Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Mendokusai Daiyo
17825 Followers
Mark Frost
2694 Followers
Mark Frost
2694 Followers
Domainname webhosting
18 Followers
Domainname webhosting
18 Followers
princeamorJul 31, 2010
Beware: More brainwashing ahead.
clevercommenterJul 31, 2010
Anything positive is brainwashing. Anything negative is truth.
brad3378Jul 31, 2010
you must be a libertarian.
shekiJul 31, 2010
In most cases, I'd agree.
Closed AccountJul 31, 2010
You mean from the ignorant right who refuses to accept the auto industry in the US has started to turn around?
spuy767Jul 31, 2010
Ford has turned around. Ford didn't take any government money. The auto industry is in a f**king shambles.
whiteravenJul 31, 2010
algaeturd, congratulations on prooving the premise. You are brainwashed. This article is one big lie. GM is on worse shape now than it has ever been... that's what happens when you throw good money after bad.
Take just one example... the claim that taxpayers have seen any kind of return on the "investment". That is hogwash. The numbers assume value in the company that simply doesn't exist.
Brain-dead but on life support is still brain-dead.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
exergenJul 31, 2010
They are only going to turn around when they can shake off scumbag labor union fetters.
sniperhareJul 31, 2010
I wonder if GM starts to make a huge profit if we'll see any money from it?
partrowJul 31, 2010
Why would they suddenly make a huge profit?
Simply look to the weakness of the economy for the near future.
lordmikeJul 31, 2010
Umm... yes, we would. The US owns a bunch of GM shares.
spacem00seJul 31, 2010
They wont see a huge profit, because it will be used to pay off their federal loan. The only one thats going to see a profit is Ford.
ronpauliskingJul 31, 2010
that's like going to a homeless shelter to tell people how well the poor are treated in this country.
rahazJul 31, 2010
It's like going to the homeless shelter and saying that they are helping even if it isn't enough yet.
partrowJul 31, 2010
Trying not to be nauseated.
spacem00seJul 31, 2010
Why you gotta be a dick about it? Back in the good old days, GW Bush wasn't a total f**k up, occasionally he did have good news to report.
marx2kJul 31, 2010
Weird reaction to good news.
whiteravenJul 31, 2010
Sane reaction to shameless lies. GM is in worse shape than it has ever been and taxpayer money is being sucked down a drain.
It's easy to hire to employees when you are given tens of billions of dollars. Workforce levels are not a valid measure of success, sales and profits are... and GM is a *failure*. Why doesn't this corrupt government just skip the middle-man and hand out the cash directly to the workers? GM is a company that is already dead, why the hell are we continuing this charade?
marx2kJul 31, 2010
"GM is in worse shape than it has ever been and taxpayer money is being sucked down a drain."
Willful ignorance. Is GM doing worse than it was a year ago? 2 years ago? Is it paying back money from the bailout?
lordmikeJul 31, 2010
I'm glad he's running on this. The auto restructuring has been a resounding success and saved 3 million jobs. The upper midwest would have been destroyed permanently had the right wing loons had their way. some patriotism from the right--rooting for America to fail.
number23Jul 31, 2010
Success? We're 65 billion in and the issues of UAW wages and benefits still haven't been address.
lordmikeJul 31, 2010
Oh, they were addressed. New hires make $14 an hour with no benefits. IS that enough "punishment" for people working in dangerous miserable jobs, or do you want them to suffer more for your superiority complex.
I doubt you'd last one day at an auto plant... Ever work a manufacturing job? Ever see a guy die falling in a vat of acid? That's real work... worth a hell of a lot more than $14 an hour. These guys should be celebrated not berated.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 31, 2010
VAT of acid?? They are building cars, not plotting to poison the water supply here. Speaking of manufacturing, our yard closed down after a crane operator ran his boom into a main powerline, scary stuff.
number23Jul 31, 2010
Really, we're talking about GM, not Umbrella Corp.
Closed AccountJul 31, 2010
The upper midwest was destroyed by 50 years of union corruption combined with democratic government corruption combined with consumers not wanting to buy the crap the big 3 put out.
The general and the pentastar should have gone the way of DMC, Edsel, and AMC.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mffnikeJul 31, 2010
I don't think you libs understand the way business works - the upper midwest would not have been destroyed permanently.
GM failing != a permanent loss of American jobs.
When a company goes bankrupt and disappears because it is poorly run, poorly managed, and destroyed by unions (see: the American car companies), the jobs don't just disappear.
Try and stay with me here. The companies are either reorganized into a form that promotes profitable business, or new competitors take the place of the failed company.
Guess where these new companies hire from? Gasp!! It's the people whose "jobs were destroyed".
If everyone was required to take and actually understand Economics, there would be far fewer bleeding hearts in this world, and never a taxpayer-funded bailout.
This comment was too long for most Digg users and attacks the bailout, so I fully expect to be Dugg down.
kaelyiestaJul 31, 2010
But not by everyone, mffnike. Some of us look beyond the initial transfer of wealth to failed and corrupt businesses to prop them up and understand what you just explained and more.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
speedsteamboatJul 31, 2010
No, I think you seriously underestimate the impact the failure of these companies would have had on our economy in the Midwest.
It's not just about the major automakers. It's about our entire regional economy. Not one would we have seen countless parts suppliers and other residual industries closing their doors, but once you had people evacuating the state looking for work or even staying but remaining unemployed with no money to spend we'd have all of our service industries and local retail business decimated too.
If GM had found itself in economic dire straights in, say, 2004 we might have survived it going down, but to let that company fail in the middle of the worst depression is the 1930s would have been catastrophic to Michigan's economy in particular (which is strained enough as it is). I doubt that it would ever have properly recovered, and it's unlikely that many of the present automotive workforce, many of them over the age of 40 or 50, would have ever found comparable work and they certainly wouldn't have any pension to speak of.
Maybe it makes you feel good to pretend that you are or were advocating anything less than the absolute abandonment and economic collapse of an entire region of the United States, but that's the naked truth of it. Pretending that jobs would have magically materialized for all of these people, or even half of them, in the middle of a depression is beyond naive. By the time the broader economic recovery was legitimately underway it would be far too late for Michigan which has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country as it is.
lordmikeJul 31, 2010
Yes, wonderful theory you have there... very good understanding of econ 101.
But, it doesn't work that way in the real world. In the upper midwest, when plants close and jobs leave, they simply DO NOT COME BACK. No one invests in the upper midwest, period!
I know that doesn't plug in well with your IS/LM graphs, but real world economics are a little more complicated than econ 101.
ojnabieootJul 31, 2010
How stupid and snarky.
Did you forget about the recession? Remember, the worst since the 40's? The one that shaved $1tr off US GDP, and trillions more off our assets? Turns out that makes a big difference:
"The companies are either reorganized into a form that promotes profitable business, or new competitors take the place of the failed company."
By whom, exactly? Nobody has the money to fund a new competitor or purchase and reorganize the company. GM would have been essentially sold for scrap had it failed.
"Guess where these new companies hire from? Gasp!! It's the people whose 'jobs are destroyed.'"
Yes, in good economic times. But nobody is hiring now, particularly in the industrial Midwest. Also, of course, these "new companies" are purely imaginary.
It should also be mentioned that the failure of GM would have probably spelled doom for all American auto manufacturing, since external vendors and suppliers would have also been crippled. Even if, say, Ford had survived this, it seems a near guarantee that they would outsource more manufacturing to other countries, destroying even more jobs.
All this railing against taxpayer funded bailouts and the faith in the free market to cure all ills makes good slogans and boilerplate angermongering, but it's a terrible excuse for a policy. The recession was/is simply too deep and too dangerous to have allowed GM to fail.
Man, there's nothing more infuriating than somebody botching economics, particularly when they do so at a hastily-read Wikipedia level. It really doesn't help that you're such a sanctimonious assh**e about it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mweatherJul 31, 2010
"I don't think you libs understand the way business works - the upper midwest would not have been destroyed permanently."
Of course not. I'm sure it would bounce back just as quickly as Detroit did.
atarioJul 31, 2010
"When a company goes bankrupt and disappears because it is poorly run, poorly managed, and destroyed by unions (see: the American car companies), the jobs don't just disappear.
Try and stay with me here. The companies are either reorganized into a form that promotes profitable business, or new competitors take the place of the failed company.
Guess where these new companies hire from? Gasp!! It's the people whose "jobs were destroyed"."
No, they don't. In the "wonderful" world of global "free trade" the cons have created, those jobs will move to some third-world hellhole where they can get away with exploiting people with near-slave-labor conditions, away from all those bad ol' unions that would stop that sort of thing, and absolutely no compensatory tariff to discourage the "fun", either.
But thanks for the condescending "most Diggers are stupider than me" posturing, though, that was funny.
diggdlgJul 31, 2010
Unfortunately, your outcome is based upon false assumptions. I mean, technically I could envision a great deal of things for an area based on assumptions. Lost jobs = lost tax revenue. Local government suffers even more and services fail, people move looking for jobs and, in general, a better place to live. Without the labor capital, businesses have no reason to locate there, etc.
However, one thing that IS almost certain, is that the lost market share resulting from the collapse of GM/Chrysler, would have gone to foreign companies, who would have opened, follow me here, factories on foreign soil.
So here are the choices of a President facing one of the worst economic situations in U.S. history- Do nothing, let them collapse and the jobs go overseas permanently. Assist them, and it fail and the jobs go overseas, but a few million people are given a little help maybe even enough to ride out the crisis, or the third option, assist them and it works.
