By on September 9, 2009

The autoblogosphere is abuzz re: a recently released Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program report stating the obvious: US taxpayers can kiss their $60.5 billion-plus Chrysler and GM Debtor-in-Possession funding goodbye.

Although taxpayers may recover some portion of their investment in Chrysler and GM, it is unlikely they will recover the entire amount. The estimates of loss vary. Treasury estimates that approximately $23 billion of the initial loans made will be subject to “much lower recoveries.” Approximately $5.4 billion of the loans extended to the old Chrysler company are highly unlikely to be recovered. The Congressional Budget Office earlier calculated a subsidy rate of 73 percent for all automotive industry support under TARP and recently raised its estimate of the cost of that assistance by approximately $40 billion over the previous estimate. Because Treasury has not clearly articulated its objectives, it is impossible to know if this prospect, indeed, represents a failure of Treasury‟s strategy.

Note: that figure is what anyone in business calls “low ball.” For one thing, it doesn’t include the automakers’ inevitable share of the Department of Energy’s $25 billion of no-to-low interest retooling loans, or the $7500 tax credit for theoretical buyers of the theoretical Chevy Volt, or anything else for that matter.

In fact, if you add the $12.5 billion, middle-of-the-night, Christmas Eve, let’s-change-the-banking-rules just-for-GMAC FDIC boondoggle, or the $3.5 billion fronted to auto suppliers, we’re looking at an non-recoupable federal “investment” in the failed automakers that totals more than $100 billion.

For another, Chrysler and GM are zombies: dead automakers trading. When they collapse, their assets will be worth pennies on the dollar. In that regard, the Panel is no punch-pulling palaver.

To wit: it tackles the automakers’ “Cash Flow Challenges.” How about all that New debt, then? “The amount of money to service this debt, even before the companies start to pay for normal operations, such as steel and wages, is significant.” The chart [page 67] reveals that New Chrysler needs to generate $20.4 billion by 2017 to service its debt. GM has to generate $15.56 billion, including a $9.96 billion payment in ’15.

Uh-oh . . .

The viability plans assume positive cashflow in the relatively short term. To the extent that cash from the sale of automobiles cannot cover the costs of production or other corporate costs, Chrysler and GM will have to borrow money from banks, or access the debt or equity capital markets . . . it is unclear whether either company in its current form could access the banks or the debt capital markets in the amounts and on the terms that they would require.

What’s a mother to do? The Panel hints at a politically unpalatable suggestion:

Moreover, the Treasury auto team’s decision to dispose of its ownership stakes in Chrysler and GM “as soon as practicable” also raises important policy questions regarding the safeguarding of the taxpayers‟ investment, maximizing taxpayer return and the government‟s likelihood of achieving the operational, cultural and economic restructuring it seeks. The lingering issue is whether the government can really change the culture of these companies and help improve their profitability while it remains a (supposedly) disinterested shareholder with a “hands-off” approach to managing its investment. Merely exercising the right to vote on slates for boards of directors and other significant corporate governance issues may not provide the influence necessary to achieve the level of transformation sought.

And here’s how!

Treasury could articulate a mission and strategy for these companies that is transparent to management, the boards, and the taxpayers, set up a system for reporting and disclosures, and leave the business in the charge of management. The Treasury auto team has approved Chrysler and GM‟s viability plans. It has appointed or reinstated 10 of the 13 board members at New GM. It has appointed four of the nine board members at New Chrysler. New management is firmly in place. The longer that Treasury lingers in the decisions of management, the greater the opportunity that such decisions could become politicized.

Or, alternatively, vice versa. Or, alternatively, so what else is new? But before we go there, where the hell are we? Not to be inelegant about it, fuck knows.

In addition to information about revenues and profitability, New Chrysler and New GM should provide the taxpayer investors with a set of metrics by which the companies‟ success can be measured, along with periodic updates regarding progress toward those goals.408 The companies should also disclose to what extent internal controls, that is, clearly defined processes and procedures relating to the communication of information, accountability for individual employees, etc., have been established to ensure the companies‟ plans are being properly implemented and executed. To date, neither Treasury nor either company has disclosed such information.

