FOXBusiness: Reports: GM Recalls 1.5M Cars

[JBond]

GM continues to build crap.

FOXBusiness: Reports: GM Recalls 1.5M Cars (http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/transportation/gm-recalls--million-cars-reports/)

NEW YORK -- General Motors Corp. is recalling almost 1.5 million cars made between 1997 and 2003 because of possible engine fires, according to media reports Tuesday. The recall includes 1998-1999 Oldsmobile Intrigues, 1997-2003 Pontiac Grand Prix, 1997-2003 Buick Regals and 1998-2003 Chevrolet Luminas, Monte Carlos and Impalas, the reports said. The problem is related to the potential for oil drops to fall into the exhaust system and trigger a fire in the 3.8-liter V6 engine.


Copyright © 2009 MarketWatch, Inc.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Maybe the head of GM should step down or be told to step down.

No...that would cause too much outrage for someone that has done a great job.:D

[TheCount]

Continues to build crap? 1997 - 2003?

[JBond]

Maybe the head of GM should step down or be told to step down.

No...that would cause too much outrage for someone that has done a great job.:D

We all know the outrage was regarding Obama personally firing CEO's across the country and putting in his hand picked puppets. He is a community organizer run amok. The guy has no idea what a P&L statement even is. He has never run anything that requires discipline and meeting a payroll. Now he is an expert at spending other peoples money, but that does not qualify him to run major corporation in America unless you want more failure.

[ShiningStar]

Maybe the head of GM should step down or be told to step down.

No...that would cause too much outrage for someone that has done a great job.:D


Wagoner came in after the corpse was cold and told to try and save a company that was already dead. He at least attempted to do the job. He got canned cause people with to little information and to much power was seeking to do things the governement isnt allowed to do.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Wagoner came in after the corpse was cold and told to try and save a company that was already dead. He at least attempted to do the job. He got canned cause people with to little information and to much power was seeking to do things the governement isnt allowed to do.

Wagoner had been with GM for 30 years and the over all CEO for 8 years.

[BrAinPaiNt]

We all know the outrage was regarding Obama personally firing CEO's across the country and putting in his hand picked puppets. He is a community organizer run amok. The guy has no idea what a P&L statement even is. He has never run anything that requires discipline and meeting a payroll. Now he is an expert at spending other peoples money, but that does not qualify him to run major corporation in America unless you want more failure.

Yes I can see that obama derangement syndrome is intense with you.

[TheCount]

We all know the outrage was regarding Obama personally firing CEO's across the country and putting in his hand picked puppets. He is a community organizer run amok. The guy has no idea what a P&L statement even is. He has never run anything that requires discipline and meeting a payroll. Now he is an expert at spending other peoples money, but that does not qualify him to run major corporation in America unless you want more failure.

You've got some selective recollection going on here...

Obama didn't personally fire anyone, he demanded the guy step down for doing a crap job, which is completely in the rights of ANYONE loaning money to a corporation. The man choose to step down and received a nice little retirement package, assuming he actually retires.

After he stepped down, the new CEO is a guy that had been with the company for 25 Years! Not some guy Obama "hand picked". If you had actually taken the time to read about the guys history, you'd see why GM picked him to be the next CEO, not the least of which is his vast experience with finances and restructuring.

Some of you guys moan about making sure the best qualified guy gets the job, and when he does, it's propaganda.

[JBond]

You've got some selective recollection going on here...

Obama didn't personally fire anyone, he demanded the guy step down for doing a crap job, which is completely in the rights of ANYONE loaning money to a corporation. The man choose to step down and received a nice little retirement package, assuming he actually retires.

After he stepped down, the new CEO is a guy that had been with the company for 25 Years! Not some guy Obama "hand picked". If you had actually taken the time to read about the guys history, you'd see why GM picked him to be the next CEO, not the least of which is his vast experience with finances and restructuring.

Some of you guys moan about making sure the best qualified guy gets the job, and when he does, it's propaganda.

So the guy with 30 years experience is bad and Obama's hand picked guy with a 25 year history at GM is good. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up. How do you know he is the best guy? Gm has had many "best guys" who have all failed miserably.

Maybe, and this may be a novel thought for the Obama apologists, we let them reorganize under bankruptcy like normal companies would have to do? Do you know what GM spent the majority of the tax payer money on? Meeting the payroll of it's union employees. This was an Obama payoff to the unions. Now after he paid off the unions, he wants them to file bankruptcy, which is what should have happened all along.

So Obama blows billions of tax payer dollars and the end result is the same. Government at it's best or worst. I guess it depends if you are a liberal or Conservative.

[ajk23az]

You've got some selective recollection going on here...

Obama didn't personally fire anyone, he demanded the guy step down for doing a crap job, which is completely in the rights of ANYONE loaning money to a corporation. The man choose to step down and received a nice little retirement package, assuming he actually retires.

After he stepped down, the new CEO is a guy that had been with the company for 25 Years! Not some guy Obama "hand picked". If you had actually taken the time to read about the guys history, you'd see why GM picked him to be the next CEO, not the least of which is his vast experience with finances and restructuring.

Some of you guys moan about making sure the best qualified guy gets the job, and when he does, it's propaganda.

:laugh2: What's the difference between being told to step down by the President of the US and getting fired? If Wagoner DIDN'T step down, he would have been fired, no doubt about it. He probably stepped down because if he didn't he would not have gotten his huger retirement package either. It was pretty much an ultimatum.

[BrAinPaiNt]

So Obama blows billions of tax payer dollars and the end result is the same. Government at it's best or worst. I guess it depends if you are a Republican or Democrat.

FTFY:D

[notherbob]

There are many reasons I quit buying GM products and started buying Toyotas, starting with Toyota acting like they cared what their customers wanted and put together products that satisfied those wants.

The problem is the system and atmosphere in which GM exists; one of mistrust and greed, labor and management fight each other and nobody pays attention to or respects the customer. Understandably, the customer went elsewhere where his business was appreciated and rewarded.

The entire old-fashioned industrial model that produced GM is a relic of another time with different values and it cannot compete in a world where business goes where it is wanted and it stays where it is appreciated.

I believe if GM has any hope of continuing in any form it must break all bonds with the past and shed all debt including retirement pensions, etc. and reform in a whole new entity where labor and management work together to produce superior products that people will want to buy. I seriously doubt this can happen.

[joseephuss]

So Obama blows billions of tax payer dollars and the end result is the same. Government at it's best or worst. I guess it depends if you are a liberal or Conservative.

You can only see things as liberal or conservative. Everyone once in a while you should take a step back and look at things from a different perspective. Not everything is left or right.

[TheCount]

:laugh2: What's the difference between being told to step down by the President of the US and getting fired? If Wagoner DIDN'T step down, he would have been fired, no doubt about it. He probably stepped down because if he didn't he would not have gotten his huger retirement package either. It was pretty much an ultimatum.

Obviously it was an ultimatum, the government is the lender. You've bought a house, perhaps? Remember all that paperwork you signed with the bank where they made you promise to do this, that and the other? You didn't have to sign it, you could have said no, not gotten the money, and not gotten a house.

The lender has every right to make demands on those receiving the money.

So the guy with 30 years experience is bad and Obama's hand picked guy with a 25 year history at GM is good. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up. How do you know he is the best guy? Gm has had many "best guys" who have all failed miserably.

Maybe, and this may be a novel thought for the Obama apologists, we let them reorganize under bankruptcy like normal companies would have to do? Do you know what GM spent the majority of the tax payer money on? Meeting the payroll of it's union employees. This was an Obama payoff to the unions. Now after he paid off the unions, he wants them to file bankruptcy, which is what should have happened all along.

So Obama blows billions of tax payer dollars and the end result is the same. Government at it's best or worst. I guess it depends if you are a liberal or Conservative.

The guy with 30 years experience was not doing a good job, in America, that is grounds for firing.

The new GM CEO has the qualifications for the job and a history with the company, you were trying to suggest that Obama picked him because he's some puppet of the administration, which is absurd. He's been moving up the ranks of GM since before Obama was 23 years old. Whether he succeeds or fails is a completely different conversation.

Call me an apologist all you want, that's the one thing all you guys fall back on as soon as anyone challenges you by stating an opinion that differs from your own.

You have repeatedly and consistently shown a complete inability to see anything from a view different from your own, so I'm not surprised.

[JBond]

You can only see things as liberal or conservative. Everyone once in a while you should take a step back and look at things from a different perspective. Not everything is left or right.

So can I conclude you are in favor of Obama firing CEO's across the country? You are OK with billions of tax payer dollars being given to the unions and other failed companies?

I agree there are shade of grey, but many people have an overall philosophy they use to guide them. I am not talking about conservative or liberal talking points, but something deeper based on your personal understanding of the Constitution and the intentions of our founding fathers.

[JBond]

Obviously it was an ultimatum, the government is the lender. You've bought a house, perhaps? Remember all that paperwork you signed with the bank where they made you promise to do this, that and the other? You didn't have to sign it, you could have said no, not gotten the money, and not gotten a house.

The lender has every right to make demands on those receiving the money.



The guy with 30 years experience was not doing a good job, in America, that is grounds for firing.

The new GM CEO has the qualifications for the job and a history with the company, you were trying to suggest that Obama picked him because he's some puppet of the administration, which is absurd. He's been moving up the ranks of GM since before Obama was 23 years old. Whether he succeeds or fails is a completely different conversation.

Call me an apologist all you want, that's the one thing all you goons fall back on as soon as anyone challenges you by stating an opinion that differs from your own.

You have repeatedly and consistently shown a complete inability to see anything from a view different from your own, so I'm not surprised.

How is the new Obama guy different that the old guy Obama fired. They both worked for the company for many years. What is your point? I hope you will make one soon.

As to your first point, the government should never have gotten involved spending tax payer dollars on proven failures. Why did Obama demand the unions get paid, and then and only then demand GM declare bankruptcy? Us conservative goons would love to know.

[TheCount]

How is the new Obama guy different that the old guy Obama fired. They both worked for the company for many years. What is your point? I hope you will make one soon.

As to your first point, the government should never have gotten involved spending tax payer dollars on proven failures. Why did Obama demand the unions get paid, and then and only then demand GM declare bankruptcy? Us conservative goons would love to know.

There's obviously no point in talking to you about this, so it's not going to happen anytime soon.

Regardless, I'd like to apologize for some of the stronger words I said in my previous post, you're actually not as bad as some of the others around here.

[burmafrd]

They had no business ordering his firing. Count if you think lenders do this you really are dense.

[TheCount]

They had no business ordering his firing. Count if you think lenders do this you really are dense.

Try reading what I actually wrote, for once.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Try reading what I actually wrote, for once.

He15UWX_HJk

Burm saw that as a child and yelled out...SEE...MSM...L is for LIBBY!!!!

[ShiningStar]

Wagoner had been with GM for 30 years and the over all CEO for 8 years.


and hes supposed to clear it up, in what, two years? do you understand how big that corporation is? Its not just in the paper work, its a complete overhaul of what he wanted the company to do vs everything else. He was making good progress, but it was a corpse he had to work with.

[BrAinPaiNt]

and hes supposed to clear it up, in what, two years? do you understand how big that corporation is? Its not just in the paper work, its a complete overhaul of what he wanted the company to do vs everything else. He was making good progress, but it was a corpse he had to work with.

2 years is not 8 years nor is it 30 years. He may have been the CEO for 8 (again that would be a good deal of time, just short of a decade, or two terms as president) but I am sure he was pretty high ranking prior to those 8 years as well.

[ShiningStar]

2 years is not 8 years nor is it 30 years. He may have been the CEO for 8 (again that would be a good deal of time, just short of a decade, or two terms as president) but I am sure he was pretty high ranking prior to those 8 years as well.


and he wasnt the guy who was killing the company and really had no problem telling them how they did it when he got the job. He went on air a few times telling people how GM was doing things the wrong way, and he had no trouble saying "this car is crap".

[TheCount]

and he wasnt the guy who was killing the company and really had no problem telling them how they did it when he got the job. He went on air a few times telling people how GM was doing things the wrong way, and he had no trouble saying "this car is crap".

And yet he let this make it to dealerships:

http://oglobo.globo.com/blogs/arquivos_upload/2008/02/198_2738-pontiac-aztec.jpg

[ShiningStar]

And yet he let this make it to dealerships:

http://oglobo.globo.com/blogs/arquivos_upload/2008/02/198_2738-pontiac-aztec.jpg


That could have been a done deal. We dont know. Who knows if they got money for putting that crap out. I dont know if htis is one of those "green" cars, but im not down with the hybrid crap, yet a lot of americans wanted that. They regretted it in Michigan, but they ran out and got themselves one.

