backtop


Print 190 comment(s) - last by KamiXkaze.. on May 1 at 11:13 PM


The 2009 Pontiac G8  (Source: Edmunds)

UAW members in Indiana protest proposed cuts, back at a December rally.  (Source: MRzine)
The American auto industry has a tough road ahead before it can hope for recovery

GM and Chrysler have hit rock bottom.  Burning through bailout money and hounded by creditors and union retirees alike, the companies are facing a fight for survival.  After both companies had their most recent bailout plans rejected, and were ordered to make vast changes, both companies have struggled to meet their deadlines.  And despite recent reports that the government is finally going to offer some more bailout cash, both companies still appear to be teetering on the brink for disaster.

Chrysler, according to a report by The New York Times, is preparing a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing under government supervision, and will likely file as early as Monday.  The government had offered Chrysler $6B USD in loans if it could complete a merger deal with Fiat, but Fiat has refused to commit to such a deal until the UAW makes steep concessions (which appears unlikely) or the company washes its debts via bankruptcy.  The deadline for the merger is next Thursday, but the government may give Chrysler an extension if it files for bankruptcy protection.

The government has reached a deal with the U.A.W., whose members’ pensions and retiree health care benefits would be protected under the bankruptcy filing, as well.  This clears the way for such a filing. 

The only obstacle that remains are the creditors, mostly banks (JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs), to which Chrysler owes $6.9B USD.  The creditors have thus far only offered to exchange $2B USD of the debt for a 40 percent stake in the company, a proposal which Chrysler flatly rejected.  However, a bankruptcy could wipe them out entirely.  A bankruptcy would also likely wipe out the interests of Chrysler's current owner, Cerberus Capital Management, which bought Chrysler from Daimler in 2007.

A Chrysler bankruptcy could rock the supply chain, causing difficulties for Ford and Chrysler as well.  Fortunately it comes around the time of the summer shutdowns that occur frequently in the automotive industry's bad years.

Meanwhile, GM also fights for its life.  In GM's case, it hopes to avoid bankruptcy by slashing brands and dramatic restructuring.  According to automotive site Inside Line, a source and GM says that the company will officially kill the Pontiac brand on Monday.  The brand is currently labeled a "niche brand".  The announcement would reduce GM's brands to four -- Chevrolet, Cadillac, GMC and Buick.  It would end the careers of such muscle car legends as the Pontiac GTO and Firebird.  It would also end the young career of the Pontiac G8, which drew strong reviews and revived interest in the brand.

A request for official confirmation from GM, was met with spokesman Tom Wilkson stating, "There's nothing I can share with you at this time. Keep your eyes on our media site. Officially, nothing has changed with Pontiac's niche-brand status, until you hear differently."

While the automotive industry is clearly in a world of trouble, they aren't going down without a fight.  And if the latest news from GM and Chrysler are any indication, the companies are willing to do whatever it takes to keep fighting till the bitter end.



Comments     Threshold


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

GM FTL
By depravedone on 4/24/2009 10:28:48 AM , Rating: 2
With the number of Pontiac G6's and G8's I see around here I have to wonder if this plan makes any sense. Maybe they can start concentrating on the cars the administration demands and NOBODY wants to buy.




RE: GM FTL
By m0mentary on 4/24/2009 10:33:49 AM , Rating: 5
well they can always continue selling the cars under another brand, only this time they wouldn't be diluting their own market share.


RE: GM FTL
By Radnor on 4/24/2009 10:48:40 AM , Rating: 4
Never really understood GMs Brand strategy. All brands made sedans, some made sports cars, others made SUVs but all cannibalize dearly its own brand.

As an European consumer it always made some confusion. Because several brands of the same corporation launched models that were quite similar.

Here you have different groups like PSA, SIVA and others. But the cars they make are quite different in engine, design, luxury, quality and of course price tag. At least for me, it is more self evident.

Maybe that is the main GM problem.


RE: GM FTL
By DM0407 on 4/24/2009 11:15:54 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The only obstacle that remains are the creditors, mostly banks (JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs), to which Chrysler owes $6.9B USD.


Just subtract that from the bailout tab, now they only owe the government 993.1 billion.


RE: GM FTL
By cparka23 on 4/24/2009 11:30:04 AM , Rating: 5
I agree with you, but will add a comment for the sake of argument.

The reason why they make variations of the same basic car is to keep costs down. By sharing the same chassis, they can produce that part in bulk and lower the cost to make each one.

IMO, they just took that idea and ran with it over the edge of a cliff. GM needs to find other ways to reduce costs, starting with labor and ridiculous pensions.


RE: GM FTL
By lewislink on 4/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: GM FTL
By yomamafor1 on 4/24/2009 12:10:55 PM , Rating: 5
And all the businesses should hire more workers, regardless of their own cost, just because everyone needs a job? Ridiculous


RE: GM FTL
By lewislink on 4/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: GM FTL
By Parhel on 4/24/2009 12:57:07 PM , Rating: 5
Sadly, that attitude is common and, I think, illustrates perfectly what's wrong with politics in this country. Rather than wanting whatever is good for our country, you want whatever is bad for the "other team."


RE: GM FTL
By yomamafor1 on 4/24/2009 3:54:10 PM , Rating: 4
Exactly. That's why I find people throwing around terms like "Repub", "Fascist", and "Liberals" don't really study an issue close enough. When can people stop using stereotypes as a perspective?


RE: GM FTL
By Regs on 4/27/2009 8:37:01 AM , Rating: 2
Even then, it does not make any sense what he said. Repubs or Dems all see the same picture though only disagree on how to reach their intended goals. Some how people comfort themselves by associating their delusional agendas with an actual party that makes them feel more self-righteous.


RE: GM FTL
By lewislink on 4/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: GM FTL
By TomZ on 4/24/2009 2:52:57 PM , Rating: 4
I think you should try being an employer some time. I am sure that would quickly change your attitude. The job of managers and business owners is to maintain the business in the face of whatever conditions you are facing. Nobody is ever happy to let people go because of financial challenges, I can assure you. But failure to take action when such action is necessary surely will cause an even greater number of people to lose their jobs.

It's also ironic that you plead for empathy for "the common man," but you are completely ignorant about what goes on in the minds of those on the other side.


RE: GM FTL
By MrBungle123 on 4/24/2009 3:00:46 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
It's so freakin' easy for repubs to put other's jobs and lives on the chopping block and still maintain a self righteous attitude. Such attitude comes from a sheltered style of life. But I guarantee that if those repubs who can so easily take someones job away in the name of "fiscal responsibility" were to face the same thing, they'd whine and moan that life isn't right and injustice is being done them.

Nothing but spoiled brats. Get out and face what the common man is facing you idiots.


How can you possibly be this stupid? Companies do not exist to give people jobs! The jobs are a side effect of company growth.

If a company can't make money then they fail and everyone that works for them loses their job. That’s life and it’s not always "fair" but you deal with it and move on.

The spoiled brat in the room is YOU believing that YOU are ENTITLED to a job... you're not, you earn it, you show the company that they NEED you through your work ethic, ingenuity, creativity. The only reason people have jobs is because they make more money for the company than it costs to pay them, if that situation changes they get cut just like any other asset the company has that is unnecessarily costing them money.


RE: GM FTL
By ebakke on 4/24/2009 3:08:55 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Companies do not exist to give people jobs!
So simple. So true. So misunderstood.


RE: GM FTL
By TomZ on 4/24/2009 3:32:56 PM , Rating: 4
This attitude is an unfortunate side-effect of the liberal, socialist, welfare state we are currently turning into where a sense of entitlement is the norm. And how can anybody not have that attitude when the president is talking daily about spending hundreds of billions of dollars to try to quickly create jobs.

Hopefully the pendulum only swings so far...


RE: GM FTL
By sinful on 4/25/09, Rating: 0
RE: GM FTL
By Solandri on 4/25/2009 3:10:42 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Countries like China can save a lot of $ by not funding a highschool education for their factory workers - should the US abolish public education so our labor is cheaper?

Technically, if a significant portion of the jobs can be completed without a public high school education, then the logical conclusion would be that the public education is excessive and not worth the cost.

I think what's actually going on is that the people in the U.S. are squandering the free education we provide for them. We're not sending them to school for 12 years so they can be menial assembly line workers. Those jobs should be filled by robots or unskilled labor. All that education we provide people in the U.S. is supposed to help them do more complex jobs, like monitoring, repairing, and reprogramming the robotic systems working the assembly lines. You know, actually use that expensive education we provide for them for free.

Intel is a pretty good example. All the hard stuff (designing the CPUs) is done in the U.S. The easy stuff (manufacturing and fabbing) is done in Asia, and even there it's mostly done by robots. The U.S. exporting these types of jobs is a good thing IMHO. It puts pressure on our labor force to strive for more complex and higher-paying jobs. And it "spreads the wealth" to the rest of the world, increasing the standard of living worldwide.

Yes its exploitative of a steep wage differential, but the way you make exploitable economic gradients disappear is to exploit them. If I know there are no eggs in New York because of a bird flu epidemic, then I can exploit the situation to make money by shipping eggs to New York and selling them there. At first I make a bundle, but lots of other people start exploiting it and they and I start to compete on our prices until eventually prices settle at just above the cost of our eggs + shipping costs. Maybe a new hygenic chicken farm opens up in New York to provide locally grown eggs. The bottom line is New Yorkers still get their eggs at only a slightly increased cost and I make some extra sales. It's win-win despite it being exploitative.

quote:
The difference between the neocons and liberals is that liberals see this as an ultimately shortsighted and BAD thing, while neocons think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread and wish to accelerate it.

The funniest thing of all is that the jobs lost in the US inevitably go to a MORE socialistic, communistic country than the US. It's particularly ironic that the Republicans, who so bitterly hate anything socialized, are the ones blindly leading the charge to socialize the rest of the world.

Nothing funny about it. It's been the U.S. anti-Communist strategy ever since Nixon. Rather than try to isolate the Communist country economically (which we've done with Cuba for 50 years with zero results), we foster open trade with them. Basically seducing them with the "dark side" that is capitalism.

If you look at China, I think you can hardly call it Communist anymore. They have a growing middle class, farmers are allowed to sell some or all of their crops on an open market, and they have several free-economic zones which are completely indistinguishable from the capitalist West. The only thing that's still Communist is the government. Economically, the bulk of their GDP is capitalist. The hope being their new middle class will have the economic clout to back up their political demands for government reform.

You know, it's kinda funny that you claim neocons were shortsighted, when you apparently were unable to see this.


RE: GM FTL
By robert5c on 4/27/2009 2:16:44 AM , Rating: 2
I'll tell you right now...moving to America from a communist state, i can guarantee you that socialism doesn't make everyone rich or even middle class...IT JUST MAKES EVERYONE POOR!. Also in my country anyway, turning socialistic only made the government better off..not the people.

you can't just take from one and pass to one who has not, because eventually the one who has will just not bother getting anymore, and so then both have not

the point of a business is to make profit, having profit allows them to expand and hire more people...without profit you don't get growths. whats the opposite of profit? loss, how long will people have jobs if companies operate forever at a loss? how many more people can a company help in the future if they only break even? you know there are still more births > deaths.

anyway my final point is that companies need to stop bleeding if they want to continue living.


RE: GM FTL
By sinful on 4/25/2009 2:00:01 PM , Rating: 3
Oh, and as much as people complain about American workers with no incentive to work, it shouldn't be much of a surprise given the reward scale in the US.

The lack of any sort of REAL profit sharing in the US pretty much guarentees that workers are only going to do the bare minimum.

Where I work, I had an idea that saved the company $7,500/year.
You know how much I got of that? A one-time bonus of $50. Wow.
Oh, now sure, I can break my back, and maybe if I'm lucky I'll get a 5% raise instead of 3%... but seriously, there's not a lot of motivation to go "above & beyond the call of duty".
(I work in a non-union shop, BTW).

Now, if companies actively engaged in real profit sharing, I think you'd see American workers killing themselves at their jobs. (oh, and for the record, my company has profit sharing.... when the CEO makes 1+ million a year, I get a whopping extra $100 into my 401k for the year).

How hard would those GM workers work if they got a base salary of $30,000/year.... and then the rest of their pay is dependent on how well the company does?

In contrast, if you're going to get paid $50,000/year whether your work your back off or you sit around lazily, is it any surprise when large numbers of people only do the bare minimum?

Capitalism works best when the workers have an actual incentive to work hard; if the CEO's just hoard the money no matter how the company does, is it any surprise when the workers only have a minimum interest in seeing their company succeed?


RE: GM FTL
By Solandri on 4/25/2009 3:31:32 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Where I work, I had an idea that saved the company $7,500/year. You know how much I got of that? A one-time bonus of $50. Wow. Oh, now sure, I can break my back, and maybe if I'm lucky I'll get a 5% raise instead of 3%... but seriously, there's not a lot of motivation to go "above & beyond the call of duty".
...
Capitalism works best when the workers have an actual incentive to work hard; if the CEO's just hoard the money no matter how the company does, is it any surprise when the workers only have a minimum interest in seeing their company succeed?

If you feel your company is treating you unfairly, then quit. Find a different company to work for, or start your own company. CEOs make outlandish salaries because workers (and stockholders) let them get away with it. If enough people raised a ruckus about it, it would stop. There are many good companies out there with conscientious CEOs who don't give themselves exorbitant salaries. If enough people cared enough to make this a criteria for where they chose to work, then you wouldn't see so many CEOs making thousands of times what a regular worker gets.

That's the freedom and power a capitalist system gives you. If you're afraid to wield that power, then the problem lies with you, not with your company. This is in stark contrast to a socialist system where if you're upset about something, there's nothing you can do about it except perhaps vote differently next election.


RE: GM FTL
By MonkeyPaw on 4/24/2009 5:56:45 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Get out and face what the common man is facing you idiots.


This is the funniest comment of all. Is everyone else a billionare but me? I just thought my attitude came from my childhood. When I wanted something, my parents made me work to EARN it. When I wanted a car, I got a job and rode my bicycle to work until I saved enough to buy a car. I didn't misuse credit to get ahead, and I LIVED WITHIN MY MEANS. It's sad if this was never instilled in a person back in their childhood, but you can't blame everyone else for everything forever.


RE: GM FTL
By Boraxo on 4/24/2009 10:46:02 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
How can you possibly be this stupid? Companies do not exist to give people jobs! The jobs are a side effect of company growth.


Why are some people so myopic? That job and those companies are part of a system we call the economy. If we're talking about the "why". the purpose, take the system as a whole.

That perspective makes it obvious: the point of your life is not to make the economy better. The purpose of the economy is to make your life better.

The insane belief that only pro-business policies and tax cuts for the wealthy are the road to prosperity ignores the need for balance, and the law of diminishing returns and bubbles (as when too many investment dollars chase too few truly productive opportunities). Its like saying if two aspirin cure a headache, taking fifty must make your head feel terrific.

Total up the billions it has and will take to save these jobs. Then look at how much help that money could give those same people if you let the company go under - with training for new careers, loans to start small businesses, help with moving costs to areas with more opportunities, etc. For the $25 billion or so we've pumped in so far, plus the $20+ billion we'll put in GM in the future and paying off Chrysler's former workers, we could have spent a hundred grand on each of the GM and Chrysler employees getting them in to new careers. With plenty left over to extend credit to the industry's domestic supply chain.


RE: GM FTL
By Solandri on 4/25/2009 3:22:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That perspective makes it obvious: the point of your life is not to make the economy better. The purpose of the economy is to make your life better.

That's basic capitalist rationale. The vast majority of the time, individuals seeking to make their life better make the economy better. When you take the socialist route of assigning people to make other people's lives better, it tends to not work as well. There are some exceptions, e.g. pollution and the tragedy of the commons, where government regulation is helpful. But in the vast majority of cases, people acting selfish and competing with each other actually works better than trying to get everyone to cooperate with each other.

Mathematically, cooperating works best when you can clearly measure and calculate your options and their results. But when dealing with an intrinsically un-measurable qualities like what should the price of eggs be, or will a new computer increase my productivity enough to offset its cost, a free-market approach just works better by averaging everyone's estimation of these values prices) and allowing individuals to make decisions based on their exact circumstances (purchases).


RE: GM FTL
By RagingDragon on 4/28/2009 12:20:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The insane belief that only pro-business policies and tax cuts for the wealthy are the road to prosperity ignores the need for balance, and the law of diminishing returns and bubbles (as when too many investment dollars chase too few truly productive opportunities). Its like saying if two aspirin cure a headache, taking fifty must make your head feel terrific.


The US doesn't need to reduce taxes for the wealth, it needs to reduce taxes for businesses. That will leave the companies with more money to (potentially) reivest in expansion, reasarch and development, new products, etc. Yes some companies will squander the money, and in the long they'll fail and be replaced by the ones who didn't squander the money.

Currently US business taxes are among the highest in the world (higher than Canada and most, if not all, of Western Europe), with federal taxes at approximately 35% or profits, and state taxes on top of that. Essentially the US Congress has shifted the tax burden from voters onto businesses. This may be a good stategy for winning Congressional elections; however, it also drives business out of the US, and sucks money out of US businesses hampering their ability to compete with foreign businesses.

quote:
Total up the billions it has and will take to save these jobs. Then look at how much help that money could give those same people if you let the company go under - with training for new careers, loans to start small businesses, help with moving costs to areas with more opportunities, etc. For the $25 billion or so we've pumped in so far, plus the $20+ billion we'll put in GM in the future and paying off Chrysler's former workers, we could have spent a hundred grand on each of the GM and Chrysler employees getting them in to new careers. With plenty left over to extend credit to the industry's domestic supply chain.


Please note that capitalists mostly opposed the auto and bank bailouts. Such goverment intervetion in business is socialist not capitalist. I expect most of the capitalists here would also oppose the retraining plan you propose, though such a plan could be seen as a capitalistic investment to develop and exploit a valuable resouce (human talent).


RE: GM FTL
By joemoedee on 4/28/2009 3:00:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Total up the billions it has and will take to save these jobs. Then look at how much help that money could give those same people if you let the company go under - with training for new careers, loans to start small businesses, help with moving costs to areas with more opportunities, etc.


In theory, that works. The problem is it's a transference of power away from a select few, to many. If the GM plan goes through, almost all of the company is controlled by the UAW and the US Government.

How does that improve GM as a brand, or make it viable in the marketplace? Government and Union control != A streamlined, smooth running and profitable operation. In fact, one could even look to those two groups as two of the major catalysts to the downfall of GM to begin with.

If the workers, and those affected, were able learn new trades and schools, start their own business, etc... They would be able to control their own future. American ingenuity has led to so many inventions and advancements, and most of those things were created by free thinkers and risk takers. Not button mashers and broom pushers.

Individual responsibility and liberty? That's not in the current plan, or direction of the nation.

You have to be blind if you can't recognize that more and more of our lives and livelihoods are being controlled by a select few. Mom and Pop shops are closing, small businesses are hurting.

Who is getting the majority of the "bailout" funds?

Large corporations
Lower income people

All of the agenda is designed around these two groups. Why? Control. If people had individual responsibility, they wouldn't have to depend on the Government for handouts, or mega-corps to employ them.

Unfortunately the powers that be see that as a bad thing.


RE: GM FTL
By lewislink on 4/25/09, Rating: -1
RE: GM FTL
By sinful on 4/25/2009 1:32:32 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The only reason people have jobs is because they make more money for the company than it costs to pay them, if that situation changes they get cut just like any other asset the company has that is unnecessarily costing them money.


That would be nice if it were true, but it's been show time & time again that this only happens at the "bottom rung" in companies. Management, rarely if ever, is subject to this scrutiny.

Seriously, consider this.
If the average employee makes $50,000, his bi-weekly paycheck has a "Gross" of around $2,500.

Now realize that the average CEO makes around 262x the amount of the average worker.
So, the CEO's bi-weekly paycheck has a "Gross" amount of $655,000 for two weeks worth of work.

If the CEO gets fired for running the company into the ground, he'll STILL get $20,000,000 and a golden parachute that could last him the rest of his life.

If that Union employee gets fired, you know what he gets? Only what the Union has NEGIOTIATED for him. If the same "bailout package" for doing a bad job applied to the union guy, he'd STILL walk out with a $76,000 "You did a bad job" severage package.

Now, tell me again which one is spoiled?

People seem to ignore the fact that we haven't had such a difference between the average worker & the elite since the FEUDAL AGES in Europe.
Keep in mind how that ended...


RE: GM FTL
By Solandri on 4/25/2009 3:45:52 PM , Rating: 3
I ran an analysis like this back when I was in college. I was really upset about CEOs making multi-million dollar salaries so I took the salaries of CEOs from fortune 500 companies, and divided it by the number of employees the company had. The result was that firing the CEO and disbursing his pay to the employees would only result in an increase in average pay of a couple hundred dollars, and in some cases less than a hundred dollars.

I'm still upset about CEO pay, but economically the issue is a red herring. Except in extreme cases, their pay has little effect on the companies' bottom line, which is probably why their pay has been allowed to grow to such outlandish levels. It's nothing like feudal times as you imply, when the vast majority of each worker's productivity was transferred to the nobility. The vast majority of company revenue is actually re-invested within the company to help the employee work better. For most companies I looked at, an employee making $50k/yr actually cost the company around $100k-$200k/yr in additional expenses to help him do his job. Profit margin in most industries was around 10% or less, substantially smaller than even just payroll expenses.


RE: GM FTL
By yomamafor1 on 4/24/2009 3:45:19 PM , Rating: 3
You know what spoiled brats are? People who works for a company for 30 years, and demands life time pensions, regardless of the financial burden it puts on the company.

You know what spoiled brats are? People who believed they're worth 2x the market wages when they complete 1/2 the actual work.

You know what spoiled brats are? Companies demand billions of billions of taxpayers' dollars because they couldn't run a business properly.

Throw away your bias, thank you.


RE: GM FTL
By axias41 on 4/26/2009 4:46:24 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
You know what spoiled brats are? People who works for a company for 30 years, and demands life time pensions, regardless of the financial burden it puts on the company.


Remember this, when you will be 65 and you will need a pension.


RE: GM FTL
By Schrag4 on 4/24/2009 12:17:44 PM , Rating: 5
Ok, I know it's forbidden to feed the trolls, but...

Actually, I didn't see anything in cparka's post that was partisan in any way. They obviously need(ed) to cut costs, and most people agree that they pay too much for labor.

I find it odd that the workers would rather be out of a job than take a pay cut (with Fiat). If they didn't like the terms, they could always find another job. Instead, they'd rather sink the company, leaving no jobs for anyone. Nice...


RE: GM FTL
By OrSin on 4/24/2009 12:49:32 PM , Rating: 5
You said it perfectly. That response was not Republician in any way. It was just common sense. I'm a democrat and I agree with him totally.

The UWA workers are being mislead like they almost all union workers now. Unions was great back in the day, but now they are completely corrupt. They have got away with blackmailing companies for so long that they dont even realize how bad they are any more. I worked for several unions in the pass and the crap they do to companies is insane. I once got a retroactive pay increase for 2 years, when I only worked for the company for 1 year. I was happy for it believe me, but even i knew this crap was bad. And I got pages of crazy crap workers got away with becasue unions was protecting them.


RE: GM FTL
By jcbond on 4/24/2009 4:36:29 PM , Rating: 2
The UWA workers are being mislead like they almost all union workers now. Unions was great back in the day, but now they are completely corrupt. They have got away with blackmailing companies for so long that they dont even realize how bad they are any more.

I agree with this. The car companies have been caving into the unions and getting their pasty white rumps kicked for so long, that what else do you think the unions will do? They've always won, regardless of what the company's said about its competitive position. And they've managed to stay in business.
If you're union, why not business as usual?


RE: GM FTL
By austinag on 4/24/2009 1:08:30 PM , Rating: 1
Agreed. I don't blame the UAW on the current problems in Detroit (it's taken the cooperation of the government, management, and the workers to bring them to there current doom) But this is a good example of the UAW passing on an opportunity to contribute to the solution.


RE: GM FTL
By lewislink on 4/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: GM FTL
By callmeroy on 4/24/2009 2:00:05 PM , Rating: 4
Not to disagree with your sentiment , but just one technicality issue -- Bush wasn't really sent packin' by Obama --- he served 2 terms, if anything really the constitution sent him packing because of the amendment enforcing term limits on the presidency.

Now that I said that let me be clear --- pretending Bush could have ran for a 3rd term -- No I don't think he would have won anyway.


RE: GM FTL
By superflex on 4/24/2009 2:30:02 PM , Rating: 5
ACORN ALERT


RE: GM FTL
By lewislink on 4/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: GM FTL
By MrBungle123 on 4/24/2009 2:07:38 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The tyranny has ended and that jerk Bush was sent packin'. I sincerely hope my president Obama will put him and the rest of his posse on trial for crimes against humanity.


I sincerely hope for your sake, mine, and the rest of the American population we do not open that can of worms.

quote:
He is the reason why the nation is going bankrupt. He ruined this nation for no other reason than his moronic ego.


Not that im going to try and defend Bush's liberal fiscal policies but its leftist social welfare programs are the reason we are going bankrupt, not the wars in Iraq and Afganistan.


RE: GM FTL
By Gio6518 on 4/24/2009 2:46:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not that im going to try and defend Bush's liberal fiscal policies but its leftist social welfare programs are the reason we are going bankrupt,


well thats a big part, not to defend welfare etc. etc. etc. nothing pisses me off more than paying someone to do nothing. but they way these corporations keep cutting workers salaries, more and more people will be applying for such programs to supplement their incomes to support their families


RE: GM FTL
By Boraxo on 4/24/2009 11:02:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
its leftist social welfare programs are the reason we are going bankrupt, not the wars in Iraq and Afganistan.


We're going bankrupt because of welfare? Do you know what percentage of the federal budget goes to welfare programs? And compare it to corporate welfare programs like farm subsidies.

No, we're going bankrupt because people who think government is the problem, not the solution, pushed to deregulate the financial industry, and took a generally very lax view on regulatory oversight. Glass Steagall was repealed (with Congressional Democrats jumping aboard, to get at all that juicy campaign money available from Wall Street).

Derivatives (which turned out to be financial weapons of mass destruction) proliferated in a dizzying array, with swaps and debt tranches and the silly idea that you could price risk by taking whatever price people paid to cover the risk as accurate.

That's why we're bankrupt. Weak regulation of finance during eight years of a Republican White House, and a lot of short-sightedness by Wall Street. Blaming the (literally) poor family that can't make it without food stamps and a small monthly check is ridiculous beyond belief.

It's not the single mother on welfare that trashed the economy, it was the management of firms like Bear Sterns, Lehman, Countrywide. How is that not obvious?!?


RE: GM FTL
By zombiexl on 4/25/2009 9:46:48 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
No, we're going bankrupt because people who think government is the problem, not the solution, pushed to deregulate the financial industry, and took a generally very lax view on regulatory oversight.


First of all Liberty is the solution to the human condition, not government.

We are all promised life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There was never a guarantee of happiness, just the right to pursue it.

Next the deregulation you talk about was actually regulation that made lending to people who couldn’t pay their loan payments not only easy, but in many cases illegal not to do.

As long as people run companies are getting paid based on profits there will be corruption. As long as we have lobbyist congress will be corrupt.

It may not be a single mother on welfare that’s causing the problems, but it doesn’t help. What about the single mother with kids to 3 or 4 different fathers who can’t/won't support them? That’s not good enough? How about that same mother with all of her kids diagnosed with ADHD getting an SSI check for each of those kids, while each of the 3 or 4 fathers are getting SSI becuase they were diagnosed with a "mental disability"? Is that a problem?

I believe the OP wasn’t referring to welfare program, but the general welfare programs (collective). Paying farmers to not grow, ethanol subsidies, welfare, SSI, food stamps, bank bailouts, extended unemployment, govt. healthcare (Medicaid, Medicare for example), etc, etc, etc.

All of those programs for those who believe they are "entitled" to get something for free add up.


RE: GM FTL
By MrBungle123 on 4/25/2009 12:29:21 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I believe the OP wasn’t referring to welfare program, but the general welfare programs (collective). Paying farmers to not grow, ethanol subsidies, welfare, SSI, food stamps, bank bailouts, extended unemployment, govt. healthcare (Medicaid, Medicare for example), etc, etc, etc.

All of those programs for those who believe they are "entitled" to get something for free add up.


you read me right. Add social security to that list too. Social Securtity, Medicare, and Medicaid now make up 44% of the federal budget and they are growing each year. Under their current form we will eventually have a tax rate of around 80% just to pay for what has been promised to our aging population. All these systems are unsustainable.


RE: GM FTL
By sinful on 4/25/2009 2:09:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Social Securtity, Medicare, and Medicaid now make up 44% of the federal budget and they are growing each year.


That's pretty amazing considering 68% of our budget is military based and 32% is non-military based.
http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/5927/wallstatsd...


RE: GM FTL
By JPForums on 4/27/2009 9:10:58 AM , Rating: 2
I commend you for at least trying to back up your word, but I feel I must point out a few things.

First, the link you posted is "The United States of America 2009 Federal Discretionary Budget."

The link you posted also states very clearly in the center:
"The center circle is the discretionary budget; spending that must be approved by congress every year. It is paid for largely with your federal income taxes and includes all departments within the federal government. Unlike Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which are paid for by separate taxes , the discretionary budget is a uniquely revealing look at our national priorities. It fluctuates yearly according to the wishes of our president, the power of the congress, and the will of the people."

Also, the numbers you quote are stated as Military vs Non-Military National Security Expenditures .

In other words, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are not included in the main portion of the poster. Further, the percentages aren't even percentages of the Discretionary budget, but rather percentages of National Security expenditures.

I would, however, like to point out that your link does include the overall expenditure in the bottom right corner. I don't know the credibility of the source (or lack thereof), but I'm assuming you believe the source credible since you linked it.

Here are some key points for the above disagreement:
Medicaid: $215 Billion
Medicare: $409 Billion
Social Security: $644 Billion
Total Outlays (expenditure): $3.226 Trillion

These three programs total to 39.306% of the total government outlays in 2008. I'm sorry, but your own source disproves you. However, it also suggests that you were right to question the 44% figure as it was a little exaggerated. I would like to thank you for posting a source rather than simply making the claim (unlike many posters).

For those who are keeping track of the war, the link states that the War on Terror cost $189 Billion or about 5.8586% of the total 2008 expenditures.
Total Military National Security expenditures (includes War on Terror) was $799 Billion or 24.768% and Non-Military National Security expenditures was $358 Billion or 11.097% of the total 2008 expenditures.
The national debt interest for 2008 totaled to $206 Billion or about 6.3856% of the total 2008 expenditures.

I wonder how much of the National security expenditure is going towards civilian monitoring and similar initiatives to rob us of our privacy and autonomy. I also wonder why with such a large discrepancy between outlays and receipts, the legislative branch saw fit to increase salary expenditures by double digit percentages in each branch.
I guess the larger the national expenditures get, the less noticeable extra expenditures (necessary or not) will become.


RE: GM FTL
By atlmann10 on 4/24/2009 3:25:48 PM , Rating: 2
I find all this bickering over republican and democratic parties quite hilarious. I think the auto industry has for many years been quite counter productive, either way it was done to them by them. I truly think the Government should let them rot or fix themselves, that is the way business works. Anyway all this debate over republicans and democrats cracks me up. The political parties in America are as or more corrupt than the unions are and I would say more because the unions are usually in one way or another affiliated with a political party. Let me let you know something, a politician is a person who cajoles you into accepting something you would not otherwise accept.

Dictionary dot com definition is as follows

1. a person who is active in party politics.

2. a seeker or holder of public office, who is more concerned about winning favor or retaining power than about maintaining principles.

3. a person who holds a political office.

4. a person skilled in political government or
administration; statesman or stateswoman.

5. an expert in politics or political government.

6. a person who seeks to gain power or advancement within an organization in ways that are generally disapproved.

this is who they are, they want to take your pension, and buy a whore while telling you they are on a party that's working for a party to enable you to do nothing and get payed for it, or benefit an organization or otherwise group of similar individuals you can relate to.

These people are in general flying carpet salesman and we let them run our country. All of them or at least the greater part of them are corrupt in one way or another.


RE: GM FTL
By atlmann10 on 4/24/2009 3:28:03 PM , Rating: 2
Oh; and as a general point, America was started to get away or otherwise remove power from these type of individuals and return it to the people. This we have inescapably failed, at least at this point in time.


RE: GM FTL
By ClownPuncher on 4/24/2009 1:05:45 PM , Rating: 2
Republican or not, continuing to operate as they have been, GM will dissolve. Cut costs or fail.


RE: GM FTL
By matt0401 on 4/24/2009 2:02:13 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not American but if I were I would still not be a Republican. It's people like you that make Democrats look bad.

The guy you replied to raised a very good points. It's one of the smartest posts I've read in this thread. I can't say the same for yours.


RE: GM FTL
By LRonaldHubbs on 4/25/2009 3:36:00 PM , Rating: 1
You are clearly an idiot.


RE: GM FTL
By philmax on 4/24/2009 1:58:31 PM , Rating: 2
true, however when over time the different brands become not variations of the same chassis but basically the same model rebadged it costs more to engineer all of those cars rather than just admitting that they diluted all the individuality out of the different brands and just making one vehicle.


RE: GM FTL
By RagingDragon on 4/28/2009 1:04:30 AM , Rating: 2
Back in the mid fifties the GM lineup looked like this:

Budget (cheap as possible): Chevrolet
Budget (affordable comfort): Pontiac
Performance: Oldsmobile
Luxury: Buick
Performance + Luxury: Cadillac

By the late 50's Chevrolet and Pontiac were selling high performance engines which rivaled Oldmobile, and luxury trim levels which rivaled Buick. What went wrong? Chevrolet and Pontiac started competing with Oldsmobile and Buick, rather working together for the good of the GM as a whole. In doing so they blurred the lines between the divisions.

And in the end we had every GM brand making a variant of every single corporate platform. Instead they should have produced at most three variants of each platform and had only a handful of models, say 3 to 5 for each division. Possible exceptions would have been Chevrolet with low end variants of most platforms, and Cadillic with up to 10 models. But inbetween it's necessary to either maintain small focused brands, or consolidate them into a single mid range brand.

The discipline broke down. Oldsmobile and Pontiac are now gone, leaving Buick as the sole mid range brand.


RE: GM FTL
By Targon on 4/24/2009 7:26:14 PM , Rating: 3
They could save money on the differences between cars by only selling the one version though. It is one thing to make it so DIFFERENT cars might share certain similarities, but to make the same car with minor differences and then sell that same car under multiple product names is the problem.

So, same engine, different body designs, and you can save your money that way. Or brake systems, or other components, that would be the way to do it. It takes a lot more advertising money to sell the same product with only a different paint job under multiple product names, or just change the front grill, and suddenly call it a different product. That is what was wrong with GM and their seven different brands.

GM could just as easily sell any successful products EXACTLY the same just under a common brand name, and even keep certain aspects the same. Nothing says that the Firebird name could not be sold with a different brand on it. Call it the Chevy Firebird instead of Pontiac now, and it STILL saves money in some ways.


RE: GM FTL
By Samus on 4/25/2009 4:42:00 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The reason why they make variations of the same basic car is to keep costs down. By sharing the same chassis, they can produce that part in bulk and lower the cost to make each one.


We get what your saying, like a Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable/Lincoln Continental or a Fusion/Milan or a Ford Expedition/Lincoln Navigator.

But these cars are significantly different than say, a Chevy Cobalt/Pontiac G4-G5/Saturn Ion or a Malibu/G6/Aura or Chevy Traverse/Buick Enclave/Saturn Outlook/GMC Acadia.

Ford Tiers their platforms into three categories: Standard, Premium, Luxury. Ford, Mercury and Lincoln. They share a platform but thats about it. The interiors exteriors are completely different and incompatible. Often, they don't even share the same engine and drivetrain. They are assembled in different ways by different levels of skilled workers in different plants in different parts of the world (most entry level Ford vehicles are assembled in Mexico, all Lincolns and most Mercury vehicles are assembled in the United States or Canada)

Note that all the GM vehicles I labeled above, none could be considered Premium or Luxury. There are no Cadillac's in my cross-reference. Only cars that are mostly identical with the exception of different exterior lighting and a different dashboard. It's completely unneccessary.

Chrysler is even more confusing, because they don't have a premium brand to market with. Dodge/Chrysler/Plymouth/Jeep and not long ago Eagle (reserved mostly for Mitsubishi platforms with the strange exception of the Vision.) Again, no premium brands, no need to have a bunch of platforms shared between labels. The remarkable thing about Chrysler is that they recently made 6 vehicles (4 under the Chrysler name alone!) on the same platform and sold them all as different, full-sized cars: New Yorker/Concorde/LHS/300M/ and the Dodge Intrepid and the Eagle Vision. Wow. These vehicles were all sold within $10,000 of eachother and offered the same powerplants and drivetrains. Again, no point, no premium label, just a confusing lineup.

Again, I agree cross-platforming is good and keeps costs down. Ford brought the Focus platform over to America from its European arm, but they didn't change the name or market it as something 'different.' Infact, they marketed it for what it was, a European platform for Americans that want something Euro. The platform was later shared with Volvo for the C30, a luxury version of a Focus. Later, they built a crossover SUV called the Kuga on the Focus platform, which is taller and all-wheel-drive. You wouldn't guess its a Focus at all. That's SMART platform sharing.

To close, I want to mention the most successful platform of all time. The Fox platform. Ford made everything from family cars to muscle cars to luxury cars to police cars on this platform. The Mustang used this platform excluseively from 1979-2004 with virtually no modification until 1995. The Thunderbird used this platform but had independant suspension. The Lincoln Mark VII used this platform but took the Thunderbird rear subframe and differential in aluminum form, adding airride suspension and a V8. The Mercury Marquis took this platform and delivered it to the masses as a large family car, and the Continental made a luxury vehicle out of the Marquis with better suspension and a Lincoln badge for under $20,000 (ala Cadillac Catera) but wait, you could get the Continental with a BMW Turbodiesel!

There's right ways to share a platform, and there are wrong ways.

Ford does it right. So does Volkswagon, taking a different approach sharing Audi and Bugatti technology and filtering it down to the entry-level VW nameplate.

GM owns so many companies and just recently started bringing over Voxhaul platforms. They never brought over or shared a platform with Saab, but at least Subaru shared a platform with Saab. The problem was it was remarkably idential to the Imprezza, sharing identical engine, transmission, frame, sheet metal, interior, suspension, brakes, and electronics. The only thing that was different were the lights and the name on the car. It was insulting to Saab loyalists. Insulting.


RE: GM FTL
By RagingDragon on 4/28/2009 1:11:04 AM , Rating: 2
The Saab 93 and Pontiac G6 shared the same platform, with completely different bodywork and engines.


RE: GM FTL
By Onimuto on 4/26/2009 3:12:13 PM , Rating: 1
i am all for killing of brands that make regurgitated crap ,
Now most Autos starts off as Chevy's then they make the re badges from information i gathered. New tahoe being made then re badge GMC yukon , Re badged and overpriced Escalade.And of crouse same happens with the suburban,yukonxl,caddy escalade esv All the same autos. Hell they had 6 version of GMT360 production line trailblazers selling on the chevy trailblazer , Buick Rainier,GMC Envoy,Oldsmobile Bravada,Saab 9-7X,Isuzu Ascender <same shit like the patenered with toyata and sold chevy prizm>. Thankfully the LS2 v8 <SS> version was only under chevy name>
to me Chevy , buick , Caddy should be the only ones left. Why keep GMC when they are all regurgitated chevys.Then to hell with the UAW if they had to work half the jobs i worked they fall down crying OMG i am now used of really working for money and sweating.


RE: GM FTL
By choadenstein on 4/24/2009 1:43:10 PM , Rating: 3
No offense, but European car companies do it as well. Audi/Porsche/VW for instance.

Audi, Porsche and VW have cars/SUVs that are assembled on the same frame just badged differently with different trim levels. An example is the VW Traurig, Audi Q7, and Porsche Cayenne. All share the same frame, just with slightly different styling and vastly different trim levels and engine flavors.

Same goes with Ford/Lincoln/Mercury, and GM/Chevy/Cadillac/etc. Many cars on the same frames with different name badges and trim levels.


RE: GM FTL
By TheFace on 4/24/2009 2:18:25 PM , Rating: 2
Ford is not in as bad of a position as GM, but GM has a bit more than just Chevy/Cadillac/GM. The same platforms are shared by Chevy, Buick, Pontiac, Cadillac, & Saturn. They are so interwoven that aside from the badges you wouldn't be able to tell which was which. All they need is Chevy, Cadillac, and maybe Buick since they're huge in China (and people 65yrs+). GMC, Pontiac, Saab, Hummer, Saturn, all should go as they're just extensions of the same fluff.

Chrysler on the other hand, they've been Consumer Reports worst car manufacturer 2 years running, and had a whopping 0% of their cars recommended by the magazine. They're in a world of hurt.


RE: GM FTL
By rozzyroz on 4/24/2009 3:21:28 PM , Rating: 2
to add to your point, the mustang is made in a mazda plant. its just how things are done because of the scale/costs of producing a slightly different vehicle on a completely different manufacturing proccess.


RE: GM FTL
By Chadder007 on 4/24/2009 3:35:29 PM , Rating: 2
Part of the Multiple brand strategy is to have multiple dealerships close to one another that basically sell the same car, but are different in name and features enough to justify having the dealerships close together and for GM to have more market share. The way it is currently they have a Chevy dealership and then a Pontiac Dealership 5 miles or less apart. They couldn't do that if both were "Chevy" dealerships.


RE: GM FTL
By Oregonian2 on 4/26/2009 2:54:07 AM , Rating: 2
Having a lot of brands that compete with itself also is a "standard" way of doing things in other businesses, with much the same side effects you mention.

In the case of laundry soap it was once pointed out that a LOT of the brands were all a single company selling basically the same soap but variations (a lot of which were purely cosmetic physical form differences of the soap material). I think one example was P&G. Idea was to have the customers choose among many without caring WHICH of the company's brands were picked so long as theirs was picked. Also got a lot more shelf-space that's so valuable in a grocery store (parallel with all the dealerships). If you've got one product and the other company has ten, and each one competes and divides sales equally among the eleven... which is getting all the business? Or so it's supposed to go (people are not supposed to notice the same-o same-o from the different products of the same company because that makes the scheme break down and become a negative).


RE: GM FTL
By Parhel on 4/24/2009 11:55:28 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
diluting their own market share


I don't understand that argument. A sale is a sale, whether the badge on the car said Pontiac or Chevrolet. They have niche brands to cater to people who don't identify with the main brands. I guarantee you GM isn't going to sell more Cadillacs by changing the name on them all to Chevrolet.

On a side note, I don't think market share matters here. Business live or die based on net profit, not market share. If the total number of cars being sold drops by 40%, companies can go out business without their market share having changed at all. Market share simply isn't a determining factor of a company's overall health.


RE: GM FTL
By Gio6518 on 4/24/2009 3:02:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't understand that argument. A sale is a sale, whether the badge on the car said Pontiac or Chevrolet. They have niche brands to cater to people who don't identify with the main brands. I guarantee you GM isn't going to sell more Cadillacs by changing the name on them all to Chevrolet.


overproduction, you have a G8, cadillac CTS, chevy malibu all the same car just competing with themselves.


RE: GM FTL
By Parhel on 4/24/2009 3:58:46 PM , Rating: 2
I think GM may have been spreading themselves too thin. Rather than making 10 sedans, perhaps they should be making 3 and focus on greater differentiation and on making them more competitive with other manufacturers.

And it seems that some of GM's brands may have lost their relevance. Probably Pontiac, Saturn and Buick all need to go the way of the Oldsmobile.

But, to say that this is an issue of GM losing sales or losing market share by competing with themselves doesn't even begin to make sense.


RE: GM FTL
By Motley on 4/24/2009 5:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
GM isnt' losing sales/marketshare so much as they are spending too much creating many "me-too" brands. For example, the chevy camero and the pontiac firebird are almost the same car with different badging. When I went to go buy my first car, the choice was between those two cars. If one didn't exist, GM would have still gotten my sale without the added cost of separate interior parts, branding costs, marketing costs, etc. Sales don't go up by cutting brands, but expenses go down, which in turn means a higher net profit.

There is a point where adding a new brand may bring in more sales because the buyer didn't like the car from the other brand, but it has to cover the expense of doing so. GM's product line is so diverse that in many cases the extra brands are generating enough extra revenue to cover the cost of having them around.

In my case, I prefer pontiacs because I find the exterior style to be more sporty, and I prefer the "orange" gauges, and the extra detail to the interior. I was dismayed at the behind the times toys I could get in them though, like, I couldn't get the HUD in the camero, but I could in the corvette. I couldn't get a climate control thermostat in the camero, but I could in a caddy (even though it would be absolutely trivial). Bluetooth? Years late. iPod control or aux line in to the stereo? A decade late.

Even though I have always bought pontiacs, I'll be just as happy getting the chevy version of the car, but I hope they can spend some extra money on keeping the accessories a bit more up to date and a bit more customizable. I love the new camero, but I'd love it more with orange gauges. No more popup head lights or hydrolic trunks though, thx.


RE: GM FTL
By Atheist Icon on 4/25/2009 1:35:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
you have a G8, cadillac CTS, chevy malibu all the same car


Link please.

To my understanding Holden used the same underpinnings as the GTO for the G8, almost. I was under the impression that alot of the underpinnings where based off of the corvette. If the CTS is based off the same platform that means that my SRX is based off of an 08 Malibu?


RE: GM FTL
By Pneumothorax on 4/26/2009 9:22:44 AM , Rating: 2
Nope CTS/SRX are a COMPLETELY different platform than the Malibu/Aura/G6. The Malibu set of cars are FWD. I like CTS, but can't get past the styling.


RE: GM FTL
By KamiXkaze on 5/1/2009 11:13:59 PM , Rating: 2
Yes that would help them a bit.

kXk


RE: GM FTL
By TomZ on 4/24/2009 10:36:34 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed, the liberals in Washington won't stop until we are all driving tiny little econobox cars. Let's raise those CAFE standards a bit more. Let's give the Big Three ultimatums when the ask for help. Let's focus everybody on far-future alternative car technology that may never even come to fruition. Real smart.


RE: GM FTL
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: GM FTL
By MrBungle123 on 4/24/2009 10:49:00 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
think you're politicizing this too much. Bush and the neocons called for the same thing, you recall -- in fact he was the FIRST president in a couple decades to propose fuel standard increases. Its just the trendy thing to do these days. McCain called for the same sort of things too. Remember politicians just blindly follow public sentiment.


Which is a perfect example of why you should stop calling Bush and the rest of his chronies "neo-cons" He was not conservative...

In fact just about everything he did that people get mad at him for was not something an ideological conservative would have wanted him to do. Bush was a closet statist with an "R" next to his name and so is Mc Cain.


RE: GM FTL
By icrf on 4/24/2009 11:59:37 AM , Rating: 4
"neo-con" == "closet statist"


RE: GM FTL
By rmlarsen on 4/24/2009 1:38:51 PM , Rating: 2
"neo-con" == "closet fascist"

There, fixed that typo for ya' ;-)

[ducks for cover]


RE: GM FTL
By MrBungle123 on 4/24/2009 1:46:37 PM , Rating: 2
fascist == statist who has achieved all his goals


RE: GM FTL
By matt0401 on 4/24/2009 2:10:29 PM , Rating: 4
MrBungle123 == correct


RE: GM FTL
By metasin on 4/24/2009 4:33:49 PM , Rating: 2
Perfect


RE: GM FTL
By omnicronx on 4/24/2009 12:45:37 PM , Rating: 1
Bush will be remembered because of Iraq , so it is pretty hard to argue that he is not a "neo-con". Of course 9/11 changed Bush and his administration whom in the beginning could not be considered neo-cons, but that is how they will surely go down in history.


RE: GM FTL
By MrBungle123 on 4/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: GM FTL
By MadMan007 on 4/24/2009 4:53:03 PM , Rating: 2
neo-conservatie denotes a seaparation from more classical 'paleo-' conservative ideas.


RE: GM FTL
By MrBungle123 on 4/24/2009 5:23:20 PM , Rating: 3
I can admit when I’m wrong. Every time I had heard the term "neocon" used in the media it was a derogatory term for anyone on the "right" side of the political fence. In that context I consider myself to be correct in characterizing bush as a quasi-conservative closet statist. However, according to Wikipedia a "neocon" is someone who was conservative on social issues but had leftist tendencies on virtually everything else. By that definition Bush is the epitome of a neocon.

I suppose it's one of those labels that gets thrown around a lot that I never really put much thought into, kind of like "liberal" which has no business being used to describe "modern liberals" who are really leftists/statists which are politically polar opposites with true liberals.


RE: GM FTL
By ChugokuOtaku on 4/24/2009 12:17:13 PM , Rating: 3
don't quite agree with the battery tech investment.

while I'm against the corn based ethanol cutting into the food supply, these guys are somewhat in the right direction.

Clinton should never have shut down the algae based biofuel research program launched during the Carter administration. The best way would be to keep the current cars and infrastructure, and dump our money into this algae fuel development, which will allow us to rid our dependency on foreign fossil fuels completely.

Auto makers should still try to develop better and more efficient engines, but this hybrid crap is just weak sauce.
I'll take 5-speed over a slushbox/CVT anyday


RE: GM FTL
By JediJeb on 4/24/2009 2:18:04 PM , Rating: 2
What most people don't know is that the bulk of the corn produced in the US is not used for food, at least not directly. Very little goes into food you eat, most is either used to produce alcohol or fed to animals or turned into corn syrup or corn starch. You can take corn, make ethanol from it, then use it to feed animals( it is done here in Kentucky all the time, buying the used corn mash to feed dairy and beef cattle, hogs and chickens). Using it for fuel ethanol doesn't cut into the food supply, but the middle men in the market want you to think it does so they can charge more for it since it is then saw as being in shorter supply.
The farmer usually gets little more for his crop than normal, and the consumer sees much higher prices on everything they buy. The money stays in the middle with people who never touch the commodity, only trade it on paper and make a fortune.


RE: GM FTL
By TomZ on 4/24/2009 2:59:37 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the fact of the matter is that corn prices have gone up substantially as a result of its cross-usage in producing ethanol. Whether that is truly justified or not is irrelevant, the effect and impact is the same, which is that people in wealthy countries are now paying more for their food, and people in poor countries face more famine. All because of our misguided choice to use corn to produce ethanol.

But I'm sure when goverment leaders try to dictate our next "alternative energy," they'll get it right for sure this time! Solar, wind, tidal...oh wait!


RE: GM FTL
By Gio6518 on 4/24/2009 3:10:29 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Well, the fact of the matter is that corn prices have gone up substantially as a result of its cross-usage in producing ethanol.


cut cost on corn ! the problem is simple the government pays farmers hundreds of thousands of dollars to not farm, take it away from them force them to farm and create an abundance of alternate fuel. the problems are simple to fix in this country, they just wont do it wheather its for profit, or just bad law-making.


RE: GM FTL
By TSS on 4/25/2009 1:51:16 PM , Rating: 2
supply and demand kid. you cannot just cut the cost on corn. it's like saying "take this video off the internet". isn't going to happen.

i'm willing to bet most food used for fuel in america is imported from other countries.

if not america is more stupid then i'd even imagined.

you do *not* use your own food for fuel. you cannot live without food but you can without fuel. it'll just take you longer to do stuff.

so you use the other guy's food. i hear south america has seen an increase in food crops just for this purpose. it pays more to burn it in cars then to feed people's mouths, so why not?

alternative fuels does not equal better fuels. if you use food for fuel, i guarrantee you, you will not make this world a better place.

you're not going to care about the enviroment when you're starving.


RE: GM FTL
By TomZ on 4/24/2009 2:15:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Remember politicians just blindly follow public sentiment.
Yes, they call that "the blind leading the blind."

When public policy leads technology and attempts to tell the market what it wants, the end result is almost certainly going to be wrong.

I'm not saying developments like electric vehicles are necessarily "wrong," but I'd say that meeting customer expectations based on existing and near-future technology on a large scale is a long shot. I think it is very likely that, in 10 or 20 years, people will recognize the current push as something that just created some niche products.


RE: GM FTL
By Screwballl on 4/25/2009 10:33:31 AM , Rating: 1
To start, I am a registered independent and despise both parties in the US government.

quote:
he was the FIRST president in a couple decades to propose fuel standard increases.


Say what? Clinton had screwed our fuel economy in the 90s by forcing increased emission controls on our vehicles, which took effect in 2004, but he had also proposed increased standards which the automakers fought against and the liberal Congress bowed down to. The more emission control equipment on our vehicles means lower fuel economy. So is it better to be the president that killed our fuel economy or the one trying to raise it?

Also be aware that Bush's standards did not pass because the liberal Congress in his last 2 years were:
1) so busy screwing our economy to give a decent look at the CAFE standards, and
2) so many of these liberal congress people were in the back pockets of big oil to make sure it either gets buried or does not pass (which also explains why the new passed standards were LOWER than Bush's).

It was only after he left office that the exact same bills started, proposed and supported by Bush were actually passed under Obama. Much to the "praise" of the liberal Congress and media, Obama "is our savior and will reduce fuel consumption with HIS bill".

Such bullshit.

One option people are not looking at: nuclear.
A tiny amount of radioactive material, about the size of an aspirin, would have enough power to run an electric car for 10-30 years without refueling and hardly any maintenance. Bury it into a chamber the size of a car engine so in the possibility of an accident, only a massive explosion with TNT would be enough to dislodge the nuclear material (or an accident at 200+ mph).
How about a magnet based engine with no fuel of any sort?

We are looking at these standards and "future technologies" all wrong. We need to find methods to wean ourselves off gasoline and anything that "burns", not hide it behind batteries or hydrogen or ethanol.


RE: GM FTL
By bhieb on 4/24/2009 11:21:14 AM , Rating: 5
Ugg. Off track again. CAFE standards are not the problem the unions are.
quote:
The government has reached a deal with the U.A.W., whose members’ pensions and retiree health care benefits would be protected under the bankruptcy filing, as well.

Sums up exactly what the problem is. Even in these times the unions continue to drag them down giving very little back to GM. Why should they make concessions, when the administration will protect them. No we'll let the creditors take the brunt of the hit, and wonder 6 months from now why they are still not making loans, and the credit crisis is still going full bore.


RE: GM FTL
By Mathos on 4/24/2009 12:46:05 PM , Rating: 2
While yes I agree that the union bs is part of the problem. What you don't understand is that most of these retiree's that they are protecting the pensions of paid into those pension plans for 30+ years. Those pensions weren't just things that were negotiated by the UAW, and only cost the auto makers money. Those plans were paid into by the workers themselves. GM/Chrysler/Ford may have contributed a small % to said plans to supplement them. Which is much the same way the retirement/401k plans at wal-mart work.

It also seems that people have absolutely no clue, exactly how much money was lost out of the 401k plans of these retiree's due to the bad investments of the banks they were entrusted to. I know a few that lost almost 2/3 of their 401k plans money due to this. How would you feel about that after putting in 30+ years of worth of money or savings into said plans? These retiree's have already lost hundreds of millions of dollars to this crap, that they paid in out of their own money.

I'd like to see some of these people that say the pension are part of the problem, go tell their grandparent, parent, or other relative that put in 30-35+ years at one of the big three that they feel they don't deserve the pension they paid into for so many years. See how quickly you get disowned. And before you say, but oh you can get social security, lets see how well you support yourself and survive on your own on a mere 300-600 per month. Add into that having to get medicare or what not to pay for medical bills and medication that tends to be more needed at older age.


RE: GM FTL
By bhieb on 4/24/2009 1:43:56 PM , Rating: 5
Sure they put their own money in, we all do. Difference is that taxpayer dollars aren't propping up my 401K when it tanked (also about 2/3 loss). My grandparent's 401K's looks like crap too, the main difference is that they actually paid into their plans with a fair wage, not the kind of take home the UAW workers see. So no it is not the same, they have been enjoying above standard wage and are surprised that there is some risk involved in all that reward?

We all choose to work for company X based on a bunch of factors. One of them should be long term stability. There is no doubt that the UAW has had a hand in the downfall of the big 3 with their greed. Thus it has a responsibility for the instability. Instead of stepping up and trying to help save the company (and it's employees which supposedly it cares so much about), it continues to drag them under.

No the government should not protect their pensions. My 401K is not protected by tax dollars why should theirs be, just because they have a good lobby? They chose poorly when it came to picking a good company, though break. But you cannot expect to reap all the win falls with 0 risk. It has just taken decades for the risks to come to fruition.


RE: GM FTL
By Pneumothorax on 4/24/2009 2:59:06 PM , Rating: 2
These union workers are still getting preferential treatment as many others have put 30+ years of a significant part of their wages into stupid 401K's that as you said lost up to 2/3rds of their value. These guys AREN'T getting a break or "bailout!" Are union workers a special breed that they are able to collect 100% from us the taxpayers to fund their pensions, while the rest of the 65 y/o non-union workers (who therefore don't pay millions into politician's election funds) see over 50% of their saving evaporate?


RE: GM FTL
By mac2j on 4/25/2009 3:48:12 PM , Rating: 2
The unions ARE the problem and some of them are only realizing too late that they're the reason all of the big 3 will be forced into Chapter 11 because without shedding their union obligations they will never be competitive.

Hyundai runs several plants in the south. They are heavily robotic but their employees start at$22/hour (in Alabama thats not bad) and receive health and retirement benefits. Their plants can assemble a car - start to finish - in 18 hours. They are also modular and can be reconfigured to produce a different model in 1-2 days.

At a GM plant in Michigan that same process requires 3 times the number of people - making 30$+ starting - and takes 2-3 days start to finish. Reconfiguring a plant can take weeks.

Until the American companies can effectively modernize their production and designs and match the labor costs AT LEAST of the foreign companies manufacturing their cars in the US .... there is just no way to be competitive.


RE: GM FTL
By HaB1971 on 4/24/2009 11:19:22 AM , Rating: 2
I hope the G8 moves over to the remaining brand names as it is really a bargain for a psuedo muscle car sedan. Sure it is based on the Holden Commodore and the Australians have lamented the butchering done to the front end of the car to fit in with the Pontiac design philosophy but, it has all the right elements and build quality that should have made it a sales success.

But I'm sure people have been scared away from buying by brand preconceptions and misinformation.

I'd happily take a G8 GXP off of GM's hands, convincing my my girlfriend is a different matter though


RE: GM FTL
By Emma on 4/24/2009 8:44:24 PM , Rating: 2
Since the Pontiac G8 is designed and built in Australia, it sounds like they are trying to just keep the US produced cars sold in the US (meanwhile, GM's Australian subsidiary actually makes a profit!)


Hmm, no indefinite bailout for Chrylser?
By Doormat on 4/24/2009 10:52:10 AM , Rating: 1
Some of the posters here were insistent that Obama would support the unions and provide support until the companies caved to union demands. Doesn't look like thats the case, at least not for Chrysler. Pension plans, wages, etc will all be slashed and burned in bankruptcy, just like it was for the airline industry after 2001.




RE: Hmm, no indefinite bailout for Chrylser?
By MrBungle123 on 4/24/2009 11:02:30 AM , Rating: 5
Read the story, we were right.

Not sure where the post is but I said the government would have a hand in this to protect their union constituency:

quote:
Chrysler, according to a report by The New York Times, is preparing a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing under government supervision


And again the tax payers get screwed so the Dems can get more votes next election:

quote:
The government has reached a deal with the U.A.W., whose members’ pensions and retiree health care benefits would be protected under the bankruptcy filing, as well. This clears the way for such a filing.


once again the devil is in the details.


RE: Hmm, no indefinite bailout for Chrylser?
By Pneumothorax on 4/24/2009 11:39:28 AM , Rating: 3
It sounds like the only real losers in these BK's are going to be people who lent these companies money (Bond holders and Taxpayers) These unions were able to negotiate ridiculous pension plans and these will still be fully funded even after the BK. Let these union thugs take it in the chin also to teach them a lesson to not make impossible demands for strikes in the future. The bailout of these union policies will further embolden unions in the future, not to exclude the stupid executives who also agreed to these demands.


RE: Hmm, no indefinite bailout for Chrylser?
By Fallen Kell on 4/24/2009 2:37:45 PM , Rating: 2
One thing I don't get in all the discussions here is why everyone things the union workers do not deserve what they were promised...

A person wants to work for a company and negotiates with that company for compensation for his/her work. As part of that compensation, the company is going to provide health care, and pension at certain rates for each year that he/she works for the company. That is the PAYMENT the company is giving the person for THEIR services. Just like if you buy a car, you make put a certain amount as a down payment and then must pay a certain amount each month for the next few years. If you stop paying down the line, well, someone is going to come by and take the car back and sue you for the rest of the money owed. This is no different here, except, the workers can't take back their years of work from the company. So those extended payments for their work (i.e. pension and benefits promised), should be the FIRST thing protected under any circumstances, because the company already got what they wanted out of the bargain and can't give it back to the workers.


By TomZ on 4/24/2009 3:03:28 PM , Rating: 2
I think you are 100% correct about this, but the current "lynch mob mentality" with respect to the UAW and American car companies, as well as the liberals' penchant for following public opinion instead of doing what is right, is probably going to invalidate any promises made in the past.

I'm not a fan of the unions, but I'm also not enthused about them becoming some kind of political scapegoat either.


By Pneumothorax on 4/24/2009 3:09:36 PM , Rating: 3
What makes these union workers so special that they expect others to pay up for their pensions while their leaders (past & present) helped bring down the company they work for? My main beef with this, is in a "Normal" bankruptcy the pensions would go down with the company, but since the UAW is very well connected with politicos we the Taxpayers will be paying for these "bailed-out" pensions, while we watch our own reitrement get cut by 66%


RE: Hmm, no indefinite bailout for Chrylser?
By omnicronx on 4/24/2009 11:50:55 AM , Rating: 2
You said nothing of the sort, saving the members pensions and health care benefits is not saving the union. If Chrystler goes bankrupt, there is a good chance they may not recover, and thus many of its workers will lose their jobs. That's not exactly what I would call giving the UAW what it wants, as those lost union dues can add up pretty quick.

You all clearly made it out as though Obama was protecting the Unions, this is clearly protecting the workers. Do I agree with it? Not really, but I do feel sorry for all the former workers that could potentially lose their homes because of this. Best part is, it is the unions themselves that are putting these pensions in jeopardy. Concessions must be made, hopefully bankruptcy will solve the problem.


RE: Hmm, no indefinite bailout for Chrylser?
By MrBungle123 on 4/24/2009 12:16:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
saving the members pensions and health care benefits is not saving the union. If Chrystler goes bankrupt, there is a good chance they may not recover, and thus many of its workers will lose their jobs. That's not exactly what I would call giving the UAW what it wants, as those lost union dues can add up pretty quick.


You're looking at the whole situation through the wrong lens. Obama and the majority of our elected officials care about 1 thing; getting re-elected.

Do they care about unions because they like the union bosses? No, that is only 1 vote. Do they give 2 sh!ts about the union structure itself? Probably not. They like unions because their members are paid more than they're worth and subsequently are dependent on the union to maintain their wages. Their job security is that union.

So if a politician appears to care about the union the union member thinks that the politician cares about them and will consequently be more likely to vote for said politician.

In this case win the support of the UAW and you win 1.5 million votes. By protecting pension plans of UAW members current and former Obama is securing himself millions of votes in the 2012 election cycle.

quote:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over lousy fiscal policy" -Alexander Tyler



RE: Hmm, no indefinite bailout for Chrylser?
By omnicronx on 4/24/2009 12:40:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're looking at the whole situation through the wrong lens. Obama and the majority of our elected officials care about 1 thing; getting re-elected.
Please, like this is not the goal of any politician, I have just come to except it.
quote:
So if a politician appears to care about the union the union member thinks that the politician cares about them and will consequently be more likely to vote for said politician.
Once again, can't disagree, but this is pretty much universal when it comes to politics.
quote:
In this case win the support of the UAW and you win 1.5 million votes. By protecting pension plans of UAW members current and former Obama is securing himself millions of votes in the 2012 election cycle.
And this is why the move is quite genious, many people are angry at the unions right now, but feel for the workers, so if this moves makes most people happy, (Chrystler declares bankruptcy but the workers are protected), then he can make it appear as though he followed the voice of the people.

And of course once again, any smart politician would have made this move.


RE: Hmm, no indefinite bailout for Chrylser?
By MrBungle123 on 4/24/2009 12:59:28 PM , Rating: 2
I’m not going to deny that Obama is a political genius, however I am not impressed by his pandering and attempts to appease people’s emotions. His goal should be to keep the oath he took on inauguration day not to do what is politically expedient. His job is to protect the constitution of the United States and act as commander and chief of the military. We should be electing leaders not populists.


RE: Hmm, no indefinite bailout for Chrylser?
By TomZ on 4/24/2009 2:18:48 PM , Rating: 3
I didn't vote for Obama, but I do think that he has more potential to be a "leader" than recent past presidents as well those who were running for that office.


RE: Hmm, no indefinite bailout for Chrylser?
By zombiexl on 4/25/2009 9:59:45 AM , Rating: 2
To me, he seems to have more ability to be a dictator. How many Czar's has he appointed again? Executive orders? Money spent? all in the first 100 days or so..

Even my extremely liberal local news paper is questioning his pace.

He lost any chance of gaining my respect when he decided to close gitmo and had no plan what to do with the people who were being held there.

That and his tone reminds me too much of a Jesse Jackson type. More interested in talking in a rythmic tone than actually saying anything substantial.


By Lerianis on 4/27/2009 1:25:34 AM , Rating: 2
Excuse me, but he did have a plan for what to do after GITMO was closed: bring those people to the United States to try them in regular civilian courts.... or let them go back to their countries of origin if we couldn't or WOULDN'T (more likely the latter) prove anything in a court of law.


RE: Hmm, no indefinite bailout for Chrylser?
By Hiawa23 on 4/24/2009 11:07:53 AM , Rating: 2
Some of the posters here were insistent that Obama would support the unions and provide support until the companies caved to union demands. Doesn't look like thats the case, at least not for Chrysler. Pension plans, wages, etc will all be slashed and burned in bankruptcy, just like it was for the airline industry after 2001.

I agree, some are going to bash Obama no matter what. My second car was a Chrysler Lebaron 1980 something & it was garbage, never again would I buy a Chrysler anything. Went Japan been happy since. Not sure what the answer is here as it seems GM will be following them into bankruptcy in a matter of months, or do the government keep propping them up, cause there is noway the auto industry is going to turn around in a matter of months, so what is the answer? For you experts out there, what is the answer?


RE: Hmm, no indefinite bailout for Chrylser?
By MrBungle123 on 4/24/2009 11:11:16 AM , Rating: 5
I will attack Obama everytime I think he's wrong or he does something that makes this country weaker.

The answer is to let the market work, if that means GM goes belly up then so be it. We should not be subsidizing ANY companies unsustainable buisness model with tax payer dollars.


By Hiawa23 on 4/24/2009 11:24:43 AM , Rating: 2
I will attack Obama everytime I think he's wrong or he does something that makes this country weaker.

The answer is to let the market work, if that means GM goes belly up then so be it. We should not be subsidizing ANY companies unsustainable buisness model with tax payer dollars.


cool, let your voice be heard. Power to the people & all that jazz, but you say let em go belly up, well, seems like our last President did not agree with that either. I have always believed they shouldn't have given them one dime, along with the other bailouts & just let the chips fall where they may, but many are arguing that if they do fail then it will be much much much much worse.


Hey Congress...
By MrBungle123 on 4/24/2009 10:37:27 AM , Rating: 3
Since Chrysler is going bankrupt anyways can I get my $4,000,000,000 dollars back?




RE: Hey Congress...
By depravedone on 4/24/2009 10:40:16 AM , Rating: 2
They might be going bankrupt, but if they are able to restructure and get people back to work it'll be money well spent. Of course, this was just a loan. If they file bankruptcy does that mean they are off the hook to pay it back?


RE: Hey Congress...
By MrBungle123 on 4/24/2009 10:55:59 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
They might be going bankrupt, but if they are able to restructure and get people back to work it'll be money well spent.


No it will still be a waste of $4 Billion, they should have went bankrupt 5 months ago. All that these "bailouts" do is delay the inevitable.

Alot of bad things happen during recessions but one good thing is that they bringing down companies that are nothing more than a house of cards, we need to allow this process to work otherwise we just dig ourselves a deeper hole.


RE: Hey Congress...
By Mitch101 on 4/24/2009 11:29:28 AM , Rating: 2
I'll say it if no one else will.

THE UAW IS TO BLAME.

You can make $30.00 an hour or NOTHING. One pays more. Which will it be? No Cuts? Final Answer? Those holding the signs in the UAW picture are probably not smiling any more.

Lets see when GM comes to the table again if the UAW can get the answer right.


RE: Hey Congress...
By Sulphademus on 4/24/2009 1:18:47 PM , Rating: 2
I dont know the feasability of it but those companies should just can EVERY UAW employee and hire people back on a non-union basis.

The UAW probly lobbied some law into place which makes this impossible though.


RE: Hey Congress...
By Lerianis on 4/27/2009 1:22:48 AM , Rating: 2
Bull. The UAW is not to blame, period and done with. These companies agreed to these pay scales for these positions, and now they are trying to go back on them?

If I was the UAW, I would tell them to stick it, as the UAW has told them to stick it!

It's about time to realize that most of these jobs are highly technical jobs that the UAW people have, and therefore are worthy of the high pay rates that they are given.

The real problem is that people like Mitch101 have been brainwashed by the Repukes and their allies to think that the people in question are doing little or nothing for their money.


RE: Hey Congress...
By bubbastrangelove on 4/24/2009 4:53:30 PM , Rating: 2
Truer words have never been spoken.

However instead of letting the market take it's course and sort itself out the government is throwing billions into a bottomless pit which we'll probably never see again.

It's not just democrats and it's not just republicans. Both parties have been equally worthless for years now.


RE: Hey Congress...
By Sulphademus on 4/24/2009 5:19:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Both parties have been equally worthless for years now.


I did vote for the man but after Bush proved himself part of (or at least an enabler of) Big Government and Big Brother, I've switched to Libertarian.


RE: Hey Congress...
By MrBungle123 on 4/24/2009 5:34:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
after Bush proved himself part of (or at least an enabler of) Big Government and Big Brother, I've switched to Libertarian.


you and me both.


Nice Picture
By InfantryRocks on 4/24/2009 10:26:44 AM , Rating: 5
I bet those folks aren't smiling now.

Hope it was worth it.




RE: Nice Picture
By WoWCow on 4/24/2009 10:33:35 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Fortunately it comes around the time of the summer shutdowns that occur frequently in the automotive industry's bad years.


Good to know at least they have a summer to prepare for it. Yes, perhaps it is a good time for them to go back to school, learn, work, and earn like the rest of us.

Tough times loom ahead, but this is just how it goes, you gotta learn as you go and work through life.


RE: Nice Picture
By rudolphna on 4/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: Nice Picture
By bldckstark on 4/24/2009 5:18:47 PM , Rating: 2
Rudolphna is right. Going to college doesn't guarantee you a high wage. What it does is give you a good shot at getting another job when a union kills the company you work for.

Union workers go on welfare when their plant closes, college graduates go get another job.

On average, the lifetime earnings of a college graduate is twice that of a non-graduate.


RE: Nice Picture
By rudolphna on 4/24/2009 6:07:29 PM , Rating: 1
Do you know the percentage of college graduates who cant find a job? Its pretty high, and not pretty.


RE: Nice Picture
By djc208 on 4/24/2009 7:50:23 PM , Rating: 1
That's not the source of the bitching. I'm not pissed they make as much or more than I do without the degree. I'm pissed they continue to run around moaning about how horrible it will be to have to cut wages and benefits and come back to reality. Chrysler and GM may both dissapear because a bunch of union workers still think they're worth $30+ hour and benefits for what amounts to mostly menial labor.

So I don't blame them for being able to get a job that pays that well without a degree, I blame them for potentially making the economy worse because they were too proud to realize they had it good for a very long time, and now the ride's over. I blame them for reducing competition in the market place by taking automakers out of game. I blame them for all the non-union workers who will also loose their jobs, all the support companies that may follow them into bankrupsy, and all the damage this will do to an already weakened housing and credit market when these people loose their jobs.

Don't get me wrong, I blame the executives of these companies just as much for all the above, but they are no more singly responsible than the unions are, the executives at least act like they're trying to help though.


RE: Nice Picture
By rudolphna on 4/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: Nice Picture
By djc208 on 4/25/2009 6:28:36 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, I'd be pissed, but the alternative is to not have a job at all. Besides, if you're worth $60/hour then it shouldn't be too much of a problem to go find another job. I wouldn't want to be in their position, but you can't expect me to have a lot of sympathy for someone who's obviously been milking the system for a long time.

The issue is that most of these people couldn't go out and get a job anywhere near as good anywhere else with the educaiton and skill set they have. That means the market had determined they're not worth that much money.

The problem is most of the employees at the Chrysler plants that would get shut down are probably willing to take the cut, but I'd bet the Union doesn't want to deal because that would set a precident for the other auto companies to ask for the same treatment, and they're trying to keep as much of their money as possible.


Now that's one dumb sign
By Hieyeck on 4/24/2009 10:39:53 AM , Rating: 5
"Are you next?"

Seriously? I don't sit on my thumbs to get paid. Communism failed in Russia, where people actually tried to make it work, why would it work here, where people try to get away with as little work as possible?




RE: Now that's one dumb sign
By depravedone on 4/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: Now that's one dumb sign
By rcc on 4/24/2009 1:54:40 PM , Rating: 3
On behalf of myself, and the other English speaking people that have been working their butts off all their adult lives.......... Go pound sand.

And I mean that in the nicest possible way, of course.


RE: Now that's one dumb sign
By TomZ on 4/24/2009 2:55:20 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
There are plenty of people here that are willing to work hard. Unfortunately, none of them speak English...
Yes, that's right, because over the last century and even today, English-speaking Americans have accomplished nothing...yearh right.

You're either delusional or an idiot.


RE: Now that's one dumb sign
By Motoman on 4/24/2009 11:13:12 AM , Rating: 3
I was thinking the same thing...

It's not a matter of "are you next" - you ALL are next. Going down with the company that you killed. Congratulations...here are your signs...


It's about time.
By Autisticgramma on 4/24/2009 12:53:08 PM , Rating: 3
Americans will buy the cars that are available.
Look at the sales of hyundai, honda, and toyota. Cheap economical, and reliable.

Reliable is the attractiveness for me. Detroit has been shoveling crap for the last 25 years telling us its quality. Most new honda's you can go 50-100K miles with out any repairs/maint execpt tires, oil and fuel. Try to do that with Any Detroit made vehicle. Make me a car that out lasts the loan, and you will be in business, regardless of the size/attractivness. Let them Die they have failed. Its time for new leadership for the american auto. No more new SUV's and a drastic reduction in these 4 door, shortbed drive your kids to school trucks.
Truck needs to by synomous with hauling/work.
Chrystler's new proposed vehicle after their what 2nd bail out attempt: Another SUV that gets like 10 Real miles to the gallon?!?! Crazy talk.

Getting it right will mean targeting working adult americans who need to get to work. Smaller, safer (smart car safe?) more fuel efficient and eventually leading to an alternative propulsion/fueling method. (solar-> hydrogen anyone? we have enough empty roofs!)

So Chrystler is going under, great! No more paint perfect diesel trucks (compensation anyone) choking me out at a stoplight.




RE: It's about time.
By rudolphna on 4/24/2009 8:09:30 PM , Rating: 1
Lets see.... My dad has a 1997 Chevrolet Cavalier that has 130,000 miles on it, just put a new transmission in it last fall. No major work before that. I had a 1996 Taurus that had over 180,000 miles. Original engine, transmission, everything. Seems reliable to me. On the other hand, I know a guy who bought a toyota a couple years ago. Within a year he needed a new alternator and a new transmission. Huh, doesnt sound good does it. You cant sterotype all american cars as shitboxes, and all japanese/foreign cars as godly and 100% reliable.


RE: It's about time.
By Chaser on 4/24/2009 10:15:15 PM , Rating: 2
Lets see, rather than looking at your brother's uncle's roommate experience what have most reputable consumer magazines shown over the long term in terms of overall reliability and build quality between domestic and Japanese imports?


RE: It's about time.
By rudolphna on 4/25/2009 12:28:13 AM , Rating: 1
HAHAHA. You actually believe those rags? Most of what they do is based on a political agenda. Besides,the people who report these things are complete idiots. Really, 95% of people buying a car have absolute no clue about cars at all. None. My family has always bought american, and noone has ever had any problems. I dont listen to those consumer magazines. Build quality, bullshit. I test drove a Honda Civic last year, for shits and giggles. I swear to god, that thing had squeaks and rattles everywhere (brand new on the dealership lot!) the speedometer was off by about 10mph..... That seems like great build quality to me. Whereas my 2003 Expedition XLT, has been perfect from day one. No rattles, its comfortable, and the only things other than regular maintnence are 2 Coil-on-plug ignition coils (a fairly common problem, and one that is easy and pretty cheap to fix if you do it yourself. And an alternator. I dont plan on trading it in for a long time, I love that truck. Maybe I and my family have good luck with american cars, and I just drove a bad one.... But dont believe those magazines, they are all politically and monetarily biased. Riddle me this, batman; the Jeep Wrangler, and Wrangler unlimited both have the EXACT same drivetrain. Same engine, same transmission, same transfer case. Now consumer reports rated the 2DR as High reliability, but the 4dr as poor. Does that make sense at all to you? How do you explain that, when the components are the exact same. How do you explain that the FJ Cruiser was top in the offroadability charts, when everyone knows the wrangler is the best. Its not even a competition, that is what the Jeep is designed for. Anyone with half a brain knows that. Consumer reports is the worst offender, dont believe anything that rag of a magazine publishes.


RE: It's about time.
By Chaser on 4/25/2009 7:03:22 PM , Rating: 3
I'll take my chances with an established consumer unions report that accepts no advertising of any kind over an unknown online genius anytime Robin.


RE: It's about time.
By rudolphna on 4/26/2009 6:26:06 PM , Rating: 2
I cant help but notice, you have failed to answer any of my questions.


G8 Owner in NV
By CarsonG8 on 4/24/2009 2:05:12 PM , Rating: 1
Two weeks ago, I bought a 2009 Pontiac G8 - GT. I got rid of a 2008 Saturn VUE - Redline (2 wheel drive), which I drove of 10 months. The VUE replaced a 2005 Pontiac GTO that I owned for 3 years. As you probably know, the GTO and G8 were/are based on cars built by GM Holden in Australia.

I can say without reservation that the build quality of the G8 is top notch. The GTO was somewhat thrown together but in spite of that, it still was a very well built car. The build quality of the G8 is easily one or two levels higher than the GTO and the G8 has a lot of standard equipment that would be considered options for most cars in the same price range.

I can also say without reservation that the Saturn VUE was not a well-built car. I think the design of front end and the body style are very sharp. Unfortunately, the interior build quality is poor. In addition to misaligned parts, the VUE developed various rattles and squeaks. Combining that with all the road noise ends all possibilities of an enjoyable car.

I don't have a reference point to compare the quality of the G8 to non-GM cars but you can see and feel it in the G8.

It is a shame that GM is killing Pontiac name. I don't know why the two best built cars that I have owned (Pontiac's) happened to be manufactured in Australia. Maybe it is a symptom of why GM is in such turmoil. I do hope the company survives.

In the meantime, if you are lucky enough to be looking for a new car, check out the G8. I plan to enjoy mine for many years.

Cheers,

Rick




RE: G8 Owner in NV
By phlipflop on 4/24/2009 2:25:34 PM , Rating: 3
The unions killed the motor industry in the uk and to me it looks like they're doing it to your motor manufacturers.


RE: G8 Owner in NV
By Boraxo on 4/24/2009 11:44:17 PM , Rating: 3
Ridiculous. The UK market purchases 1.5 million cars a year, but manufactures 2.5 million. They obviously have a healthy export market.

And unions killed the UK auto industry? Hah, it was reliability problems. Talk to anyone who owned a Jag. Ever heard Lucas (supplier of electrical parts to much of the UK auto and motorcycle industry) referred to as "The Prince of Darkness"?

Auto factories throughout Europe are unionized. VW/Audi, BMW, Fiat, Renault, they are not doing too badly.

Its not the unions that are the problem. Its poor management, which allowed mediocre quality, too many dealers, too much discounting to "move the iron". Kept too many brands around - even now, Ford won't shed Mercury, GM is keeping Buick and GMC Trucks. They're lethargic.

Like dinosaurs. So, buh-bye Chrysler. And GM, maybe we can let it limp along and keep shrinking for another five or ten years, until some Chinese automaker buys it up for the brands and the dealer network.



RE: G8 Owner in NV
By Chaotic42 on 4/24/2009 10:23:16 PM , Rating: 2
GM does make some nice cars. I love my 2008 Impala LT. Very nice. I drove several cars in its price range when I helped a friend who is the service and IT manager at a GM dealership move cars for a hurricane.

I knew I wanted an Impala that day. The lower-end Pontiacs were horrible.

Unfortunately that dealership closed today and my friend is out of a job. He's the first person I know affected by the new economy.


RE: G8 Owner in NV
By RagingDragon on 4/28/2009 2:03:09 AM , Rating: 2
I just hope I'll still be able to get a G8 GT in a couple months. Can't afford it right now, but I'll probably be looking for a car shortly. And the G8 GT is my current favourite.


Chrysler's Fate Was Sealed When...
By Boraxo on 4/24/2009 10:32:05 PM , Rating: 2
"The government has reached a deal with the U.A.W., whose members’ pensions and retiree health care benefits would be protected under the bankruptcy filing,"

Great, take away all of the leverage to get the union to make a deal. That guaranteed Chrysler would go in to bankruptcy. From which they won't emerge, except perhaps with the brand name bought by a foreign firm (perhaps a Chinese manufacturer) to get the dealer network.

Jeep will find a buyer, and perhaps the minivan and truck businesses. The rest, gone. The taxpayers will be on the hook for the lavish pension and health benefits granted by a management team that couldn't pay for them. These costs will continue for decades.




RE: Chrysler's Fate Was Sealed When...
By Mathos on 4/25/2009 12:11:34 AM , Rating: 2
Ah yes, those lavish pensions of a whole mere $1500 a month, which are taxable, and were already paid for..... Either way the tax payers were going to get stuck with it, because either their pensions/medical benefits were protected or they all are forced to go onto social security and medicare.

What you don't think about are things like the fact that, those medical benefits they receive partially help to alleviate the hordes of uninsured patients that build up debt to medical expenses. Just imagine how much basic medical care would cost if it weren't for that.


RE: Chrysler's Fate Was Sealed When...
By Boraxo on 4/25/2009 12:26:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Either way the tax payers were going to get stuck with it, because either their pensions/medical benefits were protected or they all are forced to go onto social security and medicare.


Uh, you do realize they get social security and medicare benefits anyway, even if Chrysler is still around? No, you don't. Warren Buffet gets social security. They aren't welfare programs, they aren't "needs tested".

quote:
Ah yes, those lavish pensions of a whole mere $1500 a month, which are taxable, and were already paid for


Look up the tax rate on an income of $18K a year. It isn't much. And they aren't "already paid for", the pension funds are underfunded. Their money was invested partly in equities (the stock market) - guess how that's been going.

As for how much health care would cost if....every other industrialized country has either single payer or single provider national health care. They pay about 8% of GDP on health care, we spend 15%. They have longer life spans, much better infant mortality numbers, all around better health. We're ranked about on par with places like Singapore.

So no, spending tens of billions to keep automakers afloat isn't the way to save health care dollars. What a ridiculous reach.


RE: Chrysler's Fate Was Sealed When...
By borowki2 on 4/26/2009 10:53:07 AM , Rating: 2
Ummm...I'm sure our world-beating obesity rate has something to do with our lower life expectancy. Likewise, our absurdly high teen-pregnancy and out-of-wedlock birth rates are better explanation for our higher infant mortality rate than the lack of a single-payer system.


By Lerianis on 4/27/2009 1:28:10 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, the thing about the 'high teen pregnancy rate' is not true. The studies that have been done have found that in 13-21 year olds who have PROPER PRENATAL CARE..... the rate of infant death is less than in the 25-40 age range!

The fact is that nature made us to start having babies at the age of 13 to 30, at latest.... it's time to stop arguing with nature and go back to having children EARLY in our lives when we are YOUNG AND HEALTHY!


If they were really willing...
By Saist on 4/24/2009 1:14:57 PM , Rating: 3
If GM and Chrysler were really willing to do what it takes , they would join the rest (92%+) of privatized business in the USA and ditch the unions cold.

Since neither company have said anything about dropping the unions dead, they aren't willing to do whatever it takes to survive. In keeping the unions, GM and Chryserl would keep the problem(s) that got them in this particular mess to begin with.

There's a medical saying, treat the cause, not the symptoms that aptly applies to the auto industry right now. There's a reason European, Japanese, and Australian for that matter, cars kick American cars in the tailpipe. The rest of the industry figured out unions were a BAD BUSINESS PRACTICE and either never had them, or got rid of them.




RE: If they were really willing...
By rudolphna on 4/24/2009 10:00:02 PM , Rating: 2
Then why are all other car makers, japanese, german, whatever, all losing money too?


RE: If they were really willing...
By Boraxo on 4/24/2009 11:33:35 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you do realize that those car factories in Europe are unionized, too.

But the problem isn't the unions. The unions didn't run those companies in to the ground, the management did. In 2005, at the height of the market when everybody was making huge profits, GM was just barely getting by. The unions didn't saddle American car companies with huge legacy costs - they asked for those benefits, but it was the management that agreed to them.

Blame the management and the board. Blaming the union is like an airline letting far too many people board a plane, with the extra weight causing it to crash on takeoff, and then blaming the passengers.


By RagingDragon on 4/28/2009 2:00:58 AM , Rating: 2
The unions are legally protected in the US and other western countries, so companies cannot just ditch the unions. What the automakers could do is shutdown all their US plants and move production to countries where the unions are more cooperative, or to non union plants developing countries. But the bad press from shuttering all the US plants would probably wipe out sales and speed up, rather than slow, the companies death.


...
By transamdude95 on 4/24/2009 10:35:58 AM , Rating: 2
Sometimes it comes down to making the choice between either taking a pay cut and keeping your job, or losing your job altogether.




RE: ...
By afkrotch on 4/24/2009 10:54:42 AM , Rating: 4
There's tons of Americans looking for work. I say cutoff the union and then provide relocation assistance fund for non-union workers.

It's time to get rid of these stupid unions.


Anyone else notice this...
By BailoutBenny on 4/24/2009 6:08:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The government has reached a deal with the U.A.W., whose members’ pensions and retiree health care benefits would be protected under the bankruptcy filing, as well. This clears the way for such a filing.


Seems like the US taxpayer is going to be covering the pensions and benefits of the retirees even if GM/Chrysler can't. Wonderful. I get to throw more money at Union workers.

I hope both of these companies get liquidated.




RE: Anyone else notice this...
By RoberTx on 4/25/2009 2:59:55 AM , Rating: 2
It seems to me over the years the unions managed to turn US automakers into their parents. The parents paid for everything and the union workers paychecks were for their pleasures. Did anyone see the interview with the UAW worker who made over a hundred thousand a year for the last ten years and had no savings what-so-ever yet had 2 houses and expensive toys out the kazoo? He was like a 50 year old teenager who never learned how to manage a dime of his money. Now we are paying for his retirement after he squandered over a million dollars.


RE: Anyone else notice this...
By Lerianis on 4/27/2009 1:31:47 AM , Rating: 2
Hey, he had a plan for his retirement: the pensions that were SUPPOSED TO BE FUNDED BY GM, CHRYSLER and CHEVROLET!

The fact is that some people should be sitting in federal prison now for underfunding those pension plans and the retirement benefits of the Union workers.

But of course, they never will see the inside of a jail, because they are all Repukians and the dollar is king for a Repukian.... they would lap up VOMIT mixed with LIQUID DOG DOO if they had to in order to get a dollar!


WTF!!!!!!!
By bmheiar on 4/24/2009 9:33:23 PM , Rating: 2
They decide to get rid of Pontiac but keep Buick even though they still have Cadillac given them two luxury lines, all because Buick sells well in China and other foreign countries. Why? WTF!!!!!!!

GM I am very disappointed and displeased with your choice of keeping Buick/Cadillac & GMC over Pontiac. I love Pontiacs. I have owned 3 now (2 Grand Prixs and now a G8), in the 18 years I have been driving.

To me Pontiacs were of better quality and etc., over the cheaper Chevy line. And now you are taking that choice from me. WTF!!!!!




RE: WTF!!!!!!!
By Davelo on 4/25/2009 12:05:27 PM , Rating: 2
I agree 100% with your post. But this is the reason GM is struggling, poor decisions. My old '97 Grand Prix was one of the best cars I have ever owned. My boy still drives it today and it runs and looks good.

Yep, bad decision. I rented a G6 last week and it was a very nice car. Buick should be the one to go. Those people who buy Buicks only do so because they are too cheap to spring for Caddies.


RE: WTF!!!!!!!
By bmheiar on 4/27/2009 6:03:35 AM , Rating: 2
I have already sent an email to GM telling them of my disappointment & disgust over their decision to kill Pontiac. I suggest others to do the same. A public show of protest for their choice of keeping two luxury lines Buick/Cadillac & two truck lines Chevy/GMC, over keeping Pontiac. I did receive a reply back.


Would hope so...
By fic2 on 4/24/2009 12:18:56 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
A Chrysler bankruptcy could rock the supply chain, causing difficulties for Ford and Chrysler as well.


I would hope a Chrysler bankruptcy would cause difficulties for Chrysler.




RE: Would hope so...
By Mathos on 4/24/2009 12:51:29 PM , Rating: 2
Chrysler owns MOPAR, MOPAR supplies parts for Ford vehicles as well as Chrysler. MOPAR is also a major parts vendor in the after market parts industry for enthusiast custom vehicles. They also supply parts for a lot of racing organizations. I personally use to work for a factory company in howell michigan called Ovidon, they use to be one of the suppliers for the closed frame box mounts for ford, as well as some break master cylinders for a couple other manu's.


By 91TTZ on 4/24/2009 10:57:03 AM , Rating: 4
Chrysler should call him up.




Ugly
By StevoLincolnite on 4/24/2009 11:05:37 AM , Rating: 2
Is it more or is that Pontiac ugly? It's a re-bagged VE Holden Commodore, but the it just looks wrong, I think it's the Grille that sets me off it.

Here is the "Better" version of it anyway. :P - http://p.webwombat.com.au/motoring/images/holden-v...




RE: Ugly
By afkrotch on 4/24/2009 11:20:14 AM , Rating: 2
That version does look better, but that emblem is ugly. For some reason I'm also reminded of a Mazda when I look at that.


This is useless
By goku on 4/24/2009 12:11:36 PM , Rating: 2
If they protect the Unions and the pensions and all that nonsense, how can they viably restructure? It's not like their debts, the money they borrowed years back is what made them go under, it's the contracts they have with the unions..




RE: This is useless
By Pneumothorax on 4/24/2009 3:01:31 PM , Rating: 2
They will be able to restructure as We the taxpayers are the one's who will be now PAYING these pensions, not the bankrupt companies as they will be now left off the hook for these pensions because of their "special BK's".


By sans2212 on 4/24/2009 12:41:34 PM , Rating: 2
Many 'industrial' and developed countries labor salaries is too high too pay meanwhile their consumer want a cheap product. This is because the unfairness world economy system and rampant immigration in these countries. Many immigrant hope their salary will be higher than their native countries but in reality they could not realize their dream. Greedy mining company in countries with rich natural resources had deteriorated the natural environment and alienated native people since they could not back to their homeland where the company mined.




By Boraxo on 4/24/2009 11:25:46 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the biggest car companies have factories in "developing" places like Japan, Germany, France, and Italy. Sheesh.


Amazing
By GARYT2 on 4/24/2009 9:43:28 PM , Rating: 2
It amazing how some of the posters here believe UAW workers are all unskilled idiots with 3rd grade educations.
Its sad that 70% of the jobs are highly skilled and take years of training. The UAW does not employ only line workers which are fairly unskilled jobs, but thats not the only people they employ line workers are only a small part of the workforce.Its sad that all workers are lumped together with the bottom % of the skill tree so they all are unskilled and not worth the money they make according to some of you.




RE: Amazing
By Chaser on 4/24/2009 9:56:27 PM , Rating: 2
I have several friends that are salaried (non union) engineers at KTP (Kentucky truck Plan). When salaried employees are terminated they are handed a pink slip and told to walk. There's no negotiations, no pensions, nothing.


Don't worry
By unclesharkey on 4/24/2009 10:18:46 PM , Rating: 2
Don't worry all of GM's cars are built on the same platform. Instead of the Pontiac G6 or G8 they will call it the GM-6 or the GM-8 and advertise it as a new model. Keep up the good work GM.




RE: Don't worry
By Boraxo on 4/24/2009 11:22:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't worry all of GM's cars are built on the same platform. Instead of the Pontiac G6 or G8 they will call it the GM-6 or the GM-8 and advertise it as a new model.


Wrong. The platform is just a start, that's why you can get very different cars from the same platform. The G8 is the Holden, imported from Australia. The Solstice is also sold as a Saturn Sky, both are going away and chances are so is the factory that makes them. The G5 doesn't have a similar coupe in any other GM division, and likely won't reappear as a Chevy. There's half of Pontiac's lineup, gone and unlikely to reappear in other divisions.


Goodbye G8 and Solstice
By Fenixgoon on 4/24/2009 11:20:00 AM , Rating: 3
Pontiac's two great vehicles currently.

The G8GT would be my sedan of choice, and the solstice coupe is HOT!

Guess not anymore :-(




By Jimbo1234 on 4/24/2009 1:42:36 PM , Rating: 2
What does this article have to do with tech? Leave it to the automotive publications, and write about actual tech.




By Shawn on 4/24/2009 5:06:20 PM , Rating: 2
So they kill of Pontiac and they are keeping Buick? Why??? Pontiac and Saturn are the only GM brands I'd ever consider and they are killing them off. Figures.




CDSs?
By masteraleph on 4/24/2009 7:10:52 PM , Rating: 2
It's entirely possible that one or more of those creditors has Credit Default Swaps out for this. In that case, their losses may be far less than what they are owed, and it may be worth more to them to let Chrysler fail than it is to trade large amounts of debt for stock.




The government has reached a deal..
By Chaser on 4/24/2009 10:11:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
with the U.A.W., whose members’ pensions and retiree health care benefits would be protected under the bankruptcy filing...

Guess who's going to pay for these pensions and ridiculous health benefits now?




RIP Pontiac
By rickon66 on 4/24/2009 11:26:22 PM , Rating: 2
It is indeed a sad day for me to hear that Pontiac is on the chopping block. We go back a long way, My Pontiac ownership list:
2-64 GTO's
66 GTO
66 LeMans
77 TransAm
78 Formula 350
5-Bonneville's of various years

I would love to have one of the G8's




consumer guide
By RoberTx on 4/25/2009 2:54:14 AM , Rating: 2
I was looking through a consumer's buyer guide and the difference between American car makers and foreign makers is readily apparent. Take Honda, they make 10 vehicles available in America. Each model has 3 or 4 trim levels. Then look at GM and its divisions. They offer dozens of models which are all somewhat similar and in a bewildering array of trim packages. It must be a supply and service nightmare to deal with GM's product line. Chrysler's line is a mix of very good vehicles and crappy vehicles with nothing in between. Ford seems closer to the Euro/Asian car makers in how they offer their vehicles but they do offer a large option selection list but nowhere near GM's confusion. By the way, the consumer mag rated Fords equal in quality, economy, and performance to the foreign vehicles. You damn sure couldn't tell that from the smear job being done on them by the idiots of the MSM.




Take the bus
By TheMissingLink on 4/25/2009 5:13:51 PM , Rating: 2
GM,Ford,and all the rest of em should start building UFO's to take us places.Everybody knows the US military has the technology to do it.




Bankruptcy laws
By segerstein on 4/25/2009 5:28:14 PM , Rating: 2
Instead of going to bankruptcy immediately, Obamaniacs funneled tens of $bns to get ownership of automakers, appease the unions and the greens with über-CAFE compliant GM (Government Motors).

Mr Rich Taxpayer, pay!




Hey look mom!!
By blueboy09 on 4/26/2009 2:58:15 AM , Rating: 2
Classic pic of the bankruptcy next exit sign!! LOL! - BLUEBOY




This article...
By sleepeeg3 on 4/27/2009 10:48:49 AM , Rating: 2
...has the facts wrong.

-Chrysler was working out a deal with the UAW – which they have
-$6B has never been promised by the government - that’s what they need.




By Boraxo on 4/24/2009 10:49:10 PM , Rating: 1
There's already plenty of crying and finger-pointing. Among the Republicans. Seriously, its not a partisan jab, its what leading GOP voices are doing every day lately. Instead of actual ideas and alternative policies, right at the time when we need everybody putting ideas on the table.


By zombiexl on 4/25/2009 10:03:13 AM , Rating: 2
I would say both sides have been finger pointing for some time now. Republicans blaming the unions, Democrats doing what they do best and blaming Bush.

I tend to blame everyone equally... The unions and workers for greed and the companies for lack of balls to stand up to the unions in negotiations.


By RoberTx on 4/25/2009 10:13:06 AM , Rating: 1
Why do you call this the greatest economic depression in histry? Where I live in the Texas Panhandle business is booming. In fact most of the conservitavely governed states are doing just fine. Most of their banks and financial institutions never jumped on that get rich quick sub-prime mortgage BS. Example: the housing market in Amarillo, Tx is humming right along and never did stumble. Open your eyes and see, don't let the MSM spook you with their twisted, distorted, and deceitful nonsense.


By spookynutz on 4/26/2009 12:41:53 AM , Rating: 2
Where are you getting your information? I would say Texas is one of the 5 states that was hit hardest by the housing collapse. There are ~29,000 Texas homes in the process of foreclosure right now, and another ~17,000 homes on the market resulting from bankruptcy.

Also, you're wrong about the conservatively governed states weathering fine. Head on over to FDIC.gov if you want a running list of failed U.S. banks since 2000. The state that was actually affected most is Georgia.


"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins














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