GM pays back US & Canadian loans way early

[mhood]

Originally Posted by Hylton

Even if I am paying you back with your money (which I also borrowed)?

Exactly! Why is that hard to understand?

[tradosaurus]

Originally Posted by Kreature

hmm interesting, i hope its not 100% true. although i was kinda suspicious on how GM was able to repay their bailout money so quickly.

So if its 90% true it would be alright?

It wouldn't be suprising. It would be like using one credit card to pay off another credit card.

[irocnroll]

Originally Posted by Unfair

GM sent out this email, it seems a little misleading for them to praise what they did, when it was later found out to be bailout money paying bailout money, (which is cool i guess since it's their own money) just saying the email is like "look what we did!" but not how they did it?



Just seems a little shifty is all i'm saying. i agree fenwick it's paid back money they borrowed anyway.

Its not missleading. Nowhere in the email does it state that it used profits to pay it off. All they said is they payed it back. What does it really matter how they payed the loan off.

Originally Posted by Hylton

Even if I am paying you back with your money (which I also borrowed)?

The point is that the borrowed money was payed back. Its like someone borrowing money from you, then they find out they really don't need to use it and turn around and give it back to you, with interest. I don't see the big deal here. They aren't making outrageous claims here. All they are stating is that they payed it back.

[Hylton]

Originally Posted by irocnroll

Its not missleading. Nowhere in the email does it state that it used profits to pay it off. All they said is they payed it back. What does it really matter how they payed the loan off.




The point is that the borrowed money was payed back. Its like someone borrowing money from you, then they find out they really don't need to use it and turn around and give it back to you, with interest. I don't see the big deal here. They aren't making outrageous claims here. All they are stating is that they payed it back.

At best, this news is worthy of a small mention in the back pages of WSJ. This is more of a money shuffle story than any kind of accomplishment worthy of all the commercials/news releases.

[1bad65]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

If only it were that easy. The labor costs were not a cause but an effect of the same reason that brought GM down....this thing snowballed out of control starting in the 70s. Nailing any one group/person/thing down for it would be inaccurate.

Not to be rude, but what in the world does that mean?

And the unions were the main cause. Another thing the Big 3 did was 'backend' the autoworkers compensation packages. Instead of just giving large per hour raises when the unions demanded more, management often agreed to bigger healthcare and bigger pension plans. So each year as the workforce aged, and thus more and more workers retired and got older, labor costs went up. And not only did they go up, but the retired guys receiving the large pensions and healthcare benefits were no longer producing anything for the company.

One of the reasons Ford did not need a bailout was that several years ago they made a deal with the UAW that was better for them than the deals GM and Chrysler had with the UAW.

[StuntmanMike]

Originally Posted by a_Username

Then feel free to post evidence of political interference that directly effects the new GM's (as a corporation) business plans.

Originally Posted by Hylton

Dude, come on....

That's not really compelling evidence. Is that the best you can do?

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by ssump29

So they giving back money that they borrowed but didn't have to use. WHAT THE HELL IS THE PROBLEM. Would you rather they keep it and give it out as bonuses. How is this bad or not comfortable news.

As a business man I don't care what pot or where you are getting your money to give me my money just as long as its paid back.

Would you rather have GM blow the money on something useless and pay it back on time? The money is paid back early. This is good news no matter how you slice it.

[alrox]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

Would you rather have GM blow the money on something useless and pay it back on time? The money is paid back early. This is good news no matter how you slice it.

Using a big pile of funny money to pay back a smaller pile of semi-legitimate money, both given to you by the same entity, is just a charade.

The government playing charades with the largest US automaker is not a good thing.

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by alrox

Using a big pile of funny money to pay back a smaller pile of semi-legitimate money, both given to you by the same entity, is just a charade.

The government playing charades with the largest US automaker is not a good thing.

You would rather complain that GM is sitting on money it isn't using than complain that GM is paying back government money it isn't using. It all sounds like a lot of complaining to me.

[BackinBlackSS/RS]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

You would rather complain that GM is sitting on money it isn't using than complain that GM is paying back government money it isn't using. It all sounds like a lot of complaining to me.

x a million, mountain meet mole hill.

[Supermans]

Originally Posted by StuntmanMike

That's not really compelling evidence. Is that the best you can do?

OK, I removed the offensive obama car. Please let me know if I should delete anything else I have said here..

I can start with the basic influence that has been around since the early 70's. There is an indirect influence from both the government and Congress on auto designers and engineers to produce environmentally friendly cars. "Regulators are talking to companies, and companies are responding to regulators,". And there is a faction in Congress that believes that since two of the companies are owned by taxpayers, they need to "behave in a way that's favorable to the environmental movement. There is a dichotomy between what the government wants sold in the market to meet emissions and fuel-economy requirements and what the public wants. It is not rocket science to see how the Government is affecting directly and indirectly the car industry. as for GM, all of the top level employee's have to follow what the Obama administration's vision is where they should be. They want to keep their jobs in this troubled economy.

As for evidence of political interference that directly effects the new GM. There are so many examples of this I don't know where to begin.

Let's start with this one.

Obama administration orders the government to buy more gm cars vs other brands after bailout. Less of Ford, and not looking for the best prices either but GM cars only. Now I know the Government has bought many GM cars in the past, however they have also bought a large sum of Ford vehicles and other brands. However in this case, the numbers have been skewed heavily in GM's favor in order to artificially boost sales numbers even though it is not directly coming from the taxpayers but indirectly thru the Government. So you say what's wrong with this? Ford is getting the shaft for not accepting Obama's takeover bid in the long run.

The firing of Rick Wagoner as another direct influence along with thehiring of the new CEO. This same concept of indirect influence thru a direct appointment is seen with the Supreme Court appointments.

Then you have Barney Frank and company making decisions in congress about keeping and getting rid of dealerships.. I could go on and on..

Hylton is correct here and I know I am not against GM by far, however I do not like the way our country is heading since I do not like too much Government control. Not to get political, I will not be bothered with this as there is nothing we can do about propaganda and making use of a slogan or headline that GM has payed back its loan money in full and so forth when in reality they are far from it if you take into account all the vehicles our Government has purchased from itself in the mix.. All in all I hope GM can keep making a profit from this day forth and that one day it returns to being a private company.


Do you guys remember when Rick Waggoner and the other two ceo's were lambasted for flying in private jets by our Government?

Well, how about on Earth Day, our Government ties up air traffic for the day and burns countless amounts of fuel. Hypocritical anyone?
http://nycaviation.com/2010/04/21/ob...the-same-city/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...84-503544.html

I remember everyone in this forum upset at the way the Government was treating GM and the other car companies. It seemed back then being against what the Government was doing was a good thing.. Now we have so many defending what our Government is doing after they took over GM. I'm hoping that everyone can take a step back and question sometimes these obvious propaganda slogans that come out at the most opportunistic times when they appear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Blur View Post
Would you rather have GM blow the money on something useless and pay it back on time? The money is paid back early. This is good news no matter how you slice it.


I'd rather have them use the money wisely by researching and developing new vehicles people want to buy in droves, and not coerced into buying with more incentives and handouts..

[Crowley]

Originally Posted by alrox

It can very well happen. They lost 4.3 billion in their car production. They still aren't a profitable company even after the 100+ billion that was given to them.

The 'payback' is a complete fraud.

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by Supermans

I'd rather have them use the money wisely by researching and developing new vehicles people want to buy in droves, and not coerced into buying with more incentives and handouts..

Do you have any idea what's going on at GM right now? Future product programs have been pushed up, programs that had been shelved previously are back on track, GM's R&D budget is huge now, incentives are down across the board...

[Brokinarrow]

it's just GrASSley trying to get some visibility. ignore him.