Obama Motors

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

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?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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?

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 GM to make 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.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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 GM to make 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.

Obama himself said that they will be making certain type cars.
Obama says GM, Chrysler must 'build cars of the future' | detnews.com | The Detroit News+

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Obama himself said that they will be making certain type cars.
Obama says GM, Chrysler must 'build cars of the future' | detnews.com | The Detroit News+

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

That does not mean you have to buy GM!

WTF, what's so hard to understand here?

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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 GM to make 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.

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.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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

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.

[Trample the Elderly]

The Obama Car

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

[htownskinfan]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

The Obama Car

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

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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.

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.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

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.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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.

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.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

Ford didn't take a bail out.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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.

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.