U.S. Government Ends Chrysler Investment With $1.3 Billion Loss

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-07-2011
U.S. Government Ends Chrysler Investment With $1.3 Billion Loss
22
Thu, 07-21-2011 - 7:43pm
Way to go Obama!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/21/us-government-ends-chrysler-investment/

The U.S government has sold its shares in Chrysler LLC at a likely loss of $1.3 billion in taxpayer money, the Treasury Department said Thursday, announcing the end of a controversial investment that resurrected the troubled auto company.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-13-2009
The Auto bailout occurred during the Bush admin: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16740.html.

On the whole, it was a pretty good investment decision. GM is profitable and Chrysler is moving in the right direction and hundreds of thousands are employed.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009

"Cheap" fossil fuel energy isn't.

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Just a refresher course here to make sure that facts don't get muddied by baseless claims:
The economy started to slide under Bush. http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0806/p02s01-usec.html
The Iraq war which has cost trillions of dollars was conceived by Bush, waged by Bush, but not paid for under Bush. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302200.html
TARP began under Bush. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/troubled-asset-relief-program-tarp.asp

If you want to talk about "poor investment with our tax dollars", best to avoid the blinders of partisanship and remember those salient facts.

BTW, there are plenty of independents who are NOT conservatives and who remember what the GOP and Bush did when they ran the country.....into the ground.

Jabberwocka

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010

I doubt the Fiero's demise was due to its fiberglass body--Corvettes are fiberglass too.

dragowoman

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Sorry, but there are several of your statements which don't ring as factual or logical. Any sportscar is likely to have a higher insurance premium regardless of the body material. And the "young customers" wanting an "agile" vehicle? In those very words are probable cause for a higher insurance cost. If you want to make the case that fiberglass is the culprit, you would have to compare the premiums for a fiberglass sportscar to one made of steel.

We know the dangers of drilling for oil or gas in deep sea settings. "Not a problem" for rigs like that? How do you figure?! The Macondo blowout proved how hazardous ocean drilling could be. I just don't understand how anybody could not "get" that fossil fuels are dirty, dangerous, and by the time they reach point of use, not efficient at all! I think at least part of the problem is that we've been "conditioned" to accept all those downsides of fossil fuel power generation as inevitable and/or worth the monetary or environmental cost. Which they are not, in either case.

If you look at the history of irrigation, you'll find that over time, salts built up in soil and reduced or totally eliminated the ability of the land to produce. So there's a double whammy in "mining" ice to move it to areas which are not currently capable of crop cultivation. You would destroy one ecosystem in short order and light the fuse of eventual destruction of another one. The folly in trying to create environments artificially might not be immediately obvious but it's there nonetheless.

There's enough solar energy currently hitting the earth to provide our power needs. But too many people are thinking in terms of the grid as sole source. One PV's become more efficient, there would be little need, at the residential level, to even be on the grid.

As regards using sound to frack, I think that would be just as hazardous environmentally as using great amounts of water. Breaking up the earth to suck out fuel is just stupid and fraught with peril. Think mud volcanoes......

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-07-2011

You link did not work.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-07-2011

((If you want to talk about "poor investment with our tax dollars", best to avoid the blinders of partisanship...))

Exactly!

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-1999

If losing $1.3 BILLION is a good investment decision to liberals, it now makes sense that our country is in the shape that it's in....LOL. 

And if not factoring in the tax that Chrysler and it's workers has paid since the bailout in determining the return on the investment makes sense to the right wing, it's no wonder they came so close to destroying this country during Bush's regime.

dablacksox


Cynic: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009

I have not "tried" to provide facts. They're there. Choose to deny them if you like but the "nice try" phrasing is inaccurate.

BTW, during the last two years of Bush's regime, Democrats didn't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Nor did they have the 60 votes required to override a presidential veto. More inconvenient facts...............

There was a period of two years during which Obama was in the White House and there were Democratic majorities in both House and Senate. It wasn't long enough to undo all the damage done during the years dominated by the GOP/Bush. I will not forget EVER what BushCo did.

I don't always agree with Democrats. They botched the opportunity to undertake truly sweeping health care reforms and allowed petty rivalries and bickering to dominate. They cobbled, rather than crafted.

But this I know. In a choice between bad and worse, the GOP has pretty consistently managed to behave "worse". No Republican candidate now in the field has any better a chance of salvaging the nation's economy than Obama himself. And this brinksmanship on raising the debt ceiling by House GOP members will likely come back to haunt them if the public perception is that they were not only threatening entitlements of voters who traditionally vote conservative (like seniors); but put party interests ahead of those of the nation even in the face of dire predictions about the impact of financial ratings agencies downgrading U.S. debt.

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-07-2011
((No Republican candidate now in the field has any better a chance of salvaging the nation's economy than Obama himself.)).

Lol! I'd say my dog has a better chance of salvaging the economy than Obama does. He is not a leader. He is an empty suit. He ridicules and mocks others. He calls republicans his "enemies" and tells his constituents to " punish the enemies" , then he tells people they need to talk civil to one another. He tells Americans that the rich people like him can afford to pay more in taxes, yet he takes every deduction there is to lower his tax rate to 25%. He has had ample opportunity to lead by example and he has failed each time.

It will be interesting if the independents will fall for his sermons again.

Who knew things could get so much worse after spending trillions of the hard working taxpayers money? You would think that the democrats would have learned by now that you can't throw billions and trillions of dollars at a problem and make go away. He would have been better off taking a trillion dollars and dividing it up equally to all the adults in the country and mailing them a check. Now THAT would have stimulated the economy. Instead, it was squandered on those " not so shovel ready jobs" and pork projects.

Obama will most likely go down as the worst president ever.