quote The much-debated bailout of Detroit is finally nearing an end after four years — and it looks like the ultimate cost to taxpayers will be between $10 billion and $20 billion. Having already disposed of its stake in Chrysler, the Treasury Department announced Wednesday that it is now planning to sell its 500 million shares of General Motors stock. The company is buying back 200 million of those shares for $5.5 billion, while the Treasury is developing a plan to sell the rest over the next 12 to 15 months. If the remaining stock sells at $27.18 a share, GM’s price as of 4 p.m. Wednesday, the government will have sustained a final loss of about $12 billion in its investment in GM. Treasury lost $1.3 billion on Chrysler and still is owed $11.4 billion by Ally Financial, formerly GM’s financing affiliate, to come out even on that investment. Though the auto bailout is likely to produce a financial loss for the federal government, it was part of a financial rescue that far exceeded expectations. Treasury has recouped 90 percent of the $418 billion it invested in banks, autos and other firms as part of the overall financial bailout. “The auto industry rescue helped save more than a million jobs during a severe economic crisis, but the intervention was always meant to be a temporary, emergency program,” said Timothy G. Massad, Treasury assistant secretary for financial stability, in a statement. “The government should not be in the business of owning stakes in private companies for an indefinite period of time.” The Treasury’s original total investment in the auto industry was about $80 billion, including $50 billion in GM. The government’s exit from GM will ultimately free the firm of constraints that executives have said limited how they could run the business. For example, executive compensation caps made it difficult to recruit top business leaders, and the company could not own corporate jets. The compensation restrictions remain for now, but the jet provision has been lifted. Executives also worried about having a reputation as a federally restricted “Government Motors.” “This announcement is an important step in bringing closure to the successful auto industry rescue, it further removes the perception of government ownership of GM among customers, and it demonstrates confidence in GM’s progress and our future,” said Dan Akerson, GM’s chief executive, in a statement. The bailout of Detroit was initiated under President George W. Bush in late 2008 and expanded by President Obama. GM and Chrysler were on the verge of imminent bankruptcy — weighed down by overwhelming pension costs, a deep decline in sales and dwindling cash reserves. Some objected to the bailout because it involved the government deeply in the private market. But many economists agree that restructuring the automobile industry was critical to the government’s efforts to pull the economy out of a deep recession. The bailout was as an issue in the presidential campaign, with the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, deeming it inappropriate for the government to hold shares in the industry. But at the Democratic National Convention, the Obama campaign celebrated the rebirth of the American auto industry, with Vice President Biden saying, “Bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive.” Tens of thousands of jobs at car dealerships may have been lost as a result of government directives that General Motors and Chrysler shut them to save costs. Since stabilizing, the auto companies have enjoyed a robust rebound. The companies have added 260,000 jobs since the recession ended, though they are still far below their employment peaks.

http://www.washingtonpost.c...1e741d196_story.html

Hi Boonie,

Look, we need to talk. I respect you, and I want you to know that I'm not trying to be mean, but I felt it necessary to tell you that you've been duped by the news again. Of the total 52 billion that GM ended up with (out of 80 billion total), the vast majority of that was a "gift" from the taxpayer, and therefore is not needed to be repaid. The "bailout" that they are talking about was actually 16 billion dollars... that was money that was loaned to General Motors (after the 52 billion dollar "gift"). Of the 16 billion, some 8 billion was repaid, they are using 5.5 billion of that to rebuy their own stock from the conversion of debt in the debt to equity swap. So you see, they're using taxpayer money, to repay taxpayer money. Does that sound like repaying of the bailout to you?


Best Regards,

Your friend, Todd

And when will GM or the governmnt pay back the original stockholdrs that thy screwed when the govenment did the bankrupcy?

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Hi Boonie, Look, we need to talk. I respect you, and I want you to know that I'm not trying to be mean, but I felt it necessary to tell you that you've been duped by the news again. Of the total 52 billion that GM ended up with (out of 80 billion total), the vast majority of that was a "gift" from the taxpayer, and therefore is not needed to be repaid. The "bailout" that they are talking about was actually 16 billion dollars... that was money that was loaned to General Motors (after the 52 billion dollar "gift"). Of the 16 billion, some 8 billion was repaid, they are using 5.5 billion of that to rebuy their own stock from the conversion of debt in the debt to equity swap. So you see, they're using taxpayer money, to repay taxpayer money. Does that sound like repaying of the bailout to you? Best Regards, Your friend, Todd

My Dearest Todd,

In regards to your post of 12/19/12, I must reciprocate that I too respect you and have no desire to be mean to you or anyone else, as should be quite apparent through all my many years here.

