Gaar, So, you agree with the facts that the Gunney posted. I mean, you made no effort to dispute any of them so that's a reasonable conclusion for me to make.
On Sep 22, 11:43 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Loans were repaid b y the mid 1980's and they made some $300 or > $400 Million on the Warrants... > > And they were not the only one's that have had such things. > > http://www.propublica.org/special/government-bailouts > > On Sep 22, 9:22 pm, SgtUSMC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > You always call people ignorant and right after you have shown your > > ignorance. I'll use an article from the ultra-conservative Heritage > > Foundation to give you what they say are the facts about the Chrysler > > bailout. This is from 1983. > > > 1- The truth is that the Chrysler Corporation has gone bankrupt In the > > past three years, by every normal definition of the word. > > > Chrysler has renegotiated its debts and restructured its organization > > in a way that greatly resembles a company going through Chapter 11 > > bankruptcy. Its creditors, like those of bankrupt firms, were forced > > to swallow sizeable losses. Chrysler was able to pay off more than > > $600 million in debts at just 30 cents on the dollar.. > > > 2-Chrysler's creditors are not alone in being socked by the company's > > quasi-bankruptcy. The firm's workers have paid an even greater price. > > Despite the fact that the loan guarantees were approved by Congress > > mainly to protect jobs at Chrysler, the company has sent home nearly > > half of its employees, cutting its white collar work force by 20,000 > > and laying off 42,600 of its hourly workers since the loan guarantees > > were signed into law. Many observers, including Senator William > > Proxmire (D-Wis complain that the number of employees laid off at > > Chrysler in this period is at least as large--and may even have been > > larger than the number of jobs that probably would have been lost had > > Chrysler actually been forced into bankruptcy. > > > Chrysler's creditors and employees have paid a price no different than > > they would have paid in reorganization under the bankruptcy laws the > > workers and creditors who have benefitted from federal generosity, who > > has? The answer: Mainly Chrysler's shareholders But not even all of > > Chrysler's shareholders benefitted: sensib1e stockholders-the ones who > > carefully monitored Chrysler's financial and management performance-- > > probably sold the stock well before the bailout occurred. Therefore, > > only two types of Chrysler stockholders really benefitted 'from 'the > > bail-out 1) less informed investors who either ignored the warning > > signs of Chrysler's impending bankruptcy or else failed to act on > > them, and 2) the stock holders who were gambling that the federal > > government would come to Chrysler's rescue and minimize their > > potential losses. > > > 3- In early 1980, Chrysler was able to issue government-guaranteed > > bonds at an interest rate of only 10.35 percent, while Ford Motor > > Company was forced to pay about 14.50 percent for its unguaranteed > > bonds. If Chrysler did not have the loan guarantees, it would almost > > certainly have to pay a higher interest rate on its bonds than the > > more secure Ford Motor Company. Therefore, one would assume that > > Chrysler should be paying the federal government a guarantee fee of at > > least four percent. Yet Chrysler pays only one percent, or about $12 > > million a year. > > > Chrysler attempted to make up the difference by giving the government > > 14.4 million warrants, which are certificates that give the government > > the right to purchase a share of Chrysler stock at $13 a share. Even > > if the stock price does rise to the point where American taxpayers > > would be fully compensated for the 300 million in interest subsidies > > that Chrysler will enjoy during the 1980s, the company is clearly not > > eager to see taxpayers collecting on those warrants In early 1983, > > Chrysler publicly demanded that the Treasury Department return the > > warrants to Chrysler, claiming that cashing in now-valuable warrants > > would amount to usury. Due to adverse public reaction, a Chrysler > > spokesman said that the company would not press the demand at this > > time. > > > 4- Chrysler claims that cost cutting has been an important factor in > > the company's success. But Chrys1er's version of cost cutting provides > > a shaky foundation for long-term profitability. Examples: Carry- > > forward of tax losses. Chrysler's massive losses in 1979, 1980, and > > 1981 have given the company large tax deductions to cut its tax bills > > almost to zero throughout the 1980s. Of the 170 million earned by > > Chrysler in the first quarter of 1983 only half actually represents > > operating profit; the other half is attributable to Chrysler's large > > loss carry-forward & cuts in research and development (R&D) spending. > > > On Sep 22, 11:40 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Actually holy... > > > > It seems the conditions of this "Loan" will be MUCH better than the > > > one with Chrysler. > > > > Your ignorance on the matter notwithstanding. > > > > On Sep 22, 7:46 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Gaar, > > > > > Really? Are you telling me that the terms and conditions of this > > > > "loan" are EXACTLY the same as the terms and conditions of the "loan" > > > > given to Chrysler over 20 yeras ago? Is that the stance you wish to > > > > take? > > > > > On Sep 22, 6:25 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > And when Chrysler "scored" $1.5 Billion, way back when, they not only > > > > > repaid the Loans, with Interest, but the Warrants they Issued the > > > > > Government were also later sold and they made an additional $400 > > > > > Million, or 26%+ of the Loan amount. > > > > > > Those who fail to Learn their History... > > > > > > On Sep 22, 2:59 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Philo, > > > > > > > And corporate America just scored $700 billion of the tax-payer's > > > > > > money. > > > > > > > On Sep 22, 4:30 pm, Philobealo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Suckling at the government teat for their entire lives, libs > > > > > > > drain > > > > > > > and drain our economy to the point where they have now broken the > > > > > > > banking system. IF there's gonna be a bailout, I want to make sure > > > > > > > that the government TAKES those foreclosures from brokeback, > > > > > > > broke-ass > > > > > > > libs and kicks them out on the street where they belong.- Hide > > > > > > > quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
