backtop


Print 75 comment(s) - last by FPP.. on Nov 15 at 1:20 PM


2011 Chevy Volt  (Source: Chevrolet in the News)

2011 Chevrolet Aveo (spy shot)  (Source: Motor Trend)

2012 Vauxhall/Opel Ampera  (Source: Best Electric Cars)
New "momentum" is improving GM's financial outlook, company says

Since 2004, GM has lost an incredible $88B USD as the company slid from viability downwards into financial ruin.  On June 1 GM finally went bankrupt and the government took over, appointing Fritz Henderson as the company's new Chief Executive Officer and Ed Whitacre, the former CEO and chairman of AT&T Inc., to lead the board.  With over $50B USD sunk into bailing out the automaker, the government took a controlling 61 percent stake in return and volunteered to try to turn around the struggling giant.

Now out of bankruptcy, a leaner GM -- free of many of its stale assets (Hummer, Saab, Saturn) -- is cheered by news of improving auto sales.  States Chairman Whitacre, "It's conceivable we could pay back some of the loans before the end of the year.  We have some momentum now; there's a lot of enthusiasm.  We're all cautiously optimistic. The board is fully behind Fritz; he's working hard."

GM could seek to repay the government with a new public stock offering.  Those previously holding GM stock saw their remaining holdings vanish with the bankruptcy.

Skepticism of a GM stock offering would likely be high in the financial community, despite emerging optimism on the markets.  However, GM's new look leadership is used to dealing with such doubts.  At an August 3 meeting of GM's board and the U.S. Treasury Department, the Treasury officials reportedly estimated new CEO Fritz Henderson's chances of turning around GM to be 40 to 60 percent.

The government suggested that GM's over-reliance on insider executive management led to a lack of accountability and a lack of urgency.  They suggested bringing in more outsiders.  While Whitacre says that GM isn't rushing to bring new blood onboard, he indicates that the company is slowly bringing on outside talent.  And though he does not say it, he, himself is proof of this effort. 

GM's outlook for the near term is looking slightly more optimistic, with auto sales in October rising for the first time since January 2008.  The company's marketshare also showed signs of life, capturing 20 percent of the market.  Describes Whitacre, "One month does not a trend make, but were hopeful about November.  We're pleased, but it's still pretty slow going out there."

Questions remain for the automaker, though.  It hasn't set specific marketshare goals and doesn't want to add extra incentives, leading to an uncertain picture of the company's direction.  Still, Whitacre says that the company is looking at various ways to improve sales, "We are just looking at ways to sell more vehicles, and it's a very competitive market. We need to strike a balance."

Many would be pleased to see GM be taken off the hands of taxpayers and return to being a publicly held company.  At this point, though, it's unclear whether Whitacre's remarks are indeed a roadmap of what lies ahead for GM or merely unrealistic optimism.  It won't be long, though, before we find out which they are.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By weskurtz0081 on 11/11/2009 12:41:40 PM , Rating: 5
So, the moral of the story? GM should have been allowed to go bankrupt from day one, instead of just throwing money in the fire. I wonder how much money it would have saved the taxpayers had the government just allowed the system to work and denied any demands for funding outside of a controlled bankruptcy?




RE: Bailout bailout.... fail.... bankruptcy..... pass
By Regected on 11/11/09, Rating: -1
By mdogs444 on 11/11/2009 12:51:28 PM , Rating: 2
Chrysler's parts are much more expensive than GM parts. Obviously we're talking about OEM, not knock off.


By rudolphna on 11/11/2009 3:41:27 PM , Rating: 4
They are. Look at most of their new products. The Chevy Malibu, the new equinox, Terrain, traverse, Acadia, the new Buick Lacrosse, the redesigned Silverado/Sierra.... GM is definitely on it's way to catch up with Ford, and Toyota. Meanwhile, quality at honda and toyota has been slipping over the past decade. Go Domestics! I'm please Chrysler was able to break even, and hopefully Fiat can refresh the pretty stale lineup.


RE: Bailout bailout.... fail.... bankruptcy..... pass
By jconan on 11/11/2009 5:09:18 PM , Rating: 2
I think it has to do with factory quality control. If you compare Toyota's various factory the ones with less human components produce more reliable vehicles than the ones with as in the US. Most of the quality control problems stems from vehicles manufactured here.


By aj28 on 11/11/2009 5:21:01 PM , Rating: 3
I think the issue is that people see the replacement of humans on the assembly line as a job killer, and while I agree with their sentiment, what I don't agree with is standing in the way of technological progress through artificial means.


By Spuke on 11/12/2009 12:00:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Meanwhile, quality at honda and toyota has been slipping over the past decade.
Toyota is number 4 on the JD Powers Dependability Study. I'd hardly call that slipping. And before you give me some BS about not believing in JD Powers study's, submit another scientific study stating otherwise.