As for the aforementioned subject at hand, I didn't write the article, express any belief regarding the subject, or declare any confidence in the accuracy of the reporting or it's source.
I am finding it difficult to see how that can be construed as "being duped".
Some might even say that that statement is a little presumptuous.

I will only say that I have little interest in such things.
I mearly posted the article for those that do.

With Warmest Affection,
Don

P.S. I think it moved...

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 12-19-2012).]

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Hi Boonie, Look, we need to talk. I respect you, and I want you to know that I'm not trying to be mean, but I felt it necessary to tell you that you've been duped by the news again. Of the total 52 billion that GM ended up with (out of 80 billion total), the vast majority of that was a "gift" from the taxpayer, and therefore is not needed to be repaid. The "bailout" that they are talking about was actually 16 billion dollars... that was money that was loaned to General Motors (after the 52 billion dollar "gift"). Of the 16 billion, some 8 billion was repaid, they are using 5.5 billion of that to rebuy their own stock from the conversion of debt in the debt to equity swap. So you see, they're using taxpayer money, to repay taxpayer money. Does that sound like repaying of the bailout to you? Best Regards, Your friend, Todd

LOL, Id love to be a home subdivision developer with financing plans like that. Id make a killing. Get 80 billion handed to me for free, 16 billion more loaned to me to build homes, then get to sell you stocks in the development and use that to pay back the 16 million you loaned me. Awesome....

I should have quit reading after "the government will have sustained a final loss of about $12 billion in its investment in GM."
What a load of crap.
1. GAO has always and still does assert that for the taxpayer to be made whole over the GM stock for cash trade, GM's stock would have to be sold at $53/share. $27.18 is a LONG way from $51/share. Just over 1/2 actually.
2. Both GM and the administration made a huge public deal of proclaiming that GM had paid back their LOAN in full and early back when they paid back $8.1B and some of that sum total went to Canada's version of TARP. Big friggin deal. That repayment didn't begin to make the taxpayer whole on what GM recieved prior to the stock for cash swap (which is NOT a loan--nor does it pay interest)
3. January 2009, GM had recieved $13.4 billion from US Treasury to get thru the 1st few weeks of '09.
4.On June 1, 2009, the court gave interim approval to GM's request to borrow US$ 15 billion as debtor-in-possession funding. This was just hours before bankruptcy was approved.
5. We now see GM received (in loans) a total of $28.4 billion from the taxpayer.
(why isn't all this in the article?--kinda makes ya wonder huh?)
6. April 21, 2010, GM wrote a check for $8.1B and called it good--and so did the administration. Why, when they really borrowed $28.4 Billion?
7. Because the bankruptcy court decreed that ALL debts prior to the bankruptcy agreement approval would be null and void, applying those loans and debt to "Old GM"--meaning the taxpayer would never ever ever see that $28.4 billion again. The only money GM was required to pay back was the few billions it received just after bankruptcy approval-about $6.7 Billion (after the Canadian cut) to get GM operating thru till the stock for cash trade was finalized.
Loss to the taxpayer? Well, lets see.
.......$28.4B
minus$6.7B
-----$21.7B LOSS

Adding insult to injury, we have the article crowing about the govt getting $27.18/share when it needs to get $53/share to recoup it's investment in the stock for cash swap.

Why does the article so proudly exclaim the Govt and taxpayer will ONLY see a total loss of $12 Billion, when it's crystal clear he govt and taxpayer have ALREADY endured a $21.7B loss? Because it is ignoring the pre-bankruptcy loss--the court sez they don't hafta pay it back so the writers and the Govt don't look at it as a loss. It's just "gone--tough sheet".
If I could get a deal like that and screw my lender I'd have gone in debt a million bucks in a heartbeat--if I was one to accept screwing my lender was a good thing. (I'm not)

Yellow journalism at it's finest.
Who in the blazes writes this kind of crap and who in the world takes it anywhere close to serious?

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 12-19-2012).]

Never again will a new GM ever darken my driveway again.

only Fords from now on.

GM can burn for all I care. no matter how anyone spins it, GM and the govt ripped stockholders off.

let alone the taxpayer...

