Saving Government Motors.

[Bob Fechter]

Hey it worked so well in the housing market. Let's see if we can make it look like GM is actually selling cars! (at least until the election is over)

GM Ramps Up Risky Subprime Auto Loans To Drive Sales; Taxpayers Still Own 26.5% - Investors.com

 

[Cliff Beer]

Come on Bob, let's not be negative.

GM IS selling cars. They're just selling a small percentage (GM Financial is 8% of their financed sales) to people with less-than-stellar credit.

Guess what? Loads of people these days have less-than-stellar credit.

Guess what else? Every other major auto manufacturer is also courting buyers with poor credit to boost sales.

Everything in perspective.

 

[Mark]

Nothing learnt then!? Good Ho.

This is why I keep ranting on about not blaming anyone for this crap. Why bother? Why even discuss the mess? We are committed and/or doomed (depending on your personal bias), to repeating it over and over. What else works? One-Car families sharing a single phone-line and TV, eating yesterday's left-overs for lunch today, whilst wearing clothes handed down from siblings?

This is the beast we breathed life into. It is what it is.

Frank Sinatra

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Nothing learnt then!? Good Ho.

This is why I keep ranting on about not blaming anyone for this crap. Why bother? Why even discuss the mess? We are committed and/or doomed (depending on your personal bias), to repeating it over and over. What else works? One-Car families sharing a single phone-line and TV, eating yesterday's left-overs for lunch today, whilst wearing clothes handed down from siblings?

This is the beast we breathed life into. It is what it is.

Frank Sinatra

I agree, it seems that no one learns the lessons of history.

 

[Bob Fechter]

I agree, it seems that no one learns the lessons of history.

No one learns the lessons of history anymore because history has been altered. Anyone who tires to correct it is accused of being a revisionist!

People are dropping out because of frustration like yours, and then they win.

 

[Cliff Beer]

There's a greater risk to our future than the machinations of corrupt and evil men, or the stupidity of men in power with no sense of history: apathy.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" (attrib. Burke).

Although it is tempting to check out in the face of the staggering levels of hypocrisy, corruption, greed, partisanship and power mongering we see today, doing so is an equivalent sin.

We live in a time of unprecedented personal freedoms, wealth and prosperity, civil order, and human knowledge. This is only because of the thousands of years of struggle that has preceded our existence in the form of good men fighting bad. Overall, the bar has been lifted across the generations and the centuries, but there will always be bad men in power who need to be put down by the good, empowered with a sense of will and determination.

As one who is part of bringing the next generation into the world (I have four small children), I owe it to them to engage, and make a positive mark on the world, small as it may be. The easiest thing I can do is to teach to my children the principles of selflessness, service, decency, compassion, and above all else, action in the face of corruption and evil.

One more quote I like: "courage is not the absence of fear, it is the will and ability to act in the presence of great fear." (attrib. Roosevelt)

Getting back to the original question, we debate these things because communication builds awareness, and greater awareness allows good men to organize and put down the bad.

 

[Mark]

Well said Cliff.

But for goodness' sake lets debate, not simply blame each other (not you and I personally of course, I generalise), back and forth endlessly. That is not debate. Argue a view, defend your principals, but for the love of all that is holy, drop the denial from the the agenda.

The constant barage of comments along the lines, "it wasn't us, it was you", we didn't ruin the economy, you did". Followed by, "oh no we didn't, remember 1947, when your party left the gate open?"

Seriously pisses me off.

 

[Bob Fechter]

The PJ Tatler » General Motors is Imploding — and Team Obama is Lying About It

 

[Doug S.]

The constant barage of comments along the lines, "it wasn't us, it was you", we didn't ruin the economy, you did". Followed by, "oh no we didn't, remember 1947, when your party left the gate open?"

Seriously pisses me off.

THAT would piss me off, too, Mark!

Sadly, though, it wasn't 1947, it was as recent as 2007...the previous administration passed the TARP act, Obama just inherited the fallout.

Not that Gee-Dub did the wrong thing, necessarily (although I have serious doubts)...at least he saved GM jobs that were most assuredly going to become unemployment claims if nothing were done.

But, hey, let's at least leave B.O. out of the fray, since he wasn't in office at the time.

What was even worse was the "saving" of Wall Street...and the obscene bonuses the banking executives gave themselves for accepting the bonuses and finding ways to avoid responsibility for repayment. At least GM has repaid their "loans" (or, so they say...I'm not sure they are telling the truth).

Perhaps we ought to blame this all on 1492, though...if Columbus had just kept his nose in Europe, we might never have had any of these problems.

Wait, let's blame the exodus of homo-sapiens out of Africa and into Europe...the Cro Magnons SURELY would not have had the sense to even invent currency (and they probably would not have thought to ask us not to call them "Shirley", either :laugh: )

...or, perhaps...we ought to just all piss off and let the pols dig their own graves...and dance a jig on the dirt on top of the caskets when they do :thumbsup: ?

Whatever....it's difficult not to believe that it isn't out of the hands of the common man....we are powerless against the huge political machines (except for at the ballot box).

Cheers!

Doug

 

[tom pritchett]

GM did not repay their loan. They took out another government loan to pay "the loan" with. It was a shell game. Worse, they didn't need any money at all to begin with. See, 3/4 of the profit they make as a company is outside of the borders of the USA. They had money off shore enough to be a solid company.

The white house put a gentleman in charge that flunked out of college and made him the car czar in charge of GM. If you held stock, too bad. Not worth anything. If you were an executive, too bad, you get fired. Oh yeah, we will give 25% of the company to the union. This whole event stinks of payback to the unions help to get Obama into the presidency.

A government having this much power should scare anyone. If it has the power to control private companies, shut them down or remove the people that created them, has the power to run every part of your personal life. Freedom is then gone.

 

[Bob Fechter]

National Socialism; A system that failed in Germany.

GM did not repay their loan. They took out another government loan to pay "the loan" with. It was a shell game. Worse, they didn't need any money at all to begin with. See, 3/4 of the profit they make as a company is outside of the borders of the USA. They had money off shore enough to be a solid company.

The white house put a gentleman in charge that flunked out of college and made him the car czar in charge of GM. If you held stock, too bad. Not worth anything. If you were an executive, too bad, you get fired. Oh yeah, we will give 25% of the company to the union. This whole event stinks of payback to the unions help to get Obama into the presidency.

A government having this much power should scare anyone. If it has the power to control private companies, shut them down or remove the people that created them, has the power to run every part of your personal life. Freedom is then gone.

 

[Doug S.]

GM did not repay their loan. They took out another government loan to pay "the loan" with. It was a shell game. Worse, they didn't need any money at all to begin with. See, 3/4 of the profit they make as a company is outside of the borders of the USA. They had money off shore enough to be a solid company.

The white house put a gentleman in charge that flunked out of college and made him the car czar in charge of GM. If you held stock, too bad. Not worth anything. If you were an executive, too bad, you get fired. Oh yeah, we will give 25% of the company to the union. This whole event stinks of payback to the unions help to get Obama into the presidency.

Help me out, here...IIRC this bailout was part of the TARP program initiated by the Republican president, George W. Bush, wasn't it?

Admittedly, my memory has never been very good and I have slept since then, so please don't think I am asking in jest...what I recall was that Bush made the loan to GM...perhaps they didn't pay it back, maybe that could be placed on the back of the current administration...but, once again, I'm not sure how the whole event can be blamed on Obama if the loan was made by Gee-Dub.

If my memory is off, my sincere apologies are hereby submitted...:stunned:

Cheers!

Doug

 

[tom pritchett]

Doug,

The loan was under Obama's jurisdiction. Please don't get me wrong here. If Bush was still president (of course I know that he could not be), I think that he probably would have given GM a loan too. Personally I think that both have sold our children down the river with the mighty help of congress. They are all to blame. But to give 25% of the company to the union....that is just wrong. If they wanted to purchase the company like anyone else, they could have. Oh yeah. Those that did through stocks got the shaft.

 

[Doug S.]

Doug,

The loan was under Obama's jurisdiction. Please don't get me wrong here. If Bush was still president (of course I know that he could not be), I think that he probably would have given GM a loan too. Personally I think that both have sold our children down the river with the mighty help of congress. They are all to blame. But to give 25% of the company to the union....that is just wrong. If they wanted to purchase the company like anyone else, they could have. Oh yeah. Those that did through stocks got the shaft.

Thanks for the correction, Tom!

I'm still a bit confused...if this loan was made under Obama's jurisdiction, how could it be related to getting him INTO the presidency, as you stated:

"This whole event stinks of payback to the unions help to get Obama into the presidency."

Did Obama run for president promising during the campaign to bail GM out and give 1/4 of the company to the unions to get the union vote? I don't remember that, either...things I remember Obama promising were like these:

Get our combat troops out of Iraq
Get a universal health care package passed
Eliminate "Don't ask, Don't tell"
Limit our time of engagement in Afghanistan

I remember lots of stuff like that, but don't remember him promising to bail GM out and give part of the company to the union during the campaign.

Is Alzheimer's setting in? I realize I am older than aluminum foil...maybe my brain tissue is hardening?

What I do recall is that Gee-Dub bailed out Wall Street and the banking industry and in his infinite wisdom failed to make sure there were any requirements that the recipients pay any of the money back, resulting in the banking/investment industries granting their executives huge bonuses for acquiring the funds with no requirement of repayment, and allowing the ink on the ledgers of the banks/stock brokerages to turn from red to black while the middle class/main street still had no access to the funds. I recall that very clearly.

Chrysler and GM have risen from the ashes...perhaps they have not repaid all the money, but I suspect they have paid some if not most of it back. Where is the money Gee-Dub gave away?

I realize that this issue is a bit OT, and my apologies to LB for inducing the thread drift, but in my opinion this whole governmental fiasco is all tied together as part of the recession that started in 2007...why are we grousing about the auto industry if not the banking/investment industry, who seem to be the larger transgressors?

Again, Tom, I sincerely thank you for your succinct responses...help this addle-brained old schoolteacher clear the fog and understand the issue and sequence of events better, please...

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Bob Fechter]

"In response to the escalating crisis, on October 3, 2008, Congress provided the U.S. Treasury with the authority to spend $700 billion to stabilize the U.S. economy. Congress created the Office of Financial Stability (OFS) within Treasury to implement a Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). At the same time, Congress created a Congressional Oversight Panel (COP) to “review the current state of financial markets and the regulatory system.
About Us

 

[Bob Fechter]

"With increased spending planned by other labor groups, including the powerful Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO, unions are likely to top the $400 million they spent to help elect Obama four years ago."

Unions Gearing Up To Spend Big In 2012 Elections

 

[Doug S.]

"In response to the escalating crisis, on October 3, 2008, Congress provided the U.S. Treasury with the authority to spend $700 billion to stabilize the U.S. economy. Congress created the Office of Financial Stability (OFS) within Treasury to implement a Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). At the same time, Congress created a Congressional Oversight Panel (COP) to “review the current state of financial markets and the regulatory system.
About Us

So this was when Obama was just campaigning for the presidency, he hadn't even been elected yet, much less be in office. Can we really blame this on him?

"With increased spending planned by other labor groups, including the powerful Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO, unions are likely to top the $400 million they spent to help elect Obama four years ago."

Unions Gearing Up To Spend Big In 2012 Elections

LB, one of my biggest concerns in the political arena is that of the SuperPAC's being allowed to spend unlimited funds to affect the outcome of our elections. Labor unions PACs may be a bit liberal in their orientation, but the vast majority of the SuperPAC's seem to be oriented more toward Romney's side of the fence.

It looks like if Romney can't buy the presidency with his own vast fortune, he will allow the fat-cats of the SuperPACs to do so for him.

The schism between the have's and have not's will deepen and widen if that happens...we will stretch the limited human endurance the poor possess to their limits. Those who have been cacheing stockpiles of foodstuffs and ammunition in caves in the mountains will be right, there may well be armed insurrection. You can only force people to wallow in the mud for so long before they rise up and fight...:thumbsdown:

When that happens the U.S. government will respond with overwhelming force, engaging not only the military but also the police forces of the country. We might as well be living in Syria when that happens, main street will look just like what is happening there.

Doug

 

[Bob Fechter]

So this was when Obama was just campaigning for the presidency, he hadn't even been elected yet, much less be in office. Can we really blame this on him?


LB, one of my biggest concerns in the political arena is that of the SuperPAC's being allowed to spend unlimited funds to affect the outcome of our elections. Labor unions PACs may be a bit liberal in their orientation, but the vast majority of the SuperPAC's seem to be oriented more toward Romney's side of the fence.

It looks like if Romney can't buy the presidency with his own vast fortune, he will allow the fat-cats of the SuperPACs to do so for him.

The schism between the have's and have not's will deepen and widen if that happens...we will stretch the limited human endurance the poor possess to their limits. Those who have been cacheing stockpiles of foodstuffs and ammunition in caves in the mountains will be right, there may well be armed insurrection. You can only force people to wallow in the mud for so long before they rise up and fight...:thumbsdown:

When that happens the U.S. government will respond with overwhelming force, engaging not only the military but also the police forces of the country. We might as well be living in Syria when that happens, main street will look just like what is happening there.

Doug

We can blame TARP on Congress, which was run by the Democrats.


That's quite a crystal ball, Doug.

If its still working, ask it who keeps feeding this class warfare.

 

[Doug S.]

We can blame TARP on Congress, which was run by the Democrats.

Gee-Dub, as POTUS, had veto power. Would congress have over-ridden his veto? We'll never know....but sign off on the package he did, so that indicates to me that he was on board with the program....and as further proof of that, look at who benefitted the most...the fat-cats in charge of the banking/investment industry, with whom Gee-Dub was undoubtedly in cahoots :thumbsdown: (again, IMHO).

Veto power is another issue....with the political idealogy gridlock we have now, I worry that the legislative branch (which has a different party in control of each house) and the executive branch might well be putting our country into a state of impasse....how long has it been since a bill even got past the senate and house to B.O. for his signature, I wonder (really, I don't know)?

At one time I predicted that if different parties controlled each of the legislative houses, it would require them to work together and compromise in order to benefit their constituents.

Boy, howdy, was I mistaken!!!!! Sadly, the focus has changed from benefitting their constituents to holding hard and fast on the party line, crossover votes are few and far between (and, as I see it, mostly Democrats, hardly ever, if ever, Republicans).

Just a personal opinion, here...I see Boehner as the problem...just more of the Tom Delay attitude of "Win at all costs", and IMHO winning doesn't seem to have anything to do with what is good for their constituents.

'nuff said....:lipsrsealed:

Doug

 

[Bob Fechter]

Boy, howdy, was I mistaken!!!!! Sadly, the focus has changed from benefitting their constituents to holding hard and fast on the party line, crossover votes are few and far between (and, as I see it, mostly Democrats, hardly ever, if ever, Republicans).


Doug

Yeah, the Democratic Party can be pretty hard on its politicians. I'll never forget what they did to Joe Lieberman, and now they're doing it in Tennessee!

"The party said Friday that it would do nothing to help Mark Clayton, 35, who received nearly twice as many votes as his closest challenger in Thursday’s seven-candidate primary, winning the right to challenge Republican U.S. Sen. Bob Corker in November."

http://www.tennessean.com/article/2...ssee-Democratic-Party-disavows-Senate-nominee

The Republicans have politicians that don't fit in, Spectre, Snow, even Romney to many, but I have to say the party respects their voters and supports the people's choices.