GM has paid it's tarp loans in full.

[Epidemic]

Why did the new not slam this statement. As I remember back to the payback announcement I heard rumblings about how they had not paid back the Tarp bail out.

I just decided to look into it a little because of a discussion with a friend. I was amazed at the size of the lie (in the form of truthful words).

Looking at Politifact website I found out that the tales of payback in 2010 were 10% true

GM Paid back the "Loan" But not the TARP bail out.

[Chuckiechan]

The US still owns ~ 1/3 of GM shares of stock, and they are underwater by about 1/3 of what the US paid for them.

I.E. We are sitting on a fat loss, and Obama can't dare sell them until after the election.

[evereddie]

Yup! It says it all on how we are being grossly mislead and no one will do anything about it. The media is dead.

[Taxmancometh]

Time for a new President?

[bigBonehead]

Yup! It says it all on how we are being grossly mislead and no one will do anything about it.....

Lawmakers Propose Allowing Intelligence Groups To Use Propaganda on Citizens ‹ I Acknowledge Class Warfare Exists

[MTAtech]

The US still owns ~ 1/3 of GM shares of stock, and they are underwater by about 1/3 of what the US paid for them.

I.E. We are sitting on a fat loss, and Obama can't dare sell them until after the election.

Nevertheless, it STILL was a good deal for taxpayers because had GM gone under the U.S. would be liable for billions in unemployment benefits it obviated by saving GM:

GM Bailout Losses Worthwhile for Obama as IPO Shrinks Cost to $9 Billion - Bloomberg

The U.S. sold almost half of its stake in the nation’s largest automaker for $33 a share — about $10 less than it needs to break even. The remaining shares will need to sell for about $20 higher to make up the difference. GM opened at $35 and stayed within $1.11 of that price all day. Selling the remaining shares at that price would produce a loss of about $9 billion.
That may go down as a bargain. The U.S. would have lost $28.6 billion in spending on social services and missing tax revenue if not for the bailout of GM, its former lending arm and Chrysler Group LLC, according to a study released Nov. 17 by the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
“GM ends up an economic contributor to the U.S. economy,” said Barry Ritholtz, author of “Bailout Nation” and chief executive officer of New York investment research firm FusionIQ. “It’s manufacturing products, it’s creating jobs, it’s buying wholesale parts, it’s doing what an industrial company is supposed to do.”

[Epidemic]

Nevertheless, it STILL was a good deal for taxpayers because had GM gone under the U.S. would be liable for billions in unemployment benefits it obviated by saving GM:[/url]

This still assumes that they did not simply get bought out. When they hit the auction block someone would have been willing to bid on them. Especially if government allowed them to clear some debt in the sale. I still find it hard to believe that the buildings, assembly line equipment are worth more than the whole.

Someone would have bought it for 10 cents on the dollar.

[tony_j15]

We've been through this before, apparently you don't remember. GM and Chrysler attempted to sell, they attempted to get financing. The entire system turned them down. The only way it would have been possible for them to be bought would be via bankruptcy and that assumes that whoever does the buying wouldn't just liquidate. Considering no one was willing to give them money to keep them going due to the extreme lack of liquidity in the markets at that time, it is illogical to assume someone would have bought them and kept operations as they were.

[Epidemic]

The only way it would have been possible for them to be bought would be via bankruptcy and that assumes that whoever does the buying wouldn't just liquidate. .

you are saying that you could not have a stipulation in the contract which says they can not liquidate? The federal government could not have insurred this with a tiny little bill?

you can buy this company for .30 cents on the dollar but you must have the intention of keeping the company going. money from the sale will be given to the creditors based upon normal bankruptsy rules.

[MTAtech]

you are saying that you could not have a stipulation in the contract which says they can not liquidate? The federal government could not have insurred this with a tiny little bill?

you can buy this company for .30 cents on the dollar but you must have the intention of keeping the company going. money from the sale will be given to the creditors based upon normal bankruptsy rules.

I don't think that's a contractable stipulation.

If you sell me item "A" it belongs to me and I can do what I want with it. You can't sell me something with a stipulation, otherwise you are in effect still an owner.

In any case, that's all theoretical. Nobody was interested.

[brandon184]

I.E. We are sitting on a fat loss, and Obama can't dare sell them until after the election.

Do you usually sell your investments when prices are low? Very saavy!