Sad day for America
in [Toyota]
|
From: Canuck57 on 29 Mar 2010 08:28 On 28/03/2010 7:05 PM, Dave wrote: > > >> >> Everything has gotten worse ever since Bush left office and the Dims >> called him a dummy. What does that make those two bozos who are >> destroying the economy and spending the county into bankruptcy to buy >> votes, and the dummies like you think that's a good thing. LOL >> > > I guess at your age it's easy to forget that Obama inherited this > failing economy from Bush. Yep, we know Obama is a liberal and that means it is always someone elses fault. -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.
From: Canuck57 on 29 Mar 2010 08:43 On 28/03/2010 8:01 PM, dr_jeff wrote: > Canuck57 wrote: >> On 28/03/2010 6:33 PM, dr_jeff wrote: >>> Canuck57 wrote: >>>> GMAC, now Ally Bank, they do the same for GM auto buyers. Courtesy of >>>> Bailout Obama (BO) who wants this GM pig to fly. >>> >>> Its banking unit is Ally Bank, but the company is still called GMAC. >>> also has major problems with another of its businesses: Mortgages. GMAC >>> is owned by GM (49%) and Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. (51). >>> Cerberus Capital Management is the same company that owns a small >>> portion of Chrysler and used to own a much larger portion of it. >>> >>>> Debt, bailout, debt... lets face it, a world of hurt is coming for all >>>> this liberalism ponzi money management. Does not mater who is getting >>>> bailed out, it is wrong morally, ethically and financially. Sooner or >>>> later... the sky for many will fall hard. >>> >>> I don't think it is ethically or financially wrong to help those who >>> swindled by the banks (I mean the people who got mortgages that they >>> could not afford or were lied to - some people report that the agreed to >>> a fixed rate mortgage only to get a variable rate mortgage). >>> >>>> But at least now you are seeing why bailouts are bad. And any toxic >>>> government, company or individual in over their head with debt is >>>> eventually going to get washed out before a real recovery can occur. >>> >>> It depends on why they got underwater. Some people just bought at the >>> top of the market and then lost their jobs, got sick or something. >>> However, people who were buying a $500,000 on $20,000 a year need to >>> find cheaper housing. >>> >>>> In the mean time, government is just pissing away wealth at a record >>>> pace. >>>> >>>> Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and now Ally ... debt for losers on the >>>> taxpayer. >>> >>> Actually, the US gov't is getting back a lot of bailout money. Seems >>> that a lot of banks don't want the US Gov't to own them. >> >> That is only true of some. Most of the bailout moneys are lost causes, >> take GM. They only owe some $6 billion or so, yet add up all of GM's >> pieces, GMAC, Delco, GM itself, well over $100 billion was spent yet >> only $6 billion on the books. > > GMAC was 49% owned by GM. Delco is a brand for aftermarket parts owned > by GM. Perhaps you mean Delphi, which has been a seperate company for > over 10 years. Yep, Delphi too. It was packaged to dump early on. As few realize GM was in touble even 10-15 years ago. Delphi soon became a ward of the government in bankruptcy. >> So if GM was privatized, it would have to fetch over $100 billion to >> cover costs, and that is debatable as interest, pension bailouts and >> legal isn't factored in. Not going to happen in my lifetime. >> >> Not to mention the tax losses as anyone related to GM got welshed and >> declaired layoffs and losses as opposed to profits and tax paying jobs. >> >> By allowing GM to operate for at least 3 years past basic bankruptcy >> is going to cost the america taxpayer a lot of money in the end. > > When did GM go bankrupt? What evidence do you have? Look at the financials. GM even had a $300++ million dollar civil judgement outstanding on bankruptcy, for misstating financials. SOX was supposed to prevent that, but Wagoner didn't get a cell for it, just a $20M pension. In GMs case, they got so far into debt no one wanted to pull the plug to take the write down. But when they needed more money and people were not going to lend more for the ruse, that is when GM really went bankrupt. In reality, their NAV has been a negative value for years before bankruptcy. >> As for which banks got bailouts and others that did not, I suspect it >> had a lot to do with who your clients were. Well connected clients >> with DC connections you were bailed. Warren Buffet types would not >> like it if their money was in an insolvant bank... > > Actually, Buffet and our money was put into insolvent banks. > > Jeff Funny, I believe Buffet owns some of GMAC. Guess he is getting his bailout. -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.
From: Canuck57 on 29 Mar 2010 08:44 On 29/03/2010 4:03 AM, Bill Putney wrote: > dr_jeff wrote: > >> Actually, the US gov't is getting back a lot of bailout money. Seems >> that a lot of banks don't want the US Gov't to own them. > > Yeah and every time they discuss that money coming back, it's talked > about as if it was new found money to spend on more social programs. It > is fraud pure and simple. Quite true. Not one penny has seen the taxpayers debt balance sheet. Conveniently gets lost. -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.
From: Obveeus on 29 Mar 2010 09:00 "Bob Cooper" <bc(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > The Dems' hands are as filthy as the Reps'. > What neither of you are saying is Wall Street owns the politicians. > All the housing sins were encouraged by Wall Street and their political > puppets, because the only way to keep Wall Street rolling in dough was > to create a nation of consumer debt and equity inflation. I agree with this. The overwhelming desire to keep the snowball rolling is shared by Republicans and Democrats alike...and fueled by a consumer that always wants more than they can actually afford. > Many Democrats still won't admit this because they want to keep their > equity-based 401k plans artificially inflated. I'm not sure why you assign the '401k' to a Democrat philosophy. If anything, I'd assign it to a Republican philosophy while company pensions are more in tune with a Democrat philosophy. In either case, lets all be really glad that the government didn't succeed in getting Soocial Security funds into the stock market investing game a few years ago. > Those 401k plans were funded by off-shoring jobs and essentially > destroying the American middle class. > That's the legacy of both political parties, and Americans who were > content to off-shore jobs as long as their 401k looked good. Not sure what this has to do with 401k. Americans are content to offshore jobs as long as the job isn't theirs and as long as the result will be cheaper products for them to buy here in America. > Many Democrats - such as SMS - are perfectly happy to buy all their hard > goods from foreigners, then whine about Republicans being the cause of > America's economic problems and joblessness. I don't know about that, but I am one of those that believes that a global economy is one of the best ways to avoid global warfare...and all the expenses that go along with destroying rather than building. > Instead of ethics of work and save, and of family and doing "good > works," this country turned into a nation of idolizing money above all > else. > In the '90's there began the practice of lionizing the wealthy as never > before, even if they were scammers. If there is a line in the sand where you can point and claim that America suddenly felt this way (as opposed to always feeling this way), I'd point at the 1980s, not the 1990s.
From: dr_jeff on 29 Mar 2010 09:06
Obveeus wrote: > "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote: >> While that is true, it's time to start judging Obama based on what he has >> accomplished. The Cash for Clunkers program did little to help the >> environment and made used cars more expensive. > > Mostly, it was a bailout program designed to hand money to the auto > manufacturers...and most significantly to Ford since they made, by far, the > most 'clunkers'. The money went to the owners of clunkers, not the car makers. However, Ford makes cars people want to buy, so a lot of people bought Fords with their money. Jeff |