There should never have been a bailout period.

Bush gave $13.4 billion to GM and Chrysler and they in turn were to have financials together by 3/31/09. Instead, Obama piled in more money and then did EVERYTHING he could to benefit the unions.

It isn't party, it is progressives. You do not mess with the free market. Socialism cannot fix capitalism.

In the case of GM, the government had no right to take ownership. That is socialism. Don't care if it was an (R) that did it or a (D) that did it.

None of us know how far Bush would have gone had he still been President, but he did say to save the free market you sometimes have be socialist (WRONG, WRONG, WRONG).

So we can only look at what Obama has done.

- Took over the companies
- The main creditors were sent to the back and given nothing for their investment.
- The unions were given 60% ownership
- GM CEO's were fired.
- Divisions are being either sold off or closed.

Think Obama "owning" a huge car company won't yield to his version of the people's car? You know this imaginary green vehicle?

Sorry, politics plays way too much in this as well as other sectors. End result, we the consumer pay more, get less and stops true innovation from happening.

 

I think I smell the stench of upper management..

 

Nawwww, thats just H32006. Just give him some breath mints.

 

this is getting way off topic and a little silly for this type of forum.

 

I think it safe to say that we agree to disagree,I have mopped that floor now for 30+ plus years in a non -union shop and i am the best mopper there is and I know.Where else could you bitch like this.If some of you don't like this, don't click on this thread.With hummer gone this forum will likely go to and I have enjoyed my time on here and I hold no hard feelings against anybody.I will miss the oppurtunity to have these discussions and gather info on my hummer.I have learned a lot and plan on learning a lot more if and when it has to end.

 

Anyone being objective can look at what Bush did.
- he bailed out Chrysler and GM. In this respect he was no different to Obama. He's a socialist.
- nationalized much of the banking sector that collapsed on his watch
- presided over a massive increase in the size of government

As we've seen those folk who rally against socialism (like the bankers) are the first to plead for government bailouts when they face losing their bonuses. And right on cue Mr Bush and his party delivered for them.

I don't have much time for politicians on either side, but I do find is surprising when Obama is criticised for actions from some who remained silent (or even supported) Bush doing the exact same things. The scale of the banking bailout dwarves that for the car industry.

Had GM been allowed to go bust properly I suspect Hummer would have faired no better - they are still trying to sell it today, the problem isn't unions or Bush or Obama, the problem is that Hummer makes cars that not enough people want to buy these days.

If Hummer does survive, it needs to change, and make sure the public appreciate that change. Out here where I am in the Middle East fuel is cheap, people obey the law (no one keys other people's property) and no one resents those driving big shiny cars. But much of the rest of the world is different, and Hummer need to address the concerns people have with their cars. That means improving fuel economy, and changing the perception of a Hummer. At present Hummer's are seen by many as a oversized street car for posing in, rather than an excellent practical off road vehicle for those who need to go offroad, but that is comfortable on the road. People don't perceive Landrover etc in quite the same way.

 

I do not defend Bush's actions. Lets be clear.

I disagree with your assessment. GM would have had all contracts renegotiated, that is the process of bankruptcy. A judge would have done this.

Now, TARP was a bailout, it did not dictate ownership by the government. Bush spent $350 B and the remainder was used by Obama. Bush opened the door for Obama, but Obama is setting up shop in the red chair in a big way.

Majority of banks have paid back TARP and it was to come back to us (via paying off the deficit), Obama is now using that as a slush fund.

TARP never dictated government takeover of anything, that is Obama my friend.

From a market place standpoint alone, no, Hummer would have had a true free market chance to survive. You have to be blind to believe the outcome would have been the same. The free market is not dictating the shedding of Hummer, it is the administration. Read up some:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124751573500734529.html

And there is plenty more where that comes from, let me know if you'd like for me to pass it along to help frame the problem this nation is facing.

 

Yawwwnnnnnnnnn. H32006 Its getting real old.

Obama's Fault, Evil Liberals, Unions are to blame.

We get it already, people reading this thread know where you stand.

Like someone said earlier we are going to have to agree that we diagree.

Now go grab your remote turn on Fox news, have a coke and a smile and take some massive sedatives before you blow a vein.

Enough already.

 

Sure, and Hummer would have been put up for sale - which is where we are today? So all Bush and Obama have done is delay the inevitable.

You see the queue forming to buy it? Me neither.

Lets face it, if Obama had sat on his hands and let GM collapse you'd be having a go at him. If he'd let it go bankrupt and it was bought by the Chinese you'd have criticised him, if it wound up and closed down, he'd have got criticised, and when he tries to save the company you're not happy either. Whatever he did, you wouldn't like it. The problem is that you don't like him - so you're blaming him for all the ills of the world.

Bush presided over a ballooning of the American national debt. He was a socialist. He left office with a large proportion of the US banking sector in private hands, and the car companies still in business because he bailed them out. It was a transfer from the private sector to the public sector unrivalled in history. But I don't here people ranting about Bush being a communist? People who go on about small government cheered him all the way as the USA become the USSA - I was surprised when he left office without turning the white stripes on the flag red and putting a hammer and sickle in the top corner.

For my part I think they are both clowns - if they understood about economics they'd know they should have let the banking sector collapse. But those bankers have friends in high places - Bush or Obama wasn't about to watch them lose their bonuses. So why the man in the street loses his home the bankers keep their bonuses. Frankly I've never understood why people put up with it, but they do.

Non of this has anything to do with Hummer of course. GM went bust because it wasn't selling enough products for enough money - same reason any company goes bust. And Hummer was a part of that.

I love my Hummer, I hope Hummer gets saved. I'll keep mine and I consider it a classic car. But perhaps it was just of its time - a time where gas was cheap, where we could actually win wars against a rabble armed with not much more than AK47s and a turban, and where the country wasn't bankrupt. Perhaps the Hummer is just the last hurrah of the end of an era?

 

There is no evidence whatsoever that the sale of Hummer was imminent.

No question under this administration, with their imaginary green jobs and green cars, the climate for Hummer and SUVs are not favorable. A push for cap and tax would make anything short of smart car affordable, so yes, this administration is an issue to this market.

GM would not have fallen apart, instead, GM would have had their contracts with suppliers, creditors and the parasitic unions renegotiated. Instead the company killing unions not only lost nothing in Obama's version of takeover, they now own the majority.

It is unconstitutional for the government to takeover anything from the private sector, so I would not be screaming whatsoever.

You do not seem to get it. It costs GM over $70 to make the same car that Toyota makes for $30. In 2005, one of the best years for car sales and for GM, they were still on the verge of bankruptcy because of the union obligations. GM was selling plenty of cars. Maintaining and gaining market share. But if it costs you double to make the same thing as your competitor, well you are going to run out of time.

Bankruptcy would have saved GM and allowed them to become leaner, not by losing divisions, but by losing insane contracts.

GM will not survive this one either. The entire deal is based on the single payer healthcare passing. The unions (leadership) are fighting and hoping this passes so they can unload this on the taxpayer. If not, expect to see GM back in bankruptcy in 3-5 years.