PDA

View Full Version : Peeloski Uses ObamaCare Waivers to Pay Back Constituents



soonercruiser
5/17/2011, 04:20 PM
So, one Representative gets 20% of the waivers?????



Nearly 20 percent of new Obamacare waivers are gourmet restaurants, nightclubs, fancy hotels in Nancy Pelosi’s district
Published: 12:07 AM 05/17/2011 | Updated: 11:25 AM 05/17/2011

Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district.

That’s in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services approved.

Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didn’t have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received Obamacare waivers.

Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments. But Pelosi’s district’s waivers are the first major examples of luxurious, gourmet restaurants and hotels getting a year-long pass from Obamacare.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/17/nearly-20-percent-of-new-obamacare-waivers-are-gourmet-restaurants-nightclubs-fancy-hotels-in-nancy-pelosi%E2%80%99s-district/

SoCaliSooner
5/17/2011, 04:25 PM
Sorry, that is California politics and we can only get our opinion after StoopTroup tells us what's going on here in my state.

Sooner_Tuf
5/17/2011, 07:27 PM
I wish I had my own state.

soonercruiser
5/17/2011, 10:34 PM
Sorry, that is California politics and we can only get our opinion after StoopTroup tells us what's going on here in my state.

I hear ya' SoCali!
But, after all....he does have a much bigger....."attitude"!
:O

2121Sooner
5/17/2011, 10:46 PM
But but but.......Obama killed Osama


Only Obama could take such a political coup and F it up

The Profit
5/17/2011, 11:12 PM
But but but.......Obama killed Osama


Only Obama could take such a political coup and F it up




Yep, he did; deader than a friggin doornail.

2121Sooner
5/17/2011, 11:31 PM
Yep, he did; deader than a friggin doornail.

Than God

I don't care for Obama's programs as implemented due to the financial impact for generations to come, but he nutted up and made a gutsy call to kill that mother F'er

Good work on his part

Caboose
5/17/2011, 11:38 PM
Than God

I don't care for Obama's programs as implemented due to the financial impact for generations to come, but he nutted up and made a gutsy call to kill that mother F'er

Good work on his part

I hardly see what was so gutsy about the call. Anyone would have made it.

texaspokieokie
5/18/2011, 08:59 AM
I hardly see what was so gutsy about the call. Anyone would have made it.

all he had to do was say "yes", others did all the work.

The Profit
5/18/2011, 09:03 AM
I hardly see what was so gutsy about the call. Anyone would have made it.




No, anyone would not have made it. Had Bin Laden not been there, Obama would have been a laughing stock. The GOP would have done to him just what they did to Clinton, when he sent the cruse missiles to kill Bin Laden and failed. The secretary of defense, who has worked for 4 or 5 different presidents, the CIA, etc., said it was the gutsiest move he had ever seen. I will take his word for it instead of your's.

soonerhubs
5/18/2011, 09:12 AM
No, anyone would not have made it. Had Bin Laden not been there, Obama would have been a laughing stock. The GOP would have done to him just what they did to Clinton, when he sent the cruse missiles to kill Bin Laden and failed. The secretary of defense, who has worked for 4 or 5 different presidents, the CIA, etc., said it was the gutsiest move he had ever seen. I will take his word for it instead of your's.

:D :D Do we want a president who takes such "gutsy" risks? ;) ;)

The Profit
5/18/2011, 09:13 AM
:D :D Do we want a president who takes such "gutsy" risks? ;) ;)




It worked for Truman.

texaspokieokie
5/18/2011, 09:16 AM
it was no more "gutsy" than when jimmy carter did a similar thing, to rescue the hostages.

i don't remember people making fun of carter (maybe they did, but don't remember it) when his plan flopped.

soonerhubs
5/18/2011, 09:16 AM
I'm glad he made the call that he did, and I'm grateful to the special forces and troops everywhere.

I think this thread is about how a certain former speaker of the house had the United States tax payers subsidize kickbacks for constituents in her state. That's a far cry from the "no more pork" mantra that was so big back during the 08 election season.


... and yes I know this is nothing new in the political scheme of things. However, longevity in corruption doesn't make it right.

delhalew
5/18/2011, 09:17 AM
So you only have to suffer under this law if you're not swinging Obama's nuts? I feel like they skipped that part during the "debates".

texaspokieokie
5/18/2011, 09:17 AM
Truman absolutely made the right call, & it was the "gutsiest" !!
JMHO
Kennedy also made a "gutsy" call.

The Profit
5/18/2011, 09:18 AM
it was no more "gutsy" than when jimmy carter did a similar thing, to rescue the hostages.

i don't remember people making fun of carter (maybe they did, but don't remember it) when his plan flopped.




Jimmy Carter received 100 percent of the blame for that failed mission, and Obama would have received 100 percent of the blame if the mission to kill Bin Laden would have failed.

Viking Kitten
5/18/2011, 09:19 AM
it was no more "gutsy" than when jimmy carter did a similar thing, to rescue the hostages.

i don't remember people making fun of carter (maybe they did, but don't remember it) when his plan flopped.

You are either very young or very forgetful.

texaspokieokie
5/18/2011, 09:21 AM
Jimmy Carter received 100 percent of the blame for that failed mission, and Obama would have received 100 percent of the blame if the mission to kill Bin Laden would have failed.

don't remember him being made fun of. (oops)

it wasn't carters fault, it was a lot of bad luck.

Reagen gave carter the credit when the hostages were released.

The Profit
5/18/2011, 09:23 AM
don't remember him being made fun of. (oops)

it wasn't carters fault, it was a lot of bad luck.

Reagen gave carter the credit when the hostages were released.




You really have no memory of what happened. Reagan gave Carter absolutely zero credit when the hostages were released. In fact, it was arranged that the hostages would not be released until after Reagan was inaugurated.

texaspokieokie
5/18/2011, 09:23 AM
You are either very young or very forgetful.

neither.
pelosi is a lying cheating thieving bitch.

Viking Kitten
5/18/2011, 09:37 AM
pelosi is a typical politician.

FIFY.

Position Limit
5/18/2011, 09:39 AM
You really have no memory of what happened. Reagan gave Carter absolutely zero credit when the hostages were released. In fact, it was arranged that the hostages would not be released until after Reagan was inaugurated.

reagan was a complete appeaser to terrorist. another massive hole in the few tenets of the current republican party.

cccasooner2
5/18/2011, 09:45 AM
reagan was a complete appeaser to terrorist. another massive hole in the few tenets of the current republican party.

I think his son was going to make Bedtime for Bonzo into a ballet. Don't know if it ever happened though.

Caboose
5/18/2011, 10:01 AM
No, anyone would not have made it. Had Bin Laden not been there, Obama would have been a laughing stock. The GOP would have done to him just what they did to Clinton, when he sent the cruse missiles to kill Bin Laden and failed. The secretary of defense, who has worked for 4 or 5 different presidents, the CIA, etc., said it was the gutsiest move he had ever seen. I will take his word for it instead of your's.

So you are essentially saying Obama is gutsy because he put his personal political future in as high a regard as doing the right thing and killing Bin Laden. Thank you for illustrating what a scumbag your community organizer in chief is.

And for the record, the criticism of Clinton was not because his cruise missiles failed... but that after that failure he didnt do anything else. He just gave up...thus broadcasting to the world that the US is a paper tiger and that terrorist attacks upon Americans citizens would not bring about retaliation.

Again, you can say it is "gutsy" all you want... but anyone except the most self-centered, egotistical, scumbag CAREER politician would have said YES in a heartbeat. The fact that Obama evidently struggled with it for so long should pretty much tell you all you need to know about his priorities.

delhalew
5/18/2011, 10:06 AM
Screw Bin laden and Jimmy Carter. How many more groups get to skate on this POS law, while we are left to pay for it?

The Profit
5/18/2011, 10:06 AM
So you are essentially saying Obama is gutsy because he put his personal political future in as high a regard as doing the right thing and killing Bin Laden. Thank you for illustrating what a scumbag your community organizer in chief is.

And for the record, the criticism of Clinton was not because his cruise missiles failed... but that after that failure he didnt do anything else. He just gave up...thus broadcasting to the world that the US is a paper tiger and that terrorist attacks upon Americans citizens would not bring about retaliation.

Again, you can say it is "gutsy" all you want... but anyone except the most self-centered, egotistical, scumbag CAREER politician would have said YES in a heartbeat. The fact that Obama evidently struggled with it for so long should pretty much tell you all you need to know about his priorities.




One question for you...When the CIA told George W. Bush that we had Bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora, why did he not give the command to kill him? Does that mean that George W. Bush was a "self-centered, egotistical, scumbag career politician?"

Caboose
5/18/2011, 10:16 AM
One question for you...When the CIA told George W. Bush that we had Bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora, why did he not give the command to kill him? Does that mean that George W. Bush was a "self-centered, egotistical, scumbag career politician?"

Who cares? Did you give Bush credit for making a gutsy call?

REDREX
5/18/2011, 10:27 AM
One thing for sure---When it comes to the economy Obama is the second coming of Jimmy Carter

The Profit
5/18/2011, 10:28 AM
Who cares? Did you give Bush credit for making a gutsy call?




I don't remember him ever making a gutsy call.

The Profit
5/18/2011, 10:34 AM
One thing for sure---When it comes to the economy Obama is the second coming of Jimmy Carter




Oh really? How many jobs was this nation losing per month when Obama took office? It was really a great economy that George W. Bush created, wasn't it? Obama has done just fine, which is why he will be reelected. Besides, your side has no candidate.

REDREX
5/18/2011, 10:40 AM
Oh really? How many jobs was this nation losing per month when Obama took office? It was really a great economy that George W. Bush created, wasn't it? Obama has done just fine, which is why he will be reelected. Besides, your side has no candidate.---The Trillion $ stimulus package was a total failure and his economic team is a joke----Lets see Bush number one had a 90% approval rating and lost and no way that Hillary could lose 18 months before the election---The election is a long way off and the economy is not improving

Caboose
5/18/2011, 10:40 AM
I don't remember him ever making a gutsy call.

But what if he the attack had failed? Didn't he have to consider the political ramifications? The Left would have blamed him completely had the attack failed... blah blah blah... did you already forget the excuses you made for Obama? Double-standard much?

REDREX
5/18/2011, 10:42 AM
Obama ---The second coming of Rambo

The Profit
5/18/2011, 10:43 AM
But what if he the attack had failed? Didn't he have to consider the political ramifications? The Left would have blamed him completely had the attack failed... blah blah blah... did you already forget the excuses you made for Obama? Double-standard much?



I didn't need to make any excuses for President Obama. He showed that he had the guts to make a tough call. He knew it could fail, but he took the political risk. He made exactly the kind of assertive call that you want a president to make.

The Profit
5/18/2011, 10:47 AM
---The Trillion $ stimulus package was a total failure and his economic team is a joke----Lets see Bush number one had a 90% approval rating and lost and no way that Hillary could lose 18 months before the election---The election is a long way off and the economy is not improving




Nearly every economic expert in the United States is on record as saying that the US economy is improving. Employment is rising, factory orders are up, the Big-3 auto manufacturers are making profits. In what world are you living?

sappstuf
5/18/2011, 10:50 AM
Nearly every economic expert in the United States is on record as saying that the US economy is improving. Employment is rising, factory orders are up, the Big-3 auto manufacturers are making profits. In what world are you living?

It must have been the Bush tax cuts that the Dems finally agreed was a good thing and extended...

The Profit
5/18/2011, 10:52 AM
It must have been the Bush tax cuts that the Dems finally agreed was a good thing and extended...




They won't be extended again.

TheBobbyTrain
5/18/2011, 10:54 AM
*insert politically charged post that isn't relevant to the OP*

The Profit
5/18/2011, 10:55 AM
*insert politically charged post that isn't relevant to the OP*




The orignal post was penned by a guy with a funny car that no one takes seriously. It was no sin to hijack his original missive.

REDREX
5/18/2011, 10:55 AM
Nearly every economic expert in the United States is on record as saying that the US economy is improving. Employment is rising, factory orders are up, the Big-3 auto manufacturers are making profits. In what world are you living?---The real world -- GM is making money only due to Gov't bailouts that will never be repaid . If the economy is improving why is whe construction industry so bad and unemployment at 9%?---not to mention the growth rate being so low--- less than half of the rate seen in other recoveries. Obama has trashed the dollar and done nothing but pile on debt

sappstuf
5/18/2011, 10:57 AM
They won't be extended again.

It was a gutsy call by Obama to admit that Bush's approach was right on taxes.. Gitmo.. Military Tribunals.. Preemptive strikes on countries.. Rendition..

Gutsy.

The Profit
5/18/2011, 11:01 AM
---The real world -- GM is making money only due to Gov't bailouts that will never be repaid . If the economy is improving why is whe construction industry so bad and unemployment at 9%?---not to mention the growth rate being so low--- less than half of the rate seen in other recoveries. Obama has trashed the dollar and done nothing but pile on debt




The total GM bailout turned out to be less than $25 billion, and GM has already paid back more than $8 billion. The total amount will be repaid within the next 3 years. All-in-all, the outlay to keep the US automakers afloat was much less than the amount spent in the 1980's by the first Bush administration to bail out the savings and loan industry.

REDREX
5/18/2011, 11:07 AM
The total GM bailout turned out to be less than $25 billion, and GM has already paid back more than $8 billion. The total amount will be repaid within the next 3 years. All-in-all, the outlay to keep the US automakers afloat was much less than the amount spent in the 1980's by the first Bush administration to bail out the savings and loan industry.---Wrong again---The Gov't has $50 Billion in GM---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704803604576078501503246420.html

The Profit
5/18/2011, 11:24 AM
This is some very recent news regarding GM and Chrysler. It comes to us from Fox Business News, which cannot be construed as a liberal media source. It just shows what a brilliant decision our dear president made. These revitalized companies are putting good Americans back to work.




GM, Chrysler Back From the Dead
By Dunstan Prial

Published May 05, 2011
FOXBusiness


General Motors Corp. (GM: 31.56, +0.46, +1.48%), for decades the No. 1 car seller in the world, has been derided in recent years as ‘Government Motors.’ Meanwhile, fellow Big Three Detroit auto maker Chrysler was all but left for dead.

Then, as quickly as you can say bankruptcy, all that has apparently changed.

Just two years removed from Chapter 11 both companies are profitable again and looking to reclaim their dominant positions in the revitalized global car market.

Perhaps more than any other factor -- downsized operations, fresh leadership, new product lineups -- GM’s and Chrysler’s revivals can be attributed to the mountains of debt that disappeared when the two companies emerged from bankruptcy in mid-2009.

“Bankruptcy allowed them to shed an enormous amount of debt,” said Bill Visnick, an analyst with auto research firm Edmunds.com.

GM was carrying about $65 billion in liabilities when it filed for Chapter 11 protection, according to court filings, while the much smaller Chrysler owed $6.9 billion to its creditors. Restructuring that debt meant the two companies could vastly reduce their debt service payments and direct that money elsewhere into their operations.

If not for that debt restructuring, it’s highly unlikely either company would have generated a profit for many years regardless of their respective Draconian cost cutting measures. And that’s if they survived at all.

“Both companies vastly restructured their balance sheets. That debt had been hanging over their heads for decades, cutting into their profits and weighing on their balance sheets in many other ways,” said Visnick.

On Thursday, GM said its first quarter profits had tripled from a year earlier, soaring to $3.2 billion during the first three months of 2011, up from $900 million a year ago. It was the fifth straight profitable quarter for GM.

Chrysler on Monday reported its first profitable quarter since it, too, emerged from a government orchestrated bankruptcy in the summer of 2009. Actually, it was Chrysler’s first profitable quarter since 2006.

What’s more, both companies are inching closer to paying back their controversial government bailouts. GM has paid off nearly half of the $50 billion in taxpayer funds it received at the height of the financial crisis, and Chrysler is currently negotiating private loans and a debt offering in an effort to pay off the $7 billion it received from the U.S. and Canadian governments.

The Chrysler turnaround is perhaps even more remarkable than GM's. In the first quarter, Chrysler took in $116 million after losing $197 million during the same quarter a year ago. The company’s revenue jumped 35% to $13.1 billion primarily due to an 18% increase in global sales of its vehicles.

Yet less than two years ago, Chrysler’s long-term viability was in serious doubt. In fact, if Italian carmaker Fiat hadn’t stepped in as a partner it’s very likely Chrysler wouldn’t have survived.

Timing has also played an important role in GM’s and Chrysler’s turnaround.

Certainly the earthquake and tsunami that devastated coastal regions of northern Japan in March have provided an opportunity for American car makers to play catch up with Toyota (TM: 81.14, -0.23, -0.28%) and Honda. But the foundation for a reversal of fortune was being laid well before disaster struck in Japan.

“GM and Chrysler entered and emerged from bankruptcy at perhaps the perfect time, getting a fresh start at the bottom of a down economic cycle,” said auto industry expert David Magee, author of the book How Toyota Became #1.

After decades of allowing costs to soar, the bankruptcy proceeding forced both companies to do what they should have done years ago: slash payrolls, close factories and cut their product lines.

In other words, they aligned their operations and costs with actual demand for their products. Consequently, in the past two years they’ve been making just enough cars to meet demand without creating inventory surpluses. That’s allowed them to price the cars at a level that in turn generates a profit.

In the past, both GM and Chrysler -- especially GM -- were churning out far too many vehicles, which resulted in bloated inventories at dealerships. Those surpluses required dealers to slash prices to levels that cut deeply into profits.

GM and Chrysler are doing something else: they’re making cars Americans want to buy. Namely, smaller, more fuel-efficient models.

“GM was quickly in gear with smaller cars, the Cruze being a prime example,” said Magee.

The Cruze, which is priced moderately at around $16,500 and gets about 36 miles per gallon on the highway, was credited by GM as a significant contributor to its strong first quarter numbers.

Chrysler is retooling several of its popular Jeep models to reflect the shift away from gas guzzlers, and is reportedly planning to add a 40-mile-per-gallon small car to its Dodge brand in the next year or two.

Ford (NYSE: F), which alone among the Big Three U.S. car makers never needed a bailout, was well ahead of its Detroit competitors in this area. Even its wildly popular F-Series pickups have been refitted in recent years with more fuel efficient engines, and the Ford Focus has emerged as a perennial best seller now that car buyers are once again trying to cut down on gas costs.

It may have taken a financial crisis and a near-death experience for GM and Chrysler, but both companies seem to have finally gotten the message.

CrimsonCream
5/18/2011, 12:12 PM
---The Trillion $ stimulus package was a total failure and his economic team is a joke..

One cannot talk rationally with the blind Kool aid drinkers. They are nothing but robotic lemmings who eagerly lap up the continuous lies, distortions and half truths of Obama.

To say that Reagan was an appeaser is nothing short of laughable. Was Reagan not the man who shot a couple of missiles into Gadaffi's home? Was not Reagan the man responsible for getting the Berlin Wall torn down.

It is truly sad that some of these guys actually believe the stuff they spew.

Turd_Ferguson
5/18/2011, 12:18 PM
One cannot talk rationally with the blind Kool aid drinkers. They are nothing but robotic lemmings who eagerly lap up the continuous lies, distortions and half truths of Obama.

To say that Reagan was an appeaser is nothing short of laughable. Was Reagan not the man who shot a couple of missiles into Gadaffi's home? Was not Reagan the man responsible for getting the Berlin Wall torn down.

It is truly sad that some of these guys actually believe the stuff they spew.IBTL...this will really set them off:D

The Profit
5/18/2011, 12:24 PM
IBTL...this will really set them off:D



Only from the standpoint that it was a ludicrous statement to make. I happened to be in Berlin the day the wall started coming down. In fact, I was there before the major news networks arrived. Reagan was already retired and at home suffering from Alzheimer's when the wall came down. I will give him credit for being one of the many presidents, who served during the cold war, but he did nothing extraordinary to cause the collapse of East Germany.

soonercruiser
5/18/2011, 01:47 PM
Nearly every economic expert in the United States is on record as saying that the US economy is improving. Employment is rising, factory orders are up, the Big-3 auto manufacturers are making profits. In what world are you living?

Profit!
We are living in a country that has outspent it's debt ceiling!
We are living in a country where the national unemployment figure is above 9%!
We are in a country where the socialist President hasn't a clue how to fix the massive debt related to social programs!

soonercruiser
5/18/2011, 01:49 PM
The orignal post was penned by a guy with a funny car that no one takes seriously. It was no sin to hijack his original missive.

An YOU, Profit, are such a smart socialist and Alinskyian!
You would follow any Demoncratic President over the cliff into the ocean.
(lemming)

What funny car???

The Profit
5/18/2011, 01:49 PM
Profit!
We are living in a country that has outspent it's debt ceiling!
We are living in a country where the national unemployment figure is above 9%!
We are in a country where the socialist President hasn't a clue how to fix the massive debt related to social programs!




Oh, go away. You are silly, and so is your car. You are a government worker, and part of the problem.

REDREX
5/18/2011, 02:27 PM
One cannot talk rationally with the blind Kool aid drinkers. They are nothing but robotic lemmings who eagerly lap up the continuous lies, distortions and half truths of Obama.

To say that Reagan was an appeaser is nothing short of laughable. Was Reagan not the man who shot a couple of missiles into Gadaffi's home? Was not Reagan the man responsible for getting the Berlin Wall torn down.

It is truly sad that some of these guys actually believe the stuff they spew.----OBOTS

CrimsonCream
5/18/2011, 03:16 PM
but he did nothing extraordinary to cause the collapse of East Germany.

Revisionist history, huh?

In a speech at the Brandenburg Gate commemorating the 750th anniversary of Berlin on June 12, 1987, Ronald Reagan challenged Mikhail Gorbachev, then the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, to tear down the wall as a symbol of increasing freedom in the Eastern Bloc.

"We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace.

There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate.

Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

pphilfran
5/18/2011, 03:19 PM
This is some very recent news regarding GM and Chrysler. It comes to us from Fox Business News, which cannot be construed as a liberal media source. It just shows what a brilliant decision our dear president made. These revitalized companies are putting good Americans back to work.




GM, Chrysler Back From the Dead
By Dunstan Prial

Published May 05, 2011
FOXBusiness


General Motors Corp. (GM: 31.56, +0.46, +1.48%), for decades the No. 1 car seller in the world, has been derided in recent years as ‘Government Motors.’ Meanwhile, fellow Big Three Detroit auto maker Chrysler was all but left for dead.

Then, as quickly as you can say bankruptcy, all that has apparently changed.

Just two years removed from Chapter 11 both companies are profitable again and looking to reclaim their dominant positions in the revitalized global car market.

Perhaps more than any other factor -- downsized operations, fresh leadership, new product lineups -- GM’s and Chrysler’s revivals can be attributed to the mountains of debt that disappeared when the two companies emerged from bankruptcy in mid-2009.

“Bankruptcy allowed them to shed an enormous amount of debt,” said Bill Visnick, an analyst with auto research firm Edmunds.com.

GM was carrying about $65 billion in liabilities when it filed for Chapter 11 protection, according to court filings, while the much smaller Chrysler owed $6.9 billion to its creditors. Restructuring that debt meant the two companies could vastly reduce their debt service payments and direct that money elsewhere into their operations.

If not for that debt restructuring, it’s highly unlikely either company would have generated a profit for many years regardless of their respective Draconian cost cutting measures. And that’s if they survived at all.

“Both companies vastly restructured their balance sheets. That debt had been hanging over their heads for decades, cutting into their profits and weighing on their balance sheets in many other ways,” said Visnick.

On Thursday, GM said its first quarter profits had tripled from a year earlier, soaring to $3.2 billion during the first three months of 2011, up from $900 million a year ago. It was the fifth straight profitable quarter for GM.

Chrysler on Monday reported its first profitable quarter since it, too, emerged from a government orchestrated bankruptcy in the summer of 2009. Actually, it was Chrysler’s first profitable quarter since 2006.

What’s more, both companies are inching closer to paying back their controversial government bailouts. GM has paid off nearly half of the $50 billion in taxpayer funds it received at the height of the financial crisis, and Chrysler is currently negotiating private loans and a debt offering in an effort to pay off the $7 billion it received from the U.S. and Canadian governments.

The Chrysler turnaround is perhaps even more remarkable than GM's. In the first quarter, Chrysler took in $116 million after losing $197 million during the same quarter a year ago. The company’s revenue jumped 35% to $13.1 billion primarily due to an 18% increase in global sales of its vehicles.

Yet less than two years ago, Chrysler’s long-term viability was in serious doubt. In fact, if Italian carmaker Fiat hadn’t stepped in as a partner it’s very likely Chrysler wouldn’t have survived.

Timing has also played an important role in GM’s and Chrysler’s turnaround.

Certainly the earthquake and tsunami that devastated coastal regions of northern Japan in March have provided an opportunity for American car makers to play catch up with Toyota (TM: 81.14, -0.23, -0.28%) and Honda. But the foundation for a reversal of fortune was being laid well before disaster struck in Japan.

“GM and Chrysler entered and emerged from bankruptcy at perhaps the perfect time, getting a fresh start at the bottom of a down economic cycle,” said auto industry expert David Magee, author of the book How Toyota Became #1.

After decades of allowing costs to soar, the bankruptcy proceeding forced both companies to do what they should have done years ago: slash payrolls, close factories and cut their product lines.

In other words, they aligned their operations and costs with actual demand for their products. Consequently, in the past two years they’ve been making just enough cars to meet demand without creating inventory surpluses. That’s allowed them to price the cars at a level that in turn generates a profit.

In the past, both GM and Chrysler -- especially GM -- were churning out far too many vehicles, which resulted in bloated inventories at dealerships. Those surpluses required dealers to slash prices to levels that cut deeply into profits.

GM and Chrysler are doing something else: they’re making cars Americans want to buy. Namely, smaller, more fuel-efficient models.

“GM was quickly in gear with smaller cars, the Cruze being a prime example,” said Magee.

The Cruze, which is priced moderately at around $16,500 and gets about 36 miles per gallon on the highway, was credited by GM as a significant contributor to its strong first quarter numbers.

Chrysler is retooling several of its popular Jeep models to reflect the shift away from gas guzzlers, and is reportedly planning to add a 40-mile-per-gallon small car to its Dodge brand in the next year or two.

Ford (NYSE: F), which alone among the Big Three U.S. car makers never needed a bailout, was well ahead of its Detroit competitors in this area. Even its wildly popular F-Series pickups have been refitted in recent years with more fuel efficient engines, and the Ford Focus has emerged as a perennial best seller now that car buyers are once again trying to cut down on gas costs.

It may have taken a financial crisis and a near-death experience for GM and Chrysler, but both companies seem to have finally gotten the message.

They are both doing well...too bad Chrysler is no longer a US owned company...

The Profit
5/18/2011, 03:23 PM
Revisionist history, huh?

In a speech at the Brandenburg Gate commemorating the 750th anniversary of Berlin on June 12, 1987, Ronald Reagan challenged Mikhail Gorbachev, then the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, to tear down the wall as a symbol of increasing freedom in the Eastern Bloc.

"We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace.

There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate.

Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"



The wall didn't come down for years after Reagan read Peggy Noonan's words.

CrimsonCream
5/18/2011, 03:50 PM
The wall didn't come down for years after Reagan read Peggy Noonan's words.

Wrong again.

The accepted date of the beginning of the demolition of the Berlin Wall was September 9, 1989. Reagan had been out of Office for nine months.

Don't all Presidents read someone else's words? Where would your guy Obama be without his teleprompter?

CrimsonCream
5/18/2011, 03:57 PM
Oh, go away. You are silly, and so is your car. You are a government worker, and part of the problem.

At first, I thought you were talking about yourself inasmuch as you work for a company that is on the taxpayer teat.

The reason that Government Motors needed the bailout was because it made too many silly cars that nobody wanted.

The Profit
5/18/2011, 04:11 PM
At first, I thought you were talking about yourself inasmuch as you work for a company that is on the taxpayer teat.

The reason that Government Motors needed the bailout was because it made too many silly cars that nobody wanted.




My business is only on the taxpayer teat when the taxpayer wants it to be on its teat (i.e. bond elections).

GM certainly made some bad cars, as did Ford and Chrysler, however that wasn't the only problem. The economy, which was literally killed by the George W. Bush administration, had something to do with it as well.

CrimsonCream
5/18/2011, 04:13 PM
GM certainly made some bad cars, as did Ford and Chrysler, however that wasn't the only problem. The economy, which was literally killed by the George W. Bush administration, had something to do with it as well.

Ford didn't take the handout.

Profit, have a good evening.

The Profit
5/18/2011, 04:19 PM
Ford didn't take the handout.

Profit, have a good evening.




I never said that Ford took a handout. I said that Ford was also guilty of making bad cars. A course in reading comprehension might help you greatly. Good evening to you as well.

Sooner5030
5/18/2011, 04:35 PM
The economy, which was literally killed by the George W. Bush administration, had something to do with it as well.

first of all if an admin wanted to kill the government (don't even start with the economy) they couldn't do it alone without the ok from the legislature and the judicial.......at least that's what I learned in my okie civics class back in fifth grade.

parties and ideologies are not the problem......it's our culture and society that has caused both our financial and gubment problems.

-unwillingness to save

-willingness to continue and leverage yourself against an asset that has over appreciated in prior years

-willingness to rely on selling services to folks that take part in the first 2

-lack of family focus on education

-lack of individual responsibility for ones health and well being (diet and exercise yo)

-personal financial management in general

bigfatjerk
5/18/2011, 04:54 PM
More government control has not helped the problem. More government control which is what Obama and Bush both brought has hurt. That's the goal of central planning. It's meant to disrupt a free market system which is what we as a country were always built on. Central planning and big government is completely against free market capitalism there for the 2 aren't compatible and when you try to make a system where both of them somehow work you get a f****d up situation like we have.

The Profit
5/18/2011, 04:59 PM
More government control has not helped the problem. More government control which is what Obama and Bush both brought has hurt. That's the goal of central planning. It's meant to disrupt a free market system which is what we as a country were always built on. Central planning and big government is completely against free market capitalism there for the 2 aren't compatible and when you try to make a system where both of them somehow work you get a f****d up situation like we have.




A lack of regulations designed to prevent corporate greed is what created this mess. I am a capitalist, but I know that capitalism without regulations, creates chaos.

pphilfran
5/18/2011, 05:01 PM
A lack of regulations designed to prevent corporate greed is what created this mess. I am a capitalist, but I know that capitalism without regulations, creates chaos.

Lack of proper auditing was also a prime reason...