Even someone who is brain dead can see the best scenario is to assist them, even if it does fail. Conservatives are just having a hard time admitting Obama did something they didn't like, and it worked wonderfully. Fool yourself into somehow thinking everything would have been better otherwise so you can preserve your preciously built reality, but it's a delusional fallacy, and nothing more.
number23Jul 31, 2010
No kidding, GM and Chrysler spend DECADES putting UAW assembled CRAP. Businesses that can't competed should be liquidated and the assets sold to those that can.
chuckdeesJul 31, 2010
Do you think BMW and Benz make nice autos? Guess what? It is German law that labor make up 50% of the board of directors for German companies. Stupid unions and their cheaply made crap.
mattydienhoffJul 31, 2010
German manufacturers generally aren't as good as they're cracked up to be.
kaelyiestaJul 31, 2010
ChuckDees, if that is true then let them. That means the germans would be subsidizing our cars while we built other things they weren't stupid enough to sell to us below costs.
abxbxJul 31, 2010
Or... we could try to make our bread and butter industries better, rather than abandon them.
What the f**k do people think we're going to do in the future - without manufacturing?
Read poetry, sue each other, and make each other hamburgers for a living?
number23Jul 31, 2010
@abxbx
What the hell are you talking about? BMW, Mercedes, Hyundai, Toyota, Honda and Volkswagen all profitably build cars in America. They just do it without the big three's legacy cost, UAW contracts and inept management.
The problem is America, it's the UAW and Management of the Big Three. The auto bail was just a bail out of a powerful democrat consistency: The UAW.
chilidogsJul 31, 2010
Yeah, it's all the unions fault. I can't believe how poorly they designed and marketed those cars.
sh4rkb1t3Jul 31, 2010
Screw the 3 million jobs. Obama needs to stop playing economist and let everything work itself out.
superkendallJul 31, 2010
Instead he created a zombie company that as the pinnacle of success is about to release a $41k hybrid that seats four and is as nice to drive as a $15k car.
Did he really save 3 million jobs? Or just make sure instead of a nice clean bankruptcy we get a company that dies horribly?
whiteravenJul 31, 2010
lordmike, are you joking? This isn't a success, it is a disaster! The "upper Midwest" *is* already destroyed. Taxpayer bailout can't fix a broken industry. This is nothing but welfare and we can't afford it.
It is a *lie* that GM has paid back any of the loan... it was just a book-keeping trick... the "paid back" one loan in exchange for another twice as big.
Telling taxpayers that the government's stake in the company is worth anything near what was put into it is a baldfaced lie. The company can't make a profit, that "investment" is money down a black-whole.
GM will NEVER make a profit. We need to let it die a long-overdue death.
williepepperJul 31, 2010
He's a super freak.
bromarJul 31, 2010
To quote John Stewert:
Nothing Obama does will ever make you happy
Closed AccountJul 31, 2010
He could fly to Pakistan and kill Osama Bin Laden with a Baseball bat, and they'd say he's degrading the national past time. He could save a dozen babies from a burning orphanage while confined to a wheelchair and they'd say he's trying too hard to be FDR. He could singlehandedly clean all of the oil out of the gulf and they'd accuse him of stealing jobs from the hard working people who got f**ked over by BP.
Closed AccountJul 31, 2010
He could peacefully end the Kim Jung dynasty in North Korea and they'd accuse him of nation building. He could fly in Superman Style and free the prisoners in Iran and they'd say he's breaking our diplomacy embargo. He could suck out all the excess Carbon Dioxide out of the atmosphere and breathe out potable water and they'd scream he's trying to play god. He could cure AIDS and pin our impending overpopulation problem on him.
I'm on a roll.
spykerspeedJul 31, 2010
He could even end the failed wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. Or scale back the troops there. Or reduce military spending... just a tad. Or even lower taxes on businesses. Or give gays their rights. Or do SOMETHING to show that he isn't just George W Bush 2.0.
Closed AccountJul 31, 2010
He's getting out of Iraq, has given tax breaks to small businesses and most people in the nation, and spending is controlled by congress. He's trying like hell to get rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell (which is also up to congress).
Have you actually been paying attention? No he's not perfect, but most of his job can't be done without congress giving him the authority to do so. There are a few things I disagree with him on, but he's infinitely better than McPalin would have been, and what Bush was.
spykerspeedJul 31, 2010
Sure he can "make it so". The greatest presidents in history simply "made it so". Lincoln, FDR, etc. Executive orders and other dictatorial fiats by American presidents are common throughout the short history of this nation.
I don't see him "trying like hell" to do anything, really, other than go on vacation with his family or play a lot of golf.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
werfwerJul 31, 2010
he could resign.
eh123Jul 31, 2010
I'm holding out for "resign in disgrace"
Closed AccountJul 31, 2010
So you're okay with President Biden, but not President Obama?
elranzerJul 31, 2010
George W Bush, the proven worst president of all time, didn't resign. Obama didn't anything nearly as bad.
derangedpenguinJul 31, 2010
As ftc08 points out we would be stuck with Biden, that could go either way, a complete idiot in charge vs. an idiot or a complete idiot who would spend the rest of the presidency not being recognized at the local movie theater. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
thejasonresnoJul 31, 2010
I guarantee Obama is more intelligent than you, DerangedPenguin.
exergenJul 31, 2010
He has his flaws, but Biden is not an America hating Marxist so yes.
kalvinbJul 31, 2010
Let me know when he does something.
kasha34Aug 1, 2010
Taking over our national VISA card and running it up to the limit is not "doing something."
chuckdeesJul 31, 2010
I wonder what people attitudes would be right now. If absolutely nothing was done to shore up the economy?
Seriously just think about where the economy would be right now. Now I thought the banks that needed bailout money should have been failed by the FDIC. But guess what? If the banks were failed by the FDIC, the government would then own them.
dmm219Jul 31, 2010
there we go trying to make a point claiming your can prove a negative. Which you should have learned by 3rd grade is entirely flawed logic, and never wins an argument. When your argument is "it could have been so much worse"...you've already lost...
jack416Jul 31, 2010
It could have been so much worse.
chuckdeesJul 31, 2010
Says you.
Besides that the GOP would have done almost everything Obama did. They would have just spent less and the economy would be in worse shape.
And I have history to prove me correct that the GOP would have done all these bailouts.
speedsteamboatJul 31, 2010
Except of the fact that pretty much all statistical and economic analysis tell us it not only could have been worse but WOULD have been worse.
This isn't arguing a negative, it's point at the fact that we saving most of the building by putting the fire out instead of just letting it burn itself out. We can prove this by point to the building that is still standing and analyzing the evidence surrounding the nature and intensity of the fire.
To then say, "Well, maybe the fire wasn't as bad as the evidence says it was and it wouldn't have been much worse!" is disingenuous.
spuy767Jul 31, 2010
Not a goddamned thing has been shored up. All Obama has managed to do is put us further into debt via greater entitlement programs.
chuckdeesJul 31, 2010
Which entitlement programs would that be?
speedsteamboatJul 31, 2010
And the 3 million jobs that were saved? What do you call that?
spuy767Jul 31, 2010
When you can come to me with a quantifiable measure of economic progress and not the pulled-from-ass talking points of the administration. I'll take your argument seriously.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kasha34Aug 1, 2010
@SpeedSteamBoat
Confiscating my money and sending it to Detroit is not saving jobs.
spykerspeedJul 31, 2010
This is a great post! Most people don't have very much imagination when it comes to economics, because they don't understand the underlying processes, so let's speculate about what would happen if nothing was done to "shore up" the economy:
1. There would be an initial period of joblessness as unprofitable ventures are liquidated.
2. The assets of said businesses would be bought for cheap at auction by entrepreneurs who would replace the old bad managers.
3. The entrepreneurs would rehire a lot of the laid-off workers, and have them producing things the market actually demands.
This rebalancing would occur relatively quickly. Economics is about satisfying consumer demand. The banks and businesses that failed weren't doing that - they were unprofitable. They needed to be replaced.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
speedsteamboatJul 31, 2010
"2. The assets of said businesses would be bought for cheap at auction by entrepreneurs who would replace the old bad managers.
3. The entrepreneurs would rehire a lot of the laid-off workers, and have them producing things the market actually demands."
I'd love to see any evidence at all that this would actually happen. Flint and Detroit has seen a lot of infrastructure as well as industrial and office real estate go up for sale at well below market prices over the past couple decades. Guess what? Most of it is either still vacant or has been demolished after attracting roughly zero serious investment interest.
This idea that if we let large business fail during a massive recession then angel investors and entrepreneur will descend from the heavens to instantly repurpose all the abandoned assets, including an aging workforce, is a capitalistic fantasy. History has not bore this theory out in the least to my knowledge, and as far as I'm concerned it's just a convenient excuse to abandon American workers who are falling victim to the failure of the system.
Let me tell you would would actually happen to the Midwest if we had let these businesses fail:
1. There would be an initial period of joblessness as unprofitable ventures are liquidated.
2. Residual supply industries would begin to fail in a domino affect after losing their biggest customers and becoming unprofitable themselves.
3. As unemployment sky rockets and people begin to leave the area by the thousands seeking work while those who remain have no disposable income local retail and service industries begin to fail everywhere (further compounding unemployment and emigration problems)
4. A sharp increase in crime scares away most, if not all, potential investors.
5. The vacated assets remain empty for years, most being demolished or seeing a series of failed revitalization projects come and go. A select few areas witness a small return to broader economic stability over the next decade or two.
spykerspeedJul 31, 2010
SpeedSteamBoat,
First off, you're assuming there should be auto manufacturers in the midwest to begin with. Maybe there shouldn't be? Maybe it's time to move on. Maybe this is why people don't live in Antarctica - there aren't any jobs there.
But you're right, taxpayers must continue to finance this ridiculous misallocation of resources ad infinitum. Otherwise baby Jesus will cry.
superkendallJul 31, 2010
If the stimulus had not passed, businesses everywhere would be hiring because they wouldn't be scared of upcoming taxes from mounds of debt the government has piled up.
The other countries that were not so foolish as to go full stimulus are pulling out of their recessions. We are the ones lagging, because we refuse to realize that having companies able and willing to hire is the way you end a recession.
exergenJul 31, 2010
What part of punishing business, expanding entitlements and growing government is "shoring up the economy"?
co7926Jul 31, 2010
The good news: He just saved a bunch of money on his car insurance by
Closed AccountJul 31, 2010
Don't buy GM vehicles, except to buy into their IPO and sell it two days later to make a quick buck. Wait for 180 day lockup period to end then short the hell out of it, and buy Ford stock and Ford vehicles. Don't just complain about the bailouts, do your part. :DComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
darkshroudJul 31, 2010
I buy Ford and have since the '90s but a lot of GM vehicles have been pretty good for some time now. If it wasn't for the UAW pricing them above the competition GM wouldn't have been in the amount of debt/trouble that they were.
marx2kJul 31, 2010
Why would I, as a taxpayer, want my investment in GM to dry up?
Closed AccountJul 31, 2010
Spite. Mostly for them killing the pontiac g8, g8 sport truck, and solstice and keeping buick. That's the real crime in all of this.
speedsteamboatJul 31, 2010
@Nickolassc: Wow, brilliant, like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Closed AccountJul 31, 2010
I hope his handlers pick some 'good' people for the crowd. Otherwise, they might not be so agreeable.
marx2kJul 31, 2010
What's Joe The Plumber been up to lately?
buddhistmonkeyJul 31, 2010
Obama saved the American auto industry. I'm pretty sure that the people of Detroit will be sufficiently "agreeable."
exergenJul 31, 2010
He saved the UAW with our tax dollars. Yea socialism!
chilidogsJul 31, 2010
You really think that the people who's jobs were saved are pissed about that?
Closed AccountJul 31, 2010
Who would have guessed that in the year 2010 America would no longer possess the active capability for human space flight all the while celebrating saving the US auto industry...what the f**k happened to us.
frogkingJul 31, 2010
George W. Bush happened to us.
heavyj1970Jul 31, 2010
really, he's gone, jeez enough already it's time to take some responsibility
exergenJul 31, 2010
lol
Own your failed Messiah liberals.
ymegJul 31, 2010
We are in a transition period for the space shuttle. It's not like we have lost the ability to send robotic items into space; NASA's focus has shifted.
exergenJul 31, 2010
Oh my god you set yourself up for this one:
Yeah its shifted from space exploration to Muslim outreach and "proving" the Global Warming hoax. Thanks Obama!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spacesterJul 31, 2010
SpaceX and Orbital Sciences are American companies.
We will still have American capability.
And cheaper.
So we can then go places instead of just talk about going places.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Orbital_Transportation_ServicesComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
braininaboxJul 31, 2010
"We are going to get all the money back that we invested in those car companies"
Wait, who's getting it all back?
libertarianslolJul 31, 2010
"And then we're gonna reinvest that money into our wars."
etx313Jul 31, 2010
The Gubment, Duh.
werfwerJul 31, 2010
to buy road signs promoting the next tax increase. . .
Closed AccountJul 31, 2010
The headline makes it sound as if it's wrong to point out that the auto industry HAS turned around in the U.S. compared to where it was at its lowest point.
Why are all the f**king r-tard nutjobs out tonight?
Is that Sarah Palin show finally in reruns or something? No high school baseball games tonight?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dmm219Jul 31, 2010
until you learn that stating obvious falsities like claiming the auto industry has turned around...you will always be labeled a wacko with nothing useful to add.
The FACT is that Chrysler will most likely not survive and is in worse shape today. GM is in bankruptcy and fully need 80 billion of free tax payer money just to exist. Until these companies turn a profit (and no, anyone with half a brain and pass 5th grade math knows GM has not yet truly made a profit, they are not ever close...not when all you expenses are paid with free money that was given to you...) they are still failing...
Ford gets a big nod though...as an american these bailouts helped gut the middle class of this country. I will never ever again buy a GM or Chrysler. Ford is the only one that deserves business.
darkshroudJul 31, 2010
I'm a Ford man myself, so is most of my family. The '95 Chrysler Town & Country sitting out in my mother's drive way was a POS since day one. It made it past 180k miles yet it doesn't run now, I just have to convince her to send it off to the junk yard.
The really pathetic part about GM is that a lot of their cars are actually good, Chevy, Buick, Pontiac (RIP). The UAW heads can burn in hell.
superkendallJul 31, 2010
If you have to call someone an "r-tard" - you lost the argument before you opened your mouth.
drmangrumJul 31, 2010
It's easy to turn around when you have millions pumped into your company. I won't be convinced until they can stand on their own without the support of tax payer dollars.
hirophant0Jul 31, 2010
Silly Obama, you can't make money selling news. We have the internet now!
omahawildcatJul 31, 2010
He can sell all he wants. Fortunately no one will buy his bs.
heavyj1970Jul 31, 2010
umm have you read a single digg post, they buy it
Closed AccountJul 31, 2010
The "auto industry bailout" was nothing more than President Odouche using YOUR money to bail out the union pension funds.
