Reason.tv: How Did GM Pay Back Its Bailout So Fast? Well, It Didn't...

General Motors CEO Ed Whitacre has bragged in TV commercials and newspaper columns that GM has paid back its bailout "in full and ahead of schedule."

As with the Pontiac Aztek, an ugly exterior masks an ever darker problem: Whitacre is being fanciful to the point of deceit. GM received $50 billion in TARP funds (never mind that TARP was only supposed to cover financial institutions). About $7 billion of that came in the form of a straight-up, low-interest loan. And about $13 billion came in the form of an escrow account.

So how has GM, which lost $38 billion in 2007 even as it sold 9.4 million cars, paid back its debt? It took money from the escrow account to pay back the $6.7 billion loan.

Do you remember when you were a kid and your parents gave you $20 to buy them a Christmas present? You bought them something worth $3 and pocketed the rest? That's what GM has just done.

Oh, and do you remember when you hit your parents up for college? GM has applied for a $10 billion, low-interest loan from the government to modernize its plants so its cars will meet new federal mileage standards.

If you think all this constitutes paying back their debt in full and ahead of schedule, you might want to check out the new line of GM cars. And hope that the company's safety engineers are better at math than their CEO.

Approximately 1.35 minutes. Written and produced by Dan Hayes, Meredith Bragg, and Nick Gillespie.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ed||

    Happily, the mainstream press is all over this.

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    Now why would the MSM be all over someone who is one of their largest sources of advertisement revenue?

  • ed||

    Well that's just cynical.

  • ||

    UMMMM, MAYBE BECAUSE IT'S TRUE!!?

    TOYOTA never asked or received bail out money and most
    TOYOTAS are now MADE IN AMERICA!!
    So - that is what I'm buying!

  • Doug||

    Donna,

    That is not entirely a bad plan. I have always liked the idea of supporting American workers over American Executives. So I won't buy a car just because it is made by an American company.

    That being said, The American auto companies support many college education programs here in the States. A college student who is working on an automotive degree can often work with engineers from the automakers. This provides valuable training that can help in the students career. The foreign automakers do not support the education system here in the US. Any support given to students is done overseas.

  • Brock||

    Really...so because they didnt ask for bailout money you support them. But, your ok with them covering up all the problems with the cars they have built and now have killed or put someone in harm. Think of your family and friends right now...tell me your ok with them buying a car from a company that purpsoely covered up soemthing they knew was a problem 3 YEARS AGO and HOPED it wouldnt be a problem. YOUR OK WITH THAT? So you dont support GM, alright, well you might want to think what you do day in and day out. Because EVERYTHING you do, supports Wall Street who didnt do anything for any worker but them self, and you are supporting them EVERYDAY!!!!!!! You have NO IDEA what you are talking about. Do I deny what GM has done...NO, but you are so blindsided by everything you think what you are doing is right, which is the total opposite. Also for the record, if you want to know what Toyota has done I would bet you would NEVER buy another car from them again. No bailout money, but worse. And, why do I know....EX employee that left and gave up 6 figures because of their pracitce that in the end will harm anyone and everyone...I have 3 daughters between the age of 10 to 2. I know what they do and who it affects. Donna, your comment is what most people say witout knowledge. If I gave you the real story of Toyota, you would be sick to your stomach knowing children have died for their profits. Now, enjoy your Toyota.

  • Dirk||

    Lucky no other American Car Company has ever covered up an issue like this or has ever done anything wrong. I think I will just ride my GM into the sunset while shooting all trespassers on American soil. Yee-Haw! Being ignorant wins again!

  • Fan of Dirk||

    Dirk,
    While you are correct about the ignorance displayed by Brock, I believe he was writing out of anger. If you look at his writing style, it can only be described as someone who is REALLY angry or someone who is 15 and doesn't know any better. Either way, if Brock were to sit back, relax just a bit and see where Donna is coming from, I'm sure he could see that she's just trying to do her best.

    That being said, Donna, truly you should do quite a bit more research on the specific car you are looking at purchasing. Compare it side-by-side against its competitors, understand why it's a better car for you than any of the others. Most of all, I would ask that you please don't base your purchasing decisions on the fact that 'TOYOTA never asked or received bail out money'.

    --fod

  • fan of fan of Dirk||

    This.

    Also, I buy cars that fit my requirements best at the lowest price. If I force myself to by a car because of where it was made or whether it recieved bailout money a-la Donna: I've hurt myself by buying an inferior and/or more expensive product. I've hurt everyone's living standard by prolonging the life support of an inferior company so that instead of reaching it's improve or die point, it continues to waste the productivity of people who could be employed by a more efficient company since wasted productivity = fewer products for everyone. :(

  • hmm||

    The last two reason tv youtube links keep giving me errors.

    I think it's a conspiracy.

  • hmm||

    Make that this one and Nanny of the Month.

  • ||

    I don't watch much TV. Is GM still running those "we payed it back" ads or were they shamed into stopping?

  • ed||

    Shame? GM?

    Hahahahahahahaha!

  • ||

    Judging by the shitty GM cars they sold my mother during my childhood, GM has no shame.

  • ||

    And the 2002 Blazer I drive that needs to encounter some white phosphorus.

  • In Time Of War||

    Y'know, I had a used '89 Blazer S10 which was under-powered, over-loud, handled like a bus, got crappy mileage and the less said about the interior the better...but it ran 5 years longer than it ever should have and finally died right in the driveway.
    I rode with it, and I have no complaints.

  • ||

    Funny: My grandfather owned around a 2002-ish S-10. It was nice, but it started falling apart with under 50,000 easy miles on it; apparently the transmission was made out of paper mache. So, he dumped it, and bought a heavily used '92 S-10 from the local classifieds. It's a piece of crap, much as you describe, but it still runs. Perhaps GM actually managed to reduce the quality in the later models...

  • Ivan||

    I saw one 2 days ago.

  • ||

    No one anyone listens to is shaming them.

  • Some Guy||

    For ever one who knows that it's bullshit, 5-10 think it's awesome that GM has paid us back in full, with interest, and saved the economy. They're so thrilled about this deal that they'll be happy to support the next one.

  • PETE||

    Funny. Just the other day I saw the Ed Whitacre commercial and said something along the lines of "I like this guy. I would buy a car from him." Shows what I know.

    Also, anyone else think Ed sort of looks like Scut Fargas all grown up?

  • ed||

    He's a modern-day Lee Iacockhole.

  • ||

    Remember when 1.5 billion was a lot of money?

  • ||

    Please don't tell them what comes after 1 trillion.

  • ed||

    It's Godzillion, isn't it?

  • allan||

    million, billion, trillion, quadrillion, quintillion.......

  • ||

    Hey, what does The Jacket do in warmer weather? Just Jacket, nothing else?

  • ||

    The Jacket, the Hair, and a Speedo (banana-hammock).

  • hmm||

    black leather banana hammock?

  • ||

    Paging Barfman....STAT!

  • Johnny Longtorso||

    The Jacket can automatically convert into one of these if the weather requires.

    Not safe for work, outside of work, for the blind,....

  • Ivan||

    He looks like a coffin salesman, I'd cross the street if I saw him coming.

  • Ivan||

    Ed Whitacre looks like a coffin salesman. I still haven't figured out 'he of the perpetual jacket'.

  • ||

    I suspect the folks at the Onion are doing Big ED's commercials

  • ||

    I just heard someone on a local radio show complaining because GM fired its US commercial production company and hired a French one.

    General Motors has replaced the advertising agency that brought you such memorable campaigns as "See the USA in Your Chevrolet" and "Like a Rock" after more than 90 years of work.

