Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(EuroNews)   Remember all the people who said the government would lose $10 billion bailing out GM? Remember how wrong they were? Yeah, not wrong at all   (euronews.com) divider line 66
    More: Interesting, General Motors Co., Center for Automotive Research, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, newswire  
•       •       •

2403 clicks; posted to Business » on 10 Dec 2013 at 1:55 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



66 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-10 12:18:29 AM  
FTA: "But the auto bailout helped Detroit's carmakers return to profitability, and a study released on Monday by the Center for Automotive Research said it saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs and preserved $105.3 billion in personal and social insurance tax collections. "

Which totally didn't have any effect on the revenue collected by the government.
 
2013-12-10 01:21:37 AM  
I'm watching the Penn & Teller episode on numbers.  Weird!
 
2013-12-10 01:33:25 AM  
If they wanted to get every cent back, they'd have to hold onto the stock for another 20 years, and even then take measures to inflate its value.

Pick your poison, but the net effect was positive.
 
2013-12-10 01:52:33 AM  
and how much would have been lost had GM, went under?
 
2013-12-10 02:02:23 AM  
I hear the yearly trillion dollars spent on bombing brown people has EXCELLENT returns on investment
 
2013-12-10 02:11:50 AM  
Why, that's nearly 32 dollars per person we've lost, over five years!
 
2013-12-10 02:14:31 AM  
So less than half the cost of the government shutdown, which preserved zero jobs and tanked US credibility?

/Imokwiththis.jpg
 
2013-12-10 02:17:34 AM  

sendtodave: Why, that's nearly 32 dollars per person we've lost, over five years!


I need a bailout. I'll expect your paypal for 32 dollars to the email address in my profile. It's only 32 dollars, what's the problem?
 
2013-12-10 02:26:12 AM  

untaken_name: I need a bailout. I'll expect your paypal for 32 dollars to the email address in my profile. It's only 32 dollars, what's the problem?


you provide nothing to the economic health of the country.
 
2013-12-10 02:31:47 AM  

untaken_name: sendtodave: Why, that's nearly 32 dollars per person we've lost, over five years!

I need a bailout. I'll expect your paypal for 32 dollars to the email address in my profile. It's only 32 dollars, what's the problem?


Depending on what state you live in, you'll probably get it sometime over the next five years.
 
2013-12-10 02:48:09 AM  

StopLurkListen: I hear the yearly trillion dollars spent on bombing brown people has EXCELLENT returns on investment


It guarantees there will be future wars for which the government will spend trillions of dollars at Military-Industrial-ComplexMart.

And that's what really matters. Privatize reward, socialize the risk, amirite?
 
2013-12-10 03:16:36 AM  

log_jammin: untaken_name: I need a bailout. I'll expect your paypal for 32 dollars to the email address in my profile. It's only 32 dollars, what's the problem?

you provide nothing to the economic health of the country.


I provide more tax money than GM does. They just raise their prices to cover their taxes, so the consumers end up paying them. Mine come directly from my take-home pay. So you're hilariously wrong, as usual.
 
2013-12-10 03:22:47 AM  

untaken_name: I provide more tax money than GM does. They just raise their prices to cover their taxes, so the consumers end up paying them. Mine come directly from my take-home pay. So you're hilariously wrong, as usual.


wait....you're REALLY going to try to make the argument that YOU have more of an economic impact on the country than GM???

BWWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

"I provide more tax money than GM does."

farking Hilarious! you probably even had a smug little look on your face as you typed that too.
 
2013-12-10 03:27:43 AM  
Now tell us how you pay more in taxes than all the GM employees put together.

come on. you can do it. You're just one derp away...
 
2013-12-10 04:47:08 AM  

log_jammin: untaken_name: I provide more tax money than GM does. They just raise their prices to cover their taxes, so the consumers end up paying them. Mine come directly from my take-home pay. So you're hilariously wrong, as usual.

wait....you're REALLY going to try to make the argument that YOU have more of an economic impact on the country than GM???

BWWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

"I provide more tax money than GM does."

farking Hilarious! you probably even had a smug little look on your face as you typed that too.


There's not much point in being sucked into a retarded conversation to begin with. People who can only talk in analogies or pictures are stupid, and there is no point in discussing anything with them.
 
2013-12-10 04:55:19 AM  

jso2897: There's not much point in being sucked into a retarded conversation to begin with. People who can only talk in analogies or pictures are stupid, and there is no point in discussing anything with them.


[agreed.jpg]
 
2013-12-10 05:16:11 AM  
It's only vote buying, subby.  Obama couldn't have won without it.  So it's OK, because the Democrats say so.
 
