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

[FlagDUDE08]

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

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.

This speaks to a larger question about libtards in general and their failed work whining. A typical liberal would be happy to see an entire US industry fail and relocate to China as long as the country stayed true to uncompetitive expenditure policies, french for "union bosses demanding exorbitantly high wages just to line their pockets with dues while they are hostile and abusive to people not in their in-crowd". Why this doesn't work in the real world is our competitor nations have no problem cutting expenditures to allow for a lower bottom line and more customers due to a better money value. So if they're doing that, and we're not, what do you suppose happens to American industry? It goes overseas.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

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

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.

The only two "bread and butter" vehicles GM has going for it at the moment are the utilitarian Malibu and the vaguely BMW-styled Cruze. Unfortunately for GM, both of them are outstripped by almost any direct competitor, save for maybe Chrysler (and they don't really count anyway ). Even Ford has figured out how to produce affordable, reliable, and somewhat sporty compact and mid-size sedans for the younger set, after essentially subsisting off the F-150 for years.

 

[Rover]

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

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?

Nothing to do with partisanship. As dumb an SOB as he was, GWB did one thing right in his Presidency which was bailing out American industry (mostly the financial industry, but as you say a small hand in the auto one). At some point, and this is something you seem to disagree with, you have to defend American industry. The notion that these people will just go find jobs elsewhere isn't reality.

Regarding the product, I notice you keep avoiding GM's #1 status in China because it doesn't fit your pre-conceived notion of the subject. Again, are the Chinese giving taxpayer rebates for their citizens to buy GM cars? If they're not, then somebody likes what they're making. They aren't the biggest seller of autos in the world by accident.

I don't need a new car right now, but I'd be happy to consider a GM/Ford/Chrysler product on equal footing with Honda/Toyota/etc. Why wouldn't I?

SJ, you're looking at this too narrowly. A lot of righties (not necessarily your political leanings) want to stay on the argument that bondholders got screwed. My answer to that is yes - they most likely took less money than if the entire corporation was melted down and sold for scrap. However, compared to the larger stakeholder, the US taxpayer, melting down the company for scrap means a lot more people would have taken it in the shorts. Bankrupcies aren't pretty. People lose money. That's the breaks. However, you'd have to be an idiot to think throwing hundreds of thousands of people out of work is secondary to a bondholder earning a few pennies more on the dollar from a liquidation. That kind of logic is what has gotten this country into the trouble its in.

Finally, Obama didn't restructure these companies by decree. A legal bankrupcy was put through the court system and approved.

 

[streaker]

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

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?

Right. Blasting us into debt that is 100 fold over the cost of the wars without a solid budget to generate revenues to support it. Yeah, great plan. And no, I don't think that taxing the rich (and everyone else, BTW) at enormous tax rates is the answer either, especially while unemployment is at 9% for the past 38 months.

Trickle down economics may not work today, but neither does tax and spending us into "prosperity" like Europe thought would work.

One thing we can all agree on: the King and Queens running the three branches of Gov't in this country have succeeded in taking us back to the very thing our forefathers did not want for America.

 

[Rover]

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

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....

Sorry if it offends you when I point out you lying, but that's the breaks. You said its on me to prove GM's profitability? No problem. Check out the earnings in this link from CNBC:

http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/GM/tab/5

Now, unless you have inside knowledge of them cooking the books, I think its now on YOU to prove they're going under. I answered your question with proof. Kindly answer mine back.

 

[Gurtholfin]

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

A friend of mine is in Kenya right now on a mission and posted this photo...

There you go birthers. The smoking gun!

 

[Rover]

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

This speaks to a larger question about libtards in general and their failed work whining. A typical liberal would be happy to see an entire US industry fail and relocate to China as long as the country stayed true to uncompetitive expenditure policies, french for "union bosses demanding exorbitantly high wages just to line their pockets with dues while they are hostile and abusive to people not in their in-crowd". Why this doesn't work in the real world is our competitor nations have no problem cutting expenditures to allow for a lower bottom line and more customers due to a better money value. So if they're doing that, and we're not, what do you suppose happens to American industry? It goes overseas.

Ahhh, the old "union" strawman argument out of a knuckledragger.

