UPDATE: More Management Changes At GM

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: defektes

If GM was viable, the private sector would have given them the loan.



I guess people have very short memory, Ford did go to the feds along with GM and Chrysler to beg for money, that was the first round of bailouts (remember the whole buisness jet fiasco???), and Ford got turned down, also Ford took re-tooling loans, so proclaiming that Ford never begged for money or took Government money is just wrong. I don't mean to put down Ford, but lets not forget the facts, and while Ford is milking the "we did not take bailout money" and is trying to convince people of that, that doesn't change the fact that they did take government money (re-tooling loans that will have to be paid off, but I doubt it will happen, which in turn will make them a "bailout") and they did try to get the bailout money.


Short memories??? LOL You must have no memory at all, almost every point you made is plain wrong.

If you knew anything about the situation, you would know that at the time Ford had plenty of cash. Their main purpose in going to Washington was to inform the brain dead congressman that allowing GM to fold could have drastic effects on the entire industry. Do you know what a tier 1 or tier 2 company is?

As for the re tooling grants aimed at ramping up "electric" production, didn't Toyota and Honda receive some of that grant money as well? Was that begging on their part? Get you facts straight, please!

 

[defektes]

Ls2jsts is correct.

 

[KrisZ]

Yep, Ford only went to Washington to aid their "brothers in arms" and for nothing else, keep living in the lala land.

So I guess they went along with GM and Chrysler just to say what doom and gloom would auto collapse bring? What about $25 billion of TARP money they wanted a piece of:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/bailout-watch-222-senator-reid-cancels-bailout-bill/

And here is what Mullay and others had to say when Peter Roskam asked the CEO's about their willingness to give some of the perks up:

“So it was hard to feel sorry for the executives when Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), late in the hearing, reminded them again that “the symbolism of the private jet is difficult,” and mischievously asked the witnesses whether, in another symbolic gesture, they would be willing to work for $1 a year, as Nardelli has offered to do.

‘I don’t have a position on that today,’ demurred Wagoner (2007 total compensation: $15.7 million).

‘I understand the intent, but I think where we are is okay,’ said Mulally ($21.7 million).

‘I’m asking about you,’ Roskam pressed.

‘I think I’m okay where I am,’ Mulally said.”
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/bailout-watch-223-washington-post-rips-detroit-a-new-nsfw/

Why would they ask Ford's CEO to give up his perks if he didn't go there to beg for money?

Then in December, when the first try did not work, Ford all of the sudden needed "$9 billion credit line" just in case they run out of money, so yeah, they must've been rolling in dough, right?

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/bailout-watch-227-ford-chrysler-and-gm-asking-for-34b/


And here is the link to the re-tooling LOANS and not grants:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/ford-loves-them-some-federal-loans-expecting-another-51b-doe-loan/

Anybody else with mass amnesia that needs help? Maybe they should start posting some links as well, that is if you remember how to.

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: defektes

If GM was viable, the private sector would have given them the loan.



I guess people have very short memory, Ford did go to the feds along with GM and Chrysler to beg for money, that was the first round of bailouts (remember the whole buisness jet fiasco???), and Ford got turned down, also Ford took re-tooling loans, so proclaiming that Ford never begged for money or took Government money is just wrong. I don't mean to put down Ford, but lets not forget the facts, and while Ford is milking the "we did not take bailout money" and is trying to convince people of that, that doesn't change the fact that they did take government money (re-tooling loans that will have to be paid off, but I doubt it will happen, which in turn will make them a "bailout") and they did try to get the bailout money.


Short memories??? LOL You must have no memory at all, almost every point you made is plain wrong.

If you knew anything about the situation, you would know that at the time Ford had plenty of cash. Their main purpose in going to Washington was to inform the brain dead congressman that allowing GM to fold could have drastic effects on the entire industry. Do you know what a tier 1 or tier 2 company is?

As for the re tooling grants aimed at ramping up "electric" production, didn't Toyota and Honda receive some of that grant money as well? Was that begging on their part? Get you facts straight, please!



And where do you get your facts from? I don't see any links. Is it from Detroit press or your monthly UAW news letter? According to you GM, Chrysler and Ford were in tip-top shape before the credit crunch, those poor sobs were just victims of bankers nothing more, but you are telling me to get my facts straight, don't make me laugh.

 

[hone eagle]

Originally Posted By: hone eagle
Not eco but electric ,I was close gov grants


Again- read

 

[hone eagle]

Originally Posted By: hone eagle
Read here Kris and you might not embarass yourself myths


Read some more
you got any links?
besides what your fevered brain cooks up?

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: defektes

If GM was viable, the private sector would have given them the loan.



I guess people have very short memory, Ford did go to the feds along with GM and Chrysler to beg for money, that was the first round of bailouts (remember the whole buisness jet fiasco???), and Ford got turned down, also Ford took re-tooling loans, so proclaiming that Ford never begged for money or took Government money is just wrong. I don't mean to put down Ford, but lets not forget the facts, and while Ford is milking the "we did not take bailout money" and is trying to convince people of that, that doesn't change the fact that they did take government money (re-tooling loans that will have to be paid off, but I doubt it will happen, which in turn will make them a "bailout") and they did try to get the bailout money.


Short memories??? LOL You must have no memory at all, almost every point you made is plain wrong.

If you knew anything about the situation, you would know that at the time Ford had plenty of cash. Their main purpose in going to Washington was to inform the brain dead congressman that allowing GM to fold could have drastic effects on the entire industry. Do you know what a tier 1 or tier 2 company is?

As for the re tooling grants aimed at ramping up "electric" production, didn't Toyota and Honda receive some of that grant money as well? Was that begging on their part? Get you facts straight, please!



And where do you get your facts from? I don't see any links. Is it from Detroit press or your monthly UAW news letter? According to you GM, Chrysler and Ford were in tip-top shape before the credit crunch, those poor sobs were just victims of bankers nothing more, but you are telling me to get my facts straight, don't make me laugh.


Like I said reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking at times around here. Thats not at all what I said, twisting my words doesn't help your argument at all.

Speaking of links or references, can you show me even one link to where I said that they were in "tip-top shape" or "victoms of bankers"? Do you just make this clap trap up or is this really what you think you read?

In any case. I have to learn that some people don't know and just don't want to know.

It's clear you have some facts you have gleaned from some nightly news report. Your reference to the "private jet fiasco" proves that. Odd that the uninformed are often caught phrasing an argument with the same talking points they get from the spoon fed MSM. Only they played up the private jet issue as if it were relevant to the issues at hand. Is that what you took from the meetings in DC as well? The simpleton view that business men who do business on every continent of the planet shouldn't have private jets? Keep suckling at the teet of the MSM and you will continue to make a fool of yourself in front of people that are really informed on the issue. The only "fiasco" involving jets in DC was the fact that do nothing blow hards that have never made a payroll in there lives made it an issue. When you consider that these same blow hards ride around in private corporate jets on their political junkets all the time, it makes it even more absurd that some idiot would quote that as an issue. Enjoy your spoon fed pablum talking points but they dont hold water with those who understand the issues at hand.

Oh and once again, Get your facts straight!

 

[hone eagle]

AS far as the biz jet ,that was a mainstream press "wave the red flag at the bull" no mention of corporate angel flights .When available they fly cancer patients across the country.
Million dollar a year exutives with all the entourage that entails must cost a bundle waiting in airports doing nothing,the jets are much cheaper ,and as far as the luxo interiors,well the one ford had for sale a while ago was two rows of seats front to back in blue fabric.
I'll try and find the picture.Teams fly around in these WORKING the entire time. angels

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: hone eagle
Originally Posted By: hone eagle
Read here Kris and you might not embarass yourself myths


Read some more
you got any links?
besides what your fevered brain cooks up?


He doesn't care about facts.....lol....Later.

 

[hone eagle]

Well I was wrong about the cloth seats ,looks like vinyl to me flightglobel

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Yep, Ford only went to Washington to aid their "brothers in arms" and for nothing else, keep living in the lala land.

So I guess they went along with GM and Chrysler just to say what doom and gloom would auto collapse bring? What about $25 billion of TARP money they wanted a piece of:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/bailout-watch-222-senator-reid-cancels-bailout-bill/

And here is what Mullay and others had to say when Peter Roskam asked the CEO's about their willingness to give some of the perks up:

“So it was hard to feel sorry for the executives when Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), late in the hearing, reminded them again that “the symbolism of the private jet is difficult,” and mischievously asked the witnesses whether, in another symbolic gesture, they would be willing to work for $1 a year, as Nardelli has offered to do.

‘I don’t have a position on that today,’ demurred Wagoner (2007 total compensation: $15.7 million).

‘I understand the intent, but I think where we are is okay,’ said Mulally ($21.7 million).

‘I’m asking about you,’ Roskam pressed.

‘I think I’m okay where I am,’ Mulally said.”
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/bailout-watch-223-washington-post-rips-detroit-a-new-nsfw/

Why would they ask Ford's CEO to give up his perks if he didn't go there to beg for money?

Then in December, when the first try did not work, Ford all of the sudden needed "$9 billion credit line" just in case they run out of money, so yeah, they must've been rolling in dough, right?

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/bailout-watch-227-ford-chrysler-and-gm-asking-for-34b/


And here is the link to the re-tooling LOANS and not grants:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/ford-loves-them-some-federal-loans-expecting-another-51b-doe-loan/

Anybody else with mass amnesia that needs help? Maybe they should start posting some links as well, that is if you remember how to.

You really are funny.....did you even read your own links? Hint, one of them even refers to what I said earlier. Ford had plenty of available cash at the time. They didn't need a loan, they had already gotten their cash on the open market by leveraging the company.

Oh and what about those "electric" loans to the Import builders for the same purpose as the Ford loans. Still no answer from you, was that begging as well????....LOL From the links you posted it would appear that TruthAboutCars is about as concerned with the facts as you are...They aren't! Why did they leave the fact that other builders got those same loans, why did they leave out the fact that those loans and programs from the Feds were set up long before the market/credit crash at the end of 2008?
Are you going to post links to the dailykos or the huffington post next and tell us how 9/11 was an inside job? Could you at least post a link to a ste that isn't giving you half truths in an effort to make Ford look bad?

Please post more links to prove my point....lol

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: hone eagle
Originally Posted By: hone eagle
Not eco but electric ,I was close gov grants


Again- read


And where in the article does it say that these are "grants"? The article clearly says that these are loans, you only read the title.

What you are cleverly omitting is the fact that the loan terms pretty much disqualify any foreign manufacturer, (the plant must be 20 years or older) the only foreign manufacturer that qualified was Nissan, from the article:

"Nissan qualified for the loans because its Smyrna, Tenn., plant is over 20 years old. The Japanese automaker will use the funding to build a battery assembly facility and retool an existing line to build a new electric car starting in 2012."


So these loans were clearly meant for the big three, GM did not get the money because of the bailout and Chrysler was supposed to be saved by Italians, that left only Ford. So if Ford and Nissan never pay off these loans, they were bailed out as well.


As far as the jet planes go, I know that it was all blown out of proportion by media, but I only mentioned that as this was the first round of bailouts and Ford participated in them, which some here claim that Ford never begged for money and that the only went ther to support the other two, which was not the case at all and I am still waiting for someone to prove me otherwise. They did request $9 billion originally and were denied, but if the government did offer the money Ford would've taken it. Can someone show me an article or some othe rproof that Ford never requested $9 billion in "loans"?

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: hone eagle
Originally Posted By: hone eagle
Not eco but electric ,I was close gov grants


Again- read



So these loans were clearly meant for the big three, GM did not get the money because of the bailout and Chrysler was supposed to be saved by Italians, that left only Ford. So if Ford and Nissan never pay off these loans, they were bailed out as well.



Yes you clearly deal in facts....LOL.
Clearly meant for the big three but oddly only Ford got any.......explained by you with some made up from whole cloth theory that doesn't even make sense. I'll try and explain again, these loans and this program was set up long before the bail outs wre even a possibility. In that context can you please explain why didn't GM and Chrysler get any?......You'll need a new theory....Good luck, but keep trying.

 

[KrisZ]

Got any more of these UAW news letter nuggets of wisdom for me? Please educate me.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: hone eagle
Originally Posted By: hone eagle
Not eco but electric ,I was close gov grants


Again- read



.....which some here claim that Ford never begged for money and that the only went ther to support the other two, which was not the case at all and I am still waiting for someone to prove me otherwise. They did request $9 billion originally......?




Once again, you are just simply wrong. No one needs post a link because you have already done that for us. Your link itself contains reference to the fact that Ford didn't need the loans, they were sitting on better than 20 billion....It is fact that Ford had a massive cash reserve at that time and Mullaly repeatedly said that Ford didn't need the loan, they never requested a loan of 9 billion that contained in your own quotes, but you're to set in your thinking to see it......The closest Ford came to requesting a loan was Mullaly said that IF the economy continued to tank and IF the car market didn't recover Ford MAY request a 9 billion line of credit.....But and its a huge but, he always followed that up with saying that he didn't see Ford needing the line of credit. And he was as right as you are wrong now!.....Who here is really doing creative editing, keep trying.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Got any more of these UAW news letter nuggets of wisdom for me? Please educate me.



Remember what they taught you in the third grade about assuming things. You already look like an idiot want to make it an [censored] too?

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Got any more of these UAW news letter nuggets of wisdom for me? Please educate me.



No, but I do have this......

"The Detroit News reports that Senator Harry Reid has thrown in the proverbial towel for the Detroit bailout bill– at least for this week. Thanks to less-than-stellar Congressional testimony by Ford, Chrysler and GM CEOs, their plan to carve-out and carve-up $25b from the fed’s existing $700b bailout fund seems to have, as the Brits put it, come a cropper. “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that he wanted to figure out some way to help Detroit’s struggling Big Three but that efforts to do so had stalled.” That’s a Gulfstream’s gas tanks’ worth of not good for Motown’s mismanagers. Taken literally, it means Reid won’t be following President Bush’s suggestion and perverting the intent of the existing $25b Department of Energy loans– for a quick-fix capital injection. Still, the federal trough is never totally closed to those who spend ten million plus on lobbying. “A bipartisan group from auto industry states is working to cut a deal on a scaled-down aid package. If agreement can be reached, Reid said the Senate could still vote on it as part of a measure to extend jobless benefits.” As the hearings over the last two days established, even $25b isn’t enough to see the D2.8 through next year. Which means that anything less is… a death sentence. Will GM CEO Rick Wagoner sleep well tonight, knowing that it’s game over? “It’s completely due to the credit crisis,” Wagoner said at today’s Senate hearing. So, yes, Tempurpedic bliss for the bailout boys. How messed-up is THAT?....

Thats the first of your three links, from this somehow you know the thinking behind why Ford went to DC. Somehow against all the statements by Ford to the contrary, this is proof that they were begging for cash. Would you at least please read your own links, they prove nothing. And read like they were written by a tenth grader with little knowledge of the facts involved. I can see why you like that site.

 

[LS2JSTS]

And this.....


"We now know why The Big 2.8 postponed their Capitol Hill bailout begging ’til the end of the week: they were waiting for November sales results to up the ante. Automotive News [AN] reports what we glommed-onto earlier: the Motown bailout bill has ballooned by billions. “General Motors, Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC together are asking Congress to approve loans and credit lines that total $34 billion.” So Congress is going to lend three automakers $34b– when the same automakers couldn’t properly assess their financial needs two weeks ago? Yup. “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said automakers will get help. ‘An intervention will happen,’ she said at a Washington news conference. Echoing industry leaders, the California Democrat said bankruptcy is not an option for any of the companies.” To be fair, the privately-held Chrysler corporation’s “request” is, was and will be $7b– which doesn’t make it right (just consistent). And GM that looks like the biggest NSFW; upping its call on the public purse from somewhere between $10b – $12b (what’s a couple of billion between business partners?) to $18b. But the big surprise here is Ford. The Blue Oval Boys are in real danger of over-thinking this one…


“Ford is seeking a $9 billion credit line, but Ford CEO Alan Mulally says the company shouldn’t have to use it unless the economy worsens beyond current expectations. The Ford request is an increase from the $7 billion to $8 billion that Mulally sought from Congress in November… If U.S. industry sales fall dramatically — to 10.2 million light vehicles in 2009, 10.7 million vehicles in 2010 and 11.7 million vehicles in 2011 — Ford said it would need increased funding of up to $13 billion.”

Maybe Big Al can figure that one out whilst sipping miniatures at a Motel 6 somewhere between Detroit and DC....."



This is your second linked quote and it's even more damaging to your argument. Can you read the Mulally quote.....right there from your own link he is clearly saying that he didn't believe Ford would need the credit line, doesn't quite sound like "begging" to me. But dont let that stop you from posting that they were begging over and over and over....How dense are you?

 

[defektes]

Beleive me if Ford had taken a loan I would have to switch to toyota trucks...

 

[JohnBrowning]

Well thisis why I have said that GM needed to go Bankrupt with out a bail out. Only then would it have been able to carve away the cancer. I seen them restructure more times then I change my socks with nothing happening. THey just reshufffle the deck and have more meeting.

In fact GM has so many meetings I used to get upset with them because I had hard time getting my work done because we would have so many darn meetings. Sometimes we would have a meeting just to plan for dates for more meetings!

On top of that often my excustive would voe for someone else's bad program to be funded in exchange for the it vote! So they ended up spending money of failure projects that where about like a bridge to no where just to get a vote.

Their is too much good old boy political stuff going on behind the scenes. So I know they are going to fail again and not that far into the future either. They need to get as far away from their legacy cost as they can and that means retires adn health benifits. The Union is killing them.They can not say that because it is political suicide for them but that is the truth!

I say their idiotic nonsense for close to 7 years. I was in side the highest levels of GM and it was like watching a bunch of clowns get out of the tiny car at the circus it was amuseing and pathetic all at the same time! If you spoke the truth you got fired!