By the way those new commercials for the "new" GM and Chrysler make me sick to my stomach. We are reinventing the American car...yea my [censored].
Will GM and Chrysler Bankruptcy Kill Ford??
- Thread starter parimento1
- Start date
- Status
Probably with a bigger hole in the driver's seat so they can "service" the customer even more "efficiently". I notice a slight pain whenever I get in either of my 2 chevys.
Last edited:
The bailout/bankrupt that is playing out is for the benefit of the UAW and no one else. The normal laws and protocols for a bankruptcy were broken and ignored to the benefit of the UAW. I WILL NOT SUPPORT a government business run by bureaucrats who don't have a clue who to run a business or build a car.
Originally Posted By: swalve
Originally Posted By: benjamming
Originally Posted By: swalve
[snip] SO even though the gov't is doing what they should be doing,[snip]
this is where we disagree...
You're saying the government shouldn't be maintaining control over what it does with taxpayer dollars?
No, not when it comes to running a company. If the Federal Government didn't think GM had what it took to repay the bailout loans, then they shouldn't have given them the loans in the first place.
Why the government feels it doesn't need to run itself like a business remains a mystery to me. The government can't even run the post office (much less themselves), how do they expect to run/influence GM?
When will a successful Fortune 500 CEO run for President? No more career politicians, they have proven they can't get the job done.
Originally Posted By: benjamming
Originally Posted By: swalve
[snip] SO even though the gov't is doing what they should be doing,[snip]
this is where we disagree...
You're saying the government shouldn't be maintaining control over what it does with taxpayer dollars?
No, not when it comes to running a company. If the Federal Government didn't think GM had what it took to repay the bailout loans, then they shouldn't have given them the loans in the first place.
Why the government feels it doesn't need to run itself like a business remains a mystery to me. The government can't even run the post office (much less themselves), how do they expect to run/influence GM?
When will a successful Fortune 500 CEO run for President? No more career politicians, they have proven they can't get the job done.
i agree with edge, today on the news chrysler said they are going to focus on small cars...last week ford said they are going to make vehicles for everyone!!! guess which one iam going to buy? FORD!!! pretty soon the gov will start putting in there cars gm and chrysler little black boxes to control the way one drives!!!...lol...will never give this administration money for a socialists agenda.
Mullaly for President
Originally Posted By: parimento1
By the way those new commercials for the "new" GM and Chrysler make me sick to my stomach. We are reinventing the American car...yea my [censored].
Why anyone looking for a new or used car today even looks at cars from Government Motors or the New Chrysler baffles me.
I very happy to say no one in my family owns a car that is governmnent owned nor do they have any intentions of owning one... No matter how good the deal is.
By the way those new commercials for the "new" GM and Chrysler make me sick to my stomach. We are reinventing the American car...yea my [censored].
Why anyone looking for a new or used car today even looks at cars from Government Motors or the New Chrysler baffles me.
I very happy to say no one in my family owns a car that is governmnent owned nor do they have any intentions of owning one... No matter how good the deal is.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: CROWNVIC4LIFE
Originally Posted By: parimento1
By the way those new commercials for the "new" GM and Chrysler make me sick to my stomach. We are reinventing the American car...yea my [censored].
Why anyone looking for a new or used car today even looks at cars from Government Motors or the New Chrysler baffles me.
I very happy to say no one in my family owns a car that is governmnent owned nor do they have any intentions of owning one... No matter how good the deal is.
Amen.
Originally Posted By: parimento1
By the way those new commercials for the "new" GM and Chrysler make me sick to my stomach. We are reinventing the American car...yea my [censored].
Why anyone looking for a new or used car today even looks at cars from Government Motors or the New Chrysler baffles me.
I very happy to say no one in my family owns a car that is governmnent owned nor do they have any intentions of owning one... No matter how good the deal is.
Amen.
It is gov owned because GM and Chrysler didn't pay attention to business and was ready to go bankrupt. They were the ones that came to the gov for bailout money. They were the ones that had to be forced to make changes because they were going to continue down the same old road. Nobody knows what would have happened if they hadn't been bailed out and gone through this bankruptcy. Anything is at best a guess that is more than likely based on which side of the aisle to are on. For all we know if they had been allowed to failed the loss of jobs from the companies, supporting companies, shareholders and communities might be much worse. If you don't want to buy I guess that is OK, but to say you won't buy because it was bailed out by the gov is hardly a good reason. After all it is YOUR tax dollars that need to be repaid. If one of them have a better deal and reliability it is like cutting off your nose to spite your face not to buy.
If, it had been a loan like was made to Chrysler back when Lee was in charge, and paid back over a period of time, I have no problem with it. But, to basically take over a company, tell the CEO to leave, is not the governments business. Not saying the CEO did not need to leave, but it was the board of directors job to do it, not OB.
It would be like you going to a bank to make a loan for your house and the bank telling you what color to paint it and what kind of furniture to put in it. Oh, and you have to cut the grass with the electric mower we tell you to buy.
No thank you
It would be like you going to a bank to make a loan for your house and the bank telling you what color to paint it and what kind of furniture to put in it. Oh, and you have to cut the grass with the electric mower we tell you to buy.
No thank you
Originally Posted By: 65cuda
After all it is YOUR tax dollars that need to be repaid. If one of them have a better deal and reliability it is like cutting off your nose to spite your face not to buy.
Well said. I don't understand the mentality on this board that many hold on this board that we should shun GM and Chrysler because of the bail out money. Personally, I there isn't any new car from the big three I'd buy now (other than a Crown Vic, if I could get one), and I don't really much care for any of the fullsize trucks on the market. But if I were in the market and GM or Chrysler offered a better deal than Ford, I'd have no hesitations to buy from them.
GM has had serious management issues for years. Read John Delorean's book "On a clear Day You can see General Motors" from the 1970's, and you can see the hand writing on the wall then. None of the big three have ever been known for their management efficiency. However, that doesn't mean I want to see any of the big three companies fail.
Chrysler came back from the brink of death in under Iaccoca, and paid back there loans in full and early. GM and Chrysler need that kind of leadership today to save them.
After all it is YOUR tax dollars that need to be repaid. If one of them have a better deal and reliability it is like cutting off your nose to spite your face not to buy.
Well said. I don't understand the mentality on this board that many hold on this board that we should shun GM and Chrysler because of the bail out money. Personally, I there isn't any new car from the big three I'd buy now (other than a Crown Vic, if I could get one), and I don't really much care for any of the fullsize trucks on the market. But if I were in the market and GM or Chrysler offered a better deal than Ford, I'd have no hesitations to buy from them.
GM has had serious management issues for years. Read John Delorean's book "On a clear Day You can see General Motors" from the 1970's, and you can see the hand writing on the wall then. None of the big three have ever been known for their management efficiency. However, that doesn't mean I want to see any of the big three companies fail.
Chrysler came back from the brink of death in under Iaccoca, and paid back there loans in full and early. GM and Chrysler need that kind of leadership today to save them.
Originally Posted By: Johnny
It would be like you going to a bank to make a loan for your house and the bank telling you what color to paint it and what kind of furniture to put in it. Oh, and you have to cut the grass with the electric mower we tell you to buy.
Exactly!
It would be like you going to a bank to make a loan for your house and the bank telling you what color to paint it and what kind of furniture to put in it. Oh, and you have to cut the grass with the electric mower we tell you to buy.
Exactly!
Actually you do already have that situation. They are called HOA's. You pay them to tell you what color to have your house, what kind of roof on them, whether you can park your boat in the driveway and so on. Considering that the auto companies came to the gov with their begging cup in hand I'd say yes the gov has every right to tell them that someone like Wagoner needs to go. It is quite evident the boards weren't doing their job or they would have done it before. I don't under stand where people get off saying that the gov took over the companies really. The companies asked for the money. The gov said if we give you the money we need a stake in the company to get a return since you evidently don't know how to run the company. The company had the choice of takeing the money or not. They chose to take it so they were the ones that gave the gov a say. Sorry but when you screw up bad enough that is what happens.l
Originally Posted By: Johnny
If, it had been a loan like was made to Chrysler back when Lee was in charge, and paid back over a period of time, I have no problem with it.
And Iacocca paid it back early, and the Gov't made a huge profit to boot. And all the same arguments were made against it in '80 that are being made now. If we followed those arguments in '80, Chrysler would have been dead by '81. Unfortunately, we don't have an Iacocca at the helm this time to convince the upside. And GM's situation is many times worse in magnitude than Chrysler's was in '80.
Iacocca was certainly no saint. The Pinto tends to tarnish him a little. But one thing about Iacocca is that he was a very creative car guy, and came up with novel vehicles that people wanted to buy. Perhaps not the K car (which he inherited) and its 100 iterations, but the minivan and the pony car were brilliant concepts. The minivan is what turned Chrysler in the '80s. We need that creativity now, and I just don't see it happening in Detroit at other than FoMoCo.
Originally Posted By: Johnny
It would be like you going to a bank to make a loan for your house and the bank telling you what color to paint it and what kind of furniture to put in it. Oh, and you have to cut the grass with the electric mower we tell you to buy.
Not quite. When you take out a home loan, the lender typically requires that you carry certain insurance coverages and demands arrangements to insure that the taxes get paid. On new construction, they expect the building to meet code and will withhold draws if it is not. It's a matter of degree as to what is required to protect the lender's interest. They generally don't micromanage. Hopefully, the Gov't won't either. They can learn from the Iacocca experience, too, by staying out of the way.
If, it had been a loan like was made to Chrysler back when Lee was in charge, and paid back over a period of time, I have no problem with it.
And Iacocca paid it back early, and the Gov't made a huge profit to boot. And all the same arguments were made against it in '80 that are being made now. If we followed those arguments in '80, Chrysler would have been dead by '81. Unfortunately, we don't have an Iacocca at the helm this time to convince the upside. And GM's situation is many times worse in magnitude than Chrysler's was in '80.
Iacocca was certainly no saint. The Pinto tends to tarnish him a little. But one thing about Iacocca is that he was a very creative car guy, and came up with novel vehicles that people wanted to buy. Perhaps not the K car (which he inherited) and its 100 iterations, but the minivan and the pony car were brilliant concepts. The minivan is what turned Chrysler in the '80s. We need that creativity now, and I just don't see it happening in Detroit at other than FoMoCo.
Originally Posted By: Johnny
It would be like you going to a bank to make a loan for your house and the bank telling you what color to paint it and what kind of furniture to put in it. Oh, and you have to cut the grass with the electric mower we tell you to buy.
Not quite. When you take out a home loan, the lender typically requires that you carry certain insurance coverages and demands arrangements to insure that the taxes get paid. On new construction, they expect the building to meet code and will withhold draws if it is not. It's a matter of degree as to what is required to protect the lender's interest. They generally don't micromanage. Hopefully, the Gov't won't either. They can learn from the Iacocca experience, too, by staying out of the way.
Originally Posted By: Volvohead
They generally don't micromanage. Hopefully, the Gov't won't either. They can learn from the Iacocca experience, too, by staying out of the way.
I'm hoping Santa comes early this year myself...
They generally don't micromanage. Hopefully, the Gov't won't either. They can learn from the Iacocca experience, too, by staying out of the way.
I'm hoping Santa comes early this year myself...
The companies asked for loans, but the govt did not have to give them.
Like has already been said, if the gov. really believed GM was incapable of paying the loans back then they shouldn't have given them in the first place.
Stupid decision or premeditated power grab?
Like has already been said, if the gov. really believed GM was incapable of paying the loans back then they shouldn't have given them in the first place.
Stupid decision or premeditated power grab?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Originally Posted By: jsharp
Originally Posted By: Volvohead
They generally don't micromanage. Hopefully, the Gov't won't either. They can learn from the Iacocca experience, too, by staying out of the way.
I'm hoping Santa comes early this year myself...
As much as I'm undecided on which would be worse (there is no "better") ..I'll share jsharp's chuckle in knowing that the administration is going to tweak the relationship til it screams for mercy.
Originally Posted By: Volvohead
They generally don't micromanage. Hopefully, the Gov't won't either. They can learn from the Iacocca experience, too, by staying out of the way.
I'm hoping Santa comes early this year myself...
As much as I'm undecided on which would be worse (there is no "better") ..I'll share jsharp's chuckle in knowing that the administration is going to tweak the relationship til it screams for mercy.
Lets see
A warehouse to close in Barny Franks state -na ah. One call to GM its now underconsideration
GM wanted to bring in small cars from China?(quik and simple problem solved)
na ah ,union balked,not going to happen now
Two early examples of "non interferance"
A warehouse to close in Barny Franks state -na ah. One call to GM its now underconsideration
GM wanted to bring in small cars from China?(quik and simple problem solved)
na ah ,union balked,not going to happen now
Two early examples of "non interferance"
Originally Posted By: Johnny
It would be like you going to a bank to make a loan for your house and the bank telling you what color to paint it and what kind of furniture to put in it. Oh, and you have to cut the grass with the electric mower we tell you to buy.
Your choice of paint, furniture, or mower is unlikely to affect your ability to pay back the loan, which is what the bank cares about.
But GM's choice of what cars to produce could very definitely affect their ability to pay back their loan.
It would be like you going to a bank to make a loan for your house and the bank telling you what color to paint it and what kind of furniture to put in it. Oh, and you have to cut the grass with the electric mower we tell you to buy.
Your choice of paint, furniture, or mower is unlikely to affect your ability to pay back the loan, which is what the bank cares about.
But GM's choice of what cars to produce could very definitely affect their ability to pay back their loan.
- Status
