Obama denies bailout funds for automakers

Source: AP (via Gulf News)

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.

US President Barack Obama and his top advisers have determined that neither company is viable and that taxpayers will not spend untold billions more to keep the pair of automakers open forever.

In a last-ditch effort, the administration gave each company a brief deadline to try one last time to convince Washington it is worth saving, said senior administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to more bluntly discuss the decision...

Read more: http://www.gulfnews.com/business/Automobiles/10299531.html

---

So, we can bailout AIG... but not Detroit... :grr:

x(

who thinks different is nuts. But, as some of you are starting to understand, this was simply part of the plan.

dd

that's a wussie language. :rofl:

how this would end the United States. Just saying that anyone who thinks differently from you is nuts is not very enlightening.

have all the upstream and downstream businesses ending also. They'll be no reformatting and starting again there. The effect on employment and GDP will be severe. Let's suppose you are China, that is already considering not financing America's debt anymore. Suddenly the US's new President, who ostensibly (generously) is leaded the US markets down, suddenly de facto fires the head of GM and states there will be no more money given to GM or Chrysler but the US will guarantee all auto warranties. Wouldn't that non-plus you a little? (Why would anyone buy an American car?) The Chinese muse that the US may not be an on-going concern. Maybe time to cut our losses. Or at least wait until the US gets another President.

I do believe this move will be a great blow to the country. I'm not sure it would end it but it's going to make for a very hard time.

time. I'm starting my search for property out of the country. No way will I ever live in another dictatorship. Have a good day. Here's a chart showing you where we are in the market.

But I disagree with you about a dictatorship. These companies want taxpayers money and with that money comes certain restrictions. I think they have proved they can't restrict themselves in any meaningful way. I think Obama would be remiss to just hand them money without some assurance they can be competitive.

touching base with congress. He has now made Carl Levin an enemy. And he is a fierce enemy.

until I have read more about it.

You don't hear that said enough. Kudos.

Just a gnat on the wall of the US business. The other car companies, including Ford, will thrive and have to hire more workers and open new plants, just not in the union destroyed state of Michigan.

there we have it. we know where this poster is coming from....

i, personally, think we should let wall street dry up and die, and save the car companies.

car companies make cars. wall street makes shell games, and smoke and mirror ponzi schemes that can destroy the world.

no?

I agree that we need to save the few remaining, good paying Union jobs in the US, however I doubt others are sincere in their concerns.

jobs, retirement plans, get a big fuck you.

Adam Smith warned that the wealth of a country comes from production. Looks like we will have to relearn that...the hard way.

Dammit!

Bailing out AIG was a bad idea.

Bailing out GM is a bad idea.

The Obama administration has simply learned that the American people are sick and tired of seeing the Federal government reward failure. I wish they had learned it earlier, but at least they learned...

Then go with hte one that actually produces something.

But this downturn is far worse than we are being told publicly. That they would do this to GM means that the administration has no confidence that the economy is going to return to pre-recession levels any time soon.

gm has been declining for a long time. they made bad decisions about fuel economy and the financial future. they saw the bottom line with blinders on regarding what was coming on the horizon. they rode the bush good time bus without regard to the future. amazing that they could not come up with a viable plan to make themselves more marketable. but then this is part of the problem, management not competent. as an ex -detroiter i feel sorry for them.

His career is effectively over if it happens.

Any idea how trucks were made such an important part of GM profitability and focus?

The Congress gave tax breaks for buying the larger vehicles.

When it came to tax breaks for high fuel mileage and hybrids, Congress was comparatively weak.

There were other tools for fixing GM but Congress encouraged their demise.

I don't exactly understand how GMC financing has affected them recently, will have to look at that, but would guess that may have been a factor in the severity of this downturn.

It's estimated that they would have to sell many more cars to meet all of their financial obligations in the coming years:

"Looming over all of GM's financial woes is the massive obligation GM has to its retirees. The task force found that GM's own plan to deal with retiree health care and pensions "grow to unsustainable levels, reaching approximately $6 billion per year in 2013 and 2014."

"To pay those bills, GM would need to sell 900,000 additional cars per year, according to the panel. GM sold 8.35 million vehicles globally last year."

"The company does not clearly address "the lingering consumer perception that GM makes lower-quality cars," the task force found. The implications of that perception mean most consumers will pay less for GM cars against its competitors, forcing the auto maker to entice customers with hefty price reductions through incentives."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123838449463268709.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Things would have to go quite well for them to meet those obligations. Better than I think can be expected. Hopefully we can get something done on healthcare that will lower those expenses.

The health care obligation to retirees has been the growing problem for the Big Three for decades as the retiree pool grew greater than the pool of active employees. They knew this would happen someday --- why didn't they lobby government to bring in UHC? Why didn't business in general lobby for this? I understand why the health care industry would not, but I just don't get why corporations wouldn't want this obligation off their backs.

