• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

GM Owes $172 BILLION!!!!

Mike

Well-known member
I s'pose the stock held by stockholders now will be "Zer0'ed out and issued to the new owners on par with ownership?

Those previous stockholders will be left holding an empty bag but the UAW members will get their obligations in full? :lol:

Bankrupt G.M. Says It Owes $172 Billion (vs. assets of $82 billion)
New York Times | June 1, 2009 | David E. Sanger, Jeff Zeleny, and Bill Vlasic


General Motors filed for bankruptcy on Monday morning, submitting its reorganization papers to a federal clerk in Lower Manhattan.

G.M. said it had $82.3 billion in assets and $172.8 billion in debts. Its largest creditors were the Wilmington Trust Company, representing a group of bondholders holding $22.8 billion in debts, and affiliates of the United Auto Workers union, representing nearly $20.6 billion in employee obligations.

...

Mr. Obama is taking several risks under the plan. None may be bigger than the decision that the United States government will take a 60 percent share of the stock in a new G.M., leaving taxpayers vulnerable if the overhaul is not successful. (Canada, for its part, is taking a 12 percent stake.)

“We don’t think that after this next $30 billion, they will need more money,” one senior administration official said. “But the fact is there are things you don’t know — like when the car market will come back, and how much Toyota and Honda and Volkswagen will benefit from the chaos.”

...

Officials say the president will insist that once the government sets up new management and a board, it will remove itself from G.M.’s day-to-day operations. But even his aides anticipate intense pressure as the company’s managers are called to testify in Congress and face questions like why they decided to build new cars in Mexico and South Korea, rather than in Michigan or the South.

“Congress and many Americans are going to say, if we own it, why can’t we make these decisions?” one of Mr. Obama’s top economic aides said, “and it’s going to be a challenge to answer that.”


(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
I've been wondering about something.
If we (US Government) own 60% of GM wouldn't we (the people) go buy GM vehicles over the other brands--just to insure the health of GM
and to make certain we eventually get our money back?

And isn't that again, AGAINST the free market system?
Now the other car companies have to compete with the government?
How fair is that? :???:

I'm serious with these questions. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
I've been wondering about something.
If we (US Government) own 60% of GM wouldn't we (the people) go buy GM vehicles over the other brands--just to insure the health of GM
and to make certain we eventually get our money back?

And isn't that again, AGAINST the free market system?
Now the other car companies have to compete with the government?
How fair is that? :???:

I'm serious with these questions. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I won't buy GM because that, to me, is an approval of this huge step towards socialism and that is unacceptable to me. The government is supposed to be an umpire in the game, not a participant.

There's a whole mess of problems with this deal. Take taxes for example; The US government doesn't pay taxes to it self, so how much tax revenue will we be losing if GM turns a profit? How does this affect it's competition like Ford who pays taxes? Speaking of Ford, how is it fair to them when GM will have totally different funding opportunities and structures because they're in bed with Obama?

This whole thing reeks to high heaven and is one of the reasons our forefathers set up a small, limited Federal Govt.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
I've been wondering about something.
If we (US Government) own 60% of GM wouldn't we (the people) go buy GM vehicles over the other brands--just to insure the health of GM
and to make certain we eventually get our money back?


And isn't that again, AGAINST the free market system?
Now the other car companies have to compete with the government?
How fair is that? :???:

I'm serious with these questions. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I would say the opposite will happen... I have owned Jeeps for years and with the dealer I used being "given" to a mega dealership,..

while I have comparison shopped at the larger dealer, but never bought a car from them as they are over priced and the truck deal always feels liked I am getting "conned",...

with GM, I feel the same will happen.. it will turn off the loyal customers and in the end the corporation will be given away to the union...

if what you are saying is to support what you have invested in usually only work when it is something you believe in and wanted to invest in...

another way to look at it... shouldn't the GM and Chrysler employee and management parking lots be full of their own cars?

if they (union/management) believed in the product and invested their career in making the cars.... wouldn't they want to own part of their future?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Steve, "while I have comparison shopped at the larger dealer, but never bought a car from them as they are over priced and the truck deal always feels liked I am getting "conned",... "

Have you noticed that one of the reasons given for getting rid of the smaller dealerships was to "increase profitability" of the others? Profitability is increased by either cutting costs or raising prices, and I haven't seen anything mentioned about cutting costs for those dealers. That leaves raising prices. Looks to me that Obama is reducing competition to increase prices to the consumer. What a guy.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
The truth hurts.

Somebody tell me again exactly how this guy got elected!

You'd expect such mentality on the Jerry Springer guest list.
 
Top