It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Government Motors Volt Costs Taxpayers $250,000 per Vehicle

page: 15
25
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by jdub297
 
...they may not be able to make the 40,000 estimate that they were shooting for.

Hell, no one expected them to sell this many in this short time span.


Are you contending that GM knowingly filed false and misleading 10-Qs and 10-Ks with the SEC and gave them to their current and prospective shareholders?

These are GM's publicly-stated figures!

funny how you and Indigo choose to believe and adhere to outlandish estimates from third-parties who support a nanny-state approach, but de-value the manufactirers' own, more conservative, estimates of production and sales.

Hypocrisy? Of course, if it furthers your "progressive" agendas.

jw




posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


it's GOVERNMENT'S MONEY AND NOT YOURS!


That the most pathetic statement I've ever seen anywhere.

You obviously are completely disconnected from reality.

Where is that "Ignore" button?

jw



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


So giving tax breaks and subsides for corporations who send jobs overseas and giving subsidies to oil for keeping us on the black death is accepted?

This is NOT CORPORATE WELFARE!

Hogwash!

GM offshore production:

The company also says it will increase factory capacity 45 percent in Brazil, Russia, India and China by 2014 to take advantage of growth.

www.huffingtonpost.com...


General Motors Corp. will shift more production of vehicles bound for the U.S. market to China, Mexico, South Korea and Japan, but will keep total imports at roughly one-third of all sales here.
In a confidential 12-page presentation to members of Congress, obtained by The Detroit News on Friday, GM said it will boost U.S. sales of vehicles built in those four countries by 98 percent -- or about 365,000 vehicles -- while shrinking production in Canada, Australia and European countries by about 130,000 vehicles.
GM also disclosed it will start importing vehicles made in China in 2011, reaching 51,546 vehicles in 2014. Imports from South Korea to the United States will jump from 36,967 vehicles in 2010 to 157,126 in 2014.

UAW legislative director Alan Reuther this week sent a letter to members of Congress critical of GM's restructuring plan.
Reuther complained about the jump in imports from Japan, South Korea, China and Mexico -- noting that the share of GM's U.S. sales from those countries jumps from 15.5 percent to 23.5 percent, equivalent to the output of four U.S. assembly plants.
"We believe (GM) should have an obligation to build in this country the vehicles it will be selling in the U.S. market, thereby maintaining the maximum number of jobs in the United States," Reuther wrote. "GM should not be taking taxpayers' money simply to finance the outsourcing of jobs to other countries."

But GM says it expects that 33 percent of its vehicles sold in 2009 in the United States will be foreign built -- about the same amount as in 2014, when it says it will be 34 percent. Imports hit a high of 39 percent in 2012, before a planned reduction in Canadian production.

GM also predicts Mexican production of vehicles to be sent to the U.S. will rise from 317,763 in 2010 to 501,316 in 2014.

www.detroitnews.com...

(You and Indigo rely on projections of Volt sales(20 ro 65 MM) that outpace GM's internal estimates of ALL sales by a factor of 10!)

deny ignorance

jw
edit on 3-1-2012 by jdub297 because: url



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Now the cost is at over $100 Billion? Wow! Holy wow!

Amazing!

It does not pay it back within the timeframe agreed upon The US Federal Government will OWN IT LOCK, STOCK AND BARREL!

Got it? That's what happens when you ask The US Federal Government, they own you until you pay them off and that is that! You must sign away as collateral your property, your operations, the entire kit and kaboodle everything and anything business owned! That is that! GM knows it don't pay the Govt back by the time the agreement elapses it will be no more! However, factors of external play and power worked to prevent the liquidation of all assets and holdings that if they would've gone 7 they would've been in liquidation by now. They would've had them in liquidation within months!

The deathsprial that would've done to the economy would've had an additional 3,000 points knocked off of The Dow within like a couple of days, a week at most! Down 60 - 65% in less then 3 months would've caused confidence to instantly dry up as if we did nothing right now food rationing would've begun in large population centres, regular commerce and business would've slowed to a snail's crawl, Martial law all across America would've been enforced, State, local Government's would've more then likely collapsed, hundreds of thousands a day die from starvation, famine, disease. A breakdown in civil services would've happened, Most municipal offices and court houses would've been decimated, Washington DC would be a war zone. The US would b a wasteland! Fuel, food, power shortages would've been common. Malls and big box retail outlets like Walmart and Target would've long since been abandon and more then likely be taken over by private citizen militia sects, schools, hospitals would've been barren and occupied by drifters and deserters, the era of your "Gotta catch, kill, prep and cook your dinner" would've returned to The Concrete Jungle

all if GM would've collapsed! Now take a real serious look at yourself and sit there and continue to tell me that offering them a very stern way out was still a bad idea!
edit on 4-1-2012 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
It does not pay it back within the timeframe agreed upon The US Federal Government will OWN IT LOCK, STOCK AND BARREL!


Why should the government be collateralizing private industry with public money? They should not be in the position to take over private property after spending public money. Do you not get this?


However, factors of external play and power worked to prevent the liquidation of all assets and holdings that if they would've gone 7 they would've been in liquidation by now. They would've had them in liquidation within months!


You would not even have to have mentioned liquidation if they had followed the prescribed bankruptcy laws that have been on the books for centuries.


The deathsprial that would've done to the economy would've had an additional 3,000 points knocked off of The Dow within like a couple of days, a week at most! Down 60 - 65% in less then 3 months would've caused confidence to instantly dry up as if we did nothing right now food rationing would've begun in large population centres, regular commerce and business would've slowed to a snail's crawl, Martial law all across America would've been enforced, State, local Government's would've more then likely collapsed, hundreds of thousands a day die from starvation, famine, disease. A breakdown in civil services would've happened, Most municipal offices and court houses would've been decimated, Washington DC would be a war zone. The US would b a wasteland! Fuel, food, power shortages would've been common. Malls and big box retail outlets like Walmart and Target would've long since been abandon and more then likely be taken over by private citizen militia sects, schools, hospitals would've been barren and occupied by drifters and deserters, the era of your "Gotta catch, kill, prep and cook your dinner" would've returned to The Concrete Jungle


Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together....mass hysteria!


Now take a real serious look at yourself and sit there and continue to tell me that offering them a very stern way out was still a bad idea!


Considering you have them lined up for liquidation by the federal government (followed rather quickly by the apocalypse and subsequent collapse of human civilization) I think debt restructuring would have been the way to go.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by macman

Sure, to a degree I guess.
Issue still stands that GM is the Auto Darling of the Govt, gets an interest free loan from the Govt and huge tax subsidizes.
Thems are the breaks.



And it is nothing in comparison to subsidies the Gov gives Oil companies, farmers, SBA loans etc.

You and I disagree that new auto technology is one place the US Gov should put it's money.

That is not what we are talking about.
Nice try again, deflect and attack.
The issue still stands.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


The list is from Forbes.

It is the US list, so I would expect to see fairly different if Canada and Mexico are included, but we are discussing the Volt, which is being primarily pushed in USA.

Forbes Top 10



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1


1. Attacks continue!

What attacks?


Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
2. That's who launched the attack on GM in the 1990's!
3. Big Oil got it killed!

Not the topic at hand.



Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

4. It's an American company who employs Americans in America! You want it to be chipped and sold off.

If they can't operate on their own, without the Govt money. YES!!!!!
That is the way it is.




Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
5. It is you who is spinning in circles trying to come up with every possible way to attack and derail this, shows the utter futility of your argument and how weak in reality it is!

Derail? Are you kidding?
Post after post after post, it is you that continues to throw everything on the wall to see if it sticks.




Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
6. OWS was more against banks getting bailed out and not an American company who employs Americans in America.

Oh, ok then. Sure sure.

I thought it was Crony Corporatism, and not just banks?
Like, CEOs making Million dollar bonuses on the backs of the poor line worker.
Your spinning BS again.



Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Like I said, it's easier to let an American company fall and put more out of work which would've sent the stock market into a deathspiral to the point where right now the DJIA would've been at less then 3,000 pts as a direct result.

That is how it is supposed to work.
Not the Govt taking a shinning to a specific Company, and deciding who fails and who succeeds.
But, continue to make excuses.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
This ripple wouldn't've just stopped at GM, Ford and Chrysler but would've continued to ripple into companies like Western Star, Kenworth, Pierce Manufacturing, Osh Kosh, Force Protection, Peterbilt, Colet, E-One, American LaFrance, Autocar, International, Case IH, Tucker Terra, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Norththorp-Grumman, airports, commercial shipping companies, private shipping companies, recycling companies, construction companies, heavy duty shipping and transportation companies, raw materials manufactueres and harvesters, farming communities and every single company that relies on and employs heavy machinery. That is how vast the entire US Automotive and Transportation Industry is! This would've eventually continued until it affected The US Dept Of Defense and even into The US

Again, that is the way it works.


Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Now do you get why this was needed for?


Yes, because you like the Govt taking care of the Company you hold close to your heart.
Again, Keynesian Economics at its worst.

Just like the housing bubble, if the Govt didn't put its corrupts hands in to mess with things, we would have already emerged from it.
Instead, with lord 0bama in charge, we are still circling the toilet and getting closer to the TURDs.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by neo96
 


GM WAS NOT A THEFT!

You want to see a theft, look at the banks and how they had zero accountability!

Taxes make sure that the nation can afford essential services as if you don't want to pay taxes don't dare call the Fire Dept when your house is in flames, let it burn down right to the ground.
Don't dare to call the cops when someone is attacking you or your family, taxes pays for that!
When a power line is down in your yard you might as well fix it yourself and don't dare call the city to fix it.
Might as well have a cement mixer, road roller and scrapper trucks for when your street gets cracked because taxes pays for that.


Again, deflect and attack.
Your style has been identified and you have been called out on it.
Excuse after excuse after off topic after excuse.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5
Want to try and tell me how many cars on that top 10 list are Hybrids or Flex Fuel? Or do you assume that ATS posters are just too stupid to know?.......ALL BUT TWO.
edit on 3-1-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)


I wanted this separate specifically because it shows the fallacy of the argument.

First off, what does flex fuel have to do with it? Still burns fuel, in fact, we are in for a very large surprise once everybody switches to flex fuel as Canada has. If you would like to know why, go research the energy density of flex fuel vs the energy density of gasoline...and try to remember that the engine is actually more efficient at burning the pure gasoline.

Since I doubt that anybody will actually research this:
Gasoline: 46.4 MJ/kg
E10: 43.54 MJ/kg



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by macman

Sure, to a degree I guess.
Issue still stands that GM is the Auto Darling of the Govt, gets an interest free loan from the Govt and huge tax subsidizes.
Thems are the breaks.



And it is nothing in comparison to subsidies the Gov gives Oil companies, farmers, SBA loans etc.

You and I disagree that new auto technology is one place the US Gov should put it's money.

That is not what we are talking about.
Nice try again, deflect and attack.
The issue still stands.


Read you post several times and it still makes no sense?

Is what we are talking about the OP article? Cuz it has been debunked.

If you mean by "what we are talking about" Government subsidizing industry, then my post was on the mark, both citing other subsidies as well as declaring my position on subsidizing auto technology.

In short....What are you talking about with the "deflection" nonsense?



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Trying to add farm subsidizes or anything else to this is moot.
The issue at hand is the junk car, built using an interest free loan from the Govt and Tax Subsidizes for said company.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by peck420


Out of that list, most offer a hybrid model...

Which to you is explained how? Just coincidence?


funny thing is they aren't selling a lot of hybrids.


Also from your previous post..


Originally posted by peck420


In all cases where a hybrid model is available, it is not the top seller of that model.




Twice you have said it....but have failed to provide any links to support the claim...

Before I assume that it is coincidence that the majority of the top selling cars of 2011 were available in Hybrid, but Hybrids actually didn't sell well...How about you actually show me some numbers to support the claim?


edit on 4-1-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


reply to post by jdub297
 



[snipped]

The issue still remains.
GM used an interest free loan from the Govt.
GM should have failed, allowing for actual restructuring, instead of limping along with the aid of the Fed Govt.
Those dollars, along with tax subsidizes provided GM the financial means to create a vehicle that is not wanted by the market. Hence the low and sluggish sales figures for said vehicle.

