09-08-2016, 02:51 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-08-2016, 03:17 AM by Eric the Green.)
(09-07-2016, 09:17 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: It's always amusing when a leftist uses the word "fact". The word doesn't mean what they think it means.Only for the rich. You obviously did not watch the videos I posted.
In fact, inflation adjusted income, after being moribund in the 1970s, grew strongly under Reagan, retrenched for a few years under Bush's anti-Reagan economic policies, as I mentioned, and grew again under Clinton/Gingrich when Reagan style economic policies were continued.
Quote:(Warren)
The government took a huge loss on the auto equity; that will never be paid back. Frankly, though, economic stimulus is not about being paid back; the problem with the bailouts is that they didn't actually help the economy.
(me)
"We’ll note that losses from automaker loans were expected to be higher, and the action taken by the Obama administration resulted in GM and Chrysler paying back the bulk of their loans." This site concludes that the car companies paid back at least most of the Obama loans, but not those made earlier under Bush.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...loans-it-/
Quote:(Warren)
You may not be aware of it, but equity and loans are not the same thing. The loans got paid back; the equity - that is, the shares the government bought - plummeted in value and were sold for a 10 billion dollar overall loss.
You provided no source for this, and there was nothing about this in the article I linked. So I found this:
"The bailout of GMAC started Dec. 29, 2008, with a $5 billion infusion in the last days of the Bush administration, but that grew to $17.2 billion as the Obama White House moved to save Detroit. By keeping auto finance arm alive, the administration sought to keep car and truck sales moving and auto dealerships open.
With this week’s sale, the GMAC investment yielded $2.4 billion in profit. The government no longer owns any part of the auto industry, Treasury officials announced.
Although the overall bailout efforts turned a profit, the auto rescue did not. With Friday’s announcement, taxpayers were left with a $9.5 billion loss. Most of that came from General Motors, which paid back about $39 billion of the $49.5 billion invested.
But with auto sales booming and the Big Three Detroit automakers recovered, the Obama administration now points to the Detroit rescue as one of its biggest triumphs.
“The American auto industry is on track for its strongest year since 2005,” Mr. Obama said. “And we’ve created about half a million new jobs in the auto industry alone.” "
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/20/busine....html?_r=0
I wonder why they call it the "Detroit rescue" though. I don't think there's much if any of the auto industry left in Detroit.
Quote:As for "green", the Obama administration changed EPA mileage rules to encourage the production and purchase of large passenger vehicles by allowing them to guzzle more fuel than smaller vehicles, a perverse incentive that not even the Bush administration managed to put into effect, perhaps because Obama thought, incorrectly, that that would save his investment in Government Motors.
I don't think large trucks are such a major part of production. All the other vehicles are regulated according to their carbon footprint.
https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regula...f10014.pdf