Now that the federal Government has taken over General Motors, will the company make a quarterly profit by December 31, 2012?
If so, when?
Tell us why you think this way and give as many facts as you can to support your stance please.
I will post my response sometime Thursday.
Have at it!!
12 comments:
You just can't help yourself can you? You just won't stop calling names.
I remove posts which may be good, but at the last moment, you can't help but offend and call names. THATS why you are REMOVED!!
You just will not see yourself for what you are. You are inflammatory.
Liberals of the world...IGNITE!!!
It's over Diogenes. Your post on this thread was not insulting, true, but each comment you made on other threads was.
You're finished commenting on my blog.
You know, I can actually see why Diogenes is insulting. When you're confronted with reality, you ignore it. When faced with facts, like, say, the reality of what Judge Sotomayor said (as opposed to the cherry-picked statements that Fox "News" wants to emphasize) your response is "I don't care! She's a racist!"
Strangely, that point (which you've already lost, but refuse to admit) isn't the one you want to "debate." You want to argue whether some crappy car company can post a profit.
Well, let's see. The company, since it was hand-in-hand with the oil companies, couldn't stop itself from making POS cars. None of the American car companies concentrated on making fuel-efficient cars (in fact, an argument could be made that they did quite the opposite).
So, will General Motors make a profit by 2012? Hell, I don't know. I'll say this, though. If they keep the same people in charge, if they keep to the same outmoded "standards," and if nothing changes about the way they've been operating, they'll not just lose money, but they'll suck a buttload of tax dollars down with them.
This is why Obama (you know, the guy you think has no economic understanding?) was smart by letting them declare bankruptcy. The courts can demand major changes, and they'll be required to do them. (You know, without the ignorant "the Gov't is forcing out the CEO!" outcry, despite the fact that the CEO in question was busy repositioning deck chairs as the company posted massive losses.)
So, will they lose money? Maybe.
I'm sorry. Is that answer too nuanced for you? Well, maybe you need to stop looking at the world through such black-and-white lenses. There's a bunch of shades of grey that you might find useful.
Man... You ask a liberal to do some forward thinking, to make some sort of educated guess, and the answer is, shockingly, “Maybe”.
Will GM post a profit by Dec. 2012?
No, because it will be told by Obama what to build. The Wall Street Journal reported in late March on the takeover of America’s domestic auto industry. In the report, a conference call was referenced with Larry Summers, Obama’s economic advisor and a number of lawmakers from different parties. Bob Corker (R. TN.) he was, “alarmed that the administration would dictate what kind of vehicles would be constructed.” Because the Obama auto task force was made up of the EPA director and the director of The White House Office of Energy and Climate Change.
The sale of “Hybrid” or “Green” vehicles in the U.S. has tanked. The dirty little secret is they were never popular at all. March sales are 44% less than last year, and now comprise 2% of all auto sales here in the states.
Autodata has the U.S. sales sheets from every car company broken down by vehicle type. Compared to sales last year, it’s a sea of red ink, with a few exceptions. They are Mercedes-Benz import trucks, Subaru import trucks, Audi light trucks, Volkswagen light trucks and Kia light trucks…You get the trend here?
Trucks and SUV’s are the only ones selling better than last year. Toyota says though it is now at full production, it looses money on every Prius sold. Yet the Obama Administration is pushing production of hybrids and shoving them into showrooms empty of interested consumers.
“I am absolutely committed to working with Congress and the auto companies to meet one goal: The United States of America will lead the world in building the next generation of clean cars.” This is about central planning. Control. This President is intent on taking America down the road to serfdom. The only vehicles outselling last year’s are trucks and SUV’s. Their sales make up 51% of all vehicles sold here.
So no, GM will not make a profit.
And they will not make a dime until they let GM do what they did best. Build cars and trucks America wants. Now I know they have not done that for 10 yrs, but the reorganization would make them a much leaner competitor if it were not for The White House telling them what to make.
Man... You ask a conservative to do respond calmly, to make some sort of educated debate, and the answer is, shockingly, as snide as he can be, and then he'll complain that you're being insulting if you respond in kind.
(You're going to whine that I'm "getting off the point here," but stick with me. It connects pretty well.)
One of the best examples of why Obam can't win with you guys is right here in front of you. Bush gives hundreds of trillions of dollars to the banks gratis, and you unhinged right-wingers complain (a little) about the lack of oversight (which is the only part of the argument you get right), but you blame it on Obama.
Dealing with the car companies, the President tries to crowbar some oversight into the picture, and you start screaming "He's a communist! HE'S NATIONALIZING BUSINESSES!" (in complete opposition to all facts, by the way).
I'll say this for you, you did manage to get one thing right. "And they will not make a dime until they let GM do what they did best. Build cars and trucks America wants. Now I know they have not done that for 10 yrs"
And there's the problem. Detroit et al have been concentrating on big honking gas guzzlers and SUV's that nobody wants. But can they be bothered to make a reliable small, fuel-efficient car, even as sales of those cars are the only ones going up?!?
And there, by the way, is the exception to your "sea of red ink." People still buy cars, but they buy small, fuel-efficient cars. And (as you point out, in your snide, vaguely insulting way) light trucks.
Do you get the picture here?
See, here's where your attitude gets people frustrated and angry. You cry like a child about people being insulting, but you're more than happy to run down their intelligence.
You can't have it both ways. Think about it.
It was not my intent to be snide or rude. Sometimes the written word can come off that way. I can see by my opening comment how you could perceive I was being rude.
I admit my fault and apologize for seeming so crass. I ask for forgiveness. If you disregard my first paragraph, you’ll see I was very on point and very factual. I did the research and quoted Obama correctly.
I do not feel you got off topic in any way sir. You seemed factual yourself if you disregard what in parentheses (hope I spelled that right…)
But here is where I differ. You said, “And there's the problem. Detroit et al have been concentrating on big honking gas guzzlers and SUV's that nobody wants.”
Those are the only vehicles selling. Autodata has the U.S. sales sheets from every car company broken down by vehicle type. Those SUV’s and trucks are what people want. They are the only vehicles showing signs of life. I mean, check for yourself, it’s the only thing moving right now.
Look around as you drive. What’s making up the majority of newer vehicles on the road?
When the President said, ““I am absolutely committed to working with Congress and the auto companies to meet one goal: The United States of America will lead the world in building the next generation of clean cars.” Not great cars, not safe cars, not powerful cars, not cars Americans want and desire and love to drive, not cars representing the American freedom of the open road, he said, “clean”.
This is imposing HIS view of what America should drive. That’s not freedom. There is no liberty in his imposing these cars (which no company has found a way to make money on, not even Toyota) on the American people.
I’m just asking here, do you think its ok for government to tell a privet car company what it can make and can’t make? I mean no disrespect in that, it’s simply a question.
See, I don’t, and if you do, then you have a nationalized government owned and operated company. Not a privet company.
Again, I am sorry for seeming so snide in my last post. Let me extend the apology and ask you to accept it as we move forward toward an understanding of each others viewpoints.
Ok, so I guess it's Frick and Frack on Car Talk.
Don't overdo the apologies, by the way. I'm a big fan of pointing out irony and things, because I enjoy making fun of people. Which, incidentally (if you'd actually been reading my blog for more than just cherry-picked quotes, you would already know this) includes making fun of myself.
Oh, wait. I don't do that, because I'm a liberal!
(Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot that the Sotomayor debate proved what a big fan of cherry-picked quotes you are...)
In fact, let's just agree to make fun of each other and drop this "banned from the blog" thing. I mean, you've already kicked off Diogenes, which appears to have been your primary purpose. So let's move on, shall we? We're both adults, right?... I like to think I am, anyway...
So anyway, yes, SUV's and trucks are the only things that American auto makers are selling. Of course, that doesn't mean that American auto makers are really selling anything.
"Battered by tight credit and the worst recession in decades, industrywide U.S. auto sales plunged 36% from year-ago levels in December, a decline that hit all of the major automakers, both foreign and domestic, and capped the industry's worst year since 1992... Record high gas prices earlier in the year hurt industrywide sales of pickups and SUVs. Combined, the industrywide sales of those longtime staples were down 40% from year-ago levels in December and were off 30% for the year. Light truck sales, which includes those offerings as well as vans and more fuel-efficient crossover models, trailed the sale of cars for the full year for the first time since 2000."
But to answer your question, "do you think its ok for government to tell a privet car company what it can make and can’t make?"
Well, let's start with the fact that the word you're looking for is "private" - "privet" is a type of hedge... I'm sorry. I just can't help myself...
See, that's the thing, though. You're looking at the government's role as "that damned privatized, socialist thing that Obama is doing."
No, as American citizens, we're now the leading stockholder in the company. And does the leading stockholder have a certain amount of power in deciding how to get the company out of a money-losing rut?
(The answer, by the way, is "yes, we do." But you should add to that "...but we listen to the experts - specifically the experts outside of this cash-hemorrhaging company.")
By the way, I'll assume that you missed Obama saying "I don't want to run auto companies. I don't want to run banks. I've got two wars I've got to run already. I've got more than enough to do. So the sooner we can get out of that business, the better off we're going to be," he said. "I want to disabuse people of this notion that somehow we enjoy, you know, meddling in the private sector."
Oh, yeah, and by the way, "Like any investor, the American taxpayer has the right to scrutinize what's being proposed," he said at news conference marking his 100th day in office. "I don't know how to create [an] affordable, well-designed, plug-in hybrid, but I know that if the Japanese can...then doggone it, the American people should be able to do the same."
You don't believe that American ingenuity can beat the Japanese? Why do you hate America?
You don't believe that American ingenuity can beat the Japanese? Why do you hate America?
I love America. American ingenuity born of liberty and freedom is the stuff I live for. Can American car companies compete? Oh yes, I know they can, but I also know what the agenda is at the big three. I used to work for a company that made suspension parts and some body parts for 7 different auto manufacturers. So I’ve seen from the inside out the differences in focus they have.
Toyota, Honda, and the company’s overseas focus on the parts we made being stronger and more durable then they needed to be. They wanted to use tough materials in the manufacturing process so products would last longer, not just in cars but trucks as well.
When you looked at Ford, GM and Chrysler, their focus was “How can we reduce the weight of the part so as to improve gas mileage?" The focus was on making light weight parts, not on parts tough enough to last. And so it plays out that cars with higher resale value tend to be foreign cars. The reason for this seems to revolve around our governments mandates for mileage. This puts our companies at a huge competitive disadvantage.
Can they be profitable? Yes, but the way the wind is blowing in Washington right now, no. If we get government out of the way, I believe we can be profitable like they were before all these regulations came about, like they were in the 50’s and 60’s. But I do not see it happening today. The more regulations we have, the harder it is make money. And in my opinion the only thing the US government does well right now is fight war. Nothing else works. It’s a bloated bureaucratic mess filled with fraud and waste.
Having done two tours in the Middle East, the argument can be made that the government pretty much sucks at war-fighting, too. Nothing gets done until they tell the military what to do, and get the hell out of the way. When they keep sticking their noses in, that's when everything goes wrong.
Well...Ok... You'd have a better picture than I would of that for sure.
So... I will leave it up to you.
What shall we debate next. Choose a topic and I will post it!! Or post on your blog. Thats fine too.
So what are your thoughts on killing abortion providers?
Post a Comment