Wagoner tried hard to resurrect a corpse. You can blame all the problems of the company on him, because i know you walked his shoes. What the president did with little information was wrong and there is no defending that gargabe of a move. If GM wants to run their company into the ground, thats their right. It was their right to ask for government money, it was Obamas right to get into it and nose around and it was also his right to say no, and he didnt.

[TheCount]

That could have been a done deal. We dont know. Who knows if they got money for putting that crap out. I dont know if htis is one of those "green" cars, but im not down with the hybrid crap, yet a lot of americans wanted that. They regretted it in Michigan, but they ran out and got themselves one.

Wagoner tried hard to resurrect a corpse. You can blame all the problems of the company on him, because i know you walked his shoes. What the president did with little information was wrong and there is no defending that gargabe of a move. If GM wants to run their company into the ground, thats their right. It was their right to ask for government money, it was Obamas right to get into it and nose around and it was also his right to say no, and he didnt.

It's a Pontiac Aztek, it's not a hybrid and I was joking.

No one is blaming everything on Wagoner, I'm not sure where that's coming from but newsflash, GM has already been run into the ground.

[ShiningStar]

It's a Pontiac Aztek, it's not a hybrid and I was joking.

No one is blaming everything on Wagoner, I'm not sure where that's coming from but newsflash, GM has already been run into the ground.


I thought i recongized that. Man that was a horrible thing, didnt they give that away as the first prize of surviror?

[JBond]

It's a Pontiac Aztek, it's not a hybrid and I was joking.

No one is blaming everything on Wagoner, I'm not sure where that's coming from but newsflash, GM has already been run into the ground.

So why did Obama give them Billions? Is he just old fashion stupid?

[WoodysGirl]

Bush announces auto rescue
Government to loan GM and Chrysler $13.4 billion from Wall Street bailout fund so that the embattled auto firms don't run out of cash.

By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: December 19, 2008: 2:48 PM ET


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President Bush announced a rescue plan for General Motors and Chrysler LLC Friday morning that will make $13.4 billion in federal loans available almost immediately.

The money will come from the $700 billion fund set aside to bail out Wall Street firms and banks in October.

With these loans, Treasury will have committed virtually all of the $350 billion of that fund that it can hand out without additional authorization from Congress. Once Congress releases the other $350 billion, the two automakers will be able to borrow an additional $4 billion.

GM (GM, Fortune 500) will get $9.4 billion from the first allocation of federal loan money, while Chrysler would get the other $4 billion.

The loans are for three years, but the money will have to be repaid in full within 30 days if the firms do not show themselves to be viable by March 31.

Bush: "Preventing disorderly bankruptcy"
During brief remarks at the White House, President Bush said in normal times he would have not been in favor of preventing a bankruptcy of the two companies. But the current state of the economy and credit markets left him no choice but to act.

"Government has a responsibility to safeguard the broader health and stability of our economy," he said. "If we were to allow the free market to take its course now, it would almost certainly lead to disorderly bankruptcy and liquidation for the automakers."

"In the midst of a financial crisis and a recession, allowing the U.S. auto industry to collapse is not a responsible course of action," Bush added.

In a statement, President-elect Barack Obama said today's loan was "a necessary step to help avoid a collapse in our auto industry that would have devastating consequences for our economy and our workers."

Obama added that "the auto companies must not squander this chance to reform bad management practices and begin the long-term restructuring that is absolutely required to save this critical industry and the millions of American jobs that depend on it."

Conditions similar to auto bailout bill
The terms of the loan are similar to those set in the auto bailout legislation that was passed by the House last week but was shot down in the Senate.

Executives at GM and Chrysler must agree to limits on their compensation and eliminate perks such as corporate jets. The companies also must issue warrants, which convert into non-voting stock, to the government.

GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner, who had previously agreed to reduce his salary to $1 a year in return for the federal loans, said at a press conference Friday he has no intention to resign. Some critics of GM have called for him to do so.

"You think I would have gone through what I did the last two months if I didn't want to stay?" he said.

The loans do not include the concept of a so-called "car czar" to oversee the automakers, although it does say that a designee of the President would determine if the automakers are making the changes necessary for them to be considered viable.

The Bush administration official said Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson would fill that role in the remaining days of the current administration.

The loans call for the automakers to prove they are viable by March 31, even though they are not expected to be profitable by that date. They must submit the details of the plans by Feb. 17.

The government wants the automakers to reduce their debt load by two-thirds via a debt for equity exchange with current bondholders and get the United Auto Workers union to agree to wages and work rules competitive with non-union plants operated by Asian auto manufacturers by the end of next year.

Talkback: Can U.S. automakers survive?
Wagoner said negotiations with GM debt holders and the union will begin almost immediately now that the loans are in place. He added that the company is confident it will be able to meet the targets set out as terms of the loan.

In addition, the government is calling for GM and Chrysler to use their stock to pay for half the funds needed to cover future retiree health care expenses, which will be paid by union-controlled trust funds, rather than the automakers themselves, starting in 2010.

But there is flexibility for the companies and the incoming Obama administration to allow the loans to continue even if these targets are not reached, as long as GM and Chrysler can provide an explanation as to why they are viable without hitting those targets.

Republican senators demanded hard targets for labor union concessions and cited the UAW's resistance to agree to them as the reason the bill died last week.

A Bush administration official cautioned that the government should not play a big role in the union negotiations that will take place in the next three months.

"We do not feel it is appropriate for government to dictate the specific terms of negotiations between management and labor or management and dealers or management and creditors," the official said.

UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said the union does not want further concessions to be spelled out in the loan agreement, but that the union would hold talks with the government about how to make the Big Three more competitive.

"We will work with the Obama administration and the new Congress to ensure that these unfair conditions are removed as we join in the coming months with all stakeholders to create a viable future for the U.S. auto industry," he said.

Time was running out
GM (GM, Fortune 500) has warned it will fall below the minimum amount of cash it needs to continue to operate without $4 billion in federal loans before the end of the month. Privately held Chrysler said it will need $4 billion or it will also run out of cash early next year.

Ford Motor (F, Fortune 500) has more cash on hand and has said it should be able to avoid tapping into federal dollars unless the weak auto sales continue longer than it expects in 2009.

Shares of GM soared more than 10% Friday morning on the news of the loan and Ford was up 5%.

U.S. auto sales plunged to 26-year lows last month as tight credit, rising job losses and weak consumer confidence have led to a virtual collapse in the auto market.

All of the major automakers, including Asian automakers Toyota Motor (TM) and Honda Motor (HMC), are cutting back production. But the situation is particularly severe at GM and Chrysler.

In the last week, those two automakers announced shutdowns of assembly lines for at least a month, several weeks longer than the typical shutdowns during the December holiday season.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/19/news/companies/auto_crisis/index.htm?postversion=2008121909

------------------------------------

Obama Denies Bailout Funds for U.S. Automakers, Sets Restructure Deadline

Neither GM nor Chrysler submitted acceptable plans to receive more U.S. government bailout money, the White House says, setting the stage for a crisis in Detroit.

FOXNews.com

Monday, March 30, 2009


The White House says neither GM nor Chrysler submitted acceptable plans to receive more bailout money, setting the stage for a crisis in Detroit and putting in motion what could be the final two months of two American auto giants.

The Obama administration, however, has decided not to require the automakers to immediately repay government loan money they previously received, since that would force both companies into Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

A senior administration official told FOX News, "calling in the loans would not be a productive exercise for the American taxpayer since the companies don't have the money [to repay the loans] and it would simply put the companies into uncontrolled Chapter 11."

Obama was set to make the announcement at 11 a.m. Monday in the White House's foyer.

In an interview with CBS' "Face the Nation" broadcast Sunday, Obama said the companies must do more to receive additional financial aid from the government.

"We think we can have a successful U.S. auto industry. But it's got to be one that's realistically designed to weather this storm and to emerge -- at the other end -- much more lean, mean and competitive than it currently is," Obama said.

Instead, the administration has decided to give Chrysler 30 days to work out a deal with Fiat and GM 60 days to come up with a new restructuring plan. Both companies will be provided with "some working capital" during those time periods.

A senior official said, "bankruptcy is not the goal," although there may be a "role for a court supervised process to effect the restructuring... different from Chapter 11."

