GM pays back US & Canadian loans way early

[Supermans]

Originally Posted by a_Username

All of what you posted happened during the bankruptcy phase. The Government isn't interfering in the new GM business direction.

Not true, the Government is still in direct control. All the people put in power are still there.. This administration is very calculated, even though their focus is on wallstreet now after the health care takeover, GM has not disappeared off their radar completely. As should be obvious by this publicity stunt.

[Supermans]

Originally Posted by bigearl

I think you are as far off base as you can possibly be on how the Government of the U.S. works. It's a representative republic, so "we"(people who vote) elect people who are then allowed to make decisions on how to raise and spend tax money. Because we elect these people, we are given the right to try to influence elected officials. We have EVERY right to discuss how tax money is spent and we have EVERY right to try to influence our elected official's decisions on spending. The elected official still has the right to make their own decision, and then we have the right to vote them out if enough people disagree with how the official decides things.

It's nothing AT ALL like the private enterprises you list. Not even in the same ballpark. For instance, I don't HAVE to buy Nike. I don't HAVE to own stock in Nike. I can make a 1x purchase of Nike shoes and that can be the limit of my interaction. I have no choice but to participate in the tax structure of America for my entire life unless I want to leave the country. That's why I'm allowed to participate in choosing someone to represent me.

I hope none of this comes off as personal, but you really are in need of Civics 101.

[robertway]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

If I could facepalm any harder, I'd give myself a concussion.

Why some people have to be so....Oh, nevermind.
I'm done in here. Wear your tinfoil hats and your self-righteous clothes...

...Just God forbid any of you come into positions of power in this country.

*sigh*

Not following you here Dragoneye. To be honest I thought this was, for the most part, a pretty good discussion. Most of the posts seem pretty well thought out so where the "tinfoil" aspect of the thread comes from I am not sure. As for self-righteous, I don't know which posts you are directing that towards but there is a pretty distinct difference between it and being principled. I would actually like for you to complete the sentence you "never-minded" on, I for one respect your posts and even if they don't fall in line with what I may believe I think it adds to a healthy discussion. Unless the thread turns into a non-sensical name calling exercise I see no reason to bail on it.

As an aside, this just in: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...h-advertising/

[hamidar05]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

If I could facepalm any harder, I'd give myself a concussion.

Why some people have to be so....Oh, nevermind.
I'm done in here. Wear your tinfoil hats and your self-righteous clothes...

...Just God forbid any of you come into positions of power in this country.

*sigh*

If only our president drove a 2010 Camaro, we could all come together, here and across the country. No more red or blue, just Bowtie!

[HeatherR]

Originally Posted by Supermans

All my vehicles are GM. All bought before the Government takeover. Why?

Including the Mustang under your name?

I'm going to go ahead and guess he was asking you because a high % of haters in these threads have been Mustang drivers

I hated that GM put themselves in a situation where a government bailout was needed for survival, but letting the US auto industry implode was not something I wanted to see either. I will continue to support GM and am confident that they will continue to get further and further from any (real or perceived) government control.

As a country we need to embrace what is left of our manufacturing.

[Unfair]

The plot thickens... :(

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...h-advertising/

General Motors is running ads on all the major networks this week claiming it has repaid its bailout from the taxpayers "in full." But the claim isn't standing up to scrutiny from lawmakers and government watchdogs who have found that the automaker was able to repay the bailout money only by dipping into a separate pot of bailout funds.

The TV spot may land GM in hot water with the Federal Trade Commission over its truth-in-advertising laws, which prohibit ads that are "likely to mislead consumers."

[truth411]

Originally Posted by Unfair

The plot thickens... :(

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...h-advertising/

General Motors is running ads on all the major networks this week claiming it has repaid its bailout from the taxpayers "in full." But the claim isn't standing up to scrutiny from lawmakers and government watchdogs who have found that the automaker was able to repay the bailout money only by dipping into a separate pot of bailout funds.

The TV spot may land GM in hot water with the Federal Trade Commission over its truth-in-advertising laws, which prohibit ads that are "likely to mislead consumers."

argh... they returned unused bailout money back to the government , so whats the problem???

[Hylton]

Originally Posted by truth411

argh... they returned unused bailout money back to the government , so whats the problem???

The money wasn't sitting in a GM account somewhere. It was a draw down. In other words they did not reduce their debt one penny by doing this.

[Unfair]

Originally Posted by truth411

argh... they returned unused bailout money back to the government , so whats the problem???

If I borrow 100 dollars from you, and I borrow 100 dollars from my friend to pay you your 100 dollars, don't I still owe my friend 100 dollars? I'm still in debt for 100 dollars...

easiest way to explain what I think happend lol

[truth411]

Originally Posted by Xanthos

GM requested the federal bailout money in a time of hardship. When they received that money, a certain amount of it was given as a loan (unsecured, to be repaid) and the rest was treated as a government investment in the company in the form of stocks. GM did not have to use the entirety of the money from the loan portion before they got to the point where they felt they were profitable enough to use that and some of their cash reserves to repay the remainder of the loan. I really don't see how this is a problem in any way.

Say I, as an individual, go to the bank because I'm having trouble with bills. I request and am approved for a 1500 dollar signature loan on a 12 month term. I take that loan, use 600 of it for bills, and set 900 aside in a savings account in case I need it while I get back on my feet. I then proceed to pay off the signature loan without touching the 900 in that savings account. Awesome!

Alternatively, lets say two months into the loan term I get back on my feet enough that I feel comfortable covering my expenses without that "rainy day" backup fund. The remaining balance on the loan is, for the sake of discussion, 1300 dollars. I take that 900 dollars, plus 400 dollars of money from my income (or anywhere, really) and pay off the signature loan. How is this any different, aside from the balance of my bank account after payoff and the time between disbursement and payoff?

Honestly, I don't see why anybody is upset by this. GM paid back the money they borrowed early at the expense of their total cash reserves. Only time will tell if it was a good decision for the company, but it is nothing but good news for the government.
- X

For Hylton
The best post in this thread. Bottom line the 6.7 billion that the Gov. gave GM has been returned to the Gov!!! all that there is left is for GM to go public and have the Gov. sell its 61% ownership. then case closed.

[truth411]

Originally Posted by Unfair

If I borrow 100 dollars from you, and I borrow 100 dollars from my friend to pay you your 100 dollars, don't I still owe my friend 100 dollars? I'm still in debt for 100 dollars...

easiest way to explain what I think happend lol

The analogy does not work, the money returned was bailout money, which came from the government. They don't owe the gov. any more cash, thats the bottomline.

[Unfair]

Originally Posted by truth411

The analogy does not work, the money returned was bailout money, which came from the government. They don't owe the gov. any more cash, thats the bottomline.

I dont think you are following, now they are still in debt for the same amount with TARP.

this move deleted zero debt, from what I understand.
Yes they paid the U.S loan, I know this... but they didn't use their money.

[truth411]

Originally Posted by Unfair

I dont think you are following, now they are still in debt for the same amount with TARP.

this move deleted zero debt, from what I understand.
Yes they paid the U.S loan, I know this... but they didn't use their money.

So lets say I take out $1000 loan from my bank if I am having some hard times for my buisness, I put most of it in an acount. 2 weeks latter my buisness is doing well and I have not used all off the $1000 loan. I take whats left (say $800) and 200 out of my pocket and paid back the bank.

It would be silly for the bank to say:

Bank: Hey your paying back the money you borrowed from us, with the money you borrow from us. Not the profit you make from your buisness.

Me: Yea, turns out I did not need it.

Bank: thats not right!!!

Me: what are you talking about, things are getting better faster than expected, so heres your loan back.

Bank: I dont want you tpo pay me back with the money you borrowed from me wether you used it or not. I want it to come from your profits!!

Me:WTF!!!!! are you talking about!! that makes no sense, you got your money back and I owe you (the bank) no more cash. why are you not happy I paid it back early? owe I see you wanted to make more intrest off of me, well tough titty.

[Unfair]

Originally Posted by truth411

So lets say I take out $1000 loan from my bank if I am having some hard times for my buisness, I put most of it in an acount. 2 weeks latter my buisness is doing well and I have not used all off the $1000 loan. I take whats left (say $800) and 200 out of my pocket and paid back the bank.

It would be silly for the bank to say:

Bank: Hey your paying back the money you borrowed from us, with the money you borrow from us. Not the profit you make from your buisness.

Me: Yea, turns out I did not need it.

Bank: thats not right!!!

Me: what are you talking about, things are getting better faster than expected, so heres your loan back.

Bank: I dont want you tpo pay me back with the money you borrowed from me wether you used it or not. I want it to come from your profits!!

Me:WTF!!!!! are you talking about!! that makes no sense, you got your money back and I owe you (the bank) no more cash. why are you not happy I paid it back early? owe I see you wanted to make more intrest off of me, well tough titty.

That doesn't even have to do with what I said I will just quote instead of trying to explain it myself...this is not a "I didn't use all of the loan case" this is a "I used other peoples money to pay you and still owe the same amount to those people case"

"The bottom line seems to be that the TARP loans were 'repaid' with other TARP funds in a Treasury escrow account. The TARP loans were not repaid from money GM is earning selling cars, as GM and the administration have claimed in their speeches, press releases and television commercials,"