Obama Motors
 

Well I hope you don't like big trucks, fast cars, or anything that burns much gas. Obama Motors is here and look for those battery powered cars to show up in your nearest GM dealer. If you notice Obama made sure they took over enough ownership of GM to have controlling interest.
[url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/01/general-motors-files-bankruptcy-protection-new-york/]General Motors Files for Bankruptcy Protection in New York - Political News - FOXNews.com[/url]

Re: Obama Motors
 

If people in America actually wanted to buy piece of shit cars like this [IMG]http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//media/il/news/2009/0529/chevrolet.spark.500.jpg[/IMG], companies would have already been making them. Now Government Motors is going to force them on us because of the great new CAFE standards.

Re: Obama Motors
 

They won't be forcing them on you, for crying out loud. You can always choose a Toyota, Honda, Nissan, BMW, Volkswagen, Volvo... and on and on if you don't like what the new GM has to offer.

I'm not a fan of the US Government taking over corporations, but this is overreaction at its finest.

Re: Obama Motors
 

[quote=Schneed10;560938]They won't be forcing them on you, for crying out loud. You can always choose a Toyota, Honda, Nissan, BMW, Volkswagen, Volvo... and on and on if you don't like what the new GM has to offer.

I'm not a fan of the US Government taking over corporations, but this is overreaction at its finest.[/quote]
If GM was the only company that Obama had taken over then I might agree. They are taking a private Co. and going to dictate to them what they can and cannot do. Funny how people say we over react when we use the word socialist when talking about Obama but then when he does these things we a just keep hearing that it is us overracting. At what point will it not be an overreaction any more?

Re: Obama Motors
 

[quote=firstdown;560940]If GM was the only company that Obama had taken over then I might agree. They are taking a private Co. and going to dictate to them what they can and cannot do. Funny how people say we over react when we use the word socialist when talking about Obama but then when he does these things we a just keep hearing that it is us overracting. At what point will it not be an overreaction any more?[/quote]

It's overreaction by saying that the government is going to be forcing any kind of car on us. That is simply not true. Who knows, maybe they will force [B][U]GM[/U][/B] to [B][U]make[/U][/B] certain kinds of cars, but they will not force the American public to buy GM.

You're still quite able to purchase a Ford or Toyota instead.

I agree that the government should not be taking over companies like this. But it's not forcing products on the public.

Re: Obama Motors
 

[quote=Schneed10;560942]It's overreaction by saying that the government is going to be forcing any kind of car on us. That is simply not true. Who knows, maybe they will force [B][U]GM[/U][/B] to [B][U]make[/U][/B] certain kinds of cars, but they will not force the American public to buy GM.

You're still quite able to purchase a Ford or Toyota instead.

I agree that the government should not be taking over companies like this. But it's not forcing products on the public.[/quote]

Obama himself said that they will be making certain type cars.
[url=http://www.detnews.com/article/20090422/AUTO01/904220450/1361/Obama+says+GM++Chrysler+must++build+cars+of+the+future]Obama says GM, Chrysler must 'build cars of the future' | detnews.com | The Detroit News[/url]+

Re: Obama Motors
 

Hooray! Nothing like having a guy who has never run a business taking over. Good call America. Good call.

Re: Obama Motors
 

Welcome to the future where Obamaican Cars are made possible. This is the change we have been waiting for!

FM, SSDD.

Re: Obama Motors
 

[quote=firstdown;560890]Well I hope you don't like big trucks, fast cars, or anything that burns much gas. Obama Motors is here and look for those battery powered cars to show up in your nearest GM dealer. If you notice Obama made sure they took over enough ownership of GM to have controlling interest.
[url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/01/general-motors-files-bankruptcy-protection-new-york/]General Motors Files for Bankruptcy Protection in New York - Political News - FOXNews.com[/url][/quote]

Dang........this sucks! And no offense firstdown. I really do mean no offense, but Government Motors sounds better. And they can still keep the "GM" logo with Government Motors. :)

Re: Obama Motors
 

[quote=firstdown;560943]Obama himself said that they will be making certain type cars.
[URL="http://www.detnews.com/article/20090422/AUTO01/904220450/1361/Obama+says+GM++Chrysler+must++build+cars+of+the+future"]Obama says GM, Chrysler must 'build cars of the future' | detnews.com | The Detroit News[/URL]+[/quote]

Dude, you are totally not hearing me. I am well aware that GM will be making certain kinds of cars.

