PDA

View Full Version : GM and Chrysler Bailouts 3.5 yrs after



RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/27/2012, 03:19 PM
Just an FYI for whomever wants to know.

The loan was started by Bush as a quick hit, to save GM and Chrysler from going under. Ford was included in the discussions about a bailout, but wanted nothing to do with the governments ability to control things. The bailout was handled mostly by Obama, of which shortly thereafter, he put it on steroids, claiming more government control than was ever intended. Along the way, came more bailouts, more bailouts, and more bailouts, and insider croniism in the form of

1)bailout for Union pensions

Ford doesn't have this welfare

2)bailout for the Unions insurance plan

Ford doesn't have this welfare

3)No taxes paid by GM

Ford doesn't have this welfare

4)a guarantee of no Union labor negotiations in the near future

Ford doesn't have this luxury

5)stocks of GM and Chrysler were stripped from their original owners, pennys on the dollar, and then sold to Union cronies at a reduced price.

Ford's stockholders were not stolen from, and a hypothetical set of new stockholders weren't given this luxury.

GM and Chrysler have paid back their loan and part of their bailout, but still owe the American taxpayer a monumental amount of money that will, quite frankly, never be paid back. Because of this never ceasing and continual government funding of GM and Chrysler, they are now able to offer

6)extended base warranty

and

7)extra rebates of more dollar value

that Ford cannot offer.

Along the way, our government is able to

8)negotiate with China in building GM and Chrysler products

where Ford doesn't have that insider connection, nor the want of having their image of outsourcing to another country, especially China.

9)Publicly push their green agenda through GM (the Volt)

and

10)give hefty tax incentives to anyone that buys a Volt

continuing the circle of propping up the failure.

It is easily found in news articles that there were three CEO's of GM that wanted to pay off the governments bailout, but were subsequently fired by the controlling entity(our government) from their position because of their outspoken will of wanting to be out from under the control of the government and the image of the crony capitalism from Obama.

As it is, the group that caused the downfall of GM and Chrysler is now the group in control. The Unions are being paid a heavy salary and bonuses, as we the tax payer foot the bill. It's really one of the greatest scams ever, but I doubt most people know the truth, or really even care.

Oh yes, don't forget..

11) GM just recently announced they will not be hiring or giving any raises to blue collar workers. They will be saving all their hand out, tax payer funded, cash flow to fund to political idealoges in the Union, only.

For a greater look into the mess, check out the site below. Here's some tidbits of what they say, and the amount of money still owed by GM. As it is, GM owes close to $100 Billion to the American taxpayer, and the debt is getting larger, not smaller.


Quote:
The United States Treasury owns roughly 500 million shares of common stock in General Motors. (Source: U.S. Treasury) The Treasury would need to sell these shares at roughly $53 per share in order to "break even" on the investment. (Source: WSJ) Using Google Finance API, we multiply the current GM stock price by 500,065,254, and subtract that total from $26,503,458,462 (or, 500,065,254 x $53).

Our calculations estimate the loss taxpayers would suffer if UST sells its GM common stock shares at the current ticker price. We track the common stock price and update our calculations on an ongoing basis, providing an up-to-the-minute snapshot of the money the UST lost in Government Motors.

Quote:
General Motors and Barack Obama misled the American people about the auto bailout. They told us they would manage our money wisely, that it would be a good investment, that we would even make a return on our investment. Instead, we have been stuck with a massive bill.

America's loss on GM's stock market investment ALONE:

$13,636,779,476.58

http://www.bailoutcost.com/
__________________

badger
2/27/2012, 03:31 PM
I am quite convinced that when they had that "Cash For Clunkers" program that Ford had such large sales because the U.S. taxpayers wanted to thank Ford for not taking a bailout. I think that it was the best PR move that they could possibly have done.

One thing I remembered about the bailout that Republicans can appreciate though, is that there was a "no strike" clause signed by the unions to ensure that the taxpayer money was going to a company that was going to be at work, not one with a workforce on strike.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/27/2012, 03:39 PM
One thing I remembered about the bailout that Republicans can appreciate though, is that there was a "no strike" clause signed by the unions to ensure that the taxpayer money was going to a company that was going to be at work, not one with a workforce on strike.I can appreciate that the unions were given a fortune in exchange for backing the Obear. They aren't foolish enough to tell him to go fly a kite, after he gave them the company.

badger
2/27/2012, 04:14 PM
I can appreciate that the unions were given a fortune in exchange for backing the Obear. They aren't foolish enough to tell him to go fly a kite, after he gave them the company.

Very true, but I don't think such a deal would have materialized period if the unions and company didn't bend over backwards to make the Obama admin happy.

Can you see any positives out of the auto bailouts? Any at all? Try. :)

Midtowner
2/27/2012, 04:49 PM
Heck, 13 billion is a small price to pay to continue to have two large auto manufacturers (both of which are now profitable) remain in the U.S.

I'm not surprised by the partisan wonks trying to spin a huge positive into a negative though. I guess there might be a valid ideological complaint, but that's where the validity of the far right's argument here fails. The bailouts are a great example of where government spending has led to major economic growth and benefit for everyone.

OU_Sooners75
2/27/2012, 05:05 PM
Heck, 13 billion is a small price to pay to continue to have two large auto manufacturers (both of which are now profitable) remain in the U.S.

I'm not surprised by the partisan wonks trying to spin a huge positive into a negative though. I guess there might be a valid ideological complaint, but that's where the validity of the far right's argument here fails. The bailouts are a great example of where government spending has led to major economic growth and benefit for everyone.

Im not far right in my ideology, but I think the Government should not have bailed out any business or bank or anything!

If a company cannot make sound decisions to compete with the rest of the market, then they need to fail. Not be bailed out!

Companies fail every day. Why are auto companies any different? Why are big banks and lending institutions any different? Why are big insurance companies any different?

IMO, it was money that should not have been spent. We as taxpayers will never see the money returned to the government at the same amount that it took to save them.

rock on sooner
2/27/2012, 05:23 PM
Im not far right in my ideology, but I think the Government should not have bailed out any business or bank or anything!

If a company cannot make sound decisions to compete with the rest of the market, then they need to fail. Not be bailed out!

Companies fail every day. Why are auto companies any different? Why are big banks and lending institutions any different? Why are big insurance companies any different?

IMO, it was money that should not have been spent. We as taxpayers will never see the money returned to the government at the same amount that it took to save them.

I can see your argument about companies failing all the time.(As a former small business owner that got hung out to dry when
those for whom I was a vender, took out bankruptcy. I was so far down the line that I got 1.5% of what I was owed from
the bankruptcy proceedings). Where I think your argument fails is the magnitude of attendant businesses that would have
been affected by GM and Chrysler "shutting down" as many Republicans say should have happpened. Not only the GM and
Chrysler workers would have been furloughed and/or laid off, the many thousands, possibly a million or more parts company
workers, packers, shippers, et al would have been thrown out of work. Smaller venders would simply close up shop, which
means workers laid off, vacant real estate, lost commercial property taxes, more impact on unemployment, greater strain
on the health system (ER's are the medical care providers for the poor, unemployed, uninsured) so, in my opinion, expanding
Dubya's program to the point that Obama did was not only the right thing to do, it was the necessary thing to do.

dwarthog
2/27/2012, 05:25 PM
Heck, 13 billion is a small price to pay to continue to have two large auto manufacturers (both of which are now profitable) remain in the U.S.

I'm not surprised by the partisan wonks trying to spin a huge positive into a negative though. I guess there might be a valid ideological complaint, but that's where the validity of the far right's argument here fails. The bailouts are a great example of where government spending has led to major economic growth and benefit for everyone.

Your laying on a bit of that spin yourself with statements like "major economic growth", and "benefit for everyone". Do you have some non-partisan data which supports these assertions?

OU_Sooners75
2/27/2012, 05:34 PM
I can see your argument about companies failing all the time.(As a former small business owner that got hung out to dry when
those for whom I was a vender, took out bankruptcy. I was so far down the line that I got 1.5% of what I was owed from
the bankruptcy proceedings). Where I think your argument fails is the magnitude of attendant businesses that would have
been affected by GM and Chrysler "shutting down" as many Republicans say should have happpened. Not only the GM and
Chrysler workers would have been furloughed and/or laid off, the many thousands, possibly a million or more parts company
workers, packers, shippers, et al would have been thrown out of work. Smaller venders would simply close up shop, which
means workers laid off, vacant real estate, lost commercial property taxes, more impact on unemployment, greater strain
on the health system (ER's are the medical care providers for the poor, unemployed, uninsured) so, in my opinion, expanding
Dubya's program to the point that Obama did was not only the right thing to do, it was the necessary thing to do.

double space man.

Anyway...so it is the taxpayers responsibility to bail out big business if they look like they are going to go into bankruptcy?

Sometimes, bankruptcy show more responsibility than doing nothing or asking for a handout.

My point is this. If a business, no matter how big, fails, it is going to effect other businesses. Its just the way it works. And you said yourself you can attest to that.

But it should never be the taxpayers helping companies out!

If a company as big as GM is failing, then the board should have done something to make it where they get the proper leader in place to turn it around. They didn't. But now they know the American people have invested too much money into the business, it won't fail...because now, the US government owns it!

Not the way it should be.

Call me what you will or think what you want...but if a business fails, it fails...those that it effects is screwed either way you look at it. So let it fail!

pphilfran
2/27/2012, 05:35 PM
Let's see...

You statement about Ford not wanting the bailout because it would have the fed in it's business is misleading...Ford didn't take the bailout because it sold off assets, mortgaged it's name, and negotiated a large line of credit...GM and Chrysler did not so they needed the money, not Ford...

The Volt was on the drawing board years before the bailouts...

Chrysler is majority owned by the Italians, not the union...

OU_Sooners75
2/27/2012, 05:37 PM
Let's see...

Chrysler is majority owned by the Italians, not the union...

Which runs the unions nowadays. :barbershop_quartet_

Sooner5030
2/27/2012, 05:57 PM
F bailouts.

Another company (with good management and fewer ties to cartels....I mean unions) would have purchased certain truck lines from GM/Dodge during a normal BK process. Then we could have rid ourselves of the shiaty GM/Dodge cars and actually had more efficient labor (toyota/nissan/honda) build the same amount of vehicles in the US.

We just rewarded/guaranteed shiaty businesses with shiaty practices.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/27/2012, 06:58 PM
Im not far right in my ideology, but I think the Government should not have bailed out any business or bank or anything!

If a company cannot make sound decisions to compete with the rest of the market, then they need to fail. Not be bailed out!

Companies fail every day. Why are auto companies any different? Why are big banks and lending institutions any different? Why are big insurance companies any different?

IMO, it was money that should not have been spent. We as taxpayers will never see the money returned to the government at the same amount that it took to save them.Muchos Kudos. The above is absumlutely correct!

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/27/2012, 07:05 PM
double space man.

Anyway...so it is the taxpayers responsibility to bail out big business if they look like they are going to go into bankruptcy?

Sometimes, bankruptcy show more responsibility than doing nothing or asking for a handout.

My point is this. If a business, no matter how big, fails, it is going to effect other businesses. Its just the way it works. And you said yourself you can attest to that.

But it should never be the taxpayers helping companies out!

If a company as big as GM is failing, then the board should have done something to make it where they get the proper leader in place to turn it around. They didn't. But now they know the American people have invested too much money into the business, it won't fail...because now, the US government owns it!

Not the way it should be.

Call me what you will or think what you want...but if a business fails, it fails...those that it effects is screwed either way you look at it. So let it fail!Duh!, huh? We're kicking the can down the road, as well as other major problems with the bailout and Obear's subsequent payoffs.

8timechamps
2/27/2012, 08:22 PM
Im not far right in my ideology, but I think the Government should not have bailed out any business or bank or anything!

If a company cannot make sound decisions to compete with the rest of the market, then they need to fail. Not be bailed out!

Companies fail every day. Why are auto companies any different? Why are big banks and lending institutions any different? Why are big insurance companies any different?

IMO, it was money that should not have been spent. We as taxpayers will never see the money returned to the government at the same amount that it took to save them.

I generally agree with your position, however, had the taxpayers not bailed out the banks, the economy of the world would have essentially failed. The problem is, it seems that the banks didn't learn much from the first go around.

OU_Sooners75
2/27/2012, 08:31 PM
I generally agree with your position, however, had the taxpayers not bailed out the banks, the economy of the world would have essentially failed. The problem is, it seems that the banks didn't learn much from the first go around.

We are capitalist...one fails and another steps in to take over.

The way it should be. Our government should not be in the business of buying out businesses.

diverdog
2/27/2012, 09:56 PM
We are capitalist...one fails and another steps in to take over.

The way it should be. Our government should not be in the business of buying out businesses.

Do you have any idea what would have happened if AIG and the other big banks failed? You would standing in a soup line along with the rest of us. It would have made the great depression look like a walk in the park. And given the pussified state of the American public they would have had an incredibly hard time making it.

SicEmBaylor
2/27/2012, 09:57 PM
Heck, 13 billion is a small price to pay to continue to have two large auto manufacturers (both of which are now profitable) remain in the U.S.

I'm not surprised by the partisan wonks trying to spin a huge positive into a negative though. I guess there might be a valid ideological complaint, but that's where the validity of the far right's argument here fails. The bailouts are a great example of where government spending has led to major economic growth and benefit for everyone.

Major growth?? It was modest artificially inflated growth at best. The claim that the auto industry would have gone completely belly-up without a bailout is speculation at best and an outright lie at worst. The auto industry should have been forced to go through the same sort of bankruptcy that airlines routinely go through in order to restructure their business model. If the auto industry fails then it's because of the auto industry and there is absolutely no excuse in the world for the taxpayers to subsidize the bad business practices of large corporations or banks.

It's criminal.

diverdog
2/27/2012, 09:58 PM
F bailouts.

Another company (with good management and fewer ties to cartels....I mean unions) would have purchased certain truck lines from GM/Dodge during a normal BK process. Then we could have rid ourselves of the shiaty GM/Dodge cars and actually had more efficient labor (toyota/nissan/honda) build the same amount of vehicles in the US.

We just rewarded/guaranteed shiaty businesses with shiaty practices.

Who would have bought them? The credit markets were essentially frozen and there were not big banks in the wind to put a deal together. Somehow everyone seems to forget the economy was incredibly messed up at the time.

Midtowner
2/27/2012, 10:03 PM
Major growth?? It was modest artificially inflated growth at best. The claim that the auto industry would have gone completely belly-up without a bailout is speculation at best and an outright lie at worst. The auto industry should have been forced to go through the same sort of bankruptcy that airlines routinely go through in order to restructure their business model. If the auto industry fails then it's because of the auto industry and there is absolutely no excuse in the world for the taxpayers to subsidize the bad business practices of large corporations or banks.

It's criminal.

Well.. now it's profitable. Pensions are funded and the Big 3 are making money again. You may disagree with the methods, but the results are kind of hard to dispute. Ideology ought to take a backseat when it will measurably result in a smaller economy and huge job losses. Allowing an ordinary Chapter 11 for GM and Chrysler would not have resulted in the sort of situation we have today with both being profitable again.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/28/2012, 12:10 AM
Major growth?? It was modest artificially inflated growth at best. The claim that the auto industry would have gone completely belly-up without a bailout is speculation at best and an outright lie at worst. The auto industry should have been forced to go through the same sort of bankruptcy that airlines routinely go through in order to restructure their business model. If the auto industry fails then it's because of the auto industry and there is absolutely no excuse in the world for the taxpayers to subsidize the bad business practices of large corporations or banks.

It's criminal.WELLLLL, SICEM MILTON FRIEDMAN, already!

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/28/2012, 12:12 AM
We are capitalist...one fails and another steps in to take over.

The way it should be. Our government should not be in the business of buying out businesses.That's how economic problems get solved, in a civilized society.

diverdog
2/28/2012, 06:39 AM
Major growth?? It was modest artificially inflated growth at best. The claim that the auto industry would have gone completely belly-up without a bailout is speculation at best and an outright lie at worst. The auto industry should have been forced to go through the same sort of bankruptcy that airlines routinely go through in order to restructure their business model. If the auto industry fails then it's because of the auto industry and there is absolutely no excuse in the world for the taxpayers to subsidize the bad business practices of large corporations or banks.

It's criminal.

Do you really want to hold airlines up as your gold standard for non-government intervention? I mean it is not like they aren't the most heavily subsidized industry in the world.

SicEmBaylor
2/28/2012, 06:48 AM
Do you really want to hold airlines up as your gold standard for non-government intervention? I mean it is not like they aren't the most heavily subsidized industry in the world.

Not at all. Their industry is dreadful. I was only pointing out that they've gone through bankruptcy reorganization without disappearing. If anyone knows how to go through a bankruptcy organization -- it would be them. I'm definitely not endorsing the industry as a whole.

pphilfran
2/28/2012, 07:30 AM
The inaccuracy of the day...

Ford does have operations (joint venture) in China....600k per year...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ni-hao-chongqing-ford-opens-141800511.html

CHONGQING, China, Feb. 24, 2012 /PRNewswire/ --

The USD 490 million (RMB 3.34 billion) investment increases Ford's passenger car capacity in China by one-third to 600,000 units, and underscores Ford's aggressive expansion in the Asia Pacific and Africa region
The green, highly automated, 1-million-square-metre assembly plant begins production of Ford's next-generation Ford Focus and is flexible enough to produce six different types of vehicles

The company that pioneered mass automobile production a century ago in Detroit, today opened one of the world's newest, most efficient and sustainable automotive assembly plants in Chongqing, China.

Ford Motor Company and its joint venture Changan Ford Mazda Automobile (CFMA), today opened a new assembly plant, "CFMA Chongqing Assembly 2" or CQ2. Home of the all-new Ford Focus, CQ2 incorporates global industry best practices to efficiently and safely produce high quality vehicles with minimal environmental impact.

"This is a very special day," said Joe Hinrichs, president of Ford Asia Pacific and Africa. "It's not every day that you open a new assembly plant. This new plant represents a decades-long investment that will transform the lives of thousands of people. Following the vision of Henry Ford to produce vehicles where they are sold, the opportunities created by this expansion help create the ability for our production team to buy the vehicles they build. This expansion will benefit Chongqing and western China for years to come."

CFMA is investing USD 490 million in CQ2, which will increase its production capacity in China by 150,000 units – to over 600,000 vehicle units overall. This is CFMA's second assembly plant in Chongqing and its third in China. With two assembly plants and engine and transmission plants already operating, Chongqing is now the largest global manufacturing location for Ford outside southeast Michigan.

The plant is ramping up production of the all new Ford Focus, and will have produced more than 150 prototypes for testing as it prepares for the market launch in the second quarter. The all new Focus is built on Ford's global C-platform, or mid-size vehicle chassis. At CQ2 and elsewhere, up to ten different kinds of vehicles will be produced on this platform, and the company will sell 2 million vehicles this year based on this platform.

"Ford is committed to China and a greener future," said Dave Schoch, chairman and CEO, Ford China. "This new plant and the all new Ford Focus produced here are the culmination of global best practices in manufacturing and vehicle development. This is the One Ford plan in action. It's about giving our customers what they most want and value, in a cost effective and sustainable way. The new Focus is an incredibly popular and successful global vehicle and we are delighted to introduce it to China, as the first of 15 new vehicles we are bringing here by 2015. This new flexible plant will help give us the capacity to realize our aggressive growth plans for the world's largest automotive market."

Schoch and Marin Burela, President of CFMA, welcomed Mayor Huang Qifan of Chongqing in opening the Chongqing Assembly Plant 2 at a ceremony in Chongqing's Liangjiang New North economic development zone.

The production line at CQ2 is designed for maximum flexibility, enabling it to produce six different types of vehicles. This allows the company to bring new vehicles to market faster, and test new vehicles while maintaining full production speed.

Sustainable Paint Shop

By maximizing a wide range of state-of-the-art technologies – from re-circulating the air in the paint shop spray booths to recovering heat energy from the oven exhaust – the paint shop is able to return massive energy and environment savings.

The energy saved in the paint shop – 58 million kWh – is enough to power almost 20,000 households in a major Chinese city for a year, or to light up the entire Bund in Shanghai day and night for almost 2.5 years.

The paint shop utilizes Ford's environmentally friendly, revolutionary 3-Wet high-solids paint process, improving paint quality, depth and durability, and significantly reducing volatile organic compounds, CO2 emissions and waste.

State-of-the-art automation

The new 1-million-plus-square-metre assembly plant includes stamping, body, assembly, paint, trim and final assembly operations. The new plant is thoroughly equipped with state-of-the-art automation, showcasing Ford's best-technology global manufacturing processes and systems, including one of the world's fastest stamping presses and 116 robots in the body shop for repeatable, consistent quality.

After several years of considerable growth, Ford's joint venture, CFMA, has established itself as one of the leading passenger car manufacturers in China. CFMA is well known in China for its high-quality cars, as well as the development and introduction of advanced environmentally friendly technologies. In Chongqing, in addition to today's now open plant, CFMA operates a another assembly plant, as well as engine and transmission plants. Additional CFMA assembly and manufacturing plants are located in Nanjing, China.

pphilfran
2/28/2012, 07:34 AM
Tomorrow I will discuss rebates that Ford cannot offer...give me a week and I will disprove most of the OP's statements...

diverdog
2/28/2012, 08:27 AM
Not at all. Their industry is dreadful. I was only pointing out that they've gone through bankruptcy reorganization without disappearing. If anyone knows how to go through a bankruptcy organization -- it would be them. I'm definitely not endorsing the industry as a whole.

Sicem

Over the entire history of the US airline they have never made a profit. It is the most heavily subsidized industry on the planet. And I don't think anyone would argue that it is not money well spent.

The GM bailout was less than perfect but I am glad we did it. For those who argue bankruptcy is always preferable to government bailouts then I would point to Lehman Bros and ask how that worked out.

pphilfran
2/28/2012, 08:30 AM
DD...they did go bankrupt...just done in a new and exotic way....

pphilfran
2/28/2012, 08:31 AM
We must get manufacturing jobs back in the US...let's sell Chrysler to Italian Fiat!

Of all the chit that has been done this one item chaps my azz the most...

diverdog
2/28/2012, 08:44 AM
Phil;

Didn't Ford get a bailout....eeeer....loan in 2007?

diverdog
2/28/2012, 08:45 AM
DD...they did go bankrupt...just done in a new and exotic way....

Oh I know. My bank is the trustee on the deal.

pphilfran
2/28/2012, 08:50 AM
They got a nearly 6 billion, low cost, fed loan in 2009 to help revamp their factories...not sure about 2007

pphilfran
2/28/2012, 08:51 AM
I was going to use the loan to disprove one of the original points...now that you spoiled my daily plan....

pphilfran
2/28/2012, 08:54 AM
And part of the Chrysler deal was to allow Fiat to increase it's stake if it was to sell a 40 mpg vehicle in the US...so they brought in the Fiat 500...produced in Mexico..but it only achieved 38 mpg..... lol...

sappstuf
2/28/2012, 09:07 AM
And part of the Chrysler deal was to allow Fiat to increase it's stake if it was to sell a 40 mpg vehicle in the US...so they brought in the Fiat 500...produced in Mexico..but it only achieved 38 mpg..... lol...

Which has failed maybe even worst than the Volt. They projected selling 50K in 2011. They sold around 20K.

pphilfran
2/28/2012, 09:13 AM
Since it missed they are going to bring in the 40 mpg Dodge Dart (based on a Fiat/Alfa platform)...at least it is being built in Belvidere, Illinois...

https://blogs.automotive.com/2013-dodge-dart-earns-40-mpg-combined-fiat-earns-controlling-stake-in-chrysler-72699.html

When Chrysler entered its Operation Agreement with the U.S. Department of the Treasury back in 2009 the Detroit auto maker made a few promises. One of them, and perhaps the one that carries the most weight, was the commitment to producing a vehicle in the United States with an unadjusted combined fuel economy of at least 40 mpg. While it sounds like a tough task it’s not impossible; just check the mileage figures for the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic hybrid.

Fast forward two years later to the 2013 Dodge Dart, and Chrysler’s proved it can do the deed as it projects the new compact will earn 40 mpg combined. The Dart brings with it Fiat S.p.A’s final five percent of ownership interest in Chrysler bumping it up to a controlling stake of 58.5 percent. With the addition of the Dart, Fiat now has a controlling interest in Chrysler, leaving the United Auto Workers Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association with the remaining 41.5 percent.

A pre-production version of the 2013 Dodge Dart was tested late last month and achieved the Fuel Economy Test earning an unadjusted 40 mpg combined. Automakers test their vehicles by using a dynamometer-a machine that measures force, torque, or power-while a professional driver simulates normal city and highway driving. An unadjusted mpg rating is calculated by connecting a hose to the vehicle’s tailpipe and measuring carbon in the exhaust gases. Estimated numbers are calculated as 90 percent of the unadjusted city driving while 78 percent is calculated of unadjusted highway mpg. This along with idea driving conditions translates into actual mpg’s reach the unadjusted mpg rating.

This is the fifth time in the past 13 months Fiat has increased its ownership stake in Chrysler Group. It all began back in June of 2009 when Fiat acquired 20 percent in the Detroit auto maker and then in January of 2011 the Italian auto maker increased its stake another five percent. On April 12 of last year Fiat’s ownership responsibilities crept up to 30 percent before the Italian auto maker forked over a cool $500 million in order to take over the U.S. Treasury’s six percent ownership interest. Fiat also doled out another $125 million to soak up the Canadian government’s 1.5 percent stake in Chrysler. After purchasing all the loose pieces of Chrysler Fiat’s ownership stake climbed to 53.5 percent. With the recent addition of the 2013 Dodge Dart and its ability to achieve an unadjusted 40 mpg, Fiat receives another five percent from the U.S. government as part of the accord reach back in the summer of 2009.

badger
2/28/2012, 09:28 AM
Which has failed maybe even worst than the Volt. They projected selling 50K in 2011. They sold around 20K.

Can anything be called a failure when compared to the Volt? What have they sold... three of those things? And don't count the ones that have ignited in flames worse than a Daytona 500 jet dry truck :eek:

sappstuf
2/28/2012, 10:20 AM
Can anything be called a failure when compared to the Volt? What have they sold... three of those things? And don't count the ones that have ignited in flames worse than a Daytona 500 jet dry truck :eek:

But they are great at BBQs...


http://www.terrellaftermath.com/Images/THUMBNAILS%202011/December%20Archive%202011/images/voltbbq2webcr_12_06_11.jpg

OULenexaman
2/28/2012, 10:20 AM
I never would have guessed Badg watching the Daytona 500...

diverdog
2/28/2012, 10:24 AM
But they are great at BBQs.http://www.terrellaftermath.com/Images/THUMBNAILS%202011/December%20Archive%202011/images/voltbbq2webcr_12_06_11.jpg

Thats not bbq thats grill'in. To us bbq lovers there is a big difference!

OU_Sooners75
2/28/2012, 10:28 AM
Do you have any idea what would have happened if AIG and the other big banks failed? You would standing in a soup line along with the rest of us. It would have made the great depression look like a walk in the park. And given the pussified state of the American public they would have had an incredibly hard time making it.

Are you really going to question my intelligence?

Yes, I know what will happen. Some people will lose their jobs. But another company will replace the failed company.

It happens almost every day and big business is no different.

If there are businesses deemed too big to fail, then by god, let them fail! There is a reason they are failing and that reason starts at the top with the policy makers of that business.

If those people cannot run their own business, it should go under!

Did the economy take a hit when Enron went under? Yes. But if you remember correctly, another energy company was there to take up the slack.

The same can be said of AIG, GM, Chrysler, Freddie and Fannie, Lehman Brothers, etc.

If they wouldn't fix their books, they wouldn't be in this situation....plain and simple.

So instead of question the intelligence of those that do not think the way you do or look at in a different way, try understanding their way of thinking and dealing with it.

OU_Sooners75
2/28/2012, 10:31 AM
Well.. now it's profitable. Pensions are funded and the Big 3 are making money again. You may disagree with the methods, but the results are kind of hard to dispute. Ideology ought to take a backseat when it will measurably result in a smaller economy and huge job losses. Allowing an ordinary Chapter 11 for GM and Chrysler would not have resulted in the sort of situation we have today with both being profitable again.

Great, they are making money again....but they will never repay the American Taxpayer will never recoup the money that was spent to save them from bankruptcy.

If a business if headed toward bankruptcy, maybe they should produce a better product at a competitive price?

sappstuf
2/28/2012, 10:34 AM
Thats not bbq thats grill'in. To us bbq lovers there is a big difference!

It can do both. It is also a smoker if you use the trunk...

OU_Sooners75
2/28/2012, 10:36 AM
Thats not bbq thats grill'in. To us bbq lovers there is a big difference!

Looks more like Obama trying to swallow Hugo Chavez's hotdog to me!

Midtowner
2/28/2012, 11:05 AM
Great, they are making money again....but they will never repay the American Taxpayer will never recoup the money that was spent to save them from bankruptcy.

If a business if headed toward bankruptcy, maybe they should produce a better product at a competitive price?

How much would the American taxpayer have been out if these companies had gone away? Think of the lost car sales taxes, fuel taxes, corporate profits taxes, payroll taxes, etc.

We're talking millions of jobs. The American taxpayer is being made whole on this deal over and over and over again.

OU_Sooners75
2/28/2012, 11:31 AM
How much would the American taxpayer have been out if these companies had gone away? Think of the lost car sales taxes, fuel taxes, corporate profits taxes, payroll taxes, etc.

We're talking millions of jobs. The American taxpayer is being made whole on this deal over and over and over again.

Considering had the American Taxpayer not spent billions on bailing them out...I would say none!

Sure, the American Tax payers would have been helping in welfare issues of the individuals that worked there that may have lost their jobs, but it wouldn't have been nearly as much as what we have paid and will continue to pay since they continue to make poor business decisions and creating ****ty products!

Bourbon St Sooner
2/28/2012, 01:14 PM
Heck, 13 billion is a small price to pay to continue to have two large auto manufacturers (both of which are now profitable) remain in the U.S.

I'm not surprised by the partisan wonks trying to spin a huge positive into a negative though. I guess there might be a valid ideological complaint, but that's where the validity of the far right's argument here fails. The bailouts are a great example of where government spending has led to major economic growth and benefit for everyone.

Help me understand the logic.

Too big to fail banks = bad

Too big to fail labor unions = good

Does that about sum it up?

Midtowner
2/28/2012, 01:15 PM
Considering had the American Taxpayer not spent billions on bailing them out...I would say none!

Sure, the American Tax payers would have been helping in welfare issues of the individuals that worked there that may have lost their jobs, but it wouldn't have been nearly as much as what we have paid and will continue to pay since they continue to make poor business decisions and creating ****ty products!

They're profitable and GM/Chrysler products are actually pretty highly rated by consumer magazines.

Midtowner
2/28/2012, 01:17 PM
Help me understand the logic.

Too big to fail banks = bad

Too big to fail labor unions = good

Does that about sum it up?

I never said that the banks didn't need bailing out.

I have argued time and again about the deregulation, such as the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which allowed them to put the country in a position to where the banks could virtually extort money from the federal treasury.

If they bailout hadn't happened our economy would have collapsed and triggered a global collapse. Don't put words in my mouth.

Bourbon St Sooner
2/28/2012, 01:30 PM
One bailout begets another. The behavior hasn't changed. The crony capitalism practiced by our gov't and the fed created that mess and all they learned is that when it happens again the taxpayers will pony up.

Amerika, Inc doesn't work just like Japan Inc (the once supposed economic miracle) caved in on itself.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/28/2012, 01:50 PM
One bailout begets another. The behavior hasn't changed. The crony capitalism practiced by our gov't and the fed created that mess and all they learned is that when it happens again the taxpayers will pony up.

Amerika, Inc doesn't work just like Japan Inc (the once supposed economic miracle) caved in on itself.Should be painfully obvious to all, including the politicians. Obviously, they act against economic sanity, in order to achieve political gain.

Ton Loc
2/28/2012, 01:51 PM
Considering had the American Taxpayer not spent billions on bailing them out...I would say none!

Sure, the American Tax payers would have been helping in welfare issues of the individuals that worked there that may have lost their jobs, but it wouldn't have been nearly as much as what we have paid and will continue to pay since they continue to make poor business decisions and creating ****ty products!

I wish you knew what you were talking about.

13 billions dollars seems like a lot of money, but it isn't anything compared to supporting a million or more people and thousands of companies affected by letting them go bankrupt. How can you deny this fact?

I don't think anyone likes the fact we have to bail out these companies. It sucks. It sucks that they let the italians in, it sucks that they gave the unions so much, but at least GM is making some higher quality cars now. I'm not sure how Ford pulled off the miracle they did in the public opinion. Besides the obvious - that the public is largley retarded.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/28/2012, 02:02 PM
I wish you knew what you were talking about.

13 billions dollars seems like a lot of money, but it isn't anything compared to supporting a million or more people and thousands of companies affected by letting them go bankrupt. How can you deny this fact?

I don't think anyone likes the fact we have to bail out these companies. It sucks. It sucks that they let the italians in, it sucks that they gave the unions so much, but at least GM is making some higher quality cars now. I'm not sure how Ford pulled off the miracle they did in the public opinion. Besides the obvious - that the public is largley retarded.HSFY, and YF...muchas condolences

diverdog
2/28/2012, 02:17 PM
Are you really going to question my intelligence?

Yes, I know what will happen. Some people will lose their jobs. But another company will replace the failed company.

It happens almost every day and big business is no different.

If there are businesses deemed too big to fail, then by god, let them fail! There is a reason they are failing and that reason starts at the top with the policy makers of that business.

If those people cannot run their own business, it should go under!

Did the economy take a hit when Enron went under? Yes. But if you remember correctly, another energy company was there to take up the slack.

The same can be said of AIG, GM, Chrysler, Freddie and Fannie, Lehman Brothers, etc.

If they wouldn't fix their books, they wouldn't be in this situation....plain and simple.

So instead of question the intelligence of those that do not think the way you do or look at in a different way, try understanding their way of thinking and dealing with it.

Tell me who would have stepped in if AIG, BOA, Goldman, GE, Chase, Merrill, Morgan Stanley and Wells had failed. Please be specific.

Ton Loc
2/28/2012, 02:21 PM
HSFY, and YF...muchas condolences

I remember when you used to try harder. Your game is slippin.

JohnnyMack
2/28/2012, 02:39 PM
I never said that the banks didn't need bailing out.

I have argued time and again about the deregulation, such as the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which allowed them to put the country in a position to where the banks could virtually extort money from the federal treasury.

If they bailout hadn't happened our economy would have collapsed and triggered a global collapse. Don't put words in my mouth.

Deregulation in and of itself wasn't the only culprit here. It's the fact that the banks knew they had the US Govt by the balls because the banks knew that they had become such a giant, inoperable tumor that they had no choice but to bail them out. The knew full well they had a safety net beneath them so of course they acted like scandalous dickbags. I imagine these banks would have behaved a bit differently had they not known they would have been bailed out.

I mean you're accurate in that we didn't have a choice but to bail them out or we would have created a panic driven run on the banks that would have ended up causing the US of A to look like a scene from The Road.

pphilfran
2/28/2012, 02:41 PM
Tell me who would have stepped in if AIG, BOA, Goldman, GE, Chase, Merrill, Morgan Stanley and Wells had failed. Please be specific.

City National Bank - Lawton, Ok

pphilfran
2/28/2012, 02:50 PM
Deregulation in and of itself wasn't the only culprit here. It's the fact that the banks knew they had the US Govt by the balls because the banks knew that they had become such a giant, inoperable tumor that they had no choice but to bail them out. The knew full well they had a safety net beneath them so of course they acted like scandalous dickbags. I imagine these banks would have behaved a bit differently had they not known they would have been bailed out.

I mean you're accurate in that we didn't have a choice but to bail them out or we would have created a panic driven run on the banks that would have ended up causing the US of A to look like a scene from The Road.

They weren't thinking about losses or going broke...it was about going balls to the walls while the regulatory climate was in their favor...

They put together complicated securities and then sold those securities to those that could not, or did not, do proper due diligence...

And the people that bought the complicated securities were also greedy by going after high returns that they thought would more than make up the risk....

badger
2/28/2012, 02:58 PM
With another report emerging of yet another ex-NBA star going broke (this time it's Allen Iverson (http://www.google.com/search?q=iverson+broke&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)), you have to wonder if anything is too big to fail... or if things just get too big, then they fail.

pphilfran
2/28/2012, 03:03 PM
How bout Delonte West? He is still in the NBA and making 800k (I think)...and didn't have a place to live (credit was so bad he couldn't rent an apartment)...so he slept in his car or the team locker room...

8timechamps
2/28/2012, 06:26 PM
We are capitalist...one fails and another steps in to take over.

The way it should be. Our government should not be in the business of buying out businesses.

Huh? Who was going to "step in"? Do you realize how far reaching the financial crisis with the banks was? Just allowing Lehman to fail put tremendous strain on the global economy. The UK had legitimate fears of being plunged deep into a recession, and that was from one bank closing. Trust me, had the banks been allowed to fail, we would have been in kaos, and there would have been gridlock on every financial front you can imagine.

I'm not saying that I think the government should bail companies out, not at all. But in the case of the banking crisis, we're talking about essentially fake money. The banks and AIG were in bed, and way over their heads. It had to be stopped, and for the sake of the global economy, there had to be a bailout.

8timechamps
2/28/2012, 06:30 PM
Are you really going to question my intelligence?

Yes, I know what will happen. Some people will lose their jobs. But another company will replace the failed company.

It happens almost every day and big business is no different.

If there are businesses deemed too big to fail, then by god, let them fail! There is a reason they are failing and that reason starts at the top with the policy makers of that business.

If those people cannot run their own business, it should go under!

Did the economy take a hit when Enron went under? Yes. But if you remember correctly, another energy company was there to take up the slack.

The same can be said of AIG, GM, Chrysler, Freddie and Fannie, Lehman Brothers, etc.

If they wouldn't fix their books, they wouldn't be in this situation....plain and simple.

So instead of question the intelligence of those that do not think the way you do or look at in a different way, try understanding their way of thinking and dealing with it.

I am not questioning your intelligence, but after 20+ years of working in the financial industry, I can assure you that you are wrong about this. We're not talking about a few hundred people losing their job, we're talking about pension funds being wiped out, banks unable to dispense cash. Economic meltdown of a magnitude that has never been seen.

Most people had no clue how close we were to the edge.

OU_Sooners75
2/28/2012, 06:32 PM
I am not questioning your intelligence, but after 20+ years of working in the financial industry, I can assure you that you are wrong about this. We're not talking about a few hundred people losing their job, we're talking about pension funds being wiped out, banks unable to dispense cash. Economic meltdown of a magnitude that has never been seen.

Most people had no clue how close we were to the edge.

So....let it happen. All the US government is doing is enabling **** poor practices.

8timechamps
2/28/2012, 06:35 PM
So....let it happen. All the US government is doing is enabling **** poor practices.

Have you ever seen Mad Max?

OU_Sooners75
2/28/2012, 06:39 PM
Have you ever seen Mad Max?

Have you ever heard of the great depression?

What happened afterward?

I love the people that try to scare the **** out others with this doomsday ****.

No offense bro...love ya (no homo). But in order for our economy to be the strongest it can be, we need the government to get the hell out of the buying up businesses. We are not in a socialist republic. We are in a capitalist republic.

And capitalist know that sometimes the crap is going to hit the fan, but there will also be someone around to pick up the slack when it does.

Its called business...and business is always a chance!

diverdog
2/28/2012, 06:44 PM
So....let it happen. All the US government is doing is enabling **** poor practices.

I do not think you understand the magnitude of the problem. Enron was an $11 billion dollar bankruptcy. Lehman was $600 billion dollars larger than GM, Chrystler, Adelphi, Worldcom, a
nd Enron combined. Had AIG and others gone under it would have wiped out $3.2 trillion dollars in money market funds. The collapse would have hit every sector of the world economy because $56 trillion dollars in swaps and derivatives would have failed. The credit markets and capital markets would have been gone. Unemployment would have gone to 50% or more. So your solution is penny wise and pound foolish.

OU_Sooners75
2/28/2012, 06:46 PM
I do not think you understand the magnitude of the problem. Enron was an $11 billion dollar bankruptcy. Lehman was $600 billion dollars larger than GM, Chrystler, Adelphi, Worldcom, a
nd Enron combined. Had AIG and others gone under it would have wiped out $3.2 trillion dollars in money market funds. The collapse would have hit every sector of the world economy because $56 trillion dollars in swaps and derivatives would have failed. The credit markets and capital markets would have been gone. Unemployment would have gone to 50% or more. So your solution is penny wise and pound foolish.

And so we the tax payers have an obligation to get them out of a jam?

I know you love the socialist party and ****...but that is not the American way and it should never be.

Midtowner
2/28/2012, 08:10 PM
We are not in a socialist republic. We are in a capitalist republic.

How do you figure? Laissez-faire pretty much died after the Gilded Age.

We're a regulated, mostly free market.

diverdog
2/28/2012, 10:21 PM
And so we the tax payers have an obligation to get them out of a jam?

I know you love the socialist party and ****...but that is not the American way and it should never be.

Do you have savings ? Life insurance? Pension? Business? A government employee.

sappstuf
2/28/2012, 10:31 PM
How bout Delonte West? He is still in the NBA and making 800k (I think)...and didn't have a place to live (credit was so bad he couldn't rent an apartment)...so he slept in his car or the team locker room...

And with Lebron's mom....

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/29/2012, 12:20 AM
I remember when you used to try harder. Your game is slippin.Why argue with those who refuse to face reality?You ought quit wasting our time.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/29/2012, 12:25 AM
Originally Posted by 8timechamps:
"I am not questioning your intelligence, but after 20+ years of working in the financial industry, I can assure you that you are wrong about this. We're not talking about a few hundred people losing their job, we're talking about pension funds being wiped out, banks unable to dispense cash. Economic meltdown of a magnitude that has never been seen.
Most people had no clue how close we were to the edge."

OU_Sooners75:
"So....let it happen. All the US government is doing is enabling **** poor practices."
--------------------------------------------------------

They continue to kick it down the road. A day of reckoning is inevitable. How soon will IT happen?

Midtowner
2/29/2012, 08:49 AM
Originally Posted by 8timechamps:
"I am not questioning your intelligence, but after 20+ years of working in the financial industry, I can assure you that you are wrong about this. We're not talking about a few hundred people losing their job, we're talking about pension funds being wiped out, banks unable to dispense cash. Economic meltdown of a magnitude that has never been seen.
Most people had no clue how close we were to the edge."

OU_Sooners75:
"So....let it happen. All the US government is doing is enabling **** poor practices."
--------------------------------------------------------

They continue to kick it down the road. A day of reckoning is inevitable. How soon will IT happen?

If you were sincere about that, you'd be supporting Ron Paul. The Santorum/Romney crowd are and have always been in favor of kicking the can down the road despite their election day rhetoric.

badger
2/29/2012, 09:38 AM
They continue to kick it down the road. A day of reckoning is inevitable. How soon will IT happen?

I wonder if they're hoping it won't happen due to inflation, a war, or something else, y'know?

8timechamps
2/29/2012, 01:42 PM
Originally Posted by 8timechamps:
"I am not questioning your intelligence, but after 20+ years of working in the financial industry, I can assure you that you are wrong about this. We're not talking about a few hundred people losing their job, we're talking about pension funds being wiped out, banks unable to dispense cash. Economic meltdown of a magnitude that has never been seen.
Most people had no clue how close we were to the edge."

OU_Sooners75:
"So....let it happen. All the US government is doing is enabling **** poor practices."
--------------------------------------------------------

They continue to kick it down the road. A day of reckoning is inevitable. How soon will IT happen?

I agree that it's inevitable. The bailout was a bandaid on a gaping wound.

8timechamps
2/29/2012, 01:44 PM
Have you ever heard of the great depression?

What happened afterward?

I love the people that try to scare the **** out others with this doomsday ****.

No offense bro...love ya (no homo). But in order for our economy to be the strongest it can be, we need the government to get the hell out of the buying up businesses. We are not in a socialist republic. We are in a capitalist republic.

And capitalist know that sometimes the crap is going to hit the fan, but there will also be someone around to pick up the slack when it does.

Its called business...and business is always a chance!

I love you too (and it is homo :) ), but the fallout that would have occurred would have been the Great Depression x100.

And I completely agree that government needs to govern and not get into the business of being a business, but that ship has sailed. My point is that as bad a taste as it left in our mouths, the bank bailout was the only way out.

OU_Sooners75
2/29/2012, 04:38 PM
Do you have savings ? Life insurance? Pension? Business? A government employee.

Right now, I am not touchign banks.

What savings I have is better served in my hands not the banks.

Nope, not a business owner...but trying to get the startup for one. :)

But I can tell this much, I am an American Taxpayer that votes. So I have every right to speak out about what I feel money of the Government should be spent!

OU_Sooners75
2/29/2012, 04:40 PM
I love you too (and it is homo :) ), but the fallout that would have occurred would have been the Great Depression x100.

And I completely agree that government needs to govern and not get into the business of being a business, but that ship has sailed. My point is that as bad a taste as it left in our mouths, the bank bailout was the only way out.

Maybe you're right...but it just a bad thing when our government is acting in a socialist manner.

OU_Sooners75
2/29/2012, 04:42 PM
I agree that it's inevitable. The bailout was a bandaid on a gaping wound.

Well, hate to say it, but Ron Paul is a doctor...so maybe he can replace the bandaid with some sutures?

diverdog
2/29/2012, 09:01 PM
Have you ever heard of the great depression?

What happened afterward?

I love the people that try to scare the **** out others with this doomsday ****.

No offense bro...love ya (no homo). But in order for our economy to be the strongest it can be, we need the government to get the hell out of the buying up businesses. We are not in a socialist republic. We are in a capitalist republic.

And capitalist know that sometimes the crap is going to hit the fan, but there will also be someone around to pick up the slack when it does.

Its called business...and business is always a chance!

Again I ask you who would have picked up the slack? You keep throwing that out there but you have never answered my question. Who steps in if Goldman, Chase, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and GE had gone under?