GM To Taxpayers: SUCKERS!

The CEO of Government Motors (GM) does not think his company should pay the government (read taxpayers) the 10 BILLION dollars that were lost when the Treasury sold its interest in the company. According to Dan Akerson the Treasury knew it was taking a risk, the same risk as anyone who purchases stock, when it spend billions of taxpayer dollars to keep the company from going bankrupt.

Akerson points out that the bailout helped prevent the loss of the company and kept jobs from being lost. But he also points out that Treasury took a chance when it infused money into the company by purchasing stock.

So what this guy is saying is, you took a chance with taxpayer dollars and that chance did not pan out to the tune of a 10 BILLION dollar loss. He does not feel the need to reimburse the taxpayers whose money kept the company around.

Isn’t it funny that this guy feels the government took a chance that had a risk associated with it and lost so it has no obligation to pay the money but he had no problem with taxpayers spending money to bail his company out. Owning and running a business has certain risks associated with it and one of those risks is going bankrupt. But Akerson does not feel his company should have to suffer the consequences of the risk associated with owning or running a company.

He feels his problems should be paid for by others but that any loss those folks suffered was their problem and not his.

The bankruptcy of GM was not the problem of the taxpayer. It was the problem of GM.

Mitt Romney said GM and other auto companies should not receive a bailout and should go through bankruptcy and solve THEIR problems that way.

Obama and his followers hammered Romney and said if it was up to him the auto companies would have gone under.

Romney had it right. GM bit the hand that fed it and we lost 10 BILLION dollars in the process.

Ford did not take a bailout and was able to work through tough times. That is why my new car is a Ford.

I loved my Jeep but could not replace it with another after Chrysler took a bailout.

Remember that you suffered a 10 BILLION dollar loss when you are out shopping for a new car. Do not buy a GM product.

No sense in rewarding a company that took advantage of the people who were forced to spend their hard earned money enriching executives and keeping union workers employed so they could continue voting Democrat.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

GM To Taxpayers; Thanks, Now Bend Over

General Motors received a lot of money from the US taxpayer under both George Bush and Barack Obama. Despite Obama’s claims (and his fuzzy math) about car companies paying back the money, they still owe the taxpayer billions of dollars that we will likely never see. GM CEO Dan Akerson said he was grateful that the government rescued GM but wants the government out of the company in the next 6 to 12 months. Newsflash for Mr. Akerson, the government did not rescue your company, the taxpayer did through coercive tax policies that allow the government, under threat of force, to extract money from people who earn it and spend it on companies like yours. Companies that are poorly managed and spend unwisely. The taxpayer was forced to rescue your company because it was mismanaged and we had no say in the matter.

How does Mr. Akerson want to repay the taxpayer who rescued his company? He is in favor of raising the federal gas tax by as much as a dollar a gallon in order to compel people to buy more fuel efficient cars. GM just happens to make a few models of fuel efficient cars so his company will benefit from the tax increase (at least that is what he wants). What we have here is a company that was bailed out by people who are having trouble making ends meet wanting to screw those very people.

No good deed (if anyone would call bailing out a company a good deed) goes unpunished.

How are people who are having trouble making ends meet supposed to buy a new car? How will forcing them to pay more for fuel make their lives any easier when they can’t afford a new, fuel efficient car but will be forced to pay the higher fuel tax for the fuel consumed by their older cars? This takes into consideration that people still have cars in the first place. Most who still have them are probably still paying for them so they will be severely underwater if they trade in for a fuel efficient car. Those cars can run about 40,000 dollars. Those who have paid off their cars will likely pay the fuel tax rather than go into debt to save at the pump.

And what about people who have no use for the little boxes of fuel efficiency? What about those who must have SUVs and pick-up trucks? Some of us must report to work no matter what so my Jeep is a better option than a car that will not make it in the snow. When that little car can get me to work in the snow and haul 800 pounds of stuff then I will consider it. The people who must have the larger vehicles will end up paying more at the pump.

This is a fine thank you to the American taxpayer for rescuing GM. Mr. Akerson.

How about the next time you need money we just say no?

Better yet, how about we decide not to buy GM vehicles?

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]