Obama Motors

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

True. But within 12 months I'll bet there will be some sort of significant tax break for those who buy GM vehicles vs. other manufacturers.

I still don't see the problem with that, either. It would still be your choice, take advantage of it and buy a GM with a tax break or if you're leery, buy the same Toyota for the same deal that you can today.

I philosophically agree with what you guys are saying in this thread, that having the government taking over corporations is never a good thing.

I just took umbrage with the notion that the government is forcing products on us, that's all. Suggesting so shows an impressive lack of understanding of basic business.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I still don't see the problem with that, either. It would still be your choice, take advantage of it and buy a GM with a tax break or if you're leery, buy the same Toyota for the same deal that you can today.

I philosophically agree with what you guys are saying in this thread, that having the government taking over corporations is never a good thing.

I just took umbrage with the notion that the government is forcing products on us, that's all. Suggesting so shows an impressive lack of understanding of basic business.

In a round about way they are forcing a product on to us but I see what you saying. From what I read tax breaks will be given on about any type of hybird type car.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I still don't see the problem with that, either. It would still be your choice, take advantage of it and buy a GM with a tax break or if you're leery, buy the same Toyota for the same deal that you can today.

As a consumer, you're right, no problem. However, as a stockholder of Ford (I'm not, but hypothectically) I would have a HUGE problem with it.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

As a consumer, you're right, no problem. However, as a stockholder of Ford (I'm not, but hypothectically) I would have a HUGE problem with it.

Why? Your stock is worth shit, your company is worth shit and the other guys (government) has more shares and can therefore exercise their rights and f'ck you over legally. As a normal shareholder you should be glad they're getting bailed out, as a predatory shareholder you can go f'ck off and die.

To borrow and revise S10's sentiments, this is a case that shows an impressive lack of understanding of basic investing.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by saden1

Why? Your stock is worth shit, your company is worth shit and the other guys (government) has more shares and can therefore exercise their rights and f'ck you over legally. As a normal shareholder you should be glad they're getting bailed out, as a predatory shareholder you can go f'ck off and die.

To borrow and revise S10's sentiments, this is a case that shows an impressive lack of understanding of basic investing.

Ford didn't take a bail out.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Ford didn't take a bail out.

Shows how much you know, again...they got themselves a ~10 billion line of credit from the US government in January when no one else was willing to give them a dime (junk companies get that kind of treatment). It got an additional 1.5 billion line of credit from the Canadian government. Guess what happens if they can't pay back that money? The government becomes the other guys.

You don't have to call it a bailout if you don't want to but please believe Ford from an investment prospective is near death company and would have certainly been dead without a government line of credit.

[wolfeskins]

if your numbers are correct and if what you say is even true then thats still only 11.5 billion to ford were as gm is gonna be at least 50 billion and bankrupt

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

Shows how much you know, again...they got themselves a ~10 billion line of credit from the US government in January when no one else was willing to give them a dime (junk companies get that kind of treatment). It got an additional 1.5 billion line of credit from the Canadian government. Guess what happens if they can't pay back that money? The government becomes the other guys.

You don't have to call it a bailout if you don't want to but please believe Ford from an investment prospective is near death company and would have certainly been dead without a government line of credit.

If I'm correct they secured those lines of credit for if something happened but as of now they have not had to use any of those funds. So at this point I have to say ford has not taken any bailout money.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

Why? Your stock is worth shit, your company is worth shit and the other guys (government) has more shares and can therefore exercise their rights and f'ck you over legally. As a normal shareholder you should be glad they're getting bailed out, as a predatory shareholder you can go f'ck off and die.

To borrow and revise S10's sentiments, this is a case that shows an impressive lack of understanding of basic investing.

WTF are you talking about? I think you misread something. If I'm a shareholder of Ford stock and the U.S. government is giving a tax break for consumers to buy GM products and not Ford products, that's a problem. Are you advocating that it's OK for the U.S. government to favor one company over another. This isn't Venezula....yet.

And I have no clue how my statement shows an impressive lack of understanding of basic investing.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

WTF are you talking about? I think you misread something. If I'm a shareholder of Ford stock and the U.S. government is giving a tax break for consumers to buy GM products and not Ford products, that's a problem. Are you advocating that it's OK for the U.S. government to favor one company over another. This isn't Venezula....yet.

And I have no clue how my statement shows an impressive lack of understanding of basic investing.

