Posted on 04/29/2010 7:26:15 AM PDT by opentalk
You'd think that General Motors Co., having been rescued by U.S. taxpayers, would be more up-front with them.
In an ad that has been blanketing the airwaves since last week, General Motors Chairman and chief executive Ed Whitacre boasts that "we have repaid our government loan, in full, with interest, five years ahead of the original schedule."
In a press release, Whitacre said GM was able to repay the loans "because more customers are buying vehicles like the Chevrolet Malibu and Buick LaCrosse."
Neither the ad nor the press release mentioned that GM repaid its government loan with other government money, or that U.S. taxpayers could lose money on the roughly $50 billion they still have invested in General Motors.
In a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner last week, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said the repayment "appears to be nothing more than an elaborate TARP money shuffle."
...In his letter to Geithner, Grassley said that "it is unclear how GM and the administration could have accurately announced yesterday that GM repaid its TARP loans in any meaningful way. ... The taxpayers are still on the hook, and whether TARP funds are ultimately recovered depends entirely on the government's ability to sell GM stock in the future."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Meanwhile, the banks who are the targets of a Stalinist purge, have actually paid back the TARP, while GM and Chrysler who weren’t supposed to get TARP, haven’t come close to repayment and actually get away with lying that they have.
I thought that check kiting was against the law. Oh, that’s right. The government can do whatever it wants because some animals are more equal than others
also , thought there were laws regarding truth in advertising.—If I were Ford, would be calling foul.
From the article...”The Treasury has not said how much it expects to make or lose on GM. But a report issued by the White House last week said, “Overall, the investments made by the prior and current administration in GM, Chrysler and GMAC will likely result in some loss, but the U.S. Treasury anticipates it to be much lower than forecast last year.”
In other words, “The White House wildly speculated that future losses could well be more, less or lots more than we wildly speculated last year. We also reserve the right to blame these losses on George Bush, even though he was already out of office when we completed this theft of GM and Chrysler with funds stolen from TARP which Bush authorized simply to be nice to US.”
This just in. Way to stay current SFC! Next you’ll be reporting that the 0ne is not what he seemed.
If I was Ford, I would tell the American driver that they don’t have to lie to sell cars.
Would be a great ad. They would risk retaliation, maybe forced recalls
With proper wording, they could still convey that message. Something like, Ford: We’re straight with our customers. A bank here in Texas is advertising on the radio that they did not take any of the tarp money. As for retaliation, I think ford is in a much safer position than Toyo becuase of their ties witht the UAW.
Where was it written that TARP funds advanced (sometimes against the wishes of the recipient) had to be paid with income/profits from their normal order of business?
IF I suddenly had to travel out of state to attend a family funeral-—and I borrowed $1500 from a friend to make the trip, I would owe that friend the $1500 back.—possibly with some interest for the favor.
IF I make the trip and only spend $1100, I have still $400 left over. IF I take my next 2 paychecks & put $1100 with the $400 I still have left over and pay back the neighbor, then the loan repayment is satisfied.
Am I to be punished for using part of the original loan in the payback?
BTW—What interest was GM paying for those TARP funds? Stephenopolous slipped the other AM that it was 23%!!!
AT 23%, I would be scrambling to pay it all back plenty of years early, also!
I seem to remeber that Wells Fargo was complaining that they didn’t need any TARP money—but Henry Paulson forced it on them anyway.
Wonder if 23% interest was a motive for forcing these TARP funds on businesses?
Has anyone heard a decent explanation of where the repaid money is going?
Seems to be another secret of this ‘most transparent’ administration.
I thought they said when GM was forced into bankruptcy that the stock was given to the UNIONS in lieu of the unfunded pensions that GM owed money to.
Selling more stock in GM will only dilute the value of the stock the unions current hold.
later
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.