CaddyXLR-V

Buick was included in that statement he made of Pontiac. GM will need more money to give Buick products too. Buick's image isn't any better than Pontiac's.

It's probably a fuse

It will probably be 5 years minimum. There is almost 0 % chance the government will get it's money back before then. A lot can happen in 5 years.

Yes, but they tried to keep it around as a niche brand. The government said no.

And I believe GM wanted to keep Pontiac, but the plan they submitted to the government, was turned down. GM didn't decide Pontiac had to go, the government did.

I think you just have a lot more optimism that the government won't use their influence for GM to do things their way than I do. The government DID influence the banks. They did speak publicly against the banks, turning people against them for every little thing. Wells Fargo accepting TARP funds was directly related to wether their takeover of Wachovia would be approved quickly or dragged out. I don't trust everything the government says, because they can go back on their word at any time without consequences. Obama has big goals, and it's not just to fix GM, and the economy.

One idea, hold all of GM's assets like their plants as collateral, like the lenders did when they loaned Ford money? Look at what the govt did with their ownership stakes in banks, telling them where and how they could spend their money, and they didn't even have majority ownership. Do you need to ask your mortgage lenders permission when you take a trip somewhere? Do you need to ask them what method you can use to travel there? I sure hope not. They have no say as to what goes on in your property, as long as you don't default. Therefore, they do not own the property, they own the lein, in case the loan is defaulted on.

Ok, well the government will have over 60% ownership in GM. Is that considered ownership?

Well Obama was able to force the CEO of GM to resign. Isn't that usually only a power of an owner?

Why does it really matter? GM had a better month than Honda. Great. Until GM can consistantly do that month after month, and year after year, I don't see a cause for celebration. GM has A LOT of work to do, and GM's sales are going to decline further. Just wait until Pontiac, Saturn, Hummer, and Saab aren't selling vehicles anymore, at least not for GM. Beating down Honda on this site will not make GM a stronger company.

At least the G8 is doing good, with over 3000 sales in May. The rest of Pontiac, not so good.

It does seem like luxury brands were hit the hardest, the only exception being Audi. Mercury, Lincoln, and Buick weren't down as much. Maybe some buyers that would have bought luxury cars bought mid level brands instead?

All but 3 GM divisions you mean. Chevy, GMC, and Pontiac

It has more to do with the free money that was thrown around by the government with low interest rates, and the push by government regulated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make housing more affordable for lower income families than anything else. More regulation is not a good thing. The government likes to spin the facts because they will not accept that they may have caused the situation, and they like gaining more power.

What he says still makes sense though. If Honda had a record month May 08, it could be hard to match that a year later, and even harder in the middle of a recession. If you had a 30% decline May 08, then a 30% decline in 09, that is much worse. 30% decline over 2 years is a 51% decline 11% increase then 39% decline is a 32% decline over 2 years Honda lost a little less than a third of their volume, while GM lost more than half.

Well I haven't heard anything about it. The last I remember reading about Porsche was that they made $8B last year by manipulating their ownership in VW. How much did they receive from the German govt? Also, I see nothing wrong with VW giving money to Porsche. They have close ties, with Porsche owning a significant stake in VW, and share technology. Isn't Porsche also upping their stake in VW to above 51%?

I have no respect for Toyota anyway, and it still amazes me that their cars top the sales charts over superior cars. Porsche is understandable(though this is the first time I have heard of that), because they are a small vehicle line operating independently offering luxury vehicles during a recession. My point is, GM should have never let itself get into a position of weakness, coming from being the largest auto maker in the world. They should have adapted with the times in 1970. Toyota may never have become as big as it is today if GM would have corrected it's problems early on, instead of sweeping them under the rug for managers years later to deal with.

Porsche and Toyota still had enough cash put aside to withstand the recession. GM didn't.

GM has been restructuring for the past 20 years. It has ALWAYS been, wait until the next gen of vehicles come out. It was only a matter of time before the next recession came. GM didn't have it's house in order when that recession came. While the current management can't be blamed 100%, GM as a company can, because it let itself get to the position it was in over many decades.

I still blame GM. They had 30 years to get their act together. Did they think there would never be another recession?

The government said it wouldn't do a lot of things when they injected capital into banks, but that proved to be untrue. I'll believe it when I see it.

If the Volt sells, maybe. But if GM sells 5000 Volts, will that offset 30,000 G8s?

I agree. Lets see what GM looks like in a few years once these new fuel economy regs come into effect, while under the governments control. I doubt they will have anything left that I would buy. That the government gets a free pass from some people for all they do wrong amazes me. They forced some healthy banks to take a bailout, but who gets the negative press? Not the government, but the healthy banks, for taking a bailout. The government is the invisible hand behind a lot of things that are happening, and will continue to be the invisible hand behind what happens with GM.

Yet they spend 80% of their time creating laws to decrease autos CO2 emissions. What about the other 83%? Shouldn't that be more of a target than taking away cars people enjoy?

There's nothing that fits what you want exactly, either way you need to relax 1 rule if you were to buy a new car. G8, but it would be a sedan Audi S5, but it is AWD, and expensive G37, but it is V6 CLK550, but it only has an auto, and is also expensive