GM and Chrysler ask for 21.6Billion More

[kc8enb07]

I didnt read everything but why dump Saab? I think they need to dump Buick or at least half the line that is copies of a Chevy or Pontaic. GM owns Hummer now correct? why not dump that? oh least dump the only remotly forward thinking brand we have....

[alb_accord]

i would let gm and Chrysler go on a controlled bankruptcy. car sales are not the main problem that these companies had. i mean how can you pay an employ of 20 years $89k a year. tell me that. how can you lay off people and still pay 80% of their salary until you hire them back or they find another job. and don't let me start about their trust funds and their health insurance.

and guys lets not talk about car parts. 75% of all the new car are not produced in this country.

i would like to see these two companies go bankrupt and all those people get fire, but in reality we (taxpayers) have to carry the burden of fuck ups by big corporation, fuck ups in our government and we have to let people who work in gm, Chrysler and ford companies get their big fat checks.

if i had the power i would let these companies go to the end. lay off the bulk of the people. then other companies can buy gm and Chrysler for a bargain and hire people under new labor contracts.

i am a democrat and i voted for Hilary then and Obama afterwords. now the republicans are making more sense than the democrats.

[apuforyou]

GM needs to stop putting the camaro on hold, I think a decent amount of people would buy and it would help atleast a little bit

I could careless if they go under but I will admit i'd miss the corvette

[Fake Thug]

3) Programs need to be streamlined to make sense. Social Security, Medicare, and many other "social" programs no longer make sense in the way they did when they were created. The revenue realities, the social realities and economics have all changed. But, it is a centerpoint of the "democratic" agenda, and they won't even talk about changing it because that is sacriledge. It would be like hardline right wing Republicans accepting abortion. The fact is that there are too many people drawing and too few people paying in. It either has to get more efficient, or smaller. There is no other way. The only third option is financial ruin. ESPECIALLY as the number of people paying in continues to decrease and the people drawing out increases. I don't know about you, but I WILL NOT pay 50-60% of my gross income to Social Security and taxes. At that point, I am no longer working to further myself. I will quit and collect my check from the government, and everyone can kiss my ass. The end result of that is financial ruin, government collapse, and who knows what else.

Of course there are more, but those are a good 3 to start with.

lol.Aint that the truth. I'm afraid there will be no dawn after the darkness this time. I seriously believe the fundamental thinking of America has shifted from center right to left. This stimulus is setting the precedent for that agenda and entitlements that will not be reversed. UHC will be the final nail in the coffin.European model here we come.

So about 10% of the population is employed in some way directly or indirectly by the auto industry. What is the plan here though? Op is onto something. How long are taxpayers suppose to keep throwing money at this industry? A tailspin does not mean collapse of America.

I wonder what it would take for America to say too bad , you are SoL, we will adapt and overcome.. Manufacturing in America should have died a long time ago naturally. How in the blue hell did these companies survive for so long? Well we all know the answer to that.

[Fake Thug]

i am a democrat and i voted for Hilary then and Obama afterwords. now the republicans are making more sense than the democrats.

heh...funny huh

[williamsvt]

I didnt read everything but why dump Saab? I think they need to dump Buick or at least half the line that is copies of a Chevy or Pontaic. GM owns Hummer now correct? why not dump that? oh least dump the only remotly forward thinking brand we have....

Buick according to a CNN article I read last night outsold Saab in the U.S. As savvy as Saab may seem to be (Luxury wise, and advanced wise) no one is buying them anymore. For the amount you can buy a saab for, you can easily go out and look at acuras, bmws, and audis.

Hummer is soon going to be dumped by GM, because it only sold 25000 units which is nearly cut in half from previous sales. Hummer has nothing left to offer. They went from the h1 to the h2 and the h3 was there last hope, actually i should say the h3t was there last hope. GM would most likely unload them in the next year or so.

Saturn again will be unloaded in 2011, when all of the models are sold out. NO NEW models will be in creation during this time.

[IAmTheNight]

Buick according to a CNN article I read last night outsold Saab in the U.S. As savvy as Saab may seem to be (Luxury wise, and advanced wise) no one is buying them anymore. For the amount you can buy a saab for, you can easily go out and look at acuras, bmws, and audis.

Hummer is soon going to be dumped by GM, because it only sold 25000 units which is nearly cut in half from previous sales. Hummer has nothing left to offer. They went from the h1 to the h2 and the h3 was there last hope, actually i should say the h3t was there last hope. GM would most likely unload them in the next year or so.

Saturn again will be unloaded in 2011, when all of the models are sold out. NO NEW models will be in creation during this time.

Yeah, they're definitely not getting rid of Buick. It's too well-known and well sold in China.

[owequitit]

I don't think a merger would help, I think the opposite is what is needed. That way, if one company goes under...we don't loose millions upon millions of job...we only lose some thousands.

THAT is the reason why gm is being bailed...not just the workers...but the steel the company uses etc etc...all those companies built themselves on gm's back really...and if their biggest customer (gm) goes bye bye, they do to...cascade

What would also help? Firing the current exec's and banning them from management ever again.

This has all already been covered in depth in this thread.

[owequitit]

I didnt read everything but why dump Saab? I think they need to dump Buick or at least half the line that is copies of a Chevy or Pontaic. GM owns Hummer now correct? why not dump that? oh least dump the only remotly forward thinking brand we have....

Pontiacs sales are through the floor. GM just announced a Pontiac specific production cut of nearly 90% for 2009. Don't believe all the hoopla in the media.

Also, they are trying to dump Hummer, SAAB, Saturn and potentially Pontiac. All of the divisions that aren't really doing anything.

[williamsvt]

Heres the link from CNN Money, it includes what goes and stays from the GM and Chrysler brands.

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/...changes/6.html

Chrysler will be bringing back the charger again and will be introducing the 200C.

The 200C looks classy, but again i think will stoop down on the fuel economy level.

[owequitit]

lol.Aint that the truth. I'm afraid there will be no dawn after the darkness this time. I seriously believe the fundamental thinking of America has shifted from center right to left. This stimulus is setting the precedent for that agenda and entitlements that will not be reversed. UHC will be the final nail in the coffin.European model here we come.

So about 10% of the population is employed in some way directly or indirectly by the auto industry. What is the plan here though? Op is onto something. How long are taxpayers suppose to keep throwing money at this industry? A tailspin does not mean collapse of America.

I wonder what it would take for America to say too bad , you are SoL, we will adapt and overcome.. Manufacturing in America should have died a long time ago naturally. How in the blue hell did these companies survive for so long? Well we all know the answer to that.

Well, there will be a dawn, but it won't be the disillusioned reality of the left leaning masses. If they want a socialistic command economy they better be prepared for a few stark realities.

1) No new job creation or innovation. As our labor costs have increased, we have already started to see it in the US. When either land, capital, or labor gets too expensive, it becomes cost effective to outsource and transplant overseas. Countries like China are taking all of the manufacturing jobs right now because the land and labor are cheap, and the countries actually WANT factories there, so they are being built there. You need look no further than the growth rates of highly socialistic coutries to see the writing on the wall. Countries like France, Germany and England (less so than France and Germany) have very little economic growth. There is no financial incentive for smart people to create stuff there, and there is no incentive for them to produce there because the government comes and takes everything in "taxes" for being a rich snob. So they go elsewhere.

2) Related to #1, the STANDARD unemployment rate is 10-15% in a good year and 20-30% in a bad year. During the Great Depression, US unemployment BARELY hit 30%, and was only there for a short time. Imagine it being that way chronically. No new jobs, no new innovation, no reduced unemployment. How do you support those that don't work? You take money from those who do and give it to those who don't, which increases the already heavy burden on those that do work.

3) No job creation, no boom economies. The sad thing? You are just dependent enough on the boom economies to go bust when they do. So really, you reap almost none of the rewards, and get all of the risks. Awesome. Somehow, we have a group of "educated" thinkers in this country that somehow thinks this is the path to success. Of course, the further left you go, the worse it is. Eventually, you run smack dab into economies like the former Soviet Union, Cuba and Venezuela, which are the ultimate forms of socialism. Odd, how the more progressively we move toward a command/entitlement economy, the worse the economy gets, wouldn't you say? And yet, somehow, in our backwards logic, I am SUPPOSED to believe that if we continue to push that way, everything will be better. The upside? It eliminates the business cycle which is responsible for our growths and our recessions. The downside? While there are no recessions, there is also no growth, so basically, you are just living down in the bad all the time. How pleasant that is.

4) No innovation or job/wealth creation? Reduced standard of living. We aren't going to have plasmas and Porsches readily available, because we won't be able to afford them. Hell, we may as well just stop thinking about them. May as well get used to crappy housing prices, slums, unemployment, bums, and a stagnation of wealth. In a socialistic economy it isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

The problem with OUR system, and IMO the socialist system in general is that it neglects human nature and breeds entitlement. That is bad.

The BEST way to help people is to help them help themselves. Giving them a fixed income every month which provides them with just enough money to exist doesn't help them and it doesn't help us. It puts them in a position where they are dependent on getting that money, and it removes incentive for them to go get a job, start a business or go to school. That is entitlement.

You see this a lot with the current old people generation. They all just assumed that they were ENTITLED to Social Security, so many of them did very little to plan for retirement. Now that they are retired they HAVE to have that money, or they starve. In order to give them that money, because the politicians are too stupid to change the system, the government HAS to come and bust my balls for the money, so they can give it to the old people who will starve. In addition to that, while they are busting my balls, they are telling me that I won't get any Social Security, so I better plan for retirement on my own. So now, I have to pay a ton of money to them to support people who I don't know, AND they are telling me to save my own money or I am going to starve. Tey do this all while trying to take my money to pay for all of the other money they want to give away, to people on welfare, and "disadvantaged" groups, single mothers with 8 kids from 8 fathers etc, and while I am still trying to pay MY day to day bills. It is bullshit. I couldn't afford to support my own kids right now, and yet somehow I am supporting others.

You want a socialistic agenda that makes sense?

1) Put the onus on people to plan for their OWN retirement. Teach them how, and let them go. When they get there, they get what they get. Perhaps a supplemental income from the government on a case by case basis. Not some widesweeping "you are old, here is your money" bullshit. There are people collecting social security right now that have more money than I can imagine, and right now is the time that I could be using that money to grow MY wealth and plan MY retirement, so that YOUR kids don't have to pay to support me. You have to make people responsible for their own financial destiny. If they refuse, that is their problem. A little bit of hard work never hurt anybody.

2) Job training programs, subsidized education, school to work programs, those are all things I stand behind 100%. What I DON'T and WILL NOT stand behind is "here is your $600 a month Jenny. See you again next month, hope the new baby turns out OK." I will support a program to give people a skillset 100%. I won't support them being fed endlessly at my expense. I know people PERSONALLY who abuse the system. They want a kid, so they have a kid. They can't afford to take care of it, and they know it, but they don't care because they know that Food Stamps, WIC, and AHCCCS will be there for them no matter what. Who pays for that? You, me and everyone else who makes enough money to pay income taxes. What is the sense in that?

That is only one side. The other side is that with the way the system is currently set up, it breeds perpetual failure. They don't make enough money to accomplish anything except for existing on that money. Are you really helping people by making them dependent on you for money, or are you just making them dependent? I would personally rather starve to death than have to have a hand that feeds me because I don't have enough money or free will to do anything else with my life. How does that improve anyone's standard of living? It doesn't improve theirs, because all they can do is subsist, and it doesn't improve mine, because it directly reduces my disposable income, and thus MY free choice. What it really does is take choice away from you and them, and give it to the government.

All the conspiracy theorists like to talk about all the backhanded things the government is going to do to try and gain total control over the population. Elaborate BS like death rays, internment camps, etc. I have news for you. All the government has to do to gain total control is make the majority of people dependent on it for income/survival. Social Security, Welfare, food stamps etc. People who have to have that money to eat, aren't going to bite the hand that feeds them. A dependent population is a controlled population. A controlled population doesn't question the government. It sits and waits for its check to arrive...

IMO, the ONLY people that should be on life long assistance are those who absolutely can't work for themselves. This would include invalids, mentally handicapped people that can't think on the level required and the extremely old that can't hold a job.

Everyone else should get help to get back on their feet and get working.

[ikayto]

quit making chitty cars.

[owequitit]

quit making chitty cars.

LOL! That would help too. But here is the problem at this point.

They have made shitty cars for so long, that it will take them 15-20 years of good product to convince people that left they are building good stuff again. My dad is a good example. Grew up on GM. It is about time to trade our 2006 Accord in, and I mentioned the Malibu to him. He said he wouldn't even waste his time looking at one until GM proves to him they can build a product that is STILL good 15 years from now. What are you going to say to that? It isn't like you can fault the guy.

Also, companies like Honda and Toyota will continue to do well, because while they aren't perfect, they DO continue to provide a product that is good value for the money, and is reliable, well made, and has a lot of good features. It might not have all the gee whiz stuff, but it makes up for it in refinement, quality and overall ownership experience.

[williamsvt]

LOL! That would help too. But here is the problem at this point.

They have made shitty cars for so long, that it will take them 15-20 years of good product to convince people that left they are building good stuff again. My dad is a good example. Grew up on GM. It is about time to trade our 2006 Accord in, and I mentioned the Malibu to him. He said he wouldn't even waste his time looking at one until GM proves to him they can build a product that is STILL good 15 years from now. What are you going to say to that? It isn't like you can fault the guy.

Also, companies like Honda and Toyota will continue to do well, because while they aren't perfect, they DO continue to provide a product that is good value for the money, and is reliable, well made, and has a lot of good features. It might not have all the gee whiz stuff, but it makes up for it in refinement, quality and overall ownership experience.

Exactly. People see the value of money these days and want to get the best 'bang' for their buck. Chrysler and GM have not really proved themselves quality wise and resale wise they aren't spectacular either.

When Honda and Toyotas are around the same price as the american cars, yet last longer and have been resale, whats the obvious answer?

GM, Ford and Chrysler will all have to change this in the minds of potential consumers in order to draw in customers and make people realize that they too can provide reliability and quality.

[owequitit]

Exactly. People see the value of money these days and want to get the best 'bang' for their buck. Chrysler and GM have not really proved themselves quality wise and resale wise they aren't spectacular either.

When Honda and Toyotas are around the same price as the american cars, yet last longer and have been resale, whats the obvious answer?

GM, Ford and Chrysler will all have to change this in the minds of potential consumers in order to draw in customers and make people realize that they too can provide reliability and quality.

Absolutely.