Government Intervention

The Feds Can't Unload GM Quick Enough…

|

David Harsanyi is right that recent events underscore what a failure the government's illegal bailout of GM has been (the bailout used TARP funds which were supposed to be reserved for financial institutions). With the GM buyback of shares from the government, and a planned sell-off of remaining government-owned shares, it's likely that taxpayers will lose about $25 billion on the deal. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Remember that the next time you hear pols and pundits talking about how the government can not just break even but even make big dollars when bailing out various industries.

And when you hear captains of industries laying down bullshit like this classic 2010 ad from former GM CEO Ed Whitacre about how GM paid back its government loan "in full and ahead of schedule":

 

Wow, it all sounds so good. Except it's a bigger pile of junk than a Pontiac Aztek, as Reason TV pointed out immediately after these claims started circulating:

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.

52 responses to “The Feds Can't Unload GM Quick Enough…

  1. Obama is sure getting a lot of mileage out of the school shooting dominating the news.

    1. Never let a good tragedy go to waste. For a variety of purposes.

      1. OK, so how do we use the selling of GM at 50% off?

        1. To lefties, that’s not a tragedy.

          1. Yeah. They really stuck it to the Korporashunz!! this time!

            1. so they are equal opportunity then, willing to stick it even the corporation they own. I think that’s a candidate for Peak Retard.

              1. “I think that’s a candidate for Peak Retard.”

                Check down-thread just a bit; the award has been given.

        2. No, no, you don’t understand. That maxim only applies to the powerful who are seeking more power. So, not us.

      2. As Victoria Osteen (Co-snake oil salesperson with her husband Joel) said on Today regarding Sandy Hook, “You don’t want to waste this tragedy.” Politicians and The Professionally Religious are motivated by the same things: Money, Power and Control.

        1. It’s pretty sick how the parasite class immediately started using the corpses of these kids as political props for us to fight over.

          1. Red Rocks Rockin| 12.20.12 @ 5:52PM |#
            “It’s pretty sick how the parasite class immediately started using the corpses of these kids as political props for us to fight over.”

            The teachers’ unions have been providing classes on using kids as props. Dead ones are better.

          2. And they’re really good if you show someone labeled ‘rich’ or ‘right-wing’ pissing on them.

          3. Sick yes, surprising, not in the least.

        2. It’s still the Summit in my heart goddamnit.

  2. They want a full 2 years before the next election for people to forget. Maybe they’ll blame it on Bush.

    1. Cue shrieking idiot in five, four, three…

      1. Sane people know that the Crisis of 2008 was in no way Obama’s fault (he had not yet been sworn in) and that 8 years of Dumbya was the real cause.

        Of course something like 30% will blame the ni**er that had not yet taken office – but that is the low-info Fox News types.

        1. no, ’08 was not Obama’s fault. Continuing the trend, however….

          And why is it always the left that uses race as its default response? Because everyone knows no POTUS was ever criticized before Obama.

          1. Because Obama was savagely attacked two months into his term while he was saving the capitalist system by not continuing the nationalization of the financial system Bush/Paulson started.

            Santelli started his insane Teabagger rants in Feb 2009.

            A month later Obama forced failing banks to acquire their own survival capital rather than rely on the government.

            1. Obama was savagely attacked two months into his term while he was saving the capitalist system by not continuing the nationalization of the financial system

              Lies.

              1. Fuck you. GOP Senator Lindsey Graham was proposing just that.

                Obama backed them down.

                “This idea of nationalizing banks is not comfortable, but I think we have gotten so many toxic assets spread throughout the banking and financial community throughout the world that we’re going to have to do something that no one ever envisioned a year ago, no one likes,” Graham said. “But, to me, banking and housing are the root cause of this problem. And I’m very much afraid that any program to salvage the bank is going to require the government..”

                http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Econo…..NOgand0iKQ

            2. Palin’s Buttplug| 12.20.12 @ 6:23PM |#
              “Because Obama was savagely attacked two months into his term while he was saving the capitalist system…

              You’re a lying steaming pile of shit.

            3. By not continuing the same nationalization he voted for as a Senator? You are truly retarded.

              1. “You are truly retarded.”

                Likely, but more importantly, shreek is a pathological lair.

              2. “We want to retain a strong sense of private capital fulfilling the core investment needs of this country,” Obama said.

                (same link)

                Yes, he reversed the Bush policy he voted for thinking Bush was not competent enough to establish a private capital plan.

                1. Palin’s Buttplug| 12.20.12 @ 6:55PM |#
                  “We want to retain a strong sense of private capital fulfilling the core investment needs of this country,” Obama said.”

                  What Obozo *said*, you nincompoop, it irrelevant.

                2. HAHAHAHAHA! He thought Bush wasn’t competent enough to establish a private capital plan? How much input do you honestly think either president had in coming up with the financial plans?

                  I’m pretty sure a president’s level of input in things like that pretty much goes as follows:

                  ‘You guys know more than me, right? Okay, have at it!’

        2. Palin’s Buttplug| 12.20.12 @ 6:09PM |#
          “Sane people know that the Crisis of 2008 was in no way Obama’s fault (he had not yet been sworn in) and that 8 years of Dumbya was the real cause.”

          Correct. Obama is to blame for the recession of 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013….

          1. Well, Senator Obama certainly shares the some blame. He certainly didn’t do anything to control Fannie and Freddie.

          2. In 2009 when it became apparent Obama would win the 2010 election, the smart investors were already predicting ruin of the economy. Their predictions came true, and they were wise enough to adjust their investments ahead of time. That Bush was in office and supported more government and less freedom wasn’t any help, but Obama wouldn’t have done anything different if he was in office instead of Bush.

            The only reason to blame Bush is to avoid responsibility. Something that Obama avoids at all costs. He’s not responsible for anything apparently.

        3. From your name thru your comments, you are a typical example of a liberal poster. You’ve provided no evidence for your assertions, all the while using insulting attacks without basis.

          It shows you’ve no reason, no argument, no facts, and no decency.

          Karma will come your way, as you find yourself at the end of insults and attacks. But in your case, I suspect the insults and attacks will be well founded and true.

    2. Progtard Humor of the Day:

      If Barack Obama had a son, he’d look like Trayvon Martin.

      If George W. Bush had a son, he’d look like Adam Lanza.

      1. That’s retarded. He’d look like Curious George.

        1. That’s why its progTARD humor. We all die a little inside every time we see it.

  3. The Feds Can’t Unload GM Quick Enough…

    I’ll say!

    OK, so it isn’t as funny in print.

  4. “it’s likely that taxpayers will lose about $25 billion on the deal.”

    To a pol, that’s almost the same as ‘profitable’.
    And I’m sure we’ll get the laughably false equivalence concerning private companies that lost a bundle; always amusing.

    1. If jobs were created or saved, it was “profitable”. Even if we had to spend $9,000,000,000 per job.

      1. Remember when Krugman was attacking the Bush tax cuts by saying that they cost the government hundreds of thousands of dollars per job created, therefore it wasn’t worth it?

        I imagine he’ll be around any day now to say the same thing about Obama. Any day now.

        1. Unfortunately, Krugman is discussing a cut in taxes as “cost”. Remember, what the government doesn’t take from you is an expenditure, what it takes from you is investment.

  5. David Harsanyi is right that recent events underscore what a failure the government’s illegal bailout of GM has been (the bailout used TARP funds which were supposed to be reserved for financial institutions).

    The administration’s and the New York Times‘ (administration’s mouthpiece) position on this was that GM was a financial institution, because of GMAC. GM was, in essence (as the argument goes) a lending institution.

    This, of course means that Rent-A-Center or Car Toys (Financing available! Se Habla Espanol!) are also “financial institutions”.

    1. Yes, but even more money went into an insurance company (AIG) and Geithner made a $22 billion profit there.

      They panicked due to the free market crash. Bush got it right when (in his simpleton manner) said he “had to destroy capitalism to save it”.

      1. I always knew you were a closet BushPig.

      2. Palin’s Buttplug| 12.20.12 @ 6:18PM |#
        “Bush got it right when (in his simpleton manner) said he “had to destroy capitalism to save it”.”

        You’re a lying steaming pile of shit.

      3. “free market crash”

        That says all we need to know about you.

        80,000 pages of regulations, 80,000 pages of tax code, and a central bank = free market

  6. But we made a profit off TARP. Or so the left-leaning financial bloggers who condemned Booooooooosh!1! for crony capitalism, moral hazard, and “socializing the losses while privatizing the profits” with TARP now tell me.Just like war it was OK once their guy got his hands on the money.

    1. And it’s objectively false. Right now their target is to recoup 90% (ie lose only 10%).

  7. I sure hope so. I am sick of my premium increasing every year. I cant afford it anymore!

    http://www.usa-privacy.tk

  8. Ok, well, help me out, smart people. I just read that we taxpayers made money off the AIG bailout. More than the amount we lost on GM. True? Not true?

    1. Wow, with all those profits it’s even sadder that BO can’t balance the budget.

      1. Profit, loss, whatever. It’s all sofa change in relation to the deficit we are running.

    2. I think what really makes the GM deal a giant money pit into what any possible “profit” off of the rest of TARP is thrown was the favorable treatment GM received during their bankruptacy. A less-connected business would have been responsible for several billions dollars in taxes as a result of how GM was freed from their debts. Instead they were allowed to pass off those liabilities to “Old GM” who had no intention, let alone ability, to make good on them.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.