    Campbell-Ewald, headquartered in the Detroit suburb of Warren, will be phased out of the Chevrolet account during the next few months, replaced by Publicis Worldwide, which is part of French advertising company Publicis Groupe SA.

    [...]

    Since GM emerged from bankruptcy protection last July, its executives have been critical of its advertising, with some saying it didn't do enough to erase the perception that GM built lower-quality vehicles than Asian competitors.

    New Chairman and CEO Ed Whitacre, who is featured in two television ads encouraging people to try GM products, has said the company made great strides in product development and manufacturing quality, "but we were seriously deficient in getting the word out," Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said in a recent interview.

    Sounds like he's part of the Obama administration. It's never a problem with their performance, it's a problem with getting the word out about how great they are with these people.

  • ||

    Have to admit I liked "This is not your father's Oldsmobile" and "We...build...ex...cite...ment...PONTIAC!" myself.

  • Col DuBois||

    Thanks. Gonna have that stuck in my head all day now.

  • ||

    Gads Tulpa, I forgot about that one. The one that popped into my head was the "Chevy Ciiiiiiiii-taaaaa..tion!"

  • ||

    Yeah, I chose those two because the brands are extinct. A decision which made no sense in the case of Pontiac; it had more of a market identity than Buick does, no?

  • ||

    I agree. Trans Am? That defined Pontiac. The Grand Prix, Bonneville, Sunfire. Not much B

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    Buick is the largest car seller in China. And last quarter, GM sold more cars in China than it the US.

    That should explain it.

  • ||

    Does "Buick" mean "penis" in Chinese or something?

  • ||

    Pretty sure those are built in China, minus the legacy costs of the ones built in the US, so they can be priced competitively.
    Last I saw, VW held the largest market in China, but that was a couple of years ago.

  • In Time Of War||

    I had a '70 Pontiac Catalina which was the greatest off-road vehicle ever made. GM should rot in Hell for dropping Pontiac.

  • ||

    loan from the government to modernize its plants so its cars will meet new federal mileage standards

    Ummm, what? Isn't mileage a matter of the design and engineering of the cars, not the factory they are made in?

  • hmm||

    The loan is a retooling subsidy. The government orders new restrictions or required goals. Companies piss and moan and lobby. Government takes my money and gives it to companies so they can now fall the retarded new rules and restrictions. That's the modernizing of plants they are speaking of, it's retooling costs.

  • ||

    The loan is a retooling subsidy.

    I thought they had the same tools working for them as always.

  • ||

    hmmm, thanks, that makes sense. Still, that sort of retooling happens with any new model. Aresen, "retooling" doesn't mean they replace (e.g.) the whole stamping press, just the parts that actually come in contact with the metal being formed.

  • hmm||

    I don't condone any of it. From the CAFE bullshit to retooling subsidies.

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    And, if GM gets a subsidized loan from the Guvment before it goes public again, it can get a huge leg up on Ford.

  • Mikey||

    You need tooling, like presses, stamping dies, and plastic molding equipment to mass produce cars, and it gets very expensive. Although, if this world were just they wouldn't need that shit because they'd be out of business.

  • ||

    Remember when 1.5 billion was a lot of money?

    Remember when GM built good cars?

    Me neither.

  • hmm||

  • Almanian||

    Is that a '58? Like it.

  • Wegie||

    Styling not bad....quality for shit!

  • ||

    I was just going to provide the counterexample of my trusty Geo Metro, but then I remembered they were built by Suzuki. Never mind.

  • ||

    You had a Metro? I remember the Storm. They were kinda sporty for an economy car.

  • ||

    Remember when GM built good cars?

    Me neither.

    To be fair -

    GM makes the 1st or 2nd best full size pickup trucks in the world. They've been duking it out with Ford for the titlr for decades. The Toyota Tundra ain't even it the same league.

    The Corvette is in a class of it's own. Always has been.

    That's about it folks

  • celtigirl||

    The Corvette is in a class of it's own.