But, since GM is the Auto Darling of 0bama and the like, they were "Saved", to allow it to continue to fail slowly, just to keep some Union and Union members in work until the next injection of Govt Money goes to it.


edit on Thu Jan 5 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


www.torquenews.com...

www.edmunds.com... States November

dealer-communications.com...

Seems that the Prius is listed on the bottom of the list.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Trying to add farm subsidizes or anything else to this is moot.
The issue at hand is the junk car, built using an interest free loan from the Govt and Tax Subsidizes for said company.


Whether the car is junk or not seems objective at best...and the quality of the car was not what we were discussing, but rather Government Subsidies...but to entertain the new issue you choose to pivot to (I won't accuse you of distraction or derailment)

Motortrend Car of the Year: CHevy Volt
www.motortrend.com...

This thread isn't about the quality of the Volt...not even close...and the above, rather informed review, would at the least seem to subjagate your view of the Volt to pure opinion as opposed to issue.

Again on the Government Subsidies issue...Other industries that they fund, particularly the Oil Industry who funded the OP article, but which seem to recieve no attention here or by the "Macinac Policy Center" very pointedly exposes the storyline as propagandist agenda aimed at defunding alternate energy, rather than a sincere issue with Government Subsidies.

In short, Gov Subsidies are good enough for the Oil folks that funded this article...just not when that money is directed at alternate energy.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5
Twice you have said it....but have failed to provide any links to support the claim...

Before I assume that it is coincidence that the majority of the top selling cars of 2011 were available in Hybrid, but Hybrids actually didn't sell well...How about you actually show me some numbers to support the claim?


edit on 4-1-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)


From the Green Car Congress, which is highly biased in favour of hybrids.

Hybrids cars account for approx 2.3% of vehicle sales.

Green Car Congress Hybrid Sales Report Q1 2011

I don't see them making the massive gains required to suit your argument when the yearly totals come in.

At the current growth rate of hybrid sales, they are expecting to hit 4% of the market share by end of 2012, fyi.
edit on 4-1-2012 by peck420 because: (no reason given)


Another fun edit...Fusion Hybrids sold in the US 2011: 7,780 (July, 2011)
Fusion Non Hybrid in the US 2011: 151,400 (July, 2011)

About 5.1% of the Fusions sold.

Total Fusions sold at year end: 226,445 vehicles.
Approx hybrids: 11,549 vehicles...and I rounded up
.


edit on 4-1-2012 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Actually, the quality was brought up.
The fact that there is a Federal Investigation on the fires was brought up.
That, is the leveling base for Junk.

Plus, due to the fact that GM has offered to buy back the vehicle. Sounds like a Lemon.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5




Facts...then opinion...actually a good basis for an OP.

So, what I states is truth.
Ok.



Originally posted by Indigo5


Should I now explain that facts don't matter to right-wingers like yourself? That opinion suported by lies is always valid to right wingers? Many different flavors of birtherism?

Is that the way partisan sniping works? Did I get that right?

Cuz that first park of your post was ignorant trash and political trolling and has no place in a factual discussion.



Ok, please show me where, me being not a Liberal, but a Conservative Libertarian, that I play favorites like this.
Or, decry that one company (be it a Bank or what have you) should not get money from the Govt, yet another should.
My research shows that what has been presented by you and Immaculated falls under the Liberal mentality.
If this is wrong, please let me know.
I am not a birther.
Not a Republican.
I, if labeled a Conservative, will wear it as my badge.
I, do not deflect the issue of this.

The truth is still GM is the favorite of the 0bama Admin, has interest free loans, tax subsidizes out the butt and produces a vehicle that has little to no Real Market Demand.
The only reason GM was able to create the Volt, as it stands, is due to the Govt providing funds, in the form of interest free loans and tax subsidizes.


edit on 4-1-2012 by macman because: Correction.




top topics



 
25
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join