Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3
The Treasury paid tens of billions for stock that at the time was known by all to be worth nothing. That is not an investment, it is a bailout. If it was not a loan, then it can only be described as a "gift." No matter how you spin it, there is no denying that GM got billions of dollars in "free" (at least free to GM) money from the government that GM will never pay back, and the US taxpayer will never recover.
If the government decided today to simply give Exxon hundreds of billions of dollars because it is a bit employer by buying some of their stock at $500 a share, everyone would rightfully see it as a handout. Why when it is GM should the same situation be looked at differently?
|
They shouldn't be and they aren't. I'm not disputing any of that. I started my last statement off by saying I completely disagreed with the bail out and that I believe the government should have stayed out of it. But none of that changes history or how the US Government decided to respond. GM fulfilled their obligation under the terms of the deal and are free to operate in a manner that is in their best interests like any other business.