I'd like to see who is paying for that 2nd residence too and all the travel time between them.
That doesn't let these guys off the hook though. Granted the CEO's are making way too much as well, but for congress to take a raise while asking others to tighten up and sacrifice "for he good of all" is sickening.

I vehemently disagree. See previous post.

We have the same thing going on at the state level, in PA. The state congressmen that didn't want to accept the raise were told they had to take it by law. A couple stated they would give it to charity.

They pay for the 2nd residence, and the taxpayer pays for the travel.

Fixed that for ya. :haha:

Considering the job they have done so far I must agree. They shouldn't get another damm dime.

We just had an election. That was the chance to keep them from getting another damn dime. If they were asked to serve another term by the people, they deserve to be paid for their work.

Absolutely. They deserve to be paid for their work. Not paid more. Not when the rest of the country is bleeding.

You are seriously misinformed here Shawnee. The average hourly wage for an Autoworker is more like $28/hr and it only encompasses about 10% of the companies total expenses. Starting pay is actually $12 -13/hr, which is a result of the latest concessions given to the companies from the union.

The $70/hr is a total package the companies put together to represent hourly wage, overtime (which there has been little to none in the last year), vacation and health benefits, and pension and health benefits for retirees...which by the way is the main drain. The Jap companies do not have the same problem because they haven't been in business here for decades and so do not have the same retirees to deal with.

Blaming the union autoworkers for this downfall is just wrong and is really the result of the anti-union campaign that the companies have been working on and spending millions on for years now.

My husband has been a union auto worker for 12 years. We are not living high off the hog and nowhere near it. Also, he had to have neck surgery due to two herniated disks that immobilized his right arm. This injury was more than likely caused by the job...the stress of repetition is pretty hard on the body. Our doctor said that he sees most of this back and neck injuries from the autoworkers. Tell me Shawnee, is $60,000 a year worth it to you if it means your are going to suffer pain and disability for the rest of your retirement years as a result?

I make a lot less for mental pain that results in mental disability. ;)

Seriously, homeless guy totally did not get that because I wasn't physically working hard, my previous job was not stressful or difficult. Also, believe me, physical labor is not unknown to me. I crawled through strawberry fields for a quarter a quart, and have worked since I was 13. That includes all kinds of jobs, including one where I was testing some rf filters with a load that, if I bumped against a wire, I would have been cooked like a hotdog in a microwave. Eh...and I was educated to do that. Eh, and I made 12 bucks an hour.

I will admit the 70/hour figure was manipulated...and I am hard pressed to find an article which either states that they really only make a buck fiddy an hour or that they make 70. Here is an article outlining the deception, with some pretty good argument comments. http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs...-meme?tid=true

The health care for these workers is, as you illustrated, very expensive because of repetitive injuries. This does not make their job more important than a school teacher, imho. All jobs have risks, whether physical or mental or the fear of some nut coming in with a firearm.

And I also do not believe that small sacrifices would bring GM employees to poverty level; the news I heard this morning was that they were being asked to think about wages more along the lines of Honda and Toyota. They flatly refused. Again...let the industry die instead? Honda workers around here are doing quite well, and will tell you that. Unions have served their purpose; they do not work in today's economy.

And nothing negates in my mind retired workers bragging about how easy they had it back in the day. I'm sorry, it's the way I see it from personal accounts.

I've taken pay cuts to benefit my employers before. It meant my cow orker in the next office and the guy down the hall could keep working, too.

Im unsure of why the union is stonewalling any wage changes at this moment, but I think its something they are going to lose in the long run anyway. But I also don't know the whole story on that situation either...it was only just mentioned in the news.

Union workers have been making concessions for years now, its not like they are resistant to sacrificing. You do have to understand, though, they are coming from a really high stand point when the auto industry was raking in billion and billions, and they were just sharing in that wealth.

I understand the bitterness that the average Joe has toward the auto industry, but I have my own too. There is a side of me that wants the industry to massively fail as a result of the people who are intent on not saving it, just to see the misery that WILL come to them as a result of what happens to this country when it does. Thats my shortcoming and its a result of dealing with short-sighted people. I'm sorry if that sound like a dig at you, its not really, I value your insight Shawnee.

So what is the objective? To save the auto industry? To make that industry productive? How many times must I post these numbers? Where is the cost in a car? Why does GM lose maybe $700 or $1000 on every car? Labor amounts to a tiny part of that cost and does not account for GMs grossly expensive products.

Where are almost all those losses found? Did 70 horsepower per liter not make the problem obvious when posted in the Cellar how many years ago? Seven?

GM cars cost more to build than any other car because even the engines need two extra pistons in every car. Whereas a patriotic car has maybe 25 or 30 man hours to build the entire car, GM cars take 40 and more.

So we blame the employees - or do we go after the only reason for those numbers? Employees did not choose to use pathetic 52 and 62 hp/liter engines. Employees did not choose to stifle that innovation for 35 years. Employees did not spend massive capital funds to install robots to deliver parts to the assembly lines. Employees did not stifle innovation until finally required by government regulation. Employees did not choose to violate basic principles of quality taught by Deming to Toyota et al 40 years ago. Who did all that? Who are these people you are not blaming in every post - if addressing GM's only problem?

Attacking unions is a symptom that you have completely ignored the numbers. Attacking the unions means you have ignored my every Cellar post about GM for the past 20 some years. Unions did not create these significant GM problems.

We had a discussion previously about wheel alignment. Was it not yet obvious, just from that discussion, why GM was failing? Why do any GM cars require annual wheel alignment? Did unions also create that failure? Of course not. That is why GM loses maybe $700 or $1000 on every car. But then, for as long as UT has known me, I have been accurately critical of GM (and amazed anyone was buying their crap).

I thought the purpose was to make GM profitable. A post would attack GMs real problems and not cite the mythical salary numbers. GM is a company where cars are so poorly designed – where assembly plants are so poorly designed – that its auto products must be sold at a loss. GM even bought a rental car company just to create sales - their products have so long been that bad. 25% of GMs sales were only to employee families. A fact that The Economist long ago called socialism. A fact that also is not traceable to unions – and directly traceable to top management. So why do you blame unions? I thought the objective was to fix GM – to make it profitable?

I dunno...huh, what?

t-dub...a person could actually agree with you and you'd pull one of your confusing posts. Eh...I'm bored and moving on. You can enlighten me (i.e. regurgitate some talking head's ideas) some other time.

And Pico...thanks for the conversation. I certainly hope for the best for you and yours. I also care about what happens to the numbers upon numbers of folks who will be affected. I often go all the way to one side before thinking and sliding over a bit. :) You're good people.

Nicely played.

I'll be getting the 0% cost of living adjustment, so we can maintain full staffing. excepting that person who was escorted out...

Hey Bruce, where's the link that you sent? Subject. Stinks. About the folks who own Chrysler. Found it.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/09/chr...0gerstein.html

Innovation.He may be a genius, he may be crazy, but he sure is fun.;)

I heard a GM "commercial" on NPR yesterday. They said something about Chevy Volt being ready to go... except a little thing called batteries. :rolleyes:

If Congress really wants to play at being industrialists they should break up GM and give Goodwin the keys to Chevy Inc.

Along the way, Goodwin also adopted two views common among Americans, but typically thought to be in conflict: a love of big cars and a concern about the environment. He is an avid, if somewhat nonideological, environmentalist. He believes global warming is a serious problem, that reliance on foreign oil is a mistake, and that butt-kicking fuel economy is just good for business. But Goodwin is also guiltlessly addicted to enormous, brawling rides, precisely the sort known to suck down Saudi gasoline. (I spied one lonely small sports car in the corner of his garage, but he confessed he has no plans to work on it right now.) When he picked me up from my hotel, he drove a four-door 2008 Cadillac Escalade XL that should have had its own tugboat. He parallel parked it in one try. He's a John Wayne muther-fucker. Get off your ass Detroit.

Yea, ready to go in 2011.

Some more info on the Volt

GM Says Chevrolet Volt Won't 'Pay the Rent'

Can't we just get this over with? Isn't it the best (of the worst) case scenario to just DO IT ALREADY?

:( i quake at the prospect of what that will do to the parts industry.

But but but..... How come the workers are allowed to be paid on top of unemployment benefit. if the company is still paying them anything they're not damn well unemployed. beest had a week unemployed last year, but his company owed him a day of paid vaction, so they paid him for one day and it was deducted from his unemployment. Why isn't what GM pays their wotkers deducted from theirs? Surely Union contracts cannot override State laws?

/angry layperson

Good part companies will simply make more parts for productive companies that actually let engineers do designing. Those who cannot meet fundamental quality concepts (that are required by the better auto companies) will die. A victim of their inability to adapt to quality defined even by Deming in Japan in the 1950s.

Some must die. They ran to manufacturers who buy parts only on price. Whose autos demonstrate what happens by ignoring Deming, innovation, and other reasons why GM and Chrysler must now enter bankruptcy.

Jobs must be lost, in part, because bean counters played money game rather than surrender the company to innovators. 1991 - GM was four hours away from bankruptcy. Instead GM played money games such as shorting pension funds, then inventing a myth about legacy costs to hide their mismanagement.

Since too many Americans continued to buy their myths and crap, now the damage must be deeper and more painful. Time to save these jobs was back in the 1990 when it was obvious what was needed. Just another example of why good Americans buy using the free market - ignore anti-American myths such as "buy American".

Time to save those jobs was when Clinton tried to do it by giving them hundreds of $millions to design hybrids. Clinton administration knew what was necessary to save jobs. The solution was subverted by the George Jr administration and Congress that stopped demanding innovation from automakers.

Time to pay. Fundamental economics demands that it be painful.

Of course, GM today all but said they will go bankrupt on 1 June. Chrysler has little hope of averting bankruptcy. Now that GM no longer had Wagoner, GM is slowly admitting how bad their company and products really are. GM also will shutdown factories for up to 9 weeks this summer. At least GM will not make the mistake of manufacturing more bad vehicles as Chrysler did in 1978.

Parts companies will go under - many of them, because the borrow and spend game is O-V-E-R. Time for us all to live within our means. We all better get used to it and fast. Spending money one does not have does not work.

The false demand has vanished and the fictional wealth that was being spent is gone.
Supply will shrink to that of the real demand. The strong shall survive and the weaker companies will perish.
Simple irrefutable facts.

yea, that doesn't seem right.

I never understood why a company would have to borrow money to pay workers or bills. If you grow so fast that you can't make your bills with your profits, maybe you need to scale back.

And the only reason why GM might make more fuel efficient cars than anyone else, is because they make so many damn differnet kinds of cars. They also probably the most ineffecient cars.

What kills me is from the 70s, after the big fuel shortage, until 1983 the fuel efficiency doubled. After that it stood still. In addition, the weight of cars increased about 1000 pounds and horsepower doubled as well, which added to inefficiency. Less than 1% of the energy in the tank actually moves the car. From 1985 until 2007 mileage standards remained unchanged but big truck and SUV sales almost doubled. Because these vehicles have lower standards than cars, average fuel economy today is actually a bit less than it was 20 years ago, despite hard-won gains in engine efficiency.


I got all this information last night when I watched NOVA, Car of the Future. You can check it here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/car/

They had previews of all kinds of future cars plus ones that are available now, like the Tesla. But the Tesla is expensive, it is comparable to other high end sports cars. It is fully electric though. It goes 250 miles on a single charge. And it is 85% efficient, as opposed to the 20% or less efficient combustion engine. Tesla is working on a more affordable family style car, but it will still be in a higher price range than a lot of people can afford, like a Lexus or BMW or Mercedes or something.

Maybe Congress should be giving money to people like that, to help bring down the prices so more people can afford them. http://www.teslamotors.com/

Where are these numbers that GM makes more fuel efficient cars than anyone else? I ran those numbers. I don't see it. I see that GM's "19 models above 30 MPG" is a myth. How many models does GM have? I count 40. Only 12 are above 20 MPG. Of those, all but one are less than 26 MPG.

Mercedes that has nothing but big cars has same fuel efficiency numbers even though GM has many small cars. This becomes obvious once we add other numbers. Mercedes cars routinely do 70 horsepower per liter or higher. GM still has cars that remain evn in the 50s. That fundamental world standard says who implies who needs bankruptcy to eliminate MBA management.

Why is GM hurting? GM cars are so poor - so designed by business school graduates - that many models still require two extra pistons just to equal a standard performance engine. So they blame the unions. What is the background of a chief engineer? Industrial arts. Somebody who better understands fashion.

Why did fuel economy increase in the 1970s? Less pollution (what myth purveyors spin as pollution control equipment) means a car burns more fuel for energy and less fuel wasted as pollution. In short, government regulation required automakers use electronic ignition, fuel injection, and other innovations that had existed decades and generations previously. Once we stopped demanding reduced pollution, then gas mileage stopped increasing.

Yes, it remains a lie: decreased pollution means decreased gas mileage. Propaganda that lives on when one forgets to ask embarrassing questions and demand the numbers. Same myths claim GM has high mileage cars. World standard is just under 21 MPG. GM's number is just over 18 MPG because GM's products were designed in accounting departments.

So many high mileage cars from GM is a GM claim. Therefore it is probably a lie. I did the numbers. Reality. GM's mileage numbers are only higher than Chrysler - another crappy auto company - that averages 17 MPG.

To claim profits, GM shorted their pension funds. Then lied by spinning it unfair legacy costs. (BTW, the Fox News propagandist also said same.) If (more likely, when) bankruptcy occurs, GM's obligations to pensioners would disappear. This means more $billions from the government (PBGC). But that only covers part of the $billions that GM shorted to claim profits and justify massive bonuses to their executives. Why does GM owe so much? Instead of addressing reasons for bankruptcy in 1991, bean counters (including Rick Wagoner) shorted the pension funds. When those employees were working, GM simply forgot to fund the pension fund. When those employees retired, GM still had not funded the pension fund.

This problem was obvious to everyone (who wanted to know) for the past 15 years. Some of us helped GM harm America. Some continued to buy the "Heart attack of America". Shame on anyone who bought a GM product in the past 15 years - helped GM continue their many scams.

To cover some debts, GM sold off Hughes Electronics. All profits from that sale (some tens of $billions) went into the pension funds. But that still was not enough because GM lies (creative accounting) was that massive. How large? From the Washington Post of 24 Apr 2009: Enron accounting has been alive and well. So extremists responded by subverting government oversight including the SEC - encouraged more Enron accounting.

For years, this Rick Wagoner promoted 'legacy costs' myth was so obvious that all should have known it. Nobody can deny the reality of a damning number that said GM was in trouble: 70 horsepower per liter engine.

More corporate welfare as government gets stuck with another $billions bill. How long ago had this event become obvious?
American protecting its turf
Enron accounting was alive and well and encouraged by deregulation. Time to start paying - and then Cellar extremists will again blame Obama.

Remember years ago when the LA Times defined how bad GM really was? So GM attacked the LA Times to bankrupt it. Of course. What's good for GM is good for America - no matter how much it harms America. That was the GM mantra even 30 years ago - for those who remember the 1970s. It never changed.

Good news though. America has many patriotic companies from Japan and Europe making cars here.

And you were doing so well, on a roll, up to this point. sigh:rolleyes:

They not only underfunded the pension plans a lot of what they did fund was invested in GM stock.

I was just replying to someone else tw. I don't actually believe that either.

I forgot about that one. Yes, they did that too. But I never knew how much.

Will never forget sitting in a GM lobby alongside a president of one of their part suppliers. He said sarcastically, "They will show me how I can cut my costs." GM's solution to 30 years of bad designs. Blame suppliers, unions, Japanese ...

They also played money games. Waiting 120 days to pay us. And still some believed their lies about 19 models exceeding 30 MPG. After all, they said it on TV.

Anyone who bough a GM car simply endorsed lying and creative accounting.

or they needed a car and didn't really give a damn about who lied or how they kept their books.

Sounds like an extremist.

Meanwhile, Pontiac is now officially on the block. A reality that was obvious even in early December last year:
Wagoner blames it all on the Economy!

Enron accounting is alive and well. How may $millions was Rick Wagoner's severance pay for doing to GM what Nardelli did to Home Depot, Fiorina did to HP, Akers did to IBM, Spindler and Sculley did to Apple, ...

Are you really so foolish to believe that more than a relative handful of consumers care about the financial strength or the management of the company that made the product they want? Not caring doesn't make someone an extremist but seeing everyone other than yourself as an extremist might qualify you as insane. They want what they want and that pretty much is the end of the story. Personally I wouldn't want a GM product but I see a lot of them on the road so someone must want them.

I really love my Chevy truck, but I just found out today I can get a new Azure convertible for only $15,000 down and $4250 for 84 months. ;)

Before you sign on that be sure to check Bentley's financials. They might be anti-American! Or... anti-Brit, or anti-Europe, or whatever!

What does Bentley have to do with buying GM products to destroy American jobs?

I don't want to kill anyone. So after running 300 stop signs, I killed someone. But I did not want to? Is that your reasoning?

You buy a GM product to destroy America. You buy better products - the free market - to advance America and mankind.

In 1979, enough Americans got so patriotic as to stop buying Chrysler products. That saved Chrysler. In 1981, enough were patriotic as to stop buying Ford products. That saved Ford Motor. For more of the past 30 years, no innovation appeared in any GM product unless required by government regulation. Some so want that to continue as to let GM propaganda pervert that reality.

It was called the "Heart Attack of America" for good and indisputable reasons - some posted earlier (ie blame unions for two extra pistons in every vehicle). Real shame is why so many Americans must now lose their jobs. A problem that could have been averted decades ago if so many Americans had stopped buying obviously inferior products.

The worst of these Americans still foolishly promote "Buy American". A perfect example of propaganda that encourages the destruction of more Americans jobs.

You can say they don't want to destroy American jobs - just like I can say I do not want to kill anyone.

One bought GM products to destroy American jobs.

MBA school propaganda again. Long before financials say anything, the product has long been crap. Only bean counters would confuse what was posted with business school myths about 'consumers caring about the financial strength'.

Read Consumer Reports to see what the financials would be reporting four and ten years later. Read what Mary Ann Keller was writing in the Wall Street Journal so accurately that GM banned her from interviewing any GM employees. Read what the LA Times made obvious years ago - so GM took revenge. Or read the so many reports from Michelle Maynard.

Or see obvious numbers such as 70 horsepower per liter - a problem defined by GMs power train executive Heimbuch in 1990. "the payoff is being able to make the engine, transmission, and structure smaller to improve the car's efficiency". Instead, GM put even bigger engines with same low performance, pollution, and low gas mileage in even larger vehicles so that the same obsolete technology continued to be sold. Then bought Congressman to stop government from requiring innovation. This has been especially obvious the last eight years when everyone knows a president routinely stifled innovation.

While GM was still making 48 and 52 Hp/liter engines, Honda was testing the 100 hp/liter engine. We documented here some four(?) years ago that GMs were still doing only 52 Hp/liter.

Anyone could see how crappy GM product were ten and twenty years ago. You would foolishly discuss financials? Only a fool would promote such myths as if "Buy American" was good.

When the financials finally reflected reality, that company should have been confronting bankruptcy. How curious. GM was only four hours away from bankruptcy in 1991. Their products were that bad that long ago. Did GM make anything better since then? Obviously not. So GM then shorted the pension funds. And some Americans said that also was good - and bought more crap. "Good", they said. "Screw the workers."

Are you so foolish as to believe a product today is measured by the financials today? Only corrupt bean-counter types make that conclusion. GM's financials today are about how bad their products were four and ten years ago when so many Americans were saying “keep making crap”. Today’s GM (and Chrysler) products are even worse.

They encouraged GM management to play more money games so that every month, more GM employees must lose their jobs four and ten years later. Large parts of America so hated America as to still buy Chevys - with 1968 technology engines – and call themselves patriots. And then be so much more hateful as to blame the unions.

It really is simple. Forget the financials that report problems four and ten years later. Why would anyone buy an inferior product? The financial don't yet report how bad that product currently is. The real patriot instead believes in the free market - buy the best. Responsible analysis, news, and technical numbers have long demonstrated why a fool or one who hated America would buy a GM product. Financials only confirm what was obvious years ago.

You're letting the bullshit seep in again, tw. And you were doing so well. sigh :(

We vote for who runs the economy in what we buy. Rick Wagoner - who never once ran a successful operation but was made GM's CEO anyway - remained there because so many Americans voted for him to stay. They bought GM crap saying, "Keep making this crap." Finally Obama had to do what neither the customers, stockholders, or BoDs would. But somehow that reality is bullshit?

Then why didn't you buy the best car made?

There is no "best car made". But there are cars made by people who innovate - also called patriotic Americans. Opposed to products designed by bean counters that routinely stifle innovation. Buy a GM car to stifle innovation - then blame everyone else. Say, "GM has stifled innovation for 30 years, makes crappy cars, and I love to contribute to the destruction of American jobs. I will buy more crap from people who even lie about their gasoline mileage." Drive one to realize how bad GM management has been - even so evil as to blame the unions.

GM management would not innovate until required by Federal regulations. There are good products. Then there are GM products that obviously destroy American jobs. Can only be sold using the "Buy American" myth. A myth that can only exist when one does not believe in the free market. One need only drive GM cars or view Consumer Reports to realize why a GM product means the destruction of American jobs and subverts principles that make free markets so productive.

So many have so hated America (bought a GM product four and ten years ago) that jobs must now be lost AND parts of America must be sold to foreigner to pay for the resulting debts.

There are plenty of good cars. Why did anyone then buy a GM product? Like it or not, realize it or not; job losses today are due to those who so hated Americans as to buy GM products.

How to put Americans back to work. Buy Honda or Toyota. Then American part suppliers can learn to and make more and better parts - become profitable again. Just another example of why free markets work; why "Buy American" does not.

Oh, so Nissan, the Koreans and Europeans are out.

The problem of GM's mismanagement has been well documented, especially of late. But what you're telling me is to buy a car that will be patriotic, that you approve of, rather than one that suits my wants and needs, like most people do.
Don't think that's going to set well with most people. Neither is calling them wackos, wingnuts or unpatriotic for doing so. Nope, you lose.

I'm not telling you to do anything. But if you were patriotic, then you knew any 1990 or 2000 GM car was clearly destroying American jobs just by how it drives, its grossly oversized and noisy engine, excessive price and repair costs, its low gas mileage, its management repeatedly running to government to stop any requirements for innovation, ....

It's not proven as of late that GM management was bad. Anyone with respect for America knew that decades ago. It was that obvious that long ago. But then all one need do is drive a Pontiac or see so many neighbors with problems to know that buying a GM car even in the 1990s would only destroy American jobs. Again, simple principles of free market economics.

I am not telling you to do anything. Basic knowledge said you were only undermining America by purchasing the obviously inferior products. Good Americans believe in the free market. Ignorant Americans are told what to do by their 'communist' handlers: "Buy American" only because we say so. Subvert innovation and destroy American jobs. It was your choice - not mine.

Meanwhile, you invented this Nissan, Europeans, and Koreans are out. I did not say that. You did. But again. Your choice. Do you believe in the free market or do what communists and bad management want you to do - "Blindly buy American" only because they tell you to.

The patriot always bought the best. Therefore voted to advance America. Those are people who make American great.

OK, I need a pickup and I want a convertible. Make your recommendation for a convertible pickup.

You could have done the research. What were response sources recommending by using facts and numbers? And what year?

right.

You have no idea about this business, do you?

Most parts companies make parts for all manufacturers. Not just the select few who meet your "good" criteria. they do their job and they do it well, but they haven't been paid for a while. By good and bad auto companies alike. Because when the bad ones don't pay, the good ones say "well why should we pay either?" And once the debtors go into chapter 11, they're protected.

I did the research. There was only one, Chevy. I bought it and I love it. Maybe I should put magnetic flags all over it so my neighbors think I'm patriotic, ya think? :rolleyes:

Those manufacturers manufactures will (in the future) be making more of better parts for better cars. If Chrysler disappears, the manufacturers make more those other parts for other companies.

Meanwhile, yes, many part companies must disappear. The time to avoid this problem was four, ten, and twenty years ago. Those who foolishly could only sell to GM (who did not go through a process of earning the right to sell to Toyota, et al) probably will go under. But time to have worried about this was many years ago when the problem was obvious.

My sympathies to a part company president who sat next to me and said, "GM will show me how to cut my costs." But then, his own statement should have (and hopefully) told him to start making parts for better companies.

We have all suffered because, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." So we voted the idiots back in office rather than fix the problem. Bankruptcies today could only have been averted back then - fundamental economics. Now many companies must go under.

Worst of the worst 1999 to 2008 includes Chevy Colorado, Chevy S-10, and Chevy Blazer. Used cars to avoid for obvious reasons: 04-07 Chevy Colorado, numerous 99-08 Silverados, most all Suburbans, and 99-04 S-10s.

Among the various used trucks that remains reliable and recommend are the Ford F-150, F-250, and some Rangers. Of course, the world knows where better pickups are found - Toyota. Chevy trucks are so poor as to all but not be exportable.

Meanwhile reliablity of Chevy trucks show numerous below average and well below average ratings especially for their suspensions, body integrity and drive train.

Meanwhile consistently well above average are Fords with brakes being the only weakness. Or even much better are all Toyota trucks with virtually nothing below average.

Kind of obvious why GM cannot make money and why GM started dumping warranty costs back on the dealers again. Research does not say anything particular good about Chevy trucks.

Oh. And those Chevy pickups have such poor performance as to only average 14 and 16 MPG. Hell, even 6 liter Ford V-8s in the 1960s did better than that. Those numbers contradict your feelings. Which should we believe?

Those numbers also explain why buying a Chevy pickup years ago means more workers must lose their jobs today.

Good for you Bruce - As one of the MILLIONS of satisfied & loyal customers of American car manufacturers, I am sure that every hard working individuals who was involved in the process thanks you.

I wouldn't buy an American POS car if they paid me to. Unless it was a Tesla, but I don't believe they make them in America. At least when you buy Toyotas they are being made here, by American workers.

Excerpts from the NY Times of 27 Apr 2009:
As if these stories don't get complex enough. A new twist. Rather than agree to a swap of bonds for common stock, many bondholders with Credit Default Swaps from AIG can do better if GM goes bankrupt.

And which ones were convertibles?

This alternative seems to be the most viable. Weren't they smaller car companies to begin with who were then acquired and put into the huge megacorp that is now GM?
Bust it up and let the strong survive.

GM intentionally restructured itself to make any breakup as difficult as possible. For example, all engineering was removed from the divisions. Many assembly plants were reconstituted into General Motors Assembly Division so that a breakup would be most difficult. It was done at the highest levels of GM management. Statements from many now retired GM executives.

How does one sell off Pontiac when their cars are made on the same assembly lines as Buicks and Chevys? Just one example.

Meanwhile a breakup does nothing to solve the problem. For example, too many platforms. VW does all models with only 3 platforms. Last I saw, GM had at least 13 platforms - I suspect that number is higher. GM even makes three different intermediate sized cars that don't share even one part. That is one problem.

Any solution (ie breakup) must solve these problems. Problems include too many platforms, built in factories that still are not flex type, using obsolete technologies (as some technologies were obsolete even 20 years ago), without management that comes from where the work gets done, and too many layers of management, in an industry that already has enough other companies that make superior products.

A breakup would not solve even one of those problems. GM wants to sell Hummer, Saturn, Pontiac, and Saab. Only Saab might sell. Nobody can make money on the other three. To sell them, GM would have to include guarantees (just like Mercedes did to sell Chrysler to Cerebus). GM would not provide guarantees to operations that would inevitably fail.

Best money comes from breaking down the factories and selling off the machines. GM is worth more in disassembled pieces than the entire company combined because it product designs are that inferior. For example, Telsa might be in the market for sections of a GM assembly line - to assemble their product in CA. It was one thing DeLorean desperately needed and could not get - used standard technology assembly line equipment.

Time to save Pontiac, Saturn, et al was back in 1991 when the spread sheets said GM was this bad. Instead, bean counters played money games for almost 20 years (and did not fix the problems). So economics takes revenge. Those divisions are worth only the equipment on factory floors. Since America must sell off things to pay of massive debts, that used equipment is best sold overseas.

Same occured in the mid and late 1970s.

You're behind the times, dub.

General Motors will phase out the Pontiac brand in 2010, said Fritz Henderson.

Actually I posted that last Friday (four days ago). And that latest post says the same thing.

GM has two options. Sell Pontiac or sell off its pieces. Obviously, nobody will buy Pontiac (for reasons provided). So GM must 'phase out' Pontiac as defined previously. That means selling off factories only for their machines.

Meanwhile, view the numbers for that G8. The V-6 is a 70 Hp per liter engine. The V-8s are still paltry less thans. So Pontiac finally has a car doing same or less than what was world standard in the 1990s. Meanwhile, new many products from patriotic companies are now doing 80 hp per liter standard. But again, the numbers say why Pontiac must go. Their newest product is still over 10 years behind the competition.

Packaging factories or plants along with certain auto lines is another viable option that has been explored.

Pontiac should have never been "saved" it should have been taken out back and shot back in the 80's. GM has been producing multiples of the same car with a different name on it for years, decades. So has Ford and Chrysler. Why is there a Mercury brand? Same answer - they should have stopped producing these same cars with different names decades ago. It was a failed business plan. People just aren't as stupid as that anymore and the availability of and better designed/longer lasting foreign cars compounded the problem. Playing off the American spirit only lasted so long and that time has come and gone.