Will GM Survive? - Page 2

My friends in the oil and gas business tell me the refineries are running at capacity except for down time for repairs and maint.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 3hummers

The job of the government is not to solve our problems, it is to get out of our way. ( Federal government is for national defense, intersate commerce, etc not making sure I have health care or a retirement.) That is my personal responsibility. Not sure where you get your facts and figures on oil production, supply, benefit but your statistics are incorrect and the 10 year deal, well if Clinton had not put ANWR off limits 11 years ago ANWR oil would be available today. I agree that we should not waste time on working on alternative forms of energy but to break this country in the process is ridiculous. Its like killing the patient to cure the disease. Drill now, off shore and ANWR, use the shale oil resources, etc to bridge the gap until nuke plants, solar, wind, hydrogen, etc can all be developed and implemented. While people are losing their homes, cars, etc you don''''''''t want to try to cut their fuel costs?
As to taxes I disagree. I pay enough in taxes now. My company pays enough in taxes now. I am sick and tired of watching the government waste MY money. The more they tax the more people don''''''''t work for me, the less I invest in new projects because the risk/reward scenario gets bleaker, the more people don''''''''t work. Great economic scenario there.
Reagan ended the greatest threat this country has ever faced and you call him a do nothing President??? Steals any credibility from the rest of your argument to make a statement like that.
This country has had a massive debt for decades through Repub & Demo. administrations. The tax cuts spurred the huge economic boom that we have gone through and that probably enabled many of us to buy our Hummers. If you understand economic history, economics and cause and effect you understand the impact of tax decreases on the economy. If you don''''''''t, vote for Barack and he will take care of your discretionary income for you.
You say McCain will "spend like the devil" but apparently think Obama is going to pay for universal health care, SS for all, etc with what????? good wishes and platitudes? BO is going to sweet talk all of our problems away. Hey sounds like typical political BS. I don''''''''t agree with McCain on a number of issues but I disagree with BO on a whole lot more. Give Pelosi, Murtha, Schumer and Kennedy a lib in the White House and we are all screwed.

I agree with you brother! I''m no big fan of McCain but voting for anything else will lead to the destruction of our constitution. ajone3, you stated that we are all well off. Well, news for you, I''m not well off!! I pay enough in taxes! I''m self employed and pay my FICA in double! I pay for my familys health insurnace and every other so called benefit that others take for granted. I get taxed on my income, my investments and just about everything else that I pay for day to day. I pay my part and shouldnt have to pay anymore, especially for people that pay nothing and get everything! GM will survive and so will I. Our dollars may not go as far but we will get through.

ORIGINAL: 3hummers

The job of the government is not to solve our problems, it is to get out of our way.

I didn''t say that was their job, in contrast I said their job is to ''help''. The government should encourage solutions to state''s problems and introducing new ideas on how we solve our problems. Obviously we disagree on other things such as healthcare, and that''s okay, but the solution is not found on the path we''ve been headed on for the past 20+ years.

Not sure where you get your facts and figures on oil production, supply, benefit but your statistics are incorrect and the 10 year deal, well if Clinton had not put ANWR off limits 11 years ago ANWR oil would be available today.

My ''stats'' are industry experts telling it like it is, not listening to a White House Press Briefing.
One of the thousand articles on this subject: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2546114820080625

I agree that we should not waste time on working on alternative forms of energy but to break this country in the process is ridiculous.

By drilling off of our coastlines more than we currently do we''re not going to alleviate this problem, so we''re not ''breaking this country''.

don''''''''t want to try to cut their fuel costs?

Yes, but I''m realistic and listen to industry experts, not the White House.

As to taxes I disagree. I pay enough in taxes now. My company pays enough in taxes now. I am sick and tired of watching the government waste MY money.

I agree, but you cannot increase spending dramatically, i.e. for a WAR, and decrease revenue. Supply-side ''Reagan-omics'' has not worked because people have failed to invest in AMERICAN ventures in favor of foreign industry where profit margins are higher due to development. If the tax incentive is to send work overseas and invest overseas, the wealthy will do just that and this will lead to a larger divide between the rich and the poor. Lower pay in the working and middle-class will lead to lower revenues in industry and commerce in the long run. The wealthy cannot drive the economy, only the working middle-class have the consumer volume needed to drive America and if they have no money, America''s economy fails.

Reagan ended the greatest threat this country has ever faced and you call him a do nothing President???

History lesson, Reagan didn''t end the Cold War, the congress did as they allowed the funding for efforts in Afghanistan and the USSR was run people who had the bloodthirst for power only rivaled by Hitler. This ultimately is what led to their demise, which just happened to fall on Reagan''s Presidency. While I will concede that he was good at working with the Democratic Congress and that partisanship did not completely rule D.C. while he was in office, most of what occurred in his administration was due to inertia from the two previous administrations and from Congressional Leadership.

This country has had a massive debt for decades through Repub & Demo. administrations. The tax cuts spurred the huge economic boom that we have gone through and that probably enabled many of us to buy our Hummers. If you understand economic history, economics and cause and effect you understand the impact of tax decreases on the economy.

In an ideal situation this would work, but as I explained above it has not. As my friend and economic professor Erwin would say, Reagan-omics is the theory that the rich will want to share their wealth with the poor instead of finding ways to exploit the poor to become even more wealthy. It doesn''t work and we''re starting to see more of the long-term effects.

You say McCain will "spend like the devil" but apparently think Obama is going to pay for universal health care, SS for all, etc with what????? good wishes and platitudes? BO is going to sweet talk all of our problems away. Hey sounds like typical political BS. I don''''''''t agree with McCain on a number of issues but I disagree with BO on a whole lot more. Give Pelosi, Murtha, Schumer and Kennedy a lib in the White House and we are all screwed.

They both will, but it boils down to what you want to invest in. Do you want to wait ten years and spend like the devil on offshore drilling or do you want to invest in an energy future. Do you want the government to allow Americans who are uninsured to buy into bulk plans at massive discounts or do you want a President who plans to take away the tax incentive for employers to provide employee health care? It''s a mindset that America has to move toward in order to succeed in the future. I''m a very well-educated man and have debated my own points with many who don''t agree with me. We don''t always have to agree, but we do have to agree that we base our arguments upon fact, history, and current events which can help us better understand the effects of our previous ideas.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Intercooled

I agree with you brother! I''''m no big fan of McCain but voting for anything else will lead to the destruction of our constitution. ajone3, you stated that we are all well off. Well, news for you, I''''m not well off!! I pay enough in taxes! I''''m self employed and pay my FICA in double! I pay for my familys health insurnace and every other so called benefit that others take for granted. I get taxed on my income, my investments and just about everything else that I pay for day to day. I pay my part and shouldnt have to pay anymore, especially for people that pay nothing and get everything! GM will survive and so will I. Our dollars may not go as far but we will get through.

I understand that we''re not all well-off, as I was making a general statement that would apply to MOST people who could afford a Hummer. BTW, Barack Obama has actually proposed to lower taxes on middle-class families who work and increase them on people in the 250K+ income bracket. You won''t be affected if you''re not in this bracket. I, on the other hand, support the ''fair tax'' proposal, which is based upon spending, not upon income.

Again, I know we don''t all agree, but we can act like adults and debate, not try and sling mud (unless you''re behind the wheel of your Hummer).

To make a comment back on the topic, there is a thread in the H3 section asking people what they would think of GM absorbing Hummer vehicles into another brand, such a Chevrolet or GMC which begs the question:

Would you rather see the Hummer brand absorbed, sold, or discontinued. I''d rather it not be sold to a foreign company but if anyone has any thoughts on this please comment!

