GM

[bga1]

As they go into bankruptcy today to the tune of another 30 billion in taxpayer dollars, President Obama stated that the government would go in and "get out quickly" returning GM to a non-government business that is profitable. The question I would like to see asked at the next press conference:

Mr. President: Since you were a proponent of timelines for our exit from Iraq, can you give us a timeline for how long the government will stay on as the owner of GM. What is your exit strategy?

[Iceland12]

As they go into bankruptcy today to the tune of another 30 billion in taxpayer dollars, President Obama stated that the government would go in and "get out quickly" returning GM to a non-government business that is profitable. The question I would like to see asked at the next press conference:

Mr. President: Since you were a proponent of timelines for our exit from Iraq, can you give us a timeline for how long the government will stay on as the owner of GM. What is your exit strategy?

IF the market goes back to 12,000,000 cars by 2012 then the plan is that GM will pay-off the loans by that year. The market was 15,000,000 plus in 2007 and projections are the market will be between 9 and 10 million this year so 12 million isn't an unreasonable number.

We heard about this plan back in December and so far most of what we were told would happen, has happened.

It seems though bga, that you would be far happier seeing GM not pay off the loans so that Obama could be blamed for the failure and the "socialist" tag could be used. I'd rather see GM succeed and the goverment out but I understand your position.

Again, sorry to answer the first question if your post is strictly rhetorical.

[bga1]

I would be ecstatic if GM could pay the money back! Realistically, Iceland what do you think the chances of that are though? I think terrible. If the chances were good, I would think Obama would be broadcasting that- it indeed would be great news. I want Obama to succeed, but not into turning this nation in a socialistic one.

The real question is this: If GM is going to smaller cars and if the fact is that every time they make a smaller car they lose money, how fast can they pay back the loans? Also- when you refer to the loans, are you referring to the initial 18 billion or the while 50 billion of taxpayer dollars that they have now taken in? The company has 78 billion in total assets compared with double that in liabilities. A performance that would allow it to pay back 50 billion in just three years would be spectacular indeed!

At any rate - I would love to see a link to anything Obama has said projecting this timeline of 2012 for loan payback and what it means. Does this mean the government will sell out its stake?
My belief is that Obama wants the government to maintain control of GM for a good number of years so that he can dictate the conversion to small euro style cars on his own terms. If the cars don't make money so be it- he will still have accomplished his main objective - go green. Meanwhile the taxpayers will be sucking up the cost of the subsidy on every envirocar produced made by uncompetitive union labor. This is a huge payback to two big voter blocks: union workers and enviromentalist. By use of the word "quick" he can claim 8 years from now that 8 years was quick considering the situation handed to him.

Thanks for the info and thanks in advance if you can provide a link.

[bga1]

Iceland- a look at 2002,2003, 2004 - three profitable years before the total decline of GM - shows that they made a total of about $7.5 billion for the 3 COMBINED years. And that's when SUVs were still hot, vehicles that GM made all of its hay on. How in the world can GM pay back all of it's 50 billion in debt over the next three years while making less and less SUVs? Answer: it can't.

[Iceland12]

Iceland- a look at 2002,2003, 2004 - three profitable years before the total decline of GM - shows that they made a total of about $7.5 billion for the 3 COMBINED years. And that's when SUVs were still hot, vehicles that GM made all of its hay on. How in the world can GM pay back all of it's 50 billion in debt over the next three years while making less and less SUVs? Answer: it can't.

Using those numbers is similar to domestic cars critics talking about "Pintos and Novas". They aren't 20 -30 years out of date but they're just as irrelevant.

As long as you've got the time take a look at GM's cost structure during those years and the cost structure today, even the structure that was scheduled to go into place in 2009 and 2010 before everything hit the fan. The Chapter 11 proceeding will also slash GM's consolidated debt (March number) from $54 plus billion to about $17 billion. If there wouldn't have been such a fear of bankruptcy last fall and Bush, Obama and GM would have known that the market was going to completely collapse from October to mid-May anyway they would have started the controlled bankruptcy then.

They loan number that was being discussed back then was $26 billion with possibly another 10-16 if the market collapsed; which it did. So no, $50 billion is higher and could add 2 or 3 years to payback. On the other hand a market that goes past 12 to 14 million vehicles could take months out of that timetable as well.

Judge Gerber will have to make a lot of decisions which could also change many potential outcomes.

You know what maybe the most interesting thing of all? The amount of money tied-up in Credit Default Swaps bet on GM making it or not making it.

[bga1]

Using those numbers is similar to domestic cars critics talking about "Pintos and Novas". They aren't 20 -30 years out of date but they're just as irrelevant.

As long as you've got the time take a look at GM's cost structure during those years and the cost structure today, even the structure that was scheduled to go into place in 2009 and 2010 before everything hit the fan. The Chapter 11 proceeding will also slash GM's consolidated debt (March number) from $54 plus billion to about $17 billion. If there wouldn't have been such a fear of bankruptcy last fall and Bush, Obama and GM would have known that the market was going to completely collapse from October to mid-May anyway they would have started the controlled bankruptcy then.

They loan number that was being discussed back then was $26 billion with possibly another 10-16 if the market collapsed; which it did. So no, $50 billion is higher and could add 2 or 3 years to payback. On the other hand a market that goes past 12 to 14 million vehicles could take months out of that timetable as well.

Judge Gerber will have to make a lot of decisions which could also change many potential outcomes.

You know what maybe the most interesting thing of all? The amount of money tied-up in Credit Default Swaps bet on GM making it or not making it.

-I think Obama DID know the market for cars was going to collapse in the fall- he was out there talking about the depression we were headed for.

-The SUVs were making 10,000 to 15,000 per unit and that was subsidizing GM's small car lines.
No doubt their cost structure will be way lower but so will their sales levels. They still have a terrible business model in the small cars and the unions didn't give big enough concessions to make them competitive.

- Sure it's nice that the government will classify the new 30 billion as equity- but let's face it- that money is borrowed from the tax payers. So if you are just talking about them getting the $15 billion repaid (which in itself seems doubtful to me) then the taxpayers are still out the 30 billion unles the compay is deemed worth close to 50 billion to investors (also doubtful).

When you look at the history of government running business- it's not good if you want to see profitability with good products.

Obama plays to power groups of voters- like the unions and the environmentalists in order to have the time to bring the changes he wants. He wants a different kind of America - one that reapportions wealth and is more Euro and global than we have been. Owning a couple of huge car companies fits perfectly in that game plan- he's a smart guy. By the time the public figures out what has happened to them with the GM deal it will be long past his re-election date and he will be able to skate without accountability.

[Schnoodler]

I haven't spent a lot of time on this lately, but my understanding is that the money to GM is in the form of equity ownership? If that is the case, then while GM can opt to retire this debt by buying back that equity (repaying it in BGA's words) it's really about finding another owner for that equity, that does not need to come from GM it can happen in a multitude of ways that does not equal one penny of cash from GM. Please don't blur the argument needlessly.

This is the softest of all possible landings for GM's freefall. The alternatives are not very pretty. I don't know if this is the best way to deal with this. what i do know is that the US with GM is better than the one without. I also know if we agree on this then we ought to be discussing this as competing goods rather than good verses evil.

[Iceland12]

-I think Obama DID know the market for cars was going to collapse in the fall..

Wrong, the number that was being used last September/October was 12 million and Bush was in the White House then. It's odd at best to claim the government does know how to run a car company (I'd think that was a given) and then turnaround and say that they knew more about the market then the companies.



-The SUVs were making 10,000 to 15,000 per unit and that was subsidizing GM's small car lines....you are WAY to high on SUV numbers but right about small cars. You're way-off about union concessions also, but I know that you have to say that regardless of the facts.:cool: They will still be selling trucks and SUVs but the small cars should now be profitable.

- Sure it's nice that the government will classify the new 30 billion as equity-...I never typed $15 billion, I'm not sure what you are referring to. Even the early plans involved PAYING back $26 billion


I know that you must make an anti-union, anti-green speech in every post, but the unions have been hammered and it's actually kind of sad that you can't enjoy it. As for the Greens? GM already has the technology to get 30 MPG plus on the highway for their biggest SUVS. They aren't going to give-up trucks that can get that kind of MPG to make environmentalists happy. They also aren't going to fold-up to make the anti-Obama crowd happy.

They ARE going to survive just to piss everybody off.

I've noticed that no one else cares about this so I'm done with it; post away!

Good night bga.

[UpnorthGo4]

I am sorry to have to report the following bad news to all of you Rush Limbaugh true-believers who get down on your knees every night and pray that Obama will be a failure:

Stocks rally, unfazed by GM bankruptcy

Stocks rallied Monday, sending the Dow Jones industrial average near the break-even point for the year, as better-than-expected readings on manufacturing activity raised hopes that a global economic recovery is brewing. The Dow surged 229 points, or 2.6 percent, according to early tallies. Shares of General Motors closed 8 percent higher after the automaker declared bankruptcy, CNNMoney reports.

[jamiche]

You've expressed "concern" countless times about the motives of the president. You have sighed deeply and shaken your head on the board almost every day since he took office. You have lamented our slippery slope to socialism under this administration. (I'm beginning to feel a sense of weariness writing this post).

Why would Obama risk the huge loss of jobs in MI, OH, IN, DE (all states that he carried) if he didn't think this was the right thing to do for the country? Why would he force the unions to cut their W&B dramatically? (Don't forget, they own him.)

Why was your hero a misunderstood good man, yet Obama an evil socialist, if they both said no to political expediency?

Please (sigh) explain.

[diehard]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/auto_industry/just_21_favor_gm_bailout_plan_67_oppose

I nasty little detail omitted so far in this discussion. America hates the bailout. 21% support it. 67% oppose it. These people aren't buying any more Dodges or Chevys. They are going to buy Japanese brands manufactured in the Southern States. Alabama, Tennesse, South Carolina and others. I don't mind speaking for millions when I say, we aren't buying from UAW Motors or from Government Motors. May they RIP. Go ahead, pay $50 billion back when your stuff doesn't sell but to a few diehard Liberals and to forced Government contracts by people who aren't smart enough to buy a good efficient well engineered Foreign Model that was built with quality workmanship. Spending billions of your grandchildren's tax dollars to delay the inevitable and promote a forced conversion to a socialist nation. I am not concerned, however; Obama will fail it this as surely as GM and Chrysler have failed and are history. America must be taught this very expensive lesson. Only Cap and Trade is dumber. The many good common sense Democrats need to take their party back from the wacked out far far left Liberals just as the common sense Conservatives need to take back the Republican party from the far right wackos and the Country Club blue bloods. It's time to get in a libertarian frame of mind.

[Schnoodler]

Well that officially sinches for you huh diehard. So distraught over the admin with a different set of ideals you're willing to sell out American industry to support your great big harrumph. You need a break, and a great big long look inside as to who's side you're really on, because it sure doesn't sound like it's the side you think you're on.

[diehard]

The good people of the Southern States busting their rear ends in factories building quality vehicles deserve the break, not the incompetent managers and spoiled union workers of the rust belt. That's not a bad side to be on. Buy a mirror, dude.

[bga1]

You've expressed "concern" countless times about the motives of the president. You have sighed deeply and shaken your head on the board almost every day since he took office. You have lamented our slippery slope to socialism under this administration. (I'm beginning to feel a sense of weariness writing this post).

Why would Obama risk the huge loss of jobs in MI, OH, IN, DE (all states that he carried) if he didn't think this was the right thing to do for the country? Why would he force the unions to cut their W&B dramatically? (Don't forget, they own him.)

Why was your hero a misunderstood good man, yet Obama an evil socialist, if they both said no to political expediency?

Please (sigh) explain.

You think you are exhausted-think about me! :)

His union pals got a great deal. Much, much better than they should have considering that they have a big role in the company's failure. Obama saved their fannies as payback for support last fall. If he hadn't all the jobs would have ended up in new plants, points south.

Obama is not evil, he's just a liberal and per the wise man I quoted earlier, liberals have incorporated socialism as their dogma. He has good intentions, I just don't believe his ideology will work as it has been a proven loser worldwide.

[jamiche]

You think you are exhausted-think about me! :)

His union pals got a great deal. Much, much better than they should have considering that they have a big role in the company's failure. Obama saved their fannies as payback for support last fall. If he hadn't all the jobs would have ended up in new plants, points south.

Obama is not evil, he's just a liberal and per the wise man I quoted earlier, liberals have incorporated socialism as their dogma. He has good intentions, I just don't believe his ideology will work as it has been a proven loser worldwide.

A great deal? That's not how it is going to be perceived if this doesn't work. He can kiss those states goodbye in 2012.

[jamiche]

The good people of the Southern States busting their rear ends in factories building quality vehicles deserve the break, not the incompetent managers and spoiled union workers of the rust belt. That's not a bad side to be on. Buy a mirror, dude.

I didn't know we were reenacting the Civil War. Southerners=virtue, hard work, church goin'. Northerners= conniving welfare cheats, dude.

[diehard]

I am not, it's just that is all you got. You forget, I'm Northern by birth and education, Southern by the grace of God. (Play Dukes of Hazard car horn.)

[jamiche]

I wasn't aware of your background. It sounds fascinating and unusual.

[Iceland12]

[QUOTE=diehard;65765]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/auto_industry/just_21_favor_gm_bailout_plan_67_oppose

I nasty little detail omitted so far in this discussion. America hates the bailout. 21% support it. 67% oppose it. "

Probably true; who wants money going to other people? Of course many of those people, if you read posts against the bailout, still rail against Detroit's "Pintos and Nova" cars that haven't been built for 20 to 30 years!! Those same "polls" show that the majority of people think that the auto loans are the same as last years bank gifts.

Consumer Reports Annual Auto issue yearly ranks identical cars built under different "badges" (Corolla/Prism, Buick/Pontiac) with higher/lower numbers because the public thinks they are different.

Opinion ain't knowledge. People's hate for unions and memories of decades old cars is playing out.

Our organization includes all domestic and virtually all foreign lines. My favorite memory is from years ago. Our VP telling us that Honda was going to have to issue a recall because thousands of transmissions were going out. They never did. They had a silent service bulletin written and they'd replace the trannnys after they went bad. The unscrupulous dealers would charge the customers. Saved them millions and more importantly, saved Honda's reputation.

GM would have issued a private recall, fixed the problem and took a massive public relations hit. Have you wondered why Toyota's quality numbers have taken a dive the last two years? The Government killed "silent recalls".

The other great move by Honda and Toyota? In the mid-90's there was a mandated emissions change (Republican meddling again huh?). Auto companies screamed that gasoline needed to be reformulated but the government wouldn't pressure the oil companies, pretty surprising huh?

Everybody made the change, at least we thought everybody did. Nearly all dealers had people coming in because their on board computers said their was a problem. None could be found and we'd tell them it was because of the new rules and gas. People were skeptical and irritated.

Our Honda and Toyota stores weren't having the problem. They didn't know why but their satisfaction numbers went up while everybody else's went down. We found out why a few years later.

Honda and Toyota didn't hook the new system up! They ended-up paying (10-15?) millions of dollars in fines but made tens of millions in future sales. Very illegal but very, very smart. It made the news for about five minutes years after the problem. Today nobody remembers the fines but many remember their damn trouble "light coming on" and they are now driving Hondas and Toyotas.

It appears that you're more interested in being a dick then making a point, but your post does bring up three things:

-I'm an "old school" Conservative: Don't waste, do your job,, treat people well, obey the law, send people who DON'T obey the law to jail and take care of your family, company and country.

"New Conservatives" seem to hold money first and foremost. Wink and laugh if people and companies break the law if they made a LOT of money at it. Send jobs and money overseas? Great as long as the unions get hit! Overseas jobs are also union jobs? Uh, don't care.
The unions and delalers have taken a massive hit, but they still exist which pisses most of those polled to no end, for good reasons I suspect.

- Public opinion is WAY more important the facts.

- The last thing: The Radical Republicans and Gen. Sherman were right and Andy Johnson was wrong. We should have burned the Southern traitors to the ground!

Have a nice day.;)

( i wrote all this for what, 12 people ?)

[bga1]

A great deal? That's not how it is going to be perceived if this doesn't work. He can kiss those states goodbye in 2012.


He figures that by 2012 he can still be telling people it will work in the future and they may well believe him. Remember this also- he can keep the people in those states employed as long as he wants by annually subsidizing the GM and Chrysler cars. It's almost a certainty he'll do that because spending is absolutely no barrier to this guy. What's another 10 billion a year in the big scheme of things?

[jamiche]

The market will dictate and that is why this is such a high risk strategy. The gov't is trying to turn a fossil on a dime and if cars don't sell even more dealerships will close and parts suppliers all over the midwest will go out of business. The few thousand union jobs that you think he is trying so hard to protect are nothing compared to the overall job loss if this plan fails.

Who knows if the gov't plan will work (I'm skeptical) but the Obama admn is clearly looking at the big picture, though it is much more convenient to accuse him of being kissy-kissy with the UAW.

[bga1]

Yes he's playing kissy, kissy with the unions with taxpayer money. But, he takes care of more than big labor here. He also is giving a big gift to the environmentalists on the left who have long desired to cram little cars into the marketplace. By doing this he can stack the deck towards achieving this goal regardless of profitability. The problem is that you cannot make small cars in the U.S. at a profit with the costs of union labor per the current Detroit model. Even with the slight cuts that unions took - it's not near enough. But if the government subsidizes............ Well, that's a little unfair to Ford who is attempt to right it's own ship but who cares about private enterprise anyway, considering they are all greedy no good so and sos.

[Iceland12]

" The problem is that you cannot make small cars in the U.S. at a profit with the costs of union labor per the current Detroit model."

BULL*&^!#*&^!#*&^!#*&^!#! Well, technically you're correct.You couldn't make them under the prior union contract! Even without the new givebacks they would be profitable under the terms of the 2010 contract.

They wouldn't be as profitable as an SUV or truck or as profitable if they were built by the Chinese labor that hopefully you haven't fallen in love with, but they will be profitable. Also not as profitable as they'd be be built by Eastern Europeans brought in to work on them as they love to do "Down South" .

You've got a strong point when you talk about the potential failure of this whole thing, It's hard to tell if it's ignorance or bullheadedness that makes you insist that nothing has changed.

Maybe you bought a Chevy From Denny Hecker or you weren't able to get into a union. Hey, maybe you were been done in by "old fashioned Affirmative Action"; you know somebody's cousin got in rather then you!:D

I'm going back to work, enjoy the day gentlemen.

[bga1]

" The problem is that you cannot make small cars in the U.S. at a profit with the costs of union labor per the current Detroit model."

BULL*&^!#*&^!#*&^!#*&^!#! Well, technically you're correct.You couldn't make them under the prior union contract! Even without the new givebacks they would be profitable under the terms of the 2010 contract.

They wouldn't be as profitable as an SUV or truck or as profitable if they were built by the Chinese labor that hopefully you haven't fallen in love with, but they will be profitable. Also not as profitable as they'd be be built by Eastern Europeans brought in to work on them as they love to do "Down South" .

You've got a strong point when you talk about the potential failure of this whole thing, It's hard to tell if it's ignorance or bullheadedness that makes you insist that nothing has changed.

Maybe you bought a Chevy From Denny Hecker or you weren't able to get into a union. Hey, maybe you were been done in by "old fashioned Affirmative Action"; you know somebody's cousin got in rather then you!:D

I'm going back to work, enjoy the day gentlemen.

I said not enough has changed- the concessions by the unions were small the work rules will continue. I would never be part of a union- I got a sniff of it as a college student- no thanks.
I work for myself anyways.

We'll see what happens. How did we evolve from stupid, ignorant, bullheaded dicks to "gentlemen" all in one post?

When you get done doing your work (are you union?) let us all know what the record of government owned, for profit enterprises is. How they are viewed for service, quality and innovation. Since history is usually the best predictor of future performance - that might be relevant.

You seem to think you have a lot of information about how they will be profitable, profitable enough to justify 50+ billion in government investment(so far) - can you let us know what the savings per car of the new agreement will be?

[Gopher4Life]

jamiche,

>>...it is much more convenient to accuse him of being kissy-kissy with the UAW.<<

He's not?

[Iceland12]

"I said not enough has changed- the concessions by the unions were small the work rules will continue. I would never be part of a union- I got a sniff of it as a college student"

Well that explains a lot!

- Work rules have been changed and loosened both under the last contract and in the present day negotiations. They haven't closed the unions though, so it looks like your not going to be happy.

- The "dick" reference was to diehard's South notes. Would "trying to be funny" have made you happier? For a guy who throws around the "Socialist" tag they way 60's hippies used "Fascist" you're pretty thin skinned. There are "bullheaded" gentlemen though, I just extended the courtesy.:)

There's no more reason to try to be "reasonable" and answer questions bga, I didn't know the extent of your hatred for unions, at least American ones. Any answer that's given as long as doesn't include "and the unions will disappear" you'll ignore anyway. It's a problem I admit to having with "Neo-Cons". Their philosophy seems to be:

"Send jobs to China? GREAT, as long as they are union jobs!

[Gopher4Life]

The union's outrageous demands (along with management's foolish concessions) brought the auto companies down. Here's an idea: let's reward them and criticize anyone who opposes the continuous bailouts.

[bga1]

"I said not enough has changed- the concessions by the unions were small the work rules will continue. I would never be part of a union- I got a sniff of it as a college student"

Well that explains a lot!

- Work rules have been changed and loosened both under the last contract and in the present day negotiations. They haven't closed the unions though, so it looks like your not going to be happy.

- The "dick" reference was to diehard's South notes. Would "trying to be funny" have made you happier? For a guy who throws around the "Socialist" tag they way 60's hippies used "Fascist" you're pretty thin skinned. There are "bullheaded" gentlemen though, I just extended the courtesy.:)

There's no more reason to try to be "reasonable" and answer questions bga, I didn't know the extent of your hatred for unions, at least American ones. Any answer that's given as long as doesn't include "and the unions will disappear" you'll ignore anyway. It's a problem I admit to having with "Neo-Cons". Their philosophy seems to be:

"Send jobs to China? GREAT, as long as they are union jobs!

The union power is way out of balance. The idea of having unions as a balance against corporate abuse is actually a good one. Certainly some of the corporations of many years ago were guilty of terrible abuse. However, today unions have cut severly into American productivity and competitiveness. Their sheer numbers give them terrific political cover as the politicians have attempted to buy their valuable blocks of votes with favors. There has to be a partnership between the corporations and the workers otherwise we all lose out.

I took a further look at the concessions. Everywhere I look I see the total gain by GM as a result of the concessions to be about $1.3 billion/year. That's not even close to enough to get GM back on it's feet and competitive. They took no wage cuts- they only took a cost of living freeze- from everything I see. This was a lopsided deal in favor of the unions and against creditors.

With the labor force costs that GM had they were forced to make SUVs or make chintzy small cars that no one liked - chintzy to minimize their loss per unit sold. They should have faced down the unions years ago.

[Iceland12]

"There has to be a partnership between the corporations and the workers otherwise we all lose out." "However, today unions have cut severly into American productivity and competitiveness."

Very, very true and that's what they had when Saturn started in the early 90's. It seemed to work well. Work rules were very loose, training was mandated and workers and management shared in decisions with management still having final say. It was an experiment that was to be transferred throughout GM.

Three things killed it.
- When other plants closed the senior workers had the right to transfer to open plants. They went to Saturn and by all accounts hated it. They had spent years working their way up the senority ladder and it ticked them off to lose the right to get the "best jobs.

- Chevy absolutely hated the idea of Saturn. Saturn getting 70% capture business? All Chevy could see was the 30% they coldn't get. When Roger Smith left his successor was an "anti-Saturn" guy and he starved them for new product while pouring tens of millions of dolars and new product into Oldsmobile. Neither move turned out to be a good one.

- When a new labor deal was signed the UAW president (Yocich?) got what they wanted, a removal of Saturn's labor agreement. The local vote was against the idea. The ratio of for-to-against was inline with the number of original Saturn employees versus the "forced to move" UAW workers.

...and yeah, we own some Saturn stores too!

Oh bga, the concessions that will make the most difference are the ones that were already agreed to before this mess happened. It was in the contract and was scheduled to go into effective on January 1, 2010. In 2005, the UAW and GM struck a deal to cut employee health expenses by about $3 billion and retiree costs by about $15 billion. It was the damn Delphi contracts that GM should have fought against.

Here's Wall Street Journal article explaining the problem. Who knew that would be "simpler" times.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119079465500439816.html?mod=fpa_whatsnews

Here's an explanation from the Janesville paper an about to be former union town.

[bga1]

Good info Iceland! Count me a sceptic on this deal- there are a lot of problems. Let's hope it works.

[Costa Rican Gopher]

"America hates the bailout. 21% support it. 67% oppose it. These people aren't buying any more Dodges or Chevys."

Reminds me of a certain war in the Persian Gulf recently. President is elected, President is wildly popular due to extenuating circumstances, President uses that against the people for an agenda that is un-american, people mostly shrug and go about their video games, Tivo and sit coms.

"and to forced Government contracts"

You think Ford will see any of these forced Government contracts?

"By people who aren't smart enough to buy a good efficient well engineered Foreign Model that was built with quality workmanship."

It was someone on here a whole back (Paraphrasing) who said when the going gets tough the Japanese go to the drawing board and come up with a better mousetrap. When the going gets tough the Big-3 go to their lobbyists and try and have the laws changed in their favor (Or on this case join with the Federal Govt).

[diehard]

"
- The "dick" reference was to diehard's South notes.

Ice Ice Baby, dude! What do you find so offensive about the best American made automobiles are being manufactured in the South instead of the Rust Belt. I mean, like, dude, it's not even debatable, is it?

I'm not a "Yankee" hater. I be one. Just because I moved South (not Iowa) after graduating from the U 35 years ago doesn't mean I hate you for living there! Actually, I feel sorry for you.

[Iceland12]

"I moved South (not Iowa) after graduating from the U 35 years ago"

..and moved 90 years back in time. Do you still have all your teeth?

No seriously, there's nothing wrong with the South that a Tactical Nuclear Weapon couldn't cure.

[diehard]

I feel so dumb. I didn't realise that you were the return of Kelly Leeks under a new moniker until your last post. Hey, how is everything working out for you? Long time since we've touched base (I used to post as rockraven). How's tipsy doing?

[Iceland12]

I feel so dumb. I didn't realise that you were the return of Kelly Leeks under a new moniker until your last post. Hey, how is everything working out for you? Long time since we've touched base (I used to post as rockraven). How's tipsy doing?

Hell, I thought you were Wren..

[diehard]

How dare you???

[tikited]

I feel so dumb. I didn't realise that you were the return of Kelly Leeks under a new moniker until your last post. Hey, how is everything working out for you? Long time since we've touched base (I used to post as rockraven). How's tipsy doing?

We could use a little Leeks and Tipsy in here...

[diehard]

tikited said "We could use a little Leeks and Tipsy in here..."

Maybe it is time to start a thread to forgive, to forget, to see if they come back. But really, Ice Ice Baby is Leeks, right?