General Motors

[Marx]

Yeah well it looks like our good friends in the house, sarcasm, are going to give more than planned for the auto bailout. The problem isn't in the auto industry, the problem is in the credit system. You can give GM all the money you want but if the average person can't get an auto loan then GM still won't sell ****. I also think that every CEO or board member making over 250 thousand or so should get a price cut in their salary comparable to the percentage lost in their stocks. As their company slowly builds back up, then increase their salary comparable with the stocks based on a percentage basis. I also think unions have ruined a part of the auto industry as their tenured employees have been opted out so that people will start new for a lot less all the while union fat cats are rich off of membership dues. Unions IMO are useless as we now have labor laws and will once again see an increase in minimum wage under the Obama administration.

All of that coupled with the inability to invest in alternative fuel and efficient vehicles was their biggest loss when oil hit 150 a barrel...but the signs of that were very apparent from a long ways away This country went through an oil crisis in the 70s but I guess didn't learn from it in the auto sector. The oil speculators need to be shot

Has an official 'auto bailout' been authorized? Or are they planning to go with the (already established AND available) emergency funds? I know that there was some serious talk about granting the emergency funding.

 

[Kelly]

I think the most serious talk has been the emergency funds, but Pelosi has been wagging her tongue about the bailout money and how more will be needed later. *sighs*

 

[Marx]

I think the most serious talk has been the emergency funds, but Pelosi has been wagging her tongue about the bailout money and how more will be needed later. *sighs*

Pelosi needs to go back to California.

 

[Fading]

I just love how they refuse to learn from past mistakes. Did the bank bailout help? Didn't the abuse of money (i.e. vacations) given to the banks not ring a bell? Hell the auto industry leaders arrived to plead their case on private jets. This will just be another case of pumping money into a failed structure, the money will be misused, it won't help, and in the end they will ask for (and probably recieve) more $$.

Of course it's not like responsibility and money are words that fit when talking about the government anymore. I remember a story about a year ago where they were sending 1 billion or so to Iraq, and they did so by piling it up into a pyramid and sending it by chopper. If I remember right the money was lost.

It's getting useless to talk about it tho. Most Americans were against the bank bailout, they called their congress ppl, etc. The bailout failed the first time, then they went ahead and passed it a second time. They will do what they want despite what the American ppl want, or ask for.

 

[Kelly]

Pelosi needs to go back to California.

I would actually, TRULY, be looking forward to the next 4 years if Pelosi would go home.

 

[Marx]

I would actually, TRULY, be looking forward to the next 4 years if Pelosi would go home.

We can all hope!

 

[chaseter]

Pelosi and Barney Frank need to go on a hunting trip with Dick Cheney

 

[Kelly]

If you add Dodd to that hunting trip, I'll be with ya on that....

 

[The Senator]

I need Barney Frank in the House of Representatives to ensure that my civil rights are protected. Tammy Baldwin is not powerful enough to fight that battle on her own.

 

[SuBe]

I need Barney Frank in the House of Representatives to ensure that my civil rights are protected. Tammy Baldwin is not powerful enough to fight that battle on her own.

More Libertarians in Congress could help your Civil rights more than Barney Frank can.

 

[The Senator]

More Libertarians in Congress could help your Civil rights more than Barney Frank can.

That isn't going to happen. The Republican Party will continue to be hijacked by fundamentalist nutjobs for at least another four years, and the Libertarian Party will never produce a candidate who can either 1) defeat the two party system, or 2) be taken seriously.

 

[SuBe]

But would you agree that Libertarians have a better position for you?

 

[Kelly]

*sighs* If most Libertarian candidates were not such loud mouth morons, yes that would probably be my party.

 

[The Senator]

But would you agree that Libertarians have a better position for you?

They don't have a better position than the openly gay liberal Congressmen who actually know what its like to be discriminated against and treated like garbage for their sexuality.

 

[Kelly]

They don't have a better position than the openly gay liberal Congressmen who actually know what its like to be discriminated against and treated like garbage for their sexuality.

It didn't take a woman to pass some of the strongest legislation in decades for women's rights.....

 

[XpunkRocker]

of course..... when have women ever done anything themselves :P


j/k

 

[Kelly]

of course..... when have women ever done anything themselves :P


j/k

As soon as they found out that men would f*** most things up.....so probably about the time man burned his finger touching fire trying to warm his ass. While the woman was using the fire to actually cook a meal.




j/k

 

[Bill]

that is pretty much what happened. But just because some people "say" they can afford a 200,000 house, doesn't mean the banks believe them. The banks knew what they could afford. Especially when most of these people couldn't make the down payment. If you loan a lot of money to someone, and they can't even make the down payment, they probably can't afford anything. The only reason the banks thought these people could afford it is because they knew the value would keep going up and it would keep making money. none of them, the banks or the people, thought that the housing bubble would burst and the value would diminsh.

It's not about what the people "said." Banks don't loan money on what people "say" they can afford. In the two houses I've been in to buy, the banks told us what we could afford. It's up to us to check that we could shoulder the mortgage. The banks gave them a maximum amount that fit their income, and the people didn't bother to take into account property tax and school taxes raises along with other expenditures. Most of them could have made the payment if they had chosen a house with a lower property tax bracket or eased up on spending in other areas, but they didn't. They didn't plan a budget around the big picture of their total finances. We could have afforded to make a payment on a $220,000 house, IF we never set foot out of the house for entertainment, never bought the new television, car or made any home improvements or figured what the hell on the subject of a Savings Account.

The people who got these loans have to take the majority of the blame here. They didn't have a gun to their head, and I'm willing to bet that more than one loan advisor made mention of the various factors that balloon a mortgage, and were summarily ignored. In my opinion, the banks put way too much trust in those people to properly balance that mortgage with their other debts and everybody got burned.

The Housing market value is only affecting you if you want a home equity loan or you're trying to quick sell for profit. People who buy when values are high and interest is low have a harder time selling for a profit than those who buy when values are low and the rate is high. You can always refinance if you buy at a lower interest rate. We bought when interest was high and values were low. We turned a 40,000 profit even with the market as it is because we weren't greedy. And we certainly didn't buy at the amount the bank told us we could "afford." People have been living beyond their means for years, and now its dues time.

 

[XpunkRocker]

still... giving a person a loan who can't make the down payment? especially on a 100,000 home, which is probably on the low end where i am from. you can't GET any lower than that really. now you can find something for 80 if you are lucky. but if your loaner can't make a down payment, there is no reason to believe that that person will pay for the rest of it. no reason. Except....... if you believe that person can make a profit and use that to pay them back. which is risky.

how do you think the banks expected these people to pay them back? they put their faith in something that was bound to burst. the banks were expecting it, the people weren't. The banks could forsee it better than the people. The people had their homes rise in value for like 10 straight years. That is a long time. the people just assumed it would be like that for the rest of their lives. the banks knew it would burst eventually.

 

[Paradoxium]

http://www.chryslerllc.com/en/

I swear to god I didn't make this **** up on photoshop

Ok it's not exactly GM but close enough, I propose we rename this thread to "The Auto Industry Thread" or "Mighty Morphing Failing Time: Featuring GM, Chrysler and Ford" t:

 

[The Senator]

Chrysler deserves to fail more than any of the other automobile companies.

 

[chaseter]

They don't have a better position than the openly gay liberal Congressmen who actually know what its like to be discriminated against and treated like garbage for their sexuality.

Just because you agree with him on one issue doesn't mean you should invest everything in them. Plenty of politicians have had many hurdles but a lot of them are still pretty big idiots

 

[chaseter]

It didn't take a woman to pass some of the strongest legislation in decades for women's rights.....

And, not only African Americans supported the civil rights movement in the 60's

 

[Hypestyle]

Regarding the proposed financial assistance
of the 'big three' American auto companies, radical
steps must be taken to ensure accountability of these
companies as a whole, and especially the corporate
executives who manage these companies.
Any loans and/or bailout funds should not be enacted
unconditionally. If it may be best to break up
Chrysler (which is performing the worst) and have a
competitor like Renault/Nissan get a chunk, then have
the rest merged with General Motors or Ford, so be it.
Also, to have partial government ownership of these
companies should not be viewed as a negative. The
federal government should take permanent stakes in all
of these American auto companies, ensure a regular
board of directors presence, then force these
companies to design and build definitive models for
fuel efficient cars, including electric cars,
alternative-fuel cars, that are affordable. The
companies should abandon the hummers and outsized
models. Lastly, Ford, GM and Chrysler need to be
brought onboard to collaborate and contribute to mass
transit efforts (next-generation buses, light-rail, heavy-rail, etc.), starting with
their backyard of Detroit.

 

[SuBe]

Regarding the proposed financial assistance
of the 'big three' American auto companies, radical
steps must be taken to ensure accountability of these
companies as a whole, and especially the corporate
executives who manage these companies.
Any loans and/or bailout funds should not be enacted
unconditionally. If it may be best to break up
Chrysler (which is performing the worst) and have a
competitor like Renault/Nissan get a chunk, then have
the rest merged with General Motors or Ford, so be it.
Also, to have partial government ownership of these
companies should not be viewed as a negative. The
federal government should take permanent stakes in all
of these American auto companies, ensure a regular
board of directors presence, then force these
companies to design and build definitive models for
fuel efficient cars, including electric cars,
alternative-fuel cars, that are affordable. The
companies should abandon the hummers and outsized
models. Lastly, Ford, GM and Chrysler need to be
brought onboard to collaborate and contribute to mass
transit efforts (next-generation buses, light-rail, heavy-rail, etc.), starting with
their backyard of Detroit.

I do not support at all, the Nationalization of ANY business. That is Socialism.