Obama fires GM CEO!!!!

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Except that wouldn't make much sense considering I made an assertion, that actually has stakes in reality, not an absurd analogy.. go figure. Perhaps you have a far more keen understanding of the true motivations for the war in Iraq. You really think the oil/coal/ military industrial complex had no influence in Bush's administration? Really??

Enough to make him falsify documents, order thousands of Americans to their deaths as well as tens of thousands of Iraqis, severely destabalize the United States in terms of her standing with the world, and blow an entire bail-out worth of money on the war? Are you familiar with the old robot saying "does not compute"

Eta:

Perhaps you have a far more keen understanding of the true motivations for the war in Iraq.

Quick question to anyone who wants to answer, is this guy a truther? No seriously, CTists are the ones who are always claim to know the real motivations for why X group does Y so I think it's a fair question.

There's a hell of a market for oil and war, too.

Which has **** all to do with my statement.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Jeep hasn't made a true Jeep since 1983.

I see we're in the presence of a Dauntless/Round Headlighter

 

[Cicero]

I see we're in the presence of a Dauntless/Round Headlighter

Worse than that, as the CJ 7 doesn't cut it either. When the 1980 "60 Minutes" segment killed off the CJ5 (it ended production in 1983), it signaled the demise of the spirit of the Jeep created by General George Lynch and Harry Payne.

 

[Gangularis]

Enough to make him falsify documents, order thousands of Americans to their deaths as well as tens of thousands of Iraqis, severely destabalize the United States in terms of her standing with the world, and blow an entire bail-out worth of money on the war? Are you familiar with the old robot saying "does not compute"


Eta:

Quick question to anyone who wants to answer, is this guy a truther? No seriously, CTists are the ones who are always claim to know the real motivations for why X group does Y so I think it's a fair question.

Yes, because when Bush decided to go to war, falsifying documents, ordering thousands of Americans to their deaths as well as tens of thousands of Iraqis and severely destabilzing the United States in terms of her standing in the world was all part of the plan. Did I make that assertion? No, you did. I just made the comfortable assertion that Bush and Cheney were in bed with big oil and halliburton.. You still believe Bush so vehemently pushed for war with Iraq to do what? free iraqis? take out a regime that supports terrorism and had what terrorist training facilities?? Why are you asking the question to anyone who wants to answer? Why not just go to the source? Am I a truther? You mean a 9/11 truther? No, I'm not. No I don't believe it was an inside job. That doesn't mean we weren't lied to for the reasons we went into Iraq, and it CERTAINLY does not mean big corporate lobby groups did not have a strong influence on the Bush government.

Which has **** all to do with my statement.

It's a valid point.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Yes, because when Bush decided to go to war, falsifying documents, ordering thousands of Americans to their deaths as well as tens of thousands of Iraqis and severely destabilzing the United States in terms of her standing in the world was all part of the plan. Did I make that assertion? No, you did. I just made the comfortable assertion that Bush and Cheney were in bed with big oil and halliburton..

The statement, "went to war for oil companies" tends to imply exactly what I stated. If not the falsification of records then certainly the rest of it.

You still believe Bush so vehemently pushed for war with Iraq to do what? free iraqis?

No.

take out a regime that supports terrorism and had what terrorist training facilities??

Yes.

Why are you asking the question to anyone who wants to answer? Why not just go to the source?

Anyone includes you. I asked anyone because I had no idea when you'd be able to answer, seems fair to me.

Am I a truther? You mean a 9/11 truther? No, I'm not. No I don't believe it was an inside job.

Good.

That doesn't mean we weren't lied to for the reasons we went into Iraq,

Evidence? And why do I smell a false dillema here?

and it CERTAINLY does not mean big corporate lobby groups did not have a strong influence on the Bush government.

They very well may have, just like Obama is in bed with union groups. Of course that doesn't mean Bush started the Iraq war at the behest of his Oilian overlords.

It's a valid point.

It's a red herring.

 

[Shalamar]

For me I hope they don't kill Jeep. Advances have come far for other companies in recent years, but for my lifestyle, the build quality, ease of maintanence, availability of parts and low price of spares means I'm usually in a Wrangler

I've towed out nearly every "4x4" on the market, but not once a wrangler yet (though my wrangler was towed out of the quicksand by another wrangler)

It would be nice seeing specialty cars and markets, akin to how much the kit car industry has expanded lately

A jeep is my dream car (Strange, I know). The last time we brought in the magnum for some minor work a couple months ago, we were of course accosted by a salesperson. Wanted to know if we wanted a new car. I grinned and said 'If you can get me in a Jeep Wrangler, I'll buy it." I could practically see the little dollar signs in his eyes. The poor guy tried very very hard to get me in a Jeep. Of course, I don't fit. No leg room. It was almost sad to crush the guys dreams of money in this economy..

 

[Gangularis]

The statement, "went to war for oil companies" tends to imply exactly what I stated. If not the falsification of records then certainly the rest of it.

No it doesn't. You're implying all of the mess ups along the way were also part of the plan. I'm also not suggesting it was exclusively for oil and war profits.

I'm not going to completely derail this thread. To stay on the point - Yes, I do think the oil lobby as well as other powerful corporate lobbies had a strong influence on the bush admin. If you don't agree, fine. But that's what people usually are talking about when they suggest we had a country run by the corporations.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Wow. "Fascist"? Really?

There flies away some more of my respect.

I wonder how many of lefty's hyperbolic posts you have read over the past two years.

Serving up the same chowder for effect, and it worked, nicely I might add.

By the way, the second to last line in his response sorta made sense. Your post, on the other hand, didn't do much for the conversation. Look at the interesting inversion going on here, my Lupine friend:

Lefty complains that Bush and his gang were wrong to let "business try to run government." The mirror image of that is the concern that that "government will try to run business" and most likely cock it up.

It's why I am not in the least bit pleased with the bailout plan, the free pass to the financial sector and to a lesser extent the automotive sectoy, who over the course of two decades dug this hole, and purchased enough influence in Congress to get the laws/regs to let them get by.

Likewise, there is a curious similarity between socialism and fascism: one is that they fuse business and government, in slightly different ways, and the other is their relationship to statism and the profound degradation of freedoms.

Thought you might want to ponder that, as an American.

DR

 

[pipelineaudio]

A jeep is my dream car (Strange, I know). The last time we brought in the magnum for some minor work a couple months ago, we were of course accosted by a salesperson. Wanted to know if we wanted a new car. I grinned and said 'If you can get me in a Jeep Wrangler, I'll buy it." I could practically see the little dollar signs in his eyes. The poor guy tried very very hard to get me in a Jeep. Of course, I don't fit. No leg room. It was almost sad to crush the guys dreams of money in this economy..

Not to derail even further, but that's a common complaint that is well noted by the aftermarket. Convincing a car dealer to eat that modification's price might be a bit tricky, but at least its not a warranty voiding one.

 

[Shalamar]

Not to derail even further, but that's a common complaint that is well noted by the aftermarket. Convincing a car dealer to eat that modification's price might be a bit tricky, but at least its not a warranty voiding one.

[derail] I don't really ask. At that point, I tend to worry more about safety should the seat be moved beyond where it 'should' be.[/derail]

 

[Puppycow]

I have a few questions here concerning this move. How much money did GM receive? Is it enough to make the government majority share-holders? If the answer is no then the government has no legal right to fire anybody at GM.

And for that matter, is the money GM received considered bailout money or a loan? If the latter then I don't believe they still have any legal right. If I'm mistaken please point this out.

Current Market Cap is $1.65B.
(Once, IIRC, GM was once the biggest company on the planet). GM is asking for tens of billions in additional loans, after already receiving tens of billions. The government is under no obligation to lend them another dime, so of course they have every right to place whatever conditions they want on it. Wagoner could have declined and let the company declare bankruptcy instead (he would have been out then anyway).

Wagoner leaves with a $22 million retirement package on top of $61 million in compensation during his tenure as CEO.

 

[BPSCG]

Let me see if I got this right:

Bush signed off on a Detroit bailout in December - what was it, $84 billion? - that was supposed to tide them over until March, when they'd have recovery plans ready for his successor to approve. Because in December, we all knew that Detroit bankruptcy would be disasterous.

Today, government controls GM and Chrysler, and it looks like they're going to go bankrupt anyway.

So instead of letting them go bankrupt in December, for free, we're letting them go bankrupt in April, for $84 billion. I'm glad my tax dollars were spent so carefully.

Is that an accurate assessment?

 

[BPSCG]

I'm reminded today that the governors of Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alaska are refusing federal stimulus money because they don't like the strings attached.

Given what we see with GM today, does anyone think they are being foolish?

Foolish? Yes.. mainly because it's more likely a political stunt on their part. Are you suggesting Obama is going to ask governors to step down if they accept the money?

I'm suggesting accepting federal money with strings attached can lead to nasty consequences down the road.

Say South Carolina gets, oh, a fifty million bucks so it can put more people on the medical assistance rolls this year.

What happens next year? You have, say, five thousand new people getting state medical assistance, but the federal money that paid for them this year isn't going to keep coming.

So you end up scrounging around for the money to keep paying for those extra people; you end up having to rise taxes or cut other spending. Or else you throw them off the medical assistance rolls, which is always a winner on election day.

What ultimately happens is that you become more dependent on largesse from Washington, DC. Like it or else.

 

[Puppycow]

Worse than that, as the CJ 7 doesn't cut it either. When the 1980 "60 Minutes" segment killed off the CJ5 (it ended production in 1983), it signaled the demise of the spirit of the Jeep created by General George Lynch and Harry Payne.

Hey, I actually remember that episode.
IIRC, it was top heavy and rolled over too easily (never owned one myself).

 

[leftysergeant]

I wonder how many of lefty's hyperbolic posts you have read over the past two years.

Serving up the same chowder for effect, and it worked, nicely I might add.

By the way, the second to last line in his response sorta made sense. Your post, on the other hand, didn't do much for the conversation. Look at the interesting inversion going on here, my Lupine friend:

Lefty complains that Bush and his gang were wrong to let "business try to run government."

The Shrub had turned over a lot of government operations to private contractors by the time he term limited out. Nearly all of them were worse than not getting the job done.

Their shower points gave soldiers dysentary and electrocuted some of them.

Take the lot out and shoot them. And there is no wayt that Wagoner is any more fit to run GM than a government ecconomist, but that isn't the plan.

If private industry can do things better than government, why does our military logistics system suck so badly and why are all our manufacturing facillities shutting down? Don't whine about the unions getting too sweet a deal. They are making concessions to keep their jobs, and they can far less afford it than can a whiney schmuck with a golden parachute. Wagoner is not a victim here, people. The industrial soul of our country is a victim of jerks like him.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Puppycow]

Let me see if I got this right:

Bush signed off on a Detroit bailout in December - what was it, $84 billion? - that was supposed to tide them over until March, when they'd have recovery plans ready for his successor to approve. Because in December, we all knew that Detroit bankruptcy would be disasterous.

Today, government controls GM and Chrysler, and it looks like they're going to go bankrupt anyway.

So instead of letting them go bankrupt in December, for free, we're letting them go bankrupt in April, for $84 billion. I'm glad my tax dollars were spent so carefully.

Is that an accurate assessment?

I half agree with you. But, did your tax rate change? Have you done your taxes yet this year? Are you paying any more?

If we hadn't bailed them out, we would have more related companies go down and lots more people out of work. Unemployment would be even higher. More people would be drawing unemployment benefits (from your taxes, or from new money created by the Fed "out of thin air").

Remember that this is only partly the companies' own fault. Car sales are down by 1/3 to 1/2 for everybody, including Toyota. OTOH, I'm really annoyed by the UAW and their stubbornness and greed. I think their excessive greed killed the proverbial goose that laid the golden eggs. If bankruptcy is what it takes to break their power, then maybe it will be worth it.

 

[Disbelief]

I half agree with you. But, did your tax rate change? Have you done your taxes yet this year? Are you paying any more?

If we hadn't bailed them out, we would have more related companies go down and lots more people out of work. Unemployment would be even higher. More people would be drawing unemployment benefits (from your taxes, or from new money created by the Fed "out of thin air").

Don't forget, the promised retraining that will add more to it.

Remember that this is only partly the companies' own fault. Car sales are down by 1/3 to 1/2 for everybody, including Toyota.

Yes, GM and Ford were on their way to profitability in 2009 when the credit crunch hammered them. Toyota and Honda went to the Japanese government and requested loans because their production has been cut in half at home. Also, Toyota delayed opoening a US plant because of this.

OTOH, I'm really annoyed by the UAW and their stubbornness and greed. I think their excessive greed killed the proverbial goose that laid the golden eggs. If bankruptcy is what it takes to break their power, then maybe it will be worth it.

I am definitely not a union guy, but I disagree with this. The UAW has made many concessions and will make more in the next couple of months. The only thing they are asking for now, is that the pain be shared by others and not strictly taken out of their hides. They understand the consequences of bankruptcy, as they are going through it with Delphi, but they are asking that other stakeholders share some of the burden.

 

[WildCat]

No, they accepted a promise of a good pension instead of wage that reflected the profitability of GM at that time. The managers at that time just made a deal that they wouldn't have to deal with, but future managers would. If you are to blame the unions, blame them for not insisting at the time they struck the deal they just simply got a bigger share of the profits.

Oh yeah, and I'm sure those unions would also share in the losses when they happen...

 

[TriskettheKid]

Current Market Cap is $1.65B.
(Once, IIRC, GM was once the biggest company on the planet). GM is asking for tens of billions in additional loans, after already receiving tens of billions. The government is under no obligation to lend them another dime, so of course they have every right to place whatever conditions they want on it. Wagoner could have declined and let the company declare bankruptcy instead (he would have been out then anyway).

Wagoner leaves with a $22 million retirement package on top of $61 million in compensation during his tenure as CEO.

Market Cap is not exactly a great means of measuring a company. The market can be fickle, and stock prices easily manipulated by outside forces.

Not to say it can't be used as an indicator, but Market Cap doesn't have much to do with GM's current mess.

If you look at their total revenues, through the end of FY-08, they had a total of $148.979 billion. If you want to look it up, it's page 62 of their 10-k, which was filed earlier this month.

The problem is this:

According to the 10-k (same page), they had a net loss of roughly $30 billion in FY-08. It cost them about $149.311 billion in order to have $147.732 billion in car sales. In FY-07, they did $177.594 billion in sales, against $165.573 billion in costs. However, in FY-07, they still had a net loss of roughly $38 billion. FY-06 fared a bit better, but they still had a net loss of just under $2 billion.

Wagoner needed to go, and not because of the market cap.

 

[Upchurch]

Let me see if I got this right:

Bush signed off on a Detroit bailout in December - what was it, $84 billion? - that was supposed to tide them over until March, when they'd have recovery plans ready for his successor to approve. Because in December, we all knew that Detroit bankruptcy would be disasterous.

Today, government controls GM and Chrysler, and it looks like they're going to go bankrupt anyway.

You don't got this right.