[B]That does not mean you have to buy GM![/B]

WTF, what's so hard to understand here?

Re: Obama Motors
 

[quote=Schneed10;560942]It's overreaction by saying that the government is going to be forcing any kind of car on us. That is simply not true. Who knows, maybe they will force [B][U]GM[/U][/B] to [B][U]make[/U][/B] certain kinds of cars, but they will not force the American public to buy GM.

You're still quite able to purchase a Ford or Toyota instead.

I agree that the government should not be taking over companies like this. But it's not forcing products on the public.[/quote]


give him a little more time and he'll figure out a way to force those types of vehicles on us. he hasn't been president to long and he already owns gm and the best part is, he made us buy it for him.

Re: Obama Motors
 

[quote=Schneed10;560942]I agree that the government should not be taking over companies like this. [B]But it's not forcing products on the public[/B].[/quote]True. But within 12 months I'll bet there will be some sort of significant tax break for those who buy GM vehicles vs. other manufacturers.

Re: Obama Motors
 

When the Government starts taking over industry just for the hell of it, then it will be time to fear the Government. But for corporations that have already lost more than 80% of their shareholder's equity since 2000, does it really even matter? It's not like the Government is [I]stealing[/I] from the private sector. The wealth has already been lost.

Re: Obama Motors
 

The Obama Car

It steers to the left, smokes, is overpriced, and will only work for four to eight years.

Re: Obama Motors
 

[quote=GTripp0012;560955]When the Government starts taking over industry just for the hell of it, then it will be time to fear the Government. But for corporations that have already lost more than 80% of their shareholder's equity since 2000, does it really even matter? It's not like the Government is [I]stealing[/I] from the private sector. The wealth has already been lost.[/quote]


It does when the taxpayer is fleeced to give that said company bail-out money.

Re: Obama Motors
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;560959]It does when the taxpayer is fleeced to give that said company bail-out money.[/quote]
To the tune of 30 billion $.

Re: Obama Motors
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;560959]It does when the taxpayer is fleeced to give that said company bail-out money.[/quote]Well, the corporate bail out was a separate issue entirely. That was our government doing what any government would have done in the same situation. The taxpayers don't have an immediate voice in a representative democracy, so they are the easiest target to fleece, as you say.

The bailout, in my opinion, was neither good nor bad. It was stealing from Peter to give to Paul. Taxpayers were screwed either way. But by intervening, the bureaucrats could save their own careers, so the choice was easy.

Re: Obama Motors
 

"WORK HARDER, millions on welfare depend on you!"

go skins

Re: Obama Motors
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;560954]True. But within 12 months I'll bet there will be some sort of significant tax break for those who buy GM vehicles vs. other manufacturers.[/quote]

I still don't see the problem with that, either. It would still be your choice, take advantage of it and buy a GM with a tax break or if you're leery, buy the same Toyota for the same deal that you can today.

I philosophically agree with what you guys are saying in this thread, that having the government taking over corporations is never a good thing.

I just took umbrage with the notion that the government is forcing products on us, that's all. Suggesting so shows an impressive lack of understanding of basic business.

Re: Obama Motors
 

Comrades, we must work together to realize the dream of a New America. We must work and live as one.

Re: Obama Motors
 

[quote=Schneed10;560965]I still don't see the problem with that, either. It would still be your choice, take advantage of it and buy a GM with a tax break or if you're leery, buy the same Toyota for the same deal that you can today.

I philosophically agree with what you guys are saying in this thread, that having the government taking over corporations is never a good thing.

I just took umbrage with the notion that the government is forcing products on us, that's all. Suggesting so shows an impressive lack of understanding of basic business.[/quote]
In a round about way they are forcing a product on to us but I see what you saying. From what I read tax breaks will be given on about any type of hybird type car.

Re: Obama Motors
 

Nothing is being forced upon anyone. There may be an incentive to buy but you still have the power of choice. Let's not call it something it's not.

Re: Obama Motors
 

[quote=GTripp0012;560963]Well, the corporate bail out was a separate issue entirely. That was our government doing what any government would have done in the same situation. The taxpayers don't have an immediate voice in a representative democracy, so they are the easiest target to fleece, as you say.

The bailout, in my opinion, was neither good nor bad. It was stealing from Peter to give to Paul. Taxpayers were screwed either way. But by intervening, the bureaucrats could save their own careers, so the choice was easy.[/quote]

Had they not bailed out Chrystler or GM the public would've paid nothing. They still had the option of filling bankruptcy to restructure. Delta did that and they're still flying. Our government shouldn't be acting like any other government. If everyone jumped off a bridge would you do it too?

Re: Obama Motors
 

[quote=Mattyk72;560973][B]Nothing is being forced upon anyone[/B]. There may be an incentive to buy but you still have the power of choice. Let's not call it something it's not.[/quote]

What about tomorrow?

Re: Obama Motors
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;560974]Had they not bailed out Chrystler or GM the public would've paid nothing. They still had the option of filling bankruptcy to restructure. Delta did that and they're still flying. Our government shouldn't be acting like any other government. If everyone jumped off a bridge would you do it too?[/quote]Delta didn't have to worry about losing a majority of it's market share to foreign competition. In that case, a bailout would have been overkill.

If they hadn't bailed out GM, the loss of labor in the auto industries and the industries that were dependent on the auto industry in the form of unemployment taxes. Taxpayers would have been screwed anyway. Right now, there isn't sufficient economic growth in other industries to offset the exponential loss of jobs. Maybe in another place, another time, it would have been beneficial to force the auto industries to head into a more traditional bankruptcy process, but considering that demand for automobiles isn't going anywhere in the immediate future, we'd just be directly killing our GDP by not doing so. So, yeah, maybe the actual path we are going to take isn't much better, but it's certainly not worse, at least in the short term.

Where this has the potential to be worse is if the temporary economic stimulus solutions become permanent (think New Deal). But that's a different issue entirely. And even though Obama's plans seem to take that into effect, it's probably going to be up to his successor to actually see that part through. The long term effects of this bail-out are likely not in his control.

Re: Obama Motors
 

[quote=Schneed10;560965]I still don't see the problem with that, either. It would still be your choice, take advantage of it and buy a GM with a tax break or if you're leery, buy the same Toyota for the same deal that you can today.
[/quote]As a consumer, you're right, no problem. However, as a stockholder of Ford (I'm not, but hypothectically) I would have a HUGE problem with it.
[URL="http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/06/01/kerpen_phil_gm/"][/URL]

Re: Obama Motors
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;560974]Had they not bailed out Chrystler or GM the public would've paid nothing. They still had the option of filling bankruptcy to restructure. Delta did that and they're still flying. Our government shouldn't be acting like any other government. If everyone jumped off a bridge would you do it too?[/quote]

Just for the record, the government did bail out the airlines. In the week following 9/11 some airlines lost ALOT of money and the government stepped in and hooked them up. I don't know if the airlines ever paid them back or not. With the way Bush ran things they probably didn't.

The government bailed out everyone. The only company that the left behind was the porn industry! Can you believe that? They bail out all the rich pricks, but they leave our porn stars alone to die.........................Geez, what is our country coming too!

Re: Obama Motors
 

[quote=GTripp0012;560979]Delta didn't have to worry about losing a majority of it's market share to foreign competition. In that case, a bailout would have been overkill.

If they hadn't bailed out GM, the loss of labor in the auto industries and the industries that were dependent on the auto industry in the form of unemployment taxes. Taxpayers would have been screwed anyway. Right now, there isn't sufficient economic growth in other industries to offset the exponential loss of jobs. Maybe in another place, another time, it would have been beneficial to force the auto industries to head into a more traditional bankruptcy process, but considering that demand for automobiles isn't going anywhere in the immediate future, we'd just be directly killing our GDP by not doing so. So, yeah, maybe the actual path we are going to take isn't much better, but it's certainly not worse, at least in the short term.

Where this has the potential to be worse is if the temporary economic stimulus solutions become permanent (think New Deal). But that's a different issue entirely. And even though Obama's plans seem to take that into effect, it's probably going to be up to his successor to actually see that part through. The long term effects of this bail-out are likely not in his control.[/quote]
The problem is even with all this bail out money there is no guarantee any of this will work. We have dumped 20 billion into GM and are going to now dump another 30 billion and if that does not work they will dump even more money into GM. I'm guessing within a year we are going to dump another 20 to 30 billion more into GM over the 50 billion.

Re: Obama Motors
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;560986]As a consumer, you're right, no problem. However, as a stockholder of Ford (I'm not, but hypothectically) I would have a HUGE problem with it.
[/quote]


Why? Your stock is worth shit, your company is worth shit and the other guys (government) has more shares and can therefore exercise their rights and f'ck you over legally. As a normal shareholder you should be glad they're getting bailed out, as a predatory shareholder you can go f'ck off and die.

To borrow and revise S10's sentiments, this is a case that shows an impressive lack of understanding of basic investing.

Re: Obama Motors
 

um, anybody else think that the reason *most* europeans drive those "piece of shit" cars is out of necessity. High price of fuel, over congestion and limits on space make these cars necessary. Where exactly do you think we're headed, back to 1965 and cheap gas? And for those really wanting to bitch about the perceived lack of performance in electric cars, check out the [URL="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/01/11/detroit-2009-dodge-circuit-ev-now-with-cross-hairs/"]numbers and 0-60 times[/URL] compared to internal combustion.

Re: Obama Motors
 

[quote=GTripp0012;560979]Delta didn't have to worry about losing a majority of it's market share to foreign competition. In that case, a bailout would have been overkill.

If they hadn't bailed out GM, the loss of labor in the auto industries and the industries that were dependent on the auto industry in the form of unemployment taxes. Taxpayers would have been screwed anyway. Right now, there isn't sufficient economic growth in other industries to offset the exponential loss of jobs. Maybe in another place, another time, it would have been beneficial to force the auto industries to head into a more traditional bankruptcy process, but considering that demand for automobiles isn't going anywhere in the immediate future, we'd just be directly killing our GDP by not doing so. So, yeah, maybe the actual path we are going to take isn't much better, but it's certainly not worse, at least in the short term.

Where this has the potential to be worse is if the temporary economic stimulus solutions become permanent (think New Deal). But that's a different issue entirely. And even though Obama's plans seem to take that into effect, it's probably going to be up to his successor to actually see that part through. The long term effects of this bail-out are likely not in his control.[/quote]

Your arguement would make sense if American jobs were being saved when in fact GM is shipping jobs over-seas. The plant in Fredericksburg is being closed or so I've heard. So they're jobs are not beign saved? I say a picture of Detroit in a magazine. It doesn't look to me like the government did a really good job of saving people's jobs there, neither did GM. So why throw bad money after good?

Re: Obama Motors
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;560991]um, anybody else think that the reason *most* europeans drive those "piece of shit" cars is out of necessity. High price of fuel, over congestion and limits on space make these cars necessary. Where exactly do you think we're headed, back to 1965 and cheap gas? And for those really wanting to bitch about the perceived lack of performance in electrical cars, check out the [URL="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/01/11/detroit-2009-dodge-circuit-ev-now-with-cross-hairs/"]numbers and 0-60 times[/URL] compared to internal combustion.[/quote]

Here Here :food-smil

Re: Obama Motors
 

[quote=saden1;560989]Why? Your stock is worth shit, your company is worth shit and the other guys (government) has more shares and can therefore exercise their rights and f'ck you over legally. As a normal shareholder you should be glad they're getting bailed out, as a predatory shareholder you can go f'ck off and die.

To borrow and revise S10's sentiments, this is a case that shows an impressive lack of understanding of basic investing.[/quote]

Ford didn't take a bail out.

Re: Obama Motors
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;560995]Ford didn't take a bail out.[/quote]

Shows how much you know, again...they got themselves a ~10 billion line of credit from the US government in January when no one else was willing to give them a dime (junk companies get that kind of treatment). It got an additional 1.5 billion line of credit from the Canadian government. Guess what happens if they can't pay back that money? The government becomes the other guys.

You don't have to call it a bailout if you don't want to but please believe Ford from an investment prospective is near death company and would have certainly been dead without a government line of credit.

Re: Obama Motors
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;560986]As a consumer, you're right, no problem. However, as a stockholder of Ford (I'm not, but hypothectically) I would have a HUGE problem with it.
[/quote]

Fair point. However the jobs being saved at GM (and the number of people affected by it) outweighs the negative effect on stockholders of competing firms.

In most economies I'd be all for letting GM go completely under and out of business, with no bail-out, no nothing. Normally, all those GM employees would be out of work, but would find new employment relatively quickly. However in this economy, it takes people an average of 8 months to a year to find a new job. So if GM went under in this economy, that's a huge number of people out of work, for a very long time, who need to be supported by the unemployment insurance program. So either way, the taxpayer is going to pay the piper for those employees.

Obama's logic actually makes sense (although makes one very critical assumption). The taxpayer's going to pay to support GM employees one way or another, either via taxpayer funding or via unemployment insurance.

The question is: Is GM worth saving? That's his critical assumption, he's assuming it is worth saving. It may be cheaper to simply fund GM and keep it afloat, rather than supporting their employees. But if GM's piss-poor management navigates that big ass ship right back into another iceberg, then Obama will have made a critical mistake.

So I get the approach: in this economy keep the people working. If people don't have other employment options, then the government will be footing the bill no matter what. So you might as well keep them working, trying to turn GM around.

Just better hope GM can be saved. After the way they've operated the last 8-10 years, you could put them in the Harvard Business Review for how not to run a car company.

Re: Obama Motors
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;560993]Your arguement would make sense if American jobs were being saved when in fact GM is shipping jobs over-seas. The plant in Fredericksburg is being closed or so I've heard. So they're jobs are not beign saved? I say a picture of Detroit in a magazine. It doesn't look to me like the government did a really good job of saving people's jobs there, neither did GM. So why throw bad money after good?[/quote]

They're shipping those jobs overseas, and then still going bankrupt even after doing that.

Those jobs were a sunk cost, a cost encurred by absurd management over the past 10 years. The question is how many jobs NOT YET lost can be saved. That's what the government funding is designed to accomplish.

No sense crying over spilled milk.

Re: Obama Motors
 

if your numbers are correct and if what you say is even true then thats still only 11.5 billion to ford were as gm is gonna be at least 50 billion and bankrupt

Re: Obama Motors
 

[quote=saden1;560997]Shows how much you know, again...they got themselves a ~10 billion line of credit from the US government in January when no one else was willing to give them a dime (junk companies get that kind of treatment). It got an additional 1.5 billion line of credit from the Canadian government. Guess what happens if they can't pay back that money? The government becomes the other guys.

You don't have to call it a bailout if you don't want to but please believe Ford from an investment prospective is near death company and would have certainly been dead without a government line of credit.[/quote]
If I'm correct they secured those lines of credit for if something happened but as of now they have not had to use any of those funds. So at this point I have to say ford has not taken any bailout money.

Re: Obama Motors
 

[quote=Schneed10;560999]Fair point. However the jobs being saved at GM (and the number of people affected by it) outweighs the negative effect on stockholders of competing firms.

In most economies I'd be all for letting GM go completely under and out of business, with no bail-out, no nothing. Normally, all those GM employees would be out of work, but would find new employment relatively quickly. However in this economy, it takes people an average of 8 months to a year to find a new job. So if GM went under in this economy, that's a huge number of people out of work, for a very long time, who need to be supported by the unemployment insurance program. So either way, the taxpayer is going to pay the piper for those employees.

Obama's logic actually makes sense (although makes one very critical assumption). The taxpayer's going to pay to support GM employees one way or another, either via taxpayer funding or via unemployment insurance.

The question is: Is GM worth saving? That's his critical assumption, he's assuming it is worth saving. It may be cheaper to simply fund GM and keep it afloat, rather than supporting their employees. But if GM's piss-poor management navigates that big ass ship right back into another iceberg, then Obama will have made a critical mistake.

So I get the approach: in this economy keep the people working. If people don't have other employment options, then the government will be footing the bill no matter what. So you might as well keep them working, trying to turn GM around.

Just better hope GM can be saved. After the way they've operated the last 8-10 years, you could put them in the Harvard Business Review for how not to run a car company.[/quote]
I wonder how many people GM employees and supports with there operations in the US.

Re: Obama Motors
 

[quote=saden1;560989]Why? Your stock is worth shit, your company is worth shit and the other guys (government) has more shares and can therefore exercise their rights and f'ck you over legally. As a normal shareholder you should be glad they're getting bailed out, as a predatory shareholder you can go f'ck off and die.

To borrow and revise S10's sentiments, this is a case that shows an impressive lack of understanding of basic investing.[/quote]WTF are you talking about? I think you misread something. If I'm a shareholder of Ford stock and the U.S. government is giving a tax break for consumers to buy GM products and not Ford products, that's a problem. Are you advocating that it's OK for the U.S. government to favor one company over another. This isn't Venezula....yet.

And I have no clue how my statement shows an impressive lack of understanding of basic investing.