Your basis in facts is sketchy at best. I own land with oil and gas leases on it and negotiate with exploration companies on leases. I have many friends in the industry. I get my information from them. They have worked their entire lives in the business. I could care less what the government tells me the numbers are because each side lies through their teeth and distorts and twist things to support their erroneous cases.
Reagan pushed the policy that eventually forced the Russians to back down. It was a decades long agenda but Reagan had the balls to tell the Russians how it was going to be and to raise the ante. If not for Reagan the succession of wimpy Presidents since probably still would not have gotten it done.
BO is going to increase taxes to pay for SS, health care and a whole host of Lib issues. I pay health insurance for over 500 employees. I match their 401K contributions, I pay huge taxes and I take great risk. If I am not rewarded for taking that risk a lot of deals don''t get done and many of those currently well paid, employed people are out of job. That isn''t voodoo economics it is how the system works.
You are so off base on the reserves available to this country that it is not even worth arguing with you about. Double the supply of anything and prices go down. provide a more secure source for a strategic item and price goes down. Everytime some militant with an RPG raises his voice in Nigeria the price of oil goes up.
People are having a hard time paying todays gas prices. Not drilling while we explore alternatives is a " do nothing" strategy. The final alternative solution could be 20-30 years away and in the meantime the price of gas will continue to escalate. We have to do what it takes to provide energy to America today and in the future and that includes taking advantage of our resources today. I bet most of the people that you would let gas prices escalate on would not like your solution.
Your economics professor obviously has a political bent to his teachings. that is not Reaganomics. I will agree that the exodus of jobs from this country is a huge problem that is just coming home to roost.
9-11 and the subsequent War on Terror had many consequences that I don''t think anyone could anticipate. How could you know where it would lead. Obviously mistakes have been made but to sit back and do nothing would have been the biggest mistake of all.
You are right, we don''t have to agree. That is a big part of what this country is all about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 3hummers

Your basis in facts is sketchy at best. I own land with oil and gas leases on it and negotiate with exploration companies on leases. I have many friends in the industry. I get my information from them. They have worked their entire lives in the business. I could care less what the government tells me the numbers are because each side lies through their teeth and distorts and twist things to support their erroneous cases.
Reagan pushed the policy that eventually forced the Russians to back down. It was a decades long agenda but Reagan had the balls to tell the Russians how it was going to be and to raise the ante. If not for Reagan the succession of wimpy Presidents since probably still would not have gotten it done.
BO is going to increase taxes to pay for SS, health care and a whole host of Lib issues. I pay health insurance for over 500 employees. I match their 401K contributions, I pay huge taxes and I take great risk. If I am not rewarded for taking that risk a lot of deals don''''t get done and many of those currently well paid, employed people are out of job. That isn''''t voodoo economics it is how the system works.
You are so off base on the reserves available to this country that it is not even worth arguing with you about. Double the supply of anything and prices go down. provide a more secure source for a strategic item and price goes down. Everytime some militant with an RPG raises his voice in Nigeria the price of oil goes up.
People are having a hard time paying todays gas prices. Not drilling while we explore alternatives is a " do nothing" strategy. The final alternative solution could be 20-30 years away and in the meantime the price of gas will continue to escalate. We have to do what it takes to provide energy to America today and in the future and that includes taking advantage of our resources today. I bet most of the people that you would let gas prices escalate on would not like your solution.
Your economics professor obviously has a political bent to his teachings. that is not Reaganomics. I will agree that the exodus of jobs from this country is a huge problem that is just coming home to roost.
9-11 and the subsequent War on Terror had many consequences that I don''''t think anyone could anticipate. How could you know where it would lead. Obviously mistakes have been made but to sit back and do nothing would have been the biggest mistake of all.
You are right, we don''''t have to agree. That is a big part of what this country is all about.

Most experts have expressed this same forecast based upon industry facts and history. That tax incentive to provide healthcare for employees will be gone if John McCain becomes President. Reagan was a speaker, but he did not push any policy as he had no power to do so. He was President when a solid Democratic stronghold controlled the House. ''BO'' will only increase taxes on those making 250K+ and NO ONE ELSE. He and other Democrats have made that clear. Also, yelling ''liberal, liberal, liberal'' doesn''t work anymore since the new members of the house and senate elected in 2006 to give the Democrats the majority were Moderates and Conservatives (from the south). ''BO'' is like every other Presidential Candidate in that he has a vision. Much of his vision will never come to pass, but when we choose a President we choose to follow a vision and allow that President the chance to make as much of it a reality as possible. Gas prices are going to escalate no matter what we do and if, in years, we produce some marginal amount of oil from our reserves and oil prices drop by a dollar a barrel (as new exploration costs and drilling costs will have to be recovered) we will still not solve the financial aspect that affects the consumer at the pump. That professor is a VERY CONSERVATIVE on who believes in less government and lower taxes, but does not believe that Presidents should lower taxes on the wealthy and increase spending expecting revenue to grow from the investments of the wealthy. It just doesn''t work in practice, only in theory.

This is fun, though, and I''m glad we can have a political discussion based upon our ideas and not based upon our sentiments!

Philosophically I have a problem with free passes for anyone. I don''t believe anyone in this country should live here without paying some minimum level of taxes for the privilige of living here and enjoying the benefits that come from being a US citizen. A huge percentage of this country pay no effective income tax. They have no stake in the policy decisions being made in Washington because it doesn''t cost them anything. It is real easy to go along when someone else pays and you are unaffected. It is not my responsibilty to make sure anyone else has health insurance, retirement, food on the table or a roof over their head. BO will raise taxes on people over 250K, eliminate the inheritance tax breaks, raise the capital gains tax, raise the ceiling on income SS taxes are paid on and pass windfall profits on oil companies. Ask your economics professor what happened the last time the capital gains tax was cut, windfall profit taxes were levied on oil companies, etc. It wasn''t pretty and had the exact opposite impact than was planned.
If profits from my investments face a higher capital gains rate that reduces the potential gain while my risk profile stays the same. I am not investing in deals that don''t offer a suitable return. If BO raises the capital gains rate as he has discussed I can see employment at my company dropping from 500 to around 300. Isn''t that a great result or as Al Gore says..." an inconvienent truth".
 You are right I believe in that gas prices will continue to escalate, especially if we don''t increase supply. Your anticipated impact for drilling mirrors what is printed in USA Today and does not reflect the reality projected by industry experts.
Regardless we both get to contribute to the candidates of our choice and vote on November 4th.

Philosophically I have a problem with free passes for anyone.

Again, so do I. I am a longtime supporter of the ''fair tax'' plan. (eliminate the IRS that is a waste of billions, eliminate the Fed. Income Tax, Replace with national sales tax that is not on daily goods such as groceries ect.)

I don''''t believe anyone in this country should live here without paying some minimum level of taxes for the privilige of living here and enjoying the benefits that come from being a US citizen. A huge percentage of this country pay no effective income tax. They have no stake in the policy decisions being made in Washington because it doesn''''t cost them anything. It is real easy to go along when someone else pays and you are unaffected.

This is true and I don''t disagree!

It is not my responsibilty to make sure anyone else has health insurance, retirement, food on the table or a roof over their head. BO will raise taxes on people over 250K, eliminate the inheritance tax breaks, raise the capital gains tax, raise the ceiling on income SS taxes are paid on and pass windfall profits on oil companies. Ask your economics professor what happened the last time the capital gains tax was cut, windfall profit taxes were levied on oil companies, etc. It wasn''''t pretty and had the exact opposite impact than was planned.

We''re currently in a situation where our debt is too high to be paid back by current and future revenue forecasts. This is something that almost all economic experts have agreed upon.

You are right I believe in that gas prices will continue to escalate, especially if we don''''t increase supply. Your anticipated impact for drilling mirrors what is printed in USA Today and does not reflect the reality projected by industry experts.

Most of those articles and newsmakers get their information from the AP who gets their information from the best industry experts.

Regardless we both get to contribute to the candidates of our choice and vote on November 4th.

Yes, this is true and I''m glad we''ve had this discussion but I think you automatically label anyone who doesn''t agree with you as a ''liberal''. Being a liberal doesn''t mean yo agree with everything that people like Senator Obama believe. I clearly do not. I am a cross between a libertarian and a social progressive. I am a fiscal conservative but I understand that our current financial situation is too bleak to bet that current revenues will increase and pay our debts. I don''t support candidates who will further increase trade deals to allow the exploitation of workers in developing countries at the cost of American jobs. One of the principle reasons I supported John Edwards in the primary season was because he was the first to propose that we rethink our many trade deals and how they affect American jobs. I studied the impact of trade deals on American jobs at the University of Cincinnati while getting my BA in Philosophy with a minor in Engineering Sciences. This is one of my great passions. Properly negotiated trade deals can lead to a win-win situation for us and our allies, but improper trade deals like the ones negotiated by Reagan, Bush, and Clinton have put us in a bind. I''m no Barack Obama follower, and I''m obviously pissed that John Edwards will not be President, but I believe that John McCain will continue to lead us down the path of trade deals that are bad for small and medium sized businesses in America. I see no change in mentality from the current President and the three before to lead me to believe anything different will come from John McCain. Obama isn''t a saint, but he brings different ideas to the table and remember, he''s not going to do everything he says because Congressional Leaders will still hold the key to the bank.

