GM Stock Sale: Taxpayers and investors not as fortunate as UAW

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

What's "very... very wrong" is feeling entitled to tax payer money. It's even worse if the employees and management didn't sacrifice anything of their own.

How many people are GM took a pay cut? How many were laid off? How many had to pay more into their benefits program? Were any of those things done, or did the taxpayers foot the entire bill?

Sorry, but saying the entire country would go in the crapper if GM failed, but not seeing any sacrifice from GM folks to keep their own jobs is just BS. Their actions don't match your rhetoric.

Are you insane? Do you realize how many employees took pay cuts? How many people lost their jobs? How many people got laid off?

Do you realize that because of what happened last year, I don't have vision or dental insurance anymore? My eyesight sucks but I can't get an eye exam because I need to pay for college on top of other expenses. I'm going to have to put off a dental exam until next year, and my dentist has already offered to give us discounts.

I'm sorry, but if you think that GM employees didn't sacrifice a ton over the last few years, then you're delusional.

I hope someone closes this thread before I post what I really want to post.

[motorhead]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Are you insane? Do you realize how many employees took pay cuts? How many people lost their jobs? How many people got laid off?

Do you realize that because of what happened last year, I don't have vision or dental insurance anymore? My eyesight sucks but I can't get an eye exam because I need to pay for college on top of other expenses. I'm going to have to put off a dental exam until next year, and my dentist has already offered to give us discounts.

I'm sorry, but if you think that GM employees didn't sacrifice a ton over the last few years, then you're delusional.

I hope someone closes this thread before I post what I really want to post.

Yeah and what was the reason for all your troubles right now? Think about it.
Everybody been sacrificing last year and to this day a lot of people don't have jobs right now, not just GM employee's. This is why a lot of people are bitter about what happen. There are many companies that had to lay off or go out of business last year and now with no help from the government at all. GM employees aren't the only ones going through hard times right now.
Oh and by the way, I also have paid my own eye and dental along with most of my medical for the past twenty-five years ,and I'm sure I'm not alone so don't go cry the blues here. Times are tough all over. Some need to step back and look at the whole picture to understand why some may not have good feelings about what our government did for GM.
As a said before, I'm one that is glad GM didn't go under ,but I think it should have been done without spending money we don't have.

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Are you insane? Do you realize how many employees took pay cuts? How many people lost their jobs? How many people got laid off?

Do you realize that because of what happened last year, I don't have vision or dental insurance anymore? My eyesight sucks but I can't get an eye exam because I need to pay for college on top of other expenses. I'm going to have to put off a dental exam until next year, and my dentist has already offered to give us discounts.

I'm sorry, but if you think that GM employees didn't sacrifice a ton over the last few years, then you're delusional.

I hope someone closes this thread before I post what I really want to post.

Sorry you took it the wrong way, those were honest questions. I actually wanted to know if GM employees did cut back. As I said earlier, my company cut two thirds of our employees. I know where you're coming from.

I still don't agree that you "deserved" a government bail out. It should have been handled through the private market. I hope you and others at GM realize me and my co-workers who were also in hard times paid for your bailout.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

I hope you and others at GM realize me and my co-workers who were also in hard times paid for your bailout.

I would think they know full well what the average American thinks they 'paid' for...hence the commercial of 'Thanks'.

What a nation we've become...."all about me."..........

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

Sorry you took it the wrong way, those were honest questions. I actually wanted to know if GM employees did cut back. As I said earlier, my company cut two thirds of our employees. I know where you're coming from.

I still don't agree that you "deserved" a government bail out. It should have been handled through the private market. I hope you and others at GM realize me and my co-workers who were also in hard times paid for your bailout.

And I hope you realize that as tax payers, GM's own employess also paid for the bailout just like you did.

Nobody likes the idea of bailing out a company, an industry, or a country. But it has to be looked at as which is the lesser of two evils. Ideally, it would never have to happen. But ignoring circumstances and consequences in the name of economic theory is foolhardy because when you get down to it, reality is more important than theory.

btw, where do you get the idea that the private sector would have swooped in to save GM? As I said before, if they were going to, they would have done so in the fall of 2008. They didn't so GM was forced to look elsewhere or go belly up.

[el ess A]

Unions suck....

...and suck...and suck...until your company is dead.

No one ever will convince me that this isn't true, so you union folks can save your breath. There was once a time when unions made sense. Now, not so much. I used to belong to the IBEW...guess what, I have the same benefits without the drain of union dues. Why pay someone else for benefits I get for free from the company?

You hear the rhetoric that "there was no choice" and that we'd be in a depression...etc. So? What is so bad about that? The quicker the rock hits bottom, the quicker you start to go back up. But we're not at the bottom yet. When it comes to REAL free markets, private corporate bailouts are stupid with a capital STUPID. And...did someone forget to "mention that little detail" of GM not paying taxes? Someone wasn't in the know that said they do pay taxes. Nope. The first $45 billion in profits are tax free. WTF? Why is that?

If it was Ford instead of GM, it'd be the same story. I'm glad GM was saved, at least for now, but not happy about how the deal smells.



Not enough of this in this thread:

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

And I hope you realize that as tax payers, GM's own employess also paid for the bailout just like you did.

Nobody likes the idea of bailing out a company, an industry, or a country. But it has to be looked at as which is the lesser of two evils. Ideally, it would never have to happen. But ignoring circumstances and consequences in the name of economic theory is foolhardy because when you get down to it, reality is more important than theory.

Most theories are usually rooted in reality. What consequences do you speak of? It seems to me that you're implying that there is some inherent instability in the free market that produces business cycles of booms and busts. Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing; you can trace every boom and bust to credit expansion via the Federal Reserve. And yes, that does include the horrific Great Depression.

btw, where do you get the idea that the private sector would have swooped in to save GM? As I said before, if they were going to, they would have done so in the fall of 2008. They didn't so GM was forced to look elsewhere or go belly up.

In no way would the private sector have saved GM; investors viewed it as a failure and rightfully so. I'm not blind as to think it was ALL GM's management fault, yet there is an undeniable bit of truth that it was at least partly the result of faulty management. It was also the fault of the Federal Reserves, UAWs, increased competition from abroad, etc.

However, I believe this whole bailout discussion to be irrelevant; it's the past and you can't change it. The focus should now be getting rid of government ownership of the assets bought under TARP.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by el ess X

Unions suck....

...and suck...and suck...until your company is dead.

No one ever will convince me that this isn't true, so you union folks can save your breath. There was once a time when unions made sense. Now, not so much. I used to belong to the IBEW...guess what, I have the same benefits without the drain of union dues. Why pay someone else for benefits I get for free from the company?

You hear the rhetoric that "there was no choice" and that we'd be in a depression...etc. So? What is so bad about that? The quicker the rock hits bottom, the quicker you start to go back up. But we're not at the bottom yet. When it comes to REAL free markets, private corporate bailouts are stupid with a capital STUPID. And...did someone forget to "mention that little detail" of GM not paying taxes? Someone wasn't in the know that said they do pay taxes. Nope. The first $45 billion in profits are tax free. WTF? Why is that?

If it was Ford instead of GM, it'd be the same story. I'm glad GM was saved, at least for now, but not happy about how the deal smells.



Not enough of this in this thread:

You're correct in saying that this uncalled for government intervention only delays the inevitable.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by a_Username

Most theories are usually rooted in reality. What consequences do you speak of? It seems to me that you're implying that there is some inherent instability in the free market that produces business cycles of booms and busts. Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing; you can trace every boom and bust to credit expansion via the Federal Reserve. And yes, that does include the horrific Great Depression

I wasn't refering to general cycles at all. I was talking about what would have happened had GM gone under.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I wasn't refering to general cycles at all. I was talking about what would have happened had GM gone under.

Business cycles, which is what I'm assuming you are calling general cycles, are recurring trends that involve booms/busts or prosperity/decline. Economists try to predict future economic fluctuations based on their school's business cycle theory. It was claimed by the New Keynesians that the failure of GM (and other TARP assets) would have caused a depression; Blinder, one of the best Keynesian economists, reasoned unemployment would reach near 16% if intervention was not taken.

What would have happened if TARP was not enacted, and the bankrupt companies such as GM, AIG, etc. were to liquidate, is a recession according to the National Bureau of Economic Research's definitions. This is only due to one reason: they see recessions as economic disorders that can be avoided instead of healthy, necessary readjustments of the market. The market was clearing itself of these failed institutions, until they were propped back up through the joint action of the Fed and Congress. The problem with these bailouts is even if they are "successful," as in they are successful in starting another bubble, it only prolongs the inevitable; the market will rid itself of these malinvestements one way or another. As I said before, there are no inherent instabilities in the free market; booms/busts are the result of government intervention. The problem with most economics is that they tend to look at the bust instead of the boom, considering they see a problem where there is none.

In short, when you refer to the possibilities of economic prosperity or decline, due to whatever reason, you are referring to business cycles.