GM Lies.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/23/gm...p-loans-withta
cuhulin

wrote in
:

> http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/23/gm...p-loans-withta
> cuhulin
>
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.


--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )

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

wrote in news:14891-4BD84755-2751@storefull-
3173.bay.webtv.net:

> http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/23/gm...p-loans-withta
> cuhulin
>


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 GM’s 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 we’d 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.

--
Tegger

wrote in
:

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


--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )

> wrote in message
...
> On the web,
> Crazy On Tap - GM Lies About Paying Back ''Loan''!
>
> I didn't type the URL because of so many people in there using so many
> cuss words.
> cuhulin

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.

Tegger wrote:
>
> wrote in news:14891-4BD84755-2751@storefull-
> 3173.bay.webtv.net:
>
> > http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/23/gm...p-loans-withta
> > cuhulin
> >
>
> 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.

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.




> When
> these criticisms were put to GM’s 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 we’d be able to pay this back."


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.


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

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.

On Apr 29, 7:34*am, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
> * * * * *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

Kruse wrote:

> On Apr 29, 7:34 am, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
> > 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....

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.


>
>
> You think the US and Canadian public own G.M.? For real?

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.


> You think the
> taxpayers will get their money back? How?

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 people who had old GM
> stock, do you think they will get repaid? LOL

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

>
> 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.

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


>
> Your name is not Jim. Your name is Ed Whitacre.

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