By Ammohunt on 11/12/2009 3:14:14 PM , Rating: 2
I just bought the last GM vehcile i will ever buy last january a used saturn Vue never again will i get burned by GM. Ford or toyota will be my next purchse.


By Spuke on 11/12/2009 3:46:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I just bought the last GM vehcile i will ever buy last january a used saturn Vue never again will i get burned by GM. Ford or toyota will be my next purchse.
And I might buy a pair of pajamas with footies and a butt flap.


By FPP on 11/15/2009 1:20:38 PM , Rating: 1
Catch up with Ford...who did not take A DIME!....and it only takes $100 billion...(not $88 billion...not by a longshot!)


By mdogs444 on 11/11/2009 12:49:46 PM , Rating: 4
Ya, but what about the unions....they wouldn't be able to get their undeserved salaries, 90%+ pay when not even working, benefits for their entire lives, etc. I mean, these broom pushers are worth the additional markup on vehicle prices!


By morgan12x on 11/11/2009 1:52:24 PM , Rating: 3
Maybe they should learn to compete for work like the rest of us. If my company goes under I'm out of a job. Carrying all that excess baggage is never going to make a favorable business model. How do you think the Japs make cars here in the US and still turn a tidy profit? Non-union labor.


RE: Bailout bailout.... fail.... bankruptcy..... pass
By Nfarce on 11/11/2009 2:49:23 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Maybe they should learn to compete for work like the rest of us. If my company goes under I'm out of a job.


Or, they could always go into politics in Washington where mediocrity, incompetence, cronyism, and pandering to the dumbmAsses for votes puts them in power to support and vote for idiotic, taxpayer-funded government waste such as this bailout.

God help us.


By Obsoleet on 11/11/2009 10:45:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
God help us.


God? How about just some common sense and reason, we can do this without dark age fairy tales muddying matters.


RE: Bailout bailout.... fail.... bankruptcy..... pass
By Nfarce on 11/11/2009 11:30:05 PM , Rating: 3
Settle down, agnostic Beavis. It's just a figure of speech. Today, we can vote to "change" things. No "god" needed. For better or for worse, depending on who you voted for.


By weskurtz0081 on 11/12/2009 8:50:29 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, I see you have the "it's the other parties fault" blidners on. You sir, are part of the problem.


By Spuke on 11/12/2009 12:16:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh, I see you have the "it's the other parties fault" blidners on. You sir, are part of the problem.
I agree here. Constantly going back and forth between the Dems and Repubs = Status Quo. You want real change? Vote for the person that gets the job done. In the interim, that may mean putting people in office that aren't too versed in politics. But why do we necessarily need "politicians" if all we want is to get the job done?


By mdogs444 on 11/12/2009 9:23:37 AM , Rating: 3
Or we could have used our heads and vowed not to vote for a Democrat anymore. After all, they don't use their heads in office, they're more concerned with getting head in the office instead....isn't that right Bill?


RE: Bailout bailout.... fail.... bankruptcy..... pass
By Slaimus on 11/11/2009 1:46:41 PM , Rating: 2
Technically, GM did go bankrupt and its assets were liquidated. During the liquidation, a new company (owned by UAW and US government) bought those assets and renamed itself GM.


By Ringold on 11/11/2009 2:00:01 PM , Rating: 4
From what I recall, it proceeded anything but like a normal bankruptcy, where all contracts are legitimately on the table to be tossed. I'm more familiar with the outrage that was the Chrysler bankruptcy though, which saw secured bond holders bent over the government barrel (look up Indiana taking its case to the Supreme Court).


By weskurtz0081 on 11/11/2009 2:18:41 PM , Rating: 3
What happened first, the US taxpayers forking over BILLIONS of dollars, or a GM bankruptcy?


By Reclaimer77 on 11/11/2009 2:59:17 PM , Rating: 2
The goal wasn't to save GM, or the economy. The goal was power. This administration is going all in to grab as much power for the Democratic party as it can. It owns the banks, it owns the auto industry, and soon it will own 1/6th of our economy - health care. They even control how much money you can make. Don't forget Cap and Trade, which basically gives the government control over all energy. And to ensure they retain power, you'll notice they appointed "Czars" over everything which, by the way, do not have to answer to congress, only the president. The 'Pay Czar' already flat out refused to speak to Congress and nobody could do a thing about it.

This is completely unconstitutional, it's crooked, it's downright Communism.


By Reclaimer77 on 11/11/2009 5:35:45 PM , Rating: 1
Ok, wanting someone to die because you don't agree with them really has no place here. Please grow up.

Second off, everything I said is an absolute documented fact. So your conspiracy theory whine doesn't hold up. Sorry the truth hurts.

And we're so close to being a totalitarian state it's not even funny. If you would bother to research what's been happening since Obama got elected. There are no more checks and balances, no opposition to whatever this administration want's to do.

