A friendly reminder that GM was not the recipient of billions that were not at least payed back in part…10 billion seems like a lot, but compared to all the other bailouts, and I include TARP and all previous bailouts for the last several decades as well as the military giving contracts to American industry that do not give the lowest bids for the best service, it was a drop in the bucket. IMHO, a drop well thought out and well spent. Dramatically different then TARP. I make little distinction between the Dems and the Reps on some key monitory issues; one is conservative and one is conservative light. That’s why I belong to neither. Bernie Sanders is one of my political heros. Medicare for all and affordable college education for anyone who qualifies. And , bring on the so called bailouts when deemed necessary. People are worth investing in even after they make a mistake. Complain more about TARP with NO CONDITIONs. I was not against TARP, I was against a blank check that the Bush Administration asked for and received support for from Dems and Reps in congress. That’s where our anger should be placed. Not the auto company whose support is a success story.
Where I’m from, ten billion dollars is a lot of money. Especially if it’s OUR money. And especially if it isn’t being used for the purpose for which taxes are supposed to be used.
It may not be as much as a zillion, but saying it isn’t much is like saying that a stove burner on high and glowing isn’t hot because the sun is a lot hotter.
People are worth investing in even after they make a mistake.People - YES...Businesses - NO.
Let’s complain about a liberal president and congress who sought to help one industry with lot’s employees. You actually think the 10 billion was lost ? It wasn’t paid back. But, it did make payroll it did do R and D and it did go back into the economy. Now, the banks, because they did not have to account for their expenditures, sat on over a hundred billion, some which was invested abroad and never saw the light of day for years. Exception, when it turned up as bonuses in the pockets on the money managers. Managers whose counter parts at GM, we’re held accountable. So, whine about 10 billion that you think is lost, that wasn’t but give the Bush administration a free pass on ten fold that and more then a trillion in debt, that actually was.
Besides, the unemployment benefits saved alone far exceeds that $10 billion.
You may recall what Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen said in the 1960s: “a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon your talking about some real money”. 10 billion is less than 0.4% of annual federal expenditures. While it might seem like a lot of money in a personal sense, it is a paltry sum in a national sense.
Do you suppose the Japanese are not supporting their car companies? You betcha they are.
And I believe back in the 60’s it was a “million here and a million there”. Billions was only something microbiologists talked about.
To put it all in perspective though, food stamps were increased from around 30 billion to 70 billion. So a 10 billion loss isn’t really that bad all in all.
The perspective too is that money spent on foreign oil, on foreign made goods, saved in foreign accounts or used to make bombs that we use to destroy then rebuild Iraq, is lost. And, the huge sums of mony we used to bribe the Talban in Afghanistan and insurgents in Iraq, was lost. Monies that go to American auto industry or spent by FEMA or given as educational aid or business loans or food stamps or unemployment benefits or Medicare are for the most part spent here. It goes back into our economy.
That is a huge difference on many billions that pays the interest on the foreign held debt. So, you cannot equate monies spent here with that spent abroad. For that reason alone, it is worthwhile to bail out American airlines, American transportation and American infrastructure ( the “big dig” was a bail out of huge proportion when there was so much cost over run) an yes, American auto.
That is one thing all economist here agree upon…and yet, it seems to allude a number of people who think their tax dollars are lost on reinvestments in American industry. I guess leaving all those people unemployed and untrained for anything else and having the govt. pay more in unemployment benefits makes more sense ?
If there’s one thing we can all agree on I think, it’s that if we’re passing out torches and pitchforks, that we should be lining up outside the big finance houses. Sallie Mae, etc. were not only a huge contributor to the recession by allowing loans that never should have occurred, but in taking a handout that was not repaid, that makes the auto industry bailout look like slipping 5 bucks into a Salvation Army kettle by comparison…
@ Dag,Red Cross is poor example, bureaucracy absorbs 90%,leaving 10% for their charitable deeds,or so I’ve been told.Mike is right its happening all around,this old bloated cash cow is about ready to die from the vampire bats sucking the blood out,thrive or starve,too many parasites and people acquiring tremendous wealth with a hand shake or a nod of the head,with little risk to themselves-Kevin
Kevin
I think you need to do the research on your own… The numbers are nearly reversed in every source I was able to come up with. You have a computer. You need not listen to individual opinions… That includes me or anyone else. The real numbers are out there. Though this source may not rate Red Cross, there are many others on a variety of topics relating to our national debt.
http://www.cbo.gov/blog
The biggest complaint I have read aout the Red Cross from news organizations is, you can’t be sure when you donate to specific causes, that that’s where it goes. There are administrators making big salaries.
V Salvation Army. But, to retain tax exempt status, it certainly can’t be your numbers. They are off even for commercial organizations like…GM.
Here is a report on the GM bailout for example.
http://www.cbo.gov/search/apachesolr_search?keys=GM+bailout&op=search
Yeah you’re right, it was “billions” not “millions” to my surprise. Although I’ve heard it both ways, I never heard him say it myself and according to the Dirkson Center there seems to be some question that he ever said it at all. Can’t be confirmed.
@kmccune There have been several studies done what happens to foreign aid and distaster relief. I believe the worst organization is UNICEF (United Nations Childrens…). Only 1% of what you give reaches the children. The rest is bureaucracy, bribing local officials, etc. The head of Unicef drives (or is driven) around New York in a Rolls Royce and has a $1 million dollar salary plus expenses.
I heard from an OXFAM worker that in order to distribute food in a particular country, they had to pay for a lavish wedding of the tribal chief’s son.
Many years ago, Barry Goldwater, running for the presidency, had written a book entitled “The Conscience of a Conservative”. One chapter was devoted to foreign aid and who could best administer it. Aid from Uncle Sam used up 2/3 of the money in administation and salaries. He called that the “Washington Brokerage Fee”. By far the most capable organizations to administer aid were the churches and other down to earth organizations, like the salvation Army.
A well written book called “The Ugly American” is also worth reading.
Green Peace spends half the money it raises on commissions for the money raisers. Keep that in mind the next time you get a “sincere call” from them.
Even your local United Appeal pays huge salaries to its staff.
In most cases of massive foreign relief, the local Mercedes dealers do very well. Every person in authority locally tuns into an instant “consultant” and needs to be paid (bribed) to tell you where the village is. The Haiti earth quake is but the latest example of squandered resources.
@Docnick
I don’t think I would use Greenpiece as an example of wrongly placed funds for charitable work. They are in essence, a political group designed to give their interpretation on how we should deal with our environment. They do good work if you agree with them, they don’t if you don’t. But, paying someone to talk on the environment is hardly the same as sending plasma to injured victims and IMHO, is more like giving to a political party then complaining because it spent money for airfares. They have a wide reaching spending program that just doesn’t allow me to think of it as a charitable institution.
I am strongly opposed to donating funds to charitable organizations outside direct US control and I hope our govt. feels the same. I would rather send aid directly then throw money into political organizations, which they become when the UN is involved. As far as UNICEF is concerned, it depends on who you ask. I don’t depend on Barry Golwater like others may not depend the ones I would use.
Dag, where exactly do you think this tax money comes from? Tax money given to failing private corporations does not change the market demand in the markets they compete in, it only takes discretionary dollars out of our pockets, leaving less for us to spend…here…in this country. Each of those dollars only gets back into the economy after the feds use most of it up for the regulatory agencies that took it.
It’s been true since the time of Christ that governments that overtax their people to serve their own purposes stifle economic activity. Peoples become more prosperous if allowed to engage in economic activities directly, without unnecessary taxation. Simply look at the old USSR, current Russia, and other government centralized economies and compare them to currently emerging economies like modern Viet Nam. Heck, just look at North Korea vs. South Korea.
I would also disagree with your description of the bailouts as “investments”. And should add that the purpose of taxation is not for the government to “invest”. “Investment” implies the acceptance of risk for the purpose of growing the principal. In NH, I know for a fact that it’s against state law for the state government to use its state revenues this way. I know because I was directly involved in the allocation of state general funds. I suspect that federal law contains the same restrictions.
,Done a little research,found out when Elizabeth Dole was president of the American Red Cross,her salary was 100K a year.My favorite charity generates over 4X,the donations given them.Other organizations arent quite as bad as the red cross but some of them come close(I’ve looked at the numbers on some of them)-Kevin
Thanx fellows,I dont think I have ever given any money to Greenpeace and dont intend to,also I dont feel the need to give money to those able bodied beggars standing at the off ramps from interstate highways(we are starting to get a plague of them){ some park their nice looking cars aways off before they go “work”-Kevin
@Bing, Dirksen said it on Johnny Carson’s Tonight Show. Read the end of your Dirksen Center reference. Yes, he said it and it is confirmed by several people. You were likely not old enough to watch the Tonight Show at that time, and wouldn’t have had any interest in Everett Dirksen anyway. So of course you would not have heard it.
@same
I hope we didn’t have to get caught up in word usage limited to a financial term when “investment” also means to allocate time, money or effort with the expectation you will get something worthwhile. If we want to get hung up on taxes and expenses and see little need for spending money other then for a worthwhile return, then I hope we at least look at college expenses for our kids as a worthwhile investment into their future and the future of society in general. We added nothing to our personal estate with that investment.
" too many" taxes ? Then why did conservatives in house vote down a jobs bill that was 60% tax cuts and would have dropped unemployment by another full percentage point. Liberals since Nixon are the only group who have as an administration balanced the budget which included an overal reduction in taxes for the average American. ( including state and local) Because when you balance the budget, you decrease the foreign interest you pay which reduces the tax burden overall. History doesn’t lie. Liberals have been much better money managers in central govt. Because investing in people pays.
You need grow to pay down the deficit, you need jobs for growth and you need investments by the central govt along with business security in their investments for profit, to help stimulate job growth…ie. bailout GM. GM showed a profit, the govt lost a few billion, job well done as it saved the govt. massive amounts MORE of unemployment benefits and the loss of tax base by plant closings. That would have cost the tax payers more, federally and locally…I know a conservative’s response might be " but it cost me more money in taxes" which is somewhat like complaining about spending money for an oil change because it saves them an engine job. I don’t get conservative logic…
Most organizations can’t afford to solicit donations. They hire private companies to do so. These solicitors are where most of the overhead for charities goes. Organizations like the United Way have a different model for soliciting donations, and don’t pay nearly as much. They don’t even hire outside companies to grub for money. I never give to Police or Fire charities because about 50% goes to the callers they hire. I’d love to, but not under those circumstances.