Saw a "gun sense" booth today

[billt]

The U.S. government lost $11.2 billion on its bailout of General Motors Co (GM.N), more than the $10.3 billion the Treasury Department estimated when it sold its remaining GM shares in December, according to a government report released on Wednesday.
The $11.2 billion loss includes a write-off in March of the government's remaining $826 million investment in "old" GM, the quarterly report by a Treasury watchdog

And what would have the financial alternative have been if they had gone broke? Do you think it would have been cheaper? The US Postal Service loses that every 2 years. You've got a President who has spent, (wasted), $3.7 TRILLION on Welfare in the last 5 years.

Report: U.S. Spent $3.7 Trillion on Welfare Over Last 5 Years | The Weekly Standard

And you're worried about $11 billion over 6 years to keep one of the largest corporations in this country running? You've got some strange financial priorities.

 

[OneBadV8]

And you're worried about $11 billion over 6 years to keep one of the largest corporations in this country running? You've got some strange financial priorities.

But I thought you didn't like Socialism? Or is it OK if its only $11 billion worth of socialism?

 

[billt]

Maybe GM shouldn't make ****ty overpriced products that are demonstrably inferior to the competition.

How are they "inferior"? I didn't know your expertise extended from beyond the coffee shop, all the way into automotive engineering? You're quite a guy.

 

[SERparacord]

And what would have the financial alternative have been if they had gone broke? Do you think it would have been cheaper? The US Postal Service loses that every 2 years. You've got a President who has spent, (wasted), $3.7 TRILLION on Welfare in the last 5 years.

Report: U.S. Spent $3.7 Trillion on Welfare Over Last 5 Years | The Weekly Standard

And you're worried about $11 billion over 6 years to keep one of the largest corporations in this country running? You've got some strange financial priorities.

I notice you change the subject quickly when you get slapped down.
Have fun, I'm done with ya.

 

[billt]

But I thought you didn't like Socialism? Or is it OK if its only $11 billion worth of socialism?

Loaning money to a company is not socialism. I'm sorry but it isn't.

^^^^^^^^Read my boy, read.

 

[billt]

Have fun, I'm done with ya.

I'm still trying to figure out when you ever got started?

 

[sig1473]

I lost thousands of dollars in stock when GM went bankrupt. Did I see any of it returned when the fat-cats of GM got their bailout from the government?? Nope. They rewarded themselves with a higher paycheck. Thanks GM>>>>PS your cars suck and I own one(Envoy Denali).

 

[JetGirl]

They rewarded themselves with a higher paycheck.

Don't forget the bonuses and vacations!!

 

[Fletch]

How are they "inferior"?

There are a ton of sites out there that rank automobiles by reliability within their class. GM tends to get burnt in those reviews.

You're quite a guy.

I'm glad you think so, thanks!

 

[Fletch]

But I thought you didn't like Socialism? Or is it OK if its only $11 billion worth of socialism?

Loaning money to a company is not socialism. I'm sorry but it isn't.

^^^^^^^^Read my boy, read.

So as long as a person doesn't call it socialism, they can behave like a socialist and it's all good with you? BRB, need to fire off an email to the DNC and let them know that's all it takes to get on your good side.

 

[billt]

So as long as a person doesn't call it socialism, they can behave like a socialist and it's all good with you? BRB, need to fire off an email to the DNC and let them know that's all it takes to get on your good side.

The bailouts are what they are. No matter if you agree with them or not. Personally I have mixed emotions about them. No one knows if allowing GM to go bankrupt would have made the outcome better. I have serious doubts it would have. The fact is the GM bailout was one of the very few bi partisan attempts by government that actually worked. GM is in fact still here, still employing people, and still producing a lot of cars and trucks that are very popular. None of that would be true if they folded. I own Fords, but to say the new Chevy Camaro SS or Silverado pickup is "bad", is total nonsense, and nothing but. Millions of owners of those vehicles would argue otherwise. You don't like them, and that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. It doesn't hold any fact.

As far as people losing money in the stock market on GM, that's old news, because it happens all the time. People loose money every day in the stock market. When you buy a stock, you're buying it because you believe it's going to go up in value. The problem is that you're buying it from someone who is equally convinced it is going to go down. One is going to be right, and the other wrong. It happens with every trade, every single day of the week. GM is or was no different than any other company in that regard.

