Chrysler won’t repay $3.7 billion TARP loan
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34434831/ns/business-autos
Chrysler won�t repay $3.7 billion TARP loan
Plan filed with bankruptcy court has no provision to return money
updated 1:39 p.m. MT, Tues., Dec . 15, 2009
NEW YORK - The U.S. Treasury will not recover any portion of the $3.7
billion still outstanding in loans it made to automaker Chrysler under the
Troubled Asset Relief Program, according to the terms of a plan filed with
bankruptcy court on Tuesday.
The U.S. government has filed proofs of claim for unpaid principal,
interest, fees and expenses, but "will receive no recovery on account of
such claim," according to court documents filed on behalf of Old Carco LLC,
the units of Chrysler that remain under bankruptcy protection while they
are liquidated.
The proposal was laid out in a disclosure statement filed with the New York
bankruptcy court in Manhattan.
-----------------------------
Us cynics predicted this. We said Chysler bribed congrss into giving them
this "loan" and would then bribe the govt into cancelling the repayment.
David Hartung
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34434831/ns/business-autos
>
> Chrysler won�t repay $3.7 billion TARP loan
No surprise.
jane
I am losing track here. The US borrowed money from China so it could
loan money to save an American Car Company which got sold to Italy.
The US could use cash from the sale of Chrysler to pay back China BUT
when Italy bought Chrysler, The terms of the deal do not require Fiat
to pay any cash.
Now, the US is standing in line with all of the other creditors and is
holding the bag for a loan to China.
Wouldn't it have made more sense to let China loan the money directly
to Chrysler?
Who said our government doesn't have any business sense?
Jane
necromancer - ECHM
wrote:
<<snip>>
>Who said our government doesn't have any business sense?
Well the leader who got us into this mess holds an MBA from Harvard...
--
US President George W Bush says something intelligent:
David Hartung
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:15:14 -0800 (PST), jane <jane....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> <<snip>>
>
>> Who said our government doesn't have any business sense?
>
> Well the leader who got us into this mess holds an MBA from Harvard...
May I respectfully suggest that you rethink that. I know that Obama is
an incompetent boob, but he has not been in office long enough to have
caused this, and the last incompetent president we had, Bill Clinton,
has been out of office over eight years.
You really must learn that bad business decisions make for bad results,
and that the business in question should have been left to suffer the
consequences of their decisions.
Oh, in case you haven't figured it our yet, Chrysler's current troubles
are not the fault of George W Bush.
Brent
> You really must learn that bad business decisions make for bad results,
> and that the business in question should have been left to suffer the
> consequences of their decisions.
> Oh, in case you haven't figured it our yet, Chrysler's current troubles
> are not the fault of George W Bush.
What drives bad business decisions? How does the systematic error occur?
The best explaination is that there is common incorrect signal, and that
signal is an artifically low cost of money.
The automotive industry also had to deal with the devaluation of money
showing up in fuel costs and the effect of wars on those fuel costs as
well.
liberal
> On 2009-12-18, David Hartung <d_hart...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You really must learn that bad business decisions make for bad results,
> > and that the business in question should have been left to suffer the
> > consequences of their decisions.
> > Oh, in case you haven't figured it our yet, Chrysler's current troubles
> > are not the fault of George W Bush.
>
> What drives bad business decisions? How does the systematic error occur?
>
> The best explaination is that there is common incorrect signal, and that
> signal is an artifically low cost of money.
No. The best explanation is that decision-makers aren't held
responsible for the results of their decisions.
This started (essentially) with Michael Eisner when he became the CEO
of Disney. During the dark economic times of Bush 1, there was no
problem. But when the economic expansion of the Clinton era was rip-
roaring, Eisner was viewed as a genius. All he did was ride the
coattails of that expansion. And was rewarded with huge salary
increases and bonuses. Of course, once the expansion stopped, he lost
his job. But no one ever question whether his halcyon days as CEO were
only a case of being in the right spot at the right time.
Over the last decade, this phenomenon has repeated. A CEO makes some
changes, stock price goes up as the market imagines a genius is at the
helm, the BoD calls the CEO a hero. The CEO walks with huge pension
and stock options. Exercises the options. The stock price craters. The
BoD can't figure out what happened.
necromancer
<d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>May I respectfully suggest that you rethink that. I know that Obama is
>an incompetent boob,
You may but I won't. Obama is simply continuing the bailout crap that
started under the, "leadership," of George W Bush.
--
"You can fool some of the people all the time,
and those are the ones you want to
concentrate on."
--Governor George W. Bush
Brent
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:27:53 -0600, David Hartung
><d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>May I respectfully suggest that you rethink that. I know that Obama is
>>an incompetent boob,
>
> You may but I won't. Obama is simply continuing the bailout crap that
> started under the, "leadership," of George W Bush.
Obama serves the same interests Bush did. This is a judgement made by
Obama's actions since taking office. He is either complicit, so
stupid as to be manipulated by them, or fearful of what may happen
should he choose not to serve them. Regardless of which one, the results
are much the same.