    Sorry J sub D, but Corvette's class to me screams balding mid-life crisis man. Or possibly wealthy high school jock dickhead. Not a car that appeals to women the way men think it does, imo.

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    celtigirl,
    According to pollsters, the image people have of the Corvette is as you describe.

    But when it comes to Exotic sports cars, it is unarguably world class in performance, and most certain the value buy of the last 60 years.

  • celtigirl||

    Interesting! I wonder why GM can't build a car with world class performance that's a good value that actually appeals to the eye/imagination? Maybe whoever solves that problem for GM could actually turn the company around.

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    I doubt it's going to be Ed.

  • ||

    Drive one and get back to me.

  • ||

    Oh crap! That was me.

  • hmm||

    Corvette is ghetto super car. The things rattle and fall apart. They have all the craftsmanship of an age 6-12 puzzle put together by a blind chimp. You'd be better off spending the money an M3, not to mention the beamer will at least hold some value. The vette is trash 4 years later. I guess it boils down to redneck douche nozzle or uptight BMW douche nozzle. I'd go with the uptight nozzle myself.

    Once you get out of the 60's classics it's all down hill from there.

  • slutmonkey||

    A corvette is only attractive to women if Tom Selleck is driving it.

  • ||

    We can remember when Toyota once built exciting cars? (Celica, Supra) ;-)

    Maybe in 10-15, we might said "remember when Toyota built good cars"? lol

  • prolefeed||

    A new V6 Camry can kick the ass of any Supra.

    Depends on what you define as exciting.

  • ||

    The Supra could be tuned and upgraded, more enjoyable to drive and looks like a young folk car while the Camry is "Buickized". I guess this vintage ad on Youtube said more then me ;-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooX2dNzNXXg

  • hmm||

    You'd have a hard time touching a tuned Mark IV with any camry with respect to sports car stats. If you're haling a kid and a diaper bag you will own the supra.

  • ||

    But on the other hand, the Camry will sure give us a place in Heaven or Hell more sooner then we taught ;-)

  • prolefeed||

    A new V6 Camry can kick the ass of any Supra.

    Depends on what you define as exciting.

  • Apostate Jew||

    How the hell do you lose an average of over 4,000 dollars on every car you sell?

  • UAW||

    We don't.

  • ||

    Unions contracts.

    Haven't you ever heard the phrase "We'll make it up in volume?"

  • hmm||

    Ahh unions. Nothing beats government backed monopolies for efficiency and equity.

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    "Haven't you ever heard the phrase "We'll make it up in volume?""

    At one time,(in the 70's I think)GM had double the sales volume that they currently have now. So the overhead per car was much easier to cover. They never really cut back on their overhead, so first they cut back on R&D, then quality, and now they just produce pieces of shit.

    They deserved to go under as they became one of the worst run companies in America, ever. I truly wish their assets had been disseminated, and not to the unions who helped drag them down.

  • ||

    Plus, while they have many fewer workers and sell fewer cars, they have just as many or more retired workers they are paying pensions and medical benefits for. The added cost comes to thousands of dollars per car in added "overhead," much higher than their competition.

  • MING||

    If it weren't for the unions, we'd have toddlers on the assembly line, working 14-hour shifts. Barefoot!

  • Wegie||

    ...and pregnant.

  • Whatever||

    I'm pretty sure the law prevents that, not the unions. While unions may have pushed for the laws, are you to say that "we the people" wouldn't/couldn't push for the laws ourselves?

  • Colin||

    Paul Ryan already beat you to this.

  • ||

    Reason was on this several days ago, they just produced the video today.

    As for Paul Ryan, he voted for TARP, so he can shut his piehole about bailouts.

  • Ivan||

    I do not claim to know Paul Ryan's mind, but there is the question of electability and what is necessary in the campaign to get elected. Our electorate elected a president that fed the country a bunch of rhetoric that sounded pragmatic and "not business as usual". Perhaps we should look for some wolves in sheep's clothing that will do for libertarians what Obama has done for progressives. I realize that it is a crap shoot. But I doubt we could do worse. I am not endorsing Paul Ryan, I am suggesting that we consider an individuals core beliefs based on the limited information available and vote accordingly. How can it be worse than what we now have.

  • ||

    Paul Ryan is from my district. I've seen several live speeches and actually spoke to him a couple times. I don't agree with every decision he's made (particularly TARP) but I think he has some good ideas for real solutions to difficult problems (not painless solutions, but real solutions). He's not a perfect libertarian, but we could do a whole lot worse than Paul Ryan.

  • ||

    When Ryan supports libertarian positions when the Republicans have a majority in Congress and/or a Republican president, I'll reconsider.

    Yes, electability is a concern. But whether the guy is going to sell you down the river once he gets elected is an even bigger one.

  • Ivan||

    Point taken. I'm not from Wisconsin so I don't have to make a decision on whether or not to vote for Ryan. I know that we keep getting burned by those that talk the talk but don't walk the walk. I guess I am not quite as cynical as you (yet,)so I'm still willing to give them a chance to fail. Having said that, Ryan's vote for TARP could be enough of a reason to not vote for him him until he proves otherwise.

  • ||

    A concern, but I don't think a bigger one. E.g.: Bush disappointed libertarians in many ways, but who thinks Gore or Kerry would have been better?

  • kevin||

    Gore might've been better. We wouldn't have had Iraq. Probably.

  • ||

    Maybe, but what statist b.s. would we have had instead? Kyoto? Cap and Trade? Better to knock off a foreign dictator with an expensive war than hobble the economy forever with even more expensive regulations. IMHO.

  • ||

    We would have had Sudan.

  • ||

    And we'll always have Paris...

  • prolefeed||

    I think Gore or Kerry with a Republican congress would have been an improvement over one-party rule.

    Gore and Kerry would still have been awful dicks, but unable to do much damage.

  • LarryA||

    GM's loan will be paid in full, on election day.

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    +25

  • ||

    Ivan, you know as well as I do that libertarians have a hard time accepting anyone who isn't 100% in thier view preferable. I mean Ron Paul's only crazies would chant Fox News sucks at Sean Hanity after he was leaving the Republican Primary. These idiots can't figure out why noone wants to hear from their side when they act like that. Also, think of what would happen if this was tried? How long would it be until the secret was let out and everyone was either A. Complaining that it is all a conspiracy to destroy their candidate or B. Lipservice? Just see what happens when you mention Ronald Reagan here. More so than that consider all of the BS that the Ron Paul put out about how awesome it would be for RP to be in the White House. They acted as if they were electing a dictator who could not only ignore the oposition party, but control the interest and perogative of his own as well.

  • ||

    how is your post related to GM?

  • Grouchol Marx||

    How is the post related to libertarianism? Ron has no more patent on libertarianism than "crazies" do on reason.

    The vast majority of Americans from both sides of the political spectrum are libertarian, they just don't know it. Too many years of the us v. them, two party, bipolar, idiocratic, crisis managing style politics mudding up their waters.

    If more people had improved their mental clarity by simply practicing healthy skepticism and leaving emotion out of intellectual matters we would be a country of classically liberal libertarians. And GM would never have become an issue.

  • ||

    Just see what happens when you mention Ronald Reagan here.

    You obviously weren't around here at the time of Reagan's death. The blog was full of hagiography.

  • ||

    Simple, it has nothing to do with it. I was addressing Ivan about supporting guys like Paul Ryan by stating the obvious. Libertarians don't compromise for more freedom they remain planted in their ideology and never side with a guy who will do what it takes to win. Often, they go down in flames and wonder why they have negligible influence in politics. Bottom line the president doesn't have all of the power. Congress does and that is what makes Obama and the GM bailouts so tought to fight, we now have a time period of one party rule and the party in power doesn't care about losing. They are going full retard before getting booted out of office.

  • tarran||

    Dude, The US. has had many periods of one party rule throughout the 20th century, occasionally with periods where the two parties shared power.

    In all cases the major parties care fuck-all about freedom and use any excuse to help expand government power.

    Hell, many libertarians compromised and voted for Republicans in the elections of the 1990's & 2000. Look what it got us... New entitlement programs, a massive surveilance state and repeated attempts to intiate the nationalization of equity markets.

    And when we point out that the so called less evil party is being evil, out trot useful idiots whining about us being uncompromising.

    I guess you're arguing that if we stay quiet about the way they are actually fucking over the American people, they may let us sit at the grown-up table & allow us to watch the adult conversations while patronizingly pretending we matter. And the moment libertarians got int the way of their plundering and social engineering, we'd be kicked back to the kids table.

    Most Americans love tyrrany, and think that having a super state plundering their neighbors and diverting some of the lucre into their own pockets is fine and dandy.

    No number of politicians winning elections is going to change that.

  • ||

    He also voted yes in Dec 2008 on the extra $15B bailout specifically for GM (to circumvent questions of whether GM was eligible for TARP) which Bush vetoed.

    He supports a constitutional amendment banning flag desecration.

    He voted to make PATRIOT Act permanent in 2005.

    He voted for Bush's Medicare Prescription drug expansion in 2003.

    He voted for the weakening of FISA in 2007 to allow warrantless wiretapping whenever a call crosses national borders.

    He voted to ban Internet gambling by credit card.

    And of course, he voted for the Iraq War.

    Until January 20, 2009, he was as much a statist as the rest of the GOP. His conversion to limited government philosophy came at a mighty suspicious time, to say the least.

  • Ivan||

    Okay, you've convinced me. So what do we do? We don't have the numbers to actually elect anybody so all I can think of is using our votes to not re-elect them in the hope that they will eventually figure it out.

  • ||

    "Compromise for more freedom"? That doesn't even make sense. Freedom doesn't work that way. You may have bought into the nonsense about economic freedom and social freedom being two separate things, but they're not; it's just the bullshit trick the "major" parties use to bat us back and forth like a ping-pong ball.

  • Ivan||

    That's close to what I'm talking about, except we will be batting them back and forth like a ping pong ball by switching our votes each election cycle. Limit every one of them to a single term until they figure out what we expect. If it doesn't change things at least we'll get some satisfaction by fucking with them and the system.

  • ||

    Which proves my point that libertarians have no influence. And put guys like Ron Paul up there who attract the kooks which repel mainstream voters. Like we really have the power to reform things. Anyway, when guys like Ron Paul take on unpopular issues and don't prase their arguments in a winning fasion they get ignored by people who can really influence elections. Ron Paul fights to lose that is why he might as well be trying to get flouride out of public water supply with the issues that he takes on. Not saying that he isn't right on those issues, it is just that he does it in a way to deflect the popular sentiment. Libertarians won't have any influence until they start supporting people who play the game to win. And if that means finding a guy like Ivan was talking about then so be it. Problem is you would need them not in the WH but in the House and Senate and Supreme Court as well. Until that happens you can elect Ron Paul to the WH and watch the country continue to go to hell in a handbasket. But yeah, keep playing to lose and don't compromise for more freedom, and you will end up with more tyranny and worse off than you started.

  • Ivan||

    Dissent is right and proper, but if you do nothing to try and change the status quo - what do you bring to the table in the name of changing things? Bitching does no good unless you are actually working at changing things. Being pissed and deciding that you are going to do nothing more than bitch about how it is contributes nothing. By definition, libertarians are not about 'getting' people to agree with us. But if we want to be relevant we have to actually accomplish things and our only chance is to do it incrementally.

  • Ivan||

    Ben, I think we are basically on the same wave length.

  • .||

    Ben|5.1.10 @ 11:45PM|#

    Which proves my point that libertarians have no influence.

    So why are you here, trying to influence us?

  • ||

    Tell me Nick isn't about to get his rage on in this video.

  • Adonisus||

    ...Is that a copy of Robert Ferrigno's "Prayers for the Assassin" behind Nick?

    I love that book.

  • Adonisus||

    ...Is that a copy of Robert Ferrigno's "Prayers for the Assassin" behind Nick?

    I love that book.

  • Adonisus||

    Crap, double post. Sorry.

  • Studebaker||

    We used to be a car company. Government didn't bail US out.

  • Packard||

    Same here!

  • Hudson||

    We built cars for decades, but government didn't give us one thin dime to stay in business.

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    Ah, back in the PO days.

  • Ivan||

    Studebaker merged with Packard in 54 before Studebaker finally got out of the auto business in 63. Studebaker was a diverse corporation and owned about ten other companies at the time. By the way, Studebaker management was the most strike averse in the industry caving to their workers demands at every turn. They had the highest labor costs and lowest productivity in the business.

  • ||

    Studebaker left the auto business in 1966, after they moved from South Bend to a smaller plant in Hamilton in Canada.

    There was some designs proposal of a 1967 Studebaker, interesting to see these "car that never was" http://deansgarage.com/2009/bo.....-chrysler/

  • Ivan||

    You are right. Production ended in South Bend in 1964 (mostly trucks to fulfill government contracts). Thanks for the link.

  • ||

    You're welcome :-)

  • JB||

    General Motors CEO Ed Whitacre is a lying cunt.

    Every time I see that commercial I get the urge to go out and blow up GM cars.

  • Ted S.||

    Ask the folks at Dateline NBC for assistance.

    Maybe they'll show Whitacre to be a child molester at the same time.

  • Brock||

    Dumbest thing I have ever heard

  • ||

    Just remember,Bush refused to bailout GM. All I'm sayin is all...

  • Some Guy||

    Sure he did. That massive loan he gave them in order to keep them afloat to let Obama negotiate the second phase of GM's bailout wasn't a bailout at all. Keep telling yourself that and you'll believe it.

  • ||

    Yeah but he practiced protectionism for US Steel and he bailed out AIG and Senior Citizens. I think after GW's party lost in 2006 he simply gave up and became a permeable membrane for whatever Congress wanted. Remember his political capitol speech after winning in 2004? What the hell happened to all of it after 2006? His last 6 months in office were a completely messed up time. Maybe if he would have had a VP who actually had higher ambitions than to simply be there we would have had a better candidate than John McCain running in the elecrion. Dick Cheny had some good ideas, but he never cared about the presidency and so the last two years in office were do whatever sessions because hey, we ain't got nothing to lose.

  • economist||

    Um, George Bush never vetoed a single bill until after 2006. How was he not a permeable membrane for whatever Congress wanted before then?

  • Enemy Of The Revolution||

    After this I won't buy a GM car just on principle. Before this I wouldn't have bought a GM car because they suck.

  • ||

    Holy Shit!

    I was doing my normal activity in the place of weekend sleep, StumbleUpon, and stumbled onto this article! Way to go Reason, we are viral!

  • ||

    In March 2009, Toyota asked for a bailout,(however a smaller bailout) to the Japanese government
    http://www.canadiandriver.com/.....ic=61387.0
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,504055,00.html

    We can wonder what could happen if (and it's a big "if"), the economic situation goes worse, Toyota (and perhaps to a latter extent Honda) asked for a bigger bailout?

  • Some Guy||

    I don't care nearly as much if some other country's taxpayers get screwed over to subsidize my car purchases.

    I still care, just not nearly as much.

  • ||

    We can wonder what could happen if (and it's a big "if"), the economic situation goes worse, Toyota (and perhaps to a latter extent Honda) asked for a bigger bailout?

    We start buying Hyundais?

  • Leftist Toolbag||

    Well, we should not be driving cars anyways.

  • Tool User||

    So true, Toolbag.

    I'm going to use your head for a minute, need something dense and pointy to use as a center punch.

  • Lenin||

    Collectivist toolbags are for party member use only.

  • Chad||

    I am SOOO wet right now!

  • economist||

    Nick Gillespie, why do you hate America?

  • π||

    The money only get's shuffled around until it disappears into the right pockets.

    It's a shell game, and it's for our benefit. Watching quickly makes us tired so we lose interest and don't become all cranky and upset the pols are nothing more than organized crime robbing not just what we have, but everything we will ever have.

    Nothing to see here, GM paid back the money, back to sleep now, you're in safe hands, the government will take care of any problems.

  • the people||

    Okay...g'd nite.......ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

  • ||

    GM couldnt make a profit in 40 years of economic boom times but somehow paid back thier multi billion dollar loan with interest in one year of recession and no news media types ever thought to look in to that, of course.

  • the people||

    shhhhhhhhhh......we're trying to sleep

  • ||

    Buy Japanese

  • MITCH||

    REMEMBER PEARL HARBOR

  • ||

    GM are cocksmoking Highway Robbers!!! Someone oughta put the 'play it off keyboard cat' right after this leather jacket wearing turd's monologue on Youtube...

  • ||

    Unions served a purpose at one point....just as posses did in the old west. Eventually, the solution became more of an evil than the problem, just as it has now. Unions are corrupt socialist organizations that are almost universally lead by some of the most criminal individuals in business today....and often the actions they take are more for the benefit of the Union than for the workers.

    Many plants in America now have voted unions out, in some cases near unanimously. These plants have some of the highest levels of employee satisfaction in the industry, and BETTER job security than their union counterparts. In addition, almost universally these plants churn out a product thats rated higher in initial quality than union plants.

    I eagerly await the day the rest of America gets a clue and realizes just how bad for them and for the country today's labor unions can be.

    And as for "Japanese or domestic"....I will ALWAYS support companies than give Americans jobs over the ones that produce their products outside the country to save in labor. Right now, that means I buy Nissan, Toyota and Honda, and NOT GM, Chrysler or Ford. Buy American! Buy Nissan!

  • Brock||

    LOL...well, I have a few stories for you then. Nissan, you wanna know their practices? Right along Toyota, children have died for their profits. Your ok with that, RIGHT?

  • ||

    Mike, you know then Nissan is owned at 40% by Renault who's owned at 20% by the French government? ;-)

    Should I mention Sony closures of some of its North American plants?

  • ||

    Funny how they're making a big of the shell game, but when it came time to decide to either bail them out or let them die, then chose to bail them out.

    You want to blame somebody? blame the government for handing over the money.

    Why are you surprised they're employing some handy accounting to get more money and make it seem like they did something noble?

    What do you think they were going to do? When the government starts handing out checks, you think they're NOT going to try and get as much as they can?

    C'mon people, let's be a little more inteligent than Jon Stweart and The Daily Show.

  • Scott Factor||

    GM got a total of $52 billion from the U.S. government and $9.5 billion from the Canadian and Ontario governments as it went through bankruptcy protection last year. The U.S. considered as a loan $6.7 billion of the aid, while the Canadian governments held $1.4 billion in loans. The rest of the money was secured by collateral in the form of company ownership positions. The U.S. government owns 61 percent of the company and Canada owns roughly 12 percent.
    In order for the U.S. and Canadian governments to get their money back, GM must raise capital and buy back the ownership shares. They plan on doing this by making a public stock offering.
    Anyway you twist it, GM owes the taxpayers a heck of a lot more than $8.1 billion. To stand up and say they “paid it back” is an outright lie by conventional standards, but a misnomer by accounting standards.

    http://scottfactor.com

  • Scarpe Nike||

    is good

  • <a ||

    Nuts, you're nuts.

  • http://linksyssolutions.com/||

    You're nuts.

  • sd||

    sd

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement