[Winder]

GM Finds Creative New Ways To "Stuff Channels", Get Backdoor Taxpayer Bailouts | ZeroHedge


It looks like General Motors will be throwing everything in but the kitchen sink to help fluff its second quarter earnings numbers. Taxpayers continue to help with the cause as President Obama campaigns on the "success" of GM following the manipulated bankruptcy process that cost taxpayers $50 billion and another $45 billion of tax credits gifted to GM to help protect powerful UAW interests. We now learn that government purchases of GM vehicles rose a whopping 79% in June.


The government's increased spending on GM vehicle purchases presents yet another conflict of interest as Treasury refuses to sell taxpayers' stake in GM and Obama campaigns on the auto bailouts. It does not appear that any members of Congress (from either party) are questioning the increased spending. Also ignored was the Department of Energy's gifting of $2.7 million of taxpayer money to GM to reduce energy consumption in its door manufacturing process by 50%. The DOE seems to be one of the main conduits to funnel taxpayer funds to cronies of the Administration. The $2.7 million contribution to GM comes after additional millions of dollars were spent by the DOE on advisory fees paid to legal firms that helped smooth the way for the GM bankruptcy process (as reported here); another move that went unquestioned.

[Wheatfield]

Can you imagine how wound up Jack will be? On the one hand, anything Obama does is pure evil, but on the other hand, imagine what kind of shape Detroit would be in if Obama just let's GM sink into the economic cesspool.

[Winder]

Can you imagine how wound up Jack will be? On the one hand, anything Obama does is pure evil, but on the other hand, imagine what kind of shape Detroit would be in if Obama just let's GM sink into the economic cesspool.

Not much left of Detroit to sink. It has become the bankrupt ward of the state of Michigan. They should have let it file for bankruptcy. GM is profitable around the globe...... except for the USA. All U.S. profits made in the 10 years prior to the crash were from the financing arm of GM (GMAC).

There is no law that says we need 3 American automakers in the world. We need to make it easier for new companies with new ideas and technology to enter the automotive market.

[Jack]

Can you imagine how wound up Jack will be? On the one hand, anything Obama does is pure evil, but on the other hand, imagine what kind of shape Detroit would be in if Obama just let's GM sink into the economic cesspool.

I'm not wound up. This is a socialist gov't at work. America was founded on free enterprise. This is where you let the free market decide who does and doesn't survive. This has nothing do do with death panels in health care, although insurance fits in this category of business. It's supply and demand. If somebody has a good or service that is superior to another then the inferior product needs to be made better or better service provided if they want to stay in business. Here the buyer makes the decision. Now we have a gov't out of selfish want manipulating the market for votes. Forget about the product that nobody wants because they're crap:

GM recalls popular Cruze over fire risk - Yahoo! Finance

GM recalls Volts to fix fire risk - Jan. 5, 2012

Politics:General Motors, in particular, paid less than zero taxes of 2011. And when the Administration brags that GM reported a $7.6 billion profit in 2011, conservatives are quick to note the profits include roughly $100 million in the form of a tax benefit document in GM's annual report (p. 51) — and, thus, massive untaxed profits.

I'll admit it's not a perfect system since imperfect people are in charge. Liberals complain about Republicans caring more about profit, but what about all these liberal millionaires like politicians and Hollywood personalities? Are they willing to give up their money to help the common man? No. But they are willing to take yours to do it. Biden gave an average of $369 to charity a year (1). They still live in their mansions holding on to their money proclaiming about how great it will be all because they want to be in power. What about the common man who votes Republican. Are we all rich? Obviously not. I think we tend to be more conservative in our monetary views in that you don't spend more than you make. Printing money only raises inflation unless the gov't artificially holds it down while it takes more dollars to buy products-both needs and wants. Are corporate profits way out of wack. Yes. But then again where do the political parties get their money? Special interest groups should be banned from Washington. But then again, they make the laws everybody else, except them, have to follow. That's both sides of the isle. Are Republicans more charity oriented? As a whole I believe yes. Dataset of the Day: Who is more Generous? Republicans or Democrats? (2) Are there stingy republicans and generous democrats? Yes, everybody fits into a different mold. If Detroit fell another entity would move in, like zombies. Zombie Theme Park May Be Headed For Detroit(3)


(1) Biden gave average of $369 to charity a year - USATODAY.com
(2) Dataset of the Day: Who is more Generous? Republicans or Democrats? | GeoIQ Blog
(3) Zombie Theme Park May Be Headed For Detroit

[Ratmagiclady]

Not much left of Detroit to sink. It has become the bankrupt ward of the state of Michigan. They should have let it file for bankruptcy. GM is profitable around the globe...... except for the USA. All U.S. profits made in the 10 years prior to the crash were from the financing arm of GM (GMAC).

There is no law that says we need 3 American automakers in the world. We need to make it easier for new companies with new ideas and technology to enter the automotive market.

Actually, the only reason GM *really* had financial problems from the crash is *because* of their Wall Street GMAC financing arm and the deregulations about all manner of other things... Like having lots and lots full of inefficient vehicles that were being *sold* with speculative finance until gas hit 4 bucks a gallon *while* the Bush recession and financial crisis were in effect.

And as for the state of Michigan, actually, if it's just Detroit to blame, why is the *rest* of the state having all these problems that are worsening under the *Teabagger governor* overriding and taking over *rural town* local governments?

[jogiba]

Forget about the product that nobody wants because they're crap

Right, Ford and Chrysler wished they sold as many vehicles as GM.

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[Medium FormatPro]

Right, Ford and Chrysler wished they sold as many vehicles as GM

Chrysler no longer an american label.

Now there's a scan that's an american legend. america bails out Chrysler and also it's financial division; seperately and also on many occassions. Not long after it is scooped up by Fiat.

[Tom S.]

Not much left of Detroit to sink. It has become the bankrupt ward of the state of Michigan. They should have let it file for bankruptcy. GM is profitable around the globe...... except for the USA. All U.S. profits made in the 10 years prior to the crash were from the financing arm of GM (GMAC).

There is no law that says we need 3 American automakers in the world. We need to make it easier for new companies with new ideas and technology to enter the automotive market.

Sigh...

First off, the demise of GM would have had a major effect on the country, not just Detroit. In fact, using Detroit is a very bad example because GM only has one plant left there. The Wall Street Journal estimated that the fall of GM would have added 1 million people to the unemployment roles. As for your assertion that the US is the only place GM isn't profitable, is also wrong as their European stats have long been a trouble spot.

Also cited in the WSJ, the bailout of GM cost taxpayers far less than them going out of business would have, when you add up the cost of unemployment, health care and other government assistance programs. Those numbers overshadowed the bailout costs, even if GM never paid a cent back, which they have, and continue to do.

[kswier]

It looks like General Motors will be throwing everything in but the kitchen sink to help fluff its second quarter earnings numbers.

The question I have is whether other automotive companies are also trying to fluff their numbers. Is GM doing this because their business model is not profitable, or is it because we are in a slight economic downturn (GM was making profit before the downturn). If it is the latter, it really has no bearing on the success of the bailout, and GM will start making larger profits when the economy gets a bit better.

Taxpayers continue to help with the cause as President Obama campaigns on the "success" of GM following the manipulated bankruptcy process that cost taxpayers $50 billion and another $45 billion of tax credits gifted to GM to help protect powerful UAW interests.

This is clearly a biased article. You can tell by the way it is written. Thus, I do not trust everything it is saying. They do not explain why government purchases of GM vehicles rose 79% in June. Why only look at one month? Did the government purchase 79% more cars in June? Did GM give the government a good deal to help boost their sales? Sure, it could be corruption, but I need an unbiased source. Why isn't the government selling GM stock? Is it because the original agreement was that the government would hold the stock for a certain period of time? is it because a large sell off would be detrimental to GM at this point in time so they are selling it gradually? The real question is whether the Government has a plan to get rid of GM stock (I do not know if they do or do not). This article does a good job explaining what is happening, but jumps to political motives when trying to explain why it is happening.

[jeffkrol]

It does not appear that any members of Congress (from either party) are questioning the increased spending

says it all right there.. They "get it"....... fiat money....no need to "tax" Defifcits don't matter...........

GM has sooooo many direct and indirect hooks in the economy.. from pensioners to chuck wagons that only a real idiot would have allowed them to fail..
Take the fiat money.. start restructuring all the internal and external "hooks" BUY time to adjust.
(no YOU will not have to "pay" for it) .

simple..........
as to the stock.. you want them to buy high sell low????

MARK ZANDI: Right. Well, you know, the auto industry has its fingers deep into our economy. In fact, there's no other industry where, if you lose a job in that industry, it has bigger impacts throughout the rest of our economy, and it's not only the loss of jobs at those automakers, but it is the dealers, it is the suppliers, it is -- because you lose a lot of income and wealth in those -- in the lost jobs in those industries, they can't go out and spend, so that causes jobs in retailing and in different kinds of services to lose jobs.

So just to give you a number, for every lost job at an auto assembler like GM and Chrysler, you lose as many as 10 other jobs in the rest of the economy, so that so-called multiplier is very, very large and very significant.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/jan-june09/gmanalysis_06-03.html
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-06-01-gm-economy_N.htm

[jogiba]

Chrysler no longer an american label.

Now there's a scan that's an american legend. america bails out Chrysler and also it's financial division; seperately and also on many occassions. Not long after it is scooped up by Fiat.

Not as big a scam as AstraZeneca :

For over the last 20 years, AstraZeneca was the manufacturer of one of the largest selling breast cancer drugs in the world: Nolvadex (tamoxifen citrate). (According to a notice posted at www.nolvadex.com, Nolvadex is no longer manufactured or sold in the United States as of June 2006; however, the drug's generic form tamoxifen citrate is still available).

Nolvadex is not a cure for cancer. It has been heavily prescribed as a drug to lessen the risk of reoccurrence in women who have previously received treatment for breast cancer.

It was also approved for use as a "risk reduction" drug (the FDA would not allow the term "prevention"), and prescribed to women with no presence of breast cancer who are considered to be at elevated risk.

This drug has been very profitable for AstraZeneca, with sales over $400 million annually, but it is also a very controversial drug. It has significant side effects that have been linked to uterine cancer, liver cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, depression, eye damage, blood clots, and even breast cancer--the very condition it is supposed to treat!

But the story doesn't stop there.

AstraZeneca (ICI) is a chemical giant, and is one of the world's top producers of organochlorides, which are chlorine-based industrial chemicals. Organochlorides are used in the manufacture of a wide variety of compounds, including Agent Orange, PCB's, and DDT.

Organochlorides are also known carcinogens, and studies have found them to be specifically associated with increased incidence of breast cancer.

So here we have a corporation--a very large and profitable corporation with sales of $14 billion in 1998-- that makes its money from industrial chemicals that cause cancer and drugs that treat (and potentially cause) cancer. Incidentally, they also have a large financial stake in cancer treatment centers.

This brings us to another major criticism of NBCAM: the focus of their efforts is almost exclusively on detection and treatment of breast cancer, not on prevention.

This only makes sense since their main financial backer is a huge corporation that makes a fortune off the treatment of a disease they contribute to causing.

But beyond that, breast cancer and cancers in general can be prevented through changes in diet and lifestyle, like staying away from chemicals and drugs that cause cancer! The problem with this is that prevention is very inexpensive and not very profitable.

One more interesting thing about AstraZeneca's relationship with NBCAM is that part of the arrangement allows AstraZeneca to approve and/or veto any marketing materials related to NBCAM.

Thus, you will not find anything related to environmental causes of breast cancer or how it can be prevented by avoiding exposure to them. The American Cancer Society minimizes the cancer risks from industrial chemicals and pesticides, and will not take a stand on environmental regulation. It is a very carefully controlled Public Relations ploy.

The "Pink" Fraud - Brought to you by the people who make Breast Cancer by Dr. Loretta Lanphier, ND, CN, HHP

[Jack]

Media Fail: Government Motors Inflates Sales by Selling to...the Government | NewsBusters.org

[Tom S.]

Media Fail: Government Motors Inflates Sales by Selling to...the Government | NewsBusters.org

Can you post something as to how much of an actual percentage of GM sales the reported 79% increase by the government was? What I'm saying is if the government bought 5 cars in June instead of 2, then the governmrnts 79% increase doesn't mean squat. Also, it would be interesting to know what they were bought to replace. Government owned vehicles wear out just like privately owned vehicles do. Sometimes numbers don't really represent what they appear to represent.

[larryinlc]

. Sometimes numbers don't really represent what they appear to represent.

yeah, but news busters doesn't care about this.

[kswier]

Chrysler no longer an american label.

Now there's a scan that's an american legend. america bails out Chrysler and also it's financial division; seperately and also on many occassions. Not long after it is scooped up by Fiat.

Chrysler was bailed out on the condition that it would be sold to Fiat. The idea was that selling Chrysler to Fiat gave it the best chance of becoming prosperous (or something like that).