Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

torsoboy · Mar 30, 2009, 03:31 AM

Obama is a scary man when he wields the pen of control.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/firs...ture-deadline/

Hopefully we can eventually rise out of the rubble that he is creating by blowing our country to Hell.

Rumor · Mar 30, 2009, 04:19 AM

Wait, so it was up in arms when AIG doled out millions in bonuses, but when the Administration tries to stop that from happening again, it's bad?

ctt1wbw · Mar 30, 2009, 04:33 AM

I fail to see the problem of 170 million in bonuses when the taxpayers have spent several billion just on AIG alone. Not to mention the several billion to fannie mae and freddie mac. Where's the outcry over that? And what about the outcry when Congress votes themselves their own pay raises?

And since when does a sitting President have the power to demand a CEO to resign from a private non government agency? This is getting out of control.

Doofy · Mar 30, 2009, 04:36 AM

Car makers going bump? Not going to happen. Unions won't let it.

Car makers being forced to make pathetic little eco-boxes? Now that's more like it.

Randman · Mar 30, 2009, 04:40 AM

Car makers put themselves in this hole. I say let one crumble and force the others to work right. If a restaurant did this and failed, people would say it's expected.

Kerrigan · Mar 30, 2009, 05:00 AM

I love Corvettes, Chargers and Silverados as much as the next guy, but if an American car company can't make make a profit and keep its head above water, then they ought to go out of business.

Kerrigan · Mar 30, 2009, 05:14 AM

Also, for all those who may be "fanboys" of a certain brand, let's be honest for a minute.

My first car was a Chevy and I have the highest regard for this brand. However, for the past 5 years, GM has been making hideous cars. All Cadillacs are now vulgar looking, Pontiac is a joke, the new Suburbans and Tahoes look terrible, the Silverado looks horrendous, and the European division cars look terrible (particularly Saab). I would not buy any GM car today. Even the new "retro" Camino looks, um...

Ford cars look slightly more attractive from a consumer standpoint. Also, Ford evidently declined a huge bailout and went for a government loan instead. Ford has also shed its worthless European brands (Jag, Land Rover, and soon Volvo, to name the ones I know). Perhaps this is why Ford is not appearing in the news as an automaker "on the brink".

I don't even know what to say about Chrysler.

Doofy · Mar 30, 2009, 05:45 AM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Also, for all those who may be "fanboys" of a certain brand, let's be honest for a minute.

My first car was a Chevy and I have the highest regard for this brand. However, for the past 5 years, GM has been making hideous cars. All Cadillacs are now vulgar looking, Pontiac is a joke, the new Suburbans and Tahoes look terrible, the Silverado looks horrendous, and the European division cars look terrible (particularly Saab). I would not buy any GM car today. Even the new "retro" Camino looks, um...

You know why the front ends of modern Jeeps are so hideous? EU pedestrian safety rules.

I suspect that this applies across the board - cars looking hideous because of some design feature having to follow safety laws which some country/territory has mandated. Why else does every modern car have stupid headlights which nearly reach up to the a-pillar?

PB2K · Mar 30, 2009, 06:11 AM

american cars will still be made after the 3 went down. It's just not on the scale you are used to.

OldManMac · Mar 30, 2009, 06:37 AM

Rick Wagoner should have been booted long ago. He's just another one of the good old boys in the boardroom, and had no fresh ideas, as is obvious, about turning GM around. Chrysler is going to face the same fate. Nardelli screwed up Home Depot, walked away with a $210 million severance package, and got a chance to screw up another company.

torsoboy · Mar 30, 2009, 09:56 AM

Whole cities are built around these automakers... for the US government to give AIG 180 billion, with apparently very little strings attached, and then to say effectively say "screw you" to entire cities full of people is pathetic.

Big Mac · 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by torsoboy

Whole cities are built around these automakers... for the US government to give AIG 180 billion, with apparently very little strings attached, and then to say effectively say "screw you" to entire cities full of people is pathetic.

The AIG bailout wasn't the right thing to do, and neither was repeated bailout payments to GM and Chrysler. They've already received tens of billions of dollars. Besides, that workforce won't be unemployed over night. The government will simply impose a solution that keeps them employed, even if GMC becomes the property of the USA.

axlepin · 10:35 PM

Originally Posted by torsoboy

Obama is a scary man when he wields the pen of control. Hopefully we can eventually rise out of the rubble that he is creating by blowing our country to Hell.

what I find scary is that, after 8 years of watching a dry drunk help turn this country into a dried-out cat turd of its former self, rush limbaugh can STILL inject his brain-dead followers with his special brand of vomit, pus, anger and convince them that a guy who's been on the job less than 60 days is the REAL culprit.

Never mind that Geeee Emmmm has had 100 years to do the right thing, ford and chrysler, too, and that the American People have essentially self-abrogated their role in any of this.

I ask but one thing of the starter of this thread: please, PLEASE stay on your meds!

a

BadKosh · 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by torsoboy

Whole cities are built around these automakers... for the US government to give AIG 180 billion, with apparently very little strings attached, and then to say effectively say "screw you" to entire cities full of people is pathetic.

So when President Obama and congress decide to tax non-'green' energies and WVA's coal workers are out of work, what then? Bail out WVA?

What industry will Obama target next? YOURS?

OAW · Mar 30, 2009, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Also, for all those who may be "fanboys" of a certain brand, let's be honest for a minute.

My first car was a Chevy and I have the highest regard for this brand. However, for the past 5 years, GM has been making hideous cars. All Cadillacs are now vulgar looking, Pontiac is a joke, the new Suburbans and Tahoes look terrible, the Silverado looks horrendous, and the European division cars look terrible (particularly Saab). I would not buy any GM car today. Even the new "retro" Camino looks, um...

On the Tahoes and Suburbans ... they are what they are. Big, gas-guzzling SUVs. I wouldn't say they look terrible. But they are rather bland. The Pontiac G6 is OK. And the Pontiac Solstice is definitely hot. As for the Cadillacs, if you are including the CTS then you must be high because that car is the true hotness!

2008 Motor Trend Car of the Year at that. Very stylish inside and out. And Saturn makes some good designs. I know the Aura is a pretty nice looking sedan.

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Ford cars look slightly more attractive from a consumer standpoint. Also, Ford evidently declined a huge bailout and went for a government loan instead. Ford has also shed its worthless European brands (Jag, Land Rover, and soon Volvo, to name the ones I know). Perhaps this is why Ford is not appearing in the news as an automaker "on the brink".

Overall this is true. The Fusion/Milan is nice. The Edge is a stylish looking crossover. Of course the new Taurus is ass. Boring and plain as usual. The Lincoln MKS is hot though. Gotta give it up to Ford on that one.

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

I don't even know what to say about Chrysler.

Indeed. The only cars they have that look like anything are the 300M, the Charger, and to a lesser extent the Avenger. But all of these are designs that have been around for several years. I haven't seen a new design out of them that has caught my eye in a long time.

OAW

sek929 · Mar 30, 2009, 05:02 PM

Good for Obama, throwing money at car companies known for ineptness is masturbation. Throw those idiots in charge out on their asses and get someone in the ranks that knows how to run a f**king car company properly.

Keeping them afloat with countless more billions would be a gigantic mistake.

Chuckit · Mar 30, 2009, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by torsoboy

Obama is a scary man when he wields the pen of control.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/firs...ture-deadline/

Hopefully we can eventually rise out of the rubble that he is creating by blowing our country to Hell.

Scary if you're an irresponsible executive who wants mommy to bail you out of your mistakes, I guess.

Isn't it supposed to be the Republicans who are for personal responsibility and the Democrats who want everyone to be treated with kid gloves? Did I wake up in Opposite World?

Shaddim · Mar 30, 2009, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by OAW

Indeed. The only cars they have that look like anything are the 300M, the Charger, and to a lesser extent the Avenger. But all of these are designs that have been around for several years. I haven't seen a new design out of them that has caught my eye in a long time.

You forgot the Challenger, one of the only American made cars that's actually worth it's MSRP.

dcmacdaddy · Mar 30, 2009, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Scary if you're an irresponsible executive who wants mommy to bail you out of your mistakes, I guess.

Isn't it supposed to be the Republicans who are for personal responsibility and the Democrats who want everyone to be treated with kid gloves? Did I wake up in Opposite World?

Sort of. Although like most political tenets, when there are points to be scored against one's opponents, political ideas will be sacrificed for the sake of a cheap, media-saturated "Gotcha" moment.

Count me among those who would like to see the Obama Administration force some high-level departures in the financial sector as well. (And I still say GM should be put into an orderly bankruptcy reorganization and Chrysler forced into liquidation.)

Shaddim · Mar 30, 2009, 07:06 PM

I don't know about liquidation, maybe let Ford purchase Chrysler outright.

Big Mac · Mar 30, 2009, 08:06 PM

Why would Ford want that baggage?

OldManMac · Mar 30, 2009, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

I don't know about liquidation, maybe let Ford purchase Chrysler outright.

Ford doesn't have the money, and there's no reason to purchase a toxic asset that's going to disappear in any event.

BadKosh · Mar 30, 2009, 08:52 PM

Greedy Unions have ruined everything. The schools, now the manufacturing sector. 1935 was a bad year for Auto Manufacturers.

Chongo · Mar 30, 2009, 09:10 PM

Toyota, Honda, Subaru, BMW, Mercedes, and a few other auto makers have plants here in the US, and are making a profit. Honda makes the Accord exclusively here in the US.

dcmacdaddy · Mar 30, 2009, 09:13 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

I don't know about liquidation, maybe let Ford purchase Chrysler outright.

What does Chrysler have that is worth buying by Ford?

(edited to add)
Looks like BigMac and OldManMac already made this point.

Rumor · Mar 30, 2009, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by BadKosh

Greedy Unions have ruined everything. The schools, now the manufacturing sector. 1935 was a bad year for Auto Manufacturers.

I'm not so sure I would group the schools into that statement. Yes, the became a Union to make more money, and get better benefits. However, these are the people that teach the next generation. How can you place a monetary value on that?

As it is, here (in Cal) they are underpaid, IMO. A teacher with a Masters starts at $46k a year teaching high school.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Mar 30, 2009, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Isn't it supposed to be the Republicans who are for personal responsibility and the Democrats who want everyone to be treated with kid gloves? Did I wake up in Opposite World?

The point you missed is that none of this is the business of the government to dictate. Anyone with any shred of a brain should realize how fascist it is when you have some two bit politician thinking he can dictate the course of an entire private sector industry, pretending he has any qualification what-so-ever at making anything in the private sector successful, and in usual class-envy fashion, deciding who gets paid what, and who gets fired.

Now, granted, the auto industry set themselves up for this by taking bailout money, just as AIG set themselves up for the political theater that played out when they paid out the bonuses the government actually set up and approved of.

But it's pretty clear- Obama and the usual gang of busybodies want to grab as much power and control over the private sector as they can, and dictate things they have no business dictating. They're currently just using public money in the form of bailouts to buy their way in. Most of it is just a smokescreen for the fact that clearly the Obama admin doesn't have a CLUE what it's doing, so brow-beating a few companies that are already on the ropes (even with stupid setups like the feigned AIG bonus 'outrage') makes it look like they're 'sticking it to the man' for benefit of the class-envy crowd.

Hopefully other businesses, no matter how bad off, will learn to spot the obvious Trojan horse of bailouts with the little nanny-state busybodies inside, and not open the friggen gates in the first place.

Shaddim · Mar 30, 2009, 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by OldManMac

Ford doesn't have the money, and there's no reason to purchase a toxic asset that's going to disappear in any event.

They don't need to have the money, they can just float the paper and buy the brands.

Shaddim · Mar 30, 2009, 11:08 PM

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

What does Chrysler have that is worth buying by Ford?

The brands and R&D.

harbinger75 · Mar 30, 2009, 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Scary if you're an irresponsible executive who wants mommy to bail you out of your mistakes, I guess.

Isn't it supposed to be the Republicans who are for personal responsibility and the Democrats who want everyone to be treated with kid gloves? Did I wake up in Opposite World?

Yes, but it's actually Bizarro World. Seinfeld is there, too.

el chupacabra · Mar 30, 2009, 11:41 PM

Originally Posted by torsoboy

Obama is a scary man when he wields the pen of control.

Yes bailing out a bunch of irresponsible billionaire investors with MY money is scary.

America hasn't had an auto industry for a while now. Most the cars are manufactured outside the US so really we're just bailing out foreign countries / protecting outsourced labor...

Don't worry US Government corporation is just trying to play mind games right now, good dem bad dem..."look we dems can be tough too" its a fasade... they'll all be bailed out.

CreepDogg · Mar 30, 2009, 11:42 PM

If the government is going to be investing in the auto industry, I'd much rather see them investing in upstarts like this hotness:

Tesla Model S*

...rather than in a couple of dying behemoths they're even saying have a good chance of entering bankruptcy or ceasing to exist altogether. Who in their right mind would invest in GM and Chrysler right now? Obviously Cerberus is done putting money into their sinkhole. If anyone was to put their money in the US auto industry right now, where would they prefer to invest? I'd choose something that has a better chance of return...

* I realize this is more or less vaporware right now, but it is also a much smaller investment (2% or so of what they want to put into the Dead 2 Walking) with a much larger upside. If they pull this off, and the production model is anywhere near these specs, I, for one, will be putting my money where my mouth is and putting one in my garage.

dcmacdaddy · Mar 30, 2009, 11:48 PM

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

What does Chrysler have that is worth buying by Ford?

Originally Posted by Shaddim

The brands and R&D.

I am of the opinion that if Chrysler's brands and R&D divisions were worth anything then Chrysler would be a successful car company not on the verge of bankruptcy. In other words, if Chrysler had brands a lot of people wanted to buy--and an R&D division developing new models for those brands--Chrysler would still be a viable company. But they aren't and I attribute much of their failure for an inability to design, manufacture, and sell cars people want to buy.

CreepDogg · Mar 30, 2009, 11:55 PM

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

I am of the opinion that if Chrysler's brands and R&D divisions were worth anything then Chrysler would be a successful car company not on the verge of bankruptcy. In other words, if Chrysler had brands a lot of people wanted to buy--and an R&D division developing new models for those brands--Chrysler would still be a viable company. But they aren't and I attribute much of their failure for an inability to design, manufacture, and sell cars people want to buy.

I generally agree, although if Ford (or anyone, really) could get those Chrysler assets that have value at a relative bargain, I could see them doing that. Of course, that wouldn't really be 'saving' Chrysler. They will not fetch the value Chrysler perceives in them.

turtle777 · Mar 31, 2009, 12:04 AM

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

I am of the opinion that if Chrysler's brands and R&D divisions were worth anything then Chrysler would be a successful car company not on the verge of bankruptcy. In other words, if Chrysler had brands a lot of people wanted to buy--and an R&D division developing new models for those brands--Chrysler would still be a viable company. But they aren't and I attribute much of their failure for an inability to design, manufacture, and sell cars people want to buy.

Chrysler is worth sh!t. Daimler just impaired their 10% stake down to zero.

So by market comps, Chrysler is worth nothing.

-t

The Godfather · Mar 31, 2009, 12:06 AM

Japanese management should buy these troubled companies and make them run like in Japan.

smacintush · Mar 31, 2009, 12:31 AM

The auto companies certainly ARE getting what they deserve.

Dealing with the federal government is…quite literally…like dealing with the mafia. If you are stupid enough to go to them for help you become beholden to them and you can't get rid of them. The only real difference is that the federal government is so big that they don't have to resort to sending their boys down to whack you if you don't comply, they have other methods.

smacintush · Mar 31, 2009, 12:37 AM

Originally Posted by el chupacabra

Yes bailing out a bunch of irresponsible billionaire investors with MY money is scary.

Funny how so many are so angry about giving money to irresponsible corporations, yet bankrupting our country by "bailing out" (for decades) irresponsible people who can't be bothered with taking care of their own financial needs by giving them welfare, social security and health insurance is perfectly OK.

The government shouldn't be "bailing out" anyone. They aren't giving the money away, every dollar buys a little more of your freedom from you.

Don't worry US Government corporation is just trying to play mind games right now, good dem bad dem..."look we dems can be tough too" its a fasade... they'll all be bailed out.

I agree 100%.

Rumor · Mar 31, 2009, 12:45 AM

Originally Posted by smacintush

the auto companies certainly are getting what they deserve.

Dealing with the federal government is…quite literally…like dealing with the mafia. If you are stupid enough to go to them for help you become beholden to them and you can't get rid of them. The only real difference is that the federal government is so big that they don't have to resort to sending their boys down to whack you if you don't comply, they have other methods.

irs?

CreepDogg · Mar 31, 2009, 12:52 AM

Originally Posted by smacintush

Funny how so many are so angry about giving money to irresponsible corporations, yet bankrupting our country by "bailing out" (for decades) irresponsible people who can't be bothered with taking care of their own financial needs by giving them welfare, social security and health insurance is perfectly OK.

OK, I'm not going to claim every entitlement program is perfect, or even, in some cases, worthwhile, but come on, you really don't see a difference?

smacintush · Mar 31, 2009, 01:47 AM

Originally Posted by CreepDogg

OK, I'm not going to claim every entitlement program is perfect, or even, in some cases, worthwhile, but come on, you really don't see a difference?

Difference? Yes. Sort of the kind of difference there is between assault and attempted murder. Does that fact that one is "worse" make the other OK?

Chuckit · Mar 31, 2009, 01:54 AM

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

The point you missed is that none of this is the business of the government to dictate. Anyone with any shred of a brain should realize how fascist it is when you have some two bit politician thinking he can dictate the course of an entire private sector industry, pretending he has any qualification what-so-ever at making anything in the private sector successful, and in usual class-envy fashion, deciding who gets paid what, and who gets fired.

His money, his terms. I don't like the idea of a bailout in general, but if we're going through with bailing them out, it should be conditional on these companies getting their **** together. In this particular case, I'd do exactly what Obama is doing.

Also, you can't possibly believe Obama's personal business acumen is at all relevant.

Big Mac · Mar 31, 2009, 02:01 AM

Originally Posted by Rumor

A teacher with a Masters starts at $46k a year teaching high school.

What's so bad about a $46K starting salary for a teacher? Teachers don't need Porsches.

Shaddim · Mar 31, 2009, 02:22 AM

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

I am of the opinion that if Chrysler's brands and R&D divisions were worth anything then Chrysler would be a successful car company not on the verge of bankruptcy.

Hogwash. They have some nice designs, better than Ford or GM. Plus, the Chrsler, Dodge, and Plymouth names are very well known. They have value, the company has simply been mismanaged.

Chuckit · Mar 31, 2009, 03:56 AM

Chrysler is a well-known name, but so is Hitler. The question is how well-loved the name is these days.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Mar 31, 2009, 04:56 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

His money, his terms.

It's not his money.

And it's not entrusted to him and the government so that he can use it as a Trojan horse to dictate terms to private businesses. Yes, the businesses shouldn't take the money, or be offered it in the first place, but the very fact that it is being used this way is just YET ANOTHER way the freakin' federal government misuses the money it's entrusted with- OUR money, yours, mine, and every taxpayers, not Obama's.

I don't like the idea of a bailout in general, but if we're going through with bailing them out, it should be conditional on these companies getting their **** together.

While I agree with this in principal, it's funny to me, because here's the crux of the argument that's now bandied about like people just thought of it, and it was some major new way of thinking:

"If an entity takes public money, collected from the taxpayer, it should be conditional on this entity to get their friggen **** together."

And somehow this 'brand new!' theory applies to insurance companies, banks, automakers...

... but there's one entity that it NEVER seems to apply to, in fact, even as that entity misuses public money in order to set up the situation where they can browbeat others for the EXACT thing they are most guilty of. Wait, In typing this, I even forgot what that other entity is, being that it's sooo unimportant, the way automakers and banks are...

...oh wait, I just remembered... THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!

You know, the folks that SOOOOOO MUCH have their own **** together that they're only digging all of us trillions upon trillions of dollars into a black hole, while they browbeat others for abusing what are in comparison paltry sums.

Gee, somehow it never dawns on all the newly self-anointed "watchdogs" of the public funds to hold the fed to the same standard they "just came up with!" that they want to hold these private companies to.

While you enjoy the political theater of the biggest waster of public money the world has ever seen pointing fingers and "getting tough!" with a private company for accepting a dangled carrot 'bailout', pay no attention to the fact that it's all a bit like watching a child-molesting, murdering rapist lecture a petty thief about how they should "go straight!"

And yes of course, how dare anyone expect the giant waster of taxpayer funds- that wastes even more of it in order to put on this show for you- actually have a shred of business sense when it presents itself as the solution. That's crazy talk.

BadKosh · 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by Rumor

I'm not so sure I would group the schools into that statement. Yes, the became a Union to make more money, and get better benefits. However, these are the people that teach the next generation. How can you place a monetary value on that?

As it is, here (in Cal) they are underpaid, IMO. A teacher with a Masters starts at $46k a year teaching high school.

The lack of a solid history and government background being taught in schools has lead partially to the lack of outrage over what unconstitutional crap President Obama is doing. Re-writing history so as not to offend some, and the PC movement - both accepted by many school districts is OK with you? Underpaid? Well why not start firing the worst teachers, and grading teachers performance and publishing the details? Show proof the union teachers are worth it.
You sure can't prove it by test scores, or performance when they can get in a college. They are poor commicators, can't think, and have short attention spans are are mostly indoctrinated to liberal causes the teachers Unions and democrats want - like global warming, PC attitudes etc. Most have never read or understood the Constitution. If teachers were better as a group, and proved their worth in the classrooms they wouldn't need union protection.

CreepDogg · Mar 31, 2009, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by smacintush

Difference? Yes. Sort of the kind of difference there is between assault and attempted murder. Does that fact that one is "worse" make the other OK?

In the case of assault and attempted murder, no. In the case of deciding to whom and when to provide assistance, yes.

CreepDogg · Mar 31, 2009, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

Hogwash. They have some nice designs, better than Ford or GM. Plus, the Chrsler, Dodge, and Plymouth names are very well known. They have value, the company has simply been mismanaged.

So why force them upon Ford? Why not let the market decide what, if anything, they're worth?

OAW · Mar 31, 2009, 12:13 PM

At this stage in the game all Chrysler really has going for it is under-utilized production capacity. The problem is that the market for new car sales has tanked. This is primarily due to the financial crisis. People won't buy new cars if the banks won't lend them the money. And people aren't eager to buy new cars when the economy is shedding 600K jobs per month. Both of these issues have to be resolved before the auto market has any chance of rebounding. But having said all that, the Big Three had too much production capacity compared to their actual sales figures even before this crisis got going. IOW, the Big Three were too big for the market, especially in the US. They needed overseas sales for growth but the market there is in the doldrums as well due to the global recession.

So in light of all that, why would Ford buy Chrysler again?

OAW