GM apparently has it's own problems...

[termigator]

My calendar must be all kinds of messed up.
I thought the presidential election was held in November of 2008 and Obama was sworn in January of 2009.

I think the approval of the $25 billion automaker bailout was approved in September of 2008.

Before that there was:

03/08 - $30 billion - Bear Stearns/JP Morgan Chase
09/08 - $100 billion* - Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008
09/08 - $180 billion - AIG
10/08 - $700 billion - TARP

* I think that under Geitner/Obama an additional $100 billion was added to that total

Interestingly (or not) the previous 2 bailouts to '08.

2001 - $19 billion - Air Transportation Safety and Stabilization Act (Bush)

1989 - $53 billion - Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act (Savings & Loan) (Bush)

Your rebuttal is a lot more detailed than what I would have said.

I have nothing against our govt. giving foreign automakers incentives to build plants here. At least they're building factories here. Detroit has a history of building factories in Canada and Mexico. How does that help U.S. citizens?

I totally agree that the UAW demands too much from the Detroit companies. So what is your point? Are you saying the the foreign auto companies should be forced to be shackled with unreasonable entitlements demanded by the UAW? How many industries do you know where employees get paid 95% of their wages even after getting laid off?!

If I recall correctly, the govt. wanted GM and Chrysler to file for bankruptcy, but their respective CEO's convinced them that if they filed for bankruptcy, people would lose confidence in them and not buy their cars. In the end, they took the govt.'s money and still filed for bankruptcy.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want GM to fail (Although I do feel Chrysler should be allowed to fail if for no other reason than the fact that all their cars suck!). They have some good products out and hopefully more on the way.

My biggest concern with the Big Three is that they never seem to learn their lesson other than knowing that the govt. will inevitably, if reluctantly, step in to help them whenever they're in trouble (I still remember the early 80's), prompting another round of debates on how the foreign auto companies don't play fair and how anybody who doesn't buy American are unpatriotic.:USA

 

[Bunky]

Most times someone brings up patriotism it is usually to shame you in to whatever their point is. It can be selling cars, a war, or any other political initiative. When someone wraps themselves around the flag (the one if you burn is unpatriotic), you can usually see it coming.

 

[black bart]

Most times someone brings up patriotism it is usually to shame you in to whatever their point is. It can be selling cars, a war, or any other political initiative. When someone wraps themselves around the flag (the one if you burn is unpatriotic), you can usually see it coming.

For most on this forum WW-II is something that you have read about but for me I lived it, also lost my brother.

During that time you could not buy a car because Ford/GM/Chrysler were building military vehicles for the war effort.
The German and Japanese were building vehicles for their military.

If the big 3 fold and we ever have a major conflict I sure hope we don't have to depend on some other country to build for our military.

You who never lived it have a whole different view but that is understandable it is just history you didn't live it.

 

[termigator]

For most on this forum WW-II is something that you have read about but for me I lived it, also lost my brother.

During that time you could not buy a car because Ford/GM/Chrysler were building military vehicles for the war effort.
The German and Japanese were building vehicles for their military.

If the big 3 fold and we ever have a major conflict I sure hope we don't have to depend on some other country to build for our military.

You who never lived it have a whole different view but that is understandable it is just history you didn't live it.

I'm pretty sure if we get into a major conflict the U.S. will have more than enough resources to build our military without the Big Three. As of now, we have the largest military force in the world and it was built with very little input from the Big Three.

I understand that the Big Three were instrumental in winning WW II, but that was over sixty years ago. We should all be grateful for what they did, but at the same time, it does not give them the excuse to run their businesses to the ground and then expect a handout to keep them going because of what they did in the past.

 

[Bunky]

I'm pretty sure if we get into a major conflict the U.S. will have more than enough resources to build our military without the Big Three. As of now, we have the largest military force in the world and it was built with very little input from the Big Three.

I understand that the Big Three were instrumental in winning WW II, but that was over sixty years ago. We should all be grateful for what they did, but at the same time, it does not give them the excuse to run their businesses to the ground and then expect a handout to keep them going because of what they did in the past.

If we need the big 3 to win a war it will be a very long war. I think our biggest risk is not getting access to the Far East semi-conductor supplies that make all the parts in our high tech devices.