Two additional parts of the plan include the government standing behind both car companies' warranties during the restructuring periods and the White House naming a Labor Department official to minimize the impact of restructuring on communities where auto plants are located, by coordinating support for workers and their families.

GM and Chrysler, which employ about 140,000 workers in the U.S., face a Tuesday deadline to submit completed restructuring plans, but neither company is expected to finish its work.

GM owes roughly $28 billion to bondholders. Chrysler owes about $7 billion in first- and second-term debt, mainly to banks. GM owes about $20 billion to its retiree health care trust, while Chrysler owes $10.6 billion.

Officials say GM and Chrysler were treated differently because of differences in the companies.

Neither company is viable now, but Chrysler is an almost purely domestic company that has passed through several ownership changes and is not viable as a standalone company. It was "never in position to pay down its debt." GM is a global company with "a more substantial collection of assets and brands," and its cars received a higher ranking from Consumer Reports.

Officials say they are "confident GM can survive and thrive as a company... but it will take more significant restructuring."

No decision has yet been made about how much working capital the government will provide GM during the restructuring period.

Chrysler's potential deal with Fiat has a couple of requirements: Fiat's ownership must initially be less than the 35% US Government stake in the company, and it's not to rise above 49% until the new loan money is fully repaid. Chrysler will be provided up to $6 billion in additional working capital during the restructuring period.

In his comments tomorrow, Obama "will be clear that greater sacrifices are required from all stakeholders," officials said.

His aides had substantial criticism of bondholders, saying not only did GM's bondholders fail to meet the targets for reducing the company's liability under the loan agreement, the loan agreement's target weren't adequate for the current market environment.

Officials confirmed GM CEO Rick Wagoner was asked to leave, but denied it was a condition for receiving more government aid. The official said "we wanted to start GM with a clean sheet of paper. We felt the change in leadership would assist that."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/30/obama-denies-bailout-funds-automakers-sets-restructure-deadline/

[TheCount]

http://fragilex.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/ruh-roh.jpg

[ScipioCowboy]

Regardless of the quality of GM's products, no President -- regardless of his name or political affiliation -- should have any say or impact beyond that of the regular consumer on whether or not a CEO is fired.

It should be the market that determines the ultimate fate of any CEO.

[vta]

And yet he let this make it to dealerships:

http://oglobo.globo.com/blogs/arquivos_upload/2008/02/198_2738-pontiac-aztec.jpg

:lmao:

Totally redefining ugly...

[JBond]

Bush announces auto rescue
Government to loan GM and Chrysler $13.4 billion from Wall Street bailout fund so that the embattled auto firms don't run out of cash.

By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: December 19, 2008: 2:48 PM ET


http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/19/news/companies/auto_crisis/index.htm?postversion=2008121909

------------------------------------

Obama Denies Bailout Funds for U.S. Automakers, Sets Restructure Deadline

Neither GM nor Chrysler submitted acceptable plans to receive more U.S. government bailout money, the White House says, setting the stage for a crisis in Detroit.

FOXNews.com

Monday, March 30, 2009


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/30/obama-denies-bailout-funds-automakers-sets-restructure-deadline/

Well I guess I'm busted on this one. Nice job WG. I need to look, but had believed there was money allocated to GM and Chrysler under the Obama regime.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Well I guess I'm busted on this one. Nice job WG. I need to look, but had believed there was money allocated to GM and Chrysler under the Obama regime.

With so much crap going on it is easy to get the Auto industry and banks mixed up.

[joseephuss]

Well I guess I'm busted on this one. Nice job WG. I need to look, but had believed there was money allocated to GM and Chrysler under the Obama regime.

That is why I said this is goes beyond a liberal v. conservative or dem v. rep type issue. The lines are blinded and not as straight forward as they need to be.

[JBond]

That is why I said this is goes beyond a liberal v. conservative or dem v. rep type issue. The lines are blinded and not as straight forward as they need to be.

It really is becoming challenging to track who has done what and who spent what money where. Bush starting the car bailout is not any better than Obama doing it. I have bashed Bush for years for big spending because I am against big spending, but also knew the other party would say look at what GWB did. We are are just doing the same thing. The differences between the two parties has grown razor thin on many issues.

I was under the impression the majority of the 350 billion Bush spent went to the FDIC to strengthen it against the banks that had a very weird run on them right before TARP was passed.

I am probably wrong there also. I have had a couple of iffy posts the last couple of days. I am trying to quit smoking and caffeine at the same time. I do not recommend that to anyone. To any of the offended, I'll try to tone it down a notch.

[ShiningStar]

I fully believe, no proof, but Bush allowed the one WG put up, because the democractic congress just told him it was going to happen whether he stopped it or not. When first asked, he said no, than did an about face which was already proved by than Obama was gettig in and asked for the proper paperwork to go through because it was going to happen.

The second article the one where Obama denies. I think that is the extra money no thte first one.

[DIAF]

Regardless of the quality of GM's products, no President -- regardless of his name or political affiliation -- should have any say or impact beyond that of the regular consumer on whether or not a CEO is fired.

It should be the market that determines the ultimate fate of any CEO.

Unless that company wants federal money, that is. You take it, you agree to the government's demands so long as it's legal. If you don't like the deal, you walk away. It's that simple.

GM's got no one to blame but themselves.

[ShiningStar]

Unless that company wants federal money, that is. You take it, you agree to the government's demands so long as it's legal. If you don't like the deal, you walk away. It's that simple.

GM's got no one to blame but themselves.


Actually you agree to an agreement which did not stipulate Obama can fire as he deems fit. So stop with the taking of the governments money defense, its not working.

[ScipioCowboy]

Unless that company wants federal money, that is. You take it, you agree to the government's demands so long as it's legal. If you don't like the deal, you walk away. It's that simple.

And this is the very reason so many of us oppose these bailouts. It's also the reason the "S" word creeps in so much.

In my opinion, it's an egregious mistake to treat government bailouts as synonymous on any level with ownership in the corporation. The federal government is not a private citizen or business. Its interests should not be viewed in the same light.

GM's got no one to blame but themselves.And we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

[DIAF]

And this is the very reason so many of us oppose these bailouts. It's also the reason the "S" word creeps in so much.

In my opinion, it's an egregious mistake to treat government bailouts as synonymous on any level with ownership in the corporation. The federal government is not a private citizen or business. Its interests should not be viewed in the same light.

And we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

No, but it IS at this point a lender, and is free to stipulate lender's terms. If you don't like the terms, you go shop somewhere else for a loan.

Unfortunately for GM, they just don't have anywhere else to turn to now.

Actually you agree to an agreement which did not stipulate Obama can fire as he deems fit. So stop with the taking of the governments money defense, its not working.

Why? It's a loan. If it's not a loan, then it most definitely is conditional assistance. You don't like the conditions, you don't take the money. Really it's as simple as that.

[ScipioCowboy]

No, but it IS at this point a lender, and is free to stipulate lender's terms. If you don't like the terms, you go shop somewhere else for a loan.

Unfortunately for GM, they just don't have anywhere else to turn to now.

This may be the case; however, in my opinion, it's very dangerous to treat the federal government as a typical lender.

The government shouldn't be given the same leeway in dictating terms that private lenders are given. This makes no more sense than giving a private corporation a vote in Congress. (Of course, as we all know, corporations, with their lobbyists and donations, do wield considerable influence in congress. But most of us realize the danger in this, and we enact laws and regulations to limit their influence.)

[Jon88]

I Unionized workers complain and complain about pay and benefits and then go out and build crap.

I was at my Toyota dealership today and you should have seen the people there getting their cars serviced. I doubt the Chevrolet or GM dealership down the road had 1/10 the amount of people. That's what happens when you build crap.

[TheCount]

I Unionized workers complain and complain about pay and benefits and then go out and build crap.

I was at my Toyota dealership today and you should have seen the people there getting their cars serviced. I doubt the Chevrolet or GM dealership down the road had 1/10 the amount of people. That's what happens when you build crap.

I thought foreign cars run on sunshine and happy thoughts and never need to be serviced or fixed?

[Jon88]

I thought foreign cars run on sunshine and happy thoughts and never need to be serviced or fixed?

You're wrong, but they certainly don't get the recalls that GM gets. How this company went from being a giant to building vehicles like these, demanding bailouts, and declaring bankruptcy will be studied for many, many years.

[WoodysGirl]

You're wrong, but they certainly don't get the recalls that GM gets. How this company went from being a giant to building vehicles like these, demanding bailouts, and declaring bankruptcy will be studied for many, many years.
I don't know about that...

A simple search tends to generate a ton of recalls for foreign cars, as well. I think it's pretty understood that the innards of a car are pretty much the same in every car.

It's the body that makes the difference. And foreign automakers make nicer looking cars.

[BrAinPaiNt]

You're wrong, but they certainly don't get the recalls that GM gets. How this company went from being a giant to building vehicles like these, demanding bailouts, and declaring bankruptcy will be studied for many, many years.

I kind of think it boils down to arrogance and greed. From both the Auto heads at GM (and most of the other American companies) and also the UAW.

I blame both, get kind of irritated when people only want to blame one or the other because both play a part in it.

UAW workers were darn lucky to get the wages and benefits they got but were never satisfied and always wanted more. I know a large number of people would take half of what the UAW workers got and thank their lucky stars for it.

The auto companies themselves. I really think they felt that the buy american slogans that worked so well for so long would carry them and that they felt the consumers should bend to them instead of the auto companies bending to the consumer.

I think that is two reasons why the foreign market has grown to do much better than the US companies. I think the foreign workers don't deal with the UAW for the most part and I think they have better people in place to see where the consumers were wanting change and to also change to the fuel situations that have been growing for many years now.

I don't think you can blame one or the other only, when both share the blame.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I don't know about that...

A simple search tends to generate a ton of recalls for foreign cars, as well. I think it's pretty understood that the innards of a car are pretty much the same in every car.

It's the body that makes the difference. And foreign automakers make nicer looking cars.

I think that is a big part of it as well.

Some companies have went to the retro look that sparked some interest in consumers but for the most part they are the same looking cars year after year with a minor tweak like a clear tail light or a slightly better looking rims on some cars.

Look at ford and the Tempo and escort. They had these cars for years and then they fade them out only to bring out a couple of new models in the focus and fusion. The focus looks like a newer escort and the fusion looks like the tempo with slight changes. If the other cars quit selling don't change a few things and call it something else. Pontiac almost all of their cars have the same front ends.

I don't know, other than a few things, they really have not come up with anything really different, refreshing and new in some time. The retro's have been the biggest thing IMO and again that is taking something from the past and updating it so it really is not something all together new. I guess maybe the crossovers and the ponitac soltice is newer so that was a plus although I keep thinking back to the pointiac fiero sometimes when I think of the soltice...you know the sleek small two seater.

[Jon88]

I don't know about that...

A simple search tends to generate a ton of recalls for foreign cars, as well. I think it's pretty understood that the innards of a car are pretty much the same in every car.

It's the body that makes the difference. And foreign automakers make nicer looking cars.


Well, there are some aspects of foreign cars that I don't like, but as a whole, especially trucks, they seem to hold up longer. My dad's F-150 has has given him 5x more problems than my Tacoma's minor problems.

[TheCount]

You're wrong, but they certainly don't get the recalls that GM gets. How this company went from being a giant to building vehicles like these, demanding bailouts, and declaring bankruptcy will be studied for many, many years.

PLENTY of import cars get recalled. How one can be surprised that companies like Ford and GM get so many cars recalled especially with how much volume they move(ed) is beyond me.

Ironically, Toyota is one of the world leaders in both cars sold and recalled as well.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Well, there are some aspects of foreign cars that I don't like, but as a whole, especially trucks, they seem to hold up longer. My dad's F-150 has has given him 5x more problems than my Tacoma's minor problems.

You are a little younger than some of us on here, I only bring this up to talk about something and not to put you down because of that.

At one time foreign cars, well mostly japanese cars were just flat out terrible. There is a good reason you don't see a lot of the older japanese cars on the road now days compared to american or even other foreign cars. They were just terrible little pieces of crap and absolute rust buckets.

I was telling someone a few months ago at work how funny that is. How at one time it was the American cars that were on the cutting edge and the most sought after cars by most people and how the japanese cars were just terrible...however that has turned around in the 90's where it is almost the exact opposite with the exception of trucks and I think some of those are starting to take hold.

Just interesting to me.

Heck I remember being in Korea and seeing Hyundai and Daewoo and nobody stateside ever hearing about them. years later they both start selling cars in america. I don't really see many daewoo or if they are even still making them but I do see a great deal of Hyundais.