I think your bias is keeping you from seeing the situation clearly. They aren't making that many Volts, and making Volts makes good sense from a marketing and technology development perspective. The Volt program, as has been pointed out to you, was started well before the government bailout, and if Volt is now the "cornerstone" of GM, it is only the cornerstone in the marketing sense, not in the financial sense. Do you somehow believe that if the Volt doesn't sell, they'll just keep manufacturing more and more of them and fill landfills with new Volts? Of course they won't. And if it does sell, what the hell is the problem? barfo
We aren't fucked either way. May as well do the right thing and maximize the return for the taxpayer instead of throwing money away. barfo
Wait. You think the taxpayers are going to see profits from GM? I can't wait until I get my check! We taxpayers already guaranteed the UAW pensions for the workers at GM. Will I be able to collect my portion of the national debt from that pot?
So, the GM bondholders who got fucked over by the Obama takeover will reap the benefits on their investment in GM? Add this one to the "if Bush did it" files.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that wasn't what I meant. There are not going to be checks sent out. However, the government owns stock in GM, and it makes sense to maximize the amount the government collects when it sells that stock, same as any stockholder would want to do. barfo
The bondholders agreed to allow the government to take over the company instead of filing Chapter 11, and they didn't even do it at the 90% level that was necessary. The bondholders were also told that they would have first dibs on public shares that would be sold over the next 6-18 months. Here we are, 24 months later, and only the unions have seen any money. Plus, we still haven't seen an IPO.
How is it the same? I said I would like to buy one, but the cost is prohibitive. That's pertinent to the conversation. I'm not railing on hybrid/electric cars, I'm discussing the ridiculously high cost of them. That has bearing on the conversation.
The Volt doesn't compare to a PC, though. There are adequate ways to get from point A to point B, and the Volt doesn't revolutionize the mode of transportation. The PC is perhaps one of the top 10 inventions of the 20th Century. I don't think the Volt will be viewed the same way, as it really hasn't altered anything culturally.
Okay? Do you have short-term memory problems or did you not read the entire thread. Barfo already qualified why he's not getting a Volt earlier in the thread. He has just as must justification for posting in the thread as you do.
http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/05/31/gm-admits-dealerships-are-taking-chevy-volt-tax-credits GM Admits that Dealerships are Taking Chevy Volt Tax Credits Automobilemag.com reports that General Motors has responded to my report questioning whether dealerships are gaming Chevy Volt tax credits. Chevy Volt spokesperson, Rob Peterson, states that "NLPC is confused." He then goes on to confirm that the dealerships purchasing Chevy Volts and reselling them as used vehicles are entitled to the $7,500 tax credit. Clearly, it is GM that is confused, considering that this was the main point of my report. GM does not deny that Chevy dealerships are selling Chevy Volts to other dealerships, including a KIA dealership, for resale. At the same time, Peterson also touts the high demand for Volts claiming, "we don't sell Volts at the moment - it's almost like we deliver them." By this statement, you wouldn't know that sales for the Volt averaged a dismally low 425 per month for the first four months of the year. GM recently stated that they had the capacity to build at a pace of 17,000 per year. So, here's a question for GM and Mr. Peterson: If demand is so high for the Chevy Volt, why would a Chevy dealership sell the vehicle to other dealerships, particularly when there are supposedly customers lined up to pay full price? The answer seems clear to me. GM is exaggerating the "high demand" for the Volt. And allowing dealerships to take the tax credit intended for consumers is just wrong. Peterson also claims that no issues exist with dealerships taking the tax subsidies as long as they are honest with customers. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee of that being the case. Many customers who buy Chevy Volts may feel that they are entitled to the tax credit, especially if they are paying near MSRP and the vehicles have such low mileage. The IRS form in its current form does not safeguard against double claiming of the tax credit. More investigation is warranted on the practice of dealerships taking tax credits and reselling Chevy Volts as used cars. Treasury should modify the IRS tax credit form to clearly disallow dealerships from taking the tax credit. Also, I personally don't think businesses like General Electric, headed by Obama friend Jeff Immelt, should be allowed to take millions of tax dollars in credits when they purchase thousands of the vehicles, as planned. An identifier field for the Vehicle Identification Number should be added to the form to prevent double claims of the tax credit. General Motors has a responsibility to ensure that Chevy Volt tax credits are reserved for the consumers that they were designed to benefit. Misguided as tax subsidies for the Chevy Volt may be, the least taxpayers deserve is assurance that abuses are not occurring.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ndustry-bailout/2011/06/06/AG3nefKH_blog.html President Obama’s phony accounting on the auto industry bailout We take no view on whether the administration’s efforts on behalf of the automobile industry were a good or bad thing; that’s a matter for the editorial pages and eventually the historians. But we are interested in the facts the president cited to make his case. What we found is one of the most misleading collections of assertions we have seen in a short presidential speech. Virtually every claim by the president regarding the auto industry needs an asterisk, just like the fine print in that too-good-to-be-true car loan.
mook compared the Volt to the invention of the PC. The difference is that the Volt is a more expensive PC than existing PCs, has a smaller buying base, and has less options to go with it. The Volt does not at all alter the world of transportation, as the PC forever transformed almost every aspect of our lives. It's basically the Edsel of the 21st Century.