Bottom line:

The Panel recommends that Treasury use its role as a significant shareholder in Chrysler and GM to ensure that these companies fully disclose their financial status and that the compensation of their executives is aligned to clear measures of long-term success. To limit the impact of conflicts of interest and to facilitate an effective exit strategy, Treasury should also consider placing its Chrysler and GM shares in an independent trust that would be insulated from political pressure and government interference.

Finally, because of the unprecedented nature of the assistance provided to the automotive industry, the Panel also recommends that Treasury provide its legal analysis justifying the use of TARP funds for this purpose. This analysis will inform policymakers‟ and taxpayers‟ understanding of the potential for Treasury to use its authority to assist other struggling industries.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

44 Comments on “Officially Official: Taxpayers Will Lose Tens of Billions on Chrysler, GM Bailout...”


  • avatar
    KatiePuckrik

    So, the US taxpayer may get some of its money back if GM and Chrysler’s stock hit unpredecented highs. However, since US taxpayers are boycotting GM and Chrysler BECAUSE they took a bailout, this makes the prospect of high stock levels as likely as Bob Lutz addmitting that Rick Wagoner’s leadership left a lot to be desired German carmakers accepting that the Toyota Prius is a great fuel saver.

    Which means, GM and Chrysler will plunge further, meaning it will almost certainly need another bailout, thus starting the cycle one more time.

    However, Ford will continue to prosper and US taxpayers start to move to them as they believe in supporting US companies who don’t scream for a handout.

    Funny how economics work….(!)

  • avatar
    BuzzDog

    This may be over-simplifying things, but from day one of the bailouts I’ve wondered if it would have cost less in the long-term to simply start two new car companies.

  • avatar

    I don’t know about the mess at GM, but the situation with Chrysler is cut and dried. Adjust the market cap of Chrysler in Q4 1997 to the CPI to date. Then consider the piece of the action owned by Uncle Sam and do the math.

    Within a million or so, we’ve handed over to Fiat what the “our” share of the company would be worth in the event Chrysler makes a full recovery. Seeing that the most rapidly recovering auto company in the world is making, in three months, immodest positive changes in the vehicles they’ve inherited Chrysler may not be such a terrible gamble after all.

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    First of all, the Panel starts by repeating the Detroit-initiated meme that Chrysler and GM’s collapse wasn’t their fault.

    I’m not seeing that in the statement below:

    Even before last year‟s financial crisis, the American automotive industry was facing severe strains. Foreign competitors had steadily eroded its market share. Rising fuel prices had softened demand for its products. Legacy costs had constrained its flexibility. And a series of poor strategic decisions by its executives had compounded these problems.

    What they seem to be saying is that the US automakers were on the ropes before the crisis hit, and that the reasons were indeed their own fault. It’s perhaps a little softer in it’s punch by virtue of it’s mentioning strategic gaffes last, but it’s not pulling those punches.

  • avatar
    panzerfaust

    Whaaaaaaaat? A government program that cost too much and didn’t work?

  • avatar
    Autosavant

    The US Consumer does NOT do any “boycott” of the domestics, or those that took bailouts.

    Most people I know here who boycott, even though they know better, is those who always buy domestics and will not even consider the vastly superior imports, in almost every every category. And they do it at their own economic harm, not because they “got to have” these domestics.

    If the US government had not stuck its nose in the US Auto Industry, EVER, we would have a far toughte, far more competitive, domestic industry, and the tens of billions of our hard earned tax $ would have not been wasted.

  • avatar
    highrpm

    What gets me the most is GM especially. They took my money and now the execs are walking around saying that it’s not the cars or the management, it’s the perception gap.

    So basically, they took our money and are calling us idiots for not buying their cars.

  • avatar
    GarbageMotorsCo.

    Like so many of us out there, I will continue to support these bailouts by NOT buying a single product from either of them.

  • avatar
    PeteMoran

    What? They’re not even going to pretend to pay it back? (Feign surprise).

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    Interestingly, this isn’t a bad memo, leaving aside the whole “we’re probably not going to get the money back” realism.

    What’s nice is the lines about “establishing goals for performance and transparency”. I’d really, really like to see them do it, because GM and Chrysler are spectacularly bad at that right now. I’d be all for some arm-twisting, if it’s not done as a kind of wishy-washy bipartisan compromise that satisfies no one.

  • avatar
    Rod Panhard

    +1 Buzzdog. How much was it to start Saturn from a “clean sheet,” and that was from an incompetent organization.

    +1 Psarhjian, except that we know that transparency ain’t gonna happen now because it sure didn’t happen before.

    Could this release of information of an $84 billion black hole torpedo any hopes for this round of Health Care Reform? I think voters are tiring of pouring government money into black holes, only to find little or no results.

    And while we’re at it, How Soon Until GM and Chrysler return to the Bailout Buffet?

  • avatar
    Old Guy Ben

    Wow, never saw this coming. Such strong businesses that were just hurting a little because of that minor recession (which countless pundits have said has ended already).

    I’m shocked.

  • avatar
    Orian

    Meh, I’m still waiting on something for all the billions sunk into Iraq. Oh wait, I won’t be seeing that money back either.

    Moving on then.

  • avatar
    Logans_Run

    Folks this was never about the future viability of GM or Chrysler. It was about the union jobs and the UAW pension and retiree medical obligations. Thanks to generous pension and retiree fringe benefits these companies have been dead men walking for years. Had we let them file for a “proper” BK they would have been liquidated and the pension obligation would have been transfered to the PBGC. The retiree benefits would have received a haircut and increased insurance premiums would have been exacted from all US pension plans. If that proved inadequate the US taxpayer would have been asked to contribute. The retiree healthcare liability (approx.$50 billion at GM alone)would have vaporized and a whole bunch of hourly retirees would have suddenly been on the Medicare rolls. This would have come directly out of the taxpayers’ pockets. Instead we have two dead companies that continue to pay retiree benefits well over market and you and I get the honor of making good on commitments that GM and Chrysler management made but couldn’t keep. To add insult to injury the latest healthcare bill has a provision that would allow the UAW to claim approx. $10 billion to fund the retiree healthcare because they know that the GM stock they own will never cover the obligation. Again, you and I get to pay for that. In essence this is a bailout of the UAW. Plain and simple. Until we shut them down this will only get worse. The UAW took virtually no haircut in the BK and the workers continue to accrue benefits at above market levels. UAW employees are still eligible to fully retire at age 50 with 30 years of service. I personally have no pension waiting for me when I retire and have been planning and providing for my own retirement. I resent that my taxes (which will surely increase since I am in the top 5% of wage earners) are going to pay a special interest group that helped drive the auto industry into the tank. I own one GM product presently but have vowed to never purchase another UAW made product in my lifetime. That is likely 5 to 7 cars that will be bought from a foreign automaker. What started as a problem for GM, Ford and Chrysler has now become our problem. Yet because of our political system and the influence of the UAW we are being held hostage. I have already told my Congressman and both Senators that I intend to campaign against them come next election cycle. I can only marginally influence our government and this bailout madness but as a consumer I can choose to vote my dollars elsewhere. I already have since I bought my college aged son a Subaru within the last six months. Those of you who frequent this site with ties to the UAW, you can go fuck yourselves! I don’t ordinarily use that type of language but in this case you have earned it. I hope that you pay dearly for your sense of arrogance and entitlement. You are a bunch of communists. That is correct. Read your history. Read about Walter Reuther. He was a fucking communist!

  • avatar
    slateslate

    ***this may be over-simplifying things, but from day one of the bailouts I’ve wondered if it would have cost less in the long-term to simply start two new car companies.***

    Yes, it would probably would have been better to create brand new companies.

