BOHICA: GM gets another $2 billion as deadline approaches

Spectre

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,832
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
From the BOHICA department and MarketWatch:

GM gets another $2 billion as deadline approaches
By Shawn Langlois, MarketWatch
Last update: 1:16 p.m. EDT April 24, 2009

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- General Motors Corp. has received $2 billion in fresh working capital from the Obama administration as the ailing Detroit giant works to revamp itself ahead of a June 1 deadline, Treasury Department officials said Friday.

The government previously announced that it would provide GM (GM:
General Motors Corp (GM 1.70, +0.08, +4.9%) and rival Chrysler LLC with working capital while rescue talks proceed.

The two automakers have now received almost $20 billion in low-cost loans that has allowed them to keep assembly lines running during the worst industry slump in decades.

GM unveiled plans Thursday to shut most of its assembly plants for up to nine weeks this summer to cope with the prolonged slump in demand. See full story.

GM's top executives have cautioned in recent weeks that a bankruptcy filing is the probable outcome considering the demands of the Obama administration.

At the same time, Chrysler's ability to avert bankruptcy was brought into question by a story in the New York Times Thursday that reported the U.S. Treasury is preparing a filing that could come as early as next week.
Chrysler is up against an April 30 deadline to submit a plan, which likely includes a partnership with Italy's Fiat, to the Treasury to qualify for more bailout money.

Ford (F 5.27, +0.78, +17.4%) shares rallied as much as 21% early Friday after the company reported improved cash flow and vowed to remain the only one of the three domestic automakers to avoid a taxpayer lifeline. See full story.
GM shares jumped 5% to $1.70 in midday trades. End of Story
Shawn Langlois is a reporter for MarketWatch in San Francisco.
Click to expand...


Bailout Barry's at it again.

Just f***ing declare bankruptcy already!!!!!!!!! STOP WASTING MY TAX DOLLARS!!!!!!!!
 
When will they realize that they're feeding a rotting corpse?
 
Leonidae said:
When will they realize that they're feeding a rotting corpse?
Click to expand...

More like feeding the creamated ashes of a cavemen who happened to have a curse put on him. Stop throwing away money already!

I have to ask, where is this tax (ie, several of my American friends as well) money going? The amount GM/Chrysler spent on "development plans and restructuring" does not match the amount poured into the company. In other words, several million dollars is missing. Where exactly did it go? :think:
 
So wait... GM just announced they're going to default on their loans. They're going into bankruptcy.

... why are we giving them money? What exactly are they using it for?
 
Hmmm...the new president administration must have some superhero, whose super-power is the ability to crap money.
 
Can we please maybe put these all in "Spectres complain about the bailouts megathread"? Half of this subforum is pretty much a copy of this thread with an older timestamp.
 
_HighVoltage_ said:
Hmmm...the new president administration must have some superhero, whose super-power is the ability to crap money.
Click to expand...

Except we call it the US Treasury department. They are literally printing money that are not backed by anything.
Can we please maybe put these all in "Spectres complain about the bailouts megathread"? Half of this subforum is pretty much a copy of this thread with an older timestamp.
Click to expand...
I know you are a fan of GM but come on man, the company ran itself into the ground and is now wasting our money. I too have a problem with ANY government bailout of ANY company. If the company is making good products, has good customer service, after sale support, resource management and good PR it won't need any bailout. Look at Ford they aren't asking for any bailouts because they figured out early enough not to specialize in trucks and provide better products.

Also refer to what I said above, we don't have that money in the budget it is literally nothing but paper...
 
FFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

dumbarse government.

To Matt: I think everyone has a right to complain (at least those in the US). GM is wasting the taxpayer's money without an actual plan. they missed a deadline to pay back, so essentially, GM is a sinkhole of taxpayer money. If they never had an actual plan, they should have been upfront with it, so they could just declare bankruptcy. Instead, they decided to make a hodge podge plan that had no way in hell of actually working. In fact, it wasnt really a plan. So yes, the people of the forum DO have a right to complain.
 
No you misunderstand, im saying how is this differant from the "GM defaults on debt" thread made yesterday? Why not combine all the "GM is fucked" news stories into one thread?
 
It would have like 500000 pages of comments.

I kinda see the sense in that. Or at least merge the ones per the week.
 
Last edited:
you know to err is human but the shit chevrolet has put on these years is unforgivable. and matt the camro is nice i loved IROC-Z's and after a austin marina i drove a Chevy S10 but really it's time to let it go perhaps someone else will make camaros,better ones

(exceptions in gm's shithole are Corvette,Pontiac G8 and i can't think of a third one but I'm sure I'm missing someone)
 
gaasc said:
and matt the camro is nice
Click to expand...

It was only nice when it had the V8. That's the only reason they got away with it.
The 90s V6 models were pathetic! 3.4 V6 and only 160hp! What's up with that? My Volvo, which is by no means a sports car, has a 2.4 I5 that makes 168hp. The 2.5 BMW straight six made 190hp.
And both the Volvo and the BMW have better fuel economy than the Camaro.

I'm sorry but GM was only good when making big V8 engined cars, all the rest were utter garbage.
 
Maybe the US government is taking the lesser of two evils by bailing them out as they are at the moment?

I mean if they imploded with no bail out money at all what sort of ripple effect would that have on the US economy (and peoples view of their country)? Maybe the Government did their sums and worked out that it was cheaper in the long term to give them this money now so they can "softly" implode?

I understand how some people try to link the unions with the current US administration. That's cool and makes sense, but I wonder how true it actually is?

First off if I was the US government, I'd go into damage control mode, make sure that the sections of the company that need their money, and their subcontractors and suppliers -- I bet this is where the majority of the money has gone.

Sorry guys I'm a pragmatist, I upset everybody on the left and right side of politics. :)

While in principle I don't agree with government bailouts of private industry, I do understand that they do have a duty of care to consider options like a bailout if the company collapsing would cause serious problems that would effect the economy, citizens and national interest as a whole.

This is a Australians point of view....deal with it :)

_HighVoltage_ said:
It was only nice when it had the V8. That's the only reason they got away with it.
The 90s V6 models were pathetic! 3.4 V6 and only 160hp! What's up with that? My Volvo, which is by no means a sports car, has a 2.4 I5 that makes 168hp. The 2.5 BMW straight six made 190hp.
And both the Volvo and the BMW have better fuel economy than the Camaro.

I'm sorry but GM was only good when making big V8 engined cars, all the rest were utter garbage.
Click to expand...

Sorry dude your kinda on the wrong track: You honestly can't make the comparisons your making. You are dealing with different vehicle emission standards in the US, and a lower fuel quality than is generally found in Europe.

I would bet your Euro motors would have much higher emissions of NOx, CO and HC --> more polluting even when you take into account that the US motors use more fuel.

Anyway I would much rather a larger engine with a little less power: One reason is power band (torque) and generally speaking a under stressed motor will last much longer.

..
...
....
.....

Sorry for being reasonable, I won't let it happen again ;)
 
Lets simplify it for the snobs:

Large displacement-Low power benefits.
  • Higher Tolerances
  • Widespread power band
  • Longer lasting engine
  • Generally easier to maintain yourself without a specialist

Why rev it to the moon and boost it to within an inch of its like when you can simplify and add volume? When a 1.1L Golf and a 6.2L corvette pay the same tax (unlike some places in europe where i hear it is based on engine size) it just makes sense. Will your high strung turbo engine last 170,000mi on just oil changes and spark plug replacements? The impala ss parked outside my house has that many.
'cept the torque keeps eating transmissions......
 
Last edited:
MattD1zzl3 said:
Lets simplify it for the snobs:

Large displacement-Low power benefits.
  • Higher Tolerances
  • Widespread power band
  • Longer lasting engine
  • Generally easier to maintain yourself without a specialist

Why rev it to the moon and boost it to within an inch of its like when you can simplify and add volume? When a 1.1L Golf and a 6.2L corvette pay the same tax (unlike some places in europe where i hear it is based on engine size) it just makes sense. Will your high strung turbo engine last 170,000mi on just oil changes and spark plug replacements? The impala ss parked outside my house has that many.
'cept the torque keeps eating transmissions......
Click to expand...

I completely see the point of doing that on a v8, and that's why I havn't criticized them. the torque is ample, and as a result, they are still good engines.

About the 6's though: i wiki'd it, and yes, there is low torque, but isn't that what the 8's were made for? And as a result of crap transmission pairings, weren't they generally not that quick?


NOT criticizing the 8's in any way. only talking about the 6's here.
 
Last edited:
kaBOOMn said:
Maybe the US government is taking the lesser of two evils by bailing them out as they are at the moment?

I mean if they imploded with no bail out money at all what sort of ripple effect would that have on the US economy (and peoples view of their country)? Maybe the Government did their sums and worked out that it was cheaper in the long term to give them this money now so they can "softly" implode?
Click to expand...

Others have done the sums, including those who hold GM's debt, and the numbers are such that they should have declared bankruptcy instead of asking for a bailout.

I understand how some people try to link the unions with the current US administration. That's cool and makes sense, but I wonder how true it actually is?
Click to expand...

Considering that it's the unions themselves that were crowing about having spent $400 million to get Obama & Company elected, including a $5 million direct donation from the UAW, I'd say it's pretty true.

While in principle I don't agree with government bailouts of private industry, I do understand that they do have a duty of care to consider options like a bailout if the company collapsing would cause serious problems that would effect the economy, citizens and national interest as a whole.
Click to expand...

And, meanwhile, as the competitors of AIG, another government bailout recipient, have found out, it means that the bailed out company has an unfair advantage and then can undercut the competition... which leads to its own problems. Such as those non-bailed-out corporations going out of business, leaving the government entity as the only one left standing.

Bailouts are bad, period.
 
MattD1zzl3 said:
Lets simplify it for the snobs:

Large displacement-Low power benefits.
  • Higher Tolerances
  • Widespread power band
  • Longer lasting engine

Why rev it to the moon and boost it to within an inch of its like when you can simplify and add volume? When a 1.1L Golf and a 6.2L corvette pay the same tax (unlike some places in europe where it is based on engine size) it just makes sense. Will your high strung turbo engine last 170,000mi on just oil changes and spark plug replacements? The impala ss parked outside my house has that many. 'cept the torque keeps eating transmissions......
Click to expand...

Point taken- if you're driving something that weighs three tons. Cars that weigh in at roughly a ton (or less) can use small-displacement engines with or without a turbo and keep the power band low. My MX5 has a N/A I4- 110bhp stock, and the redline is low- 6500-7000. A large-displacement V8 has 50 more bhp, and the redline is lower by about 1000-2000. But it's also larger, heavier, uses more material, and more complex. So your point is valid, but not in any way universal.

And have we forgotten diesels? Even the diesel Golfs of the 80's were small-displacement and turbo'ed, yet had low redlines (4500-5000) and lasted frigging forever, more than 300,000m was the average engine life.

Large-displacement engines with low power are good in cruisers, muscle cars and light trucks, but not lightweight cars, small cars, family saloons, hatches, compact sports, etc etc.
 
160 horsepower? I cant speak for all v8's but im in the upper 300's sir...

(oh and the redline is 5000 :D)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top