It should be noted that we're arguing hypotheticals, and grilling Obama here for something he hasn't even done yet: institute tax breaks especially for GM cars while under government ownership. It's kind of putting the cart before the horse to get on his case about this.

But, swooping in and buying up a controlling interest in GM after its management has positioned it to become one of the biggest failures in American business history? That shows highly suspect knowledge of business and investing.

I'd feel better if it were just a bailout, but buying up shares? Borders on reckless.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

It should be noted that we're arguing hypotheticals, and grilling Obama here for something he hasn't even done yet: institute tax breaks especially for GM cars while under government ownership. It's kind of putting the cart before the horse to get on his case about this.

But, swooping in and buying up a controlling interest in GM after its management has positioned it to become one of the biggest failures in American business history? That shows highly suspect knowledge of business and investing.

I'd feel better if it were just a bailout, but buying up shares? Borders on reckless.

Obama said earlier today that tax breaks will come for all hybird type cars.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Obama said earlier today that tax breaks will come for all hybird type cars.

Like this?

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

It should be noted that we're arguing hypotheticals, and grilling Obama here for something he hasn't even done yet: institute tax breaks especially for GM cars while under government ownership. It's kind of putting the cart before the horse to get on his case about this.

But, swooping in and buying up a controlling interest in GM after its management has positioned it to become one of the biggest failures in American business history? That shows highly suspect knowledge of business and investing.

I'd feel better if it were just a bailout, but buying up shares? Borders on reckless.

Agree on the hypothetical argument, we definitely need to wait and see. And agree 100% about buying up GM, not a good idea. I would've rather seen a bankruptcy without the U.S. government holding an ownership stake. On the unemployment vs. owning GM, I'll take the unemployment insurance route, at least the unemployment eventually ends. This GM could be an albatros on the gov't neck for many years (Amtrak).

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

As a consumer, you're right, no problem. However, as a stockholder of Ford (I'm not, but hypothectically) I would have a HUGE problem with it.

Fair point. However the jobs being saved at GM (and the number of people affected by it) outweighs the negative effect on stockholders of competing firms.

In most economies I'd be all for letting GM go completely under and out of business, with no bail-out, no nothing. Normally, all those GM employees would be out of work, but would find new employment relatively quickly. However in this economy, it takes people an average of 8 months to a year to find a new job. So if GM went under in this economy, that's a huge number of people out of work, for a very long time, who need to be supported by the unemployment insurance program. So either way, the taxpayer is going to pay the piper for those employees.

Obama's logic actually makes sense (although makes one very critical assumption). The taxpayer's going to pay to support GM employees one way or another, either via taxpayer funding or via unemployment insurance.

The question is: Is GM worth saving? That's his critical assumption, he's assuming it is worth saving. It may be cheaper to simply fund GM and keep it afloat, rather than supporting their employees. But if GM's piss-poor management navigates that big ass ship right back into another iceberg, then Obama will have made a critical mistake.

So I get the approach: in this economy keep the people working. If people don't have other employment options, then the government will be footing the bill no matter what. So you might as well keep them working, trying to turn GM around.

Just better hope GM can be saved. After the way they've operated the last 8-10 years, you could put them in the Harvard Business Review for how not to run a car company.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Fair point. However the jobs being saved at GM (and the number of people affected by it) outweighs the negative effect on stockholders of competing firms.

In most economies I'd be all for letting GM go completely under and out of business, with no bail-out, no nothing. Normally, all those GM employees would be out of work, but would find new employment relatively quickly. However in this economy, it takes people an average of 8 months to a year to find a new job. So if GM went under in this economy, that's a huge number of people out of work, for a very long time, who need to be supported by the unemployment insurance program. So either way, the taxpayer is going to pay the piper for those employees.

Obama's logic actually makes sense (although makes one very critical assumption). The taxpayer's going to pay to support GM employees one way or another, either via taxpayer funding or via unemployment insurance.

The question is: Is GM worth saving? That's his critical assumption, he's assuming it is worth saving. It may be cheaper to simply fund GM and keep it afloat, rather than supporting their employees. But if GM's piss-poor management navigates that big ass ship right back into another iceberg, then Obama will have made a critical mistake.

So I get the approach: in this economy keep the people working. If people don't have other employment options, then the government will be footing the bill no matter what. So you might as well keep them working, trying to turn GM around.

Just better hope GM can be saved. After the way they've operated the last 8-10 years, you could put them in the Harvard Business Review for how not to run a car company.

I wonder how many people GM employees and supports with there operations in the US.