Grab our RSS Feed

AND

GM CEO to Washington: Im Not Asking for a Bailout

September 12th, 2008 | Posted in: Financial, Politics

Today GM’s CEO Rick Wagoner has been addressing the senate energy committee, encouraging them to appropriate $3.8 billion funds that would allow automakers to receive at least $25 billion in low-interest government loans.

Wagoner told lawmakers “I’m not here today asking for any bailouts,” and “we need to approve the ($3.8 billion) appropriation to authorize those loans and to very quickly draft regulation.”

Wagoner also said the $25 billion sum was a “very good amount.” The loans first approved in last year’s energy package are supposed to be used to produce vehicles that are 25% more efficient, but Wagoner said those rules should also be loosened, and be applicable to the production of vehicles “moving in the right direction.” He gave GM’s 2-mode hybrid vehicles as an example saying “Dramatically expanding this kind of hybrid system would not be eligible for funding under the rule as it was initially written.”

Wagoner didn’t push to double the loans to $50 billion and if the government should decide not to award the loans at all he said “we’ll do our best to manage through an almost unprecedentedly difficult situation in the capital markets.”

Source (Reuters) and (CNN) and (Detroit Press)

Posted by: Lyle

92 Responses to “GM CEO to Washington: Im Not Asking for a Bailout”

ThombDbhomb Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Below market rates are not a bailout?

(Quote)
Paul Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 3:55 pm

It’s got to be better than assimilation like Freddie and Fannie.

So much for our “Free Market Economy”.
No such thing anymore… At least not in this country. (USA)

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 3:55 pm

The loan should be given but MUST be tied to hybrid or BEV development. CAFE is garbage as it stands.

(Quote)
vincent Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 4:00 pm

Since Rick can not be told by his employees for fear of loosing their jobs…
Hey Ricky…nice job of running GM into the ground…you get what per year….15 mil…
Sheeeesh.
Take zero salary until you turn a profit at GM buddy boy….There are many bright people on this site. take 7 of us at 1M each and we will show you how it’s done. I’m not joking.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 4:03 pm

#4 Vincent.

Yup. That should go for all CEOs.

(Quote)
Dick G. Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 4:05 pm

We need to do something !!!….SOON…$50 billion is what we pay each and every month to gas up our 250 million automobiles…!!!!

(Quote)
Pino Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 4:11 pm

I’m calling my Congressman and asking for a “Below Market Interest Rate” for my mortgage and the rest of my debt. I wonder what response I’d get. If I were asking for $25 billion from the Government, I’d better be able to produce a car that runs on lettuce and gets 1000 miles per head of lettuce. New Standards would be MPH – Miles Per Head ! Have we forgotten what money is in this country? $25 BILLION, is that alot for just me or what? I can understand if there is some legislation that needs passed to ease up on the time constraint to build certain cars, but once again YOUR ASKING FOR $25 BILLION !!!!!!!!!!! If I’m riding down the road in this “new” $25 Billion car and if it needs fuel, I should be able to step outside, grab a handful of dirt and roll for another 100 miles. Come on people, I realize that our economy is huge, but we are setting a bad presidence here.

(Quote)
Pino Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 4:21 pm

#4 – Vincent
Cannot agree with you more. Funny how they can run a company broke and run to the Government for a handout. What a Hard Life. Don’t they have Market Analysts at these companies that do forecasting. Did they not see the volatility of the oil market and the affect speculators have on the global oil market? They should have had an EV already ready for this sitting on the shelf ready to roll. After all wasn’t GM the inventor of the EV1? I would give them the LOAN pending everyone on the Board of Directors and Management resignation letters. Let the smaller 25% stockholders chose the Board of Directors and Management.

(Quote)
cybereye Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 4:24 pm

I says, “the goverment should give them a loan, not a bailout.” US is having a problem with import oil. If the US want to solve the oil problem. The US goverment better start working with US cars companies to solve the oil problem. A few month ago the goverment demend to drill oil now and stop the oil speculators. Drilling oil and stopping the oil speculators is not going to drop the oil price cause the demand well always be there. The only way to drop the demand is to over supplies the oil. It won’t happen over night, it may never happen in my life time. Let start useing alternative energy, That sure will solve the oil problem in the long run. So let get going US goverment and stop thinking of oil.

(Quote)
Dick G. Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 4:25 pm

Tax the gas …. Put it into electric vehicles and alternative energy….. GET OFF THE OIL …..$1.00/gal. would net about $15 billion/month It’s kinda like a no-brainer……

(Quote)
Kent Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 4:35 pm

If memory serves correctly, Lee Iacocca took a one dollar annual salary back in the ’80’s when Chrysler received government loans and his salary didn’t increase until Chrysler was back in the black.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 4:37 pm

How about we all lobby congress for a LJGTVWOTR clause for the GM Loan??

(Quote)
Eric C. Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 4:39 pm

#10 Dick G and #4 Vincent,

Couldn’t agree with both of you more. If we want to get this country back on track, we need CEO’s to be much less greedy, and we also need to properly price the gasoline for its ACTUAL cost to Americans.

$1.00/gallon tax or more wouldbe a great start to begin factoring in all the indirect money we spend on oil by occupying foreign nations. Besides that, this past year has clearly proven that Americans WILL start to change their driving habits, but only when it affects their bottom line.

We need to stop living in the short term and start thinking about the long term.

(Quote)
Steve K Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 4:55 pm

These are loan guarantees, not loans. They could end up costing the taxpayer money, but that is not likely. It is a miniscule price in comparison to our continuing dependence on oil. The advent of the electric car along with a resurgence in nuclear power can break our dependence on foreign energy supplies (we have plenty of uranium—or we could buy it from Canada and Australia, instead of Iran and Russia) and deal with climate change at the same time, a pretty neat trick.

(Quote)
Whistleteeth Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 5:00 pm

#13 you’re right about the tax. It won’t happen though, remember that Santa Claus will be arriving on November 4th this year.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 5:05 pm

#12 Grizzly – Great idea for the LJGTVWOTR clause in the loan! I like it. Rather than “no plug no sale” we can have “no plug no loan”.

As for “moving in the right direction”: GM claims E-FLEX reduces the use of gasoline by 80% over what would be used by a parallel hybrid vehicle. So divide up the money that way. 80% for E-FLEX or something similar and 20% for parallel hybrids.

#11 Kent — Good point about Lee and his dollar a year.

#7 Pino — Asking for a below market loan doesn’t seem so funny. Schumer is asking the Treasury to hold off on foreclosures and to see if they can restructure the mortgages held by Fannie and Freddie. The problem is that these are Alt-A loans for relatively well to do people. Apparently asking taxpayers to help people buy million dollar homes makes perfect sense to the senior Senator from NY. So hey, call up and ask. It can’t hurt!

(Quote)
DonC Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 5:20 pm

#14 Steve K – “These are loan guarantees, not loans. They could end up costing the taxpayer money, but that is not likely. It is a miniscule price in comparison to our continuing dependence on oil.”

This is a horrible argument. Honda has done more to reduce our dependence on foreign oil than GM, Ford, and Chrysler combined. If dependency on foreign oil is the raison d’etre, then there is no justification for rewarding auto companies which did everything in their power — from fighting CAFE standards to producing gas guzzling pickups for office workers to making loans so that the office workers could buy the gas guzzling pickups — to increase our dependency on foreign oil.

Use a different argument. FWIW there is no way Chrysler is going to survive in anything like its current form. This will end up costing the taxpayer’s money.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 5:21 pm

Steve K #14

Don’t forget about E85 as we’ll never transform directly to EVs w/o some form of liquid fuel and for cars cellulosic ethanol wouldn’t be a bad idea.

(Quote)
Guy Incognito Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Let them fail…all of ‘em.
Let Fannie Mae fail, let Freddy Mac fail, the car companies too.
Once Corporate America realises that there will no longer be corporate welfare, then you’ll have a real free market economy driven by real free market forces.

(Quote)
VOLT-eLectrified Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 5:35 pm

Why cant the imports be “taxed” OR imports treated the same as American cars . The subsidized tax could offset the difference and save american tax payers. If Japan will not allow american products on its shores or atleast without a huge tax, then we should “treat as we are treated”!

(Quote)
solo Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 5:48 pm

If it costs taxpayers money, it’s a bailout.

I do disagree with those who posted saying the Chrysler doesn’t deserve government assistance because they already got it in 1980. That was 28 years ago. Daimler did a lot of damage to Chrysler and sold it off after plundering the brand. Some may disagree with that statement but looking at Chrysler’s health and product line before Daimler and after Daimler I believe the company was much better before. They had no V8 cars or rear drive car platforms, if they had that product mix now; I think they would be a lot healthier.

I’m not saying Chrysler deserves a bailout, just they don’t deserve one any less than GM or Ford. I would prefer our federal tax dollars not squandered on anything beyond national defense and highways.

(Quote)
Larry R Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 5:59 pm

We have to invest in electric cars period !

We have to invest in our electrical grid period !

We have NO OIL !!

Quit whining about bailouts.

Be American Buy American. Invest American.

Whats the matter with our government helping out with
a low interest loan.

Lets get this electrical thing going and for Christ Sakes

QUIT CRYING

(Quote)
FThorn Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 6:00 pm

I’d loan it to them if they agree to cap executive salaries+bonuses+stock options at not more than 10 times their lowest paid salaried employee.

(Quote)
cybereye Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 6:01 pm

Guy Incognito @ #19

I would not call a loan as a “corporate welfare” cause it have to be paid back to the goverment. It a low rate interest. I don’t know what the goverment is going to do with Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. The FED’s banks does not want to write off the dept. So the US treasury is going to buy the dept from the FED. That call “a bailout” for the FED’s bank system. The people of US will end-up paying for the Banks problem. I would says get rid of the FED. What is “real”? The market goes what ever the people and the system are doing. No one can control the market.

(Quote)
BRUCE Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 6:07 pm

A loan-what are we crazy? The CEO who makes major millions, a company which made lousy cars for years (thats why the japanese are #1), produced gas guzzlers ,in cohoots with the oil companies who destroyed the EV1 (then destroyed them all even after they were offered over $1M for them-hey look whats a measly million), sent our jobs overseas and then wants the taxpayers help so they can make millions again. Hey how about putting a gas tax on the gas guzzlers that GM made, lets make it even harder to survive. Where is the payback- a loan which is less than prime. HOw about making the VOlt inexpensive!!! I can buy a Honda civic which is the same size for way less than 1/2 the price of a Volt. Go green-where-out of my wallet.Where is the ROI???Get this VOlt on road and affordable to everyone and then you can have a loan. Until that time NO LOAN!!!!

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 6:33 pm

Donc #16

“As for “moving in the right direction”: GM claims E-FLEX reduces the use of gasoline by 80% over what would be used by a parallel hybrid vehicle. So divide up the money that way. 80% for E-FLEX or something similar and 20% for parallel hybrids”

*** *** ***

It’d be nice if it worked that way, but we both know that would be tough to enforce, just like an LJGTVWOTR clause would be. However I really don’t think it’s a bad idea and it makes a heck of a lot of sense to CLOSE STRONG before lending out this money. This is where I’m thinking GM will never be able to build enough of these cars and maybe they should share E-flex with their 2 fellow American companies. If a viable plan like this could be implemented it just might put the US auto industry back on its feet.

(Quote)
Daveo Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 6:39 pm

I was wondering, how could this affect the price of the Volt?

(Quote)
Ted in Fort Myers Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 6:39 pm

This is a tough crowd tonight. LJGTVWOTR!
Take Care,
TED

(Quote)
chevonly Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 6:46 pm

3.8 billion is chump change for the Bush and Cheny administration he blows that much on Hal Burton every day, besides the money will stay here in the U.S. and keep a few more people employed a little while longer until Mcain gets in and finally kills the U.S. for good. Republicans= welfare for the rich Democrats=welfare for the poor created by the Republicans and their raid on the treasury to pay off all of there corporate friends. Bless the Chineese for keeping this Titanic floating (THANKS GEORGE AND DICK)

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 6:58 pm

grizzly@12 said:
“How about we all lobby congress for a LJGTVWOTR clause for the GM Loan??”

I love the idea, but agree that it’d be tough to implement (and maybe a TAD heavy handed for an American govt. Again, I want them to protect me and build roads. I don’t want them artifically inflating the price of gas (or anything else). I even have a hard time with the idea of tax credits to incentivize plugin sales. God help us if the govt tried to build a plugin. It’d probably have a female plug.(g). Protectionism isn’t an answer either – that’s what we did righ5t befoe the Great Depression. It’d be even worse now with a “global ecconomy”. As usual, I don’t have a solution – just opinions (g).
Be well, and God Bless those in the path of IKE.
Tag
“LJGTVWOTR!!”

(Quote)
Nelson Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 6:59 pm

Borrowing the idea from (#129 Glenn) on the previous post.

The Government should contract with GM and Ford to buy 1,000 e-flex and plug-in hybrids for Government use each year for the next 10 years.

(Quote)
Tagamet Take 2 Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 7:01 pm

grizzly@12 said:
“How about we all lobby congress for a LJGTVWOTR clause for the GM Loan??”

I love the idea, but agree that it’d be tough to implement (and maybe a TAD heavy handed for an American govt. Again, I want them to protect me and build roads. I don’t want them artificially inflating the price of gas (or anything else). I even have a hard time with the idea of tax credits to incentivize plugin sales. God help us if the govt tried to build a plugin. It’d probably have a female plug.(g). Protectionism isn’t an answer either – that’s what we did right before the Great Depression. It’d be even worse now with a “global economy”. As usual, I don’t have a solution – just opinions (g).
Be well, and God Bless those in the path of IKE.
Tag
“LJGTVWOTR!!”

(Quote)
Ed M Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 7:08 pm

Some of you noticed the Chevy Volt concept in the picture in front of the Congress buildings in yesterdays post. I must admit I totally missed that.
But is that a parking boot on the front wheel. lol. ?

(Quote)
RB Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 7:16 pm

#31 Nelson says”
The Government should contract with GM and Ford to buy 1,000 e-flex and plug-in hybrids for Government use each year for the next 10 years.

———————–
yes, good for everyone.

(Quote)
RB Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 7:17 pm

#33 Ed — Re parking boot: just someone else who can’t let go of the concept car

(Quote)
JEC Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 7:29 pm

Dear Rick,

Thank you for your emotional and fact filled presentation. I was pleased to hear you say “the $25 billion sum was a “very good amount.”’ I was concerned that you would feel offended with our offer.

Since GM and the other US car companines decided to fight tooth and nail against any mandates for increased gas mileage in the past, I thought it was just a little ironic that you would now be asking us for money to make more fuel efficient cars.

if you could provide the justification for your past deeds, and show good faith, by cutting the salaries of all the GM executives, to a level not to exceed 10 times the base salary of your lowest paid employee, we may reconsider your “loan” request.

Thank you and have a nice day!

PS: Tell Bob to put that damn pink tie on eBay, and sell it for a couple million. This should provide a nice infusion of cash for GM in the short term.

(Quote)
Koz Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 7:33 pm

Well…I don’t see the point or appropriateness for government to tell GM how to spend it’s assets, but I do think it’s reasonable for any loans secured by public money to be guided by the public trust. What I mean by this is that if they government backs the loans, then it is appropriate for them to put limitations on what those loans are used for. This is no different than a construction loan for a renovation, except it is a little more complicated to enforce. The loans should be given specifically for projects that fall within guidelines similar to the way it is drawn out now. Of course, if these guidlines are written in such a way that 2-mode Hybrid production does not qualify in all situations then it needs the be adjusted. I believe the loans should be for production needs only, not R&D or other uses. They should be for investments to produce vehicles that outperform the same class average economy by a set percentage (30% IMO). GM will certainly still spend there money in many different ways that they choose, but if they want a government backed loan it will need to be spent toward the production of vehicles that move us toward independence from foreign oil. This is a countrywide economic need as well as a national security issue (actually it is a worldwide issue but we have to take care of our own house first).

(Quote)
Mark Bartosik Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 7:37 pm

RE #7 Pino

You already get a below market rate loan for your home, that is if you itemize your deductions and claim mortgage interest as a tax deduction, or if you have a student loan. I would rather see GM get the loan and tied only to significant fuel economy work, and Uncle Sam cancel mortgage interest tax deductions (including mine).

(Quote)
JEC Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 7:45 pm

LJGTVWOTR acronym of the day:

Lessons
Justify
Giving
The
Vulture
What
Often
Tales
Reproach

(Quote)
JEC Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 7:55 pm

Don’t believe for a minute that GM will use this money to fund its “fuel-efficient” program.

They need to money to pay bills and attempt to stay afloat. They still need to find a solution to deal with the Delphi situation. This alone could be enough to sink the boat.

I do NOT want my tax money going to bailout GM or any other company. Letting the weak die and the strong to rise from the ashes is the only principle that needs to be heeded. You will have pain, but this pain that will only worsen if you falsely fund a failing company. If they were financially healthy, they would get loans just like the rest of us.

It will be brutal for a short time, but other companies will pick up the pieces and make the auto industry stronger in the US.

IMO!

(Quote)
Mark Bartosik Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 7:59 pm

I listened to the whole testimony live on C-Span. Rick explained that GM (and others) wanted the rules for the loans loosened, because many technologies only got a 5, 10, or 15% improvements, not the 25% in the bill, and thus could not qualify for the loans. I was a hoping that a senator would follow up with the question….

“So what level would you think a reasonable fuel improvement would be to qualify for a loan? Maybe 5%, 2%, maybe 1%? A set of $10 tire pressure sensors could yield a 1% improvement! We set the goal at 25% because we have a serious problem and we need serious solutions. Frankly, 25% is far less than what we need. So what do you think is needed to achieve AT LEAST 25% if not a greater improvement?”

Alternatively, a less aggressive question like:
“If the bar is lowered, how would we be sure that the loans would not be used for research that would be done anyway, or even frivolous or undeserving improvements?”

Or “Why not stop using your 2 mode hybrid system to boost power, and optimize the ICE and hybrid system for fuel economy?”

Sadly there was little followup and probing, but that’s the nature of many of these hearings, too many witnesses. There were about 8 witnesses giving testimony, including Rick. So the time spent with each was insufficient.

(Quote)
RichardG Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 8:02 pm

If we let every finance company and industrial company that may be in trouble go into bankruptcy, there will be very few people to purchase any goods made in this country.

While we are importing, what, $700 billion worth of oil each year, that is less than the amount of Capital($) that we must borrow (import) from abroad each year. The US borrows an amount equal to 80% of the total world’s capital each year just to maintain our standard of living. We had better wake up and look around at what we have done to ourselves (Republicans and Democrats).

(Quote)
statik Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 8:03 pm

Hrm…let me check. Nope, no energy to wade in on this thread directly.

I will say this of the money they will eventually get out of this:

GM has lost ‘on paper’ a proportional share equal to what it would get from this 25 billion in just recent events….and thats why Wagoner is just saying it’s a ‘good amount’ and can we please, please have the money now.

A) Hummer sale — expected to raise between 1 to 2 billion, in reality, it may be worhtless. It is actually costing them–and alot. Now they are paying off dealers in the millions of dollars to go away, and the dealers still on board are getting ready to sue GM (which further makes the brand unappealing to suitors), say the words ’state franchise law’ near a GM lawyer and see him sweat.

B) Navistar — remember when they signed a deal/understanding to sell it off last December? On top of that, they were going to sell off some related assets and ship away some overpaid jobs? Not so much. Another couple billion they were counting on gone…and further day to day losses coming in.

C) Delphi — GM earmarked 600 million + 300 more to keep it rolling, in the hopes it would continue to get ‘under cost subsidized parts’ on the back of it’s other business. One problem, the backers to get it out of Chapter 11 are not retards…and Appaloosa Management LP backed out (taking its 2.55 billion with it)…meaning it could/probably will go Chapter 7, which will force GM to spend billions to acquire ‘mission critical’ part production…and all the headaches that come with.

D) The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. is urging Delphi’s former parent, General Motors Corp , to fulfill a commitment to absorb at least $1.5 billion in Delphi pension obligations for hourly factory workers before a September 30 deadline set by the agency.
If it doesn’t, claims go in on Delphi’s foreign subsidiaries operating outside of bankruptcy protection.

Of note as well, GM has $9.1 billion in debt due in January ($4.3 in long-term debt and a $4 billion to the trust fund for retiree health benefits).

This money is not going to help GM out of it’s hole one bit, all it is going to do is keep them par for the course roadmap they set up to stay afloat throught 2009 less than two months ago…it’s just making up for more ‘unexpected economic/marketplace/legal realities’ (or whatever GM wishes to call them).

Furthermore, forget now about the loss of liquidity by not selling/fixing these items…these issues (Hummer, commercial truck business and Delphi coming out of Chapter 11), are worsened by the fact that these entities are now still firmly around GM’s neck and will continue to drain money out of GM at a ever accelerating rate, which was not in GM’s ‘going forward’ liquidity/we are ok thru 2009 platform.

/ok, I had a little energy

(Quote)
JEC Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 8:07 pm

#42 Richard

“If we let every finance company and industrial company that may be in trouble go into bankruptcy, there will be very few people to purchase any goods made in this country”

———————————-
So, the solution would be to bailout any company that runs into trouble? Then we would’nt have any money to purchase all those goods from those companies. But all those exec’s would sure be able to hire plenty of landscapers, since nearly everyone else would be broke.

(Quote)
nataraj Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 8:11 pm

Ha Ha Ha ….

For all the money he gets while running GM into the ground – he atleast has a sense of humor.

We don’t like govt interference in the “free markets” – except when rich people ask for it.

(Quote)
RichardG Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 8:21 pm

JEC #44

Couldn’t agree more about the CEOs and others at the top. Some should go to jail. Most Japanese CEOs do not draw salaries if the company is losing money. Save the jobs and jail the bast**ds.

(Quote)
Froggy Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 8:37 pm

Let them act like they are a startup business trying to get a bank loan. Present a business plan that meets certain conditions; it should list specific energy efficient models, these models should be produced entirely in the continental United States, money to convert gasguzzeling auto plant to produce these efficient models should be a part of the plan, the salaries of the top executives should be tied to their progress in meeting these goals.

I agree that Chrysler has allready had it’s bite at the apple.

(Quote)
The Grump Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 8:48 pm

A bailout would be good if it kept oil dollars in the US.

Remember a month ago, when our good Arab friends, confronted with falling wholesale oil prices, voted to reduce oil production ? What nice young men.

T. Boone’s idea of CNG mandated at every gas station would be great. CNG never goes bad in the tank, and is much cleaner than gas. That’s why, if a bailout (loan) occurs, there should be teeth behind it. Link the bailout legislation to mandated oil import reductions of 5 percent a year. This will SLOWLY increase the price of imported oil by reducing its availability, and spur exploration of domestic sources of energy. In twenty years, we would not import a drop of oil, under threat of federal law. This would work a lot better than increasing taxes at the gas pump.

LJGTCVWOTRBHIKIB (Lets Just Get The Concept Volt’s Wheels On The Road Before Honda’s Insight Kicks Its Behind)

(Quote)
terryk Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 8:53 pm

$3.8B sounds like so little and it’s soooooo much. I dunno about this one.

USA only and EV/Hybrid only.

(Quote)
RichardG Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 8:56 pm

Jay Leno said that he is converting a late 50s Caddy to run on natural gas. He said that it is cheap and easy to convert an ICE to run on natural gas.

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 9:08 pm

Koz and The Grump

What on Earth would lead you to believe that our government knows how to best spend our money?
Just curious.
Be well,
Tag

“LJGTVWOTR!!”

(Quote)
DonC Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 9:31 pm

#26 Grizzly – “This is where I’m thinking GM will never be able to build enough of these cars and maybe they should share E-flex with their 2 fellow American companies.”

Interesting. Most economic observers think the loans should require the three to become one. That would implement this idea more directly.

#38 #41 Mark Bartosik

Whoa big fella. These points are too on the mark. Can’t mess with the mortgage deduction. It’s sacred. LOL (Seriously, all good points and a commendable attention to detail on Wagoner’s testimony).

(Quote)
DB Cooper Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 9:39 pm

#50 Richard –

If that Phill home refueling compressor was less than $7k, I’d be converting one of the Fieros to run on CNG… I’m thinking about doing it anyway.

(Quote)
Ron Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 9:43 pm

I’m kinda partial to the idea of taxing the heck out of gasoline to encourage moving to alternatives. Those who choose to burn gas fully fund the highway system, those who choose not to fully fund the future.

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 9:46 pm

Mark@41

Wow, I never “met” anyone (else) that watched C-Span. I can only follow it while heavily medicated – and even then it’s like reading Statik’s posts (kinda like watching a car wreck, unable to look away…)(lol).
Be well,
Tag

“LJGTVWOTR!!”

(Quote)
Jimmy Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 10:04 pm

I don’t like the government interfering with the free market system as much as the next guy but …I have read a lot about how the US entered into the great depression. Having too many companies fail at one time can cause a domino effect through out the economy causing the remaining companies to downsize …causing unemployment to skyrocket …causing more companies to downsize …massive foreclosures and the collapse of the economy. Our houses would drop substantially in value. Our 401(k)’s may become worthless, etc. In my opinion, the possibility of our economy going into a depression would be high if the big 3 failed.

(Quote)
Adam Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 10:08 pm

#4, #10, and #13, + whoever else I may of missed.. I agree with you all, they should of thought about these problems years ago! It’s clear to me, GM loves to blow money, worse than a teen-age girl at a mall, but WAY worse!

So GM built the EV1, mad very good progress with it, had a BUNCH of people wanting to purchase it… Then they blow it, why? It wasn’t mandated… People wanted the car, but they wouldn’t build them, and I don’t think we’ll ever get the whole truth from them either.

About the same time, GM bought out Hummer, WHY??!!! I suppose GM couldn’t see beyond their stuck up nose, it was soooo high, they have yet to come back to reality, but maybe the Volt will change their outlook.

There is this disturbing pattern going on. 10 years ago, GM was doing OK, and Toyota was about equal. Along came the Prius, toyota skyrocketed! GM fell face 1st, they could of been running neck n neck with Toyota, but noooo, we have to display for the world to know how STUPID they were!

Now Toyota, and Nissan are struting their “big” trucks off, and GM is going for fuel economy… I wonder if the tables are really going to turn, or is this a tease?

Also Honda with the Ridgeline.. What a joke, it gets the same milage as an Avalanche, and Chevy looks, and drives WAY better than the Honda, but I wouldn’t own either one…

(Quote)
Jimmy Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 10:26 pm

Great depression – from Wiki:

“The Wall Street Crash had a major impact on the U.S. and world economy, and it has been the source of intense academic debate—historical, economic and political—from its aftermath until the present day. The crash marked the beginning of widespread and long-lasting consequences for the United States. The main question is: Did the crash cause the depression, or did it merely coincide with the bursting of a credit-inspired economic bubble? The decline in stock prices caused bankruptcies and severe macroeconomic difficulties including business closures, firing of workers and other economic repression measures. The resultant rise of mass unemployment and the depression is seen as a direct result of the crash, though it is by no means the sole event that contributed to the depression; it is usually seen as having the greatest impact on the events that followed. Therefore the Wall Street Crash is widely regarded as signaling the downward economic slide that initiated the Great Depression.

Many academics see the Wall Street Crash of 1929 as part of a historical process that was a part of the new theories of Boom and bust. According to economists such as Joseph Schumpeter and Nikolai Kondratieff the crash was merely a historical event in the continuing process known as Economic cycles. The impact of the crash was merely to increase the speed at which the cycle proceeded to its next level. According to the economist Milton Friedman in Monetary History of the United States in 1963, the Federal Reserve in the immediate aftermath of the crash rapidly contracted the money supply and so turned the recession into a depression.”

Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Crash_of_1929

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 10:33 pm

Jimmy@58
Aren’t wiki entries whatever someone decides to contribute? That’s just my understanding, so please correct me if I’m wrong. I’m so old that I actually still have a paper encyclopedia.
Thanks,
Be well,
Tag

“LJGTVWOTR!!”

(Quote)
Jimmy Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 10:34 pm

#59. Tagamet

It is correct on this topic or I would not have posted it.

(Quote)
DB Cooper Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 11:12 pm

Wiki is actually pretty spot-on on the vast majority of stuff. Pretty darn good for a free encyclopedia.

(Quote)
DB Cooper Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 11:15 pm

Did anyone notice Chrysler proudly rolled out their awesome 2009 line of fullsize pickups today ? Their PR guy was talking up how fullsize pickup sales are still going strong and it’s a sound business move…

Kids, can we say ‘a day late and a dollar short’ ?

(Quote)
DB Cooper Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 11:26 pm

Jimmy@58 -

One noteworthy thing the wiki excerpt left out about the lead-up to the depression – Margin buying. (putting a small percentage down in order to buy a much larger amount in stocks) This allowed investors to gamble with many times more money than they actually had.

Now speculators are allowed to buy crude oil contracts on a 5% margin… and look at what it did to the entire economy this summer. Gee, I wonder why we had hedge funds failing as soon as oil prices started coming back down to earth.

There’s a reason casinos won’t give you $1000 worth of chips for a $50 down payment (the rest to be paid later out of the gambler’s winnings)…

(Quote)
Arch Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 11:27 pm

I am glad to see that SOME of you are beginning to understand the game being played here.

Take Care
Arch

(Quote)
Jeffhre Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 12:16 am

# 32 TAG

“How about we all lobby congress for a LJGTVWOTR clause for the GM Loan??”

I love the idea, but agree that it’d be tough to implement.

Implementation. Count 10,000 Volt contracts to customers in 2010 and incrementally more thereafter and fugetabout it. No Volts sold, plus additional conditions… then pull all Govt loan guarantees immediately for breech of performance, and charge GM and each company that fails for every dime of each millisecond used by every last bureaucrat on these loans, guarantees, documentation, coordination, oversight, communication etc. Get every bit of the taxpayers money back if they fail to meet the stated goals.

# 53 DB Cooper

Some states have huge rebates on the Phil NG unit. I would check the Feds too.

(Quote)
Jeffhre Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 12:26 am

# 56, 58, Jimmy

#59 Tag

Buying stocks in 1929 was a different world. Truly a FREE market, few regulations, no SEC, no reliable broad based research and participation in the market was tiny compared to today. Most people just bought bonds for investments and left stock holding to company insiders until some people got the bug for the bubble in the late 20’s.

(Quote)
Ed M Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 1:25 am

JEC #36

You know I’d forgotten about that, very good point.
“Since GM and the other US car companies decided to fight tooth and nail against any mandates for increased gas mileage in the past, I thought it was just a little ironic that you would now be asking us for money to make more fuel efficient cars.”
But still in this case, I think GM should get some help with the new electric technology, If they can’t pull it off, that’s their tough luck. In my mind Ford and Chrysler deserve no help.

(Quote)
ausmartin Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 4:40 am

GM should be helped.. Why
The USA powers at be also had a hand in putting GM in to this mess through the their insane export jobs, import product mentality & non visionary fuel efficiency standards.

PS
As an Ozzie looking at the people in major USA positions of power/control, I ask you this……………….

Are True Americans really in charge of the USA?

From where I sit far far away it looks like you have people in power feathering their own interests or working for the interest/prosperity of “other” countries which is just plain crazy and wrong.

(Quote)
The Grump Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 5:17 am

#51 Tagamet – Actually, I don’t trust the government to spend my money. Unfortunately, they take it by force every April 15.

You missed the point – If they’re going to spend the money, and there’s nothing we can do to stop it, getting off imported oil is a pretty good way to spend it. But like I said before, there MUST be enforcement built into the bill, to reduce oil imports by 5 percent a year, starting in 2009, and punishable by federal law.

Only if there are teeth like that in the bill, would we know the government is actually trying to reduce our imported oil dependence. It would make a real difference, boosting our economy as well as insulating our national security from OPEC’s temper tantrums. (However, hurricanes would continue to be a problem).

CNG is a logical next step. Right now, a CNG vehicle is as limited as a BEV – not many places to fill up the “tank”. The government should mandate all gas stations have CNG by 2010, and rapid changing stations as soon as standards for car recharging systems are determined. Until we force a solution to this “which came first, the chicken or the egg” problem, BEV and CNG vehicles will continue to be of only limited use.

While we’re being wary of the government, don’t let the government or the green party sell you on Mass Transit. Individual automobiles give us freedom unrivaled anywhere in the world, to go as you please – no “papers” required. With Mass Transit alone, it would be too easy for the government to require “permits” for long distance travel, approved by the government in advance. No permit, no travel, would keep citizens in a virtual “lockdown”, enforced by the Mass Transit Administration – “for our own good”, of course. Remember, “A nation that values security over freedom deserves neither” – Benjamin Franklin.

LJGTCVWOTRBHIKIB (Lets Just Get The Concept Volt’s Wheels On The Road Before Honda’s Insight Kicks Its Behind)

(Quote)
wagoner_loser Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 7:47 am

How can anyone trust this loser?

Wagoner is not held accountable for anything. Not for losing billions. Not for the Fiatsco. Not for losing marketshare. Not for going all in with the GMT900s.

That’s is why the production Volt looks like a half baked Civic – no one at the top of GM is held accountable.

GM Volt will be a failure, just like all other over-hyped GM pipedreams.

(Quote)
JEC Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 8:25 am

Good morning!

Hope all is well with our Texas contingent.

After sleeping on some of the arguments being made whether to provide “loans” to failing auto manuf’s, I think I came up with a possible solution.

1) Require that any auto maker immediately cap any salary to 10 times the lowest employee’s salary

2) No bonuses, stocks or other incentives can be provided during the “loan” period.

3) Provide incentives to actually start making efficient cars ASAP by forgiving a certain percent of the “loan” based on the percent decrease in oil imports. This would push the automakers to get the efficient cars out ASAP and would provide the cars to consumers faster! I think I remember someone posting $800 billion/year going to foreign oil, so if they can reduce our imports by even 10%, that would be $80 billion that stayed in this country. So (this is just a guess at a percentage, but anyway) if they are forgiven just 10% of the 10%, that would amount to $8 billion/year.

If we are going to provide this cash to the auto makers, I want some results. I do not want any execs who have lived on the fat of SUV sales taking more of my money, so they need to feel some of this pain in their wallets also.

Have a good weekend all.

4)

(Quote)
RB Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 8:32 am

#69 The Grump says “… we know the government is actually trying to reduce our imported oil dependence.”

We will know that the government (and the people) are really serious about trying to reduce our oil dependence when there is a substantial increase in the federal tax on petrol Such a tax increase would change customer intentions on the mpg they wanted in whatever vehicle they bought, immediately and sharply. That customer pull would be much better than the CAFE push.

Until that happens, the government is in effect telling GM and the other companies to make people want things they really don’t want, which is a tough sell.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 8:55 am

#43 Statik (Me)

D) The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. is urging Delphi’s former parent, General Motors Corp , to fulfill a commitment to absorb at least $1.5 billion in Delphi pension obligations for hourly factory workers before a September 30 deadline set by the agency.
If it doesn’t, claims go in on Delphi’s foreign subsidiaries operating outside of bankruptcy protection.
———-
Under threat from the PBGC, Gm was forced into ‘ponying’ up yesterday night, the hemmoraging of ‘expected losses of liquidity’ continues:

NEW YORK (AP) — Delphi Corp. and its former parent General Motors Corp. said Friday they have reached a new deal on the automaker’s role in Delphi’s bankruptcy that puts the supplier on track to exit Chapter 11 by the end of the year.

The agreement boosts GM’s financial support of Delphi to $10.6 billion, up from $6 billion in an earlier plan. That includes the assumption of $3.4 billion in pension obligations for hourly workers, instead of the $1.5 billion predicted earlier.

Besides the pension obligations, the new $10.6 billion figure includes $1.2 billion in cash through the end of 2008, plus legacy labor costs and costs related to attrition and employee transitions.

EDIT: Source not given because the root location seems to trip the spam filter, symbol lookup GM anywhere and you will see it…if your interested

(Quote)
Dave Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 9:11 am

Take a pay cut Wagoner along with the other idiot Executives of GM raking in the $$$ and can’t even run a company……….. I say fire the whole Executive staff and bring in fresh blood that will work for the company and not themselves!

(Quote)
RB Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 10:07 am

#73 statik said “The agreement boosts GM’s financial support of Delphi to $10.6 billion, up from $6 billion in an earlier plan. That includes the assumption of $3.4 billion in pension obligations for hourly workers, instead of the $1.5 billion predicted earlier.
————————————-

As went the Hee Haw song “If it weren’t for bad luck they’d have no luck at all…” Certainly not the way that Wagoner and the mgmt wanted. Their plan was optimistic but might have come off. Of course, as they would have taken the credit had things gone well, now they have to shoulder the responsibility for it working out badly.

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 10:18 am

The Grump@69 said in part:
“,,,You missed the point – If they’re going to spend the money, and there’s nothing we can do to stop it, getting off imported oil is a pretty good way to spend it. But like I said before, there MUST be enforcement built into the bill, to reduce oil imports by 5 percent a year, starting in 2009, and punishable by federal law….”

I failed to communicate my point. The govt needs to take some of our money, but it doesn’t have to take nearly as much when it drastically reduces spending.

jeffhre@66 re 1929 market
My point was not about the Market, it was about protectionism.

Ausmartin@68 said in part:
…From where I sit far far away it looks like you have people in power feathering their own interests or working for the interest/prosperity of “other” countries which is just plain crazy and wrong…

Well, this isn’t exactly the whole story. Congress manages to do all of the above, without doing anything beneficial.
Hope that helps,
Be well,
Tag

LJGTVWOTR!!”

(Quote)
Glenn Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 10:49 am

Pino #7

“Have we forgotten what money is in this country? $25 BILLION, is that alot for just me or what?”

Yes we have.

Don’t forget that the war in Iraq is costing us 10 billion dollars every month. When Americans hear numbers like that their eyes glaze over. $25 billion is just a few months of war operating expense.

The big picture here, and the root cause of these problems is our addiction to oil. I say guarantee the loans to GM but make sure the outcome is what we want it to be. We need to break the back of that addiction.

Iraq should be as strategically important to US foreign policy as Argentina or Kenya. Without Oil it would be.

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Since GM’s credit rating is hurting, the federal government can “co-sign the loan” to help GM get better interest rates, saving GM 100’s of millions of dollars – NONE of which comes from the federal government. NO TAX DOLLARS, NO BAILOUT.

(Quote)
RB Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 2:58 pm

#78 Jason M. Hendler says
“Since GM’s credit rating is hurting, the federal government can “co-sign the loan” to help GM get better interest rates, saving GM 100’s of millions of dollars – NONE of which comes from the federal government. ”
———————————————-
GM needs action by congress now to get them to pay about $4Billion in risk insurance for GM’s borrowing. That is $4Billion directly from the federal government, a handout of $4B of our money for the benefit of GM, a private corporation.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 4:03 pm

DonC #52

“Interesting. Most economic observers think the loans should require the three to become one. That would implement this idea more directly”

*** *** ***
I’m not sure I’d got that far, but I will say that it’s high time American companies start working with other American companies. It would be a very good start on the future!

(Quote)
kubel Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 6:13 pm

I don’t believe federal taxpayers should spend a cent on GM. Socialism FTF. If GM can’t produce the Volt, I’m not going to spend my money just so they can get more money from when when I go to buy it. No thank you. I’ll buy from Ford/Mazda.

Small constitutional federal government, isolationist foreign policy, very low taxes. That would be the best thing our government could do for GM. Why is it everyone turns to socialism and war when times get rough?

(Quote)
Cautious Fan Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 6:33 pm

For those who support this, why don’t you just go buy GM bonds yourself. Why don’t the employees, suppliers, and customers who have the most to lose go buy the bonds themselves. This is better then forcing me, a taxpayer, to do what you should be doing.

(Quote)
The Grump Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 11:30 pm

@76 Tagamet – (your words) “I failed to communicate my point. The govt needs to take some of our money, but it doesn’t have to take nearly as much when it drastically reduces spending”.
————————————————————
What part of “If they’re going to spend the money, and there’s nothing we can do to stop it, getting off imported oil is a pretty good way to spend it” (my quote) do you not understand?

Sure, a government that spends less would be great, but I deal in reality. Helen Pelosi, Harry Reid, Joe Biden and their friends would never give back ANY taxes – period. If you want to convince them, go ahead – try. We’ll see how far you get.

So given the fact that they will spend every cent of tax money they can get their hands on, wouldn’t you rather they spend it helping GM rather than building a bridge to nowhere in Alaska ?

PS – When you post someone else’s quote, use the whole sentence, not just the fragment of a sentence used out of context to fit your argument. You quoted me from #69 as saying “… we know the government is actually trying to reduce our imported oil dependence”, when I actually said “Only if there are teeth like that in the bill, would we know the government is actually trying to reduce our imported oil dependence”. Those periods at the beginning of your quote do not absolve you of taking my quote out of context. It’s low – a New York Times newspaper kind of trick. I forgive you this time – it may possibly be an honest mistake.

LJGTCVWOTRBHIKIB (Lets Just Get The Concept Volt’s Wheels On The Road Before Honda’s Insight Kicks Its Behind)

(Quote)
Nixon Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 11:31 pm

It’s a bailout.

(Quote)
AFKlingon Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 3:19 pm

This is so awful. We are on the brink of a huge depression. This is ugly no matter how you look at it. The government has to “bail out” the big 3 to keep jobs in this country. At the same time, if Bear stearns and Fannie mae is the wave of the future, our government is going to be deeper in debt from all the bail outs. Once we do go into a depression (and we will) our overseas rep is garbage. Who will bail out the US? Why are CEO’s getting paid? What has happened to the work ethic of the US? Why are people expecting money for no work on their parts? Is that true that the Japanese CEO’s take no pay if they aren’t in the black?

I think the new Honda Insight looks awesome; much better than the production Volt. I am torn on what to buy because my Dad retired from GM. It sickens me watching his benefits erode away. At the same time I am not buying an expensive turd. Why is the consensus that the Prius looks bad? Insight? It is about efficiency now because our economy of plenty is getting ready to tank. A car for half the price on proven technology looks much more appealing.

Good luck to GM because I don’t want my Parents living with me because of their leadership and horrible strategy.

(Quote)
AKRich Says:
September 15th, 2008 at 9:25 am

GM – I suggest that you reach out to your broad support base and try to devise a creative (not traditional high yield GM bonds) way to ask them to help finance the redevelopment costs of next generation cars. GM has many friends out there around the world who want to see GM succeed. Many of these friends would prefer to see GM’s success occur without the stigma of Government guarantees.

(Quote)
RichardC Says:
September 16th, 2008 at 8:59 pm

Pretty easy to save gas. The 2010 Prius is slated to get 94mpg and be faster and larger too. Why support GM when GM’s primary focus is burning as much gas as possible while impeding progress? Increase CAFE 8MPG per year every year, and include light trucks. Evolve or die, automakers. Talk about an effective Capitalistic message! We’ve been drug through the mud by these overpaid auto executives who push-sell dinosaurs long enough. When asked to produce cleaner and more efficient cars, Honda and Toyota hired a few engineers and did it. GM hired a ton of lawyers and paid off politicians. Which corporate culture is worth having around?Guess how much gas would cost today if GM et al hadn’t been forcing their monstrosities on the public? $1? I can’t think of any harm that would befall the USA if GM went out of business. Utilization of capacity is so low now that Ford and Chrysler could pick up the slack while GM’s plants are converted to building something saner than Hummers. Toyota would probably buy a few and expand Prius production. So what if the nameplate is Toyota instead of GM? Better cars, built in the USA, and saving the USA gobs of money while dropping gas prices in half. Letting GM die would truly help the USA.

(Quote)
David Says:
September 16th, 2008 at 10:06 pm

GM should prosper or go bankrupt on its own merits…what were they doing with all that cash in the salad days of Hummer SUVs and sub-one-dollar gas? Time to pay the piper for their failure to R&D tool. No to a bailout for Detroit. I will buy my cars from those who knew what they were doing. They had their chance in the nineties to retool and did nothing. I agree with RichardC

(Quote)
David Says:
September 16th, 2008 at 10:10 pm

The only way to get out of a depression and bring manufacturing back to the United States–sad to say it and I don’t want it to happen– is . . . a world war. We have to do everything we can to avert it. But just look at history.

(Quote)
RichardC Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 11:07 am

The Volt has horrid mileage too! Just looked it up. 50mpg, which is just a tad over HALF what the 2010 Prius gets. Double the price, half the mileage, less room, less tech, less durable. Talk about a loser car.

(Quote)
realist2008 Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 3:10 pm

GM hasn’t learned a darn thing in the past 100 years. All they have learned is how to build big, inefficient boats of poor quality. So they want the government to lend them money so they can continue the tradition of mediocrity. All this to save union jobs? What will the US Taxpayer get in return? Bent over their checkbooks. Let GM fail with their own money. Hold GM Management accountable and eliminate their bonuses UNTIL they turn things around WITHOUT a bail out or government loan. They wouldn’t be going to the government if they could get a loan from the private sector but they are like the “toxic” mortgages that have bankrupted most of Wall Street.

(Quote)
Kat Says:
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:13 pm

The bail out would be temporary life support.

They need real aggressive market value decisions and make mergers and restructure from inside out for a stable and stronger business plan…haven’t we learned anything from the other bail outs? A CEO’s luxury… A welfare check to take advantage of.

(Quote)

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

Chrysler dismantles electric car plans under Fiat November 7, 2009
DETROIT (Reuters) - Chrysler has disbanded a team of engineers dedicated to rushing a range of electric vehicles to showrooms and dropped ambitious... […]
Texas
First Solar buys 117 MW project from solar startup Ausra November 7, 2009
First Solar buys 117 MW project from solar startup Ausra: _Link_ (http://www.reuters.com/article/mergersNews/idUSN046821420091105) Given that water... […]
Jason M. Hendler
True believers swamp Fisker opening November 7, 2009
True believers swamp Fisker opening _Link_ (http://www.autonews.com/article/20091106/ANA05/911069996/1137) Can you imagine what the roll-out of the... […]
Jason M. Hendler
Zero Motorcycles Announces Consumer Financing November 7, 2009
Zero Motorcycles Announces Consumer Financing: _Link_ (http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1037942_zero-motorcycles-announces-consumer-financing) […]
Jason M. Hendler
LeRoy1974 November 6, 2009
Does the Volt have a trunk in which we can put groceries or a couple of golf bags? All the photos and drawings of the Volt look like it was in an... […]
LeRoy1974
Embrace technology to turn nuclear energy into environmental solution November 6, 2009
From the Seattle Times: "STEWART Brand, author of "The Whole Earth Catalog," visited Seattle last week, promoting his latest environmental manifesto... […]
misslexi
Lutz to Head Opel November 6, 2009
Der Spiegel reports that Lutz is going to head up Opel: Spiegel Online(link)... […]
dagwood55

GM CEO to Washington: Im Not Asking for a Bailout

92 Responses to “GM CEO to Washington: Im Not Asking for a Bailout”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts