"New" GM not honoring "old" GM's warranty claims ?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...77I0Z820110819

I would think anyone would be upset that their "old" GM car was not covered by a "new" GM warranty. That was a few years ago, though, that the TARP plan happened. It was December, 2008 so most warranty items would not be covered anyhow - I would think.

The GM TARP (bailout) was something that George Bush did on his watch as President. Very good idea in my mind, too. http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/19/news...isis/index.htm

It would be been disasterous to let GM and Chrysler fail.

Originally Posted by buggyone

I would think anyone would be upset that their "old" GM car was not covered by a "new" GM warranty. That was a few years ago, though, that the TARP plan happened. It was December, 2008 so most warranty items would not be covered anyhow - I would think.

The GM TARP (bailout) was something that George Bush did on his watch as President. Very good idea in my mind, too. http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/19/news...isis/index.htm

It would be been disasterous to let GM and Chrysler fail.

Obviously if the warranty claims were outdated this would not be a story and so your supposition must be flawed.

I'm glad you think that government should bail out business. Businesses that make the correct political donations, anyway (wink, wink)

Businesses that employ the right Union Labor (wink, wink)

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Obviously if the warranty claims were outdated this would not be a story and so your supposition must be flawed.

I'm glad you think that government should bail out business. Businesses that make the correct political donations, anyway (wink, wink)

Businesses that employ the right Union Labor (wink, wink)

What would the unemployment rate look like if these bailout hadn't happened. Then imagine how Fox News would attach President Obama.

No honest person could say that the bailout of the automotive industry was a total success.

Originally Posted by debanddon

What would the unemployment rate look like if these bailout hadn't happened. Then imagine how Fox News would attach President Obama.

No honest person could say that the bailout of the automotive industry was a total success.

The unemployment rate would look good if Obama did not have a terrible economic policy that punishes employers instead of giving them incentives to hire people.

"June 2, 2009

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- General Motors filed for bankruptcy protection early Monday, a move once viewed as unthinkable .......

In the end, even $19.4 billion in federal help wasn't enough to keep the nation's largest automaker out of bankruptcy. The government will pour another $30 billion into GM to fund operations during its reorganization......

"According to GM's bankruptcy filing , the company has assets of $82.3 billion, and liabilities of $172.8 billion....."

Nobody has ever explained how this company was allowed to remain in existence with $82 billion in assets, while having liabilities of $172 billion.

What possible reasoning concluded GM could be turned around by pumping billions into such a corpse????

You do understand, Richie, that the TARP to General Motors was something from George Bush. It was December of 2008 and Bush was President at that time.

I would assume the warranties under question should still be valid. Lots of warranties for certain parts are for 3 years/36000 miles or more in some cases. I would be plenty upset if I had a car that was supposed to be covered and the parent company would not fix it.

Yes, I certainly do believe the TARP was a very good idea that Bush and his team came up with for GM and Chrysler.

Its not the warranties, they do not want to be responsible for any re-calls.

If GM had indeed gone out of business, GM's competitors would have filled the vacuum in no time. No vacuum can exist in a capitalist economy. If there's a market it will be filled in no time flat. The bailout of GM was a bad idea and a bad precedent. GM's competitors are already building plants all over the U.S.; the latest being Volkswagen. Why?; because we have the skilled workers with a higher productivity rate than in all of Europe, and we don't get 3 month vacations.

If GM went out of business it would have been the end of an era, but not the end of the world. Except for maybe the UAW if they couldn't adapt to the new reality.

And we could have saved ourselves billions of dollars in the balance.

I don't understand some of your convoluted logic, Richie. You have said in the past that the present administration is unfriendly to business and creates a situation that they do not want to build a business and hire people.

You then say that it would be permissible to let General Motors and Chrysler go out of business without propping them up with needed money. The closing of those auto companies would have thousands and thousands of people off a payroll.

I am sure I am missing something but your statements seem at odds with each other. First, the government should create a friendly business acumen to let them hire people and secondly, the government should not assist a huge corporation to let them keep people employed.

As I said, I am missing something. What is it? This was a George Bush program I am totally in agreement with, by the way.

People get suspicious when bailout monies go to teachers and other union based jobs. It is perceived that the Unions are in the pockets of the Democrats.

Anything we can do to strengthen the manufacturing base, in this country, is a good thing....bail out or not.

We need to make stuff to sell to the world.... Has something to do with the trade balance or imbalance or something like that ...

It's getting very difficult to purchase American made goods...

Originally Posted by villagegolfer

People get suspicious when bailout monies go to teachers and other union based jobs. It is perceived that the Unions are in the pockets of the Democrats.

Any just how much money went to the banks with TARP and the massive loans from the Fed?



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...ret-loans.html

Notice the T for trillion in secret loans.

Originally Posted by buggyone

I don't understand some of your convoluted logic, Richie. You have said in the past that the present administration is unfriendly to business and creates a situation that they do not want to build a business and hire people.

You then say that it would be permissible to let General Motors and Chrysler go out of business without propping them up with needed money. The closing of those auto companies would have thousands and thousands of people off a payroll.

I am sure I am missing something but your statements seem at odds with each other. First, the government should create a friendly business acumen to let them hire people and secondly, the government should not assist a huge corporation to let them keep people employed.

As I said, I am missing something. What is it? This was a George Bush program I am totally in agreement with, by the way.

I don't know why you keep bringing up Pres. Bush. I don't care who you say is ultimately responsible, it was and still is a bad idea and precedent. I don't blindly follow leaders into the abyss as liberals are doing in record numbers.

GM was failing because of bad business decisions. It was not the place of the Federal Government to unilaterally give GM the "people's money" to bail them out. Like I said before, if GM did go out of business all the other car companies would have scrambled to pick up the slack and a vibrant surge would have occurred which would have added to the workforce of those companies.

The bums who destroyed GM may have had trouble getting these new jobs, but it's not the American People's job to bail out the GM fat cats who squandered the money and reputation of GM with bad decisions and products people wouldn't buy. It also was not our job to bail out the lucratively compensated union employees of GM who couldn't see the handwriting on the wall and compromise to give their employer relief until it was too late.

There might have been a rumble in the workplace, but as the newer arrivals to our shores geared up to "fill the need", jobs would be created; support companies to service this expansion would have new growth; and the existing infrastructure of these automobile manufacturer support companies would have to retool, creating more growth, or lose to new more vibrant companies, which would be creating new jobs.

There are and were plenty of very large companies that have or will fail. Why haven't we bailed them out?

Originally Posted by RichieLion

I don't know why you keep bringing up Pres. Bush. I don't care who you say is ultimately responsible, it was and still is a bad idea and precedent. I don't blindly follow leaders into the abyss as liberals are doing in record numbers.

GM was failing because of bad business decisions. It was not the place of the Federal Government to unilaterally give GM the "people's money" to bail them out. Like I said before, if GM did go out of business all the other car companies would have scrambled to pick up the slack and a vibrant surge would have occurred which would have added to the workforce of those companies.

The bums who destroyed GM may have had trouble getting these new jobs, but it's not the American People's job to bail out the GM fat cats who squandered the money and reputation of GM with bad decisions and products people wouldn't buy. It also was not our job to bail out the lucratively compensated union employees of GM who couldn't see the handwriting on the wall and compromise to give their employer relief until it was too late.

There might have been a rumble in the workplace, but as the newer arrivals to our shores geared up to "fill the need", jobs would be created; support companies to service this expansion would have new growth; and the existing infrastructure of these automobile manufacturer support companies would have to retool, creating more growth, or lose to new more vibrant companies, which would be creating new jobs.

There are and were plenty of very large companies that have or will fail. Why haven't we bailed them out?

OK... if we follow your logic, how do you explain the TARP funds for the financial institutions? Did you agree with that bailout?