Wake up America

hdxpedx

Veteran Expediter
Fleet Owner
Hint! wasn't the pea**** drinking out of obumers hand channel, wasn't david letterman caught on tape cheating channel(while attacking PALIN), wasn't the all barrack channel-- BALLISTIC keith over-bite-NOPE! lowest ratings channel cnn-nope!! They "all" hate this channel!
 

Oilerman1957

Expert Expediter
Hint! wasn't the pea**** drinking out of obumers hand channel, wasn't david letterman caught on tape cheating channel(while attacking PALIN), wasn't the all barrack channel-- BALLISTIC keith over-bite-NOPE! lowest ratings channel cnn-nope!! They "all" hate this channel!

Must be Fox, they wouldnt lie, lmao, All news channels serve ther own agenda, doesnt matter what there call signs are
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
It was Reported on CNN news, you know barrys favorite suckup news channel...and the report came from Edmunds.com, a very well respect auto new group.....

Cash for Clunkers Tab: $24,000 Per Vehicle of Taxpayer Cash

October 28, 2009
Cash for Clunkers Tab: $24,000 Per Vehicle of Taxpayer Cash - Auto Observer

This summer's so-called Cash for Clunkers program cost taxpayers $24,000 per vehicle sold, according to an analysis by Edmunds.com.

Nearly 690,000 vehicles were sold during the Cash for Clunkers program, officially known as the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), but Edmunds.com analysts indicate that only 125,000 of the sales were incremental. The rest of the sales would have happened anyway.

Analysts divided three billion dollars by 125,000 vehicles to arrive at the average $24,000 per vehicle sold. The average transaction price in August was $26,915 minus an average cash rebate of $1,667.

"This analysis is valuable for two reasons," explained Edmunds.com CEO Jeremy Anwyl. "First, it can form the basis for a complete assessment of the program's impact and costs. Second -- and more important -- it can help us to understand the true state of auto sales and the economy."

For example, Anwyl pointed out, October sales are up, but without Cash for Clunkers, sales would have been even better. "This suggests that the industry's recovery is gaining momentum," he said.

Edmunds.com's research further indicates that without Cash for Clunkers, many customers would not have traded in their old vehicles.

"That may give some credence to the environmental claims, but unfortunately the economic claims have been rendered quite weak," said Edmunds.com Senior Analyst David Tompkins, PhD.

The below chart sets forth actual SAAR (Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate) compared to the forecasted rate if the program had never been put into practice.
Sales Impact of Cash for Clunkers

* Click the link below to see the accompanying charts for "Sales Impact " by month

Cash for Clunkers Tab: $24,000 Per Vehicle of Taxpayer Cash - Auto Observer


As for barry not wanting to own GM, you are right, he want to and did STEAL it...unconstitutionally I might add...as for controling the daily decisions, at this point they are dying on the vine..but he has his guy as the CEO, they are replacing board members with Friends of barry and they will be making the decisions that will control the company......And even barrys people have said the only money the taxpayers will get back is what is realized from the sale of stock when or if that happens, the taxpayers will never see the total amount of taxpayer money paid to GM and forget any interest on the amount....and of the stock can not be sold to generate enough boost in value of the stock, it will be turned over to the UAW to add to the amount they already own.....
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
Oilman wrote:
This must be a joke, who would believe any of this, hahahahaha

You think the article is out of loine and not true? How about you point out barrys stance on our Constitution....:rolleyes:
 

Oilerman1957

Expert Expediter
It was Reported on CNN news, you know barrys favorite suckup news channel...and the report came from Edmunds.com, a very well respect auto new group.....

Cash for Clunkers Tab: $24,000 Per Vehicle of Taxpayer Cash

October 28, 2009
Cash for Clunkers Tab: $24,000 Per Vehicle of Taxpayer Cash - Auto Observer

This summer's so-called Cash for Clunkers program cost taxpayers $24,000 per vehicle sold, according to an analysis by Edmunds.com.


Sales Impact of Cash for Clunkers

* Click the link below to see the accompanying charts for "Sales Impact " by month

Cash for Clunkers Tab: $24,000 Per Vehicle of Taxpayer Cash - Auto Observer


As for barry not wanting to own GM, you are right, he want to and did STEAL it...unconstitutionally I might add...as for controling the daily decisions, at this point they are dying on the vine..but he has his guy as the CEO, they are replacing board members with Friends of barry and they will be making the decisions that will control the company......And even barrys people have said the only money the taxpayers will get back is what is realized from the sale of stock when or if that happens, the taxpayers will never see the total amount of taxpayer money paid to GM and forget any interest on the amount....and of the stock can not be sold to generate enough boost in value of the stock, it will be turned over to the UAW to add to the amount they already own.....

He didnt steal anything, it was a deal struck between them, As far as Wagner leaving, it was probably time for him to go as that had been brought up many times before Obama was president. Maybe Fritz will do good, maybe not, time will tell. How can you say they are dying? They havent published any financial info since they went private. As far as the stock price goes, lets all hope Gm does the right things and maybe the stock price will reflect that when it becomes public again, it would be good for all involved.
 

Oilerman1957

Expert Expediter
Oilman wrote:


You think the article is out of loine and not true? How about you point out barrys stance on our Constitution....:rolleyes:

Yes i think some of it is, I dont know his stance on our constitution, probably same as other politicians>>> whatever serves there purpose
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
Oilman wrote:

He didnt steal anything, it was a deal struck between them,

Yea an agreement that took over the control of the compnay from the LEGAL share holders who lost their azz;s because of barry, timmy and ben and lefts not forget summers....this illegalyy (with the backing of the SC) stole the company from the Shareholders.....

As far as Wagner leaving, it was probably time for him to go as that had been brought up many times before Obama was president.

I hate to say this, Wagner didn't "leave" he was forced out and paid his full compensation plan...it was anothe illegal power grab by barry... barry had to legal right nor any borad vote to remove Wagner...as a matter of fact, there was never a borad vote...barry removed him...illegally

How can you say they are dying?

I figured this would be your comeback so i kept this article which was a companion article to the Cash for Clunkers costing $24,000 for gained sales....kind of sayes it all...oh and its from barrys fav news outlet also CNN....you now the real news oragnization per barry..... Oh and as for the rest of your statement...make sure you read the last paragraph of this article on the MERGER TALKS for GM / Chysler and NISSAN/Renualt (Fiat already realizes they screwed up and want out of chysler)....yea you keep thinkin they will be ok and everyone involved will be ok...the shareholders have already been screwed, the taxpayers will never see their misuse of taxpayer dollars paid back, and GM will either be owned by a foreign company or out of business within 5 yrs...if not sooner.....

Auto sales worst in 25 years

GM sales plunge 45% and sales for its U.S. and Asian rivals also tumble as industry records lowest sales pace since 1983.

By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: November 26, 2008: 11:51 AM ET
Auto sales down sharply again in October - Nov. 3, 2008

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Tight credit and worried consumers resulted in the weakest pace of U.S. auto sales in 25 years.

Although gas prices fell significantly during the course of the month, they weren't enough to lure buyers back to dealer showrooms.

Auto executives complained about the worst environment for sales since the severe recession in the early 1980's, if not longer.

Mark LaNeve, the General Motors vice president in charge of sales in North America, said that when adjusted for population growth, October represents the worst month for U.S. auto sales overall since the end of World War II.

According to preliminary figures from industry sales tracker Autodata, the seasonally-adjusted annual sales rate plunged to 10.6 million, the worst reading since February 1983.

By way of comparison, this figure was 16 million a year ago and 12.5 million in September this year.

"Unless you had to purchase a vehicle, it was wait and see for most consumers," said David Lucas, vice president of Autodata. "People are holding onto their money because they're unsure what the future holds."

But the CEO of auto industry sales tracker Edmunds.com said there is some hope that October may be as bad as it gets.

"The data suggests that the market hit bottom between Sept. 15 and Oct 15," said Edmunds.com CEO Jeremy Anwyl. "We can anticipate more fluctuations through the election and the holidays, but it is reasonable to assume that there is some degree of pent-up demand building."

General Motors (GM, Fortune 500) is reported the larger drops among major automakers. Its U.S. sales plunged 45% in the month, worse than the forecast of a 41% drop from Edmunds.com. Unlike some of its rivals, its sales even fell from what were weak levels in September.

"We are obviously disappointed in our results, which reflect a difficult comparison with a strong year-ago October performance," said LaNeve. "More importantly, it also reflects an unprecedented credit crunch that is dramatically impacting the entire U.S. economy," he added.

It was the lowest sales total at GM since December 1970, a month that followed a strike that shut production at the nation's largest automaker.


But double-digit declines in sales were the norm, not the exception, across the industry.

Ford (F, Fortune 500) sales were down 30% from a year earlier, including the company's Volvo unit in the sales total.

While that was a bit better than the 35% drop forecast by sales tracker Edmunds.com, it marked the 11th straight month that Ford's sales fell from year-earlier levels.

Sales were also up slightly from September, which was the weakest month for the company since January 1982.

Toyota Motor (TM), which is now the No. 2 automaker in terms of U.S. sales, posted a 23% decline from year-earlier levels. That was far worse than the 16% drop forecast by Edmunds.com. This was the tenth time in the past eleven months that its U.S. sales fell from a year ago.

The declining sales were felt across all categories of the industry.

Autodata reported that sales of light trucks, which include pickups, SUVs and vans, plunged 39% industrywide, while the sale of car models fell 24%. There were few major models from any automaker that posted a year-over-year sales gain.

Chrysler LLC, which includes the Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep brands, posted a 35% drop in sales and was one of the few automakers to report a drop in sales from September.

As bad as Chrysler's sales were, they were a bit better than the 38% decline forecast by Edmunds.com. The sales were also enough for Chrysler to hold off Honda Motor and remain the No. 4 automaker in terms of U.S. sales.

Honda Motor (HMC) and Nissan (NSANY) also posted sharp drops in sales from year-earlier levels: Honda sales fell 25% and sales at Nissan plunged 33%. Both were worse than Edmunds.com's forecasts.

Experts are worried that the weak sales and tight credit could cause the U.S. automakers to run out of cash as soon as 2009. While Ford has more cash on hand that its U.S. rivals, it is forecast to report a much larger third quarter loss than it did year ago when it releases results Friday.

Chrysler has reportedly held talks with GM as well as with the Nissan-Renault alliance about a possible merger with one of those automakers. But those talks are reportedly on hold. There has been talk that GM is seeking a loan from the Treasury Department in order to help finance a deal for Chrysler.

lets all hope Gm does the right things and maybe the stock price will reflect that when it becomes public again, it would be good for all involved.

Go luck with that...personally i hope they fail sooner rather then later and close the doors completely....they can then do what they should have been let do the 1st time, re-organize WITHOUT Taxpayer money...but they will fail...you can bet on it....the auto culture that is "within" the management is a joke and not ECONOMICALLY educated.....so for your hope to come true, you had better pray barry takes over the total day to day decision....then the fall will take a bit longer, but it will still fail and fall......and like alot of others hope it happens
 
Last edited:

Oilerman1957

Expert Expediter
First off, it was Chrysler seeking the merger with Nissan or GM. Second, All automakers sales are down not just GM, so they all going under? no, Third, Gm would have filed bankruptcy anyways so the stockholders would have been out there money anyways as that is the way it goes it bankruptcy. If anyone got screwed it was the bondholders but even they would have lost money in the bankruptcy but most of them had bought the bonds on pennies on the dollar anyways. Why would we wish for any American compnay to go out of business? just doesnt make sense.
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
Oilerman wrote:

Yes i think some of it is, I dont know his stance on our constitution, probably same as other politicians>>> whatever serves there purpose

This must be a joke, who would believe any of this, hahahahaha

Hmmm 1st it was ANY , then it was some.....oh well.....

and you have no idea what his stance on our Constitution is, but you comdem the article that deals with how he is screwing over our constitution as a joke....

This people, is why we have barry in the WH, people who have no idea what he stands for or who he is or who he surrounded and continues to surround himself with voted for him because they liked his Hope & Change B/S......will i hope you like your change so far....the least you can do is take responsibility for it....:rolleyes:
 

Oilerman1957

Expert Expediter
Oilerman wrote:





Hmmm 1st it was ANY , then it was some.....oh well.....

and you have no idea what his stance on our Constitution is, but you comdem the article that deals with how he is screwing over our constitution as a joke....

This people, is why we have barry in the WH, people who have no idea what he stands for or who he is or who he surrounded and continues to surround himself with voted for him because they liked his Hope & Change B/S......will i hope you like your change so far....the least you can do is take responsibility for it....:rolleyes:

Such a strong opinion there chef,And yes i like the change over the Bush adm. Did you bash that adm for there lack of concern over the constitution? You dont even know me to make such statements, Is your thinikng that if i dont believe like you that im ignorant or not well informed? I didnt say i dont know what he stands for, i said i dont know his opinion of the constitution and you probably dont either except your opinion of what it is. As far as that article goes its one mans opinion, you chose to believe him, me, not so much. I dont attack your character for your beliefs so dont attack mine.
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
Oilerman

First off, it was Chrysler seeking the merger with Nissan or GM. Second, All automakers sales are down not just GM, so they all going under? no, Third, Gm would have filed bankruptcy anyways so the stockholders would have been out there money anyways as that is the way it goes it bankruptcy. If anyone got screwed it was the bondholders but even they would have lost money in the bankruptcy but most of them had bought the bonds on pennies on the dollar anyways. Why would we wish for any American compnay to go out of business? just doesnt make sense.

LOL, 1st off the talks are on HOLD and it is a GM based talk along with Chysler this time....fiat wants out...

2nd yes they are all down, but GM, barrys company is down the the worse and will continue to be, the bulk American people aren't going to help save them, they already did with their tax dollars.

Next, you are right, they would have filed BK anyhow, but it would have been LEGALLY don't.....and not had "special treatment from the government and courts and the American People wouldn't be out billions in Tax dollars that they will never get back...and yes the bondholders did take it worse then the stockholders, thats ok in your book!?? None of them were treated legally by barry and his auto czar and timmy and the rest of barrys minions....but i guess you agree that "the ends justify the means".....doesn't matter that it was an illegal unconstitutional process.

As for letting them fail, its what happens when a company is mismanaged to the point of failure.....its the way business is conducted and it happens everyday.....they weren't and aren't too big to fail.....and fail they will...i just hope it is sooner then later....
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
Ahhh my opinion was based on your statement that you didn't know what his stance on our Constitution was.....you said it not me....as for the rest of the statement, it was a blanket covering most who voted for him.....

As for bashing bush, you bet i did, on his homeland security b/s, on his spending like a democrat, but NOT for his war policy, that i had no problem with at all, i even think he was too weak in some situations and i did voice that oppostion also...

And yes i do know that barrys stance on our constitution is that it is a NEGATIVE RIGHT document...it doesn't "share the wealth or share the products of those that produce with those that don't produce...he believes that it doesn't do the right thing in "taking care of those that are in need"....he doesn't believe in the god given rights that our constitution does and states that people have to right to PURSUE life liberty and happiness, he feels the constitution should MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE GETS THEIR FAR SHARE...and if it has to come from the governement, so be it....in other words..the producers should pay the way for those that don't , the haves need to gove to the have nots.......he believes our constitution was written to keep the minorities down.....and thats not my opinion, he has stated it in interviews before he ran for office in the state of ill and again when he ran for pres.....

Too many people voted for him that have no idea what he stands for...all MOST seen or heard was "HE" was going to give them something......it was strickly a "wants in it for me" vote and nothing else.....entitlement mentality.....
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
You bet your butt we should have let the banks fail, h*ell it was also illegal, and they didn't even do what they said they needed to do with the money they took....Dang man, have you followed any of whats going on with the banks and the fed and the officers of the banks that took this money!?!? They are under investigation for fraud.....within the last few days it was released that Turbo Timmy made AIG pay BILLIONS of dollars to banks from the tarp money they got...when they could have gotten out with payin millions...but Goldman got a great "windfall' in taxpayer money that they didn't have to show as "Tarp" because it was funneled thru AIG.....lol, YES the banks should have been left to fail ...Tarp was just another way for the FED to save the azz's of their wall st bankster friends, of which Turbo timmy came from.....:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Oilerman1957

Expert Expediter
Ahhh my opinion was based on your statement that you didn't know what his stance on our Constitution was.....you said it not me....as for the rest of the statement, it was a blanket covering most who voted for him.....

As for bashing bush, you bet i did, on his homeland security b/s, on his spending like a democrat, but NOT for his war policy, that i had no problem with at all, i even think he was too weak in some situations and i did voice that oppostion also...

And yes i do know that barrys stance on our constitution is that it is a NEGATIVE RIGHT document...it doesn't "share the wealth or share the products of those that produce with those that don't produce...he believes that it doesn't do the right thing in "taking care of those that are in need"....he doesn't believe in the god given rights that our constitution does and states that people have to right to PURSUE life liberty and happiness, he feels the constitution should MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE GETS THEIR FAR SHARE...and if it has to come from the governement, so be it....in other words..the producers should pay the way for those that don't , the haves need to gove to the have nots.......he believes our constitution was written to keep the minorities down.....and thats not my opinion, he has stated it in interviews before he ran for office in the state of ill and again when he ran for pres.....

Too many people voted for him that have no idea what he stands for...all MOST seen or heard was "HE" was going to give them something......it was strickly a "wants in it for me" vote and nothing else.....entitlement mentality.....

Just your opinion on that blanket statement and such a strong one. Good for you. I think most Americans believe in sharing the wealth, we all want more pay, more benies, thats the american way. Why do u believe he doesnt believe in life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? I think most probably voted for him cause they just plain wanted change and Mccain just wasnt a very good choice in there opinion. As i have said before, as long as we continoue to vote the same people into office yr after yr things will not really change maybe policies will but not real change.and no i dont think it was a wants in it for me vote.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Oilerman,
I am sorry but you fell for the propaganda and really don't know what happened.

1- GM would have gone into a legal bankruptcy which would have protected them while they reorganized the company, shed some of their debt but unless there was a compelling reason for it would not have effectively slammed the stockholders of the company by making their stock worthless.

a) the reality of this bankruptcy is the Obama administration pushed the judge to make concessions by approving an accelerated plan to split the company, make the government(s), the UAW and other "investors" owners while selling off assets that were viable (Opel, etc..)

b) this other half of the coin is the adminstration had no business being involved irreagrdless what loans that were made to the company, most of this circumvented a lot of the laws to allow it to happen before anyone knew what happened. Illegal? sort of but defintely unethical.

2 - wagner was retired, and it was done by the white house. The problem is that the second that was done, the government step over the consitutuional line. They are not allowed to mess with contractual obligations like this and it may be a good thing but it really doesn't matter because due to the bankruptcy judge, they should have fired hendersen and the upper managment as part of a reorg but they didn't and still haven't reorg'ed the company at all - in other words it is the same GM as it was before.

3 - there is an appointed government offical that oversees the day by day operaitons of the company and apporves upper managment's decisions. This is a hidden fact and the person has zero automotive knowledge.

5 - Yesterday's Detroit News states that our $50 billion dollar investment into GM is now worth $25 billion.

5 - Chrysler was put into the situation by cerberus so they can rid themselves of the company. They are or have sued Mercedes over some idea that Mercedes told them they will make billions on the investment. Chrysler could have simply gone away and the assets sold off to us investors for pennies on the dollar.

6 - the losers out of all of this are the american tax payer and the country. They will have to foot the bill for the "loans" that we will end up not only paying for directly but also by paying the perpetual interest on the loans that we had to secure to get the money in the first place. All said and done, the $50 billion debt that we have with GM will be a debt of $126 billion in 2050 - an impossible number for them to pay back if they were to. By the way, the 'experts who wanted to see GM go into bankruptcy the right way have said that they will not produce the vehicles at the numbers they think simply because of the exposure to the market, they have lost market share during theprocess that they will never regain and that will lessen their overall revenue.

7 - the cash for clunkers goes way beyond the $4000, it is right we the tax payers are on the hook for more than $20k for each and every car sold under this program.

8 - the banks are failing, the work being done by the administration is not the right stuff that is needed to save the banks or the economy, we need to enforce the laws and hold people accoutable to bring back trust.

9 - a lot of the problems we now have are directly related to the UAW, their ownership in any company is not warrented and the stock holders of these companies should have had a choice to receive compensation for their secured investments. I am hard pressed to buy another UAW made vehicle, and it will only be a Ford product if that.
 

Oilerman1957

Expert Expediter
You bet your butt we should have let the banks fail, h*ell it was also illegal, and they didn't even do what they said they needed to do with the money they took....Dang man, have you followed any of whats going on with the banks and the fed and the officers of the banks that took this money!?!? They are under investigation for fraud.....within the last few days it was released that Turbo Timmy made AIG pay BILLIONS of dollars to banks from the tarp money they got...when they could have gotten out with payin millions...but Goldman got a great "windfall' in taxpayer money that they didn't have to show as "Tarp" because it was funneled thru AIG.....lol, YES the banks should have been left to fail ...Tarp was just another way for the FED to save the azz's of their wall st bankster friends, of which Turbo timmy came from.....:rolleyes:

I agree to some point, but could we as a people withstood the consequences? And yes i followed it. IT was a question on your thoughts, lol dont be so quick to jump someone, lol
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
You bet it is a strong opinion, as i have strong feelings when it comes to my freedom and liberties...and this person in the WH has stepped all over them....

How do i know what he believes!?!? He has stated it in interviews when he was a Constitutional law professor in Chicago (you did know he taught constitutional law didn't you?) He has made it clear what he believes in in his statements and actions while on the campiagn trail and since being in office...dang....

And NO most americans do NOT believe in "sharing the wealth"...most Americans believe in HELPING others in need when THEY make the deciision to do so, not the Government taking their tax dollars (illegally) and using it for the enbetterment of someone else......

Walter Williams, has a pretty famous saying that goes like this..."When a person reaches in his own pocket and gives money (his own income) to someone in need, thats charity, when the government puts its hand in ones pocket and takes money (taxes) and gives it to someone they feel is in need, thats theft...

And you do that there is no where in the Constitution that makes it legal or Constitutional for the government to use Tax Dollars to the betterment of a person...any person or persons....its no where to be found.....
 
Top