Quantcast

General Motors' sour deal

Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2012/09/23 01:52:58
Yes. GM got a sour deal.
No! GM got a good deal!
Undecided
You!
Add Photos & Videos
General Motors made a Faustian bargain. Result: the government has a stake and won't let go. So does the UAW.

And that's when GM started doing things like this!

general motors faustian bargain result government stake uaw gm

The Chevy Volt!

Are GM's salesmen proud when they try to peddle this car? When they know that it can't even get all the way through the Lincoln Tunnel without falling back on its gasoline "kicker"?

They most certainly are not! The Chevy Volt is the biggest loss leader in the industry since the Edsel. These days, they can barely give them away. (Sorry, but not a single police department is interested.)

This is what GM has come to mean.

Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/09/22...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2012/09/23 01:55:31
    Yes. GM got a sour deal.
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    +16
    General Motors should truly call itself Faust, Incorporated. They should have gone into bankruptcy court. A court-appointed receiver would have done better by that company than the infamous Car Czar.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • mk, Smartass Oracle 2012/09/24 18:18:38
  • T. Bejma 2012/09/24 17:00:27
    Undecided
    T. Bejma
    All I know is that I got a good deal because I was hired into a salary position at GM in 2010, was able to save my house from foreclosure and now am living a comfortable life.
  • Nomie 2012/09/24 16:07:27
    Undecided
    Nomie
    +1
    I've always been a GM person, except added Toyota. I have a Vibe, my second, which is a GM product from the now gone Pontiac, thanks to Bamma, made by Toyota. I also had a Toyota Rav 4. That said....we can't so much blame GM as Bamma. Regarding the Faustian, this is the first I have heard of it and its problems. I haven't enough information to make a decision.
  • Dwight PWCM 2012/09/24 13:04:35
    Yes. GM got a sour deal.
    Dwight PWCM
    +1
    GM came out good compared to tax payers, who are still on the hook to finance their loans and Union bailout.

    IMO, GM thought they would get the same kinds of loans car makers had in the past, of which I can only remember Chrysler under Lee Iacoca ever re-paying.
  • Snowball 2012/09/24 03:41:49 (edited)
    No! GM got a good deal!
    Snowball
    +1
    We saved them from themselves, just to watch them lend our money to buy their cars at 0% interest for 72 mos., they have Obama funding the Volt- which costs to make double what they are selling it for, and he's giving "the rich" (his words, not mine) who can afford that expensive piece of crap 10k off in tax write offs for buying it. He also is pushing on government to buy in their fleets. The electricity it runs on is from fossil fuel power plants- creating a zero to near zero gain. His Hollywood supporters won't buy them (or his other green energy products) (where's Jay-Z's?! Oh, that's right, it's not about actually BELIEVING in Obama's ideas). Oh, and I love the $7,000 bonus GM employees recently got- before paying us back their loan. Hey, I got an idea, how about GM pays us back at the price we bought their stock at, we'll be lucky if we get that. You know who got the raw deal- Wells Fargo- the only bank who didn't want a bailout but was FORCED to take it by Obama...and not allowed to give it back..until Obama says so.
  • V~POTL~PWCM~JLA 2012/09/24 01:52:25 (edited)
    No! GM got a good deal!
    V~POTL~PWCM~JLA
    +3
    GM got a great deal. The taxpayers and bondholders got screwed, but GM management and the UAW received at least a few more years to continue their downward spiral.

    A large part of why GM can't get rid of the Volt is politics, but it's also the EV-1. GM had a working electric car (with happy customers) back in the 90's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    There are many theories about why GM dropped the EV-1 and went to such extreme measures to eradicate the car from the face of the earth. After all, the EV-1 had about the same performance as a Nissan Leaf, but 13 years sooner. Was it a money loser? Maybe, but not as bad as the Volt. I find it incredible that GM's SECOND electric car loses more money than the first. Have they learned NOTHING from the EV-1? Sure seems that way.

    If the taxpayers were happy about paying for the first bailout, they should be deliriously happy about paying for the second. GM's biggest problem is their Opel subsidiary in Europe. Sure, the Volt is a boondoggle on government life support. But Opel is going to bleed the company dry. Some future President will either write off Obama's "investment" as a total loss, or throw good money after bad to subsidize European losses. This is why the government should have let GM die. It would have been cheap...
    GM got a great deal. The taxpayers and bondholders got screwed, but GM management and the UAW received at least a few more years to continue their downward spiral.

    A large part of why GM can't get rid of the Volt is politics, but it's also the EV-1. GM had a working electric car (with happy customers) back in the 90's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    There are many theories about why GM dropped the EV-1 and went to such extreme measures to eradicate the car from the face of the earth. After all, the EV-1 had about the same performance as a Nissan Leaf, but 13 years sooner. Was it a money loser? Maybe, but not as bad as the Volt. I find it incredible that GM's SECOND electric car loses more money than the first. Have they learned NOTHING from the EV-1? Sure seems that way.

