FYI, there was some humor in that, lol.

It was people on Wall Street in positions of Power Imported from Washington DC, that that did all the real damage. You want names ?

How about long time Democrat operative Franklin Raines who raped semi-governmental agency Fannie Mae. He paid himself $100 million; paid off the Democrats with campaign donations with about a single million dollars of campaign contributions and walked away. He is unlike the Enron guys who went to jail. Paying Protection Money works.

Then there was Tim Johnson, long time Democrat political operative in Washington who got himself appointed head of semi-governmental agency Freddie Mac up on Wall Street. He raped that agency for $75 million, paid his million dollars of campaign contributions “protections money” and no one is chasing him either. The taxpayers had to rescue Freddie Mac. These two agencies piles of junk paper, undermined lots of other financial institutions when their Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac assets turned to waste paper.

Then there is Jamie Gorelick, long time Democrat Washington insider and exClintonista, Who got hired for her political connections by Lehman Brothers. She of the fame who “built the wall” that wouldn’t let the CIA tell the FBI that Arab militants were in country taking airliner flying lessons but not landing lessons. She was as responsible as anyone for 9/11,according to the democrats own 9/11 Commission . Her wonderful judgement led Lehman Briothers into bankruptcy. She too paid her campaign donations for protection.

What do they all have in common?

None are Wall Streeters. All are politicians. All raped Wall street firms that then needed bailouts by the taxpayers. All paid political protection campaign donations. None are being talked of going to Jail. All are senior campaign staffers in the Obama campaign and transition teams.

All will probably get new jobs in the next Administration.

Best of all, All are laughing all the way to the Bank.

Hey, Statik,
Now they’re hitting YOUR government up for some money, too!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081206/bs_nm/us_autos_bailout;_ylt=AuqbLaecc.ZvReI5hCMmTTOs0NUE

“Meanwhile, GM, Ford and Chrysler appealed to the Canadian and Ontario governments for billions in emergency loans against a backdrop of fresh layoffs at Ontario assembly plants. “We’re fighting for our survival,” said Reid Bigland, president and chief executive of Chrysler Canada.”

I still think they should go after the Swedes. Might as well get SOMETHING out of owning Saab besides just losses.

In any case, the article basically says agreement has been reached to make loans to keep them afloat until March. Expect a big circus in February!

================================
Yeah, a lot of ridiculous requests too. Our tactic has been to stall them thus far. The political unrest makes it a little more tricky to get things done by the Chrysler and GM’s deadlines…but little opposition would be met for a tabled plan as, well all parties ran on a platform of assistance.

Here are the basic requests, and the likely outcome from the ‘Big 2.8′ from a Canadian perspective:

Chrysler:
What they say they need: 1.6 billion by Jan 1st
What they will likely get: Nothing, other than token parting gifts. Chrysler currently has about 7,000 total jobs in Canada (workers and execs), with the number expected to fall to 5,000…with the expectation Chrysler will be merged/sold and likely that number will be halved again. We can do math up here 1.6 does not equalt 2.5-5K jobs for 6 months.

Ford:
What they said they need: 2 billion line of credit…only used if conditions worsen
What they will likely get: We don’t do lines of credit as a rule. They are likely to ‘green lit’ for a one time access to the window for about half that

GM:

What they said they need: 2.5 billion in loans, 800 million this month…with the option to draw down 1.2 billion more if they don’t meet the ‘baseline plan’
What they will likely get: GM is likely to get the most, as they have new product actually still in the pipeline and coming to 3 cities (Ingersoll, St. Catherines and Oshawa), so there is a discernable return here even if they never get paid back. I’d look for the intial 800 million (late) and another 1 to 1.5 billion down the road.

“As to using composites and alternative materials, it is nice in theory, and yes cost per pound can be cheaper, but the vehicle must meet ever increasing safety standards, and nothing does it better and cheaper than steel right now.”

Interesting little technical discuussion evolved here. Mitch is right in that costs drive the boat along with buyer perceptions. I think there are plenty of lighter materials that will do the job well enough or better than steel but cost has been the problem. The interesting part is that plug-ins change the metrics some. Eventhough drag becomes more important than weight with the overall energy use of a car with good regenerative breaking, reducing weight still has more value to a plug-in than an ICE only car.

In ICE only cars the engine power can be increased to compensate for addition weight at relatively small expense both in terms of cost and fuel economy. In racing this “expense” gets exagerated because of limited fuel and performance demands. Plug-ins, similarly, exagerate the benefits of reduced weight, albeit in some different ways. The high cost of batteries and on-grade power demands are what skews the weight factor. I’m sure the better engineers understand this. Hopefully the mangers do to and they have developed a per lb value metric for an EREV.

Contemplating this scenario can make one think about the 2nd generation EREV and a GM comment several months back that there would probably be a reduced cost, reduced range version. Lets say we start with a skin like the Cruze, fewer bells & whistles than the Volt but less costly design. We then use a 10KWh pack and cycle it 80-20%. If the Volt real sustainable price is $40,000, then this EREV Cruze’s sustainable price would be about $9000 less (assuming Volt 16KWh pack actually adds $10k to retail price, 2nd gen pack is 15% less, and Cruze design is about $4k less). This 10KWh Cruze would get about 5% better range (due to approx 150lbs less weight) and mileage in city driving (admitted swag and individual would obviously vary), so the 6KWh useable would provide about 31.5 miles AER. Let’s assume we use aluminum, composites, and other weight saving materials that add $1500 back into the cost but reduce weight by 300lbs. Continuing from the previous swag, this adds about 9% more city range so we are up to 34.3 miles AER. True GM may have to offer a shorter warranty (6 or 8 years) on the battery if 80-20% is used but they could offer the option of this or 10 year warranty for 80-30% (28.6 miles AER). Also with small refinements to the battery, power electronics, electric motors, and ICE one could easily imagine a 2nd generation EREV costing $30,000 with better performance and nearly 40 miles AER. Looking at all of the areas where performance, cost, and efficiency can be improved on an EREV, it is clear why GM is so excited by the Volt and why it’s support is so warranted.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081206/bs_nm/us_autos_bailout;_ylt=AuqbLaecc.ZvReI5hCMmTTOs0NUE

“Meanwhile, GM, Ford and Chrysler appealed to the Canadian and Ontario governments for billions in emergency loans against a backdrop of fresh layoffs at Ontario assembly plants. “We’re fighting for our survival,” said Reid Bigland, president and chief executive of Chrysler Canada.”

I still think they should go after the Swedes. Might as well get SOMETHING out of owning Saab besides just losses.

In any case, the article basically says agreement has been reached to make loans to keep them afloat until March. Expect a big circus in February!