Gooberment Motors New Plan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blackstone

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.

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.

The UAW helped destroy Chrysler and GM....deny that, Sarge....

kg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zeus3925

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gman0046

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zeus3925

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce MacPherson

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blackstone

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.