One had to be completely ignorant to buy that stock, and not realize or understand the shape GM was in at that time. The stock market is no different than the real estate market, or any other, in the fact it draws people into it that have zero business even being in it. Remember all of the "day traders" that came out of the wood work during the whole dot com fiasco? Where are they now? Most lost their asses because they were lured into something they knew nothing about. The housing debacle did much the same to all of these people who were going to make big profits investing in real estate with "no money down". The market collapsed because every idiot and their brother had "no skin in the game". Yet another market filled with paper, and good intentions....But no money. How do you spell crash?

My mother loved Lee Iacocca, and bought Chrysler back in the day for under $4.00 a share when no one wanted it, because they were in much the same predicament GM was in. People told her she was nuts. They were ready to go bankrupt. Iacocca went to Washington begging for a loan. He told Congress if he didn't get it, he was going to have to lay off 50,000 people nationwide. They gave him the money, and my mother wound up selling her Chrysler stock a few years later for over $23.00 a share. Chrysler paid back all of the money they were loaned with interest. And they did it ahead of schedule. So the fact is these things have a way of going good. I'm sure that weighed in on a lot of peoples minds during the GM bailout. It worked once, why wouldn't it again? It in fact did. Not quite as well, but GM is still here none the less.

You can't compare that to Welfare, food stamps, etc. that create nothing but more socialism and even more handouts that people become dependent on, and will never pay anything back. GM and Chrysler are still producing vehicles. Democratic socialism produces nothing but poverty and more debt. Big difference.

 

[Fletch]

So that's a fun little fairy tale you've told. Fortunately there are conservatives with considerably more knowledge of economics and economic history than you've displayed over at the Heritage Foundation. Here's one of their articles on the subject of Chrysler's bailout:

The Chrysler Bail-Out Bust

The article's concluding commentary is particularly hilarious when contrasted with your rosy history of the event.

 

[billt]

So that's a fun little fairy tale you've told. Fortunately there are conservatives with considerably more knowledge of economics and economic history than you've displayed over at the Heritage Foundation. Here's one of their articles on the subject of Chrysler's bailout:

The Chrysler Bail-Out Bust

The article's concluding commentary is particularly hilarious when contrasted with your rosy history of the event.

If these bailouts are such a "fairy tale", as you seem to want to so prove, why are both companies still here??....Chrysler for over 30 years since. The fact is you can buy both Chryslers and Chevy's today. Really, it's no "fairy tale". They're out on the road, and in the dealerships. Neither would be had they taken you out of the coffee shop, and listened to your advice.

You've got a really big problem with reality. You don't like direct, simple questions you can't dance around. So much so, you won't answer them. You reject reality, and replace it with your own fantasy. You like to continue to argue based on failure that doesn't exist. Only in your mind. Certainly not to the thousands of workers currently employed by both companies.

You don't like the bailouts. I can understand that. Frankly, I don't either. However I can accept them if the alternative is worse. There is little doubt in both cases it would have been. And FAR more expensive to American taxpayers in the form of government social programs the fired workers would have found themselves on for God knows how long. Especially in regards to GM. But none of it changes the fact both did what they were designed to do. You need proof? Again, both companies are still here with the bailouts, and would not be without them. Especially Chrysler. That's reality.

You like links, here is one for you. "Fairy tale"??? Yeah, right.

Bailout Aftermaths - ProPublica

"By 1983, seven years earlier than the scheduled deadline, Chrysler had paid back its loan with the aid of the guarantees from the U.S. government. The corporation bought back the 14.4 million stock warrants given to the government in exchange for the loan guarantee. Because Chrysler's finances had improved and its stock had bounced back -- it reported $1.7 billion in profits for the second quarter of 1984 --the government netted a profit of more than $660 MILLION from it's bailout investment."

Again, no "fairy tale", just fact. So Sherlock, you still hanging on to your bull$h!t philosophy, that it would have been better for both Chrysler, and my mother, to have lost everything instead?? I think this is the part where you come in with your whining........"But it's still socialism!!", line of crap. You can file that in the same drawer where you keep the articles that tell you the Democrats don't really want your guns.

 

[jamil]

Political affiliation has little to do with the employment of logic when evaluating a given position. "Open minded" is a ridiculous characterization. The correct attribute is HONEST. Can one honestly look at the information and still believe X? IOW, if the information contradicts one's opinion, it's a dishonest person who continues to cling to it. The flip side is that an honest person can admit that what was previously held to be true has been negated by new information. I used to be a "Why would anyone ever need a ......" kind of gal. I wasn't completely opposed to firearms ownership or firearms in general, but it was a far cry from the "Cold dead hands" opinion I now carry. I don't wear it like a badge of honor either. It's simply a testament to the fact that I was HONEST when I evaluated the information. The information only supports one conclusion. I had no interest in clinging to an opinion that had no basis in reality.

Getting back to the original topic, I was just thinking about something my sister-in-law said which reminded me of this. And while I agree that the term "open minded" is ridiculous, it has a useful definition that fits the purpose. "Open minded" has a vague definition unless you consider its opposite: closed minded. Webster says it means "obstinately resistant to argument or to unfamiliar or unwelcome ideas". At its core it really just describes a form of dishonesty. Open mindedness is just the opposite of that.

My observations tell me that you're right, political affiliation has little to do with it. But it's also my observation that ideology doesn't matter as much as extremity. I'm not saying depth of belief necessarily makes one wrong, but that depth of belief, right or wrong, seems to make one more or less interested in facts that might challenge the belief.

That's why it's unlikely that I'll ever be able to persuade my sister-in-law that she's wrong about guns. She deeply believes people are basically good, so therefore only objects can make basically good people do bad things. Her logic isn't as flawed as her premise. She so deeply believes that people are basically good that she's intellectually incapable of honesty about the evidence of people's ability to do evil things. So she can only conclude that it's the objects that are bad. She is indeed obstinately resistant to argument or unwelcome ideas. Closed minded well describes her form of intellectual dishonesty. Well, "kooky moon bat" might better describe it. The only way I'll ever persuade her about guns is to dismantle her core beliefs about human nature.

 

[jamil]

It's also my observation that the more fringe you are, the more likely you are to derail your argument into petty side arguments, arguing irrelevant side issues merely for the sake of not losing.

 

[Fletch]

If these bailouts are such a "fairy tale", as you seem to want to so prove, why are both companies still here??....Chrysler for over 30 years since. The fact is you can buy both Chryslers and Chevy's today. Really, it's no "fairy tale". They're out on the road, and in the dealerships.

So you didn't read the article, are fully invested in the broken window fallacy, and have no clue what opportunity cost means. Gotcha.

 

[billt]

.....have no clue what opportunity cost means.

I know what turning a profit means. I'm living in a house that was paid for by it. That is reality. But as we now know, reality means little to you. You talk in circles, spinning your wheels, trying desperately to dance and spin around every bit of reality and fact you come up against, that doesn't fit your arguments. Which is most all of it. Nothing can be simple with you, because it then becomes clear. Clarity is your biggest enemy. You much prefer the smoke screen of bull$h!t you blanket everything with. It allows you to sneak past the reality that does exist, which you cannot remove with all of your B.S. Gotcha. Game, set and match. We're done.

 

[Fletch]

I know what turning a profit means. I'm living in a house that was paid for by it. That is reality. But as we now know, reality means little to you.

Nor to you. In your mind, Democrats are evil except when they're bailing out your favorite companies. Then they're awesome. Socialism is evil except when it's bailing out your favorite companies. Then you want to marry it and have ten thousand of its babies. Bailouts are a complete win for everyone, especially the 60,000 laid-off workers from Chrysler who never saw a dime, the small business people who couldn't get honest loans because of distortions in the credit market caused by the bailouts, the GM and Ford workers who were forced to subsidize their competition at no benefit to themselves, the American public who completely lost the opportunity to refactor the capital goods tied up in Chrysler and realize the benefits of a company who could put those to better use, and so on.

None of those people matter because your mom got to keep her job. Your emotional investment in the outcome does not justify the means taken to the outcome. It's easy to buy into the broken window fallacy. It takes some application of brainpower to see why it's a fallacy.

But hey, at least I know where you stand: on the side of Democrats and socialists, as long as it benefits you and yours.

 

[billt]

None of those people matter because your mom got to keep her job.

It would appear your reading comprehension is as loose as your grip on reality. My mother never worked for Chrysler. Anyway, carry on.

 

[Fletch]

It would appear your reading comprehension is as loose as your grip on reality. My mother never worked for Chrysler. Anyway, carry on.

I got it from this, on the tail end of another one of your long-winded unthinking rants:

So Sherlock, you still hanging on to your bull$h!t philosophy, that it would have been better for both Chrysler, and my mother, to have lost everything instead??

In the context of said rant, it certainly looks as though you meant to say your mother was directly saved by the Chrysler bailout. Perhaps you should learn to write better.