Not saying it is right...

Just saying it is hypocritical to not help GM..when the laid of employees will just be dumped on those programs anyway..

 

Yes...even then. Of course what you submit is only true if you believe the doom and gloom crowd are right.

It amazes me how everyone is either ignoring or dancing around another outcome.

People here who are supporting the bailout seem to be quick to point out that GM is making some great cars and it has been closing older plants and either building new/refurbishing plants to make its manufacturing process more efficient...in other words, GM should have the ability to build great cars, build them efficiently and at a profit.

And if that is true, why do bailout proponents seem to think that no one with the money to do so (and trust me, there are companies with the money to do so) isn't going to come behind a GM collapse and buy up those plants and infrastructure, shed the deadwood and build cars with it?

Such a new company rising from the ashes of GM wouldn't need the large numbers of workers GM now has (but GM doesn't need them either) but a majority of those people would still be employed (albeit at a rate more inline with what the job is actually worth rather than at a level artificially imposed by the UAW).

That scenario is the normal way business start, rise, decline and fall and are reborn in this country...it is painful...but it works pretty well and in any case, it works a hell of a lot better than borrowing money form communist China to give to a business adhering to a failed business model.

 

Aggressive lending practices with low qualification standards are what lead to the Mortgage Crisis... which is why banks have tightened lending requirements!!! We need moderation. I don't see how once again giving out easy loans to people that can't pay them back will fix the problem that was partially caused by people defaulting on their mortgages.

It all comes down to personal responsibility. I hold every American accountable that got themselves in over their head financially with cars and houses that they couldn't afford. Just because a bank will approve someone for a mortgage or car loan doesn't relieve individuals of the responsibility to diligently plan out their finances and be certain that they are in a position to repay the loan. Easy Credit and irresponsibly acquiring debt is the problem, not the solution.

 

The aritifially inflated wages etc of the union is what drives me to want to watch the big 3 crumble.

I've delt with GM unions (my father worked for them for a bit- non represented) and it is crazy the "rights" that somebody that can tighten a lug nut has, and the money they make. Labor and wages should be driven by need, etc (CAPITALISM).

The company I now work for has a union, it is such a cluster **** that we try to outsource as much as possible just so we don't have to use the union (low quality of work, high cost)

 

If you are nearing retirement, and you had your 401(k) money in funds that lost "half" of it's value, you certainly have no business being in discussions here a topic like this, speaking from some supposed position of authorty. That is 401(k) economics 101. Very very VERY basic stuff right there.


No, what I said its that is is EASY to say you are "willing" to lose your job if it means the govt makes the "right" choice.

If I need to spell that out for you, that means you have no control over losing your job in that situation at all. It is out of your hands.

If you want to make some monumental statement like that with some real meat behind it, say something that you can do by your own hand.

 

Aggressive lending works when people are put in low interest, gimmickless, stable loans. That was the idea behind FHA loans...originally The housing market failed because people were sold on interest only, adjustable arms to qualify for amounts that they could not have with conventional loans. These loans were affordable when you buy the house...but unaffordable as soon as the ARM starts adjusting. We are talking two very different ideas here.

 

So now you want to teach me personal finance? Please, oh wise one, why don't you bestow some of your wisdom on the rest of us (or better yet, on GM).

You have my word...the moment Wagoner comes to me and says I'll quite and GM will not accept the bail out if you'll quit your jobl, I'll be heading out the door and never look back.

 

I can certainly tell you how to not lose 50% of your 401(k) when you are 1 year from retirement. Take your money out of stocks and international agressive funds. I am 36 years old (and presumably 30 years away from retirement) and have 90% of my money in these areas, and have lost about 45% of my total from it's peak. For you to do the same or slightly worse, you'd have to have a very similar selection of funds in your 401(k) portfolio, when at 1 year from retirement, it should have been almost entirely in simple cash preservation funds. Again, SIMPLE, ELEMENTARY RETIREMENT WEALTH MANAGEMENT BASICS



Again, a big profound statement that means nothing, since you either have no control over it, or simply know it will never happen. When was the last time Wagoner came to you for anything?

 

Oh but you see, lending to anyone, regardless of qualifications, is the answer for the save GM and any cost crowd.

If the only issue is saving GM then easy credit and lot's of loans is an answer.

Why should GM care if people eventually default? Defaults impact (depress) the used car market a bit but overall, all GM cares about is getting cars sold to dealers and dealers selling those vehicles (somehow) so the dealers buy more to sell.

No...your problem is that you are trying to look at the whole picture and that simply can't be applied to those who think that GM must be saved at any cost.

 

You're joking right? In case you missed it, Mr. Wagoner is asking ALL OF US for something right now.

 

Obviously that was meant as a reply to him sarcastically wanting to be personally contacted by and told by Wagoner that he was going to resign... come on.

 

Well great wise one, thank you for your investment advice.

By the way, do you always make up "facts" so make your arguments sound plausible or did you do that just for me?

Unfortunately he never has - if he had done so perhaps he wouldn't have led GM to ruin.

In any case, that promise is no less meaningful than claiming I should just promise to quit if the government does the right thing - I could make that promise too if you like since we both know that the government isn't going to do the right thing.

The Dems, led by Dingle (who's current wife just happens to be the vice chair of the General Motors Foundation) aren't going to let their bedbuddies (the UAW) be hung out to dry which is what this bailout is really about...if these politicians didn't feel they have to placate the unions there likely would be no bailout of GM even being discussed.

 

Wanna tell me exactly what I've made up?


Another profound, meaningless, and amazingly arrogant statement. Yes... perhaps you are the miraculous missing link. I imagine you will be replacing Goshen when he moves on, eh?

 

By the way, Darth, are you just a concerned, patriotic citizen who doesn't want to see a great American institution like GM be allowed to fail or are your motivations a bit more selfish than that?

Do you work for a company directly or indirectly tied to GM?

Since "who we work for" seems to be a fair-game question for this discussion (per FbodFather), perhaps we should all be required to lay our cards on the table and state exactly what our motivations are.

 

Where exactly did I say I was a year from retirement?


Nissan could do worse...Wagoner, as one of those worse choices, comes to mind.