Grab our RSS Feed

AND

White House and Democrats Reach Accord on Loan to GM and Chrysler

December 10th, 2008 | Posted in: Financial, Politics

After a long day of haggling it was announced that the White House and leading Democrats reached a deal on an automaker bailout plan late Tuesday night.

The loans will be for $14 billion to go to GM and Chrysler and will require an auto czar to oversee the companies’ operations. If those companies are unable to produce restructuring of debt by March 31 2009, the loans will be pulled. The czar apparently still doesn’t have the power to force creditors to accept haircuts on the money they are owed, this will have to be negotiated by the automakers.

The bill still contains the contentious demand that automakers receiving loans would become unable to sue states like California for legislating their own greenhouse gas emission standards, something the White House and some Republicans aren’t pleased with, but that’s supported by environmentalists.

The bill is expected to be introduced into the House first now, and as early as today, and is expected to pass.

Senate Republicans, however, still may block passage of the bill which could prolong the process considerably and may even result in failure overall. Today the Bush administration will spend time trying to convince those Senators to accept it. The latter are mostly concerned that the bill should require the autoworkers union to accept cuts. Since 60 votes are required for the bill to pass the Senate without filibuster, and there are 49 Republicans and 50 Democrats, a core group of Republicans could block the bill indefinitely.

Source (Detroit Free Press )

Posted by: Lyle

126 Responses to “White House and Democrats Reach Accord on Loan to GM and Chrysler”

Gsned57 Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 7:49 am

I find it uncanny how Statik is able to predict this stuff so far in advance. So will it be the end of March before they ask for more or sooner?

This is good news for the Volt but I really hope the American Auto Industry can clean themselves up and start innovating.

(Quote)
nasaman Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 7:54 am

It’s time for the US Congress to do what I learned in high school politicians are supposed to do ….COMPROMISE!…. so this important & urgent bill can pass!!!

It’s been smelling like DEAD FISH in the Capital for way too long now — I suspect it’s because the legislators can’t remember to do what their Dads taught them to do as kids to keep fish bait from spoiling….

FISH OR CUT BAIT!!!!

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 8:07 am

Lyle,

Why does it take 60 votes to pass in the Senate?

I think you mean it takes 60 votes to block a filibuster but only 51 to pass a bill?

(Quote)
James Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 8:08 am

This should be paid for with a gas tax rather than deficit spending.

Currently, U.S. consumers purchase 384.7 million gallons of gasoline per day. Add a $1/gallon tax to the cost of that gas and we’d have the $14B the automakers are asking for in less than 37 days. Continue the tax after that to pay for the alternative fuel vehicle development and plant retooling efforts.

Fuel costs strongly influence behavior. We saw fuel efficient vehicle sales rise with $4 per gallon gas. We now see SUV sales starting to climb again with $2 per gallon gas.

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 8:20 am

hi James #4,

You’re the third or fourth person to mention this sort of plan. The reason the politicians won’t do this is because, four years from now, they will be accused of “raising taxes”. It’s really sad.

This savings plan wouldn’t hurt anyone and would reap big money over a short time. For those who can’t swing the extra $10 a week, simply drive a little less often. It’s an optional tax.

=D~

(Quote)
TUT Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 8:33 am

Wow!!!! you guys must have money growing on your trees but most of us do not!!! I am all for innovation but because it’s Green. Instead I want it because it can improve the economy as whole however not at the expense of the American people. First of all it doesn’t matter how much money the government throws at a problem it does not the fix it. New innovation come from companies and investors taking the risk and investing there own capital for a possible profit. The government does not need to take my hard earned cash to distribute it to the research companies when I’m not going to be receiving any income back from my investment through taxation. This is a Free Market System that works. and If you don’t be lieve it look at all the new technological and medical developments that were in our great USA. We have had more development than any other country in the world. So take your taxation and shove it!!!

(Quote)
TCook Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 8:40 am

Dave K #5
Not everyone has the option of driving less often. I have a 110 mile commute every day. I have to fill my car every 4 days just to get to work. It cost me 80$ when gas was at its highest to fill up my Toyota. If I was to have to add an extra $10 onto my bill, I would have an extra $1000 a year to my gas bill just to get to work. If commuting expenses were deductable off our taxes, it may be different, but it is just a bad idea to do that to people.

(Quote)
coach Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 8:43 am

WHAT ??? statik is able to predict what again ?
anyone who follows the news know this is coming . give me a break.
GM will be no. 1 again soon . now that is Nostradamus like to foreign car lovers et al . !

(Quote)
Ed Buratti Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 8:49 am

James #4 – That’s the best idea for our future, but it needs to be more like $3 or $4 per gallon, maybe not all at once, but eventually. Absolutely nothing is going to ever move this country and this world as fast as this year’s $4/gallon gas. Now that it’s under $2, we’re going to go right back to 4-8 MPG, 12 passenger SUV’s to get each of us to work every day.

Imagine $4/gallon gas, but this time, it’s paying for the $700Billion bailout, and at the same time causing us to buy more fuel efficient cars.

One thing that’s so great about this country is our ability to innovate. But we’ve been sitting on our butts because fuel is cheap. In a few short months, because or expensive fuel, we actually reduced our fuel usage. Never going to get that through increased CAFE. GM’s been gaming that system for years with FLEX-fuel vehicles.

I also predict that with sub $2/gallon fuel, the Volt will either not happen, or will be a disaster and never make money, because noone will buy it. We’re not interested in efficiency for the sake of efficiency. We’re only motivated by pain in our pockets. If gas remained $4/gallon for some time, there’d be 10 different Volt-like cars in a short time, because the auto makers are only making what we’re buying.

(Quote)
D B Cooper Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 8:51 am

TCook@7 :

ding ding ding… We have a winner.

I’d take the $1/gallon tax if I could deduct gas money (directly to and from work) from my taxable income too. Even with decent mileage, driving 25,000 miles a year to earn an income costs money.

And I simply would not feel safe driving anything smaller than a Fiero down the kamikaze trail in the morning with all the half-asleep folks driving SUV’s and trucks.

(Quote)
NZDavid Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 9:10 am

Great. GM should be good to at least the end of December now.
Merry Christmas everyone.

/sarcasm alert

(Quote)
D B Cooper Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 9:11 am

One thing in this plan sticks out like a sore thumb to me. “The czar apparently still doesn’t have the power to force creditors to accept haircuts on the money they are owed, this will have to be negotiated by the automakers.” I interpret this to say the legacy costs stay. If so, what were looking at is an automaker that currently has to support 3-4 retirees for every active worker. After cutting back 30-40%, this will be 4-5 retirees per active worker.

If the fact is that the legacy costs can’t be be touched for political reasons, there is no way in hell the big three will survive; let alone ever be able to repay the bridge loans. For this reason alone I still think despite the long odds of recovery from chapter 11, it still offers the best odds of survival.

(Quote)
Jared Awesome Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 9:11 am

Rahiid #3

You are mistaken. Ever since Dems took over almost 2 yrs ago it has been required to get 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate. Due to things like motions to recommit and various other non-filibuster filibustering.

Too bad the Republicans didn’t go all nuclear 3 yrs ago over the Supreme Court nominations, because we could have some pretty good legislation come out instead of the Dems caving to all Republican demands.

This bill is a perfect example. (and this is just the House where D’s are in a large majority)
# Democrats bent to the will of the president on several key demands, most notably in agreeing that the emergency funding would be drawn from an existing loan program aimed at promoting fuel-efficient technologies.

# Democrats had hoped to take the money from the Treasury’s $700 billion financial rescue program, but the White House objected. A breakthrough came Friday, when Pelosi dropped her opposition…

# The Democratic proposal makes no provisions to replenish the loan fund, as Pelosi had hoped.

# Democrats flirted with the idea of naming a seven-member board to oversee the auto bailout but decided instead to have the president name an individual, as Bush had suggested.

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 9:14 am

Hey Lyle, that’s an interesting picture of Pelosi and company. It looks like the guys at her sides are WILLING the microphones to strangle her.

The drama continues…

=D~

(Quote)
joe g Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 9:16 am

I currently commute about 20 miles daily, which really isn’t bad, but I drive 400 miles home and back to school or work every 2 months or so. I don’t really have the option of not doing this (I COULD stop traveling on holidays, I guess, but that would only cut 2 or 3 trips a year).

Right now I drive a Chevy Lumina, which gets about 17/28. I’d like my next car (in a few years) to get at least that, and hopefully MUCH better city mileage (it’s just a few bits away from a Suburban, and even less if I drive it hard).

I also have to move every 3 months between school and an apartment for work, so I need a car that can hold all my stuff (no Ev1-sized car for me).

I’d also like a powerful car, which is convenient now with $1.50 gas, but not so much when it goes back up (and it WILL, in a few months).

Perhaps the Volt can be this car for me — it’s a midsize sedan, and of course it gets ZERO gallons to the mile in city driving, and hopefully not bad highway mileage (aero). However, if it’s $40k, I might have to reconsider (student budget)…

Maybe a base camaro isn’t such a bad choice (300hp anyone?); it should get about the same mileage as my current car, and it’ll hopefully be big enough to hold my stuff.

I guess all I can do now is pray that GM holds on long enough to make these cars and keep me employed

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 9:16 am

I find it uncanny how Statik is able to predict this stuff so far in advance.
____________________________________________

Back in 2004 when Lutz proclaimed hybrids were a “stop gap“, owners were predicting the same thing. Read the old forums & blogs. The writing has been on the wall for years now.

By the way, that is the very reason Lutz doesn’t want Volt to be called a hybrid.

(Quote)
joe g Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 9:24 am

#16. john1701a:
“that is the very reason Lutz doesn’t want Volt to be called a hybrid.”
________________________________

It’s also because the Volt is NOT a hybrid — it’s an electric car!

