【纽约时报】Bankrupt G.M. Says It Owes $172 Billion

忧心

Bankrupt G.M. Says It Owes $172 Billion
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/business/02auto.html

By DAVID E. SANGER, JEFF ZELENY and BILL VLASIC  Published: June 1, 2009


The headquarters of General Motors in Detroit in December. Carlos Barria/Reuters

This article was reported by David E. Sanger, Jeff Zeleny and Bill Vlasic, and written by Mr. Sanger.

General Motors filed for bankruptcy on Monday morning, submitting its reorganization papers to a federal clerk in Lower Manhattan.

G.M. said it had $82.3 billion in assets and $172.8 billion in debts. Its largest creditors were the Wilmington Trust Company, representing a group of bondholders holding $22.8 billion in debts, and affiliates of the United Auto Workers union, representing nearly $20.6 billion in employee obligations.

The filing itself seemed anticlimactic. It was a simple procedure done thousands of times each day across the country, by individuals and business alike. But not usually, as in this case, by companies like G.M. that have woven themselves into the fabric of America culture.

The company was forced into the filing by President Obama, who is betting that by temporarily nationalizing the onetime icon of American capitalism, he can save at least a diminished automaker that is competitive.

With the filing, G.M. follows its crosstown rival Chrysler in bankruptcy. And G.M. hopes that it can move as swiftly in its reorganization. Chrysler, which sought court protection on April 30, could emerge in the next few days; a bankruptcy judge in New York gave approval on Sunday night for most of its assets to be acquired by Fiat, a decision that President Obama hailed on Monday morning.

“Chrysler has a new lease on life,” Mr. Obama said in a statement. “We said this process would be completed quickly and efficiently, and that’s exactly what has been accomplished today.”

The bankruptcy of General Motors culminates a remarkable four months of confrontation between Washington and Detroit that is expected to result in a drastic downsizing of the company. It also places the government in uncharted territory as a business owner, as it takes a majority ownership stake in the company during its restructuring.

The company’s Saturn unit, which G.M. began in 1990 to compete with foreign-made cars, also filed for bankruptcy on Monday. G.M. has said it would phase out the Saturn brand by 2012.

G.M.’s Saab unit is already under bankruptcy protection in Sweden. The German government last week picked Magna International, a Canadian car-parts maker, to buy G.M.’s Opel unit, which is based in Germany.

Reflecting the government’s extraordinary intervention in industry, aides say, Mr. Obama plans to tell the nation later Monday morning that he believes G.M. can be brought back from the brink of insolvency, even if the company looks almost nothing like the titan of old.

Administration officials briefed reporters on Sunday night, as President Obama began to inform members of Congress. But the White House insisted that the aides who talked to reporters could not be named.

In his remarks on Monday, Mr. Obama will spell out a strategy in which a shrunken G.M. can make money even if new car sales remain at a sluggish 10 million a year in the United States and even if G.M., once the giant of the industry, drops below its current 20 percent market share in this country.

But to get there, American taxpayers will invest an additional $30 billion in the company, atop $20 billion already spent just to keep it solvent as the company bled cash as quickly as Washington could inject it. Whether that investment will ever be recovered is still an open question.

The company will also have to shed 21,000 union workers and close 12 to 20 factories, steps that most analysts thought could never be pushed through by a Democratic president allied with organized labor.

Forty percent of the company’s 6,000 dealers will close, the workers’ union will be forced to finance half of its $20 billion health care fund with stock of uncertain value in the restructured G.M., and bondholders, including many retirees, will be forced to take stock worth 10 cents for every dollar they lent the company.

G.M. will also lose its spot on the Dow Jones industrial average, a key stock-market gauge of 30 blue-chip stocks. The car maker had been a member of the closely watched stock index since 1925.Judge Robert E. Gerber of the United States Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan will oversee the bankruptcy. He was appointed in 2000, and oversaw the bankruptcy of the cable company Adelphia.

Before that, he was a partner in the Manhattan firm of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, which he joined in 1971 after graduating for Columbia Law School. He specialized in securities and commercial litigation and, thereafter, bankruptcy litigation and counseling.

The company’s last steps toward bankruptcy took place over the weekend as a majority of G.M. bondholders agreed not to challenge the filing in court and to exchange their debt for stock.

To assist in the restructuring, the automaker is expected to hire the consulting firm Alix Partners, which has worked on several major bankruptcies, including those for Enron and Kmart. One of the firm’s partners, Al Koch, is expected to manage the liquidation of corporate assets that G.M. will shed during its Chapter 11 restructuring, people with knowledge of the bankruptcy strategy said.

Mr. Obama is taking several risks under the plan. None may be bigger than the decision that the United States government will take a 60 percent share of the stock in a new G.M., leaving taxpayers vulnerable if the overhaul is not successful. (Canada, for its part, is taking a 12 percent stake.)

“We don’t think that after this next $30 billion, they will need more money,” one senior administration official said. “But the fact is there are things you don’t know — like when the car market will come back, and how much Toyota and Honda and Volkswagen will benefit from the chaos.”

The administration said it had concluded that if Washington just kept lending money to G.M., loading it with debt, the company would be unable to both invest in its business and pay back the loans.

Mr. Obama is expected to argue later Monday that any alternative to his plan would be worse, and that a liquidation of G.M. — the only other real option — would send the unemployment rate soaring over 10 percent and would radiate damage throughout the economy.

But aware of the hardships the plan will impose on regions across the country that depend on auto production, the White House is dispatching a dozen Cabinet members and other officials across four states this week to reassure residents.

Aides say Mr. Obama will portray himself as a reluctant shareholder, eager to sell the company back to private investors, perhaps within 6 to 18 months.

However, in talking to reporters on Sunday evening, a senior administration official acknowledged that there was “an inevitable tension” between the desire to return the company to private hands quickly, and the assumption that the government might be more likely to recover its $50 billion investment in the company if it held onto the stock for an extended period.

Officials say the president will insist that once the government sets up new management and a board, it will remove itself from G.M.’s day-to-day operations. But even his aides anticipate intense pressure as the company’s managers are called to testify in Congress and face questions like why they decided to build new cars in Mexico and South Korea, rather than in Michigan or the South.

“Congress and many Americans are going to say, if we own it, why can’t we make these decisions?” one of Mr. Obama’s top economic aides said, “and it’s going to be a challenge to answer that.”

To ease the way, the White House on Sunday briefed reporters on a new set of principles for how the government should behave as a majority shareholder. It argued that the government’s role should be limited primarily to the beginning of the process, but that it should then recede, becoming a passive investor, one seeking to sell its stake quickly.

At the same time, Mr. Obama has laid out goals for all the Detroit automakers that will presumably affect their major strategic decisions. He has urged them, for example, to build smaller cars with significantly better fuel efficiency. But under the new principles, the White House would be discouraged from getting involved in G.M’s decisions about when and where to build such a car, or how long to keep producing it if it sells poorly.

Six months ago, even the suggestion of such deep intervention into G.M.’s operations would have raised huge objections. But by the time the denouement came, the company seemed almost relieved. Robert Lutz, G.M.’s vice chairman, said that “for the first time in our history, the American auto industry has the ear of the administration. Their number one goal is to make us successful.”

Nonetheless, Michael Useem, a professor of management at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, said the decision would “mean a new chapter in the history books on American capitalism.” He added, “How we think about American free enterprise is really hanging in the balance.”

For Mr. Obama, whose ascent to the White House depended on carrying states across the industrial Midwest, the political risk is significant.

The G.M. bankruptcy will ripple across several states where hundreds of parts suppliers and car dealerships face imminent closings.

Indeed, the four states where Cabinet secretaries are focusing their efforts this week — Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin — all were carried by Mr. Obama last November. It was the first time Indiana has supported a Democratic presidential candidate in 44 years.

These Main Street political challenges will almost certainly be an issue for Democrats on the ballot in next year’s midterm election campaign and in the president’s own re-election effort in 2012. If those jobs shift to nonunion plants in the South, where German and Japanese carmakers have built their facilities, or overseas, Mr. Obama could face criticism inside his own party.

“It is unacceptable to ask U.S. workers to subsidize the exportation of their own jobs,” said Representative Dennis Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, whose district includes Cleveland. “The taxpayers’ investment should be used to protect American plants so that American workers can build the next generation of automobiles.”

In his presidential campaign speeches last year, often delivered in the shadow of closed manufacturing plans, Mr. Obama bluntly conceded that most of the jobs would not come back. Instead, his administration is pointing to investments that the economic recovery act will make in communities.

Rob McNabney, chairman of the Madison County Democratic Party in Anderson, Ind., a onetime booming automotive center, said the problems for Mr. Obama were severe. “He’s going to be judged by what he does,” Mr. McNabney said.

Tom Henry, the mayor of Fort Wayne, Ind., one of the many places hit hard by the automotive restructuring, said he was optimistic that the town’s truck plant would stay open, but he acknowledged that that suppliers and dealers would suffer.

“There is no question much is on the shoulders of our president,” Mr. Henry, who supported Mr. Obama’s campaign, said in an e-mail message on Sunday. “He is daring to risk more than others. He should be given time to produce.”

Michael J. de la Merced, Jack Healy and Micheline Maynard contributed reporting.

忧心

1.June 01, 2009 4:03 am
Link
Capitalism does not work, this is another proof.
— NubiaSahara, Troy, ny

Recommend Recommended by 8 Readers 2.June 01, 2009 4:03 am
Link
With all the focus on auto bail-outs it seems Washington can’t see the forest for the trees. It is true that General Motors, Ford and Chrysler have long-term legacy employment costs that render them less competitive than foreign auto manufacturers that do not bear those same costs. It is also true that General Motors and Chrysler were financially unprepared to weather the severe downturn in the economy forcing them to go hat in hand to the federal government. But Washington is missing the point in its handling of the auto industry. Right now even foreign auto makers without legacy costs are losing money. The reason is American citizens, and others around the world, do not have adequate access to available auto credit on reasonable terms. How can we know whether or not GM, Ford, or Chrysler can become competitive if the environment is such that no one can succeed?

It is possible total auto sales in the U.S. will be close to 8 million units in 2009. This would be only half of the number of cars that were sold in 2007. Washington’s auto task force should be focusing on restoring access to auto credit for businesses and consumers rather than on their current myopic focus of cutting costs to the bone on the backs of workers, retirees, and bond holders at GM and Chrysler. The goal of the auto task force should not be trying to figure out how GM and Chrysler can survive in an environment where less than 10 million cars and light trucks are sold in the U.S. It should be to create access to affordable auto credit for consumers and businesses. Currently over half of the country has a subprime credit score. If we don’t find a way for these borrowers to access auto credit we may sell even fewer cars in 2010. Every auto dealership in the country knows this. The solution is to increase the pie and not ration slices.

What Washington should do is offer guarantees on newly issued auto-backed securities allowing lenders to sell their auto loans into the marketplace. When a lender sells an auto loan they then have the cash to make a new auto loan. This simple process greatly expands the availability of auto credit. But the asset-backed securities market has been virtually closed due to the scandalous AAA ratings given to subprime borrowers who put no money down and had no verification of income or assets. Right now the market doesn’t accept AAA ratings as a reason to invest in newly issued auto-backed securities. The federal government needs to step up and place the ultimate sign of safety on newly issued auto-backed securities, which is the guarantee of the full faith and credit of the United States. We already do this with mortgage loans. For some people owning a car is more important than owning a home because it represents their only mode of transportation to work, to receive an education, and to receive health care. Taxpayers would prefer to subsidize auto-backed securities that help someone go to work instead of bail-outs for businesses that are uncompetitive. Let’s focus on creating an environment where an auto company has a chance to succeed before we decide who is and isn’t worth rescuing.

http://www.escapethenewgreatdepression.com
— Michael A. Kamperman, Waco, Texas

Recommend Recommended by 10 Readers 3.June 01, 2009 4:03 am
Link
Here we go again trying to figure out how to save a terminally ill entity. When capitalism ws first espoused it was in an entirely different world. It has failed. The financial institutions have failed. Industries have failed. When will we stop tyring to save that system which no longer works and develop a new "conscionable" system that will work in the world of today.

We have a system that says "if you are needy don't look to me to help you". The system says "if you are unemployed, get a job" (it doesn't matter that there are no jobs). The system says "if you are poor, well tough luck buddy". We have a system that says "I want more even though I dont need it".

Our system is broken and wont be fixed until we change our outlook and policies that will look kindly at the world and live in peace. Until then, no matter what we do there is no hope for industries such as GM, no matter what we do.
— MHBlender, Southampton, NJ

Recommend Recommended by 19 Readers 4.June 01, 2009 4:03 am
Link
This is the best course of action. Hope the government is able to sell its ownership at a later date for a nice profit.

Hope UAW does not cripple the new company.
— pavdal, San Diego, CA

Recommend Recommended by 6 Readers 5.June 01, 2009 4:03 am
Link
We, as American tax payers are yet again financing ineptitude. At least this company makes a product.
— BRS, WI

Recommend Recommended by 7 Readers 6.June 01, 2009 4:03 am
Link
We've seen little real predictions on what this is going to mean for the country, for the states and for the cities. Are whole cities and/or towns going to "go under" because of this bankruptcy? How many ancillary businesses will also be brought down by this bankruptcy? Does the President have the answers to these questions? Are there viable alternatives President Obama might offer the nation to work through this or are we looking at a "every many for himself" America?

I know that the idea is that we don't panic -- but without real answers how can we not feel a little panicked?
— Katy, NYC

Recommend Recommended by 2 Readers 7.June 01, 2009 4:03 am
Link
It looks like GM, Chrysler and the Obama administration are missing a rare opportunity to be in front of the curve on transportation for Michigan (and the U.S.). According to The University of Michigan's transit think tanks, Michigan ranks last in public transit and has a failing auto industry with a shrinking automotive sector. Why not invest in technologies associated with 21st Century mass transit and by-pass the intermediary phases, since there's no mass transit base to start with. Invest the $50 billion or so on high-speed rail, light rail, link this to airports and central cities and watch economic growth in Michigan soar, with a revitalization of all its institutions. Most studies indicate the overall return on investment for mass transit is about 6 to 1. The auto industry can be part of this renaissance in public transportation which would be a fitting second act for an industry which has been so successful in promoting freeways while chilling rail transport and all but burying mass transit in Michigan. Yet, (thanks in part to the auto industry's past wealth), the basic intellectual infrastructure remains in Michigan (if not damaged by this recession) with great universities and sufficient manufacturing base to be retooled, along with its workforce and strong community colleges, to quickly provide the necessary hardware and human resources. The potential is all there but it appears the design and the will are not. Instead the investment appears to be in a weakened and weakening industry, an outmoded transportation system, no public transit, little regional economic growth, diminished quality of life for workers (pension funds at risk and reduced health care quality) and a step backwards in competing in the world economy.
— BCoyer, Franklin, Michigan

Recommend Recommended by 35 Readers 8.June 01, 2009 4:03 am
Link
"What's good for GM is good for the country".

In truth, neither GM nor this country work very well these days.

What we see is the logical and inevitable consequence of three decades of destructive policies that first gained traction under Ronald Reagan.

Corporations were given carte blanche, unions undermined, manufacturing moved offshore, workers treated as disposable; decent pensions became rare, and decent health care became unaffordable for many.

Domestic tax policy became increasingly regressive; the poor and middle-class shouldered an increasingly larger share of the burden, ostensibly to increase private investment by the rich and by corporations with their retained earnings. Supposedly, corporations would become increasingly innovative and competitive, to the hypothetical betterment of us all. (Hummers and financial derivatives, anyone?).

Foreign trade tax policy was similarly damaging. Free trade undoubtedly helped multi-national corporations and big-box retailers, but the long-term effect on our manufacturing base has been devastating. This deterioration, though, was substantially masked by the expansion of consumer credit, financial vaporware, and the service industries, which produced jobs, but, in many cases, not any essential services resistant to economic downturns.

At the same time, jingoism and militarism took hold. American success in several small wars such as Grenada and Panama, and the first Gulf War, coupled with the fall of the Soviet Union, greatly increased our arrogance. We thought we could dominate our way out of any situation. (Not surprisingly, though, the rest of the world did not concur).

Will this country follow the path of GM? Without a multitude of significant changes --- in our goals and values and attitudes, in tax policy, in foresight and implementation --- it will. What Obama has proposed isn't even one-tenth of what is needed. As for the Republicans, their positions would be a joke were it not for the damage they have already done, rationalize, and apparently wish to continue.

The changes that are truly needed would be wrenching, but the financial crisis has already wrenched our economy, and band-aid solutions promise continuing long-term decline. There are so many things that need doing in this country, and which would provide useful, satisfying, moral employment: conservation, environmental and infrastructure improvements, education, health care, housing. Even as we debate, it's likely that at least one country somewhere in the world is sensibly restructuring its economy and its goals. The central question is whether we will be left behind.
— Fred Drumlevitch, Tucson, Arizona

Recommend Recommended by 36 Readers 9.June 01, 2009 4:03 am
Link
GM will be stripped of so many assets that it will no longer be a survivable stand-alone global auto maker. Being stripped of its liabilities as well makes it an attractive acquisition for a foreign automaker, however. One of the German or asian companies should buy it. That might lessen the stigma that GM cars are a bunch of junk. As an American icon, GM is finished.

Chrysler, remaining as a distributor of Fiats, is beyond finished. The last time Fiats were sold in the US (under the Yugo brand) they were a joke. I can't imagine this time will be any different.
— Nicholas, Westmont, Ill.

Recommend Recommended by 6 Readers 10.June 01, 2009 4:03 am
Link
Germany's chancellor Prof. Merkel pointed out when asked about government ownership in GM's Opel division, "we are not in the car business!" President Bush should have known better. He started this process.
— Peter Melzer, Nashville, TN

Recommend Recommended by 4 Readers 11.June 01, 2009 4:03 am
Link
What a sad tale. A few months back, when GM was near bankruptcy, the federal government said it needed to intervene (with billions of dollars) because GM was too large to fail. I wonder if the company's creditors are truly better off now than they would have been months ago? If not, what did the government -- and the taxpayers -- gain for these billions of dollars?
— Jon Minners, NYC

Recommend Recommended by 16 Readers 12.June 01, 2009 4:03 am
Link
With such a radical move -- bankruptcy -- I would radically redefine what car companies, and cars, and public transportation in general really mean.

Cars need to be light to save energy -- but they need to be safer now too. The new GM fleet needs to be fleet-collision optimized, that is: if any GM vehicle collides with another GM vehicle, from any direction, the pair of vehicles have been jointly designed to absorb all of the energy of the collision and transmit it away from the occupants and away from a rapid acceleration/ deceleration of occupant.

New materials need to be used -- combining titanium with advanced synthetic materials -- and light, honeycomb nanostructure that absorbs impact totally -- every molecule of the body of the vehicle should be designed to absorb the energy of collision impacts.

Cars need to be designed to twirl or roll-over or cartwheel if necessary after impact -- to convert the impact of collision into a slower deceleration, and one that rotates on an axis that does not tear the heart from the aorta or the bladder from the ureter, or the brainstem from the spinal cord -- it would be better if every car after a major collision was in absolute shambles and a crumpled, smashed piece of junk -- so long as the occupants in side could be better protected, the vehicle absorbing all energy to save the lives inside.

This is the key -- light -- to save fuel, but safe -- to save lives. Make the fleet collision-compatible (other companies will follow suit, and abide by the same standard).

Redesign the geometry of the vehicle -- use six wheels on electric cars, for example -- because you will no longer have the heavy engine up front, and thus no longer need the heavy axles there. Use combined titanium porcelain materials, synthesized in honey-comb like nanostructures to absorb as much energy as possible upon a collision.

Combine new individual and small vehicle designs with new systems of mid-range rail transport. Let me drive my new car onto a train-ferry that will take me from Minneapolis to Chicago in 3 hours, and then when I get there, let me drive off to one of the suburban areas where my business meeting is.

If you get this right -- the safe, light, newly integrated fleet of cars and rails -- you will be able to export your product -- yes, it is possible that the US could actually export cars to the rest of the world.

But innovation is needed, and an emphasis on value.

Think in terms of a $10K car, that gets 50 mpg (or 100) that has a ten-star (not merely 5-star) crash rating, for every direction -- when it collides or is struck by a semi-.

We can do this.

Randall Walker
Rochester, Minnesota


— Randall, Minnesota

Recommend Recommended by 9 Readers 13.June 01, 2009 4:03 am
Link
A Car Of A Different Color

The Chevrolet. There was Henry Ford, billionaire and conqueror of the world with his care for everyman and his five dollar a day wage. The model T, but only in black...and along came Chevrolet and Willy Durant and What should have been called Bundled Moters.. now forever to be known as Bungled Moters.

The common man would now have a car of choice. And brands and brands and brands galore, from Chevrolet to Cadillac.. As goes America so goes GM. Perhaps there was prescience in this statement, and possibly there still is. And will the story to be written and blathered throughout the media over the next few days. Will it set the stage for what follows? The right will rage at Obama even as they are the ones responsible. The left will tiptoe, and we the people will be in the Car Business.

Fine, I want a discount, haul it by tomorrow will you please, make mine green, no pistachio green, with a black slash down the side. And I wish crimson seats, and a yellow steering wheel with a black circle in the center so I may root toot toot my horn.

Well, as a man who grew up in Ann Arbor, this is almost as bizarre as the Rolling Stones Schilling for Mercedes... oops I think I heard them singing just the other day. Oh well, life is change, man is fleeting, and the American car business is likely smaller-smaller-bust.

Who's to blame.. those who hated unions, and the Southern states who had no labor laws, and we the people who were dumb enough to let the Germans and the Japanese set up shop in Georgia and the south. And GM itself, a company so foul with dull hubristic pride and confidence that even the Gods stopped laughing.

But what happened you say. Well... You see the South won this battle, and they won it with the same foreign aid they lacked to win their war of secession. Oops, and hello Lincoln.

Anyway here is a timeline of demise courtesy the New York Times.

And now Deeply will read what the 'big brains' have to say. www.deeplyimbedded.com
— Deeply Imbedded, Blue View Lane, Eastport Michigan

Recommend Recommended by 9 Readers 14.June 01, 2009 4:04 am
Link
They killed the EV-1 for the Hummer. They don't deserve any help. How stupid can a company be?
— Judy, AZ

Recommend Recommended by 27 Readers 15.June 01, 2009 4:04 am
Link
GM had every opportunity to right itself over the previous ten to fifteen years. They continued to build gas-burning dinosaurs and like the dinosaurs, they will soon be extinct.
— rodnacious, Cozumel

Recommend Recommended by 25 Readers 16.June 01, 2009 4:04 am
Link
I'm just glad I own only foreign cars.
— Michael, Pasadena, CA

Recommend Recommended by 9 Readers 17.June 01, 2009 4:04 am
Link
I will never buy a government Motors car. Sorry
— Tuesday222, ExPat Japan

Recommend Recommended by 10 Readers 18.June 01, 2009 4:04 am
Link
It was long overdue. Had GM downsized and eliminated car lines thirty years ago it would be in better shape for it today. But after years of mismanagement, changing markets and fuel prices the party is over. Just as Apple learned innovation drives the manufacturing sector GM never adopted that line of thinking as they left creativity to the Japanese. When Steve Jobs retook command at Apple things changed after years of relative stagnation. GM needs a visionary leader which is probably not likely to emerge from its current ranks. But is all else fails, I suppose they can just blame it on the UAW as usual. Good luck GM. Good luck GM employees and suppliers.
— seattlesh, Seattle

Recommend Recommended by 13 Readers 19.June 01, 2009 7:06 am
Link
President Obama, when he originally gave GM and the UAW billions of taxpayer money, promised there would be no bankruptcy. The unkept promise ; this new waste of billions ; and the governmental strong-arming of bond-holders , are all the fault of Obama.

Like the Banks that Obama rescued, GM and the UAW were failures. Obama made them whole, with taxpayer money ; because , like the banks , they were his political benefactors.

I don't believe Obama is a Socialist or a Facist, as he is being called by some absurdist radio commentators. Obama is just another corrupt politician and crony capitalist just like so many other politicians before him.

The only difference is that Obama is spending taxpayer money in quantities that no other politician has ever dared.

Prepare for very hard times.
— b. happs, nv

Recommend Recommended by 15 Readers 20.June 01, 2009 7:06 am
Link
"The Invasion of the Bodyshop Snatchers."

The new creature may sound American and look American, but really, is this GM? I thought the idea was to save American jobs but with cars made in Mexico and South Korea, who cares if The New GM is saved?"

— Shane, New England

Recommend Recommended by 7 Readers 21.June 01, 2009 7:06 am
Link
If GM goes into bankruptcy, so be it. Let it do so like any other business. Why is the government even then involved?
GM couldn't run it's own business, so let a restructured GM try. But not a GM with government assistance, there is not a single department of the US government which has given any sign it could run a hot dog stand these days. Our government bureaucracy is now on a level with the Italian government which was never noted for doing anything.
— bill, abalamma

Recommend Recommended by 10 Readers 22.June 01, 2009 7:06 am
Link
A great day for GM and a great future for America. The company that brought us the '66 Corvette is the company that we want around for the long-run and am glad to see they'll be able to streamline and come out meaner and leaner and innovating for the customers that are desperate for for form and functionality like the Volt. Bring it on!
— Better_Days, Seattle

Recommend Recommended by 4 Readers 23.June 01, 2009 7:06 am
Link
Another lovely bit of irony: the local newspapers in Flint, Saginaw and Bay City won't be publishing that day as part of their survival strategy. The first day in a century the presses are still, the biggest story in that time, it's a sign of things to come.
— pjc, San Francisco

Recommend  Recommended by 1 Reader 24.June 01, 2009 7:06 am
Link
'So-cial-ism (n)- an economic system in which the government owns the means of production.

Ex. "The seminal achievement of East German Socialism, Trabi automobiles were in such demand that non-elite citizens often had to wait years to obtain one."
— Jeff, Arlington, TX

Recommend Recommended by 4 Readers 25.June 01, 2009 7:06 am
Link
If Al Capp were still alive he would be saying I told you so? "What's good for General Bullmoose is good for American!" (For those who aren't old enough, General Bullmoose was his symbol for General Motors.)


— Anton, Thunder Bay, Ontario

Recommend  Recommended by 0 Readers