Good talk and we REALLY took over this post! HIJACKED!!!

I don''t even know where I am anymore........

Mike you are right where you have always been.

Holy CRAP.......................

GM will cut , claw and scrape its way through this. As far as the oil companies go its the oil producers CEO''s  that should have called congress on the carpet demanding an explination of why congress has droped the ball.  In 2006 the democractic majority promoised an energy policy two years later nothing but more restrictions on everything that is petroleum.  By law the oil producers have access to about 15% of domestic reserves. The big oil companies net profit is about 8% the " record  profit " is because they are doing record volume, that doesn''t change the 8% margin. There are bio-med and software companies that wouldnt bother to open up tomorrow for 8%.  Impose more tax on the producers is RIDICULUS, we have the best drilling and production technology in the world - ever. Its not 1990 anymore, the enviro impact is minimal. What is fortunate is the big oil companies have not ALL moved to Dubi , YET. Put some more tax on them and we can fit our Hummers with a mast and sail.       

Despite trouble on the U.S. front, General Motors Corp. is booming in Europe. GM said Wednesday it recorded record sales of nearly 1.2 million vehicles in Europe in the first six months of this year. That is an increase of 3 percent over last year.


GM''s sales grew 58 percent in Eastern Europe and 60 percent in Russia, offsetting a weaker market in Spain and Italy.

Even Hummer, a brand GM is considering selling because of slow U.S. sales, saw a 21 percent jump in Russia.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/09/business/NA-US-GM-Europe.php

Where have I been?? My uncle works for chevy and he said they told him that GM is gonna keep hummer and the h2 is officially gone. GM is still making money off the military hummers and h3 and soon other models. I guess we can all pool our money together and just buy it.

WHOSE WITH ME???

GM shares slid to a 54-year low last week before rising 66 cents to close at $10.78 in trading Tuesday. As recently as late January, the stock cost $28 to $30 per share. The company could lose $6.9 billion this year and $4.3 billion in 2009 before swinging a $2.3 billion profit in 2010, according to JPMorgan Chase & Co. auto analysts. A predicted rebound isn''t enough to encourage buying shares, says Steve Anderson, branch manager at Hilliard Lyons, 4835 Towne Center. "The keyword is maybe," he says. "You generally want to see a little bit of firm data. At this point, (the prediction) is based on certain suppositions that we don''t know how will play out." And although the stock just hit a low doesn''t mean the "buy low, sell high" theory will work, Anderson says. "Sometimes stocks continue to go down," he says. "People thought Ford was a good buy when it was at $10 a share." Tuesday, it closed at $4.90 a share...

http://www.mlive.com/businessreview/tricities/index.ssf/2008/07/time_to_divest_general_motors.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: thehammerh3
GM is still making money off the military hummers and h3 and soon other models. I guess we can all pool our money together and just buy it.

again, GM has nothing to do with the humvee. That is AM General. GM did not buy AM General, they leased the hummer name from them and made the h2 and h3. AM General assembles (or assembled) the h2.

rb

In a presentation to analysts, the three executives said that what Wagoner euphemistically called the "challenges of today''s U.S. auto market" would be countered by $10 billion in cash-boosting internal actions through 2009, including immediate suspension of the cash dividend, a 20-percent slashing in salaried employment costs, and other operating adjustments. Another $4 billion to $7 billion would come from asset sales, and financing activities that could include "a significant secured debt offering or multiple offerings," in excess of what it had targeted in its earlier plans.

...
Among its other attacks on the problem announced Tuesday, GM said it would eliminate health-care coverage for once-salaried retirees over 65, effective Jan. 1, with those retirees and spouses getting a pension increase "from GM''s over-funded U.S. salaried plan to help offset costs of Medicare and supplemental coverage." On top of that, there will be a further reduction in the company''s U.S. and Canadian headcount this year, through attrition, early retirements, and separation agreements. Noting that GM executives will also be hit by its pay moves, the company added that no annual discretionary cash bonuses will be paid in 2008.

http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/11738042/c_11736403?f=home_todayinfinance