GM claims Americans are over bailout anger

[Mr1der]

yeah, but it sounds like a VQ.

[OwnerCS]

I'm one of those who can really appreciate Ford staying "above the fray" in that whole mess.

Then again, I really like ANY company that can design a 3.5l twin-turbocharged, direct-injected engine that makes 365 horsepower and 420lb-ft of torque, and throws it in a full-size 4wd truck that'll run 14's all day long and still get 21 mpg.

Yeah. I'm a reformed Ford-hater.

Ford seems to thrive on near death experiences.. They were on the ropes and nearly finished when this model brought them back to life in 49.

[BusyBadger]

yeah, but it sounds like a VQ.

Says the kid driving an Si.

[Mr1der]

HA!

the K series is one of the best sounding I4's around (as to avoid Subie drivers crying foul)

I can't honestly say there's a V6 that really sounds good though. But the VQ isn't on the top of the list.

[AZhitman]

Update:

The government once estimated it would lose only $13.9 billion on its $85 billion bailout of Chrysler, General Motors and their financial units. Now it says the loss will be $23.6 billion.

The difference, says The Detroit News, is due to GM’s low share price and the difficulties of its former GMAC finance unit, now called Allied Financial, to launch a public stock offering.

The U.S. Dept. of the Treasury owns 26.5% of GM and 74% of Ally as a result of the bailout. The government sold more than 400 million GM shares at $33 each when GM went public a year ago. But the stock is worth only about $23 now. The decline has delayed the Treasury Dept.’s plans to sell its remaining GM shares.

[IBCoupe]

Meanwhile, the economy of the midwest still functions.

[AZhitman]

Meanwhile, Greg and Isaac still have jobs. Point?

[IBCoupe]

Point is we didn't get into GM to make a profit. $26B isn't a huge price to pay to keep X00,000 people employed, their wallets full.

[AZhitman]

*yawn*

You just keep believing that.

http://www.forbes.com/2011/06/21/bailou ... nions.html

BTW, 92,000 employees / $26B = $262,000 per employee. Grrrrreat.

[AZhitman]

(...oh, and a [completely unrelated] link I thought you'd enjoy following: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/ ...)

[Jesda]

New precedent.

If you build a business large enough, government will rescue you when you run it into the ground.

f*** gay.

[Jesda]

CORPORATE WELFARE!

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

[AZhitman]

New precedent.

If you build a business large enough, government will rescue you when you run it into the ground.

f**king gay.

As such, I shall now take out a loan to buy lots of advertising, some Amazon-sized servers, and pay lots of underaged Laotians to spam other forums for links.

WHAT CAN GO WRONG?

[Jesda]

Ooooh, young laotians

[IBCoupe]

*yawn*

You just keep believing that.

http://www.forbes.com/2011/06/21/bailou ... nions.html

BTW, 92,000 employees / $26B = $262,000 per employee. Grrrrreat.

$262,000/3 = $87,000 per person still working for the past three years. Not so bad. Want to do the math again next year?

My aunt works third shift at a factory in northern Indiana that builds parts. Her employer received no direct cash from the bailout. Absent the bailout, her employer might have had to let her go. Had she been let go, that's less money the State of Indiana gets to collect from her. Had she been let go, that's one less customer her favorite restaurant had. Had she been let go, that's two horses she wouldn't be buying supplies for.

There's a reason that both Toyota and Ford went to Congress and asked them to give money to GM and Chrysler. You can b**** and moan, (because, hey, what the hell does bitching and moaning cost you?) but that won't change that the auto bailout was good policy.

And, by the way, your link shows its colors when it writes a headline like this:

Obama Didn't Save Union Jobs, He Saved Union Pay

And follows it up with a gem like this:

There were no federal bailouts of any note. Planes continued to fly. Pilots, mechanics and flight attendants continued to have jobs, albeit there were fewer of them and their pay was less.

Let me know if you have any "Commentary," as Forbes calls it, that doesn't come from a guy who argues "B-b-b-but Communism" when denying climate science.

[IBCoupe]

New precedent.

If you build a business large enough, government will rescue you when you run it into the ground.

f**king gay.

Okay, but I don't ever want to hear you complain about the government trust-busting.

But I get it, Jesda. If you become an integral part to an industry that keeps employed an entire geographical region within the United States, you have clout. I get that. Honestly, though, who do you think is out there changing their behavior for the worse on the basis of the auto bailout? Where's the moral hazard realized? Who exactly is going to be able to reap the benefits of this "new precedent?"

[AZhitman]

$262,000/3 = $87,000 per person still working for the past three years. Not so bad. Want to do the math again next year?

Sure. While we're being ridiculous, why not carry it out for a lifetime? Better yet, let's just give everyone [whose position is in danger of being eliminated due to advances in technology] a paycheck for life. Get real.

How come the 25% of dealership employees (who you didn't account for) didn't get the same deal? Think perhaps the unions had anything to do with that? How convenient.

And why is GM so special? Why not extend that same bailout deal to the employees of Blockbuster? Or United Airlines? Or Smith-Corona?

There's a reason that both Toyota and Ford went to Congress and asked them to give money to GM and Chrysler.

Yeah. It's kinda like the Obama camp endorsing Herman Cain. It's putting the ball on the tee for a power hitter. Toyota and Ford BOTH knew that a bailout of GM wouldn't affect their bottom line substantially, GM would revert to its old ways with a quickness, public sentiment would turn strongly against GM, and meanwhile, they'd look all the better for NOT partaking.

[Encryptshun]

Unions using their clout to influence gub'ment is no different than huge corporations employing the same methods. Let's not throw Joe Six Pack under the bus just because he happens to work for a union. And let's certainly, please, not pretend that the economy is so siloed that what affects the largest automaker in the world doesn't have negative (or positive) impact beyond its direct payrolls. That sort of thinking is what got us in this mess in the first place.

We need more Tucker, less Big 3. Letting GM and Chrysler collapse was the right thing to do and we didn't do it. Why we didn't do it had nothing to do with economics and everything to do with politics. But it shouldn't be used as credible evidence the unions are the boogeymen who cause goverment to make bad decisions.

[IBCoupe]

Sure. While we're being ridiculous, why not carry it out for a lifetime? Better yet, let's just give everyone [whose position is in danger of being eliminated due to advances in technology] a paycheck for life. Get real.

What's ridiculous about thinking that, in an economy with 14% real unemployment, those folks who would have been out of a job absent the bailout would still be out of a job today? Nice that you went for the reductio ad absurdum, but I think it was a bit of an overreach to claim that we were already in the realm of the absurd.

How come the 25% of dealership employees (who you didn't account for) didn't get the same deal? Think perhaps the unions had anything to do with that? How convenient.

If you're gonna make me guess, I'm gonna go with: "Because most dealerships are franchises."

And why is GM so special? Why not extend that same bailout deal to the employees of Blockbuster? Or United Airlines? Or Smith-Corona?

I thought I was pretty clear about that in my comment to Jesda, but maybe you didn't read it:

If you become an integral part to an industry that keeps employed an entire geographical region within the United States, you have clout. I get that.

Yeah. It's kinda like the Obama camp endorsing Herman Cain. It's putting the ball on the tee for a power hitter. Toyota and Ford BOTH knew that a bailout of GM wouldn't affect their bottom line substantially, GM would revert to its old ways with a quickness, public sentiment would turn strongly against GM, and meanwhile, they'd look all the better for NOT partaking.

Alternatively, you could listen to the reasons they actually gave: (1) they share suppliers, and those suppliers can't survive on just Ford's participation in the regional market, and (2) the franchisees that sell Fords also sell other cars and wouldn't be able to sustain themselves on just Ford sales.

It’s true that Ford was not “bailed out by our government,” as Chris says. However, the company’s president and CEO testified that his company would suffer if Congress did not pass legislation to provide financial support to the ailing auto industry. He urged Congress to pass the bill.

Mulally, Dec. 5, 2008: In particular, the collapse of one or both of our domestic competitors would threaten Ford because we have 80 percent overlap in supplier networks and nearly 25 percent of Ford’s top dealers also own GM and Chrysler franchises.

[AZhitman]

We need more Tucker, less Big 3. Letting GM and Chrysler collapse was the right thing to do and we didn't do it. Why we didn't do it had nothing to do with economics and everything to do with politics. But it shouldn't be used as credible evidence the unions are the boogeymen who cause goverment to make bad decisions.

I'll go with that... My point was that there IS a measure of influence, and with it being politically-motivated (with a precious little feel-good spin), the union factor is all-too-convenient. I certainly don't lay the blame solely there, nor do I credit their influence as the sole "smoking gun".

Meanwhile, in middle-America, Hyundai / Kia are pimpslapping GM out of its NASCAR footed jammies.

How come the 25% of dealership employees (who you didn't account for) didn't get the same deal? Think perhaps the unions had anything to do with that? How convenient.

If you're gonna make me guess, I'm gonna go with: "Because most dealerships are franchises."

Ah. Stupid dealership employees. Should have held out for a job with a supplier or the manufacturer. Whatever were they thinking?

My aunt works third shift at a factory in northern Indiana that builds parts. Her employer received no direct cash from the bailout. Absent the bailout, her employer might have had to let her go. Had she been let go, that's less money the State of Indiana gets to collect from her. Had she been let go, that's one less customer her favorite restaurant had. Had she been let go, that's two horses she wouldn't be buying supplies for.

And how is her employment any more important (to you OR the economy) than the Assistant Parts Manager at "Recently-Closed Chevy"? He pays taxes, eats pie, and feeds his kids.

Jobless is jobless.

[IBCoupe]

Ah. Stupid dealership employees. Should have held out for a job with a supplier or the manufacturer. Whatever were they thinking?

What the hell are you on about? You asked why dealerships didn't get a bailout and the manufacturers did. I suggested that the massive difference in size might have had something to do with it, and you're coming back with this nonsense?

And how is her employment any more important (to you OR the economy) than the Assistant Parts Manager at "Recently-Closed Chevy"? He pays taxes, eats pie, and feeds his kids.

Jobless is jobless.

Because it's not just her we're concerned with. It's the thousands, perhaps millions, of others in a situation like her: she exists in a rather large region of the country that relies quite heavily on automobile manufacturing. She didn't get a bailout, but she benefited from it. I'm saying, "It's good that we bailed out GM and Chrysler because absent that we'd have massive unemployment and a devastated middle-third of the country." You're now asking me, "So why didn't we rescue everybody?"

The answer: BECAUSE WE DON'T NEED TO RESCUE EVERYBODY IN ORDER TO AVOID THAT MASSIVE UNEMPLOYMENT AND A DEVASTATED MIDDLE-THIRD OF THE COUNTRY.

[Encryptshun]

Isaac, take a couple of deep breaths, count to 10, and think of fluffy kittehs.

[IBCoupe]

I wasn't writing in caps out of anger. Just trying to be extra clear.

But it has been a long day. Sorry if I'm being harsh.

[Encryptshun]

Soft words resound as thunder when they carry the lightning of truth.

[breadbox]

The statistic that I heard for the bailout was something like...

Instead of giving the money to companies, If they gave it to tax paying home owners everyone of them would have recieved somewhere in the neighborhood of $100,000 to each household.


Let me say if you want to stimulated the economy... give everyone a $100k.

[hannibal]

^ No, no. The economy is best stimulated by giving tax breaks and money directly to big businesses. That way, they'll hire more employees, invest in more R&D, and build new facilities...
Unless they take the money and just sit on it. The only thing that improves are their balance sheets.
/sarcasm

Akerson says the U.S. government, which still owns a 26.5% stake in the company, remains a hands-off investor. But he reiterates his concern that the government’s cap on GM’s executive compensation could hurt the company’s ability to recruit and retain top talent. The pay restrictions will prevent GM from paying bonuses to senior executives this year, even though the company could earn as much as $9 billion.

I lol'd. I think he got it backwards. Could it be their inability to attract competent executives that led to the need for a bailout?

[MinisterofDOOM]

Could it be their inability to attract competent executives that led to the need for a bailout?

Has nothing to do with who they attract. It has to do with who the shareholders (idiot feds) PUT in charge. Which is why we've had two dip@ss telecom weasels instead of car guys in charge since the "restructuring."

I'm one of those who can really appreciate Ford staying "above the fray" in that whole mess.

Yeah. I'm a reformed Ford-hater.

Going back to this point:

I hate that GM "took the money." And I own a Ford. And I walk around wearing a shirt with this on the front: .

And you know what? I'm a huge GM fan. I've pretty much always loved GM. Despite the crapola at the bottom of their lineups, they've always made something special that hits home for me at any given time in their history.
I'm MORE pissed off that GM took the bailout route BECAUSE I'm a GM fan. I'm disgusted that they're beholden to politicians and interest groups and every other disgusting form of slime out there who has their own pockets in mind. GM clearly found their brains, because stuff like the Malibu, the Cruze, the CTS, G8, the Camaro, and everything else good they've done recently happened. But now instead of being able to explore that, they're stuck doing what they're told. Which is their own damn fault, and they deserve it. But as a consumer I wish I could look forward to products from a "free" GM, not federally-controlled GM.

I love a LOT of the cars GM is making now, but I miss just as many they COULD be making (G8, Pontiac Ute, STS-V, XLR, Sky, Solstice, need I go on?!). I won't be happy until Akerson and his "I couldn't tell a boxed frame from a fuel injector" crew GTFO my car company's board room and give me back my company.

I'm not a reformed Ford hater by any means. They're still JUST as good at pissing me off with their apparent lack of understanding of what's desirable to their buyers as they are at making me happy these days. (See: Lincoln, Mark LT, chrome-saturated F150 redesign, new Explorer, Lincoln, 4500lb f*** Taurus, lack of a hotted up Fusion, overfocus on crossovers, Lincoln, and their ability to screw up things you shouldn't be able to screw up, like an automated manual in the Focus. Oh and the death of the Crown Victoria WHAT ARE YOU THINKING YOU IDIOTS.)
The Fusion's great, though, and Edge and Flex are way more appealing than a Highlander or a smegging Venza.

I guess what I'm getting at here is two things:
1: I don't give a damn whose money you're using, I want GOOD PRODUCT.
2: Get your luxury divisions right you fools. None of us want FWD V6s based on volume-seller family cars. EVER. EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER if we did we'd BUY SMEGGING ACURAS.
AAAAHHHHHRRRRGGHHH!!!!

[Encryptshun]

Once again MoD brings troof to da hizzouse.

[THawks]

MoD said everything I could want to say with an elegance where I would just sound like a dimwitted bull in a china shop. In looking for a new car in late '09, Ford's products were fugly in my eyes in the type of vehicle I was looking for (i.e. the Flex, Escape, Exploder) and I refused to participate in purchasing a Government Motor product. Not entirely because of the bailout but also with price points when placed next to other comparable models, which brought me to Nissan. I do not regret my decision in the slightest, but the car shopping experience (for a brand new model at least) has still left a bad taste in my mouth for pretty much any maker as most offerings have no "soul" to them. Each is as bland as the next.

[Encryptshun]

I'm still going to buy a second-generation CTS4. I'm in denial that Caddy or Corvette are the same company as the rest of GM.

Although the former is trying really REALLY hard to prove me wrong there.