Ohio's un-employment rate

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2007
Ohio's un-employment rate
Mon, 10-29-2012 - 8:46am

 Our un-employment rate has dropped to 6%.    5.7 % in Central Ohio.   Kasich, our Governor, doesn't want anyone to know this as it will help Obama.    Obama saved the auto industry and jobs here are spreading.     Former Governor Strickland was responsible for a new plant -research center - test track-race track being build about 20 miles away.    Bringing about 500 jobs here.   


iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Wed, 11-07-2012 - 8:33pm

Wow, long…lots of points…so let’s get started…


During my formal education years, no professor required documentary proof that the earth orbited the sun or any other commonly known fact.  It is amusing however, that liberals like to twist and spin other’s comments…which you’ve done several times…to contort to their political agenda.  Note that I never said “U.S. car manufacturers”…I said, and having corrected you twice now, “more than a dozen auto manufacturers.”  The fact is, thanks to Obama, that even Chrysler is no longer a “U.S. car manufacturer.”


Romney has been anything but disingenuous in exposing the lies about Obama’s claims of “saving the auto industry”…and the even bigger lie that he saved “a million jobs.  It’s amazing how gullible some people can be.  Here’s the facts…before the Obankruptcy, GM employed around 91,000 people in the US.  After the Obankruptcy GM employed 68,500 people.  The Obankruptcy killed 22,500 GM jobs.  Obama also put 100,000 other people out of work when he forced thousands of GM dealerships to close.  So let’s add it up, shall we?  When Obama “saved the auto industry” he (laughably, now) “saved” 68,500 jobs by putting 122,500 people out of work…closing thousands of otherwise healthy auto industry businesses…let GM emerge from bankruptcy still burdened with debilitating debt that will ultimately cause the company to fail…and forced GM to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on a piece-of-crap electric car that no one wants.  Sorry, but there isn’t enough scorn to heap on that pile of Obamacrap.

And about the “European Tour”…lest we forget all of the faux pas Obama committed that insulted our friends and allies…like when he bungled the toast to Queen Elizabeth…or when he arrogantly gifted her with an ipod filled with videos and photos of himself…or when he gave the Prime Minister a cheap box-set of DVDs that didn’t work on British DVD players…or when Michelle  broke protocol and hugged the Queen…or when Obama insulted the British by returning the bust of Churchill…or when Obama dissed Britain by calling France our strongest ally…or even more devastating was Obama public insult of Israel’s Prime Minister or his dissing of Israel altogether…the list just goes on and on and on.  We’d call him “Obama the Twit” if it ever so cleverly rhymed…but since it doesn’t let’s just acknowledge the ass that Obama truly is.


And with regard to your basement business…Obama says “you didn’t build that.”  Personally, if I busted my butt working my fingers to the bone building a business for 20 years, I’d be insulted as hell if some privileged liberal wagged his finger at me and said “you didn’t build that”…and because you’ve worked hard and made it a success, that you “owe” the government higher taxes.  But then, maybe you and your husband don’t really think you built your business and that the government is entitled to tax you for your success.

And if you have the “small business” experience you claim, I’d be equally insulted by all the liberal insults telling us how you don’t care about your employees (if you had any) and that you’re greedy and only interested in putting money in your own pockets.  But then, maybe that is your only interest…after all, despite all evidence t the contrary, you claim that’s Romney’s motive.

And while I can’t speak for you, when I ran my business, I worked a lot of hours and was the last to take any pay.  And any profits that were made were reinvested in the company first…equipment, product, marketing, jobs, etc…not to buy expensive cars and big houses.  It was only when the company was doing well that I began to reap the rewards of my hard work.


You’re also pretty ignorant about Romney’s business career.  He operated a capital investment company.  They invest in troubled or failing companies, turn them around and sell them for a profit.  There are no instances of Romney ever buying a company for the purpose of destroying it and selling off the bits…there are, however, many, many examples of Romney turning failing companies around and turning them into great successes.  Bain had an 80% success rate in turning companies around.

And your DH is also mistaken about Romney providing goods or essential services.  Without Romney, those companies Bain invested in would have failed.  I’m pretty sure that the employees of those companies would consider that an “essential service.”  Romney also helped those companies with his business and management experience, that was fundamental to saving those businesses.  And goods?  Bain ran those companies in concert with existing management, so Romney was as responsible as anyone for the goods those companies produced.  In all, neither DH or you really don’t have a clue about Romney or how Bain did business.


And no, Obama didn’t “inherit” a sucky economy, any more than a plumber you hire “inherits” the leaky pipe.  Obama ran around like a jackrabbit BEGGING for the job.  He told us he had the experience and the plans to fix the economy.  Sadly, after 4 years, we found out he was lying.  And what would you do to a plumber, after wasting all your money, putting you in debt, and then saying “well, the pipes leaking a little less now.”  Right, you’d fire him.  Sadly, liberals didn’t have the common sense to do that, and now we’re destined for 4 more years of Obamanomics that will devastate the country.  Well done.

And yes, “socialized medicine.”  Step one was Obamacare…which will ultimately destroy employer-provided insurance.


And finally…China…so now liberals are good with outsourcing?  Who knew?...especially after they were such hypocrites when they tried to use it to attack Romney.  But I shouldn’t be surprised…everything was bad when Bush did it, but when Obama does the same thing, the left becomes a sea of hypocrisy.  Nothing new.  But what you failed to mention in your endorsement of outsourcing,  are the jobs that will be lost here.  I thought that was a big deal for liberals…but I guess when Obama is to blame, who cares about American jobs?

So yes, anyone can look at Obama’s track record and see that he’s utterly anti-business.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Tue, 11-06-2012 - 11:32pm

During my formal education years, there were a number of teachers and professors who firmly indicated that a person making a claim bears responsibility for providing proof.  It's a common precept in law, in journalism, in science .....    Did  you have a different learning experience?  Still waiting for that list of a dozen U.S. car manufacturers. 

Romney is the one being disingenuous in his attempts to negate Obama's staunching of job loss in the auto industry.  He wants to somehow portray himself as being superior in leadership and in business.  And based on his performance during his European tour, I seriously doubt that he has the qualities to do more than look like "Mitt the Twit". 

My husband started a company out of our basement over twenty years ago.  I have been secretary, receptionist, business partner, and adviser.  The company has grown steadily and is now in the top hundred of its category, in the nation.  *****snaps fingers*****....That, for the nonsense that I am "uninformed on how business works".  Corporate raiders make money for themselves and/or their institutions without ever creating jobs; and have been famous/infamous for wrecking communities and companies. 

Romney didn't care a whit about whether the companies he "creatively destroyed" ultimately created jobs.  He was "in business" to make money for Bain investors.  As my DH pointed out, Romney didn't provide any goods or any essential services. 

Obama inherited a "sucky economy".  "Socialized medicine"?!  What a hoot!  HOW does the role played by a subset of the private sector (insurance companies which profits from policies meant to limit runaway costs in healthcare) constitute "socialism"? 

Definition of SOCIALISM

: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Here's a hint:  it doesn't.

The earlier claim was that U.S. jobs were being sent to ChinaNow the argument is that a global entity might manufacture some of its models in the area of its markets.  Is that considered to be bad business practice, and if so, since when?!    Are you endorsing protectionism or trade wars?  And how does that work with the concepts of globalization, free enterprise, and capitalism.  Just curious......  If Romney is elected it will be intriguing to see how he reconciles U.S. jobs with global exploitation of work forces and resources. 

The U.S. auto industry and its many suppliers far surpass Apple or United Airways in terms of jobs provided.  Sure, there were losses with the bailout (which, to belabor the point, started under Bush) but Obama's intent was to minimize the losses and restore a measure of consumer confidence.  More at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mitt-romneys-claim-that-100000-auto-jobs-have-been-lost-under-obama/2012/05/17/gIQA9wYMXU_blog.html The tricky thing about consumer confidence is that it tends to create a self fulfilling prophecy.  Confidence breeds confidence.  Fear breeds fear.  And those tenets certainly extend into the realm of business as well.  Interesting too that my query about where unemployed workers would go, or how they might find other jobs, received no specific answer. 

Obama as "anti-business"?  Baloney.  Anti-laissez faire, more like! 

George Romney was head of AMC which became Chrysler Corporation.  And there's MItt with his too-often truth-stretching supporters, belaboring the dickens out of competitors of both George's AMC (GMC) and MItt's political  opponent (Barack Obama) .  Isn't life strange.....


iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Fri, 11-02-2012 - 9:34pm

I’m not sure who taught you these imagined rules, but obviously there are a host of companies that manufacturer automobiles in the US…more than a dozen…and Obama only took over two of them.  As I said, if you’re interested in a list, it’s a simple google away.


You’re also being disingenuous concerning Romney’s position.  He advocated a legal structured bankruptcy for Chrysler and GM, plain and simple.  What Obama did was insert the government as “overseer” of the bankruptcy, engineering a government take-over of a private company, fire private citizens, illegally displace legitimate investors and pension holders, and transfer ownership to political supporters.  The two are in no way comparable…but then if googling is too strenuous, and you only get your information from left-wing sources, I can understand your confusion.


You seem equally uninformed on how businesses work.  When you start a business, as Romney has, you usually need people to run that business which tends to create jobs.  That company usually requires other resources and services that precipitates the creation of additional jobs.


When Bain invested in Staples, which was struggling at the time, their financial input and business experience turned the company around, which how employs over 90,000 people.  The same is true of other Bain investments… AMC Entertainment, Aspen Education Group, Brookstone, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel Communications, Domino's Pizza, DoubleClick, Dunkin' Donuts, D&M Holdings, Guitar Center, Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), Sealy, The Sports Authority, Toys "R" Us, Warner Music Group and The Weather Channel…to name a few.  Hundreds of thousand jobs directly attributable to investments by Bain Capital.


Obama, on the other hand, has created exactly nothing but a sucky economy and a burgeoning system of socialized medicine.  He has, however, killed millions of jobs with his inept liberal policies, and directly cost 200,000 jobs with his drilling moratorium and another 100,000 when he forced otherwise healthy auto dealerships to close.


And with regards to Jeep production…Simple question…Chrysler currently sells Jeeps in China.  Where are those Jeeps made?  There is also new word that Fiat will begin building Jeeps in Italy…for export to the US.


And to GM and it’s “unemployed auto workers”…well I guess you could ask the same question of Apple or United Airlines or many thousands of other companies that have gone through bankruptcy and come out intact.  But if you want to imagine a worst case scenario, they might have continued to work for the company that bought out GM, or those jobs would have been absorbed by other auto companies that would have swelled to fill the gap.  What do you imagine people do when companies go out of business?


Yes, indeed, Obama was very pragmatic.  Obama’s “calculus,” in true Chicago style, was not to let a crisis go to waste.  He swept in like a true socialist and used government muscle to take over a privately held company and manipulate a political payback to his union cronies at the expense of investors and worker’s pensions.  Oh, so very liberal and perfectly in keeping with his community organizer anti-business mentality.


And GMs third quarter profit report…


General Motors GM +0.43% Co. is just out with third quarter results this morning. Net income slipped to $1.5 billion, or 89 cents  a diluted share, from $1.7 billion, or $1.03 a share. The company says the fourth quarter results will be “similar to or slightly better” than a year ago when the company reported net income of about $500 million and earnings before interest and taxes of $1.1 billion. Analysts had expected much better for the 2012 fourth quarter.


On the down side, GM said earnings before interest and taxes at its North American auto operations fell by $400 million to $1.8 billion, mainly because of higher costs and because it sold a less profitable mix of vehicles (read, more small cars, fewer SUVs and pickups.) GM also blames an undefined “other” for part of the downdraft in North America in a chart here.





"Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive." [Vice-President Joe Biden addressing the Democrat National Committee convention on September 5, 2012 in Charlotte, North Carolina.]

GM is a major Obama-Biden campaign theme:
 - GM was kept out of bankruptcy.
 - One million jobs saved.
 - And the bailout was repaid.

Sounds impressive. But not true.

Companies don't disappear in Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  They reorganize and emerge from bankruptcy. Like these companies: Delta, Northwest, United Airlines, Trump Entertainment, and Readers Digest, just to name a few. 

One of today's greatest companies - Apple - stayed alive in 1997 by working out a pre-bankruptcy deal.

The one million jobs claim is totally absurd. A dozen other companies that didn't get a bail-out build vehicles in the U.S.  Parts suppliers have plenty of customers.

Only one-third of GM's 200,000 employees are actually in the U.S. as GM CEO Dan Akerson told Chinese officials last year.

"Almost seven out of every ten automobiles -- seven out of ten of our vehicles were made outside of the United States." [Dan Akerson, CEO, General Motors in Shanghai, February 2011.]

According to its annual report, the U.S. accounted for only 18% of GM sales last year. But GM has 13 separate ventures in China[; meanwhile, GM closed 15 plants in the U.S.]  In other words, billions of bailout dollars went to China.

And contrary to Obama's claim, GM did enter Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2009. According to an Inspector General's report, US taxpayers will lose $42 billion on the deal.


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Fri, 11-02-2012 - 11:28am

To Deenasdad

I was always taught that those who make a claim are the ones who bear responsibility for proving it--the common sensible rules of debate and journalism.  Therefore, the onus is on you to provide the list of "more than a dozen" U.S. auto makers. 

Also, it would be helpful to stay consistent.  Romney and conservatives apparently want to have their cake and eat it too.   Am seeing that stance in your posts and in the more conservative online outlets (American Thinker is not exactly known for errr.....ummmm..... "fair and balanced" coverage of issues, but then again, neither is Fox!) which are doing their darndest to find that near-nonexistent place where Romney would have done it differently. 

BTW, I will repeat that it's darn ironic to see Romney kvetch about job creation and retention when his own expertise had nothing to do with either one, only with making money for Bain.   Excoriating Obama for the same tactics ("creative destruction", do you remember?) is hypocritical.  "Intellectual honesty", my fanny. 

Speaking of honesty,  “I feel obliged to unambiguously restate our position: Jeep production will not be moved from the United States to China.”

In fact, Marchionne said, North American production is critical to achieving Jeep’s goal of selling 800,000 vehicles by 2014. U.S. production of Jeep models in the U.S. has nearly tripled since 2009 in order to keep up with global demand. Chrysler is currently adding 1,100 jobs at its Toledo, Ohio, Jeep factory to prepare for the launch of the next-generation Jeep Liberty.  “Jeep assembly lines will remain in operation in the United States and will constitute the backbone of the brand,” said Marchionne. “It is inaccurate to suggest anything different.”  http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2012/11/01/memo-to-mitt-romney-building-jeeps-in-china-is-good-for-america/

Forging on to GM (I am not a big fan), the Obama strategy was to try to keep it from going down with all hands on deck (figuratively speaking).  You did not answer my earlier question about where unemployed auto workers would go, what they would live on.  It's germane to the debate. 

The GM bailout was less than stellar and came at a cost, but Obama did the calculus and decided that there would be more lost to do nothing. or take routes which would entail  court time--and time was of the essence..  Obama is not a socialist, he's not particularly liberal.  He's a pragmatist.  Partisans would prefer to spin his policies in other ways but that would be...... intellectually dishonest.  . 

In regards to GM:  General Motors (GM) on Wednesday reported a third-quarter profit that exceeded analyst expectations by a wide margin.

GM's profit of $1.5 billion, or $0.89 a share, was less than the $1.7 billion it earned in the third quarter of last year. But it was well ahead of estimates by Wall Street analysts, who predicted that GM would earn about $0.60 a share for the quarter, according to a Bloomberg survey.

GM's earnings were hurt by ongoing losses in Europe. But elsewhere, its business is showing good signs. More at  http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/10/31/gm-profits-beat-estimates-as-favorable-signs-appear/  There are few companies, if any, which are faring well in Europe, what with all the turmoil in Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland.  Turkey is doing well (not technically part of the EU) , so is ....wait, for it........socialist-trending Sweden, but with so much uncertainty and austerity measures, small wonder that GM hasn't been strong in selling new vehicles.   


iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Fri, 11-02-2012 - 2:38am

And to the Volt…

The Volt doesn’t have a “real world” possibility of bursting into flames…and yet, GM recalled the Volt to address the possibility that it might burst into flames.  Isn't that strange?

And a salient point in the article you cited…

If indeed the Volt is a “failure,” as some of its critics have contended, we’re sure there’s several auto executives out there that would like many of their slower-selling models to suffer the same fate.”

The Volt wasn’t some cheap, “slower-selling model”…the Volt was Chevy’s flagship, much acclaimed by both GM and Obama, and a BIG part of Obama’s plan to have 1 million electric cars on the road by 2015.  With only 13,500 units moved…and the vast majority of them being leases with HUGE…Obama’s success with electric cars is only rivaled with is success picking solar panel companies.,,much to the chagrin of US taxpayers who are billions and billions of dollars poorer as a result.

“Now to be fair, the industry’s top performers were responsible for far more sales over the first eight months of the year than the Volt could register in a decade at its current pace. Among passenger cars, the Toyota Camry leads the pack with 280,536 deliveries through the end of August (not counting 30,587 Camry Hybrid models). The Ford F150 pickup truck did even better with a phenomenal 408,656 units, albeit with sales bolstered by considerable cash rebates.”


‘Record’ Volt Sales?  Not Really -- GM Counts $159 Leases for an $89,000 Car

But the Press left out a few non-incidental facts...

Fully 2/3s of the “sales” were leases, leaving around 925 cars that were truly sold. 

And this lease scam appears to have been going on since the Volt’s November 2010 launch.

Chevy Volt MSRP is $41,000, But Will Lease For Same Price as ($33,000) Nissan Leaf

And what kind of Volt lease deals is GM now cuttingHow about:

$159 a month on a two-year lease, with no money down.

Let us pause here to do the math.  $159 x 24 months = $3,816.  For an $89,000 car

New cars lose 20% of their value the moment they roll off the lot.  And after two years of additional depreciation, these Volts are then returned to GM dealers.

Who’s on the hook for the massive cost differential and value loss?  Why, We the Taxpayers of course.

Meanwhile, the vaunted Volt batteries are then two years closer to extinction.  GM guarantees them for eight years - during which they will lose 10%-30% of their already pitiful 25-mile range

And how much does it cost to replace a Volt battery?  GM their own selves say - in the $8,000-$9,500 range

And in case they’re fibbing (as post-bailout GM is wont to do):

Ford CEO: Battery Is Third of Electric Car Cost

Ford Motor Co. Chief Executive Alan Mulally indicated battery packs for the company's Focus electric car costs between $12,000 and $15,000 apiece.

How many used, post-lease Volts will GM realistically be able to sell - when the record for new “sales” is just over 2,800?  And that non-lease sales number is actually under 1,000?

And who’s on the hook for all these leftover, depreciated pre-owned Volts?  Why, We the Taxpayers of course.

And about those 925 actual sales.

GM Pays You $10,000 to Buy a Chevy Volt

Sales of the Chevy Volt have increased recently, but it's largely due to GM's 25 percent discount on the electric vehicle, according to Consumer Energy Report.

And who’s on the hook for this $59,000 difference between the Volt sale price and its actual cost?  Why, We the Taxpayers of course.

And because all of this is working so splendidly:

CBO: U.S.to spend $7.5B to Promote Electric Cars by 2019

Federal policies to promote electric vehicles will cost $7.5 billion through 2019 and have "little to no impact" on national gasoline consumption over the next several years, the Congressional Budget Office said in a report issued on Thursday.

Consumer tax credits for buying electric vehicles, which can run as high as $7,500 per vehicle, will account for about 25 percent of the $7.5 billion, the CBO said.

$2.4 billion are grants to battery makers and projects to promote electric vehicles, $3.1 billion are loans to auto companies.

$2.4 billion in grants to battery makers?

Obama-Backed Car Battery Company Files for Bankruptcy Protection

Electric Car Battery Makers Hit the Skids

Bankruptcy Filing Shows Difficulty of Thriving in Battery Sector

All of which makes the Press‘ attempted sale of the Volt’s “record-setting” “success” more than a mite difficult to swallow.


Are the Chevy Volt’s sales being inflated by “giveaway” leases?

The Chevy Volt, which the Obama administration has hailed as the vanguard of its green-energy subsidy efforts, has had a bad month in the news.  While GM announced a sales record for the plug-in hybrid for August, Reuters pointed out that the company was losing around $49,000 per vehicle in those sales, pouring red ink into an automaker that can’t deal with the money it already owes taxpayers.  Fox News then reported that the sales record came in part because the Department of Defense began ramping up purchases of the Volt, making it look like another bailout was in process.

Earlier this week, Forbes discovered how GM was able to claim a record in the first place.  The company has been practically giving away Volts in its lease program:

GM is giving away rent-a-Volts. While the claim of 2800+ sales in August is certainly enough to still the Volt’s critics, at least until Election Day (which is all that really matters to the current management), that number is an automotive Potemkin Village, concealing enough rot to make any czar, car or otherwise, proud.

With additional subsidies from GM (that would be you and me), Chevrolet dealers in August were offering two-year Volt leases for as little as $250 down and $199/month.  Fully 2/3s of the “sales” were leases, leaving around 925 cars that were truly sold.  Prior to the giveaway leases, GM says that 40% of 2012 sales were also leases.  The number remains the same—an average of about 925 cars really sold each month for this year.

Automotive News recently reported that the feds have purchased 182 Volts so far in 2012.  Now we’re down to 900 real sales per month..  Corporate (fleet) sales are conservatively estimated at 5% of the total, putting the consumer number closer to 850.

Two years at $199 a month and $250 down amounts to $5,026.  What happens at the end of two years?  Either the lessee buys the vehicle, or the dealer takes it back to sell as a used car.  The car becomes a write-off for GM, while the dealer pockets most of the proceeds, according to Forbes. The big loser? Taxpayers, who both own GM stock and pay the bill for all the subsidies, as well as the write-off losses in deductions from taxable corporate income.

The truth is that there isn’t much of a market for the Volt, and there probably wouldn’t be any without the massive subsidies provided by taxpayers.  It’s not difficult to determine why.


iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Fri, 11-02-2012 - 1:49am

Sergio Marchionne has specifically said that it will build Jeeps for the Chinese market in China.  Chrysler currently sells Jeeps in China.  Where are those Jeeps made?  Right, in the US.  Where will those jobs go?  Right, China.
And I believe I said “more than a dozen auto manufacturers” not “dozens of auto manufacturers”…and a list of auto companies that build vehicles in the US is available via a simple google search…you can easily take note of the ones that didn’t get a bail out.
As for the “legal process”…Obama can believe anything he likes, it’s when he flaunts the law that things go awry. He ended up shoving GM through a structured bankruptcy, as Romney suggested, but not before rewriting bankruptcy law and illegally wiping out investors, destroying the pensions of thousands of people, forcing the closure of more than 2000 dealerships and costing 1000,000 people their jobs, and handing over ownership equity to his UAW union cronies as a political repayment. His actions have directly weakened the company, which will likely have to file for bankruptcy again in the near future.
And as I mentioned, with MORE THAN A DOZEN auto manufacturers operating in the US that didn’t get a bail out, you’d have to stretch the truth beyond reason to claim that Obama “salvaged a key U.S. industry.” Those kind of lies and distortions are expected from Obama, but here, I’d appreciate just a little more intellectual honesty.

And no, GM did not repay it’s loan…

General Motors announced this week that it repaid its multibillion-dollar taxpayer-backed TARP loans. GM even bragged that it was able to “repay the taxpayers in full, with interest, ahead of schedule, because more customers are buying [GM] vehicles.” There was great fanfare, including expensive, around-the-clock GM TV commercials nationwide. But, the hype is not the reality. In fact, GM did not repay the loans with money it earned from selling cars. Instead, GM repaid the TARP loans with money it withdrew from another TARP fund at the Treasury Department.

The day before the GM story broke, Neil Barofsky, the government TARP watchdog, testified before the Senate Finance Committee. He explained that GM did not use earnings to repay its TARP debt. The April quarterly report to Congress from his office stated: “The source of funds for these quarterly [debt] payments will be other TARP funds currently held in an escrow account.”

GM filings with the SEC reveal that GM was paying 7 percent interest on a $6.7 billion TARP debt. The filings also confirm that the source of funds for GM’s debt repayments was a multibillion-dollar TARP-funded escrow account at Treasury; that means it was taxpayer money — not earnings.

Meanwhile, in all the fanfare and patting themselves on the back, Treasury and GM made no mention of what happened to the $2.5 billion loan GM owes its union health care plan. The union loan carries a 9 percent interest rate and runs until 2017. Don’t most Americans try to pay off their higher-interest debts first? Well, the union loan was not paid off. Why not? Does the union get to keep collecting 9 percent from GM until 2017, courtesy of the American taxpayer, while taxpayers give up a 7 percent return over the next five years in exchange for the hope that GM stock will be worth more than what we paid for it, someday down the road?


 And a some more information on the truth of the Gm bailout...

Note to Obama fans: GM did go bankrupt – filing for Chapter 11 protection against its creditors on June 1, 2009. It’s what happened next that the president can take credit for – a handout of $49.5 billion in taxpayer money to GM, some $27 billion of which remains outstanding, and another $17 billion to its financial arm Ally Financial, which still owes $14.7 billion.

In other words, Obama didn’t save General Motors; American taxpayers did, with an assist from the Federal Reserve. While liberals rant about the bailouts of Wall Street, it is worthwhile noting that of the $417 billion in TARP funds spent to stabilize the economy, only $65 billion has yet to be repaid – and more than half of that is owed by GM and Chrysler. The latest TARP report from the Congressional Budget Office says that the government invested nearly $80 billion in those two auto giants and that taxpayers are still on the hook for roughly $37 billion. 

In the same report, the CBO projects that handouts to Wall Street firms will ultimately net the government a cool $11 billion profit. They say the auto industry, on the other hand, will never pay back taxpayers. According to the congressional bean counters, $20 billion is gone for good.


What the GM bailout really cost American taxpayers

While President Obama campaigns on “tax fairness” – eliminating loopholes for the wealthiest one percent, the oil companies and other big corporations -- his favorite corporate giant is enjoying an unprecedented, under-the-table multi-billion dollar tax break. 

In addition to the more than $50 billion given to General Motors in the bailout, the Obama administration quietly snuck in a special tax break for GM, which allows the company to write off approximately $45 billion in post-bankruptcy losses against post-bankruptcy profits. 

The result? In 2011, GM paid nothing in federal income taxes despite claiming record profits of $7.6 billion, the “highest profits in the 100 year history of that company” according to President Obama. 

In fact, that’s not quite right. GM paid a tax rate of negative 1.5% on its record profits – less than nothing. 

That’s right, while you were paying your income taxes last month, the IRS was sending General Motors a check for $110 million. And GM’s tax break is a gift that will keep on giving every year at tax time. 

It’s good for twenty years. 


Race Played Role in Obama Car Dealer Closures

Dealerships were retained because they were recently appointed, were key wholesale parts dealers, or were minority- or woman-owned dealerships. - Troubled Asset Relief Program Special Inspector General Neal M. Barofsky


GM’s market share fell by 2.1 percentage points in the first three months of 2012, to a level the company hasn’t seen since 1922. GM’s 2012 share is even more striking considering that 10 years ago, GM was aiming to return to 30 percent of the American market.

2007: 23%

2008: 22%

2009: 20%

2010: 18%

2011: 19.6%

2012: 17.5%


Before the bailout of General Motors, it was well understood that the world’s largest automaker was losing huge amounts of money in the US and was staying afloat thanks to stronger performance in overseas markets. Since the bailout, however, that dynamic has been turned on its head. Thanks to a leaner manufacturing footprint, debt eliminations and steadily recovering sales, GM’s US operations have generated the lion’s share of the company’s profit since the bailout.

And now, as the rest of the world economy slows, GM is spending more and more of its taxpayer-enhanced cash pile to shore up its faltering foreign divisions. In fact, according to an analysis of GM’s SEC filings, the company is likely to incur over $6.5 billion in losses and expenditures overseas in the 2011-2014 period, not counting over $1.6b in foreign potential legal liabilities or several other incalculable expenses that could add up to billions more. Not only are these expenses a challenge to GM’s overall financial health at a time when it also faces billion-dollar expenditures on pensions in the US, it shows the basic problem with national bailouts of global companies. Taxpayers who were told they were saving an American company are now seeing their tax dollars flowing overseas by the billions.


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Thu, 11-01-2012 - 9:09pm
To Ohearto: I was replying to Deenasdad. The boards are still horribly glitchy. Am seriously thinking about giving up on iVillage.


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2007
Thu, 11-01-2012 - 2:35pm


It wasn't me that said anything about the Volt.  

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Thu, 11-01-2012 - 12:16pm
Thank you for making my earlier point about the demonization of the Volt. Your claim that "they have a tendency to burst into flame" is incorrect. "No real-world fires were reported by regulators or the automaker" More at http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/21/us-gm-volt-idUSTRE80J20X20120121. The only ones who seem to be "decreeing that the Volt is a piece of crap" are ideologues and those who (mistakenly) heed them. We would all do well to inform ourselves and make sure that our opinions are based on sound facts and critical thinking, not propaganda promulgated by partisans.


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Thu, 11-01-2012 - 10:08am

TO:  Deenasdad (the message boards have a long way to go after the October "makeover"--including getting their programming to correctly display who's replying to whom)

Gee, who to believe......The regional COF?  Or the Chrysler CEO?  Most likely is a partnership between Fiat/Chrysler and the Chinese manufacturer to build units for the huge China market. 

The claim that "dozens" of auto manufacturers didn't get bailouts has me scratching my head.  DOZENS?  Really?  I didn't know that the U.S. had so many!  How about some proof........?

As for the "legal process", apparently both Obama and Bush believed more jobs would be lost by taking that particular route.  A "political agenda" which salvages a key U.S. industry while retaining jobs seems more than a little reasonable, negative language notwithstanding.  GM paid off its loan too--http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/21/us-usa-autos-idUSTRE63K56920100421  Conservatives kvetch about "big government" and social welfare programs.  What the h*** did they think would happen when workers no longer had jobs and other sectors such as the housing and construction industry clearly had no demand for an increased labor supply?  I'll be waiting for the answer to that question. 

And the Volt?

Chevrolet Volt Sales Redefine 'Failure'

Even if many transactions were bolstered by cut-rate lease deals and other incentives last month, with 13,497 units rolling out of dealerships through the end of August, the Chevrolet Volt “extended range electric” sedan is outselling about half of all cars marketed in the U.S.

If indeed the Volt is a “failure,” as some of its critics have contended, we’re sure there’s several auto executives out there that would like many of their slower-selling models to suffer the same fate.

Now to be fair, the industry’s top performers were responsible for far more sales over the first eight months of the year than the Volt could register in a decade at its current pace. Among passenger cars, the Toyota Camry leads the pack with 280,536 deliveries through the end of August (not counting 30,587 Camry Hybrid models). The Ford F150 pickup truck did even better with a phenomenal 408,656 units, albeit with sales bolstered by considerable cash rebates.

Still, the Volt’s 133rd-place ranking placed it ahead of industry stalwarts like the Audi A6, BMW 7-Series, Porsche Cayenne and Mercedes-Benz S-Class, and it outsold most hybrids including the Toyota Prius plug-in, Honda Civic, Kia Optima, Toyota Highlander and Lexus RX 450h. Sure, the big-money incentives helped kick start sales last month, but the more Volts GM gets into consumers’ hands will closer the car and its advanced technology will approach the mainstream. It took Toyota many years to become profitable with the Prius, and the company took heat investing big bucks to develop its hybrid technology back in the late 1990′s when gas cost about a dollar a gallon.

Now of course, as it is in the National Football League, one great game does not ensure a Super Bowl victory, and it doesn’t help that General Motors’ executives were, shall we say, overly optimistic with the Volt’s initial sales projections, but it does look like the Volt may finally be finding a niche for itself. Or at least one that’s stronger than, say, any of the well-regarded sports cars it’s handily outselling this year like the Chevrolet Corvette, Porsche 911 and BMW 6 Series. If GM can figure out how to attract a steady stream of customers without having to slap a thick wad of cash on the Volt’s hood, so much the better.  http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2012/09/24/august-chevrolet-volt-sales-redefine-failure/

Consumer Reports apparently didn't consider the Volt to be "crap" either.  http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2011/10/consumer-reports-recommends-chevrolet-volt.html

I remember when the Prius was equally dispargaged by "conservatives"Why they see fuel efficient vehicles as anathema, I simply cannot fathom.