• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

9-7-08: Auto Industry wants $50 billion public bail out

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Ahh, private profits, public losses - the American Right's version of capitalism is alive and thriving.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
I think that we should do it on one condition:

1. No one on the board of directors or the executive committee can take a single penny more than a "fair" salary until the loans are repaid. No bonuses, no stock that they can resell at the first blip to make untold millions on...nothing other than a salary that can be no higher than the upper six figures.

Let's see them finally put their money where their mouths are. Either this money will help you do what you are saying it will or you just want to steal from the taxpayers. If it is the former, they should have no problems accepting the terms. If it is the latter, well....it sure as hell isn't the former.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,890
639
126
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I think that we should do it on one condition:

1. No one on the board of directors or the executive committee can take a single penny more than a "fair" salary until the loans are repaid. No bonuses, no stock that they can resell at the first blip to make untold millions on...nothing other than a salary that can be no higher than the upper six figures.

Let's see them finally put their money where their mouths are. Either this money will help you do what you are saying it will or you just want to steal from the taxpayers. If it is the former, they should have no problems accepting the terms. If it is the latter, well....it sure as hell isn't the former.
I read an article that alluded that Congress was talking of putting some conditions on the money that were going to be unpalatable to car companies. I highly doubt it's in their power to impose these types of measures. I agree with you however. I think high six figures is way too high. After all, $999,999 is high six figures. They're not worth that much.
 

tk149

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2002
7,256
1
0
Originally posted by: Ferocious
gmfactsandfiction

I'm still undecided about the loans, but I'm leaning towards thinking they are a good idea.
From your link:
We are not asking for a bailout, or a handout. The program under discussion ? part of major energy legislation signed in December 2007 ? is intended to lower borrowing costs for carmakers and suppliers who are investing in energy-saving technologies. This would be done through direct loans, which must be repaid in full, with interest.(emphasis added)

It sounds like GM wants to borrow at below the market rate (including loan fees). Either the government pays banks directly to make up the difference, or provides loans directly to GM.

Taxpayers make up the difference. Throw in government administrative costs, and it IS a handout. Maybe not a $50 billion handout, but still at least a couple hundred million. And this assumes that the loans will be paid back in full and on time.

Why isn't GM going to banks asking for the money? Because they can't get the financing at the price they're willing to pay. So then they ask the government because GM thinks that they can borrow for less, and have taxpayers pay the difference.

If this goes through, there should be no stock dividends and no stock buybacks for the life of the loan. Plus all GM executives should lose a thumb.
 

Linux23

Lifer
Apr 9, 2000
11,155
520
126
If this goes through, there should be no stock dividends and no stock buybacks for the life of the loan. Plus all GM executives should lose a thumb.
:beer:
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Originally posted by: Exterous
If any party voted against this right now they would lose Michigan in the election this year. If the big three tank - so does most of Michigan (worse that we already are) and the residents know it. I am not saying its right or wrong but I can tell you that both candidates are pandering to the concerned auto workers of Michigan with campaign slogans telling us that they will 'revitalize Michigan's auto industry' so they can get their vote
I agree. I don't think the public in general when confronted with the idea of the prudent letting them die vs some extremely whiny, loud michiganers will mean anything else. This election is a great time for the Big 3 to bitch and whine.

 

Ktulu

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2000
4,354
0
0
GM and Ford don't just want government loans out of the blue. Thanks to their current stock ratings they can no longer obtain no interest loans, they're stuck paying for high interest loans. That's all this is about, THEY DON'T WANT A BAILOUT. All anyone on AT wants is for these companies to go out of business. But aside from making SUV's and Trucks just like everyone else, they're also doing alot for fuel economy and alternative fuels. You guys seriously need to get your heads out of you asses. True their management has done alot to fvck up their situation in the past but I only see nothing but good things coming down their production pipeline if only people would start to reinvest.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
While I don't agree with your cause, I do agree with your effect.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Originally posted by: Ktulu
GM and Ford don't just want government loans out of the blue. Thanks to their current stock ratings they can no longer obtain no interest loans, they're stuck paying for high interest loans. That's all this is about, THEY DON'T WANT A BAILOUT. All anyone on AT wants is for these companies to go out of business. But aside from making SUV's and Trucks just like everyone else, they're also doing alot for fuel economy and alternative fuels. You guys seriously need to get your heads out of you asses. True their management has done alot to fvck up their situation in the past but I only see nothing but good things coming down their production pipeline if only people would start to reinvest.
I am crying, literally tears down my face.

Ask yourself why their stock rating sucks? There is a reason why they have to get high interest loans. It's the same reason a crack head with 550 credit score cannot get a credit card with a 9%. Because he cannot pay it back! These companies cannot, either. They SUCK. They have SUCKED for years.

And your statements about "if only people would start to reinvest", sorry but people who actually HAVE the billions needed to reinvest do not agree with you.

 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
If such a loan would prevent failure, it might not be that bad of an idea. What is the tax revenue is generated from the auto maker's employees?
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
0
Exactly. They've run their credit into the ground, and now they want nice, low-interest rate loans? The world doesn't work like that, or at least not for those of us without millions to spend lobbying in DC.
 

BarneyFife

Diamond Member
Aug 12, 2001
3,875
0
76
If the airlines and the banks get bailouts, I don't see why the car companies can't get it.
 

Zedtom

Platinum Member
Nov 23, 2001
2,146
0
0
If the government approves this who has to sign the legislation? Does the President have to give his approval or is this in the hands of congress?

Did the FreddieMac/FannieMae bailout have to go through the oval office?

The reason I'm asking is because if all of these decisions backfire, someone is going to get blamed. If that blame is going to handed to the next President, than I want that to be John McCain.
 

Napalm

Platinum Member
Oct 12, 1999
2,050
0
0
Originally posted by: cliftonite

One of the biggest partisan fucks calling someone else a partisan fuck, oh the ironing.
What's this about ironing??

$50B/300 million Americans = 166 per person or 666 per family of 4.

666 per family of 4? Now I see why McCain/Palin are against it.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: Zedtom
If the government approves this who has to sign the legislation? Does the President have to give his approval or is this in the hands of congress?

Did the FreddieMac/FannieMae bailout have to go through the oval office?

The reason I'm asking is because if all of these decisions backfire, someone is going to get blamed. If that blame is going to handed to the next President, than I want that to be John McCain.
We did the 'let's make the guy who messed up have to deal with his mess'. It was 2004.

Let's not do it again, it's expensive.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY