GM Lies.

snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net wrote in news:18364-4BD6543F-4023@storefull-

3172.bay.webtv.net:

The Wall Street Journal had an editorial on this same thing, but with no cuss words.

Apparently GM still owes the government $52 billion. GM was able to claim that they'd "paid the government back" because the feds had reclassified the $6-billion paid and the $52-billion unpaid in such a way that GM could claim the $52-billion was not "owed" and thus did not count.

The upshot is that GM and the feds are being mendacious. Did you expect more?

Or maybe it is you that is incapble of being truthful.

The $52 billion to which you refer is presumably the total $50 billion that was the US government bailout. $7 billion was a direct loan and $43 billion of that was given in exchange for GM equity, which is and never has been the same as a loan. That is how come they have been labeled "Government Motors" for the last 16 months, due to the government purchase of this equity. It seems a little dishonest to claim you thought this was really a loan and not a purchase of ownership stake in the company which is what everybody else has been calling it from the beginning.

The last I heard, at current market prices, if the government were sell the equity shares to the public it should return about %8 billion less than the purchase value. So the US taxpayers are at this point in the hole for $8 billion on the total $50 billion bailout. It is expected that at some future date the governments shares will be worth what they taxpayers paid for them. If the value of GM continues to rise the taxpayers may even make a profit.

-jim

wearethegovtandweareheretohelpyou! cuhulin

Tegger wrote in news:Xns9D67389729BEDtegger@208.90.168.18:

They haven't got their ownership back...

cuhulin

snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net:

Lovely. nothing like the press making wild statements without doing any research. That obviously isn't the case here.

I *do* see the point about it here however - pure publicity to improve their credit rating - which must be lower than Greece's right now. And it probably will work because most people won't bother to read articles such as the link you posted. Call it the CNN/FOX news effect.

Slick Trick Government Motors.What is Chrysler/Dodge/Government Motors doing? cuhulin

snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net wrote in news:14891-4BD84755-2751@storefull-

3173.bay.webtv.net:

For those not inclined to click on links, below is an excerpt:

"The bottom line seems to be that the TARP loans were 'repaid' with other TARP funds in a Treasury escrow account. The TARP loans were not repaid from money GM is earning selling cars, as GM and the Administration have claimed in their speeches, press releases and television commercials. When these criticisms were put to GMs Vice Chairman Stephen Girsky in a television interview yesterday, he admitted that the criticisms were valid:

"Question: Are you just paying the government back with government money?

"Mr. Girsky: Well listen, that is in effect true, but a year ago nobody thought wed be able to pay this back."

Nothing will come of this, of course: government employees are OK with other government employees lying through their teeth.

snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net:

My question is that unless the money from both loans went into completely different bank accounts, how is it "different" money? It's

*all* GM's money period. If they choose to use some of it so they don't default on one of the loans (or whatever reason it was done), That's the government's business isn't it? It's like the government owing money to ATT&T for phone numbers but paying them to install DSL lines. It all gets paid back eventually and what matters is how soon.

I heard they paid this back with TARP dollars.

But, I had too many lies to deal with this week to focus on this story. How did you feel when you saw Goldman Sachs thugs stonewalling Congress and claiming they did nothing wrong. (They basically swept up the crap off the floor, called it a "derivative", and sold them to whomever was stupid enough to trust Goldman Sachs that this was an "investment".)

Another day, newer ways to lie.

I have seen the GM commercials. I didn't see where the commercials said the loan was repaid using "money GM is earning selling cars". But what is the difference between money earned selling cars and money in the bank? It is all money. If nobody was buying GM cars they wouldn't have been able to pay back the loan. The commercials are intended advertise that GM is on the road to recovery. Being able to pay back the loan is a clear indication that they don't need the money to pay current operating expenses for which it was originally intended.

They are able to pay it back early because sales are better than anyone expected. You seem to think you have uncovered some deep dark secret. This isn't a secret it is all open public knowledge. The government purchased a controlling interest in GM because GM was $80 billion in debt. The cash infusion was intended to be used to pay off GM's creditors and meet operating expenses while GM reorganizes itself into profitable business. The theory is -> Without the cash infusion GM would have closed down forever. The TARP money is being used as it was always intended to be used. It is not the same as the bank bailout where top management just used the TARP funds to give themselves bonuses.

Here is a news flash: The US public (and to a lesser extent the canadian public) own GM and if the US public buys enough GM cars then the taxpayers will someday get their money back just like they did with the Chrysler bailout 30 years ago.

30 years ago, the Chrysler bailout was a loan, NOT a bankruptcy. Chrysler paid back the loan. If you hung on to your Chrysler stock, you could cash it in. What about G.M.'s stock? Hmmmm....

You think the US and Canadian public own G.M.? For real? You think the taxpayers will get their money back? How? The people who had old GM stock, do you think they will get repaid? LOL! Tell you what. Since I own part of GM (as you say), I'll sell you my portion of GM stock.......hey, for even a reduced rate. Send me your cash now. Your name is not Jim. Your name is Ed Whitacre.

Didn't the Usurper in our White House promise a new free car for everybody? cuhulin

Chrysler didn't really get any money from the government. The government just guaranteed the loans. The big difference is in this bailout nobody thought GM management was capable of reviving the company. And by nobody I mean nobody. Not the government, not the banks, not the car buying public, not the GM workers - literally nobody had any confidence in GM's management. Chrysler got bailed out 30 yrs. ago because people believed in Iacocca.

Who do you think owns the majority interest? The UAW is another large shareholder. That is probably going to change the way things are done at GM.

If the taxpayer get their money back it will be by selling their ownership shares. But that equity is is only going to be worth something if GM figures out how to sell cars.

The old stock was liquidated. That stock would have been worthless whether or not there was bailout.

Yeah sure and maybe you could make some extra cash selling the White House, the Lincoln Memorial and Yellowstone Park while your at it.

Nah you would have to be pretty far gone to think he could be bothered to discuss this with a moron like you.

snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net:

Hardly. He said you could exchange your dying car for credit on a new one. Something dealerships have always done since after the Model T, but publicizing it as being funded by government money meant you *might* get a better deal. I have my doubts without car salesman chained to their desks.

The old GM stock was transferred to the Motors Liquidation Co and as of today was still trading at $0.67 cents a share.

In other words the government stole the company out from under the existing stockholders. Of course theft is a way of life for politicians.

In this case, like third-world dictators they simply nullified/ignored the existing bankruptcy laws under which the shareholders might have at least gotten a few cents on the dollar.

Even if I were inclined to purchase a new car it certainly would *not* be from Government Motors.

You can probably find better deals if you want to invest in worthless stock

As I recall Studebaker Packard never actually declared bankrupptcy, they just quit building cars and what was left of the corporation was eventually melded into another corporation which was melded into yet another corporation, etc., etc. The direct decendent of the Studebaker Packard Corporation is a subsiduary of a bank in Texas....go figure that (see ). Ed