• Mar 17, 2011
The Congressional Oversight Panel charged with overseeing America's $700 billion federal bailout fund admits that it still isn't sure if the measure will save the auto industry in the long run, The Detroit News is reporting. As you'll recall, the $700 billion was divvied up between banks, insurers and General Motors and Chrysler, among others.

According to the panel, the Treasury had no specific goals for the $85 billion it gave automakers, so it will be hard to gauge the success of the loan in the long term. For now, it would seem that the bailout worked, with GM and Chrysler both posting their first profits in years in 2010.

Last year, GM cleared a $6.2 billion profit – its first year in the black since 2004. Chrysler also managed a profit, and Ford, who didn't take any money from the government, ratcheted a $6.6 billion profit.

As part of its final 236-page report, the oversight panel also reduced its estimate of how much money the bailout would cost taxpayers, from $40 billion to $17 billion.

[Source: The Detroit News | Image: Mark Wilson/Getty]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 20 Comments
      • 3 Years Ago
      You know, it took the British government like 30 years to pay the US back for all the war machines we provided durring WWII.

      I'm fine if it takes GM and Chrystler 20-30 years to pay us back, with interest.

      But there's ZERO chance we should "write off" any of this.

      And as far as letting the banks etc fail, the Fed chairman broke the law. They gave his buddies free money and continues to do it at OUR expense.

      If a couple of banks need to fail to make them all realize they aren't going to get $1 for $1 then let some fail.

      Any other time in history these banks would have written off loses and or sold bad assets for pennies on the dollar.

      But our current government are all in the back pocket of the financial industry.

      We need to make it ILLEGAL for any Lawyers to become congress persons or work in the administration, unless thier job is specificly to be a lawyer for the administration.

      Until the US citizens do something about this we are doomed.

      We cause our own rich getting richer economic devide by putting people in power that work for the financial industry.
      • 3 Years Ago
      So basically the bailouts cost taxpayers 17 billion? That's like 46$ per person. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... Seriously, I don't know what these people who complained against the bailout wanted? To buy more foreign cars? To have more people out of work? What exactly? What was your goal?

      As for the people who complained against the bailouts of the banks. Are you crazy? You know what's in a bank? YOUR MONEY. If those banks fail you don't get that money back, ever. Oh yeah... yeah... yeah... "It's insured". Sure it is. The same way your car has a warranty from the manufacturer. It's only good if the manufacturer... you know, exists. If the bank doesn't foreclose your money is fine. If it's small bank foreclosing, it's still fine. If a bunch of big banks foreclosing, like what almost happened, your money is *pew* gone! A bank doesn't put your money in a big vault, it invests it, it loans it out. No banks, no money and no car loans, no house loans, no small business loans. Which means no cars, no houses and no businesses. Oh, and you know what would have happened right? Foreign companies would have bought the banks' debt, which mean foreign ownership for everything you own, and all business that dealt with the failed banks. Whenever guys like Glenn Beck rail against the bailouts and make Government Motors jokes, try to remember he's supporting foreign ownership of America.
        • 3 Years Ago
        Actually, all monies below a certain threshold are insured by the government. If BoA failed, I would get it all back. Therein lies the rub, though, as that would have increased the national debt, and the FICA department would have been running out of money. Their failing would have cost millions and millions of jobs. So it becomes a question of 'how do we stop it from happening again?', which has yet to be answered. Finance companies can pretty much overextend themselves again, then wait for the taxpayer bailout. And after that, give themselves even more bonuses and raises.

        There is little capitalism in corporate welfare.
        • 3 Years Ago
        most of our money was gone long before the crisis.....you know why? Because the banks lent it out! and the federal reserve kept printing more money so they could keep lending more. Both together have resulted in a new dead Dollar currency that is now worthless, and Americans are beginning to suffer inflation and the beginning of the end to a collapsing fiscal system.

        If the banks died, it would hurt at first, but then we could reset the system and go back to a REAL currency instead of this worthless FIAT paper money. I'm all for it, die banks die! ;)
      • 3 Years Ago
      Bail outs for failed companies is always a bad thing, even if that means GM and Chrysler and their UAW employees. The basic premise of business, as taught in an entry-level College course titled "Introduction to Business" is that when a business cannot make ends meet, it is out of business. Nowhere are bail outs and nationalization addressed. Under our Capitalist system all the failed companies should have been allowed to die, including GM and Chrysler. In the end the buyers of new cars will decide if GM continues to live or will die and eventually be liquidated to China. Chrysler is still dead. If you support these bail outs, buy GM and Fiatsler. If you do not support these bail outs, buy something else.
      • 3 Years Ago
      It is up to GM and Chrysler to save themselves at this point. If they fail again, or Ford fails, they need to be allowed to die. Barring another act of malfeasance by the finance sector, there is little excuse for failure now, and even then they should be hedging against that.
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Superx:

        by that logic, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Bank of America, Chase, Wells Fargo and Morgan Stanley should have been 'allowed to die'.
        • 3 Years Ago
        Yep. Would have wrecked the country, but the hardships should have forced the entire system to be rewritten. Those companies (along with the greedy idiot consumers that got the sour loans) cost billions in taxpayer money, and none seem to have really learned from it. As soon as the taxpayer money propped them up, they gave themselves massive bonuses and raises.
        • 3 Years Ago
        Would say the same for foreign automakers? considering that some took more bailout money than the domestic ones (Toyota, BMW etc)?
      • 3 Years Ago
      Was it not Bush who set the bailouts rolling?
      • 3 Years Ago
      It's easy to make a profit when all your debt is forgiven... Ford didn't get Uncle Obamas money any they made more profit the GM & Chrysler errr. FIAT
      • 3 Years Ago
      As usual, Pres. Obama made the right decision to bailout GM and Chrysler, both of which have repaid the Treasury much sooner than anticipated and are now highly profitable. The alternative of letting them die would have collapsed the U.S. auto industry and plunged the economy into another Great Depression with 25% unemployment.

      But now, thousands of auto workers are back on the job and the industry is thriving. Both companies are making great new cars - Camaro, Lacrosse, Challenger, Grand Cherokee - that never would have seen the light of day if the Teabaggers had won.

      They say you can't argue with success, but the Cons are lunatics who will argue about anything.
      • 3 Years Ago
      "the Treasury had no specific goals for the $85 billion it gave automakers,"

      Anyone wondering what is wrong with our government. That's it in a nutshell.
      • 3 Years Ago
      If the Chrysler 200 is any indication it's pretty obvious the American auto industry learned nothing and merely postponed their inevitable demise on the backs of the taxpayers.
        • 3 Years Ago
        Are you really gonna use the 200 talk about Chrysler? Everyone who reads an auto mag or goes to auto sites knows the 200 isn't long for this world and only a stopgap until the completely new car comes out in a year or two.
        • 3 Years Ago
        as a layover it is a vast improvement over the sebring. Their lineup has been getting very positive reviews, by level headed journalists, not obese trolls who live in their parents basement, dream of getting laid and or are import intenders.
      • 3 Years Ago
      Nathan, your comment is as absurd as they come. Youre seriously going to gauge an entire industry's efforts on the 200? Might as well say something like "see, the Japanese auto industry sucks, just look at the Cube!"

      Your post reeks of ignorance and shows you pay absolutely no attention to what the Big 3 have done in the last 2 years.
      • 3 Years Ago
      Its a good thing the bail outs happened before the Republicans took over the house. We need to get that party out of office.
      Americans need jobs and good paying jobs.
    • Load More Comments