U.S. government lost $11.2 billion on General Motors bailout U.S U.S. government lost

StormX

StormX

Banned
[h=1]U.S. government lost $11.2 billion on General Motors bailout[/h] The loss was more the $10.3-billion loss that had been expected, the Treasury Department said Wednesday.


The U.S. government lost $11.2 billion on its bailout of General Motors Co, more than the $10.3 billion the Treasury Department estimated when it sold its remaining GM shares in December, according to a government report released on Wednesday.


The $11.2 billion loss includes a write-off in March of the government's remaining $826 million investment in "old" GM, the quarterly report by a Treasury watchdog said.


The U.S. government spent about $50 billion to bail out GM. As a result of the company's 2009 bankruptcy, the government's investment was converted to a 61 percent equity stake in the Detroit-based automaker, plus preferred shares and a loan.


Treasury whittled down its GM stake through a series of stock sales starting in November 2010, with the remaining shares sold on December 9, 2013.


At the time of the December sale, Treasury put the total loss at $10.3 billion but said it did not expect any significant proceeds from its remaining $826 million investment in "old" GM, the report by the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program said.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...lion-general-motors-bailout-article-1.1774395

:rofl2:

Think of all the poor people that money could have helped, 11.2 billion tax dollars flushed down the shitter. Way to go Obama.
 
LOL

Not too good at math, are you, Stormy?

If GM tanked, it would have cost the U.S. economy in the neighborhood of $1 trillion+.

The extra billion is just so awful compared to that! You guys are really fools when it comes to economics...
 
And, just to add, I think we spent over a billion a day in Iraq.

But that was better - better to spend money on killing people than creating/saving jobs.
 
A. It was much larger as BO paid a huge premium on the stock but figured the loss on the real value. And had we simply offered a guaranty for a bridge loan as always is done same risk protection from cpllapse. But we wanted ownership to insure ee paid the unions big money while dtiffing normal investors. Worst deal ever.
 
Celticguy said:
A. It was much larger as BO paid a huge premium on the stock but figured the loss on the real value. And had we simply offered a guaranty for a bridge loan as always is done same risk protection from cpllapse. But we wanted ownership to insure ee paid the unions big money while dtiffing normal investors. Worst deal ever.
Click to expand...


Who was going to loan GM $50 billion to go through a reorganziation while the economy was swirling the drain?
 
Bonestorm said:
Who was going to loan GM $50 billion to go through a reorganziation while the economy was swirling the drain?
Click to expand...

As I said, the govt would freeing any lender of risk. Or the govt could lend it directly. But following normal bankruptcy protocols would not allow BO to divert taxpayer money to the union at the expense if the stockholders.
 
Thing1 said:
LOL

Not too good at math, are you, Stormy?

If GM tanked, it would have cost the U.S. economy in the neighborhood of $1 trillion+.

The extra billion is just so awful compared to that! You guys are really fools when it comes to economics...
Click to expand...

You can't prove that claim. Talk about BS

One car company filing bankruptcy? Seriously?

Like you understand economics? The fact that you parrot this bullshit shows that you do not
 
Teflon Don said:
You can't prove that claim. Talk about BS

One car company filing bankruptcy? Seriously?

Like you understand economics? The fact that you parrot this bullshit shows that you do not
Click to expand...

By "one car company," did you mean to say "the last of America's manufacturing base, for which countless people depended on jobs, including not only GM employees, but dealers, suppliers, towns throughout the United States and the businesses that cater to those towns"?

Run any #'s you like. GM tanking would have been a huge loss to the economy; to try to compare it to an extra $1 billion will embarass you any way that you slice it.
 
There was no different risk of gm tanking if the govt just loaned.

Thing1 said:
By "one car company," did you mean to say "the last of America's manufacturing base, for which countless people depended on jobs, including not only GM employees, but dealers, suppliers, towns throughout the United States and the businesses that cater to those towns"?

Run any #'s you like. GM tanking would have been a huge loss to the economy; to try to compare it to an extra $1 billion will embarass you any way that you slice it.
Click to expand...
 
Thing1 said:
And, just to add, I think we spent over a billion a day in Iraq.

But that was better - better to spend money on killing people than creating/saving jobs.
Click to expand...

Well, contracting is one of the few jobs that is readily available for many veterans these days. So, unless you want a bunch of young men with military training and experience roaming the streets unemployed and angry...
 
Celticguy said:
As I said, the govt would freeing any lender of risk. Or the govt could lend it directly. But following normal bankruptcy protocols would not allow BO to divert taxpayer money to the union at the expense if the stockholders.
Click to expand...

So, no answer for who had $50 billion sitting around and available to loan to the company. Let me try another question, what "normal bankruptcy protocols" were not followed?
 
Bonestorm said:
So, no answer for who had $50 billion sitting around and available to loan to the company. Let me try another question, what "normal bankruptcy protocols" were not followed?
Click to expand...

Dear economic dunce; GM didn't need a $50 billion loan to continue operating. I don't know where you Liberal dunces come up with the massive pile of crap you've been fed.

GM needed a massive reorganization under our Chapter 11 laws. It has billions in assets it could have sold and, like Ford, could have done so without dishonest politicians using the issue as a campaign rally cry to save Union jobs in order to garner their votes at the expense of the US taxpayer.

You dim bulb lefties need to understand how the REAL world works so that you don't parrot the moronic taking points you have been fed like brain dead lemmings.
 
Abraxas said:
The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could reach as high as $6 trillion dollars – or $75,000 for every household in America – a new study from Harvard University has found.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...raq-and-Afghan-wars-could-hit-6-trillion.html
Click to expand...

You’re British I believe; you couldn't begin to comprehend what our Constitution is and why the Federal Government should have NOTHING to do with subsidizing private enterprise.

As for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, simple minded twit’s think that despots, dictators and tyrants should be free to invade and attack peaceful nations because spending the money to prevent despots is just too hard on society.

Do you even comprehend how weak and stupid such arguments are about war? Apparently, being from a nation where Chamberlain removed any doubt why Liberal twits who cave into despotic tyrants should never be in charge of anything, you haven't learned a thing from history.

As for these cost claims of the trillions in war costs, that is loony math from loopy AmeriKa hating Marxist lefties who will fabricate their versions of reality to support their naive failed world views.

Yes, peace and freedom comes at a price; now read a book and get a clue. But not to worry, you Europeans have outsourced your defense onto the US a long time ago and soon will find yourselves at the mercy of the former Soviet Union once Liberals in this country have given up any hint of global leadership and outsourced it to....(laughing here).....the UN; have some cheese with that whine.
 
Abraxas said:
The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could reach as high as $6 trillion dollars – or $75,000 for every household in America – a new study from Harvard University has found.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...raq-and-Afghan-wars-could-hit-6-trillion.html
Click to expand...

How to determine when a story is outright bullshit:

"More than half of the 1.56 million troops who have been discharged to date have received medical treatment at VA [Dept of Veteran Affairs] facilities and been granted benefits for the rest of their lives,"

Two facts; the ENTIRE military in the US is less than 1.56 million personnel in TOTAL; it takes quite a stretch to claim that MORE troops have been discharged than are actually in the service.

Second; the claim is that 780,000 former military are injured and being treated for injuries. We don't even have that many serving in the Army.

Just common sense should make one scratch their heads and wonder where they come up with their moronic claims and figures.

But of course, this is not about facts or common sense; it is an agenda based on hatred of AmeriKa and what she stands for and this desperate desire to turn AmeriKa into the same failed miserable leftist malaise that grasps Europe with high unemployment, low productivity and Government dependency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top