(04-22-2010 07:42 AM)mlb Wrote:  So will GM also fully fund the pension they guaranteed the union instead of making the US taxpayers do it? No.

GM sucks.

Edit: On a side note, in Dayton, Ohio, all the GM retirees are done with the company. They are buying anything but GM products. The people I work with in IT are done with GM. If GM ever is going to put it back together at the level they had before they have a lot of PR work to do.

Who cares? They are just a bunch of idiots.

(04-21-2010 09:40 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-21-2010 09:25 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-21-2010 07:38 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-21-2010 04:56 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  When are the shareholders getting their money back? How much of their debt load was eliminated by bankruptcy reorg.

1st, my guess is that when GM goes public we will be getting our money back. Second, it doesn't sound like any. It sounds like the court said to put the rest of the "loan" money into stocks meaning that none of it was eliminated(read the quote I posted). You seem to have difficulty reading.

You can't read the article. No less understand it. The shareholders lost their investment. The way they became profitable with taxpayer money is because the debt load from shareholders and bondholders was nullified by the Obama Bailout and Bk Ct. They gave the Unions a share.

Well, if it was "old" GM stock, then I guess it was lost. Of course, that also means that you can't call it Government Motors anymore. If it means stock from "new" GM then when it goes public and the price goes up, we make money.

RobertN - People still hold Chrysler's goverment assistance against them, and that was done in 1980. They'll be calling GM Government Motors for another 50 years.

There are some things that you can learn from the Chrysler bailout. More people will remember and talk about the bailouts than will allow it to effect their buying decisions. A small number of people will appreciate it because they were brand loyal before the bailout (or because it saved their jobs). And most importantly, anyone under 25 today doesn't likely care. This stigma starts and ends with today's buying public and doesnt' transfer well if at all to younger generations.

Still, the Government Motors tag is here for a long, long time. This will be worse than Chrysler for two reasons.

First, GM was a much, much bigger bailout. The government never "owned" Chrysler. Even still, there was a lot of opposition and ridicule for years afterwards.

Second, there was never a catchy, sticky phrase like Government Motors in the Chrysler bailout. Lee Iacocca wisely became the face that was connected to that time period. When he left, a lot of the public's connection to the bailout left with him. GM has allowed the bailout to connect directly to the company. As such, it will be a stronger and longer lasting marketing problem.

I doubt that the term Government Motors dies out in my lifetime. The term may last longer than the company.

(04-22-2010 08:57 AM)ummechengr Wrote:  

(04-22-2010 12:19 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-22-2010 12:05 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(04-21-2010 11:48 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-21-2010 08:27 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  You mean you can get 0% interest loans providing you with billions in capital and suddenly turn a profit? REALLY?!?!

Now about the loss the US taxpayer incurred in:
1) Inflation to print the money to bailout GM
2) ... OR ... interest on the still outstanding loans from foreign governments which is still accruing

Or the loses incurred by GM long term in:
1) The permanent ill will toward GM from taxpayers with an above room level IQ and understanding of economics
2) Mirrored unfavorable treatment from foreign governments in overseas markets


Well I guess that doesn't count, huh Robert?


I will never buy a GM product. Ever. I've owned a Mitsubishi and a Mazda, and loved both, and both did great.

Good. Don't buy one. If you are worried about losses now, just imagine how much your attitude will cost us in the future.

I look forward to the day GM goes bankrupt, and their assets are liquidated and sold for a fraction of their value to companies who deliver a far superior product at a far superior price ... most likely made in manufacturing plants located right here in the South.

Yeah, thats great. Let one of the last(and probably largest) manufacturing sectors in the country go out of business. So what happens when manufacturing completely ends in this country? As for "companies who deliver a far superior product at a far superior price". I would be interested in what you come up with here. Toyota? Not anymore. The quality has been slipping ever since they started building them in the south. Hell, even Hyundai is even getting up there in cost and really isn't all that much less for many of their cars. Honda isn't cheap. Many new GM's have done well in reviews(not all-they are still catching up).

Ford, Nissan, Volkswagon.....As to your Honda comment:

Model Year 2010 2010
Model Ridgeline Avalanche
Trim RTL LT
Body 4dr SUT 4dr SUT
Base Price $34,430 $38,830

Ford I can probably give you but the price won't be all that different for the most part. Nissan? Not much if any cheaper on average. Not sure about quality. Volkswagen? Not really much different in prices (also remember, it is a company from socialist Germany so you should boycott it too). Quality is also questionable. For several years not long ago they weren't really highly thought of for reliability. As for your Honda comparison, it does appear that the Ridgeline is indeed cheaper(though the site you used compares a V6 vs a V8) but if you look at the 2010 Accord vs 2010 Malibu the price is very close. Honda does make better lawn mowers though.

Once again, lies are told and the stupid believe them.

http://www.qando.net/?p=8059

Just watch a few episodes of Top Gear when they review pretty much anything GM makes and slam it.

Often reoccuring themes:
- Corvette uses leaf springs .... I believe their analogy was "If your doctor came in with a jar of leeches..."
- Cheap build quality across the line. They love to push gently into the back of the Corvette and watch the fiberglass deflect a solid 1"+
- Where the hell do they get these cheap, dreary, ugly, hard plastics they use EVERYWHERE?
- Where is the performance? Nearly all non-American manufacturers tune an engine before adding extra cylinders to get extra HP. Not Detroit nooooooo. The Dodge Viper is a MASSIVE 8.4L V10 and it gives you just over 500 HP. The Mitsubishi Evo 8 ships with a 2.0L I4 developing 400 HP. That's half the cylinders.... and less than a quarter of the cubic capacity ... and 80% of the HP of the Viper. And given power to weight ratios ... the Evo will actually smoke the Viper. And uh -- oh yea .. the Evo cost less than a third of the Viper.

(04-22-2010 10:17 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-22-2010 08:57 AM)ummechengr Wrote:  

(04-22-2010 12:19 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-22-2010 12:05 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(04-21-2010 11:48 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-21-2010 08:27 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  You mean you can get 0% interest loans providing you with billions in capital and suddenly turn a profit? REALLY?!?!

Now about the loss the US taxpayer incurred in:
1) Inflation to print the money to bailout GM
2) ... OR ... interest on the still outstanding loans from foreign governments which is still accruing

Or the loses incurred by GM long term in:
1) The permanent ill will toward GM from taxpayers with an above room level IQ and understanding of economics
2) Mirrored unfavorable treatment from foreign governments in overseas markets


Well I guess that doesn't count, huh Robert?


I will never buy a GM product. Ever. I've owned a Mitsubishi and a Mazda, and loved both, and both did great.

Good. Don't buy one. If you are worried about losses now, just imagine how much your attitude will cost us in the future.

I look forward to the day GM goes bankrupt, and their assets are liquidated and sold for a fraction of their value to companies who deliver a far superior product at a far superior price ... most likely made in manufacturing plants located right here in the South.

Yeah, thats great. Let one of the last(and probably largest) manufacturing sectors in the country go out of business. So what happens when manufacturing completely ends in this country? As for "companies who deliver a far superior product at a far superior price". I would be interested in what you come up with here. Toyota? Not anymore. The quality has been slipping ever since they started building them in the south. Hell, even Hyundai is even getting up there in cost and really isn't all that much less for many of their cars. Honda isn't cheap. Many new GM's have done well in reviews(not all-they are still catching up).

Ford, Nissan, Volkswagon.....As to your Honda comment:

Model Year 2010 2010
Model Ridgeline Avalanche
Trim RTL LT
Body 4dr SUT 4dr SUT
Base Price $34,430 $38,830

Ford I can probably give you but the price won't be all that different for the most part.

Oh, so the price won't be all that different....hmm, which will I pick as a discerning citizen?

Nissan? Not much if any cheaper on average. Not sure about quality.

Driven in my life 3 nissans....'97 Sentra, '05 Sentra, and '05 Sentra. The second one was jammed between an F350 and a big purple Semi....I walked away.


Volkswagen? Not really much different in prices (also remember, it is a company from socialist Germany so you should boycott it too). Quality is also questionable. For several years not long ago they weren't really highly thought of for reliability.

What is questionable about the Germans' quality? (Note, still 'not much difference in price') Also, Volkswagen is employing many of my fellow Tennesseans in Chattanooga...how's Detroit these days?

As for your Honda comparison, it does appear that the Ridgeline is indeed cheaper(though the site you used compares a V6 vs a V8) but if you look at the 2010 Accord vs 2010 Malibu the price is very close.

My bad on the faulty comparison....but again, just to be clear....the prices for all of GMs competitors are comparable, right? I have yet to see anything that states GMs quality is superior to these other automakers.

Honda does make better lawn mowers though.

They do make great mowers....I plan to get one soon.

(04-22-2010 12:05 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Just watch a few episodes of Top Gear when they review pretty much anything GM makes and slam it.

Often reoccuring themes:
- Corvette uses leaf springs .... I believe their analogy was "If your doctor came in with a jar of leeches..."
- Cheap build quality across the line. They love to push gently into the back of the Corvette and watch the fiberglass deflect a solid 1"+
- Where the hell do they get these cheap, dreary, ugly, hard plastics they use EVERYWHERE?
- Where is the performance? Nearly all non-American manufacturers tune an engine before adding extra cylinders to get extra HP. Not Detroit nooooooo. The Dodge Viper is a MASSIVE 8.4L V10 and it gives you just over 500 HP. The Mitsubishi Evo 8 ships with a 2.0L I4 developing 400 HP. That's half the cylinders.... and less than a quarter of the cubic capacity ... and 80% of the HP of the Viper. And given power to weight ratios ... the Evo will actually smoke the Viper. And uh -- oh yea .. the Evo cost less than a third of the Viper.

I am not going to dispute much of that. Is the fiberglass 'Vette any different than any other fiberglass vehicle? I don't know. Engines, yes, they have a way to go to catch up but there is really nothing "wrong" with them. THey aren't as fuel efficient and may not get as many horses as other cars but there is nothing wrong with them. Besides, who the hell needs to have a 400-500 hp car anyway? Where the hell are you really going to need it? As for interiors, does these look like lots of hard ugly plastics? Lacrosse, Malibu and Traverse





How does it compare to Honda? Accord and Pilot





Toyota Camry, Rav 4





I guess it might be hard to tell if you don't actually sit in them but from the pictures, the plastics don't seem to be all that much worse than the competition.

You'll need to sit in them. Firstly .. you used stock foreign car interiors but used the upgraded leather interior on the domestics. Secondly ... the plastics are there in both. Looking at the Buick -- I'd encourage you to touch the dark grey areas, the side paneling of the doors except the armrest, the entire front paneling and center console except (again) the armrest, and you'll also find the fake-wood to be plastic.


The inside of my car:




Might I add the exterior is far sexier to:





And none of those photos are stock. They're my actual car.

Hatchback, tuned V6, Bose sound system, sunroof, all leather package.

First, I said you would have to actually sit in them to know for sure. Second, we weren't comparing seat covers we were comparing interior plastic. Third, unless you are paying Infinity type prices(or higher), no mainstream car is going to have real wood. There will be differences in how good the non-wood looks but fake is fake. Third, the dash in your car doesn't seem to be hard plastic but since I haven't been in one, hard to know. As for my opinion of your car, not a big fan of the interior but I have seen worse. I like the back end of the car but to me the rest looks average. It is still nicer than mine though. :) Note: I am not trying to say that you have to go out and buy American(specifically GM) because I don't have one, just give it a fair shot when shoping-something you aren't doing. I looked at all similar cars including American before buying mine. I just liked the interior design better than the Cavalier's. Having said that here is mine(internet photos of the same kind of car and same exterior color but mine has a sunroof, interior is tan and automatic. I don't have a picture of my actual car to include).

(04-22-2010 12:05 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Just watch a few episodes of Top Gear when they review pretty much anything GM makes and slam it.

While they started by mocking its plastic back end, they fell in love with the Corvette (along with a Buick and a Charger as well) when they came to the US to film their documentary. Which was educational and not in any way enertaining, by the way.

Why are we debating cars? This is America and we can buy what we please. Some people have had bad luck with certain brands and some good. My parents LOVE Cadillac and Toyota, my mother-in-law wouldn't touch a Toyota or Nissan in her day (they killed our boys)... My great Uncle drove nothing but Chryslers... I'm currently looking at a Kia, Chrysler, Honda and Mazda for my daughter... Nothing at GM interests me except the Camaro, which isn't really my daughter... so maybe I'll get it anyway so she'll leave it with me ;-)

Bottom line is... This headline is nothing to brag about. The loan was for short term liquidity to avoid a technical default as a result of a contraction of credit when a company is on the ropes.... The resumption of traditional sources of liquidity as a result of the purchase of stock by the government, the TARP funds and the high liquidity at banks has allowed them to replace this one portion of the package.

Woo hoo. BFD

All it proves is that investors are confident the government will continue to bail out GM long enough for them to pay off their 270 day commercial paper. Pretty decent bet considering the government owns 61% of the stock

Bottom line: The American economy has been sick since LBJ tried to have guns and butter at the same time in the 1960s. Wall Street has been moving paper around to hide the problem for 50 years, but they are about to reach the end of their rope on this. We have a shell game going on with our economy, and we are losing. We're on the brink of disaster, because we've done about all the getting progressively worse that we can do.

Ross Perot understood a lot of the problems in 1992 (although I think his opposition to NAFTA was more of a personal thing because of his investment in Alliance Airport, and not well thought out). Go back and read his books from that period and you will be surprised how far ahead of his time he was. Unfortunately, not one thing has been done to address about 95% of what Perot saw wrong, and it's 18 years wronger now.

