[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

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.

Part of the agreement for the bailout money and the eventual Federal majority control over those corporations was that the current Administration could request the resignation of corporate officers if they fail to do their duty.

Those companies were offered billions upon billions of tax payer dollars on the condition that the companies provide a strategy to at least keep the company afloat. GM and Chrysler failed miserably even after getting billions in bailout money, so now the people in charge there are going to be kicked to the curb (well, gold plated curb lined with plush velvet) so someone competent can hopefully change things.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by axlepin 

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 limbowow can STILL inject his brain-dead followers with his special brand of vomit, pus, anger and anal leakings 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

QFT. Except for the meds part. The lounge would be far less entertaining if people stayed on their meds.

[OreoCookie]

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.

Again, why are companies then begging for government money? It's not the government crossing the boundary, it's companies crossing the boundary as well: they would like the government to interfere and stabilize them with handouts. Then they also have to accept that the government doesn't hand out money with no strings attached. It's always easy to pass blame to the government when companies are happily contributing their share.

(BTW, like Chuckit, I have opposed the various bailouts.)

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by axlepin 

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.

Posted with the ignorance of someone who has not listened to Limbaugh, or paid any attention to the critics of President Obama. The conservatives have shown the 'audit trail' of democrats going back to the Carter Administration who have Threatened the Mortgage lenders with lawsuits and more regulations unless these crap loans were granted. There have been several links to see for your self. Obama himself was such a shakedown artist similar to Jesse Jackson. 0bama used a false 'study' as the basis of his scam. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank are mixed up in this too. Both took buttloads of bucks. The Dems have been running congress since 2007. It was on their watch that things went south. Why not do some research next time?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Posted with the ignorance of someone who has not listened to Limbaugh, or paid any attention to the critics of President Obama. The conservatives have shown the 'audit trail' of democrats going back to the Carter Administration who have Threatened the Mortgage lenders with lawsuits and more regulations unless these crap loans were granted.

Yet somehow most of the Conservatives (namely Limbaugh) conveniently forget that those laws did not force the Banks to give out bogus loans. It was ultimately up to the banks to set the terms. All the housing acts did were to make sure the banks and lenders would extend their portfolios to lower income areas, it did not force them to change their criteria for accepting candidates for loans.

They screwed themselves over because they got greedy.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

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

Hyperbole. Last I heard, Hitler hasn't been making cars since the 1940s (re. "The People's Car"). Chrysler, in contrast, currently makes some of the best cars manufactured in the US. Blame the management, not the designers.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

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

OAW

As I've said many times already, because Chrysler makes a better car. This recession won't last forever, and when it recovers Ford will enjoy selling 5k Challengers /month.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

As I've said many times already, because Chrysler makes a better car. This recession won't last forever, and when it recovers Ford will enjoy selling 5k Challengers /month.

Somehow I don't think the sales from one vehicle will cover the cost of acquiring Chrysler. Or two. Or even three.

OAW

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Posted with the ignorance of someone who has not listened to Limbaugh,

Thanks - I needed a laugh today!

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Somehow I don't think the sales from one vehicle will cover the cost of acquiring Chrysler. Or two. Or even three.

OAW

That really can't be your argument. It's an example, hello?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That really can't be your argument. It's an example, hello?

My argument is that the US manufacturers have too much capacity for the market. And this was the case even before the current crisis. So how would Ford increasing its overall capacity by purchasing Chrysler help the situation?

OAW

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

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 mudbone 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.

I completely agree about test scores. Most, if not all, of my friends that are teachers think it's b.s. as well. However, the Prinicals and higher just look at the numbers.

Sadly, our education system here is in shambles. We are ranked 48th or 49th in the nation. Pretty damn sad.

Perhaps I am fortunate, but most of my teachers were really good teachers up until high school. My class was under 25 people when attending K-8. That allows for real teaching. Under 20 would be better. I got into high school and classes were 35+. It becomes very, very difficult at that point. Yes, college can have many more, but they aren't high schoolers either.

So we have over crowded and under funded schools. What does the state do? Cuts 10,000 teachers. One of my friends got a pink slip. Lucky for her, there was an outcry from her students and their parents which allowed her to keep her job.

Perhaps I am a bit biased though. I have several friends that are teachers. My s/o is working on getting her credentials right now. Then again, perhaps this gives me a perspective that some may not have.

Edit: Anyhow, I am derailing this thread, so I won't post about this anymore.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

My argument is that the US manufacturers have too much capacity for the market. And this was the case even before the current crisis. So how would Ford increasing its overall capacity by purchasing Chrysler help the situation?

OAW

Because they could improve the quality of the vehicles they're already selling?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Because they could improve the quality of the vehicles they're already selling?

Not so much. While Chrysler scored above average in its J.D. Power ratings it still lags behind Ford and GM in quality.

All Ford domestic brands did well with an average score of 146. GM’s domestic brands averaged 183, while Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep came in at 196.

Source

OAW

[Wiskedjak]

Thread title correction:

Goodbye *2* (of 3) US Automakers

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Not so much. While Chrysler scored above average in its J.D. Power ratings it still lags behind Ford and GM in quality.



Source

OAW

and they both fall behind Chrysler in their cars sucking ass.

J.D. Power doesn't rate if a car is actually fun to drive.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Because they could improve the quality of the vehicles they're already selling?

If the consumer prefers Ford over Chrysler, how could Ford possibly be improved by buying Chrysler? Most likely we'll see an Asian automaker acquire Chrysler.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Again, why are companies then begging for government money? It's not the government crossing the boundary, it's companies crossing the boundary as well: they would like the government to interfere and stabilize them with handouts.

True- but the option should never have been on the table in the first place. Now I realize the current bout of bailouts has nothing to do with stablizing any company, and everything to do with political theater. Handing money out like candy, and then slapping the hands of those that take it is designed to be a nice show, to focus your attention on the companies, and away from how clueless the Obama administration is.

Then they also have to accept that the government doesn't hand out money with no strings attached.

You're 100% right- and I really hope one day the left gets it drilled into their thick skulls that this will ALWAYS be the case, including when the 'handout' is your health, or your welfare. There WILL BE strings attached, and the whole idea is CONTROL, not fixing any problems, and certainly not cutting any costs.

The only people that hand out taxpayer money with no strings attached- ARE TAXPAYERS!

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

If the consumer prefers Ford over Chrysler, how could Ford possibly be improved by buying Chrysler? Most likely we'll see an Asian automaker acquire Chrysler.

With just a few exceptions, if a consumer prefers Ford to Chrysler, they're stoned.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

With just a few exceptions, if a consumer prefers Ford to Chrysler, they're stoned.

Man, you really have a hard-on for Chrysler. What's up with that? You own some stock or something?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

With just a few exceptions, if a consumer prefers Ford to Chrysler, they're stoned.

Perhaps. But, even if true, that's irrelevant. VHS beat Beta. Windows dominates the OS market. Consumers choose sub-standard products all the time.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

With just a few exceptions, if a consumer prefers Ford to Chrysler, they're stoned.

Ford has some of the most uninteresting cars on the road IMO, but in terms of quality you have it backwards. Chrysler has quality problems and has for a long damn time.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

and they both fall behind Chrysler in their cars sucking ass.

J.D. Power doesn't rate if a car is actually fun to drive.

A fun piece of crap is still a piece of crap.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

As I've said many times already, because Chrysler makes a better car. This recession won't last forever, and when it recovers Ford will enjoy selling 5k Challengers /month.

You forgot the lol icon. Ford makes the best domestic cars on the market now, by any measurable standard. Chrysler is a distant third in quality.

[Big Mac]

Yeah, I don't know if I've ever heard anything good about Chrysler. Shaddim's allegiance to it is fascinating.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Man, you really have a hard-on for Chrysler. What's up with that? You own some stock or something?

Their cars are simply more interesting, no other US manufacturer is even close to matching their designs.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Ford has some of the most uninteresting cars on the road IMO, but in terms of quality you have it backwards. Chrysler has quality problems and has for a long damn time.

Except for the GT (THE GT, not the Mustang), Ford hasn't made an inspiring car in decades.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Yeah, I don't know if I've ever heard anything good about Chrysler. Shaddim's allegiance to it is fascinating.

I test drove a new Challenger SRT8, for $42k it's one hell of a bargain.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

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.

Does your mortgage company tell you what to do and when to do it and how to do it? Hey, it's their money, their rules.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Their cars are simply more interesting, no other US manufacturer is even close to matching their designs.

I am with you. I won't own anything other than Dodge. Best truck on the market. And find something as good as the Charger SRT for the same money coming from Japan.

[ctt1wbw]

Besides, what's wrong, really, with the Big 3? Everyone's sales are down. Honda in the US is closing factories for 2 weeks because it ain't selling. Toyota, last I saw, was down about 40-50% year over year. Nobody is selling cars. Can't Obama, The Dear Leader, tell them to get straight?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

True- but the option should never have been on the table in the first place. Now I realize the current bout of bailouts has nothing to do with stablizing any company, and everything to do with political theater. Handing money out like candy, and then slapping the hands of those that take it is designed to be a nice show, to focus your attention on the companies, and away from how clueless the Obama administration is.

Not just Obama, any politician involved. The bailout plan for the banks started in the Bush administration. Make no mistake about it, any politician has the feeling that he or she cannot afford to `do nothing.' It's got nothing to do with ideology, but with self-preservation (i. e. politicians like to be re-elected).

Similarly for companies (which are made up of the same flawed people as everywhere in society), like anyone they would like to have only the advantages: a state that doesn't stick their noses in their business when everything is fine and dandy, but when (big) businesses are on the verge of collapse, they'd like the state to come running. Bringing a cake and eating it, too. And no, it doesn't have one bit to do with ideology, it's got everything to do with human nature.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Does your mortgage company tell you what to do and when to do it and how to do it? Hey, it's their money, their rules.

Where I come from, yes. They want to know what you borrow the money for (car? house?) and what your securities are.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Does your mortgage company tell you what to do and when to do it and how to do it? Hey, it's their money, their rules.

If the mortgage company were *giving* me the money, rather than *loaning* it, I suspect they'd want to ensure that money was used effectively.

Do you ever give money to beggars on the street? I certainly don't, because I know there's a high degree of possibility that they're just gonna piss it away on booze. Instead, I donate that money to local programs designed to help get these people off the street and back to being productive again.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Besides, what's wrong, really, with the Big 3? Everyone's sales are down. Honda in the US is closing factories for 2 weeks because it ain't selling. Toyota, last I saw, was down about 40-50% year over year. Nobody is selling cars. Can't Obama, The Dear Leader, tell them to get straight?

Tell Toyota and Honda to "get straight"? Serious?
a) Toyota and Honda don't have their hands out for US money
b) Toyota and Honda aren't US companies
c) The Dear Leader isn't telling *Ford* to "get straight".

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Does your mortgage company tell you what to do and when to do it and how to do it? Hey, it's their money, their rules.

They sure do. Have you ever taken out a mortgage? Ever looked at the papers you sign? They protect their interest in the property - you have to keep insurance. You have to keep your taxes/assessments/fees current. Depending on the property, you have to obey the rules and covenants for maintenance, etc.

If you take a mortgage, you conform to these things, or they can ask for their money back (default you). Their money, their rules.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

I am with you. I won't own anything other than Dodge. Best truck on the market.

Completely subjective. There is no discernible difference between the Ram, 1500, and F-150 besides styling. Neither is there any difference between the 3500 Dodge, 3500 Chevy, and F350.

In the realm of small trucks the Tacoma is king, and rightly so. Then it's the Ranger and Sonoma (not sure about the Canyon now) and THEN the Dakota. Dodge Dakotas are going for 3-4 thousand dollars less than similar Fords, Toyotas and Chevys with more mileage on them. Dodge cars have always treated me well, besides the K-car chassis in my 95 Intrepid. My parents' 97 Caravan has needed zero work after 140,000 miles.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

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?

I completely missed something. How is Obama gong about promoting revisionist history?

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Show proof the union teachers are worth it.

It has nothing to do with the Teacher's Union. The Union does not prevent teachers from getting fired. They are there to make sure that due process is followed. If a teacher is going to be fired, they're there to make sure all the correct steps are taken. Disciplinary actions are handled by the school board.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

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.

That varies by state. In California, for example, you only cover the U.S. and State Constitution for a couple weeks. That's it. I think I wrote 1 essay on the U.S. Constitution in all of high school. It didn't matter how good or bad the teachers were, there simply wasn't enough time to cover the subject.

Don't forget that in Aarkansas and Oklahoma they teach kids in their science classes that Magical Pink Flying Unicorns designed the universe, so it's clear that several states follow the Conservative agenda when it comes to education.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

They sure do. Have you ever taken out a mortgage? Ever looked at the papers you sign? They protect their interest in the property - you have to keep insurance. You have to keep your taxes/assessments/fees current. Depending on the property, you have to obey the rules and covenants for maintenance, etc.

If you take a mortgage, you conform to these things, or they can ask for their money back (default you). Their money, their rules.

You are missing my point. My wife and I own two businesses now. And yes, I've taken out two mortgages on two houses. My point is what if Chase told me to fire my wife, or vise versa, because they loaned me money? That's my point. As long as I pay it back, nothing happens. But as long as I am paying it back, Chase has no right to enter my house and dictate policy and direction. See?

[Uncle Skeleton]

If your wife was a pyromaniac, or in some other way actively destroying the value of the property, storing hazardous materials, or making the property unfit for human habitation, yes Chase would tell you to either give the money back, tell her to stop, or tell her to leave. Did you read your mortgage papers before signing?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I completely missed something. How is Obama gong about promoting revisionist history?

off the top of my head, the terms: "war on terror" and "enemy combatant" (Geneva Convention nomenclature)will no longer used used. SHS Janet Neapolitan (my former Gov) according to her last press conference, the World Trade Center attacks was a "made made disaster." "act of terrorism" will no longer be used.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

You are missing my point. My wife and I own two businesses now. And yes, I've taken out two mortgages on two houses. My point is what if Chase told me to fire my wife, or vise versa, because they loaned me money? That's my point. As long as I pay it back, nothing happens. But as long as I am paying it back, Chase has no right to enter my house and dictate policy and direction. See?

Chase doesn't care about your business. Chase cares about the value of the property you put up to get the money. They're not concerned if your wife is incompetent and runs your business into the ground. If that happens and you can't pay your mortgage, they have a right to take your property, not your business. Hence, their interest in its value.

Check your mortgage papers - you have to keep your property insured, pay your taxes on it, probably keep it to some minimal level of maintenance, and most likely use it only as your primary residence. If Chase suspects you're not doing any of these things, they have a right to come in and dictate their policy on it.


Now, I don't think that GM put up the RenCen or any of their other property as collateral on the billions they got. The money was directly put in to improve their business. See the distinction?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

off the top of my head, the terms: "war on terror" ...will no longer used used.

I think this one, anyway, is a good thing. Any time I hear the phrase "War On..." anything, I know that means it's an excuse for some big boondoggle with lots of government spending for very little actual result.

Maybe everyone would feel better if Obama called the recent spending packages the "War on the Recession".

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

off the top of my head, the terms: "war on terror" and "enemy combatant" (Geneva Convention nomenclature)will no longer used used. SHS Janet Neapolitan (my former Gov) according to her last press conference, the World Trade Center attacks was a "made made disaster." "act of terrorism" will no longer be used.

Getting rid of generic cliches that are more emotionally charged than meaningful? Quelle horreur!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

I think this one, anyway, is a good thing. Any time I hear the phrase "War On..." anything, I know that means it's an excuse for some big boondoggle with lots of government spending for very little actual result.

Ahh, but now you're going to have to work harder to figure out which stuff is the excuses for big boondoggles with lots of government spending for very few actual results.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Ahh, but now you're going to have to work harder to figure out which stuff is the excuses for big boondoggles with lots of government spending for very few actual results.

Nah. I can form my own opinions on this stuff without the loaded rhetoric. It was/is just an easy shortcut...

[scottiB]

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.

Clarification: The money GM and Chrysler have received are loans (obviously we'll see if they're repaid). Ford has asked for the availability to have a line of credit from the Feds (which to my thinking is a loan), but have not requested any of that credit yet.

Ford, when Mullaly arrived, took out $10-20 billion in loans from the financial sector using pretty much all its assets (even the blue oval logo and brand) as collateral. Ford is about 18-24 months ahead of GM and Chrysler in restructuring.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

off the top of my head, the terms: "war on terror" and "enemy combatant" (Geneva Convention nomenclature)will no longer used used. SHS Janet Neapolitan (my former Gov) according to her last press conference, the World Trade Center attacks was a "made made disaster." "act of terrorism" will no longer be used.

That's hardly unconstitutional.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

off the top of my head, the terms: "war on terror" and "enemy combatant" (Geneva Convention nomenclature)will no longer used used. SHS Janet Neapolitan (my former Gov) according to her last press conference, the World Trade Center attacks was a "made made disaster." "act of terrorism" will no longer be used.

If stopping use of those terms is revisionist, isn't it *also* revisionist to create those terms in the first place?

[BadKosh]

Enemy Combatant isn't a revision, unless you wish to label them as Islamic terrorists. The words smack of PC cowardice.