bases_loaded wrote: IT doesn't matter if it works, it still was/is wrong. Ford survived and is thriving without taking tax payers money to do it.

DING!

You're right, Ford didn't take money here, they take it from Europe.

http://www.4wheelsnews.com/ford-of-europe-receives-600-million-euros-in-loans/

Auto dealerships are franchises, and just like any franchise you serve at the mercy of the franchisor. Sure they dicked over some franchises, but in the end that was part of the agreement. I am not making excuses for anyone losing their business, it does suck, but that is one of the risks you take.

THE4RINGZ wrote: Auto dealerships are franchises, and just like any franchise you serve at the mercy of the franchisor. Sure they dicked over some franchises, but in the end that was part of the agreement. I am not making excuses for anyone losing their business, it does suck, but that is one of the risks you take.

I'm well aware of all of that, and trust me, they got dicked around.

A lot of questionable (AT BEST) ethics too. Corporate treats them like piss ons. And it's quite a bit different than your typical franchise like a Subway or Pizza Hut.

I was wondering how the shuffling happened and that is about the worst way I could envision it. I typically don't care for bailouts but seeing another major piece of our remaining industrial power go by the way side would've been hard. This was the 'best' bailout of the ones they did. The paper shuffling banks should've been allowed to go bankrupt and reorganized with the understanding that you can't become highly overleveraged and playing the Wall Street slots in Las Vegas East.

The banks are largely continuing their practices they did before all this as it is now clear that daddy government will be there with a life boat again rather the government wants to admit it or pass crap legislation. I fear two more bubbles or being inflated - the stock market, again, and our national currency which will hurt much more than the housing debacle.

I did just see the GM commercial where they are talking about paying back the loan early, and how they are going to move forward from here.

I guess some of the good news is that people tend to stick with the brand name that they like best, or have always had.
I know my brother only drives a Ford truck or a Harley. Nothing else.
My great uncle (rip) only bought Cadillac's every other year, nothing else.
I've only bought Kia's the last 3 times I've bought a vehicle.
My grandfather only bought Pontiac.

So, I doubt that too many people will change their habits.

CenterBHSFan wrote: I guess some of the good news is that people tend to stick with the brand name that they like best, or have always had.
I know my brother only drives a Ford truck or a Harley. Nothing else.
My great uncle (rip) only bought Cadillac's every other year, nothing else.
I've only bought Kia's the last 3 times I've bought a vehicle.
My grandfather only bought Pontiac.

So, I doubt that too many people will change their habits.

Yep.

Hell, i would imagine that is why Toyota is still doing so well.

Not only did GM use taxpayer money to pay back a loan of taxpayer money, they recently applied for a 10B loan for more from the government. Total ponzy scheme. What a crock.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/23/general-motors-economy-bailout-opinions-columnists-shikha-dalmia_2.html

Sean McAlinden, chief economist at the Ann Arbor-based Center for Automotive Research, points out that the company has applied to the Department of Energy for $10 billion in low (5%) interest loan to retool its plants to meet the government's tougher new CAFÉ (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards. However, giving GM more taxpayer money on top of the existing bailout would have been a political disaster for the Obama administration and a PR debacle for the company. Paying back the small bailout loan makes the new--and bigger--DOE loan much more feasible.

In short, GM is using government money to pay back government money to get more government money. And at a 2% lower interest rate at that. This is a nifty scheme to refinance GM's government debt--not pay it back!

LOL

Way to go GM. But I'm not surprised, this is how the government would do it right?

Sound like they threw Peter to the curb and are just robbing Paul to pay Paul.

Well, technically Paul gave some money to GM. GM came back for more. Paul's wife said not to give him anymore unless he paid back what he was already given. So Paul gives GM enough to money to pay him back, GM gives Paul that money, and Paul can then give GM more money. GM isn't robbing Paul. Paul wants to be able to tell GM what they can produce and who they can hire. It is Paul who is robbing the taxpayers to give away all of this money.

