By on June 11, 2009

In recent months we have seen the Obama administration nationalize the majority of the domestic automobile industry. A recent poll indicates that a decisive majority of Americans think this is a really, really bad idea. Furthermore, the action is illegal. The Constitution of the United States of America has endowed the congressional branch of the government with the sole power to spend money. Article 1, Section 9: “No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law [i.e., by the legislative branch].” This makes the financial seizure of General Motors with money appropriated by congress for the use of stabilize the banking system a brazen act of embezzlement. (The witless leader of the House of Representatives says that King Obama has not requested that they pass legislation authorizing expenditures to GM and Chrysler, so it must not be needed.) And so there has been cry among some right wing bombasts to boycott the purchase of GM cars. This too is a bad idea.

Twenty-six years ago my father traded in our family Buick for a Toyota Camry. It was the first time that a Buick had not darkened our family garage, but this car, a gas guzzling ’77 Skylark had been fraught with problems from the first day that we brought it home. I vividly remember watching the red vinyl-topped gray car get dragged by winch out of our La Mesa, California, garage onto a flatbed the morning after dad brought her home because the transmission had seized. The tranny was fixed and we had her back in a few days but at 30 thousand miles a multitude of other components began to fail. Before long my folks were ready for something much more dependable and something that provided a little relief at the pump.

The cream colored Camry was a breath of fresh air blowing in from across the Pacific. The Toyota felt light and maneuverable after the stodgy Buick and the high-revving I4 engine loved to sing while delivering 35 mpg on the highway.  The steering was nicely weighted and, other than excessive body roll, it handled reasonably well. And despite accusations to the contrary, it was safe, comfortable, and did not rust and blow away.

By the time the Camry arrived I was driving and was highly attuned to all things automotive. The country was in an uproar because the domestic steel industry was in full meltdown and Motown’s long decline was already underway. The mantra of those attempting to guilt trip the country into buying over-priced second-rate domestic manufactured goods was, “Buy American.”

My response was, “Buy the best.” Even then it was clear to me that sheltering the manufacturers from superior competition would only exacerbate the problem. Sure, “Buying American” might provide some short-term relief to the complacent industries, but it would rob American consumers the best goods and remove the incentive for what was left of domestic manufacturers themselves. If Americans “Buy the best,” the market will stay strong and healthy, fueling an economic engine that will continue to provide jobs and pull people—at home and abroad—out of poverty.

Today, to those that advocate boycotting General Motors, I say, “Buy the best.”  Right now The General has numerous products that should be on any consumer’s short list. Chevrolet Corvette, Cadillac CTS, Chevrolet Camaro, Chevrolet Silverado, Chevrolet Malibu, and the Pontiac G8, come to mind. In business we say, “Feed success and starve failure.” These cars are successes and deserve consideration—even if Mr. Goodwrench now lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The Obama administration, or anyone’s administration for that matter, lacks the expertise and motivation to make a success out of something as complicated as the manufacture and marketing of automobiles. If they remain control of GM for long, its products will undoubtedly become outclassed by stronger free competitors. But that day is not here yet, so “Buy the best” even if it means condescending yourself to buy from a government-owned company.

To those who think that a government-owned auto industry is a wonderful marriage of the greatest attributes of the public and private sectors, I would ask, would you trust the next George W. Bush (Sarah Palin?) that gets elected to manage the domestic auto industry? Eventually it will happen and there will be regret, even if Obama manages to make lemonade out of GM lemons in the near term.

Let political considerations be political considerations and let your choice of cars be for that car that best serves your needs and wants at the price you are willing to pay. Eventually Congress will become re-staffed by those that recognize their mandate in counterbalancing excesses and misuse of Executive Branch power. As in the 1980’s, politics must be remedied in polling booths, not in dealership showrooms.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

131 Comments on “Editorial: Boycott the GM Boycott...”


  • avatar
    jpcavanaugh

    I agree completely. I am a conservative. I love ice cream. Ben and Jerry’s political activism used to get under my skin because most of it was 180 degrees from my point of view. I used to refuse to buy their ice cream. But then as I thought more about it, I reconsidered. They made (and their old company continues to make) some of the best ice cream out there. As a believer in free markets, I am entitled to take advantage of the best product and they are permitted to offer them. So, when the two intersect, a transaction is in order.

    GM is no Ben & Jerrys. But that said, if they manage to pull this off then I will consider one of their cars. Wow. Just saying this makes me break out in a sweat. It has to be a great car. Better than anything Ford or Honda is building, and I frankly don’t see it happening in my lifetime. OK, now I feel better.

  • avatar
    Point Given

    I drove the new Camaro SS at a GM fleet thing two weeks ago. It’s definately not worthy of being on the shortlist ride position sucks, engine isn’t all powerful. bleh.

    The GMC Sierra has been a demo of mine for 9 months and it is NOT world class. The “here’s your radio block, here’s your hvac block” looks terrible and has uneven fitting gaps. The friggin upwards opening glove box has a bigger gap on on side that the other. FIT AND FINISH FAIL.

    Buy the best, but make sure you demo lots so you know what the best is.

  • avatar
    Bunter1

    Just skimmed it quick. Largely agree.
    Been boycotting GM on design and reliability for years.
    Design is improved a bit.
    Reliability not so much (JDP, CR, TD).

    Reliability and good design in a category I’m looking at (minivan, sub-compact). Good luck with that!

    Love and bullets.

    Bunter

  • avatar
    long126mike

    A recent poll indicates that a decisive majority of Americans think this is a really, really bad idea. Furthermore, the action is illegal. The Constitution of the United States of America has endowed the congressional branch of the government with the sole power to spend money.

    Ha – where to begin?

    First, the poll in question you’re referring to is from Rasmussen, so the way it leans needs to be factored in. Second, the actual poll question was “The federal government may provide an additional $50 billion to General Motors and end up owning nearly 70% of the auto company. Do you favor or oppose a plan for the federal government to give General Motors an additional $50 billion to buy 70% of the company?” Notice how they use the loaded word “give” and twice use the word “additional”? That’s a leading, loaded question. Third, they were given “favor, oppose, and not sure” as possible responses, and 67% opposed. If 67% is now a “decisive majority,” then the president is approved by a “decisive majority” of Americans. Nowhere did Rasmussen ask, using your language, is this a “really, really bad idea.”

    Bringing up the Constitution is humorous. What next – is the Fed illegal?

    If this is illegal, then why don’t you sue and see what the courts have to say?

    Rasmussen could have just as easily asked, “Do you favor or oppose the government investing $50 billion, that they may get paid back in full with interest, to mitigate the risk of sending the United States into the Great Depression Part 2?”

    You can lead people however you want to depending on how a question is framed and what assumptions are embedded in it.

    And “King Obama”? Come on. Pure hyperbole.

    The Obama administration, or anyone’s administration for that matter, lacks the expertise and motivation to make a success out of something as complicated as the manufacture and marketing of automobiles.

    And that’s why he explicitly stated the company is delegated the authority to make those decisions.

    Eventually Congress will become re-staffed by those that recognize their mandate in counterbalancing excesses and misuse of Executive Branch power.

    That’s the current meme pushed by Cantor and Gingrich. Good luck with that.

  • avatar
    Jesse

    I voted for Obama as did many other Americans, so I can’t really understand how he could be considered a monarchical “king”.

  • avatar

    I agree with you but I would put it another way. When I purchase a car I neither boycott GM nor do I boycott the boycott, I simply base my purchase of a car on the car. Politics is the last reason for how I spend my hard earned dollars no boycotts based on political reasons. I save my politics for election day. Left Right Conservative Liberal Democrat Republican Bush Obama UAW or non UAW, I’m sorry but they don’t influence my car purchases. I base my choice of a car on the cars I look at the deals and whats best suited for my needs.

    I have a feeling the vast vast majority of other people also do.

  • avatar
    geeber

    If people really do “buy the best,” GM is still toast, because it doesn’t have enough vehicles that are “the best” to keep it in business. GM can’t stay in business selling Corvettes, G8s and Tahoe/Suburbans, even with government aid.

    long126mike: Do you favor or oppose a plan for the federal government to give General Motors an additional $50 billion to buy 70% of the company?” Notice how they use the loaded word “give” and twice use the word “additional”? That’s a leading, loaded question.

    First, everyone with a modicum of intelligence understands that the chances of this money being repaid are slim to none, so, yes, the federal government is, for all intents and purposes, “giving” it to GM.

    Second, it does represent an additional amount over the initial amount disbursed by the Bush Administration, so that is accurate.

    long126mike: If 67% is now a “decisive majority,” then the president is approved by a “decisive majority” of Americans.

    People can approve of a president while opposing particular policies that he adopts. And, where I come from, 67 percent represents a decisive majority.

  • avatar
    paulie

    William

    Not just with car.
    Whenever you buy something…
    List what YOU need, add it all up, and get the best.

    With picking athletes in a draft…get the BEST one there.

    When everybody said DO NOT buy American.
    I bought the MKS.
    Test drove so many over and over again.
    Adding up ALL the available options and the price, nothing came close.
    So I bought it.

    When everybody said DO NOT buy a house in Florida…
    I compared ALL the benefits, prices against other locations around the country.
    This was the best Bang for the buck this year.
    So I bought one.
    If I could afford it, I would by 10 more.

    Yes…get the BEST available.

    Car.
    House…anything.

  • avatar
    86er

    Right now The General has numerous products that should be on any consumer’s short list. Chevrolet Corvette, Cadillac CTS, Chevrolet Camaro, Chevrolet Silverado, Chevrolet Malibu, and the Pontiac G8, come to mind.

    (emphasis mine)

    I resent all these “shitty GM cars” slurs like the banner picture above. I will, like the author suggests, continue to consider/buy GM trucks because I refuse to paint a giant corporation with one giant brush, “blocky” HVAC and other controls notwithstanding.

  • avatar
    Detroit-Iron

    @long126mike

    The fed may or may not be unconstitutional (not illegal) however it is created by an act of congress that can be rescinded. They don’t appropriate money because the fed actually makes billions of dollars a year through its open market operations.

    For better or worse, congress didn’t have anything to do with the billions of dollars appropriated to the auto companies. That is patently unconstitutional.

  • avatar
    rpiotr01

    @geeber

    Sure it can, as long as other costs stay under control.

    As currently set up, however, it cannot stay in business selling Toyota’s complete line-up.

    Or put it this way – if Toyota had GM’s legacy costs, union costs and other regulatory BS then they would be the one’s getting the bailout right now.

  • avatar
    twotone

    All of us American taxpayers own part of a GM and Chrysler car, we just don’t get to drive it. Come to think of it, it’s probably better that way.

    Twotone

  • avatar
    tooling designer

    Aww come on 86er don’t think for yourself! Be a conformist sheep! GM blows! It’s fun to group think and pile on.

  • avatar
    long126mike

    First, everyone with a modicum of intelligence understands that the chances of this money being repaid are slim to none, so, yes, the federal government is, for all intents and purposes, “giving” it to GM.

    That’s a meaningless statement and your wild guess based on your obvious hatred for government in general. According to the same Rasmussen, 54% of your fellow Americans consider it very or somewhat likely that GM will become successful and profitable in the next few years.

    Good also you can acknowledge that a decisive majority of Americans support the president in the job he’s doing, which includes handling the severe recession he inherited.

  • avatar
    commando1

    I am boycotting GM but not for the reasons stated above.
    After buying my ’08 Corvette, the OnStar and XM rammed down my throat was only the beginning of my hating GM for their back door tactics.
    I wanted to remove the OnStar ALL TOGETHER (for reasons way too long to go into here) and it took 6 of the best and brightest over at DigitalCorvettes months to figure out how to completely kill the snake. Chopping it’s head off only wounded it.
    Next came the constant nagging through mail, emails, phone calls to my unlisted number to make me sign up for whole super delux package. They didn’t have to abide by the “Do Not Call” regulations.
    Next: XM. The telemarketting was relentless in trying to get me to sign up beyond the 6 month trial.
    Today, Loooooooong after the Vette has gone on to it’s new owner, OnStar and XM are still banging on my door…..

  • avatar
    don1967

    “Buy American” is a self-serving bit of tripe from lazy corporations and lazy unions who seek money for nothing. I will buy whatever I damn well please, which is what America is really all about.

    “Boycott Government Motors” is something completely different. It is a reaction to an alarming abuse of power by government. King Obama indeed. I will definitely boycott GM.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    I agree, the idea of boycotting GM for political reasons is pure bunk. If anything, the sooner that they can create profits, the sooner that it can go back to the private sector, where it ultimately belongs if it isn’t going to die.

    That being said, it will take me quite a long time before I would entrust GM with my money, because of the track record. I am going to want to see the current models prove themselves and see improvements to the next generation before I’d seriously consider most of the cars.

    That cycle might be accelerated if Nissan takes over. But in that case, I would expect to see a wholesale dumping of current managers and engineers, along with a changeover to a genuine version of lean production that changes the design and management culture. A slightly modified GM is just not a compelling value proposition for me, so we’ll have to see what happens.

    (Oh, yeah, and dump OnStar. It’s Orwellian and archaic at the same time — why would I pay for that?)

  • avatar
    findude

    My parents bought a 1980 Oldsmobile Diesel. It broke down early and frequently and was very expensive to repair.

    Nearly 30 years have gone by; my siblings and I have purchased dozens of new and used cars over the years. One bought a Chevy Suburban back in the nineties–it’s been a fair vehicle apart from replacing the transmission twice and the window switches several times. All of the other 40+ cars we bought between us include only one other domestic, a 1980s Plymouth minivan purchased used. The rest has been a collection of Mazdas, Toyotas, Hondas, Volkswagens, Volvos, BMWs, Ferraris, Mercedes-Benzes, Subarus, Datsun/Nissans, Porsches, and MINIs. A fair number of these were “made” in the USA by the so-called “transplants.”

    That one 1980 Olds was a true piece of junk, it led an impressionable group of teenagers to buy a GM vehicle only once out of forty purchases. We may be an unforgiving crowd. Then again, we may just exhibit rational behavior as consumers. Never underestimate the true cost of low quality.

  • avatar
    troonbop

    Very inspirational, Mr. Montgomery, but somewhat naive. General Motors has become obama motors, despite your efforts, and driving one would be tantamount to endorsing the grinning, jug eared hustler.

    As for his popularity, well, so far he’s had the easy part. He’s spent money like crazy, gone around the world apologizing, and enjoyed the fellating of a worshipful media, some of whom actually consider him “like a god”. Next comes the hard part when he discovers that these things don’t work forever, although I’m sure the media will be giving him a tongue bath long after the voters have changed.

  • avatar
    long126mike

    In recent months we have seen the Obama administration nationalize the majority of the domestic automobile industry.

    Chrysler’s out of bankruptcy, right? Are they even considered an American firm? I can’t keep track of who owns them from day to day. It was funny having a German company sell cheap SUVs called “Liberty” and “Patriot” to Americans, though.

    For all intents and purposes, the US has two automobile MANUFACTURERS, and the larger of the 2 is GM, so to say the Obama admin “nationalized the majority of the domestic automobile industry” is not really meaningful, and the word “industry” is not applicable because the auto industry goes way beyond the companies that assemble the vehicles.

    The government “nationalizes” firms all the time, particularly in the financial sector.

    the grinning, jug eared hustler

    Excellent “argument.” Your guy lost. Get over it and stop being a sore loserman (as we heard endlessly in 2000 onward).

  • avatar
    long126mike

    an alarming abuse of power by government

    You must have been in a coma the past 8 years. Welcome back!

  • avatar
    ajla

    GM killed Pontiac. I am not going to forgive that anytime soon.

    I supported and defended that brand through plastic cladding, dubious Quad-4s, and re-badged Daewoos; all the while enduring countless “where’s your mullet?” digs and white-trash trailer park jokes. I kept faith that GM would turn Pontiac around and instead they put a bullet in the back of its head. Well, to hell with them then.

    No Pontiac= No new GM vehicles for me

  • avatar
    Anchorman33

    Agree with jpcavanaugh and paulie for the most part, but there is an element of fanboy and emotion that plays into the purchase of any vehicle. This can be good or bad for the encumbent make (see Skylark example of original post, both getting to that point and what caused the change).

    All told, I’m not boycotting, or supporting those that do, but I am in favor of buying what you want/need…and neither GM nor Fiatslyer fit the bill for me.

  • avatar
    Gary Numan

    Per earlier response above, Obama rec’d 52.9% of the popular election vote. See link:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

    GM has already rec’d my taxpayer monies and not by my choice. Our family won’t be buying any GM vehicles in the future. Our elected President likes to say words like “responsibility” but his results are proving otherwise.

  • avatar
    long126mike

    Per earlier response above, Obama rec’d 52.9% of the popular election vote.

    US presidents are not elected by popular vote. Otherwise, Bush would have been sent packing in 2000.

    They are elected by electors, and Obama got 68% of their vote – aka a “decisive majority.”

  • avatar
    mel23

    Yet another look into a foggy, nearly opaque, crystal ball about how this is going to turn out. A few weeks ago the legal scholars here were ranting about how a ‘quick rinse’ of Chrysler and GM was not going to fly, the court would shoot it down, etc. How did that turn out? Seems the people Obama brought in to run the auto restructuring process have some skills other than just being political hacks and money sources as claimed here earlier.

    There are plenty of wanna by TV stars in Congress who would love to be heroes of the right and sue to embarrass Obama in any way possible, but especially about this assault on the American way. For some reason, neither they nor the American Enterprise Institute and the like have seen fit to waste their money on such an exercise.

    If you don’t like Obama, don’t vote for him; but you have to wait for the chance to vote against him since more people did than not the last time around.

    I know a life-long Republican who told me not long ago that he shudders to think where we’d be had McCain gotten in. Reading about McCain’s (lack of) preparations in case he won was truly frightening. No clue. His amazingly irresponsible choice for VP, Ms. Palin, would be a very old heart beat away had Obama lost, yet she seems utterly lost in getting even her PR game going let alone running the country. But hate from the right swamps all fact and reason for many it seems.

  • avatar
    wsn

    My money is spent not only to buy a product, but also a users experience.

    So, I boycott GM, and that is very free-market-ish.

    It’s free market as long as you buy or boycott at your own expense.

  • avatar
    William C Montgomery

    And “King Obama”? Come on. Pure hyperbole.

    I voted for Obama as did many other Americans, so I can’t really understand how he could be considered a monarchical “king”.

    Because he can blow tens of billions of money out of the public treasury like he was pulling it out of his own wallet. Congress has abdicated their responsibility giving Obama de facto totalitarian powers.

  • avatar
    don1967

    an alarming abuse of power by government

    You must have been in a coma the past 8 years. Welcome back!

    Oh my, did we hit a nerve?

  • avatar
    don1967

    I voted for Obama as did many other Americans, so I can’t really understand how he could be considered a monarchical “king”.

    It will come to you, probably very slowly over time.

  • avatar
    wsn

    mel23 :
    June 11th, 2009 at 1:52 pm

    I know a life-long Republican who told me not long ago that he shudders to think where we’d be had McCain gotten in. Reading about McCain’s (lack of) preparations in case he won was truly frightening.

    ———————————————-

    Those under the reign of Hitler or Mao wished their Fuhrer or Chairman were not so “prepared”.

    You totally missed the point of democracy.

    The fundamental idea of democracy is that rulers only do damages. So, let’s vote for one does the least.

    The fundamental idea of dictatorship is that rulers do good. So, let’s select (in a civil war) one that has the most vision and ability.

  • avatar
    long126mike

    Because he can blow tens of billions of money out of the public treasury like he was pulling it out of his own wallet. Congress has abdicated their responsibility giving Obama de facto totalitarian powers.

    Oh yes – and he’s coming to get you right now for disobeying, just like any totalitarian would. Right?

    Did you call Bush a totalitarian? Because the whole TARP/bailout thing started with him. Please link to you calling Bush a totalitarian last year.

    And tens of billions? Wow. Multiply 10 billion two thousand seven hundred times over and you’ll get to the added military costs imposed by Bush. You must have been apoplectic for 8 years over that kind of spending. Right?

    Oh my, did we hit a nerve?

    Crazy talk doesn’t hit my nerves. It makes me laugh, though.

  • avatar
    gslippy

    Consumers have been boycotting GM for 30 years, so it’s a moot point.

    As for me, I’m boycotting Honda due to a very bad first-time ownership experience. If I have the opportunity to own a Clarity, I’ll rethink it.

  • avatar
    don1967

    Did you call Bush a totalitarian? Because the whole TARP/bailout thing started with him.

    You’re right. Now can we please get back to the present? You’ve used up your George Bush deflection quota for the month.

  • avatar
    shaker

    Just saw a couple of reviews of the 2010 Equinox over at Autoblog and MT – seems like a big improvement over the previous generation – I might go test drive a 4-cyl in a few weeks when they hit the dealers.

    As far as the “King Obama” crap goes, Dick Cheney and his hand puppet pulled a lot scarier shit behind closed doors than Obama ever will.

  • avatar
    TZ

    If I want political ranting masquerading as automotive coverage, I’ll stick with C&D.

  • avatar
    Jesse


    I voted for Obama as did many other Americans, so I can’t really understand how he could be considered a monarchical “king”.

    It will come to you, probably very slowly over time.

    No, no, no, what I’m saying is that kings are monarchs. They don’t get elected. We as a country elected Obama.

    Get it? Elected. As in, democratic process.

  • avatar
    William C Montgomery

    Did you call Bush a totalitarian? Because the whole TARP/bailout thing started with him. Please link to you calling Bush a totalitarian last year.

    Congress voted for and approved the TARP/bailout of the banks. Bush did not misappropriate the funds as Obama has done to fund the nationalization of the auto companies.

    If Obama were following the constitution and requesting the funds from congress for loans/stock purchase/giveaway to the auto companies, and they made a law authorizing it (which they would certainly do) then everything would be okay. As it is, it is embezzlement.

    I respect anyone’s right to complain about the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, GTMO detainees, harsh interrogation techniques, etc., but Bush followed the rules (i.e. the Constitution) and Congress willingly paid for it all. To wit, the power to make these decisions was never solely his and they bare collective responsibility for the actions.

  • avatar
    long126mike

    You’re right.

    Nice quote-clipping. I asked for a link of one of you ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) folks calling Bush a totalitarian in 2008. If you can’t provide such a thing, then you don’t have a principle you claim to have.

  • avatar
    long126mike

    @William C Montgomery

    That’s what I thought – no link. Not principled, just partisan noise-making.

    Thanks.

  • avatar
    pfingst

    A boycott of GM sends the message that you disapprove of the way the government dumped billions of taxpayer dollars into GM because bankruptcy was the worst thing that could happen EVER, then when they went bankrupt anyway short-circuited the bankruptcy process to hand a huge portion of the company over to the UAW (huge Obama supporters) and stiffed the bond-holders, who would have been near the front of the line in a normal bankruptcy proceeding. It sends a message that you don’t approve of the fact the the government engineered a hostile takeover of GM for itself without first trying to find another suitor to buy it or its parts. This goes way beyond providing loans or loan guarantees, as it has done in the past for other large firms in danger of collapse. It is an alarming expansion of government power that is most likely unconstitutional but for some reason has gone largely unchallenged.

    If you buy GM after all this, you send the message that you are fine with what they did. If you think you shouldn’t mix politics with car purchases then you better think again, because you’ll never have a better chance to make your voice heard about where the limits of government authority are.

  • avatar
    geeber

    long126mike: That’s a meaningless statement and your wild guess based on your obvious hatred for government in general.

    No, it’s a statement based on knowledge of the auto industry, which I highly recommend.

    GM would have to report record profits for the next 19 or so years to repay those funds.

    Take a look at the model lineup of the “new” GM on another thread. It looks a lot like the lineup of the old GM – which, as we know, is facing bankruptcy.

    The old models didn’t have customers flocking to showrooms. Please explain how the the same basic lineup will start a stampede to GM showrooms.

    Unless the scent of bankruptcy is going to cause customers to suddenly be willing to pay about $3-4,000 MORE for each GM vehicle. Highly unlikely, to say the least…

    The local paper ran a story on dealer reactions after Chrysler filed for bankruptcy. Dealers noted that customers were coming into the showrooms…because they smelled blood.

    Bargain hunters are not going to enable GM to pay back the federal money it has received.

    Also note that Ford, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, BMW, Mercedes and VW are not sitting around, delaying new model launches, to give GM some breathing room.

    Also, if you think I “hate government in general,” you obviously don’t know me. Stick to the facts of the post, not wild guesses. I oppose stupid policies (unending bailouts, 55 mph speed limit, Prohibition) because they DISCREDIT government in the long run and increase cynicism.

    long126mike: According to the same Rasmussen, 54% of your fellow Americans consider it very or somewhat likely that GM will become successful and profitable in the next few years.

    Note that “become successful and profitable” basically means “staying in business” and “not losing any more money” at this point.

    For GM, “staying in business” and “not losing any more money” are not synonomous with “paying back the federal money.”

    There is also a considerable difference between a prediction based on a gut feeling (which is what you cited above) and opposition to a specific policy or action (which is in the original article).

    long126mike: Good also you can acknowledge that a decisive majority of Americans support the president in the job he’s doing, which includes handling the severe recession he inherited.

    President Bush had similar (although slightly lower) approval ratings at this point during his first term. It’s called the honeymoon period, and every president enjoys it.

  • avatar
    MisterB

    I agree with the idea of acting in your own best interest and not for a political reason. ON THE OTHER HAND (to quote the President)there are many factors and reasons to choose one car over another – some of them quite intangible. There are pleny of cars our there and if you don’t like the government bail out of GM you can find many other cars and trucks that are just as good if not better than the GM offerings. You are NOT hurting yourself by rejecting GM because of the bailout!

    Certainly, the auto bailout was and is unconstitutional. The original Bush attempt to have Congress pass the auto loans in December 2008 was based on THEIR OWN evaluation that the TARP was for financal institutions only. Common sense tells everyone that. Then Bush ended up giving TARP money to GM and Chyrsler anyway. We have come to the point in our society that saying that something is illegal or unconstitutional gets you laughed at as somekind of nutcase. It’s a sad situation that most people absolutely don’t care. Our financial problems have highlighted the fact that our government does what it wants to do with NO concern about the law or constitution.

    1980 OLDS DIESEL: There was a joke then that went: “What’s the difference between AIDS, Herpes and a Olds Diesel – There’s no cure for an Olds Diesel”

  • avatar
    William C Montgomery

    long126mike: That’s what I thought – no link. Not principled, just partisan noise-making.

    Partisanship has nothing to do with my comments. I could easily summarize the unconstitutional acts that Nixon committed, but you brought Bush into the argument.

    I make no representation that I support either the Democratic or Republican party. I fundamentally disagree with the “bailout” funds that Congress, as Bush’s request, provided to private American banks, one of which I work for. (I exempt the funding given to bail out Fannie and Freddie because of their quasi-governmental nature.) Although I strongly disagreed with the Bush administration’s action, it was strictly legal because Bush went to congress for the money as he is constitutionally required to do.

    What Obama has done is what Banana Republic dictators do. He did not subject himself to Congress, as he should, which would facilitated public debate and given citizens the opportunity to express their will to their representatives in Washington before our dollars are squandered on these bankrupt companies.

  • avatar
    John Horner

    “Congress has abdicated their responsibility giving Obama de facto totalitarian powers.”

    Total BS. Three levels of federal courts had the opportunity to shoot down the Chrysler deal, and they all gave the ok. Hardly an example of totalitarian powers. Renditions, because-I-said-so detentions and warrant-less wiretaps are far more in keeping with totalitarianism than is the administration of TARP funds.

  • avatar
    indi500fan

    The bailout was structured to preserve the UAW $3200/month pensions and rather plush VEBA health benefits. Many of the recipients are 10 to 15 years from the “normal” retirement age. The car market choice post-Chap 11 gives a chance to “vote” on this public policy.

    I’m guessing the vote will be largely negative.

  • avatar
    long126mike

    Congress voted for and approved the TARP/bailout of the banks. Bush did not misappropriate the funds as Obama has done to fund the nationalization of the auto companies.

    “December 19, 2008

    The emergency bailout of General Motors and Chrysler announced by President Bush on Friday gives the companies a few months to get their businesses in order, but hands off to President-elect Barack Obama the difficult political task of ruling on their future.

    The plan pumps $13.4 billion by mid-January into the companies from the fund that Congress authorized to rescue the financial industry.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20auto.html

    Like I said, you’re making partisan noise and not even getting your facts straight.

    What Obama has done is what Banana Republic dictators do.

    Great, now link to you, in 2008, calling Bush a “Banana Republic dictator.”

    Name-calling is what people turn to when they have a poor argument.

  • avatar
    long126mike

    President Bush had similar (although slightly lower) approval ratings at this point during his first term.

    That’s a good one.

    June 7, 2009 – Obama job approval = 65%, disapproval = 31%

    June 3, 2001 – Bush job approval = 55%, disapproval = 40%

    There is a hard-core 23-28% of Americans who will never approve of Obama or any Democrat, so a 31% disapproval is telling.

    Bush, on the other hand, got 92% approval at one point, which shows you just how different things are about who puts country before party.

    When Obama hits 23% on this approval numbers, let’s talk.

  • avatar
    ihatetrees

    indi500fan:
    The bailout was structured to preserve the UAW $3200/month pensions and rather plush VEBA health benefits.

    I’m wondering about other more subtle ‘benefits’ that were also left in place – like the ability to collect full state unemployment and union benefits while taking a ‘voluntary’ layoff.

    That said, I won’t boycott GM – some of their used vehicles are excellent values. But buy new GM? Ha! Maybe in 3 years with a good track record of honoring warranties and decent product. I’d give the odds of that about 2 in 100 (with winners like Barney, Nancy, Obama, & Ratner calling the shots).

  • avatar
    Alcibiades

    You have to register you disapproval somehow, if you disapprove. If the government takeover of GM fails, future leaders will be less likely to try something similar. So I’m going to boycott GM, Chrysler, and anything else King Obama nationalizes. I hate Socialism, and think it would/will ruin us. Wouldn’t it be hypocritical to feel that way but still buy a Government Motors car?

  • avatar
    Lokkii

    Yet another topic that has me thinking we are on on FreeRepublic…. although lately there’s been a bit of DailyKos as well.

    Not counting the article, the word automobile appears 4 times; two of those as quotes from the original article.

    The word car appears 6 times, most of those in a single post.

    The word Obama appears 30 times.

  • avatar
    geeber

    long126mike:

    The poll I saw said 62 percent for Bush. But then, as you noted, different polls can produce different results, depending on how the question is phrased, right?

    long126mike: There is a hard-core 23-28% of Americans who will never approve of Obama or any Democrat, so a 31% disapproval is telling.

    Bush, on the other hand, got 92% approval at one point, which shows you just how different things are about who puts country before party.

    And if terrorists kill thousands of innocent Americans in major American cities during Obama’s term (and I pray that this doesn’t happen) in the space of three hours on the same day, and he initially responds effectively, he’ll enjoy 92 percent approval ratings, too, and your theory that Democrats are more likely to put country before party will be shown to be worthless.

  • avatar
    long126mike

    Obama said:

    “This is a difficult situation that involves fundamental questions about the proper role of government. On the one hand, government has a responsibility not to undermine the private enterprise system. On the other hand, government has a responsibility to safeguard the broader health and stability of our economy.

    Addressing the challenges in the auto industry requires us to balance these two responsibilities. If we were to allow the free market to take its course now, it would almost certainly lead to disorderly bankruptcy and liquidation for the automakers….

    In the midst of a financial crisis and a recession, allowing the U.S. auto industry to collapse is not a responsible course of action….

    The convergence of these factors means there’s too great a risk that bankruptcy now would lead to a disorderly liquidation of American auto companies. My economic advisors believe that such a collapse would deal an unacceptably painful blow to hardworking Americans far beyond the auto industry. It would worsen a weak job market and exacerbate the financial crisis. It could send our suffering economy into a deeper and longer recession….

    Unfortunately, despite extensive debate and agreement that we should prevent disorderly bankruptcies in the American auto industry, Congress was unable to get a bill to my desk.

    This means the only way to avoid a collapse of the U.S. auto industry is for the executive branch to step in. The American people want the auto companies to succeed, and so do I….

    Because Congress failed to make funds available for this, the plan I’m announcing today will be drawn from the financial rescue package Congress approved last fall.”

  • avatar
    long126mike

    he’ll enjoy 92 percent approval ratings, too

    In a pig’s eye. He’ll get bashed relentlessly for it instead, and you know it. Cheney and people like him are already laying the groundwork for it.

    your theory that Democrats are more likely to put country before party will be shown to be worthless

    “I Hope Obama Fails. Somebody’s gotta say it. ” – de facto head of the Republican Party in the midst of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression

  • avatar
    ravenchris

    Lots of spicy tangents make a tasty article. GM needs to implement immediate action to produce tangible customer confidence in the products.

  • avatar
    geeber

    long126mike: In a pig’s eye. He’ll get bashed relentlessly for it instead, and you know it. Cheney and people like him are already laying the groundwork for it.

    First, you are making a prediction, not stating a fact, and YOU don’t know if it’s true.

    Second, if you will recall, President Bush was bashed by quite a few on the far left in the immediate wake of 9/11. Most mainstream Democrats ignored them, but there were some on the far left who didn’t hesitate to blame this on President Bush. I don’t doubt that there will be SOME extreme figures who will blame a terrible outcome on President Obama, but you can’t absolve Democrats of statements by the party’s loony-left wing, and still hold Republicans accountable for statements by their extremists.

    Third, there is difference between defending a policy (which is what former Vice President Cheney is doing regarding the use of water boarding) and automatically blaming President Obama for allowing a terrorist attack to happen. Incidentally, President Obama must not disagree too much with former Vice President Cheney…last time I checked, he hadn’t backed too far away from the policies of the previous administration regarding the detainment and treatment of suspected terrorists.

    Incidentally, some of the most telling criticisms of the new administration I’ve seen have come from the LEFT – they are complaining that he is Bush-Cheney, Part II. Or are they part of the vast right-wing conspiracy now, too?

    long126mike: I Hope Obama Fails. Somebody’s gotta say it. ” – de facto head of the Republican Party in the midst of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression

    When Rush Limbaugh is officially appointed head of the Republican Party, please let me know, but last time I checked, he wasn’t. An unofficial appointment by the denizens of Dailykos.com doesn’t count, no matter how often it is repeated, or with how much fervor.

  • avatar
    long126mike

    Nobody hopes Obama fails.

    “I hope Obama fails.” – RL

    Rush obviously has a much better understanding of the economy than Obama.

    Funniest line of the week.

    When Rush Limbaugh is officially appointed head of the Republican Party, please let me know, but last time I checked, he wasn’t. An unofficial appointment by the denizens of Dailykos.com doesn’t count, no matter how often it is repeated, or with how much fervor.

    I see, the random squawking of a random message board commenter on Kos has the same weight as the opinions of Rush Limbaugh. Another very funny comment.

    Gee, I guess when the actual head of the Republican Party (and every elected member of that party) literally cowtows to Limbaugh, Limbaugh’s not the de facto head of the party. He’s just the same as a random commenter on a message board.

    Why do you all deny you follow his marching orders and repeat his talking points 24/7? Ashamed of what you are?

    First, you are making a prediction, not stating a fact, and YOU don’t know if it’s true.

    Correct, it is a prediction – one based on evidence and rationality, not flights of fancy, like the prediction it was a response to.

  • avatar
    Cynder70

    I’m not a constitutional lawyer, I couldn’t argue for or against the TARP. What I can say is that logic indicates the bailout of Chrysler and GM were legal under the “any other assets” to promote “financial market stability.”

    In addition Cerberus, the owner of Chrysler, Chrysler Financial and GMAC. Two financial institutions needed by the bailed out auto industry to sustain itself with 0% and cash back deals as well as floor-planning, etc.

    There are enough ties to the financial industry with every car sale and auto-dealer to make this scenario a logical conclusion for TARP funds.

  • avatar
    William C Montgomery

    @ long126mike:

    Fine, then I have no problem saying that they are both Banana Republic dictators. If it makes you feel any better, I have cursed many of the things Bush and the Republicans (and Democrats) did while he was in office. I opposed TARP from the beginning even though it might have cost me my job if my employer had not received the loans.

    Constantly bring Bush us over and over again is nothing but partisan noise. Bush isn’t president any more. Bush never seized a controlling interest in the companies. Bush didn’t disband GM’s Board of Directors and fire the CEO. Clearly, Bush floated GM & Chrysler enough money to keep them alive long enough so that they wouldn’t expire on his watch, sort of a sucky house warming president for the new CinC. Nonetheless, the problem is not Obama’s and nothing you are arguing here makes what Obama has done constitutional.

  • avatar
    Aeroelastic

    I think there’s a coherent thought in this article, but the first paragraph is throwing me. The writing style is combatative and counterproductive. It taints the rest of the article.

    The rest of the article has a decent point, but the merit of the argument and the quality of the writing does not rise above the injected politics. The comment about the govt running manufacturing and marketing is not true (or atleast not any more than they have been already through existing laws).

    The last paragraph throws up a mixed message. After opening that can of worms, now you say to ignore it? This feels more like a political hit piece than a discussion on the auto industry.

    Of course…..I could be wrong.

  • avatar
    William C Montgomery

    John Horner: Total BS. Three levels of federal courts had the opportunity to shoot down the Chrysler deal, and they all gave the ok.

    Those court decisions had nothing to do with the constitutionality of the funds used to loan GM and Chrysler. This issue has yet to have a hearing in court.

  • avatar
    windswords

    “I would ask, would you trust the next George W. Bush (Sarah Palin?) that gets elected to manage the domestic auto industry? Eventually it will happen and there will be regret, even if Obama manages to make lemonade out of GM lemons in the near term.”

    Yes. Yes I would. Because either of them would A.) not do it (manage/nationalize the auto industry) or B.) would do it for the bare minimum time needed to get the job done and then get out. I don’t have that feeling from the current admin. Nor do I have faith that they will turn lemons into lemondade. And I hope I’m wrong.

    William C Montgomery:

    “I respect anyone’s right to complain about the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan,…”

    Well, the TARP money for the automakers has more problems with it then Iraq, because Iraq had congressional and UN approval (although I know somebody here is gonna argue that the ‘or else’ clause in the UN resolution didn’t mean military action – yea right). As for congress, a whole bunch of Democrats as well as Republicans voted for it, including this fellow:

    “…I do not believe this is a rush to war. I believe it is a march to peace and security. Saddam possesses chemical and biological weapons and is seeking nuclear weapons. We must be clear with the American people that we are committing to Iraq for the long haul; not just the day after, but the decade after.”
    Joe Biden – Summer 2002

  • avatar
    geeber

    long126mike: I see, the random squawking of a random message board commenter on Kos has the same weight as the opinions of Rush Limbaugh.

    I’ve long felt that way. Glad that we agree.

    long126mike: Why do you all deny you follow his marching orders and repeat his talking points 24/7? Ashamed of what you are?

    When you can show me where I’ve followed his orders, or simply parroted his talking points, please let me know, but you might want to save your time, since I haven’t.

    Incidentally, the one person who brought up Rush Limbaugh in our exchange was you…as a diversion, perhaps? I, generally, think for myself.

    long126mike: Correct, it is a prediction – one based on evidence and rationality, not flights of fancy, like the prediction it was a response to.

    No, it’s based on wishful thinking and your biases. You’re certainly entitled to hold them and express them – indeed, I encourage it, as it makes this messageboard quite lively – but we don’t have to recognize them as facts.

  • avatar

    The government “nationalizes” firms all the time, particularly in the financial sector.

    More from the nothing to see here move it along crowd.

    While banks being seized by banking regulators was not unheard of, it was hard a common occurrence, certainly not something that happened “all the time”.

    Of course, you look back fondly on how Wilson and FDR trampled on property and economic rights. You gonna encourage Obama to prosecute a dry cleaner for discount cleaning on shirts like FDR?

  • avatar
    long126mike

    Fine, then I have no problem saying that they are both Banana Republic dictators.

    Saying it now about Bush doesn’t carry any weight. Bush behaved in a highly autocratic manner throughout his two terms, and perhaps if people from his side of the aisle had spoken up then, he wouldn’t have served two terms. Shooting verbal poison at him after the fact doesn’t mean anything. And I’m not looking to make myself feel better, I am asking for evidence of you having a principled, not a partisan, stand.

    The heart of your complaint is that what Obama is doing is dictatorial and using TARP money is illegal. Bush did the same exact thing, despite your claims to the contrary.

    You may have “cursed many of the things Bush and the Republicans did while he was in office,” but you provide no evidence to support this contention. I’m sure it’s possible you did, but I’ve heard things like that enough times, and asked for evidence of it many times, yet I can’t recall anyone ever being able to substantiate it.

    Bringing up Bush is not “partisan noise.” You’re the one who is calling the president “King Obama” and claiming he is literally a felon and possibly a traitor. That’s highly inflammatory language, so if the basis for such language is the use of TARP funds for the bailout, and not partisan sour grapes, then that’s why Bush was brought into the discussion — to test whether what you’re saying is a principle or a matter of simply hating Obama personally.

    Bush never seized a controlling interest in the companies.

    Fannie and Freddie were put into government receivership in early September 2008. Try again.

  • avatar
    long126mike

    While banks being seized by banking regulators was not unheard of, it was hard a common occurrence, certainly not something that happened “all the time”.

    http://www.fdic.gov/BANK/HISTORICAL/BANK/index.html

    http://www2.fdic.gov/hsob/HSOBSummaryRpt.asp?BegYear=1934&EndYear=2009&State=1

    And those are just the failed banks, and doesn’t include ones in which the government has taken an equity stake and are still in operation.

  • avatar
    long126mike

    I’ve long felt that way.

    I see. You feel that some random squawker on a message board, with 8-10 people reading him and half of those 8-10 people ignoring or flaming him for being an extremist is the same as someone who has 20 million direct followers and is the primary feeding instrument of the right-wing echo chamber which reaches factors more than that. You think someone who has no power or influence or great wealth and is laughed at and ignored by the scant people who even listen to him is the same as someone who can make the head of a major political party kiss his feet on command.

    There it is.

    Rush wil be right

    That would be a first.

  • avatar
    Cynder70

    Rush only promotes Reaganomics which led us into this mess were in now. Rush is already a failure on that alone.

    Alternatively, no one is able to extrapolate any measure of economic policy less than six months into an administration. There are always plenty of “deck chair managers” who insist there is no problem.

  • avatar
    long126mike

    More from the nothing to see here move it along crowd.

    I didn’t notice – it’s “independent” Ronnie exclusively flaming people he feels are left-of-center. How very “independent” of you, as always.

    Your projection is a sight to see.

    “Deficits don’t matter.” – Richard Cheney

  • avatar
    instant rebate

    I actually think that GM is going to pull it off and will consider a new vehicle in the coming months. I’m a little biased though because I purchases a 2008 Corvette and this car is really “built” for the money. If the rest of their line-up for family cars is any indictation of this car (corvette), I,m buying!

  • avatar
    long126mike

    Alternatively, you cannot extrapolate a measure of economic policy less than six month into an administration.

    One also can’t interfere in an experiment and then claim the experiment doesn’t work. If these plans are doomed to fail, why would one feel the need to work so hard against them?

    They never seem to wake up to that one.

    Republicans always claim government is awful, and they keep asking to be elected to office to make that a self-fulfilling belief.

  • avatar
    William C Montgomery

    Bush never seized a controlling interest in the companies.

    Fannie and Freddie were put into government receivership in early September 2008. Try again.

    First, in context I am referring to auto companies, not all companies. Secondly, I already explained why I exempted governmental backing of Fannie and Freddie; these companies were created by an act of congress and have always operated with the implicit guarantee of the US Treasury.

  • avatar
    William C Montgomery

    long126mike, I’ve reread your comments and I can’t find anything that provides any justification for Obama’s misappropriation of funds and takeover of GM. Saying, “Bush is an autocrat, too,” or accusing “You’re a Bush-lover,” doesn’t make Obama right. Didn’t your mother teach you that two wrongs don’t make a right?

    Tell me how Obama’s involvement in the auto industry is correct and proper or that you think that Americans should boycott GM products. Then we’ll have something to discuss.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    While banks being seized by banking regulators was not unheard of, it was hard a common occurrence, certainly not something that happened “all the time”.

    Forgive me, but I’m going to make a request here: Before you post inaccurate comments like this, please spend a few minutes doing research to make sure that your comment is accurate.

    I have news for you — the Chrysler-Fiat deal is exactly the sort of thing that the FDIC does when seizing a bank. It tries to find a new operator that takes over the assets, leaving the liabilities for a corpse that gets thrown away. The key element is to take the good of what’s left and hand it to a new management team, because the government is not particularly interested in actually owning and running the banks if they can avoid it.

    It may frustrate you that my forecasts on this board have generally been accurate vis-a-vis the bailouts. Well, it hasn’t been because of some brilliance of my part, but simply because I looked at how the government has previously handled bank failures, identified what it had in common with this situation with the automakers, and forecast accordingly. The government tends to be a creature of habit, so you had to know that they would take a model that has worked for them before, and use it again here.

    It’s the people who keep screaming “This is unprecedented!!!!” who are caught left unaware every time. If you had just looked at precedent without allowing Jonah Goldberg to filter it for you, you would have easily seen all of this coming. Had you done your own research of bankruptcy law, you would have known that absolute priority was not absolute after all, and that successful Chapter 11 filings often include alternatives to absolute priority. You have allowed politicos to lie to you, and have missed the story because of it.

    The next question here is whether the feds will find someone to take GM. If they can’t get Nissan to do it, then we may be stuck with that one for awhile. You have got to know that we sure don’t want the Chinese to take it, that’s for sure.

  • avatar
    threeer

    It’s not so much a “boycott” of GM, as it is realizing that after renting a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu over the weekend, my mother’s 2003 Toyota Corolla stills looks 200% better inside than the ‘Bu. There are a few GM cars that I really, really want to like, but every time I get into one, I’m let down. Like the Solstice I test drove a few months ago. Looks great from the outside…then I sat down in it. Every surface was cheap. The plastic cover by the transmission tunnel flexed like wet cardboard and the door panel material was already delaminating. I don’t need to recall the Olds diesels of the 80s…I have only to look at current offerings to determing I’m better served by other vehicles.

  • avatar
    Cynder70

    Republicans always claim government is awful, and they keep asking to be elected to office to make that a self-fulfilling belief.

    Republicans: Elect us to fix gov’t. > republican majority: gov’t bad you must elect us to fix it. > control of all three branches: be afraid, elect us to protect you. … bah!

    Even on this site, they get what they prophesied about for so long and then complain about the results.

  • avatar
    long126mike

    First, in context I am referring to auto companies, not all companies.

    OK, seizing any company other than an auto company is fine. Got it.

    Plus, Obama didn’t SEIZE GM nor did he SEIZE Chrysler. They asked for the assistance and accepted the terms of it.

  • avatar
    long126mike

    Reagonomics has nothing to do with the present economic problems. Only the simple with no understanding of economics believe that.

    More humor.

    Pray tell, what is your economics background?

  • avatar
    geeber

    long126mike: I see. You feel that some random squawker on a message board, with 8-10 people reading him and half of those 8-10 people ignoring or flaming him for being an extremist is the same as someone who has 20 million direct followers and is the primary feeding instrument of the right-wing echo chamber which reaches factors more than that.

    I didn’t say that both have the same level of influence throughout the nation.

    I said that I put the same weight on Rush Limbaugh’s opinions as the opinions held by – in your words – “the random squawking of a random message board commenter on Kos”.

    I’ve said before that I understand why Bush and then Obama did what they did with GM and Chrysler, but that after the economy recovers – and it looks as though it already is – then these companies need to be left to sink or swim on their own.

    Whether Rush Limbaugh approves of my view – I don’t know and don’t care. If you do, then you’ll have to ask him, as you apparently listen to him regularly, so you can phone in the question and ask him.

  • avatar
    Cynder70

    Reagonomics has nothing to do with the present economic problems. Only the simple with no understanding of economics believe that.

    Exactly what economic policy do you think we’re operating under?

  • avatar
    long126mike

    I’ve reread your comments and I can’t find anything that provides any justification for Obama’s misappropriation of funds and takeover of GM.

    And you have yet to demonstrate how funds were misappropriated. Why isn’t Obama in jail? You called him a felon and effectively called him a traitor. Is Scalia in his back pocket, too?

    Tell me how Obama’s involvement in the auto industry is correct and proper or that you think that Americans should boycott GM products. Then we’ll have something to discuss.

    Didn’t your mother teach you not to make strawmen arguments? Where did I claim his involvement is “correct” and “proper”? How in the world can anyone objectively define those two words in this context?

    If you want to have something to discuss, and wish to discuss it maturely and intelligently, then perhaps you may wish to tone down the inflammatory rhetoric and simply focus on the issues and ideas, not the people. It’s kind of hard to light a flamethrower then look around and ask everyone why the house burned down.

    It’s not a critique of your post – you’re obviously entitled to your opinions and how to express them. But hold yourself to the same standard you’re asking of others, please.

    These “King Obama”, “illegal”, “Banana Republic dictator” comments are not the basis for reasoned discourse.

  • avatar
    long126mike

    Let us just watch as Obamanomics crashes the economy. He will prove me right.

    Like I thought – you have none. Thanks for the confirmation.

    The sun is going to rise in the west one day. Mark my words.

  • avatar
    long126mike

    as you apparently listen to him regularly

    You know how many times a dittohead has used that canned line?

    “I don’t listen to Rush. I don’t even like him. Seems like only liberals hang on his every word. Did I mention that Hitlery is a feminazi?”

  • avatar
    jkross22

    Bringing up Bush is not “partisan noise.”

    In the context of your words, it sure is. You would say the same thing if I kept brining up Carter or Clinton or any other past president, and you would be correct. It’s all partisan noise. How can you not see that?

    I’ve learned that those accusing others of something are oftentimes the very perpetrators of the act they accuse others of. Like Jesse Jackson talking about racism. Or to put it more simply, hypocrisy.

    This bellyaching that passionate Obama supporters exhibit when any criticism of him is leveled is a toxic response. Pretending the president doesn’t make mistakes or is misinformed or comes to conclusions that not everyone agrees ignores reality. I mean, isn’t this exactly what the Left correctly complained about with Bush – that his defenders weren’t even acknowledging his MANY mistakes?

    But I guess so long as it’s ‘your’ guy in office it’s okay, huh?

    What hypocrisy… and ignorance.

  • avatar
    William C Montgomery

    PCH101:

    I agree with you with you… but only to a point. Because the FDIC insures depositors, it has a direct and justifiable vested interest in failing banks. Because of this, they have and do intervene as required to minimize losses to depositors and to the FDIC in the form of claim payments. These are the rules that FDIC insured banks sign up for when they charter.

    I don’t think the auto industry is analogous to banking. There is no federal program that insures stockholders from lost investment should a car company go out of business. This makes federal intrusion into the bankruptcies of these countries, outside of the long established court system, a political power grab. The Federal Reserve, like Fannie and Freddie, is a quasi-governmental bank that was created by an act of congress and carries with it many guarantees, both implicit and explicit, that simply don’t exist between the central government and a private manufacturer.

  • avatar

    Fannie and Freddie were put into government receivership in early September 2008. Try again.

    Fannie and Freddie were already GSEs, government supported enterprises. Neither one of the FMs has ever been completely independent of the government.

    I wish you guys would just be honest about Obama wanting to check off the progressive wish list and fundamentally change the way things are done in this country. After all, your guy ran on hope and “change”. You want a European style social democracy. The current economic crisis gives you and your fellow travelers an opportunity to institute such changes. Since you know that the American public, or at least a plurality, would be uncomfortable with socialism, you have to deny that any real change is going on.

  • avatar
    geeber

    long126mike: You know how many times a dittohead has used that canned line?

    I have no idea. I’m not a dittohead, nor do I hang out with any. You probably know much better than I do.

  • avatar
    long126mike

    The Democrats were running Fannie and Freddie.

    Bush and Paulson were Democrats? When did they switch?

  • avatar
    long126mike

    You probably know much better than I do.

    Heh – you just reworded the same canned line. Classic dh move.

  • avatar
    long126mike

    Fannie and Freddie were already GSEs, government supported enterprises.

    Privately owned companies, regardless.

    Thanks for ignoring the several hundred other examples given, Mr. Independent.

    you guys

    I’m independent, Ronnie, just like you claimed you were. But I’m actually being honest about that.

    Funny how a self-proclaimed “independent” focuses all of his ire in his leftward direction and refers to people who don’t tow the dittohead mentality as “you guys.” In case you hadn’t noticed, Obama got the Independent vote 52/44 and the moderate vote 60/39.

    A real moderate would know this.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    I don’t think the auto industry is analogous to banking. There is no federal program that insures stockholders from lost investment should a car company go out of business.

    I’m not asking you to change your point of view. I’m simply pointing out that there was a playbook available in the banking industry, and that’s what they’re using.

    The bankruptcy approach used here was previously used with the financials. The replacement of management is commonplace in the business world after takeovers. The handoff of assets to a new manager is common in both private equity and with bank takeovers.

    Whether or not people agree with it, they cannot argue that it is unprecedented. It may be new with the auto industry, but it is otherwise not new at all.

    If people wish to object, then they should be arguing why it shouldn’t be done in this particular case, and not base it on this bogus premise that we’ve never been down this road before in any way whatsoever. To argue the latter is to show one’s ignorance of what we have done in the past, including recently under Bush with respect to AIG, etc. There are good arguments against the bailouts, but the “no precedent” one is not very good and rather inaccurate.

  • avatar

    Forgive me, but I’m going to make a request here: Before you post inaccurate comments like this, please spend a few minutes doing research to make sure that your comment is accurate.

    If you post data indicating that bank seizures by the FDIC take place (and have taken place) “all the time”, I’ll be happy to retract my statement.

    Other than during the depression and the savings and loan meltdown, I don’t recall that the FDIC was stepping in every day, or every week, to clean up a messed up bank.

    I just checked the FDIC site, http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html
    that lists failed banks since 2000.

    Year # of Bank Failures
    2000 2
    2001 4
    2002 11
    2003 3
    2004 4
    2005 0
    2006 0
    2007 3
    2008 25
    2009 36

    So until the events of 2008, bank failures in fact did not happen “all the time”. For the most part, a handful of banks failed every year and in some years no banks failed.

    Would you at least agree that it is unprecedented for the government to use bankruptcy or similar processes for regulators to seize a non-financial company?

    It seems that what you’re saying is that there’s nothing unusual since they do it with banks all the time. However, the mere fact that we’re not dealing with banks in GM and Chrysler, necessarily makes it unusual.

  • avatar
    afabbro

    The problem isn’t boycotting GM, but rather what GM gives you for the money. GM is simply overpriced.

    My first car was a 1978 Monza Spyder that I bought in 1987. It lasted three months before the tranny gave out. I thought it was a fantastic deal…since I’d only paid $200 for it. I might buy another one today on the same basis – 3 months of cheap transportation for $200 in 1987 dollars.

    I’d evaluate any car the same way. Over time, they all break down. Some are more comfortable than others.

    I think any of us would take a new Chevrolet for $100. None of us would pay $100,000 for one. What the market has been saying is that between those obvious bright lines, there is a price where the GM value proposition is acceptable. Unfortunately for GM, it may not be at a point where they can make money.

    No one is “boycotting” GM…we just don’t think their cars are worth what they’re asking for them. Either make better cars or lower the price.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    So until the events of 2008, bank failures in fact did not happen “all the time”. For the most part, a handful of banks failed every year and in some years no banks failed.

    Er, we didn’t have a recession during most of those years, and the dot.bomb recession that we did have didn’t really affect banking.

    Back during the 1980s/early 90s recession, when banking was hit hard, the RTC took over 747 banks and S&L’s: http://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/ai96123.pdf

    If anything, this illustrates the point. The government tends to do this stuff only when there is a systemic crisis and it is really necessary. They don’t tend to take over corporations just for kicks.

    It is far from unprecedented. And it is quite likely that we will have more bank seizures this year, once FDIC has enough staffing to do it.

  • avatar
    long126mike

    I don’t think the auto industry is analogous to banking. There is no federal program that insures stockholders from lost investment should a car company go out of business.

    Nor is there in banking. There is, however, certain protection for depositors.

  • avatar
    Robert Schwartz

    *BOYCOTT GOVERNMENT MOTORS*

    Why? Because the Federal Government is plunging us into a national debt that will cripple our economy for years to come. Spending $100 Billion of the taxpayers money to save the jobs of folks (from Rabid Rick and Maximum Bob down to the lowliest janitor on the night shift) who have lived off the fat of the land while gutting a great institution is just plain daft.

    The world has way too many car makers and way too many marques. If we want to have any remaining in the US we must be prepared for some of them to disappear. To me Ford has stepped up, GM and Chrysler should be given decent burials and the cash should be saved for the widows and orphans.

  • avatar
    long126mike

    Because the Federal Government is plunging us into a national debt that will cripple our economy for years to come.

    So you believe increasing the public debt by less than 1% (at most) is going to “cripple our economy for years to come”?

    You must have gone nuts when it increased by nearly 100% the past 8 years and by $1 trillion in the prior fiscal year. You must also have loved all those on-budget surpluses the previous Democratic president racked up and handed to his successor.

    Or no?

  • avatar
    long126mike

    So until the events of 2008, bank failures in fact did not happen “all the time”.

    Let’s see. Before 2008, assistances and failures averaged 40 per year, or one every 9 days. So unless you interpret “all the time” to mean “less than every 9 days,” you are mistaken.

    In 2008 there were 30, and there have been 36 so far this year.

    In those prior 74 years, only two years (less than 3%) saw 0 – and those were in this decade.

    You might wish to recheck those numbers I gave you.

  • avatar
    long126mike

    No.

    Oh, so you’re just whining in a partisan manner and don’t actually care about fiscal responsibility. Thanks for your honesty.

  • avatar
    paulie

    long126mike

    Hey, please explain where you got your numbers from on Bush’s approval rating after 100 days.
    You are wayyyy off.
    Try to be more exact.
    As a matter of reality…Bush was nearly as high.
    Carter was even higher…and look where he ended up!

    President Bill Clinton’s approval rating after 100 days in office was dismal. Yet, despite his 1998 impeachment, he left office in 2001 with a 65 percent end-of-term approval rating in a Gallup poll —- one of the highest on record. President George W. Bush, on the other hand, received strong early ratings from the public —- just as Obama has, with a 66 percent Gallup approval rating.

    http://markdowe.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/us-presidents-approval-ratings-after-100-days-in-office/

  • avatar
    paulie

    The above was all copied from CNN.
    63 to 65.
    Wow, Obama crushed Bush.???

  • avatar
    oldyak

    I have read line after line ..after line….after line that involves nothing more than elitist views of political nature…little to do with a boycott and these political views will have little or no bearing on if G.M. survives.
    If the buying public can purchase a decent car at the right payment…they will buy it!
    The best and brightest have little clew as to what ‘real’ average citizen does!

  • avatar
    long126mike

    Hey, please explain where you got your numbers from on Bush’s approval rating after 100 days.
    You are wayyyy off.

    How many times do you want to be proven wrong?

    That one was from ABC/WaPost. Same week Fox had him at 59/28. NBC/WallStreetJournal had him at 50/35, and Gallup had him at 55/35.

  • avatar
    jkross22

    Because the Federal Government is plunging us into a national debt that will cripple our economy for years to come.

    So you believe increasing the public debt by less than 1% (at most) is going to “cripple our economy for years to come”?

    You must have gone nuts when it increased by nearly 100% the past 8 years and by $1 trillion in the prior fiscal year. You must also have loved all those on-budget surpluses the previous Democratic president racked up and handed to his successor.

    So the fact that the former president and congress that spent like there was no tomorrow is a justification for continuing to do so. Another brilliant argument by someone who still wants to assign blame and point fingers before he’ll admit it’s his guy who’s continuing the same boneheaded policies of his predecessor.

    Great point.

  • avatar
    jkross22

    So you believe increasing the public debt by less than 1% (at most)

    Contrary to your hopes and wishes, no one knows how much or for how long GM will be sucking at the teat.

  • avatar

    Never underestimate the true cost of low quality.

    New FIATsler slogan?

    Sorry, had to steer the discussion back to cars.

    John

  • avatar
    windswords

    long126mike:

    “So you believe increasing the public debt by less than 1% (at most) is going to “cripple our economy for years to come”?

    You must have gone nuts when it increased by nearly 100% the past 8 years and by $1 trillion in the prior fiscal year.”

    Doubling down on something that Bush and the other Republicans did that was wrong is even more wrong. Especially after your side complained about spending so much.

    And what took Bush 8 years to do to the debt Obama has done in a few months. By the way, although the Debt increased (it has every year – just the interest keeps it going up and up), the year by year Deficit decreased as the economy expanded, helped in no small part by the Bush tax cuts (although you will never admit to it).

    “You must also have loved all those on-budget surpluses the previous Democratic president racked up and handed to his successor.”

    Well there’s a problem there you see. Because there was no surplus. See we had recession during Clinton’s last year in office and the surplus went up in smoke since tax revenues always go down in a contraction. And so Bush took office during a recession. At least he didn’t say it was “the worst economy in 50 years”.

    Bill Clinton never intended to have a budget surplus. Ever. When he became president he (as all presidents do) prepared an overall budget forcast for the next 8 years or so. A directional framework and wish list for the administration. There were no surplusses in this forecast. There was only defict spending. Two things happened to derail this plan. First the citizens wisely rejected his (wifes) nationalized healthcare plan, which would have made any future surplus impossible. Second 1994 happened. After Nov 94 he no longer had control over the means to spend money. He could negotiate, he could win PR campaigns (like the government “shutdown”) but he could no longer dictate spending priorities. The Republicans reluctance to spend at the drop of a hat, plus the increasing tax revenues from a growing economy finally produced the first budget surplus in many a persons lifetime. But it was never his goal, never his wish, not even considered a fortunate circumstance by him. Like all big government Democrats extra federal dollars left over means you aren’t trying hard enough.

    Alas the Republicans thought the way to maintain their new-found power was to act like Democrats and buy votes. It was right that they were turned out of office. Problem is the ones we replaced them with are spending our money faster than the former Republicans-in-name-only could even dream of.

  • avatar
    don1967

    “what I’m saying is that kings are monarchs. They don’t get elected. We as a country elected Obama.

    Get it? Elected. As in, democratic process.”

    You main Acclaimed, as in hysterically blind love-fest?

  • avatar
    paulie

    long126mike

    The one I posted was from Gallup.
    It is writen under the graph.

    Are you sure which Bush you are talking about?

    http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2009/04/obamas-approval-rating-after-100-days-in-office-in-historical-context/

  • avatar
    agenthex

    Only the simple with no understanding of economics believe that.

    Let us just watch as Obamanomics crashes the economy. He will prove me right.

    Note this is coming from a guy who worships Peter Schiff and his ilk.

    It really is a lost cause because I initiated what was to be quite a beatdown of that whole austrian argument in another thread, but it was dodged and ignored only to pop back up here again.

    These stooges also shows the total lack of any respect for the anyone who may read this blog, since they seem to think that repeating the same thing over and over again despite being humiliated every time is going to to influence anyone.

    -

    Would you at least agree that it is unprecedented for the government to use bankruptcy or similar processes for regulators to seize a non-financial company?

    It’s not unprecedented, but that’s not point anyway.

    This is entirely a non-productive way of looking at the situation. Problems need solutions. We’re taken in this country to give the “free market” a first crack at something, and then fixing whatever needs be. Generally it would be better to preempt the problems, but whatever, people are dumb and lack foresight.

    The “free market” solution in this case would’ve been to liquidate and decimate a whole region of country instantly with very possibly much wider repercussions. This was is not terribly desirable, even compared to spending some billions which is going to be spent anyway to combat deflation.

    What you really need to think about is the message being sent out to the tools by the corp PR machine. What they would’ve desired is for the gov to spend that money but kept the ownership back in the old private hands. Then they would’ve sent out the same jingoist line about buying American as when they were propping it up with their own money. Remember back in the day when TTAC was somewhat unique in publicly pointing out the failure of the D3, but now join in the manipulated idiocy even tho if anything, the business is being handled more competently.

    You see this over and over again. I would bet if the gov paid out massively on the Chrysler bonds, that deal would’ve been heralded as the future of the public-private business partnership, instead of the pack of lies about priority.

  • avatar
    agenthex

    So the fact that the former president and congress that spent like there was no tomorrow is a justification for continuing to do so. Another brilliant argument by someone who still wants to assign blame and point fingers before he’ll admit it’s his guy who’s continuing the same boneheaded policies of his predecessor.

    Great point.

    His point is that certain people are total hypocrites when it comes to spending, and therefore have completely untrustworthy opinions.

    Doubling down on something that Bush and the other Republicans did that was wrong is even more wrong. Especially after your side complained about spending so much.

    As I’ve said before, not all spending is created equal. This shouldn’t be controversial as we make such judgments every day.

    The argument is that the prior spending on stuff like war, oil subsidies, tax breaks for rich, etc was poor value.

    On the other hand, spending to prevent deflation, prevent regions from turning into wasteland, and generally all the external costs of capitalism, is beneficial if not necessary.

    The general idea is not difficult to understand, so I bet even conservatives can do it if they tried hard enough.

  • avatar
    Happy_Endings

    That’s a meaningless statement and your wild guess based on your obvious hatred for government in general. According to the same Rasmussen, 54% of your fellow Americans consider it very or somewhat likely that GM will become successful and profitable in the next few years

    Explain how GM is going to make a sizable profit, on average, on each vehicle they sell? They were losing $5B between operating expenses and total revenue in 2007. That was before the economy collapsed, $150 oil, and 10m vehicles sold per year. Those operating costs are going to be the same, even though they’re in bankruptcy. Not only do they have to make up that $5B difference, but also quite a bit more so everything else can be paid for.

    If they don’t figure out a way to sell their vehicles for quite a bit more money, they won’t survive. It’s just that simple.

  • avatar
    agenthex

    helped in no small part by the Bush tax cuts (although you will never admit to it).

    This meme’ll never die even tho in the whole industrialized developed world there’s not a sign of its success. Countries with low taxes and low infrastructure are cesspools, except for maybe small tax havens acting as parasites.

  • avatar
    agenthex

    Let us watch for the next year and we will see who is correct.

    Talk is cheap, we will see the results live.

    Sure, but the guys you’re following (Peter Schiff and austrian possie) have never been correct their whole life, whereas the nobel laureate economists are figuring that current stimulus levels are still sub-optimal.

    Strange as it may seem to people who only follow the “public debate”, obama is actually the centrist he proposed to be. He was quite adamant in not following the successful swedish model of fixing banks, among other less related political moves. Unfortunately, that often means chasing the wrong strategy halfway in an effort to get along and build consensus among middle of the line voters. Better than chasing the wrong strategy all the way, I suppose.

  • avatar
    CPTG

    Boycott Cryco-Fiat and GM indeed!!! A boycott infers consumers and activists actively doing something to punish Cryco-Fiat/GM for their evil ways. Me, I am too lazy to actively do anything (hence my 44″ Gut!!!).

    No, my brothers. If you seek to kill Cryco-Fiat and GM, do nothing except ‘being true to you’.

    1. Chrysler is renown for making piss-poor cars. FIAT was chased out of the North American Market for making piss poor cars. Now these two clowns prepose to share their ‘piss-poorness’ and foist ugly, expensive and mechanically unreliable on what remains of the American customer base?!!! I say ‘God bless them’.

    I wish to go on record stating I will never boycott CRYCO-Fiat. With that said, I will also go on record that it will be a cold day in IRAQ the day I spend good money on a CRYCO-Fiat!!!!

    2. Jimmy. As in Southpark’s “Jimmah, Jimmah, Jimmah!!! They make equally piss poor cars that are outrageously expensive to own and drive. Again, I will not be boycotting GM products. Of course, even with a gun to my head, I will not be buying a JIMMY product. Why? Too much selection; too much competition. Wanna bury Cryco-Fiat/GM. Be true to you, do your auto homework (Internet reviews search, TTAC ratings, etc) and buy the best you can afford—and it won’t be the former.

  • avatar
    long126mike

    And what took Bush 8 years to do to the debt Obama has done in a few months.

    How much pot did you smoke before making that absolutely ridiculous assertion?

    Another brilliant argument by someone who still wants to assign blame and point fingers before he’ll admit it’s his guy who’s continuing the same boneheaded policies of his predecessor.

    After 8 years of ceaseless bleating of “Clinton did it, too!” from wingnuts, that is also a serious laugher.

    the year by year Deficit decreased as the economy expanded, helped in no small part by the Bush tax cuts (although you will never admit to it).

    Factually wrong again and also delusional about the effect of the tax cuts.

  • avatar
    reclusive_in_nature

    Voters always vote with their wallets. When Americans are staring at government mandated $5 a gallon every time they fill up they might just give their votes to the guy that’ll promise to do everything he can to get it lower. Call it a hunch, but I dont think Obama will be that guy….

  • avatar
    long126mike

    When Americans are staring at government mandated $5 a gallon every time they fill up

    Obama is putting price controls on retail gasoline? Is this another one of his secret, unarticulated policies that he’ll implement with his powerful Jedi mind tricks?

  • avatar
    Steven Lang

    Three responses to the GM boycott so far…

    1) Obama’s doing everything that a President should do and… y’all can kiss my ass.

    2) Obama’s doing everything that a President could do to destroy this country and… y’all can kiss my ass.

    Now we have number three…

    3) Bill Clinton was a deficit spender. This has absolutely nothing to do with GM but… y’all can kiss my ass.

    When the hubris, hyperbole, and name calling stop please let me know.

  • avatar
    long126mike

    Bill Clinton was a deficit spender. When the hubris, hyperbole, and name calling stop please let me know.

    That’s not hubris, hyperbole, nor name calling. That’s simply lying.

    If you’re going to avoid TTAC as long as the “King Obama the Traitor” comments are here, then I guess I’ll be the first to bid you a fond farewell.

  • avatar
    reclusive_in_nature

    Obama is putting price controls on retail gasoline? Is this another one of his secret, unarticulated policies that he’ll implement with his powerful Jedi mind tricks?

    Nope. Jedi mind tricks won’t be needed for the downfall of our Empire (United States). Carbon cap and trade, CAFE, and the inevitable for-the-common-good “policies” (taxes and lots of them…) that will arise out of the looming climate change summit in Copenhagen ought to complete the euthanasia of our economy, auto industry, and maybe a few of our rights too. I’m sure the “thunderous applause” (YAY! I squeezed another Star Wars quote in my post!) that preceded all these things will die down once people realize where this good intention paved road is leading.

  • avatar
    long126mike

    Carbon cap and trade, CAFE, and the inevitable for-the-common-good “policies” (taxes and lots of them…) that will arise out of the looming climate change summit in Copenhagen ought to complete the euthanasia of our economy, auto industry, and maybe a few of our rights too. I’m sure the “thunderous applause” (YAY! I squeezed another Star Wars quote in my post!) that preceded all these things will die down once people realize where this good intention paved road is leading.

    Wow, you are one bitter person. Do you always react this way to your guy losing?

    Your guy got us $4 gas without carbon cap and trade, without raising CAFE standards, etc. Like a good supporter, you bent over and asked for more. McCain ’08!

    I hope you also realize that increasing CAFE standards lowers gas prices. Oh wait – you obviously don’t.

    Your assumptions about the economic effects of carbon cap-and-trade are equally amusing.

    Try raising your hands up higher to catch the falling sky.

  • avatar
    Campisi

    When the hubris, hyperbole, and name calling stop please let me know.

    A-f***ing-men. This is The Truth About Cars, not The Opinions Regarding Politics.

    If you like a GM car, buy it, and if you don’t, don’t. The end.

  • avatar
    reclusive_in_nature

    For the record, I didn’t have a guy to even vote for. Both canidates sucked in their own unique way. Also Bush wasn’t my guy either. Funny that someone from a party (my apologies if my guess that you’re a liberal/Democrat is incorrect) that supposedly champions open mindedness is so quick to stereotype.
    I’ll forgive you your presumptousness as you seem gullible enough to believe CAFE will lower gas prices and cap and trade isn’t going to have any negative consequences on the economy. I’m sure that when gas prices are raised further via taxes (if people are using less fuel they’re contributing less tax revenue for roads) you’ll be more than happy to bend over and take it because your guy thinks it’s for our own good. Then again maybe you wouldn’t. I wouldn’t want to stoop to judging a person’s actions or affiliations soley on their opinion of one topic.

  • avatar
    stratman

    I bought a brand new Z-28 back in 1980, at 27,000 miles the harmonic balancer started to shimmy and tranny began to act up, I traded up to an ’81 Vette, quite beautiful, red leather interior and white exterior, unfortunately this was the year GM in their wisdom introduced the 3C system (computer command control), picked up the car on Friday expecting to be at the beach on Staurday morning, well it rained Friday night, Saturday morning’s surprise was a drenched Corvette interior, brought it in for service on Monday, got it back on Tuesday, Wednesday was a harbinger of good cheer, car wouldn’t start apperently the 3C system wasn’t working, got it towed back for more service, got the car back on Friday, I took it for it’s first “break-in” cruise, roughly 10 miles from home, everything went dead………to make a long painful story short, I went to the local Datsun dealer, brought in the Vette(9000 miles on the odometer) and drove out with a brand spanking new 1982 280 ZX with all the goodies. I drove that ZX for 169,000 miles and finally sold it to my friend’s maid, she drove it till she totaled it in a crash, the odometer was at 250,000+. Since then I’ve owned Nissans and Infinitis exclusively. I was a bit excited about the Camaro SS, I drive down to a local Chevy dealer, they have one silver SS and one red V-6, well at first glance the red paint was just covered in orange peel, the interior looked cheap and hastily put together, I didn’t get to test drive the SS as the line was a bit long (even though I had made an appointment.)

    I spoke to a nice young man, he said the SS was hot and there’s a premium over the MSRP due to limited availability, we strolled to his back lot, it was a sea of new Vettes, in any color you can possibly want, anyway he says “I can get you a better deal on an ’08 Vette than the SS.” I shook my head and said “naw thanks I guess I’ll be looking at the new 370Z.”

    GM is dead boys, long live the old GM, when cars weren’t called “product”, but by their names. This was a long time coming, I don’t blame the Japs, the Germans or anyone else, the fault is with GM. I have a new found respect for Ford, I hope they see the light, they’re the last of a noble breed. God help us when politicians want to play in the private market.

  • avatar
    long126mike

    Also Bush wasn’t my guy either

    Sure, you voted for Gore and Kerry. No?

    Funny that someone from a party (my apologies if my guess that you’re a liberal/Democrat is incorrect) that supposedly champions open mindedness is so quick to stereotype.

    Yes, the best way to criticize supposed stereotyping is to stereotype.

    I’ll forgive you your presumptousness as you seem gullible enough to believe CAFE will lower gas prices

    You’re really serious? Lower demand = lower prices. If you don’t believe the “theory,” then you’re free to consult the historical record. The last time CAFE standards increased fuel economy requirements in a substantial manner, it ended up hobbling OPEC for 20 years and provided America with a cheap energy basis for unprecedented economic growth.

    But, you’re right, lower demand increases prices, contrary to evidence and common sense.

    cap and trade isn’t going to have any negative consequences on the economy

    Energy efficiency is one of the surest, cheapest ways of creating wealth, and keeping it in-country. But I guess WalMart and other firms that have reduced their carbon output and increased their profits aren’t very helpful examples. What does WalMart know, right?

    you’ll be more than happy to bend over and take it because your guy thinks it’s for our own good

    Gee, look where your continued stereotyping leads you. I would be more than happy to see the following:
    * high regulated price floors for domestic petroleum production and guaranteed purchases of that petroleum
    * price floors on retail gasoline and diesel prices, with the difference between wholesale prices and retail prices (minus costs and some profits) be tax revenue and that it be revenue-neutral in the long run — meaning, fuel taxes would get offset by lowering things like income taxes
    * a cap on liquid fuel consumption that gradually lowers in a predictable fashion over time
    * a trading mechanism for private citizens to sell any amount below quota to the highest bidder
    * tax credits to offset the regressivity of fuel taxes, as well as tax credits for certain commercial users of fuel (like shipping and transit)

    Since all this would never dawn on you as a course of action, I will tell you the end result would be far lower income taxes, debt reduction, rewarding individual citizens for lower energy consumption, more domestic petroleum production, and lowering of global prices for petroleum which would harm the likes of autocrats who fund terrorism.

    And I could care less who brings that to the table. I have no party allegiance. I am an American and a human being, so that is where my interest lies – not with political parties in a given country.

    But since such ideas smell “liberal,” let’s just stick with the “let’s let Middle Eastern oil dictatorships rake us over the coals at the gas pump and just take it, spurring yet another fat recession and transferring American wealth permanently into the hands of people who do not like us” approach that your guy gave us.

  • avatar
    wsn

    John Horner :
    June 11th, 2009 at 2:44 pm

    “Congress has abdicated their responsibility giving Obama de facto totalitarian powers.”

    Total BS. Three levels of federal courts had the opportunity to shoot down the Chrysler deal, and they all gave the ok.

    ———————————————

    That’s because the US is not a true democracy and the judicial branch is not truly independent from the executive branch.

    Judges are selected by the executive branch, not democratically elected.

  • avatar
    wsn

    long126mike :
    June 12th, 2009 at 1:03 am

    When Americans are staring at government mandated $5 a gallon every time they fill up

    Obama is putting price controls on retail gasoline? Is this another one of his secret, unarticulated policies that he’ll implement with his powerful Jedi mind tricks?

    ———————————————–

    Ironically, he will have to. Because otherwise each gallon would cost $20 due to the hyper inflation ($3T deficit comes to mind, and that’s one year).

    Then, people will be restricted as much gas they can buy. Every driver would be given a coupon booklet. But of course you get 10% allowance if you buy a Government Motor product.

  • avatar
    long126mike

    I hate it when inflation gets hyper. I just feed it a couple of Ritalin and it gets back to normal.

  • avatar
    Kevin Kluttz

    Three words: No, thank you.

  • avatar
    long126mike

    To those who think that a government-owned auto industry is a wonderful marriage of the greatest attributes of the public and private sectors, I would ask, would you trust the next George W. Bush (Sarah Palin?) that gets elected to manage the domestic auto industry?

    Since the government owns, not manages, GM, that is an inaccurate characterization. Also, since they’ll wash their hands of it in 18 months, whoever the next president is will be moot. Lastly, I wouldn’t trust Bush or Palin because they’re both unethical, wouldn’t put country first, and are frankly not too intelligent.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India