Digest

The Washington Post
Tuesday, November 3, 2009

AUTOMOTIVE

"U.S. investment likely lost, GAO says"

TAXPAYERS are unlikely to recover their full investment in General
Motors or Chrysler, U.S. government investigators said Monday in the
latest review to cast doubts that the government will recoup the $80
billion it poured into the two automakers.

The Government Accountability Office concluded that General Motors and
Chrysler likely will not be valuable enough for the Treasury
Department to break even on its investment in the two auto companies
that went through bankruptcy earlier this year.

The GAO also revealed that the Obama administration is closely
scrutinizing the finances of GM and Chrysler and has set some
requirements on production even though it has said it will maintain a
hands-off approach on the automakers' daily operations.

To recover the loans Treasury gave Chrysler and GM to keep them
afloat, the automakers would have to reach valuations they did not
approach even when they were healthier.

GM spokesman Greg Martin said "if we get our job done, the government
has an excellent chance of getting a return on its investment."
Chrysler declined to comment.

-- Associated Press

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR200...

Digest

The Washington Post
Tuesday, November 3, 2009

AUTOMOTIVE

"U.S. investment likely lost, GAO says"

TAXPAYERS are unlikely to recover their full investment in General
Motors or Chrysler, U.S. government investigators said Monday in the
latest review to cast doubts that the government will recoup the $80
billion it poured into the two automakers.

The Government Accountability Office concluded that General Motors and
Chrysler likely will not be valuable enough for the Treasury
Department to break even on its investment in the two auto companies
that went through bankruptcy earlier this year.

The GAO also revealed that the Obama administration is closely
scrutinizing the finances of GM and Chrysler and has set some
requirements on production even though it has said it will maintain a
hands-off approach on the automakers' daily operations.

To recover the loans Treasury gave Chrysler and GM to keep them
afloat, the automakers would have to reach valuations they did not
approach even when they were healthier.

GM spokesman Greg Martin said "if we get our job done, the government
has an excellent chance of getting a return on its investment."
Chrysler declined to comment.

-- Associated Press

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR200...

On Nov 3, 4:49 pm, "God'sLittleAnus" <perryneh... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Digest

The Washington Post
Tuesday, November 3, 2009

AUTOMOTIVE

"U.S. investment likely lost, GAO says"

TAXPAYERS are unlikely to recover their full investment in General
Motors or Chrysler, U.S. government investigators said Monday in the
latest review to cast doubts that the government will recoup the $80
billion it poured into the two automakers.

The Government Accountability Office concluded that General Motors and
Chrysler likely will not be valuable enough for the Treasury
Department to break even on its investment in the two auto companies
that went through bankruptcy earlier this year.

The GAO also revealed that the Obama administration is closely
scrutinizing the finances of GM and Chrysler and has set some
requirements on production even though it has said it will maintain a
hands-off approach on the automakers' daily operations.

To recover the loans Treasury gave Chrysler and GM to keep them
afloat, the automakers would have to reach valuations they did not
approach even when they were healthier.

GM spokesman Greg Martin said "if we get our job done, the government
has an excellent chance of getting a return on its investment."
Chrysler declined to comment.

-- Associated Press

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR200...

What value do you put on keeping the economy running?

Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds had lowered tax
RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the economy, rather than taking
money from us to give it too others.

from history? When Kennedy, Reagan and Bush got the Congress to lower tax
RATES, the income to the US Treasury when UP. BO and the Dim Congress
prefer to spend money we do not have to try to get the same result, not so
smart. Did they not TAKE Economics 101, or are they just stupid?

"John Galt" <kady101 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rZ1Im.129356$Jp1.97376 at (no spam) en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com...
alt.politics.bush wrote:
On Nov 3, 4:49 pm, "God'sLittleAnus" <perryneh... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Digest

The Washington Post
Tuesday, November 3, 2009

AUTOMOTIVE

"U.S. investment likely lost, GAO says"

TAXPAYERS are unlikely to recover their full investment in General
Motors or Chrysler, U.S. government investigators said Monday in the
latest review to cast doubts that the government will recoup the $80
billion it poured into the two automakers.