Tell me flaggy, since unions have been losing influence over the last 40 years, one would think the plight of US workers should be getting better over that time right? Is it your assertion that workers in the manufacturing sector are better off nowadays? (I don't expect you to answer that question).

 

[streaker]

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

Great GM strategy (from one year ago)

http://in.news.yahoo.com/gm-sacrificing-profit-margins-maintain-market-share-ahead-031436679.html

 

[streaker]

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

Sorry if it offends you when I point out you lying, but that's the breaks. You said its on me to prove GM's profitability? No problem. Check out the earnings in this link from CNBC:

http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/GM/tab/5

Now, unless you have inside knowledge of them cooking the books, I think its now on YOU to prove they're going under. I answered your question with proof. Kindly answer mine back.

No, it doesn't offend me because you don't live in the same reality I do. Afterall, you and your ilk would defend this hairsplitting topic:

Lying: I.. did ..not ... have sexual relations with that woman.

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[mookie1995]

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

"For large multinational corporations, footing healthcare costs presents an enormous expense. General Motors, for instance, covers more than 1.1 million employees and former employees, and the company says it spends roughly $5 billion on healthcare expenses annually. GM says healthcare costs add between $1,500 and $2,000 to the sticker price of every automobile it makes."

 

[Gurtholfin]

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

No, it doesn't offend me because you don't live in the same reality I do. Afterall, you and your ilk would defend this hairsplitting topic:

Lying: I.. did ..not ... have sexual relations with that woman.

Thanks for the laugh.

To be fair, receiving a BJ is not really a relationship. Kinda one sided...


Of course lying about an affair and lying about something that, say, gets us into a war, costs thousands of American lives, and trillions of dollars is essentially the same thing, right?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

"For large multinational corporations, footing healthcare costs presents an enormous expense. General Motors, for instance, covers more than 1.1 million employees and former employees, and the company says it spends roughly $5 billion on healthcare expenses annually. GM says healthcare costs add between $1,500 and $2,000 to the sticker price of every automobile it makes."

Reason #764 why Health Care should NOT BE ATTACHED TO employment. But that's the way the Repubs want it.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

Sorry if it offends you when I point out you lying, but that's the breaks. You said its on me to prove GM's profitability? No problem. Check out the earnings in this link from CNBC:

http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/GM/tab/5

Now, unless you have inside knowledge of them cooking the books, I think its now on YOU to prove they're going under. I answered your question with proof. Kindly answer mine back.

Looks like someone's getting caught only paying attention to what's being sold. Look at that awful balance sheet and cash flow from year to year. That's one reason why the stock price is so low. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=GM+Balance+Sheet&annual http://finance.yahoo.com/q/cf?s=GM+Cash+Flow&annual

If you're so confident that GM is such a good company, though, then put your money where your mouth is and buy some shares.

 

[DaveStPaul]

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

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.

This speaks to a larger question about libtards in general and their failed work whining. A typical liberal would be happy to see an entire US industry fail and relocate to China as long as the country stayed true to uncompetitive expenditure policies, french for "union bosses demanding exorbitantly high wages just to line their pockets with dues while they are hostile and abusive to people not in their in-crowd". Why this doesn't work in the real world is our competitor nations have no problem cutting expenditures to allow for a lower bottom line and more customers due to a better money value. So if they're doing that, and we're not, what do you suppose happens to American industry? It goes overseas.

What I've been starting to wonder is: What if America's post-WWII successes weren't because we have an innate edge, based on more freedom, more entrepreneurship, more opportunity, more immigrants' genes, etc.; what if it was only because we had more people? More people means more factories, quicker improvements, etc etc, eventually the cheapest products, and now the world wants to buy everything from you. Bingo, prosperity.

Obviously you have to have a society set up in a way that allows all those people to get stuff done. China's had more people than the US forever, but they (to say the least) didn't have things set up to make things very well. But what if it was only a matter of time until the other largest countries started seeing that if you get your basic **** together and have a bunch of factories making a bunch of products, you can't help but end up making them cheaper, and then you're selling, and your people are getting jobs, etc.?

I don't know if I really think all this yet. And China clearly has issues to work out in the near future. But if economic success on a world-wide stage turns out to be largely a matter of who has more people, then all the things Rover and FlagDUDE are observing are both true, but not relevant to the big picture.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

Reason #764 why Health Care should NOT BE ATTACHED TO employment. But that's the way the Repubs want it.

Hang on one second, how is it the right wing's fault that health care is attached to employment? Sure, it was used as a competitive edge during the wage freezes of World War II, but wouldn't that choice continue to remain entirely with the private sector, which last time I checked, is non-partisan? Heck, how about the union bosses demanding employers provide health care for their employees?

 

[streaker]

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

To be fair, receiving a BJ is not really a relationship. Kinda one sided...


Of course lying about an affair and lying about something that, say, gets us into a war, costs thousands of American lives, and trillions of dollars is essentially the same thing, right?

Yep. Agree. But, semantics are a fun exercise. There is no proof about anyone "lieing" about the wars- IIRC Congress i.e. bi-partisan agreement was reached on executing. One of the major reasons was not justified. WMD were never discovered, but there is no proof that they were or weren't there.It became political leverage for the progressives.

The bottom line is, being called out for lying in my case is the same as saying "I don't agree with you, so you are a liar".

Oh, and here is another piece on GM's China business:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/08/gm-china-ignores-akerson-makes-volume-with-wulings/

 

[mookie1995]

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

To be fair, receiving a BJ is not really a relationship. Kinda one sided...

he wasn't asked if he was in a sexual relationship with that woman and don't discount the catchers feelings on the subject. they have a side

 

[geezer]

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

I notice you keep avoiding GM's #1 status in China because it doesn't fit your pre-conceived notion of the subject..

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. It's no skin off my nose if a company moves operations offshore if they figure there's money to be made elsewhere. But I can't tell if you're complaining about it or cheering for more of it... so, not avoiding the subject. Rather I have no opinion. Hard to blame any company for looking elsewhere for profits, though.

I don't need a new car right now, but I'd be happy to consider a GM/Ford/Chrysler product on equal footing with Honda/Toyota/etc. Why wouldn't I?

Simply because ever since the government took over and propped up GM, they have no risk in the game and quality has gone down the toilet. All too often as in this case, removal of competition drastically and negatively affects quality. But you go ahead and buy that Chevy if ideology is more important than buying something that works.

 

[5mn_Major]

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

Yep. Agree. But, semantics are a fun exercise. There is no proof about anyone "lieing" about the wars- IIRC Congress i.e. bi-partisan agreement was reached on executing. One of the major reasons was not justified. WMD were never discovered, but there is no proof that they were or weren't there.It became political leverage for the progressives.

The bottom line is, being called out for lying in my case is the same as saying "I don't agree with you, so you are a liar".

Oh, and here is another piece on GM's China business:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/08/gm-china-ignores-akerson-makes-volume-with-wulings/

I don't think I'd be hanging my argument on the premise that there's a good chance there were WMD's in Iraq. There are many ways to skin a cat...and getting a big chunk of Chinese sales, even if its a percentage, is actually a good strategy. Few firms are taking advantage of growing markets to the same extent. And when these sales baloon, they'll be happy to have that kind of involvement in the market.

So maybe GM is not rosy right now. Maybe its just doing so-so. For the country, that's good enough. For the investment, that's probably good enough. It would be nice, but we don't need GM to rival Toyota. But rather continue to function. The industrial midwest has been counting on it along with the rest of the country to a lesser extent...especially government tax revenues.

No numbers to back this up (although nobody has numbers to refute either)...but I maintain that unless the company is wiped out in two years...this will have been a good investment for the country. The issue is not that we backstopped a medeocre company from failing...but that we stopped a decent part of an industry and a region from getting sandblasted at the depths of a near great depression crisis. Who knows what reverberations shuttering much of an industry and sending many more unemployed onto the streets would have had in 2009 when stocks were falling 300 pts and banks were closing every day. If it happens in five years (with a pretty safe assumption that we won't be in the middle of another generational crisis), we'll be able to handle it.

 

[Gurtholfin]

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

he wasn't asked if he was in a sexual relationship with that woman and don't discount the catchers feelings on the subject. they have a side

Semantics!

Maybe he meant to say "relationship" and thought, when I get a hand job from a hooker, it's not a relationship.

Coulda happened that way...