Like it or not, we are in a global economy. We can't close our borders and isolate ourselves, if nothing else we are too dependent on foreign oil. We have to compete on the playing field that is out there, and p!ssing and moaning because that's not the game we want to play will avail us nothing.

We have to compete with the rest of the world for jobs. We can compete with lower labor costs (no), higher labor productivity (need a major upgrade to education, including holding teachers and students accountable), lower taxes (in the areas that businesses consider), better infrastructure (Obama has mentioned this, and it would have been a great focus for the "stimulus" package, but instead it went to handouts to political allies), relaxed environmental standards (no), more rational regulatory processes (a big opportunity here, but we aren't doing anything about it), less risk (used to be our biggest advantage, we were okay on political risk until GM/Chrysler, and today's rant at Wall Street didn't help the perception there).

Our Keynesian focus on demand over the last 50 years has led us to become the largest debtor nation and the largest importer in the world; it ain't the demand side that's broke, dude. We need real, meaningful help for the supply side; otherwise, it's going to be nothing but a parade of jobs overseas. Keynes always assumed a closed market--generating demand energized domestic supply. Today, generating demand means going to Wal-Mart and buying electronics made in China; Wal-Mart does okay, and so does China, but American workers don't. And aren't, until we shift our focus.

You make not like those apples, but those are the ones we've got. And what we've done to respond to this downturn makes those problems worse, not better.

(04-22-2010 09:28 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-22-2010 07:42 AM)mlb Wrote:  So will GM also fully fund the pension they guaranteed the union instead of making the US taxpayers do it? No.

GM sucks.

Edit: On a side note, in Dayton, Ohio, all the GM retirees are done with the company. They are buying anything but GM products. The people I work with in IT are done with GM. If GM ever is going to put it back together at the level they had before they have a lot of PR work to do.

Who cares? They are just a bunch of idiots.

Yeah, they were screwed, and they're pissed off about it. How bright can they be?

Jesus, do you even read what you write?

(04-23-2010 08:07 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(04-22-2010 09:28 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-22-2010 07:42 AM)mlb Wrote:  So will GM also fully fund the pension they guaranteed the union instead of making the US taxpayers do it? No.

GM sucks.

Edit: On a side note, in Dayton, Ohio, all the GM retirees are done with the company. They are buying anything but GM products. The people I work with in IT are done with GM. If GM ever is going to put it back together at the level they had before they have a lot of PR work to do.

Who cares? They are just a bunch of idiots.

Yeah, they were screwed, and they're pissed off about it. How bright can they be?

Jesus, do you even read what you write?

He's a troll. All he writes are insults and inflammatory comments.

(04-22-2010 01:47 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Might I add the exterior is far sexier to:

A car........sexy........really.

(04-23-2010 09:10 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(04-22-2010 01:47 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Might I add the exterior is far sexier to:

A car........sexy........really.

Yes.

To quote Jeremy Clarkson when he looked at the front of an Alfa Romero coupe "I can't even look at the front of that car or I'll get all excited."

(04-23-2010 08:29 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  He's a troll. All he writes are insults and inflammatory comments.

And the funny thing is that I end up in the sights of both sides... :)

President Obama Wrote:Unless your business model depends on bilking people, there's little to fear...

GM Pays Back TARP Loans With...TARP Loans!

http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/23/gm-pay...ans-withta Wrote:During his testimony [Inspector General for TARP Neil] Barofsky addressed GMs recent debt repayment activity, and stated that the funds GM is using to repay its TARP debt are not coming from GM earnings. Instead, GM seems to be using TARP funds from an escrow account at Treasury to make the debt repayments. The most recent quarterly report from the Office of the Special Inspector General for TARP says "The source of funds for these quarterly [debt] payments will be other TARP funds currently held in an escrow account."...

attn: campaign adviser for ******* for president 2012

(04-23-2010 06:39 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

President Obama Wrote:Unless your business model depends on bilking people, there's little to fear...

GM Pays Back TARP Loans With...TARP Loans!

http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/23/gm-pay...ans-withta Wrote:During his testimony [Inspector General for TARP Neil] Barofsky addressed GMs recent debt repayment activity, and stated that the funds GM is using to repay its TARP debt are not coming from GM earnings. Instead, GM seems to be using TARP funds from an escrow account at Treasury to make the debt repayments. The most recent quarterly report from the Office of the Special Inspector General for TARP says "The source of funds for these quarterly [debt] payments will be other TARP funds currently held in an escrow account."...

attn: campaign adviser for ******* for president 2012

Not sure I believe this but who knows.

Sorry....Theft is not a loan. Just because one gives back what they steal does not make their crime any less tolerant...