2013-12-10 05:29:23 AM  
They can finally put 'Government Motors' in the rear view mirror," said Matthew Stover, an auto analyst at Guggenheim Securities.

No, no it doesn't, Mr. Analyst guy.
 
2013-12-10 05:31:21 AM  

untaken_name: log_jammin: untaken_name: I need a bailout. I'll expect your paypal for 32 dollars to the email address in my profile. It's only 32 dollars, what's the problem?

you provide nothing to the economic health of the country.

I provide more tax money than GM does.


Might be, but probably not more than all of the American GM employees that pay taxes on their income.
 
2013-12-10 05:58:43 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: FTA: "But the auto bailout helped Detroit's carmakers return to profitability, and a study released on Monday by the Center for Automotive Research said it saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs and preserved $105.3 billion in personal and social insurance tax collections. "

Which totally didn't have any effect on the revenue collected by the government.


Says "The Center for Automotive Research", which gets a big chunk of it's funding from...wait for it... the automotive industry.  That's like "The Center for Tobacco Research", funded by RJ Reynold's putting out a study about how cigarettes cure cancer.

Oh, and I'm just glad we poured all that money in at the top, which let it trickle down to keep all those jobs.
 
2013-12-10 06:29:28 AM  

Lsherm: It's only vote buying, subby.  Obama couldn't have won without it.  So it's OK, because the Democrats say so.


lol
 
2013-12-10 06:39:48 AM  

log_jammin: and how much would have been lost had GM, went under?




GM would have gone bankrupt, like it did, assets would have been sold to other companies, like Chrysler was, and stockholders would have been screwed, like they were.

The big losers were the white republican car dealers forced out of business.

Big winners were the UAW whose contracts ran the companies into the ground.
 
2013-12-10 06:42:27 AM  
untaken_name: log_jammin: untaken_name: I need a bailout. I'll expect your paypal for 32 dollars to the email address in my profile. It's only 32 dollars, what's the problem?

you provide nothing to the economic health of the country.

I provide more tax money than GM does. They just raise their prices to cover their taxes, so the consumers end up paying them. Mine come directly from my take-home pay. So you're hilariously wrong, as usual.
 Like all Republicans, I don't care about reality. I reject your facts and substitute what the squirrels in my head say.
 
2013-12-10 06:46:01 AM  
SauronWasFramed: log_jammin: and how much would have been lost had GM, went under?

GM would have gone bankrupt, like it did, assets would have been sold to other companies, like Chrysler was, and stockholders would have been screwed, like they were.

The big losers were the white republican car dealers forced out of business.

Big winners were the UAW whose contracts ran the companies into the ground.
 Union workers make more money than me and have better benefits, so i must work to get their pay to lower than mine! That way everyone makes less! WINNING!

You're right, sweetie, management was TOTALLY blameless in GMs decline!
 
2013-12-10 06:51:38 AM  

SauronWasFramed: log_jammin: and how much would have been lost had GM, went under?



GM would have gone bankrupt, like it did, assets would have been sold to other companies, like Chrysler was, and stockholders would have been screwed, like they were.

The big losers were the white republican car dealers forced out of business.

Big winners were the UAW whose contracts ran the companies into the ground.


So they sign a contract with workers and it's the workers fault? Uhmmm ok.
 
2013-12-10 07:12:39 AM  
EbolaNYC:
So they sign a contract with workers and it's the workers fault? Uhmmm ok.

Only legal people can sign contracts, and only corporations are legally people.

Deal with it libufarts.
 
2013-12-10 07:19:58 AM  

SauronWasFramed: log_jammin: and how much would have been lost had GM, went under?

GM would have gone bankrupt, like it did, assets would have been sold to other companies, like Chrysler was, and stockholders would have been screwed, like they were.

The big losers were the white republican car dealers forced out of business.

Big winners were the UAW whose contracts ran the companies into the ground.


haha no.
 
2013-12-10 07:22:16 AM  
Obama administration bails out the auto industry:  ZOMG, Fartbongo hates bootstraps freedom America eleventy!!!!!!

Obama administration does nothing, allows the auto industry (and the support industries) to fail:  ZOMG, Fartbongo hates bootstraps freedom America eleventy!!!!1!

Since there is absolutely nothing this administration could do that wouldn't be criticized by the insane Right, I'm happy with choosing the path that saved jobs.

Yeah, let's keep blaming the union, because "Right to Work" states have become a jobs paradise.  Or they would, if libtards would just and furthermore.
 
2013-12-10 07:24:30 AM  
And I'm sure the source of these figures is totally unbiased.  Neither the automotive industry or the government  have nothing to gain by manufacturing the numbers, would they?
 
2013-12-10 07:48:17 AM  

slayer199: And I'm sure the source of these figures is totally unbiased.  Neither the automotive industry or the government  have nothing to gain by manufacturing the numbers, would they?


Like I said, The Center for Automotive Research is funded by government grants and the automakers.  They're 100% legit.  If they weren't saying what certain Farkers wanted to hear, they would be denouncing them a corporate shills.
 
2013-12-10 07:48:34 AM  

slayer199: And I'm sure the source of these figures is totally unbiased.  Neither the automotive industry or the government  have nothing to gain by manufacturing the numbers, would they?


Which is why you're going to provide countervailing evidence, including hard numbers to back up your assertions... right?
 
2013-12-10 07:49:27 AM  

untaken_name: log_jammin: untaken_name: I need a bailout. I'll expect your paypal for 32 dollars to the email address in my profile. It's only 32 dollars, what's the problem?

you provide nothing to the economic health of the country.

I provide more tax money than GM does. They just raise their prices to cover their taxes, so the consumers end up paying them. Mine come directly from my take-home pay. So you're hilariously wrong, as usual.



???

I bow at your bootstrappiness!
 
2013-12-10 07:54:28 AM  

slayer199: And I'm sure the source of these figures is totally unbiased.  Neither the automotive industry or the government  have nothing to gain by manufacturing the numbers, would they?


Well, they sure suck at manufacturing automobiles.
 
2013-12-10 08:43:50 AM  
Doesn't count the $45 billion in tax-free profits:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/03/gm-tax-break-could-be-wor_n_ 7 78300.html (sounds like they were only able to take advantage of $15 billion of this)

Or Chevy Volt subsidies. Or Cash for Clunkers (not that that really made a long-term difference, but it was government expenditure ostensibly to help car companies). Or the $17.3 billion to GMAC from TARP.
 
2013-12-10 08:51:40 AM  
Looking at some past Fark threads, I'm amazed at how many people predicted they'd not lose a penny on the deal and actually turn a profit in the end. There were also a lot of farkers who actually believed it would definitely save Detroit. Who knew that Fark was full of optimists?
 
2013-12-10 09:08:33 AM  

pkellmey: Looking at some past Fark threads, I'm amazed at how many people predicted they'd not lose a penny on the deal and actually turn a profit in the end. There were also a lot of farkers who actually believed it would definitely save Detroit. Who knew that Fark was full of optimists?


It did save Detroit.  The carnage would have been unimaginable if GM went down taking its supplier base with it.  Ford would have taken a nosedive next and American operations for the foreign manufacturers would have been severely impacted.   Not all parts magically appear on a ship from China to be assembled by lazy entitled Americans.
 
2013-12-10 09:17:52 AM  

StopLurkListen: I hear the yearly trillion dollars spent on bombing brown people has EXCELLENT returns on investment


There's 100,000 less brown people in Iraq, so I think they are happy with the return
 
2013-12-10 09:18:17 AM  

stratagos: Which is why you're going to provide countervailing evidence, including hard numbers to back up your assertions... right?


I don't need to as I made no assertion other than to question the source.  The point I was making is that everyone is quick to take numbers at face value without questioning the source because it supports their pre-existing opinions.

As has been pointed out, The Center for Automotive Research is funded by the government and automotive manufacturers.  And you don't question their findings at all?
 
2013-12-10 09:26:09 AM  

The Googles Do Nothing: pkellmey: Looking at some past Fark threads, I'm amazed at how many people predicted they'd not lose a penny on the deal and actually turn a profit in the end. There were also a lot of farkers who actually believed it would definitely save Detroit. Who knew that Fark was full of optimists?

It did save Detroit.  The carnage would have been unimaginable if GM went down taking its supplier base with it.  Ford would have taken a nosedive next and American operations for the foreign manufacturers would have been severely impacted.   Not all parts magically appear on a ship from China to be assembled by lazy entitled Americans.


Because nobody is capable of using that equipment and those skilled workers besides the currently extant organizations?
 
2013-12-10 09:40:13 AM  
I'm glad I purchased Ford stock back then.
 
2013-12-10 10:20:11 AM  

born_yesterday: Obama administration bails out the auto industry:  ZOMG, Fartbongo hates bootstraps freedom America eleventy!!!!!!

Obama administration does nothing, allows the auto industry (and the support industries) to fail:  ZOMG, Fartbongo hates bootstraps freedom America eleventy!!!!1!

Since there is absolutely nothing this administration could do that wouldn't be criticized by the insane Right, I'm happy with choosing the path that saved jobs.

Yeah, let's keep blaming the union, because "Right to Work" states have become a jobs paradise.  Or they would, if libtards would just and furthermore.


Actually it was the Bush administration that started the auto bailout.
 
2013-12-10 10:41:02 AM  
So it would have been better if GM went out of business (more or less; small pieces like the Corvette line probably would have survived) and a million jobs went to China, Germany, or Japan?
 
2013-12-10 10:44:33 AM  

Geotpf: So it would have been better if GM went out of business (more or less; small pieces like the Corvette line probably would have survived) and a million jobs went to China, Germany, or Japan?


If the jobs can't be support organically here, then obviously yes. However, I contend that better management could run the post-bankruptcy GM as a profitable entity, thus keeping the jobs here. That is the upside of bankruptcies - you can shake all the shiat loose.
 
2013-12-10 10:52:25 AM  

pkellmey: Looking at some past Fark threads, I'm amazed at how many people predicted they'd not lose a penny on the deal and actually turn a profit in the end. There were also a lot of farkers who actually believed it would definitely save Detroit. Who knew that Fark was full of optimists?


Looking at this post, I'm amazed that you look at it without accounting for other ancillary $'s and so forth that are part of the overall equation.
 
2013-12-10 11:16:03 AM  

slayer199: stratagos: Which is why you're going to provide countervailing evidence, including hard numbers to back up your assertions... right?

I don't need to as I made no assertion other than to question the source.  The point I was making is that everyone is quick to take numbers at face value without questioning the source because it supports their pre-existing opinions.

As has been pointed out, The Center for Automotive Research is funded by the government and automotive manufacturers.  And you don't question their findings at all?


Generally speaking, I assume everyone is biased. However, I've noticed thatpe ople who tend to point out that a source *may* be biased but say nothing that would contradict said source tend to do so because they are biased in the opposite direction but have no actual facts to bring to the party.

If that doesn't describe you, my apologies, but if I'm not going to bother researching why a source might be right I'm equally not going to bother researching why they might be wrong
 
2013-12-10 11:26:45 AM  

YixilTesiphon: The Googles Do Nothing: pkellmey: Looking at some past Fark threads, I'm amazed at how many people predicted they'd not lose a penny on the deal and actually turn a profit in the end. There were also a lot of farkers who actually believed it would definitely save Detroit. Who knew that Fark was full of optimists?

It did save Detroit.  The carnage would have been unimaginable if GM went down taking its supplier base with it.  Ford would have taken a nosedive next and American operations for the foreign manufacturers would have been severely impacted.   Not all parts magically appear on a ship from China to be assembled by lazy entitled Americans.

Because nobody is capable of using that equipment and those skilled workers besides the currently extant organizations?


If there were people and companies that were waiting to step into the void had GM liquidated, there wouldn't be such an uproar every time an automaker closes a factory.
 
2013-12-10 11:54:08 AM  

stratagos: Generally speaking, I assume everyone is biased. However, I've noticed thatpe ople who tend to point out that a source *may* be biased but say nothing that would contradict said source tend to do so because they are biased in the opposite direction but have no actual facts to bring to the party.

If that doesn't describe you, my apologies, but if I'm not going to bother researching why a source might be right I'm equally not going to bother researching why they might be wrong


As I hate both parties and vote for a 3rd party, I tend to question everything.  Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
 
2013-12-10 12:39:16 PM  
12/8/2009 "Obama administration predicts $30B loss on auto bailout"

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20091208/AUTO01/912080414

8/13/2012 "Auto Bailout Cost Jumps to $25 Billion"

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/313888/auto-bailout-cost-jumps- 25 -billion-patrick-brennan

And now it's gone all the way up to $10 billion.

Clearly, those who said all along that Obama was underestimating the losses, have today been proven correct. Conservatism wins again.

Thanks a lot, Obama.
We should have done what Romney wanted, and had GM go through bankruptcy.

//and we'd finally learn the truth about Benghazi
 
2013-12-10 01:08:48 PM  

Shryke: Geotpf: So it would have been better if GM went out of business (more or less; small pieces like the Corvette line probably would have survived) and a million jobs went to China, Germany, or Japan?

If the jobs can't be support organically here, then obviously yes. However, I contend that better management could run the post-bankruptcy GM as a profitable entity, thus keeping the jobs here. That is the upside of bankruptcies - you can shake all the shiat loose.


Which is basically what happened.  GM did go bankrupt, and they are better run now than before the bankruptcy.  Had the government not managed the bankrupcy they way they did, GM (and Chrysler) would have gone out of business completely (minus very small pieces like Corvette like I said), and the Japanese/Germans/Koreans/Chinese/Indians would have picked up the slack once demand rebounded circa 2010.
 
2013-12-10 01:17:24 PM  

Geotpf: Which is basically what happened.


Nonsense. Next you can tell the Chrysler bondholders that's what happened, too.
 
Displayed 50 of 66 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report