haypops

If your intent is to help GM then this might be a safer route. http://www.gmacbank.com/index.html The stock market might get you get better returns on your investment. It might also get you an ulcer.

No

Many destinations require costly and inconvenient connecting flights. Still others have poor scheduling of flight times. Unfortunately Washington isn't one of these.

It's too bad the big three don't still make their own car-haulers. WildmanJoe has posted a some great pictures in the past.

I think that eventually they would get both. However, is there an "eventually" if action/money doesn't come soon? The next administration has made some pretty strong statements of support. I suppose it is possible that Ford and Chrysler will limp through till then but GM will go down during the holiday Sanson!!!

Good synopsis of the days activities.

Actually Wagoneer played this brilliantly. If he came with a plan, congress would have wanted yet another loop to jump through. This part of "negotiating" is taught in the last week of MBA school. You have something to look forward to! Seriously the posters here may be up to there eye balls in the minutia of the turn around plans, but would congress be so "into it". Imagine if the bailout was for the light-bulb industry. How many of us would feel confident without some hand holding by the bright guys at the bulb industry.

IIRC legally bond holders can't loose any money until all common and preferred share holders are completely wiped out.

The regional differences in pricing is fascinating.

The older I get, the more I see the devil is in the details. Unions can be great and they can be part of the problem. One of my son in-laws worked at Chrysler for awhile and the unions (aided by lower level management) took advantage of the overtime pay rates. On the other hand my daughter (non automotive related) recently when from a non-union environment (as an employee) to management at a union facility. She had some fears of dealing with the union. After several months it is clear to her that the Union gets better salary and benefits for the employees and clears the dead wood out for management. Win-win.

By the way the author has Nancy Pelosi's ear.

full article here November 16, 2008 OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR What's Good for G.M. Is Good for the Army By WESLEY K. CLARK Little Rock, Ark. AMERICA'S automobile industry is in desperate trouble. Financial instability, the credit squeeze and closed capital markets are hurting domestic automakers, while decades of competition from foreign producers have eroded market share and consumer loyalty. Some economists question the wisdom of Washington's intervening to help the Big Three, arguing that the automakers should pay the price for their own mistakes or that the market will correct itself. But we must act: aiding the American automobile industry is not only an economic imperative, but also a national security imperative. When President Dwight Eisenhower observed that America's greatest strength wasn't its military, but its economy, he must have had companies like General Motors and Ford in mind. Sitting atop a vast pyramid of tool makers, steel producers, fabricators and component manufacturers, these companies not only produced the tanks and trucks that helped win World War II, but also lent their technology to aircraft and ship manufacturing. The United States truly became the arsenal of democracy. During the 1950s, advances in aviation, missiles, satellites and electronics made Detroit seem a little old-fashioned in dealing with the threat of the Soviet Union. The Army's requests for new trucks and other basic transportation usually came out a loser in budget battles against missile technology and new modifications for the latest supersonic jet fighter. Not only were airplanes far sexier but they also counted as part of our military "tooth," while much of the land forces' needs were "tail." And in those days, "more teeth, less tail" had become a key concept in military spending. But in 1991, the Persian Gulf war demonstrated the awesome utility of American land power, and the Humvee (and its civilian version, the Hummer) became a star. Likewise, the ubiquitous homemade bombs of the current Iraq insurgency have led to the development of innovative armor-protected wheeled vehicles for American forces, as well as improvements in our fleets of Humvees, tanks, armored fighting vehicles, trucks and cargo carriers. In a little more than a year, the Army has procured and fielded in Iraq more than a thousand so-called mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles. The lives of hundreds of soldiers and marines have been saved, and their tasks made more achievable, by the efforts of the American automotive industry. And unlike in World War II, America didn't have to divert much civilian capacity to meet these military needs. Without a vigorous automotive sector, those needs could not have been quickly met. More challenges lie ahead for our military, and to meet them we need a strong industrial base. For years the military has sought better sources of electric power in its vehicles - necessary to allow troops to monitor their radios with diesel engines off, to support increasingly high-powered communications technology, and eventually to support electric propulsion and innovative armaments like directed-energy weapons. In sum, this greater use of electricity will increase combat power while reducing our footprint. Much research and development spending has gone into these programs over the years, but nothing on the manufacturing scale we really need. Now, though, as Detroit moves to plug-in hybrids and electric-drive technology, the scale problem can be remedied. Automakers are developing innovative electric motors, many with permanent magnet technology, that will have immediate military use. And only the auto industry, with its vast purchasing power, is able to establish a domestic advanced battery industry. Likewise, domestic fuel cell production - which will undoubtedly have many critical military applications - depends on a vibrant car industry. To be sure, the public should demand transformation and new standards in the auto industry before paying to keep it alive. And we should insist that Detroit's goals include putting America in first place in hybrid and electric automotive technology, reducing the emissions of the country's transportation fleet, and strengthening our competitiveness abroad. This should be no giveaway. Instead, it is a historic opportunity to get it right in Detroit for the good of the country. But Americans must bear in mind that any federal assistance plan would not be just an economic measure. This is, fundamentally, about national security. Wesley K. Clark, a retired Army general and former supreme allied commander of NATO, is a senior fellow at the Burkle Center for International Relations at the University of California at Los Angeles.

Thank you for pointing out that disparity. If deserves repeating.

Well said.

It was a pleasure to participate in this. Actually I thought you were going to ask us to GM bonds. This is easier.

A Malibu does cost $2500 more than a Camry.

I assume that it is a combination of high U.S. dollar, decreased demand from world recession, removing some of the speculation, etc. Any one want to add to the list? This is pretty hard on Russia and very hard on Venezuela and Iran. Too bad (not).

Different strokes for different folks and all that, but I find Windmills among the more picturesque man made objects .

Apparently "Washington" doesn't agree with you on GM needing a recovery plan to get the money. Perhaps they feel that since GM outsells Toyota in China, the Mideast, Europe, etc their plan is good enough.

The solution to GM's problem is simple. Kill to birds with one stone. No one likes the cruise name to rename the new Chevy compact as the "AIG". This will allow for a government bailout "big time".

I donated to one politician this year. Not much; just $15/month. He refused all corporate donations. I would have supported him if he accepted money from the devil, but he took no corporate donations. He started to pull ahead in the polls. The week before the election his opponent received $60,000 from some of the Wall Street companies that were bailed out with our money. The votes are still being counted.

One of my daily chores is shreddng all those credit card applications that come unsolicitated in the mail. I haven't been well enough to work in 10 years. I think some of the offers we see are just "momentum" and if you apply for those zero percent down loans they vanish. I think that if you check out the government grant thing you will see that it's a zero % interest loan (not bad!) but it can't be used as a down payment. It is useful, however, for repairs and furnishings on a newly purchased first home. By the way first home means no previous home ownership for the last three years.

Nice post, even nicer car!

just for fun: If Palin was a car: If Joe the plumber was a car: If John McCain was a car: http://www.chooseyourit

I respectfully ask how its social manipulation to have a per gallon gas tax. Those who use the roads more, pay more. Those who don't own a car still pay some through general bond measures and still gain some use of the roads through efficient transport of commodities that they buy. It is analogous to the National parks. Those who visit pay a fee plus general funds. The rest of only pay the general funds part of the equation but benefit still through pictures, etc.