It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GMAC to Receive Third Bailout Package From U.S. Government

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 07:43 AM
link   
I know know this is getting old... Big businesses continuing to get hand outs from uncle Sam... but the fact their even talking about needing another hand out is proof things are not all green shoots and a rebounding economy... The spin doctors are going to have trouble explaining this one away...


Oct. 28 (Bloomberg) -- GMAC Inc., the lender that received two government bailouts totaling $13.5 billion, is in talks with the Treasury Department to receive a third lifeline, a person familiar with the matter said.

The U.S. government may inject an additional $2.8 billion to $5.6 billion into GMAC, the person said, declining to be identified because the transaction hasn’t been completed. The deal would involve the issuance of preferred stock, allowing the government to expand its 35.4 percent stake in the Detroit-based company if existing shares are converted into common equity


Bloomberg




posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Guess 'Cash For Clunkers' and picking up Chrysler as a customer hasn't helped GMAC much. So, how much more taxpayer money has to be given away for Obama/Reid/Pelosi's socio-fascist vision of America before there is the final uprising?



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


How did Pelosi, Reid and Obama manage to implement their socio-fascist version of America back in December when Bush was in control and the new congress hadn't been seated yet?



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   
My question is "why"???? Let them fail! This is what they get for building crappy cars for the past 30 years. Why are we propping up a company that is continuing to build crappy cars that no one wants to buy? It is time to let these companies fail!

If the government had been doing its job, enforcing anti-trust laws, then NONE of these companies would be "too big to fail". The failure of companies have helped America remain a dominating force in the world. When one company fails, ostensibly due to the fact that either their products or service are crap, then a better company with a better widget steps up and takes over. By propping up mediocrity you are guaranteeing that this economy will remain on a treadmill - running faster to stand still!

And I'm not interested in hearing about saving jobs - the unions and the management deserve to be unemployed. They created the mess that the company is in today. why should I, as a tax-payer, be forced to invest in a crappy company?



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by mythatsabigprobe
 


Simple - the Bush administration gave them a loan - Obama took them over. I couldn't boil it down any further for you. Hopefully that was simple enough!



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Obviously GM has no idea what it is doing at all. How can so many smart people be so ignorant? I just cannot believe we are doing this again...........LET THEM FAIL. It happens all the time and the world continues to spin......stop bailing out these idiots......man oh man...



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by DaddyBare
 


It seems we are rewarding failure in this country, Just like the No Child Left behind garbage, we get continued bailouts of Unioun Ran Companies.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


What you mean to say is the Bush administration gave them a loan with no conditions and no possibility of repayment so the following administration was forced to prop them up with more funds and demand equity in the company to safeguard taxpayer dollars. There, fixed it for you.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   
This is exactly the problem with having government own any part of a company -- complete conflict of interests.

Just like the BoA/Merrill Lynch debacle, the government more than likely 'steered' them in the direction of acquisition. The trade-off? Assurance that no matter what, the government won't allow them to go under. Which of course poses a huge problem when the companies involved have not recovered, but instead are still bleeding.

At some point one has to cut the apron strings -- but since it's also the government's apron, it's very unlikely this will happen.

I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I feel very duped by this whole stimulus bill. Perhaps I was just being naive, but I never realized - or thought about - the fact that this would become a never-ending line of credit. At this point, I am not at all comfortable with the government still having this money to simply dole out to whomever they see fit whenever the need arises. All the while collecting the interest on our money while it sits waiting for distribution to the next leech.

I guess I thought there would be some kind of time limit or something. At what point does one say, "OK....enough is enough. There is no saving XYZ company no matter how much money we pump into it.?"

A protest should be in order. A simple message: "We want our money back. No more bailouts!"

All this bailout money does is extend the inevitable. If they haven't managed to recover after all the layoffs, management changes, cut wages, and billions and billions of dollars -- they are not going to recover. Period.

There is way too much winking, nodding, deal-making, and check writing going on at this point. Yes, it always has -- but the fact that it has become SO blatant -- and with OUR money to boot -- shows you the extreme arrogance of this administration.

No more bailouts!



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by mythatsabigprobe
 


It's the difference between the person that has the money and the person actually writing the checks.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by mythatsabigprobe
 


It's not really about Bush or Obama...
It is about the Fed chairman Ben Bernanke... he's the one who ran to congress and yelled "The Sky is falling! Quick give me 700 billion so I can prop it back up"! it was never Bush or Obama's plan... sure if it works they will be quick to take credit but if it fails its all on Ben Bernanke... the man with the plan...



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
My question is "why"????


Well this administration is seeking ways on how to harness profits from the private sector in order to spread wealth world wide. What better way then to absorb some of largest manufactures and "bail" them out with tax payers money? Why look for ways to win over the private sectors charity(largest contributors) contributions when you can just take over a company and pay it with tax payers money.

I'd be interested in seeing an itemization(LMAO, right) on where every single penny of not only the auto bailouts are going, but where all the stimulus is going. My bet is it's outside the country and we've(and my grandkids who arn't even born yet) virtually become slaves to the World over night.a






[edit on 28-10-2009 by Tyr Sog]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


Occur it didn't the cash for clunkers was for the benefits of China investments in foreign car makers coming from the asian Markets, Japan is doing very well after the clunkers program




posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


From the US Auto makers standpoint cash for clunkers was was a huge failure.... 8 of 10 cars purchased under the program were made by foreign makers... 80% of that money went overseas... how did that help our big three??? little wonder they let that program lapse



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
reply to post by kozmo
 


What you mean to say is the Bush administration gave them a loan with no conditions and no possibility of repayment so the following administration was forced to prop them up with more funds and demand equity in the company to safeguard taxpayer dollars. There, fixed it for you.


What are you laughing about!? If what you wrote were correct then why in the Hell would they need to be coming back for more money!?
Neither you, nor Obama have "fixed" anything. Sorry to burst your bubble...



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by DaddyBare
 


Oh, but don't tell that to the government because the used the numbers to boost retail sales for the month of august, September and even in Oct they still using the same numbers


Because they can not scrape any other numbers to make the economy show recovery.

Now even with with credits for the first time mortgage the foreclosures are still at an all time high.

I tell you how much can you keep a festering wound cover with a simple bandage before the infection spreads.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


I know darn well how bad the housing market is... but that also depends on what side of the fence your standing on.... Yes were we had 3.5 million foreclosed homes a full million more than last year at the height of the sub prime deal.... this year a far bigger number then the 600,000 reported new home sales...

Obama's program to keep home owners in their house brags about helping 500,000 get loan mods to keep their homes... Half a million is still far short of 3,5 million and a long ways off the promised 9 million he claimed...

Here's the flip side... at the start of the month the wife and I added to those new sales figures... we found a mini farm on a foreclosed auction web site... nice place too 4,200 sq feet 4 bedrooms 2 baths all on 6 acres... I had the winning bid at $12,500... With closing costs and back taxes I spent just a bit over $14,000...trust me when I say I could have never afforded this house otherwise.... their loss was my gain but I would hardly call that a recovery either...

If your curious that web site is Bid4assets look under bargain homes



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
reply to post by kozmo
 


What you mean to say is the Bush administration gave them a loan with no conditions and no possibility of repayment so the following administration was forced to prop them up with more funds and demand equity in the company to safeguard taxpayer dollars. There, fixed it for you.


Despite whether you're right or wrong - did either way fix the problem? Obviously it didn't if they are asking for more money. So what does that tell you? That the Bush administration was stupid for lending GMAC money in the first place or the Obama administration was too stupid to realize that GMAC was run by a bunch of morons who don't know CRAP about business?

That realization ought to be wiping that laugh off your face because it proves that Obama has surrounded himself with people who don't know CRAP about how to do their jobs. You satisfied?

Someone needs to tell the current administration that the "Too Big to Fail" philosophy DOESN'T EFFING WORK! Let it GO ALREADY!


[edit on 28-10-2009 by sos37]

[edit on 28-10-2009 by sos37]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


How did Pelosi, Reid and Obama manage to implement their socio-fascist version of America back in December when Bush was in control and the new congress hadn't been seated yet?


Because Bush and the 'old' congress were pushing the same thing.

Do you really not get it yet? How many Presidents have you lived through? It's one agenda. The same agenda for at least the past 60 years.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
I just wanted to ask if Chrysler and GMAC are the same company. My understanding is that they are. If so then They have been getting bailouts since 1979www.heritage.org...
The book The Creature from Jekyll Island explains bailouts very well. And they have been going on since the 70's.
Penn Central now known as Amtrack and conrail recieved a bailout in 1970 Amtrack still operates at a loss. Lockheed received one in 1970 and is now the governments contract company. The city of New york received one in 1975. Unity bank received one in 1971 however eventually closed after getting $4,463,000 in bailout money(thats what the FDIC wrote it off for anyway). Commonwealth bank of Detroit now Comerica got one in 1972 because Chase Manhattan had 39% of its common stock. Without the bailout, Chase would have major losses but since the FDIC intervened the losses were minimal. BTW, the First Arabian Corp. funded by saudi princes is who the FDIC sold the company to.
First Penn Bank received a bailout in 1980. Continetal Illinois got one in 1984.
And as we all know, bailouts are continuing to this day.

[edit on 10/28/2009 by concerned190]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join