1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Are more bailouts needed for GM?

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by asur, Mar 9, 2009.

  1. asur

    asur New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,100
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The big automaker is now on track to lose money for the rest of 2009 and beyond. The democrats are worried that more Union jobs will be lost.
    Unions are the dirt that helps fuel the democratic party. It's like crack to a crack addict, they can't live without it.

    It's not just acorn and terrorist organizations that keep the democratic party running. Auto unions also provide financial support to the
    democratic party.

    Now does America need to keep bailing out unprofitable companies
    so that the democratic party can succeed? These companies are not
    competitive anymore, due to union workers.

    Obama says yes, asur says no.
    Asur is much smarter.

    Check the numbers below:
    [​IMG]
     
  2. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    If you wish to think Acorn and Terrorist groups run the DNC...don't expect me to really read what you say or even try to debate such worthless pointless idiotic ideas.
     
  3. asur

    asur New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,100
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    pockets - read the post again.
    I said terrorists and acorn provide funds to the DNC.
    I see how you could get confused though, since there isn't much
    difference.
     
  4. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    your point is equally retarded...try again and maybe someone will listen to your drivel
     
  5. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene

    You are not alone Asur,

    Here is a poll from Rasmussen today



    Just 32% Have Favorable Opinion of General Motors

    Sunday, March 08, 2009 Email to a FriendAdvertisement

    Just 32% of American adults now have a favorable opinion of General Motors. That’s down 10 points from 42% a month ago and down 37 points from 69% two years ago.

    The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 60% have an unfavorable opinion of the struggling auto giant, including 23% with a Very Unfavorable view. A month ago, just 49% held a negative opinion of General Motors.

    Chrysler, the other auto company currently being kept afloat by federal loans, is viewed favorably by 33% and unfavorably by 59%. A month ago, those numbers were 36% and 54% respectively.

    While opinions about GM have slipped a lot in the past month and those about Chrysler have slipped a little, Ford has seen little change in terms of public perception. Fifty-one percent (51%) now have a favorable opinion of Ford, up from 49% a month ago.

    64% Oppose Any More Loans for GM and Chrysler
    Wednesday, February 18, 2009
    General Motors and Chrysler are back this week seeking $22 billion more in federal help, but 64% of U.S. voters are opposed to providing any additional taxpayer-backed loans for the embattled automakers.

    Twenty-four percent (24%) support more loans for GM and Chrysler, and 11% are undecided in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

    Forty-four percent (44%) say it is better for the U.S. economy to let companies like General Motors fail than for the federal government to provide subsidies that will keep them in business. Thirty-three percent (33%) say subsidies are the better way to go, and 23% are not sure.


    The best news of all was Rasmussens poll on who is to blame for this whole mess....I apparently think the same as most people.

    Government Bailouts...
    Good for America?

    Here are the results!

    The Total Number of people who voted in this poll: 78413

    1) Who is most to blame for America’s current economic crisis?
    75% voted: Democrats and US Congress
    11% voted: The Bush Administration
    2% voted: Wall Street
    10% voted: Banks and sub-prime lenders
    2% voted: Real estate and mortgage professionals
    0% voted: Investors
    1% voted: Home buyers
    2) Do you agree government bailouts are the answer to America’s financial crisis?
    7% voted: Yes
    88% voted: No
    5% voted: Undecided
    3) Do you believe the American taxpayers should have to foot the bill for our financial systems mistakes?
    8% voted: Yes, we have to or we’ll end up in a prolonged recession or worse a depression.
    23% voted: No, America is too far in debt already.
    67% voted: Absolutely not, the American people should never be responsible for bailing out the private sector.
    2% voted: Undecided
    4) Do you believe the government bailouts will ultimately rescue our country's financial system?
    7% voted: Yes
    86% voted: No
    6% voted: Undecided
    5) Do you believe Barack Obama was the best choice to handle the country's future economic policy?
    12% voted: Yes
    85% voted: No
    3% voted: Undecided
     
  6. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,923
    Likes Received:
    491
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    Here is a list of the salaries of GM employees. It's hard to believe that the average assembly line worker actually makes anything like $73 an hour, even including health and pension benefits.

    Whether they pay such salaries or not, the bottom line is that if the company isn't profitable, it needs to be restructured (read: bankruptcy) to either fade into history or emerge as a leaner but profitable enterprise. If the other manufacturers can do a better job of making cars, then they will take up the slack. No way should tax money be used to keep them afloat.

    I'd bet on the number of unreliable vehicles foisted on the public as the #1 cause of the decline in sales at GM, as their models are no more expensive than Toyotas when you compare apples to apples. That, of course, is just based on personal experience with GM products, so it could be wrong, but I don't think so.
     
  7. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    judging by the fact i see supervisors and stuff making less then that, seems hard to believe. now where is the CEO, VP and all of them who are running the company poorly and getting paid well for it?
     
  8. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    $73 includes all taxes, all benefits, and includes the cost per hour of work that must be spent on past Union employees that still collect benefits.

    In short, no employee is taking home a check that actually reads $73/hour, or anything close to it.

    But that isn't what the company sees in cost anyway. It's the "total cost of employment", which is vastly different than what your pay stub reads.

    Ding! Right answer.

    Again, this is a completely irrelevant topic.

    The share holders determine how much a CEO get's paid, and rightly so given the fact they stand to take the most heat (your post being an example). Moreover, a good CEO is worth gold, and a bad one, can ruin billions of dollars in investments. It's always amusing to see people who has no clue whatsoever what's going on at GM HQ, presume to know better than the stockholders and board of directors, how much any given CEO should be paid.

    That said, the company isn't being run poorly. GM still outsells any other auto manufacturer in the entire nation, and sold 2.26 million cars world wide.
    So in your world, being number one in the US market, and number 2 in entire world, while pushing out 2.26 million cars... is an example of being run poorly?

    No no. The only way in which GM is being run poorly, is by their lack of profit on cars. Which again, is because of Unions. Now you could say that management made poor decisions by giving into costly Union demands. But most of those agreements were made BEFORE the current CEO came into his positions.

    And back to the CEO pay. Now perhaps you have never run a business, but the way it works is, you take the cost of materials, plus the cost of labor (the total cost of employment), and subtract this number from the selling price of the product.

    So selling price - (labor + material) = profit/loss. Now let's say that labor is $9K + material is $14K, and the car sells for $20K. How much profit is there?

    Ok, so now let's eliminate all management. Labor is $9K, material is $14K, and the car sells for $20K. Now, with management earning zero, how much profit is there?

    Notice how regardless of the CEO pay, the profit from selling the car is still negative? This is because management pay is skimmed from profits. In other words, it has no effect on profit and loss from selling the car. If the production of a car, costs more than what can be made from selling the car, then CEO pay and other management benefits, are completely irrelevant.
     
Loading...

Share This Page