How GM Paid Off Their Loan

Recently General Motors claimed to have paid off their $4.7 billion loan the government lend them a few years ago.  But a company who had almost $2 billion in losses, is not going to be financially able to do so on their own.

Now we know the truth:

Any Questions?

WTF?!?

Hat tip to Yid With Lid



I sometimes wonder if I am living in the Twilight Zone. It seems that the world is going topsy-turvey. Consider this piece of news:

Saudis ask for aid if world cuts dependence on oil

BANGKOK — There are plenty of needy countries at the U.N. climate talks in Bangkok that make the case they need financial assistance to adapt to the impacts of global warming. Then there are the Saudis.

Saudi Arabia has led a quiet campaign during these and other negotiations — demanding behind closed doors that oil-producing nations get special financial assistance if a new climate pact calls for substantial reductions in the use of fossil fuels. (Emphasis mine)

That campaign comes despite an International Energy Agency report released this week showing that OPEC revenues would still increase $23 trillion between 2008 and 2030 — a fourfold increase compared to the period from 1985 to 2007 — if countries agree to significantly slash emissions and thereby cut their use of oil. That is the limit most countries agree is needed to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. (Emphasis mine)

The head of the Saudi delegation Mohammad S. Al Sabban dismissed the IEA figures as “biased” and said OPEC's own calculations showed that Saudi Arabia would lose $19 billion a year starting in 2012 under a new climate pact. The region would lose much more, he said.

“We are among the economically vulnerable countries,” Al Sabban told The Associated Press on the sidelines of the talks ahead of negotiations in Copenhagen in December for a treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

“This is very serious for us,” he continued. “We are in the process of diversifying our economy but this will take a long time. We don't have too many resources.”

Saudi Arabia, which sits atop the world's largest proven oil reserves, is seeing economic growth slide because of fallout from the global meltdown, but experts still expect the country, flush with cash from oil's earlier price spike last year, to be better able than other nations to cope with the current crisis.

Al Sabban accused Western nations of pursuing an agenda against oil producers, under the guise of protecting the planet.

“Many politicians in the Western world think these climate change negotiations and the new agreement will provide them with a golden opportunity to reduce their dependence on imported oil,” Al Sabban said. “That means you will transfer the burden to developing countries, especially to those highly dependent on the exploitation of oil.”

Al Sabban said his country wanted a new deal and was not impeding progress in talks as some activists have claimed.

An Arab environmental group IndyACT and the environmental group Germanwatch released a report today accusing Saudi Arabia of blocking key elements of the negotiations. Among their tactics, the groups said, was slowing negotiations by insisting that the economic woes of oil producers be included in the text.

“Despite the variability in the region, the current Arab position is mainly focused around protecting the oil trade rather than saving the planet form the adverse impacts of climate change,” said Wael Hmaidan, the executive director of IndyACT.

Most countries have agreed that any new pact should include provisions to avoid temperature increases of more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels — the threshold at which most scientists say serious climate change will ensue.

That would require emissions cuts from industrial countries of 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, far above the 15 to 23 percent cuts rich countries have offered so far. It would also require developing countries to scale back their emissions.

Both rich and poor countries are counting on a transition to a low carbon economy as a key component of meeting their reductions, a move that would require them to away from fossil fuels and toward renewables like solar, wind and hydro power.

Knowing the jackass we have in the White House, the Saudis should be getting at least $500 Billion of our tax dollars. After all the Chief Asshole is known for his respect for the Saudi government:


So what if the Saudis go broke over this? If they had invested their money in worthwhile projects like literacy instead of handouts to their people, making their people actually work for a living instead of hiring foreigners to run their factories, power plants, oil fields, etc..., instead of spending their money building lavish Mosques around the world and nonsense Arab study courses which are in reality a front for anti-Semitic rhetoric at Western Universities, then they would be in fine shape.

But instead they will plod along like always. Spending money as if it is water on a lifestyle that is so lavish and decedent it would embarrass Caligula. And they will demand that we pay for it.

To them and to the idiots in Washington who would pay them I say:

Begging Detroit Style

With their hats in their hands and with a contrite look upon their faces, the heads of the Big 3 Auto Makers (GM, Ford, and Chrysler) came to Congress to beg for a bailout. Did they travel coach and try to look poorer for their bad business decisions? No. Did they act humble and contrite? Are you kidding? They were as arrogant and demanding as ever.

Some lawmakers lashed out at the CEOs of the Big Three auto companies Wednesday for flying private jets to Washington to request taxpayer bailout money.

"There is a delicious irony in seeing private luxury jets flying into Washington, D.C., and people coming off of them with tin cups in their hand, saying that they're going to be trimming down and streamlining their businesses," Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-New York, told the chief executive officers of Ford, Chrysler and General Motors at a hearing of the House Financial Services Committee.

"It's almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in high hat and tuxedo. It kind of makes you a little bit suspicious."

He added, "couldn't you all have downgraded to first class or jet-pooled or something to get here? It would have at least sent a message that you do get it."

Rep. Brad Sherman, D-California, asked the three CEOs to "raise their hand if they flew here commercial. Let the record show, no hands went up. Second, I'm going to ask you to raise your hand if you are planning to sell your jet in place now and fly back commercial. Let the record show, no hands went up."

When contacted by CNN, the three auto companies defended the CEOs' travel as standard procedure.

Like many other major corporations, all three have policies requiring their CEOs to travel in private jets for safety reasons.

"Making a big to-do about this when issues vital to the jobs of millions of Americans are being discussed in Washington is diverting attention away from a critical debate that will determine the future health of the auto industry and the American economy," GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson said in a statement.

Chrysler spokeswoman Lori McTavish said in a statement, "while always being mindful of company costs, all business travel requires the highest standard of safety for all employees."

Ford spokeswoman Kelli Felker pointed to the company's travel policy and did not provide a statement elaborating.

But those statements did little to mollify the critics.

"If it is simply the company's money at stake, then only the shareholders can be upset or feel as it it might be excessive," said Thomas Schatz, president of the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste.

But in this case, he said, "it's outrageous."

"They're coming to Washington to beg the taxpayers to help them. It's unseemly to be running around on a $20,000 flight versus a $500 round trip," Schatz added.

The companies did not disclose how much the flights cost.

Full Story

Isn't it funny how many member of Congress fly commercial. There is nothing wrong with the safety of these men and women. Or members of the Armed Forces and other Government Agencies. What about their safety? Should we not care about that?

Should we bailout the auto industry? NO! Between a union that won't give up its concessions and management that is full of waste and poor decisions, it should be allowed to fall on its own. For once, the government has to say to these men NO! You made bad decisions and you must suffer for it. But not at the expense of the US Taxpayer.

A Sane Voice in a Dim-Witted Congress: Freeze the Bailout

Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

Photo courtesy of dagonvalek


Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) is introducing legislation requiring Congress to ratify the spending of the remaining $350 billion bailout fund, abolishing the sole rights given to Treasury Secretary Paulson to spend American taxpayer monies at his will - and hopefully, to completely freeze the bailout.

Inhofe voted against the prior bailout legislation for two reasons:

The first is that I wasn't convinced that asset-purchase program was the right way to do this, and the second is that it would lead to increased lobbying for handouts and bailouts by any industry facing financial trouble.

I stated at the time that my vote was against the Paulson plan - not against taking extraordinary action to provide necessary confidence to financial markets. I stated that "The Paulson plan would have Washington take $700 billion worth of toxic Wall Street assets from financial firms' balance sheets and put them on the balance sheet of the federal government.... I'm not confident in its success."

Inhofe's press release points to the many problems:

On October 14th, in a significant shift, Treasury outlined a plan to directly purchase equity stakes in of major financial institutions.

The Wall Street Journal noted that "critics...say Treasury should have formulated a comprehensive plan earlier in the crisis." This past week, Secretary Paulson announced that he has completed a remarkable about face,

November 13^th Investor's Business Daily front page headline, which read, "In Major Reversal, Treasury Won't Buy Bad Mortgage Debt." This is a complete reversal. Why did Paulson reverse course?

Thursday's Los Angeles Times provides the answer. "Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson's decision to abandon plans to buy troubled bank assets shows that he has come to two conclusions about what was once the chief focus of the government's $700-billion bailout: The first is that it wouldn't work.

About the constitutionality of the bailout:

Congress abdicated its Constitutional responsibility by signing a truly blank check over to the Treasury Secretary. However, the lame duck session of Congress offers us a tremendous opportunity to change course. We should take it.

Inhofe's plan:

During the lame duck session, I will be taking the following actions.

First and foremost, if Secretary Paulson submits his plan to Congress in order to access the remaining $350 billion while we are in session, a doubtful prospect, I plan to immediately introduce the disapproval resolution pursuant to Section 115 of the EESA and push for its enactment.

I will also introduce and actively pursue enactment of legislation to do two things: First, it will amend Section 115 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) to require an affirmative vote on the part of Congress to approve Treasury's plan for the remaining $350 billion, instead of the current statutory process which gives Secretary Paulson far too much latitude.

Second, it will require a freeze on any remaining funds of the first $350 billion. It is imperative that we not allow that amount of money to be added to a deficit approaching $1 trillion this year without any input from the legislative branch.

Inhofe's assignment: "Kick Republican Ass - Find their Conservative Values...Stand up and find a spine" Click here, then click the double bars to listen to Senator Inhofe's comprehensive interview with Glen Beck.

Beck: Do you believe our Constitution is hanging by a thread?
Beck: When did we stop believing in bankruptcy?

Beck: How could Obama say we don't have to worry about the deficit over the next couple of years?

Beck: How long before we don't recognize our country anymore? This is a tsunami...

This is an opportunity for us to tell Congress to support Inhofe's legislation. To find your Senator's name and contact information, enter your zip code below and hit "go.":