Comments on: GM CEO to Washington: Im Not Asking for a Bailout

By: Kat

Kat — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:13:59 +0000

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.

By: realist2008

realist2008 — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:10:19 +0000

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.

By: RichardC

RichardC — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:07:07 +0000

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.

By: David

David — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 03:10:26 +0000

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.

By: David

David — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 03:06:56 +0000

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

By: RichardC

RichardC — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 01:59:53 +0000

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.

By: AKRich

AKRich — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:25:35 +0000

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.

By: AFKlingon

AFKlingon — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:19:12 +0000

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.

By: Nixon

Nixon — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 04:31:35 +0000

It’s a bailout.

By: The Grump

The Grump — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 04:30:10 +0000

@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)