Lingering perception is a problem, but they didn't need a task force for that one. The task force acknowledges they made strides but were too slow. Some people will never buy American made cars. Unlike other countries we do not smack massive tariffs on other countries' brands. The foreign car assembly plants here do not support older retired workers either so costs can be lower. Look at where those assembly plants are located and listen to their bought and paid for Republican politicians. The President's people are ECHOING some of the same arguments.

No industry or manufacturing people were part of the task force.

Check out the names of the co-chairs.

The President wants to bust the auto union and make their workers sacrifice more. It is to make American manufacturing leaner and more competitive, right, but maybe it is also a Reaganesque attitude toward unions. That is my current perception. The President could have also created contracts for green government vehicle fleets or larger manufacturing like high speed trains to boost GM during the downturn, right?

The costs of healthcare is easy to deal with but the President took single payer off the table and maybe medicare and other "entitlement" programs will be on the chopping block so retired GM employees are in some serious trouble and they currently can blame every President since Reagan including Obama. It's still too early to know if retired workers really need to be afraid though, at least until all the talk about healthcare reform and cutting "entitlement" programs stops.

Or has already LOST IT.

Honda sales were down over 30% as well.

People are driving old cars, many are
turning to public transportation for
the first time.

If the "lesser two" go belly up, the feds get the pension obligations after all the other assets are liquidated. States get the unemployment fall out, any additional entitlement and subsidy costs, additional medicare costs and a cut in revenues, both property and income tax.

If they go belly up, all the stock and bondholders lose money. The biggest investors are pension funds and insurance companies, with the second tier being banks, foundations, and things like universities.

Apparently the calculus has been that letting them declare bankruptcy is of lesser concern than these problems. As my calculus teacher often said, "I want to see the steps you took to get to the answer."

You made some interesting observations I hadn't heard before and you managed to explain it so that even I could understand it. lol

GM has been making stupid decisions for years. This has nothing to do with the current economic conditions.

Gm created it's own problems by concentrating on the SUV market and ignoring the fact that most average people don't want or have the $$$ to spend thirty grand on your standard mid sized car.

Their SUV idiocy started in the 80's -- they let their car sector go to hell in a hand cart and focused on the truck lines.

and hope for the best.

The economy will keep being fucked, so long as our government chooses to pander to white-collar criminals while pissing on blue-collar workers. it is not difficult to figure out, and the only think in the way is that the Democrats are as much Miltonian dickcheeses as the Republicans. "Market magic" doesn't work. Giving AIG and their sort lots of money and hoping they can fraud it into doubling again, will not work.

Want to save the economy? Get people to make. Expand the corps of engineers to fix out nation's crumbling transportation system and flood protections. Bail out major producers of tangible products. Cut a bill to protect smaller farmers from the megafarms and montsanto's bullshit.

Diversity and productivity are the key. Not invisible hands and self-regulation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-parker/presidents-auto-task-forc_b_168767.html

Look at who the co-chairs are. "The co-chairs are Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and chief White House economics adviser Lawrence Summers."

$137.00 per hour building cars where the manufacturer has been forced to reduce the door thicknesses to 1 mm, then everything will be fine. Making things requires the things to have some value.

Even before he took office, he worked the phones HARD to get Congress to pass it.

You don't automatically go with the one that actually produces something, especially when the "something" is something nobody wants. Why in the world should we subsidize a company that consumes vast amount of money and squanders our natural resources to produce something that squanders even more of our natural resources? It's mind boggling why anyone would think this is a good idea...

Fuck no. The raw materials will just be sold to an overseas auto company, who's cars your self-righteous sort will still buy and drive two blocks to pick up a bag of cookies.

Look, I do get what you're saying. I even advocate the same stance, of a sort - I'm an opponent of "growth is good" because infinite growth can't be sustained on infinite resources. But right now, with regards to this question, I'm definitely going to say go with the manufacturing.

You want to see the economy of the United States doing well, right? I know I do - I have too many friends and family who enjoy that whole "eating" thing to want to see it bum out. If we - and our politicians - want to see a strong American economy, then domestic manufacture must be supported.

In this particular case, rather than demanding the auto companies lay off thousands, break the unions, and all that shit, there should have been strings attached to improve the product. Unfortunately... The free marketeers are still in charge of our nation, probably because Americans have forgotten how to make a proper torch.

No, the raw materials will not be sold and used by an overseas auto company. The root of the problem is that the global auto industry suffers from a surplus of production capacity. Quite simply, it's plants can produce millions more cars than people actually want. So when you say that the resouces will simply get used by other companies you are wrong.

But the resources will still be used, or as you put it, "squandered," by SOMEONE.

I think you're missing the greater point I'm making though

A recession is a decline in economic activity. A decline in econmic activity means a decline in resource usage, period end of story.

First off, a decline is not a halt. Those resources will be used.

Second, my point is that support for the manufacturing industries would bring a quicker end to this recession than the blithering free-for-all handouts for the finance "industry". Shuffling money does not help the economy. Actually generating wealth does.

In comparison, GM sold 9.4 million cars in 2007 (last year for which an annual report is available, #1 globally), & increased profits on their auto division 4% (they booked a loss *only* because they took 39 billion in deferred tax credits).

They increased market share in Europe (9.5%), asia (6.9%), latin america & africa (17.2%). In the US, they have 23% market share overall, 27% of the truck market, 19.7% of the car market. This is the only market where they've lost market share. They have 12% of the Chinese market, the fastest growing market in the world.

Since every auto company in the world is taking some kind of bailout money or gov't lines of credit, by your calculus they're all failures.

My friend's motorcycle shop was going great guns for 10 years, good sales, good credit. Until 2008. Hard recessions due to financial fraud *do* have a way of drying up sales & credit.

If you think GM is "failing," that tells me you only watch TV & skim headlines. GM is in decent shape & is using the recession to break labor contracts, assisted by folks like you.

GM isn't failing? I'm not even sure how to address that kind of denial.

Since every auto company in the world is taking some kind of bailout money or gov't lines of credit, by your calculus they're all failures.

The answer to this is yes, every auto company in the world is a failure right now. They are all seeing declines of some sort or another (sales, revenue, or otherwise), and they are all suffering due to the global recession. There is an incredible surplus of production capacity right now, and what needs to happen is for some of the weaker companies to die off. I hope that some of the ones that survive will turn out to be US companies, but at this point my faith in US auto management is drying up.

you believe gm is in terrible shape because that's what you heard on tv.

yes, there's surplus capacity. that's the basic problem.

gm's bankruptcy will put them in prime position to take over, buy out, & shut down a lot of it, then put all the new factories they just built in russia, china & india to good use.

You offered up market share numbers which are irrelevant and a dizzying spin of an explanation for a 30 billion dollar posted loss.

Here is GM's financial statistics over the last four years:

Loses in 2005: 10.3 billion
Loses in 2006: 1.9 billion
Loses in 2007: 38.7 billion
Loses in 2008: 30.8 billion

http://money.cnn.com/quote/financials/financials.html?symb=GM&sid=2160&report=1&period=annual

Care to spin those numbers? :rofl:

automaking sector of the business was profitable. you can put in a hundred rolly-eye icons, this is fact.

2008 annual report isn't out. i'll wait for the data v. trusting cnn's reportage, thanks.

http://www.gm.com/corporate/investor_information/docs/fin_data/gm07ar/download/gm07ar_financials.pdf

2007 OVERVIEW

As more fully described in this Management’s Discussion and Analysis, the
following items are noted regarding 2007:

• Consolidated net sales and revenues declined by 11.9%, reflecting the
de-consolidation of GMAC following the GMAC Transaction in November 2006;

• Automotive revenues increased 3.9%;

• 2007 net loss of $38.7 billion ($68.45 per diluted share) includes valuation
allowances recorded against our net deferred tax assets in the U.S., Canada
and Germany of $39 billion;

• Sold our Allison Transmission (Allison) business for $5.4 billion in cash
proceeds resulting in a gain of $4.3 billion;

• Results reflect a $1.2 billion loss on our 49% interest in GMAC;

• Signed 2007 National Agreement that we anticipate will support our
structural cost reduction plans;

• Achieved structural cost reduction target in North American turnaround
plan; and

• Continued progress on finalization of our support for Delphi Corporation
(Delphi) in emerging from bankruptcy proceedings.

charges.

• Excluding special items, adjusted net income improved
by $5.4 billion to a profit of $2.2 billion, or $3.88 per share
fully diluted, on record revenue of $207 billion.

Including restructuring and other charges, GM had a net loss in
2006 of $2 billion, which was an $8.4 billion improvement
versus 2005.

• GM’s automotive business posted consistently improved
results, including record global revenue, in all four quarters.
Excluding special items, net income from automotive
operations improved by more than $5.7 billion, totaling
$422 million on an adjusted basis (reported net loss of
$3.2 billion, an improvement of $6.9 billion).

• GM North America posted a $5-billion earnings improvement
in 2006, with an adjusted net loss of $779 million
(reported net loss of $4.6 billion).

In the fourth quarter of 2006, GMNA recorded its fourth consecutive quarter of more than $1 billion improvement in adjusted earnings.

*GM was once again the number one automaker in the fast-growing China
market, led by our Buick division, which has tremendous
heritage and brand equity in the country. China’s industry sales
exceeded 7 million units last year for the first time, making it
the second-largest national market in the world. Industry sales
there are projected to exceed 8 million units this year.

*In our Latin America, Africa and Middle East region, we
sold more than one million GM vehicles last year for the fi rst
time. Overall, sales increased 17 percent as we expanded our
Chevrolet lineup and made signifi cant progress turning around
our important business in Brazil. Sales in the Mideast and
Africa alone were up 22 percent.

*In 2007 and 2008, we plan to spend $8.5 billion
to $9 billion on capital investments, an increase of nearly
$1 billion from 2005 and 2006.

Obviously GM is doing fine and doesn't need a dime in bailout money to help them survive.

funny there are so many people driving cars.

I wonder why Ford said they didn't need government money? This mystery is obviously very complicated...

Ford has a 9 billion dollar government credit line which it has never touched.

GM has taken and spent almost 10 billion dollars in government money and is asking for more.

Common sense might tell you therefore that GM is in real trouble and Ford doing ok, but that would be a horrible simplification, wouldn't it? :eyes:

has a negative net worth of 100 billion dollars as of the beginning of this year. How do you define failing?

long ago.

"Cognitive dissonance".

Would you be in favor of retroactively pulling the plug on the AIG bailout? I would...

the American people a choice as to whether we preferred to do that or save manufacturing jobs.

But if given that choice, the polls clearly indicate that American's preference is to bailout neither company.

:-(

then let them take back AIG's bailout.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I expected much better from the Democratic Party.

Bush administration before Obama took office. Prolly the best Obama can do if they didn't meet Bush's criteria was to extend the time frame.

They'll still be given some working capital. Chrysler has 30 days to finalize a deal with Fiat and GM still has 60 days to restructure. The government will keep them afloat during this time.

:hi:

When I first read the topic, I thought it was a panic move. It isn't. The auto companies now realize that this isn't just a PR error; they actually have to restructure their pathetic business.

I know the union guys are worried, as well they should be. But I think, in their heart of hearts, they want to make quality cars at a good price, not the utter crap mandated by management that's wrecked their business. I think they want to have pride in their final products, above and beyond turning in a good day's work.

And frankly, UAW guys; isn't it good to hear of management losing their jobs for a change?

I just wonder where the hardball players were when it came to AIG and the banks!

Answer: His economics advisors are all from the banking and finance industry... All have ties to the Chicago School...

I work in the car industry (albeit at the dealership level - not a salesperson) and GM going down is outright frightening to me (and I work a foreign dealer).

I like that there's accountability and feet being held to the fire, but the same should have been done with the banks.

mentioned in Naomi Klein's, "The Shock Doctrine"?

and yes partially a reference to Naomi Klein.

that appeared in The Nation. An interesting read.

More: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080630/klein

Makes me ponder for a moment if we were not the same as those who voted for The Idiot Son, out of a lack of information, or outright deception since so much was denied, never mentioned, or forgotten during the campaign. The primary campaign is the subject of this sentence.

I am disappointed at what seems like an anti-labor, pro big business attitude being reflected in these policies.

Perhaps we were so shell-shocked from 8 yrs of the war criminal Dim Son's administrations that what info was out there was disregarded to some degree? After all nothing could be worse than 8 yrs of the Dark Side and then McPain to follow.

There was an interview with Klein in The Progressive a few months ago where she speaks of the disappointment but that we have no right to be as the signs were there during the campaign.


Interview at http://www.progressive.org/mag/intv0209.html.

We were warned....but.....

Molly Ivins, among others, sure tried to warn us about the Idiot Son.

Obama has been surrounded by a posse of Wall St. advisors since the beginning of his Presidential campaign. His campaign economic advisors were all neoliberal "Chicago Boys". Always. They mostly stayed behind the scenes, but it's not like it was a big secret. That's why it used to bother me so much when people claimed that Obama was a progressive or a populist. Uh, no. A lot of people posted about Obama's neoliberal advisors during the campaign. But the thing is, if someone pointed this out during the primaries, they'd usually get shouted down. I think a major problem is that so many people don't even know what economic neoliberalism *is*, much less how to recognize when a candidate is advocating those policies.

He brought Chicago to D.C., and just look what we have . . . not to beat a dead horse, but arne duncan is a fucking joke, from Chicago.

But here's another article http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/30/obama-denies-bailout-funds-automakers-sets-restructure-deadline/

Yes it's Fox News but does a good job. And Fritz Henderson is now CEO of GM (he was the President and COO).

Yes, I know this is from Fox News, but it's a good article on this.

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

"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."

They will stay afloat during this time frames the Obama administration has set, GM has 60 days to come up with a more realistic plan.

:)

I just know people here don't actually *read* the article and I thought I would at least post that it's not a zero sum game as of yet.

Yes, this seems like a decision that a thinking person would make. Don't just give blindly. If a company is losing money due to poor business decisions, giving them more money will not help long term. Forcing them to propose a proper restructuring, knowing that if they don't take it seriously that they will disappear in 60 days, will magically produce a better restructuring plan. You just watch.

At the same time, even the best laid plans can't hold up that well if sales our down by 40%. I don't know how long any industry could last under those numbers.

giving them money will not help, unless it is a bank or insurance company and then you have to give them all the money and reward their performance...

Things may be completely different now. We heard that the worlds was coming to an end and had to act now. So we did. Obama giving the companies 30 to 60 days to come up with a plan seems smart to me. None of the "wink, wink, smirk....sure, we "reorganized", even though not much has changed", now give us our money. Obama is saying, you say you have reorganized... show me the reorganization!

or are just jumping the gun.

or something like that support a bailout of the auto-industry

"Just 28% say the best course for the U.S. economy is for Congress now to pass a new economic stimulus plan that includes money for the financially stumbling Big Three automakers."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/auto_industry/48_say_failure_of_gm_best_for_the_economy

I just did a quick google search so the numbers are a lil old, but their is a big difference between 8 and 28.

Those folks answering those questions may be compromised by the wording of the question and their stupidity.

Letting GM fail would be devastating to our economy and how many families that support the industry?

forget it... this will do it

Someone tell me how this is 'change'?

It said, "Change", and someone had written beneath it, "Where?" :(

Throw out all the executives, restructure it, and sell competitive companies.

The workers have taken too many hits over the years. The same asshole management has continued to run them into the ground. Think of a plan like Conrail back in the '70s.

I fear for the employees at Chrysler. They're owned by a private equity group (Cerberus) who happens to have plenty of money.

Think of it as an opportunity to restructure the auto industry, and produce better, safer, more fuel efficient cars.

for a lot of debt if they bought it, which is one of the reasons the share price is so low, but they could at least can the people causing the problems there.

That's how it goes from what I can see.

Force them into Chapter 7 bankruptcy and bought by smaller mortgage who has less risk ratio.

GM created Hummers and sold them like they were candy. That was the wrong move, so I'd rather see them go down like a $2 whore for this waste of space/material/energy.

Chrysler is owned by a hedge fund with Dan Quayle as the head numbnut. Let them go down. Most of their products are ultimately crappy.

The only acceptable bailout is that they agree to ALL union demands, and allow the unions to form, represent the workers, and no executive bonuses until they return to profitable status. Cap the salary to 10% of the highest paid union worker, and increase the % when they are showing profit, and ALL the American taxpayers who'll be bailing them out gets $100,000 worth of common stock EACH.

GM has 60 days to get something together that Obama will approve of, and will get interim financing. Chrysler has 30 days to do a deal with Fiat.

The difference is that the NYT does not include a statement to the effect that the auto companies are not receiving the dollars that they say they need to go much further into the future.

An investment banker, of all people, gave Wagoner the news that he was gone. I don't know if that is justice or not.

The headline, 'Obama denies bailout funds.' One of those emphatic statements when such clarity is probably not justified by the facts (as stated in the story.) Headlines often disserve us all.

Will look for an update later...

I think that Obama will have a hard time getting the electoral votes of Michigan and perhaps Indiana and Ohio in 2014.

He must think that he doesn't need them.

On edit: I am furious that Obama is taking a hard line with Detroit and treating New York with kid gloves.

That's what I hired him to do, anyway.

right now. Do you know what the multiplier effect is?

The multiplier is huge. The exact number escapes me.

upstream or downstream business from either GM or Chyrsler, you will be saved somehow. However, I think it will mean sacrifice. The american auto industry needs to be competitive with the Japanese with respect to labor for the US industry to survive. The best to you and yours.

He can't do anything to help himself because he is terminally ill and in a rehab hospital.

I can't get a decent job anymore. Part of it is my middle-agedness and there's nothing I can do about that.

Your statement isn't exactly accurate. The costs for people working today at GM and at Toyota are very, very similar. Sometimes Toyota folks make more.

The difference is that GM has retirees who took less way back when in order to have better pensions and health care NOW.

Toyota refuses to give their employees pensions or any kind of help with their retirement health care. It won't even sponsor, not fund, sponsor, a
group medigap plan. Right now it has few or no retirees because it is a fairly new business and it refused to hire older people when it started up. It also doesn't like to hire older people now, and it doesn't like to hire people who are or have been UAW members.

This has been pointed out here any number of times and yet, you continue
to put out REPUBLICAN falsehoods about autoworkers. Why didn't you *)(##$ @ pay attention!

I don't imagine that you have to sacrifice anything to bring this country back and you didn't add anything about making anyone in finance suffer anything like what's going to happen to autos!

Your smug best wishes are cold comfort indeed. I hope that this bad economy hits you and your family right over the head like it's hitting mine. You might have more difficulty calling on ordinary people to take the hit for the bad economy and decisions that they didn't make when it happens to you and your. Until then, you know where you can put your best wishes.

$69.00 per hour. My wife is a Georgetown DON with two MBAs and a dual license. She doesn't make anywhere near that. Yet Freddie, who all day puts a door handle on a Chevy gets $69.00 per hour. That's what's called inequity. I pay attention real well, lady. Having communicated with you, maybe Obama is on the right track. I haven't bought an American car in 15 years because of the comparative quality of the cars. A Toyota Tacoima will last 400,000 miles. A GMC truck maybe will go 200,000 but sound like bucket of bolts. When whatever remains of the auto industry can produce a quality vehicle competively priced, then Americans might start buying them again. But please no more Hummers. I herein retract my best wishes. Out.

Your figures could not be more wrong. I can't believe you've done any more research than to listen to Fox Snews.

I have seen very few people here who I have thought were disrupters, but I have to say that you are one of them.

As far as I'm concerned, you are gone in every conceivable way.

GM's Opel Insignia 'Car of the Year 2009,' Ford Fiesta Comes in Second, VW Golf Third.

For the first time in 22 years, a General Motors vehicle has been voted 'Car of the Year' (COTY) in Europe. The brand-new Opel insignia gathered a total of 321 points beating the second Ford Fiesta by the narrowest possible margin - a solitary point. The Insignia is the third Opel / Vauxhall model to be awarded with the COTY after the Kadett (Vauxhall Astra in the UK) scooped the award in 1985 with the Omega (Vauxhall Carlton) following in 1987.


GM sweeps honors at auto show

At Detroit auto show Saturn Aura tapped as car of year, while Chevy Silverado takes truck of year award; first time GM has swept awards.
By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer
January 8 2007: 9:48 AM EST

DETROIT (CNNMoney.com) -- General Motors kicked off the North American International Auto Show by sweeping the show's car and truck of the year awards for the first time in the company's history.

The Saturn Aura won the show's car of the year award, while the Chevrolet Silverado won the truck of the year. The panel of judges chooses among models that were introduced or substantially redesigned in the current model year.


you *don't* pay attention, "lady".

oh, & news flash, having 1,2,3 degrees doesn't guarantee *anyone* jack shit in the free market economy you admire enough to take your name from. not even your lovely wife.

"inequity" - ooooh, pppppoooor thing.

if there weren't freddies in this world, your wife could use her multiple degrees to wipe her butt with. she's living off the surplus created by the freddies.

and the ugly horse you rode in on.

Mediocre can produce a competitively priced automobile that doesn't have to be serviced every ten days, they will not go forward; in fact, they will remain redundant as an automobile manufacturer. Yes, yes, I understand that folks like you need one person to hold the broom, another to hold the dustpan, and yet another to put both items away, all for fear of breaching each other's duties, but when a man who is repetitively putting on doorhandles is making more than people who are saving lives--then something is very wrong. GM is probably done. Chrysler may survive, if Fiat comes through. Ford may last for a few more years if they finally get the message to the union that this is not 1955. Have a nice day. Surplus created by the Freddies. Oh, please: Freddy has been living on the government dole for so long he may as well be a park bench.

it's your wife living on the dole, buddy.

a member of three unions in my life. All were miserable experiences, where little was done for the dues we were paying. However, all the companies those unions serviced (sic) were making money. General Motors will never make money again in their current form. If they scale down and start producing bikes, they might have a chance, and you would have another product to buy, Hannah...Montana...maybe?

Grifting on those gov't salaries, that pork & contractor money.

GM's auto biz makes money. You have to actually look beyond the headlines of USA Today to know that, though, "freemarketer".

how I make my living. Your post headers are getting somewhat not fully understandable. GM's auto biz does not make money. There is a difference between revenue and net income. I hope you understand that. GM is just another Guiding Light...great for many years, now time to make way for newer, more efficient products.

auto biz makes money. go read their annual reports.

dd

there is collusion to drive down wages. auto-making is a global cartel.

dd

dd

If the GM and Chrysler go, they'll probably take Ford with them. This would lead to a complete collapse of Michigan and Ohio and Indiana would be devastated. If this happens, Obama will need to win re-election without MI, OH, and IN.

I'm pissed about how Wall Street is being treated. I'm also angry about how so many on DU make excuses for it...some will find a way to support Obama no matter what.

:shrug: I was reading a debate about this on another forum and they were saying the new guy is a virtual clone of Wagoner. It's not even worth doing if the new guy takes the same approach as the guy he's replacing. I've never heard of the guy but if that's the case, I hope the administration will assert themselves again and force GM to put someone more capable in charge.

"Using the threat of withholding additional loans, the task force forced GM Chief Executive Rick Wagoner to step down on Sunday. He will be replaced by Frederick "Fritz" Henderson, currently GM's chief operating officer."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123838449463268709.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

to come up with a real plan instead of a fake one that let's the bad execs keep failing and getting paid for it.

I work for a supplier to these companies. Been hanging in up to now, but this will put us over the edge. Can't say I'm thrilled with this decision.

You can be "retrained" as many seem to think around here.

it means they are forced to reorganize and have protection from debt holders. The jobs don't just disappear.

Which is why the Republicans want it over the alternatives. Obama's reelection will be a challenge without union support, but that's the least of it.

Those of us that live here, especially near Detroit already know the future. It already is showing in the vacant store fronts in the suburbs. This state was too dependent on the car companies, which was stupid, and now we will pay for it. I have no solution but this is going to get BAD!:hide:

Billions to Wall Street - no strings attached for white collar crimina....I mean workers..yet, for blue collar workers, Obama wants them to work at the same wage scale as scabs in the southern US....a race to the bottom.

Total BULLSHIT.

Bailing out white collar bankers: Good
Bailing out blue collar workers: Bad

Fighting endless wars to justify a miltary offense budget: Excellent!

he was a centrist and pro-free-trade was swiftly attacked and banned. Strange that they all seem surprised now. Obama is a billion times better than any repub, but we'd have done better with Kucinich, Edwards, etc. I don't think we'll ever be able to elect anything but a centrist Dem, and I don't really understand why.

why Obama supporters were so strongly against Hillary. I would've voted for Obama because of the war but I always felt he and Hillary were pretty similar otherwise. I still support Obama but his support of Wall Street has me angry and worried.

That's why I was for Obama...
that and his anti-Iraq war stance.

That is the message.

arne duncan hates 'em. Pres, Obama must not have much use for them either.

Just saying?!?

Jennifer Granholm is on and she is calling this a double standard. Good luck getting Michigan votes in the future, and maybe more.

While the polls may say people don't like bailouts, people hate a double-standard even more...

People are, for the most part, at least as perceptive as dogs.

:grr:


TG

Republican light.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

intends to abandon blue collar workers. I think he gave the CEOS every opportunity to come up with a viable plan worthy of more bailout funds. They didn't. The companies need to be reorganized so they actually make a product people want to buy. The UAW might need to endure short term pain for long term gain like the rest of us.

He's not stupid.

American Express "Chief Executive Kenneth I. Chenault's 2008 salary, perks and stock-based awards were worth about $36.6 million."

American Express got $3.39 Billion of bailout money.

if we take even more cuts now, than we did 2 yrs ago...it will be decades, if ever, before we return to what we have now.

When did they ask Citigroups bank tellers to make concessions?

How much of a cut in pay did the loan officer at B of A give up?

Did the broker at Morgan Stanley give up his dental coverage?

yet again, it is what it is...plain & simple...it's the difference between a worker who gets to shower before work, compared to one that has to shower after work.

the discussion is about the auto industry today. The problem for the UAW is, if you don't take the pain now, you may not have a job to negotiate a contract over. Don't you get it? This isn't the kind of "lay off" environment my dad dealt with in the 1960's. The plant in Ohio he worked at, by the way, is long gone. It won't be a few weeks out of work on strike. It could be forever. I was listening to a talking head on the car radio this morning talking about what a good job the head of GM had done and what a shame it was Obama forced him out. Bullshit. If he had done a good job, GM wouldn't be on life support. As for Chrysler, they should do something bold and partner up with one of the up and coming electric car developers and go for broke.

for at least 50 years for the rest of the union movement.

This is a betrayal on many levels.

Hang in there if you can.

Member AFT (AFL-CIO) since 1978.

Not actual working people but people who have ruined everything.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/business/30auto.html?hp

Obama and Co. are planning to step in and reorganize GM and Chrysler. This makes sense and it's better than a mere bailout.

Why is that John? Well, let me explain. GM's current state is mostly a product of its own bad management. It has been a company so huge that it literally was unable to fail, due to its vast resources. Like the rest of the previous two generations of GM leadership, Waggoner, the now-ex President of GM was an expert at wringing cash out of the behemoth by playing financial tricks and arguing with the UAW just to keep it running, rather than spending that money to build a sound business. Obama's folks are apparently looking to impose a restructuring on the company, rather than allow vested interests within it to decide where to go next.

Is this union busting? I would argue that preserving the companies that have unionized labor, instead of letting them fail, is union preservation. Further, the Obama White House is well-placed to put an end to the destructive cycle of GM-led union busting and blaming. A third party solution will upset everyone, but it will be the best anyone could hope for.

UNIONS!! UAW!!! UNIONS!!!!! JOBS!!!!! UNIONS!!!!!

GIVE MONEY NOW!!!!!!!

allowed to distribute obscene bonuses to the very people who were responsible for the problems?

Obama had a "conversation" with the top bank executives on Friday. I think they are next on the "hardball" court. If they don't start lending....the new administration will do to them what they are doing to GM and Chrysler. Good. Like I've said before, Obama plays a three level game of chess, while the rest of the world still thinks it is a game of checkers....He is at least five moves ahead and no one else can even guess what the next move is.

Our system of government is slow and deliberate but that is why it works. That part you are seeing in Obama now is him being good salesman

I too wish it were more efficient, but sometimes it's the price you have to pay to get enough people on board.

You don't get it yet, and a lot of other people don't either.

But you will.

Government BY The Banks, FOR The Banks.

WAKE. UP.

Playing chess, my ass.

You're in checkmate. And you don't know it yet.

But you will.

And a lot of you won't be able to admit it, or handle it.

Can it be any clearer that president Obama and his economic team
are all about banking power, handing trillions to banks without any
scrutiny at all, but for industrial companies OUTSIDE the financial sector,
the scrutiny suddenly is ramped up to the point of giving a 'no' for a few
tens of billions?

Trillions for banks, but a few billion for auto companies is a 'no?'

Our banks are totally insolvent, not viable businesses, so why do they get
over 10 trillion dollars?

He's brokering a merger between Chrysler and Fiat and he is giving GM money for the next 60 days so they can restructure.

Obama said "no" to the lame-ass, Waggoner, Republicant, entrenched interest, union-busting, executive-salary-preserving "plan" made by the same folks who got GM in this position. Now he will level the playing field for labor and management.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/senate-dems-angry-over-aig-bailouts-2009-03-03.html

Obama's Administration could have stopped the other payouts.

Rp

As a result of deregulation, our entire financial services sector is highly-integrated and probably a monopoly. Right now, allowing any financial services company to collapse endangers the entire credit system. This is why deregulation is a bad idea.

Obama needs to cut through this gordian knot, but he can't just hack away or he could literally throw the entire planet into a depression. This crisis is the culmination of 30 years of Reaganomics. This crisis *COULD* have been averted had the Bush administration taken the Enron disaster seriously, but they didn't and, instead, arrested poor Martha Stewart.

I repeat: We have to bail out the financial services. We have no choice. This is why Reagonomics is "voodoo economics"... because it relies on the mystical notion that somehow an economy left unregulated will magically self-regulate.

global economy. We want to argue that AIG is more important than another superpower with nuclear subs, a space program, and huge military?

I don't. AIG goes, buy insurance from GEICO, Allstate or others. Ban derivatives trading altogether. These naked trades have created the phony "losses" that we're now covering for the bad bettors.

mod parent +1

I'm am seeing lots of claims that Obama hates unions with no facts to back them up except for "He taught at the University of Chicago so he MUST be a Friedmanite". :crazy:

Simon Johnson's article in the Atlantic this month speculates that this is what has happened to us. It appears he is correct.

These two manufacturers hold over two million jobs at risk between their own employees and the suppliers that will shut down if they fail. How many jobs was the stimulus package supposed to create? How many $billions have the automakers gotten compared to the banks?

No question: The government is controlled by the megabanks. It's now an established fact.

you believe that Obama is "controlled by the finance industry?"

If so, at what point did this happen?

It is about Oligarchy. Obama is constrained not so much by what he can do, but by what he is forbidden to. Here is the link to the Simon Johnson article--he has nailed it:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice

If a year or two from now Obama has failed to institute real reform, then it will be a victory for oligarchical forces. He seems to know the score on this, but real reform might not be possible.

they refuse the auto LOAN, there's still time between now an 2012 for a lot of dominoes to fall. Obama will be a one term president. Think unemployment is bad now?

Sigh


Save the rich w/ bank bailouts & screw the middle.

Isn't politics and BULLSHIT great?:sarcasm:

the automakers steadfastly refused to move forward on more green and fuel-efficient cars and agreed to unsustainable union contracts; inevitable and disturbing as industry after industry falls by the wayside.

ed for sp

I see how it is. They can't throw money fast enough at bankers and anyone who worked on Wall Street. No conditions, no stipulations, not even promises. But when it comes to autoworkers, there has to be detailed plans, concessions, etc. It enough to make you bang your head against a desk.

and the End The Wars folks, the Universal Health Care people, anti-War On Drugs types, the Let Gays in the Military lobby,...

Most simply like shout and scream. The emotional response is understandable, as there are many jobs at stake and yes there is a double standard between the auto companies and the banking industry.

There is a lot of valid criticism that can be made of this administration. I think it has handled the financial situation poorly and the AIG bailouts especially badly. AIG itself should have been completely dismantled. I'm with many others that have said that if it's too big to fail, it's too big to exist.

But I wish there was actually more analysis of the situation itself. It's easier to just yell out "DLC sucks" or "bankers rule the administration" (and both statements hold some truth) but, some of us are still trying to figure out the administration's motives and understand how big the financial mess still is, without assuming the absolute worst of Obama. Of course, I'm assuming Obama still wants to

And I also don't understand how much money should keep going to GM and Chrysler to produce parking lots of unwanted vehicles. How long does such a process go on? Should the government assume all payroll of these employees until credit actually starts flowing? And considering GM hasn't shown an actual profit in years and Chrysler has no promising product line, what evidence is there that things will magically turn around even when credit flows again?

Anybody?