President Obama. Model for good spending. GM bail out. Do it again Please.

[Stone]

Perhaps you should have cherry picked a different example.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...omic-case-for-reelection-in-13-charts/253806/

Regards
DL

You need to correct the formatting of that post.
And accept that GM as an investment has mostly rewarded the unions with jobs and stock certificates, not the investors.
It's not even paying dividends at this time.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=GM&ql=1

Again...when the stock reaches it's low....it then becomes a candidate for profitable investment.
Is it now?
I can't answer that, but with gas prices on the rise in a shaky economy, I wouldn't 'bet' on it.
As an offset, the fleet age in the US is relatively old and should influence near future sales.

 

[Greatest I am]

Machiavellian.
Why should I praise the GM employee for doing good by his bosses? It doesn't matter what the outcome was. It wasn't legal. Why don't we have the federal gov't bail out all troubled businesses? I'm sure Lack's Furniture Stores here in town could have used the help.

In a socio economic demographic pyramid, what the economy thrives on is spending and investment.

What Obama did was invest the taxpayer’s money. The economy did what it was supposed to do and returned profit on investment.

Obama just used the system to do what it was designed to do and some complain about it.
Both the economy and Obama did what they should have done.
Those who think they did not, likely do so just because he is not the right color.
Pathetic.

Regards
DL

 

[Accountable]

Ad hominems are pathetic. Almost as pathetic as rationalizing illegal acts based on beneficial outcomes.

 

[Alien Allen]

Ad hominems are pathetic. Almost as pathetic as rationalizing illegal acts based on beneficial outcomes.

Yup

To hell with bankruptcy laws

Those are just words on a paper

Right ?

 

[Stone]

In a socio economic demographic pyramid, what the economy thrives on is spending and investment.

What Obama did was invest the taxpayer’s money. The economy did what it was supposed to do and returned profit on investment.

Obama just used the system to do what it was designed to do and some complain about it.
Both the economy and Obama did what they should have done.
Those who think they did not, likely do so just because he is not the right color.
Pathetic.

Regards
DL

What Obama did was invest the taxpayer’s money.

You used GM as the basis for your argument and I've provided you with the information that it was Bush that actually initiated it's bailout.
And I'm not posting that in support of the Bush administration.....it's fact.

The economy did what it was supposed to do and returned profit on investment.

No....not on the example you used.
There has actually been a loss of value since the new GM was organized and it's not yielding any dividends on it's operations.
Will it in the future is the question.

And that appears questionable given middle east politics at this time.

Obama just used the system to do what it was designed to do and some complain about it.

Again.....you really shouldn't have used GM as your 'Gold Standard'.

Those who think they did not, likely do so just because he is not the right color.
Pathetic.

Playing the race card so early in the discussion and with out merit, only shows you are indeed a shallow individual without a reasonable argument.


Face it.....in your opening post, you fucked up by not knowing what you're talking about.
And no matter how hard you try to change the track......it's still a fatal flaw of this thread.

BTW....I'm not a Republican nor do I support any of the Republican candidates.
I am, however, Caucasian in case you desire to play more of that race card.

 

[Stone]

Ad hominems are pathetic. ....................................

Agreed.

Except when I get away with them.

 

[Stone]

The title of this thread should have been:

If it hasn't failed yet, it's been a success.

 

[Stone]

I gotta laugh when the finger pointing starts. The blame for the big economic mess is hardly ever placed right. If you watch this video: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/

You will clearly see the problem began under Clinton. If you don't have time to watch just look up Brooksley Born. She warned about the coming mess and was silenced. I think the biggest thing to help GM was getting rid of the man voted "Worst CEO of all time."

Thanks for comment on Born.
Short but interesting read at Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooksley_Born

 

[Stone]

In a socio economic demographic pyramid, what the economy thrives on is spending and investment.

..........................

Kinda like a trickle down theory, eh?


LOL!

 

[Alien Allen]

Kinda like a trickle down theory, eh?


LOL!

just about the same as pissing your pants

 

[Greatest I am]

Kinda like a trickle down theory, eh?


LOL!

Ask the auto workers who kept their jobs if it works or not and you might note that G m paid 76 million in taxes last year.

Regards
DL

 

[darkcgi]

[video=youtube;qdFLPn30dvQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=qdFLPn30dvQ[/video]

 

[darkcgi]

[video=youtube;ojydNb3Lrrs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ojydNb3Lrrs[/video]

 

[mclovin1]

Obamanomics:

 

[Stone]

Ask the auto workers who kept their jobs if it works or not and you might note that G m paid 76 million in taxes last year.

Regards
DL

It's your argument to prove, not mine.

This article is dated, May 2011, but still relevant.......plus, note that GM common stock is selling $6 less than when the article was written .
Whether you like it or not....the stock market is yet to be impressed by GM's performance.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...e-still-a-huge-net-loss-for-taxpayers/238795/

If you bother to read the article, you'll find GM is profitable by government infusion of massive amounts of taxpayer monies along with incredible tax breaks.....even tax breaks from before the bankruptcy......

Since the company shed $30 billion in debt during bankruptcy, it should have wiped out most of the tax break. GM even warned it expected to lose those tax breaks shortly before filing for Chapter 11 protection.
But somehow, that never happened, and the automaker was able to keep most of its tax breaks, essentially receiving a $14 billion "gift" from the government.

......with those profits not seen as being notable.
An analogy is spending a million dollars to make a thousand in profit.

No, the question was not whether GM could make a profit after a bankruptcy that stiffed most of its creditors and shed the most grotesque burdens of its legacy costs, nor whether giving companies money will make them more profitable. The question is whether it was worth it to the taxpayer to burn $10-20 billion in order to give the company another shot at life. To put that in perspective, GM had about 75,000 hourly workers before the bankruptcy. We could have given each of them a cool $250,000 and still come out well ahead compared to the ultimate cost of the bailout including the tax breaks--and over $100,000 a piece if we just wanted to break even against our losses on the common stock.

And you haven't responded to the successes of BoA

 

[Stone]

just about the same as pissing your pants

This is the first time I've ever seen anyone try to meld Reaganomics to leftist socialism.....what a treat ..................

 

[Accountable]

Ask the auto workers who kept their jobs if it works or not and you might note that G m paid 76 million in taxes last year.

Regards
DL

Just the ones who kept their jobs? Why not ask the tens of thousands who lost theirs. Why not ask the towns that surround the closed plants. I suppose that was just a patriotic sacrifice, eh?

 

[Stone]

Just the ones who kept their jobs? Why not ask the tens of thousands who lost theirs. Why not ask the towns that surround the closed plants. I suppose that was just a patriotic sacrifice, eh?

Indeed......as 10 million jobs evaporated,

http://www.economagic.com/blslf.htm

the saving and bragging of keeping <50,000 GM union jobs looks more political than practical.

 

[Greatest I am]

It's your argument to prove, not mine.

This article is dated, May 2011, but still relevant...

In economics a year is forever.

Tell me, if bail outs and subsidies, are such a poor investment, why do almost all governments use them?

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Just the ones who kept their jobs? Why not ask the tens of thousands who lost theirs. Why not ask the towns that surround the closed plants. I suppose that was just a patriotic sacrifice, eh?

Ask the taxpayers who received help from those who stayed on the job and paid taxes as compared to the tax billions they would have consumed from being on the dole.

Fools let economics be decided for political party preferences.

Regards
DL