about the President bailing out GM and Chrysler, then making it a campaign issue?
If GM had gone under, Ford would stand to profit huge. They could open a whole new line of vehicles, aside from Lincoln and Mercury, and be rewarded for making vehicles that people actually buy, and for being financially savy enough to make a profit. As Ford would expand, their loyal workers would be first in line to get promotions. Their old jobs would be filled by former GM workers, who could finally learn how to start making profitable vehicles.
But here in Bizzaro Obamaland, an automaker who can not profit from any vehicle that does not have a flatbed attached to it gets bailed out, so they can create another line of crap vehicles that consumers do not want, like the laughable Chevy Volt.
I wonder what the workers at Ford think about the President proudly declaring that GM and Chrysler are more equal than they are* I would be plenty pissed if I was one of them.
Then along comes the UAW, milking the Ford workers for more dues so that they can funnel them to the Obama campaign. Talk about adding insult to injury.
Ford workers should go on strike against the UAW, and refuse to pay anymore dues.
*Actually, just GM is mentioned. Chrysler gets ignored. I wonder what they think.
(09-07-2012 11:04 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote: [ -> ]about the President bailing out GM and Chrysler, then making it a campaign issue?
If GM had gone under, Ford would stand to profit huge. They could open a whole new line of vehicles, aside from Lincoln and Mercury, and be rewarded for making vehicles that people actually buy, and for being financially savy enough to make a profit. As Ford would expand, their loyal workers would be first in line to get promotions. Their old jobs would be filled by former GM workers, who could finally learn how to start making profitable vehicles.
But here in Bizzaro Obamaland, an automaker who can not profit from any vehicle that does not have a flatbed attached to it gets bailed out, so they can create another line of crap vehicles that consumers do not want, like the laughable Chevy Volt.
I wonder what the workers at Ford think about the President proudly declaring that GM and Chrysler are more equal than they are. I would be plenty pissed if I was one of them.
Then along comes the UAW, milking the Ford workers for more dues so that they can funnel them to the Obama campaign. Talk about adding insult to injury.
Ford workers should go on strike against the UAW, and refuse to pay anymore dues.
Ford CEO Mulally was in front of congress pleading for federal dollars to help the auto industry even thought they did not required federal LOANS.
"This could be upwards of 13% of the U.S. GDP if they were to go into freefall," Mulally said. "We believed [seeking the bailout] was the right thing for the industry, the right thing for the United States of America.... I'd do the same thing today."
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/19/...w-20120418
(09-07-2012 11:15 AM)BobL Wrote: [ -> ] (09-07-2012 11:04 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote: [ -> ]about the President bailing out GM and Chrysler, then making it a campaign issue?
If GM had gone under, Ford would stand to profit huge. They could open a whole new line of vehicles, aside from Lincoln and Mercury, and be rewarded for making vehicles that people actually buy, and for being financially savy enough to make a profit. As Ford would expand, their loyal workers would be first in line to get promotions. Their old jobs would be filled by former GM workers, who could finally learn how to start making profitable vehicles.
But here in Bizzaro Obamaland, an automaker who can not profit from any vehicle that does not have a flatbed attached to it gets bailed out, so they can create another line of crap vehicles that consumers do not want, like the laughable Chevy Volt.
I wonder what the workers at Ford think about the President proudly declaring that GM and Chrysler are more equal than they are. I would be plenty pissed if I was one of them.
Then along comes the UAW, milking the Ford workers for more dues so that they can funnel them to the Obama campaign. Talk about adding insult to injury.
Ford workers should go on strike against the UAW, and refuse to pay anymore dues.
Ford CEO Mulally was in front of congress pleading for federal dollars to help the auto industry even thought they did not required federal LOANS.
"This could be upwards of 13% of the U.S. GDP if they were to go into freefall," Mulally said. "We believed [seeking the bailout] was the right thing for the industry, the right thing for the United States of America.... I'd do the same thing today."
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/19/...w-20120418
When the government went in a bailed out GM, the unions were the only ones that did not take a haircut. Bondholders who has preferred status in bankruptcy got the shaft. GM was absolved on bond payments but not of pension and welfare liabilities.
It's bizarre and ironic how the liberals demonize "BIG BANKING," yet they rationalize to death federal bailout of General Motors and Chrysler. Of course we all know the reason why...union workers vote Democrat. Talk about hypocrisy.
(09-07-2012 11:19 AM)klake87 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-07-2012 11:15 AM)BobL Wrote: [ -> ] (09-07-2012 11:04 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote: [ -> ]about the President bailing out GM and Chrysler, then making it a campaign issue?
If GM had gone under, Ford would stand to profit huge. They could open a whole new line of vehicles, aside from Lincoln and Mercury, and be rewarded for making vehicles that people actually buy, and for being financially savy enough to make a profit. As Ford would expand, their loyal workers would be first in line to get promotions. Their old jobs would be filled by former GM workers, who could finally learn how to start making profitable vehicles.
But here in Bizzaro Obamaland, an automaker who can not profit from any vehicle that does not have a flatbed attached to it gets bailed out, so they can create another line of crap vehicles that consumers do not want, like the laughable Chevy Volt.
I wonder what the workers at Ford think about the President proudly declaring that GM and Chrysler are more equal than they are. I would be plenty pissed if I was one of them.
Then along comes the UAW, milking the Ford workers for more dues so that they can funnel them to the Obama campaign. Talk about adding insult to injury.
Ford workers should go on strike against the UAW, and refuse to pay anymore dues.
Ford CEO Mulally was in front of congress pleading for federal dollars to help the auto industry even thought they did not required federal LOANS.
"This could be upwards of 13% of the U.S. GDP if they were to go into freefall," Mulally said. "We believed [seeking the bailout] was the right thing for the industry, the right thing for the United States of America.... I'd do the same thing today."
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/19/...w-20120418
When the government went in a bailed out GM, the unions were the only ones that did not take a haircut. Bondholders who has preferred status in bankruptcy got the shaft. GM was absolved on bond payments but not of pension and welfare liabilities.
That is simply not true:
In sum, the union eased demands on wages, overtime pay, job security and, most significantly, health benefits. In 2007, the union and car companies had agreed to hand over management of retiree health benefits to a trust fund. The companies agreed to put money in the fund, and the union assumed the uncertainties of rising health care costs and investment fluctuations.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...anies-uni/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marvin-mea...17910.html
(09-07-2012 11:29 AM)WhiskeyDick Wrote: [ -> ]It's bizarre and ironic how the liberals demonize "BIG BANKING," yet they rationalize to death federal bailout of General Motors and Chrysler. Of course we all know the reason why...union workers vote Democrat. Talk about hypocrisy.
hmmm..Obama supported the Bank bailout and like the Auto bailout was required. We would have been in much worse shape without either.
The issue was the lack of oversight and qualifications when lending the money to the banks.
Had GM and Chrysler gone under Ford would have been f***ed. Don't you know how that works, HJ?
(09-07-2012 05:34 PM)BobL Wrote: [ -> ] (09-07-2012 11:29 AM)WhiskeyDick Wrote: [ -> ]It's bizarre and ironic how the liberals demonize "BIG BANKING," yet they rationalize to death federal bailout of General Motors and Chrysler. Of course we all know the reason why...union workers vote Democrat. Talk about hypocrisy.
hmmm..Obama supported the Bank bailout and like the Auto bailout was required. We would have been in much worse shape without either.
The issue was the lack of oversight and qualifications when lending the money to the banks.
If a football coach leads a team to four straight losing seasons with no sign of improvement, he gets his walking papers. But when a President does that to the economy, well, it could have been worse. Let's give him four more years.
If McCain was elected over Obama, and he had lead the economy to the exact same point it is now, would you be saying "Well, think of how bad it could have been. Let's give him four more years."?
(09-07-2012 05:53 PM)niuguy Wrote: [ -> ]Had GM and Chrysler gone under Ford would have been f***ed. Don't you know how that works, HJ?
So cornering the market screws your business? No, I do not get that. maybe Ford should make commercials urging people to buy from GM and Chrysler. I suppose it would be for their own good.
It's Bizzaro World.
(09-10-2012 11:52 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote: [ -> ] (09-07-2012 05:34 PM)BobL Wrote: [ -> ] (09-07-2012 11:29 AM)WhiskeyDick Wrote: [ -> ]It's bizarre and ironic how the liberals demonize "BIG BANKING," yet they rationalize to death federal bailout of General Motors and Chrysler. Of course we all know the reason why...union workers vote Democrat. Talk about hypocrisy.
hmmm..Obama supported the Bank bailout and like the Auto bailout was required. We would have been in much worse shape without either.
The issue was the lack of oversight and qualifications when lending the money to the banks.
If a football coach leads a team to four straight losing seasons with no sign of improvement, he gets his walking papers. But when a President does that to the economy, well, it could have been worse. Let's give him four more years.
If McCain was elected over Obama, and he had lead the economy to the exact same point it is now, would you be saying "Well, think of how bad it could have been. Let's give him four more years."?
(09-07-2012 05:53 PM)niuguy Wrote: [ -> ]Had GM and Chrysler gone under Ford would have been f***ed. Don't you know how that works, HJ?
So cornering the market screws your business? No, I do not get that. maybe Ford should make commercials urging people to buy from GM and Chrysler. I suppose it would be for their own good.
It's Bizzaro World.
The economy has improved...just not as fast as we all would like...so you cant say there has been no sign of improvement.
to use your football coaching analogy...see Joe Novak!
(09-10-2012 11:52 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote: [ -> ] (09-07-2012 05:34 PM)BobL Wrote: [ -> ] (09-07-2012 11:29 AM)WhiskeyDick Wrote: [ -> ]It's bizarre and ironic how the liberals demonize "BIG BANKING," yet they rationalize to death federal bailout of General Motors and Chrysler. Of course we all know the reason why...union workers vote Democrat. Talk about hypocrisy.
hmmm..Obama supported the Bank bailout and like the Auto bailout was required. We would have been in much worse shape without either.
The issue was the lack of oversight and qualifications when lending the money to the banks.
If a football coach leads a team to four straight losing seasons with no sign of improvement, he gets his walking papers. But when a President does that to the economy, well, it could have been worse. Let's give him four more years.
If McCain was elected over Obama, and he had lead the economy to the exact same point it is now, would you be saying "Well, think of how bad it could have been. Let's give him four more years."?
(09-07-2012 05:53 PM)niuguy Wrote: [ -> ]Had GM and Chrysler gone under Ford would have been f***ed. Don't you know how that works, HJ?
So cornering the market screws your business? No, I do not get that. maybe Ford should make commercials urging people to buy from GM and Chrysler. I suppose it would be for their own good.
It's Bizzaro World.
Again..the Ford CEO lobbied for the bailout! I posted the links...you know better than he?
NIce talking points as usual. You get the Volt when goverment mettles in private enterprise. $49k loss per car. Great job pushing that piece of junk Team Obama. Also check your records for Non Union workers at Delphi that got hosed on their pensions to protect the unions.
(09-10-2012 03:46 PM)HuskieJ Wrote: [ -> ]NIce talking points as usual. You get the Volt when goverment mettles in private enterprise. $49k loss per car. Great job pushing that piece of junk Team Obama. Also check your records for Non Union workers at Delphi that got hosed on their pensions to protect the unions.
Amen brother. Democrat led interference in business. GM is losing big on the Volt, but Obama, Pelosi and Dingy Harry Reid don't care because union bosses promised a few more Democratic votes come election time.
It's the consumers' fault. They will not buy the vehicles that the government wants them to buy.
(09-11-2012 10:53 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote: [ -> ]It's the consumers' fault. They will not buy the vehicles that the government wants them to buy.
This is a FB comment from a friend of mine who recently bought a Volt...FYI he is a moderate independent politically.
Chevy Volt. I have owned my share of hotrods in the past, but I have never loved a car as much as I love this one. **** you Fox News, this ***** is HOT, and I am in love...Seriously, I have never been more in love with a car. And I have owned some duesies -- 2 camaroes, a Fiat X/19, a Toyota Supra, and my second-favorite, Dodge Stealth. This Volt smokes all of them.
Say what you will I tend to think it is all politically motivated and not one of you has driven one. Personally I think the concept is a great one, thought I have not yet driven one.
(09-11-2012 12:10 PM)BobL Wrote: [ -> ] (09-11-2012 10:53 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote: [ -> ]It's the consumers' fault. They will not buy the vehicles that the government wants them to buy.
This is a FB comment from a friend of mine who recently bought a Volt...FYI he is a moderate independent politically.
Chevy Volt. I have owned my share of hotrods in the past, but I have never loved a car as much as I love this one. **** you Fox News, this ***** is HOT, and I am in love...Seriously, I have never been more in love with a car. And I have owned some duesies -- 2 camaroes, a Fiat X/19, a Toyota Supra, and my second-favorite, Dodge Stealth. This Volt smokes all of them.
Say what you will I tend to think it is all politically motivated and not one of you has driven one. Personally I think the concept is a great one, thought I have not yet driven one.
So what's your point Bob? That the federal government should tell ilus the Volt is great and that we are to buy it? This isn't how the free enterprise system works Bob. The Volt is an economic disaster for GM because the market does not want to buy sufficient numbers of the product.
(09-11-2012 12:20 PM)WhiskeyDick Wrote: [ -> ] (09-11-2012 12:10 PM)BobL Wrote: [ -> ] (09-11-2012 10:53 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote: [ -> ]It's the consumers' fault. They will not buy the vehicles that the government wants them to buy.
This is a FB comment from a friend of mine who recently bought a Volt...FYI he is a moderate independent politically.
Chevy Volt. I have owned my share of hotrods in the past, but I have never loved a car as much as I love this one. **** you Fox News, this ***** is HOT, and I am in love...Seriously, I have never been more in love with a car. And I have owned some duesies -- 2 camaroes, a Fiat X/19, a Toyota Supra, and my second-favorite, Dodge Stealth. This Volt smokes all of them.
Say what you will I tend to think it is all politically motivated and not one of you has driven one. Personally I think the concept is a great one, thought I have not yet driven one.
So what's your point Bob? That the federal government should tell ilus the Volt is great and that we are to buy it? This isn't how the free enterprise system works Bob. The Volt is an economic disaster for GM because the market does not want to buy sufficient numbers of the product.
Yes we know Ayn.
My point is simple: GM has come out with a great product, the fact that they were recipients of federal loans has no bearing on this.
This car will drastically cut down one ones fuel expenses...no fuel required if driving less than 40 miles or so between charges, but has the ability to go 350-400 miles when using fuel, still getting better than 40 mpg.
The government has always offered tax incentives for reducing energy consumption. You don't have to by a programmable thermostat either, but you get a tax incentive if you do and I bet almost everyone here has one. Same concept.
Increased fuel inefficiencies will be a large part of reduced consumption in the coming years and will play a significant role in eliminating energy imports.
(09-11-2012 12:37 PM)BobL Wrote: [ -> ]My point is simple: GM has come out with a great product, the fact that they were recipients of federal loans has no bearing on this.
This car will drastically cut down one ones fuel expenses...no fuel required if driving less than 40 miles or so between charges, but has the ability to go 350-400 miles when using fuel, still getting better than 40 mpg.
The government has always offered tax incentives for reducing energy consumption. You don't have to by a programmable thermostat either, but you get a tax incentive if you do and I bet almost everyone here has one. Same concept.
Increased fuel inefficiencies will be a large part of reduced consumption in the coming years and will play a significant role in eliminating energy imports.
The volt is like a TV or Computer. The next generation will be better and the old one. The resale value on the Volt will be nothing. When you plop down $40 or $50k, you better expect zero back when you need a new car.
(09-11-2012 12:43 PM)klake87 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-11-2012 12:37 PM)BobL Wrote: [ -> ]My point is simple: GM has come out with a great product, the fact that they were recipients of federal loans has no bearing on this.
This car will drastically cut down one ones fuel expenses...no fuel required if driving less than 40 miles or so between charges, but has the ability to go 350-400 miles when using fuel, still getting better than 40 mpg.
The government has always offered tax incentives for reducing energy consumption. You don't have to by a programmable thermostat either, but you get a tax incentive if you do and I bet almost everyone here has one. Same concept.
Increased fuel inefficiencies will be a large part of reduced consumption in the coming years and will play a significant role in eliminating energy imports.
The volt is like a TV or Computer. The next generation will be better and the old one. The resale value on the Volt will be nothing. When you plop down $40 or $50k, you better expect zero back when you need a new car.
No on can predict at this time what resale will be. but if its an issue for you lease it..
2013 CHEVROLET Volt
Low-Mileage Lease for Qualified Lessees $299/month 36 month lease. $1,529 due at signing (after all offers). Includes security deposit. Tax, title, license, dealer fees and optional equipment extra. Mileage charge of $0.18 /mile over 36,000 miles.
http://www.z-chevy.com/CorporateIncentives
(09-11-2012 04:24 PM)BobL Wrote: [ -> ] (09-11-2012 12:43 PM)klake87 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-11-2012 12:37 PM)BobL Wrote: [ -> ]My point is simple: GM has come out with a great product, the fact that they were recipients of federal loans has no bearing on this.
This car will drastically cut down one ones fuel expenses...no fuel required if driving less than 40 miles or so between charges, but has the ability to go 350-400 miles when using fuel, still getting better than 40 mpg.
The government has always offered tax incentives for reducing energy consumption. You don't have to by a programmable thermostat either, but you get a tax incentive if you do and I bet almost everyone here has one. Same concept.
Increased fuel inefficiencies will be a large part of reduced consumption in the coming years and will play a significant role in eliminating energy imports.
The volt is like a TV or Computer. The next generation will be better and the old one. The resale value on the Volt will be nothing. When you plop down $40 or $50k, you better expect zero back when you need a new car.
No on can predict at this time what resale will be. but if its an issue for you lease it..
2013 CHEVROLET Volt
Low-Mileage Lease for Qualified Lessees $299/month 36 month lease. $1,529 due at signing (after all offers). Includes security deposit. Tax, title, license, dealer fees and optional equipment extra. Mileage charge of $0.18 /mile over 36,000 miles.
http://www.z-chevy.com/CorporateIncentives
That is a good price to lease. Evidently, they are not making any money off the lease.