Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

[Jon]

Isn't choice great?

Hooray!

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

So not only did you watch CNN all day to know when they first reported it, but you know that they did it because they received complaints?

The really important thing here is that it was a tragedy averted. Although I wouldn't have shed any tears if the security guard had popped that weasel right between the eyes. The "how would this have been reported if it had been a mirror image" question is always out there. A poll released this week shows the vast majority of us understand that the MSM are slanted.

So the question of how a mirror image incident (right wing nutbar shooting up a pro-choice group) while valid, can never be answered to the satisfaction of all. As I pointed out earlier, initial reports indicated this clown worked for a GLBT outfit and was carrying a Chick-fil-a bag but "we can't be certain what his motives were."

That was the same poition taken several years ago when an Islamo facist walked into LAX, walked past many airline counters, got to the El Al counter and killed a guy. "We can't be certain what his motives were." "We don't know if it was terrorism." Well, anyone with a romm temperature IQ can be certain.

Going back even further, when hostage tapes were flowing out of Beirut, I recall watching one and then seeing Dan Rather suggest we couldn't know if he was being "coerced." I see. Since the guys with the AK-47s aren't in the frame. Or may even be taking a leak down the hall, we can't assume this guy being held against his will in a foreign country is being "coerced." Mental flatulence.

[Bill]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

No way! Uncle Joe says so!



Seriously, I'm no econ expert but I am a car nut. GM simply can't do anything right, from the Volt right on down (up?). Mr. Woodhill's analysis of the Malibu is spot on. Heck, even Kia and Hyundai are putting out better products than Government Motors.

GM share price needs to go up by over 250% for taxpayers to break even on the bailout (and assuming the government would then sell its shares):

http://news.investors.com/article/62...on-dollars.htm

[Slap Shot]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

GM share price needs to go up by over 250% for taxpayers to break even on the bailout (and assuming the government would then sell its shares):

http://news.investors.com/article/62...on-dollars.htm

How much would they have to recover without it?

[Bill]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

How much would they have to recover without it?

The report indicates that Treasury is currently expecting losses approaching $26 billion, which would seem to indicate they aren't very positive about the share price increasing before the government does decide to sell its shares.

[joecct]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

if you turn the volume down you can pretend they are saying whatever you want..

Wish they had Feherty on early round coverage. He's a certifiable, lovable nut.

[streaker]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Lots of stupid in that article you posted. But on the flip side, its nice to finally learn Old Pio's real name! But since I'm up for a good laugh, lets destroy this guy one point at at time...

1) Qualifications. The bio says: "I have a B.S. in mechanical engineering. I am a software entrepreneur who is currently an investor and board member in three startup companies. I am on the Leadership Council of the Club for Growth." What in any of that has to do with analyzing the auto industry or GM in particular? So he doesn't like their new cars and their market share isn't what it was in 1950? Okayyyy... The "Club for Growth" membership (ie GOP hacks) raises a big red flag.

2) GM fundamentals. 2.8 EPS. Trading 7 times earnings. Hardly seems like a company going under. Yes the stock is down 17% vs prior year, however Ford is down 14% so perhaps its just an auto industry sector thing.

3) Momentum. With this crack analysis GM's stock should be sinking like a stone. Its up 6% today.

Bottom line is, any idiot can blather about this and that no matter how ridiculous as long as they get to earn a living doing it. Raging cokehead Larry Kudlow on CNBC is famous for this. However, when you're not getting paid to spout nonsense, but you use idiocy like this guy's opinion and act like its true, don't be angry when sarcastic liberals come along and have some fun at your expense.

He did point out a ton of FACTS, regardless of how you want to spin it. The GM house of cards may not tumble next year, but it makes sense as a business individual that if your market share is shrinking and you have to offer incentives (which diminishes your net return) to sell your product, then the prospect of competing against other successful car companies that do not need incentives to move their product in that segment is highly unlikely. They certainly are not #1 in truck sales (which is the most profitable segment for any vehicle manufacturer) and Europe is a major drag on any of the domestic auto makers. Those indicators to me signal a business in grave danger compared to their competitors. (Did you order the code RED?) GM also is holding the highest level of days inventory compared to their competitors, and is starting to reduce their manufacturing output.

In a nutshell it tells me that GM is in the " the more they changed the more they stayed the same" category. The focus is on the wrong parts of the business, the hierarchy is in disarray, and the govern, err, beancounters are running the business again. Not that it is a major factor, but as a longtime professional in the auto industry as a supplier to GM, I can guarantee you that their business tactics have not been altered from the first time they went under.


Edit: This, from an anonymous auto insider:

"There’s a tale of two bailouts… One, the money was handed over with no obligations, the other, the money was lent, on a hard schedule to repay. One, the management was picked by politicians, the other, the management was a businessman.
GM, as being discussed, is indeed not succeeding. Rushing a product to market, after spending billions, and coming in less than 2nd in your segment, is a key to disaster.
Speaking of 2008, there was an even worse disaster had been committed by someone else – In 2007, Chrysler introduced the Dodge Avenger. It was already years behind schedule. Chrysler had started designing the replacement for the Intrepid, and it should have been introduced in 2005. But Daimler didn’t like it, so vetoed it, and forced Chrysler to start over, using a Mitsubishi platform (I doubt many know what that means), and then got in the way over and over again. Top down management, arrogance, and using Chrysler’s cash to subsidize Daimler’s inefficiency was all that ever happend, and eventually they PAID to get rid of Chrysler and its accompanying liablities. But Chrysler was left with the legacy of cars that terrible attributes, poor quality, and a bad reputation – all from the guys who are supposedly the premier auto maker?
GM and Chrysler were both given a second chance. Chrysler HAD to earn their future, because they had a debt to repay. It was succeed at the car business or die. GM was handed debt relief and billions, with no obligation.
Chrysler has since displaced two other maker’s places in sales ranking, and instead of losing market share like GM, it’s gained considerably. It went back to the drawing board and introduced new and “top of the game” new vehicles. And it continues to do so.
Why? Because it isn’t “too big to fail” and there won’t be a bailout. The new Chrysler paid back its debts to the Treasury and is making money and stunning its competitors. It is doing more with less.
GM is not. GM hasn’t changed its mode of operation. It hasn’t learned from the past mistakes of producing middling cars by spending more than everyone else does to merely achieve mediocrity. GM has, for the last 20 years, been engaged in a LOT of mediocrity, though it spent hugely more than the competition to bring things to market.
This is why Woodhill is right. By the time GM fails, Chrysler may be able to buy GM out of bankruptcy and turn it around. The mouse stalking the lion. The difference? Management at Chrysler is fighting for their lives, succeed or fail, sink or swim. GM didn’t learn from near death because it was handed a get ouf of jail card from people who were so scared of them dying they didn’t even hold them accountable. They are still acting as if they’re too big to fail and will be bailed out again".

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Not enough hookers on the Golf Channel!

Too many infomercials about super slicers?

[Rover]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

He did point out a ton of FACTS, regardless of how you want to spin it. The GM house of cards may not tumble next year, but it makes sense as a business individual that if your market share is shrinking and you have to offer incentives (which diminishes your net return) to sell your product, then the prospect of competing against other successful car companies that do not need incentives to move their product in that segment is highly unlikely. They certainly are not #1 in truck sales (which is the most profitable segment for any vehicle manufacturer) and Europe is a major drag on any of the domestic auto makers. Those indicators to me signal a business in grave danger compared to their competitors. (Did you order the code RED?) GM also is holding the highest level of days inventory compared to their competitors, and is starting to reduce their manufacturing output.

In a nutshell it tells me that GM is in the " the more they changed the more they stayed the same" category. The focus is on the wrong parts of the business, the hierarchy is in disarray, and the govern, err, beancounters are running the business again. Not that it is a major factor, but as a longtime professional in the auto industry as a supplier to GM, I can guarantee you that their business tactics have not been altered from the first time they went under.

First your "edit" is just copying a response comment to the original article. How 'bout a little more effort next time?

The point about Europe is dumb. Everybody is having trouble in Europe as that economy is in the crapper and its a lot harder to close down factories. In fact Fiat also got killed in Europe, something you forgot to mention when you lifted that guy's comments.

Next, the bottom line is this: Is the company profitable or isn't it? Anybody who says GM is in the position now, when its making money, vs several years ago when it was losing billions is a total idiot. I'm sorry to be blunt but there's no other way to describe it. Again we're in a economic slowdown. No kidding automakers have to offer perks to get people in the door. Is GM making profits or isn't it?

Finally, this speaks to a larger question about knuckledraggers in general and their failed economic philosophy. A typical conservative would be happy to see an entire US industry fail and relocate to China as long as the country stayed true to laissez faire economics, french for "sit around with your thumb up you @ s s while other countries eat your lunch". Why this doesn't work in the real world is our competitor nations have no problem floating along a major industry through a rough patch until it gets back on its feat. So if they're doing that, and we're not, what do you suppose happens to American industry? It goes overseas.

Auto bailout was a clear success and embarrassing proof of just how out of date conservatism is as these Club for Growth hacks show. All those jobs preserved, a company still paying tax revenue, and a domestic manufacturing industry on the upswing. Lets say GM doesn't reach 50 bucks a share anytime soon. Undoubtably those shares would be sold at a loss. But, an honest assessment has to include what the gubmint would have been paying out in 1) unemployment for all the people out of work, 2) lost tax revenue from the corporation, individual plants and dealerships paying local real estate taxes, etc, and 3) all the pensions the US taxpayer would have to assume as GM ceased to exist. All in all, the auto bailout is a winner despite all the whining, and again I welcome Mittens and Ryan going to one of these factories and telling the workers they would have been better off unemployed. I wonder why they don't do that?

[geezer]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

First your "edit" is just copying a response comment to the original article. How 'bout a little more effort next time?

The point about Europe is dumb. Everybody is having trouble in Europe as that economy is in the crapper and its a lot harder to close down factories. In fact Fiat also got killed in Europe, something you forgot to mention when you lifted that guy's comments.

Next, the bottom line is this: Is the company profitable or isn't it? Anybody who says GM is in the position now, when its making money, vs several years ago when it was losing billions is a total idiot. I'm sorry to be blunt but there's no other way to describe it. Again we're in a economic slowdown. No kidding automakers have to offer perks to get people in the door. Is GM making profits or isn't it?

Finally, this speaks to a larger question about knuckledraggers in general and their failed economic philosophy. A typical conservative would be happy to see an entire US industry fail and relocate to China as long as the country stayed true to laissez faire economics, french for "sit around with your thumb up you @ s s while other countries eat your lunch". Why this doesn't work in the real world is our competitor nations have no problem floating along a major industry through a rough patch until it gets back on its feat. So if they're doing that, and we're not, what do you suppose happens to American industry? It goes overseas.

Auto bailout was a clear success and embarrassing proof of just how out of date conservatism is as these Club for Growth hacks show. All those jobs preserved, a company still paying tax revenue, and a domestic manufacturing industry on the upswing. Lets say GM doesn't reach 50 bucks a share anytime soon. Undoubtably those shares would be sold at a loss. But, an honest assessment has to include what the gubmint would have been paying out in 1) unemployment for all the people out of work, 2) lost tax revenue from the corporation, individual plants and dealerships paying local real estate taxes, etc, and 3) all the pensions the US taxpayer would have to assume as GM ceased to exist. All in all, the auto bailout is a winner despite all the whining, and again I welcome Mittens and Ryan going to one of these factories and telling the workers they would have been better off unemployed. I wonder why they don't do that?

Rover, you're way, way out of your league on this issue. Every point you've made here is wrong, from GM making profits (taxpayer funded rebates are not profits), to resulting unemployment (their workers would have been far better served years ago to switch companies, whether the unions want to hear it or not). You might want to just stay home and listen.

[SJHovey]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

First your "edit" is just copying a response comment to the original article. How 'bout a little more effort next time?

The point about Europe is dumb. Everybody is having trouble in Europe as that economy is in the crapper and its a lot harder to close down factories. In fact Fiat also got killed in Europe, something you forgot to mention when you lifted that guy's comments.

Next, the bottom line is this: Is the company profitable or isn't it? Anybody who says GM is in the position now, when its making money, vs several years ago when it was losing billions is a total idiot. I'm sorry to be blunt but there's no other way to describe it. Again we're in a economic slowdown. No kidding automakers have to offer perks to get people in the door. Is GM making profits or isn't it?

Finally, this speaks to a larger question about knuckledraggers in general and their failed economic philosophy. A typical conservative would be happy to see an entire US industry fail and relocate to China as long as the country stayed true to laissez faire economics, french for "sit around with your thumb up you @ s s while other countries eat your lunch". Why this doesn't work in the real world is our competitor nations have no problem floating along a major industry through a rough patch until it gets back on its feat. So if they're doing that, and we're not, what do you suppose happens to American industry? It goes overseas.

Auto bailout was a clear success and embarrassing proof of just how out of date conservatism is as these Club for Growth hacks show. All those jobs preserved, a company still paying tax revenue, and a domestic manufacturing industry on the upswing. Lets say GM doesn't reach 50 bucks a share anytime soon. Undoubtably those shares would be sold at a loss. But, an honest assessment has to include what the gubmint would have been paying out in 1) unemployment for all the people out of work, 2) lost tax revenue from the corporation, individual plants and dealerships paying local real estate taxes, etc, and 3) all the pensions the US taxpayer would have to assume as GM ceased to exist. All in all, the auto bailout is a winner despite all the whining, and again I welcome Mittens and Ryan going to one of these factories and telling the workers they would have been better off unemployed. I wonder why they don't do that?

I think the argument is that if GM had run the "normal" bankruptcy course, a federal judge somewhere would have crammed down the throats of the GM employees a bunch of wage, benefit/pension slashes that would have hurt the employees substantially, but in the end would have made GM a more viable "post bankruptcy" company.

Personally, I think GM is in trouble. It's not based upon any sort of financial or automotive expertise, because I have none. It's based upon the fact that everytime I drive through a GM autodealer's lot, all I see is a bunch of crap. I can't think of a single GM product that I would be remotely interested in purchasing right now. And my wife and I are actually in the market for a new car. If there are others out there like me, then GM is going to struggle.

[Rover]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Rover, you're way, way out of your league on this issue. Every point you've made here is wrong, from GM making profits (taxpayer funded rebates are not profits), to resulting unemployment (their workers would have been far better served years ago to switch companies, whether the unions want to hear it or not). You might want to just stay home and listen.

Geezer, sorry my proof is the company is making money. How are they getting taxpayer rebates from their China operations? If you've got some proof you need to post it. I'd be more than happy to post GM's financials direct from CNBC if you'd like. I'm not sure what part of "the company is making money" you're having so much trouble wrapping your mind around.

Your next point is right out of fantasyland. Unemployment in Michigan for example is high. The notion that these people would have gone down the street and found another job makes no sense. It woudl be comforting if that was the case but sadly its ludicrious. One would think if that was true these workers would have already left GM to be part of one of these dynamic other auto companies if that were true.

SJ - A "normal" bankrupcy was not possible for GM because no private company would lend them money to continue operations. However the wage and pension reductions you speak of did actually happen.

So again the point remains. Conservative philosophy doesn't work in the real world, as both the financial collapse and auto industry bailout prove. All you're left with is joblessness and industries in China. We've been living in a conservative theory economy for the last 30 years. Somebody tell me again how we're better off because of it?

[SJHovey]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

SJ - A "normal" bankrupcy was not possible for GM because no private company would lend them money to continue operations. However the wage and pension reductions you speak of did actually happen.

Then the reorganization turns into a liquidation. Wouldn't be the first car company it happened to, just the biggest.

As a side note, at least GM figured out a way to keep that pesky Michael Moore from harassing them.

[geezer]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Geezer, sorry my proof is the company is making money. How are they getting taxpayer rebates from their China operations? If you've got some proof you need to post it. I'd be more than happy to post GM's financials direct from CNBC if you'd like. I'm not sure what part of "the company is making money" you're having so much trouble wrapping your mind around.

Your next point is right out of fantasyland. Unemployment in Michigan for example is high. The notion that these people would have gone down the street and found another job makes no sense. It woudl be comforting if that was the case but sadly its ludicrious. One would think if that was true these workers would have already left GM to be part of one of these dynamic other auto companies if that were true.

SJ - A "normal" bankrupcy was not possible for GM because no private company would lend them money to continue operations. However the wage and pension reductions you speak of did actually happen.

So again the point remains. Conservative philosophy doesn't work in the real world, as both the financial collapse and auto industry bailout prove. All you're left with is joblessness and industries in China. We've been living in a conservative theory economy for the last 30 years. Somebody tell me again how we're better off because of it?

ooh, OUCH! somehow I knew my warning wouldn't stick. I'll let someone else take this one, except to say: You get what you pay for. Right now we're paying a big chunk of our auto industry good money to create massive piles of fail. Think about where that's gonna lead.
Another thing to think about - the auto industry is often thought of as a pie when talking about sales and market share. If you pull out the stinky, moldy piece from that pie the healthy pieces fill in the gap (and hire those workers). If you forcibly cram that stinky moldy piece back into the pie, guess what'll happen? It's a pretty easy thought experiment. Put away the partisanship ("liberal"/"conservative") politics and just use common sense. After all, GW Bush fully endorsed this crappy misguided bailout in the first place so you could just as easily call the bailout "conservative philosophy", right?
I've got a challenge for anyone who feels the need to support Obama's policies of statism: make your next vehicle purchase a GM. That shouldn't be a problem for any of you, right?

[streaker]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

First your "edit" is just copying a response comment to the original article. How 'bout a little more effort next time?

The point about Europe is dumb. Everybody is having trouble in Europe as that economy is in the crapper and its a lot harder to close down factories. In fact Fiat also got killed in Europe, something you forgot to mention when you lifted that guy's comments.

Next, the bottom line is this: Is the company profitable or isn't it? Anybody who says GM is in the position now, when its making money, vs several years ago when it was losing billions is a total idiot. I'm sorry to be blunt but there's no other way to describe it. Again we're in a economic slowdown. No kidding automakers have to offer perks to get people in the door. Is GM making profits or isn't it?

Finally, this speaks to a larger question about knuckledraggers in general and their failed economic philosophy. A typical conservative would be happy to see an entire US industry fail and relocate to China as long as the country stayed true to laissez faire economics, french for "sit around with your thumb up you @ s s while other countries eat your lunch". Why this doesn't work in the real world is our competitor nations have no problem floating along a major industry through a rough patch until it gets back on its feat. So if they're doing that, and we're not, what do you suppose happens to American industry? It goes overseas.

Auto bailout was a clear success and embarrassing proof of just how out of date conservatism is as these Club for Growth hacks show. All those jobs preserved, a company still paying tax revenue, and a domestic manufacturing industry on the upswing. Lets say GM doesn't reach 50 bucks a share anytime soon. Undoubtably those shares would be sold at a loss. But, an honest assessment has to include what the gubmint would have been paying out in 1) unemployment for all the people out of work, 2) lost tax revenue from the corporation, individual plants and dealerships paying local real estate taxes, etc, and 3) all the pensions the US taxpayer would have to assume as GM ceased to exist. All in all, the auto bailout is a winner despite all the whining, and again I welcome Mittens and Ryan going to one of these factories and telling the workers they would have been better off unemployed. I wonder why they don't do that?

You're right, more effort ... I should get back to the quote for GM that is due today. Dumbazz.

I see that you are a cheerleader for the "attack and deviate from the subject" liberal playbook.

The proof IS on you to show us GM's profitability. I live in their world and I'll tell you, it isn't pretty. You didn't counter ONE point I made, other than claiming my ignorance on the misc comment from the article.

Smoke and mirrors in 3...2...1....