[Tricks]

herbie herbie:

Tricks Tricks:

It's also peanuts compared to what companies do in the U.S.

Currently it's estimated that the various government of the U.S. have invested half a trillion dollars to telecoms for fibre since the 90s.

They've basically done nothing with it.

Oh FFS they do that here all the time. They shelled out $500M here of public money in the 1990s for fibre optic to service Kitimat, took 10 years of fighting for communities along the way to get connected to it. There are still some communities along the way with no DSL service. They JUST connected Prince Rupert to it a couple years ago and it's supposed to be the super port.

Question is WHY they didn't try to collect from FCA. There's obviously more to the story.
And you Ford fanboys are welcome to call when you need me to pull you out.

The difference is the amount of money. 500 billion vs 500 million. Big difference.

[herbie]

What $500 BILLION?

[housewife]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

housewife housewife:

Is it any wonder that people have lost faith in the government. This crazy they could have done so many other things with that money wonder what they were promised and if we have a hope of the promise being fulfilled. I doubt it

Chrysler restructured right after they took on this debt, into the company that builds cars and the company that has debt. Then they sold the former to Fiat, and abandoned the latter. They made no interest payments, no attempt to service the debt.

So, no. We get nothing.

Also, that was in 2009, before this government came to power.

Didn't say who I had lost faith in. All of them in case you're wondering. It is ridiculous they seem to have no idea what they are doing running around throwing money out to businesses and telling us it's going to be good for us But refuse to give them 20 bucks in taxes and watch them spend thousands to get it

[Tricks]

herbie herbie:

What $500 BILLION?

Did you even read my post? The U.S. Government gave 500 billion to ISPs in the U.S. to have them build fibre networks. They haven't. It's been going for over 20 years.

[herbie]

Swear to God I didn't see 'trillion' when I first read it.
But what the hell, isn't that what free enterprise means? Taking $500 out of my pocket to give to Telus so they can charge me $73 a month for 15Mbps?
That's why I had to sell my business, I had this misconception I had to use my own money to expand and get more customers and higher revenues... sheesh!

[Tricks]

herbie herbie:

Swear to God I didn't see 'trillion' when I first read it.
But what the hell, isn't that what free enterprise means? Taking $500 out of my pocket to give to Telus so they can charge me $73 a month for 15Mbps?
That's why I had to sell my business, I had this misconception I had to use my own money to expand and get more customers and higher revenues... sheesh!

The average household in the U.S. has paid the telecoms 5000 dollars to build a service they never have. They have just pocketed that money. It's honestly gotta be the biggest scam in history.

[BeaverFever]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

housewife housewife:

Is it any wonder that people have lost faith in the government. This crazy they could have done so many other things with that money wonder what they were promised and if we have a hope of the promise being fulfilled. I doubt it

Chrysler restructured right after they took on this debt, into the company that builds cars and the company that has debt. Then they sold the former to Fiat, and abandoned the latter. They made no interest payments, no attempt to service the debt.

So, no. We get nothing.

Also, that was in 2009, before this government came to power.

I feel like Harper and everyone in government knew this was going to happen even at the time, they just had to call it a “loan” instead of a “gift” for optics

[housewife]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

housewife housewife:

Is it any wonder that people have lost faith in the government. This crazy they could have done so many other things with that money wonder what they were promised and if we have a hope of the promise being fulfilled. I doubt it

Chrysler restructured right after they took on this debt, into the company that builds cars and the company that has debt. Then they sold the former to Fiat, and abandoned the latter. They made no interest payments, no attempt to service the debt.

So, no. We get nothing.

Also, that was in 2009, before this government came to power.

I feel like Harper and everyone in government knew this was going to happen even at the time, they just had to call it a “loan” instead of a “gift” for optics

But other companies could pay some. What makes Chrysler so special

[BeaverFever]

housewife housewife:

But other companies could pay some. What makes Chrysler so special

As I understand, it’s just as Dr. C said: after taking the “loan“ money Chrysler split itself into two companies, one which is the real car-making business, the other company basically exists only on paper and doesn’t do any real business it just has all the debt put on it and declared itself bankrupt.

My understanding is Fiat only bought Chrysler after that happened , and that it only bought the real Chrysler not the bankrupt dummy company. Perhaps that was what governments and Chrysler and maybe even Fiat too were planning all along: Chrysler needed a buyer and everyone knew that wouldn’t happen unless it could get away from this “loan”. Perhaps Fiat had already indicated interest in Chrysler beforehand and everyone had that in mind when they crafted this deal, or perhaps they didn’t know who exactly might step up with a takeover bid but the terms of this “loan”certainly seem designed to facilitate a takeover

[housewife]

Which is a crock. A bunch of fancy foot work and questionable accounting. It really is a wonder what companies are aloud to get away with

[DrCaleb]

housewife housewife:

Which is a crock. A bunch of fancy foot work and questionable accounting. It really is a wonder what companies are aloud to get away with

It is a crock. Company bailouts can net the government more than they cost, as there are payroll taxes, manufacturing taxes, plus interest and debt repayment involved.

The Government should not have made a loan to Chrysler without provisions for the loan to be paid back. Totally their fault. Chrysler did what companies do, they looked out for their bottom line.

[Freakinoldguy]

Tricks Tricks:

Robair Robair:

I wish more people would vote with their wallets.

Ford is the only domestic company that didn't outright steel tax money from you...

Did GM pay back their bailout?

Yes and no.

They paid back their loans to the US gov't with another loan from the US gov't. They didn't put the profit from one vehicle sales towards that loan.

$1:

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?

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/did-gen ... er-bailout

I suppose the best analogy would be the people who use their credit cards to pay off their other credit cards. Eventually it gets impossible to make the payments on the interest for any of the cards which is likely what will happen to GM and what happened to Fiat. Hence the loan forgiveness.

BTW do we now own Fiat Chrysler because, if we do I'd like to pick up my new company owned corporate 2019 Ram Lariat pickup?

[herbie]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

housewife housewife:

But other companies could pay some. What makes Chrysler so special

As I understand, it’s just as Dr. C said: after taking the “loan“ money Chrysler split itself into two companies, one which is the real car-making business, the other company basically exists only on paper and doesn’t do any real business it just has all the debt put on it and declared itself bankrupt.

My understanding is Fiat only bought Chrysler after that happened , and that it only bought the real Chrysler not the bankrupt dummy company. Perhaps that was what governments and Chrysler and maybe even Fiat too were planning all along: Chrysler needed a buyer and everyone knew that wouldn’t happen unless it could get away from this “loan”. Perhaps Fiat had already indicated interest in Chrysler beforehand and everyone had that in mind when they crafted this deal, or perhaps they didn’t know who exactly might step up with a takeover bid but the terms of this “loan”certainly seem designed to facilitate a takeover

Common business practice. Saw it happen personally to the company I used to be part of. The buyer essentially acquired ALL the assets and dodged any liabilities doing exactly that. Had a few years of collection agency calls trying to convince me I was responsible for the debt as I used to be a Director even though I resigned before the sale.
I also hear there was no actual requirement to repay those loans.

There's all kinds of sweet deals in business, intended to make you get into one instead of whining about how you don't get them working for someone else.

[herbie]

Just noticed the irony:

$1:

Dodged any liabilities

[BRAH]

Bailing out Chrysler and GM was still the right thing to do.