backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 136 comment(s) - last by elgueroloco.. on Jul 14 at 8:49 AM

The U.S. taxpayers are now the proud owners of a 60-percent stake of a post-bankruptcy GM. The company emerged from bankruptcy this morning.  (Source: AutoBlog)

Leading GM's new lineup next year will be the all-electric 2011 Chevy Volt.  (Source: GM)

Bob Lutz, a veteran of GM and Chrysler, shown here in a Maxmium Bob "Action Figure" made by auto enthusiasts, will unretire and return to the company as a vice chairman in charge of the vehicle design creative process.  (Source: Patrick Arena/The Car Lounge)
GM is ready to hit the streets once more

Bankruptcy didn't keep GM down for long.  With a multitude of offers for GM Europe on the table and Saturn and Hummer offloaded to the Penske Automotive Group and a Chinese buyer, respectively, GM has trimmed its fat and is ready to move ahead with its core brands -- Buick, GMC, Chevy, and Cadillac (Pontiac is being phased out and Saab was also sold, to Koenigsegg).

This morning, only six weeks after it entered bankruptcy court as the nation's largest industrial bankruptcy to date, a new GM emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  The new company, as previously established, will be owned by the U.S. and Canadian governments and the UAW healthcare fund.  Bondholders -- those who held GM's debt, which has been cleansed, also will hold a smaller, but substantial stake in the company.

The U.S. government, which has invested $50B USD in GM so far, is the proud new owner of a 60 percent stake in GM.  Canada, which is also deeply vested in the company's bailout gets an 11.7 percent stake.  And the UAW is handed a hard-fought 17.6 percent stake, which it says will help it fulfill its pension and medical obligations.  The bondholders get the remaining 11.3 percent.

Fritz Henderson, president and CEO of the company comments, "Today marks a new beginning for General Motors, one that will allow every employee, including me, to get back to the business of designing, building and selling great cars and trucks and serving the needs of our customers. We are deeply appreciative for the support we have received during this historic transformation, and we will work hard to repay this trust by building a successful new General Motors."

The new company will not be publicly traded, and those who previously held stock are essentially wiped out.

Another major piece of news from GM was that enigmatic, and at times controversial, executive Bob Lutz is unretiring and returning to GM as vice chairman responsible for all creative elements of products and customer relationships.  Reporting directly to Henderson, Mr. Lutz will help guide GM's the creative design of GM's new vehicles.

GM is also launching a new website called "Tell Fritz" where customers can interact with the CEO.  Describes Mr. Henderson in the GM press release, "Beginning next week, we will launch a 'Tell Fritz' website where customers, or anyone else, can share ideas, concerns, and suggestions directly with senior management. I will personally review and respond to some of these communications every day."

The new GM looks to release its Chevy Volt all electric vehicle in 2011.  The Volt's impending launch is one of the most high anticipated vehicle releases to date.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Ugh...
By WoWCow on 7/10/2009 1:00:41 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Bankruptcy didn't keep GM down for long. With a multitude of offers for GM Europe on the table and Saturn and Hummer offloaded to the Penske Automotive Group and a Chinese buyer, respectively, GM has trimmed its fat and is ready to move ahead


I can't tell if you're either optimistic or sarcastic.

Right now GM is now headed by almost the same group of people who ran it to the ground.

And its got some new fat that *may* (GOD I HOPE NOT! MY TAX DOLLARS!) give it a heart attack and put it down for good: The government & UAW




RE: Ugh...
By bbomb on 7/10/2009 1:06:27 PM , Rating: 5
The UAW is the scariest part of the company. They will now run the company into the ground by giving themselves all the conessions they want regardless of the effect on the company.

They cannot compete with other manufacturer like Honda and Toyota who have a significantly cheaper workforce that they dont pay everything for for the rest of their lives.


RE: Ugh...
By qdemn7 on 7/10/09, Rating: -1
RE: Ugh...
By Ammohunt on 7/10/2009 3:01:01 PM , Rating: 5
We have been saying "i told you so" for a long time now. Modern labor law made Unions and the union mindset obsolete decades ago.


RE: Ugh...
By Mojo the Monkey on 7/10/2009 3:34:44 PM , Rating: 5
Thank you. One of the major factor for unions (besides the whole "fair pay" through coercion tactic), was securing basic rights which, in retrospect, were not so unreasonable.

Now that these rights have been codified and secured in common law, unions exist only to coerce wages. In the new age of globalism, the employers dont have to choose between giving in to unions or dealing with their actions, they have option C: GO OVERSEAS.

Wake up. Manufacturing unions are now detrimental to everyone involved, ESPECIALLY the workers. (local trade unions have more weight, particularly where the jobs cannot be outsources).


RE: Ugh...
By kake on 7/10/09, Rating: 0
RE: Ugh...
By TheSpaniard on 7/10/2009 3:06:21 PM , Rating: 3
fine but I want to extract the $1000+ per person that they borrowed when I get to say I told you so!


RE: Ugh...
By Hawkido on 7/10/2009 4:59:29 PM , Rating: 5
I would rather the 10s of thousands of UAW workers loose their jobs than have the 100s of thousands of non-UAW workers loose their jobs due to the massive tax hikes that will be needed to keep feeding the UAW employees cash, so they will keep voting for the political party that catered to them so much and put the entire US in this boiling kettle in the first place...

How come all the companies that are not UAW companies are not struggling, most of them are still making good profits, and the ones that aren't still have enought credit to survive the economic downturn.

You want a solution? Here, Ban all Pensions. They are red hot liquid death to a company. Enforce 401K or traditional IRA or Roth IRA as the only forms of pension.

If you don't know how a pension works... the company is supposed to keep a pension fund, that the employees pay into. If the employee hits the goal mark (Usually 20 years) they can get a paycheck out of the pension fund. If they don't hit the mark then their contribution is forfeit. Once you hit the mark and start pulling a paycheck, just like with social security, the fund begins to deplete, because of extending lifespans. Once the fund is empty, then the company has to pay out of it's pocket to cover the pensions. and once the company is leeched dry. it closes up shop and the pensioners are out of luck at the age of 60 and must go back to work.

With a 401K or better an IRA you can contribute your own money to your own retirement, still change jobs every 5 years if you so choose. and have a retirement that no one can take from you. If you didn't save enough, then you have to work until you are dead, boohoo, I guess you shouldn't have bought a corvette every 4 years while you were in your 20s. If you think social security will be there when you retire think again... best forcast is 13 years now with all the debt the country is in. Of course the government will raise taxes so the elderly will keep voting for those that put us in this mess in the first place but it won't matter becasue with the higher taxes it will be like having no money at all.


RE: Ugh...
By callmeroy on 7/13/2009 9:04:24 AM , Rating: 3
Can't believe your post got a 5 and you are suggesting deeper control of the government with a company in "ban all pensions".....

this community is confusing as hell sometimes --- you praise posts touting freedom from the government, then it support posts imply instatinga actions that suggest MORE government intervention.....make up your minds folks...geez.

Btw, getting rid of pensions is an increasingly common practice right now in corporate America -- a lot of companies are doing it on their own...and that's how it SHOULD be not because of a law...that's ridiculous.


RE: Ugh...
By Targon on 7/13/2009 9:41:09 AM , Rating: 2
Pensions on their own are not the problem, the problem is the fairly short period of time an employee needs to work to get a pension for the rest of their lives. The same applies to Social Security.

When pensions and Social Security were first set up, the average lifespan was at around 65 years. This means that if you work for a company for 30 years, you have spent close to half of your life(not working life). Since 65 was the average, that meant that there were people who died before that.

Now, if pensions would START at 40 years of working instead of 30, or even 45 years, then those who spend their working lives working for the same company get the pension, but those who only work for a few years do not.

Social Security on the other hand has the problem where the average livespan has grown by almost 20 years at this point. That is why the system is broken, and the only solution would be to raise the age for Social Security to 75 or even 80 since people live so long, or to replace the entire system with something new. My solution there is to make it so all people in the system(since there are records to back this up) would get a 3 percent return on their investment, compounded annually. So, if someone who worked 65 years ago, their first year may have only had them put in $100, but, 3 percent compounded annually on that, plus the money they have put in since, also compounded annually would end up with a good chunk of money. Now, have the benefits paid back over 20 years, not forever, just over 20 years after retirement, and that would solve the problem. The key is that instead of some special fund that can go broke, the money would come direct from the US Treasury. This means that the government treats those who put into the system with the same respect they give to government employees and you KNOW that government employees always get paid.

Simple solutions really, and it aims to make sure that those who retire only get back what they have earned, not just some lifetime payout that is the source of the problems.


RE: Ugh...
By someguy123 on 7/10/2009 5:31:58 PM , Rating: 1
they deserved it. they were getting executive benefits at mcdonalds workloads, and now they're expecting us to pay for these benefits.

screw em, they're all just looking for a hand out.


RE: Ugh...
By chick0n on 7/11/2009 12:55:34 AM , Rating: 2
are you crazy dude?

people work HARD at mcdonalds, much harder than these UAW leeching fuxkers

those UAW assholes dont do shit. they just sit there every fuxking day and they get paid + pension. and most of them dont even have a college degree and they earn more than me. wtf is that ?

fuxk u all UAW bitches, hope u all get hit by a car on the way out.


RE: Ugh...
By oab on 7/12/2009 2:45:45 PM , Rating: 2
Then the McDonalds workers should unionize.


RE: Ugh...
By MrPoletski on 7/13/2009 5:48:50 AM , Rating: 2
"Then the McDonalds workers should unionize."

They did but 'ol Ronald didn't appreciate it, why do you think the chicken McNuggets taste so weird?


RE: Ugh...
By FITCamaro on 7/10/2009 1:15:08 PM , Rating: 5
Well now the US tax payer pays for the UAWs benefits for the rest of their lives. The health care fund was some of the billions of debt that GM shed onto the backs of the tax payer.


RE: Ugh...
By Phynaz on 7/10/09, Rating: 0
RE: Ugh...
By zombiexl on 7/10/2009 1:42:20 PM , Rating: 5
When a company or person files bankruptcy the bankruptcy law provides that those holiding secured debt are paid first. In this case the UAW was given something for an unsecured debt before secured debt holders were paid.

Regardless of how the benefits are paid, the law was broken in order to allow it to happen. Especially considering the UAW had a large part in the demise of this company (and Chrysler as well).


RE: Ugh...
By callmeroy on 7/10/2009 2:21:10 PM , Rating: 1
Actually that's not entirely true, the Chapter 11 bankrupcy code does not state as a matter of law or irrefutible fact that secured debt must be paid first, it does however suggest that's the preferred method and in most cases what the recommendation will be. Bankrupcy, however, is a framework - a guideline of a plan to restore solvency. It is nothing more, it is nothing less. Its a legal plan overlooked and accepted (or rejected) by the courts. The biggest misconception folks have on bankrupcy filings is that its a cookie cutter type thing - it is not. The part of the "law" of chapter 11 (or 12 or 7 whatever you are filing) merely defines the boundaries and guides what can or can't be done....however under extreme circumstances (which is what bankrupcy was original intended for anyway) the courts can allow non-traditional repayment terms. This is not breaking the law. Breaking law would be a judge saying under a bankrupcy deal you don't have to pay anyone anything, ever again -- and on yeah you will have an 800 credit score effective immediately as well.

The one type of payment that the code does state as fact is any government debt (ie. if you owe the IRS for example), alimony/child support, and certain criminal penalties will all be required to be paid with priority even under Bankrupcy protection.


RE: Ugh...
By Solandri on 7/10/2009 6:07:32 PM , Rating: 5
Be that as it may, the precedent set with the GM case undermines part of the faith that makes our capitalistic economy work. If lenders who loan money in exchange for secured debt do not believe that the secured debt is worth substantially more than unsecured debt, they are less likely to loan money in the future.

Think about it. The whole reason this financial mess spread from mortgages to the rest of the economy was because banks stopped giving out loans, which wreaked havoc with every sector of business. Our goal should be to make that scenario less likely to happen again. Instead, we've made it more likely.


RE: Ugh...
By callmeroy on 7/13/2009 8:40:36 AM , Rating: 2
First I must say I do get good laughs out of the ratings (well actually analyzing the posts based on their ratings) on this site...especially factual posts that are rated down....DT community rating truth down doesn't change the truth...lol.... If it did -- trust me I'd make all kinds of posts about horrible realities in life just so we can all rate the stuff out of existence. :)

Anyway moving on, Solandri -- I'm not against your view, I actually agree with what you are saying. What is taking place (not just with GM , though GM is the shining example -- well perhaps not more than AIG actually) is a travesty. Its outrageous and it certainly IS undermining for lack of being wording the whole "system" of finance.

My prior post, as has always been my way of things was just to correct inaccuracies that I just happen to know of be it based on experience , happenstance of having just read up on the topic or otherwise.

When I make such postings it shouldn't be taken that I necessarily AGREE with the way things are (unless I state such in the post)....

Anyway....the day can't come soon enough for some MAJOR turn around news in the economy that's for sure...


RE: Ugh...
By Suntan on 7/13/2009 11:29:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
First I must say I do get good laughs out of the ratings


Your ratings are lower because you are being a douchebag, not because of the truthfulness/dishonestly of your posts.

-Suntan


RE: Ugh...
By FITCamaro on 7/10/2009 1:49:37 PM , Rating: 5
I think the law should have been followed. Said people might have worked for said benefits. But in doing so they contributed to the destruction of the company. So they should get what the investors who took the actual risk got, nothing.

Yes the UAW took over health care. But in doing so GM was required to give them billions of dollars towards a fund to pay for it. That fund was now paid for by US tax payers.


RE: Ugh...
By Mogounus on 7/10/2009 1:55:26 PM , Rating: 5
If things were different and GM was being celebrated for being a great and profitable company the UAW would take credit for helping to make it happen. But with GM being bankrupt the UAW is taking no reponsibility for it and rather making themselves out as the victims. GM can survive and even do very well without the UAW but the UAW cannot survive without the auto manufacturers. When times are good the union wants more but when times are bad they cry about having to make concessions. Get rid of the UAW and problem solved. People will still have work and we may get an auto industry that can survice in the long term.


RE: Ugh...
By Mojo the Monkey on 7/10/2009 3:38:15 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
But from the tone of your post I assume you don't think the elderly should get the benefits they were promissed and worked for??


No, I don't. I didn't promise them a god-damned thing. As a taxpayer, I have never received the benefits of their services to GM and owe them nothing. I didn't offer them a retirement package. If the promisor goes bankrupt, the promisee is SOL.


RE: Ugh...
By Murst on 7/10/09, Rating: 0
RE: Ugh...
By Solandri on 7/10/2009 6:25:15 PM , Rating: 4
Social security is different. People who retire today and in the future have paid into SS for all their lives with the government guaranteeing repayment. They rightfully expect to be paid back. This is very different from someone who works for a pension - they know their future payments are contingent on the company remaining solvent. Many companies have spun off their pension funds into separate fiscal entities so their beneficiaries will still be paid even if the parent company goes bankrupt. If GM didn't do this, then it's their problem, not the taxpayer's.


RE: Ugh...
By sinful on 7/10/2009 10:18:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Social security is different. People who retire today and in the future have paid into SS for all their lives with the government guaranteeing repayment.


What part of "If the promisor goes bankrupt, the promisee is SOL." don't you understand?

*I* sure didn't guarantee those payments.
They should know their future payments are contingent on the country remaining solvent.


RE: Ugh...
By Xenoterranos on 7/12/2009 2:04:59 PM , Rating: 2
Well, in a way you kind of did. By paying into SS, you're implicitly approving of it. Mind you, the alternative is giving the IRS the finger and going to prison (or living in the mountains somewhere) for the rest of your life: but you can "opt-out" if you so desire.


RE: Ugh...
By Xenoterranos on 7/12/2009 2:06:38 PM , Rating: 2
I know, I'm being pedantic, and I apologize. Also, I'd like to say:

Good bye GM, it was nice knowing you!

Now I'm off to try and get an UAW job while the fat's fresh. Maybe I can get back some of my taxes before GM implodes!


RE: Ugh...
By Spuke on 7/10/2009 6:24:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wonder if you'll feel the same way when the gov't cuts our social security in 20 years.
Only idiots still bank on Social Security being available when they're ready to retire. My wife and I are taking our retirement into our own hands. We plan on having NO Social Security to draw from.


RE: Ugh...
By FITCamaro on 7/10/2009 7:35:09 PM , Rating: 4
I want Social Security to go away PERIOD.

I'm 26. I'll never see it. Your second sentence is exactly the reason why it needs to go away. Todays generation should not be funding the retirement of yesteryears. Sure that's not how Social Security was supposed to work. But that's how it is working. Whether Democrats want to admit it or not.


RE: Ugh...
By Laereom on 7/10/2009 11:26:06 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, that's how I see it, as well. I vastly prefer Singapore's Provident Shield Fund system, in which they are required to deposit a certain amount of their money into low-risk individual savings accounts -- yielding from 1 to 5 percent, depending how they choose to allocate it.

Or, better yet, just let people make their own retirement decisions and live with the results.

Yeah, some people will make bad decisions and maybe even starve to death, if they were also bastards to their families. That's their problem, not mine.


RE: Ugh...
By Oregonian2 on 7/10/2009 11:52:16 PM , Rating: 2
That certainly would cut the deficit a good deal. I'm not sure how much of it is the money that the Government borrowed from the Social Security's fund (they "borrow" ALL of it every year), but it's quite a lot.

Basically you suggest the government file Chapter 11 and erase those debts to the SS's fund?


RE: Ugh...
By sinful on 7/12/2009 9:32:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
That certainly would cut the deficit a good deal. I'm not sure how much of it is the money that the Government borrowed from the Social Security's fund (they "borrow" ALL of it every year), but it's quite a lot.

Basically you suggest the government file Chapter 11 and erase those debts to the SS's fund?


Actually, for the moment, SS is generating a profit; and it has been for some time. Right now there's supposed to be a $2.5T reserve from the constant budget surpluses generated by SS (plus the interest on that money).

The actual "problem" for SS is the span in about 20 years in which all the Baby Boomers retire simultaneously and begin decimating the reserves.

Realistically, the "fix" for SS is to raise the FICA tax from 16% to 16.5%, OR, to cut SS benefits by 24%.

Of course, the longer it takes before someone fixes it, the harder the problem is to fix (i.e. either the tax is over less people and thus has to be higher than 16.5%, or the cuts have to be steeper).


RE: Ugh...
By callmeroy on 7/13/2009 8:59:42 AM , Rating: 3
First let me disclaim the curse of text --- don't read into my post as being 'smart' or challenging....I'm legitimately asking out of wanting to know.....where did you get your information?

(why do I ask? because about 3 weeks ago I read a report that SS is going bankrupt a faster pace than was last predicted...so obviously reading your post about it being profitable os very contrary to that point...)


RE: Ugh...
By callmeroy on 7/13/2009 8:55:59 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you, though I'm almost 10 years older - I'd say anyone 40 or younger right now won't get a dime out of SS (unless god forbid a medical reason occurs that makes you eligible, but you don't want to qualify for it that way!).

The only problem in the logic of making it go away is --- do we cut off folks who are depending on it RIGHT NOW? Mind you for us 30-somethings (especially later 30 somethings) our own parents could be depending on SS now or getting very close to the time they need to depend on it.

My folks need the pittance that SS provides so my dad doesn't have to burn up his entire pension savings (which would be a lot for 10 - 15 years, but its the question we don't know WHEN our time is to punch out of this life...and if I had my way my parents would reach their 90's...)

The other thing to logic of "why am I paying for folks retiring now".....I think that is equal to my question "why do I pay 2/3rds of my taxes to the local school system -- when I have no kids?".....

Government officials would answer BOTH questions the same --- "Because you are a citizen of this country and those are the rules you must abide by, and there would be no other way to afford it if folks could make exceptions and not pay into the system"....


RE: Ugh...
By guacamojo on 7/13/2009 11:02:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The other thing to logic of "why am I paying for folks retiring now".....I think that is equal to my question "why do I pay 2/3rds of my taxes to the local school system -- when I have no kids?"..... Government officials would answer BOTH questions the same --- "Because you are a citizen of this country and those are the rules you must abide by, and there would be no other way to afford it if folks could make exceptions and not pay into the system"....


Oh come now, there are plenty of other examples, and they're not all government-related.

Any type of insurance: Why should I have to pay so much?

(Health) I'm healthy, why should I have to pay for those who are foolish enough to have expensive and/or chronic illnesses?

(Auto) I've never made a claim, why do I have to pay for people who get into accidents?

Or consider hospital emergency costs: Why should I have to pay more to cover all these slackers who can't pay their bills?

I guess I'm being heavy-handed with the sarcasm. My point is, shared-cost/shared-risk systems only work when everyone contributes. Naturally, those who pay in will feel they're propping up those who don't.

What if you did get rid of social security? That's easy to say when you've got resources to work with. What about those who work for low wages and don't have anything in their 401(k)'s? They should have been saving, right?

What about all the smart, college-educated people who didn't save enough in their 401(k)'s (or took too much investment risk)? 20 years into retirement, they run out of money. Now they're 85, have dementia, and still aren't due to pass away for another few years... well too bad for them. No, they're not really employable. They should have planned for it! What will society do about them? Nothing?

SS isn't perfect. Yes, there are abuses, and it's expensive. Is there a real alternative? Mandatory long-term disability and life insurance, coupled with mandatory saving in 401(k) without control over investment choices?

I think unless we as a society are prepared to look the other way when folks run out of money, (and I hope that day never comes) we're going to pay. TANSTAAFL.


RE: Ugh...
By MrBungle123 on 7/13/2009 11:36:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only problem in the logic of making it go away is --- do we cut off folks who are depending on it RIGHT NOW? Mind you for us 30-somethings (especially later 30 somethings) our own parents could be depending on SS now or getting very close to the time they need to depend on it.


what we do is set social security to a fixed percentage of federal spending and set the age at which you can collect at 85% of life expectancy based on the year you were born and let the benefit amount vary depending on those numbers.


