TSUNAMI TIME
There’s not enough Botox in the world to keep Nancy Pelosi from frowning about this: Gallup has some disastrous number for Democrats.
Related posts:
Date: September 1, 2010
Categories: Politics
Leave a comment
Comments RSS TrackBack 101 comments
-
Mary hallow
in September 1st, 2010 @ 11:22The dem congress put through more changes than any congress in 60 years. Whether you like it or not it’s true. In that regard they were successful.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 1st, 2010 @ 11:50If they had passed legislation requiring us to wear our underwear on the outside, would you have considered that part of their “success”? I’ll take gridlock.
-
Mary hallow
in September 1st, 2010 @ 11:59Ok that example is unrealistic and makes no sense. The people overwhelmingly voted dems in on the promise that things would change and that’s exactly what happened. The people shouldn’t have voted that way if they weren’t prepared to deal with the implementation of the change. On another note I’d sure like to have that $1 trillion back that we spent on iraq. We would we debt free if we didn’t fund the war. Wasn’t it supposed to be $50 billion originally??? Money could have been better spent elsewhere. At least the stimulus gave us jobs. Iraq gave us nothing.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 1st, 2010 @ 12:05Your contention that they were successful because they pushed through so many stupid, unpopular laws makes no sense. That’s why I matched it with something that made no sense. The money spent on Iraq was never an “either-or” situation.The dems authorized the war. Obama has tripled the debt with his programs.
-
Federalist10
in September 1st, 2010 @ 12:41We could get $1 trillion back a lot easier, without trading the lives that would have been lost in Iraq had we not gone:
-
Gary M.
in September 1st, 2010 @ 14:02We are 13.4 Trillion in debt Mary. 13.4 – 1 = 12.4 Trillion not Zero.
With Bush’s prescription drug hand out and Obama’s health care we have over 100 Trillion in debt.
-
Daryl Stein
in September 1st, 2010 @ 15:51If we could still get that trillion back, I’d take it any day of the week if it meant not going to war. We could have gone it, got Hussein and left years ago. Instead we stayed, got our boys killed by insurgents that did not want us there and ruined our international reputation. That part of the world has been doing things the same way for thousands of years, so they are not likely to change. We should have just left the situation alone.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 1st, 2010 @ 20:14I’d be all for letting them exterminate each other. But, lets get out of the UN and go all in on isolationism. We belong to the UN and Hussein had 17 warnings and 17 violations. Either back up the warnings or get out.
-
Mary hallow
in September 1st, 2010 @ 12:31It was certainly an either or. We could have gone in, got Hussein and left and saved a trillion dollars. People were in favor of all his programs other than health care. Take a look at your buddy Christie in nj. I do business there and he’s doing things that are needed to be done such as trying to make teachers contribute to their pensions. As a result he’s unpopular and won’t win again. Doing the right thing isn’t easy.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 1st, 2010 @ 13:47The money that was made available for Iraq would not have been available for domestic programs. The dems authorized the war and they had many opportunities to de-fund it.
-
Tim
in September 1st, 2010 @ 14:17Actually to say “the dems authorized it” is a bit of a strech. Senate Dems did vote 29-21 in favor but House Dems voted 126-82 against.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 1st, 2010 @ 14:53It would not have happened without dems’ support.
-
Mary hallow
in September 1st, 2010 @ 12:34Explain the benefit of spending $1 trillion and losing 4000 lives in Iraq. How exactly did that make this country better? You are ok spending money as long as it’s for war. War on terrorism I understand. But the Iraq was stupid. No benefit at all.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 1st, 2010 @ 13:51The objective was to have a friendly, democratic state in that region. I don’t know what that’s worth, but you’re assuming that, if we hadn’t gone in, something else would not have forced us to do so down the road. If Hussein were still in power, what would he have been doing the last 7 years?
-
Mark reynolds
in September 1st, 2010 @ 23:16So we spent a trillion dollars, lost over 4400 lives just to have a friendly, diplomatic state in the Middle East? Wow, I hope that’s not the real reason. If so, then why aren’t we invading North Korea and Iran? Those countries are in a similar situation as Iraq in 2003, but we are staying out of those countries for good reasons.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 2nd, 2010 @ 02:03Iraq violated 17 UN resolutions and every intelligence service in the free world said they had WMDs….Obama’s current intelligence chief still believes that they had them and moved them to Syria before the invasion. Establishing a democracy was one of the objectives.
-
Federalist10
in September 2nd, 2010 @ 07:17There’s also a very legitimate cause to be made that having a friendly, democratic nation comprised of a coalition government (assuming the government properly forms) will not only increase general security in the Middle East, but will also help to de-stabilize the Iranian mullahs’ regime and help to stop the spread of Iranian influence to Islamofascist terror groups in and around the region. That likely was not the goal going in, but it sure as hell has been the reason to stay in the aftermath of the initial invasion.
In fact, the Iranian regime is not at all as strong as one might think. Look at the widespread protesting by the common citizens there a few months ago. Now, nothing has happened yet. However, the American revolution did not happen in two months either. Do you really think that those students and citizens, which include a large number of Jews and Christians who continue to live under a Sharia-enforcing Islamic state would have felt safe enough to start to stand up and express their desire for freedom if Iraq hadn’t been seeing the changes coming? And, although I, like John, would love to see us pull back from our international commitments to a large extent, it is undeniable that if the Middle East can somehow stabilize (especially before the Iranians develop nuclear weapons), it is better for American security interests and the security interests of the entire world.
-
Paul
in September 1st, 2010 @ 13:32That’s funny Mary, I’d like to have the $800 BILLION “Stimulus” back. I’m gonna enjoy watching Nazi Pelosi in her last few weeks with the gavel.
-
Daryl Stein
in September 1st, 2010 @ 15:52The one trillion is money we will never see. With the stimulus money, we got jobs, tax credits, etc… That money was re-invested back in the U.S.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 1st, 2010 @ 20:12Yeah that stimulus money fixed us right up. They couls have done more good by just throwing the money out of airplanes.
-
Federalist10
in September 2nd, 2010 @ 07:19Are you going by the “jobs created or saved” mantra that doesn’t exist? I only remember that we were promised that unemployment would not rise above 8%. It’s still hovering around 10%. Just admit that the stimulus, which is a product of failed Keynesian economic theory, did not work. I promise, it will be cathartic. Moreover, it will help in the long term as we won’t throw good money after bad the next economic downturn once we all can finally take a deep breath and learn from the one trillion that went to pay for signs advertising that Barack Obama paid for the orange barrels on the Parkway North.
-
Mary hallow
in September 1st, 2010 @ 14:57If that was the objective then we failed miserably. Over 4000 deaths and an iraqi govt that cannot govern without us is proof. If you had a son that died there, could you honestly say it was worth it? can say it wasn’t worth it but my son came home safe.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 1st, 2010 @ 20:21I don’t think we’ll know for a long time whether it was worth it, but if you’re in the military, there is always a chance that you’re going to be sent somewhere to fight and possibly die. BECAUSE there are families of 4000 dead, I’m reluctant to be so quick to say that it wasn’t worth it.
the French ambassador to Iraq, Boris Boillon, in an interview in Le Figaro the day before President Obama’s Iraq speech, made a stunning statement:
Iraq is true laboratory of democracy in the Arab world today. It is there that the future of democracy in the region will play itself out. Iraq could potentially become a political model for its neighbors. And, whether one likes it or not, all this has come about thanks to the American intervention of 2003.
-
Mark reynolds
in September 1st, 2010 @ 23:17I can see why Afghanistan is worth is because of all of the Taliban and Al Queda there. But Iraq……we spent a trillion dollars there rebuilding that country. We should have got Hussein and left. It was an unnecessary war and waste of money.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 2nd, 2010 @ 02:00Too early to say.
the French ambassador to Iraq, Boris Boillon, in an interview in Le Figaro the day before President Obama’s Iraq speech, made a stunning statement:
Iraq is true laboratory of democracy in the Arab world today. It is there that the future of democracy in the region will play itself out. Iraq could potentially become a political model for its neighbors. And, whether one likes it or not, all this has come about thanks to the American intervention of 2003.
-
Mary hallow
in September 1st, 2010 @ 14:59I was all for getting Hussein, but not at the cost of 7 years, 4000 deaths and $1 trillion.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 1st, 2010 @ 20:18Liberals do it all the time. They vote to authorize military action and then when people start dying, they say that maybe it wasn’t such a good idea.
-
Mike
in September 1st, 2010 @ 21:04That liberal Ron Paul voted against the Iraq War as well.
-
Mary hallow
in September 1st, 2010 @ 15:05Paul, you’d rather spend one trillion on a war vs $800 billion on the stimulus? If you had to pick one? Just curious.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 1st, 2010 @ 20:17You can debate the need for the war but you can’t debate whether waginf war is a legitimate function of the federal government. Running a car company is not a legitimate function of the federal government.
-
Mike
in September 1st, 2010 @ 21:05That was Bush who initially invested in them. Pretty much the last major act of his Presidency.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 2nd, 2010 @ 02:08Bush was not nearlyh conservative enough and spent way too much money. The republicans paid the price for acting like democrats.
-
Mark reynolds
in September 1st, 2010 @ 23:19The gov’t is not running anything. Last time I checked, the gov’t made a profit off the banks and will make a profit off GM when GM files for their IPO. The gov’t allowed GM to be stabilized, regroup and come out stronger.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 2nd, 2010 @ 01:59The govt. did not make a profit. That’s a myth.
-
Mark reynolds
in September 2nd, 2010 @ 07:38Not true:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BE0A420091215
I found many articles both from Dem and Rep legit sources stating how the gov’t made a profit.
-
Paul
in September 2nd, 2010 @ 09:57Looks like we’re using our 20/20 hindsight really well. When the Iraq invasion was on the table, every major democrat was in favor of removing Hussein because of WMD’s. (do we need to link to the tape again?). At that time, no one could know how long it would take or how much it would cost over time.
The stimulus, on the other hand, had a fixed price, a specific time frame and was supported by Democrats only. Not to mention that it made things much worse.
So, if I were to be the one to make those decisions AT THE TIME THEY NEEDED TO BE MADE, I would choose attempting to install Democracy in Iraq over attempting to spend our way into prosperity.
-
Paul
in September 2nd, 2010 @ 09:58EDIT: the were a few soon to be bounced out of office RINO’s that voted for the stimulus.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 2nd, 2010 @ 10:11Good riddance.
-
Mary hallow
in September 1st, 2010 @ 15:07And the stimulus would not have happened without rep support.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 1st, 2010 @ 20:16Repubs voted 177-0 against the second one.
-
Mike
in September 1st, 2010 @ 21:03So they “voted for it before they voted against it”??? where have i heard that line before? same thing deserves to happen to them as john kerry.
-
Mark reynolds
in September 1st, 2010 @ 23:19And how did they vote on the first bailout that was authorized by Bush in 2008? They were in favor for it.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 2nd, 2010 @ 01:59And they deserved what they got.
-
Federalist10
in September 2nd, 2010 @ 07:21You’re confusing capital-R “Republicans” with conservatives. I don’t care what party the people are who voted for either stimulus. I support conservatives who were against it both times.
-
Mary hallow
in September 1st, 2010 @ 15:11You are partially right john. They borrowed the money for the war so we wouldn’t have had to borrow and pay interest on $1 trillion. Spare me the other spending costs. At least that spending goes toward the US people.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 1st, 2010 @ 20:16The spending toward the US people is wasted. How’s that 3 trillion dollar War on Poverty working out?
-
Dr. Phibes
in September 1st, 2010 @ 17:47I agree with Mary’s first point: No matter how bad it is for them in November, the Dem’s were successful in getting a good portion of their agenda passed. National healthcare: check. Union paybacks: check. SCOTUS: not one but two far left appointments: double-check. You also have to give credit to those red-state Dem’s who voted yea on healthcare when they knew it was unpopular and could cost them in November. I wish Republicans had as much conviction.
I’m not happy with what they did, but I give credit where its due. When liberal Dems are in charge, they get some parts of their liberal agenda through. When Republicans are in charge, they seem to only get watered down conservative policies passed.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 1st, 2010 @ 20:12As I said, I prefer gridlock.
-
Mark reynolds
in September 1st, 2010 @ 23:22The best thing that can happen is the Reps taking over the House and even the Senate this fall. I’m actually hoping for it because it will be the same as in 1994-1996 when it was thought that Clinton wasn’t going to win a second term, but the bumbling Reps made Clinton look better and he won in 1996. 2 years ago, this country was so anti-Rep so they put Dems in office. 2 years later, it has flip flopped. 2 years from now, it will flip flop again. The Reps will get in, cause gridlock and Obama will be the one to come out of it looking better. History proves that. Two years ago, who would have thought that the Reps would make a comeback, but they did. Two years from now, the situation will be reversed.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 2nd, 2010 @ 01:58Clinton took Dick Morris’ advice and moved to the right and co=opted republican ideas—welfare reform etc…Morris calls it triangulation. I’m not sure Obama will do the same.
-
Federalist10
in September 2nd, 2010 @ 07:23I’m sure he won’t – his ego won’t allow it. He’s a true believer.
-
Mary hallow
in September 1st, 2010 @ 21:40You didn’t answer my question. If your son was sent to Iraq and died, would it have been worth it?
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 2nd, 2010 @ 02:07I don’t know. Neither do you. Too early.
the French ambassador to Iraq, Boris Boillon, in an interview in Le Figaro the day before President Obama’s Iraq speech, made a stunning statement:
Iraq is true laboratory of democracy in the Arab world today. It is there that the future of democracy in the region will play itself out. Iraq could potentially become a political model for its neighbors. And, whether one likes it or not, all this has come about thanks to the American intervention of 2003.
-
Mary hallow
in September 1st, 2010 @ 21:43Stock market was 6600 before stimulus and currently 10200. Look at the jobs that were added, the tax credits given, how manufacturing increased because of the money spent. You have a narrow view.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 2nd, 2010 @ 02:06The economy is still in the toilet and he tripled the debt. What jobs—other than govt. jobs.. were added? There are abpout 12 people in the country who think the stimulus worked and they’re all working in the White House.
-
Mark reynolds
in September 2nd, 2010 @ 07:47From economist Alan Viard:
“Without the stimulus, Viard admits unemployment would be higher than the current 9.7 percent,. “I think it made sense to do the stimulus,” he said.”
You are really joking right? Reps call for tax cuts all of the time, so in the stimulus, there were tax credits for purchasing cars, homes, green appliances just to name a few.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 2nd, 2010 @ 08:50Cash for clunkers was a disaster.
-
Mark reynolds
in September 2nd, 2010 @ 12:52It certainly was not. It gave people added incentive to purchase a car when they were otherwise not going to. Back up with facts please. “Disaster” is not a fact.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 2nd, 2010 @ 16:12It was a stupid wealth transfer. The well off, who could afford to buy a new car did fine, I was made to pay for their new car. It hurt low income people because used car prices went way up.
-
Mary hallow
in September 1st, 2010 @ 22:00War on poverty is doing well compared with poverty elsewhere in the world.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 2nd, 2010 @ 02:01It is? You think The War on Poverty separates us from Bangladesh?
-
Mark reynolds
in September 2nd, 2010 @ 07:43http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
Take a look at some world poverty facts and then tell me if we are really that bad? There will always be poverty in the world and U.S., but we are wayyyyy better off than most countries.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 2nd, 2010 @ 08:52I’ve seen poverty. I’ve been to Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic. Our “War On Poverty” didn’t eradciate poverty. It created a welfare state and more poverty. Colossal waste of money.
-
Paul
in September 2nd, 2010 @ 10:01Most people have no idea what real poverty is. You can’t get what it looks like from sitting in front of a TV.
No one in this country is suffering in poverty at this time. No. one.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 2nd, 2010 @ 10:12They need to take a trip to Managua.
-
Mark reynolds
in September 2nd, 2010 @ 12:54You answered this question yourself. We do not have people living like people in those countries you mention because of how we treat our poor people. But you hate “giving” so you’d rather the poor people in the US live like they do in Haiti.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 2nd, 2010 @ 16:13Your answer proves that you don’t know the difference between giving and taking. The government TAKES my money and gives it to someone else. That’s stealing. Not giving. Our poor people’s lives were made WORSE by the War on Poverty. We created a generation of welfare dependent, unwed mothers.
-
Mason
in September 2nd, 2010 @ 09:10Wow, I missed a great debate while I was out of the office yesterday.
Some of you folks on the left really need to read something other than memo’s from the White House, MoveOn.org and DailyKos.com
Please stop with the revisionist history on Iraq. It really makes you look like a blinded kool-aid drinker.
Bush gave GM a loan to keep them afloat until so the next President (since he was already elected but not sworn in) could handle things his way. I hope the current congress has the same respect when they are voted out. What Obama did was literally took the companies over, fired the CEO of GM and actually committed a criminal act by forcing closure of more than 2,000 profitable, independent businesses (local car dealerships).
If you want to have some fun – read a little bit about about former car czar Steven Rattner and his group, Quandrangle, that borrowed 100 million dollars from Cebereus – who owned Chrysler – to buy a magazine group that included Maxim and Stuff magazines. After running the mag’s into the ground, Ceberus forced Rattner out. A few months later, he was car czar. Therefore making the decision on how best to destroy Ceberus. No conflict of interest there.
I am involved with the car business and watched many long time business associates lose their life-long family businesses – even though they were making money. All while lies were being told about them costing the manufacturers money. It was illegal, immoral and done by the democrats.
-
Mark reynolds
in September 2nd, 2010 @ 12:56Unfortunately there were too many dealers and too much supply so something had to be done. GM and the unions ran that company into the ground, no doubt. Some of those dealers got royally screwed, but sometimes that had to happen in a cut throat business. Look at GM now compared with before. It’s a leaner, stronger company.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 2nd, 2010 @ 16:14That’s fine if it happens naturally. It’s not fine when the government decides who goes out of business and who doesn’t
-
Mason
in September 3rd, 2010 @ 07:13Mark, you are simply regurgitating what they sold you. Let me point out a couple facts.
First, even if we went with your assumption that there were too many dealers – they are independtly owned businesses. They are not owned by GM, Ford, Chrysler or Toyota. They are owned by small business people. Local townsfolk – your neighbors. These independent businesses were illegally stripped from these people against all standard legal practices. In many cases, the franchises were then given to other dealers – usually dealers with deeper pockets. They were targeting mom and pop. I have customers that were on both sides of this – dealership A is closed, dealership B is GIVEN that franchise. The manufacturer wanted dealership B in dealership A’s old location, so (since he is now out of business) dealership has virtually no choice but to sell or lease his old building. Therefore, dealership B is now one dealership instead of the old A & B. and in the other guys building. bad news – they now employee half the number of people, do half the amount of print and TV ads, do half the amount of local charity (sponsor little league, etc.) because now it is one dealership, not two. To put it simply, You used to have a Chevy dealer and another dealer that might have sold GMC, Buick. Now you have one dealer that sells them all. Now your service work is more expensive (no competition), parts are more expensive, etc.
Secondly, or more quickly. How in the world does it help a business that is 99% sales oriented, to get rid of one-third of your sales force?
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 3rd, 2010 @ 09:49Every time the government tries to mess with the free market it makes things WORSE.
-
Mark reynolds
in September 3rd, 2010 @ 10:21As a franchisee owner, the parent company has every right to take back a franchise. Look at the Hilton hotel downtown as an example. I am an owner and in the contract I signed, there is a line that states that the parent company has a legal right to take back the franchise name. Second, it’s a supply and demand issue. There was too much supply, so anyone could drive a mile down the road and find another GM dealership. If I wanted a better deal, I’d drive down the road. This caused prices to decrease due to competition. As a result, this hit the GM bottom line. Just like every single corporation and part of the free money system, they have every right to remove franchise agreements to reduce the number of dealers, thereby reducing supply. When they had too much supply, there was too much inventory and as a result, GM had to offer added incentives, which cause prices to decrease. It’s a smart move by GM to remove some of these franchises. A lot of corporations do this. When National City and PNC merged, PNC closed many branches because there was too much supply of branches. Airlines do this all of the time with their routes. It’s in their right to do so.
You guys can’t have it both ways. You can’t complain when companies are saved and you can’t complain when companies are put out of business. Tough decisions had to be made at GM and this decision made the company come out stronger. Look at the financials at GM. They are stronger than they have been in 10 years and look at the money generated when they file their IPO.
As for mom and pops, yeah it stinks, but it’s the world we live in. Big companies are putting mom and pops out of business all of the time. Stand behind Wal Mart if you have an issue with it. It’s the world we live in. People want to be able to go to one big place and purchase everything where there is pricing power compared with the mom and pop.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 3rd, 2010 @ 10:32The government killed the investors and caved to the unions–which were the main reason for the company being in the poasition it was in. GM should have been allowed to go bankrupt so that it could re-negotiate the labor contracts that killed it. Studebaker and American Motors went out of business and we survived.
-
Mary hallow
in September 2nd, 2010 @ 19:32People know the difference between giving and taking. You are ok with taking as long as it serves your own purposes. You got yours so screw anyone else. For someone that has been around the block you are very narrow minded to you own thoughts and opinions. Good leaders and team players are openminded and take all good ideas. You are narrowminded which is why you are spending your golden years writing on a blog.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 2nd, 2010 @ 20:51Apparently you don’t. If I have a dollar and you come up to me and threaten me with jail if I don’t give it to your next door neighbor….how is that giving on my part? Are these really my golden years?
-
Paul
in September 3rd, 2010 @ 09:36Yeah…you got yours…and now give it to me! These people’s arguements make no sense on their face so they have to resort to name calling, calling others selfish, etc….happens every time.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 3rd, 2010 @ 09:51You know what’s worse than calling someone who doesn’t want their money taken from them for stupid, failed, fraudulent, counterproductive government programs “selfish?” Calling someone who advocates taking my money and giving it to someone else, compassionate or generous. Ted Kennedy, for example. He was a really compassionate guy WITH OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY.
-
Mark reynolds
in September 3rd, 2010 @ 10:27OK, I see why people do not want their money taken in taxes, but this happens in every part of the world. Everyone pays taxes. Why waste energy complaining about it because it’s how the world is.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 3rd, 2010 @ 10:34So why don’t we send all of our money to Barack and let him give us an allowance? Talk about a third grade mentality. We shouldn’t complain when half of what we make goes to taxes? Why? Because they do it in France?
-
Mary hallow
in September 2nd, 2010 @ 19:34100% wrong on the cars. I purchased a used car in that period and there was no spike. The program cleaned up inventory that was sitting on dealer lots. Try again.
-
Mason
in September 3rd, 2010 @ 07:03I hate to be the bearer of bad news Mary, but used car prices have shot up. Not necessarily the $15k car, but the low price, high mileage car that was traded in during cash for clunkers – and was purchased by the young and poor.
In addition, It has put some mom & pop used car lots out of business due to difficulty in getting these type of cars on their lots – and when they could, the profit margin was gone in their resale.
Please, turn off NPR. For the sake of our country, please do independent research. I’m not saying all republican is good and all democrat is bad – I’m simply saying that the info is out there, please research it before going into a voting booth.
-
Mark reynolds
in September 3rd, 2010 @ 10:11Mason,
Do some real world research don’t don’t just Google information. This report comes nearly a year after cash for clunkers. The spike in used cars is not due to cash for clunkers, but the fact that people did not want to spend money on a new car, so they purchased a used car. If you check your facts like I did, you’ll see that things like shoe repairs have increased 26% in the last year because people are choosing to fix their shoes instead of purchasing new shoes because they want to save money. Other examples include a 31% increase in car repairs versus a year ago because people wanted to save money instead of buying a new car. Check the facts buddy.
-
Mason
in September 3rd, 2010 @ 11:03Mark, I don’t even know where to begin with your statements, but here goes.
I simply gave you one article that pointed out the rise in used car prices. It is not my only source. Like I stated earlier, I am in the automotive industry. I provide services to car dealerships – new and used. I have roughly 1500 customers nationwide. I do not base my information solely on what I read, or one or two peoples word. I have spoken to literally hundreds of dealers across the nation, in addition to people in ancilliary businesses. Cash For Clunkers is regarded as a joke in the business – yes, it boosted sales for a couple months, but all it really did was move peoples car purchases up anywhere from a couple months to a year or so. The backlash then comes over the course of that following year, because they are not trading their vechicle in at the point they naturally would have.
There are what are called Franchise Laws in this country. You can not legally simply terminate a franchise agreement for no reason. The Hilton case you mentioned stated that there were violations of the agreement. there will also be lawsuits to follow. No violations were cited as reasons by GM. They took profitable businesses and stripped them of their agreement to sell their product.
Let me point out something simple that you misunderstand. The competition that you site is completely off base – here is why.
First – I CANNOT drive a mile down there road and get another Chevrolet. I might be able to do that and get a GMC. when a company franchises, there are parameters to how close another franchisee can be. with GM it is around 15-20 miles. there might be another GM dealer – but they sell different product. So the competition might drive down service work pricing since you could take your chevy to the GMC dealer and get factory service work done – but service departments are the biggest money maker for most dealerships anyway.
Second – even if what you are saying is true about competition driving down the price of the car – it DOES NOT impact GM, it onlyl impacts the dealer! The dealer pays a set price for the car from GM – what they then sell it for is there profit margin. ZERO impact on General Motors.
As for GM being in good financial shape – that is a joke. It is all smoke and mirrors. they used accounting tricks to manipulate the money given by the feds. They have not cut expenses, and they certainly are not selling more cars or making more money. they have shuffled the gov’t money around on the books to make them look good so they can have an IPO.
John is 100% correct in his posts. the driving forces were not addressed at all. GM owned 50% of the car market as recently as the early 70′s. At that time, they could afford to be generous to employees. Cradle to Grave employees they called them. retire from working an assemblyline at 50 years old with close to 100% of pay. due to competion that came about due to rule changes in the 70′s and beyond, GM’s market share is down to about 22%. They cannot afford the legacy costs of retirees. GM has roughly 2 retirees for every worker right now. They CANNOT sustain this. taxpayers have already bailed out these pensions. The next step is going to be a gov’t takeover of these bloated pensions.
Do you want your tax dollars paying for hundreds of thousands of UAW union people? While they live down by the beach in FL at 55, making $100k plus health care?
I don’t.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 3rd, 2010 @ 11:23Your serve, Mark. (My favorite part of Mason’s post is when he says, “John is 100% correct on his posts.” And I don’t even work in the car business–although I do own two. Cars, I mean.
-
Mark reynolds
in September 3rd, 2010 @ 20:54No one thought that the spike in car sales during cash for clunkers would continue even after the program ended. This type of program is used all of the time in the private and public sector. It was similar to home sales. Everyone knew they would spike when there was a $8,000 credit and then would fall afterwards. The goal was to increase sales, which would open up credit and would get money flowing again. Most companies do something similar with their products. If something is on sale, there is a rush to buy it and after the sale, sales of the product slow down. But the goal is to get people to buy the product.
Second Mason, since I have no clue who you are, you could be very well making stuff up about dealers, but I’m providing facts based on research. GM closed dealers that were underperforming: http://www.mlive.com/auto/index.ssf/2009/05/general_motors_to_terminate_fr.html
And here is a quote from the article about dealership supply and demand: “As GM and Chrysler lost market share to Japanese and other overseas brands, the automakers, as well as Ford Motor Co., ended up with too many dealerships. Many are barely getting by and can’t afford to upgrade their facilities or hire the best personnel to compete with the Japanese, who have far fewer dealerships.”
Basically GM had to trim the fat to remain competitive. So yes, dealers have an impact on GM. If there is too much inventory, GM has to offer incentives to help sell cars. They had to cut dealers and cut supply. I commend them for making the hard decisions, but that’s what they had to do to make the company survive.
One thing I will agree with you about is the pensions. That’s a joke. Same with any publicly funded pension. My pension is funded by my private company. I don’t like paying for pensions for school teachers or gov’t employees either, but I’m stuck doing so. These people should fund their own pensions.
As for GM’s financial shape, once again, show me the proof. I’m going by accountant backed financials that I’m finding that are authorized by auditors. So if these accountants are lying, then I guess we’ll have another Enron case on our hands. So should we believe the accountants or “Mason the automotive man” who does not back up anything that he says? Sorry, but I stick with facts.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 3rd, 2010 @ 21:05Sorry. I’m going with Mason the automotive man. The government forced the issue and it was a failure.
-
Mark reynolds
in September 3rd, 2010 @ 21:22Gee, big surprise there.
-
Mason
in September 4th, 2010 @ 08:25Sorry to keep this thread alive. This will be my last post on this story.
Mark, while I agree with you that similar programs are done all the time – they are never just like CFC’s. To be similar, after buying that house with government incentive, the seller would have to burn their old house to the ground instead of reselling it. Many programs sound good on the surface, but you have to dig 3, 4, 5 layers deep to analyze what might come to pass thru the law of unintended consequences. The program took cars out of the normal flow of business – hence hurting everyone below in the food chain – right down to the junk yard dealer that would want the old car for scrap parts.
I never said GM was doing anything illegal, so no, you will not have an enron. I simply said they are shuffling money around in the books to make things look good. Nothing illegal. There are many, many articles on both sides of this argument.
Because GM makes a statement saying that they closed underperforming dealerships, that is ‘fact’? Even if we go with you premise – there are legal and illegal ways to do it. Taking a 50 year old, profitable business that employs 75 people and is heavily involved in the local community, and stripping their franchise with no warning or compensation is illegal. to add to it, the closures also involved no GM buy back of cars or parts. So, a dealer had his remaining GM cars, but was not a licensed dealer – how much luck do you think they had getting rid of those cars? Many dealers also got stuck with between $100k – $200k in parts. Parts departments are stocked with mostly new parts – but the dealer cannot do warranty work anymore or certified GM work, so therefore, cannot use their parts. They were selling these parts for about 25 cents on the dollar to other dealers.
So even if you are correct about the need to thin down – which I, and many others do not agree with – not only is there a legal and illegal way. there is a right way and a wrong way. The government only cared about the unions – which is what John repeated multiple times. people only want to look at the surface – you have to peel the layers of the onion back to really understand.
Have you read excerpts from car czar Steven Rattners book? It should be fun when it comes out.
Key points from the article and excerpts:
-When Obama was told of the plan to pay GM CEO Rick Wagoner a $7.1 million severance package after Obama ordered that he be sacked, Rattner writes: “Suddenly I felt that I was indeed in the presence of a community organizer…”
-Rattner describes presidential political adviser David Axelrod coming to car meetings armed with poll data to support the takeover and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel identify Congressmen in whose districts large Chrysler facilities were located.
-”[Obama's economic team] veered dangerously close to having the government take control of the two most troubled banks, Bank of America and Citigroup.”
-”If his team had linked arms with the outgoing administration, as President Bush’s advisers had proposed, billions of dollars could well have been saved.”
-Rattner says Chief of Staff Rahm Emanual dictated Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s schedule, public appearances and staff selections.
-He says Obama economic advisers Larry Summers and Austan Goolsbee and FDIC Chair Sheila Bair as enemies who slowed down decision making with infighting
-Rattner said Obama was frustrated with the auto companies from the start: “Why can’t they make a Corolla?” he has Obama asking.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 4th, 2010 @ 14:14And I’ll always vote for the person who proposes to tax us the least. There are degrees of stupidity and high taxes are stupid and counterproductive.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 4th, 2010 @ 14:15Thomas Sowell calls it “stage one thinking”. Check out Applied Economics by Sowell. Every college kid in America should be required to read it. So should every member of congress.
-
Mary hallow
in September 2nd, 2010 @ 22:13I won’t bother to make another point because you are like trying to have a conversation with my 95 year old father. You have your opinion and no one else has a good idea and they are all wrong. I used to enjoy this site but you are getting further to the right and closeminded.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 3rd, 2010 @ 09:47Sorry you feel that way. I’m just never going to agree that the government TAKING money from me and giving it to you equals me GIVING money to you. The government can’t GIVE anything to anybody unless it TAKES from someone else. Read Mason’s post about the used cars.
-
Mark reynolds
in September 3rd, 2010 @ 10:12Just answered it. He’s wrong.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 3rd, 2010 @ 10:16I don’t think you came close to proving that.
-
Mark reynolds
in September 3rd, 2010 @ 10:22Not surprised. You can’t see the forest through the trees.
-
Mark reynolds
in September 3rd, 2010 @ 10:24OK, I’ll explain it like I would to a 3rd grader. There are price spikes in re-used/repaired items all across the board and it’s not because of cash for clunkers, it’s because people are trying to save money so they are buying used or choosing to fix their items instead of buying new ones.
-
Walt sulletin
in September 4th, 2010 @ 10:24Mark, why waste your time and energy with facts? Some people just do not have an open mind and think that only their opinions are right regardless of what information you put in front of them. When you are right, they would change the subject anyway. Plus the moderator is biased. That’s why this site is poor for debating.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 4th, 2010 @ 14:11Of course I’m biased. So is Mark. Mark only likes his facts and disregards the facts from a guy who obviously knows the car business.
Try these facts on for size:
According to LeaseTrader, the company, which matches people wanting to get rid of their leases with people willing to take them over, says they’re receiving about 150 calls per week from people wanting out of their Cash for Clunkers lease deal. Mostly it’s because they’re worried about the economy, or may have lost their jobs and thus can’t make the payments. Others want out simply because they’re bored with their new vehicle.
John Sternal, a vice-president at LeaseTrader, says these customers are suffering from “clunker remorse.” Unfortunately, these lease owners put themselves in a box — not many people want to take over a car lease with 30 months or more left. The optimal “takeover” lease timetable is 15-18 months, says LeaseTrader.
-
Walt sulletin
in September 4th, 2010 @ 22:20mark is at least showing legit facts. Mason could be making all this stuff up for what we know.
That has nothing to do with clunkers. That’s the economy in general. That is happening with homes as well. Not really good facts supporting your argument but nice try.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in September 5th, 2010 @ 12:19Mark’s facts are legit because you agree with him. I get it. Thanks.