GM Buying Back 200M Shares from Government

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by AZCamaroFan

i hate to break it to you but there's a lot of waste there, and a lot of overcharging from contractors. perhaps you've never heard of the $ 9,000 toilets and $500 dollar hammers.

I never said there isn't waste, just that defense is actually something our government is required to do.

[Berean]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

I never said there isn't waste, just that defense is actually something our government is required to do.

You're wasting your time trying to explain it. Far too many people have no problem with government bailing out companies/unions etc. as long as it's a company/union THEY care about.

Meanwhile, we continue to head toward national bankruptcy because most people aren't smart enough to understand ANY government bailout is ultimately a bad thing.

[Number 3]

Well someone had to bring the Constitution into it:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I think there are some that would argue protecting GM was in the best interest of the U.S. from that little part there in bold type.

Keep in mind, is there any other company that after September 11, 2001 could have offered such huge discounts on their products to keep people spending and the economy moving? Would we have all felt so much better if Coke or McDonalds offered us a .25 discount?

GM did that. Most don't remember it. But if I recall correctly Wagoner met with the President to see what they could do. And they did. Self serving perhaps but it kept people more confident even if just a tiny bit.

Argue about the way the bankruptcy was handled, sure. Heck I worked there at the time and many of us were hoping GM would get to go through a real bankruptcy. But now they are still sadled with HUGE pension contributions for the UAW. Salary folks are all off pensions now and anyone slararied employee hired after 2000 has no pension.

So unlike every other foreign competitor, GM, Ford and Chrysler are sadled with large pension debts. In Japan and Europe, the government covers that. And up to the bankruptcy, GM had that health care problem as well.

So I'm curious. Other than "how" it was handled, does anyone here hope for the day when all our manufacturing plants are owned by foreign companies? The majore reason they are here is shipping costs. It saves them $500 per car to not put it on a boat. Not because they want to keep Americans working.

[midnighter]

Sorry but I still don't see the hope.

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Well someone had to bring the Constitution into it:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I think there are some that would argue protecting GM was in the best interest of the U.S. from that little part there in bold type.

Keep in mind, is there any other company that after September 11, 2001 could have offered such huge discounts on their products to keep people spending and the economy moving? Would we have all felt so much better if Coke or McDonalds offered us a .25 discount?

GM did that. Most don't remember it. But if I recall correctly Wagoner met with the President to see what they could do. And they did. Self serving perhaps but it kept people more confident even if just a tiny bit.

Argue about the way the bankruptcy was handled, sure. Heck I worked there at the time and many of us were hoping GM would get to go through a real bankruptcy. But now they are still sadled with HUGE pension contributions for the UAW. Salary folks are all off pensions now and anyone slararied employee hired after 2000 has no pension.

So unlike every other foreign competitor, GM, Ford and Chrysler are sadled with large pension debts. In Japan and Europe, the government covers that. And up to the bankruptcy, GM had that health care problem as well.

So I'm curious. Other than "how" it was handled, does anyone here hope for the day when all our manufacturing plants are owned by foreign companies? The majore reason they are here is shipping costs. It saves them $500 per car to not put it on a boat. Not because they want to keep Americans working.

I don't see how "promote the general welfare" can be stretched to mean buy into a company at one price and sell it back later at a loss. Besides, I don't see any part of the Constitution that grants them the authority to bail out anyone.

[Rhyder]

I was wondering where you got the 200k numbers, that's for world wide, unless those other countries, mainly mexico and Canada gave part of the 150 billion plus I don't really care. As far as Im concerned part of the deal should of been they pull all the jobs they can back into the US within two years....meaning all manufacturing and call center jobs at least..American taxpayers footed the bill, they should of recieved the employment benefits.....


So we are speaking about 74,500 employed in the US as of November 2012.

So that's even more per employee than what was figured out for 100k... prior to the bailout we had 91,000 people working for GM in the US.

So the stock has dropped more than half and there are less american's on the payroll than before the crash....we are back to total failure of the plan.

we payed almost twice what the company is worth, and over a 1.4 million dollars per employee to keep the company open under the same management that put it under to begin with......



http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrode...inton-edition/

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

I don't see how "promote the general welfare" can be stretched to mean buy into a company at one price and sell it back later at a loss. Besides, I don't see any part of the Constitution that grants them the authority to bail out anyone.

Wasn't necessarily saying it was or wasn't. So tell us what you think those limits are. Someone implied the governments job was defense.

I think regardless the government was funding the bankruptcy. There was no bank that had it to lend at that time. And I understand everyone's issues. But since we can never prove what would have happened if GM went through s normal bankruptcy it's easy to argue against what did happen.

[Berean]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Wasn't necessarily saying it was or wasn't. So tell us what you think those limits are. Someone implied the governments job was defense.

And there's the problem. In today's world, we get to decide what "the limits are" as long as we get 51% to agree.

Why don't you educate yourself and understand what the Founding Fathers thought the limits were?

Here's what James Madison, the person largely responsible for writing the Constitution, had to say in an 1830 letter to Andrew Stevenson -

"If it be asked why the terms "common defence and general welfare," if not meant to convey the comprehensive power which, taken literally, they express, were not qualified and explained by some reference to the particular powers subjoined, the answer is at hand, that although it might easily have been done, and experience shows it might be well if it had been done, yet the omission is accounted for by an inattention to the phraseology, occasioned doubtless by its identity with the harmless character attached to it in the instrument from which it was borrowed. But may it not be asked with infinitely more propriety, and without the possibility of a satisfactory answer, why, if the terms were meant to embrace not only all the powers particularly expressed, but the indefinite power which has been claimed under them, the intention was not so declared? why, on that supposition, so much critical labour was employed in enumerating the particular powers, and in defining and limiting their extent?"




In other words, he's saying the powers of Congress for the "general welfare" are limited to the enumerated powers of the Constitution and are not broad unlimited powers such as bailing out politically connected companies.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Berean

And there's the problem. In today's world, we get to decide what "the limits are" as long as we get 51% to agree.

Why don't you educate yourself and understand what the Founding Fathers thought the limits were?

Here's what James Madison, the person largely responsible for writing the Constitution, had to say in an 1830 letter to Andrew Stevenson -

"If it be asked why the terms "common defence and general welfare," if not meant to convey the comprehensive power which, taken literally, they express, were not qualified and explained by some reference to the particular powers subjoined, the answer is at hand, that although it might easily have been done, and experience shows it might be well if it had been done, yet the omission is accounted for by an inattention to the phraseology, occasioned doubtless by its identity with the harmless character attached to it in the instrument from which it was borrowed. But may it not be asked with infinitely more propriety, and without the possibility of a satisfactory answer, why, if the terms were meant to embrace not only all the powers particularly expressed, but the indefinite power which has been claimed under them, the intention was not so declared? why, on that supposition, so much critical labour was employed in enumerating the particular powers, and in defining and limiting their extent?"




In other words, he's saying the powers of Congress for the "general welfare" are limited to the enumerated powers of the Constitution and are not broad unlimited powers such as bailing out politically connected companies.

So I pose a simple question and your response is to say I should educate myself?

I believe he is saying Congress does not have power to pass legislation that is reserved for the states. However it has been shown Congress may spend money in such regard.

The argument here is if a bailout is appropriate.

Interesting that you toss in "politically connected". Does it make a difference if they aren't?

And just for fun, how does it work when a company bails out the government?

[CamaroSkooter]

I hate the idea of government buying shares in a private company.

If the government had given GM a "loan" I might not have been quite so bothered by it. But for the government to actualluy buy shares like "government" is some kind of investment guru is just bonkers to me.

The government should never put its taxpayers money at "risk" in the stock market. The only person I want to be risking my money in the stock market is me (or the Ameriprise guy that handles my IRA ).

That's what I was getting at earlier.

[Berean]

Originally Posted by Number 3

So I pose a simple question and your response is to say I should educate myself?

Yes, you should. Uneducated voters are why we're in this mess. The fact that you would even consider that government bailouts of private companies is even remotely withing the scope of the Constitution, is part of the problem.

Originally Posted by Number 3

I believe he is saying Congress does not have power to pass legislation that is reserved for the states. However it has been shown Congress may spend money in such regard.

He's not saying that, and there's no way you can get that from what he did say. Congress does a lot of things, it doesn't mean it's constitutional.

Originally Posted by Number 3

The argument here is if a bailout is appropriate.

Right, and it's isn't.

Originally Posted by Number 3

Interesting that you toss in "politically connected". Does it make a difference if they aren't?

Yes, because companies that aren't politically connected, don't get bailouts.