RE: Ugh...
By NullSubroutine on 7/10/2009 8:05:36 PM , Rating: 2
You mean exactly like how executives do?


RE: Ugh...
By TGIM824 on 7/11/2009 2:00:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The UAW is the scariest part of the company. They will now run the company into the ground by giving themselves all the conessions they want regardless of the effect on the company.


No the scariest part of this is your post is rated a 5. Meaning you along with a whole slew of other people think the UAW will run GM and Chrysler.

No what this means is now the UAW will have to start thinking about the bottom line. EBITDA

As stake holders in the company, they can either change, and have a fighting chance at saving their jobs, or do nothing, and die off.

About your Honda and Toyota, your should throw in Nissan and Mazda as well, because as long as the yen is artificially undervalued, building vehicles in Japan and shipping them her is the same as all the other manufactures building vehicles in Mexico.

The Japanese workers are paid pennies compared to what their American counter parts are paid, and greater than 70% of the Japanese imports are still made in Japan, and shipped here to be sold. The exchange rate alone generates those companies about $2000 per vehicle profit, as apposed to the cars (not trucks) made in the United States by these companies, loose money. Yes that's right, even Toyota builds a car that looses money, but makes up for it else where. This is also why the Japanese were so hard pressed to build a real full size pickup, so they too could realize the huge profits these vehicles generate (F150, Silverado, RAM 1500).


RE: Ugh...
By Xenoterranos on 7/12/2009 2:12:00 PM , Rating: 2
I think what most people here believe is that, given their past behaviour, the UAW is just as likely to destroy GM in a free-money-for-everyone move as they are to salvage it. It's not like they weren't aware of GM's financial troubles all those other times they demanded things like the Job Bank. Now that they have the key to the vault, human nature may just win out over reason. He'll, I can't say I wouldn't do it if I where in their shoes.


RE: Ugh...
By Shyster on 7/10/2009 1:29:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can't tell if you're either optimistic or sarcastic.


Especially since the article quotes this morning's GM press release without mentioning it and since Dailytech tends not to question anybody's hype except its favorite villains' (e.g., Microsoft).

GM has shed some dealers, brands, and debt but the same old management team and the same old union still run things and have made it perfectly clear that they will continue basically the same old business. The difference is that they don't have to worry so much about actually making money now that the taxpayer is guaranteeing their salaries.


RE: Ugh...
By walk2k on 7/10/2009 3:05:29 PM , Rating: 3
What the hell? So it's the crap company, same crap union, same crap management, making same crap cars nobody wants? Wow. Excuse me if I'm not terribly excited about owning 60% of this company.


RE: Ugh...
By Keeir on 7/10/2009 4:53:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
making same crap cars nobody wants?


Well... not really. The Malibu and Impala both sell fairly well and at least the Malibu is thought of as a "good" car by most in the industry. They (GM) are bringing over cars like the Cruze, etc that are more "European" style and higher quality/popularity. And the Camaro is certainly an interesting offering that is selling well right now at least.

Over the mid-late 2000s, both GM and Ford have been improving thier US car lines. With the elimination of the Cobalt and a few other cars, GM may actually soon have a comparable line up to "import" brands like Toyota, at least close in terms of quality, value, and reliability. (I am highly doubtful that management won't return to chasing the lowest cost possible though...)


RE: Ugh...
By Spuke on 7/10/2009 6:30:31 PM , Rating: 2
GM is in the midst of a car lineup revamp, mostly because of the upcoming CAFE requirements not to mention it's the end of the cycle for a lot of their cars. That's why there's been so many new cars coming from them recently if you've noticed. BTW, both the Malibu and Impala are on the top 20 best selling cars in the US so they are doing very well.


RE: Ugh...
By Jalek on 7/10/2009 11:04:52 PM , Rating: 2
They need a massive overhaul anyway. Before this became a taxpayer burden and the local dealers were cut off, I looked at their lineup and found nothing I wanted under the brands they kept. Cadillac was the only one with anything even somewhat different.

Now.. I think I've already given them enough, or will over the next few decades when the 60% interest is just handed over to them for the price of a few checks to politicians.

Nobody seriously expects them to repay the $50 billion or buy out the government, do they?


RE: Ugh...
By drebo on 7/11/2009 1:18:36 AM , Rating: 2
Indeed, the Malibu is an exceptional car. I currently own one, and I was planning on buying a Camaro in the next couple of years. However, I do not like the idea of a government-owned business at all. Not one bit. It is a bad idea, and I will not support it. I do not believe I will end up buying that Camaro, which is unfortunate because I REALLY like the new Camaro design. Maybe I'll just have to buy the '69 Camaro I've always wanted.


RE: Ugh...
By steven975 on 7/10/2009 3:30:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, true...same exact people, now with more power and less accountability. Now that an income statement is no longer a requirement, they are free to make the cars no one will want to buy and I (and the group of people who actually pay taxes) will pay for it.

We should have let GM and Chrysler go bankrupt in October 2008. Then we would be at the same place we are now, yet the owners would be the bondholders of GM debt, and maybe a minority stake for the UAW.

I'm no fan of the UAW, but they do have an obligation from GM whether it was granted through extortion or not. It is just sickening me to see them put at the front of the line and putting legitimate debtholders at the back of the line.


How I See Things.....
By rasmith260 on 7/10/2009 1:29:20 PM , Rating: 4
I personally don’t get all the government bashing, while I’m certainly not blind to a certain degree of ineptness on its part, GM and Chrysler ran themselves into the ground without any government assistance, so I really don’t see how the government could do any worse since neither company would even exist right now without them.

While I certainly have sympathy for the investors who got hosed, they would’ve gotten even less had the government simply allowed the company to fail.

And finally, while it’s certainly cool and hip to blame the government for all our problems, at the end of the day the government is just a reflection of us with all of our shortcomings (greed, ignorance, basis, short sidedness). Take a good look in the mirror because if you don’t think very much of our government you’ll find the reasons why their.




RE: How I See Things.....
By wookie1 on 7/10/09, Rating: 0
RE: How I See Things.....
By valkator on 7/10/09, Rating: -1
RE: How I See Things.....
By wookie1 on 7/10/2009 5:32:22 PM , Rating: 4
This is great news! Valkator has offered to relieve us of the bailout of GM and the UAW! Valkator, you don't need to send me any money, please send $50B now to the IRS on behalf of myself and all other taxpayers and a note to them as well that you will be paying for the future expenses incurred by GM and the UAW that are not covered by revenue.

It sounds small, but $50B here and there starts adding up. Let's see, if there are 300M people in the US, everyone is paying $600 just for this one boondoggle, plus the interest we'll have to pay back to China on the debt.


RE: How I See Things.....
By sinful on 7/12/2009 9:21:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It sounds small, but $50B here and there starts adding up. Let's see, if there are 300M people in the US, everyone is paying $600 just for this one boondoggle, plus the interest we'll have to pay back to China on the debt.


Uhhhh, math check here:
300M x $600 = $180B, not $50B

$50B / 300M = $166
Thus, the ACTUAL cost per person: $166, not $600.

If those people paid it over 1 year, that's about $6/paycheck.


RE: How I See Things.....
By MrBungle123 on 7/13/2009 11:16:44 AM , Rating: 3
Uhhh, further math check here:

138M tax payers in the US not 300M (kids, and illeagl aliens don't pay taxes) in reality that number is lower, its closer to 69M since the top 50% of wage earners [Those over 25 making more than about $32000 a year] pay 97% of the taxes, so:

($50B x .97) / 69M = $702 Per taxpayer
($50B x .03) / 69M = $22 Per working student / entitlement program recipient

So its closer to $29 per paycheck if the taxpayers were going to pay it off in a year, and a little under a dollar a check for everyone else.

Sources:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/250.htm...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_Unite...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_th...


RE: How I See Things.....
By wookie1 on 7/10/2009 5:36:02 PM , Rating: 4
One more point - you mention something about large businesses that pay taxes to cover this. Businesses don't pay taxes, consumers do. It's true that the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, but it is paid by the consumer. That's me again. I'm sure that you're pretty OK with redistributing money from the "wealthy" people to GM, though.


RE: How I See Things.....
By Jalek on 7/11/2009 12:34:19 AM , Rating: 2
Now you're just gonna confuse people..

You mean corporations don't just pay out additional costs and shut down when those costs increase? They pass it through to consumers? They can do that?

Well, that is until someone comes along with a "free market" slogan and knocks all of the supports out so the corporation can't pass the cost along and still compete with child labor in Bangladesh.

The pass-through of costs will be apparent if this cap and trade garbage passes though.


RE: How I See Things.....
By sinful on 7/12/2009 9:39:51 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
One more point - you mention something about large businesses that pay taxes to cover this. Businesses don't pay taxes, consumers do. It's true that the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, but it is paid by the consumer.


And yet the US actually has one of the lowest effective corporate tax rates in the world.

Many companies pay less than 5%.

Only companies that lack accounting deparments actually pay the full tax.

It's similar concept as when you go to the store and see clothes that "retail for $100" but are on sale for "75% off".


RE: How I See Things.....
By FITCamaro on 7/10/2009 2:08:57 PM , Rating: 2
For the love of god use a dictionary. It's shortsightedness and bias.

If GM and Chrysler had been allowed to go into bankruptcy they still would have shed their debt. The difference is the tax payer wouldn't be liable for it now. Another company would have bought both. The government got in the way of the Fiat/Chrysler merger.

And no this government does not reflect my views. Wanting to be left alone to earn a living is not greed. Wanting to drive a car that I enjoy is not ignorance. Believing that a government should be limited in its power because history has proven that all-powerful governments are tyrannical and/or doomed to fail is not bias. Not wanting money to be spent frivolously on half-assed measures to fix a problem that doesn't exist is not shortsightedness.


RE: How I See Things.....
By creathir on 7/10/2009 2:24:10 PM , Rating: 5
The problem here, is that many Americans are not educated in history.

Socialism on its face is a fantastic idea. We all can "get along" and "share".

Of course, anyone who has ever studied and ounce of history knows it does not work. Every time it has been tried, it has failed. It always leads to less liberty and more tyranny. Always.

Lest people forget, the pilgrims at first tried socialism some 300+ years ago... it failed.

Socialism discourages hard work and promotes apathy...

Why would I want to prescribe to a system in which I have no chance of improving my current situation in life?

To quote Patrick Henry:
Give me liberty, or give me death!

- Creathir


RE: How I See Things.....
By Ammohunt on 7/10/2009 3:06:04 PM , Rating: 2
this post should a 6. Do the even teach history in College any more? All the doubters should read up on the jamestown settlement and why it failed.


RE: How I See Things.....
By Tilmitt on 7/10/2009 8:14:07 PM , Rating: 1
The Scandinavian countries and a large part of continental Europe don't make such a bad job of it.


RE: How I See Things.....
By Suntan on 7/13/2009 11:43:02 AM , Rating: 3
Have you actually been to them? I have. Although they are well enough, the lifestyle there is not the same. It may be subtle to some, but it is pretty apparent to others.

It really boils down to what you want out of life. Do you want to live in a herd mentality where you don’t have to worry about things as long as you do everything the same as everyone else? Or do you want to live in a place where you are free to advance as far as your willingness to put in the effort will take you?

Do you feel like the responsibility for your mistakes should be spread out among the population? Or do you feel like you should be responsible for your own mistakes?

-Suntan


RE: How I See Things.....
By MrPoletski on 7/13/2009 9:08:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of course, anyone who has ever studied and ounce of history knows it does not work. Every time it has been tried, it has failed. It always leads to less liberty and more tyranny. Always.


I think you're making the classical mistake of confusing communism with socialism. If they were the same thing they'd have the same name.

Either that or I have no idea which history books you've been studying, socialism is working pretty well for Europe, which has a larger economy than the USA now.


RE: How I See Things.....
By rasmith260 on 7/10/2009 3:52:41 PM , Rating: 2
You’re absolutely right about the words I misspelled & misused and I apologize if I offended your profound intelligence however your attempt at a retort does not diminish the ideas behind my comments and the “G” in God should always be capitalized, if you believe and in deference if you don’t. Also there is a difference between being a wordsmith and a jerk, you could’ve been the first but just came off as the second.


RE: How I See Things.....
By captainpierce on 7/10/2009 3:13:28 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I personally don’t get all the government bashing, while I’m certainly not blind to a certain degree of ineptness on its part, GM and Chrysler ran themselves into the ground without any government assistance, so I really don’t see how the government could do any worse since neither company would even exist right now without them.


Tell me where in the Constitution of the United States the Federal Gov't is granted authority to take over private industry and run it. There is none...therefore, these bailouts (aka gov't managed bankruptcies) are unconstitutional. Leaving that aside for the moment, this kind of action sets horrible precedents. If large companies are not allowed to fail and are propped up by the gov't, then really what we have is no longer capitalism. State-owned business is one of the hallmarks fascism. History has repeatedly shown this kind of system to be stagnant at best. It puts business decisions in the realm of politics, which is not a good idea.

But your last point is correct. The government is a reflection of a lot of the population. And therein lies the tragedy. Not many people understand economics and history..otherwise they would know this kind of stuff has been tried before. And it has failed.


RE: How I See Things.....
By Machinegear on 7/10/2009 4:35:07 PM , Rating: 2
I personally would like to see more dialogue along these lines. People today debate government involvement in their lives solely based if they like it or not; rather than if such involvement is LEGAL or not.

We have already lost most of our freedoms because we are so busy endlessly debating our feelings. What do you say we agree to disagree and follow the law?


RE: How I See Things.....
By choadenstein on 7/10/2009 5:13:55 PM , Rating: 2
BTW. I am not bashing you, I think you're right that what the Federal Government did was wrong in this case. However, on this point, the Federal Government (i.e., Congress) does have constitutional authority.

quote:
Tell me where in the Constitution of the United States the Federal Gov't is granted authority to take over private industry and run it. There is none...therefore, these bailouts (aka gov't managed bankruptcies) are unconstitutional.


Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

"The Congress shall have Power To ...

establish ... uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"


RE: How I See Things.....
By captainpierce on 7/10/2009 10:51:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

"The Congress shall have Power To ...

establish ... uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"


Establishing laws regarding bankruptcy is not what I was referring to.

The quote you provided mentions nothing about the government taking over a company, firing its Chief Executive Officer, or for providing taxpayer money through legislation not specifically authorized by the Congress in the first place.

The auto bankruptcy/bailout has been managed by the Auto Task Force through the Treasury Dept. Last I checked there was never any legislation passed by Congress that authorized this. Members of Congress haven't even been involved that much.

This is the logic of corporatist/fascist government. Turn the economy over to technocrats and allow them to set industrial policy.


RE: How I See Things.....
By choadenstein on 7/11/2009 2:46:47 AM , Rating: 3
Look, I said I agreed with you.

But you did say...

quote:
Tell me where in the Constitution of the United States the Federal Gov't is granted authority to take over private industry and run it.


Whether they properly executed that authority is not the question you asked. I was merely pointing out that the Constitution does grant authority to Congress to take over private industry in the case of bankruptcy... IF, and only if mind you, they have enacted uniform bankruptcy laws...

The fact that they exceeded their currently enacted authority is undeniable. However, Congress may enact bankruptcy laws that allow for the Federal government to assume control of private industries. A scary proposition, but it is in the constitution, which, was the statement you made.


RE: How I See Things.....
By captainpierce on 7/12/2009 8:34:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, Congress may enact bankruptcy laws that allow for the Federal government to assume control of private industries. A scary proposition, but it is in the constitution, which, was the statement you made.


Then Congress can take over any company they want to in the case of bankruptcy? The sounds like the constitution of Hugo Chavez.


RE: How I See Things.....
By nafhan on 7/10/2009 4:33:26 PM , Rating: 2
As you said, GM and Chrysler ran themselves into the ground without the government's help. This is fine. It's what happens to poorly run companies (or ones artificially constrained by unions) during times of economic hardship.
At present, you'd be a moron to willingly invest your money in a company such as GM. This is where we get to the problem . Your money (and mine) is being invested in GM via tax dollar bailouts, and you have no direct say in the matter.
I'm not going to bash the government for GM and Chrysler failing. I'm going to be upset with the government for poorly investing our tax dollars.
The American public does have a say via voting, but since we are more than a year away from the next election, this will likely have very little impact on that election.


Said before, I'll say it again....
By 67STANG on 7/10/09, Rating: 0
RE: Said before, I'll say it again....
By FITCamaro on 7/10/2009 1:19:56 PM , Rating: 1
Agreed. I'm done buying any new GM car for a long time. A sad day. The greatest sports car in America (Corvette in my opinion) is now in the hands of people who hate it and will do everything they can to kill it.


RE: Said before, I'll say it again....
By callmeroy on 7/10/2009 1:51:07 PM , Rating: 3
I don't know, two of the most reliable and fun cars I ever owned were GM and that's no BS either.

I really like the new Camaro and next year I'll be in the market for a new car again too --- if "next year" was tomorrow --- I'd most likely buy a new Camaro.

If another car catches my eye -- over the next 8-10 months, I'll buy that car but right now I'm really into the new Camaro after having had the chance to drive one too.

I'm not happy about our debt load as a nation, I'm not happy about all the bailout money being spent. But I'm also aware that bitching, crying and moaning about these companies will serve no good. That's the problem we face now -- consumer confidence is eroded. There is no bill Obama can sign into law, there are no concessions a company can make that can turn the economy around better and faster than people spending money.


RE: Said before, I'll say it again....
By FITCamaro on 7/10/09, Rating: -1
RE: Said before, I'll say it again....
By gregpet on 7/10/2009 4:23:03 PM , Rating: 4
I'm no fan of the current administration but I hope everyone will at least consider GM when they are looking for a car. We, as tax payers, are owed $50,000,000 by GM. I for one want to get paid back. I also happen to think that GM (government or not) are making some pretty good cars.


By sdsdv10 on 7/10/2009 4:46:07 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
We, as tax payers, are owed $50,000,000 by GM.


Ah, you missed a few zeros there.
The real number is $50,000,000,000 (that $50 Billion with a " B ")


RE: Said before, I'll say it again....
By JustKidding on 7/10/09, Rating: 0
By JustKidding on 7/11/2009 12:15:03 AM , Rating: 2
And yes, I realize that the Volt has an engine driven generator. ;)


By eldakka on 7/13/2009 2:26:49 AM , Rating: 2
So, for people to get back their $166 share of the $50B loaned to them GM needs to stay afloat.

To stay afloat, people need to buy GM cars.

So, does that mean you have to spend $15k+ to get back your $166?


By MonkeyPaw on 7/10/2009 4:42:32 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, I talked to my Dad the other day about his plan to replace his S10 (with 345,000 miles on it), and he said he's probably going to get a Ford. That's after knowing he could have used a $1000 discount on another Chevy.

GM cars are either going to have to be really good or really cheap for a while to get many loyal buyers back. I say this because even when GM was not government owned, people were often choosing another brand due to perception of quality. Now GM has to fight both the "quality" stigma (which they've falsely claimed to have fixed several times in the past) and the new issue of being owned by a spend-happy government, the nation of Canada, and the UAW. Let's not forget there are a bunch of independent investors who just had their GM stock turn into toilet paper (I'm sure some of my mutual funds had GM in them).

So welcome back GM. You're unpopular, untrusted, and owned by people who don't want to own you. Oh, and the economy still sucks.


RE: Said before, I'll say it again....
By MrPoletski on 7/13/2009 9:04:03 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm not funding a company that is owned by the Obama administration.


would you buy one had it been owned by the Bush administration?


By MrPoletski on 7/13/2009 10:50:33 AM , Rating: 2
?? I asked a question, did I get rated down because:

a) The answer is no

or

b) I mentioned 'Bush'?

You can't rate somebody down for asking a question!


RE: Said before, I'll say it again....
By 67STANG on 7/10/2009 3:09:58 PM , Rating: 2
I haven't seen a single Camaro where I live or within a 250 mile radius of where I live in California, so they must not be selling too terribly well.

As far as buying a Camaro, you might want to wait until GM fixes all of the problems with it... Owners are reporting everything from their transmissions and IRS breaking to their interiors falling apart after 50 miles. http://www.camaro5.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=7...

You wouldn't want to get hosed like all of those Saturn owners that filed a class action lawsuit again GM.

On the other hand, the Mustang was top-rated in the "mid-size sporty" class, again.


RE: Said before, I'll say it again....
By Exedore on 7/10/2009 4:39:29 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the new Camaro outsold the Mustang for the month of June.

http://blogs.motortrend.com/6555429/car-news/june-...

Of course, it remains to be seen if that is sustainable. Initial sales usually have a bump because a lot of people were waiting for the release.


By Spuke on 7/10/2009 6:37:59 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, that's actually REALLY good. I wasn't expecting those kinds of numbers for a sports car in this market. But we'll see how it looks 6 months from now when the hype dies down.


By 67STANG on 7/10/2009 7:40:11 PM , Rating: 1
LOL. Not to hard to outsell the Mustang when it was on a 3 week hold. That's right, Ford only shipped for (1) week out of the entire month of June. You see, when Ford finds a quality problem, the actually hold the vehicles and fix them prior to shipping... novel concept I know.

Nevertheless, yes, they did sell ~2,000 more Camaros in June. Now that the hold is off of the 2010 Mustangs, July will be a very different story.


By Suntan on 7/13/2009 12:06:52 PM , Rating: 2
Then why did they offer the job to Bob Lutz? And more importantly, if he saw that they hate fun cars and want to neuter them, why would he have accepted?

Although I would say that if you see Lutz “re-retire” anytime soon, it’s probably a good indicator that he has finally had it with “Political Motors.”

-Suntan


RE: Said before, I'll say it again....
By danrien on 7/10/2009 2:42:26 PM , Rating: 2
well you've kind of made a chicken and egg problem, haven't you?