Bailout - I am NOT a GM Employee or Union Member

[Kennyboy]

I support the bailout(loans) 100%! We NEED a healthy manufacturing base in this country. Manufacturing jobs support 2.5 service based jobs and manufacturing jobs pay more then service based jobs. Nobody wants to flip hamburgers for a living!

[VGT]

I support the LOAN, not a bailout. The LOAN worked before, it can work again.

[JonCR96Z]

I'm for the loan if it means mixing things up a bit and not just for keeping GM alive.

[LeSabre]

I am for the "bailout" in reality of what would be a loan to the US domestic auto companies.

My take on anyone opposing this LOAN is in support of the deconstruction of the United States infrastructure & the US itself!!!

[kjgroen]

I support it 100%!

[jetstar63]

I am against any bailout money for any company. Our domestic automobile companies must reorganize.
I am in favor of policies that favor GM Ford Chrysler, as they are important for our national defense.

[IROCNROL1]

Originally Posted by LeSabre

My take on anyone opposing this LOAN is in support of the deconstruction of the United States infrastructure & the US itself!!!

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I disagree with yours. Bankruptcy wouldn't kill GM, only force much needed changes far more rapidly than doling out survival funds to inept companies and unions. The bailout, or loan, or whatever anyone chooses to call it, is merely putting a bandaid on a fatal wound. Sure, the patient may live a little longer, but the end results will be the same.

I also don't seem to see any concern on the board over government being put into position to make all major decisions relating to production of new vehicles. While current management has made countless poor decisions, does anyone truthfully believe government can do a better job? If so, please explain how.

This thread is pointless anyway. The money will be given as soon as Congress feels they've done enough posturing and grandstanding to impress their constituents. It's inevitable. Anyone care to wager on that one?

I also find it curious that these learned politicians are so quick to suggest eliminating private jets and cutting executive pay to show solidarity with the workers. With Congressional approval near all time lows and the economy sinking at an uncontrollable rate, you would think they would impose draconian measures on themselves in order to appear consistent. Now that's a bet I wouldn't take.

[96_impala_ss]

Originally Posted by Ming

A bold new plan and direction for GM, laid out for all to see, fundamental changes in the business model, and a change in management.

No more letting Rick & Co. skate by with the same "wait a year for the turnaround" promises, pretending to make big changes with what amounts to simple focus changes - for example from big BOF SUVs to huge, equally profitable but only moderately less guzzling crossovers (Lambdas).

People are free to disagree with this, of course, but I think Mr. Wagoner and Mr. Lutz need to step down for an infusion of young blood and new ideas.

I can agree. I dont know about Lutz leaving but Wagoner needs to go.

Originally Posted by Bravada

I do believe this might be the only occasion to completely oust GM's (as well as the other two's) incompetent management and the boards that appointed them, so this might be beneficial in the long run. I do believe GM is inherently inefficient, so it is not that they would've been fine if not for the credit crunch. In economic terms, GM should fail - but if it is to be spared, it needs to be made inherently efficient, not just lent a lease of life for another few years (or even months).

It would be the first time for me to admit it, but it looks like Ford is structurally much stronger now, so it is possible for GM to be too.

Yes it is. Aviation CEO anyone?
How bout Roberto Kriete of Taca Airlines? Taca seems to be doing real good.

Speculation anyone? Any other aviation CEO may do good too.
I only say that because of Mulally (SP)

Originally Posted by Buick Riviera

Gm's two problems are GMAC and not able too retool fast enought.

Its more than just that. Public perception, UAW (which will get eased in 2010) some dealers, brand mismanagement, undesirable product, etc.

[Joe in T.O.]

I think the government should loan them the money but it should be percentage of market share. GM has been leading the quality and has closed any perceived gap with each and every new vehicle they have brought out for several years. Ford follows in GM footsteps (ie. if GM restructures, then Ford restructures) but Ford products are hideous ie Ford Flex. I honestly don't know how someone can choose a Flex over an Acadia or Outlook.

[ejfx]

I love GM...and I voted NO

GM needs to go through bankruptcy in order to relieve itself of all the burdens and everything holding them back...and the sooner the better...They will never be profitable unless the do...Yes it will take GM years to recover, maybe even a decade... but when they emerge they will actually make money, especialy on small cars...and then they can start putting thier profits towards great cars again...they wont have to squeeze thier suppliers for the cheapest parts (Cheapest means unreliable)...it will create a positive domino effect...

Im willing to wait!

[96_impala_ss]

Originally Posted by Joe in T.O.

Ford products are hideous ie Ford Flex. I honestly don't know how someone can choose a Flex over an Acadia or Outlook.

That panoramic roof is a deal maker.

Fords arent as hideous as the.......


Japanese cars

[silvergoat2k6]

I'm against bailouts period, so I vote "NO". GM should have already filed Chapter 11 by now.

[JimsZR2]

I'm a chevy fan and I voted No. They need to just file bankruptcy and restructure. Northwest Airlines did the exact same thing a few years ago without help from the Government and look at them today. They are still flying.

[MaxLegroom]

I support the loan, and remember, that's what it is. With our banks, it is a bailout. However, there is some serious restructuring that has to be done, layers of middle management that needs to be gone through. America cannot afford a GM that continues to muddle its way along, when its opposition has definite plans.

[Michael_S]

You know, just three days ago I sent letters to my representatives and Senators to support a loan. But now I'm not sure. Consider what has to happen to save the domestic automakers:

1. The United Auto Workers job bank has to go away completely.
2. The Big Three have to cut production and production capacity dramatically, because it looks like the domestic auto industry will not return to 16 million vehicles sold per year for a very long time.
3. Ford is in a better situation than GM and Chrysler. Should they get more of the bailout because they were smarter? Less because they need less to survive? The same?
4. It will take a ludicrous amount of investment to switch domestic GM from a company focused mostly on big vehicles to one focused mostly on small ones. The Malibu and CTS have won plenty of awards - but their total sales volume, between the two of them, is a tiny fraction of GM's large vehicle sales even now. They need to go from a company with lots of award winning large vehicles and a much lower volume of small vehicles to the opposite. That's a huge turnaround. And they still haven't figured out how to make smaller vehicles profitable.
5. It will take even more investment to do the same for Chrysler, which has an even bigger image problem and an even weaker lineup.
6. The giveaways and loans to Wall Street have been uncategorical screwups! I do not doubt that President Bush, Congress, Secretary Paulson, and Chairman Bernanke had the best of intentions with their taxpayer dollars. But as far as I can tell, most of the money has paid for corporate acquisitions, AIG vacations, and basically zero for everyone else.

I'm a liberal, and I'm even a pro-union liberal, and I don't trust the current Republicans or Democrats to manage this situation in an intelligent fashion.

Originally Posted by D C

It's not a bailout, it's a LOAN

A loan IS a bailout!

The government would be giving GM a loan at interest rates dramatically lower than the rates they could get from the free market. That means the government is giving them something the market will not. That makes it a bailout, even if GM repays the debt in full.

Chrysler paid off its 1979 loan from the government, but the US government gave them that loan at a very good rate when no one else would. That was a bailout too.