Don't even get me started on the Volt.

quote Originally posted by htexans1: Never again will a new GM ever darken my driveway again. only Fords from now on. GM can burn for all I care. no matter how anyone spins it, GM and the govt ripped stockholders off. let alone the taxpayer... Don't even get me started on the Volt.

You have a poor attitude man-----read the article again. It'll just cheer ya up and fill you with admiration and pride over what good fiscal policy really looks like.
[sarcasm off]

The other side of the coin,when you look at the tax revenue of the auto companies and their employees/retirees... THEN add in the suppliers and their employees.... and since I live in MI, we would have been hit the worst as our State coffers would have taken a huge hit (just look at Detroit, Flint or Saginaw if you want to see an example). The surrounding states would have felt it afterwards. For me, I would have liked to have seen the problems fixed during the bailouts, but the banks were never broken up, GM is pretty much the same. So, the potential for problems are still there, but the solution at the time (important to remember) was to keep the economy going. Not the best answer in hindsight, but not the worst either. We spent trillions of dollars in the sands of the middle east, yet when money is spent at home, helping our own, we get mad?


"If the two automakers had gone out of business, it would have significantly cut taxes collected from the automakers, their suppliers and dealers, let alone from the 1.5 million suddenly unemployed workers.

Reduced personal taxes collected and increased safety net payments such as unemployment benefits and food stamps, would have cost the federal government up to about $50 billion to $60 billion in the first year alone, and another $34 billion to $54 billion in the second year, according to the Center for Automotive Research. " http://money.cnn.com/2012/0...o-bailout/index.html

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: The other side of the coin,when you look at the tax revenue of the auto companies and their employees/retirees... THEN add in the suppliers and their employees.... and since I live in MI, we would have been hit the worst as our State coffers would have taken a huge hit (just look at Detroit, Flint or Saginaw if you want to see an example). The surrounding states would have felt it afterwards. For me, I would have liked to have seen the problems fixed during the bailouts, but the banks were never broken up, GM is pretty much the same. So, the potential for problems are still there, but the solution at the time (important to remember) was to keep the economy going. Not the best answer in hindsight, but not the worst either. We spent trillions of dollars in the sands of the middle east, yet when money is spent at home, helping our own, we get mad? "If the two automakers had gone out of business, it would have significantly cut taxes collected from the automakers, their suppliers and dealers, let alone from the 1.5 million suddenly unemployed workers. Reduced personal taxes collected and increased safety net payments such as unemployment benefits and food stamps, would have cost the federal government up to about $50 billion to $60 billion in the first year alone, and another $34 billion to $54 billion in the second year, according to the Center for Automotive Research. " http://money.cnn.com/2012/0...o-bailout/index.html

How long can we fool ourselves though? They talk about taking accountability and doing the right thing and paying more taxes now, "we've had it too easy" . But will not let failed things fail. If we continue to spread teh wealth to cover failed things we all fail miserably, and I mean all. Eventually.
Tax revenue? Yes that is why GM was saved so gevernment can make more money.

You know I heard today that when this fiscal cliff hits and all our taxes go up, the government will still spend more than it makes.

Welcome to the Nanny State.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: LOL, Id love to be a home subdivision developer with financing plans like that. Id make a killing. Get 80 billion handed to me for free, 16 billion more loaned to me to build homes, then get to sell you stocks in the development and use that to pay back the 16 million you loaned me. Awesome....

And screw the original owners of the properties (stock owners, investors and creditors) out of the money in the first place. Wow. Where do I sign up???

Why do all the pro bailout people fail to see that if they had just went bankrupt by themselves, they would not have closed up and put everyone out on the street. The whole idea behind bankruptcy is it allows you to keep operating while you restructure the business to be more profitable. Even if you cant do that in the years they give you, theres always someone who will buy you up and still continue your operations. Chrysler got bought up by Fiat. What makes anyone think they wouldnt have just bought Chrysler up anyway before the gov gave them any money. They seem to think if a company goes bankrupt, someone puts a chain on all the doors and walks away. Ive had 2 bankruptcys in the past. If I hadnt have told people, no one would have had a clue. I even kept 95% of all the property. In fact I bought a couple of limos the day after final court date with the last one.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: Why do all the pro bailout people fail to see that if they had just went bankrupt by themselves, they would not have closed up and put everyone out on the street. The whole idea behind bankruptcy is it allows you to keep operating while you restructure the business to be more profitable. Even if you cant do that in the years they give you, theres always someone who will buy you up and still continue your operations. Chrysler got bought up by Fiat. What makes anyone think they wouldnt have just bought Chrysler up anyway before the gov gave them any money. They seem to think if a company goes bankrupt, someone puts a chain on all the doors and walks away. Ive had 2 bankruptcys in the past. If I hadnt have told people, no one would have had a clue. I even kept 95% of all the property. In fact I bought a couple of limos the day after final court date with the last one.

Who was going to lend GM the money while they restructured? Banks were seeking bailouts at the time also. Maybe the Chinese?

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Who was going to lend GM the money while they restructured? Banks were seeking bailouts at the time also. Maybe the Chinese?

Many banks were forced to take "bailouts".

http://www.boston.com/busin...ed_to_take_bailouts/

Well, for starters, they could have tried selling off their 6 month backlogged supply of unsold cars that were overpriced in the first place. They got in the problem by making cars people didnt want for the prices they wanted for them. Selling say 75,000 vehicles for 70% of MSRP could have raised lots of ready cash. It would have had profit too as cars MSRP around up to around double the cost of production....as are most retail sale items.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: Well, for starters, they could have tried selling off their 6 month backlogged supply of unsold cars that were overpriced in the first place. They got in the problem by making cars people didnt want for the prices they wanted for them. Selling say 75,000 vehicles for 70% of MSRP could have raised lots of ready cash. It would have had profit too as cars MSRP around up to around double the cost of production....as are most retail sale items.

Maybe, but if they sell off the cars at a lower price, people will expect the price to be lower all the time. Other retailers have tried this and found that once you lower your price, you have a hard time raising it.

Plus, it wouldn't have been enough money to really fix the financial mess they were in.

Well, I think it was good of Boondawg to post this article.


It is really instructive of the media trying to make Obama and the administration look good.


The writer states that "...the ULTIMATE COST to taxpayers will be..."


Many people will read that and not be as sophisticated as many on this forum to know that the writer was presenting blatantly FALSE information.

Because he said the ULTIMATE cost. That is written that way to have people assume that means the TOTAL cost of the bail out. As pointed out here, it ISN'T the total cost. It isn't CLOSE to the ultimate cost.
And then the writer is willing to not challenge false statements made by a source.

Timothy Massad said, "The auto industry rescue...". This wasn't an auto industry rescue. It was a GM and Chrysler "rescue". They aren't the entirety of the U.S. auto industry.

Let's say GM and Chrysler HAD gone away. What would have happened to Ford sales? What hiring would Ford have had to do to keep up with the volume that GM and Chrysler had been providing? Any even COMMENT by the article author on the administrations grandiose claim of an entire auto industry rescue? Nope. Just let that propoganda fly out there unchallenged.


You don't think Dan Akerson, GM's chief executive, got his talking points. What wording did HE use? "...successful auto industry rescue..." Wonder where he got THAT terminology.

Then THE ARTICLE AUTHOR jumps in to the erroneous talking point. "The Obama campaign celebrated the REBIRTH OF THE AMERICAN AUTO INDUSTRY."


Even the writing of the last line. It could easily have been written, "Even with the 'rebirth' of the auto industry, employment levels remain far below their peaks, even after 260,000 jobs added back since the recession ended.
This is a VERY instructive piece of writing. The kind of writing that has been going on all along for Obama and the administration.

Bailout money Plus GM cancel old stock, UAW took over pension, avoid warranty and recall work, etc... Is no wonder that why the new business has money to burn.

Old GM went bankrupt and is dead. New GM is a New Business and took over Old GM avoiding bankruptcy count and Auctions.

------------------
Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.
(Jurassic Park)

The Ogre's Fiero Cave (It's also at the top and bottom of every forum page...)

[This message has been edited by theogre (edited 12-20-2012).]

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Maybe, but if they sell off the cars at a lower price, people will expect the price to be lower all the time. Other retailers have tried this and found that once you lower your price, you have a hard time raising it. Plus, it wouldn't have been enough money to really fix the financial mess they were in.

No they prob couldnt raise the prices later, they werent prices people would pay for them anyway. It wouldnt have paid all their debts, but like I said in the first few words, it would be a start. Then go to cutting off execs salaries that were tens of millions of dollars. Im sorry, but I dont see any company CEO that deserves a 50 million dollar annual salary. Thats another reason they couldnt pay their bills. You run a company into a billion dollar debt every year for 10 years and you should have that kind of salary AND bonuses too ???

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: No they prob couldnt raise the prices later, they werent prices people would pay for them anyway. It wouldnt have paid all their debts, but like I said in the first few words, it would be a start. Then go to cutting off execs salaries that were tens of millions of dollars. Im sorry, but I dont see any company CEO that deserves a 50 million dollar annual salary. Thats another reason they couldnt pay their bills. You run a company into a billion dollar debt every year for 10 years and you should have that kind of salary AND bonuses too ???

Oh, I agree, there are things they could have done to help.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: My Dearest Todd, In regards to your post of 12/19/12, I must reciprocate that I too respect you and have no desire to be mean to you or anyone else, as should be quite apparent through all my many years here. As for the aforementioned subject at hand, I didn't write the article, express any belief regarding the subject, or declare any confidence in the accuracy of the reporting or it's source. I am finding it difficult to see how that can be construed as "being duped". Some might even say that that statement is a little presumptuous. I will only say that I have little interest in such things. I mearly posted the article for those that do. With Warmest Affection, Don P.S. I think it moved...

My Most Dearest Boonie,

It was great to hear from you. My have the seasons passed since our last discourse. It is a cool winter day here in Eastern Maryland. The breeze can be... hahah... sorry, I can't... hahaahh...hahaha...


Heheh, Merry Christmas Boonie.

Heh, I actually tried to look for some civil war letters to base my response to you with more cordiality. They were much gooder at writing than we are today, hah. Hard to imagine that... but it seems to be true?

The media, prior to the election, blasted Romney for his suggested chapter 11 reorganization and now we're getting this glowing article out of the media. Anyone here remember when the media used to be the watchdog, investigative reporting uncovering the truth for everyone to see?

quote Originally posted by jetman: The media, prior to the election, blasted Romney for his suggested chapter 11 reorganization and now we're getting this glowing article out of the media. Anyone here remember when the media used to be the watchdog, investigative reporting uncovering the truth for everyone to see?

1940? 1950, maybe?

If biographies are to be believed, even Walter Cronkite let personal bias sway his reporting.
http://newsbusters.org/blog...kite-far-more-biased

We already know such highly regarded (past tense) names as Dan Rather were willing to fabricate anything to get the story they wanted.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: My Most Dearest Boonie, It was great to hear from you. My have the seasons passed since our last discourse. It is a cool winter day here in Eastern Maryland. The breeze can be... hahah... sorry, I can't... hahaahh...hahaha... Heheh, Merry Christmas Boonie. Heh, I actually tried to look for some civil war letters to base my response to you with more cordiality. They were much gooder at writing than we are today, hah. Hard to imagine that... but it seems to be true?

Ahhhahaha!
Sweet!

I do agree on early American writing.
I absolutly love it in a very deep way.

Any who, may the season also find you surrounded in love & peace, my friend.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Well, I think it was good of Boondawg to post this article. It is really instructive of the media trying to make Obama and the administration look good.

That's one way of putting it I guess.

quote The writer states that "...the ULTIMATE COST to taxpayers will be..." Many people will read that and not be as sophisticated as many on this forum to know that the writer was presenting blatantly FALSE information.

Many did in fact do exactly that, but lack of sophistication has little to do with it. A lack of interest and the total inability to inform themselves versus drinking the koolaid does.

quote Because he said the ULTIMATE cost. That is written that way to have people assume that means the TOTAL cost of the bail out. As pointed out here, it ISN'T the total cost. It isn't CLOSE to the ultimate cost. And then the writer is willing to not challenge false statements made by a source. Timothy Massad said, "The auto industry rescue...". This wasn't an auto industry rescue. It was a GM and Chrysler "rescue". They aren't the entirety of the U.S. auto industry. Let's say GM and Chrysler HAD gone away. What would have happened to Ford sales? What hiring would Ford have had to do to keep up with the volume that GM and Chrysler had been providing? Any even COMMENT by the article author on the administrations grandiose claim of an entire auto industry rescue? Nope. Just let that propoganda fly out there unchallenged.

Ah--questions! May I?
Ford sales would have increased as would those of other auto makers. Undoubtedly, one or more fiscally competent companies would have bought the idled GM/Chrysler plants, re-hired the laid off workers and the auto industry would continue churning out vehicles. Americans would buy them just as they always had--regardless of who had bought the plants or the rights to brand names. Oh, and the taxpayers would not have been out billions of $$. What happened when Lehman filed bankruptcy? What happened when Washington Mutual went under? What happened when Wachovia failed? Other companies bought them, hired their employees, made a few changes in management, and just changed the name on the front of the buildings. Life goes on--as always.

quote You don't think Dan Akerson, GM's chief executive, got his talking points. What wording did HE use? "...successful auto industry rescue..." Wonder where he got THAT terminology. Then THE ARTICLE AUTHOR jumps in to the erroneous talking point. "The Obama campaign celebrated the REBIRTH OF THE AMERICAN AUTO INDUSTRY." Even the writing of the last line. It could easily have been written, "Even with the 'rebirth' of the auto industry, employment levels remain far below their peaks, even after 260,000 jobs added back since the recession ended. This is a VERY instructive piece of writing. The kind of writing that has been going on all along for Obama and the administration.

And weak minded uninformed sheeple suck it up like lemonade on a hot summer day without even a curious thought as to the truthfulness it so blatantly leaves out.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 12-21-2012).]

quote Originally posted by htexans1: Never again will a new GM ever darken my driveway again. only Fords from now on. GM can burn for all I care. no matter how anyone spins it, GM and the govt ripped stockholders off. let alone the taxpayer...

I feel the same way.

What is "funny" is the other day I was talking to a guy that bought a new 2010 Chevy Van because "the auto Union took care of GM so well" (his exact words).

Before you think "Hey, that guy seems pretty smart.", he went on to tell me how he's got over 300,000 miles on the odometer, and has never changed the oil, spark plugs, antifreeze, or battery. He's only replaced the tires....

Good investment.

Brad

quote Originally posted by Fats: I feel the same way. What is "funny" is the other day I was talking to a guy that bought a new 2010 Chevy Van because "the auto Union took care of GM so well" (his exact words).

Just an aside...I remember my engineering rotation at GM's Fairfax, KS plant that was producing Malibus, and tooling up to begin producing Saturn Auras - Remember those?

I was talking to one of the mechanics that worked on interior defects post assembly. I was talking to him about GM's looming financial problems. He said, "That's all just smoke and mirrors by GM to make the unions give concessions." His opinion among the unionzed workforce was not alone - they actually believed that GM was fabricating their entire financial meltdown to squeeze some pay out of them.

GM - Union relations were never their strong point...and they definitely did not "take care of GM well"!

so....any of these "I'm not buying GM anymore" blowhards still using the bailed out banks? and the ways banks use to shirk responsibility - how wouldja know anymore anyways? all those who took the tax dollars, quickly shoved them into their pockets - the played musical chairs - and poof - money all gone. no accountability. and these folk produce NOTHING.

Just the ones that truly did pay back their loans 100%--with interest.

(You can check your bank below at ProPublica)
http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list

Just click on the bank's name and a new window will open explaining how much they recieved--how much they paid back and how much interest the govt got on the loan. Or, how much the institution recieved and how much the outstanding balance is-- (as well as any interest that they have been paying on their outstanding balance)
For instance:
A bank called BB&T (I'm not familar with it)

quote BB&T WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. | SEE ALL RECIPIENTS IN NORTH CAROLINA $3.1B Disbursed $3.1B Returned $159.7M Revenue to Gov't $159.7M Profit (to US Treasury/taxpayer)

I would have no problem doing business with this bank based on what is shown above.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 12-21-2012).]

So who initiated the Auto Bailout?

In 2008, Chrysler and General Motors told America that they were in danger of folding. George W. Bush agreed to a temporary bailout, but handed the auto companies' long-term future over to his successor, Obama. Obama then drew up a plan to bailout the two companies. That allowed them to stay in business but it put alot of conditions that, it was hoped, would help the companies to eventually return to profitability.

How you see this depended a lot on where you stand politically. If you are a progressive, you see that Obama selected the best of unattractive options. While he didn't want the government running car companies, the alternative was to let them go out of business. Right at the moment when the economy was on the worst downturn since the Great Depression. At stake were not only the jobs of all of GM and Chrysler's employees, but the jobs of people who worked for hundreds of suppliers, from stereos to steel and rubber producers. Job losses could top one million. So he did what had to be done.

If you're a conservative, the auto bailout was part of Obama's government power grab. Eager to amass power and increase the federal government's control of the economy, he took the opportunity to take over the auto industry, serving his thirst for centralized control.

[This message has been edited by bonzo (edited 12-22-2012).]

How I see that depends a lot on how I stand in regards to stealing, paying off one's debts, corporate and individual fiscal responsibility and vote buying and not a bit on where I stand politically.