PDA

View Full Version : Gooberment Motors New Plan



Franco
09-11-2009, 10:28 AM
How much more tax payer money will this desperate attempt by GM to gain acceptance take? Obviously, the American consumer doesn't trust the government to build anything with quailty as evident in Ford's increased market share over Chevy.

In the short term, I just don't see how Ford will be able to compete with Gooberment Motors. By proping up a failing company, the government is harming Ford in thier attempt to run thier business like an American company should!

I don't trust the goobs to be divested of Gooberment Motors by 2012 as they have been trying to tell everyone. Tax payers have bought into saving the UAW an organization that worked very hard to get Obama elected. We will have ownership until a new administration says, "enough is enough".


GM Offers Refund to Car Buyers to Win Them Back

MILWAUKEE – Looking to regain consumers' trust, General Motors Co. said Thursday new car buyers will be able to return their vehicles within two months of purchase for a full refund, part of a long-awaited new marketing campaign for the biggest American automaker.

The effort will begin next week, seeking to make connections again with American consumers who may be leery of the company since it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection earlier this year. Chairman Edward Whitacre Jr. will appear in the initial burst of ads, telling consumers in a folksy, Texan accent he too had doubts about GM when he joined on this summer. But he likes the cars he found, and consumers should too.
The company's bid to win back customers is a last-ditch effort to survive. GM received $50 billion in government aid to keep operating earlier this year and it has to pay that back to continue operating. To do that, it must sell cars.
And to make those sales, GM has to change how consumers view it in the marketplace. That starts with showing GM's cars are better than competitors, said GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz, who delayed retirement to head GM's marketing efforts. He said there is a "monumental chasm" between the public's perception of GM's vehicles and the autos in its current lineup, and the "May the Best Car Win" effort aims to change that.
The company stands behind its cars now and can offer full money-back guarantees, he told reporters on a conference call Thursday. As recently as three years ago, GM would have been faced with a huge risk if it made such an offer, but the company's slate of models is strong and can take on any competitors, especially foreign-made cars, he said.
"We really are in a position today where we can look anybody in the eye and say 'we are as good as or better than everybody else,'" Lutz said.
To prove that, GM is putting its four remaining brands —Chevrolet (http://autos.yahoo.com/chevrolet/), Buick (http://autos.yahoo.com/buick/), Cadillac (http://autos.yahoo.com/cadillac/) and GMC (http://autos.yahoo.com/gmc/)— directly against foreign competitors, focusing on quality, performance, fuel economy and design. The Chevrolet Equinox (http://autos.yahoo.com/2010_chevrolet_equinox/) will be featured in advertisements directly compared to the Honda CRV (http://autos.yahoo.com/2009_honda_cr_v/), and Cadillacs will target German luxury vehicles, Lutz said.
Whitacre's appearance in the ads will be short-lived as GM shifts focus to its brands, away from the corporation, Lutz said. Individual campaigns for the brands will share common elements but the GM logo and the words GM will not appear, he said. Instead, the brands will be the true focus, since consumers' perception of GM is affected by the company's bankruptcy filing this year.
"We are emancipating the brands and trotting them out in the open," Lutz said.
GM will allow customers who purchase a new vehicle starting next Monday through Nov. 30 to return it, no questions asked, for a full refund within 31 to 60 days from the date of purchase. The vehicles must not have more than 4,000 miles on them and the drivers must be current on their payments. Cars will also be under GM's 100,000-mile five-year powertrain warranty.
The offer applies to brands such as Chevrolet, GMAC, Buick and Cadillac. The Pontiac (http://autos.yahoo.com/pontiac/) brand, which GM is phasing out, is not eligible. Leased vehicles are also ineligible.
AP Auto Writer Kimberly S. Johnson contributed to this report from Detroit
 

Blackstone
09-13-2009, 03:34 PM
Franco,

This program is no different than when GM instituted its 5 year/100,000 mile powertrain warranty. Of course it is meant to get reluctant buyers to try GM products. However, if GM did not have faith in its products, it but would not offer such programs. They would be afraid it would cost them too much money if their products did not stand up under normal use. The quality of GM cars and trucks have improved so much over the last several years that they can afford to make such offers with confidence.

Don’t be so sure Ford is doing such a superior job of running their business. A couple of years ago, before the credit market dried up, Ford was forced to leverage every asset of their business in exchange for billions in loans to finance a corporate restructuring. Otherwise, they would have gone into bankruptcy. They currently have a huge debt burden, with very large notes coming due very soon. Have no doubt, Ford is struggling to survive, just like GM and Chrysler. Only time will tell if their gamble pays off.

Bruce MacPherson
09-13-2009, 04:40 PM
Franco,

This program is no different than when GM instituted its 5 year/100,000 mile powertrain warranty. Of course it is meant to get reluctant buyers to try GM products. However, if GM did not have faith in its products, it but would not offer such programs. They would be afraid it would cost them too much money if their products did not stand up under normal use. The quality of GM cars and trucks have improved so much over the last several years that they can afford to make such offers with confidence.

Don’t be so sure Ford is doing such a superior job of running their business. A couple of years ago, before the credit market dried up, Ford was forced to leverage every asset of their business in exchange for billions in loans to finance a corporate restructuring. Otherwise, they would have gone into bankruptcy. They currently have a huge debt burden, with very large notes coming due very soon. Have no doubt, Ford is struggling to survive, just like GM and Chrysler. Only time will tell if their gamble pays off.

GM dosen't have to be afraid of much of anything with the Feds bankrolling them. Ford did the tough thing when they had to, GM did not and now we get to own a car company. If GM was the only company building cars I guess I'd have to saddle up my horse or walk because I'll never buy a car from them as long as the governments involved.

Blackstone
09-13-2009, 05:07 PM
GM dosen't have to be afraid of much of anything with the Feds bankrolling them. Ford did the tough thing when they had to, GM did not and now we get to own a car company. If GM was the only company building cars I guess I'd have to saddle up my horse or walk because I'll never buy a car from them as long as the governments involved.

GM instituted the 5 year/100,000 mile warranty in the 2007 model year. That was long before the government had any stake in them, so I don’t think their confidence in this latest program is bolstered by the government having a stake in them. I think it just shows their confidence in the products.

Ford didn’t just do the “tough thing,” they took the only recourse open to them. Do you think they would have leveraged all their assets if they weren’t desperate? At the time, GM did not need the money. They had access to enough cash to sustain day-to-day operations. GM became cash strapped when the auto market tanked. The industry went from 17 million units annually to less than 10 million in about 6 months. That is almost a 60% decline. At the same time, the credit market collapsed, and GM could not get access to loans it traditionally uses from time to time for normal operations.

It’s certainly your right not to buy from GM, but I personally I would rather the government have stepped in to help the U.S. auto industry than see all those workers added to the roles of the unemployed. Personally, don’t harbor such disdain for my government that I shun anything they are a part of. Hopefully, GM will be successful, and buy out the government’s stake on the established time table. Until then, I will continue to support GM.

Uncle Bill
09-13-2009, 07:10 PM
GM instituted the 5 year/100,000 mile warranty in the 2007 model year. That was long before the government had any stake in them, so I don’t think their confidence in this latest program is bolstered by the government having a stake in them. I think it just shows their confidence in the products.

Ford didn’t just do the “tough thing,” they took the only recourse open to them. Do you think they would have leveraged all their assets if they weren’t desperate? At the time, GM did not need the money. They had access to enough cash to sustain day-to-day operations. GM became cash strapped when the auto market tanked. The industry went from 17 million units annually to less than 10 million in about 6 months. That is almost a 60% decline. At the same time, the credit market collapsed, and GM could not get access to loans it traditionally uses from time to time for normal operations.

It’s certainly your right not to buy from GM, but I personally I would rather the government have stepped in to help the U.S. auto industry than see all those workers added to the roles of the unemployed. Personally, don’t harbor such disdain for my government that I shun anything they are a part of. Hopefully, GM will be successful, and buy out the government’s stake on the established time table. Until then, I will continue to support GM.


Would you believe me if I told you this is far more than a government takeover of one auto maker? If you don't "get it" with this tax payer rip-off, I couldn't possibly expect you to have any concern about the nationalization of the banking industry.

So my question to you, Mr. Blackstone, is...when will you determine how many freedoms you must have legislated away before you are willing to say 'enough is enough'? When will this charade of an administration reach the point of having gored your ox? OR...doesn't what's happening relate to this nation's Constitution in your view?

But then I suspect folks with your myopic view of the world around you think the tea parties are conducted by a gang of radicals, only concerned about getting their mugs on the evening news; You can't see they might just be as concerned for your welfare as their own, and are fighting to keep the USA they and their fellow Americans were brought up to believe in...with the same freedoms and liberty their parents enjoyed.

Wake up Mr. Blackstone. What is happening is far more than suddenly having another Carter-type in the oval office. These aren't just a form of "the Democrats now having their turn." This is without question an attempt by every liberal-turned-socialist to turn this nation into a fascist society.

If you happen to be thinking that's a long way off, let me give you a clue, so you'll know what you seem to be blinded to. When the Algore bill on carbon credits, and the secret ballot to allow the union thugs to control your workplace, and the universal healthcare program are signed into law by the self-annointed messiah, you will know it's too late. Humpty Dumpty will have fallen, and your family, heirs, and friends will be living in a different world. You will no longer have to be concerned about Iraq or Afganistan...your war will be a lot closer.

Is that when you'll say "enuff is enuff?" Good luck.

UB

zeus3925
09-13-2009, 07:31 PM
Would you believe me if I told you this is far more than a government takeover of one auto maker? If you don't "get it" with this tax payer rip-off, I couldn't possibly expect you to have any concern about the nationalization of the banking industry.

So my question to you, Mr. Blackstone, is...when will you determine how many freedoms you must have legislated away before you are willing to say 'enough is enough'? When will this charade of an administration reach the point of having gored your ox? OR...doesn't what's happening relate to this nation's Constitution in your view?

But then I suspect folks with your myopic view of the world around you think the tea parties are conducted by a gang of radicals, only concerned about getting their mugs on the evening news; You can't see they might just be as concerned for your welfare as their own, and are fighting to keep the USA they and their fellow Americans were brought up to believe in...with the same freedoms and liberty their parents enjoyed.

Wake up Mr. Blackstone. What is happening is far more than suddenly having another Carter-type in the oval office. These aren't just a form of "the Democrats now having their turn." This is without question an attempt by every liberal-turned-socialist to turn this nation into a fascist society.

If you happen to be thinking that's a long way off, let me give you a clue, so you'll know what you seem to be blinded to. When the Algore bill on carbon credits, and the secret ballot to allow the union thugs to control your workplace, and the universal healthcare program are signed into law by the self-annointed messiah, you will know it's too late. Humpty Dumpty will have fallen, and your family, heirs, and friends will be living in a different world. You will no longer have to be concerned about Iraq or Afganistan...your war will be a lot closer.


UB


What are the exact freedoms you have lost since January?

Uncle Bill
09-13-2009, 07:54 PM
What are the exact freedoms you have lost since January?
__________________
Sarge


Oh I don't know, but 66% of my income ranks right up there for reducing a lot of my freedoms.

Loss of a company vehicle also crosses my mind.

How's that hope and change working out for you???


UB

zeus3925
09-13-2009, 08:18 PM
"W" 'took care' of my retirement savings by doing nothing while the economy tanked. We'll make room for you in the boat.

Never had a company vehicle. Its new to me that it is a constitutional right. Is it?

Blackstone
09-13-2009, 09:02 PM
Would you believe me if I told you this is far more than a government takeover of one auto maker? If you don't "get it" with this tax payer rip-off, I couldn't possibly expect you to have any concern about the nationalization of the banking industry.

So my question to you, Mr. Blackstone, is...when will you determine how many freedoms you must have legislated away before you are willing to say 'enough is enough'? When will this charade of an administration reach the point of having gored your ox? OR...doesn't what's happening relate to this nation's Constitution in your view?

But then I suspect folks with your myopic view of the world around you think the tea parties are conducted by a gang of radicals, only concerned about getting their mugs on the evening news; You can't see they might just be as concerned for your welfare as their own, and are fighting to keep the USA they and their fellow Americans were brought up to believe in...with the same freedoms and liberty their parents enjoyed.

Wake up Mr. Blackstone. What is happening is far more than suddenly having another Carter-type in the oval office. These aren't just a form of "the Democrats now having their turn." This is without question an attempt by every liberal-turned-socialist to turn this nation into a fascist society.

If you happen to be thinking that's a long way off, let me give you a clue, so you'll know what you seem to be blinded to. When the Algore bill on carbon credits, and the secret ballot to allow the union thugs to control your workplace, and the universal healthcare program are signed into law by the self-annointed messiah, you will know it's too late. Humpty Dumpty will have fallen, and your family, heirs, and friends will be living in a different world. You will no longer have to be concerned about Iraq or Afganistan...your war will be a lot closer.

Is that when you'll say "enuff is enuff?" Good luck.

UB

If the government is divested from GM in 12 months, as is the stated plan, will it still be a “government takeover of one auto maker?” Will it still be a “tax payer rip-off” if the government gets its money back? And, what was the alternative, watching GM & Chrysler go bankrupt, putting thousands out of work, and causing the collapse of countless suppliers and other business that depend on the auto industry? Would that have been a palatable alternative for you? That would have spelled the end of the U.S. auto industry because Ford would have followed close behind. You may think my view of the world is myopic, but you seem to have far less of a grasp on what is happening in the U.S. and the rest of the world than I do if the government temporarily holding a stake in GM is one of your major concerns.

Please explain he nationalization of the banking industry. The ownership and control of the banking industry still looks like it did before Obama took office. The only difference is that it’s being watched more closely after its roll in the current economic crisis.

And to answer your question, I am not prepared to give up any rights, liberties or freedoms. Please enlighten me with your hyperopic view of the world. What freedoms have I lost since Obama took office? What unconstitutional acts have taken place under this administration? I suffered more attack on my personal freedoms under the previous administration than I have so far under this one.

I really don’t know what the tea parties are trying to accomplish. From what I’ve seen, a few of them have valid points. Some of the other are ranting about impending fascism, socialism, communism, and other claims not based on any facts. At this point, I don’t think I want them trying to represent me. I hope that doesn’t offend you if you are one of them.

I just have one more questions, Uncle Bill, when did Obama anoint himself messiah? I saw him get sworn into office, but I must have missed that part of the oath.

Mike Noel
09-14-2009, 11:02 AM
If the government is divested from GM in 12 months, as is the stated plan, will it still be a “government takeover of one auto maker?” Will it still be a “tax payer rip-off” if the government gets its money back? And, what was the alternative, watching GM & Chrysler go bankrupt, putting thousands out of work, and causing the collapse of countless suppliers and other business that depend on the auto industry? Would that have been a palatable alternative for you? That would have spelled the end of the U.S. auto industry because Ford would have followed close behind. You may think my view of the world is myopic, but you seem to have far less of a grasp on what is happening in the U.S. and the rest of the world than I do if the government temporarily holding a stake in GM is one of your major concerns.



From a NYT article today:

"But it will probably be several years before the government can begin to sell its stake in G.M. back to the public, and even then, according a report issued last week by the independent monitor of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, some of the $20 billion or so funneled to G.M. and Chrysler is probably gone forever."


So how much did we spend per job saved on that one? My HP-12C doesn't have enough comma's.

That is one gigantic IF that you begin your post with;-)

Blackstone
09-14-2009, 04:54 PM
From a NYT article today:

"But it will probably be several years before the government can begin to sell its stake in G.M. back to the public, and even then, according a report issued last week by the independent monitor of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, some of the $20 billion or so funneled to G.M. and Chrysler is probably gone forever."


So how much did we spend per job saved on that one? My HP-12C doesn't have enough comma's.

That is one gigantic IF that you begin your post with;-)

Saying, “. . . it will probably be several years . . . ,” at the beginning of that quote sounds like speculation on the part of the NYT writers. I don’t believe anyone can say with any certainty how it will play out, including me. I am just taking the plan at face value, and hoping for the best. I do not want to lose tax payer dollars, and I do not want to see either of he auto makers fail.

I would like to see that report they cited. I could not find a report with that conclusion in it on-line. If someone can find a link, please post it. If the independent monitor of the TARP says the money is likely gone forever, with a reasonable explanation of how they reached that conclusion, I will be inclined to accept it. However, I noticed the writer did not actually quote the report, which leads me to wonder if this was a subjective interpretation of what the report said.

Mike Noel
09-14-2009, 05:54 PM
Saying, “. . . it will probably be several years . . . ,” at the beginning of that quote sounds like speculation on the part of the NYT writers. I don’t believe anyone can say with any certainty how it will play out, including me. I am just taking the plan at face value, and hoping for the best. I do not want to lose tax payer dollars, and I do not want to see either of he auto makers fail.

I would like to see that report they cited. I could not find a report with that conclusion in it on-line. If someone can find a link, please post it. If the independent monitor of the TARP says the money is likely gone forever, with a reasonable explanation of how they reached that conclusion, I will be inclined to accept it. However, I noticed the writer did not actually quote the report, which leads me to wonder if this was a subjective interpretation of what the report said.

On time and under budget are not part of the govenment vocabulary. I would bet that it takes longer than expected and will cost more.....if you had to put money on it what would you say? It is YOUR money too that is being gambled.

That report from the TARP monitor should be available from this most transparent of administrations;)

gman0046
09-14-2009, 06:46 PM
zues3925, In the history of the Stock Market it never tanked as much as after Obama's election and until his Inauguration. It was the biggest drop ever. Thats the fact that can't be disputed. Why don't you get your facts straight instead of BSing people?

Roger Perry
09-14-2009, 06:58 PM
zues3925, In the history of the Stock Market it never tanked as much as after Obama's election and until his Inauguration. It was the biggest drop ever. Thats the facy that can't be disputed. Why don't you get your facts straight instead of BSing people?

If the stock market maintained it's high under the Bush administration and tanked under Obama you might have an argument but it did not. It started tanking well before the 2008 election. Look at all the Banks that went out of business well before the 2008 election. All of the American auto makers were in trouble well before the 2008 election.

Roger Perry
09-14-2009, 07:05 PM
Wake up Mr. Blackstone. What is happening is far more than suddenly having another Carter-type in the oval office. These aren't just a form of "the Democrats now having their turn." This is without question an attempt by every liberal-turned-socialist to turn this nation into a fascist society.
UB

The American people will never stand for the USA turning into a socialist nation. If you believe that you must have been listing to Rush Limbaugh too long. There will be an Congressional election in 2 years and if the American people believe Obama is trying to make our country into a socialist nation, there will not be another a Democrat elected into Congress.

Bush ran his second campaign on "terrorists" and that the Democrats were not strong enough to fight them. Now Limbaugh is furthering the fearmongering that we will become a socialist nation. Boogy man Ohhhhhhhhhh

Uncle Bill
09-14-2009, 07:07 PM
If the stock market maintained it's high under the Bush administration and tanked under Obama you might have an argument but it did not. It started tanking well before the 2008 election. Look at all the Banks that went out of business well before the 2008 election. All of the American auto makers were in trouble well before the 2008 election.


And when all was going swimmingly, you were still bashing Bush from the getgo. Now if we dare tread on your messiahs' disasterous handling of ANYTHING HE HAS TOUCHED, you and your minions are angry if we point it out by mentioning it. GFF! How incredulous this must be for all you fascist lovers...you finally got everything you wanted in your leadership, and so many of us are not genuflecting with you.:rolleyes:

UB

gman0046
09-14-2009, 07:13 PM
Roger Perry, why do you ignore the fact about the DJIA between Obama's election and Inauguration? It was the largest drop in the history of the Stock Market. Can you please post something other then BS? But I guess thats the Liberal way BS without facts. It's really going to be too bad when you have to blame Obama rather then W. Can you please tell us of one Obama achievment since he's taken office?

Franco
09-14-2009, 08:18 PM
Sorry but, I've been preoccupied with football the last few days and haven't been on the Potus to check on this thread.

When will the USA be divested of GM? My experience is that once the goobs get involved, they are there like a broke mother-in-law. I don't expect this administration or any future Dem administration ever letting go! We've bought the turkey and saved the UAW.

Ford could have gone gooberment like the rest but, the difference between Ford and GM is that the UAW doesn't control Ford. Not that the UAW isn't a major problem for ALL auto mfgs.

In regards to this current GM stimulus; it is pure bad business to sell a product on a "return in 4,000 miles if you don't like it for whatever reason". That is not only bad business, a desperate attempt but the fact that I, a tax payer, have to pay for thier poor attempt to sell thier garbage, pisses me off!

Those vehicles that will be returned to the various GM dealerships will cost billions in depreciation. That depreciation will be paid for by tax payers. Plus, it gives Gooberment Motors a huge and unfair advantage over Ford, or for that matter the Asian/Euro mfgs. as well. Ford and the others will have a very tough time competiting against the USA tax payers.

Henry V
09-14-2009, 08:27 PM
Roger Perry, why do you ignore the fact about the DJIA between Obama's election and Inauguration? It was the largest drop in the history of the Stock Market. Can you please post something other then BS? But I guess thats the Liberal way BS without facts. It's really going to be too bad when you have to blame Obama rather then W. Can you please tell us of one Obama achievment since he's taken office?
Are you arguing that his election caused the largest stock market drop in history? It seems like he was not even President then.
Second, I am curious what has happened to the DJIA since he became President? If he was responsible for the drop when he was not even President, I assume he must also have had some effect since he became President, right? So there, there is an achievment using your logic. Banking industry has stabilized for now. Stocks are up.

Franco
09-14-2009, 09:11 PM
Banking industry has stabilized for now. Stocks are up.



WARNING:

Feeling secure might not be good for ones financial health.

Banking is being propped up like a house of cards waiting on a slight breeze. Six months ago it was "desperate" and now we've recovered?
I've never taken you for gullable.
I'll give credit where it is due; the current President uses smoke n mirrors better than any politican I've seen, ever!

Bruce MacPherson
09-14-2009, 09:28 PM
GM instituted the 5 year/100,000 mile warranty in the 2007 model year. That was long before the government had any stake in them, so I don’t think their confidence in this latest program is bolstered by the government having a stake in them. I think it just shows their confidence in the products.

Ford didn’t just do the “tough thing,” they took the only recourse open to them. Do you think they would have leveraged all their assets if they weren’t desperate? At the time, GM did not need the money. They had access to enough cash to sustain day-to-day operations. GM became cash strapped when the auto market tanked. The industry went from 17 million units annually to less than 10 million in about 6 months. That is almost a 60% decline. At the same time, the credit market collapsed, and GM could not get access to loans it traditionally uses from time to time for normal operations.

It’s certainly your right not to buy from GM, but I personally I would rather the government have stepped in to help the U.S. auto industry than see all those workers added to the roles of the unemployed. Personally, don’t harbor such disdain for my government that I shun anything they are a part of. Hopefully, GM will be successful, and buy out the government’s stake on the established time table. Until then, I will continue to support GM.

I do not believe that the government should be in the business of picking winners and losers. I do not believe that the government should be putting tax dollars in failed enterprises. I do not believe that government has any business, outside of a basic regulatory duty, in business, period.

zeus3925
09-14-2009, 09:37 PM
Hey, Franco--How much time did you ever spend working on the floor of an auto plant? Just for sH@*S and giggles, take a job at a starter job like mounting the wheels on a chassis for a 12 by 7 shift for the next year. Then come back and see if you don't appreciate every dime the UAW and the Company bargained for you.

K G
09-14-2009, 10:10 PM
The UAW helped destroy Chrysler and GM....deny that, Sarge....

kg

Franco
09-14-2009, 10:33 PM
Hey, Franco--How much time did you ever spend working on the floor of an auto plant? Just sH@*S and giggles, take a job at a starter job like mounting the wheels on a chassis for a 12 by 7 shift for the next year. Then come back and see if you don't appreciate every dime the UAW and the Company bargained for you.


What is your point? Last I checked, we were still free enough to pursue our own employment. That is for those wanting to be employed.

What you fail to realize is that the world is not fair, the Dems can't make it fair and the automakers have been over-paying and over-compensating thier workers. If it is management's fault, then the UAW workers can go a work somewhere else! Their wages and benefits are not my responsibility nor the responsibility of the American tax payer.

zeus3925
09-14-2009, 10:55 PM
Blackstone pretty well covered the waterfront on what killed the GM and Chrysler in another thread.

There is no single thing or group that brought those companies down. Corporate arrogance, shoddy design, Roll-it-out-the-door-fix-it-later product development (remember the Chevy Citation and Vega?). Japanese competion and quality standards, auto magazine chic, German corporate culture, etc., etc.... You can even point to the decline of the number of workers raised in an urban background. Farm labor initially provided the car companies with a dedicated work force. (Oldsmobile was noted for its quality at one time because it was the most rural of the producers.)

Remember the Cadillacs built with Chevette transmissions? If a customer lays out a good portion of his budget, he will remember it a long time if his Cordoba keeps blowing computer chips or his Volare kills in an intersection. That you can't lay that on the UAW.

zeus3925
09-14-2009, 11:21 PM
Well, Franco I'm not telling you where to work but if you want to pontificate of the evils of the UAW and the "weakness" of the management, then you might try getting your knowledge first hand instead of being spoon fed by the Chamber or flying on Texas thought.

Here you are, setting yourself up as the pay czar for an industry you know little about. All you know they are "paid too much". By what standard does Czardom say is too much? What about productivity and skill? Not that important, eh?


Regards

Roger Perry
09-15-2009, 09:26 AM
Roger Perry, why do you ignore the fact about the DJIA between Obama's election and Inauguration? It was the largest drop in the history of the Stock Market. Can you please post something other then BS? But I guess thats the Liberal way BS without facts. It's really going to be too bad when you have to blame Obama rather then W. Can you please tell us of one Obama achievment since he's taken office?

What exactly do you think Obama did that caused the stock market to drop from the day he was elected President until the day he took office? The stock market started its decline in 2007 and continued through Bush's last days of his Presidency.

Why can't you admit that the failed Bush economic policies were the cause of America going into recession and almost into a depression?

Franco
09-15-2009, 09:58 AM
Well, Franco I'm not telling you where to work but if you want to pontificate of the evils of the UAW and the "weakness" of the management, then you might try getting your knowledge first hand instead of being spoon fed by the Chamber or flying on Texas thought.

Here you are, setting yourself up as the pay czar for an industry you know little about. All you know they are "paid too much". By what standard does Czardom say is too much? What about productivity and skill? Not that important, eh?


Regards

Czars are your world not mine.

I've opposed the bailouts from the get-go. If GM or any other business can't turn a profit, then bye - bye. Government ownership is not only unAmerican, it is also unfair to those businesses trying to survive without having to be bailed out.

The point of this thread is that GM is continuing in their bad businesses practices and we the tax payers have to pay for thier folly.

Obvioulsy, you are not a business person and that is fine. Not everyone is suited to that task and are much better off as a saleried employee.

Blackstone
09-15-2009, 12:23 PM
I do not believe that the government should be in the business of picking winners and losers. I do not believe that the government should be putting tax dollars in failed enterprises. I do not believe that government has any business, outside of a basic regulatory duty, in business, period.

Under normal circumstances, I would agree with you entirely. However, these are extraordinary time, and call for solutions that would not normally be deemed acceptable. The government could have let the U.S. auto industry collapse. However, the fear was that the repercussions would have finished decimating an economy that was already on the verge of collapse. This is not one of the normal downturns in our economic cycle. It was not going to correct itself given time (at least not until it got much worse). We tried doing nothing, and giving the economy and markets a chance to work and correct themselves like they normally do, but it didn’t happen. We were told that “the underlying economy is strong,” but it wasn’t. The economy was on a perpetual downward spiral, gaining momentum as it went. Each industry that collapsed caused the collapse of, or at least had a huge negative impact on, others.

Is it possible this economy would have corrected itself without any government intervention, sure it is. Of course there was going to be a lot more suffering by average working class citizens in the meantime. Some economists contend the Great Depression would have eventually corrected itself. It might have, but it’s hard to wait for that to happen when you are out of work, homeless, and your family is hungry. It took Roosevelt’s “New Deal” to offer some relief from the depression, and a war to finally end it.

Franco
09-15-2009, 02:13 PM
However, the fear was that the repercussions would have finished decimating an economy that was already on the verge of collapse. This is not one of the normal downturns in our economic cycle. It was not going to correct itself given time (at least not until it got much worse). We tried doing nothing, and giving the economy and markets a chance to work and correct themselves like they normally do, but it didn’t happen. We were told that “the underlying economy is strong,” but it wasn’t. The economy was on a perpetual downward spiral, gaining momentum as it went. Each industry that collapsed caused the collapse of, or at least had a huge negative impact on, others.

.

Not only do I disagree, it is just like a Democrat to place blame on everything but the real problem!

The problem with GM is that you have poor workmenship producing a shoddy product along with poor management. If consumers liked the GM product, they wouldn't have such a hard time selling thier product. Mangement and labor is in this together and they didn't deserve a bailout.

The underlying economy was strong. The current administration will destroy that with thier economic suicide policies. We should have never bailed out the banks and certainly not the underachieving GM!

From thier demise, given a free market, other business would have emerged with better products and mangement.

Government has no place taking ownership in the private sector as they will only make it worse!

No business is too big to fail and our biggest failure is our big government.

Blackstone
09-16-2009, 07:27 PM
Not only do I disagree, it is just like a Democrat to place blame on everything but the real problem!

The problem with GM is that you have poor workmenship producing a shoddy product along with poor management. If consumers liked the GM product, they wouldn't have such a hard time selling thier product. Mangement and labor is in this together and they didn't deserve a bailout.

The underlying economy was strong. The current administration will destroy that with thier economic suicide policies. We should have never bailed out the banks and certainly not the underachieving GM!

From thier demise, given a free market, other business would have emerged with better products and mangement.

Government has no place taking ownership in the private sector as they will only make it worse!

No business is too big to fail and our biggest failure is our big government.

What does political affiliation have to do with it? The underlying economy was not strong.
The Bush administration eventually conceded the economy was in a recession before he left office. I don’t really care which party was in office, the fact is, the economy had been on a downward spiral for several years before the current administration took office. Nothing was done to correct it early on, and it continued to worsen. There were a lot of factors that combined to cause it, but the fact is undeniable that the underlying economy was not strong. With growing unemployment, housing prices plummeting, and entire segments of the economy failing, how can you say the underlying economy was strong?

As far as the problem with GM and the rest of the U.S. auto industry, you over simplify the issue. Poor management and poor quality were major contributors. However, unfair trade practices by the Japanese (manipulation of the yen against the dollar and government subsidies) also served to give the Japanese an advantage in the market. Despite what you may believe, this has never been a “free market.”

If you look at current quality studies, several models from GM and Ford have displaced some Honda and Toyota models for top quality picks. The problem is consumers are afraid to take the chance on U.S. cars after the crap they produced from the early 80s through early 2000s, and rightly so. That is why this new GM campaign was developed. It is designed to entice buyers to try GM products again. GM believe if the can get consumers to try it GM products, they will like them. If it works, you will see other car companies (domestic and foreign) follow suite.

Franco
09-16-2009, 09:02 PM
What does political affiliation have to do with it? The underlying economy was not strong.
The Bush administration eventually conceded the economy was in a recession before he left office. I don’t really care which party was in office, the fact is, the economy had been on a downward spiral for several years before the current administration took office. Nothing was done to correct it early on, and it continued to worsen. There were a lot of factors that combined to cause it, but the fact is undeniable that the underlying economy was not strong. With growing unemployment, housing prices plummeting, and entire segments of the economy failing, how can you say the underlying economy was strong?

As far as the problem with GM and the rest of the U.S. auto industry, you over simplify the issue. Poor management and poor quality were major contributors. However, unfair trade practices by the Japanese (manipulation of the yen against the dollar and government subsidies) also served to give the Japanese an advantage in the market. Despite what you may believe, this has never been a “free market.”

If you look at current quality studies, several models from GM and Ford have displaced some Honda and Toyota models for top quality picks. The problem is consumers are afraid to take the chance on U.S. cars after the crap they produced from the early 80s through early 2000s, and rightly so. That is why this new GM campaign was developed. It is designed to entice buyers to try GM products again. GM believe if the can get consumers to try it GM products, they will like them. If it works, you will see other car companies (domestic and foreign) follow suite.

The financial market had been going south since 2001. The mortgage catastrophy started in the late 90's but, didn't hit home till 2007. Spending money we don't have and printing more is the quickest route to a weak underlying economy. Had the gov not interfered and let the chips fall where they should, the American citizens would be much better off. Not the freakin Wall St thugs!

Who is going to pay for the payoff for the votes from the UAW? We have politics in Washington that is out-of-control!

True, it has never been a Free Market. The Goobs have regulated it to death and won't take thier stinking fat fingers off.

GM has always done well with thier trucks/SUV's They can't give-a-way their passenger vehicles! In 1993, it was GM's 1500 pickup that saved then from going bankrupt. GM should get out of the car buisness and build trucks. A plan the UAW would never support. The UAW would have to be forced into it.

And, no one has been able to defend this latest Sales Promotion from GM that is pure bad business. OK with you to just print more money?

YardleyLabs
09-16-2009, 09:30 PM
The financial market had been going south since 2001. The mortgage catastrophy started in the late 90's but, didn't hit home till 2007. Spending money we don't have and printing more is the quickest route to a weak underlying economy. Had the gov not interfered and let the chips fall where they should, the American citizens would be much better off. Not the freakin Wall St thugs!

...
So Franco, are you suggesting that Clinton was responsible for everything bad that happened to the economy from 2000 until November 2008 and that Obama is responsible for everything bad that happened to the economy since then? That does seem to be the general Republican line. Why shouldn't you join the chorus?;-) I understand that Reagan and Bush Sr were responsible for everything good that happened to the economy from 1993 until 2000.

Franco
09-16-2009, 10:46 PM
So Franco, are you suggesting that Clinton was responsible for everything bad that happened to the economy from 2000 until November 2008 and that Obama is responsible for everything bad that happened to the economy since then? That does seem to be the general Republican line. Why shouldn't you join the chorus?;-) I understand that Reagan and Bush Sr were responsible for everything good that happened to the economy from 1993 until 2000.

That's not what I said!

The Dems can take ownership of the mortgage crisis. Liberal lending policies began with Clinton and run unchecked throughout the Bush years, thanks to Frank & Dodd. Bush wasn't stromg enough when he questioned the financial health of Freddie and Fannie in 02. Bush had his own spending problems, mostly Iraq and A'stan. Bush spent way too much in foreign aide and social programs too. I also blame the Bush administration for the mess on Wall St because it was his SEC that was asleep at the wheel. Bush also knew he was doing wrong by supporting the first round of bailouts. He did it to help McCain get elected. However, it all backfired on them and a major reason the GOP is in the sad state it is in.

In regards to bad economy. Other than some of my customers having been scared to death by all the doom and gloom in the National news, folks around here kept saying to one another, "when will it get bad here". We really didn't feel it other than the auto dealers where having a hard time getting buyers financed.

Obama has been making all the wrong moves and if you think Bush and Clinton had horrible policies, Obama's are even worse! At what point in time does one say, "we are out of spending money"? What I want to hear from DC is about spending cuts not TRILLION dollar deficits and even more spending!!!

The govenemnt can't fix it by spending money we don't have! Instead we have to be more resourceful and imaginitive in business. A concept huge gooberment has no concept of.

The American people do NOT trust our leadership and and that is why they will never buy into Gooberment run Health Care, nor the bailout, the massive spending social programs and all thw wasteful spending coming out of the current goobs.

K G
09-17-2009, 08:38 AM
Jeff, you sound more like a sour grapes liberal with every post....;-) Attababy!!;-)

I'm reminded of one of Cyndie Lauper's great songs here....:D

kg

Roger Perry
09-17-2009, 09:07 AM
The financial market had been going south since 2001. The mortgage catastrophy started in the late 90's but, didn't hit home till 2007.

Background
The immediate cause or trigger of the crisis was the bursting of the United States housing bubble (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_housing_bubble) which peaked in approximately 2005–2006.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932009#cite_note-Moyers_Morgenson-5)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932009#cite_note-WSJ_Housing_Bubble_Burst-6) High default rates on "subprime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_lending)" and adjustable rate mortgages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjustable_rate_mortgage) (ARM), began to increase quickly thereafter. An increase in loan incentives such as easy initial terms and a long-term trend of rising housing prices had encouraged borrowers to assume difficult mortgages in the belief they would be able to quickly refinance at more favorable terms. However, once interest rates began to rise and housing prices started to drop moderately in 2006–2007 in many parts of the U.S., refinancing became more difficult. Defaults (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_(finance)) and foreclosure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreclosure) activity increased dramatically as easy initial terms expired, home prices failed to go up as anticipated, and ARM interest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest) rates reset higher.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/NYUGDPFinancialShare.jpg/180px-NYUGDPFinancialShare.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NYUGDPFinancialShare.jpg) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NYUGDPFinancialShare.jpg)
Share in GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product) of U.S. financial sector since 1860.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932009#cite_note-7)


In the years leading up to the start of the crisis in 2007, significant amounts of foreign money flowed into the U.S. from fast-growing economies in Asia and oil-producing countries. This inflow of funds made it easier for the Federal Reserve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve) to keep interest rates in the United States too low (by the Taylor rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_rule)) from 2002–2006 which contributed to easy credit conditions, leading to the United States housing bubble (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_housing_bubble). Loans of various types (e.g., mortgage, credit card, and auto) were easy to obtain and consumers assumed an unprecedented debt load.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932009#cite_note-8)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932009#cite_note-9) As part of the housing and credit booms, the amount of financial agreements called mortgage-backed securities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage-backed_securities) (MBS), which derive their value from mortgage payments and housing prices, greatly increased. Such financial innovation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_innovation) enabled institutions and investors around the world to invest in the U.S. housing market. As housing prices declined, major global financial institutions that had borrowed and invested heavily in subprime MBS reported significant losses. Falling prices also resulted in homes worth less than the mortgage loan, providing a financial incentive to enter foreclosure. The ongoing foreclosure epidemic that began in late 2006 in the U.S. continues to drain wealth from consumers and erodes the financial strength of banking institutions. Defaults and losses on other loan types also increased significantly as the crisis expanded from the housing market to other parts of the economy. Total losses are estimated in the trillions of U.S. dollars globally.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932009#cite_note-10)
While the housing and credit bubbles built, a series of factors caused the financial system to both expand and become increasingly fragile. Policymakers did not recognize the increasingly important role played by financial institutions such as investment banks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_banks) and hedge funds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedge_funds), also known as the shadow banking system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banking_system). Some experts believe these institutions had become as important as commercial (depository) banks in providing credit to the U.S. economy, but they were not subject to the same regulations.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932009#cite_note-newyorkfed.org-11) These institutions as well as certain regulated banks had also assumed significant debt burdens while providing the loans described above and did not have a financial cushion sufficient to absorb large loan defaults or MBS losses.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932009#cite_note-12) These losses impacted the ability of financial institutions to lend, slowing economic activity. Concerns regarding the stability of key financial institutions drove central banks to provide funds to encourage lending and restore faith in the commercial paper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_paper) markets, which are integral to funding business operations. Governments also bailed out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailout) key financial institutions and implemented economic stimulus programs, assuming significant additional financial commitments.

For whole article see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932009

zeus3925
09-17-2009, 09:25 AM
Obama has been making all the wrong moves and if you think Bush and Clinton had horrible policies, Obama's are even worse! At what point in time does one say, "we are out of spending money"? What I want to hear from DC is about spending cuts not TRILLION dollar deficits and even more spending!!!



Your prayers have been answered in part.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32881225/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

K G
09-17-2009, 02:23 PM
Ahhhhh....can we ever get enough Wikipedia in our day?

Yeah....that is the best resource for reporting of financial information......

:rolleyes:........................................ .......................

kg

Franco
09-17-2009, 02:31 PM
I just saw a TV commercial where the new Chairman of Gooberment Motors is saying, "if you don't like our vehicles return them within 4,ooo miles, no questions asked. We are putting our money where our mouth is".

Problem is, it is not his money, it is our money he is putting in his mouth!

gman0046
09-17-2009, 03:17 PM
Franco, arguing with a Liberal like Yardley is like getting into a pissing contest with a skunk, your going to get wet. No amount of logic can change their opinions. Why even try. They are just a product of their environment.

YardleyLabs
09-17-2009, 03:53 PM
Franco, arguing with a Liberal like Yardley is like getting into a pissing contest with a skunk, your going to get wet. No amount of logic can change their opinions. Why even try. They are just a product of their environment.
Use some logic and try. It would be a nice change.;)