GM is Buying Back All Preferred Stock from the Treasury Dept.

US News • Views: 5,350

Some really good news for a change, from the US automobile industry:

Washington - General Motors Co will announce this afternoon that it is buying back all of the Treasury Department’s $2.1 billion in preferred stock, people briefed on the matter said.

The move is another step by the Detroit automaker toward repaying its $49.5 billion bailout.

GM has previously paid $6.7 billion in outstanding government loans, and just over $700 million in dividends and interest.

The Treasury Department and GM both declined to comment.

Jump to bottom

154 comments
1 Kragar  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:15:07am

But..Government Motors…

2 darthstar  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:15:42am

And Chrysler’s investing in a plant in Illinois

[Link: online.wsj.com…]

3 RadicalModerate  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:15:44am

Cue GOP outrage in 3…2…1..

4 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:16:51am

Cue the GOP complaining that we should not have sold the stock so we could make a bigger profit on it down the road.

5 webevintage  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:21:18am

I’m waiting now for Mitch and Boehner and and President Palin to now tell me why it was a bad idea to help out GM.

6 jaunte  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:23:14am

re: #3 RadicalModerate

GM’s China sales are up 67% over last year. The Chinese are going to own all the Buicks!

7 Taqyia2Me  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:23:41am

Are GM bondholders going to be made whole?
Generally, they’re first paid in a bankruptcy.

8 MinisterO  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:25:09am

Bloomberg ran an article last week about the relative success of TARP. A lot of people are unhappy about it. They were hoping the program would fail miserably.

9 Political Atheist  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:26:20am

GM and the taxpayers are ahead…
SNIP
The Treasury said GM will repurchase its 83.9 million shares at $25.50 each — meaning the Treasury will collect $2.14 billion, or $40 million more than their previous value. As a result, GM will have repaid $9.5 billion of its $49.5 billion bailout, leaving about $40 billion unpaid.

Dan Ammann, GM vice president of finance and treasurer, said the actions announced today, combined, would reduce its annual interest and dividend obligations by $500 million.

GM was paying 9 percent dividends on the government’s $2.1 billion in preferred stock.

10 Kragar  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:27:11am
11 MinisterO  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:27:52am

re: #7 Taqyia2Me

Are GM bondholders going to be made whole?
Generally, they’re first paid in a bankruptcy.

Bondholders accepted a settlement. They got more than they would have in bankruptcy, although that won’t stop some from screaming bloody murder about it.

12 Charles Johnson  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:28:31am
13 Charles Johnson  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:30:23am

I’m no Christine O’Donnell fan but that Gawker article is creepy.

14 Taqyia2Me  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:30:54am

re: #11 MinisterO

Bondholders accepted a settlement. They got more than they would have in bankruptcy, although that won’t stop some from screaming bloody murder about it.

That could be true. Most people don’t realize that a lot of bond holders are actually pension funds, funds that pay real live retired people.

15 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:32:21am

re: #12 Charles

That guy sounds like a total douchebag.

16 Political Atheist  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:32:26am

re: #6 jaunte

GM’s China sales are up 67% over last year. The Chinese are going to own all the Buicks!

Revenge at last! They can have ‘em.

17 Kragar  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:33:01am
18 lawhawk  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:33:31am

re: #8 MinisterO

The relative success of TARP was that it kept the banks solvent - but the government then used TARP to provide secondary bailouts to GM, Chrysler, and then HAMP (homeowner assistance). The government is going to take significant losses on those, but may turn a profit on the bank bailouts because the banks have been paying back with interest.

As for GM making this announcement, where exactly is GM getting the money to buy the preferred shares. Their balance sheet isn’t exactly dripping with black ink. If you look deeper, you’ll find that they’re recycling the bailout funds to buy the preferred shares - using taxpayer money to pay off taxpayer money.

And most importantly is the fact that in order for the feds to break even, the GM stock price would have to hit $131, before any split, if the value of the dividends and interest is factored into the repayment.

The expected share price is going to be somewhere between $20 and $25.

19 iossarian  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:34:10am

re: #12 Charles

Weird and sleazy. This is exactly what puts otherwise smart people off politics.

Well, that and the fact that you have to let billionaire CEOs make all your decisions for you.

20 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:35:03am

re: #13 Charles

More than a little. And the better headline would be “I did not have a one-night stand with Christine O’Donnell, because my sole criteria for having sex with women is about the shallowest thing imaginable.”

21 MinisterO  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:35:40am

re: #14 Taqyia2Me

That could be true. Most people don’t realize that a lot of bond holders are actually pension funds, funds that pay real live retired people.

Absolutely. GM bonds were selling for less than 5 cents on the dollar before the deal. I believe bondholders ended up with about 10 cents on the dollar plus equity. People who were buying those bonds at that time were gambling on a bailout. They got one, just not as generous as they had hoped. It really pissed them off.

Regardless, they would have gotten less in bankruptcy court.

22 iossarian  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:38:01am

This is a great comment from the gawker page:

Jesus. And this garbage is why most smart, no-nonsense women won’t enter politics. We’ve all had a boozed-induced one night stand. Two consenting adults; no one got hurt. Next thing you know you’re running for office and some douche that you only have the vaguest memory of is writing a fucking thesis on a gossip website lamenting your pubic hair status. Y’all bitch about the batshit women currently in politics. Well, you reap what you sow. You tell me what sane woman wants to deal with this shit? God, you’ve made me feel sympathetic to this idiot. Now I have a case of the ragies.

Incidentally, I came across a piece on the gawker founder (Nick Denton?) in the New Yorker recently, and he came across as a complete dickhead.

23 Political Atheist  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:38:06am

re: #15 Obdicut

I feel bad for reading such gossip. Kiss and tell is just despicable. If there is any truth to it at all.

24 Feline Fearless Leader  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:38:32am

re: #12 Charles

Yikes!

I Had a One-Night Stand With Christine O’Donnell.

I’m waiting for the tapes of the James O’Keefe interview (or attempted interview) with O’Donnell to come out…

25 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:38:45am

re: #23 Rightwingconspirator

Maybe I should write articles on all the women I haven’t had sex with.

26 jaunte  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:39:24am

re: #16 Rightwingconspirator

Revenge at last! They can have ‘em.

GM sales, US vs. China:
[Link: money.cnn.com…]

27 RadicalModerate  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:39:44am

re: #12 Charles

Yikes!

I Had a One-Night Stand With Christine O’Donnell.

A drunken Christine O’Donnell is the subject of a “Dear Penthouse Letters” article.

I’m torn between finding this disgusting (because of the sleaze factor), and hilarious (because of the fact that it rips O’Donnell’s holy-roller image absolutely to shreds).

28 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:41:05am

re: #27 RadicalModerate

I think it’s just absolutely contemptible, from head to foot.

29 shutdown  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:41:09am

re: #11 MinisterO

Bondholders accepted a settlement. They got more than they would have in bankruptcy, although that won’t stop some from screaming bloody murder about it.

Bondholders were strong-armed into accepting non-standard terms. No matter how well this story ends for the government investment, the bondholders were smacked around pretty well at the outset of the automakers’ rescue.

30 MinisterO  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:41:13am

re: #18 lawhawk

The relative success of TARP was that it kept the banks solvent - but the government then used TARP to provide secondary bailouts to GM, Chrysler, and then HAMP (homeowner assistance).

We’ve talked about this before. The GM bailout is going to cost taxpayers money. The success or failure should be judged against the cost to taxpayers of the preferred alternative, which, I guess, was bankruptcy.

31 Sol Berdinowitz  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:42:00am

She herself broached the subject of her seyual activities more than once, coming down on masturbation and making a point of her leading a “chaste” lifestyle.

Otherwise, I would have no reason to care one way or another.

32 MinisterO  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:42:34am

re: #29 imp_62

Bondholders were strong-armed into accepting non-standard terms. No matter how well this story ends for the government investment, the bondholders were smacked around pretty well at the outset of the automakers’ rescue.

Bitch and moan though they do, they got more than they would have in bankruptcy court.

33 iossarian  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:43:39am

re: #28 Obdicut

I think it’s just absolutely contemptible, from head to foot.

I agree under current societal conditions. What makes it a bit of an interesting ethical question, though, is that under the societal conditions that O’Donnell wants to implement, this kind of piece would actually be relevant in terms of judging someone’s “character”.

re: #31 ralphieboy

She herself broached the subject of her seyual activities more than once, coming down on masturbation and making a point of her leading a “chaste” lifestyle.

Otherwise, I would have no reason to care one way or another.

Exactly.

34 Feline Fearless Leader  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:43:43am

re: #31 ralphieboy

She herself broached the subject of her seyual activities more than once, coming down on masturbation and making a point of her leading a “chaste” lifestyle.

Otherwise, I would have no reason to care one way or another.

And it’s an odd outlook that makes such a subject anything close to a vital criteria for selecting which candidate to vote for.

35 shutdown  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:45:31am

re: #30 MinisterO

We’ve talked about this before. The GM bailout is going to cost taxpayers money. The success or failure should be judged against the cost to taxpayers of the preferred alternative, which, I guess, was bankruptcy.


The automakers may have done a better job reorganizing themselves and dropping useless and unprofitable segments if they had gone into Chapter 11. The only parties served by the bailout were management and the unions. Chapter 11 would have been more painful, but would have led to more sustainable corporate models upon exit. The successful restructuring of the auto industry cannot be measured by how little money the taxpayers lost - it was money that never should have been invested in the first place. Look at Ford’s results, without having received a dime from Treasury.

36 shutdown  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:47:03am

re: #32 MinisterO

Bitch and moan though they do, they got more than they would have in bankruptcy court.


Wrong. Equity would have been wiped out, bondholders could have entered into a debt-for-equity deal and been in the position Treasury is now. Equity fared better than it should have, and bondholders got screwed because the industry was somehow of strategic importance.

37 MPH  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:47:19am

re: #5 webevintage

I’m waiting now for Mitch and Boehner and and President Palin to now tell me why it was a bad idea to help out GM.

Wasting billions upon billions to prop up institutions which are destroying wealth will never be a good idea. The bailout is one reason we are still in a recession…all the wealth pissed away needs to be earned again.

The Government Motors takeover started under George Bush, don’t forget.

38 MinisterO  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:47:58am

re: #35 imp_62

The automakers may have done a better job reorganizing themselves and dropping useless and unprofitable segments if they had gone into Chapter 11. The only parties served by the bailout were management and the unions. Chapter 11 would have been more painful, but would have led to more sustainable corporate models upon exit. The successful restructuring of the auto industry cannot be measured by how little money the taxpayers lost - it was money that never should have been invested in the first place. Look at Ford’s results, without having received a dime from Treasury.

They did go into Chapter 11.

39 lawhawk  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:48:57am

re: #30 MinisterO

The bankruptcy was going to happen no matter how much money was thrown at the company. It simply had too much debt and liabilities versus revenues - and much of it was structural debt - contracts with the unions, bad deals, and bad business practices.

The first Bush bailout of GM and Chrysler let Bush claim that he wasn’t going to let the companies go bankrupt on his watch. Obama then gave both companies an extender to turn things around. Both failed, and both went into expedited bankruptcies.

Everyone could have been saved a whole lot of coin had they gone directly into expedited bankruptcies - which showed that the level of disruption to the economy wasn’t nearly as bad as anyone claimed would happen if these “too big to fail” corporations went under. The reorganizations eliminated some, but not all, of the structural problems, and led to Chrysler being bought by Fiat. It remains to be seen if Chrysler will ever recover - its product line is horrible, and Fiat is going to use Chrysler to reintroduce its cars in the US market (mostly small cars). That might help, but unless Chrysler products become more reliable, buyers are going to stay away.

GM shed brand after brand (think Hummer, Pontiac), including killing off the one-time purported savior of the company - Saturn. Saturn was even supposed to get saved by Penske but that deal fell through - so GM got no value in return. Now, GM brings in cars designed by its European label Opel under Buick nameplates, which again shows that the company still doesn’t get that it has too many labels and still needs to clean house.

40 MinisterO  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:49:45am

re: #36 imp_62

Wrong. Equity would have been wiped out, bondholders could have entered into a debt-for-equity deal and been in the position Treasury is now. Equity fared better than it should have, and bondholders got screwed because the industry was somehow of strategic importance.

Existing equity was wiped out and bondholders did enter into a debt-for-equity deal. Sounds like it went just the way you’d want it to.

41 Political Atheist  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:49:49am

re: #25 Obdicut

I’ve got your tagline-

6,697,254,041 Not Served

42 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:50:54am

re: #39 lawhawk

The bankruptcy was going to happen no matter how much money was thrown at the company

There are very different kinds of bankruptcy, though. GM avoided the worst kind, thanks to the bailout.

43 Political Atheist  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:51:01am

re: #41 Rightwingconspirator

I’ve got your tagline-

6,697,254,041 Not Served

Whoops-About half that many…..

44 joest73  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:51:36am

re: #13 Charles

I’m no Christine O’Donnell fan but that Gawker article is creepy.

The pictures don’t prove a thing other than maybe she is like just about every other girl I remember in catholic high school.

45 iossarian  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:51:38am

re: #25 Obdicut

Maybe I should write articles on all the women I haven’t had sex with.

Yeah, that’s my approach, but only because it’s quicker than the alternative.

/heavy

46 engineer cat  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:53:00am

o.t.

keep in mind that a big component of the republican mindset is the imaginary liberal that they maintain, keeping it well supplied with idiotic opinions that they pull out of their butts. as a long term strategy, this is every bit as effective as hitler’s evaluation of the soviet union as a pushover because of his ideas about “slavic races”

here is a brief selection of recent right wing exhalations on the subject:

People have been saying for years that the Democrats see Americans as hate-filled, mean-spirited, racist, sexist, homophobes.

Contrary to what Obama and his leftist friends believe, most Americans don’t sit up nights trying to figure out how to bring back slavery or screw the Third World or such.

No doubt Obama’s ancestry affects his thinking (so there is probably some truth to the anti-colonial idea) but I too expect it is simply his exposure to liberal lines of thought along with his thinking that he must have an authentic “blackness” that views “whiteness” as evil. Rather than see the Federal government as the protector of our rights as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and safeguarded by the Constitution, Obama views Washington as the solution to this “evil”, one worse than the evil that outsiders would inflict upon the US

He sees the giants of American industry (men like Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, and Bill Gates) not as the heroes they are for providing Americans with products that have changed their way of life so much for the better that our great-great-great-great grandparents would not recognize the world in which we live today; he sees them as oppressors who have created their wealth by enslaving American workers and consumers.

of course, underestimating your opponents by fooling yourself about what they are thinking is an effective long term strategy that will surely lead to success

47 shutdown  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:53:21am

re: #38 MinisterO

They did go into Chapter 11.

In the context of the government bailout. No resemblance to what should have happened to make sure that parties who signed on for risk actually took risk. The government had no business getting involved, with anything other than perhaps an emergency line of credit offered via a group of commercial banks with a federal guarantee.

48 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:53:38am

So in other words, the bailout worked, millions of jobs were saved, and the government made a profit on it that can be used to reduce the debt.

THis is exactly the sort of thing that the Dems need to be shouting about accomplishing. You can bet your bottom dollar the GOP will not mention it, or try to spin it away.

49 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:54:04am

re: #33 iossarian

We only have this douchebag’s word that the story went down the way he said it did. Given that he appears to be a complete prick, there’s no way of knowing that he didn’t, say, encourage her to keep drinking to try to get into her pants.

Her positions are ridiculous enough without this kind of sleazy, unprovable, who-knows-what-really happened crap.

50 shutdown  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:54:23am

re: #40 MinisterO

Existing equity was wiped out and bondholders did enter into a debt-for-equity deal. Sounds like it went just the way you’d want it to.

On off-market terms. You can’t argue the virtues of the market and government bailouts in the same breath. Pick one and stick with it.

51 Killgore Trout  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:54:26am
The Treasury said GM will repurchase its 83.9 million shares at $25.50 each — meaning the Treasury will collect $2.14 billion, or $40 million more than their previous value.

Fiscal responsibility!

52 Kragar  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:55:43am

To all the girls I almost, but did not have, sex with:

53 MinisterO  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:56:16am

re: #39 lawhawk

Obviously you’ve got religion about this. Perhaps I do to. I believe a fire-sale liquidation would have been an economic disaster, far costlier than the bailout. If you want to write a thesis about how the free market would have solved everything, well, knock yourself out.

54 lawhawk  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:56:29am

re: #42 Obdicut

They were always contemplating a chapter 11 bankruptcy - which is a reorganization. They weren’t going to liquidate (Ch. 7), even though many people (and commentators) think that bankruptcy automatically means liquidation.

55 MKelly  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:56:36am

“During his testimony [Inspector General for TARP Neil] Barofsky addressed GM’s recent debt repayment activity, and stated that the funds GM is using to repay its TARP debt are not coming from GM earnings. Instead, GM seems to be using TARP funds from an escrow account at Treasury to make the debt repayments. The most recent quarterly report from the Office of the Special Inspector General for TARP says “The source of funds for these quarterly [debt] payments will be other TARP funds currently held in an escrow account.”…

From back in April.

56 MinisterO  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:57:35am

re: #50 imp_62

On off-market terms. You can’t argue the virtues of the market and government bailouts in the same breath. Pick one and stick with it.

You’ve made a bunch of false assertions, and now you throw out a strawman?

57 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:58:49am

re: #54 lawhawk

They were always contemplating a chapter 11 bankruptcy - which is a reorganization. They weren’t going to liquidate (Ch. 7), even though many people (and commentators) think that bankruptcy automatically means liquidation.

Can you support your assertion they weren’t going to go into chapter 7?

[Link: www.bloomberg.com…]

Who would have given them the financing to go into chapter 11, exactly?

Ackman, who said he doesn’t have a position in GM securities, said yesterday on the Charlie Rose show the automaker should file for a so-called prepackaged bankruptcy with financing to keep operating while in court protection.

That may be difficult. Such debtor-in-possession loans have “all but shut down,” CreditSights Inc. said yesterday in a report. The loans, which are paid off when companies exit bankruptcy, aren’t being made as lenders become more averse to risk, wrote Chris Taggert, a New York-based analyst.

GM would have no choice but to shut down, said Maryann Keller, an independent auto analyst and consultant based in Greenwich, Connecticut. A GM failure that stops production would cost 2.5 million jobs in the U.S. in the first year, according to the Ann Arbor, Michigan-based Center for Automotive Research.

“In this world, you don’t go Chapter 11 reorganization,” Keller said in an interview. “You go Chapter 7 liquidation.”

58 webevintage  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:59:11am

re: #48 LudwigVanQuixote

So in other words, the bailout worked, millions of jobs were saved, and the government made a profit on it that can be used to reduce the debt.

THis is exactly the sort of thing that the Dems need to be shouting about accomplishing. You can bet your bottom dollar the GOP will not mention it, or try to spin it away.

No…didn’t you read this reply to me?

Wasting billions upon billions to prop up institutions which are destroying wealth will never be a good idea. The bailout is one reason we are still in a recession…all the wealth pissed away needs to be earned again.


/

Gotta keep that “everything sucks” narrative going for at least another week….

59 iossarian  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:59:14am

re: #49 Obdicut

You’re right, but I guess my point was that the O’Donnells want to take us to a place where this kind of hearsay and gossip is actually relevant. It’s the world of playground bullies in Arkansas that drive children to kill themselves.

That said, yes it is sleazy and yes I condemn it.

60 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:59:58am

re: #46 engineer dog


People have been saying for years that the Democrats see Americans as hate-filled, mean-spirited, racist, sexist, homophobes.

Dems don’t see all Americans that way, but the right wing certainly fits that bill.

Contrary to what Obama and his leftist friends believe, most Americans don’t sit up nights trying to figure out how to bring back slavery or screw the Third World or such.

No, but guys like BP, Haliburton and other giant corps certainly do.

No doubt Obama’s ancestry affects his thinking (so there is probably some truth to the anti-colonial idea) but I too expect it is simply his exposure to liberal lines of thought along with his thinking that he must have an authentic “blackness” that views “whiteness” as evil.

Nothing like projecting your own sins on others.

Rather than see the Federal government as the protector of our rights as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and safeguarded by the Constitution, Obama views Washington as the solution to this “evil”, one worse than the evil that outsiders would inflict upon the US

You mean the evil of oppressing other Americans? Why yes, the government does have the job of preventing that.

He sees the giants of American industry (men like Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, and Bill Gates) not as the heroes they are for providing Americans with products that have changed their way of life so much for the better that our great-great-great-great grandparents would not recognize the world in which we live today; he sees them as oppressors who have created their wealth by enslaving American workers and consumers.

Interesting mix. Let’s keep Bill Gates out of it. However, Henry Ford and Thomas Edison were very corrupt strong arm kinds of guys who had business practices that would be frowned on today - like machine gunning striking workers, hiring thugs to brutalize competitors - and helping to rebuild Germany and fuel the industrial rise of the Third Reich. Both Ford and Edison were class one monsters.

61 darthstar  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:00:06pm

re: #12 Charles

Yikes!

I Had a One-Night Stand With Christine O’Donnell.

It’s a good idea to put links like this in quotation marks.

62 iossarian  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:00:29pm

re: #53 MinisterO

Obviously you’ve got religion about this. Perhaps I do to. I believe a fire-sale liquidation would have been an economic disaster, far costlier than the bailout. If you want to write a thesis about how the free market would have solved everything, well, knock yourself out.

Any such thesis has to include the dumping of the cost of retirement benefits for thousands of ex-employees onto the state.

63 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:00:45pm

re: #58 webevintage

No…didn’t you read this reply to me?


/

Gotta keep that “everything sucks” narrative going for at least another week…

I missed that!

64 Kragar  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:01:04pm

re: #58 webevintage

No…didn’t you read this reply to me?


/

Gotta keep that “everything sucks” narrative going for at least another week…

The Government totally sucks…

65 shutdown  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:01:15pm

re: #48 LudwigVanQuixote

So in other words, the bailout worked, millions of jobs were saved, and the government made a profit on it that can be used to reduce the debt.

THis is exactly the sort of thing that the Dems need to be shouting about accomplishing. You can bet your bottom dollar the GOP will not mention it, or try to spin it away.

The outcome is only partially relevant. The auto manufacturers were not made to suffer the full consequences of their mismanagement. This is one situation in which available market solutions and -pressures would have made for a better long-term outcome. The government is not responsible for “making a profit” (unless you are in a centralized economy). It provides services, raises taxes to pay for these services, and steps in when the national welfare or security is at stake. Leaner, more competitive companies would have emerged from a proper bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler, and Ford would be reaping even greater rewards for having been better managed.

And besides, as MPH pointed out, the auto bailout started under Bush. Hard to claim it as a Democrat success story, even if you believe it was a success.

66 shutdown  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:02:13pm

re: #56 MinisterO

You’ve made a bunch of false assertions, and now you throw out a strawman?

Your statement right here is a strawman. Prove my assertions false before bulging your eyes out and making accusations.

67 engineer cat  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:02:51pm

keep in mind that the teabaggers will never hear about this, so they will continue to tell you that one of the things they object to about the Obama administration is that the government has nationalized GM and Chrysler and owns and operates them at a loss to the taxpayers that comes out of their pockets

68 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:03:10pm

re: #65 imp_62

How long-term would this outcome have been? How long would it take for the market to efficiently redistribute the assets that GM would have liquidated?

69 MinisterO  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:03:50pm

re: #62 iossarian

Any such thesis has to include the dumping of the cost of retirement benefits for thousands of ex-employees onto the state.

Absolutely. I’m sure you know the amount of old GM’s unfunded federally-insured pension liabilities.

70 lawhawk  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:05:14pm

re: #57 Obdicut

So, the cited part notes that the company could have done a prepackaged bankruptcy before receiving taxpayer bailouts, but several other named sources said that wouldn’t have happened because the company needed the funds to make the reorganization happen.

What did happen? GM did go through a prepackaged bankruptcy, but only after getting two helpings of taxpayer bailouts - the Bush and Obama rounds.

And even assuming that Taggert and Keller were right, GM got billions in the first round bailout from Bush, and didn’t assemble a prepackaged reorganization under chapter 11. They then got a second round from Obama before realizing that they had to reorganize via chapter 11. That is on the GM management, which drove the company off a cliff and then stuck taxpayers with the tab. It’s on the Bush Administration to not condition the money (round 1 of the bailout) on a reorganization.

71 lostlakehiker  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:05:54pm

re: #49 Obdicut

We only have this douchebag’s word that the story went down the way he said it did. Given that he appears to be a complete prick, there’s no way of knowing that he didn’t, say, encourage her to keep drinking to try to get into her pants.

Her positions are ridiculous enough without this kind of sleazy, unprovable, who-knows-what-really happened crap.

What’s more, how is it to a woman’s discredit if she doesn’t “wax”? When did that become necessary? What sort of a man is he if a woman, au naturelle, isn’t good enough?

(And that’s assuming his story is true. Big assumption.)

72 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:06:36pm

Ohh and in refernce to my 64, Engineer Dog is cool, I’m not bashing him at all! I completely get the straw men he is bringing and the context in which he brought them. I am just pointing out that with those particular straw men, there is actually more man than straw.

73 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:06:40pm

re: #70 lawhawk

I’m sorry, could you answer my question, please?

Who would have financed a GM chapter 11 bankruptcy, if the government had not?

74 iossarian  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:07:10pm

re: #65 imp_62

I think the question of whether society in general would have been better off in the long term by letting the Detroit automakers fail is very hard to answer in definite terms.

But I don’t think that appealing to the “free market” resulting in “leaner” companies is particularly convincing. It just sounds like right-wing ideology to me.

In any case, while I think that Ford did benefit from relatively good management (I have a very little bit of an inside view), they also got massively lucky by mortgaging all their assets at very low rates barely months before the crash. And they only made that decision because, prior to that point, they were actually doing worse than GM and Chrysler. So if you really wanted to be a naysayer, you could say that they were the beneficiaries of circumstance, nothing more.

75 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:08:24pm

re: #49 Obdicut

We only have this douchebag’s word that the story went down the way he said it did. Given that he appears to be a complete prick, there’s no way of knowing that he didn’t, say, encourage her to keep drinking to try to get into her pants.

Her positions are ridiculous enough without this kind of sleazy, unprovable, who-knows-what-really happened crap.

I have to agree with you. I automatically get sick at anyone who saves embarrassing photos only to surface some years later to piss on someone else - even someone as hateful as O’Donnell.

76 webevintage  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:08:30pm

So the TARP money GM got from the Bush administration had no conditions, but the money they got after Jan 20th, 2010 did?

77 shutdown  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:08:33pm

re: #68 Obdicut

How long-term would this outcome have been? How long would it take for the market to efficiently redistribute the assets that GM would have liquidated?

We’ll never know. I still cannot come up with a single reason, other than some over-wrought assertion that a GM bankruptcy wold somehow have tanked the whole economy (which happened regardless for other reasons) outside of pressure from unions and other insider interests, to have bailed those companies out in the first place. The useful bits of GM would have been picked up by new investors, the crap bits discarded more quickly. Also, re-structuring the auto manufacturers would have brought money into the markets from the sidelines, and perhaps kickstarted economic growth. Who knows? That’s why you either believe that government does certain things well, and the markets do other things well. Government should regulate, not own and manufacture.

78 lawhawk  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:09:47pm

re: #73 Obdicut

The same way that Ford managed to avoid bankruptcy in the first place. Mortgage and consolidate assets, sales of assets, and trimming liabilities. GM did nothing to improve its balance sheet pre bankruptcy. It simply assumed that the taxpayers would bail them out. And they did. Twice.

79 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:10:09pm

re: #77 imp_62

We’ll never know.

Isn’t that rather important to think about?

Isn’t it also important to consider that, given the globalization of the economy, that the market’s reorganization of assets might have exported large amounts of them out of the country?

I still cannot come up with a single reason, other than some over-wrought assertion that a GM bankruptcy wold somehow have tanked the whole economy (which happened regardless for other reasons) outside of pressure from unions and other insider interests, to have bailed those companies out in the first place.

Well, if you’ve already decided you’re completely right, I guess there isn’t any point in talking to you.

80 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:11:35pm

re: #78 lawhawk

The same way that Ford managed to avoid bankruptcy in the first place. Mortgage and consolidate assets, sales of assets, and trimming liabilities. GM did nothing to improve its balance sheet pre bankruptcy. It simply assumed that the taxpayers would bail them out. And they did. Twice.

So you are seriously contending that GM could have raised all necessary funds for a chapter 11 bankruptcy through mortgages, sales of assets, and ‘trimming liabilities’?

Do you have any support for that position? Saying that Ford did it is completely irrelevant.

81 MinisterO  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:12:12pm

The most irksome thing is this:

The very same people who bet billions on a government bailout, buying equity and bonds in a company obviously bound for bankruptcy, are bitching about the bailout because it didn’t make them whole.

82 shutdown  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:12:59pm

re: #74 iossarian

I think the question of whether society in general would have been better off in the long term by letting the Detroit automakers fail is very hard to answer in definite terms.

But I don’t think that appealing to the “free market” resulting in “leaner” companies is particularly convincing. It just sounds like right-wing ideology to me.

In any case, while I think that Ford did benefit from relatively good management (I have a very little bit of an inside view), they also got massively lucky by mortgaging all their assets at very low rates barely months before the crash. And they only made that decision because, prior to that point, they were actually doing worse than GM and Chrysler. So if you really wanted to be a naysayer, you could say that they were the beneficiaries of circumstance, nothing more.

I am as far form the right wing as you can get without wearing a “vote socialist” tee shirt… Clearly, the bailout was not an investment decision, so crowing about a positive return now is irrelevant. Government does things for policy reasons, and I think the policy leading to the massive infusion of taxpayer money into private industry was faulty.

I think markets must be regulated. But the government will almost certainly never bring about a better business outcome than a properly regulated market.

83 shutdown  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:13:47pm

re: #79 Obdicut

Isn’t that rather important to think about?

Isn’t it also important to consider that, given the globalization of the economy, that the market’s reorganization of assets might have exported large amounts of them out of the country?

Well, if you’ve already decided you’re completely right, I guess there isn’t any point in talking to you.

I have a position. I am defending it. No need to get your dander up.

84 SpaceJesus  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:13:54pm

“it is obvious to me that the vaunted “Jewish intelligence” is confined to the research lab. Common sense, recognizing danger, and standing up for your own best interests – sadly those are traits that for the most part are lacking.”

-main post on stalker blog


stalkerblog.com finally goes anti-jew

85 shutdown  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:16:59pm

re: #84 SpaceJesus

“it is obvious to me that the vaunted “Jewish intelligence” is confined to the research lab. Common sense, recognizing danger, and standing up for your own best interests – sadly those are traits that for the most part are lacking.”

-main post on stalker blog

stalkerblog.com finally goes anti-jew

You know, after all this time I am still not sure which site is the “stalker blog”.

86 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:17:03pm

re: #84 SpaceJesus

God, it’s hilarious when authoritarians try to figure out why Jews don’t like them.

“Gee, why don’t these nice Jews like people who are in favor of capricious authoritarian power? When has that every done them any harm?”

87 wrenchwench  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:17:16pm

re: #84 SpaceJesus

So it was projection when they predicted such from LGF.

88 RadicalModerate  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:18:12pm

re: #78 lawhawk

The same way that Ford managed to avoid bankruptcy in the first place. Mortgage and consolidate assets, sales of assets, and trimming liabilities. GM did nothing to improve its balance sheet pre bankruptcy. It simply assumed that the taxpayers would bail them out. And they did. Twice.

Ford, even as bad of shape that it was in financially, GM was MUCH worse. Between its corporate divisional overextension (and allowing shortcomings of one division to adversely affect others), and general corporate mismanagement, GM was an absolutely toxic company to investors. Ford was looking at Chapter 11 reorganization. GM, on the other hand was looking at Chapter 7. The impact of a company the size of GM completely shutting down would have been absolutely devastating because of the cascade effect. Its a good chance if GM had shut down during an already severe economic downturn would have likely sparked another Depression.

89 kirkspencer  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:18:59pm

re: #77 imp_62

… some over-wrought assertion that a GM bankruptcy wold somehow have tanked the whole economy (which happened regardless for other reasons)…

I have to challenge the unstated assumption here. Why do you assume the recession couldn’t have been worse?

90 SpaceJesus  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:19:07pm

re: #86 Obdicut

what’s funny is they are complaining about the “fact” that hispanics and blacks fall in line and vote democrat every time, while at the same time demanding that jews do the same for republicans.

91 Killgore Trout  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:19:12pm

re: #84 SpaceJesus

The American Thinker article is pretty vile too….
Why Do Jews Vote for Their Enemies?

Jews have the reputation of being intelligent, and academically, they often are. But Jewish smart people seem to be — how shall I say this? — incapable of thinking straight about politics. Once many Jews figure out what side in politics they are rooting for, they are stuck for life. No facts, no matter how persuasive, will change their minds. This is nuts. It is certainly not intelligent. In politics, American Jews seem to be idiots savant: Very bright in one part of life, but with big islands of ignorance, denial, and wishful thinking.

92 SpaceJesus  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:19:42pm

re: #85 imp_62


i’d love to show it to you, but i’d rather vote republican than link to them here

93 JamesWI  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:20:28pm

re: #31 ralphieboy

She herself broached the subject of her seyual activities more than once, coming down on masturbation and making a point of her leading a “chaste” lifestyle.

Otherwise, I would have no reason to care one way or another.

Exactly. If masturbation needs lust, and simply lust is committing adultery, where exactly does she place the idea of drunken, naked hookups with guys 14 years younger than her, based on briefly meeting him 3 months earlier?

There wasn’t any “lust” involved there, Christine?

Normally, this sort of story could be viewed as “contemptible” as Obdicut says. But when a person parades herself around as a great moral beacon, so moral that she wouldn’t even masturbate because that would be adultery, this kind of story is informative. It informs you that she is completely full of shit, as if we needed any more clues to reach that conclusion.

94 3eff Jeff  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:20:29pm

re: #85 imp_62

You know, after all this time I am still not sure which site is the “stalker blog”.

I’ve been avoiding asking that question. I’m pretty sure LVQ’s roasts are as close to that morass as I want to get.

95 SpaceJesus  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:20:34pm

re: #91 Killgore Trout

yeah, that’s the article they are discussing*

*ranting incoherently about racial stereotypes

96 lawhawk  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:20:50pm

re: #80 Obdicut

You already pointed out that experts thought that a prepackaged bankruptcy could have happened. It was in the very article you posted saying that it couldn’t be done without a bailout.

And I’ve pointed out that GM got two rounds. They could have gone through with the reorganization after the 1st round, but opted to instead get a 2d round - thereby compounding the government exposure to the company.

97 Feline Fearless Leader  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:21:06pm

re: #67 engineer dog

keep in mind that the teabaggers will never hear about this, so they will continue to tell you that one of the things they object to about the Obama administration is that the government has nationalized GM and Chrysler and owns and operates them at a loss to the taxpayers that comes out of their pockets

Would a Fiat Chrysler simply be a virtual car that the sale of is simply a method for passing money on to shareholders?

;)

98 shutdown  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:21:57pm

Well, I like heated arguments as much as the next guy, but I have to get my son to crew. Take care, all. And btw, I think discussions about the automaker bailout are interesting on several levels. I am completely unemotional about it; my position is based on subjective business experience and observation. And Obdi, when I said “we’ll never know”, it was not meant as claiming that my projections are necessarily correct, but that there are so many co-dependent variables in an economy this size, that you cannot simply assume a finite set of possible outcomes. You could be right, I could be right - all we have to go on is what actually happened, and to observe how the “new” GM and Chrysler evolve.

99 shutdown  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:23:09pm

re: #89 kirkspencer

I have to challenge the unstated assumption here. Why do you assume the recession couldn’t have been worse?

Could have been worse. Could have been better. We are operating within a shifting set of parameters in this thread. Which is okay, but won’t provide lasting happiness -

gtg

100 shutdown  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:23:51pm

re: #97 oaktree

Would a Fiat Chrysler simply be a virtual car that the sale of is simply a method for passing money on to shareholders?

;)

I for one cannot wait to purchase a Fiat here in the US.

101 lawhawk  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:23:54pm

re: #88 RadicalModerate

I agree that the situation at GM was much worse than at Ford, but reorganization was always on the table for GM. It was just something that GM leadership refused to do until the bitter end. They took half measures when stronger medicine was required. The book Crash Course gives a primer as to what went on at GM as compared to Chrysler and Ford.

102 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:24:36pm

re: #90 SpaceJesus

Alright, that actually made me go back and take a look there.

That weirdo Rodan says:

The Left has erased 150 years of world history by covering up Imperial Spain and they don’t admit the Romans were Latins.

Is this moron just confusing the older term “Latin”, meaning the people from Latium, with the modern usage of “Latin” for Spanish, Portugeuese, and their ex-colonies? Because the Spanish certainly weren’t “Latin” by the first definition— they had a limited amount of Latin families settle there, but you might as well say the Spanish are North African, then.

Or is he saying something even stupider?


And for any stalkers reading this: Jews don’t vote for the authoritarian party because you’re authoritarians. The GOP has been the authoritarian party for quite awhile now. Jews know that a civil society is of the utmost importance and that preserving the institutions of a civil society is of the utmost importance.

103 Feline Fearless Leader  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:25:05pm

re: #88 RadicalModerate

Ford, even as bad of shape that it was in financially, GM was MUCH worse. Between its corporate divisional overextension (and allowing shortcomings of one division to adversely affect others), and general corporate mismanagement, GM was an absolutely toxic company to investors. Ford was looking at Chapter 11 reorganization. GM, on the other hand was looking at Chapter 7. The impact of a company the size of GM completely shutting down would have been absolutely devastating because of the cascade effect. Its a good chance if GM had shut down during an already severe economic downturn would have likely sparked another Depression.

Or the Chinese could have bought it out, re-tooled it as a socialist utopian car company to wow the capitalist running dog Americans, and then flooded the market with the new Buick MaO (which only comes in red!)

That would have flipped a lot of wigs, and we’d still be hearing about it.
//

104 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:25:39pm

re: #93 JamesWI

My main point is there is no way of verifying the story, and only this douchebag’s word that it went down the way it did.

105 shutdown  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:25:41pm

re: #92 SpaceJesus

i’d love to show it to you, but i’d rather vote republican than link to them here

I am curious about it in the way you are curious about a corpse in the woods. You know it’s there, you can smell it, but you don’t necessarily want to go close up and have a look

106 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:26:56pm

re: #96 lawhawk

You already pointed out that experts thought that a prepackaged bankruptcy could have happened. It was in the very article you posted saying that it couldn’t be done without a bailout.

They said it could happen— what was necessary for it to happen was:

A) Financing
B) An acceptance by the bankruptcy court

You haven’t explained who would finance it. Or, actually, why a bankruptcy court would accept the plan.

The ‘other’ chapter 11 plan of GM would not have actually preserved GM, but created a new company.

107 iossarian  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:27:04pm

re: #82 imp_62

I am as far form the right wing as you can get without wearing a “vote socialist” tee shirt…

Fair enough, maybe I should have been more careful with how I phrased my point (see below):


Government does things for policy reasons, and I think the policy leading to the massive infusion of taxpayer money into private industry was faulty.

So my point is that analyzing the policy is very complex, and that it at least has to take into account the fact that, had GM been left to fail, it probably would have meant the end of a significant number of companies in the Midwest that depend more or less entirely on demand generated by the auto industry.

Balancing the cost of that against the frankly vague expectation that the (regulated) market would result in “leaner” companies is, in my view, not a convincing argument. I think you at least need to somehow quantify the benefit of this outcome and weigh it against the disruption that letting the companies fail would have caused.

108 MinisterO  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:28:31pm

re: #88 RadicalModerate

The impact of a company the size of GM completely shutting down would have been absolutely devastating because of the cascade effect. Its a good chance if GM had shut down during an already severe economic downturn would have likely sparked another Depression.

I thought so. I’m aware that there’s a statement of faith in that, but I can’t imagine how the free market was going to save the day.

109 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:31:49pm

re: #108 MinisterO

I thought so. I’m aware that there’s a statement of faith in that, but I can’t imagine how the free market was going to save the day.

There is also the uncomfortable fact that the free market is the entire world, and not just this country. A market efficiency that involves the US auto industry becoming the Korean and Chinese auto industry does not actually benefit the US.

110 3eff Jeff  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:34:15pm

re: #103 oaktree

Or the Chinese could have bought it out, re-tooled it as a socialist utopian car company to wow the capitalist running dog Americans, and then flooded the market with the new Buick MaO (which only comes in red!)

That would have flipped a lot of wigs, and we’d still be hearing about it.
//

Not as ridiculous as it sounds. The Chinese actually really like GM. So much so, that Cadillac sponsored a major Chinese propoganda film:

[Link: rumors.automobilemag.com…]

Maoism has jumped the shark.

111 SpaceJesus  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:34:41pm

re: #102 Obdicut

Yup.

I told him this one time and he accused me of being anti-Hispanic. I kind of gave him a historically-themed bloody nose over it. I mean shit, the Romans also owned England, do you see the English running around calling themselves Latin today? haha. No. Walk into a bar in Rome (which was formerly in the province of Latium as you mentioned) and tell them that you are a Latin then see how hard they laugh at you.

He desperately wants to compensate for his lack of real life accomplishments by projecting back thousands of years to a perceived glorious history that isn’t his.

112 Interesting Times  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:35:37pm

re: #92 SpaceJesus

i’d love to show it to you, but i’d rather vote republican than link to them here

You could always take a screenshot and link to that instead…

113 SpaceJesus  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:36:33pm

re: #105 imp_62


go to google, and look up “blogmocracy”

114 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:37:05pm

re: #111 SpaceJesus

People who are really hyperpatriotic about their nation/people’s history are always a bit weird.

But the absolute weirdest ones are the ones who make up a totally fictional one to be proud about.

115 SpaceJesus  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:41:13pm

re: #114 Obdicut

Yeah, it’s a bizarre delusion (and I only go on about this because I know he’s reading every word here).

He knows deep down inside that his roots are likely Arab and or North African because of his Spanish and Lebanese ancestry. He hates these people so much, that he has to live in a dream world where he is actually the heir to the throne of Caesar and not the descendant of Arab Muslim conquerors.

116 MinisterO  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:41:32pm

re: #107 iossarian

Well said. A rational post-mortem compares cost of action to the estimated cost of inaction.

I’ve never seen anyone even attempt that exercise though. It’s easier to make vague statements of ideals.

117 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:42:23pm

re: #111 SpaceJesus

I mean, hell, the “Latins” made up a very small percentage of the Roman citizens who would have settled in Spain. This makes it pretty easy to see:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

And as that article noted, after the Romans had beaten the rest of the Latins into submission and spread out throughout the rest of Italy, “Latin” ceased being an ethnic group, and simply implied citizenship in the Roman empire.

118 garhighway  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:44:34pm

re: #106 Obdicut

They said it could happen— what was necessary for it to happen was:

A) Financing
B) An acceptance by the bankruptcy court

You haven’t explained who would finance it. Or, actually, why a bankruptcy court would accept the plan.

The ‘other’ chapter 11 plan of GM would not have actually preserved GM, but created a new company.


Exactly. There would have been about 5 million moving parts to a GM pre-pack. One of which would have been exit financing, which no private investor was going to pony up.

People can quibble about the terms of the bailout (although someone said here that the equity holders did better than the bondholders, which I think is wrong), but there was NO free market fix for GM. If there was, GM would have taken it, as it would have been less painful for the company’s management than what ensued.

The choices were to let it die and see just how bad that was going to dent the economy, or step in and make the diving catch. Neither Bush’s team nor Obama’s had the stomach for running the “how bad can it get” experiment just as the economy was heading into a tailspin anyway. They made the right call.

GM may not be a viable enterprise in the long term, and if it fails at a point when the economy is sound, I would say to let it die. I am relatively sure that Chrysler isn’t viable and its death is just a matter of time. Neither should be guaranteed financial immortality. But they should be allowed to die at a point where they won’t take us with them.

119 RadicalModerate  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:46:08pm

re: #108 MinisterO

I thought so. I’m aware that there’s a statement of faith in that, but I can’t imagine how the free market was going to save the day.

General Motors was a special case, because of the sheer size of the company, and the number of sub-companies that are under its umbrella. Any other corporation that mismanaged as badly as GM did during the past 15 years, I would say “let ‘em die”. In fact, even with the shrinking they did, they are STILL by far one of the largest companies in the world, and the top-down structure isn’t changed that much from before.

Personally, I would have preferred a clean breakup of the company divisions so that if one area (say GMAC Credit - now operating under the name of Ally Financial, for example) went insolvent there wouldn’t be huge chargeoffs they’ve been wont to do for the past several years.

120 SpaceJesus  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:47:07pm

re: #117 Obdicut

The history gold star goes to you today. Native Iberians always made up the vast majority of the population. Far more Goths, North Africans and Arabs migrated to the region and controlled it much longer than the Romans ever did.


Further, nobody in Spain, France, or Italy calls themselves Latin today. Why? Because they learn history in middle school in those countries. Latin as a people and as culture died out over a thousand years ago. You can say that your language is “Latin” sure, but calling yourself Latin today is ridiculous.

121 apox  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:48:55pm

So the funding helped save millions of auto jobs, kept the US in car manufacturing and it is being paid back with interest… That damn Obama!

122 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:49:48pm

re: #90 SpaceJesus

what’s funny is they are complaining about the “fact” that hispanics and blacks fall in line and vote democrat every time, while at the same time demanding that jews do the same for republicans.

Did you see my latest gutting of the Rodent from yesterday?

I also found out that Iapyx is My little ponytail is Snork. Here is a guy who rotates three accounts to talk to himself. I figured it out when he made an abysmally stupid statement trying to argue about thermodynamics - of the sort that only he could make.

That’s in the latest post too.

123 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:50:59pm

re: #117 Obdicut

I mean, hell, the “Latins” made up a very small percentage of the Roman citizens who would have settled in Spain. This makes it pretty easy to see:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

And as that article noted, after the Romans had beaten the rest of the Latins into submission and spread out throughout the rest of Italy, “Latin” ceased being an ethnic group, and simply implied citizenship in the Roman empire.

At some point the Gauls and the Visigoths need to be entered into the picture also - but, I would rather point out his Lebanese ancestry and note how much of a true self hater he is since he is part Arabic.

124 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:51:18pm

re: #120 SpaceJesus

My dad is a medievalist. My mom specializes in the Renaissance. Both of those were time periods fascinated with Rome. I like Roman history quite a lot. Fun fact: They had a part-Berber emperor at one point. Also, the Romans were really, really not racist. They were huge culturalists; they thought that culture dictated nearly everything. But if there was some Berber or Punic dude who had grown up in a Roman cultural setting, they just thought of him as completely Roman. They were pretty forward-thinking in that way.

By the way, Britons in the immediate aftermath of the Roman legion’s departure did have a large percentage of the population who considered themselves “Romans” still, but that obviously changed over time with the influx of Saxons, Jutes, Angles, etc., continued intermarriage with the Celtic population, and, of course, the later Norman conquest.

125 SpaceJesus  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:51:45pm

re: #122 LudwigVanQuixote


Oh yeah, I forgot they run that other little blog dedicated to doing the same thing they do at their main site (but with different names for some reason).

God they’re fucking weird. Oh, and no, I didn’t see it yesterday but I bet it was good stuff.

126 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 12:52:25pm

re: #123 LudwigVanQuixote

Yeah, I mean, any ethnic group besides a very, very, very small number are actually composed of huge numbers of overlapping ethnic groups.

And the Romans were right; culture is what matters.

127 SpaceJesus  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 1:01:27pm

re: #124 Obdicut


I come at it more from a linguistic perspective, as that was on of my undergrad majors. My historical linguistics courses have dealt with a lot of this stuff and it just makes me laugh hearing somebody like Rodan try to wax all informed on the subject.

I just poked my head in there again, and here’s what rodan had to say:

“The Spanish exterminated the Muslims. It was genocide and I have no shame that we eliminated these people. “

This is funny considering Rodan has said time and time again that killing Muslims isn’t genocide because Muslim isn’t a race. Interesting that he has changed his entire opinion on this 180 degrees just now. Also, it is factually incorrect that the Middle Eastern and African people were all exterminated. This guy should go to Andalusia some time.

128 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 1:02:03pm

Okay, after reading this post by Rodan on the stalker blog I’m going to go back to ignoring them.


Also I destroyed his arguments with facts. The Spanish only have 8% of DNA that is North AFrican, that probably comes from jhews. The Spanish exterminated the Muslims. It was genocide and I have no shame that we eliminated these people.

That was the same time, of course, that the Spanish were eliminating the Jews.

129 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 1:02:24pm

re: #86 Obdicut

God, it’s hilarious when authoritarians try to figure out why Jews don’t like them.

“Gee, why don’t these nice Jews like people who are in favor of capricious authoritarian power? When has that every done them any harm?”

I just looked at that post and all of its drivel. I am not certain that I have the time today - or the energy to debunk all of its shit.

However, someone really ought to. They are after all directly attacking the People.

I am busy managing several things working right now. Do you have the energy to make a post and eviscerate this crap.

The point is, that if they are saying it, they didn’t think of it on their own.

130 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 1:03:08pm

re: #125 SpaceJesus

Oh yeah, I forgot they run that other little blog dedicated to doing the same thing they do at their main site (but with different names for some reason).

God they’re fucking weird. Oh, and no, I didn’t see it yesterday but I bet it was good stuff.

Please add to it.

131 SpaceJesus  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 1:04:51pm

re: #128 Obdicut

Rodan defended the killing of the Jews because some Jews sided with the Muslims. He attacked SanFranciscoZionist over this.

What a fucking anti-Semite. Oh, and now he’s calling a Nazi for pointing out that Spanish people have blood that isn’t from Italy. Haha, oh he’s a clown.

132 Kruk  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 1:05:57pm

re: #126 Obdicut

Yeah, I mean, any ethnic group besides a very, very, very small number are actually composed of huge numbers of overlapping ethnic groups.

Great stand-up joke I heard once:

“The British are becoming a mongrel race. God forbid we ever dilute the purity of our Anglo-Saxon-Norman-Celtic-Roman-Germanic heritage!”

133 Kruk  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 1:10:05pm

re: #84 SpaceJesus

“it is obvious to me that the vaunted “Jewish intelligence” is confined to the research lab. Common sense, recognizing danger, and standing up for your own best interests – sadly those are traits that for the most part are lacking.”

Jesus H. Christ. The mask really comes off with posts like that.

134 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 1:10:43pm

re: #129 LudwigVanQuixote

I’m sorry, man, but anyone who says they’re proudly in favor of genocide isn’t somebody I really feel needs any more evisceration.

The explanation is really, really simple:

1. Jews know that authoritarian, religious-oriented powers tend to exterminate and repress them.
1a. The GOP is a an authoritarian, religion-oriented power. It is overwhelmingly Christian and overwhelmingly in favor of using authoritarian power to mandate morality.

2. Jews know that civil society protects us from anarchy, which protects those who are not in the majority— like Jews— from being persecuted as the villains. Where civil society is weak, Jews are persecuted. Where it is strong, we can avail ourselves of the legal protections and resist those who would persecute us.
2a. The Republicans have shown that they are in favor of weakening civil society in many ways. The ‘activist judge’ meme is the best example of this, as are the many pro-corporatist, anti-individual themes the GOP favors.

3. Jews have 100% literacy, value education, value respect for those who are wiser and better-educated than us, and see technology and science as a vital source of strength.
3a. The GOP, as shown in everything from its rejection of AGW to its rejection of statistical analysis, is anti-science.

So, purely in terms of self-interest (leaving aside our sympathy for other oppressed peoples) Jewish culture tends to favor the Democrats over the Republicans, not because the Democrats are wonderful and peachy, but because the GOP are authoritarian, anti-science, and have a huge theocratic streak going on.

135 RogueOne  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 1:15:04pm

re: #18 lawhawk

The relative success of TARP was that it kept the banks solvent - but the government then used TARP to provide secondary bailouts to GM, Chrysler, and then HAMP (homeowner assistance). The government is going to take significant losses on those, but may turn a profit on the bank bailouts because the banks have been paying back with interest.

As for GM making this announcement, where exactly is GM getting the money to buy the preferred shares. Their balance sheet isn’t exactly dripping with black ink. If you look deeper, you’ll find that they’re recycling the bailout funds to buy the preferred shares - using taxpayer money to pay off taxpayer money.

And most importantly is the fact that in order for the feds to break even, the GM stock price would have to hit $131, before any split, if the value of the dividends and interest is factored into the repayment.

The expected share price is going to be somewhere between $20 and $25.

Exactly! They ran those lying-ass commercials touting how they were doing so wonderfully that they were paying back the loans “in record time!” without mentioning they were using more taxpayer money (given to them at a better rate) to payoff taxpayer money. It was a crappy shell game with our money. I’m waiting to hear how exactly they came up with the money this time too.

136 SpaceJesus  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 1:16:25pm

re: #133 Kruk

Jesus H. Christ. The mask really comes off with posts like that.

This is a site that defends the Spanish Inquisition even though it targetted and killed Jews because the inquisition also did the same thing to Muslims.

There’s a reason these sickos are banned.

137 garhighway  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 1:18:50pm

re: #135 RogueOne

Exactly! They ran those lying-ass commercials touting how they were doing so wonderfully that they were paying back the loans “in record time!” without mentioning they were using more taxpayer money (given to them at a better rate) to payoff taxpayer money. It was a crappy shell game with our money. I’m waiting to hear how exactly they came up with the money this time too.

Since most critics have taken the position that every dime GM has is government money (“Money is fungible!”), they will say that GM bought back the shares with government money.

Easy peasy.

I have to hear anyone explain how letting GM fail in late 2008/early 2009 would have been a good idea. You think unemployment is bad now? Just try to imagine what it would have been with the failure of GM, Chrysler, their suppliers and their associated support businesses all going under all at once.

Doing that would have been the dumbest idea in financial history.

138 SpaceJesus  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 1:19:19pm

re: #130 LudwigVanQuixote


where’s it at?

139 Amory Blaine  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 1:24:32pm

I will never let the anti-american republicans in my life live down the fact that they wanted to see the US auto industry crumble because of their foolish anti union bullshit views. As they complain after their 8 hour day. On a weekend. With overtime.

140 RogueOne  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 1:28:54pm

re: #137 garhighway

I’m still holding a grudge about those commercials. In the case of GM and Chrysler I’m in agreement with your statement up thread, they should be left to die on the vine. IMO, GM would have done better to re-organize on their own instead we’ve given them a chance to string out their demise for another decade or so.

141 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 1:31:45pm

re: #139 Amory Blaine

I will never let the anti-american republicans in my life live down the fact that they wanted to see the US auto industry crumble because of their foolish anti union bullshit views. As they complain after their 8 hour day. On a weekend. With overtime.

I don’t have any of those people in my life :D

142 RogueOne  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 1:34:52pm

re: #139 Amory Blaine

I will never let the anti-american republicans pro-union democrats in my life live down the fact that they wanted let the US auto industry crumble because of their foolish anti union bullshit views……

FTF. Helpful reminder, 1920 was almost a hundred years ago and IIRC it was Henry Ford, not the unions, that instituted the 8 hour/5 day work week.

143 RogueOne  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 1:35:51pm

On that note, my 10 hour non-union day is up, have a good night people.

144 garhighway  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 1:36:54pm

re: #140 RogueOne

I’m still holding a grudge about those commercials. In the case of GM and Chrysler I’m in agreement with your statement up thread, they should be left to die on the vine. IMO, GM would have done better to re-organize on their own instead we’ve given them a chance to string out their demise for another decade or so.

I’m not interesting in punishing you and me for GM’s sins, and that is what letting them die in 08/09 would have done.

There was no reasonable chance they could fix the problem themselves. There was no private capital that would touch them. None. No one has come forward and said that they would have invested several billions of dollars in GM.

I’m all for the private marketplace, but I am dead set against playing russian roulette with our economy, and that is what letting them fail would have been. Bush knew it, but he didn’t have the appetite to really deal with it, so he kicked the can down the road. So did Obama, in a way, but he kicked the can a lot farther, and I still think there is a chance GM could survive this. At least Obama’s people tried to address some of the fundamental problems with the company: too many brands, too many dealers, too much capacity.

But I am not optimistic about the company. I’m a value investor, and I won’t touch their stock.

145 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 1:39:50pm

re: #142 RogueOne

FTF. Helpful reminder, 1920 was almost a hundred years ago and IIRC it was Henry Ford, not the unions, that instituted the 8 hour/5 day work week.

He instituted it at his company. The industry in general did not follow.

In fact, free market theory would show that, in the absence of workday regulation, it would be foolish for every employer to offer an 8 hour/5 day work week. Only a few employers can position themselves as the ‘best place to work’ employers, so the other ones would be foolish to take on a market disadvantage that gave them no commensurate advantage; Ford’s limited work week in comparison with other employers meant his turnover was incredibly low and he attracted the best workers. That doesn’t hold true if every company does that, and there is no prompting for another company to do that if they are not going to be able to attract those high end workers anyway.

146 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 2:59:24pm

GM has made a wagon (CTS-V Sportwagon) I want more that a V8 Audi S4 Avant, so good for them

I like the new general, the general that makes 550hp wagons o_o

147 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 3:00:01pm

re: #142 RogueOne

FTF. Helpful reminder, 1920 was almost a hundred years ago and IIRC it was Henry Ford, not the unions, that instituted the 8 hour/5 day work week.

Wow, you even have a GOP talking point for this!

I’m actually impressed

148 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 3:01:16pm

re: #135 RogueOne

Exactly! They ran those lying-ass commercials touting how they were doing so wonderfully that they were paying back the loans “in record time!” without mentioning they were using more taxpayer money (given to them at a better rate) to payoff taxpayer money. It was a crappy shell game with our money. I’m waiting to hear how exactly they came up with the money this time too.

You say all this as if it was in our best interests to let GM fail


I’ll never understand how you guys will root for our economy to crater just for ideology’s sake

I guess I just don’t have that sort of personality! And thank God for that

149 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 3:36:23pm

But, but, but… I wanted the gov’t to start taking over business and industry in this country. My hopes for a communist utopia have been dashed yet again.
///

150 RogueOne  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 4:41:32pm

re: #144 garhighway

I’m not interesting in punishing you and me for GM’s sins, and that is what letting them die in 08/09 would have done.

There was no reasonable chance they could fix the problem themselves. There was no private capital that would touch them. None. No one has come forward and said that they would have invested several billions of dollars in GM.

I’m all for the private marketplace, but I am dead set against playing russian roulette with our economy, and that is what letting them fail would have been. Bush knew it, but he didn’t have the appetite to really deal with it, so he kicked the can down the road. So did Obama, in a way, but he kicked the can a lot farther, and I still think there is a chance GM could survive this. At least Obama’s people tried to address some of the fundamental problems with the company: too many brands, too many dealers, too much capacity.

But I am not optimistic about the company. I’m a value investor, and I won’t touch their stock.

…but you’re guessing, we’re all guessing, because they weren’t forced to play by the same rules as everyone else. The feds had a collective panic attack and dumped billions into 2 losers. Not only are we going to lose a (yet to be determined) percentage of that money but there have already been people who have actually been punished. GM alone owed $27 billion to their bondholders and those people, which included groups like the Indiana Teachers Union, got screwed while the UAW got a sweetheart deal without having to agree to even a minuscule paycut. Lets keep in mind that GM and Chrysler are not the entire auto industry in this country. The others (Ford, Toyota, Honda which all have plants in Indiana) were able to make concessions and move forward in a profitable way.

It might have been playing Russian roulette but I’ve always been of the opinion that if something unpleasant is inevitable, you may as well get it over with. I’ve mentioned before that the town where my shop is located was built entirely by GM and at one time had almost 2 dozen plants. They’ve had to go through multiple phases of plant closings and now there are none. They’ve managed to make it, even though it wasn’t easy, without the feds tossing a few billion their way.

151 RogueOne  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 4:45:28pm

re: #148 WindUpBird

You say all this as if it was in our best interests to let GM fail

I’ll never understand how you guys will root for our economy to crater just for ideology’s sake

I guess I just don’t have that sort of personality! And thank God for that

When you don’t know what you’re talking about, it’s best to keep your fingers off the keyboard. Find the ideology in my post. I come from an auto union town and family. I’m the only member of my immediate family, including my aunt, uncle and their kids, that has never been a member of a union. The only person in this conversation that’s concerned with ideology is the artist.

152 ClaudeMonet  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 9:56:55pm

re: #6 jaunte

GM’s China sales are up 67% over last year. The Chinese are going to own all the Buicks!

Fine with me. IMO Buick drivers are the worst in terms of paying attention, getting their a**es off the line, using their turn signals, and driving in general. Let the Chinese deal with these road hazards.

153 ClaudeMonet  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 10:16:19pm

re: #100 imp_62

I for one cannot wait to purchase a Fiat here in the US.

If they’re anything like the Fiat cars of their last move into the US market, wow, can I ever wait. They were fast, they were quick, they broke down at an amazing rate.

154 MinisterO  Thu, Oct 28, 2010 10:37:08pm

re: #150 RogueOne

GM alone owed $27 billion to their bondholders and those people, which included groups like the Indiana Teachers Union, got screwed

The discussion always goes off the rails in this same spot. Any loss by retirement funds or hedge funds was due the the fund managers’ bad judgement. By the time the government intervened GM bonds were trading below a nickel on the dollar and the funds’ money was already lost.

Opine if you must that GM should have gone into liquidation, but please, drop the nonsense about the bondholders getting screwed by the government.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Why Did More Than 1,000 People Die After Police Subdued Them With Force That Isn’t Meant to Kill? An investigation led by The Associated Press has found that, over a decade, more than 1,000 people died after police subdued them through physical holds, stun guns, body blows and other force not intended to be lethal. More: Why ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 39 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
A Closer Look at the Eastman State Bar DecisionTaking a few minutes away from work things to read through the Eastman decision. As I'm sure many of you know, Eastman was my law school con law professor. I knew him pretty well because I was also running in ...
KGxvi
Yesterday
Views: 94 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 1