He's in Detroit to remind the UAW that "you owe me big time!!"Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chuckdeesJul 31, 2010
So was the TARP bailout nothing more than Bush using our money to bail out billionaires on Wall Street?
manjarJul 31, 2010
It has been good news for executives of GM in Detroit, as their business has been bouncing back. It is bad news for other Detroit-based stakeholders in GM, as the expansion has been coming in China, which is where the additional hiring and infrastructure investment has been taking place. So the results of the bailout are executive welfare and the creation of jobs in China. He might have to go elsewhere to sell that message.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mrnaturalJul 31, 2010
I'm happy the car industry is still alive and well, I make my living from that industry (primarily). The only thing that bothers me is that Obama's energy bill ls lurking around the corner, waiting for a little blip up in his popularity. Then he'll make some proclamation that we irresponsible f**ks are driving our cars way too much, killing the polar bears and now we're going to have to pay an extra $/gallon for gasoline tax so we don't drive those wasteful American cars so damn much!
The other shoe will drop on the Koreans first. He even said in his campaign that we had to do something about those Korean manufacturers dragging our economy down. What's good for the goose...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 31, 2010
f**k polar bears.
etx313Jul 31, 2010
f**k the UAW.
atarioJul 31, 2010
No, f**k offshoring.
dusanmalJul 31, 2010
Good economic news is Ford, advancing without Govt. (OUR) money.
Bad economic news is GM wasting OUR money to introduce 41000$ car that can do less than 15000$ import. Only advantage being ideological, satisfying Obama's "green vision" no one wants or needs.
As for Chrysler, it is no longer American car company anyway. It is Fiat assembly facility.
Closed AccountJul 31, 2010
Reports from consumers is that with dealer mark-up you can't get the volt for under 55,000 out the door. The volt will fail unless it's 20,000 cheaper than that.
kasha34Aug 1, 2010
The VOLT will fail anyway. They say it will run 40 miles on the battery. That will turn out to be an exaggeration. At least if you turn on the heater, the a/c, the lights or the CD player.
It will really run 25 miles on the battery. So it will save a gallon of gas a day. Big. f**king Deal.
darkshroudJul 31, 2010
I won't buy GM until they're no longer owned by the Feds but the Volt does a hell of a lot more than the imports. The Volt is actually a step in the right direction in a few ways.
Sadly for tax payers the all EV Ford Focus & Nissan Leaf will probably hand GM the Volt's ass.
superkendallJul 31, 2010
The volt is a step off the edge of a cliff. It spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to develop, and will sell like frozen lemonade at an ice rink in winter.
darkshroudJul 31, 2010
Public money was not used on the Volt, that all went to the company debt (UAW).
speedsteamboatJul 31, 2010
Considering that there's no infrastructure in place to make full EVs practical for most people I doubt those vehicles will be handing anything their ass anytime soon.
Like it or not, most people still need a car they can drive further than 100 miles at a time. The Volt is the only practical compromise between full electric and ICE that really matters.
bdbrJul 31, 2010
Ford borrowed $5.9 billion of "our" money last year.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE55M39120090623
speedsteamboatJul 31, 2010
"41000$ car that can do less than 15000$ import."
First, your grammar is deplorable. Secondly, [citation needed]
kasha34Aug 1, 2010
The 40 miles per charge is an exaggeration. It will be 25 miles in real life. So it will save a gallon a day. Why bother?
Closed AccountJul 31, 2010
My psychic powers tell me that right-wingers don't agree with Obama going to Detroit.
Closed AccountJul 31, 2010
You could have left the last 3 words off your comment.
kalvinbJul 31, 2010
Obama "saved" 3 million jobs by forcing millions of Americans to pay those people to continue working because their products couldn't convince people to voluntarily give the company.
How is this a success again? Ford is doing fantastic and is able to pay their employees because of money coming in from willing consumers.
The Volt costs $10K more than the Nissan Leaf and gets less than half the miles on a charge.
Also Nissan employs large amounts of Americans to build and design their cars on American soil.
etx313Jul 31, 2010
"less than half the miles on a charge."
That's not the point. I couldn't get in my car and drive to Chicago in the Leaf. I can in the Volt. And I can still manage to get to work and home every day without using gas.
superkendallJul 31, 2010
And you can do the same in a Prius for far less. Guess what car people will buy?
speedsteamboatJul 31, 2010
@superkendell: No. The typical Prius doesn't have a full electric mode, and the plug-in Prius has a virtually meaningless range of 12 miles. That's barely getting most people half-way to work.
kasha34Aug 1, 2010
They're both pointless. The Prius is only electric under 30 mph, right? And only for a few miles even then.
The VOLT will actually run 25 miles per charge, once you turn on the heater, the a/c, the lights or the CD player. After that, it's just dragging around an extra motor and 100 lbs of batteries for nothing.
It will save a gallon of gas a day by running 25 miles on battery. Why bother?
etx313Aug 1, 2010
Why bother? Because it's the right thing to do for the environment, and your bank account in the long run.
kasha34Aug 1, 2010
You think it's worth all the energy and carbon and toxins from manufacturing a 100 extra pounds of batteries and an extra motor? To save a gallon per car a day?
You think it's good for your bank account to pay $41k for what is essentially a $15k car with thousands of dollars of extra batteries and an extra motor? To save $2.85/day?
speedsteamboatJul 31, 2010
Actually, GM was still the leading automaker almost right up to the collapse. Since June of this year, they're back at number one. They're also profitable again.
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html#autosalesE
By any objective measure President Obama saved the largest domestic automaker and forced them to turn their business around in the process. Don't let that get in the way of your faux outrage though.
kalvinbJul 31, 2010
That report doesn't indicate that they're profitable. And there were plenty of car markers that would have created jobs to fill the void if GM had they gone away.
Bankruptcy would have also forced them to turn their business around and allowed them to trim the fat. Obama's interest in the situation was purely to appease the unions and keep their votes and support.
kasha34Aug 1, 2010
I love it. The lib/lefties/progressives have this new phrase. First, they say "By any objective measure." Then they say something untrue. And they believe that's convincing.
> By any objective measure, the Sun will rise in the West on August 2nd.< See how it works?
chilidogsJul 31, 2010
You do get that those 3 million people would have been on unemployment right?
ojnabieootJul 31, 2010
Not if the Republicans have their way...
chilidogsAug 1, 2010
Well they would have been newly unemployed so they would have been able to claim benefits for a time. My conjecture is that it cost this country less to loan GM money than it would have cost to pay unemployment benefits for the laid off workers.
mindsnare1Jul 31, 2010
Bulls**t - I am suppose to believe the GM is back and already paid back the govt loan? They were about to fold a year ago, but now business has been so great that GM is back from bankruptcy. Yea right. More like they never paid back the loan.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bdbrJul 31, 2010
Its documented that they paid back the long. This isn't the same GM as last year - the losing brands were liquidated.
originallucid1Jul 31, 2010
No, it's not. The headlines from the sycophant media might have implied that GM paid back the loans, but the reality is something quite different. The narrative that GM repaid the loans was put forth because Ford was killing it in sales because they didn't suck at the teat of the One.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
drmangrumJul 31, 2010
They didn't pay back the loan. They played a numbers game. The took a line of credit from The Fed and paid back the bail out money with that. Only a fool would think a company on the verge of bankruptcy could pay back millions of dollars in less than a year.
rodneyws1977Jul 31, 2010
Robbing Peter to pay Paul. Of course this helps Peter and of course Peter is happy.
bdbrJul 31, 2010
But if Paul pays the loan back, isn't that better than paying unemployment for Paul's entire family?
kasha34Aug 1, 2010
No he's not.
kasha34Aug 1, 2010
@rodneyws
Brilliant.
pharmaphoxJul 31, 2010
I'll reserve judgment for a few years and see what happens. They've really got to pick up in the small-car segment and be able to stand on their own in order to survive long term.
Last year while shopping for a small to mid-size car, there were almost no American options whatsoever. We ended up with a near-new Korean car for cheap and are totally happy with it.
darkshroudJul 31, 2010
Anyone else notice Obama didn't stop at any Ford plants.
bcronosJul 31, 2010
LOL - of course not, Ford is a capitalist company that knows how to make money, even in hard times. GM is now a government company that doesn't have to make a profit because the government can just keep bailing it out. I don't think Obama could successfully run a hot dog stand without financial help from the government. It's the only thing he knows...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
vitriolandangstJul 31, 2010
Obama has disappointed me; mainly because he keeps listening to the losers on the Right that lost our country.
FDR saved this country from the Robber Barons and the Gilded Age with Public Works projects and stimulating the economy. And ever since then, the Robber Barons and the easily fooled, have been pushing the narrative that WW II stimulated our economy. To accept otherwise, would be to admit that Social Projects, helped the economy -- giving money to people who work so that they could buy things -- what a concept.
But it's simple logic; wars LOSE money. Hiring a soldier does give someone a job. But they use a tank or a bomber to destroy something in another country. Instead of building a bridge here, they are blowing one up over there. Our infrastructure helps us get more done --- NO infrastructure, doesn't help us get things done. Is that not simple enough? The troops in Iraq are making Haliburton rich and they don't pay US taxes. The troops are spending money over there, and with the bits of money flowing back to the US to their families -- well, you could have hired someone to do something USEFUL.
The same dollar spent on "public works" or helping stimulate demand for cars to get auto workers working is CHEAPER than NOT keeping them working because those people will go on the public dole, and stop buying things in the economy. If there were a BUY AMERICAN provision, the effect would have been bigger --- but of course, the same corporate lobbied whiners fretted about THEIR constituents; China.
IF we had not done the stimulus, our Economy would have been WORSE off. The Republicans point at the damage THEY create and then win with the strategy; "government doesn't work." Then why are Republicans running for government? They should be just running for CEO -- but I guess they can't transfer our wealth to their future employers if they didn't first make a stop in Government so they could make if fail.
feverhostJul 31, 2010
Imagine if all of a sudden the wars were over, and all the soldiers came home. Now I feel even more sorry for them....
Welcome home... no jobs.
2004taxesJul 31, 2010
I fully agree. English, Canadians, Mexicans, Filipinos, Cubans, Spanish, Norwegians, Dutch, French, Italians, Germans, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Grenadians, Haitians, El Salvadorans, Panamanians, Serbs, Croats, Kosovaars, Albanians, Iraqis, Afghanis, Kuwaitis, have continued to refuse to buy American goods..... oh wait.
skittlesusaJul 31, 2010
"the Robber Barons and the easily fooled, have been pushing the narrative that WW II stimulated our economy."
That isn't a narrative, that is a historical fact. I'm sorry if you are easily fooled. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jayjaylolJul 31, 2010
Barack Obama has saved tens of millions of jobs for Americans. The restructuring of the auto industry is a minute achievement.
waggdoggJul 31, 2010
About half make $28 an hour or more, while the rest, the recently hired, make $14. Great jobs President Obama. Half the wages and half the benefits for those new workers. $29,120. a year. He thinks we all should make this amount.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chilidogsJul 31, 2010
What world to you live in where $30k a year for someone who did not graduate from college is not a good job?
waggdoggJul 31, 2010
Electricians, Plumbers, Auto mechanics start off about $25.00 an hour. Plus there are many more.
chilidogsAug 1, 2010
Trade school is college.
feverhostJul 31, 2010
.. ".... but he's still a Socialist.. AHH!!!!!!!" -Republicans
Closed AccountJul 31, 2010
Who new economic recovery would piss off so many patriots?
yeekJul 31, 2010
No auto bailout = 3 million jobs lost = $45 billion per year in unemployment benefits with no payback to the gov't.
The auto bailout is being paid back by the car companies. The bailout was the better deal for taxpayers.
bdbrJul 31, 2010
Darn, I know you guys on the right were hoping that the "gubment" loan wouldn't get paid back. You must have just been itching to pay unemployment for a million workers.
0xbaadf00dJul 31, 2010
http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/clunkers_analysis/index.htm
errdayimhustlinJul 31, 2010
"The good news is that I can still get away with this s**t!"
absurdistJul 31, 2010
To all you free-market ninnies who think if the auto industry had collapsed another would have somehow magically risen from the ashes, I give you the British car industry. At one time BMC was the second largest car maker in the world. After a series of inept management decisions and mergers, it collapsed under the Thatcher administration. Tell me, where is the British automotive industry that rose up out of the ashes?
There is none. British manufacturing has never recovered fully from the hit that was taken. Thus you now have so many people on the dole; the manufacturing job base shrank permanently.
Do you really hate your country so much that you would cheer on the collapse of a large portion of its industrial base with no guarantee of its recovery just to prove some theoretical political point? If so, there are some of the lower circles of Hell reserved for you.
speedsteamboatJul 31, 2010
Rational thought and pragmatism? What's this doing here?
skittlesusaJul 31, 2010
So inept management decisions and mergers should be rewarded by government bailouts, at the taxpayers expense?
If you think that, there are some of the lower circles of Hell reserved for you.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bhodge10Jul 31, 2010
@absurdist
So what you are telling me is that a company that loses money and needs to rely on the government to stay open by draining public money is better than a company that closes it's door because it is run bad? That's the whole point of free market, if you don't make a product that people want to buy, then you don't deserve to be in business. Just because no one in the british auto industry rose through the ashes doesnt mean free market is bad, it just means the British can't make a good car.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mwrlJul 31, 2010
Obama: "My new Government Motors made Chevy Volt will replace all cars on the road"
Public: " I won't go anywhere near one of those retarded crappy cars"
GM Profit" ____________________________________________________________________________________________________Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
skittlesusaJul 31, 2010
Has "SAVED X number of jobs" EVER been used to measure the success of anything?
isenborgJul 31, 2010
...AND... they paid back all of their TARP loans ahead of schedule...
with more taxpayer money.
buddhistmonkeyAug 1, 2010
((( "Yea socialism!" )))
It's clear that you are ignorant of both the actual definition of socialism and the structure of the auto industry bailout.
cajungalAug 1, 2010
If you have ever driven through the big wide open spaces that make up much of America, you would know right off the bat—40 miles on a charge isn't nearly enough. Maybe it will go over big in Europe where people don't have to drive as far.
realcoolguy9022Aug 1, 2010
Yeah, great job there removing competition and the ability to fail. It's no wonder Americans are rewarding Ford.