Early Reviews of Obama's GM 'Gamble' Don't Look Good

[cobra de capell]

But, health insurance is next and BO seems to think that it needs doing by the end of Summer. He may be also thinking that 'whatever' needs doing by the mid-term election - if the Republicans can take over the house or senate a lot of 'change' will stop or at least slow down. If not, we are screwed.

There's a hedge fund out there that is placing a bet on hyperinflation - it had $400 million in it late last year - now, $10 billion.

[Wayne Maybury]

I read a very interesting article this morning from the New York Times. Basically the author states that there is no way for the government to now get out of GM and there is no way for GM to become profitable. He feels that GM will continue to lose money and keep going back to Washington asking for more and more. His opinion is that it would be political suicide for any government, especially for Democrats, to pull the plug so they will just keep funding further GM losses.

I have always driven Fords but even if I were a GM person, I could not see myself buying another GM product. I think that they are going to have a very difficult time getting the general public to purchase their cars.

Wayne

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by Wayne Maybury

I read a very interesting article this morning from the New York Times. Basically the author states that there is no way for the government to now get out of GM and there is no way for GM to become profitable. He feels that GM will continue to lose money and keep going back to Washington asking for more and more. His opinion is that it would be political suicide for any government, especially for Democrats, to pull the plug so they will just keep funding further GM losses.

I have always driven Fords but even if I were a GM person, I could not see myself buying another GM product. I think that they are going to have a very difficult time getting the general public to purchase their cars.

Wayne

My understanding is that there is a New GM and an Old GM, so perhaps the New GM can be profitable at some point in time - but, what about the Old GM? Car companies run by the federal government - it's going to be a disaster.

[Wayne Maybury]

Originally Posted by cobra de capell

My understanding is that there is a New GM and an Old GM, so perhaps the New GM can be profitable at some point in time - but, what about the Old GM? Car companies run by the federal government - it's going to be a disaster.

Won't the new GM rise from the ashes of the old GM as it fades from memory? Have you ever seen anything turn a profit with the government running it? That was one of the points raised in this article. With the government in charge, there is little hope that GM will ever be able to break even. I guess that I should be saying "governments" because in addition to the US Federal Government, the Governments of Canada and Ontario have also jumped into the fray and have handed out lots of the public's money to this project.

Wayne

[427sharpe]

Originally Posted by cobra de capell

But, health insurance is next and BO seems to think that it needs doing by the end of Summer. He may be also thinking that 'whatever' needs doing by the mid-term election - if the Republicans can take over the house or senate a lot of 'change' will stop or at least slow down. If not, we are screwed.

There's a hedge fund out there that is placing a bet on hyperinflation - it had $400 million in it late last year - now, $10 billion.

You hit the nail; impetus created by fear of voter backlash in the midterms. A republican gain will (hopefully) rein in this foolishness. BUT; always the possibility that the 'neo-cons' get in and try to outspend BoBo!

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by 427sharpe

You hit the nail; impetus created by fear of voter backlash in the midterms. A republican gain will (hopefully) rein in this foolishness. BUT; always the possibility that the 'neo-cons' get in and try to outspend BoBo!

"neo-cons" have no record of excessive spending, so why include them? It's the RINOS in Congress that increased spending, along with the demobulbs, during the W years.

We need more Conservatives in Congress - small government types.

[427sharpe]

Originally Posted by cobra de capell

"neo-cons" have no record of excessive spending, so why include them? It's the RINOS in Congress that increased spending, along with the demobulbs, during the W years.

We need more Conservatives in Congress - small government types.

Mr. Bush (the neo-con) started this crap with his paltry 700 Billion, and in my book thats still damned excessive!
And yes, we need more true conservatives in Congress.
Finally, the government via BoBo has a plan...to forgive all the cash pumped into them so far, as well as what is surely coming.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by 427sharpe

And yes, we need more true conservatives in Congress.

Yep, there is maybe a handful in there right now. The rest have fooled Republican voters into thinking that the rest of them are conservatives.

Steve

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by 427sharpe

Mr. Bush (the neo-con) started this crap with his paltry 700 Billion, and in my book thats still damned excessive!
And yes, we need more true conservatives in Congress.
Finally, the government via BoBo has a plan...to forgive all the cash pumped into them so far, as well as what is surely coming.

W wasn't perfect, for sure.

Question - what definition are you giving to a 'neo-con'?

The true definition is very elusive - neocons include Charles Krauthammer, Paul Wolfowitz, maybe Dick Cheney and his aide, Scooter Libby, Doug Feith in the Pentagon, Bill Kristol. Do you have problems with this group of people?

Now, a neo-con may have at some point in time been a liberal -the cliche was because "they were mugged by reality," but it was because they saw the empirical failures of liberal welfare, state and foreign policies, and they were therefore less ideological than other conservatives and brought much more of a social science background to their argumentation. Not a bad way to go.

Review some of Krauthammer's columns - he's an interesting guy and always right on point.

[427sharpe]

I have problems with anyone who says one thing and does another. Remember Read my lips?
I look vainly for a time when voters remember that the gov't that governs least governs best.
As for W; I voted for him because he was the least objectionable, but he is definitely not a conservative. He is another 'tax and spend' politician, plain and simple; he just did it with deficits instead of cash.
In my eye a true conservative limits gov't. (esp. federal), balances budgets and doesn't 'bailout' (aka handout) business while shoveling $ to the guys who bankrupted them. We believe in capitalism and personal responsibility. We don't need exit strategies, because we mind our own business. And when we are forced to act in self preservation we act decisively and completely without regard to the UN or the media. I suppose these tenets seem more libertarian now, but I have never thought of myself this way. Actually, I reject all the political label nonsense. There are no narrow definitions that can be applied, so I call myself an independent. I do not vote party lines and I do not accept professional politicians.