Better buy one now then, huh. Make sure you vote Dem/Rep everytime you get the chance. Socialism is the RoXORZ.

 

they can kiss my tailpipe. i dont like this mentality at all. they want us all to drive little crapbox smart cars. NO THANK YOU. hopefully they don't mandate classic cars out of existence, i will drive an old camaro as long as i can get one. i will drive what i please. i think GM needs to offer a wide array of products, including fuel efficient cars and fun to drive camaros and corvettes. as americans we have the right to choose what we want to drive.

 

Actually, not to rain on your parade or anything, because I feel the exact same way you do. But most government officials will tell you that driving an automobile is a privilege and not a right.

 

Great post, and I am in this camp too.

First of all, I don't understand where any of us are getting this idea that the government is now running GM, making every decision on every product and every design. Utter hogwash. Certainly they will impose regualtions - like CAFE - that have been around for years and will continue to be so. They may even impose new ones we don't yet know about. But they will apply to all vehicles and manufacturers.

And can we please take a step back and look at the bigger picture for a moment... who came to who begging for money? Was the company so well-run and so well-planned that they were doing well - even when the economy was booming? If the government had not gotten involved, GM would already be gone and so would your base v6 Camaro and Caddy CTS too - not to mention the Vette and Camaro SS. Follow me now? They would ALL be GONE... YESTERDAY.

I've got news for you... if you come to me, to borrow money from me, and I KNOW you have already borrowed from everyone else on earth that will lend you a dime, I'm going to put some constraints on my loan (IF I even give it to you at all).

(Sidebar - Want to know what pizzes me most about bailouts and governmental money was the govt giving ship-loads of money to financial institutions with no strings attached. And don't ANY of you start bellowing about how it's Obama's admin that is responsible because the bailout plan was startede while Obama and McCain were both on the campaign trail - it's a GOVERNMENT thing, not a single party one. I have mainatained for years on this site -in this very forum- that financial institutions are running the eartrh and they are NOT to be trusted, many times having to to debate multiple people that argue that making a profit is not a crime and that financial institutions could not be so crooked. Sample the news about AIG, Bank of America, Barclays, Wells-Fargo, Wachovia, CitiGroup and others today and see what you think.)

Now, back to the GM and Chrysler situation...
There is NO WAY that the government could/should give shiploads of cash to the same people who have burned through every prior loan and not realized WTF they were doing with the money, making no significant changes in their business models (the ones that are FAILING MISERABLY), and no changes in their heirarchy. I'm sorry - drawing $27-million/year to run a business into the ground is lunacy-defined. NEW PEOPLE WERE NEEDED BADLY. In the case of GM in particular, Fritz is now the man calling the shots. He IS a car guy, he IS a GM guy, he IS a smart man, and I think he has a good shot at making it work. He is NOT a governmental plant, like some kind of robot controlled by Obama directly. Sure they have to make a good case for any programs to move forward, but isn't that a good thing? Making cars that LOSE money will not keep the Vette or the Camaro SS alive, no matter how awesome they are.
This goes straight back into my years of preaching that all of the attention needs to go into making a great, sellable base units... the "toys" can come after the bills are paid.
At this point, all the government is doing is trying to make sure that they are not throwing more money down the same old crapper, and I don't fault them (or any lender) for that.

Again, let's remember who was begging who to get involved a few months ago...

Guys, I love ANY American Iron - I don't think anyone reading my posts for 7-8 years can contest that. I don't want to see any of it go away either, and I hope it doesn't. But instead of trying to find any excuse to b1tch at the government for getting involved and "destrying some American Icons", maybe we should be scrutinizing the actual root-cause of how GM got into this pickle in the first place... and it wasn't because Obama put a plan in place back in 1982 to begin socializing the US auto industry.
And BELIEVE ME... if you think I am a proponent of MORE government intervention and government involvement in personal or commercial ventures, then read a few of my posts about OnStar, finance reform, auto policy, oil industry, and the recent bailouts. I am far from a pro-governmental advocate.

Vette and Camaro are not gone yet... How 'bout we let the dust settle a bit, give Fritz a chance to do his thing, and not waste valuable bullets until we have a definitive target and we can see the whites of their eyes?

 

You know you can design and build your own car any way you like, and as long as it meets all safety requirements (you know, tail lights, turn signals, and little things like that) you can license and drive it.

Look at rail/dune buggys.

So screw them all - go make whatever you want!

 

Woah, hang on, making a profit is a crime in your opinion?

 

So, is the govt running GM or not? You said no, but then gave a lot of reasons why they should be allowed to because they lended them money...

As far as if they are or not... maybe not in the 1st person, but while they may not be pulling the trigger itself, I'd say they are aiming the gun.

-Wagoner almost certainly would not have been basically fired if it wasn't 'asked'.

-Pontiac almost certainly would not be dead if GM didn't need to have things 'approved' by others.... same probably goes for at least Saturn as well.

Now, we can debate whether these are right moves or wrong moves till the cows come home... whether they were run terrible before hand or not is all but irrelevant. Whether GM would be gone already or not is also irrelevant.

The question is... is the govt running General Motors....

The answer is... the govt MOST CERTAINLY has a hand in the internal goings-on at General Motors right now (see gun analogy above), and to say otherwise is just untrue.

 

Good effing post. This idea that so many people have about let's attack the government with accusations of controlling ideology is getting absurd. Especially when the executive branch is being run by someone "from the other team". Answers lie somewhere in the middle, and they don't lie in placing blame on the government for something GM did to themselves over the last few DECADES. GM knew what they were getting into when they took a loan from the government in the first place. They may not have had a choice in taking the loan with continued survival being the goal, but had they not run themselves into the ground, it wouldn't be needed. Ford managed to keep the hounds at bay, at least for now.

I don't want to see GM go, but without some major renovations, they are moving it that direction. It sucks to see Pontiac go. I would prefer for them to stay, but the brand isn't that strong. They move a lot of volume, but produce weak profit margins. It is easy to point fingers at the government for closing it down, but truth is, GM squandered the brand with no real direction, and there wasn't really any viability to it anymore. At least, not with the economic climate being as it is. It would have been another thing entirely if Pontiac was some hugely successfully brand, and the government insisted on pulling the plug on them, as some of the board members on here seem to be implying. That simply isn't the case.

 

Sure, GM screwed the pooch - BIG TIME. Like Darth said though, that is irrelevant. What is relevant, and goes to the point, is concern over the undue influence the government now has over GM's decision making.

Ford played it smart. GM screwed itself, and now it's at the mercy of pinheaded government activists, who have a different agenda for GM than what you or me want.



Anyway, the sooner GM can get through this the better. In addition to everything else, this is a huge distraction for future product developement. The sooner a smaller, restructured, "GM" can move forward and make a profit - and pay off the government - the better. They sure aren't going to do that by producing nothing but green, government annointed, weenie mobiles.

 

I agree with ProudPonys post probably more than any post he has ever made on this site. I am against the government taking control of GM to further their agenda. I don't think thats happening. If the current administration wants GM or Chrysler to focus more on fuel efficient cars I think thats their prerogative as the ones who lent the money. If they start dictating the products to the detriment of the company then we all have a right to be pissed. That doesn't seem to be the case though. As has already been pointed out, the government has been dictating product for the auto industry for a long time through CAFE and other methods. This is certainly a more invasive form of influence but its not the end of the world (or performance cars) yet.

Also lets not throw GM under the bus for running themselves into the ground and begging for government money. GM is a fluid organization where a few people at the top have been particularly neglegent and the blame should lie squarely with them. In my opinion the board of directors deserves more blame than any of the past presidents (of GM) even. A lot of good people are going to be hurt by these events and most of those people have no control over the direction the company has been going for the past 10 (20, 30?) years.

1 more thing. Making a profit is not a crime in a capitalist system.

 

Using this logic, if you finance a new car, the banker should be able to dictate what car you end up buying.

Want $30k to buy that new Camaro SS? Sorry, no, but here's $30k if you want that nice hybrid over there.

 

One thing I'll say is, GM needed this kind of painful, radical restructuring 5 years ago. For some obscene reason I find myself strangly hopeful for GM's future.

But when GM ultimately wades through the neck deep river of crap it finds itself in now - it will need a portfolio of of irresistable, well developed, products to sell. The more government beaurocrats stick their noses into that product development process, the less likely we are of getting a good outcome.

 

I understand what you're saying Darth, but (at least at THIS point) the Government is interested in fixing the business aspect of GM and not the product aspect. And from a BUSINESS point of view from an investor (the Fed), Saturn and Pontiac are financial burdens. We don't want to hear that, being GM enthusiasts, but you can't argue against fact.

So while the government may indirectly be telling us we can't buy Pontiacs anymore even if we want Pontiacs, it is only because Pontiac can no longer be sustained. That most decidedly does NOT hold true for specific car lines like Corvette and Camaro - these are self-sustaining models. The government will cross the line when good business sense is thrown aside to further an ideology. At that point, you better believe I will be making a trek to DC for another "tea party" of sorts.

 

I would agree with that. The banker may end up having to reclaim that car if you don't pay your debt. If he wants to dictate you buy a car based on resale value or some other criteria then I think they have that right. The choice is still yours to borrow the money from that banker. If you don't like it find someone else to finance it or save the money and pay cash.

 

Well said.