US treasury sells 75% of its stock with GM

[jpg7n16]

Well Wal-Mart wouldn't exist without our money either.

So does that mean Wal-mart is using MY money to expand it's business?? Do I have any claim at all for what Wal-Mart does with that money, once I've paid it to them? No I don't.

Same goes for the gov. You personally have no ability to change what the government does. You can only request that the people who do (congressmen/representatives/President/etc.) run things differently. Send a letter to your congressman asking them to do something differently.

Just like I have the ability to ask a manager at WalMart to open another lane if the line is backed up. I cannot control it, but I can ask.

And if enough people compain about the management at the local wal-mart, someone else will soon fill that job. Just like in government.


You cannot fire them anytime you like. In fact, you can't fire anyone in the gov. You can only vote your opinion once every 2 or 4 years. Which may or may not be honored. Please let me know when you have the authority to walk into your local government office and make employment decisions for your local government workers because you paid your taxes.

If it were your money, you would be able to ask for it back.


They should listen and consider how we want them to look out for us, but they aren't elected to do whatever we say, they are elected to do what they determine is in our best interest. So they have the final say in what happens to the tax dollars. You and I don't. (because it's not ours)

[littleroc02us]

Originally Posted by jpg7n16

Well Wal-Mart wouldn't exist without our money either.

So does that mean Wal-mart is using MY money to expand it's business?? Do I have any claim at all for what Wal-Mart does with that money, once I've paid it to them? No I don't.

)

Walmart is a public corporation in the business to make money, the Gov't is for the people, by the people and wouldn't exits without us (Neither would Walmart though). The difference is that if we stop shopping at Walmart they would go out of business and I wouldn't care. The Gov't cannot go out of business, because they will just buy more debt or sell bonds to China or just print money.

[littleroc02us]

Originally Posted by jpg7n16

You cannot fire them anytime you like. In fact, you can't fire anyone in the gov. You can only vote your opinion once every 2 or 4 years. Which may or may not be honored. Please let me know when you have the authority to walk into your local government office and make employment decisions for your local government workers because you paid your taxes.

I'm sorry that you feel this way, because as an American our vote does count and at anytime my vote can be included with others to fire Congressmen and Presidents. It happens all the time. It's called a Democracy. (Sorry, Democratic Republic to be exact.)

[jpg7n16]

Originally Posted by littleroc02us

Walmart is a public corporation in the business to make money, the Gov't is for the people, by the people and wouldn't exits without us (Neither would Walmart though). The difference is that if we stop shopping at Walmart they would go out of business and I wouldn't care. The Gov't cannot go out of business, because they will just buy more debt or sell bonds to China or just print money.

So what you're saying is, if you don't like WalMart you can shop at a different store instead. You need clothes. You need food. If you don't want to get them from WalMart you will get them elsewhere (say Kroger, or Target, or American Eagle)

By the same logic, if you don't like this Government, you can move to a different government. You need protection, you need roads, etc. If you don't want to get them from here, you can go elsewhere. I'm not saying you should leave, only that it is in fact possible to change governments.

And if we all moved out of the US, the US government would in fact go out of business.

I'm sorry that you feel this way, because as an American our vote does count and at anytime my vote can be included with others to fire Congressmen and Presidents. It happens all the time. It's called a Democracy.

We're not in a democracy. We are in a democratic republic. (Technically a federal republic; United States Government type - Government )

A democratic republic is run by elected officials who represent those whom they are supposed to serve. But the people do not run the government, they decide who gets to. And elected officials then take the responsibility to make the decisions with the government's money, time and resources - in what they feel is the best interest of the country.

Your vote does count - toward who will run the government. But just because you get to vote, does not mean that the government's money is your money.


Again, and you haven't responded to this statement: if you believe it's your money, try asking for some of it back.

They won't do that because it's not yours. It is the government's.

[littleroc02us]

Originally Posted by jpg7n16

So what you're saying is, if you don't like WalMart you can shop at a different store instead. You need clothes. You need food. If you don't want to get them from WalMart you will get them elsewhere (say Kroger, or Target, or American Eagle)

By the same logic, if you don't like this Government, you can move to a different government. You need protection, you need roads, etc. If you don't want to get them from here, you can go elsewhere. I'm not saying you should leave, only that it is in fact possible to change governments.

A

Actually your completely off on this, Walmart doesn't run off of tax money, the Gov't does. Walmart sells a product to the consumer. The Gov't doesn't produce anything, it takes our money that we give to it in the form of taxes and then uses it to pay someone to perform a job. Actually your example makes no sense, so in the United States when someone disagrees with the way the Gov't is running itself (say you didn't vote for the current President) that I should just leave the country. What? That makes no sense and no they aren't related in the least.

[littleroc02us]

Originally Posted by jpg7n16

Again, and you haven't responded to this statement: if you believe it's your money, try asking for some of it back.

They won't do that because it's not yours. It is the government's.

Actually your wrong in my 2nd post this is what I wrote. Read it here or go back to the post again.

I didn't actually mean the Gov't was going to send me a check in the mail when they cash out the stocks from GM. I meant that I pay taxes and I don't believe in the Gov't bailing any company out. That is my money they are using, is it not? As far as I remember the Gov't wouldn't exist without my taxes.

[jpg7n16]

Originally Posted by littleroc02us

Actually your completely off on this, Walmart doesn't run off of tax money, the Gov't does. Walmart sells a product to the consumer. The Gov't doesn't produce anything, it takes our money that we give to it in the form of taxes and then uses it to pay someone to perform a job.

Have you ever heard of an analogy? It's where you compare two things that aren't exact, but have the same general idea.

Obviously Wal-Mart doesn't get tax money. But they do get MY money. So do I run Wal-Mart?? Because without my money, they wouldn't exist. Just like how the government wouldn't exist without my money. They are two things that aren't exact, but have the same general idea.

And the government does in fact produce products and services. Education, defense, weapons, legal system, roads, etc. And I hear they're trying to get into the health care industry.

Both WalMart and the Gov need us. Both need our money. Both wouldn't exist without us. Both provide value to their "customers." And both have total control of their own money.

mine - something that belongs to me: Mine is the red car.
belongs - to be the property of: The book belongs to her.
property - that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of a particular owner: They lost all their property in the fire
own - to have or hold as one's own; possess: They own several homes.
possess - to maintain control over

So since you do have the control to ask for your money back, you do not possess it. Which means you do not own it, which means it's not your property, which means it doesn't belong to you, which means it's not yours.

Who cares if it came from you, you have no control over it, and it's no more yours, than Wal-Marts money is.

Actually your example makes no sense, so in the United States when someone disagrees with the way the Gov't is running itself (say you didn't vote for the current President) that I should just leave the country. What? That makes no sense and no they aren't related in the least.

Maybe you should read my post agin...

Originally Posted by jpg7n16

If you don't want to get them from here, you can go elsewhere. I'm not saying you should leave, only that it is in fact possible to change governments.

[littleroc02us]

Originally Posted by jpg7n16

And the government does in fact produce products and services. Education, defense, weapons, legal system, roads, etc. And I hear they're trying to get into the health care industry.

B

Wrong again. The gov't pays teachers to teach, contractors to build weapons, guns and bullets, road contructions companies to build roads and citizens to work for the fire department and police dept.

[littleroc02us]

Originally Posted by jpg7n16

Have you ever heard of an analogy? It's where you compare two things that aren't exact, but have the same general idea.

Sorry, I've never heard of it. Come at me again with the definition???

This conversation is turning to immature for me. Let's just agree to disagree... I don't want to change your mind on anything.

[jpg7n16]

Originally Posted by littleroc02us

Wrong again. The gov't pays teachers to teach, contractors to build weapons, guns and bullets, road contructions companies to build roads and citizens to work for the fire department and police dept.

Just like it pays the men and women of Congress to decide whether or not it should use its money to bail out GM.

I mean, they are on salary to make those types of decisions, right?

That's their job, not yours.

-----------

Saying that "the government doesn't build roads, it pays people to build roads" is like saying, "WalMart doesn't sell you groceries, it pays people to sell you groceries."

It's a completely pointless distinction. In the end, you got your groceries through WalMart, by means of people. Just like you get your education through the government, by means of people. The education was still provided by the government.

I don't think you have a point there.

-----------

I agree it's immature. I mean, I had to explain the definition of "mine."

Please don't try to insult me as a way of avoiding the topic. You could have just not responded. No insult needed. If you don't like what I'm saying (or just don't like me) then just ignore my posts and go on with your day.

I'm very stubborn when I think I'm right. And here I definitely think I am (both stubborn and right).

[cjscully]

Originally Posted by jpg7n16

Deficit spending is government spending. With the government's money. And incurring debt to the government.

Once we are taxed, it ceases to be our money and is now the government's money. Which they spend however they choose. If they feel the best use of that money is to bail out a large corporation - that's up to them. It's not our money.

Just try asking for some of it back.

If you don't like how they are spending THEIR money, you can elect different people to run the government.

Originally Posted by jpg7n16

So what you're saying is, if you don't like WalMart you can shop at a different store instead. You need clothes. You need food. If you don't want to get them from WalMart you will get them elsewhere (say Kroger, or Target, or American Eagle)

By the same logic, if you don't like this Government, you can move to a different government.

And if we all moved out of the US, the US government would in fact go out of business.


A democratic republic is run by elected officials who represent those whom they are supposed to serve. But the people do not run the government, they decide who gets to. And elected officials then take the responsibility to make the decisions with the government's money, time and resources - in what they feel is the best interest of the country.

Your vote does count - toward who will run the government. But just because you get to vote, does not mean that the government's money is your money.

Again, and you haven't responded to this statement: if you believe it's your money, try asking for some of it back.

They won't do that because it's not yours. It is the government's.

Originally Posted by jpg7n16

Just like it pays the men and women of Congress to decide whether or not it should use its money to bail out GM.

I mean, they are on salary to make those types of decisions, right?

That's their job, not yours.

I'm very stubborn when I think I'm right. And here I definitely think I am (both stubborn and right).

Just about the only thing you're right about is your statement that once the government collects the taxes the money ceases to be mine.

Let's say we're no longer talking about the government for a minute. Let's say a member of this forum advocates using payday loans to live beyond his means. He says what you should do is take out a payday loan to buy some junk you don't really need. Then when the payday loan comes due, take out another one for a little more so you can pay back the first loan and buy some more junk that's not necessary. Repeat the same pattern over and over. Obviously the individual would eventually end up in a position where all of his paycheck is used to pay the payday loans. At that point this operating basis becomes unsustainable. What would you say to that member about his fiscal policy? "It's your money, do what you want."

That's pretty much how your posts read, "It's the government's money, they can do what they want. I'm going to ignore the fact that it's fiscally irresponsible and unsustainable. I would rather argue about semantics."

Sure I can vote for someone else when election time comes around. I can even move out of the US if it gets so bad I can't stand it. All citizens of this country have those options available. We also have other options available.

Don't forget that the cause of the revolutionary war was dissatisfaction with the way the British were governing the colonies. More recently Prohibition was a dismal failure because the population did not support it. The elected representatives thought it was in the best interests of the public. The people didn't see it that way, therefore they gave more support to the bootleggers than they did to the government.

Don't make ridiculous statements like "It's their job, not yours." Elected officials at any level of government will only be accountable if held accountable by the people they are supposed to represent. That is not limited to election day. It is most definitely our job to question their decisions, publicly state our disagreements with those decisions, and refuse to follow bad laws when they are enacted by those same officials.

So yes, on the point that money paid in taxes ceases to be mine the second the taxes are collected by the government you are right. On the rest of it, you're annoying at best or a complete idiot at worst.

[jpg7n16]

Originally Posted by cjscully

Just about the only thing you're right about is your statement that once the government collects the taxes the money ceases to be mine.

Good. Cause that's the main point I was trying to make.

Let's say we're no longer talking about the government for a minute. Let's say a member of this forum advocates using payday loans to live beyond his means. He says what you should do is take out a payday loan to buy some junk you don't really need. Then when the payday loan comes due, take out another one for a little more so you can pay back the first loan and buy some more junk that's not necessary. Repeat the same pattern over and over. Obviously the individual would eventually end up in a position where all of his paycheck is used to pay the payday loans. At that point this operating basis becomes unsustainable. What would you say to that member about his fiscal policy? "It's your money, do what you want."

Why are you posting an analogy about borrowing for the budget deficit in a discussion about the government bailout of GM?

A better analogy would be: poster says he's doing just fine financially, has a great credit rating, and a fantastic income - but is spending a good deal of what he earns, and usually a little more. But his brother just lost his job and needs some money to tide him over for a few months. OP is asking if he should borrow against some of the equity in his home (which he's getting at a great interest rate) in order to help his brother out? If he doesn't his brother will lose his home, car, and will have to provide for his wife and 2 kids some other way. Or should he just let his brother fail and declare bankruptcy? His brother agreed to pay him back on the money with interest once his job situation pans out.

What should he do?

Many people would say, "free market - just let them fail." Others would say "it's in his family's best interest, even though the numbers don't fully work out right now."

In the end, yes it is his own decision what to do with his own money. The bank should never be able to come and say, "listen, we don't agree with what you're doing with our money." Because it's not the banks.

That's pretty much how your posts read, "It's the government's money, they can do what they want.

That is true, and I do think that way.

I'm going to ignore the fact that it's fiscally irresponsible and unsustainable.

When you get a better analogy, the decision makes more sense.

Though I know a lot of people disagree with it, and that's fine. In the end, the government had to do what they felt was in society's best interest.

Is it irresponsible to borrow at a good rate to save your brother?

I would rather argue about semantics."

There is a big difference between "my money" and "the government's money." That is not semantics. That is a legal distinction.

It is just as important as the difference between "your money" and "my money."

Sure I can vote for someone else when election time comes around. I can even move out of the US if it gets so bad I can't stand it. All citizens of this country have those options available. We also have other options available.

Don't forget that the cause of the revolutionary war was dissatisfaction with the way the British were governing the colonies. More recently Prohibition was a dismal failure because the population did not support it. The elected representatives thought it was in the best interests of the public. The people didn't see it that way, therefore they gave more support to the bootleggers than they did to the government.

Agreed. We should speak up by voting if we disagree with what's going on in government. Also you can write letters to your congress representatives if you don't like their decisions. Sure, let them know.

Don't make ridiculous statements like "It's their job, not yours." Elected officials at any level of government will only be accountable if held accountable by the people they are supposed to represent. That is not limited to election day. It is most definitely our job to question their decisions, publicly state our disagreements with those decisions, and refuse to follow bad laws when they are enacted by those same officials.

You know what, that statement doesn't mean what I meant it to say at the time. It came out differently because I was angry about being called immature, just like I'm mad at you for trying to call me an idiot.

I see how that statement can be taken differently than what I meant. So yeah - it's wrong.

I meant it more as "it's their job to make those decisions, it's your job to vote for who gets to make them." And I never meant to say that we should have no say about what's going on in the government.

I'm sorry if that's how it came across.

So yes, on the point that money paid in taxes ceases to be mine the second the taxes are collected by the government you are right. On the rest of it, you're annoying at best or a complete idiot at worst.

Most people think anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. Most people also don't feel that they have to insult anyone who disagrees with them. I'm sorry that you felt the need to insult me because I disagree with you.

-----------------------------------
Please note that I also made the following statements.

Originally Posted by jpg7n16

If you don't like how they are spending THEIR money, you can elect different people to run the government.

Originally Posted by jpg7n16

I understand the disagreement with bailing out companies. Free market and all that. Many people agree with you on that.

I don't understand why you think it's still your money.

Originally Posted by jpg7n16

Same goes for the gov. You personally have no ability to change what the government does. You can only request that the people who do (congressmen/representatives/President/etc.) run things differently. Send a letter to your congressman asking them to do something differently.

Just like I have the ability to ask a manager at WalMart to open another lane if the line is backed up. I cannot control it, but I can ask.

[cjscully]

Originally Posted by jpg7n16

Why are you posting an analogy about borrowing for the budget deficit in a discussion about the government bailout of GM?

A better analogy would be: poster says he's doing just fine financially, has a great credit rating, and a fantastic income - but is spending a good deal of what he earns, and usually a little more. But his brother just lost his job and needs some money to tide him over for a few months. OP is asking if he should borrow against some of the equity in his home (which he's getting at a great interest rate) in order to help his brother out? If he doesn't his brother will lose his home, car, and will have to provide for his wife and 2 kids some other way. Or should he just let his brother fail and declare bankruptcy? His brother agreed to pay him back on the money with interest once his job situation pans out.

What should he do?

I'm posting it because I feel it's relevant. The thread has to do with the government's stake in GM. Opinions were posted about whether or not the government should even have had a stake in GM. You posted the argument that "it's the government's money." The bailout was done with borrowed funds and to me that means I should be concerned because payment of that debt is not a certainty in my view. Further, the fiscal policy being followed in Washington (and Sacramento, and Athens and...) is very much like an individual who serially borrows from payday loan companies to cover his expenses, which was the point of my analogy. So, when you bring up "it's their money" all of the above come into play because those people who are following poor financial policies are supposed to be answering to me and every other citizen.

As for your "better" analogy, the first issue I have with it is the hypothetical relationship between GM and the government. Brother? I don't think so. Friend? maybe. Acquaintance? I'm okay with that. The analogy you give changes entirely if you substitute the word acquaintance for the word brother. It affects how I view the problem quite a bit. Why am I making this distinction? Because I would feel I have a strong moral obligation to help a member of my family, but far less of one to help a friend or acquaintance. I also don't see that kind of relationship between private corporations and the government. If you follow that logic through, what is the distinction between "Ma and Pa Groceries, Inc." and GM? Is Ma and Pa a brother too? If Ma and Pa are on the brink of failure, would they get the same consideration as GM? In my book they should if they have the same relationship. However, they wouldn't. The family tie thing therefore doesn't work for me.

Now, if we look at your analogy in terms of acquaintance or even friend, we have to also add into the story that there are 1000 or more other friends (such as Ma and Pa) who are also on the brink of failure. He can't afford to try to help all of them and some of them may not even want his help. Which ones should he help? Should he help any of them at all? If so, how much should he borrow knowing that some of them may fail anyway and won't pay him back and he could be stuck with the debt?

To me, this comes back to the arguments about "their money", accountability and whether or not they made a good decision (which was how we got onto the subject at all). Now, if I'm merely a "customer" of the government I have no say or concern about the soundness of their spending and I should shut up. However, a more accurate way of looking at it is as if I'm a shareholder in the government. If I'm a shareholder in Disney and the CEO or the board make some boneheaded moves I have a say. (How much weight my voice has with a corporation depends on how many shares I own.) In theory I could even move to elect an entirely new board. It's one of my rights as a shareholder. Same principal applies to the government and it's bailout of GM (and AIG and the banks, in my opinion). I have the right to examine and question the decision and campaign to change the people who made the decision if I feel it was wrong.

It doesn't matter whether or not we agree on this. The point I was trying to make is that the decision to bail out private corporations has to at least be looked at and questioned in context with things like the Federal deficit, national debt and even the reasons the decision was made. (I personally do not buy the "too big to fail" crap that was being thrown around.)

Originally Posted by jpg7n16

You know what, that statement doesn't mean what I meant it to say at the time. It came out differently because I was angry about being called immature, just like I'm mad at you for trying to call me an idiot.

I see how that statement can be taken differently than what I meant. So yeah - it's wrong.

I meant it more as "it's their job to make those decisions, it's your job to vote for who gets to make them." And I never meant to say that we should have no say about what's going on in the government.

I'm sorry if that's how it came across.

...

Most people think anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. Most people also don't feel that they have to insult anyone who disagrees with them. I'm sorry that you felt the need to insult me because I disagree with you.

Well, thank you for the clarification. I have to tell you that I personally found that statement insulting so I guess I responded in kind.

[jpg7n16]

Originally Posted by cjscully

As for your "better" analogy, the first issue I have with it is the hypothetical relationship between GM and the government. Brother? I don't think so. Friend? maybe. Acquaintance? I'm okay with that. The analogy you give changes entirely if you substitute the word acquaintance for the word brother. It affects how I view the problem quite a bit. Why am I making this distinction? Because I would feel I have a strong moral obligation to help a member of my family, but far less of one to help a friend or acquaintance.

Now who's arguing semantics?

We'll never agree on this. The people in gov felt that the success of GM was very urgent and important (like the success of your family), not something important but not urgent (like an acquaintance). Obv you don't think it's as important as the people in the gov did, so obv you'd come to a different conclusion.

I specifically said "brother" because family is urgently important.

And you'll just disagree that it was important at all.

I also don't see that kind of relationship between private corporations and the government. If you follow that logic through, what is the distinction between "Ma and Pa Groceries, Inc." and GM? Is Ma and Pa a brother too? If Ma and Pa are on the brink of failure, would they get the same consideration as GM? In my book they should if they have the same relationship. However, they wouldn't. The family tie thing therefore doesn't work for me.

It's not just about GM, it's about the citizens that GM supports (through jobs and pensions and sales)

According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, the GM bailout saved about 1.14 million jobs.
GM IPO: Auto Bailout Saved More Than 1 Million Jobs, Study Says - Deal Journal - WSJ

Why not the mom/pop stores? Cost/benefit ratio. Likelihood of payback. Can you imagine a congressional hearing for a locally owned mom pop store that supports 2 owners and 3 employees? That wouldn't be worth it. And to properly help out any failing store, they'd have to evaluate on a case by case basis - which would be a terribly costly ordeal, for not a large benefit - with low likelihood of payback.

I think that's obvious that a small mom&pop store with low citizen impact would be a much lower priority than GM with it's 1.14 million. Frankly it's just not worth the time, money, and effort. But GM was a different story.

According to the OP, the Gov was able to sell 75% of their holdings in GM (aka payback). They didn't bail out GM for no reason, they did cause they determined it was very important and there was a probability of being paid back.

The bailouts were not expenses, they were investments.

Now, if we look at your analogy in terms of acquaintance or even friend, we have to also add into the story that there are 1000 or more other friends (such as Ma and Pa) who are also on the brink of failure. He can't afford to try to help all of them and some of them may not even want his help. Which ones should he help? Should he help any of them at all? If so, how much should he borrow knowing that some of them may fail anyway and won't pay him back and he could be stuck with the debt?

Do you seriously think that we should give the same priority to a local store and a million employee firm?

Now that I think about it, the government already has in place a system for helping Mom & Pop stores - the US Small Business Administration. Where struggling firms can present their cases and receive loans if needed (similar to the bailout). And where do you think the Gov gets the money for these small business loans? So if you approve of the SBA Loans, why not the bailout? They are essentially the same idea, just GM was on a much larger scale.
U.S. Small Business Administration-Your Small Business Resource

To me, this comes back to the arguments about "their money", accountability and whether or not they made a good decision (which was how we got onto the subject at all).

Exactly. The Gov used its money to help save 1.14 million jobs, has at least recovered a portion of its investment, and still has a large ownership percentage - allowing for further payback.