You really have no integrity to speak of, do you...
GM Really Didn't Pay Back Loan
- Thread starter Calabrio
- Start date
You really have no integrity to speak of, do you...
Go back and read the OP. GM is using TARP money to pay off its debt. That's a bailout.
Who is getting their money back? Is Obama going to rebate us the TWENTY TRILLION DOLLARS he borrowed/printed/conjured up? When did he announce this? And what form will it take - rebate, tax cut, what? And where will the money come from, considering the TWENTY TRILLION DOLLARS didn't come from anywhere in the first place? China? We already know it can't come from GM - they can't even pay back their bailout themselves.
Are you really that truthfully impaired that you don't recognize the difference between robbing Peter to pay Paul, and actually paying back debt yourself?
I guess you really can't read. You're just playing dumb...or are you?
It isn't robbing peter to pay paul - it is paying paul with paul's money - but if you understand anything foss you need to understand that getting some money back is better than getting no money back, no matter where it comes from, even if it is from your original loan.
Maybe you will understand this...
You originally loan shag $100. 2 weeks later he says he really only needs $75 and gives you back $25 (your $25, part of the original loan). Your exposure to loss is now only $75 dollars instead of the $100... you are better off fiscally than you were with the original loan to shag.
Now when shag goes to the Bahamas with his favorite exotic dancer and blows all of his money on bikinis, daiquiris and condoms, you will only be out $75 instead of the original $100...
If you don't really understand this foss - you need to find some sort of remedial class or publication on finance.
Oh as far as that 20 trillion number you toss around foss - you never did answer me when I asked... (and it has grown - from 19 to 20, when did that happen foss?)
Oh - your 19 (now 20) Trillion dollar estimate is mostly loans - loans that are being paid back... how much is it if you remove the loans. How much is it if the loans are paid back with interest? What is the estimated rate of return on those loans? What is the estimated failure rate on those loans?
And you really have no idea of how finance works - do you?
GM can still go belly up - if they do our risk is now 6.7 billion dollars less than it was a month ago.
Less risk is better - duh...
Actually, I understand finance very well. I also recognize when someone is intentionally attempting to mislead by changing the focus of discussion.
I am not - because that money isn't in an escrow account in this case shag - it was in the form of loans and a 'promissory' note that we would be getting stock when the IPO occurs (if the IPO occurs actually)...
Have you ever been part of a small business start up - often the initial loan is used to purchase the equipment, start the company and then pay the loan payment for the first couple months (or whatever time frame) while the business becomes established. As the business becomes successful the loan payment then comes from the proceeds of the business.
However, the entity that loaned the small business money will be out less funds, even if the business goes bankrupt, if the business has been paying the loan back, no matter where the source of the funds is.
Still don't get this basic concept Shag?
No I am not - I am explaining that it doesn't matter where the funds come from, so long as our risk is lessened with GM -
You don't understand that basic concept shag? The US Government now holds less risk with regards to GM.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Listen to me.
You can circumnavigate total space and talk around the subject all you want for all I care.
The bottom line is that nobody is buying your bullcrap today.
GM is using TAXPAYER MONEY to pay off their debt. This TARP money isn't going to be paid back.
So really, the whole 'GM will pay us back our money' was bologna in the first place, as it was never going to happen. GM, as Teddy KGB put it in Rounders, is paying us with our own money.
"It's a fawking joke, anyvey."
They're not going out and earning new money and paying us back with that. It's ALL THE SAME MONEY.
Quit trying to spew a load of red herrings into the road and stay on topic.
You can circumnavigate total space and talk around the subject all you want for all I care.
The bottom line is that nobody is buying your bullcrap today.
GM is using TAXPAYER MONEY to pay off their debt. This TARP money isn't going to be paid back.
So really, the whole 'GM will pay us back our money' was bologna in the first place, as it was never going to happen. GM, as Teddy KGB put it in Rounders, is paying us with our own money.
"It's a fawking joke, anyvey."
They're not going out and earning new money and paying us back with that. It's ALL THE SAME MONEY.
Quit trying to spew a load of red herrings into the road and stay on topic.
Last edited by a moderator:
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
You misquoted me, LIAR. I never said it was 19 Trillion dollars.
http://www.amazon.com/Reading-Comprehension-Success-Minutes-Builders/dp/1576856763
And you never answered my question - where did the money come from?
Can't stay on topic in any thread, can you
Last edited by a moderator:
So...if OUR TAX DOLLARS pay off the debt owed to us by GM instead of GM's PROFITS, it doesn't matter?
Even for you, this is a weak attempt to misdirect.
I recognize it as the red herring it is.
I am saying that if GM went under without paying us back a dime we would have been out $59 billion dollars (I think that is the amount - 52 trillion in future stock options and a 6.7 billion dollar loan).
Since GM paid us 6.7 billion - we are now only exposed on the 52 trillion dollars.
They didn't have to pay us on the loan part for 5 years - they could have gone out of business at any time within that 5 years and still have not paid that loan.
We are now only at risk for 52 billion dollars (wow - can't believe I said that) instead of 59 billion dollars - we, as tax payers, are better off now, then we were before they paid off the loan.
The money is already out there, the only way we are getting it back is if they pay off the loans and the IPO is successful.
1/2 of that has happened - they paid off the loan, now the IPO - which I have heard is less than 1 year away needs to be successful - maybe yes, maybe no...
And no, shag, it doesn't matter where the money comes from - because we were under risk for all of it. I am sorry if you don't understand the examples I gave, they were simple and to the point, and really do explain this very clearly.
What part of lessening our risk is a really good thing don't you understand shag?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Still can't tell the truth, eh?
We're STILL under risk for ALL of it.
YOU. CANNOT. PAY. SOMEONE. BACK. WITH. THEIR. OWN. MONEY.
Too fast for you?
So it grew from 52 Billion to 52 TRILLION? :bowrofl:
When are you going to answer my questions? You can't whine about being out of town now.
We're STILL under risk for ALL of it.
YOU. CANNOT. PAY. SOMEONE. BACK. WITH. THEIR. OWN. MONEY.
Too fast for you?
So it grew from 52 Billion to 52 TRILLION? :bowrofl:
When are you going to answer my questions? You can't whine about being out of town now.
Last edited by a moderator:
Still can't tell the truth?
YOU. CANNOT. PAY. SOMEONE. BACK. WITH. THEIR. OWN. MONEY.
Too fast for you?
So it grew from 52 Billion to 52 TRILLION? :bowrofl:
When are you going to answer my questions? You can't whine about being out of town now.
sorry, you are right - billion, typing too quickly again...
So, 20 trillion since 2008 (I was going by your 'more than 19 trillion' in a previous thread...) - you still have never answered how much we expect to get back-loans get paid off - guarantees never get cashed in - etc... how much does the person who made that little chart on the other thread say we should expect to get back? Already we have received a lot back from Wall Street - and a lot of the guarantees are become moot since those assets are stabilizing.
In GMs case we have already received 6.7 billion back... our exposure is now less in that 20 trillion number...
Do you guys really not understand this rather basic concept? And it is basic - as any lender would tell you.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
You still haven't answered my question. It's integral in answering your question, and you know it - that's why you won't answer it. You're clever, but not clever enough. You just persist in hurling taunts - empty taunts, as they are meaningless because you as a charlatan have been exposed - instead of having an honest discussion.
You do not deserve respect that you do not give.
WHERE DID OBAMA GET THE MONEY?
Last edited by a moderator:
Obama put us in debt further - adding to the deficit.
But for each loan that gets repaid, the deficit goes down.
And the more that gets paid back, the less we owe.
Less risk...
And much of that 'money' is just in guarantees... if we don't need to pay on the guarantee, than there isn't any change whatsoever. No real outlay. It is a bet... And in most cases the bet won't have to be paid, because we won't lose. If we lose - we pay, increasing the deficit. If we don't lose - we don't pay, no increase in the deficit.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
From WHERE did Obama borrow the money? You still can't answer the question!
Or are you admitting that this entire thing is a fictional house of cards?
Yes, that's what you just admitted.
The problem is this:
How are we going to 'win the bet' when the wealth of future generations has already been spent? You really believe Obama, who has a career of less than 5 minutes, is qualified to make a bet with the future of the entire country? If you do, you're really dumb. I'm more inclined to believe you have a Soros view on this. You WANT to see the US crumble because you're shorting it like Soros did.
Last edited by a moderator:
So, lets try this again - since you really don't comprehend this...
I give you $40 as a gift.... how nice
I loan you $80 - you seem like a bad credit risk, but I'll do it anyway.
My total outlay, if worse comes to worse, is $120 = $80 + $40 (that is if you never pay off the loan).
So, you use the $40 gift to pay off 1/2 of the $80 loan.
My total outlay now is $80 ($120 - $40 you paid).
I was willing to loan you money, even after I gave you money. There was no guarantee that the money I had given to you as a gift would ever be used to pay off the loan. You could have used it for a new jet, I had no control over how that money was to be used.
But, since you used the 'gift' to pay off the loan - I am out less money - now only $80.
My bank account looks better.
I give you $40 as a gift.... how nice
I loan you $80 - you seem like a bad credit risk, but I'll do it anyway.
My total outlay, if worse comes to worse, is $120 = $80 + $40 (that is if you never pay off the loan).
So, you use the $40 gift to pay off 1/2 of the $80 loan.
My total outlay now is $80 ($120 - $40 you paid).
I was willing to loan you money, even after I gave you money. There was no guarantee that the money I had given to you as a gift would ever be used to pay off the loan. You could have used it for a new jet, I had no control over how that money was to be used.
But, since you used the 'gift' to pay off the loan - I am out less money - now only $80.
My bank account looks better.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
:bsflag:1. Your example is deliberately chronologically OUT OF ORDER
2. The money is still not back in the hands of taxpayers
And you STILL haven't answered my question.
YOU FAIL.
Here's my example, since you don't understand.
1. You steal from me, my children, and their children that haven't been born yet.
2. You use this money to lend to a failed company so that company doesn't have to close its doors
3. You promise that you'll give the money back to me.
4. You steal more money from me.
5. You give some of the second theft to the company to pay back its loan to yourself.
6. You keep the money to use for other purposes instead of giving it back to me.
7. You claim that I've been paid back, at least partially.
8. Your bank account looks better, but I'm broke, along with my children and their children.
Last edited by a moderator:
Obama increased the deficit - he banked against the future, just like Reagan and Bush did. They banked that trickle down would work (decreasing taxes), and it was worth it to risk the future of our future generations.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Predictable REAGANBUSH bullcrap aside...you are still DODGING THE QUESTION!
Okay, since you are clearly unwilling to tell the full truth, let me ask it a different way:
IS THE MONEY REAL OR NOT?
Last edited by a moderator:
You still don't understand risk - the risk to our children is now less that GM has paid back the TARP funds... The deficit just went down...
Whether the money was stolen, borrowed, gifted, grafted, it makes no difference. It is back in the coffers, which means there is less deficit.
There is no longer the risk that GM will use that money to buy an island off the coast of France, and we would have just kissed that money goodbye then...
Last edited by a moderator:
Nope, not at all... So why worry? /s/s/s/s/s
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
So, you admit that Obama is perpetuating a fiction.
Now...
How is the economy supposed to recover with fictional money?
Note: See Argentina and Greece recently.
Last edited by a moderator:
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
it's getting really hard to tolerate your blatant lies. You're clearly out to waste everyone's time when we and you know you're full of crap.
GM is using TARP money to pay back TARP money.
That's a fiction.
You're a fiction.
Yet again you blow it, demonstrating that you have no integrity whatsoever.
Whose coffers? You've also retreated from your FALSE meme that the TAXPAYERS were getting the money back. Whatsamatter, facts get in the way of a good lie?
Honestly, I didn't think you'd be this easy. :bowrofl:
Last edited by a moderator:
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Oh, you added sarc tags. How cute coming from someone your age and supposed maturity.
So, if you didn't mean what you said, Vicktorino, you still HAVEN'T ANSWERED MY QUESTION.
The BS is flowing from all ends of you today.
The taxpayers get it back, because our taxes won't increase trying to pay off a huge deficit. Clinton increased taxes because he knew the deficit had to be reduced after the Reagan/Bush years. So, he paid down the deficit with the increased tax revenue, less deficit, less interest, and eventually, if good fiscal policy would have been followed into the next administration, less taxes.
However, before we got on our feet again, Bush increased the deficit like crazy - because he lowered taxes too soon and spent like a democrat. If you pay off the deficit and pay as you go, in the long run you pay far less because you aren't paying interest.
Now, if some of the tarp funds end up back in the coffers - they don't count against the deficit. We won't pay interest on them, and in the long run - how does all this get paid for - with our taxes.
Less money out - less taxpayer exposure. The less taxpayers will pay in interest.
The less we pay in interest, then eventually the fewer taxes will be needed.
Last edited by a moderator: