$$$$$ for clunkers passes

[Glenn]

this kind of attitude just drives me bonkers (not picking on you, studman, just the attitude). we have a crisis of unprecedented levels not seen in 75 years and something had to be done. what was the alternative? let fannie, citi, chrysler, gm, etc., fail? lose all the jobs? lose all the tax revenue? more people on welfare? etc. etc. and just to remind everyone, the decisions to intervene with public money were primarily made in washington in late 2008.

as much as it feels good to think "F them, they screwed up their business, so F them", it's just not that simple.

something had to be done.

I think Chapter 11 would have been a better option. People think when a company files, that's it...the company is done, everyone is fired, machines are sold to China and that's that.

I think there were a lot of problems with the domestics that could not have been sorted out based on some laws/rules and just complicated red tape. However, when filing for chapter 11, you're no longer subjected to those rules. So, union contracts would be subject to renegotiation in a more reasonable manner, as welll as franchise agreement for the dealerships. The way things are currently, the unions made some minor tweaks..and I'm sure the dealer closing will go to court and be clogged there for years.

We threw how many billions at the automakers to save them and what happened? We just stopped the bleeding for a few months. And now things are a bit "funny"..IMHO. The government "claims" they're not running GM...but the CEO was fired...and the board of directors was fired and replaced...by the government. And from the sounds of it...the government wants to start having a hand in designing the cars. But again, they're not running the company. I'm not getting political...and I don't want to. Regardless of who's at the helm, this isn't a good thing..IMHO. And I agree, all this bailout crap started before January of this year. It's not about what party/political ideals...it's just bad goverment. Again, IMHO.

I really think things could have been handled better. IMHO/armchair quaterback.

 

[ComeBackMudPuddles]

And now things are a bit "funny"..IMHO. The government "claims" they're not running GM...but the CEO was fired...and the board of directors was fired and replaced...by the government. And from the sounds of it...the government wants to start having a hand in designing the cars. But again, they're not running the company. I'm not getting political...and I don't want to. Regardless of who's at the helm, this isn't a good thing..IMHO. And I agree, all this bailout crap started before January of this year. It's not about what party/political ideals...it's just bad goverment. Again, IMHO.

I really think things could have been handled better. IMHO/armchair quaterback.

fair points re: the government, but, in the end, the government is the company's largest creditor at this point. indeed, it was the only one to step up and provide funding, so it's only natural that it has a say (albeit limited, hopefully) in how the company is being run. that's a good thing, b/c what's the alternative? let the prior GM management continue to mismanage things?

regarding the design point, the only directive has been that GM utilize some of its excess capacity to build a small, fuel-efficient car. if you take the largest stakeholder at its word, it's not going to pull a chair up to the design table and start drawing circles for wheels. let's hope not, at least.

 

[ctenidae]

The trouble with Unions and Chapter 11 is that the Union pensions get offloaded to PBGC- the Pension Benefits Guarantee Corporation, which is a government entity. If we're going to be covering the PBGC anyway, I'd rather taxpayers have a stake in the company and share in the upside, if any.

As for government designing cars, they've been doing that since seatbelts were mandated, safety glass was required, headlights, airbags, crash safety, emissions, etc etc. Is the gov't running GM? Maybe. The CEO should have been fired by the Board a while ago, the Board should have been fired by the shareholders a while ago. The gov't takeover really just amounts to the largest leveraged buyout ever. I wouldn't claim that teh government is a good candidate for private equity manager of the year, but the only way some of the changes that have to be made can be made is this way. Or by letting the company fail altogether, which has many negative side effects.

 

[koreshot]

The fact is spending drives the economy, more spending equals more products bought equals more jobs equal more income. Whether that's good for you or not is up to you to decide. It's also very smart to have a cash reserve and savings for when times get tough. Gotta find the right balance, because over spending leveraged with easy credit is what got us to where we are now.

Should you go out and take out a big loan to buy a car just because there's some kind of tax credit/refund available? NO. But if you do need a car and are maybe just short of the cash you need to get one and this tax credit is enough to put a new car in your budget. GREAT! You get a new car, some dude at GM (or toyota) gets to keep his job and its gets a less efficient vehicle off the road.

I won't argue with that, I was just blowing smoke anyway. Unfortunately, what I fear is that many of the folks that take advantage of this cash for clunkers cars will be digging themselves deeper into dept. Kinda similar to the whole overborrowing frenzy with the housing market.

If everyone was responsible with their credit I wouldn't have to throw empty beer cans at my TV because yet another F-ing "consolidate your dept and free yourself from payments" commercial came on.

(and no, I don't drink beer that comes in cans, it was a verbal prop...for dramatic effect)

 

[mondeo]

(and no, I don't drink beer that comes in cans, it was a verbal prop...for dramatic effect)

Wouldn't throwing beer bottles at the TV be an even more dramatic display of your displeasure?

 

[koreshot]

Wouldn't throwing beer bottles at the TV be an even more dramatic display of your displeasure?

Yeah, but it just isn't practical. If I do that enough times, I will become a customer.

 

[campgottagopee]

Yeah, but it just isn't practical. If I do that enough times, I will become a customer.

Now that's funny---come to my house then, I want a new t v

 

[Glenn]

I guess what bothers me about the government running the company is their claim: "It should be profitable in 3 years...then we'll sell it off an make money." Now, it was before my time, but I thought Nixon said basically the same thing about Amtrak...and we know how "well" that cluster f of an operation went...and continues to go.

 

[koreshot]

Now, it was before my time, but I thought Nixon said basically the same thing about Amtrak...and we know how "well" that cluster f of an operation went...and continues to go.

That can only be used as a data point if there is a comparable company that is privately owned and IS profitable.

There probably is, but I can't think of one.... cause I don't use regional transit. Come to think of it, I don't know of anyone who does. Maybe thats the real reason Amtrak is not profitable?

 

[eatskisleep]

Why don't you use your brain before posting next time?! Or at the very least watch some programs to educate yourself on the state of the economy. Jim Cramer is a good start.

Pretty rude if you ask me. I know a fair amount about the economy and how consumer spending fuels our economy.
:roll:

I won't argue with that, I was just blowing smoke anyway. Unfortunately, what I fear is that many of the folks that take advantage of this cash for clunkers cars will be digging themselves deeper into dept. Kinda similar to the whole overborrowing frenzy with the housing market.

That is what I was saying in the first place... this is only going to hurt a lot of people. Granted it could help some, but hey my buddy next door wants to get rid of his car, he has $0 and an unstable job, yet they are going to give him a car. Unless he keeps his job and manages to pick up another in the meantime, I doubt he will be able to keep up with the payment.

:roll:

 

[koreshot]

and its gets a less efficient vehicle off the road.

I am going to make an assumption that some people who otherwise wouldn't have bought a new car will buy one because of this offer. How can I make such a bold assumption? Because if it didn't, this argument would be pointless (which means I would have to get back to boring work) and so would the cash for clunkers bill.

Following this logic, there will older cars that didn't get great mileage but were otherwise acceptable methods of transportation going into dump.

So, if we assume that the average mileage delta is 7mpg, how many years will it take before the reduction in greenhouse gases is felt if that new car took 4,000 gallons of fuel to manufacture?

Do I agree with you in spirit and agree that long term this measure will reduce pollution. But in the short term, No. :smile:

 

[koreshot]

Pretty rude if you ask me. I know a fair amount about the economy and how consumer spending fuels our economy.
:roll:



That is what I was saying in the first place... this is only going to hurt a lot of people. Granted it could help some, but hey my buddy next door wants to get rid of his car, he has $0 and an unstable job, yet they are going to give him a car. Unless he keeps his job and manages to pick up another in the meantime, I doubt he will be able to keep up with the payment.

:roll:

Apologies. That post was a sarcastic joke. I wholehearted agreed with your post and then dropped my reply in just to mess around. I thought the "you should watch Jim Cramer" bit was going to tip everyone off that I was being a troll.

Sarcasm is always a challenge in text.

 

[eatskisleep]

Apologies. That post was a sarcastic joke. I wholehearted agreed with your post and then dropped my reply in just to mess around. I thought the "you should watch Jim Cramer" bit was going to tip everyone off that I was being a troll.

Sarcasm is always a challenge in text.

No worries :beer: Just didn't follow and probably read the topic too quickly.

 

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

time to make some popcorn..

 

[scootertig]

(and no, I don't drink beer that comes in cans, it was a verbal prop...for dramatic effect)

You should try some of Oskar Blues' stuff, or Sly Fox... Then you get good beer AND you can throw the can wherever you want*.


aaron


(* in an ecologically-friendly sort of way, of course)

 

[ComeBackMudPuddles]

I guess what bothers me about the government running the company is their claim: "It should be profitable in 3 years...then we'll sell it off an make money." Now, it was before my time, but I thought Nixon said basically the same thing about Amtrak...and we know how "well" that cluster f of an operation went...and continues to go.

i don't think you can compare amtrak, which is a public service, with a company that manufacturers goods.

i just don't understand the hate on amtrak. if you were to take the amount of money spent on I-89 or I-91 (a lot) and the amount generated directly by users of the service (oh yeah, zero), i think you'd find it to be a money-loser, too, but people don't regularly advocate shutting down the highway system.

 

[Marc]

Pretty rude if you ask me. I know a fair amount about the economy and how consumer spending fuels our economy.
:roll:

Don't let him get to you. You just can't expect a dirty, dirty Russian transplant to behave with civility, even around more civil and sophisticated intellectuals like you and me.

Just be glad he hasn't threatened anyone with his Kalashnikov or Spetsnaz skills yet.

 

[ComeBackMudPuddles]

dirty, dirty Russian transplant

i don't get it. is kore from atlanta or russia? he keeps saying he's from georgia. anyway, is it right that, either way, he's a commie? or maybe an ex-commie?

so confused.

 

[mondeo]

i don't think you can compare amtrak, which is a public service, with a company that manufacturers goods.

i just don't understand the hate on amtrak. if you were to take the amount of money spent on I-89 or I-91 (a lot) and the amount generated directly by users of the service (oh yeah, zero), i think you'd find it to be a money-loser, too, but people don't regularly advocate shutting down the highway system.

Interstates don't lose money due to the amount of money they save those that use it. The same can't be said for Amtrak or most light rail companies. It would be more cost effective to subidize automobile use than subsidize Amtrak.

 

[mondeo]

i don't get it. is kore from atlanta or russia? he keeps saying he's from georgia. anyway, is it right that, either way, he's a commie? or maybe an ex-commie?

so confused.

Calling him Russian is just Marc's way of insulting him.