http://news.investors.com/article/620090/201207271807/gm-risky-subprime-auto-loans-fuel-sales.htm

"The subprime market grew as a result of the recession," said GM spokesman Jim Cain. "Our experience, however, is that with proper management they are very good risks."

Uh huh....can someone define "proper management" for me? Let me guess...government bailout's when the loans default? Oh that's right, we'll just dispatch the Repo Man. :thumbup:

It's nice to know you have the resources of the governmnets printing press to back you up. Ford doesn't have that luxury. Does anyone still believe that when the government sticks its paws in the the private sector takes it on the chin?

3 years later, GM still owes you and me $42,000,000,000. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/07/27/government_motors_still_owes_taxpayers_42_billion http://nation.foxnews.com/gm/2012/07/26/report-gm-still-42b-hole

Based on their falling stock prices, it doesn't appear it will be paid back anytime soon. But the UAW was made whole, so it's all good :rolleyes:

I wonder if there is a lawsuit being contemplated by Ford, Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, et al regarding GM's obvious market advantage? If I'm a smaller automaker trying to grow and get more market share, GM certainly has a financial advantage provided by taxpayers. In the dying days of the Republic where "fairness" is the main issue, will someone come after GM in the name of "fairness"?

It's not really an ongoing advantage though unless you can show the govt is giving them unfair financial and regulatory advantages not also granted to the other automakers. The foreign mfrs could have a case against the US for unfair subsidies, but that's a trade issue.

And Ford benefitted from the UAW contract the govt crammed down. But it is true that the govt trounced on property rights by screwing investors in order to give a handout to their UAW voters.

Buy a Subaru. Legacy, Outback and Tribeca all manufactured in Lafayette Indiana in a zero landfill waste, non union factory.

Will never buy a GM product ever again. The bail out still makes me feel ill

Should GM stop with the shady loan, yes.
Does that make the bailout nuill and void and still a bad idea? Not really.
What was the alternative? Letting GM go? Do we know the ramification of such a move? Would that have crippled the economy even more in 2009? Would that have led to a deeper recession in 2009, leading to more factories closed, higher unemployment numbers, and huge blow to Ohio?

I am not a fan of the auto bailouts, but to me, it is like the bank bailouts, a needed, yet awful pill to swallow. The impact of GM failing was much greater than the cost of saving them.

And yes, I agree with most of you that the UAW did not need to get as much as they did.

ptown_trojans_1;1236618 wrote:Should GM stop with the shady loan, yes.
Does that make the bailout nuill and void and still a bad idea? Not really.
What was the alternative? Letting GM go? Do we know the ramification of such a move? Would that have crippled the economy even more in 2009? Would that have led to a deeper recession in 2009, leading to more factories closed, higher unemployment numbers, and huge blow to Ohio?

I am not a fan of the auto bailouts, but to me, it is like the bank bailouts, a needed, yet awful pill to swallow. The impact of GM failing was much greater than the cost of saving them.

And yes, I agree with most of you that the UAW did not need to get as much as they did.

That's all well and good, but doesn't GM maintain a competitive advantage over each and every auto manufacturer not named GM nor Chrysler? Wouldn't they be in more financial straights if you and I didn't own part of them?

I would also offer that the United State Government went after Toyota will all of their strength and powers when they supposedly had an accelerator sticking problem. Turns out, that was FALSE, and yet, the government went after them with the clear intention of harming them due to a supposed indescretion. After that, we had GM's Chevy Volt catching fire and the government's pursuit of them was substantially less than their desire to put Toyota out of business. The US government should not own car companies and subsequently should not have the authority to address "safety" issues with discretion.

ptown_trojans_1;1236618 wrote:What was the alternative? Letting GM go? Do we know the ramification of such a move?

Businesses come and go in our semi-free market private sector. Businesses that fail or succeed are (or should be) determined by the marketplace; not the federal government.

Would this have had negative consequences on the economy in the short-term? Yes, but a better run auto manufacturing company would have stepped up to fill the void and that void may not necessarily have been "outsourced" to Japan. In fact Toyota, Subaru, Honda, and even Ford would have seen this as an opportunity. And chances are those newly created jobs would have provided good paying non-union jobs in a friendlier business climate.

The real benefactor in the bailout is the UAW...and we all know that the UAW = votes for the Democratic Party. For the Dems, GM wasn't too big to fail but their allies in the UAW were. Let's be honest about it at least.

Buy a Honda, made in O-H-I-O!

^^^Got 2

Your Government Motors tax dollars at work....for the UK that is: http://freebeacon.com/government-motors-spends-600m-on-uk-soccer-promo/

GM profits down 41%....http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/aug/02/gm-profits-slip-european-struggles