Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Our tax dollars were totally wasted by Obama on this one. Not only did our money not help the economy, but GM now has the worst cars and had the worst performing stock of any car company last year.
This is Crony Capitalism at its worst. This is what OWS should have been protesting. GM should have been allowed to fail. Government should never be allowed to bail out our leaders cronies.
"Perhaps most surprising is that General Motors was the worst-performing auto stock of the year. "
Cadillac Escalade, Chevrolet Aveo and Chevrolet Colorado are named some of the worst cars on the road today based on their safety and durability performance.
Thank goodness we put up $80 billion to bail out GM and Chrysler. They are now building such wonderful cars that they have achieved total dominance of the Forbes "Worst Cars on the Road" list, which we could also call the "Bottom Eleven."
GM and Chrysler account for nine of the cars among the bottom eleven. IN other news, the UAW is grateful for your generosity in keeping their union from disappearing. It appears you've achieved little else with your donation.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: GM, Chrysler dominate 'worst cars' list. Oh, and the UAW wants to thank you for bailing them out. | David Freddoso | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/04/gm-chrysler-dominate-worst-cars-list-oh-and-uaw-wants-thank-you-b#ixzz1imII3g9M - broken link)
Obama did the same thing as any other president would do. Had you any real money invested in the stock market or anything to lose, you'd care about that action.
Getting rid of a few hundred thousand jobs during the Great Recession would have been a horrible idea.
Incidentally, Forbes list includes a Mercedes S550. You can't afford one and you'll never drive one, but it's far, far from a bad car.
Had W bailed this company out, you'd be talking about how important a thing it was. Nothing to see here. Just RoadQueen, another partisan whining about things he or she doesn't understand.
GM Bailout failure. Worst stocks, worst cars. Should have failed.
The stock is down like 50%, right? Obama's volt is a national joke. And this is just another example of what happens when the government tries to run what used to be a private business, and then FORCE an IPO because the politics of what he did are weighing so heavily on the new union company and his own campaign.
If GM was the only entity in trouble at the time and not one of the last pebbles holding against a landslide of domestic auto industry collapse, then there would have been no bailout.
At least one could have made the case that the bail-out would be optional. But there was a bit of a crisis at the time...
Obama did the same thing as any other president would do. Had you any real money invested in the stock market or anything to lose, you'd care about that action.
Oh, what about the original investors/bond holders that obama screwed in order to give the company to the unions? Let's not forget what he did - he threatened, bullied and forced them to accept less than traditional return than a normal bankruptcy would have given them. He corrupted the process, turned contract law on it's head, for the express purpose of taking the opportunity to "gift" his union buddies.
Getting rid of a few hundred thousand jobs during the Great Recession would have been a horrible idea.
As Mitt would say, what about all the dealers, distributors that were FORCED to close because of the obama bankruptcy? How many jobs were lost there?
Had W bailed this company out, you'd be talking about how important a thing it was. Nothing to see here. Just RoadQueen, another partisan whining about things he or she doesn't understand.
Bush did the RIGHT thing, gave them a LOAN. He didn't take the company order to re-order it to benefit his backers.
I take it you are angry at bush for not letting them go under?
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea
I interpreted 'should have failed' as meaning the liquidation of GM as a going concern.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
Yes. A new company could have been formed quite easily and taken over the assets of GM.
These things happen all the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexcuseforignorance
Obama did the same thing as any other president would do. Had you any real money invested in the stock market or anything to lose, you'd care about that action.
Getting rid of a few hundred thousand jobs during the Great Recession would have been a horrible idea.
Incidentally, Forbes list includes a Mercedes S550. You can't afford one and you'll never drive one, but it's far, far from a bad car.
Had W bailed this company out, you'd be talking about how important a thing it was. Nothing to see here. Just RoadQueen, another partisan whining about things he or she doesn't understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
Bush did the RIGHT thing, gave them a LOAN. He didn't take the company order to re-order it to benefit his backers.
gm and chrysler should have gone through a proper bankruptcy reorganization, BEFORE ANY government money was pushed through the companies. i was against the bush bailouts, and i was against the obama stealing the companies. gm and chrysler management should have seen what was coming and made the needed changes to weather the storm, like ford did.
and even if gm and chrysler went through bankruptcy liquidation, many of the assets of both companies would have been bought up by others, as well as the trademarks, and they would still be in operation. for instance, do you really think that after 100 years of operation that chevrolet would have gone the way of studebaker? some company, probably toyota would have bought them up and made chevrolets.
in fact penske tried to buy saturn from gm, but a manufacturing deal fell through, otherwise saturn would be around today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks
You can always count on conservatives to root for failure.
rubbish. i want gm and chrysler BOTH to survive and thrive. it adds competition to the market, which forces all other automakers to continually improve their products.
gm and chrysler should have gone through a proper bankruptcy reorganization, BEFORE ANY government money was pushed through the companies. i was against the bush bailouts, and i was against the obama stealing the companies. gm and chrysler management should have seen what was coming and made the needed changes to weather the storm, like ford did.
and even if gm and chrysler went through bankruptcy liquidation, many of the assets of both companies would have been bought up by others, as well as the trademarks, and they would still be in operation. for instance, do you really think that after 100 years of operation that chevrolet would have gone the way of studebaker? some company, probably toyota would have bought them up and made chevrolets.
And to hell with the collateral damage, all of the families and retirees that would have had their lives ruined.
Especially the retirees, who are now too old to go out and get a job.
Thank goodness Presidents Bush and Obama had the compassion to think of the little guy.
GM sells 62 different model vehicles in the U.S. 4 of them show up on somebody's "Worst Vehicle" list and the company is a failure?
Do you see everything as an all or nothing proposition, or is your hatred of Obama so strong that you abandon all remnants of rational thinking? Don't answer that...you'll only embarrass yourself.
And to hell with the collateral damage, all of the families and retirees that would have had their lives ruined.
Especially the retirees, who are now too old to go out and get a job.
Thank goodness Presidents Bush and Obama had the compassion to think of the little guy.
rubbish. a proper reorganization bankruptcy would have still kept the union contracts, just that the courts would have forced the unions to renegotiate them to allow gm to save money and be able to pay off some of their older debts. the retirees would still have gotten their retirement checks, though they might have been reduced 10%.
and even if gm had to liquidate the company, the retirement benefits would still have been paid, by the taxpayers, and the workers would have been working for the companies that would have bought gms assets.
GM, Ford, Chrysler, these are government companies, built & bankrolled by USA government (literally) at the tune of hundreds of billions (in current prices) since WWI. Take government $ out, and it's not clear whether or not we would remember these three names. I wonder where conservatives were hiding when President Wilson built entire factories for Ford, at taxpayers expense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