(Quote)
Guy Incognito Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 9:27 am

” … The bill still contains the contentious demand that automakers receiving loans would become unable to sue states like California for legislating their own greenhouse gas emission standards”.
——————————————————————————————————————————-
Beautiful!!!

(Quote)
BDP Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 9:46 am

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/09/critics-auto-bailout-draw-line/

(Quote)
Tim Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 9:53 am

First the good news:

Southern California Edison Announces Record Performance Results for Plug-In Hybrid Battery

Through ongoing evaluation and tests at its Pomona, Calif.-based Electric Vehicle Technical Center, SCE has demonstrated battery life performance equivalent to more than 180,000 miles in a commercial delivery van with minimal battery deterioration. These batteries could power tomorrow’s plug-in vehicles.
The battery test, conducted in a laboratory setting, uses a Johnson Control-Saft lithium-ion battery subpack that is one-sixth of the actual battery size used in a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. The subpack has been tested continuously for two and a half years, and testing continues to monitor the battery’s remarkable performance.
Based on the results achieved with the battery pack, the U.S. Department of Energy has provided SCE with a full-size lithium ion battery and has asked SCE to test and evaluate the battery’s viability for passenger car application.
http://www.edison.com/pressroom/pr.asp?id=7140

Now the BAD news:

Skeletors Reid and Pelosi are forcing us to give OUR (taxpayers) money to a privately held for profit company which has PLENTY of reserves. Cerberus doen not want to invest any more in their OWN for profit company, but they think it’s a good idea that WE do.

Chrysler is owned by one of the richest hedge funds in the world, Cerberus Capital, and is home to more than a few Washington insiders, such as former VP Dan Quayle, and former Treasury Secretary John Snow, who was elected chairman of the company in 2006. How many Americans think handing over their hard-earned money to political bigwigs and multi-millionaires is unfair? I’m willing to bet it’s a lot higher than 70%.

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?entry=9810

OH, right. Cerberus is the name given to the entity which, in Greek and Roman mythology, is a multi-headed dog which guards the gates of Hades, to prevent those who have crossed the river Styx from ever escaping.

Who here smells a giant rat terrier leaving huge piles of crap all over the halls of Congress making sure there is NO escape for the gullible taxpayer?

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 9:57 am

#8 coach

WHAT ??? statik is able to predict what again ?
anyone who follows the news know this is coming . give me a break.
GM will be no. 1 again soon . now that is Nostradamus like to foreign car lovers et al . !

===================================

I predict:

…it is going to be a exciting week, and possibly a loved one of yours will receive some bad news, also look for a new development at work and to receive encouragement where you least least expect it.

Your lucky numbers are: 3, 14,31,33,47 and 58

My NFL picks for the weeks are:

Chicago over New Orleans, covering the spread
Washington over Cincinattie, covering the spread
St. Louis upsetting Seattle
….and Detroit destroying Indy by 28 points, I kidd, I kidd. Indy beats Detoit, but does not cover.

(Quote)
Jeff Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 10:02 am

This website is great! So much drama…and it does not require fiction.

I find it interesting that GM offers (or plans to offer in the future) so many hybrid designs in their production vehicles. Is this smart? I see…GM dropping hybrid designs in the future, and sticking with one or two. If you are buying a hybrid, hopefully you choose wisely. And with the rest of the auto industry, number of hybrid designs grows. Who knows?…the auto industry will probably choose one or two of the many designs from the automakers. So which company has the “Betamax” hybrids?

Due to the low level of sales volume of hybrids (with the exception of Toyota’s HSD in certain areas of the country), how can the local mechanic service this many different variations? The maintenance is usually not much different, but problems will be difficult to solve unless a dealer’s service is used. Even then, not all dealers can handle it.

(Quote)
Cautious Fan Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 10:04 am

This reminds me of a parent I saw the other day while at the mall

Parent – “Stop that or we’re going home.”
Child doen’t stop…

Parent – “I mean it…don’t make me take you home.”
Child doesn’t stop….

Parent – “Is that what you want, you want me to take you home?”
Child doesn’t stop…

NOTE – THE PARENT DOESN’T REALLY WANT TO GO HOME, AND THE CHILD KNOWS IT

Parent – “Fine, but later when we get home, you’re not getting a snack”
Child doesn’t stop….and I bet he got his snack later too

In the end, the child gets his way, the parent is flustered and confused as to why their kid never listens. You know what the kid needs is a little tough love, but try telling that to the parent.

NOTE – THE GOV’T DOESN’T WANT GM TO GO BANKRUPT, AND GM KNOWS IT…

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 10:17 am

joe g Says:
#16. john1701a:
“that is the very reason Lutz doesn’t want Volt to be called a hybrid.”
________________________________

It’s also because the Volt is NOT a hybrid — it’s an electric car!
————————————————————————————–
I agree.

To me, a hybrid is something that uses mechanical and electric power together to move the vehicle. The Volt uses only electrical power to the wheels, so that makes it a type of EV. Chrysler has the same designation. They call their minivan and jeep EVs with range extenders.

I’m not a GM fan boy, but I really think the EREV-40 hit the nail on the head. What’s remarkable is how it all works out. 40 miles covers 80% of the population’s daily driving – classic 80/20 marketing, and it just so happens that 40 miles is about the maximum you can charge overnight with a common outdoor extension cable.

Anything significantly more than 40 miles would require a specialized type plug. This means you would need a special extension cord and home outlet, which would significantly limit plugging in away from home.

Anything significantly less than 40 miles starts to cause a convenience issue. With an EREV-40, plugging in every night and unplugging every morning takes less time than weekly trips to the gas station, so the plug is more convenient. With a much shorter range, you’ll have to plug/unplug AND make frequent trips to the gas station. So, for example, an EREV-10 or PHEV-10 is less convenient than a regular car, while an EREV-40 is more convenient than a regular car.

Anyway, my hope is that Ford, Toyota, and Honda also pick up on this magic formula. It would be great if most new cars were EREV-40s.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 10:17 am

It’s also because the Volt is NOT a hybrid — it’s an electric car!
__________________________________

Since the engine is required for winter warm up, no other debate point is necessary to prove that it is a hybrid.

Of course, the definition of SERIES hybrid has been around for decades already and it well describes Volt.

(Quote)
RB Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 10:30 am

#4 Rashiid said
“Lyle,
Why does it take 60 votes to pass in the Senate?
I think you mean it takes 60 votes to block a filibuster but only 51 to pass a bill?”
========================================

Rashiid — You are right, of course. I think the post also should say “it takes a small group of Rs to support the bill to ensure its passage, if there is a filibuster” [rather than a core group being able to block it].

(Quote)
RB Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 10:32 am

In February GM and congress will do this all again. More weeks lost. Will anyone ever have time to work on the Volt? (I hope so, back at the ranch.)

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 10:39 am

#27 RB

In February GM and congress will do this all again. More weeks lost. Will anyone ever have time to work on the Volt? (I hope so, back at the ranch.)
==================================
Is that not the truth?

You just know absolutely nothing on the Volt is being done right now…they simply do not have the cash in the bank. Fiddle-faddling at best is happening.

I guess it depends what they give them out of the bill (provided it goes through), if they only give them 8 billion you can bet nothing will be happening until after ’round 2′ is debated, re-debated and then checks in the mail (March? April?).

If they give them most of the pool 10-12 billion, they can probably put 300 million or so aside to put legs under the project again, and fund the battery contract (you know LG is looking for a upfront here before they begin)…otherwise, the program will likely be ‘active’ but in operational capital limbo for 4-5 months.

(Quote)
Mike-o-Matic Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 10:39 am

@14 Dave K.

>> Hey Lyle, that’s an interesting picture of Pelosi and company. It looks
>> like the guys at her sides are WILLING the microphones to strangle her.

Isn’t that how just about everybody feels about her?

(Quote)
Mike-o-Matic Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 10:44 am

@21 Statik, (re: predictions)

Warning, warning! Never believe your own press, my friend

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 10:53 am

#25 john1701a Says: “Since the engine is required for winter warm up, no other debate point is necessary to prove that it is a hybrid.”
————————————————————————————–
According to Lutz, the engine is only required to warm up the battery at extremely cold temperatures, like 40 below zero. This is actually a big advantage for an EREV over a pure EV, since a pure EV simply wouldn’t work at these temperatures. See here for details:
http://gm-volt.com/2008/08/27/bob-lutz-on-chevy-volt-battery-tests-cold-starts-and-use-of-onstar/

By the way, you live in a cold state. At what temperature does your Prius electric assist stop working? How does the Prius act at different temperatures?

(Quote)
Joe Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 10:53 am

If the price of gas is low in 2010 when the Volt is supposed to come out,GM would be best not to sell the car at that time. We know If they did, It would surely be a flop. What GM should do is keep improving the Volt and be ready to build the car on a flex assembly line until when the price of gas goes up again… We all know the amount of oil in the world has reached it’s peak and sooner or latter the price of oil will go up out of sight. When that happens GM would be ready to produce an even better Volt. .

(Quote)
Mark Bartosik Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 11:05 am

Battery contract…

According to the battery manufacturers they need the contract by the end of the year to have the infrastructure in place and batteries on time for Nov 2010. Now there is no way that I would invest in a battery plant with a company like GM that could go bust of ask me for a “hair cut” down the line. I would want the money up front, or in escrow.

It will be tough for GM to use much of the bail out money to pay the battery manufacturer nearly in full two years in advance.

Looks like a bold move will be needed or delays to Volt will follow.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 11:13 am

#29 Mike-0-Matic:

I have total respect and admiration for Nancy Pelosi. More power to her.

