GM finished

formatting link
Auditors warn that GM may be finished

Things keep getting more glum for battered auto industry giant General Motors, which said today in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing that there is "substantial doubt" about the company's ability to survive.

The Detroit News reports on the SEC filing, in which an independent audit done by GM's accounting firm found "our recurring losses from operations, stockholders' deficit and inability to generate sufficient cash flow to meet our obligations and sustain our operations raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern."

You can see the filing here.

GM has lost about $82 billion in recent years and is eliminating 47,000 jobs this year, shuttering 14 plants by 2012 and unloading the Saturn, Hummer, Pontiac and Saab brands.

Reply to
Sarah Houston
Loading thread data ...

GM and C are in the penny stock class now and GE is headed that way, all are in the DOW 30. This is not good.

Reply to
Fat Moe

Hey...you never shared the text of the letter you lied about writing to your elected officials. Got it done yet?

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

Welcome to the USSA ( United Socialist States of America ).

Reply to
Sarah Houston

The dems will destroy the country if allowed to do so, at a very rapid rate now.

Reply to
Sarah Houston

I thought I sent that, Look back a ways and let me know if you don't find it. In the meantime here's an informative oil filter expert, Caution it's R rated because of the language, but it's funny as hell.

formatting link

Reply to
Fat Moe

State government spending has increased faster than federal spending over the past 40-50 years. OTOH the nominal growth rate of the nation causes GDP to roughly double every ten years.

Arizona's governor, Janet Brewer, has been suspected of steroid use, but...

Reply to
larry moe 'n curly

Largely avoidable if cocaine boy GW Bush had been on the ball. Congratulate yourselves, fringe right wingers, for causing exactly what you hated most.

Reply to
larry moe 'n curly

Thanks George!

Reply to
SMS

formatting link
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

Reply to
Sarah Houston

Yeah they'll blame GW for the next several years, while they destroy the country into communism.

It's like a magic act, they divert attention with it.

Reply to
Sarah Houston

It MIGHT recover, if the marxists were removed from office and the free market was allowed to work its problems out.

Nothing beats the free market, and trying only makes things worse.

formatting link

Reply to
Sarah Houston

OK. Maybe LMC's mention of cocaine was wrong. Maybe. But please tell me what YOU think caused GWB to be the way he was. I don't know anyone who would've talked about gynecologists practicing their love on women.

Again:

What do YOU think was wrong with GWB?

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

It's amazing that even with the definition in front of you, you still don't know what "ad hominem" means and why it doesn't apply here.

GW Bush did use cocaine, and that may be why he suffered such mental impairment. His level of support was highest among the most extreme members of the right, those people who hate socialism the most, but because GW Bush's incompetence bankrupted the country, we now have only two choices -- either accept very high levels of unemployment until the economy recovers on its own, or go deep into deficit and spend money like crazy to help it recover. If you look at a graph of the real GDP under Hoover and FDR, you'll know which choice is better.

Reply to
larry moe 'n curly

But GW Bush did tip the economy into the biggest downturn since the Great Depression, and it's mostly his fault (I'm excluding any costs related to the Afghanistan war).

I do blame unions for a lot of GM's problems, but who forced GM to accept their ridiculous demands in the first place? And if environmental laws are to blame, you need to explain the much better condition of Ford and the bigger Japanese car makers, who have to deal with the same environmental laws, both for their factory emissions and the emissions of their cars. Most of all, what did unions have to do with GM choosing to design ugly cars that looked like furniture on wheels and that wouldn't appeal to anybody living outside the South or Midwest?

Reply to
larry moe 'n curly

You're thinking of Chrysler, whose chairman in the 1960s thought the customers were the shareholders, not the car buyers.

What killed GM was its arrogance and laziness. An example of arrogance: invite Japanese auto engineers to tour its factories and not care that they took photos and notes of everything they saw. IBM never allowed that, except for a sting operation when Hitachi tried to steal disk drive technology (ironically, five years ago IBM sold its disk drive manufacturing to Hitachi). Examples of laziness: cave in to crazy union demands; spend $35B to automate when all of Toyota could have been bought for the same cost; spend $5B-10B creating Saturn but then cutting back so much on new product that the division slowly starves.

Reply to
larry moe 'n curly

It's reality, not an act. GW Bush raised real spending 25%, more than any other president in the past 50 years, except Ronald Reagan (and more competently and for better reason). That's Heritage Foundation information, meaning you can't claim they're Communist lies. GW Bush increased spending even more than Lyndon Johnson did with the Great Society and Vietnam war (yet Johnson still managed to cut the nation's debt burden, so don't use the war excuse for GW Bush's debt). But despite the higher spending, mostly for the military and the Medicaid drug benefit, GW Bush wouldn't cut spending elsewhere or raise taxes. That, combined with his administration almost total neglect of the financial crisis and the ridiculous no-strings and highly socialistic TARP, led to what we have now with the economy.

Reply to
larry moe 'n curly

That book is a piece of political propaganda, not a serious explanation of economics, and it's been been shown to be false because the recovery started almost exactly when FDR took office from Hoover. If that was the free market at work, then the New Deal coincided amazingly well with it:

formatting link
The letup in GDP growth in 1936 coincided with FDR cutting back on federal programs in order to reduce the federal deficit. If your contention that the New Deal hurt the recovery is true, then shouldn't a reduction in New Deal programs have coincided with better economic growth, not worse growth?

Reply to
larry moe 'n curly

Another filter beauty contest?

"How good the paper filter actually filters these oils, I don't know."

Reply to
larry moe 'n curly

Obama is in a hurry now because he needs to get all of his dirty work done well in advance of his re-election campaign.

Reply to
ACORN

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.