GM posts their highest profits ever!

[Ausm]

Because the actual unemployment numbers plotted reflect reality...and the rest is speculative horseshit.

So in your world you would only believe data from a Gubemint ran by the "R"'s like when Bush never included the costs on wars our budget?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So in your world you would only believe data from a Gubemint ran by the "R"'s like when Bush never included the costs on wars our budget?

And what would ever give you that idea? I'm really interested in understanding the "logic" you use to come to these incredibly "insightful" conclusions.

 

[Ausm]

And what would ever give you that idea? I'm really interested in understanding the "logic" you use to come to these incredibly "insightful" conclusions.

Then you don't believe any data that comes from the WH regardless of any parties control then but you do when you can fight a chart that would "attempt" to refute anything I posted?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Then you don't believe any data that comes from the WH regardless of any parties control then...

Please tell me how do you arrived to this conclusion? Everything you say is pure speculation and completely unsubstantiated. Your "logic" eludes me once again.

...but you do when you can fight a chart that would "attempt" to refute anything I posted?

I believe the actual unemployment numbers have much more credibility than WH projections. Don't you? I also believe that the WH chart you posted is highly biased and has little credibility.

I've answered your questions and yet you avoid answering mine...instead moving on to your next lame assumption...why is that? You just might want to think about it for more than 2 seconds. I'd really like to hear your explanation regarding this.

 

[Ausm]

]Please tell me how do you arrived to this conclusion? Everything you say is pure speculation and completely unsubstantiated. Your "logic" eludes me once again.
[/B]

I believe the actual unemployment numbers have much more credibility than WH projections. Don't you? I also believe that the WH chart you posted is highly biased and has little credibility.

I've answered your questions and yet you avoid answering mine...instead moving on to your next lame assumption...why is that? You just might want to think about it for more than 2 seconds. I'd really like to hear your explanation regarding this.

That's my assumption but I could be wrong...I guess a I misconstrued your angst against G.M. and the reports from the WH

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That's my assumption but I could be wrong...I guess a I misconstrued your angst against G.M. and the reports from the WH

I have no angst against GM...how did you arrive at this conclusion? I think you've established quite a consistent pattern here...one false conclusion after another after another.

You're obviously an intelligent guy...but damn, based on this dialogue, I'm hard pressed to say why I think that.

 

[lothar]

Are you just being intentionally obtuse?

GM laid people off when they were struggling. GM isn't laying people off now.

GM IS HIRING.

http://www.freep.com/article/201105...-Michigan-plants-benefit-from-GM-hiring-blitz <-- 4000 jobs[/B]
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...ng-passat-suvs-recovery-auto-industry-jobs-/1

Building a $200,000,000 metal stamping plant in Texas will create even more jobs. That's what businesses are supposed to do when they're succeeding, invest in workers and facilities. Not keep laying off and reducing salaries.


Your attempt at a "gotcha" backfired.

You don't see a problem with GM replacing union jobs in Detroit, Michigan with minimum wage anti-union jobs in Texas?
Why are they building that plant in Texas, and not Michigan?

If you believe the jobs at this Texas metal stamping plants pays more in salary than it would if built in Michigan, then by all means prove it.

 

[lothar]

Let's also remember, the unions voluntarily took big cuts to pay, benefits, and pensions to make this work. Good for them, for almost no credit politically.

The bondholders took an even bigger cut than union workers did in pay, benefits, and pensions both on a dollar figure basis and on a percentage basis.

How much credit did the bondholders get politically?

 

[shortylickens]

You bought it used and it was a P.O.S. why didn't you demand your money back right away?

Stop assuming. It wasnt a POS when I got it. Year by year its quickly been breaking down and its way too long to "take it back". My point was GM thinks cars going to crap quickly is acceptable. If it broke INSTANTLY this would not be an issue. GM vehicles last just long enough that the majority of buyers dont make a fuss over them.

 

[Ausm]

Stop assuming. It wasnt a POS when I got it. Year by year its quickly been breaking down and its way too long to "take it back". My point was GM thinks cars going to crap quickly is acceptable. If it broke INSTANTLY this would not be an issue. GM vehicles last just long enough that the majority of buyers dont make a fuss over them.

Sorry but if something breaks down overtime shouldn't it be covered by the warranty?

 

[Throckmorton]

Wait, so as long as people gets a severance package it absolves the employer of their Evil Greedy Capitalist label?

They needed to lay workers off to survive, and offered a good severance package for people to voluntarily leave. What don't you understand?

 

[zinfamous]

This thread is hilarious. The mental gymnastics it requires to be a "liberal" in America must be truly exhausting.

MITT ROMNEY IS EVIL! HE DESTROYS COMPANIES AND LAYS PEOPLE OFF SO HE CAN MAKE MONEY!

GM is pretty great though, they laid people off and are now making tons of money; a real American success story.

so...what's worse?

--lay off 32,000 workers and stay solvent
--lay off 98,000 workers, disappear, and take a massive manufacturing base of several more hundreds of thousands of workers with you?

 

[BoberFett]

so...what's worse?

--lay off 32,000 workers and stay solvent
--lay off 98,000 workers, disappear, and take a massive manufacturing base of several more hundreds of thousands of workers with you?

Another failure to comprehend the inconsistency. Corporations get blasted by the left all the time for having massive profit after layoffs because they see the layoffs as greed by upper management who just want to pad their bonuses. Suddenly layoffs followed by incredible profits is acceptable just because the company in question was the target of a government bailout.

It's really not that hard to understand.

 

[zinfamous]

Another failure to comprehend the inconsistency. Corporations get blasted by the left all the time for having massive profit after layoffs because they see the layoffs as greed by upper management who just want to pad their bonuses. Suddenly layoffs followed by incredible profits is acceptable just because the company in question was the target of a government bailout.

It's really not that hard to understand.

I agree that that is stupid, and inherently misrepresented by typical liberal thinking. A serious problem of Union propaganda, if you ask me

but I think what really angers most is companies that continue to fail, yet still pay massive bonuses to executives. Likewise, it is never going to look good if you are making record profits, laying off tons of people, and paying singular bonuses that could individually pay the salaries of a few dozen workers.

I don't think that is the same as what is going on with GM

 

[zinfamous]

Stop assuming. It wasnt a POS when I got it. Year by year its quickly been breaking down and its way too long to "take it back". My point was GM thinks cars going to crap quickly is acceptable. If it broke INSTANTLY this would not be an issue. GM vehicles last just long enough that the majority of buyers dont make a fuss over them.

This was true of Ford and everything that came out of their factories throughout the 80s and 90s. Now, they're a bit of a model in terms of how to turn around a business--reputation and quality.

They spent a lot of time changing their attitude and how they approach manufacturing (honestly, I don't know what they did--but it's obvious that they are not the same company they were).

If a bit of forceful nudging will get GM to change its philosophy and right the ship, all the better, I say.

Of course, Ford was in good shape prior to the downturn and needed no assistance. As it stands, you can see that an attitude adjustment is possible, and that it can lead to real success.

 

[Throckmorton]

Another failure to comprehend the inconsistency. Corporations get blasted by the left all the time for having massive profit after layoffs because they see the layoffs as greed by upper management who just want to pad their bonuses. Suddenly layoffs followed by incredible profits is acceptable just because the company in question was the target of a government bailout.

It's really not that hard to understand.

Can you post an example of liberals bashing a company that laid people off in order to survive? As opposed to laying people off just to increase profit margins by concentrating work among fewer employees...

 

[JSt0rm]

I have no angst against GM...how did you arrive at this conclusion? I think you've established quite a consistent pattern here...one false conclusion after another after another.

You're obviously an intelligent guy...but damn, based on this dialogue, I'm hard pressed to say why I think that.

And you dont? Like when you came to the conclusion that i supported the operation in Libya because it was led by a democrat and not because of the reality of the situation?

People in glass houses shouldnt throw stones.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Can you post an example of liberals bashing a company that laid people off in order to survive? As opposed to laying people off just to increase profit margins by concentrating work among fewer employees...

Who gets to set the motives you are assigning? Seems to me that this is yet another example of selective outrage/non-outrage.

 

[BoberFett]

Can you post an example of liberals bashing a company that laid people off in order to survive? As opposed to laying people off just to increase profit margins by concentrating work among fewer employees...

$7.8B in profit is a lot more than surviving. That's almost $250K per laid off employee.

 

[Throckmorton]

$7.8B in profit is a lot more than surviving. That's almost $250K per laid off employee.

How exactly were they supposed to know their profits would be so high?

 

[BoberFett]

How exactly were they supposed to know their profits would be so high?

Couldn't the same be applied to any company laying people off? As CAD said, selective outrage.

 

[shortylickens]

Sorry but if something breaks down overtime shouldn't it be covered by the warranty?

Reason number 2 I dont like GM. Warranty sucks and they dont honor them anyway.

 

[Throckmorton]

Couldn't the same be applied to any company laying people off? As CAD said, selective outrage.

Why are you so insistent with this lame strawman?

 

[ramm]

where the hell is my profit sharing from all the "stock" i bought?

 

[Demo24]

Reason number 2 I dont like GM. Warranty sucks and they dont honor them anyway.

Then sounds like a dealer problem or you screwed it up yourself.

http://i.autoblog.com/2012/02/16/jd-power-reports-vehicle-dependability-has-substantially-improve/

" Fully 25 of 32 brands have improved in dependability from 2011, while only six have declined and one has remained stable. Domestic nameplates have improved in 2012 at a slightly faster rate than imports, narrowing the dependability gap to 13 PP100 from 18 PP100 in 2011."