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.
Are you denying that Obama and Obama alone is taking "charge" of the auto industry bailouts, funding, spending, and attempting to take control of the company from the investors, and give it to the unions?
As i do not have the inside track of the meetings between this administration and or congress, i can't deny or agree. What I will say is, the bailout discussions or should i say the money begging betweens these Auto giants began in 2008. Ford was the only company that bowed out because they preferred to depend on their investers, their product and the consumers.
GM and Chrysler, being in control again of their own failings decided instead to depend on the government and over promised to skim the fat and indeed did nothing. So in my opinion, GM stock taking a nose dive began when they decided to show up to the welfare line wearing armani suits and rolexs watches.
If i was an investor and i recognized this type of disregard of the bottom line, i would be running faster than a hooker in bible class too.
I read somewhere that the avg. dealership employees 46 people. 46 x 3400 dealers = 156,400 jobs lost at dealerships during the restructure of GM & ChryCo. Chrysler & GM combined have approximately 180K employees on the payroll. So we paid something like $40B tax dollar to save 180K jobs while flushing 156k jobs down the toilet.
What did we get for our money again?
It would have been better to just let them slip away in 2008
What I would run from is any company involved with governam,nt owning shares. We saw what happened to teh bondholders in the chrysler deal 'so bakruspy laws mean nothing.I wander if tihhis has effected the so called toxic assets plan as I don't hear anything. Gobernm,ant seems to make deals then change the terms afterward.
What I would run from is any company involved with governam,nt owning shares. We saw what happened to teh bondholders in the chrysler deal 'so bakruspy laws mean nothing.I wander if tihhis has effected the so called toxic assets plan as I don't hear anything. Gobernm,ant seems to make deals then change the terms afterward.
You forgot the tens of billions flushed down the toilet in lost investors equity in GM alone since obama has been elected.
Investors should have known the risk. These companies were bailed out TWICE by Bush, so it was pretty obvious they were in big trouble. And if the investors think it is government responsibility to guarantee their investment, then they need to find another source of income, because investing is not for them.
You don't make a comeback by artificially keeping dealers in business when they are not selling any cars.
The taxpayers and car manufacturers do not support the dealerships, per one of the car dealerships I heard talk today. Yes they receive incentives, but those incentives are sales based, meaning that only those who actually produce receive the incentives.
Wonder how many of these dealership owners and workers voted for Obama. Wonder what they think now?
That is a legimate question.
It is a pointless question.
Quote:
Can you imagine spending your lifetime building up your business to have the Feds close you down?
Obama's admin does not have a heavy hand in the restructuring of the auto industry?
This heavy hand had NO influence in what is going on with the dealerships?
Dealers who have worked their lives building their business are not in one quick swoop losing their livelihood?
Did you think these dealerships were doing well?
You really think things would be better for them, without any assistance?
That is your argument?
The taxpayers and car manufacturers do not support the dealerships, per one of the car dealerships I heard talk today. Yes they receive incentives, but those incentives are sales based, meaning that only those who actually produce receive the incentives.
Well, it sounds like the so called conservatives are crawling out of the wood-work to blame Obama for putting these dealers out of the business. Are they serious in saying that the government should carry the dealers? Why should the tax-payer float them? They can't have it both ways. One day they complain that the government is intruding in private business, and the next day they complain that they are not intruding.
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.