Cleveland Buck wrote: Well, technically Paul gave some money to GM. GM came back for more. Paul's wife said not to give him anymore unless he paid back what he was already given. So Paul gives GM enough to money to pay him back, GM gives Paul that money, and Paul can then give GM more money. GM isn't robbing Paul. Paul wants to be able to tell GM what they can produce and who they can hire. It is Paul who is robbing the taxpayers to give away all of this money.

Your analogy is well thought out. More accurate than my hastily posted one. You are correct Paul's money comes with hooks and anchors. GM is Paul's useful idiot to rob the taxpayers.

I guess the old analogy holds true after all. Peter is the taxpayers, Paul is the government. In other words Peter is still getting robbed to pay Paul.

From the National Assoc of Mfg's.

Administration Defends GM's Use Of Escrow To Pay Debt.
The Detroit Free Press (4/29, Hyde) reports, "The Obama administration rebutted complaints today from Republicans over General Motors' use of a government-funded escrow to pay off $5.8 billion in federal loans last week, saying the move was a good deal for taxpayers." US Sen. Chuck Grassley had requested an explanation from the US Treasury, "saying it appeared GM was simply shuffling bailout money. He also criticized GM for running ads with CEO Ed Whitacre saying the company had paid off its loans when the government still expected to lose money on the $50 billion it spent rescuing the automaker." The Treasury responded to Grassley saying "that GM's decision to pay off the loan signaled the automaker did not face 'extraordinary expenses,' and that Treasury approved the loan payoff."

The Detroit News (4/29, Shepardson) reports that Senator Grassley "plans to make a new speech on GM as early as later today -- if there is time on the Senate floor. Grassley said in a Detroit News interview he wants to 'discredit the intellectual dishonesty of the GM ads because you get the impression that it is being paid back because they are selling more cars.' He said GM was paying back the loans 'with taxpayer money that is laying around there.'" The News mentions Rep. Darrell Issa's concern with the GM transaction and adds at the bottom of the article that "President Barack Obama defended the government's rescue of GM on Saturday calling it 'unpopular' but 'right.'"


Only in government (with a complicit drive-by media running interference for the left) can more taxpayer money be taken to cover up a bad model and have victory claimed. And they want your health care .........................

QuakerOats wrote: From the National Assoc of Mfg's.

Administration Defends GM's Use Of Escrow To Pay Debt.
The Detroit Free Press (4/29, Hyde) reports, "The Obama administration rebutted complaints today from Republicans over General Motors' use of a government-funded escrow to pay off $5.8 billion in federal loans last week, saying the move was a good deal for taxpayers." US Sen. Chuck Grassley had requested an explanation from the US Treasury, "saying it appeared GM was simply shuffling bailout money. He also criticized GM for running ads with CEO Ed Whitacre saying the company had paid off its loans when the government still expected to lose money on the $50 billion it spent rescuing the automaker." The Treasury responded to Grassley saying "that GM's decision to pay off the loan signaled the automaker did not face 'extraordinary expenses,' and that Treasury approved the loan payoff."

The Detroit News (4/29, Shepardson) reports that Senator Grassley "plans to make a new speech on GM as early as later today -- if there is time on the Senate floor. Grassley said in a Detroit News interview he wants to 'discredit the intellectual dishonesty of the GM ads because you get the impression that it is being paid back because they are selling more cars.' He said GM was paying back the loans 'with taxpayer money that is laying around there.'" The News mentions Rep. Darrell Issa's concern with the GM transaction and adds at the bottom of the article that "President Barack Obama defended the government's rescue of GM on Saturday calling it 'unpopular' but 'right.'"


Only in government (with a complicit drive-by media running interference for the left) can more taxpayer money be taken to cover up a bad model and have victory claimed. And they want your health care .........................

How about "an embarassment" or "an outrage"?

They have to claim victory for the GM takeover so they can say, "See, the takeover worked for GM, now let us take over with financial reform."

eersandbeers wrote: Was it constitutional? That is the only question that matters.

No, it isn't the only question that matters.

The Constitution exists for the country, and not the other way around.