Author Topic: More lies: The GM Bailout Was A Failure, And No The Taxpayer Hasn't Made Money  (Read 919 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Oh Please, The GM Bailout Was A Failure, And No The Taxpayer Hasn't Made Money
www.businessinsider.com

 
Mike "Mish" Shedlock | Apr. 22, 2010, 11:39 AM | 1,360 |  13
(This is a guest post from the author's blog.)
________________________ ________________________ _________

GM repaid $6.7 billion in US loans and another $1.4 billion in Canadian government loans. So where does that leave GM? Let's take a look.

Please consider Gas in the tank: GM repays $8.1B in gov't loans:

Fallen giant General Motors Co. accelerated toward recovery Wednesday, announcing the repayment of $8.1 billion in U.S. and Canadian government loans five years ahead of schedule.

Much of the improvement comes from GM slashing its debt load and workforce as part of its bankruptcy reorganization last year. But the automaker is a long way from regaining its old blue-chip status: It remains more than 70 percent government-owned and is still losing money — $3.4 billion in last year's fourth quarter alone. And while its car and truck sales are up so far this year, that's primarily due to lower-profit sales to car rental companies and other fleet buyers.

The U.S. government still owns 61 percent of GM. The automaker is counting on a public stock offering to allow the U.S. government to begin recouping its remaining $45.3 billion investment. The Canadian government's $8.1 billion stake, which equals a 12 percent ownership interest, also could also be unlocked if GM sells shares to the public.

GM lost $88 billion between 2004, when it last turned a profit, and last year when it declared bankruptcy. It endured years of painful restructuring, closing 14 factories and shedding more than 65,000 blue-collar jobs in the U.S. through buyouts, early retirement offers and layoffs.

GM received $52 billion from the U.S. government and $9.5 billion from the Canadian and Ontario governments starting in 2008. At first the entire amount of U.S. aid was considered a loan as the government tried to keep GM from going under and pulling the fragile economy into a depression.

But during bankruptcy, the U.S. government reduced the loan portion to $6.7 billion and converted the rest to company stock. Canadian governments also converted part of their debt to shares, reducing its loan balance to $1.4 billion. The final installments on those loans were repaid Tuesday, comfortably beating a 2015 deadline.

GM wiped out most of its staggering $95 billion debt in bankruptcy, closing last year with $15.8 billion in debt. As it was reorganized, the United Auto Workers agreed to concessions, including a plan to shift $50 billion in retiree health care costs to a union-run trust. New hires and white-collar workers now don't get the same rich health benefits.

GM's planned stock offering hinges on the company posting a profit. GM posted a $3.4 billion loss for the fourth quarter of 2009, but its operations in Asia, South America and other regions made money.

GM's Pension Plan Underfunded by $27 Billion

Inquiring minds are wondering GM's Pension: A Ticking Time Bomb for Taxpayers?:

General Motors Corp. may no longer be the world's biggest automaker, but it still operates the country's largest pension fund. The threat to its pension plans has always been an issue, but it took on a new urgency when GM disclosed April 7 that its plans were underfunded by more than $27 billion, with more than half of that being owed to U.S. workers and retirees. Across town, a post- bankrupt Chrysler faces its own pension shortfall. Moreover, a report last week from the Government Accounting Office (GAO) says the pension crisis in the auto industry could create an unprecedented crisis for the federal Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp., a government-sponsored organization to backstop company pensions.

Could taxpayers really be on the hook for UAW pensions?

Yes. GM could face a funding crisis in 2013 or 2014 when, under the current projections, the automaker will be required to make more than $12 billion in contributions to its pension funds to keep them solvent, according to the GAO analysis.

The funding could easily become a serious challenge for the PBGC, which says it is now facing $168 billion in possible plan terminations across a range of companies, many of them auto suppliers. The PBGC is privately funded, but since it was created by an act of Congress and its board of directors consists of the Secretaries of Labor, Commerce and Treasury, it's possible that the U.S. Government would step in if the agency came up desperately short of funds.

What happens to GM and Chrysler pensioners if the PBGC takes over the funds?

The retirees could face dramatic cuts. The PBGC promises a certain level of benefits, but $35 billion of the two automakers' promised pension benefits fall beyond the PBGC guarantees.

 
How Safe Is Your Bank? Texas Ratios of 7,500+ Banks

15,000 Illinois Protesters Chant "Raise My Taxes"; Unions Getting More Aggressive and Obnoxious; Record Turnout in N.J. Tells Unions to Go to Hell

GM Repays Government Debt; Was The Bailout A Success?
GM Summary

GM is still Government Motors.

The US Government converted $45.3 billion in loans to a 70% ownership position.
The Canadian Government converted an $8.1 billion stake into 12% ownership.
GM lost $3.4 billion in the 4th quarter of 2009.
GM still has $15 billion in debt.
GM has $27 billion in unfunded pension liabilities.
Until GM IPOs we will not know an approximation of taxpayer losses. Moreover, those losses do not include the pension time bomb.

With GM still losing money on top of all those issues why did GM repay TARP? The likely answer is to get out from under TARP restrictions on CEO and executive pay.

With the Obama administration crowing about the "success" of this bailout, let's go back to the beginning, to those $45 billion in loans. Had the government not made those loans (now converted to equity), GM would have gone bankrupt just as it did. GM would likely be producing cars just as it is now, taxpayers would not be out $45 billion, and GM would not be Government Motors.

The bailout was a total and complete failure.


Tags: Bailout, Detroit, Barack Obama, Mike Shedlock


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/gm-bailout-was-a-total-failure-2010-4#ixzz0lrUINKpG

_____________________

Kneepadders of the world unite! 

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
again, it's not repub/dem issue.

ANY president would have bailed out the auto industry.  period.  mccain would have done it as well, so would romney.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
again, it's not repub/dem issue.

ANY president would have bailed out the auto industry.  period.  mccain would have done it as well, so would romney.


MRDUMPLING

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1190
  • Getbig!
Not Ron Paul!   ;D

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
i dont see how admitting the reality of the situation is kneepadding.  bush, obama, palin, mccain - they all believed the value of a functional auto industry was greater than that of the billions of dollars.

facts are facts.  up to 5 mil jobs would be lost overnight, chunk of GDP vanished.  Bush didn't let it happen, neither did obama.  Am I kneepadding for Palin and Bush now?

BM OUT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8229
  • Getbig!
i dont see how admitting the reality of the situation is kneepadding.  bush, obama, palin, mccain - they all believed the value of a functional auto industry was greater than that of the billions of dollars.

facts are facts.  up to 5 mil jobs would be lost overnight, chunk of GDP vanished.  Bush didn't let it happen, neither did obama.  Am I kneepadding for Palin and Bush now?

Republicans would have put stipulations in it regarding the unions.Obama did it as a pay off to unions.No way republicans wouldnt have made the UAW renogotiate contracts and they certainly wouldnt have given them a place at the table in terms of running the company.

kcballer

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4598
  • In you I feel so pretty, In you I taste God
Republicans would have put stipulations in it regarding the unions.Obama did it as a pay off to unions.No way republicans wouldnt have made the UAW renogotiate contracts and they certainly wouldnt have given them a place at the table in terms of running the company.

I don't agree with the UAW on a lot of things, i too feel there is not enough give from them, but to exclude them would have been at their own peril politically. 
Abandon every hope...

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
'Republicans would have put stipulations in it regarding the unions.'

WOULD HAVE?

Um, Bush gave a shitload of money to banks, auto instustry, etc.

He didn't have any stipulations.  "Would have"?  Makes no sense.  He gave them the $.

BM OUT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8229
  • Getbig!
'Republicans would have put stipulations in it regarding the unions.'

WOULD HAVE?

Um, Bush gave a shitload of money to banks, auto instustry, etc.

He didn't have any stipulations.  "Would have"?  Makes no sense.  He gave them the $.

He gave the company money to stay afloat.Obama gave them money,took over the company and gave the UAW a seat  at the table in decisions the company was to make.The same UAW thats THE REASON the company is in the position it is with their idiotic retirement contracts.Obama dictates who is the CEO,did Bush?Bush gave them a lifeline,Obama is running it and since this little jerkoff has never run a f'n thing in his entire life or ever had a real job,the results show exactly how effective he is 3.8 billion dollar loss in the 4th quarter.However,he doesnt care because the union got a payoff and is doing fine.THATS Obama,destroy the village to make sure a few scum bags survive.

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
i dont see how admitting the reality of the situation is kneepadding.  bush, obama, palin, mccain - they all believed the value of a functional auto industry was greater than that of the billions of dollars.

facts are facts.  up to 5 mil jobs would be lost overnight, chunk of GDP vanished.  Bush didn't let it happen, neither did obama.  Am I kneepadding for Palin and Bush now?
b/c you never point out the reality when youre getting slammed in the ass by obama or the dems...thats why its knee padding  ::)

kcballer

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4598
  • In you I feel so pretty, In you I taste God
He gave the company money to stay afloat.Obama gave them money,took over the company and gave the UAW a seat  at the table in decisions the company was to make.The same UAW thats THE REASON the company is in the position it is with their idiotic retirement contracts.Obama dictates who is the CEO,did Bush?Bush gave them a lifeline,Obama is running it and since this little jerkoff has never run a f'n thing in his entire life or ever had a real job,the results show exactly how effective he is 3.8 billion dollar loss in the 4th quarter.However,he doesnt care because the union got a payoff and is doing fine.THATS Obama,destroy the village to make sure a few scum bags survive.

Now Billy the UAW shares blame yes, but the company designed and allowed poorly built cars to be put into the public, they single handedly turned the American public onto Japanese and European vehicles with their denial of fuel efficiency, their arrogance in building and designing substandard products to 'force' people to buy a new car every few years and their stupid 'lets run 50000 brands with the same cars, different badges' sh*t.
Abandon every hope...

BM OUT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8229
  • Getbig!
Now Billy the UAW shares blame yes, but the company designed and allowed poorly built cars to be put into the public, they single handedly turned the American public onto Japanese and European vehicles with their denial of fuel efficiency, their arrogance in building and designing substandard products to 'force' people to buy a new car every few years and their stupid 'lets run 50000 brands with the same cars, different badges' sh*t.

The company is going bankrupt or is bankrupt because every car they make comes with 4,000 dollars attached to it to pay off lazy ass UAW retired workers benefits.Cant make a profit when your 4 grand in hole paying off workers who no longer work.

kcballer

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4598
  • In you I feel so pretty, In you I taste God
The company is going bankrupt or is bankrupt because every car they make comes with 4,000 dollars attached to it to pay off lazy ass UAW retired workers benefits.Cant make a profit when your 4 grand in hole paying off workers who no longer work.

There is an issue with that Billy, but i wouldn't call the UAW retired guys lazy, some of those guys put their heart and soul into building GM's cars.  Perhaps if GM didn't waste billions on stupid ideas and concepts it wouldn't have mattered, they could have met all liabilities.  It's a give and take scenario billy you're trying to give but not take.  Doesn't work that way. 
Abandon every hope...

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Look at it this way - Presidents from both parties have determined it is more beneficial (to the country or to their own legacy, I dunno) to keep the Big # Automakers alive thru handouts.

It's that simple.  Presidents before have bailed out the companies as well, right?  No president is gonna let an automaker fail on their dime.  Nobody here was screaming when Bush did it.

The only differnce in this case is that Obama is giving the govt some say in future operations of GM to assure this doesn't happen again.  I guess you guys are against accounability?  Remember that fvckstick CEO telling Congress and Bush that he had no clue if the $ would be enough, then coming back in 2 months asking for more billions?

Obama said sure, you can have the cash, but we're getting a seat at the table to control how you fvcksticks are blowing it.  That CEO was back in 2 months asking for more $ under Bush - while he was making a milion a week as CEO... that's cool with you guys?  Him blowing our tax dollars?

I'm all for accountabilty with anyone sucking up our tax dollars.  You want welfare - take a damn drug test.  You want unemployment?  Spend 15 hours a week picking up garbage.  You want 15 bil a month to keep cars coming?  Then your ass is getting those $ bonuses limited. 

Shit, we're really defending CEOs here, spending our tax dollars?