backtop

Print 59 comment(s) - last by rcc.. on Nov 18 at 6:46 PM

While GM is rebounding, Chrysler may be on the brink of financial ruin, according to John McCain. He says the company is likely to fail. Formerly a supporter of auto bailouts during the 2008 campaign, McCain now has become an ardent opponent, complaining that the bailouts equate to socialism.  (Source: Baltimore Sun)

Chrysler, now led by Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne, refused to comment on the allegation that it might shut down.  (Source: EGM CarTech)
Chrysler is keeping quiet about what its future may hold in the face of harsh criticism

Arizona Sen. John McCain considers himself an automotive enthusiast, serving as the grand marshal of at the NASCAR Sprint Cup series race at the Phoenix International Raceway.  However, when it comes to two of America's biggest automotive corporations, Chrysler and GM, he believes two of his close colleagues -- former President George W. Bush and current President Barack Obama -- made a grave mistake in bailing them out.

He recently remarked, "No, I don't think we ever should have bailed out Chrysler and General Motors.  We should have let them go into bankruptcy, emerge and become viable corporations again."

The Senator's comments coincide with General Motors' announcement that it will begin repaying the government.  A re-energized GM reportedly will pay the government an initial payment of $1B USD in December.

While the outlook may be looking up for GM, Senator McCain believes that Chrysler is unlikely to survive.  He commented, "[The bailout] was all about the unions. The unions didn't want to have their very generous contracts renegotiated so we put $80 billion into both General Motors and Chrysler, and anybody believes that Chrysler is going to survive, I'd like to meet them."

Chrysler, which has received $15B USD in bailout money to date, remained silent on the harsh remarks, refusing comment.  The CEO of Italian automaker Fiat SpA, Sergio Marchionne, has taken over as Chrysler's new CEO and seemed optimistic in a five year vision presentation earlier this month.  Fiat took on a 20 percent stake in Chrysler and hopes to help turn the struggling American automaker around.

While Chrysler may have refused to respond about its future, the United Auto Workers union did offer a dissenting view about Sen. McCain's criticisms.  They argue that they took many painful cuts in the form of $7/hour in direct cuts to wages and benefits, an agreement not to strike till 2015 at the earliest, and agreement to swap their retirees health care funds for equity.  

Still, Sen. McCain insists the UAW is a greedy parasite, commenting, "We see the automotive industry, and my heart goes out to the citizens of Detroit, really in the tank, and yet we have manufacturing plants all over the South, which are not bound by some of the labor rules and contracts that make them non-competitive."

Sen. McCain's Twitter account has been filled with fiery posts concerning the bailout, recently.  Among the highlights are:

April 28 - UAW eventually owning 55% of Chrysler stock and the U.S. Gov owning the rest -- if that isn't socialism, what is?

April 30 - President (proposes) government/union takeover of GM and Chrysler -- Lenin would be smiling.

May 1 - Chrysler finally filing for bankruptcy! Wish they would have done it months ago as I called for -- could have saved taxpayers $26.7 billion!

While some may agree with Sen. McCain's remarks, many will find them ironic, considering he helped to set the ball rolling on the first round of automotive bailouts.  He supported President Bush's plan at the time and supported the bailouts under the premise of providing the automakers with additional aid.  It was only much later, after the election, that he fully recanted, reconsidering the magnitude of the government intervention.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
How does this work ?
By Landiepete on 11/17/2009 6:31:38 AM , Rating: 3
So GM is in the toilet, gets bailed out to the tune of a couple of billion USD by the taxpayer, posts a 1b USD loss, and subsequently decides to pay back 1B ? How does that work then ? Are they giving back 1b of government support they didn't spend ? Or have they diversified into money printing ?




RE: How does this work ?
By ajfink on 11/17/2009 6:41:32 AM , Rating: 5
GM is actually climbing out of the toilet and drying itself off, finally.

To their credit, they actually started getting their act together before everything started falling apart, but it was too little, too late.

I could be wrong, but I would be more willing to say they'll do some good things rather than collapse on themselves again.

Maybe they'll even produce cars foreigners will want to buy and help cut the US's trade deficits?

Call me a sniper, I'm all about longshots.


RE: How does this work ?
By inperfectdarkness on 11/17/2009 7:41:35 AM , Rating: 5
nardelli gutted home depot--and chrysler thought he would be the saving grace for their company?

where to these morons come from--and how do they get elected to the board of directors?


RE: How does this work ?
By Ringold on 11/17/2009 10:18:08 AM , Rating: 5
I'm not sure where anybodies confidence is coming from. GM, while saying it would repay some of its debt and repay the rest as quickly as it could, simultaneously reported losing even more money.

Also:

quote:
Bolstered by its bailout, GM ended September with almost $43 billion in cash compared with $14 billion a year earlier. That included $17.4 billion in a special account created with bankruptcy financing provided by the U.S. government. GM said it has allocated $8.1 billion from that taxpayer-funded account to pay off its government debt. "This is basically them taking money from one pocket and putting it in the other," said Brad Coulter, an automotive restructuring adviser at O'Keefe & Associates.


http://www.cnbc.com/id/33958735/for/cnbc/

quote:
GM's results were not prepared according to generally accepted accounting principles and were not comparable to past results. GM has lost $88 billion since 2005.

In the United States, where the "cash for clunkers" sales incentives helped lift a sagging market, GM's U.S. market share dropped to 19.5 percent from 24.3 percent a year earlier.

Aaron Bragman, an analyst with IHS Global Insight, called the GM results "surprising and a little disappointing." "The bankruptcy was effective in some ways; the debt is a lot less; the structural costs are dramatically less; but why are they still turning in a loss?" Bragman said. "We expected better."


Ford turned a profit without government help. GM is still bleeding cash despite direct government aid and a broad government subsidy of the entire auto market during the given time period?

Further down in the article, it notes GM may send funding from the US to Europe to restructure its Opel unit. Typically not interesting, but keep in mind its cash came from US tax payers, and because the US is one of the few industrialized nations that tax domestic companies foreign profits when repatriated, its unlikely GM's European units will ever send our taxpayer dollars back without our tax laws changing or another Bush-style tax holiday. Unless I'm missing a fancy accounting trick, anyway.

In short, I'm not seeing any reason for optimism about GM at all... Ford, yes. GM.. no.


RE: How does this work ?
By xmichaelx on 11/17/2009 3:46:31 PM , Rating: 5
Your post is so riddled with errors, it's hard to tell where to begin.
1) Auto sales have continued to rise post-Cash for Clunkers.
2) GM's bailout $$ didn't just come from U.S. taxpayers. Canada and Germany also threw in, which is why they're being paid back as well (the $$ going to Germany is primarily so get the German government off GMs back).
3) GM is a global company with global sales.

You seem to be relying on this one article for all your info. Read more. You might start here: http://seekingalpha.com/article/173612-why-gm-is-r... . It's no less skewed than your CNBC article, but includes additional information that you apparently don't have.


RE: How does this work ?
By Zoomer on 11/18/2009 11:15:53 AM , Rating: 2
IMO, ford turned a profit too early. I've have made new R&D investments, factories, crazy financial instruments, send it overseas to their subsidiaries, whatever, that would have resulted in a small loss, so that the union contract changes would have a far greater chance of passing.

Now Ford has to deal with it.


RE: How does this work ?
By IcePickFreak on 11/17/2009 10:07:01 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
So GM is in the toilet, gets bailed out to the tune of a couple of billion USD by the taxpayer, posts a 1b USD loss, and subsequently decides to pay back 1B ? How does that work then ? Are they giving back 1b of government support they didn't spend ? Or have they diversified into money printing ?


The same way the government can borrow out hundreds of billions of dollars when they're 12 trillion in debt - the magic of capitalism. To be honest I'm no so much worried about the auto-industry staying afloat as I am this country staying afloat at this point.


RE: How does this work ?
By Spuke on 11/17/2009 10:20:09 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
The same way the government can borrow out hundreds of billions of dollars when they're 12 trillion in debt - the magic of capitalism.
Cite a reference where government borrowing is considered an integral part of capitalism.


RE: How does this work ?
By Ringold on 11/17/2009 10:27:32 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, I thought for a second Milton Friedman might've made a deathbed conversion I hadn't heard about, cheering on government bailouts of politically connected companies, forgiving the "Crime of 1873" and cheering on the printing presses to support deficit spending.


RE: How does this work ?
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/17/2009 11:55:36 AM , Rating: 2
Keynes states that one of the jobs of government is to bolster a flagging economy by deficit spending, and then recoup the loss when the economy recovers, as it has done over the decades since the great depression when this philosophy was finally adopted. The magic of capitalism.


RE: How does this work ?
By Murst on 11/17/2009 12:07:02 PM , Rating: 2
What exactly does that have to do with capitalism? That policy has been adopted by virtually every economy, whether it has had capitalistic roots or not.


RE: How does this work ?
By Technomage on 11/17/2009 12:41:08 PM , Rating: 5
Keynes was an advocate of a mixed economy with a strong governmental component. That is NOT true capitalism. The magic is all on the "progressive" side of the equation, where the government attempts to take on the role of wize director of all things financial. The two, Friedman and Keynes, are not compatible. If you want to talk capitalism, leave Keynes out of it. If you leave Keynes out of it, most of the supposed ills disappear.


RE: How does this work ?
By mars2k on 11/17/2009 12:38:07 PM , Rating: 2
Wait a minute...Since when has McCain been credited as a financial genius? Wasn't he the goober that stood up and said "the economy is is fine shape" just before it cratered last year?
This guy has will say anything..to hell with the facts.
Who hired this expert anyway?


RE: How does this work ?
By lightfoot on 11/17/2009 3:15:34 PM , Rating: 3
What he said was:
quote:
I still believe that the fundamentals of our economy are strong. We’ve got terribly big challenges now, whether it be housing or employment or so many of the other — health care. It’s very, very tough times. It’s very tough. But we’re still the most innovative, the most productive, the greatest exporter, the greatest importer.


I think he definitely underestimated the size of the crisis, but so too did President Obama.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/07/05/bid...


By StraightCashHomey on 11/17/2009 9:05:05 AM , Rating: 5
If anyone has any non-speculation answers for this, please have at it.

On the surface, it looks like the unions are not willing to negotiate realistic contracts that would help ease some of the overhead expenses. I know guys that worked in some of the factories here in Michigan, and they got paid outrageous amounts of money ($60,000/year) for fastening bolts on a line. They would get paid double and sometimes triple time for working on holidays or double shifts.

In the article it says that the $7/hr paycuts will not take place until 2015 - which by then, who knows what kind of state the economy or the company will be in.

Anyone have any idea what the wages of these union members are costing the company? It seems ironic that the union's goal is to make sure the workers are taken care of - but in the end, it might be the unions that bring the companies down?

Maybe I'm wrong on that..




By GreenEnvt on 11/17/2009 9:16:47 AM , Rating: 2
I think it means they have agreed not to strike until 2015. The pay cuts were effective much sooner if I remember correctly.


By Pneumothorax on 11/17/2009 9:18:21 AM , Rating: 4
Nope you're not wrong. Notice all the foreign car manufacturers haven't elected to build their "transplant" plants in "Union Friendly" states? In fact, Kia just opened up a new manufacturing plant in the south. Last time I've checked there hasn't been a new plant in Union controlled states in quite some time. In fact, I only hear of closures.

On a side note, Union Thugs took another hit yesterday with Boeing cutting off their dreamliner line in Seattle and moving to... you guessed it, the south lol.


By Steve1981 on 11/17/2009 9:31:11 AM , Rating: 2
The unions don't help anything, but there is plenty of blame to go around, as is usually the case. Brilliant decisions like the following might well make Senator McCain's prediction come true:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/chrysler-tells-it...
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/ttac-called-it-ch...
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/suppliers-opt-out...

Of course, I can't say I'm particularly inspired by any of the products they offer either, but I recognize that is more of a subjective matter.


By Jaybus on 11/17/2009 10:16:56 AM , Rating: 4
They absolutely are a big part of the problem. Look at Honda. The UAW has gone after them numerous times, yet workers in Smyrna, TN voted down unionization 2 to 1. Several attempts in Ohio have been voted down. The workers in those Honda plants DID NOT want to be in the UAW. Why? Because they were happy with the way Honda treated them. Apparently, workers are not happy with the way Chrysler treats them. So that is a management problem. A well managed automaker (Honda) has no need of a union. Even their workers agree.

I bet if you moved Honda management and workers to Chrysler plants, they would turn it around in a couple of years and even make cars that someone wanted. Would that positive result be due to the lack of a union or good management? Probably both.


By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/17/2009 12:00:27 PM , Rating: 2
Unions are labor monopolies. Just because they supply a service instead of a good doesn't mean they shouldn't come under anti-trust acts, IMHO. The reason for their existence in the first place has long been legislated for, so there is no need for them to continue to exist. They are just leeches.


By Murst on 11/17/2009 12:12:37 PM , Rating: 3
There is nothing wrong with unions in general. There are plenty of unions which have a positive impact on their respective businesses. However, the UAW isn't one of those.


RE: How much are the unions to blame vs. the corporation?
By rcc on 11/17/2009 6:39:21 PM , Rating: 3
Just out of curiousity, could you name a few?


By deeznuts on 11/18/2009 3:27:31 AM , Rating: 2
I think Southwest and UPS are both unionized.

The purpose of Unions have largely been or can largely be eliminated by labor laws. The useful unions now are the ones who work with the company, not against.


By rcc on 11/18/2009 6:46:13 PM , Rating: 1
ok, but how exactly does the union help the companies. I understand they may not be hurting them, but.......


By NesuD on 11/17/2009 4:33:43 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
In the article it says that the $7/hr paycuts will not take place until 2015 - which by then, who knows what kind of state the economy or the company will be in.


Please learn to read more carefully. It does not say the pay cuts will not take place until 2015 dolt. Those are immediate. What it says is the union has promised no strikes until 2015 at the earliest. Basically a 5 year moratorium on strikes. What kind of sense would it make get a $7 an hour pay concession from the union if it doesn't take effect until well after the financial crises is over. Didn't that sound the least bit odd to you as you wrote that nonsense?


By StraightCashHomey on 11/17/2009 10:39:03 PM , Rating: 3
ha ha.. I think you need to relax.. or find things in life that make you happy.

Thanks for pointing out something that someone else already beat you to, though.


$15 million? Is that right?
By karlostomy on 11/17/2009 6:39:55 AM , Rating: 2
The article states:
quote:
Chrysler, which has received $15M USD in bailout money to date, remained silent on the harsh remarks, refusing comment.


$15 million may be a lot of money to me personally, but hardly to the US government. I suspect the real sum is somewhat higher.
This is a typo, right?




RE: $15 million? Is that right?
By ajfink on 11/17/2009 6:44:44 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, 15 B .


RE: $15 million? Is that right?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 11/17/2009 6:47:58 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, it should be $15B. It has been corrected.


RE: $15 million? Is that right?
By Oregonian2 on 11/17/2009 1:58:30 PM , Rating: 2
But his point still is valid I think.

To the government, is $15B a significant amount of money? Doesn't really look like it.


RE: $15 million? Is that right?
By Veerappan on 11/17/2009 3:59:59 PM , Rating: 3
For comparison, $15B is roughly NASA's yearly budget last I checked.


RE: $15 million? Is that right?
By Oregonian2 on 11/18/2009 2:54:47 PM , Rating: 2
True, but the total for general science, space, and technology is about $35B, and the amount for Energy is about $43B, and $56B for natural resources, $79B for deposit insurance (this last year), meaning FDIC, and other "versions", $431B for Medicare, $700B for Social Security, $97B for Veterans benefits, $56B for justice related things, $730B on national defense, etc.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/sheets/fct/...

NASA's budget is "peanuts" as well.

On TV today, NYC is asking the feds for $75M just for added police security for one trial (gitmo one).


RE: $15 million? Is that right?
By andrinoaa on 11/17/2009 3:47:45 PM , Rating: 2
Gm and chrysler and all the banks should have been allowed to fail. The USA would have collapsed, full stop.
Sarcasm to show how capitalism per extreem doesn't work!
You mouth socialism but you don't have a clue because you have the WRONG dictionary, lol.


RE: $15 million? Is that right?
By mdogs444 on 11/17/2009 4:13:28 PM , Rating: 1
You're an idiot. Just because the banks and auto makers failed, doesn't mean they would cease to exist and all jobs would be lost. It would force them into restructuring and settling debts. Nothing would have collapsed.
quote:
You mouth socialism but you don't have a clue because you have the WRONG dictionary, lol.

This garbage doesn't even make any sense. But redistribution of the nations wealth to certain groups is socialism, and so is the process of government ownership in the private sector.


RE: $15 million? Is that right?
By andrinoaa on 11/18/09, Rating: -1
where's Cerebres in all this?
By TMV192 on 11/17/2009 9:03:39 AM , Rating: 2
They seem to have disappeared




RE: where's Cerebres in all this?
By Ringold on 11/17/2009 9:56:29 AM , Rating: 2
The government, in the process of confiscating ownership of Chrysler for itself and the UAW, eliminated Cerberus' previous 80% stake as a condition of the bailout.

http://blogs.wsj.com/autoshow/2009/03/30/718/


RE: where's Cerebres in all this?
By Veerappan on 11/17/2009 4:05:05 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, and in the article you linked, Cerebrus offered their stake in Chrysler freely in order to get the govt to help Chrysler out.


RE: where's Cerebres in all this?
By Murst on 11/17/2009 12:18:58 PM , Rating: 2
Cerebrus did pretty well. I'm pretty sure they were paid by Daimler to take Chrysler away ( basically, Daimler ended up putting money into the pre-bankruptcy Chrysler ).

Cerebrus spent the money on salaries for themselves, and when the money ran out, they gave the company away to the UAW and the US government for free, leaving the US gov't and the UAW with all the bills.

I might be missing something, but that's how I recall things happening.


RE: where's Cerebres in all this?
By Ringold on 11/17/2009 1:54:04 PM , Rating: 2
Looks to me like, with a quick search, Cerberus (alongside other investors) invested at least 7.4 billion and in the end walked away with absolutely nothing, per the deal they reached with Treasury referenced in the link in my other post. Doesn't sound like they did "pretty well" to me. :P


RE: where's Cerebres in all this?
By Murst on 11/17/2009 2:08:20 PM , Rating: 2
They did walk away with Chrysler Financial, which is the only part of the company that actually makes a profit.

Again, I'm not sure if they came out on top, but even if they invested some of their own money into the company, they got to keep the only part of the company which is making money, so it can't be that bad of a deal.


GM - Seriously
By glennforum on 11/17/2009 10:37:33 AM , Rating: 3
This is just another liberal slanted political hack job perputated by Mick. Sorry man you push your political agenda way too much, you ignore the facts, spin everything.

GM isn't even using GAAP for their books, literally the minimal standard so you bascially can't trust ANYTHING that is being reported. The reason you don't use GAAP is because your GL cannot withstand basic scrutiny.

The real crime here (and it was a crime) was the usurpation of the bond holders when the government took over GM. If you are not aware of the crime you should research it - it violated a basic tenant that allows corporations to finance expansion, etc in this country. Let me sum it up for you Mick because you always seem to miss the obvious truth.

The secure bond-holders - the people that loaned GM money with secure, contracted, legally binding financial instruments - they very core of our financial lending system - were obiliterated during this take-over. It was completely illegal. Very fiscally responsible pensions (i.e. Illinois teacher's union) were heavily invested in these types of bonds and they lost their shirts - WHEN IN FACT THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE 100% whole - they shouldn't have lost a dime.

But that didn't happen...you know what did happen?

The UAW, holders of unsecured financial insturments didn't lose a dime, in fact they ended up with majority stake in GM. Seriously - WTF??? How does this happen?

It is the complete opposite of what is supposed to happen, a special interest got preferential treatment directly from Obama and got everything and the hard working Americans got fleeced yet once again.

Wake up Mick, report the truth and stick to the facts you really lessen the quality of DT with your political diatribes.

GM and Chrysler should both be boycotted and forced out of business over this.




RE: GM - Seriously
By Technomage on 11/17/2009 12:50:01 PM , Rating: 2
Bingo!

I've never been a Ford owner, but I will be next time I buy. I consider it my pittance vote against fascism.


RE: GM - Seriously
By JS on 11/17/2009 1:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
You know, they kinda were boycotted already. But not for political reasons.


RE: GM - Seriously
By Ringold on 11/17/2009 2:01:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The secure bond-holders - the people that loaned GM money with secure, contracted, legally binding financial instruments - they very core of our financial lending system - were obiliterated during this take-over.


Same with Chrysler. I'm looking forward to research papers a few years down that road that see how many basis points higher politically sensitive firms have to pay in bond offerings to the private market now that the worlds investors know that the US government has no respect for contractual obligations.


RE: GM - Seriously
By drebo on 11/17/2009 3:20:20 PM , Rating: 1
But, but, but...the secured bond holders lending money to companies must have enough money that they can take it in the balls so the poor auto workers can stay at work. They should be willing to give their money away to help their fellow man, and if they aren't, we'll just take it because everyone's entitled.

AMIRITE?!

(For those who are stupid, that was sarcasm. I'm poking fun at socialism...the ideology that says "You don't need to work for your living because someone else will undoubtedly do it for you!")


Who Cares
By btc909 on 11/17/2009 10:17:18 AM , Rating: 1
Dodge Trucks are becoming the RAM Brand. You won't even recongize the small clown cars anymore.

The only part that may survive is the truck division.
I agree that Fiat will sell what they can & turn tail & run back to Europe when this fails.

Kudos to Ford for NOT taking the bailout money.

GM is racing to pay off the bailout to avoid being run by the government.

Otherwise GM should be changed to OM. Obama Motors




RE: Who Cares
By Spuke on 11/17/2009 1:20:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only part that may survive is the truck division.
Considering Dodge and Nissan have a partnership to create future trucks together, it would not surprise me to see Nissan end up with the truck division.


RE: Who Cares
By jjmcubed on 11/17/2009 11:51:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Considering Dodge and Nissan have a partnership to create future trucks together, it would not surprise me to see Nissan end up with the truck division.


Had an agreement.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2009/02/nissan-and-ch...


RE: Who Cares
By jjmcubed on 11/17/2009 11:56:36 PM , Rating: 2
Here is another article I was looking for. Sorry it wasn't added to the first comment.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2009/08/breaking-niss...


RE: Who Cares
By callmeroy on 11/17/2009 4:22:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Otherwise GM should be changed to OM. Obama Motors


Why its already properly named.....Government Motors (GM).


Nothing meaningful to add
By TGIM824 on 11/17/2009 7:38:08 AM , Rating: 5
Ok, so reading my email this morning, and being the geek I am, I get daily Dilbert Cartoon via my email. After reading today's cartoon, I immediately thought of DailyTech. Don't get me wrong, this is the only online news blog I read, and I love it, so this posting is not a dig at DailyTech. At my last job, my coworkers swore that Dilbert's content came from our office, especially when they did the Six Sigma digs.
Here is the daily Post
http://dilbert.com/strips/
(11-17-09)
http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/0000000...

And I picked this story because I used to work for Chrysler as an Engineer.




RE: Nothing meaningful to add
By tallcool1 on 11/17/2009 12:09:32 PM , Rating: 2
Oh comon DT writers, you got to give this one a 6!!!
The bottom linked comic strip is DT right on the money!
You gotta laugh about it...

:D


Give Back
By pityme on 11/17/2009 10:41:29 AM , Rating: 2
GM is paying back by returning some of the 15 Billion dollars the taxpayers gave them. This will be the "payback" they continue to talk about for next year. They will payback only 15 Billion while you and I eat the 60 Billion which magically disappeared as 40% of the stock of a money lossing union infested ponzi scheme.




Sen. McCain's comments... Laughable
By goz314 on 11/17/2009 1:22:42 PM , Rating: 2
-All of this rhetoric from a guy that owns a drives Toyotas.




Recent?
By lightfoot on 11/17/2009 2:18:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sen. McCain's Twitter account has been filled with fiery posts concerning the bailout, recently.

Since when is a tweet from April considered "recent?"




By callmeroy on 11/17/2009 4:15:17 PM , Rating: 2
I started a lease back in '07 on an Avenger, the lease expires in about 6 months and it can't happen soon enough. I've had nothing but poor experiences with both the car and the customer service of Dodge in general. This was also my first experience being a Dodge customer. It will be my last.

So if they are counting on incrased sales to save them, well they lost mine.




I can see it coming
By Nik00117 on 11/18/2009 5:58:40 AM , Rating: 1
I work for a dealership that has some strong ties to Chrysler. I can say that we aren't expecting it to last much longer. Quite frankly before Chrysler went under it was still unpopular. There cars are simply shit, they are ranked near the bottom. This bankrupcty reunied them.

Ford is thriving, don't know about GM, but let's let natural selection do it's thing.

If chrysler fails, they fail F it.




"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki