TheMadCap Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 Wow. I think this is a great idea. Finally, something Obama has done I can get behind... http://content.usatoday.com/communities/th...-power-plants/1
pBills Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 Just wait for people to B word about this too.
Magox Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 Wow. I think this is a great idea. Finally, something Obama has done I can get behind... http://content.usatoday.com/communities/th...-power-plants/1 Yes. Good move, produces energy, creates jobs and makes good common sense, the only one's who will be against this idea is the bat-**** crazy looney left.
pBills Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 Yes. Good move, produces energy, creates jobs and makes good common sense, the only one's who will be against this idea is the bat-**** crazy looney left. Or some crazy person from the right who won't want to spend the money.
keepthefaith Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 Or some crazy person from the right who won't want to spend the money. It's advertised as loan guarantees so taxpayers should be repaid. Full speed ahead.
pBills Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 It's advertised as loan guarantees so taxpayers should be repaid. Full speed ahead. Just like the bank loans. Ok.
Magox Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 Or some crazy person from the right who won't want to spend the money.
keepthefaith Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 Just like the bank loans. Ok. You do realize that the banks have repaid the money with interest and that it's the auto companies, Freddie/Fanny, CIT and some others that haven't.
pBills Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 You do realize that the banks have repaid the money with interest and that it's the auto companies, Freddie/Fanny, CIT and some others that haven't. Really? http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/storysu...nt/bankbailout/ GM http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/16...g-aid-year-end/
Magox Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 Really? http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/storysu...nt/bankbailout/ GM http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/16...g-aid-year-end/ You do realize that there is a difference between paying back the loans and paying back the capital injections don't you? Two totally different things Pbills, just google it up and you will see the difference.
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 I totally back the nukes! He is also bucking the treehuggers and pledging 78 million towards keeping the shipping economy in heartland. I persoanlly think it is a boondoogle... But the enviro nuts can't run wild with their crazy agenda.
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 Yes. Good move, produces energy, creates jobs and makes good common sense, the only one's who will be against this idea is the bat-**** crazy looney left. Exactly!
pBills Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 You do realize that there is a difference between paying back the loans and paying back the capital injections don't you? Two totally different things Pbills, just google it up and you will see the difference. As far as I know the government was not looking for a share of GMs equity capital. My links were just to state that ALL of the banks have not paid back their loans.
DC Tom Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 As far as I know the government was not looking for a share of GMs equity capital. My links were just to state that ALL of the banks have not paid back their loans. They weren't loans.
pBills Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 They weren't loans. So enlighten me, what is the bank bailout to be labeled as?
Magox Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 As far as I know the government was not looking for a share of GMs equity capital. My links were just to state that ALL of the banks have not paid back their loans. Treasury loaned GM $20 Billion if I remember correctly and then injected $50 Billion in exchange for a 70% stake in the company. Shareholders got wiped out, GM bondholders were screwed with a 10% slice of the pie and Unions received a 20% stake in the company. In regards to the Banks, they weren't loans, they were capital injections in exchange for preferred shares and in some cases common stock, there were also loan loss guarantees on some of their outstanding debt obgligations if things were to really go further down south.
Magox Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 So enlighten me, what is the bank bailout to be labeled as? Figured I'd do some of the leg work for you, http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/...index.html#TARP Automotive Industry Financing Program Government GM capital injection $49.9 B payed back $361 Million Chrysler Capital injection $15.2 B payed back $280 Million GMAC Capital injection $13.5 B payed back 0 Grant it, this is from Nov. of 2009, so it's roughly 3 months old but things havn't changed dramatically since then.
pBills Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 Treasury loaned GM $20 Billion if I remember correctly and then injected $50 Billion in exchange for a 70% stake in the company. Shareholders got wiped out, GM bondholders were screwed with a 10% slice of the pie and Unions received a 20% stake in the company. In regards to the Banks, they weren't loans, they were capital injections in exchange for preferred shares and in some cases common stock, there were also loan loss guarantees on some of their outstanding debt obgligations if things were to really go further down south. Wouldn't the GM shareholders have to give up the remaining value of their shares if they would gone through restructuring privately? Thanks for clearing up the information about the banks. So how would you respond to people who state that the banks have paid back their loans? Besides stating they weren't loans.
DC Tom Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 So enlighten me, what is the bank bailout to be labeled as? What magox said. Private placement of equity. That was one of the issues about the ridiculous congressional attempts at clawing back bonuses: the government passing legislation to violate private employment contracts that the government as owners of the company are responsible for upholding was just a little bit unkosher. Wouldn't the GM shareholders have to give up the remaining value of their shares if they would gone through restructuring privately? Not necessarily. That usually happens, just because when a company can't even pay its creditors it has nothing to give the shareholders anyway. But not always. And that's beside the point that the government's heavy-handed "reorganization by fiat" threw the entire concept of seniority of interest off a cliff. That idiotic decision right there contributes not immaterially to the current lack of job creation.
Recommended Posts