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 11:16 am

Black Hole AIG Needs Another $10 Billion

Dec 10, 2008 09:02am EST

After all the money AIG’s had shoveled at it, why does it need another $10 billion? Because, as the Wall Street Journal reports, the money its gotten from the government are supposed to pay off its bad CDS bets — essentially, the money went to retiring the underlying CDO — but it’s also stuck $10 billion on what were just bad bets, not necessarily designed to help clients manage risk.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081210/ts_alt_afp/financeeconomyinsuranceuscompanyaig_081210123530

=D~

(Quote)
J Man Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 11:20 am

#15 Joe g
I currently commute about 20 miles daily, which really isn’t bad, but I drive 400 miles home and back to school or work every 2 months or so. I don’t really have the option of not doing this (I COULD stop traveling on holidays, I guess, but that would only cut 2 or 3 trips a year).
Right now I drive a Chevy Lumina, which gets about 17/28. I’d like my next car (in a few years) to get at least that, and hopefully MUCH better city mileage (it’s just a few bits away from a Suburban, and even less if I drive it hard).
I also have to move every 3 months between school and an apartment for work, so I need a car that can hold all my stuff (no Ev1-sized car for me).
I’d also like a powerful car, which is convenient now with $1.50 gas, but not so much when it goes back up (and it WILL, in a few months).
Perhaps the Volt can be this car for me — it’s a midsize sedan, and of course it gets ZERO gallons to the mile in city driving, and hopefully not bad highway mileage (aero). However, if it’s $40k, I might have to reconsider (student budget)…
Maybe a base camaro isn’t such a bad choice (300hp anyone?); it should get about the same mileage as my current car, and it’ll hopefully be big enough to hold my stuff.
I guess all I can do now is pray that GM holds on long enough to make these cars and keep me employed
_____________________________________________________
The Malibu, Aura and G6 are all the same size as what the Volt will be and get 30 mpg or more depending on the engine that you get in it. They should all have the 6 speed automatic soon if they do not now. Granted the Aura and G6 ay be gone soon but the new Regal is based on the same platform. I believe the Impala and Buick Lacrosse (Allure in Canada) get 30 mpg with the 3.5l V6. There will e plenty of cars to choose from when you are ready to buy.

(Quote)
Jason Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 11:22 am

Congrats on getting your bailout from my tax money big 3. I will now commence my lifelong boycott of your companies. The Chevy and Chrysler in our garage will eventually be replaced by a Honda and Volkswagen most likely.

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 11:23 am

California running out of money

Wed Dec 10, 3:00 am ET

Sacramento, Calif. – California lawmakers just got a Henry Paulson-like ultimatum from state officials: If they don’t act, the state could be forced to suspend road, bridge, and other public-works projects as early as next week. Come March, California will be out of cash for even day-to-day operations.
___________________________

Hey TARP… dime , nickel, quarter, penny?

=D~

(Quote)
Cautious Fan Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 11:28 am

#20 Tim

Your lack of faith in our elected leaders to act in our interest is suprising. Are you suggesting they may be using their power to support things in their own interests, rather then ours. How unsettling!!!

It baffles me when people think, “if we just get the right person elected, everything would get better.” The problem is that we intrust them with things they have no business being intrusted with, things with which they have neither then incentives, nor the information to make decisions. Getting better people will never fix that problem, it only reduces the pain.

(Quote)
Brad G Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 11:28 am

#18 Guy
” … The bill still contains the contentious demand that automakers receiving loans would become unable to sue states like California for legislating their own greenhouse gas emission standards”.
===============
HEY GM, if it becomes unprofitable to sell cars in CA because of their new emission standards then quit selling cars there. Simple. You have got to become lean and mean.

Oh, and in 2010 you can start selling the volt there.
=================
#21 Statik
Your lucky numbers are: 3, 14,31,33,47 and 58
=================
I’ll let you know how it goes in Texas Lotto tonight….

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 11:37 am

#32 Joe Says: “If the price of gas is low in 2010 when the Volt is supposed to come out,GM would be best not to sell the car at that time. We know If they did, It would surely be a flop…”
————————————————————————————–
This affects lots of other alternative energy initiatives as well.

I think the U.S. should set the minimum price of oil at $65 per barrel. If the price is below that, import tariffs would be raised just enough to keep the minimum price.

Setting a minimum price would keep foreign oil producers from killing alternate fuels and domestic oil production.

Let’s put it this way, would you be willing to invest a serious amount of your savings in alternative energy without a minimum oil price?

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 11:38 am

It seems unconstitutional to withhold funding until a corporation gives up one of their constitutional rights – what happened to Dems propensity for judicial review?

Given that GMAC appears as if it is about to file for bankruptcy, it seems that there is nothing to be done for our auto industry now.

(Quote)
Daveo Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 11:41 am

I agree with #7 also. The only thing I would add would be that there would not be any prerequisite like having to spend x to qualify. We all buy gas, so we should all get to deduct.

Also, being that I grew up in Cincinnati, I am highly offended by statik’s absolute butchery. And when did we change the spelling of the word kid?
lol

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 11:43 am

hi Jason #42,

“It seems unconstitutional to withhold funding … ”
_______________________________________

We made a mistake by giving anyone TARP money. Look what has happened. Our tax payer coffer wallet is wide open for politicians to buffet payments to who ever shouts the loudest. And to top it off, we now have a Bush Oil Czar in control of the throttle.

Stop all TRAP now (how’s that for a Freudian slip). Withdraw all remaining TARP.

=D~

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 11:49 am

According to Lutz, the engine is only required to warm up the battery at extremely cold temperatures, like 40 below zero.

LIKE 40 below zero is an example.

LIKE 20 above zero is another.

There’s a 60 degree difference, yet both require the engine to be run.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 11:53 am

#35 Dave K
Black Hole AIG Needs Another $10 Billion

#38 Dave K
California running out of money

===========================================

Don’t forget these other ‘gems from the day’:

Wholesale inventories, sales plunge in October, more than expected
Rio Tinto Cuts 14,000 jobs
Office Depot to close 112 stores, 6 distribution centers
Banks On Life Support Next 18 Months

Of course, what is the market doing? Rallying its butt off.
DOW +150 Nasdaq +32 S+P +16
———————————

So I just bought some options (like 10 minutes ago), lol

SPY Puts Jan (strike 89) $5.44 – 13 contracts
(basically a bet against the S&P)

I still hold from earlier:
QQQQ Puts Jan (strike 29) $2.22 – 36 contracts
(basically a bet against the Nasdaq…currently underwater $1.50)

So you know where I think this is headed. It is not a lot of money by any stretch…but money is money, and you put it where you mouth is. I’ll let you know how it works out, lol.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 11:53 am

#39 Cautious Fan – “Are you suggesting they may be using their power to support things in their own interests, rather then ours.”

Of course the problem may simply be definitional. Personally I can’t see any benefit in the F22 fighter which has never been used because it has no obvious purpose. So to me it’s not in my interest to spend the $100B. But some think it’s a necessary part of our national defense. They think it is.

You may think letting GM go out of business and dragging down the economy is in your interest. Being adverse to breadlines, I think spending $75B to keep them afloat is definitely in every one’s interest.

So here is the question. I don’t benefit from action on the auto industry in any way, except in so far as the nation thrives and I thrive with it. Whether I’m right or wrong my decision has to do with the national interest (as does yours). So why do you ascribe some sinister motivation to a member of Congress who thinks as either you or I do?

This is a no win vote for Congress. With the exception of someone like Shelby from Alabama or Levin from Michigan, who clearly have parochial axes to grind, this vote is not a career enhancing opportunity.

As for your suggestion that the quality of leadership doesn’t matter, of course it does. You can see that even with very small groups like football teams to larger groups like corporations to even countries. Yes having the right people in place makes for a big difference.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 11:59 am

#43 Daveo

Also, being that I grew up in Cincinnati, I am highly offended by statik’s absolute butchery. And when did we change the spelling of the word kid?
lol

————————-
Sorry about that…I was in a hurry and was careless. I’m still not picking them to win though. (=

Cincinnati
Cincinnati
Cincinnati

/I think my spelling of ‘kidd’ is right in that context though

(Quote)
noel park Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 12:04 pm

#35 Dave K:

AIG can go broke any time now, as far as I am concerned. Nobody more deserving. It really does make a mockery of all of this drama about $14 billion to the auto industry.

#40 Brad G:

At least 15 other states have signed on to the same CO2 emissions standards as CA, and are all parties to the litigation to the best of my knowledge. They are the most populous states in the 50, with the largest total auto market. So whoever ignores CA gets to ignore them too. Curtains.

Contrary to popular spin, the Clean Air Act allows only CA to set standards higher then the Feds. Even then, it must get a waiver from the EPA to implement same. This is because CA has historically had the dirtiest air in the US, and was the first to start trying to control air pollution.

Other states can adopt the higher standards set by CA, but cannot set their own different ones. In the beginning, there were 49 state cars and CA cars, but that soon changed as other highly polluted states joined with CA. These 15+ states control enough of the market that all US cars are now essentially 50 state cars. So the popular spin that many states can set many different standards is simly untrue.

In the history of the Clean Air Act, CA has never been denied a waiver for any proposed regulation until this Bush EPA decision on the CO2.

IMHO, gas prices will soon come back, and even surpass their recent highs. When that happens, anyone who cannot offer cars which exceed the mileage necessary to comply with the CA CO2 regulations will perish in the marketplace.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 12:14 pm

#47 DonC:

Amen on the F 22. Also the F 35, and God knows how many other “weapons systems” we don’t even know about. How many high performance fighters in Osama Bin Laden’s Air Force?

The yearly squandering of hundreds of billions of dollars on our Imperial “military-industrial complex” must set poor Dwight Eisenhower spinning madly in his grave. And leads directly to our present state of, with apologies to Prof. Jared Diamond, “Collapse”.

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 12:26 pm

hi noel park #49,

“AIG can go broke any time now, as far as I am concerned. Nobody more deserving. It really does make a mockery of all of this drama about $14 billion to the auto industry.”

_________________________

Hi Noel, I am a very interested observer in all of the TARP activity. And also the way this entire loan/bailout program has morphed into a Czar being in control of auto money injection flow rates.

Okay, let’s give the auto industry $15,000,000,000 of our tax dollars this week. Everyone here knows that there is a 100% chance of this entire beg/pay program reoccurring in 90 days.

Noel, please give me your thoughts on what we tax payers do at that time? Should we just let them file? Or go with another tax coffer injection?

=D~

(Quote)
coach Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 12:30 pm

# 21 statik wrote :

I predict:

…it is going to be a exciting week, and possibly a loved one of yours will receive some bad news, also look for a new development at work and to receive encouragement where you least least expect it.

Your lucky numbers are: 3, 14,31,33,47 and 58

My NFL picks for the weeks are:

Chicago over New Orleans, covering the spread
Washington over Cincinattie, covering the spread
St. Louis upsetting Seattle
….and Detroit destroying Indy by 28 points, I kidd, I kidd. Indy beats Detoit, but does not cover

———————————————–

Just 2 more predictions :

1 – you will undergo lobotomy ….
2 – … after circumsicion is done to you …german cut !!

(Quote)
Brad G Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 12:31 pm

#49 Noel
Thanks for the clarifying this, one never gets the whole story from our news media anymore.
==============
#32 Joe Says: “If the price of gas is low in 2010 when the Volt is supposed to come out,GM would be best not to sell the car at that time. We know If they did, It would surely be a flop…”
————————————————————————————–
#41 Dave G
This affects lots of other alternative energy initiatives as well.

I think the U.S. should set the minimum price of oil at $65 per barrel. If the price is below that, import tariffs would be raised just enough to keep the minimum price.

Setting a minimum price would keep foreign oil producers from killing alternate fuels and domestic oil production.

Let’s put it this way, would you be willing to invest a serious amount of your savings in alternative energy without a minimum oil price?
=================
Great idea, and “all” the money collected from the tariff be used for alternative enegry.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 12:36 pm

Trouble on the bill:

Republicans that were not involved in the process (and some that were) are not happy, they are going to have a press conference on it (filibuster?) today

… and it looks like some Dems are not on board either. (Sen. Shelby, D-Alabama is saying he is not supporting it…rallying others?)

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 12:36 pm

hi statik,

Stocks rise on optimism about Detroit bailout
Wednesday December 10, 12:02 pm ET

Stocks rebound from sell-off as White House, Democrats reach agreement on automaker bailout

NEW YORK (AP) — Wall Street regained some of its optimism Wednesday and advanced on expectations that Congress will extend a lifeline to U.S. automakers and avoid a potential pitfall for the economy.

__________________________

I don’t get it. Stocks should be dropping on this news. Rather than instituting a pump gas tax to fund the Big 3, we have diluted the dollar.

So now EVERYONE who holds dollars can subtract 10% off the top. The actual cost of goods & services will be rising.
What could have cost $10-$20 a week in fuel tax will now cost tax payers trillions.

+++++++++++++++

I’m not being a doom & gloom’r. I feel this is an accurate assessment. And I am prepared for it.

=D~

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Other news:

Looks like GMAC doesn’t meet the requirements to be a bank. Only a fraction of its bondholders agreed to swap for their debt….so they can’t access TARP. They needed to raise 30 billion of reg cap…they only got about 6.3 from GMAC holders and 2 from ResCap, 75% short.

“If GMAC is unable to successfully convert to a bank holding company and complete the GMAC and ResCap offers by December 31, 2008, it would have a near-term material adverse effect on GMAC’s business, results of operations, and financial position,” the company said in a statement on Wednesday.

But analysts said the company’s survival is at stake. If the company does not become a bank, it risks violating the terms of its lending agreements, or covenants.

“If they don’t get a waiver on those covenants, they probably don’t have any alternative to filing for bankruptcy protection,” said Sean Egan, managing director at ratings agency Egan-Jones Ratings Co

http://www.cnbc.com/id/28158312/for/cnbc/

(Quote)
Bill Biletorf Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 12:50 pm

I was watching C span and there was some “Expert” from the university of MD

With glasses and and a bowtie. He was a total iditot

He was lobying to give money to some start up company copying the Volt ,

Saying this is your future!!!

His argument is flawed in so many ways.

Giving money to startups is horrable. Right now there is no money, no experience, no plants.

They will never get a product off the ground.

Then the Foreign companies will have electric on the road killing off the startups.

The only hope we have to keep the US superior in technology is to give them the loans they need to keep the opperations running and keep the volt program going.

This will show the stupid people like the guy with the glasses and bowtie in congress that GM invented the 40 mile electric car not the copycat startups.

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 12:54 pm

This drama is unbelievable. Be back later today.

Stay healthy, exercise, and keep a song in your heart.

________________

BTW: I am not going to lotto play Mr. Statik’s numbers. I may buy more cancer kit stock, but I digress.

=D~

(Quote)
Paul Revere Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Even if Democrats VOTE Welfare for 3 Bankrupt Car Companies… VOTE Will FAIL!
U.S. TAXPAYERS…. WILL NOT BUY DETROIT BRIDGE To NOWHERE!

House Republican Conservative Capitalism WILL STOP BAILOUT! –No SOUP, –No WELFARE!

“Having the federal government involved in every aspect of the private sector is very dangerous,” said Rep. Dan Burton, R-Indiana. “In the long term it could cause us to become a quasi-socialist country. We need to let the free market system work as much as possible.”

(Quote)
THOM Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 1:02 pm

Lets see. My electric bill last month was $40. No big screen TV, no christmas lights, no lights on when not home. Now lets hook up my “electric car” to charge every night…it will probably draw more than the hot tub i got rid of. Now add $100 to my electric bill and the car isnt really saving me anything!

That is why electric cars are not produced! You dont have to be a rocket scientist to drop an electric motor, inverter and battery pack in a shell!

(Quote)
nuclearboy Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 1:22 pm

As far as start-ups go, I agree. None could be better funded than TESLA and TESLA has produced a measly 100 units. In a country of 300 M people, this is not even a drop in the bucket.

47. Just to add my comments. Our leaders in congress sell influence all the time and routinely do not do the right thing for the country. Our congress members need millions (say 30 Million for a cheap senate seat) to run for office. To get these Millions, they sell influence. Lobbyists are not the problem for they would not exist if their lobbying did not buy them something.

(Quote)
Brad G Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 1:25 pm

#61 The roman empire is falling… Pelosi and Reid fiddle as Rome burns…

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Nasaman
OT
Welcome back! Haven’t seen you post in a while. Hope all is well with you and yours.
Be well,
Tag
LJGTVWOTR!! NPNS

(Quote)
Cautious Fan Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 1:39 pm

#47 DonC

National Defense is a classic “commons” problem, which is why the Constitution explicityly grants that as one of the powers of the federal gov’t to control. Now the poor poor commerce clause.….

Yeah leadership matters, but far more important is the environment. To use a cliché example, do you think the economists in Russia were any less talented then those in the U.S., that it’s scientiests were any less brilliant, that it’s leaders were less sincere. Yet their system was grossly inefficient in comparison. Why?

1) There is far far too much information for any single group to have absolute power over an economy, or even a small subset of the economy (even a laureate). 2) Those who are making the decisions, don’t have a good incentive to run it well. If they don’t run it well, it’s difficult to know. They can accept a bribe and make a suboptimal choice, who can tell. 3) It’s difficult to hold people accountable. The democratic process is better then Russias, and businesses are better still.

Compare this with a business which has the better incentives, better information…and if they screw it up they go out of business (in theory) and the better ones take over, so they’re accountable. This is why anything that doesn’t pose a “commons” problem, should be left to business. Interfering in GM, clearly not a “commons” problem.

So DonC, what is your criteria for when gov’t should help businesses? Political power of the business, length of projected bread-lines, blood pressure of Lou Dobbs?

(Quote)
joe g Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 1:44 pm

#60 THOM: “You dont have to be a rocket scientist to drop an electric motor, inverter and battery pack in a shell!”

No, but it helps to be an engineer. GM is doing amazing things to prolong the life of the Volt battery (offering the same 40-mi. range for 10 years), compared to a few years at best (with degrading battery life throughout) with conventional batteries.

(Quote)
GLV Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 1:45 pm

LATE BREAKING NEWS: According to a story on CNNMoney.com, the Dems have dropped the provision prohibiting automakers from suing states that have more stringent emissions laws than the federal government and now there appears to be enough support from both parties for the bill to pass the House and the Senate…assuming some staunch Republican critics in the Senate don’t fillibuster…

(Quote)
CDAVIS Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 1:56 pm

reposted w/ updated context…
______________________________________________________

GM and Chrysler will collectively receive $15B of taxpayer backed funding from the government to finance GM’s/Chrysler’s January 2009 through March 2009 projected operating cash shortfall; a financed burn rate of $5B/month. Most automotive industry analysts do not believe that this burn rate will materially improve after March 2009 unless the general economy makes a rapid recovery and also GM/Chrysler sheds significant forward operating costs by entering a pre-packaged Chapter-11 reorganization. Economists are not predicting a rapid recovery of the general market. GM has publicly declared that a pre-packaged Chapter-11 reorganization is not an option for them. Therefore a GM/Chrysler burn rate of $5B/month is likely to continue after March 2009. Since the Government will have already committed the taxpayers to a $15B investment in GM/Chrysler, the government will likely continue to finance GM’s/Chrysler’s operating losses after March 2009.

GM’s/Chrysler’s anticipated burn rate is so large that it helps to put the numbers into some kind of perspective:

The Apollo Program was a massive American government project initiated in 1960 that put man on the Moon 6 times over the course of 13 years at a total cost to the American taxpayers of $23B in 1966 dollars (about $145B in 2008 dollars). The average monthly operating cost for the Apollo Project was therefore $930M/month in 2008 dollars.

The monthly cost to keep the doors open at GM/Chrysler will therefore be 5.4 times the cost in 2008 dollars of the monthly operating cost of the Apollo program.

The GM/Chrysler taxpayer backed bailout/loan does have an attached equity component (shares, notes, etc) that in theory will give the taxpayers an opportunity to recover a portion of their taxpayer investments at some future date although there is much doubt that any such equity recovery is likely to ever transpire.

The Apollo Program delivered an equity component that clearly flowed back to the benefit of the American people by way of allowing American industry to substantially exploit derivative technology that was spun from the Apollo program. Also the American National Security threat exposure of Russia overtaking America in aerospace technology was neutralized.

American Energy Independence is the ONLY result benefit that can conceivably yield a return in scale for the investments the American taxpayers are and will be making to “save” GM/Chrysler. American Energy Independence would allow America to retain hundreds of billions of dollars each year in its home economy rather than exporting those dollars overseas. For over twenty years, America’s top military planners have identified America’s reliance on foreign sourced energy as a very serious threat to America’s national security. Therefore the achievement of American Energy Independence would significantly benefit America’s National Defense.

How best to achieve American Energy Independence?

Bottom line is Nuclear Power + Electric Cars…end of story. All the other available alternative energy options (drill more oil in America, clean liquid coal, geo-thermal, wind power, solar, ocean waves, hydrogen, ethanol, synthetic oil from pig urine, etc.) should also be exploited but are marginal in assurable availability and marginal in terms of economic viability compared to nuclear power.

The President Obama Test:

Will President Obama leverage these absolute massive taxpayer backed commitments, to keep GM/Chrysler operating, into something as dynamic and important as the Apollo Program? Can Obama match John Kennedy in vision, resolve, and political clout? Or will Obama’s promise of American Energy Independence prove to be as hallow a promise as the last five American presidents before him?

_____________________________________________________

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Repost from last thread (sorry)

Statik@(pick a number) re gloom and doom (g)

Thanks for the summary of financial data. I know all the good money would wager on your side (and likely win big time). I know I’d never wager against you (but that’s just because money is so tight, lol). Maybe between now and Christmas you could dig up some positive data and post it as my Christmas present. I KNOW there has to be some out there and if anyone can find it, it’s you (that’s what I love about you)(g).

@noel
Hi guy!. I’m doing better than I deserve. I hope you and yours are well too.

Merry Christmas to all, and
LJGTVWOTR!!, NPNS

(Quote)
jeffhre Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 2:04 pm

Dave G #41

I’m willing to invest in not having American Sailors Soldiers Airmen and Marines not dieing to protect oil supply lines that stretch across the oceans in what would otherwise be called peacetime.

Spending this money on American technology, where it could stay in the US and do some long term good by being invested here by Americans again and again, makes more sense to me than paying less out of my pocket now, only to put vastly more over time in the in the pockets of the Saudi royal family.

Joe # 32

GM will only sell 10,00 Volts in 2010, even if sales are eventually a disaster overall for GM selling 10,000 Volts initially will be a snap.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 2:05 pm

#68 Tag

Repost from last thread (sorry)

Statik@(pick a number) re gloom and doom (g)

Thanks for the summary of financial data. I know all the good money would wager on your side (and likely win big time). I know I’d never wager against you (but that’s just because money is so tight, lol). Maybe between now and Christmas you could dig up some positive data and post it as my Christmas present. I KNOW there has to be some out there and if anyone can find it, it’s you (that’s what I love about you)(g).

@noel
Hi guy!. I’m doing better than I deserve. I hope you and yours are well too.

Merry Christmas to all, and
LJGTVWOTR!!, NPNS
==========================

Ok, I’ll put up some good news sometime…just for you. I’m glad to hear you are doing ok and you are well. I was a little worried about you there for awhile my friend,

You have a good holiday season as well,

/cheers

(Quote)
Casey Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 2:17 pm

This is so hard to believe, sitting back and watching all of this going on. The country is going socialist right in front of my eyes, and no one is trying to stop it in fact more people are buying into it.

Stop the madness, stop all the bailouts, get the government out of private business. Call your reps, tell the government to get back to what its supposed to do PROTECT us not run us

Peter Morici, a professor at Ma. school of business has been testifying in congress lately with the big 2.8 and he says the only way to save the auto makers is to file chapter 11

NO PLUG NO SALE, LJGTVWOTR, (my house)=D~~~~~(my volt)

(Quote)
jeffhre Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 2:29 pm

#42

It seems unconstitutional to withhold funding until a corporation gives up one of their constitutional rights – what happened to Dems propensity for judicial review?

Why do people keep saying this. C’mon Jason, you don’t like the terms, don’t sign the contract – just don’t sign it. If Gmmn’t money is too onerous for you, use private capital or self fund. If signing an agreement for gov funds seems to take away your constitutional right to stand up and fail on your own as the leader of a great corporation then in good conscience don’t sign that contract and walk away from the money. At that point propensity for judicial review or lack thereof becomes an academic aside for pundits unrelated to your ongoing, albeit in ch 11, enterprises.

(Quote)
Tom H Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 2:40 pm

——–Not everyone has the option of driving less often. I have a 110 mile commute every day. ——–

Where you live and where you work is your choice. It may be hard to change either of those immediately, but in the medium term, it up to you to organize your life.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 2:45 pm

For those proposing adding a $1 per gallon tax on gasoline, the real problem with that is the tax money would get spent on things having no relationship with its original purpose. The congress would come back and say: “We have to have a $2 per gallon tax to make up the shortfall”. Plus the fact that a tax of that size is too high per gallon and it would have to have specific controls to prevent congress’ greedy little hands off of it, which is not going to happen. I just don’t think our congress could ever be trusted to tax, collect AND SPEND that revenue for its intended purpose.

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 2:47 pm

I just don’t get it. IF GM is planning to build products of less “Carbon Footprint”, why is the issue of not being able to sue a state for tighter emissions control an issue at all? As long as they (GM) follow what they propose to sell, then they will have no problems meeting those expectations. The Volt will meet all of the CA regulations. The other foreign mfrs already meet them, why cant GM?
Again, the Volt will exceed them and will sell in CA.

I just want my Volt dangit!

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 2:50 pm

@N Riley

Personally I think Gas should be taxed more for the purpose of getting people to open their eyes to other fuels, especially electric, alternatives. Kind of like the Cigarette tax.
The Tax money should go to the Education system.

I just want my Volt dangit!

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Statik@70 said:
“Ok, I’ll put up some good news sometime…just for you. I’m glad to hear you are doing ok and you are well. I was a little worried about you there for awhile my friend,
You have a good holiday season as well,
/cheers”

I look forward to the positive post, but maybe you could post a warning the day before, so I can make sure I’ve had my cardiac meds (g).
I’m fine (but then again, I tend to be a tad optimistic – lol). I think that when God was handing out optimism, I got in line twice (and you may have been out sick that day (g)).
Have a great holiday with the family. It’s been a long time since we had a little one around for Christmas (and playing with the box, instead of the toy that came in it). Enjoy it! They fly by and you don’t get them back.

Looks like passage of the bailout bill is still in doubt. I guess it’s going to be what it’s going to be (profound, huh?) You may have weighed in on this and I missed it, but do you think that the Volt will survive a GM bankruptcy ?
Be well, Buddy
LJGTVWOTR!! NPNS!

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 3:05 pm

#77 Tag

Looks like passage of the bailout bill is still in doubt. I guess it’s going to be what it’s going to be (profound, huh?) You may have weighed in on this and I missed it, but do you think that the Volt will survive a GM bankruptcy ?
Be well, Buddy
LJGTVWOTR!! NPNS!
========================================
I think what you are asking me is my opinion if the bill fails…will the Volt then survive? Hard call. I’d say put the odds at 3 to 1, but I have nothing concrete to validate my guess, so many variable. But here is my thinking (with odds) anyway:

C11 (alone): 0% – GM won’t come out of a C11 attempt alone

C11 (gov’t sponsored) 50%…up to a bankruptcy judge at first (although he probably would ‘green light’ it because the gov’t would be mandating programs like that), but then you are never sure if the government will have the conviction to see it all the way through if the numbers get really bad, and the outlook too bleak

C7: 10% in this current environment, it is unlikely for another auto maker to pick it up…if you would have asked me 6 months ago, I would have put this number higher

(Quote)
Casey Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 3:10 pm

Some say they wont buy a car from a bankrupt company, I say no ones buying many of them anyway.

I cant see how bailing out a failing company that will keep failing after the bailout will help get the Volt made, it will just prolong the agony and the same results, ch.11 and more tax money wasted.

NO PLUG NO SALE, LJGTVWOTR, (my house)=D~~~~~(my volt

(Quote)
Jean-Charles Jacquemin Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 3:15 pm

CaptJackSparrow #76

Personally I think Gas should be taxed more for the purpose of getting people to open their eyes to other fuels, especially electric, alternatives. Kind of like the Cigarette tax.
The Tax money should go to the Education system.
========================================

IMHO, I think it is a good thing that gas has been taxed in Europe.

Times are hard for all but seem less harder now in EU than in the USA. Car markets are down but far less than in the US.
It is still possible to obtain credit from the banks.
We never had so many students in the universities,
Markets are up, and so on.

Be well all,

JC NPNS

(Quote)
Jean-Charles Jacquemin Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 3:24 pm

Out (or almost in) topic :

Chevy Volt will cost GM $750 milllion see autobloggreen :
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/12/09/chevy-volt-will-cost-gm-750-milllion/

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 3:25 pm

Statik@78 siad:
“I think what you are asking me is my opinion if the bill fails…will the Volt then survive? Hard call. I’d say put the odds at 3 to 1, but I have nothing concrete to validate my guess, so many variable. But here is my thinking (with odds) anyway:

C11 (alone): 0% – GM won’t come out of a C11 attempt alone
C11 (gov’t sponsored) 50%…up to a bankruptcy judge at first (although he probably would ‘green light’ it because the gov’t would be mandating programs like that), but then you are never sure if the government will have the conviction to see it all the way through if the numbers get really bad, and the outlook too bleak
C7: 10% in this current environment, it is unlikely for another auto maker to pick it up…if you would have asked me 6 months ago, I would have put this number higher”

Ouch. So in the self-interest of Voltiacs, we’d root for the coin-toss odds of the govt bailout. It’s a whole different can of worms as to whether or not the GM bailout is ultimately in the country’s best interest.
Be well,
Tag
LJGTVWOTR!! NPNS and apparently, NBNV (No bailout, no Volt….)

(Quote)
Bill Biletorf Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 3:26 pm

People this is a loan not a bailout stop being stupid.

The Loan to GM is the only way to go as I see it. There is no other way to keep our way of life. If you let GM go massive depression will result.

Also who is the stupid twit who said they dont want to raise there electricity bill. Well the electric motor is 95% efficient.

The gas engine is only 30% max. So electric cars are the way to go.

The volt is superior to any hybrid because its electric. No matter how the Toyota people try to spin there prius movement.

Full Electric cars are the future.

The Volt is a trickle charge. You only use as much electricity as is needed if you dont drive that day it will not charge.

The electricity VS gas cost is HUGE. The cost of driving with electricity is much much cheaper.

Also the volt is trickle charge it will not need a huge amount of power to charge the battery. It does it slowly over time.

Also Gas is going away. WE need to get rid of the gready arabs trying to take all our money.

As soon as obama starting talking new technologies gas went down.

ITs like crack keep us hooked.

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 3:30 pm

JC@81 posted:
“Out (or almost in) topic :
Chevy Volt will cost GM $750 million see autobloggreen :
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/12/09/chevy-volt-will-cost-gm-750-milllion/”

Well SHOOT. I know I can’t afford 750 million – even with the rebate. (just kidding)
Be well,
Tag
LJGTVWOTR!! NPNS

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 3:36 pm

(creaking groaning noises)

I think you minimum-gas-price guys are about to change my mind.

(audience-wide gasps of disbelief)

No, really. The issue with Oil at this point isn’t overall supply as much as it is volatility. We’re not about to run slap out of gas, but it’s coming in fits and starts; ocillations that will swing more widely, moving forward. There would be some benefit from the increased stability, alone; and we’ve seen that there are plenty of places the money could be used to implement a new energy economy.

The only thing holding me back from the idea: I don’t believe we can trust Congress to collect and spend any revenue for the intended purpose: consider Welfare’s “IOU” system as a major example, look to an infinite sea of pork for more. When money comes in, Congress spends it in the fashion most likely to assure short-term re-election. That’s just how that works.

It’s not just the Volt, or GM, or any single industry but America itself which is suffering from that disease. I can’t believe that changing of the guard can make much difference, here. They are POLITICIANS first, Party second, Country (us) last.

And NO, it’s not etched in stone that GM / Chrysler will get the loan. If they do get, it could end up being a protracted illness rather than swift, merciful death.

Maybe I’ll just change my mind insofar as conceding that a minimum gas price is probably what should be done, but likely won’t be (or will be done vastly wrong).

(creaking noises stop)

…FORD Volt, anybody?

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 3:56 pm

Having an added tax on gasoline is kind of like the flat tax proposal we have heard about for years. I like the idea of a flat tax (income tax). Problem is that those who are proposing this flat tax are talking about high twenties or low thirties percentages. That is too damned high no matter how you look at it. The flat tax should be low for all incomes with no, I repeat, no deductibles or exclusions. Everyone is proposing a deduction for medical expense, a deduction for home ownership and on and on and on. After all the deductions and exclusions, no wonder it takes 30%. No, I say individuals should pay 5 to 10% with corporations paying 15 to 20%. No deductions, no exclusions, period. The government would be rolling in money to fund their needs. Everything over budget should be invested. After a certain investment level is reached, all excess money should be refunded.

As far as a tax on gasoline and diesel to pay for funding new alternative fuel source, great. But we can do all of that on a lot less than $1 per gallon. If the idea is to tax gas and diesel to encourage conservation, that is a horse of a different color. But, we get back to the real problem of making congress spend the tax revenue for the purpose of the taxation. They will not do their job properly but they will spend all the money and not for what you were taxed for. Mark my words.

(Quote)
Tony Gray Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 3:57 pm

My brother sells Chevys. Today he called me to gloat. He now has TWO sold this month.

He’s rolling in dough.

(Quote)
Mike-o-Matic Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 4:13 pm

@34 Noel Park,

>> I have total respect and admiration for Nancy Pelosi.

Well, I did say “just about” everybody

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 4:16 pm

#82 Tag

Ouch. So in the self-interest of Voltiacs, we’d root for the coin-toss odds of the govt bailout. It’s a whole different can of worms as to whether or not the GM bailout is ultimately in the country’s best interest.
Be well,
Tag
LJGTVWOTR!! NPNS and apparently, NBNV (No bailout, no Volt….)

—————————————————–
If we are rooting for self interest only to get our Volts, we definitely vote for bailout…as long as the gov’t is on board the Volt is a go, 100%.

Doesn’t matter if it is the logical move or nor….or that it is still years out (I know 1.5 to you, lol), or that it is a money drain to develop or sure fire cash loser for many years after it hits the market…the gov’t wants it, so it will be.

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 4:28 pm

Statik said:
If we are rooting for self interest only to get our Volts, we definitely vote for bailout…as long as the gov’t is on board the Volt is a go, 100%.
Doesn’t matter if it is the logical move or nor….or that it is still years out (I know 1.5 to you, lol), or that it is a money drain to develop or sure fire cash loser for many years after it hits the market…the gov’t wants it, so it will be.

Boy, if I squint really hard, this is pretty close to a positive post (lol) I know, it’s all relative…
Be well,
Tag
LJGTVWOTR!! NPNS

(Quote)
Len Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 4:40 pm

We could tax the gas for health reasons like cigarettes. I am sure it causes a great deal of sickness.

We could tax it to research ways of removing CO2 from the atmosphere. I don’t know about global warming, but the evidence is conclusive that the ocean is becoming more acidic and desolving coral which in turn destroys entire eco systems. If you like fish, enjoy them now.

We could tax to fund researching alternatives to petroleum and internal combustion engines.

I think our problems are moving too fast for our “free” market to respond. We will have to start being proactive not reactive.

I could go for a flat tax, but there is no point in taxing someone living below poverity or taxing someone into poverity.

We need universal health care and it can’t come on the backs of business, they can’t afford it and remain competitive with companies that don’t pay which is every other industrialized country in the world. GM’s biggest problem is retiree health care and pension costs, along with the health care tax they pay for current employes.

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 4:48 pm

RE: Flat Tax

Check out the Fairtax

http://www.fairtax.org

http://www.amazon.com/Fair-Tax-Book-Saying-Goodbye/dp/0060875496/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228945637&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/FairTax-Answering-Critics-Neal-Boortz/dp/0061540463/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228945637&sr=8-2

There are many out there trying to shoot this idea down, get the straight poop first

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 4:52 pm

“We need universal health care and it can’t come on the backs of business, they can’t afford it and remain competitive with companies that don’t pay which is every other industrialized country in the world. GM’s biggest problem is retiree health care and pension costs, along with the health care tax they pay for current employes.”

You’ve just found the other shoe.

Look for the Obama administration to present this as the only solution to continued US industry viability, early next year.

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 5:26 pm

I have come to the conclusion that there is Waaaayyy too much put into a car. Safety features are good but maan, do you really need all the crazy features that are available now. Just give me a Volt with bare bones already. The generator body batteries 4 wheels with rack and pinion steering…..
I’m good.

I just want my Volt dangit!

(Quote)
J Man Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 5:33 pm

#37 Jason
Congrats on getting your bailout from my tax money big 3. I will now commence my lifelong boycott of your companies. The Chevy and Chrysler in our garage will eventually be replaced by a Honda and Volkswagen most likely
_____________________________________________________
Where do you work? That way those of us the will continue to support the domestic automakers can start a lifelong boycott of your company. At the same time if you are going to boycott GM for getting the money, we won’t see you posting on here once the Volt news picks back up or at all.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 5:42 pm

I think an additional $1/gallon gas tax is the wrong way to do it. If oil prices are $140/barrel, a gas tax isn’t necessary, and it would hurt the economy even more. And why tax gasoline and not other oil consumption? Only 45% of our oil consumption is gasoline.

I think a minimum price of $65/barrel for oil is a better solution. If the price is below that (like it is now), then the government would raise import tariffs just enough to make the $65 minimum price. When oil is over $65, there are no more tariffs.

This would have the follow effects:
1) Dramatically encourage private investment in alternative fuels.
2) Encourage domestic oil production from stripper wells, oil shale, tar sands, offshore drilling…
3) Treat all types of oil consumption fairly.
4) Stabilize the market against huge swings in oil prices.
5) Let consumers know that the days of cheap oil are over.
6) Give foreign oil producers a real reason to manage their production.

(Quote)
Shawn Marshall Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 5:48 pm

People I implore you. Don’t we ever learn anything? If you tax gasoline, you enable the government to muff another program and you penalize domestic producers. This is not what you want. Although we could use a floor under gas prices that’s not the way to get it. So, stipulate that all foreign oil will be purchased by our government and sold to refineries at a price that will keep gas at $2 a gallon or so. Domestic oil will not be affected.(Yesterday gas was $1.25 in Roanoke Va. at Sheetz and Sam’s.) The profit from the sale of foreign oil could be distributed by an independent board to American car companies for Volt type development, to battery researchers, to battery factories and etc. as the board decides. If the government gets the money, they will misallocate it as they always have in every program they’ve ever run. Just look where 13% of your salary has gone for SS.
Also, the American car companies will have to be reborn because they cannot compete as things are now. Write off their legacy costs against this oil tariff if you want, but something has gotta give. Consider that if the Volt were available now and was a huge success for GM, how long would it be until Toyota and Honda and Nissan would overVoltage them?
Not very long.

(Quote)
Bill Biletorf Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 5:49 pm

People just dont get it.

Foreign Cars dont do anyting for the USA but turn us into a mexico.

American Cars no matter where they are made help the USA.

Its simple. US car profits stay in the USA.

Foreign Car profits go over seas.

High Tech jobs stay over seas.

Engines are made over seas.

All foreign cars contain much less US content

http://www.levelfieldinstitute.org/files/scorecards/GM_v_Toyota.pdf

Toyota has brain washed americans for years with PR to make you buy their cars.

Look at the facts.

You are making them richer and us poor.

Toyota now is spending millions lobbying congress to get rid of the Big 3.

They love this.

(Quote)
GLV Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 5:50 pm

Okay…here’s the deal… For all the Gas Taxers, I support you 100%! Raise the tax to $10/gal…

…right after I buy my Chevy Volt and drive gas-free!

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 5:52 pm

#95 J Man Says: “The Chevy and Chrysler in our garage will eventually be replaced by a Honda and Volkswagen most likely”
————————————————————————————-
Volkswagen has a terrible reliability record, even worse than GM. See here for details:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenu6hr/ebay_pictures/tt.jpg

By the way, if GM goes under, it will cost taxpayers much more than the bailout in lost income taxes and unemployment benefits. The bailout loan is the least amount of risk for taxpayers.

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 5:56 pm

Here is a RWD EV concept from the L.A. Auto Show

http://garfwod.250free.com/Photos/LA%20EV.jpg
____________________________

We will see plenty of EV’s and E-REV’s in the near future. The world knows what a future of oil use will lead to. More pollution in the air. More war for control and/or protection of supplies. Less stability of energy prices.

EV technology has advanced more in the last 5 years than the 30 years prior. The micro ICE cars, now popular with the public, are not the answer. Most are very small and underpowered.

The Volt will arrive either from a restructured GM, or from 20 other sources. It’s an 80% chance that Asia will produce an inexpensive Volt within 5 years. The question left is if the New GM, with support from the Obama plan, can continue on and be first out with it. I believe they will.

=D~

(Quote)
Len Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 6:01 pm

The government administrates Social Security and Medicare far cheaper than a private company. The government spends 3% where a private company would spend at least 12%. This is a big part of what is wrong with our present health care system. Other countries spend half of what we do and get better results in terms of longevity and lower infant mortality. My opinion is that the insurance companies spend too much trying to deny people coverage and don’t spend anything on prevenative maintenance, maximizing their profits, not our health. Wrong objective. This no compete pill bill has got to be changed. What a load of pork.

I hope the Volt makes it, GM too. Not so sure about Chrysler, but Ford is in pretty good shape.

(Quote)
eightzero Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 6:01 pm

They reached an accord. Glad to see they’re doing their civic duty.

(Quote)
Paul-R Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 6:08 pm

Jason #37 said…

Congrats on getting your bailout from my tax money big 3. I will now commence my lifelong boycott of your companies. The Chevy and Chrysler in our garage will eventually be replaced by a Honda and Volkswagen most likely.
————————

Jason, Volkswagon has already started their “bailout” request. Honda and Toyota will be next … assuming you ignore the protected market “bailout” they’ve been getting for the last 50 years.

Personally, I’m going to boycott everyone I know who has a home mortgage or auto loan, since they shouldn’t need those “bailouts” just to buy something. Everyone should pay cash free and clear like I do.

Wait … I have a credit card which I pay off each month. Damn … I guess that’s a bailout too. I boycott myself!

Good luck finding a car to drive.

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 6:11 pm

@eightzero

Build it dangit!

(Quote)
Casey Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 6:22 pm

The bailout will not work it will just get things over to the Obama regime (and its what the democrats in congress want) where billions of more tax dollars will be spent and wasted on failing companies that have been going down hill for years.

Chapter 11 will save jobs, the Volt, the UAW, suppliers and bring stability to the auto industry and a good part of the country

NO PLUG NO SALE, LJGTVWOTR, (my house)=D~~~~~(my volt

(Quote)
Paul-R Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 6:25 pm

Jackson said …

“Look for the Obama administration to present this [government health care] as the only solution to continued US industry viability, early next year.”

———————

Boy I can’t wait. Then health care will be simple (like the US tax code) and infallible (like FEMA) and completely free of greedy corruption (like Obama’s Chicago). It’s gonna be great.

(Quote)
chevonly Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 6:34 pm

A big first is for the bridge loans to pass THIS IS NOT A BAILOUT,
second we need to see the Malibu and the Camaro take off as GM will not be making much money off of the volt. Ya Boy the hybrids are a whopping 3 per cent of the cars sold so it is a huge market BALONEY, and last comrades for you Republicans that want your cake and eat it to TAXES WILL BE GOING UP NO MATTER WHO IS PRESIDENT THE COUNTRY IS BROKE NO MAS NO MONEY, our only hope is that the dollar stays up for awhile so we can survive on the kindness of foreigners willing to invest there money with little or no return from this broke country thanks Georgie Boy and the crooks in congress both Republican and Democrat for killing America.

(Quote)
Jason Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 6:36 pm

“Bottom line is Nuclear Power + Electric Cars…end of story. ”

This is absolutely false. Nuclear is not the answer. The earth is expected to need 30 terrawats of power by 2050. If you build 1 new billion-watt nuclear power plant every 1.6 days from now until 2050, that is 8 terrawatts. If you cover every inch of land on earth with wind turbines, thats another 2 terrawatts.

The sun provides 800 terrawatts of harness-able energy.

Bottom line is Solar Power + Electric Cars…end of story.

(Quote)
nuclearboy Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 6:57 pm

109.

I would rather live a few miles from a nuclear plant than under the umbrella of nuclear panels that would have to cover a large fraction of our country to supply our energy needs.

Nuclear is also cheaper than solar. We could all get a larger rebate on our Volt if we did not have to subsidize solar.

(Quote)
ccombs Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 7:11 pm

As for the last post… I totally agree with radically increasing solar and wind capacity, but it is simply insufficient to supply the majority of US energy needs, especially because main reserves are concentrated in the western deserts and Midwest farmland, away from major population centers. Nuclear is the only currently feasible option to fill in the gap. France already supplies 80% of its power with nuclear reactors, and there is no reason why the US cannot do the same…if we are willing to shoulder the same costs that they did. It would be absolutely awesome to replace all our oil power generation with wind and nuclear (and solar after technological advances make it feasible).

In other news…

Just thought I should address the earlier comments knocking the F-22 and F-35, since I am really tired of everyone doing so (even though I can understand where they’re coming from)…

1) Granted, UBL has no air force nor do any other terrorist groups; any cheap currently-existing plane would work fine in an anti-terror capacity

2) Many other nations (Iran, China, Russia, etc.) have a decent air force and extensive SAM networks.

I wish the US could just spend all our defense money on weapon systems that are useful in anti-terror and counter-insurgency roles. However, history clearly demonstrates the need for the military to prepare for many different eventualities, one of which is large-scale conventional warfare against a technologically advanced nation state. We cannot assume all future adversaries will be small non-state actors just because recently this has been the case. This is analogous to our mistake prior to 9/11 of thinking that the only existential threats to the US would come from rogue nations and neglecting to take the danger posed by terrorist groups seriously. It also reminds me of the pre-WWII attitude in the US. Since the Spanish-American war, all the US had done was fight small counter-insurgency wars in the Philippines and (frankly, this is the best word for it, my somewhat hawkish leanings aside) bully around some small Latin American nations. WWI was a European debacle and we weren’t going to get involved in any of their stupid warmongering anymore. If we just minded our own business and stayed away from the bloodthirsty, backward Eurotrash, we thought we would be fine*. Thus the US felt it was OK to have a technologically backward military that was the 14th largest in the world (behind Romania!). America was in the throes of the Depression, for goodness sakes, it had no time for foreign entanglements! America first! Money for jobs not war! Yada, yada, ad nauseum**. This turned out to be a terrible mistake when we learned that ignoring belligerent individuals “over there” and letting other nations deal with it didn’t work***, since it did come back to bite us at home in due time (of course this is a huge oversimplification, but stay with me). We were woefully unprepared for WWII as a result, and it hurt. Try telling the thousands who died in Bataan using crappy vintage doughboy equipment against the Japanese that the US shouldn’t have invested in procuring modern military weapon systems before the war.

I shudder to think that a large scale war could happen again, but it is foolish to discount the possibility since from time immemorial war has always occurred periodically. I can’t see how this century is somehow exempt from that trend. In the event a large conventional war does occur we cannot only have F-15 C/Ds and F-16s. Our pilots will be slaughtered by Sukhois and SAMs unless they have 5th generation aircraft, and it is simply irresponsible to neglect to buy them just because they serve no useful counterterrorism role. I think the leaner counter-terror US military is a good thing overall, but taking that too far is a bad idea. Such a military would be annihilated in a massive conventional armor assault, for instance. I hope we keep that in mind before we do anything too rash under the new administration.

In sum, the argument that the F-22 and 35 have no current usefulness does not preclude the necessity of their development. Sad but true. I would much rather spend that money on alternative energy, but not at the expense of creating fatal weaknesses in the military.

Phew! *wipes sweat off brow*. If you read all the way to here, I heart you very much but you should get a life, unlike me .

– Current event rants below, I apologize in advance –

*Ironically, this reminds me somewhat of the common naive European attitudes toward current US policy and their current annoying condescension toward Americans in general.

**Sound like what a lot of people are saying in the current financial crisis?

***Like many in Europe think they can do today. Sorry, I can’t help myself, I am just sick of many Europeans (as well as my fellow university students and Silicon Valley-ers) passing off naivete for enlightenment just like the US did in the 20s and 30s. Isolationism (i.e. “minding our own business”, “rejecting imperialism”, or whatever we call it nowadays) is immensely appealing and nice-sounding but ultimately unworkable and arguably immoral. Letting Hitler massacre Jews because it’s not “our problem” is tantamount to letting someone commit murder in front of you and lifting nary a finger to stop it. Oh wait, but I forgot the Kellog-Briand pact outlawed war, so just as soon as everyone gets the memo we’ll be OK! Until then we’ll just issue official condemnations of violence to the effect of “I hope you realize that was a very naughty thing you did. If you do it again we’ll be forced to issue another official condemnation. Ha! So there!” Algunas veces, pienso que 我们没有脑。

Ummm…yeah…go Volt, go 机械工程师!

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 7:14 pm

Lyle, could you post another poll?

My next car will be:

A>EV or E-REV only. I can wait 2 or 3 years.

B>31-35+ mpg gas burner (small car). Something under 95HP is fine with me. I drive slow, don’t need to haul, and comfort is not a priority.

C>26-30 mpg gas burner (mid-size). It will work for the short term. I’ll drive less often to save on fuel.

D>20-25 mpg 2008 (left over). I have $22,000 to spend and believe gas prices will stay low for 8 years.

E>Suburban are cheap now. I always wanted one. I’ll worry about pump prices later.

F>Motorcycle, scooter, or bicycle for me. Aloha, I live on Hawaii, hang loose.

=D~

(Quote)
DonC Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 7:25 pm

#64 Cautious Fan – “So DonC, what is your criteria for when gov’t should help businesses? Political power of the business, length of projected bread-lines, blood pressure of Lou Dobbs?”

I dunno about Lou Dobbs but blood pressure is a vital sign.

On a more serious note, keeping in mind that the government is the creator of all markets, I’d say it should intervene when the country faces an economic catastrophe which intervention can prevent. What specific business are necessary to make the intervention effective depends on how it relates to the overall economy. So you may feel differently about Citi than about a small regional bank. Or you may feel differently about the auto industry as a whole than about a retailer. The first is important because it serves as a foundation to the financial system; the second because of employment and long term structure of the economy. You’re suggesting that it’s impossible to make choices, which is contrary to what all of us do every day.

I will say the Bush Administration botched the job with respect to the auto industry. It forced Congress to get involved, and in the process opened a can of worms. Now we’re going to have political considerations shape an industry — e.g., the Sierra Club gets to design a car. It would have been better had they manned up and done the job like they did with the financials. (Though Congress is trying to force its way into that arena as well).

(Quote)
User Name Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 7:26 pm

Not looking good now, some Republican Senators now in oppostition-

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28108346/

Not good.

(Quote)
Abe Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 7:30 pm

Agreed with #109.

People pushing nuclear just dont understand the math. All other points aside, you simply can’t make enough nuclear plants to supply our energy needs.

Solar can produce orders of magnitude more power than we can ever use. Also its renewable and with no waste. Most experts say give solar about 5 more years and it should be cheaper than all the alternatives as well – including nuclear.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 7:58 pm

OT but humorous. Here is Maxine Water’s addressing Barney Frank at the TARP oversight hearing today:

“Mr. Chairman. I appreciate everything you’ve done but I am not going to cooperate with you anymore”

I bet Barney Franks is thanking his lucky stars!

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 8:47 pm

Well, it just passed in the house…looks to be getting around 240-250ish of 218 needed, not sure the end numbers, they are still tallying it up.

Note exactly a even Rep/Dem split either (no surprise)

Dems 90%ish yea
Rep 20%ish yea

No shocker on this passing…it was expected, I don’t know what the vote breakdown was supposed to be…or how it foreshadows the Senate vote. The President’s endorsement didn’t exactly rally his troops in the House, lol.

Look for the Senate vote on friday with some modifications to appease the masses, as it looks like it won’t go through ‘as is’…and that back to the House to ram it through…again.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 8:56 pm

Final vote tally:

237 -170

(Quote)
Exp_EngTech Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 9:15 pm

Gas is getting CRAZY CHEAP not far from me ($1.19 a gallon).

Despite another OPEC production cut that is coming soon, I wonder just how low gas prices will go. Who knows, if “Dr. Doom” is right about how bad the economy will get, those that are employed might be buying 50 cent gas.

To those that don’t know him…meet “Dr. Doom”…..
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/magazine/17pessimist-t.html

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0812/gallery.market_gurus.fortune/index.html?cnn=yes

O.K., O.K., after reading that you might need some “Depression Era” funny stuff……
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUwtaQ1HZ-g&feature=related

And now….I return you back to our regularly scheduled cherished fantasy…..the 2010 Chevy Volt.

(Quote)
Xiaowei1 Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 9:16 pm

Jason @ 109 said “This is absolutely false. Nuclear is not the answer. The earth is expected to need 30 terrawats of power by 2050. If you build 1 new billion-watt nuclear power plant every 1.6 days from now until 2050, that is 8 terrawatts. If you cover every inch of land on earth with wind turbines, thats another 2 terrawatts.

The sun provides 800 terawatts of harness-able energy. ”

I have a very difficult time believing these figures, well the last one regarding the sun at least.

Are you suggesting our tiny planet will use 3.75% of the available energy outputted by the sun (that falls on earth presumable)? focusing on today’s energy needs as no-one can really be sure what 2050 will bring, having a quick look around, http://www.terrawatts.com/ states “Enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire world’s energy needs for a full year.” Something does not add up as 2.8% of the daily energy would do us for a year. Complete blackout for 40 minutes once a year – I’m in, and I think the environment could cope….

Now, I’m not going to take the numbers on that web sight as gospel either, but put please check your numbers they just don’t make sense. In principle however I totally agree with Jason, solar is a great way to collect energy, we just need to perfect it with cheap materials which collect a good portion of energy which falls upon them.

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 10:32 pm

“Boy I can’t wait. Then health care will be simple (like the US tax code) and infallible (like FEMA) and completely free of greedy corruption (like Obama’s Chicago). It’s gonna be great.”

You might want to get that irony-detector checked, Paul. You’re actually agreeing with me. Add to all that the rationing of health care (where you wait months for vital care like you do in Canada and the UK).

(Quote)
wwskinn3 Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 10:32 pm

I don’t know if anyone has asked this or not – “Can the Volt pull a small pop-up type trailer”?

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
December 10th, 2008 at 10:38 pm

Come up with a lossless, superconducting power backbone to get power from the winy places, solar from the sunny places to deliver to the power-hungry places: then, these diffuse-energy collection schemes can start to take over from concentrated-energy like coal and nuclear. Not before.

A gigantic stationary power storage technology plugged into the superconducting backbone wouldn’t hurt, either.

(Quote)
ccombs Says:
December 11th, 2008 at 2:28 am

#123

Sounds real easy and I’m sure we can build it tomorrow!

I’ll use it to recharge my EEStor products!

(Quote)
J Man Says:
December 11th, 2008 at 8:02 am

#100 Dave G

#95 J Man Says: “The Chevy and Chrysler in our garage will eventually be replaced by a Honda and Volkswagen most likely”
————————————————————————————-
Volkswagen has a terrible reliability record, even worse than GM. See here for details:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenu6hr/ebay_pictures/tt.jpg
By the way, if GM goes under, it will cost taxpayers much more than the bailout in lost income taxes and unemployment benefits. The bailout loan is the least amount of risk for taxpayers.
_____________________________________________________

Hey Dave G, go back up and reread my post! What you quoted me as saying was actually said by someone else. I was responding to their post just like I am with yours now.

I am 100% for the bailout being that my employment depends on it. Also I will never have a Honda in my garage. I might have a VW but it will be an older one that I am parting out to make some cash.

(Quote)
Paul-R Says:
December 11th, 2008 at 10:49 am

Jackson, I think we agree on government run healthcare. That is, I think it will be a giant train-wreck like the three (sarcastic) examples I gave. That’s the usual result when you combine enormous power/money with unchecked greed/incompetence.

(Quote)

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009
November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]
srschrier
New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009
From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]
srschrier
Th!nk picks Indiana for U.S. factory November 18, 2009
Th!nk picks Indiana for U.S. factory: _Link_ (http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1038564_thnk-picks-indiana-for-u-s-factory) […]
Jason M. Hendler
FIRST ALL-ELECTRIC APTERA 2e PUSHED BACK TO 2010 November 18, 2009
FIRST ALL-ELECTRIC APTERA 2e PUSHED BACK TO 2010: _Link_... […]
Jason M. Hendler
Any news about the NiMH battery? November 18, 2009
Now that there are new owners of the patent, is there any indication that they will allow its use for electric cars? Like many others, I believe that... […]
Desertstraw
energy requirments of modern electric vehicles November 18, 2009
does anyone know any credible sources of information concerning the electricity requirements of modern electric vehicles per mile of travel and the... […]
crubkings
30% reduction November 18, 2009
The Belgian governement decided that if you buy a car with less then 60g/km emmision you get a 15% tax reduction and you can write it off for 100% if... […]
filiep

White House and Democrats Reach Accord on Loan to GM and Chrysler

126 Responses to “White House and Democrats Reach Accord on Loan to GM and Chrysler”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts