General Motors

[redfirebird2008]

I want to line them all up and point and say...."you're a liar"....."you're a liar"....."you're a liar"..........all the way down the line.

"Oh and BTW, stay away from my money unti you know what the hell you are actually doing...."

Agreed 100%.

 

[The Major]

Yeah, the Obama Administration and Congress really ****ed GM and the tax payers over on this one if they do declare bankruptcy. They just pissed away so much money and never gave them a ****ing chance.

I disagree. The bail-out kept many people employed far longer then they otherwise would have. This would have helped the satellite industries who rely on GM to stay afloat, as well. That keeps money flowing, which is vital in a recession. It may have only been temporary but that's better then GM being six feet under immediately.

 

[VampElvis]

I'm wondering how vital their manufacturing capabilities are to national security. I heard that argument thrown about when they were first reported to be in trouble. Maybe that's already been discussed in here, don't mean to rehash it if it has, but that claim has been rollin' around in the back of my head and I was curious what others in here thought.

 

[Marx]

I'm wondering how vital their manufacturing capabilities are to national security. I heard that argument thrown about when they were first reported to be in trouble. Maybe that's already been discussed in here, don't mean to rehash it if it has, but that claim has been rollin' around in the back of my head and I was curious what others in here thought.

I don't remember that conversation. What was the argument?

 

[BlackLantern]

Dnno1 tried to make the argument that the government allowing GM to fail would violate the Constitution....it's in this thread somewhere back there

 

[hippie_hunter]

I disagree. They kept many people employed far longer then they otherwise would have. This would have helped the satellite industries who rely on GM to stay afloat, as well. That keeps money flowing, which is vital in a recession. It may have only been temporary but that's better then GM being six feet under immediately.

Oh please, if they wanted to give GM a chance they would have pressured the UAW and the debtors to be a bit more lenient towards them. They would have actually invested in GM to try and develop more fuel efficient vehicles and modes of public transportation (like buses and whatnot). The Obama Administration and Congress were unnecessarily harsh on them as well (they deserve a lot of it, but they went way too far). And they fired a man who did not deserve it and tried as hard as he can to save GM while keeping the loyalty of GM's employees.

GM actually tried to survive here and not piss off people in the process and the government gives them a hard time, all the while they keep putting billions into AIG which wastes the money on parties, get aways, and bonuses.

You know why they let GM die? Politics. Plain and simple. While the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress was far too pro-business, the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress is far too pro-labor. The UAW refused to budge and they didn't pressure them because the labor unions invested heavily in the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress in making big gains in 2008 which they did.

And while the financial and banking industry betted on the Democrats this time around, while the auto industry donated to the Republicans. I wonder if it would have been any different if they went the other way around.

This thing pisses me off to no end. Thanks Obama for pissing our money away for this bullcrap.

 

[Marx]

Dnno1 tried to make the argument that the government allowing GM to fail would violate the Constitution....it's in this thread somewhere back there

Ohhh, I do remember that. It sounds as ridiculous now as it did when it was first mentioned.

 

[The Major]

Oh please, if they wanted to give GM a chance they would have pressured the UAW and the debtors to be a bit more lenient towards them.

They did give GM a chance. The government let it survive months longer then it would have without their money. GM should be grateful it got that much.

Why do you think the debtors and the UWA weren't lenient toward GM?

They would have actually invested in GM to try and develop more fuel efficient vehicles and modes of public transportation (like buses and whatnot).

Ironically this would have helped GM had they done this years before. I do know the government has had a difficult time getting the auto companies to revamp themselves, exactly what has been the management's problem with them? I find it hard to believe the Obama administration wouldn't want them to invest in fuel efficient vehicles. Especially those that don't run on oil.

The Obama Administration and Congress were unnecessarily harsh on them as well (they deserve a lot of it, but they went way too far).

How did they go to far?

And they fired a man who did not deserve it and tried as hard as he can to save GM while keeping the loyalty of GM's employees.

Isn't that the guy whose getting a $20 million golden parachute?

GM actually tried to survive here and not piss off people in the process and the government gives them a hard time,

Every business tries to survive. GM's giving several factories a few weeks "vacation" to save money and opening new factories in China. Why wouldn't that piss people off? The government is giving them a hard time since they've done a miserable job staying operational. It's not like the government wants to be in the situation to bail-out auto companies.

all the while they keep putting billions into AIG which wastes the money on parties, get aways, and bonuses.

IIRC the government came down pretty hard on them when that got leaked. Not as hard as the auto industry but still were pissed off Wall St.

You know why they let GM die? Politics. Plain and simple. While the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress was far too pro-business, the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress is far too pro-labor.

We need balance. Obama's restoring it by giving the unions more power.

The UAW refused to budge and they didn't pressure them because the labor unions invested heavily in the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress in making big gains in 2008 which they did.

Both sides made concessions. The UAW aren't getting a free ride.

And while the financial and banking industry betted on the Democrats this time around, while the auto industry donated to the Republicans. I wonder if it would have been any different if they went the other way around.

The Republicans could have gone either way on bailing out the auto industry.

This thing pisses me off to no end. Thanks Obama for pissing our money away for this bullcrap.

Keeping GM moving keeps more money in the economy. We're in a recession. Now isn't a good time for big companies to go belly up.

 

[hippie_hunter]

They did give GM a chance. The government let it survive months longer then it would have without their money. GM should be grateful it got that much.

They didn't give GM a chance. They gave them a very little amount money needed to survive in the long term so they can say that they gave them a chance. If they really did, they would have been more active in trying to keep GM alive.

Why do you think the debtors and the UWA weren't lenient toward GM?

I can understand the debtors but the UAW leadership (not the workers, they're probably more concerned about having a job) were a bunch of pricks who refused to make any major concessions.

Ironically this would have helped GM had they done this years before. I do know the government has had a difficult time getting the auto companies to revamp themselves, exactly what has been the management's problem with them? I find it hard to believe the Obama administration wouldn't want them to invest in fuel efficient vehicles. Especially those that don't run on oil.

But years before no one bought fuel efficient cars, people wanted gigantic gas guzzling monsters and GM provided that need. The reason why the United States is so far behind in fuel efficient modes of transportation is because the demand is so very lacking.

How did they go to far?

For constantly condemning them for acting like any normal business would, blaming them for problems that were pretty much out of their control, and not giving enough money. All the while they pretty much continued to support AIG to continue acting like a bunch of *****ebags.

Isn't that the guy whose getting a $20 million golden parachute?

The guy who had a $1/year salary and reduced his benefits to try and save GM. The guy who pretty much took a beating in Congress to try and save GM. And he's not getting that $20 million all at once. I remember reading that he's getting it over the course of 20 years.

Every business tries to survive. GM's giving several factories a few weeks "vacation" to save money and opening new factories in China. Why wouldn't that piss people off? The government is giving them a hard time since they've done a miserable job staying operational. It's not like the government wants to be in the situation to bail-out auto companies.

GM opened factories in China to fulfill Chinese demand and they're giving factories a few days off because they can't afford it. The reason why they aren't operation is because of incredibly high labor costs and with the UAW not budging, they can't bring them down. And of course the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress is going to side with the UAW regardless.

IIRC the government came down pretty hard on them when that got leaked. Not as hard as the auto industry but still were pissed off Wall St.

The government only came down on them because the public got angry and saw what was happening to Chris Dodd's approval ratings.

We need balance. Obama's restoring it by giving the unions more power.

We do need balance, but just because Obama's predecessor swung too far to one side of the pendulum when it comes to business/labor relations, Obama swinging too far the other side is not bringing balance. It's just swinging it too far on the other side. Balance is seeing the needs of both business and labor and yet again we get a President who is far too supportive of one side (labor) and against the other (so far he pretty much acts like all heads of corporations that aren't Democratic leaning as greedy fat cats)

Both sides made concessions. The UAW aren't getting a free ride.

The UAW has made very little in concessions.

The Republicans could have gone either way on bailing out the auto industry.

The Republicans would have probably let GM die without getting billions before dying. That would have been better because at least billions weren't wasted in achieving the same damn result.

Keeping GM moving keeps more money in the economy. We're in a recession. Now isn't a good time for big companies to go belly up.

Exactly and that's why the Obama Administration needs to get their act together when it comes to GM and help it form into a viable company, considering that we've already put billions into it. Letting it head into bankruptcy after we gave them billions just pisses me off. We could have let that happen without pouring in the money.

 

[Addendum]

Or it shows that even giving billions to a company that has been turning a loss for a while isn't going to suddenly change things

 

[dnno1]

I'm wondering how vital their manufacturing capabilities are to national security. I heard that argument thrown about when they were first reported to be in trouble. Maybe that's already been discussed in here, don't mean to rehash it if it has, but that claim has been rollin' around in the back of my head and I was curious what others in here thought.

Ford's Commecially Based Combat Tactical Truck (COMBATT)

GM's Light Armoured Vehicle (LAV)

Well, if we didn't have an automobile industry here in America, then who would make our military vehicles? As a general rule, the U.S. government does not rely on foriegn manufacturers to supply the military and government agencies with equipment. That would leave them liable to getting squeezed out for vehicles and spare parts during a time of war (imagine if Europe or Japan were our enemies or did not agree with us for some reason or the other and decided to have an embargo on us for spare part and vehicles). Both GM and Ford make lots of vehicle for both the government and military based on their truck bodies. I believe somebody stated that someone else could buy the military branch of these companies, but it is not that easy. Military and government Procurement is a much smaller market and obvioulsy relys on the commercial sector to stay afloat. They could easily fall in trouble once the government stops buying products from them or delays funding. The concern would also be who would be buying those divisions as well.

I don't remember that conversation. What was the argument?

Dnno1 tried to make the argument that the government allowing GM to fail would violate the Constitution....it's in this thread somewhere back there

That's right, the clause in the Constitution about the obligation to promote the general wellfare means that the government has to act. I didn't try to make the argument, I made it.

 

[Kelly]

Airlines have gone bankrupt and reorganized to much stronger airlines. Same thing could have happened here, without throwing my money at it. Now, looks like they are going to have to anyway, so what do we have? A waste of money thrown at a company that should have gone into bankruptcy anyway. Great work.

 

[BlackLantern]

I know of 3 car dealerships here in Connecticut that have sold new GM vehicles for over 20 years have dropped GM from their floors and are selling off any GM vehicles they have....Pontiac is dead and those new Saturn commercials make me laugh every time I see them

 

[Holiday]

I know of 3 car dealerships here in Connecticut that have sold new GM vehicles for over 20 years have dropped GM from their floors and are selling off any GM vehicles they have....Pontiac is dead and those new Saturn commercials make me laugh every time I see them

Are they the company with those "rally cap" commercials? Those are just stupid, the people wearing the caps look ridiculous.

 

[BlackLantern]

Are they the company with those "rally cap" commercials? Those are just stupid, the people wearing the caps look ridiculous.

that might be one of them....the ones I am talking about are the friendly guy in the bright yellow shirt talking about how people doubt American cars and all this "keep your chin up" propaganda....Saturn is burning down and these toolboxes are mowing the lawn out front

 

[Kelly]

Seems to me the only one that has the right to "hold their head high" is Ford.

 

[Holiday]

that might be one of them....the ones I am talking about are the friendly guy in the bright yellow shirt talking about how people doubt American cars and all this "keep your chin up" propaganda....Saturn is burning down and these toolboxes are mowing the lawn out front

I may have seen that one, not sure. Here's the ad I was thinking of;


[YT]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BoTpGNvhvX0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BoTpGNvhvX0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YT]

 

[VampElvis]

I don't remember that conversation. What was the argument?

Ford's Commecially Based Combat Tactical Truck (COMBATT)


GM's Light Armoured Vehicle (LAV)

Well, if we didn't have an automobile industry here in America, then who would make our military vehicles? As a general rule, the U.S. government does not rely on foriegn manufacturers to supply the military and government agencies with equipment. That would leave them liable to getting squeezed out for vehicles and spare parts during a time of war (imagine if Europe or Japan were our enemies or did not agree with us for some reason or the other and decided to have an embargo on us for spare part and vehicles). Both GM and Ford make lots of vehicle for both the government and military based on their truck bodies. I believe somebody stated that someone else could buy the military branch of these companies, but it is not that easy. Military and government Procurement is a much smaller market and obvioulsy relys on the commercial sector to stay afloat. They could easily fall in trouble once the government stops buying products from them or delays funding. The concern would also be who would be buying those divisions as well.

That's right, the clause in the Constitution about the obligation to promote the general wellfare means that the government has to act. I didn't try to make the argument, I made it.

Yeah, this is pretty much what I'm talking about. How vital is the existence of these companies to our national defense? I'm not asking about a constitutional responsibility to keep these companies afloat per se, but if allowed to fail what with the impact be, not only in the potential loss of support for existing product supplied, but also the potential loss of manufacturing capability that could be used in a time of national crisis such as a protracted global war.

 

[Marx]

Seems to me the only one that has the right to "hold their head high" is Ford.

I agree.

 

[Addendum]

Yeah, this is pretty much what I'm talking about. How vital is the existence of these companies to our national defense? I'm not asking about a constitutional responsibility to keep these companies afloat per se, but if allowed to fail what with the impact be, not only in the potential loss of support for existing product supplied, but also the potential loss of manufacturing capability that could be used in a time of national crisis such as a protracted global war.

So GM, Ford and Chrysler are the ONLY companies that build vehicles in the US?

 

[VampElvis]

So GM, Ford and Chrysler are the ONLY companies that build vehicles in the US?

No, of course not. And my question doesn't presuppose that they are. But how much of that industry do these companies make up? And if allowed to fail and fragment into whatever the aftermath might be, how much of that manufacturing capability is lost to to us as a nation? And would that loss be significant enough to warrant concern from a perspective of national security?

 

[Kelly]

No, of course not. And my question doesn't presuppose that they are. But how much of that industry do these companies make up? And if allowed to fail and fragment into whatever the aftermath might be, how much of that manufacturing capability is lost to to us as a nation? And would that loss be significant enough to warrant concern from a perspective of national security?

TWA to Southwest Airlines......it works!

 

[Addendum]

No, of course not. And my question doesn't presuppose that they are. But how much of that industry do these companies make up? And if allowed to fail and fragment into whatever the aftermath might be, how much of that manufacturing capability is lost to to us as a nation? And would that loss be significant enough to warrant concern from a perspective of national security?

Even though Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Hyundai, and Volkswagen are from other countries, they have plants here in the States and could possibly make some military vehicles.

 

[BlackLantern]

http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/27/news/companies/gm_announcement/index.htm

GM cutting 23,000 more jobs and shrinking its dealer network

 

[VampElvis]

TWA to Southwest Airlines......it works!

I don't know how valid it is to compare a service industry to a manufacturing industry in this capacity.

Even though Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Hyundai, and Volkswagen are from other countries, they have plants here in the States and could possibly make some military vehicles.

This is more along the line of where I was going and what I was looking for with my question. If any/all of the Big3 fail, and we entered a time of crisis, could we usurp the manufacturing capacity of these companies and use them to a generate an adequate amount of X. (For the time being ignore the implication of nationalization in a time of crisis in this discussion.)