    But Big 2.8, the suppliers, Cerberus, the local dealers’ associations all have a lot more clout than any venture capitalist.

  • avatar
    wsn

    # BuzzDog :
    September 9th, 2009 at 9:14 am

    This may be over-simplifying things, but from day one of the bailouts I’ve wondered if it would have cost less in the long-term to simply start two new car companies.

    ——————————————

    Obama’s goal was not to save GM/Chrysler as companies. His goal was to save UAW jobs and high salaries. How could he accomplish this goal by starting new companies?

  • avatar
    Dick

    But the good news is our government officials have announced that giving away 2.9 billion tax dollars in CFC was a monumental success of epic proportions.

    You do realize that in most sane nations, the peasants would have already revolted, and forcefully removed the offending government?

  • avatar
    Logans_Run

    @Dick:
    Ahhh but in this nation it is the peasants (read ACORN and its constituents) that have the most to gain from the offending government. Virtually no taxes, free government supplied healthcare on the way, “social” justice (read as income redistribution) and their man in the White House.

  • avatar

    The US Consumer does NOT do any “boycott” of the domestics, or those that took bailouts.

    I know people who are.

    John

  • avatar
    Autosavant

    The US Consumer does NOT do any “boycott” of the domestics, or those that took bailouts.

    “I know people who are.

    John”

    Who are doing which of the 2 different items above?

    I am aware of people who say they will never buy a GM or Chrysler because of the bailout. (this does not mean that they will actually do it, BTW)

    But I am aware of no people who boycott ALL the domestics. If they buy imports, it is because they like them better, and/or because of their better reputation and history with them and other owners. (“Brand” Loyalty).

    It is no surprise to me that, when Honda made the very unwise decision to eliminate the “Legend” name in favor of the meaningless bunch of letters like RL, they estimated it lost $1,000,000,000 (one billion!) just because of that. Of course, if GM were to eliminate the name “Buick”, it would not necessarily lose the same amount, maybe it would not lose anything.

  • avatar

    I know people boycotting GM and Chrysler due to taking bailouts. I am boycotting all 3 domestics because any of their product I have ever bought was crap, and they really didn’t care.

    John

  • avatar
    carve

    So, to summarize, bad investments that nobody will buy tend to be bad investments. Thank you, professor obvious.

  • avatar
    Logans_Run

    And don’t feed me that crap about the banks got it too so it must be better because we got far less of it. We have a number of dogs in our household including a Lab and a Chihuahua. If Lab excretes big piles of shit while the Chihuahua excretes little tiny piles. At the end of the day they are both piles of shit.

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    Obama’s goal was not to save GM/Chrysler as companies. His goal was to save UAW jobs and high salaries.

    No, it wasn’t. I know this plays well on talk radio, but if that were the case then we would have seen job guarantees. We didn’t see those—in fact, a lot of those jobs are vanishing anyways as the automakers and their suppliers all engage in “rightsizing”.

    Obama** et al intended to float Chrysler and GM through the recession. The reason they did that is because they guessed that a major (and perhaps the major) employers in the US tanking in the middle of the worst downturn since the depression would be a bad thing. It would be safest to wind them down slowly and in a controlled fashion and pull the plug at a later, safer date.

    I don’t think people fully appreciate that manufacturing jobs are well-paid, and that they’re not replaceable. You’d be looking at a huge loss of spending power if these jobs went *poof*, and that loss of consumer confidence would have been deadly a year ago. A year from now? Well, we’ll see.

    I know it’s fashionable to go on about UAW conspiracies, but the UAW doesn’t really matter to the Democrats for the same reason gay-rights or environmentalists don’t: they’ve got those votes already and it’s not like those groups are going to vote Republican. Better to chase swing-state votes and remain just moderate enough to appeal to, say, Cuban ex-pats or light-weight Christians.

    ** and Bush, to a degree, though his administration was mostly just punting it a few months, rather than a few years.

  • avatar
    Durwood

    Logan,
    as stupid as i was it took nazi Obama to hand the companies over to the government and to the uaw (and screwing the shareholders in the process) before it dawned on me that it was the uaw he was saving and not the companies. There is a revolution coming folks and it is gonna get ugly.

  • avatar
    kurkosdr

    Logans_Run said it.

    This is more like bailout for the UAW workers, rather than the automakers. If GM and Chrysler were left to file for BK, the UAW members would have to take substancial haircuts in their benefits, the benefits they acquired after years and years of bullying and blackmailing the upper managment.

    If GM and Chrysler were liquidated and some venture capitalist formed 2 new companies from their assets, starting over from a clean sheet, the workers would have to be hired again, renegotiate retirement plans. In plain english, they would fall from the “UAW bully” position, to to the humble position of “ordinary worker”. And they don’t want that.

    With GM and Chrysler in zombie state, not only their positions are safe, but they also own half of the freaking company. However, how a Union driven company could ever succed commerically is beyond Obama’s plans.

    Unfortunately, the leverage of the UAW to the government is enormous, so much that the 100 billion poured into the UAW bailout seem rather insignificant for the presidents.

    Now, the workers (and their millions of votes) are happy, the board of the incompetents is happy, Obama is happy, and as long as lots of taxpayer money keeps flowing into the company, everybody will continue been happy.

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    …and screwing the shareholders in the process…

    The shareholders (much like the bondholders) would have gotten zilch if GM had been left to it’s own devices.

    There is a revolution coming folks and it is gonna get ugly.

    Huh? A revolution? By whom? If you mean the current crop of centrists, then no. If you mean some kind of mythical socialist one I’d be impressed as I’ve never actually seen a socialist in office in the US.

    Not that I don’t think the US could use a viable left-wing party (it could, because there isn’t one now) but I think you’re a long, long way off a revolution. I’m thinking instead it’s going to be a few more years of same-old, same-old.

  • avatar
    Logans_Run

    @psarhijian:
    Labeling it as a “UAW conspiracy” does not diminsh the fact that the benefits are still due and payable and it will be the US taxpayer that will be required to pick up the tab for this mess. My view is not that of a conspiracy theorist nor is it politically motivated. I am a professional consultant who deals with pension funding issues day in and day out. This is how I make my living and it fries my ass when I see an obvious abuse of the pension laws to protect a class of people that will have gold plated pension benefits for the rest of their lives. It is not the UAW alone with which I am angry. Look at your local and state governments as well. The ticking pension time bomb will hit so hard that you won’t know where your money went to. This is wealth distribution from future generations to those that are already retired or will retire in the next 10 years. It is pure and simple bullshit.

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    Labeling it as a “UAW conspiracy” does not diminsh the fact that the benefits are still due and payable and it will be the US taxpayer that will be required to pick up the tab for this mess.

    You would be picking up the tab anyways in terms of net cost, unless you were intending to soylent green UAW retirees. It’s all about preserving consumer confidence. What chaps me is that people see this is as a payback to the UAW, which it really isn’t; not any more than the TARP program was a payoff to the bankers by the other end of spectrum

    Both are harm-mitigation measures.

    As a young person and an avowed socialist I’m not happy about the redistribution of wealth, either, but I came to realize I’d be a lot less happy living through a depression right now.

  • avatar
    jkross22

    It is not the UAW alone with which I am angry. Look at your local and state governments as well. The ticking pension time bomb will hit so hard that you won’t know where your money went to. This is wealth distribution from future generations to those that are already retired or will retire in the next 10 years. It is pure and simple bullshit.

    BINGO! If the trend continues (as California goes, so goes the rest of the country), look for big problems with city/state employee retiree benefits, teachers unions, prison guard unions, etc.

    Example: All LA County employees after working for 30 years, can retire with 85% of their pay and all of their healthcare benefits.

    It’s not just retirement. The CA Teacher’s Union fought tooth and nail against charter schools because they didn’t fall under the union rules. Why, that’s competition to the Unions and we can’t have that. Who cares if charter schools are performing at levels non-charter schools should be shooting for.

    The UAW and other unions played a critical historic role in workers rights, pay, child labor, access to education, and the list keeps going. However, it’s been a long time since the unions did much of anything except enrich its members at the price of their host (as in the case of the D3) or society (quality of education).

  • avatar
    MrDurwood

    Huh? A revolution? By whom? If you mean the current crop of centrists, then no. If you mean some kind of mythical socialist one I’d be impressed as I’ve never actually seen a socialist in office in the US.

    I mean a revolution of the taxpayers and anybody against obama. I have never heard so many people just plain mad ( much more so then the usual grumbling )at the government as i have now in my 54 years of existence. Those tea parties that are going on is just the tip of the iceberg. That health care plan has so much stuff hidden in it that if it goes thru and then all those little side things in it start popping up…well let’s just say people will only give up so many freedoms. It doesn’t take a genius to see where we are heading. Just wait till obama gets caught trying to give gm money under the table without us knowing about it.

  • avatar
    HEATHROI

    It would be safest to wind them down slowly and in a controlled fashion and pull the plug at a later, safer date.

    would that be January 2013?

  • avatar
    Dick

    “As a young person and an avowed socialist I’m not happy about the redistribution of wealth”…

    Two things:
    One, that statement alone is a massive contradiction.
    Two, if you’re really a socialist, shouldn’t this be a Lada thread?

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    I have never heard so many people just plain mad ( much more so then the usual grumbling )at the government as i have now in my 54 years of existence.

    Then you were talking to different people than I was over the past eight years. It all depends on who you hang out with.

    One, that statement alone is a massive contradiction.
    Two, if you’re really a socialist, shouldn’t this be a Lada thread?

    1. Redistribution from the poor to the rich should make any leftist twitch. I had a real hard time coming to grips with the bank bailouts, believe you me. Most socialists I’ve met** generally don’t favour subsidizing the losses of bankers and investment firms.

    2. I actually had a Niva for six weeks in 1994. Worst car I ever owned. I bought it, by the way, because it was a cheap and still interesting new car.

    I suspect that the political and social right really have a hard time understanding who the left really is and lump them all into the same category (the reverse is also true, to be fair). There’s a world of ideological difference between the kind of people who have no issue transferring taxpayers money to cover a bank’s losses on the stock market and those who would rather see the bank nationalized outright: libertarians need to understand the difference between the two.

    ** who never graduated university and/or are involved in local arts communities.

  • avatar
    WildBill

    psarhjinian wrote: …but I came to realize I’d be a lot less happy living through a depression right now.

    But, it would make you a better person in the long run, look at our Greatest Generation who grew up in the Great Depression. They appreciated what we have in this USA and were willing to fight for it when despots and dictators threatened the world.

  • avatar
    geeber

    psharjinian: There’s a world of ideological difference between the kind of people who have no issue transferring taxpayers money to cover a bank’s losses on the stock market and those who would rather see the bank nationalized outright: libertarians need to understand the difference between the two.

    There may be a world of ideological difference between those views, but there isn’t much difference over how those approaches to policy play out in the long run.

    Both tend to involve well-connected people feathering their nests at everyone else’s expense. The socialists are just much better at pretending that it’s for the good of the people.

  • avatar
    dkulmacz

    MrDurwood,

    Were you asleep during the final term of GWB?

  • avatar
    stuki

    @psarhjinian:
    “I know it’s fashionable to go on about UAW conspiracies, but the UAW doesn’t really matter to the Democrats for the same reason gay-rights or environmentalists don’t: they’ve got those votes already and it’s not like those groups are going to vote Republican. Better to chase swing-state votes and remain just moderate enough to appeal to, say, Cuban ex-pats or light-weight Christians.”

    Michigan matters a lot to the democrats nationally, and is in no way a solidly blue state the way California is. Take away auto industry welfare, and lots and lots of voters will either have to leave, or start asking questions about why no new employers are setting up in their state, the way they do in the somewhat freer states further south. Which would be disastrous for the political careers of both Granholm and Co., and national stage democrats counting on Michigan electoral votes. In general, catering to swing voters is wise, but in Michigan, removing federal transfers to the auto industry would literally shoot a giant hole through the entire Democratic establishment’s voter base’s economic prospects. Not just the UAW workers themselves, who aren’t that numerous anymore, but all those who rely on spending dependent on outsized and unsustainable UAW benefits and wages.

    And facts are, Michigan still has one of America’s, and the world’s, best qualified work forces. I believe they still have more engineers per capita than any other state, and, as much crap as some people like to talk about incompetent UAW workers, the reality is, many of them are pretty well qualified, and would have no trouble attracting manufacturing companies, if Michigan legislation were not so completely poisonous to capital formation. Take the federal support away, add a year or two of sitting unemployed while less qualified workers further south keeps getting hired on account of nothing but less toxic laws and regulations, and Michigan electorates would come to their senses and throw the bums out. Which obviously worries the bums enough to make them go on a nationwide preventative looting binge.

  • avatar
    George B

    # HEATHROI :
    September 9th, 2009 at 2:19 pm

    It would be safest to wind them down slowly and in a controlled fashion and pull the plug at a later, safer date.

    would that be January 2013?

    No, more like mid November 2012. After the US presidential election but before Christmas.

    kurkosdr :
    September 9th, 2009 at 12:28 pm

    Logans_Run said it.

    This is more like bailout for the UAW workers, rather than the automakers. If GM and Chrysler were left to file for BK, the UAW members would have to take substancial haircuts in their benefits…

    No, it’s clearly a UAW bailout. If the federal government simply gave lump sum payments directly to autoworkers without UAW management/skimming, the UAW would scream because they would have been cut out of the deal.

  • avatar
    MrDurwood

    MrDurwood,

    Were you asleep during the final term of GWB?

    Not hardly and if u actually read that i said it was more then just the usual grumblings ( like during bush i meant ) Believe me, these aren’t just grumblings going on here. It is pure hatred for the man and people are ready to bar the door with their guns i’m afraid. From acorn and the new black panthers going and intimidating voters it is gonna go to far. Before his term is up there is gonna be violence on every major city. Remember u heard it here first.

  • avatar
    charly

    Both tend to involve well-connected people feathering their nests at everyone else’s expense. The socialists are just much better at pretending that it’s for the good of the people.

    Isn’t that true of every political movement independent whether they are left, center, right or cuckoo.

  • avatar
    ruckover

    Charly,
    Clearly, when the Bush administration gave huge tax cuts to the wealth and said it would help everyone, they were serious.

    Man, I tire of these Obama sucks threads.

  • avatar
    geeber

    ruckover: Clearly, when the Bush administration gave huge tax cuts to the wealth and said it would help everyone, they were serious.

    The wealthy pay the lion’s share of federal income taxes, so any reduction in this tax will benefit them. Over 40 percent of the population does not pay any federal income taxes.

    Many people families with a total income of $100-200,000 live in places like New York, Los Angeles and Boston. The cost of living is higher in those places (particularly housing), so that income does not necessarily make these families “rich.”

    ruckover: Man, I tire of these Obama sucks threads.

    Well, he is the president, and that comes with the job. I don’t recall a lovefest for Bush when he was president.

  • avatar
    ruckover

    geeber,
    true enough on the face of it, but who pays a higher percentage of taxes compared to income for all taxes combined? It is not the wealthy: All Taxes, not just Federal Income taxes.

    Love-fest for Bush? Nope, I do not remember it, nor do I remember threats of revolution on auto blog sites.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Seth Parks, United States
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Kyree Williams, United States