Where's the Democracy ?? Democrats meeting in secret at 3 a.m to try and ram home universal health care without opposition, is that Democracy ? Was that how things were intended to happen ? Bailouts rammed home with little to no actual Conressional debate, the will of the people completely tossed aside. Is that Democratic ? A single man, with broad powers, answerable to the President and the President alone ! Is that Democracy ? Hell they even call them Czars. The name alone is Communistic.

And now they are going after any media outlet that opposes them or points out the truth or even asks good questions. Hmmm does that sound familiar ? Like maybe something that happened in Germany circa 1938 'ish ?? Or did you not learn that in your public school education ?

GM would not have went "completely bust". I'm so sick of you people trumping that up every time. They would have gone into managed bankruptcy. A couple of fat cat do-nothing unions thugs losing their jobs is about the worst that would have happened. And I can live with that.


By rudolphna on 11/11/2009 5:44:56 PM , Rating: 1
Says the man who declared anybody who voted for obama his mortal enemy. That's rich. "will of the people" who gives a crap about the will of the people? People are STUPID. If we listened to the "will of the people" blacks would still be in seperate schools and busses and bathrooms. People do not know what is good for them.

The Supreme court still can decide anything the president decides unconstitutional, that's a check/balance. Yet they haven't, Hmm.... You didn't read the story of the "car czar" the guy responsible for guiding the bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler, did you? Go find it on CNN.

Oh, and GM DID GO THROUGH A MANAGED CH 11 BANKRUPTCY. And that got us where we are now, with the government owning 60% of GM.


By Reclaimer77 on 11/11/2009 6:22:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Says the man who declared anybody who voted for obama his mortal enemy.


Hey, I never got violent or said I wanted to kill someone.

quote:
"will of the people" who gives a crap about the will of the people? People are STUPID.


Well I guess we don't have to look too hard to see what side of the fence you are on.

quote:
The Supreme court still can decide anything the president decides unconstitutional, that's a check/balance. Yet they haven't, Hmm....


Are you a complete moron ? The Supreme Court has done more to undermine the Constitution than anyone. Almost every "interpretation" is wrong or liberally biased. I'm actually shocked that you don't seem to know this.

quote:
Oh, and GM DID GO THROUGH A MANAGED CH 11 BANKRUPTCY. And that got us where we are now, with the government owning 60% of GM.


God kid, you make my head hurt. Sigh....

GM did NOT go through Chapter 11. And I'll give you a hint, standard Chapter 11 bankruptcy does NOT lead to the government owning a major share in your company.

I'm really done with you. Like most liberals, you are angry, annoying, and completely uninformed. Reply if you wish, but I'm done living in Fantasy Land with you. Call me when you get to the real world.


By Reclaimer77 on 11/11/2009 8:32:51 PM , Rating: 2
No. They. Did. Not.


RE: Bailout bailout.... fail.... bankruptcy..... pass
RE: Bailout bailout.... fail.... bankruptcy..... pass
By Nfarce on 11/11/2009 11:56:49 PM , Rating: 2
What part of GM did not file for bankruptcy do you people not understand? Keyword for the slow wits: ***GM*** did not file for bankruptcy. Oh sure, the end result, yes, but anyone who believes GM did it without Obama-style "coercion" is a fool.

Clue: "The filing will come after an announcement by President Barack Obama during which he will provide details of how his Administration plans to guide GM through the restructuring, according to people familiar with the scenario."

Here, read how the WaPo puts it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...


RE: Bailout bailout.... fail.... bankruptcy..... pass
By Spuke on 11/12/2009 3:59:07 PM , Rating: 2
If they didn't file for bankruptcy, what's this?

http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/pdf/GeneralMotorsInfo...


RE: Bailout bailout.... fail.... bankruptcy..... pass
By Nfarce on 11/12/2009 8:15:51 PM , Rating: 2
In short, the government filed for them. GM themselves didn't do it.


By Oregonian2 on 11/13/2009 7:40:43 PM , Rating: 2
So if I have a lawyer file my bankruptcy I can just say that *I* didn't file bankruptcy?

Whomever did the paperwork isn't relevant. GM went through chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in the court resulting in the two GM's that exist today (the new one of which is government owned).


By Alexstarfire on 11/12/2009 5:37:08 AM , Rating: 2
How do you determine that an interpretation is wrong? It's the same as saying someone's opinion is wrong.


RE: Bailout bailout.... fail.... bankruptcy..... pass
By Nfarce on 11/11/2009 7:47:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Reclaimer do us all a favor and shoot yourself in the mouth, so we can be rid of your right-wing-nut conspiracy theories.


Say what you will, rudolphna, wet yourself over "right wing-nut" conspiracies and whatnot. But, don't mindlessly run your mouth and spin off on tangents (your example: racism) without factually DEBUNKING what R77 claimed.

Failure to do so will deem you a mindless, uneducated, dimwit. Unless of course, that's your goal. If so, congratulations.


RE: Bailout bailout.... fail.... bankruptcy..... pass
By Dunant on 11/11/2009 8:49:56 PM , Rating: 2
How exactly does someone debunk a subjective opinion? The parts where R77 is flat wrong is pretty simple - like where he claims GM didn't file Ch. 11 - but how do you debate someone who claims the Supreme Court misinterprets the constitution and is liberally biased, even when there is a majority of conservatively appointed judges currently sitting the bench?


By Reclaimer77 on 11/11/2009 11:28:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
like where he claims GM didn't file Ch. 11


Please show me where it's written that in Chapter 11 a President can fire your CEO, huge lumps of taypayer money is simply given to the company, and the government ends up owning your company and deciding who sits on your board of directors ?

And also show me where in Chapter 11 is it written that GM wasn't allowed to get rid of the UAW ?


RE: Bailout bailout.... fail.... bankruptcy..... pass
By Nfarce on 11/11/2009 11:40:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How exactly does someone debunk a subjective opinion? The parts where R77 is flat wrong is pretty simple


Here's a taste of what was ignored:

"Democrats meeting in secret at 3 a.m to try and ram home universal health care without opposition, is that Democracy?"

"Bailouts [and government health care] rammed home with little to no actual Congressional debate, the will of the people completely tossed aside."

"And to ensure they retain power, you'll notice they appointed "Czars" over everything which, by the way, do not have to answer to congress, only the president. The 'Pay Czar' already flat out refused to speak to Congress and nobody could do a thing about it."


And regarding your comment about "subjective" opinion debunking, here's my favorite of R77's comments on the current administration:

"And now they are going after any media outlet that opposes them or points out the truth or even asks good questions."

Regaring your point about the Supreme Court, there's not much We The People can do about SC nominations other than for vote who best represents our values and beliefs at the congressional and presidential level. To me, arguing about the SC and appointments is moot. Once we elect said people, it's out of our hands and in theirs.

But I do find it more than mildly amusing everyone seems to be whistling by the graveyard of RC77's other points - that I brought back up....


RE: Bailout bailout.... fail.... bankruptcy..... pass
By Spuke on 11/12/2009 1:04:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"And to ensure they retain power, you'll notice they appointed "Czars" over everything which, by the way, do not have to answer to congress, only the president. The 'Pay Czar' already flat out refused to speak to Congress and nobody could do a thing about it."
I have a problem with this. If Congress, the body that makes laws, wants to do something about this then they can make a law that either regulates czars or eliminates them completely. They have MORE than enough votes to override any presidential veto if they were so inclined. Congress chooses not to question the czars meaning they benefit from having czars.

And why the bug outrage over czars all of a sudden? Czars have been around since the 60's when Nixon first created the czar posts. Why not any outrage then or anytime a president creates a new one?

I'll answer that question for you. It's simple. When one party is in office the zealots from the opposing party whine and complain until they are back in power then it's good until they are out of power again.

Power play? The real power play is the continuous giving of power to one of two parties decade after decade by the American people. You want to reduce the power of these two parties? QUIT VOTING FOR THEM!!!! Otherwise, you get what you deserve.


By Nfarce on 11/12/2009 8:33:50 PM , Rating: 2
Well, we're not talking about Nixon, who, like Obama, also had an enemies-to-watch list. Oh, and how about that cute little snitch website the Obama administration had for a short period for Americans to tell on their fellow Americans speaking negative words on Obamacare? Does that sound familiar somewhere, some time?

But back to czars, you do realize that Obama has more "czars" than Imperial Russia did, no? How many did Bush, or Clinton, or Bush I, or Reagan have? In any event, when Sen. Robert Byrd (Democrat) sends a letter to Obama saying that his overreaching czar appointees is unconstitutional, then, well, I think it's time to put things into perspective. I think perhaps you are putting "advisers" of previous administrations in place of "czars" of this administration.

"The Constitution commands that government officers with significant authority (called “principal officers”) are nominated by the president but then are subject to a confirmation vote by the U.S. Senate. And principal officers include not only cabinet-level department heads, but go five levels deep in executive appointments, to include assistant secretaries and deputy undersecretaries." Inferior officers are appointed either by the president, cabinet-level officers, or the courts. But even then, the Constitution specifies that only Congress can authorize the making of such appointments. For these inferior officers, only Congress can create their offices, and also specify who appoints them. And such officers are still answerable to Congress. They are subject to subpoena to testify before Congress, and Congress holds the power of the purse by making annual appropriations for their division or program."

In short, Obama's "czars" do not have to appear before Congress and testify on a thing. They are nothing more than power tentacles of the president himself, and as an agent of the Executive Office of such, they are entirely removed from Congress, and not answerable to Congress in any way, just like Reclaimer77 said.


By Reclaimer77 on 11/13/2009 3:25:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have a problem with this. If Congress, the body that makes laws, wants to do something about this then they can make a law that either regulates czars or eliminates them completely. They have MORE than enough votes to override any presidential veto if they were so inclined. Congress chooses not to question the czars meaning they benefit from having czars.


Oh god...

Spuke you are one of the good guys on here, but please, you cannot be this ignorant. You just can't.

Let me follow your logic here, I'm trying hard. So because a highly liberal congress has more then enough votes to veto the highly liberal president, but didn't, that means something is Constitutional and legal ??

Czars are illegal. They are immoral. They are anti-American. And they are flat out without QUESTION unconstitutional. And if you don't think they are a big deal, I wish to hell you would just move out. Because maybe YOU don't mind being grinded under the bootheel of a socialist agenda, but the silent majority sure does.


By Reclaimer77 on 11/11/2009 8:54:43 PM , Rating: 2
Liberals don't deal in facts. They deal in emotions, accusations, political correctness and ignorance.


By Obsoleet on 11/11/2009 10:51:39 PM , Rating: 2
CoMmUnIsM and socialism is bad?

*looks at China and the EU*

Hm. Looks like the way forward to me.


By Reclaimer77 on 11/11/2009 11:18:37 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt if you lived in China and parts of Europe you would have that opinion.


By Obsoleet on 11/11/2009 11:48:57 PM , Rating: 2
I work 6 months in Europe, 6 months in the US every year. Europe is amazing, ever been or hold a passport?

France (the epitome of evilism socialism) and Germany (awfully socialistic themselves) are already out of recession.

I doubt you would hold your views if you lived in the conservative right-wing paradise (Iran). About as conservative as you can get. I'll take a leftist EU nation or if necessary, a job in the last place that has them (Communist China).


RE: Bailout bailout.... fail.... bankruptcy..... pass
By Nfarce on 11/12/2009 12:05:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
France (the epitome of evilism socialism) and Germany (awfully socialistic themselves) are already out of recession.


Yeah, here's and example of France's success story:

The number of jobseekers in France rose in September to the highest in almost four years and the euro zone’s second-largest economy expects more jobs to be lost. French unemployment will rise to 11.2 percent in 2010 from 7.4 percent in 2008, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimates.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&si...

If that's coming out of recession bubba, I'd hate to see a depression.

quote:
I doubt you would hold your views if you lived in the conservative right-wing paradise (Iran). About as conservative as you can get.


Funny you bring that up. Both nations you reference are slowly being taken over by Muslim immigrants of those "right wing paradises" from the Middle East.


By Obsoleet on 11/12/2009 2:08:35 AM , Rating: 2
Since you wanted to bring up examples of failings in France, how many would you like from the USA?

Regardless of your ignorance, France has been out of recession for some time. Even though they aren't living up to the perfection that of your capitalist-bought-and-paid-for US government.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/aug/13/ger...

And the great Muslim scare, as if you're onto something.
You're a typical know-nothing, ideologically bankrupt right winger. Ever been overseas? Arguing till your blue in the face, trying to convince someone you have an idea about what you're talking about.

It is true though that the most conservative people on earth are populating the greatest western nations. You should be happy. And being a right wing anti-American, anti-enlightenment idealist, you are.


RE: Bailout bailout.... fail.... bankruptcy..... pass
By Nfarce on 11/12/2009 1:00:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Since you wanted to bring up examples of failings in France, how many would you like from the USA?
quote:
Text


You were the one that brought up how wonderful things were over there. I just gave you some reality. Don’t shoot the messenger. There have been a lot more failings in recent times – unemployment now is over 10%. Remember, Nancy/Reid/Obama told us we NEEDED that trillion dollar stimulus bill to prevent unemployment from going over 8%. Right? Right.

quote:
Regardless of your ignorance, France has been out of recession for some time. Even though they aren't living up to the perfection that of your capitalist-bought-and-paid-for US government.


Here in the US, our economy is 70% consumer driven - for now anyway until the neo-Marxists gain more power. How much is the economy consumer driven in the typical EU economy?

quote:
And the great Muslim scare, as if you're onto something. You're a typical know-nothing, ideologically bankrupt right winger. Ever been overseas? Arguing till your blue in the face, trying to convince someone you have an idea about what you're talking about.
\

Now you're just being a mindless blowhard. But to answer your question, yes. Twice. (Took the Eurorail pass both times and stayed in the homes of a friend’s relatives in Germany & Austria – in other nations like France, we stayed in both youth hostels and b&bs). Sure it was great to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there. I even visited Yugoslavia via train from Italy when before the war. Did you ever do that? What is your fascination with asking DT bloggers if they’ve ever been overseas?

BTW: we were just recently attacked again by a Muslim convert here. Don’t tell me about a “great Muslim scare.” Eight years ago that “scare” cost 3,000 American lives, and last week, 13. We have thwarted many others, some originating in EU/UK nations with EU and UK help. BTW: we do know the difference between "radical" Muslim and regular Muslims. People like you can't seem to decode the difference - but you sure like to call Christians out every time a radical version of them kills an abortion doctor or bombs an abortion clinic!

quote:
It is true though that the most conservative people [Muslims] on earth are populating the greatest western nations. You should be happy. And being a right wing anti-American, anti-enlightenment idealist, you are.


Awe, how cute. Your mindless mouth breathing and drooling about those evil right wingers (anti-American, eh? WE aren’t the ones trying to turn this nation into a fascist, government-run nanny state!) just makes you look that much more incompetent and childish – just like those you apparently support running Washington. But that's okay, there's another election coming in 2010 and 2012. We'll see. We'll see.


By Obsoleet on 11/12/2009 3:15:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your mindless mouth breathing and drooling about those evil right wingers (anti-American, eh? WE aren’t the ones trying to turn this nation into a fascist, government-run nanny state!)


If you really believe the GOP is the way forward to that goal after the past 8 years, you're an idiot.


By Spuke on 11/12/2009 4:09:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you really believe the GOP is the way forward to that goal after the past 8 years, you're an idiot.
Neither party is the way forward. You just get more of the same with either one. As far as I'm concerned, both parties are way too extremist and neither wants to find middle ground. The middle ground is where the American public resides which is probably the reason why neither party is interested in what the American public wants. Both parties would be forced to work together and concede some their extremist viewpoints if they did listen to us.

I have no interest in politicians that want to do what's "best" for me. I'll determine that. I voted for you to do something for me so do that. If you want to lead a bunch of blind, ignorant people, start a cult. You can then castrate all the men you want and boof their wives to your hearts content.

Sh!t, I didn't ask for Jesus, I just want my damn taxes low enough so I can boof the wife in Hawaii once a year. Is that too much to ask?


By Nfarce on 11/12/2009 8:13:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you really believe the GOP is the way forward to that goal after the past 8 years, you're an idiot.


Hey troglodyte: I'll take FOUR YEARS AGO to where we are now ANY DAY. Not that the GOP was great back then - they spent and floundered too like idiots. But, BUT, they sure as hell stayed out of the way of America's natural way of doing business, unlike these neo-Marxists running Washington now. IF you think the current administration of Democrats doing more deficit spending in ONE YEAR which trumps all of Bush's EIGHT (including 2 of those 8 years under a DEMOCRAT led Congress), then you, sir, are the real idiot.


By Reclaimer77 on 11/13/2009 3:29:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you really believe the GOP is the way forward to that goal after the past 8 years, you're an idiot.


When people think GOP they automatically think Conservative. Problem is, Bush was no Conservative. And frankly he did more to hurt the Republican party than Democrats ever could.

The way forward is Regan type unapologetic Conservatism. And I tell you, the Republican party better understand that is the heart of this country and put up a contender we can all get behind. Because I don't think we will survive 4 more years of Obama.

No more Bush's or McCain's please.


By weskurtz0081 on 11/12/2009 9:00:42 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I have to disagree with you on some things.

China? The way forward? Have you been to China?

The EU? Well, I don't know. I don't dislike Europe, but I do dislike some of Europe. The EU seems to like to punish the big businesses that are able to pay the most money, but that's just my perception, I don't know enough about it to hold an intelligent debate on the merits of the EU. I just don't really care for the extremely high taxation in most European countries, restriction of choice (or freedoms), I could go on but no point.

And, before you start down you "if you haven't been there you can't comment on it" I have been all over the world.


By Hiawa23 on 11/12/2009 9:26:08 AM , Rating: 2
So, the moral of the story? GM should have been allowed to go bankrupt from day one, instead of just throwing money in the fire. I wonder how much money it would have saved the taxpayers had the government just allowed the system to work and denied any demands for funding outside of a controlled bankruptcy?

many of us agree...


A good Idea
By scrapsma54 on 11/11/2009 3:12:24 PM , Rating: 1
Since Gm technically owes the people that money and not the government, why doesn't Gm just give out the cars it owes us.




RE: A good Idea
By aj28 on 11/11/2009 4:56:30 PM , Rating: 1
Unless a "GM Tax" came out of your paycheck last month, this is not the case. They owe the government, not you. Then again, if you didn't have your head ten feet up your ass, you'd realize that the government isn't out to get you, and these are still elected officials.

I didn't support the war. Do I get a refund? Hell no.

Point being, just because you don't agree with what they're spending it on doesn't mean you're being controlled or that we suddenly live in a totalitarian state. Realize that the way you feel now is how the other half of the population feels when "your guys" are in power.

Or does the world revolve around you completely?


RE: A good Idea
By weskurtz0081 on 11/11/2009 5:03:58 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the other "other half" feels that way when "[his] guys" are in power, you are saying you feel the same way and had your head equally as far up your ass too?

Just curious, you sound like someone from the "other side" in comparison to him.


RE: A good Idea
By aj28 on 11/11/2009 5:17:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Well, the other "other half" feels that way when "[his] guys" are in power, you are saying you feel the same way and had your head equally as far up your ass too?


That comment was more about logic than emotion and reality. I'm not a huge fan of either party, but if it interests you, I would go so far as to say that democrats spew slightly less bullshit than republicans.


RE: A good Idea
By weskurtz0081 on 11/11/2009 5:27:16 PM , Rating: 1
Meh, I think they just spew different bullshit, just depends on what flavor you prefer.

I, as of a few years ago, don't pull for either party anymore. I would love to see more viable independents or a good third party come in.


RE: A good Idea
By Reclaimer77 on 11/11/2009 5:40:20 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Unless a "GM Tax" came out of your paycheck last month, this is not the case. They owe the government, not you


Hey jackass. The government doesn't make money, they TAKE it from us. So you are wrong, it's OUR money the government is spending like it's going out of style.

Taking money from the people to prop up a private company is wrong and unconstitutional.

quote:
I didn't support the war. Do I get a refund? Hell no.


Taxes were not raised to pay for the war. In fact during the Bush administration, taxes were at near record lows and he cut taxes several times and even created a new middle class tax bracket. So a refund for what exactly ??


RE: A good Idea
By rudolphna on 11/11/2009 5:50:37 PM , Rating: 2
"Taking money from people to prop up a private company is wrong and unconstitutional"

Can you point out exactly where in the constitution it says that the government cannot assist struggling, private companies who are vital to the economic health of the country?

Taxes, ah taxes. I bet you would make rich people have to pay no taxes, have social security abolished, Medicare, medicaid, gone. No oversight of anything. No NTSB, no FAA, no Fuel Economy/emission Standards at ALL, nothing to prevent price gouging, no repaving of roads or other public works projects. What a great world that would be! /Sarcasm


RE: A good Idea
By Reclaimer77 on 11/11/2009 6:16:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can you point out exactly where in the constitution it says that the government cannot assist struggling, private companies who are vital to the economic health of the country?


The Constitution doesn't work that way. YOU have to point out where it grants the government that power.

And saying GM is vital to the economic health of this country is a crock. Especially when we're in the middle of a recession and you are trying to justify taking billions from the struggling taxpayers to front the bill.


RE: A good Idea
By mdogs444 on 11/11/2009 6:30:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can you point out exactly where in the constitution it says that the government cannot assist struggling, private companies who are vital to the economic health of the country?

First off, it does not abide by the principals of which our economy was based: free market capitalism.

Second, the Constitution does not give the authority of Redistribution of Wealth. This is something President Obama has acknowledged publicly in his statement saying that he thinks it should contain statues for redistribution of wealth to African Americans.

Third, the TARP program had to be made into law, because there is no statue just granting them authority to do it without law. The TARP program specifically states "Financial Institutions", which GM and Chrysler are definitely not.

Its plain to see the government did so to prop up union jobs and retain their voting base. The problem is that everyone knows the loan amounts were so huge that they could never be repaid, therefore allowing the government to take ownership and power.

You do realize that everyone said our economic health would go down when we stopped producing major consumer electronic goods decades ago. Has that come true? Not to mention, we would not stop producing them, but it would force the unions against the wall and not give them more leveraging power than the company itself.
quote:
I bet you would make rich people have to pay no taxes

Nope. I think we should all pay the same PERCENT of our income in taxes. Everybody contribute. Your life choices, successes, luck, and prosperity should not be penalized. In fact it should be encouraged and embraced to be used as a motivational tool. Personally, I don't think people who do not pay federal income taxes should be able to vote in regards to federal politicians. They spend the taxpayer money to support the government and social programs, and therefore only those contributing as opposed to benefiting should have the final say. Just my opinion. In fact, I believe that for each entitlement program out there - it should be spelled out in summary labeling who will benefit, who is paying for it, and how much each tax bracket is paying for it. Then we should have time limits on each entitlement program of say, 4 years. Then during each election, the PEOPLE should be able to vote on whether to pass, deny, or extend those programs.
quote:
security abolished, Medicare

You mean the programs that are in such financial ruin that it costs more to run the programs than the amount of money going into them? Ahh, what a "business model" those would be in the free market eh?
quote:
No oversight of anything

Oversight is fine. Social and market manipulation through taxation and regulation is not fine.
quote:
no Fuel Economy/emission Standards at AL

No, I don't think we should. People will buy what they like, can afford, want, or need. Let the people decide for themselves. If no one wants high pollution cars, then they wont be produced. If everyone doesn't want small, economy 50mpg cars, then there is no reason to force the automakers to produce them, thus limiting the free market choices of consumers.
quote:
nothing to prevent price gouging

There are laws to prohibit price fixing which are good, as its a consumer protection of a vital good. But if someone wants to charge $9/gal for gas, then let them. When no one buys it and they go out of business, then who cares.
quote:
no repaving of roads or other public works projects

You do realize the first federal income taxes were written to be temporary only to fund the construction of our nations federal highways. I dont think you'll find anyone who doesn't think its worth it to fund our freeways and roads. But when we're spending $13M to build a turtle tunnel under a freeway, a "bridge to nowhere" that no one will use, and funneling millions upon millions of dollars into an airport for John Murtha that only 15 people per day use...well, I would hope you can see where frustration of over taxation and wasteful spending comes in.

I would be willing to bet that we can cut our federal income taxes in half and still get by just fine. No more pork projects, no more wasteful spending, no more stupid research projects like investigating prostitution in China and gay bars in South America, no more propping up lazy people who are very well capable of getting a job albiet one they don't like. We have become a Nanny State of sorts, where the few think they know better than the majority...and when the majority pushes back, the few want to penalize them. When did we start acting like its okay to change the lifestyles of 90% of the people to please 10%? When did it become okay take from one and give it to another? When did it become okay for politicians to be bought off just because you agree with the bacon they are bringing home? What happened to ethics, morals, the constitution, and the wants, speeches, and sacrifices of our founding fathers? Why do people want to throw it all away just to get something for free?


RE: A good Idea
By aj28 on 11/11/2009 8:08:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Taxes were not raised to pay for the war.


My point exactly. Using your logic, not a penny came directly out of your pocket for the sole purpose of propping up GM, yet you make it sound like the government is the big bad thief trying to take all your money and they owe you something for it.

All the same, money is money. The fact that taxes weren't raised to pay for the war means nothing, because we had (have) to pay for it anyway, except now rather than having a surplus, we're in debt we may never see the end of.


RE: A good Idea
By Spuke on 11/12/2009 1:17:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My point exactly. Using your logic, not a penny came directly out of your pocket for the sole purpose of propping up GM, yet you make it sound like the government is the big bad thief trying to take all your money and they owe you something for it.
Explain how no money came out of our pockets to bailout GM?

quote:
Taxes were not raised to pay for the war.
Where did the money come from then? Selling drugs to black kids?


88 Billion Dollars?!?!!??!!?!?!?
By CupCak3 on 11/11/2009 6:34:13 PM , Rating: 2
How the fvck does anybody (aside from a government, sadly) lose 88 billion dollars in 5 years??? Talk about a company deserving bankruptcy.

I can't even fathom that number. That is a stack of $100 bills 5972.2 miles tall!

I am at a loss for words. Fvck.




By mdogs444 on 11/11/2009 6:41:34 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, now try to fathom why the government thinks its okay to spend $787 billion dollars on a bunch of junk, and say "just put it on our tab".


RE: 88 Billion Dollars?!?!!??!!?!?!?
By stugatz on 11/12/2009 12:31:36 PM , Rating: 2
$88,000,000,000 / 1825 days

That's $48,219,178 per DAY for 5 straight years!

Is it even possible to light cash on fire that quickly?


PLEASE pass the SALT!
By kattanna on 11/11/2009 3:12:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
GM could seek to repay the government with a new public stock offering. Those previously holding GM stock saw their remaining holdings vanish with the bankruptcy


so all the old stock became void, but now they want to issue new stock? to repay us taxpayers? LOL

for those that had the old stock, sounds like salt to the wound.




RE: PLEASE pass the SALT!
By menace on 11/11/2009 4:39:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
At an August 3 meeting of GM's board and the U.S. Treasury Department, the Treasury officials reportedly estimated new CEO Fritz Henderson's chances of turning around GM to be 40 to 60 percent.


<sarcasm> Yeah the treasury officials have an unbiased outlook </sarcasm> considering they want an PSO to be successful, recoup bailout cash and make the administration look good. And yet despite this, best they can tell us is ~50% chance of turnaround? That's reassuring, where do I sign up for shares!


Is there actually something being said here?
By MeesterNid on 11/11/2009 3:42:05 PM , Rating: 2
"It's conceivable we could pay back some of the loans before the end of the year..."

Translation:

"We may or may not pay back some or no money and that could possibly happen sometime before the end of the year"

I'm not sure he could have made it more vague.




By menace on 11/11/2009 4:41:57 PM , Rating: 2
Inconstheevable!


alarmist titles on the rise
By invidious on 11/11/2009 1:27:50 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
States Chairman Whitacre, "It's conceivable we could pay back some of the loans before the end of the year.
And this supports the title how?




RE: alarmist titles on the rise
By aj28 on 11/11/2009 5:03:57 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. It's conceivable I could do plenty of things, but most are highly unlikely to happen.


"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki