Skip to comments.Chrysler is Back? Great. Then Why Hasn't It Repaid Taxpayers the $1.3 Billion It Owes Them?
Posted on 02/07/2012 10:37:04 AM PST by redstateone
Amid the controversy over Chryslers Its Halftime In America Super Bowl commercial, a glaring question remains: if Chrysler is back on top and so strong, then why hasnt it repaid taxpayers the $1.3 billion it still owes them?
(Excerpt) Read more at biggovernment.com ...
Detroit is back too.
Did you not get the memo?
What are you, some big-government newbie troll?
Chrysler’s and GM’s assets, along with a majority of their employees, would have been scooped up by other firms.
You are under the false belief, as are most as this is the bill of goods people were sold, that going bankrupt is the same as going out of business. When a company of these sizes goes bankrupt, they don’t ‘go out of business’. It restructures debt and sells assets or shares of the restructured company.
Even after the bailout, GM still went bankrupt and yet it is still around.
Chrysler was owned by private equity and sold a large share to Fiat. Fiat, in turn, moved much of the manufacturing operations to Canada and Mexico, closing down several US plants and resulting in the same scenario you described.
Part of the ‘bailout’ was a call for these companies to reorganize, shutting down dealerships across the country laying off thousands.
The bailout did nothing more than pour more water into a sinking ship. It did not solve the problem and for both companies, the result was the same as if they had gone bankrupt, except it cost the taxpayers billions more.
As Reagan once said, government doesn’t fix problems, it subsidizes them.
Especially those dealerships that didn't play ball with the powers that be.
Also, the infrastructure left from Chrysler and GM would be attractive to would-be investors that would need labor of course. Lessons learned: avoid unions, do not concede to unions, create a profitable product in order to compete, get rid of the EPA and restrictions, be responsible for your own actions, and keep the Feds neutral.
Snicker. Thanks for the laugh.
The only folks who came ahead on this one were union scum.
And don't forget the reports of the dealership closings that seemed to be politically motivated.
“Chrysler is Back? Great. Then Why Hasn’t It Repaid Taxpayers the $1.3 Billion It Owes Them?”
Did you really believe that the money was handed out with an expectation of payback?
This is what democrats do.
You have a reading comprehension issue don’t you. Let me put it simply, the auto bailouts did not prevent anyone from going on welfare. At that, it caused more people to be unemployed and lose money including retirement.
Fiat bought Chrysler and laid off tens of thousands as it moved operations outside the United States.
GM went bankrupt anyway but due to the bailout agreement, money was not paid back to the pension funds and bond holders first. Millions of retirees lost billions of dollars in total.
Thousands of dealerships were shut down due to the bailout restructure agreement.
In other words, the bailouts destroyed businesses and put people on welfare.
If there was still demand for cars, somebody would use those assets for making cars....if demand was such that GM and Chrysler were no longer necessary...then...oh well....that’s the way it goes....Government should not prop up companies just to save jobs....that’s what the Soviets did.
We know they wasted $3.5 to $7,000,000.00 on a stupid super bowl commercial.