    If the taxpayers were happy about paying for the first bailout, they should be deliriously happy about paying for the second. GM's biggest problem is their Opel subsidiary in Europe. Sure, the Volt is a boondoggle on government life support. But Opel is going to bleed the company dry. Some future President will either write off Obama's "investment" as a total loss, or throw good money after bad to subsidize European losses. This is why the government should have let GM die. It would have been cheaper to acknowledge the inevitable and use a much smaller amount of money to retrain the workers and expedite the liquidation of GM assets.
    (more)
  • Beccy 2012/09/23 23:15:15
    No! GM got a good deal!
    Beccy
    +3
    I live in a city distroyed by GM. They brought the poor up from the south to keep the wages down and then left us with the nightmare. After they got bailed out I promised myself I would never buy anything but a Ford.
  • Matt 2012/09/23 23:07:56
    Undecided
    Matt
    +2
    The American taxpayer got the worst deal. GM intentionally sabotaged its domestic operations in order to escape legacy costs and dump its pension responsibilities upon the PBGC. (government) With the aid of our government, their workers, shareholders, and the IRS were all defrauded. My last Chevy was destroyed by a tornado and I do not believe that I will ever buy another.
  • jeane 2012/09/23 22:48:19
    Yes. GM got a sour deal.
    jeane
    +1
    We the taxpayers got a sour deal too!
  • TheTailor 2012/09/23 21:58:39
    Undecided
    TheTailor
    +1
    GM did go through Chapter 11.

    GM got a loan, and it's paid a lot of it back with interest. It will pay the remainder back too, with interest.

    The Volt was never meant to be a police car. It was put on the market early by the car czar, and it's not selling because the cost is too high. It's concept is good and it was around before the loan to the company.
  • Snowball TheTailor 2012/09/24 02:29:00 (edited)
    Snowball
    Agreed. Electric cars cannot support the functions of a Police car with the lights, acceleration, etc.
  • TheTailor Snowball 2012/09/24 02:36:26
    TheTailor
    +1
    Actually electric induction motors are very fast, but for a number of reasons Volt isn't designed for that use. Volt is for the 80% of people that drive less than 40 miles a day.

    Lights? It's an electric power plant.
  • Snowball TheTailor 2012/09/25 03:07:02
    Snowball
    No , it's a battery, it doesn't recharge itself. Not a power plant.
  • TheTailor Snowball 2012/09/25 23:56:31
    TheTailor
    You have no idea how the Volt works, it can be charged by plugging it in, but if that charge wears down a small internal combustion engine kicks in and recharges the battery. It is a power plant and wouldn't have any problem running lights.
  • Snowball TheTailor 2012/09/26 00:13:44 (edited)
    Snowball
    http://gm-volt.com/forum/arch... I think you had better check yourself before you make yourself look stupid. It's NOT a hybrid. It creates electricity (using the gas engine) TO RUN , NOT TO RECHARGE. More info @ Snopes: "recharging would be performed before the beginning and/or after the end of a trip. On an extended road trip, the Volt's driver certainly wouldn't be stopping every 270 miles to spend 10 hours recharging the battery, as implied here — instead, under such circumstances the driver would simply refill the Volt's gas tank as needed and skip recharging the battery until the conclusion of the journey."
    Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politic.... Stick to stitching.
  • TheTailor Snowball 2012/09/26 00:37:16
    TheTailor
    +1
    Well no, it's not misinformation, it's you not understanding the information.

    "When the battery is depleted, a 1-liter, three-cylinder turbocharged engine spins at a constant speed, or revolutions per minute (rpm), to create electricity **and replenish the battery**."
  • Snowball TheTailor 2012/09/26 00:40:00
    Snowball
    Nope. Edited my answer above to give you info. Look again above.
  • TheTailor Snowball 2012/09/26 01:56:50
    TheTailor
    +1
    What part of **and replenish the battery** did you not understand? It's from your link.

    I don't own a Volt, but I would think as a technician that the on board generator would charge the battery, AS IT SAYS. This is also a foolish red herring as I was refuting your claim that LIGHTS would have an effect, they don't, the on board engine is a POWER PLANT.
  • Snowball Snowball 2012/09/26 02:50:45 (edited)
    Snowball
    Folks reading this- the Tailor blocked me!!!! And no, it DOES NOT RECHARGE THE BATTERY! I guess he wanted to hit me in the back and run. Real men don't do that. He said "You have no idea how the Volt works, it can be charged by plugging it in, but if that charge wears down a small internal combustion engine kicks in and RECHARGES THE BATTERY". I hate people who can't admit when they are wrong.
  • texasred 2012/09/23 18:31:28
    Undecided
    texasred
    +1
    Actually, both GM and the American people got a sour deal.
  • S and S 2012/09/23 14:52:06
  • texasred S and S 2012/09/23 18:32:25
    texasred
    Go away. Dr. Paul is old news.... no pun intended.
  • S and S texasred 2012/09/23 22:23:20
  • texasred S and S 2012/09/23 23:26:34
    texasred
    Thomas Jefferson, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson can't help us right now. Don't you realize that?
  • S and S texasred 2012/09/23 23:28:06
  • texasred S and S 2012/09/23 23:36:21
    texasred
    +1
    You mean Ron Paul's Texas?
  • S and S texasred 2012/09/24 01:51:54
  • jubil8 ... S and S 2012/09/24 04:22:18
    jubil8 BN-0 PON
    Zing! Well done, S and S. Lmao
  • Purple Pinto ~PWCM~JLA 2012/09/23 14:20:26 (edited)
    No! GM got a good deal!
    Purple Pinto ~PWCM~JLA
    +4
    Edit. I suppose I should have checked Undecided. After really sorting out my thoughts here in the post, GM didn't get a good deal at all. Looked good initially, but there is no reasonable way for them to get out from under Uncle Sam without the entire economy recovering. They are not responsible for that, nor are they in control of such.

    The UAW got a good deal, and the original stock holders as well as we tax payers got screwed.

    Tell me, who was the financial wizard that decided that the Treasury needed to buy GM stock and share the risk of the company's failure (or success) to a much greater degree rather than simply making a loan?

    Chrysler, Reagan and Iacocca worked it out in the '80s as a loan. The CEO of Chrysler retained control of his company and the government got paid back.

    In this scenario, GM can't simply pay back a loan and move forward. The company's success overall is a necessity, as is the health of the stock market, over which GM has no control. If GM is doing swimmingly well, but the stock is undervalued due to other external issues that have nothing to do with the company, (currency, interest rates, the remainder of the auto industry health, etc.), they still can't get out from under this debt. It's a ridiculous scenario.

    With all that said, the ...



    Edit. I suppose I should have checked Undecided. After really sorting out my thoughts here in the post, GM didn't get a good deal at all. Looked good initially, but there is no reasonable way for them to get out from under Uncle Sam without the entire economy recovering. They are not responsible for that, nor are they in control of such.

    The UAW got a good deal, and the original stock holders as well as we tax payers got screwed.

    Tell me, who was the financial wizard that decided that the Treasury needed to buy GM stock and share the risk of the company's failure (or success) to a much greater degree rather than simply making a loan?

    Chrysler, Reagan and Iacocca worked it out in the '80s as a loan. The CEO of Chrysler retained control of his company and the government got paid back.

    In this scenario, GM can't simply pay back a loan and move forward. The company's success overall is a necessity, as is the health of the stock market, over which GM has no control. If GM is doing swimmingly well, but the stock is undervalued due to other external issues that have nothing to do with the company, (currency, interest rates, the remainder of the auto industry health, etc.), they still can't get out from under this debt. It's a ridiculous scenario.

    With all that said, the Volt and the forced 'green option' that wasn't ready for the market, nor was the market ready for it was an exercise in idiocy. Thanks to a 30 something Car Czar that didn't have a lick of experience in what he was assigned to do.

    This is failed leadership at it's finest.

    Yet another golden nugget for the Romney campaign. Hello!! Romney folks?! You listening to this??
    (more)
  • Seonag 2012/09/23 14:04:19
    Yes. GM got a sour deal.
    Seonag
    +1
    I personally think they'd be in better shape today had they been allowed to file for re-organization. The Feds should NOT have stepped in.
  • TheTailor Seonag 2012/09/23 22:00:22
    TheTailor
    They went through Chapter 11.
  • Seonag TheTailor 2012/09/24 12:43:22
    Seonag
    +1
    With the Government handling the 're-organization' and putting taxpayer's money on the line!
  • TheTailor Seonag 2012/09/24 19:46:50
    TheTailor
    Chapter 11 is a court issue, it has nothing to do with taxpayer money, and everything to do with company assets and contracts. Taxpayer money is being repaid with interest, at a profit.
  • Seonag TheTailor 2012/09/25 12:21:08
    Seonag
    AND it was the Government who decided what/who was going to be the 'winners' and 'losers' with those assets and contracts and the Liberal judge went along with it. As for repaying, why did the Gov't turn down a major repayment by GM?
  • TheTailor Seonag 2012/09/25 23:59:25
    TheTailor
    The government had no input to the bankruptcy court. The government didn't turn down any repayment of loans. They did however opt to hold stock until the price is high enough so that there isn't a loss.
  • Dan 2012/09/23 14:02:53
    Yes. GM got a sour deal.
    Dan
    +2
    GM wants out of government control. Most likely because the government is a bad business partner that makes bad business decisions (like handing over control to the UAW and demanding over budget inferior products like the volt). Of course our government does not want to take it's socialist foot out of GM's door.
  • jubil8 ... Dan 2012/09/23 15:43:01
    jubil8 BN-0 PON
    So you're suggesting that Treas. should let GM buy back stock and take the loss -- with OUR money? No thanks!
  • TheTailor jubil8 ... 2012/09/23 22:02:01 (edited)
    TheTailor
    GM has the right to buy all it's stock back as it pays off it's government loans.
  • jubil8 ... TheTailor 2012/09/23 22:53:11
    jubil8 BN-0 PON
    GM has the right to TRY. It has no legal right to regain its shares at a profit to itself and a loss to the taxpayers.
  • TheTailor jubil8 ... 2012/09/23 23:42:43
    TheTailor
    +1
    It's part of the deal, they are allowed to buy back their stock by repaying their loans with interest. The government actually makes money on the deal.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/08/21 02:21:38

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals