Owning GM is troubling

On Monday it’s expected that General Motors will file for bankruptcy. In as little as 60 to 90 days, Government Motors will emerge, 72.5 percent owned by taxpayers and 17.5 percent owned by our Big Labor partners whose intransigence and greed helped to destroy the industry.

There is so much to fear about this evolving relationship between politicians, the constituencies that regard them as essential to their well-being and the private sector. The takeover of General Motors, and the temptation to use that ownership stake to pursue political agendas ­ — the elimination of big “gas-guzzling” SUVs, for example ­— is temptation social planners of the left will find irresistible. And, as with government agricultural planning and programming, every action has consequences that trigger the need for more planning and regulation. Eight decades later we still can’t get that right.
Politicians will, of necessity, wall-in America, regulating automobile, truck and parts imports so that no foreign competitor will have cost-advantage.

Walling-off America is contrary to consumer interests. Democratic constituencies like Big Labor believe, however, that we need a protectionist industrial policy that uses tariffs, quotas and other tax and regulatory barriers to keep out competition.
It’s the same argument that surrounds Wal-Mart. The left stokes the fears of mom-and-pop retailers because Wal-Mart resists unions. Without question, though, Wal-Mart competition is healthy. It allows consumers to acquire more lifestyle-enhancing goods and services.

Just as with the war on Wal-Mart, Big Labor uses an 8.9 percent unemployment rate and fear of industrial job loss to gain support for protectionist policies that are anti-consumer. Intervention in the agricultural economy in the 1930s did not stop the exodus of farm jobs and it won’t stop the effects of global competition. It just runs up the tab.

I’m a bit ashamed to say this because so many innocents among dealers and service companies stand to be harmed, but I won’t buy a car from the government.

It’s the beginning of a protectionist and social-engineering industrial policy. It cultivates a deep symbiotic relationship between government and the private sector that emasculates business as an effective counter to government excess.

At government’s best, it creates a tax and regulatory climate where a free market flourishes. Then it stands back and lets the market determine survivors.

In the emerging government-business relationship, the creativity expended to survive in a free market morphs into the quest to prosper by appeasing politicians. It can be done.
Business is not liberal or conservative. Give it a cost-plus contract or corral its competition and it’ll do whatever politicians want. Want a dozen patronage jobs at $25 an hour each? No problem, so long as business can increase its contract by $350 an hour, cost plus profit.

Give business a monopoly that effectively fixes prices and limits consumer choice, and it will build any kind of vehicle politicians want.

Business, once bought and silenced, becomes a government partner that we should fear.

U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) said GM ownership puts us on “the road toward socialism” and asks “what’s the end game here and can the American people afford it?”

The end game is evident. And, no, the American people most assuredly cannot afford it.

109 comments Add your comment

Caper

May 31st, 2009
12:41 am

Linville:

“I didn’t say “they HAVE to spend”, I said they’re going to spend–whether we like it or not. I said “we HAVE to pay”. If we don’t, more deficit.”

Well, sort of:

“They’re going to spend money, no matter how stupid you and I think it is. We HAVE to pay for it.”

If they HAVE to spend, and we HAVE to pay for it, I surmise that means they HAVE to spend. Washington spends money like a bored suburban housewife. Unlimited revenue. Got news for ya: the top 10% of income earners, ie: the “RICH”, aren’t going to pay for all of Obama’s dreams. How long do you think this liberal socialist freight train is going to stay on the rails?

Linville

May 31st, 2009
8:30 am

Caper

I disagree, The top 10% isn’t paying for it, our kids are.

Have your taxes gone up since Obama went into office? No.

Has the deficit? Yes.

Who’s paying?

Linville

May 31st, 2009
8:33 am

…and, back to my earlier point: Let’s pay for it with gas taxes and a VAT. That will spread the pain and make the increases “fair”.

Steve

May 31st, 2009
8:47 am

booger – as an employee of Delta air lines and now an unwilling customer of the PBGC – I can assure you beyond any doubt that pension funds ARE NOT FULLY PROTECTED and the PBGC DOES NOT MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!!!!!! The PBGC pays about 20% of what was the original pension plan with Delta Air Lines.

clyde

May 31st, 2009
9:36 am

Since you all don’t know what you’re talking about,maybe the arguement should cease.No.I would only have my two cents worth to put in from my own experiences,which are different from yours.

booger

May 31st, 2009
10:05 am

Steve,

The pension fund is protected in that whatever was in the companies pension trust could not be used by the company or attached by creditors. If they do not have enough to honor their obligations the PBGC which is an insurance program, will help pay the difference for employees who earn up to a certain amount.

If your earnings were over their threshold, then you can lose some of what was promised. Also, as in the case of Delta, if the company artifically added years to an employees seniority so that they could retire earlier or at a higher pension, They may not pay for the added years thus lowering ones pension.

The fund itself was protected, it just was not sufficient to meet their promises.

Sorry for your situation though, I have friends in the same boat.

Caper

May 31st, 2009
11:10 am

Lineville:

“I disagree, The top 10% isn’t paying for it, our kids are.’

The O-Team and fellow liberal Democrats believe that just raising taxes on the wealthy will “fix” their spending issues. (And I’m not making that up like Jackie mindlessly claims).

“Have your taxes gone up since Obama went into office? No.”

In just four months of being in office I would hope the hell not! We’ll see what happens next year. Remember, it’s a full liberal Democrat run government now. Checks and balances are now history. Liberal Democrats have their wet dream coming through fruition, and we’re all going to pay accordingly, from freedoms to taxes. I find it mildly amusing how the main stream media lambasted the Tea Party protesters.

“Has the deficit? Yes.”

Not only that, but as a percentage of GDP, the real figure, it has gone up exponentially. It is now at around 82%, a level not seen in over 50 years. During the Bush years when Republicans ran Congress, everyone was whining about spending. Rather ironic considering the GDP deficit percentage was hovering around 40% Democrats have controlled congress for over two years now. I sure hope everyone is thrilled with their change.

“Who’s paying?”

The top 50% of income earners who pay 97% of all the taxes, that’s who. Now who owns the debt is another important question, and a common misconception is that China owns our debt. That was especially a loud drum beaten by the left during the Bush years. But, as usual quick fact checking proves emotion-driven liberalism wrong. The top ten US national debt owners, in order:

US Government
US Citizens
Japan
China
Britain
OPEC
Korea
Taiwan
Caribbean Banks
Germany

Caper

May 31st, 2009
11:13 am

Linville:

“…and, back to my earlier point: Let’s pay for it with gas taxes and a VAT. That will spread the pain and make the increases “fair”.

You do realize that will fly with liberal Democrats about as well as a wingless 747, don’t you? Why, the “poor” can’t pay any taxes and it is “unfair” to make those with less income pay consumption based taxes. After all, the “rich” can afford to pay more in taxes because they have more. Just read up on the mindless left wing liberal drivel over the Fair Tax to get a clue of the mindless misinformation you’ll be up against.

Linville

May 31st, 2009
11:32 am

Caper

I generally agree. So far the only payor for all this is future generations. Tax questions will have to be answered, increases on people like you and me will be expected.

But remember, in your post that started all this you were pointing out that the concept of a Federal Sales Tax was being revived. That, buddy, is a VAT. Support it! Democrats seem to think any kind of tax is a good thing and it’s our only chance to avoid being income taxed to death.

Caper

May 31st, 2009
11:35 am

I stand corrected on who owns the national debt. After further investigation, it appears my previous source from 2008 was outdated. China has surpassed Japan. As of March the remaining top 8 foreign owners of the debt (about 33% of the overall national debt) are:

China
Japan
Caribbean Banks
OPEC
Russia
Britain (UK)
Brazil
Luxembourg

http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

Linville

May 31st, 2009
11:42 am

Yeah, I was going to say that China is clearly buying more than anyone else.

Caper

May 31st, 2009
12:03 pm

Linville:

I’d support a VAT of sorts if it took place of the IRS (or at least offset some of it), but obviously that’s not going to happen either. The last paragraph that I copied and posted:

“A VAT is a tax on the transfer of goods and services that ultimately is borne by the consumer. Highly visible, it would increase the cost of just about everything, from a carton of eggs to a visit with a lawyer. It is also hugely regressive, falling heavily on the poor. But VAT advocates say those negatives could be offset by using the proceeds to pay for health care for every American — a tangible benefit that would be highly valuable to low-income families.”

Any time you see comments from “advocates” championing the poor having to actually pay for something, you know there is something definitely wrong with this picture. So let me get this straight: I’m taxed by the county, by my municipality/city, by my state, and by my federal government, and NOW I should be championing a consumption based tax on top of all that? Uhm, sorry pal, I don’t agree. Not without removing some of those other burdens first.

Caper

May 31st, 2009
12:14 pm

And even more to my point overall on taxes, why the hell can’t the government CUT SPENDING? Yes, I already know the answer. It goes back to one of the One Hit Wonder songs of the 1980s from Naked Eyes: “Promises Promises” Politicians promise the moon to their voters, get the money, and deliver a rotten egg.

Linville

May 31st, 2009
12:17 pm

I’m with you. I’d vote for a VAT that completely erases income taxes. We could “rebate” to the poor so they don’t get so much of the burden, but everybody pays something. I’m in that dreaded AMT group already, getting a higher tax rate would be a killer.

Gotta go, work calls. Will check back tonight.

Caper

May 31st, 2009
12:17 pm

Okay, all raise your hand: Who’s ready for a truly viable Third Party who will represent *US* to offset these Merryweather band of Disney fairies in Washington, both Democrats and Republicans?

booger

May 31st, 2009
12:44 pm

Linville just described the “Fair Tax”.

get out much?

May 31st, 2009
1:09 pm

I wonder if Mr. Wooten and his band of conservatives that rail against “econo box” cars realize that three of the top ten selling cars and trucks are “econo boxes” (while there large pickup trucks, there are no SUV’s in the top ten) – the Honda Civic at five, the Toyota Corolla at six and the Ford Focus at ten.

Since, according to Mr. Wooten and his band of conservatives, Americans don’t want “econo box” cars, I wonder who is buying them?

BTW, here is the url: http://images.businessweek.com/ss/08/05/0519_top_sellers/index_01.htm

Caper

May 31st, 2009
1:25 pm

Hey, that’s a brilliant point, Get Out Much The Liberal! Actually, the Civic, Corolla, and Focus are not what I would consider “econo boxes.”

This is more what we have in mind under His Magesty Obama TELLING GM what to build:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_(automobile)

But, that’s beside the point. If you have a large family, like say 5 or more, and want to take a weekend getaway WITH the dog, how exactly are you going to do that in a Corolla? Oh, wait, according to Her Highness Pelosi, large families are environmentally unfriendly. MY BAD!

Caper

May 31st, 2009
1:27 pm

Drat. My link flamed out. Here’s another on the Obama/Gore car:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Smart_car.jpg

Caper

May 31st, 2009
1:32 pm

Oh, and speaking of who’s buying what like the brilliant Get Out Much The Liberal mentioned, let’s give a hand for all the Toyota Prius (I like to call them liberal PIOUS cars myself) cars that are sitting on lots unsold! Don’t forget to give a hand to the Toyota rebates needed to move the Corollas!

[applaud]

Caper

May 31st, 2009
1:34 pm

Booger:

“Linville just described the “Fair Tax”.”

Bingo. Hence, my previous point in mentioning how liberals trashed the Fair Tax. Funny old world, isn’t it?

get out much?

May 31st, 2009
2:10 pm

Actually, Caper – according to this years sales, the Prius is #16 on the list: http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2009/03/04/452436.html sales are down 31% but they are still in the top 20.

As for your family of 5 scenario, according to this years numbers, if they are getting SUVs, they are getting the smaller more fuel efficient models, like the CR-V, Rav4 or Ford Escape.

Not a Hummer to be found on the list.

Caper

May 31st, 2009
2:46 pm

“sales are down 31% but they are still in the top 20.”

Well that’s like bragging about who is berthing at the highest level of the Titanic if you ask me. But anyway……..

“As for your family of 5 scenario, according to this years numbers, if they are getting SUVs, they are getting the smaller more fuel efficient models, like the CR-V, Rav4 or Ford Escape.”

Amazing how I still see all those full sized SUVs on the road though. (I have one).

“Not a Hummer to be found on the list.”

I have always hated those things. Even the blinger gang bangers are giving them up. That says a lot.

get out much?

May 31st, 2009
3:26 pm

I wonder how many of those full sized SUVs are new (is yours?)? If the sales numbers are any indication, not many. Also, judging by the numbers, it looks like when it comes time to replace them, people are choosing something else.

As for me, I drive an old Prelude (I chose it over the BMW 3 series and the Shelby Mustang). At the time I bought it, it was rated the most fun car to drive for under $30K by Car and Driver and they were right. Depending on the type of driving I do, it gets between 24 and 28 mpg.

You can have the last word, I am heading out for the rest of the day to enjoy the sunshine.

Caper

May 31st, 2009
4:04 pm

“I wonder how many of those full sized SUVs are new (is yours?)? If the sales numbers are any indication, not many. Also, judging by the numbers, it looks like when it comes time to replace them, people are choosing something else.”

You fail!

http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2009/01/12/story1.html

But don’t take a link as word. Just use your eyeballs on who is driving what. How many little Obama/Gore squirts have you seen on the road lately? Uh huh.

“As for me, I drive an old Prelude (I chose it over the BMW 3 series and the Shelby Mustang).”

So you chose a ‘Lude (nice cars in their time BTW) over a Bimmer and a Shelby Mustang. Okay, that makes perfect sense. About as much sense as me stating I chose an old Cessna 172 over a Learjet 45. But, who’s keeping tabs here.

“Depending on the type of driving I do, it gets between 24 and 28 mpg.”

In the 1990s I had a C4 Corvette that got 27 consistently on the highway (that tall 6th gear and low rear gear ratio helped). Forgive me if I’m not impressed. But, maybe we should all invest in used cars, because this jackhole administration is hell bent on TELLING us what we WILL drive in the future.

bigliberal

May 31st, 2009
4:24 pm

You all seem really upset over the government owning a private business. Government routinely owns private businesses and they do so on a weekly basis without so much as a peep. The government takes over failing banks fires the employees including the ceo’s and resells the bank to private investors all in the matter of a long weekend.

Now I understand that American Auto makers are not banks but the failure of the automakers would imperil the economy more than the failure of a small bank and I feel that is is prudent to protect the economy in times of recession as to not plunge into a depression.

Jim also states that he would not buy an American made car and I am with him on that but not for his reasons. Just look at the latest consumer reports on reliability of American cars vs foreign cars and you can see why people don’t buy American. Who made the design and engineering decisions about those cars? Management. I would guarantee that an UAW employee can build a car just as well as a non UAW employee. If that is the case then why are the American car companies producing unreliable cars? I’m sure you can find a way to blame that on the unions.

As far as Obama firing the ceo of GM, GM came to the government asking for a bailout. The government said they would help. Should there be no stipulations on the help? I’m sure if it was a republican president the condition would have been dissolution of the unions. For instance if you came to me and said you needed a loan to get a car and I said I would give you the loan but you would have to drive me to the beach each weekend. You could take that deal or not take that deal. The ceo and board members of GM decided to take the deal. What’s the problem?

I would get into the fairness of progressive tax law but I don’t have the time right now, maybe later.

Caper

May 31st, 2009
6:21 pm

“You all seem really upset over the government owning a private business.”

Yeah, it’s called FASCISM.

“Government routinely owns private businesses and they do so on a weekly basis without so much as a peep.”

Really? Where? Please enlighten us on government OWNING a private business. That’s choice stuff.

“I would guarantee that an UAW employee can build a car just as well as a non UAW employee.”

Thirty plus years of UAW GM “quality” proves otherwise. Strike ‘em if you got ‘em.

“As far as Obama firing the ceo of GM, GM came to the government asking for a bailout. The government said they would help. Should there be no stipulations on the help?”

GM should have taken bankruptcy instead of the Chicago goons running Washington TELLING them how to do THEIR business. Ford is the last hope of American auto manufacturers and not getting sucked into the liberal socialist web of control.

“I would get into the fairness of progressive tax law but I don’t have the time right now, maybe later.”

We already know what you liberals think about that. Rich=evil and can pay more because they have more (unless you are a Democrat like our current Treasury Sec. and “forget” about paying some of them.).

Caper

May 31st, 2009
6:31 pm

Oh, and let’s inject the fact that the majority of Americans are AGAINST government ownership of private businesses. Yes, that means deciding on how much those evil CEOs and non-working corporate executives get paid too. (You have to understand that in the mind of a liberal, white collar workers [GASP! IS THAT RACIST??!!] don’t really work for their dollars. More to the point, the more a white collar worker earns and moves up the corporate chain, the more said white collar worker has taken a dump on those who are not at their salary level and “stolen” from them. This is liberalism mentality.

Caper

May 31st, 2009
6:38 pm

Words of wisdom from a liberal on the GM fascism:

“There surely is a rationale for bailing out the failing American Auto industry based on the possibility of thousands of auto workers and those working in related industries losing their jobs – that said, when was the last time the Federal Government was deemed effective management for any project? The taxpayers owning a stake in private industry (socialism) is counter to the basic principles of capitalism upon which the nation has, thus far, thrived (despite historical trends of recessions and depression). The GM debacle is a prime example of what happens when the Government steps in to “help” an industry.”

“First, GM has manufacturing plants outside of the U.S., specifically Brazil, where they have a profitable operation run by non-union employees. Now GM is considering moving its headquarters out of Detroit in order to save assets. This is a direct result of the forced bankruptcy of the company by the Obama administration. Knowing that the company is in deep financial trouble here in the U.S., top executives yesterday dumped GM Stock in order to salvage what little worth is left in the government owned auto maker. Should the company move to Mexico or China, those Auto Union Workers will be left holding the bag, however, due to the structure of the company’s union contract, that bag, pensions and all benefits will be the responsibility of the American Taxpayer. In other words, the U.S. Government has purchased a company (or bought controlling stakes in a company), that is basically worthless, has a huge overhead in bloated union benefits, and, no competitive products to sell.”

“Chrysler (also under the Obama administrations guidance), has been told that their advertising budget must be slashed in half. Historically speaking, those companies that continued to advertise during the depression in the 1930’s, survived, in fact, increased their sales over time, and those that cut back, or did not advertise at all, are now – also history.”

“Chrysler is an interesting case, because they have been bailed out before, under the Carter Administration. In that bailout, loans were given to the industry, and the government took a passive role, resulting in an eventual resurgence. In this case, Carter, who is most closely aligned to Obama in ideology, was a tad smarter in handling the “crisis”.”

bigliberal

May 31st, 2009
6:43 pm

“when was the last time the Federal Government was deemed effective management for any project?”

The US Military. Right wingers don’t seem to have a problem with that being government run.

bigliberal

May 31st, 2009
6:49 pm

“Really? Where? Please enlighten us on government OWNING a private business. That’s choice stuff.”

I did enlighten you if you had read my post. When the government takes over a bank it owns the bank until it can sell it back to private industry. I provide meaningful dialogue and it seems all you bring is name calling. Fascist, Socalist, Liberal(if you believe liberal is a slur). I didn’t call you a redneck inbred high school dropout did I? Now, now before you post some hate filled screed just remember who started it.

Linville

May 31st, 2009
7:34 pm

Back home and catching up.

booger,

A VAT isn’t exactly the Fair Tax. Fair Tax would replace all incocome tax with the sales tax. I’d be all for that but think it’s too much of a reach to get through DC.

Caper,

I would go for a third party. Problem is, I don’t know if you’d like the party I’d like. We have left wingers and right wingers running parties. Nobody represents the moderate independents like me. So we’re just the “swing” that decides if the R or the D wins elections. That sucks, we’re usually voting on the least bad candidate.

biglib,

Agree, we have the best military in the world and the government kind of runs it (it would probably be even better if they didn’t).

But find something else they do well. They’re not good at health care, have stolen our retirement money, and screwed up education to the point that the only place we are first is in spending more per student than anyone else while getting mediocre results. Regardless of what the Rs and Ds say, many of the economic problems we face today have direct connections to the poor job in DC…so they can’t even do their own job.

I don’t ascribe to the conspiracy theory that Obama wants to nationalize businesses so he can control the world. Thank God. On the other hand, in the areas where I agree with what he’s trying to do I fully expect that our esteemed elected leaders can screw up just about anything that gets voted in. If you don’t share that concern you’re asleep at the switch.

Caper

May 31st, 2009
7:44 pm

“The US Military. Right wingers don’t seem to have a problem with that being government run.”

Here we go again smalliberal with the mindless, no, CHILDISH “well what about the military, police, …”.

You brain dead liberals wouldn’t understand a point if you sat your asses on it.

“I did enlighten you if you had read my post. When the government takes over a bank it owns the bank until it can sell it back to private industry.”

You said it happens ALL THE TIME. Now, for the SECOND time, liberal, explain to the rest of us how the federal government OWNS private companies day in and day out. I’d surmise that anything FEDERAL owned is no longer “private.” Wouldn’t you?

“I provide meaningful dialogue and it seems all you bring is name calling. Fascist, Socalist, Liberal(if you believe liberal is a slur).”

You liberals are what you are. Fascism IS what it is. You can sugar coat it until hell freezes over liberal. You ARE a liberal, aren’t you?

“I didn’t call you a redneck inbred high school dropout did I?”

I’m a Conservative. You are a Liberal. Anything in between is what you want it to be. I didn’t call you a Democrat JACKASS either, did I?

Caper

May 31st, 2009
7:53 pm

Linville:

“would go for a third party. Problem is, I don’t know if you’d like the party I’d like. We have left wingers and right wingers running parties. Nobody represents the moderate independents like me. So we’re just the “swing” that decides if the R or the D wins elections. That sucks, we’re usually voting on the least bad candidate.”

Man that is so true. But, I will say this: the modern liberal Democrats think they are the true centrists, and some Republicans are relinquishing their inherent beliefs (not that they are all good mind you) and shifting to the alleged center, or “moderate” center. George Washington was vehemently against a multiple party system, and as we watch this nation vote down party lines and elect those based on said party lines, we can see how much foresight our Founding Fathers had. The irony in all that is that NEITHER party serves our best interest.

Caper

May 31st, 2009
8:01 pm

Can someone explain to me why liberals don’t like being called liberals? Just asking………

Linville

May 31st, 2009
8:26 pm

Dunno. Is that always the case? bigliberal doesn’t seem to mind.

My daughter (the 22 year old) just asked how the conservatives let the environmental issue get hijacked by the hippies. After all, the root word is “conserve”…which has all kinds of good connotations. Unlike “liberal”, which seems to say that you don’t conserve.

Just reporting.

Linville

May 31st, 2009
8:30 pm

As I sit waiting for the fire to get just right for that dead cow I’m about to throw on I’m pondering Caper’s comments about moderate democrats. Wonder if he’s talking about me?

Linville

May 31st, 2009
8:36 pm

JW,

I know the AJC is strapped right now but somebody needs to take a look at this blog software. It’s the pits. I post, refresh, and go backwards. Remind the folks down there that blogging is supposed to be REAL TIME!

Caper

May 31st, 2009
8:48 pm

“I’m pondering Caper’s comments about moderate democrats. Wonder if he’s talking about me?”

Linville, trust me, you’ll know if I’m talking about *you* personally. You have issues with your representative left, and I have issues with my representative right. Somewhere there I believe we have a common ground, even if our basic principles might be somewhat off. But, that’s what debate and diversity of opinion is about – just as I mentioned yesterday with our Founding Fathers.

Caper

May 31st, 2009
8:56 pm

“My daughter (the 22 year old) just asked how the conservatives let the environmental issue get hijacked by the hippies. After all, the root word is “conserve”…which has all kinds of good connotations. Unlike “liberal”, which seems to say that you don’t conserve.”

That is a paradox, isn’t it? Nobody wants dirty water in their back yard. On the other end of the spectrum, the UN forcing America to pay some sort of carbon tax while turning a blind eye to China’s emissions says it all.

The only thing I find “liberal” about liberals is that they have no problems whatsoever being “liberal” with other people’s money.

Linville

May 31st, 2009
8:58 pm

Caper,

I may get to like you. :)

Agree, sounds like we have things in common. And I love a good debate. I get pretty tired of the ranting on both sides, but there’s plenty of good info, and lots of good folks, engaging in these blogs.

Maybe we should figure out how we can start a new party off a blog…or advocate for some of the things that many think make sense (but the government won’t do).

Linville

May 31st, 2009
9:11 pm

Caper,

I still like a good old fashoned petroleum tax, not a carbon tax. Jacking gas prices up as a tax plan has lots more advantages than hiking the income tax.

Regarding China and the rest of the emerging world, check out this guy:

http://gregor.us/

He’s not your normal hippie environmentalist, he’s an investor in energy with something of a socially conscious side. Interesting read on why coal is about to become much more popular.

Caper

May 31st, 2009
9:17 pm

Interesting link, Linville. I’ll check it out. But considering we aren’t even at France’s level of nuclear power plant output per capita, I will sit back and see what the Obama administration means about killing coal via “price signals.”

Alpharetta

May 31st, 2009
9:48 pm

People, calm down, this is a free country. Kick out Obama in 4 years if you are not happy with him. That’s how we get rid of W, remember? America is a 10Trillion economy, a 25billion company of GM is no biggie.

Just remember, the south may be proud of it’s conservative tradition. But if you think about it. There is nothing big invented in the south in ideas or industries (except Coke?). Actuall, the entire south has never produced a Nobel prize winner. GM/Ford/Chrysler don’t have much to do you southerners, you guys are just their consumers. Southerners cannot invent GM, I don’t expect you guys to be able to solve the problems of GM either.

Nice weekend.

Jim

May 31st, 2009
9:56 pm

I will never buy another GM car or truck…nor will I buy Chrysler…..my Grand dad, Uncle, and Dad sold Oldsmobliles for 35 years. I am sure they are rolling over in there graves right now to see how this all turned out. As long as I know Obama has his crooked hand in the mix with those 2 companies, I will buy Ford. Ford did not take any bail out money, and for this they have earned my respect. We have a 2007 Ford f-150, and in 2010-11, we will be getting another one. R.I.P. GM. You will never be the same with Obama running you…..into the ground.

Linville

May 31st, 2009
10:09 pm

Caper,

I’ll go nuclear.

Heard an interesting guy talking about alternate energy for cars the other day, he made a good point: if we’re looking for something quick we have to have fuel distribution. The only valid source of alternative fuel in place today is electricity…you can just plug in to your house. Cars that run on nuclear-generated electricity would be a pretty good solution by me.

Linville

May 31st, 2009
10:18 pm

Jim,

Hope you need an f-150 for your work. Otherwise I don’t understand why you’d buy another. Gas will be above $5.00 soon and that pick-em-up will drive you right to the poorhouse. If US car companies don’t figure out quality and fuel economy you won’t have to worry about any of them.

fisher

May 31st, 2009
10:31 pm

Purchased a Chev. Truck 2mths ago. Bad move on my decision! Truck is for sale or trade now!! It will be gone within 10 to 14 days, maybe sooner!

fisher

May 31st, 2009
10:32 pm

Enter your comments here

livinginparadise

May 31st, 2009
10:43 pm

Chrysler just filed for bankruptcy and they are not ebing taken over by the government, so why do we have to treat GM differently. Delta has been through bankruptcy and came through it okay. Bankruptcy is there to help re-organize a xompany and then allow them to emerge as a solvent entity. Chrysler has been in bankruptcy before and yes if people remember they emerged and paid back all their loans early. They became a thriving company until this reccession.

The question that keeps coming to mind is even if these companies re-structure, who is going to buy these cars. Instead of creating new jobs they are still being lost at record numbers. If you are looking for a job the pay is so low you can not afford a car. The credit industry is struggling and will not make loans. Banks have to start re-paying the bail out money they received. So how is this plan good for any of us?

It is ironic that this man spends our money without a thought, just like last night. People are struggling to make ends meet and we have to pay for these idiots to go out on a date night to NYC.

What we as Americans need to do is unite and vote everyone of them out of office. Put peeople in there that have the same ideals about this country as the founding fathers. There should be term limits on how long a person can be a Representative or a Senator. We have to think outside the box and stop voting along party lines and elect the best qualified candidate.

I also agree that we have allowed these people to burden our children with this debt and they will probably not pay it off then our grand children will be burdened with it.