The Government Accountability Office concluded that General Motors and
Chrysler likely will not be valuable enough for the Treasury
Department to break even on its investment in the two auto companies
that went through bankruptcy earlier this year.

The GAO also revealed that the Obama administration is closely
scrutinizing the finances of GM and Chrysler and has set some
requirements on production even though it has said it will maintain a
hands-off approach on the automakers' daily operations.

To recover the loans Treasury gave Chrysler and GM to keep them
afloat, the automakers would have to reach valuations they did not
approach even when they were healthier.

GM spokesman Greg Martin said "if we get our job done, the government
has an excellent chance of getting a return on its investment."
Chrysler declined to comment.

-- Associated Press

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR200...
What value do you put on keeping the economy running?
Are you seriously suggesting that there were no alternatives to the
government investing in the automakers?

JG

alt.politics.bush wrote:
On Nov 3, 4:49 pm, "God'sLittleAnus" <perryneh... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Digest

The Washington Post
Tuesday, November 3, 2009

AUTOMOTIVE

"U.S. investment likely lost, GAO says"

TAXPAYERS are unlikely to recover their full investment in General
Motors or Chrysler, U.S. government investigators said Monday in the
latest review to cast doubts that the government will recoup the $80
billion it poured into the two automakers.

The Government Accountability Office concluded that General Motors and
Chrysler likely will not be valuable enough for the Treasury
Department to break even on its investment in the two auto companies
that went through bankruptcy earlier this year.

The GAO also revealed that the Obama administration is closely
scrutinizing the finances of GM and Chrysler and has set some
requirements on production even though it has said it will maintain a
hands-off approach on the automakers' daily operations.

To recover the loans Treasury gave Chrysler and GM to keep them
afloat, the automakers would have to reach valuations they did not
approach even when they were healthier.

GM spokesman Greg Martin said "if we get our job done, the government
has an excellent chance of getting a return on its investment."
Chrysler declined to comment.

-- Associated Press

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR200...

What value do you put on keeping the economy running?

Are you seriously suggesting that there were no alternatives to the
government investing in the automakers?

JG

Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds
had lowered
tax RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the economy

Mike Hunter wrote:
Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds had lowered
tax RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the economy

Tax cuts are among the least effective ways to stimulate the economy.
For every dollar that taxes are cut, only about 30 cents of stimulus is
created.

food stamps issued, $1.73 of economic stimulus is created.

http://www.movingupusa.org/?tag=food-stamps

Mike Hunter wrote:
Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds had lowered
tax RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the economy

Tax cuts are among the least effective ways to stimulate the economy.
For every dollar that taxes are cut, only about 30 cents of stimulus is
created. Food stamps are the most effective way. For every dollar of
food stamps issued, $1.73 of economic stimulus is created.

http://www.movingupusa.org/?tag=food-stamps


So food stamps are worth more than the U.S. Dollar?

Lamont Cranston wrote:
Mike Hunter wrote:
Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds
had lowered
tax RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the
economy

Tax cuts are among the least effective ways to stimulate
the economy.
For every dollar that taxes are cut, only about 30 cents
of stimulus
is created. Food stamps are the most effective way. For
every
dollar of food stamps issued, $1.73 of economic stimulus
is created.

http://www.movingupusa.org/?tag=food-stamps


So food stamps are worth more than the U.S. Dollar?

Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds had lowered tax
RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the economy, rather than taking
money from us to give it too others. Why does the government never learn
from history? When Kennedy, Reagan and Bush got the Congress to lower tax
RATES, the income to the US Treasury when UP. BO and the Dim Congress
prefer to spend money we do not have to try to get the same result, not so
smart. Did they not TAKE Economics 101, or are they just stupid?

"John Galt" <kady101 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rZ1Im.129356$Jp1.97376 at (no spam) en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com...
alt.politics.bush wrote:
On Nov 3, 4:49 pm, "God'sLittleAnus" <perryneh... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Digest

The Washington Post
Tuesday, November 3, 2009

AUTOMOTIVE

"U.S. investment likely lost, GAO says"

TAXPAYERS are unlikely to recover their full investment in General
Motors or Chrysler, U.S. government investigators said Monday in the
latest review to cast doubts that the government will recoup the $80
billion it poured into the two automakers.

The Government Accountability Office concluded that General Motors and
Chrysler likely will not be valuable enough for the Treasury
Department to break even on its investment in the two auto companies
that went through bankruptcy earlier this year.

The GAO also revealed that the Obama administration is closely
scrutinizing the finances of GM and Chrysler and has set some
requirements on production even though it has said it will maintain a
hands-off approach on the automakers' daily operations.

To recover the loans Treasury gave Chrysler and GM to keep them
afloat, the automakers would have to reach valuations they did not
approach even when they were healthier.

GM spokesman Greg Martin said "if we get our job done, the government
has an excellent chance of getting a return on its investment."
Chrysler declined to comment.

-- Associated Press

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR200...
What value do you put on keeping the economy running?
Are you seriously suggesting that there were no alternatives to the
government investing in the automakers?

JG

Mike Hunter wrote:
Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds had lowered tax
RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the economy, rather than
taking money from us to give it too others. Why does the government
never learn from history? When Kennedy, Reagan and Bush got the
Congress to lower tax RATES, the income to the US Treasury when UP. BO
and the Dim Congress prefer to spend money we do not have to try to get
the same result, not so smart. Did they not TAKE Economics 101, or are
they just stupid?

Yet Bush left the country with the biggest deficit and national debt in
history.

The big difference is that Bush was not spending the money of people
paying taxes, he was spending future taxes.

Jeff

"dr_jeff" <utz at (no spam) msu.edu> wrote in message
news:ddCdnfmTuqKOv2_XnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
Mike Hunter wrote:
Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds had lowered tax
RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the economy, rather than
taking money from us to give it too others. Why does the government
never learn from history? When Kennedy, Reagan and Bush got the
Congress to lower tax RATES, the income to the US Treasury when UP. BO
and the Dim Congress prefer to spend money we do not have to try to get
the same result, not so smart. Did they not TAKE Economics 101, or are
they just stupid?
Yet Bush left the country with the biggest deficit and national debt in
history.

The big difference is that Bush was not spending the money of people
paying taxes, he was spending future taxes.

Jeff


Obama has grown the deficit by four times. Obama's debt after just 10 months
has dwarfed the debt of all eight years of the Bush Administration. And
Obama is still going.

PS
By definition, ALL deficits are funded by future taxes. Obama is spending
four times the amount of future taxes that Bush spent.

PS
By definition, ALL deficits are funded by future taxes. Obama is spending
four times the amount of future taxes that Bush spent.

"dr_jeff" <utz at (no spam) msu.edu> wrote in message
news:ddCdnfmTuqKOv2_XnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
Mike Hunter wrote:
Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds had lowered
tax
RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the economy, rather than
taking money from us to give it too others. Why does the government
never learn from history? When Kennedy, Reagan and Bush got the
Congress to lower tax RATES, the income to the US Treasury when UP.
BO
and the Dim Congress prefer to spend money we do not have to try to get
the same result, not so smart. Did they not TAKE Economics 101, or
are
they just stupid?

Yet Bush left the country with the biggest deficit and national debt in
history.

The big difference is that Bush was not spending the money of people
paying taxes, he was spending future taxes.

Jeff


Obama has grown the deficit by four times. Obama's debt after just 10
months
has dwarfed the debt of all eight years of the Bush Administration. And
Obama is still going.

PS
By definition, ALL deficits are funded by future taxes. Obama is spending
four times the amount of future taxes that Bush spent.