Drew Dowdell

He wants to keep the Outlook, Aura, and Vue.

With Penske buying Saturn, does that mean we now have the Big 3.2?

Generation Y is extremely cynical and skeptical with zero brand loyalty. The "everyman" imports will have to actually prove themselves with this group. BMW, Benz and Lexus will still be the fashion accessories they are, but these people aren't going to go out and buy Camrys just because their mom has one. IF anything, that would probably be the biggest mark AGAINST the Camry.... Mom had one.

Where's the upside for the government then? If anything this method puts MORE pressure on the government to make it work and it's MORE capitalistic than if the government had just thrown them money with no strings.

Again, it is NOT in the government's best interest to do either of these things.

I don't care about market share. I care about profitability. Address the hole in the bow first before you worry about getting under steam again.

In a 9 million vehicle per year market with 19% market share, Pontiac and Saturn don't make sense. Pontiac would have to be so "niche market" they'd end up being Tesla. Personally, I think Pontiac's fate was sealed with the new Malibu. Once GM proved they could sell a main stream Chevy again that was far superior to the Pontiac sibling, Pontiac was doomed. If GM feels the need to sell a sporty version, they can make RS or SS models.

Stocks are much more fluid, can be bought and sold easily, and gives the government an upside for taking the risk. The government DID NOT tell the banks where to spend the money. The Federal Reserve, a private corporation, directed the cash flow. Many mortgages have clauses regarding maintaining the livability of the house, whether or not you can rent it out while not occupying it, requiring certain levels of insurance, etc. Did you know that the bank can (usually) inspect your home after the first thirty days you are late on your mortgage? If they feel you haven't been taking care of the property, they can begin foreclosure proceedings. It's rarely enforced, but it's there.

How does owning stock in public companies like GM and AIG provide the government the type of ownership over the means of production that is the hallmark of socialism (as Hayek and Von Mises tell us themselves)? Stock ownership does not necessarily yield control; the management still has that. Hence, I don't see how it makes any sense to call this activity socialist in any way. The Bush and Obama administrations were faced with three basic choices: (1) let these companies fail, (2) help these companies out with no strings attached, or (3) help these companies with strings attached that allow the government to be participate in any downstream upside. While I don't necessarily agree with it (or its execution) in every instance, option 3 certainly seems like the most rational choice given where everything stood. It's also the most business-like approach.

The bondholders wanted liquidation.

That's called collateral on the loan the same way my mortgage company owned some percentage of my house. Do you refer to US Airways as Government Airways?

Obama said GM couldn't have the loans with Wagoneer as CEO. GM had a choice. CEO or (relatively) easy money. No, I don't define that as ownership.

Obama owns GM? This guys frustrations fail to understand the purpose of the bankruptcy. Be consistent. If you're going to be mad at GM for declaring bankruptcy, you HAVE to be mad at those other companies I listed. The only reason the government is even involved in this process is to provide the financing to get GM through the BK period since no private company can do it right now. US Airways had a government loan to get them through the bankruptcy period. They refinanced that loan privately after they emerged from bankruptcy. I don't see people running around calling them Government Airways. We're 3 whole days into this bankruptcy. Give it a chance to work.

Idiotic. It's just another way to stab at Obama. Do you boycott K-Mart? Delta Airlines? U.S. Airways (twice)? United Airlines? Northwest Airlines? Most major malls?

and of course....

I've got your overhang right here baby.

Uhm.. not really. going from up 11% to down 39% is a much bigger fall. Still, I think these year over year percentages are a somewhat silly and arbitrary way to rate performance. I think current month's sales should be compared to an average of the prior 12 month's sales.

I think it's too early to tell with Camaro sales. Supply hasn't fully ramped up yet.

You know there is a disturbance in the force when the ONLY brand out of all major brands to see a sales increase is Lincoln.

Sorry. Doesn't work that way. No one cut GM slack when their numbers were down after the 2005-2006 sell-a-thons.

I just want to point out that the Cadillac STS sold nearly 4 times the amount of RLs sold by Acura.

Camry down 36% Accord down 46% Chevy is doin ok.

So.... wait... Honda, Toyota, Nissan all down more than GM with the Civic, all of Scion, Corolla, and 4Runner all down over 50% yet if only GM would sell cars Americans want to buy......

Go FORD! Hold down the fort! The calvary is coming!

About time you people come around to my side. I've been saying for a while that a Kappa roadster should go to Cadillac. Give it the right engine and right interior and it could be a Z4 fighter. As much as I like the Sky, it never should have gone to Saturn because it was too close to the Solstice in price. Art & Science the hell out of it, leather up the interior, give it the 300hp ecotec that Saab developed and slap a wreath and crest on the front.