PDA

View Full Version : Goobernment Motors



Roger Perry
01-20-2011, 06:09 PM
And you righties were against obama saving General Motors from going bankrupt. I remember alot of you here saying not to buy anything from goobernment motors.
http://www.flixxy.com/gm-hy-wire-concept-car.htm

Franco
01-20-2011, 08:07 PM
I am all for alternative fuel vehicles. Anything to quit sendng money to the middle east!

But just like you video says, these vehicles if proven to be viable are at least 10 to 25 years away!

Here is Ford's hyrdrogen powered pick up. Checkout the date when they displayed this truck at the Detroit auto show.
http://www.gizmag.com/go/5007/

Cost will be very high, way beyond what the vast majority can afford. But, at least we are developing alternative.

BTW, just about all the automakers around the world are experimenting with prototypes.

So, how about tax payers getting thier money back from GM?

road kill
01-20-2011, 08:17 PM
And you righties were against obama saving General Motors from going bankrupt. I remember alot of you here saying not to buy anything from goobernment motors.
http://www.flixxy.com/gm-hy-wire-concept-car.htm



Yeah, they are sweet.

Anyone hear anything about the 1,000 plus jobs they are moving to Mexico??

Yeah......sweeeeet!!!!


RK

dnf777
01-20-2011, 09:15 PM
Ford announced that sometime soon (2012?) ALL their vehicles will be auto-on/auto-off technology. Your engine will shut off after sitting still at a stoplight for some period of time.

M&K's Retrievers
01-20-2011, 09:21 PM
Ford announced that sometime soon (2012?) ALL their vehicles will be auto-on/auto-off technology. Your engine will shut off after sitting still at a stoplight for some period of time.

Where did you hear that BS?

Blackstone
01-20-2011, 11:12 PM
Yeah, they are sweet.

Anyone hear anything about the 1,000 plus jobs they are moving to Mexico??

Yeah......sweeeeet!!!!


RK

What 1,000+ jobs? Haven't heard anything about that.

Roger Perry
01-21-2011, 07:04 AM
What 1,000+ jobs? Haven't heard anything about that.

RK is just a nay sayer. Anything that happens during this administrations reign that is good for the country he will have something negative to say about it.;-)

Cody Covey
01-21-2011, 02:54 PM
RK is just a nay sayer. Anything that happens during this administrations reign that is good for the country he will have something negative to say about it.;-)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110120/ts_alt_afp/mexicousautocompanygm

road kill
01-21-2011, 02:59 PM
Originally Posted by Roger Perry
RK is just a nay sayer. Anything that happens during this administrations reign that is good for the country he will have something negative to say about it.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110120/ts_alt_afp/mexicousautocompanygm

Put that in your BONG and smoke it RP!!!

Oh....and how is this good for my country???

Wait, maybe 1,000 less illegals????



RK

starjack
01-21-2011, 06:10 PM
Put that in your BONG and smoke it RP!!!

Oh....and how is this good for my country???

Wait, maybe 1,000 less illegals????



RK

They would never go back and WORK for gm that would mean they will have to work.

dnf777
01-21-2011, 06:31 PM
Where did you hear that BS?

Just every news outlet and auto forum...oh, and Ford's official website.

M&K's Retrievers
01-21-2011, 07:39 PM
Just every news outlet and auto forum...oh, and Ford's official website.

Gotta link?

dnf777
01-21-2011, 08:19 PM
Do you really need spoonfed www.ford.com??

Or how to google "ford auto off technology"??

It only got 79,600,000 hits.

Uncle Bill
01-22-2011, 02:16 PM
Put that in your BONG and smoke it RP!!!

Oh....and how is this good for my country???

Wait, maybe 1,000 less illegals????



RK


How about a Dallas "FIX"? Works for me!

UB

I have not checked the accuracy of this, but it sounds good, anyway.
Recently, the city of Dallas, Texas passed a “No Insurance” ordinance: if you have no car insurance, your car will be towed.


To retrieve your car, you must show proof of insurance, pay for the tow, a $350 fine, and $20 for each day the car is in the lot.


After the ordinance was passed, the impound lots were full after nine days. Most of those cars were driven by illegals. Not only are more uninsured drivers off the road, but it is taking away the illegal’s vehicle who won’t pay for accidents or might endanger your life.

Dallas’ Solution:

Get them off the road WITHOUT making them show proof of nationality.

Wonder how the ACLU or the Justice Department will get around this one.

Uncle Bill
01-22-2011, 02:27 PM
FWIW, remember this 'oldie-but-goodie'???

UB








Clunker math


The person who calculated this bit of information went to high school in Pittsburgh , Pa. He is now & has been a professor at The University of West Virginia in Morgantown , West Virginia for the last forty-some years.


A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.




A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year.


So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.


They claim 700,000 vehicles so that's 224 million gallons saved per year.


That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.


5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.


More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars.


So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.



We spent $8.57 for every dollar we saved.


I'm pretty sure they will do a great job with our health care, though.

Blackstone
01-22-2011, 09:16 PM
Put that in your BONG and smoke it RP!!!

Oh....and how is this good for my country???

Wait, maybe 1,000 less illegals????



RK

That is an investment in an existing plant in Ramos, Mexico. GM has been producing vehicles there for years. GM is not moving jobs from the U.S. to Mexico, the added investment is for the production of 2 new engines that were not previously produced anywhere.

Stories like this are sensationalized and serves to rile people up. I wonder why they didn’t publish the story about GM re-opening its Orion, MI plant to build the new Chevrolet Sonic, and the additional $145 mil. they invested for additional tooling to build the new Buick Verano there as well. That plant will put 1,500 Americans to work, 1,100 of whom had been laid off. Or, what about the $43 mil. GM invested in the new plant in Brownstown Township, MI that will build the battery for the new Chevy Volt and future electric vehicles? It will only employ 100 right now, but that is 100 more new U.S. jobs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/business/08subcompact.html

Blackstone
01-22-2011, 11:15 PM
FWIW, remember this 'oldie-but-goodie'???

UB

Old, but not really that good.

The problem with faulty math:



Clunker math


The person who calculated this bit of information went to high school in Pittsburgh , Pa. He is now & has been a professor at The University of West Virginia in Morgantown , West Virginia for the last forty-some years.


A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.




A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year.


So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.


They claim 700,000 vehicles so that's 224 million gallons saved per year.


That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.

Actually, 224 million gallons of gas equates to about 11.2 million barrels of oil (a barrel of oil only makes about 20 gallons of gas).



5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.


More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars.


So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.

We all know oil is about $89 per barrel now, and likely to remain higher than $70/barrel for the foreseeable future.

So, even if oil is $80 per barrel, that’s $880 million PER YEAR. It would only take 4 years to exceed the $3 billion that was spent. After year 4, its all savings.

However, the goal was not to save money. It was to reduce our dependency on oil, which it did by almost 11 million barrels per year. But, if you want to look at savings, 480 gallons of gas per year will save each car buyer about $1,440 per year (with gas at $3 per gallon like it is now). That would certainly increase discretionary income. That’s money they can spend on goods and services that could stimulate the economy, which was the other goal of the program.

mjh345
01-22-2011, 11:40 PM
Old, but not really that good.

The problem with faulty math:



Actually, 224 million gallons of gas equates to about 11.2 million barrels of oil (a barrel of oil only makes about 20 gallons of gas).

.

WOW!!
Those oil companys sure are mighty charitable.
A barrell of oil costs $90 and makes 20 gallons that is $4.50/gallon.

And I can buy it for less than $3/gallon after transportation, refinery and taxes.

I've got to call me broker and tell him to divest me of all oil stocks ASAP

Funny math is as Funny math does regards

M&K's Retrievers
01-22-2011, 11:41 PM
Do you really need spoonfed www.ford.com??

Or how to google "ford auto off technology"??

It only got 79,600,000 hits.

All I asked for was a link, not your condescending tripe. It's not unusual to provide conformation of data especially when you consider the source.

Blackstone
01-23-2011, 12:52 AM
WOW!!
Those oil companys sure are mighty charitable.
A barrell of oil costs $90 and makes 20 gallons that is $4.50/gallon.

And I can buy it for less than $3/gallon after transportation, refinery and taxes.

I've got to call me broker and tell him to divest me of all oil stocks ASAP

Funny math is as Funny math does regards

Not really. If you put the right numbers in, you get the right numbers out.

There are 42 gallons of crude in a barrel of oil. You get about 19 - 20 gallons of gasoline, about 10 gallons of diesel fuel, 4 gallons of jet fuels, and about 7 gallons go to make other petroleum based products. The rest goes to make heating oil and other heavy fuel. You actually get about 44 gallons worth of petroleum products from a 42 gallon barrel of crude. I’m not sure how that works, but it does. Don’t worry about the oil companies, they’re making plenty.

dnf777
01-23-2011, 07:56 AM
All I asked for was a link, not your condescending tripe. It's not unusual to provide conformation of data especially when you consider the source.

You called my comment "BS". So you can sling consescending trip, but just can't take it?? I'll be more delicate from now on.

And I'm sorry, but when someone says "the official Ford site" most poeple, including my children (grade school) can figure out "ford.com" Don't forget the "www".


In case you can't find this response, here is the link:

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=65355&page=3

road kill
01-23-2011, 08:14 AM
That is an investment in an existing plant in Ramos, Mexico. GM has been producing vehicles there for years. GM is not moving jobs from the U.S. to Mexico, the added investment is for the production of 2 new engines that were not previously produced anywhere.

Stories like this are sensationalized and serves to rile people up. I wonder why they didn’t publish the story about GM re-opening its Orion, MI plant to build the new Chevrolet Sonic, and the additional $145 mil. they invested for additional tooling to build the new Buick Verano there as well. That plant will put 1,500 Americans to work, 1,100 of whom had been laid off. Or, what about the $43 mil. GM invested in the new plant in Brownstown Township, MI that will build the battery for the new Chevy Volt and future electric vehicles? It will only employ 100 right now, but that is 100 more new U.S. jobs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/business/08subcompact.html

It is 1,000+ jobs in Mexico by a company I HELPED BAIL OUT!!
(yes, I pay taxes)

That to you is a good thing how????

Those jobs should be in the USA!!




stan b

luvmylabs23139
01-23-2011, 08:52 AM
It is 1,000+ jobs in Mexico by a company I HELPED BAIL OUT!!
(yes, I pay taxes)

That to you is a good thing how????

Those jobs should be in the USA!!




stan b

+1000
Why help Mexico?

Roger Perry
01-23-2011, 08:59 AM
+1000
Why help Mexico?

To keep illegal immigrants in their own country?:-P

mjh345
01-23-2011, 09:04 AM
Not really. If you put the right numbers in, you get the right numbers out.

There are 42 gallons of crude in a barrel of oil. You get about 19 - 20 gallons of gasoline, about 10 gallons of diesel fuel, 4 gallons of jet fuels, and about 7 gallons go to make other petroleum based products. The rest goes to make heating oil and other heavy fuel. You actually get about 44 gallons worth of petroleum products from a 42 gallon barrel of crude. I’m not sure how that works, but it does. Don’t worry about the oil companies, they’re making plenty.

My post was in jest, making a pun on funny/fuzzy math.

The oil companies have been doing quite well for some time

depittydawg
01-23-2011, 10:06 AM
WOW!!
Those oil companys sure are mighty charitable.
A barrell of oil costs $90 and makes 20 gallons that is $4.50/gallon.

And I can buy it for less than $3/gallon after transportation, refinery and taxes.

I've got to call me broker and tell him to divest me of all oil stocks ASAP

Funny math is as Funny math does regards

I've heard that gasoline is made from basicailly the waste of a barrel of oil. Plastics and other products account for the rest of it.

Blackstone
01-23-2011, 10:10 AM
It is 1,000+ jobs in Mexico by a company I HELPED BAIL OUT!!
(yes, I pay taxes)

That to you is a good thing how????

Those jobs should be in the USA!!




stan b

Of course, I would rather have seen those jobs in the U.S. However, the reality is companies are going to build where it makes the most sense economically. Those engines will go in vehicles built and sold in various countries around the world. They are for vehicles built on a global platform.

A lot of people on this board condemned GM for poor business practices. Now, they are condemned for being cost effective. They said Ford did things the right way and that’s why they didn’t need Gov. loans. Well, look at all the vehicles Ford is producing in Mexico. So, if Ford is doing it right . . . .

dnf777
01-23-2011, 10:14 AM
A lot of people on this board condemned GM for poor business practices. Now, they are condemned for being cost effective. They said Ford did things the right way and that’s why they didn’t need Gov. loans. Well, look at all the vehicles Ford is producing in Mexico. So, if Ford is doing it right . . . .


Now don't go applying common sense and a level playing field. The righties can do or say no wrong. If they appear to, its merely because the facts haven't been properly manipulated or ignored! ;)

luvmylabs23139
01-23-2011, 10:15 AM
To keep illegal immigrants in their own country?:-P

Then why not do something that might actually work? Shoot everyone that tries to cross the border. Power up the fence. If they had the threat of death for attempting to cross I bet fewer would try to cross. Right now if they get caught we just ship the back and they try again.
Why not deny education to all illegals? Why not deny all rights to illegals and their spawn?
Why is it ok to break the law, jump the border, squat down and pop out a kid and all of a sudden you and your spawn are above the law?:confused::confused:

Roger Perry
01-23-2011, 10:18 AM
Of course, I would rather have seen those jobs in the U.S. However, the reality is companies are going to build where it makes the most sense economically. Those engines will go in vehicles built and sold in various countries around the world. They are for vehicles built on a global platform.

A lot of people on this board condemned GM for poor business practices. Now, they are condemned for being cost effective. They said Ford did things the right way and that’s why they didn’t need Gov. loans. Well, look at all the vehicles Ford is producing in Mexico. So, if Ford is doing it right . . . .
And Canada.

luvmylabs23139
01-23-2011, 10:19 AM
To keep illegal immigrants in their own country?:-P

Power up the fence. Shoot anyone trying to cross. Deny everything to them.
That might help.
Enforce the border! Try to come in and risk your life. We need a real deterant (sp).

Roger Perry
01-23-2011, 10:38 AM
Power up the fence. Shoot anyone trying to cross. Deny everything to them.
That might help.
Enforce the border! Try to come in and risk your life. We need a real deterant (sp).

You righties are complaining now about the money being spent. How much would it cost to build such a fence from Texas to California. Where would the money come from to support such an idea? It is so easy to flap your gums without comming up with a practical solution.

And shooting men, women and children who tries to cross our borders illegaly? Wouldn't that be murder? Even Iran captures people that cross their border they don't pick them off like rats in a dump.

Blackstone
01-23-2011, 12:27 PM
+1000
Why help Mexico?

GM is not concerned with helping Mexico. They are concerned with profits.

Besides, weren't you the big Toyota supporter? Why help Japan?

Buzz
01-23-2011, 12:30 PM
GM is not concerned with helping Mexico. They are concerned with profits.

Besides, weren't you the big Toyota supporter? Why help Japan?


I think you can sum that answer up in three letters.

UAW

M&K's Retrievers
01-23-2011, 01:20 PM
You called my comment "BS". So you can sling consescending trip, but just can't take it?? I'll be more delicate from now on.

And I'm sorry, but when someone says "the official Ford site" most poeple, including my children (grade school) can figure out "ford.com" Don't forget the "www".


In case you can't find this response, here is the link:

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=65355&page=3

I was in hopes you had something more direct so I wouldn't have to dig through all of Ford's GDG. Forgive me for asking. I'll try not let it happen again. Far be it for me to hiss off the hall monitor.

Tippy toeing around POTUS regards,

Blackstone
01-23-2011, 01:46 PM
I think you can sum that answer up in three letters.

UAW

UAW workers are the only manufacturing workers keeping up with the cost of living. Most manufacturing job wages are about where they were 15 years ago. Although, even the UAW has been broken recently. Some of the workers at the Orion Township plant will be working for ˝ the wages of older workers. Same amount of work, but ˝ the pay to do it. Something doesn’t sound right about that.

road kill
01-23-2011, 01:51 PM
UAW workers are the only manufacturing workers keeping up with the cost of living. Most manufacturing job wages are about where they were 15 years ago. Although, even the UAW has been broken recently. Some of the workers at the Orion Township plant will be working for ˝ the wages of older workers. Same amount of work, but ˝ the pay to do it. Something doesn’t sound right about that.

Would that be when they were being paid 15 years ahead of what the should have been paid???



RK

dnf777
01-23-2011, 01:55 PM
I was in hopes you had something more direct so I wouldn't have to dig through all of Ford's GDG. Forgive me for asking. I'll try not let it happen again. Far be it for me to hiss off the hall monitor.

Tippy toeing around POTUS regards,

Nice try. No need to tippy toe, we're all tough around here. But if you can't stand the heat, don't throw wood on the fire. IOW, don't dish it out, if you can't take it!

Have a nice day, I hope its warm (but not too warm) where you're at...

Franco
01-23-2011, 01:59 PM
GM is not concerned with helping Mexico. They are concerned with profits.



Absolutely! That's why I have no problem with GM continuing its relationship with Mexico. That country buys GM products, second only to the USA.

GM needs all the help they can get so that tax payers can get some of thier money back. ;-)

Buzz
01-23-2011, 02:07 PM
Would that be when they were being paid 15 years ahead of what the should have been paid???



RK

Yup, because if they'd been willing to work for what 3rd world workers do, guys like Duck wouldn't be out looking for work right now. They'd be happy as clams.

Blackstone
01-23-2011, 02:57 PM
Would that be when they were being paid 15 years ahead of what the should have been paid???



RK

Manufacturing jobs and wages are what made this country great. They are what spurred our economy. People made enough money to live well, buy home, cars, etc., and put their kids through college. Now, that most of those jobs are gone, and the threat of outsourcing remaining jobs keeps wages low, where is our economy? Besides, can you make it on what you were getting paid 15 years ago?

I worked in an auto plant one summer. It was hard and dirty work. I wasn't in the union yet, but I made good money. I could have stayed, but that job only served to reinforce the fact that I needed to go back to school. The people I worked with earned every dime they got paid. I certainly wouldn't have done that job for 1/2 the pay.

M&K's Retrievers
01-23-2011, 03:16 PM
Nice try. No need to tippy toe, we're all tough around here. But if you can't stand the heat, don't throw wood on the fire. IOW, don't dish it out, if you can't take it!

Have a nice day, I hope its warm (but not too warm) where you're at...

Nice try at what??:confused:

I can take the heat and I chuck wood not throw.

Here's my hall pass regards,

luvmylabs23139
01-23-2011, 03:22 PM
GM is not concerned with helping Mexico. They are concerned with profits.

Besides, weren't you the big Toyota supporter? Why help Japan?


My Toyota was actually made in the US.

dnf777
01-23-2011, 03:56 PM
Nice try at what??:confused:

I can take the heat and I chuck wood not throw.

Here's my hall pass regards,

Dang Woodchuck!

Blackstone
01-23-2011, 03:57 PM
My Toyota was actually made in the US.

But, the profits go to Japan. So, you are still helping Japan.

And, unlike Mexico, Japan pretty much closes its market to American cars and trucks. In fact, Japan recently had a program similar to “Cash for Clunkers,” however American cars did not qualify for purchase under the program.

troy schwab
01-24-2011, 01:13 PM
But, the profits go to Japan. So, you are still helping Japan.

And, unlike Mexico, Japan pretty much closes its market to American cars and trucks. In fact, Japan recently had a program similar to “Cash for Clunkers,” however American cars did not qualify for purchase under the program.

Wished we woulda thought of that....... ROFL

mjh345
01-24-2011, 01:15 PM
For the first time ever GM sold more product in China than they did here

Blackstone
01-24-2011, 05:06 PM
For the first time ever GM sold more product in China than they did here

And, believe it or not, Buick is the big seller in China.

Buzz
01-24-2011, 05:19 PM
Toyota still No. 1 in sales; GM narrows the gap



http://detnews.com/article/20110124/AUTO01/101240373/1148/Toyota-still-No.-1-in-sales--GM-narrows-the-gap

Blackstone
01-24-2011, 10:52 PM
Wished we woulda thought of that....... ROFL

I guess it's a good thing smarter people were in charge. :p

road kill
02-24-2011, 03:14 PM
Hey, hows that GM stock doin for ya????

GM Falls Below IPO Price as Rising Oil Dims Truck Sales Outlook
February 24, 2011, 1:46 PM EST


Feb. 24 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Co. fell to the lowest since its initial public offering in November as rising oil prices dimmed the outlook for truck sales after the largest U.S. automaker’s most profitable year since 1999.

GM slid $1.89, or 5.5 percent, to $32.70 at 1:21 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The drop marked the first day GM traded at less than its $33 initial offering price in November.


http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-02-24/gm-falls-below-ipo-price-as-rising-oil-dims-truck-sales-outlook.html

RK


RK

Franco
02-24-2011, 03:29 PM
Hey, hows that GM stock doin for ya????

GM Falls Below IPO Price as Rising Oil Dims Truck Sales Outlook
February 24, 2011, 1:46 PM EST


Feb. 24 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Co. fell to the lowest since its initial public offering in November as rising oil prices dimmed the outlook for truck sales after the largest U.S. automaker’s most profitable year since 1999.

GM slid $1.89, or 5.5 percent, to $32.70 at 1:21 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The drop marked the first day GM traded at less than its $33 initial offering price in November.


http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-02-24/gm-falls-below-ipo-price-as-rising-oil-dims-truck-sales-outlook.html

RK


RK

A good time to start dealing with the UAW or we will have to bail them out again. The UAW still has thier claws into us for some 50 billion!

The government missed a great opportunity to deal with the UAW in getting meaningful concessions when they were bailed out two years ago.

GM needs to take a hard look at how the Asian auto mfg's operate in this country. There is a reason they stayed clear of union friendly states in building thier autoplants in the right to work South.

road kill
02-24-2011, 03:33 PM
A good time to start dealing with the UAW or we will have to bail them out again. The UAW still has thier claws into us for some 50 billion!

The government missed a great opportunity to deal with the UAW in getting meaningful concessions when they were bailed out two years ago.

GM needs to take a hard look at how the Asian auto mfg's operate in this country. There is a reason they stayed clear of union friendly states in building thier autoplants in the right to work South.


You know, this is a good point.
In this case we tried dealing with the union the way the Democrats want to do it.
It has NOT worked.

Maybe it's time to try it Walkers way?????


Just sayin'.....


RK

Blackstone
02-24-2011, 03:56 PM
Hey, hows that GM stock doin for ya????

GM Falls Below IPO Price as Rising Oil Dims Truck Sales Outlook
February 24, 2011, 1:46 PM EST


Feb. 24 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Co. fell to the lowest since its initial public offering in November as rising oil prices dimmed the outlook for truck sales after the largest U.S. automaker’s most profitable year since 1999.

GM slid $1.89, or 5.5 percent, to $32.70 at 1:21 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The drop marked the first day GM traded at less than its $33 initial offering price in November.


http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-02-24/gm-falls-below-ipo-price-as-rising-oil-dims-truck-sales-outlook.html

RK


RK

Stock prices go up and down. Could be time to buy. Everyone knows auto company stock is affected by oil prices (especially those companies that build full-size trucks). When the middle east situation settles down and gas prices drop, stock prices will rebound.

It's easy to pick on GM, but why didn't you mention that Ford's stock is down as well. Their stock fell 13% at the end of Jan. when announced they missed Q4 2010 earning estimates. They're down another 9% now. So, since the end of Jan., their stock has fallen from $18.79 to $14.62. That's probably not working out too well for their stockholders either.

road kill
02-24-2011, 03:58 PM
Stock prices go up and down. Could be time to buy. Everyone knows auto company stock is affected by oil prices (especially those companies that build full-size trucks). When the middle east situation settles down and gas prices drop, stock prices will rebound.

It's easy to pick on GM, but why didn't you mention that Ford's stock is down as well. Their stock fell 13% at the end of Jan. when announced they missed Q4 2010 earning estimates. They're down another 9% now. So, since the end of Jan., their stock has fallen from $18.79 to $14.62. That's probably not working out too well for their stockholders either.

Because the Government didn't buy Ford.

DUHHHHH!!!!:razz:


RK

Blackstone
02-24-2011, 04:00 PM
Because the Government didn't buy Ford.

DUHHHHH!!!!:razz:


RK

What does that have to do with stock prices? :rolleyes:

road kill
08-13-2012, 05:02 PM
And you righties were against obama saving General Motors from going bankrupt. I remember alot of you here saying not to buy anything from goobernment motors.
http://www.flixxy.com/gm-hy-wire-concept-car.htm



Treasury: U.S. to lose $25 billion on auto bailout
By David Shepardson
Detroit News Washington Bureau

Washington -The Treasury Department says in a new report the government expects to lose more than $25 billion on the $85 billion auto bailout. That's 15 percent higher than its previous forecast.

In a monthly report sent to Congress on Friday, the Obama administration boosted its forecast of expected losses by more than $3.3 billion to almost $25.1 billion, up from $21.7 billion in the last quarterly update.


From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120813/AUTO01/208130392#ixzz23SilA7y6]

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120813/AUTO01/208130392


Yup, us "righties" were way off the mark.
Frankly, I had no idea it would be this bad!!!!!

zeus3925
08-13-2012, 06:18 PM
Manufacturing jobs and wages are what made this country great. They are what spurred our economy. People made enough money to live well, buy home, cars, etc., and put their kids through college. Now, that most of those jobs are gone, and the threat of outsourcing remaining jobs keeps wages low, where is our economy? Besides, can you make it on what you were getting paid 15 years ago?

I worked in an auto plant one summer. It was hard and dirty work. I wasn't in the union yet, but I made good money. I could have stayed, but that job only served to reinforce the fact that I needed to go back to school. The people I worked with earned every dime they got paid. I certainly wouldn't have done that job for 1/2 the pay.

Ditto... I worked in a Ford stamping plant summers to put my way through school. These guys who criticize the union ought to go to work on the floor once before they open their mouths.

Cody Covey
08-13-2012, 06:25 PM
Ditto... I worked in a Ford stamping plant summers to put my way through school. These guys who criticize the union ought to go to work on the floor once before they open their mouths.

There are many on this board that are currently or have in the past (as in my case) been in unions and voiced their opposition to the unions. Maybe you should look through the board to see that just because someone was / is part of a union doesn't mean that all of a sudden the union is this great thing.

zeus3925
08-14-2012, 08:14 AM
There are many on this board that are currently or have in the past (as in my case) been in unions and voiced their opposition to the unions. Maybe you should look through the board to see that just because someone was / is part of a union doesn't mean that all of a sudden the union is this great thing.
If you ever worked in a car plant 12/7 then you are entitled to your opinion and your paycheck. If you haven't then ....

huntinman
08-14-2012, 08:52 AM
Sarge and the other union lovers here need to pull your blinders off. I have been a member of 3 unions in my lifetime. (one was on a railroad in the south, don't know if that is as tough as working in an auto plant... but working in a railyard when it's 100 degrees is no cakewalk)

Unions had their place back in the day... But, they are so rigid they will kill the industry their members are working in just to win the negotiations. It is ridiculous. You can't kill the Golden Goose, but unions have done it time after time... Then sit there blaming everyone else. See a theme here?

zeus3925
08-14-2012, 09:41 AM
Sarge and the other union lovers here need to pull your blinders off. I have been a member of 3 unions in my lifetime. (one was on a railroad in the south, don't know if that is as tough as working in an auto plant... but working in a railyard when it's 100 degrees is no cakewalk)

Unions had their place back in the day... But, they are so rigid they will kill the industry their members are working in just to win the negotiations. It is ridiculous. You can't kill the Golden Goose, but unions have done it time after time... Then sit there blaming everyone else. See a theme here?

Try walking into a plant at 105 degrees outside with no air conditioning and then work at a station on a plater unracking 80 pound bumpers with two other guys at a rate of eight every 90 seconds.(bars as they call them in the plant). The additional heat would generated by the plater would drive up the ambient temperature to the degree the devil would walk around in BVDs. Add to that the din of several lines of 80 ton presses stamping out body panels and parts dropping every 30 seconds. The plant was a dangerous place as well. There were a thousand opportunities to get killed every day from cranes dropping steel to getting hands crushed in a press. There was a summer worker in the plant that had just been accepted to the University of Michigan school of Medicine who had ambitions of being a surgeon. While working on the press line the safety equipment failed and he lost a hand in the process.

Like everything in life, there are good unions and bad ones. I have turned down job offers because of the bad union representing the employees.

I have been involved in contract negotiations several times. What you have to keep in mind is that you don't kill the golden goose. That is counter- productive. But, you try to get enough of the "eggs" so that your lowest pay grade is a living wage and your top pay grades are commensurate with the prevailing wage for that category of worker.

Unions exist not only to negotiate contracts, but, to improve working conditions for their membership as well. The also serve as a conduit for conflict resolution.

The UAW has been flexible in its contract negotiations in several of the past rounds. There is a two tier wage system where the newer employees are paid less. There have been other wage concessions and give backs.

What so often happens in negotiations, is that the negotiating team approaches with a table of issues that employees have raised about working conditions. These are often the real sticking point in contract negotiations. As the negotiations wear on, these issues are not resolved. As a deadline approaches the employer will offer a wage package meets or exceeds the union's expectations in an effort to end it all. The union membership accepts the proposal. The employee concerns are unresolved. Everyone feels good for a short time before the same old same old sets in. Then you hear the union didn't get it done and the membership is right. But, then they voted to accept the contract.

Raymond Little
08-14-2012, 11:29 AM
Try walking into a plant at 105 degrees outside with no air conditioning and then work at a station on a plater unracking 80 pound bumpers with two other guys at a rate of eight every 90 seconds.(bars as they call them in the plant). The additional heat would generated by the plater would drive up the ambient temperature to the degree the devil would walk around in BVDs. Add to that the din of several lines of 80 ton presses stamping out body panels and parts dropping every 30 seconds. The plant was a dangerous place as well. There were a thousand opportunities to get killed every day from cranes dropping steel to getting hands crushed in a press. There was a summer worker in the plant that had just been accepted to the University of Michigan school of Medicine who had ambitions of being a surgeon. While working on the press line the safety equipment failed and he lost a hand in the process.

Like everything in life, there are good unions and bad ones. I have turned down job offers because of the bad union representing the employees.

I have been involved in contract negotiations several times. What you have to keep in mind is that you don't kill the golden goose. That is counter- productive. But, you try to get enough of the "eggs" so that your lowest pay grade is a living wage and your top pay grades are commensurate with the prevailing wage for that category of worker.

Unions exist not only to negotiate contracts, but, to improve working conditions for their membership as well. The also serve as a conduit for conflict resolution.

The UAW has been flexible in its contract negotiations in several of the past rounds. There is a two tier wage system where the newer employees are paid less. There have been other wage concessions and give backs.

What so often happens in negotiations, is that the negotiating team approaches with a table of issues that employees have raised about working conditions. These are often the real sticking point in contract negotiations. As the negotiations wear on, these issues are not resolved. As a deadline approaches the employer will offer a wage package meets or exceeds the union's expectations in an effort to end it all. The union membership accepts the proposal. The employee concerns are unresolved. Everyone feels good for a short time before the same old same old sets in. Then you hear the union didn't get it done and the membership is right. But, then they voted to accept the contract.

So, who's the "Golden Goose" that Public Sector Unions get to negotiate with???

huntinman
08-14-2012, 02:06 PM
So, who's the "Golden Goose" that Public Sector Unions get to negotiate with???

Bend over:grab:

road kill
08-14-2012, 02:28 PM
I'm sure DA UNION workers work way harder than I ever dreamed of!!
God bless their hearts.

But the issue is the fact that GM was BANKRUPT!!
(JDogger told me to stay OT!)
The Federal Govt. decided to chose them to bail out.
(DA UNION)
We were told what a grreat investment this was.
We are losing $25 Billion+.

We are being told what a huge success this all is.

Is this the NEW math??
Or is this Obama's vision??

Just sayin'.........

mngundog
08-14-2012, 04:40 PM
I'm sure DA UNION workers work way harder than I ever dreamed of!!
God bless their hearts.

But the issue is the fact that GM was BANKRUPT!!
(JDogger told me to stay OT!)
The Federal Govt. decided to chose them to bail out.
(DA UNION)
We were told what a grreat investment this was.
We are losing $25 Billion+.

We are being told what a huge success this all is.

Is this the NEW math??
Or is this Obama's vision??

Just sayin'.........

And I'm sure it was all about the Union and had nothing to do with 30 execs making up to $15 million a year while managing the company into the ground, that's brilliant. When you have 20 people at GM making more money than the CEO at Toyota makes your going to run your company into the ground, but lets blame the working class instead of the elite, God knows the elite were not part of the problem.

road kill
08-14-2012, 04:56 PM
And I'm sure it was all about the Union and had nothing to do with 30 execs making up to $15 million a year while managing the company into the ground, that's brilliant. When you have 20 people at GM making more money than the CEO at Toyota makes your going to run your company into the ground, but lets blame the working class instead of the elite, God knows the elite were not part of the problem.
So you are saying Obama bailed out the Sr. Execs??
And that makes it OK??


All righty then...........

menmon
08-14-2012, 04:59 PM
BINGO!!!!!!!!! That is exactly the republicans strategy. The massive debt is because of welfare and foodstamps and has nothing to do with the billions that are distributed every day to companies that are not in need. Lets not increase taxes on the rich, lets tax the poor more. Lets blame Obama for this economy, not Bush. Etc.

menmon
08-14-2012, 05:02 PM
Obama did it to save jobs. Don't twist it Stan....you are a working man like all the rest of us...if anyone should get it you should.

mngundog
08-14-2012, 05:04 PM
So you are saying Obama bailed out the Sr. Execs??
And that makes it OK??


All righty then...........

I'm saying over a course of less than two years Obama, Bush and both parties gave about a Trillion dollars of the tax payers money to businesses that had been run into to the ground by they're moron friends, then those morons divided of Billions of dollars to be given away as bonuses to the same execs who managed them into the ground. Then we blame the union for corrupting America. Great logic.

menmon
08-14-2012, 05:08 PM
Have you ever noticed that if you stand against the republicans on anything they demonize you. It was clearly a management problem and the government opening the flood gate to competition without the same opportunity the other direction.

road kill
08-14-2012, 05:12 PM
Have you ever noticed that if you stand against the republicans on anything they demonize you. It was clearly a management problem and the government opening the flood gate to competition without the same opportunity the other direction.
So......we (the taxpayers) lost $25 BILLION on the deal.
Who owns and runs GM now????


Where da money???


Dance, sambo, DANCE!!!!!

mngundog
08-14-2012, 05:14 PM
So......we (the taxpayers) lost $25 BILLION on the deal.
Who owns and runs GM now????


Where da money???


Dance, sambo, DANCE!!!!!

Road Kill, you have to remember that it was Bush that got the ball rolling by handing out billions to his friends, then Obama took to ball and ran with it, to say that either party was without fault is burying your head in the sand.

menmon
08-14-2012, 05:14 PM
You have not lost anything...unlike in the past when we have bailed companies out....this time we took debt and stock, and we still own a lot of stock, that will get sold in the future and not cost the government anything.

mngundog
08-14-2012, 05:20 PM
You have not lost anything...unlike in the past when we have bailed companies out....this time we took debt and stock, and we still own a lot of stock, that will get sold in the future and not cost the government anything.

Sambo the Government should not be in the business of bailing out any company, GM ran themselves into the ground, they will do it again.

menmon
08-14-2012, 05:28 PM
I agree with that statement....but given the circumstances, I think the government did the right thing. See if they had not have done this, a few vulture capitalist would have wound up with these working mens retirement nest eggs and a significant part of our country would have been displaced. Even if us tax payers never recover our money, it makes much more sense than borrowing the money to fight two wars that were not necessary. Lets focus on helping our American neighbor...that were our money needs to go.

road kill
08-14-2012, 05:37 PM
I agree with that statement....but given the circumstances, I think the government did the right thing. See if they had not have done this, a few vulture capitalist would have wound up with these working mens retirement nest eggs and a significant part of our country would have been displaced. Even if us tax payers never recover our money, it makes much more sense than borrowing the money to fight two wars that were not necessary. Lets focus on helping our American neighbor...that were our money needs to go.
You mean like what happened to the non-union employees retirement???


Just askin'...........

menmon
08-14-2012, 05:39 PM
Should have been smart enough not to have gone it alone.....those dues would have been a small price to pay.

road kill
08-14-2012, 05:41 PM
Should have been smart enough not to have gone it alone.....those dues would have been a small price to pay.
So screw them because they were not doing jobs covered by DA UNION???


Nice!

starjack
08-14-2012, 05:47 PM
I agree with that statement....but given the circumstances, I think the government did the right thing. See if they had not have done this, a few vulture capitalist would have wound up with these working mens retirement nest eggs and a significant part of our country would have been displaced. Even if us tax payers never recover our money, it makes much more sense than borrowing the money to fight two wars that were not necessary. Lets focus on helping our American neighbor...that were our money needs to go.

WTH I guess 9/11 did not mean a thing to you.

mngundog
08-14-2012, 06:14 PM
So screw them because they were not doing jobs covered by DA UNION???


Nice!

Roadkill, people on here bitch and complain that their union dues doing nothing for them, here is a prime example of the union working. The union protected their employees thats what they are there for.

JDogger
08-14-2012, 08:50 PM
Since we're going off topic...


WTH I guess 9/11 did not mean a thing to you.

Starjack, I hope you realize that 9/11 had little to do with Iraq nor Afghanistan. Al Quida is now moving into a destabalized Syria. A much more serious problem. I wonder how a Romney/Ryan WH will deal with this, or will they say, "we inherited a mess, just give us some time to solve it." Very likely. ...Eh?

Here it comes....

"Jezz sayin'".....JD

Don't bother to reply. Tomorrow RK will dredge up some old thread to lecture to long gone adversaries, RP, DNF, et al. to satisfy his desire to re-read his posts once again. :)

road kill
08-14-2012, 08:51 PM
Roadkill, people on here bitch and complain that their union dues doing nothing for them, here is a prime example of the union working. The union protected their employees thats what they are there for.
DA UNION worked?

The Feds gave them BILLIONS which they have pizzed away in return for votes and DA UNION worked???

OK..........to me, losing $25 BILLION is a massive failure!!!!
Evidently that is a partisan thang............

mngundog
08-15-2012, 09:55 AM
DA UNION worked?

The Feds gave them BILLIONS which they have pizzed away in return for votes and DA UNION worked???

OK..........to me, losing $25 BILLION is a massive failure!!!!
Evidently that is a partisan thang............
Roadkill, GM's management ran the company into the ground, it was a loss cause before the massive bailout, which I already said was a mistake. Now for the the issue of the Union working it appears to me that when it was all said in done, a lot of the employees still have their jobs and benefits, so from a union dues perspective the union worked, I don't see how anyone of those guys (the union workers) could argue it didn't.

road kill
08-15-2012, 10:08 AM
Since we're going off topic...



Starjack, I hope you realize that 9/11 had little to do with Iraq nor Afghanistan. Al Quida is now moving into a destabalized Syria. A much more serious problem. I wonder how a Romney/Ryan WH will deal with this, or will they say, "we inherited a mess, just give us some time to solve it." Very likely. ...Eh?

Here it comes....

"Jezz sayin'".....JD

Don't bother to reply. Tomorrow RK will dredge up some old thread to lecture to long gone adversaries, RP, DNF, et al. to satisfy his desire to re-read his posts once again. :)
Nice, cheap personal insult.
I expect little else from you.

Having stated that, this topic was relevant due to the published numbers this week of what the loss is expected to be.



August 13, 2012 at 7:42 pm
Treasury: U.S. to lose $25 billion on auto bailout
By David Shepardson Detroit News Washington BureauComments Washington -The Treasury Department says in a new report the government expects to lose more than $25 billion on the $85 billion auto bailout. That's 15 percent higher than its previous forecast.
In a monthly report sent to Congress on Friday, the Obama administration boosted its forecast of expected losses by more than $3.3 billion to almost $25.1 billion, up from $21.7 billion in the last quarterly update.
The report may still underestimate the losses. The report covers predicted losses through May 31, when GM's stock price was $22.20 a share.

Please note the date of the Treasury report.
I am not surprised this went over your head.
Try to keep up..........

Anyone got a ladder???:rolleyes:

road kill
08-15-2012, 10:13 AM
Roadkill, GM's management ran the company into the ground, it was a loss cause before the massive bailout, which I already said was a mistake. Now for the the issue of the Union working it appears to me that when it was all said in done, a lot of the employees still have their jobs and benefits, so from a union dues perspective the union worked, I don't see how anyone of those guys (the union workers) could argue it didn't.
Did the bail out work?
Who ultimately gets screwed here?

Mind you, Obama has stated he wants to do for every industry what he has done for GM!!!!!

huntinman
08-15-2012, 10:23 AM
Obama did it to save jobs. Don't twist it Stan....you are a working man like all the rest of us...if anyone should get it you should.


Sambo, you keep telling us you are a banker. According to Obama, that make you a FATCAT, not a working man. ;-)

menmon
08-15-2012, 10:28 AM
I don't know about being a fatcat but I'm one of those making more than $250M, so yes my taxes will go up if he gets his wishes

huntinman
08-15-2012, 10:30 AM
I don't know about being a fatcat but I'm one of those making more than $250M, so yes my taxes will go up if he gets his wishes

Your taxes don't need to go up... just write a check to the IRS if that will make you feel better.

mngundog
08-15-2012, 10:33 AM
Did the bail out work?
Who ultimately gets screwed here?

Mind you, Obama has stated he wants to do for every industry what he has done for GM!!!!!

You and I have always been on the same page as far as if the bail out worked, and who got screwed, our difference of opinion has been why. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Hartfard.... the list goes on and on. A Trillion dollars in bailouts by Bush and Obama going to companies ran into the ground by non-union employees and you blame the workforce and the union.

Brandoned
08-15-2012, 10:59 AM
Question for you pro-union people.

I have a family member that is retired from GM (anti-union btw), therefore I buy all my trucks on the GMS plan which saves me thousands. I trade trucks every 2.5 years and started this about 10+ years ago. First 3 trucks were made in Canada, my latest which is a 2010 GMC loaded was made in Mexico. My dad bought a 2012 a few months ago, also made in Mexico. First the jobs were moved from the US to Canada, now GM is having their top of the line trucks made in Mexico?? How has the union saved these jobs?

mngundog
08-15-2012, 11:03 AM
Question for you pro-union people.

I have a family member that is retired from GM (anti-union btw), therefore I buy all my trucks on the GMS plan which saves me thousands. I trade trucks every 2.5 years and started this about 10+ years ago. First 3 trucks were made in Canada, my latest which is a 2010 GMC loaded was made in Mexico. My dad bought a 2012 a few months ago, also made in Mexico. First the jobs were moved from the US to Canada, now GM is having their top of the line trucks made in Mexico?? How has the union saved these jobs?

They haven't, the management moved their operation, its been happening for over the last 10 years, including union and non-union factories. If a non-union factory moves their company to Mexico, are the anti-union opponents to blame?

Gerry Clinchy
08-15-2012, 11:20 AM
One then asks why the vehicle with the most American labor/parts in it is made here, in a non-union factory? Why isn't it made in Mexico? (That would be the Toyota Tundra.)

mngundog
08-15-2012, 11:37 AM
One then asks why the vehicle with the most American labor/parts in it is made here, in a non-union factory? Why isn't it made in Mexico? (That would be the Toyota Tundra.)

Simple, Honda and Toyota want to be known as American automobiles, a concept that they executed perfectly, they couldn't do that if their production was in Japan or Mexico. And a point worth noting, Toyota had 1 employee who made over $1 million when GM went under, GM had something like 35 employees making more than that, with a few making in the tens of millions.

Blackstone
08-15-2012, 12:12 PM
Question for you pro-union people.

I have a family member that is retired from GM (anti-union btw), therefore I buy all my trucks on the GMS plan which saves me thousands. I trade trucks every 2.5 years and started this about 10+ years ago. First 3 trucks were made in Canada, my latest which is a 2010 GMC loaded was made in Mexico. My dad bought a 2012 a few months ago, also made in Mexico. First the jobs were moved from the US to Canada, now GM is having their top of the line trucks made in Mexico?? How has the union saved these jobs?

Let me preface this by saying I work for GM. Where your truck is built depends on what kind of truck it is. All of the HDs (3/4 & 1 ton) are built in the U.S. (Fort Wayne, IN or Flint, MI). Most Crew Cab 1/2-tons are built in Mexico, but some other cab configurations are built in the U.S. Most of our other models are built in the U.S. We are also building Cruze and Sonic in the U.S. I think those plants were previously closed. Sonic is new, and is the 1st sub-compact car built in the U.S. by any U.S. manufacturer. Opening those plants provided quite a few new union jobs.

Brandoned
08-15-2012, 01:34 PM
Let me preface this by saying I work for GM. Where your truck is built depends on what kind of truck it is. All of the HDs (3/4 & 1 ton) are built in the U.S. (Fort Wayne, IN or Flint, MI). Most Crew Cab 1/2-tons are built in Mexico, but some other cab configurations are built in the U.S. Most of our other models are built in the U.S. We are also building Cruze and Sonic in the U.S. I think those plants were previously closed. Sonic is new, and is the 1st sub-compact car built in the U.S. by any U.S. manufacturer. Opening those plants provided quite a few new union jobs.

Mine is a GMC 1500 Z71 All Terrain, which is top of the line. All top of the line GM and above (Denali Truck) are made in Mexico! Why would you have your top of the line trucks made in Mexico. But then again it might be better made than the ones being made here... My point is if unions are SO great, why does GM keep building plants in Canada and Mexico?

Blackstone
08-15-2012, 02:19 PM
Mine is a GMC 1500 Z71 All Terrain, which is top of the line. All top of the line GM and above (Denali Truck) are made in Mexico! Why would you have your top of the line trucks made in Mexico. But then again it might be better made than the ones being made here... My point is if unions are SO great, why does GM keep building plants in Canada and Mexico?

That is a top of the line 1/2-ton truck. All of the top of the line 3/4 & 1-ton pickups, including Denali, are built in the U.S. It has nothing to do with quality. It's just what the diferent plants are set up to build. I cannot speak for GM, but I imagine cost is the biggest reason they build in other countries. What those cost factors are, I cannot tell you, but obviously they made sense at the time the decision was made. By the same token, they are opening or re-opening plants in the U.S. to build some of the newly introduced models, and they are union plants. The unoins made a lot of consessions that made it more cost effective to build here.

Blackstone
08-15-2012, 02:29 PM
One then asks why the vehicle with the most American labor/parts in it is made here, in a non-union factory? Why isn't it made in Mexico? (That would be the Toyota Tundra.)

Gerry,

You might want to re-check that. The last I read, Tundra was about 8th on the list of vehicles with American made content. I think Dodge Avenger was #1. The fact is, all the manufacturers source parts and electronics from around the world. The cheapest vendor that can produce and supply the part wins. So sourcing can vary from year to year. When you talk about where a vehicle is built, that really only means it's assembled there. It really doesn't tell you where the parts come from.

huntinman
08-15-2012, 02:37 PM
How about the Volt... oh never mind.

Blackstone
08-15-2012, 02:48 PM
How about the Volt... oh never mind.

Volt is built in the U.S. I don't know where the parts come from.

ARay11
08-15-2012, 02:53 PM
That is a top of the line 1/2-ton truck. All of the top of the line 3/4 & 1-ton pickups, including Denali, are built in the U.S. It has nothing to do with quality. It's just what the diferent plants are set up to build. I cannot speak for GM, but I imagine cost is the biggest reason they build in other countries. What those cost factors are, I cannot tell you, but obviously they made sense at the time the decision was made. By the same token, they are opening or re-opening plants in the U.S. to build some of the newly introduced models, and they are union plants. The unoins made a lot of consessions that made it more cost effective to build here.

So if they can build their #1 selling truck in another country for less money........
The less demand, fewer production units can be built in the US... for example: a lower profit margin on 100 units vs a lower profit margin on 1000 units... we see the reasoning.
Still doesnt make Americans happy. And, with the amount of money doled out by the American Taxpayer to GM, one would think they could give a little back. But, no, not much has changed at GM.

Gerry Clinchy
08-15-2012, 03:05 PM
Gerry,

You might want to re-check that. The last I read, Tundra was about 8th on the list of vehicles with American made content. I think Dodge Avenger was #1. The fact is, all the manufacturers source parts and electronics from around the world. The cheapest vendor that can produce and supply the part wins. So sourcing can vary from year to year. When you talk about where a vehicle is built, that really only means it's assembled there. It really doesn't tell you where the parts come from.

Got that from my son who works for Toyota. I was also surprised when he told me that.

Blackstone
08-15-2012, 03:08 PM
So if they can build their #1 selling truck in another country for less money........
The less demand, fewer production units can be built in the US... for example: a lower profit margin on 100 units vs a lower profit margin on 1000 units... we see the reasoning.
Still doesnt make Americans happy. And, with the amount of money doled out by the American Taxpayer to GM, one would think they could give a little back. But, no, not much has changed at GM.

Those trucks were being built in Mexico long before the backruptcy. Can you imagine the expense of closing the plant in Mexico and building a new one in the U.S.? If GM was trying to reduce costs and be more efficient, that is not the way to do it. And, like I said, they have opened 2 plants in the U.S. since the bankruptcy, plus an additional battery plant. All of those provided new American jobs. Since the bankruptcy, GM has spent about $7 million upgrading U.S. plants, and created or retained about 17,500 jobs. Don't they get any credit for that? Isn't that giving something back?

Blackstone
08-15-2012, 03:29 PM
Got that from my son who works for Toyota. I was also surprised when he told me that.

Gerry,

I don't know. It may have been true when they told him, but because of sourcing, things keep changing. I think Camry comes in well ahead of Tundra now. I think Camry is #3.

ARay11
08-15-2012, 05:25 PM
Those trucks were being built in Mexico long before the backruptcy. Can you imagine the expense of closing the plant in Mexico and building a new one in the U.S.? If GM was trying to reduce costs and be more efficient, that is not the way to do it. And, like I said, they have opened 2 plants in the U.S. since the bankruptcy, plus an additional battery plant. All of those provided new American jobs. Since the bankruptcy, GM has spent about $7 million upgrading U.S. plants, and created or retained about 17,500 jobs. Don't they get any credit for that? Isn't that giving something back?

Yes, they were in MX prior to the bailout. That does not make it right.
Expense of putting Mexico's citizens out of work? not my concern
Build a new plant? Nissan, Hyundai, Kia, Mitsubishi, and I am sure others had no problem with it. Dont even build a new plant.... REOPEN the one they SHUTTERED to MOVE TO MEXICO.
Reduce costs and be more efficient? Bust the union.
Battery Plant: for the famous Volt. lol. let's not go there.
Created or RETAINED 17,500 jobs.... which was it? Created or Retained?? If you want me to be proud of them for NOT shutting another plant to move out of country?.... Okay.

Is it giving back?? What?? They want a cookie for the billions they received?? Not happening. Sorry.
Bring Production home. And the jobs that go with it.

More easily said than done I am sure. But put our tax dollars to WORK for US. I assure you we don't mind.

I was actually in favor of the bailout until the realization hit that they weren't going to use that money to come home, make a better product, or truly streamline anything. Our billions got us the Volt.

huntinman
08-15-2012, 05:29 PM
Yes, they were in MX prior to the bailout. That does not make it right.
Expense of putting Mexico's citizens out of work? not my concern
Build a new plant? Nissan, Hyundai, Kia, Mitsubishi, and I am sure others had no problem with it. Dont even build a new plant.... REOPEN the one they SHUTTERED to MOVE TO MEXICO.
Reduce costs and be more efficient? Bust the union.
Battery Plant: for the famous Volt. lol. let's not go there.
Created or RETAINED 17,500 jobs.... which was it? Created or Retained?? If you want me to be proud of them for NOT shutting another plant to move out of country?.... Okay.

Is it giving back?? What?? They want a cookie for the billions they received?? Not happening. Sorry.
Bring Production home. And the jobs that go with it.

More easily said than done I am sure. But put our tax dollars to WORK for US. I assure you we don't mind.

I was actually in favor of the bailout until the realization hit that they weren't going to use that money to come home, make a better product, or truly streamline anything. Our billions got us the Volt.

They are changing the name of the Volt to the Short... as in shorted out. What a dud.

Blackstone
08-15-2012, 06:16 PM
Yes, they were in MX prior to the bailout. That does not make it right.
Expense of putting Mexico's citizens out of work? not my concern
Build a new plant? Nissan, Hyundai, Kia, Mitsubishi, and I am sure others had no problem with it. Dont even build a new plant.... REOPEN the one they SHUTTERED to MOVE TO MEXICO.
Reduce costs and be more efficient? Bust the union.
Battery Plant: for the famous Volt. lol. let's not go there.
Created or RETAINED 17,500 jobs.... which was it? Created or Retained?? If you want me to be proud of them for NOT shutting another plant to move out of country?.... Okay.

Is it giving back?? What?? They want a cookie for the billions they received?? Not happening. Sorry.
Bring Production home. And the jobs that go with it.

More easily said than done I am sure. But put our tax dollars to WORK for US. I assure you we don't mind.

I was actually in favor of the bailout until the realization hit that they weren't going to use that money to come home, make a better product, or truly streamline anything. Our billions got us the Volt.

It's not about putting Mexican worker out of work. Do you have any idea how expensive it is to build a new plant, with all the tooling, staffing & logistics involved? There's lost production, start up costs, etc. It just wouldn't make sense. Where is the money going to come from to accomplish such a feat?

GM has re-opened some shuttered plants. That is where some of the newer models are being built. And, the 17.5 thousand jobs, some are new jobs, and some are jobs that were retained by shifting production of newer models to plants that were scheduled to close. Otherwise, those people would have lost their jobs.

It is more easily said than done. No one is a bigger proponent of bringing manufacturing jobs back to the U.S., but it is not going to happen over night.

ARay11
08-15-2012, 06:27 PM
It's not about putting Mexican worker out of work. Do you have any idea how expensive it is to build a new plant, with all the tooling, staffing & logistics involved? There's lost production, start up costs, etc. It just wouldn't make sense. Where is the money going to come from to accomplish such a feat?

GM has re-opened some shuttered plants. That is where some of the newer models are being built. And, the 17.5 thousand jobs, some are new jobs, and some are jobs that were retained by shifting production of newer models to plants that were scheduled to close. Otherwise, those people would have lost their jobs.

It is more easily said than done. No one is a bigger proponent of bringing manufacturing jobs back to the U.S., but it is not going to happen over night.

We all understand it won't happen overnight. The bigger picture is: With GM: It isn't going to happen at all. Even if we pay them to do it. Oh yeah... we already did that.

Blackstone
08-15-2012, 07:12 PM
We all understand it won't happen overnight. The bigger picture is: With GM: It isn't going to happen at all. Even if we pay them to do it. Oh yeah... we already did that.

Well, have it your way. It probably wouldn't matter how many plants they re-opened, how much production they moved to those plants, or how many jobs that provided, it wouldn't be enough.

zeus3925
08-16-2012, 08:28 AM
[COLOR=#0000ff]Yes, they were in MX prior to the bailout. That does not make it right.
Expense of putting Mexico's citizens out of work? not my concern
Build a new plant? Nissan, Hyundai, Kia, Mitsubishi, and I am sure others had no problem with it. Dont even build a new plant.... REOPEN the one they SHUTTERED to MOVE TO MEXICO.
Reduce costs and be more efficient? Bust the union.
Battery Plant: for the famous Volt. lol. let's not go there.
Created or RETAINED 17,500 jobs.... which was it? Created or Retained?? If you want me to be proud of them for NOT shutting another plant to move out of country?.... Okay.

Is it giving back?? What?? They want a cookie for the billions they received?? Not happening. Sorry.
Bring Production home. And the jobs that go with it.

/COLOR]

Aray:

In July there were 22000 people hired by major manufacturers in Michigan.--11000 by automobile manufacturers. Source : Detroit Free Press

ARay11
08-16-2012, 10:45 AM
Aray:

In July there were 22000 people hired by major manufacturers in Michigan.--11000 by automobile manufacturers. Source : Detroit Free Press


Nice statistic. Too bad they make no mention of which manufacturer. Over 4,000 of those added were by Chrysler. Another 6,000 were at Ford Manufacturing plants. guess that leaves a little room for another cookie for GM

PamK
08-16-2012, 10:59 AM
I guess I don't understand why you would think that any business is in business to give back. They are in business to make money.

ARay11
08-16-2012, 11:00 AM
I guess I don't understand why you would think that any business is in business to give back. They are in business to make money.

They are in business because the American Taxpayer paid them to be in business. When I own part of a business, I expect a return.

zeus3925
08-16-2012, 01:47 PM
They are in business because the American Taxpayer paid them to be in business. When I own part of a business, I expect a return.

You are not going to get instant gratification when a company, down on its knees three years ago, needs to make capital expenditures in plants and equipment. However the present CEO thinks that GM is a good bet. He has been purchasing a bunch of it.

huntinman
08-16-2012, 02:17 PM
You are not going to get instant gratification when a company, down on its knees three years ago, needs to make capital expenditures in plants and equipment. However the present CEO thinks that GM is a good bet. He has been purchasing a bunch of it.

He's gonna have to hold it for a long time to make any money... all those shares given to the unions and such were about 50$ a share... what is it today? $25?

zeus3925
08-16-2012, 02:19 PM
Ps. Jeep is going to hire 1100 new workers in Toledo. Source: Toledo Blade

zeus3925
08-16-2012, 02:27 PM
Bill - If you go to Yahoo Finance and compare the Ford (symbol: F) chart with the GM chart(symbol: GM) you will see that the two pretty well parallel each other. We are coming off a real crushing recession and You can't expect instant rebound. Demand for cars and trucks are just now approaching normal.

huntinman
08-16-2012, 02:31 PM
Bill - If you go to Yahoo Finance and compare the Ford (symbol: F) chart with the GM chart(symbol: GM) you will see that the two pretty well parallel each other.

I never said anything about Ford, but Ok... One differnce I would note is that Ford is doing it without billions of taxpayer dollars propping them up...

Franco
08-16-2012, 03:30 PM
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s480x480/283904_10151363477377796_553595682_n.jpg

zeus3925
08-16-2012, 04:00 PM
I never said anything about Ford, but Ok... One differnce I would note is that Ford is doing it without billions of taxpayer dollars propping them up...

Bill you miss the point. You are complaining about the stock's performance. GM has pretty much followed its competitor, Ford, in price.

I am government assistance to the ailing companies.

zeus3925
08-16-2012, 04:15 PM
Here is the skinny from CNN Nov 10, 2011:
The facts: In 2009, both General Motors and Chrysler went into bankruptcy to restructure after receiving billions of dollars in federal loans.

As General Motors emerged from bankruptcy in July 2009, the U.S. Treasury took a 60.8% stake in the company in return for a $50 billion bailout. A trust established to fund health care benefits for UAW retirees -- not the UAW itself -- took a 17.5% stake. The Canadian government took a 12.5% stake, and unsecured bondholders were given a 10% share.

The trust fund came about as part of GM's restructuring. The UAW essentially agreed to shift responsibility for retiree health care costs away from GM to the union-controlled trust fund, consisting of company stock rather than cash.

Stock for the post-bankruptcy GM was available for public trading starting in November 2010. As of August, the U.S. Treasury still owned about a third of the shares, with the UAW fund owning about 12.8%, according to Fortune.

After Chrysler went into bankruptcy in 2009, a new Chrysler Group emerged, with Fiat owning a 20% stake in a deal brokered by the U.S. government, which took an 8% stake. A majority stake -- 55% -- was owned by a UAW retiree trust.

Fiat increased its stake over time, up to 53.5% by this July when it bought the last of the U.S. Treasury's shares. Union-controlled trust funds controlled 46%.

Verdict: Misleading. A UAW benefits fund -- not the union itself -- owns a part of GM. Another UAW benefit fund and Fiat took stakes in Chrysler, which -- like GM -- was on the verge of collapse.


The Tampa Bay Times Politifacts also debunks the notion the companies were handed to the UAW.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/27/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-obama-gave-away-car-companies-uni/

Another link:
http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2010/10/uaw-to-get-big-chunk-of-new-gm-stock/

Franco
08-16-2012, 04:18 PM
Here is the skinny from CNN Nov 10, 2011:
The facts: In 2009, both General Motors and Chrysler went into bankruptcy to restructure after receiving billions of dollars in federal loans.

As General Motors emerged from bankruptcy in July 2009, the U.S. Treasury took a 60.8% stake in the company in return for a $50 billion bailout. A trust established to fund health care benefits for UAW retirees -- not the UAW itself -- took a 17.5% stake. The Canadian government took a 12.5% stake, and unsecured bondholders were given a 10% share.

The trust fund came about as part of GM's restructuring. The UAW essentially agreed to shift responsibility for retiree health care costs away from GM to the union-controlled trust fund, consisting of company stock rather than cash.

Stock for the post-bankruptcy GM was available for public trading starting in November 2010. As of August, the U.S. Treasury still owned about a third of the shares, with the UAW fund owning about 12.8%, according to Fortune.

After Chrysler went into bankruptcy in 2009, a new Chrysler Group emerged, with Fiat owning a 20% stake in a deal brokered by the U.S. government, which took an 8% stake. A majority stake -- 55% -- was owned by a UAW retiree trust.

Fiat increased its stake over time, up to 53.5% by this July when it bought the last of the U.S. Treasury's shares. Union-controlled trust funds controlled 46%.

Verdict: Misleading. A UAW benefits fund -- not the union itself -- owns a part of GM. Another UAW benefit fund and Fiat took stakes in Chrysler, which -- like GM -- was on the verge of collapse.

So, who controls the UAW Benefit Fund?

menmon
08-16-2012, 04:24 PM
Sarge, it is too easy for someone to float a lie, because the right wants to be able to say that Obama wasted tax payer money and the unions are bad because they support democrats. The right does not want to know the truth because they don't want to say thank you mr president for helping my neighbors in need. I don't quite understand why a working man would fault a union that worked so hard to protect its members when they were on the verge of losing everything. Then yell that the bondholders got screwed by the governmnet and the union. The bond holders bought those bonds for less tha 20 cents on the dollar, speculating that they could sell the assets and make 40 cents. You want these guys to win at the sake of your neighbor that just went to work everyday with a hope he would not have to one day. Sad world when folks think this way!!!!!!

ARay11
08-17-2012, 01:00 PM
If I have an e-trade account, I can click the button that says "buy" or "sell". My question is this:

Who holds the trigger on this:

As General Motors emerged from bankruptcy in July 2009, the U.S. Treasury took a 60.8% stake



Who says "when" to sell and "how much" the stock has to be worth?

Franco
08-17-2012, 01:05 PM
If I have an e-trade account, I can click the button that says "buy" or "sell". My question is this:

Who holds the trigger on this:

As General Motors emerged from bankruptcy in July 2009, the U.S. Treasury took a 60.8% stake



Who says "when" to sell and "how much" the stock has to be worth?

That would be our financial phenom, Timmy Gietner's call.
;-)

ARay11
08-17-2012, 01:56 PM
this guy??...

It was revealed that Geithner had not paid $35,000 in self-employment (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Self-employment) taxes for the years 2001–2004.[28] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-27) The International Monetary Fund (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/International_Monetary_Fund) (IMF), an international agency and his employer during the time in question, did not withhold Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contributions_Act_tax), but instead reimbursed the usual employer responsibility of 50% of these taxes to employees who were subject to the taxes. Geithner had received the reimbursements and paid the amounts received to the government, but had not paid the other 50% which would normally have been withheld from his pay. This failure to pay was noted during a 2006 audit by the Internal Revenue Service (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Service) (IRS), in which Geithner was assessed additional taxes of $14,847 for the 2003 and 2004 tax years. The statute of limitations had expired for 2001 and 2002, and Geithner did not file amended returns or pay the additional amounts due for those years until after Obama expressed his intent to nominate Geithner to be Secretary of the Treasury.[29] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-28)[30] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-29)[31] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-Time090121-30) He also deducted the cost of his children's sleep-away camp as a dependent care expense, when only expenses for day care are eligible for the deduction[31] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-Time090121-30), failed to assess himself an early-withdrawal penalty from a retirement plan, took a charitable-contribution deduction for ineligible items, an improper small-business deduction, and made illegal expensing of utility costs that went for personal use.[32] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-31) Geithner subsequently paid the IRS the additional taxes owed,[33] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-urges-32) and was charged $15,000 interest, but was not fined for late payment.[34] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-gingrich-33)

ARay11
08-17-2012, 01:58 PM
I googled Geithner, and found some info. Appointed position, not elected, doesnt seem to have to answer to much of anyone. So, it appears as though the taxpayer has no say as to when where or how much we can cash in on our GM stock. Ok, that's cool..... send me my shares so I can control them

road kill
12-20-2012, 08:21 AM
Sarge, it is too easy for someone to float a lie, because the right wants to be able to say that Obama wasted tax payer money and the unions are bad because they support democrats. The right does not want to know the truth because they don't want to say thank you mr president for helping my neighbors in need. I don't quite understand why a working man would fault a union that worked so hard to protect its members when they were on the verge of losing everything. Then yell that the bondholders got screwed by the governmnet and the union. The bond holders bought those bonds for less tha 20 cents on the dollar, speculating that they could sell the assets and make 40 cents. You want these guys to win at the sake of your neighbor that just went to work everyday with a hope he would not have to one day. Sad world when folks think this way!!!!!!

$.50 on the dollar??

The taxpayer is getting screwed!!!

Maybe some progressives can spin this union saving (votes and cash for Dems) bailout was good for US?????

That's right folks, now that the election is over the treasury dept is dumping GM stock for $.50 on the original dollar.
Losses in the BILLIONS for we the taxpayers that footed the bill.



Treasury announces GM exit strategy; automaker buying 200 million shares from U.S.
By David Shepardson
Detroit News Washington Bureau
315Comments

Zoom
The U.S. Treasury said it will announce a written plan to begin selling its remaining 300 million shares of GM in January. (Detroit News file)
Washington — The Obama administration said Wednesday it will sell 200 million shares — or 40 percent of its remaining stake in General Motors Co. — back to the automaker and announced plans to completely exit the Detroit automaker by March 2014.

The Detroit automaker said it will purchase 200 million shares of GM stock held by Treasury for $5.5 billion — or $27.50 per share — nearly $2 above the stock's closing price on Tuesday. GM shares jumped sharply on the news and were up 7.5 percent to $27.36, or $1.90, early afternoon in very heavy trading.

The U.S. Treasury, after more than a year of refusing to say when it might start selling its remaining stake in GM, said it willannounce a written plan in January to shed its remaining 300 million shares over the next 12 to 15 months, likely in a series of small stock sales.

The Treasury's move is intended to minimize the impact of the stock sale on the share price — and the government's state will shrink from 26.5 percent to less than 19 percent — but the exit could be completed far more quickly.

The exit plan may prove to be a boost to GM's lagging stock price and to some car buyers, who have avoided GM because of the "Government Motors" label.

The exit timetable signals the end of one of the most extraordinary government interventions in the U.S. economy in history — the rescue and partial nationalization of two U.S. automakers and their finance arms supported by two U.S. presidents.

Still, taxpayers will almost certainly lose billions of dollars in the $49.5 billion GM bailout - and the government would need to sell its remaining shares for about $70 each to break even. If the government sold the rest of its stock at current prices, taxpayers would lose more than $13 billion. But profits from the bank and AIG bailouts will largely offset the auto bailout losses.
"The government should not be in the business of owning stakes in private companies for an indefinite period of time," Assistant Treasury Secretary Tim Massad said in a statement who oversees the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. "Moving to exit our investment in GM within the next 12 to 15 months is consistent with our dual goals of winding down TARP as soon as practicable and protecting taxpayer interests."

The Treasury has also agreed to waive its ban on GM using corporate aircraft — a condition it imposed on a few companies that got large bailouts in 2008 and 2009 — but government pay restrictions on top executives remain in force.

The restrictions limit most GM executives to no more than $500,000 a year in cash salaries. GM chief financial officer Dan Ammann said the issue is one of "ongoing discussions" between GM and Treasury.

The Treasury is also waiving a "vitality commitment" that required certain U.S. manufacturing volumes — but GM is already exceeding it and expects to continue, the company said.

Despite the government ownership, White House officials insisted they would have no role in GM's management, though there were some exceptions. In one notable move, the Obama administration vetoed a proposal by GM in 2009 to move its corporate headquarters from Detroit to Warren.

Ammann said the company has "no current plans" to buy or lease corporate aircraft - but company executives have long chafed at the fact they are forced to fly commercial - unlike other top corporate executives.

Ammann declined to discuss when the automaker and Treasury began negotiations about the sale or how it settled on the price. Ammann said GM doesn't expect to buy the remaining Treasury shares.

GM CEO Dan Akerson told company executives in an email that the move would help end a painful chapter in the automaker's life that nearly saw the company collapse in late 2008 without emergency government assistance.

"Today, GM and the U.S. Treasury are putting in motion a plan that will begin to close the books on the extraordinary government assistance that saved the company and our industry," Akerson wrote. "It has never been far from my mind that taxpayers rightfully expected us to change the way we do business in exchange for a second chance."

GM — which was criticized for corporate arrogance and for a moribund culture — has reshuffled its entire executive lineup since 2009 and made dramatic changes in how it does business.

"We are learning to be humble and to genuinely appreciate every customer," Akerson wrote.

In a Detroit News interview in 2011, Akerson said GM wasn't changing fast enough.

"Whoever comes after me; it's going to be a more important appointment than mine because he or she will have to carry on a cultural revolution here. It's just like the Communist Party in China in the 1960s, there has to be a cultural revolution here," he said.

GM — which last month obtained a new $5.5 billion line of credit — said its balance sheet will remain strong, with estimated liquidity of $38 billion at the end of 2012, following the closing of the share buyback.

Several analysts have suggested the company would use some of its liquidity to buy back shares.

"A U.S. Treasury sell-down was increasingly anticipated, although the actions were earlier than we expected and at a lower price," Peter Nesvold, an analyst with Jefferies & Co. wrote in a research note Wednesday. "The structure was probably more surprising, as it affords a premium to market price for a control stakeholder."

David Whiston, a senior equity analyst for Morningstar, said he was surprised the government didn't wait for a $33 a share price, but said investors likely were expecting an announcement following the quick AIG sale.

"This helps with the ("government motors") stigma, but there will always be a few hard line consumers who will never forgive GM," he wrote in an email Wednesday. "That doesn't bother me, as GM still sells plenty of cars and has great product. Some taxpayers will be upset by the loss, but I think those people will never be happy about the situation. Even if the sale had happened at $33 (the IPO price) those same consumers would have criticized Obama and GM."

The Canadian federal and Ontario governments — which gave GM a separate $10 billion bailout — still hold about 9 percent of GM's shares. Canadian officials said in Toronto they have no immediate plans to sell.

The announcement comes exactly four years to the day that President George W. Bush announced he would rescue GM and Chrysler with a $17.4 billion bailout in December 2008 using the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Bush stepped in after Congress failed to act. He added $7.5 billion for GM and Chrysler's auto finance arms and President Obama added $60 billion to the $85 billion auto bailout.

"The auto industry rescue helped save more than a million jobs during a severe economic crisis, but TARP was always meant to be a temporary, emergency program," Massad said.

Last week, the Treasury exited another major TARP recipient AIG.

GM stock is still trading far below its November 2010 initial public offering at $33 a share.

The repurchase price of $27.50 per share represents a 7.9 percent premium. The share buyback is expected to close by the end of the year.

The Treasury initially owned nearly 61 percent of GM as part of the bailout as it swapped about $42 billion of the loans for stock in the reorganized company after it exited bankruptcy in July 2009.

The Obama administration forced GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy as a condition of getting additional government aid. The administration forced out GM CEO Rick Wagoner and forced a tie-up with Fiat SpA.

The Treasury has said it expects to lose $24.3 billion on the $85 billion auto bailout.

Treasury also holds a 74 percent stake in Ally Financial Inc., the Detroit-based auto lender, as part of a $17.2 billion bailout.

Last year, the government exited Chrysler Group LLC and booked a $1.3 billion loss on its $12.5 billion bailout.

The government had planned an initial public offering of Ally in 2011 but put it on hold because of market conditions. Any IPO won't occur until after Ally's troubled mortgage unit ResCap completes its bankruptcy restructuring.

dshepardson@detnews.com


From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121219/AUTO0103/212190382#ixzz2Fb9CHggE

road kill
12-20-2012, 08:30 AM
More------

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-19/gm-buys-back-200mm-shares-us-government-uncle-sam-divest-remaining-stake-50-loss
For those of you who like you some charts and graphs, note the end of month dealer inventory chart!!!!:cool:

Buzz
12-20-2012, 11:07 AM
$.50 on the dollar??

The taxpayer is getting screwed!!!

Maybe some progressives can spin this union saving (votes and cash for Dems) bailout was good for US?????

That's right folks, now that the election is over the treasury dept is dumping GM stock for $.50 on the original dollar.
Losses in the BILLIONS for we the taxpayers that footed the bill.


The article quotes a loss of $13 billion if the treasury sells ALL of their shares at the current price. I know you probably disagree, but say a million jobs are lost if the auto companies are not bailed out. Divide 13 billion by a million. That comes to $13,000. How long would it take safety net payments to add up to that per job lost?

Gerry Clinchy
12-20-2012, 11:45 AM
Ironic ... throughout the election campaign we were reminded that Obama saved the auto industry ... yet, it appears, the idea was originally Bush's. Strange that nobody mentioned that Bush had such a great idea? After all, everything else is Bush's fault :-)

Franco
12-20-2012, 12:49 PM
There is a name for it, it is called, "Crony Capitalism".

Here is the skinny...

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?92117-Tax-Payers-Are-Taking-A-Bath-On-GM-Stock