SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It?
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (82873)4/21/2010 3:41:42 PM
From: longnshort3 Recommendations   of 224728
 
UPDATE: No true accounting for the cost of the GM government bailout is complete without taking GMAC into account. The government in essence admits to that fact, as reported by the Associated Press on March 11:

The Treasury Department sank billions into auto finance giant GMAC Inc. without an exit strategy or proof the company was viable – a decision that could cost taxpayers $6.3 billion, a new watchdog report says.

… GMAC was treated more like banks that received bailouts without having to explain what they were doing with the money, the report says.

The report was released Thursday by the Congressional Oversight Panel overseeing the $700 billion financial bailout that Congress passed in October 2008.

“Treasury missed many opportunities to improve accountability and protect taxpayer money,” panel chair Elizabeth Warren said in a conference call with reporters. She said Treasury didn’t make GMAC show how it would return the taxpayer money, or how the investment would increase credit to consumers.

“These decisions mean that Treasury is now struggling to deal with a GMAC that is not financially rehabilitated, Treasury has no exit strategy and taxpayers are not fully protected,” Warren said.

The Treasury Department responded by reiterating that backing GMAC was necessary to preserve dealer financing for GM. It disputed the report’s core finding, that alternative approaches might have saved taxpayer money and provided better transparency.

Uh, the reference $6.3 billion is more than the $5.8 billion Whitacre reports having repaid. So taxpayer losses were shifted from one GM entity to another.

Again, big freakin’ deal.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News