GM is still using a the rushrod 5.3? Wow! LOL

More like official vehicle of boring and outdated.

I didn't know they offered anything with that much payload capacity. That's over 1900 lbs each.

The stats don't mention how much 32 Denalli's add up to.

September 10, 2012 4:00 A.M.
The Democrats’ GM Fiction
By The Editors

The Democrats have decided to run in 2012 as the bailout party. It is an odd choice — the 2008–09 bailouts were deeply unpopular among the general public, and even their backers were notably conflicted about the precedent being set and the ensuing moral hazard. But Democrats have nonetheless made one of the most abusive episodes in the entire bailout era their economic cornerstone: the government takeover of General Motors.

The GM bailout was always an odd duck: The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was created in order to preserve liquidity in the financial markets by heading off the collapse of key financial institutions that had made catastrophically bad bets on real-estate securities — nothing at all to do with cars, really. GM’s financial arm, today known as Ally Financial, was in trouble, but GM’s fundamental problem was that its products were not profitable enough to support its work-force expenses. A single dominant factor — the United Auto Workers union’s extortionate contracts with GM — prevented the carmaker from either reducing its work-force costs or making its products more efficiently. And its hidebound management didn’t help.

Advertisement

Admirers of the GM bailout should bear in mind that it was the Bush administration that first decided to intervene at the firm, offering a bridge loan on the condition that it draw up a deeply revised business plan. President Obama’s unique contribution was effectively to nationalize the company, seeing to it that the federal government violated normal bankruptcy processes and legal precedent to protect the defective element at the heart of GM’s troubles: the financial interests of the UAW. It did this by strong-arming GM’s bondholders into taking haircuts in order to sweeten the pot for the UAW. The Obama administration also creatively construed tax law to relieve GM of tens of billions of dollars in obligations — at the same time that Barack Obama & Co. were caterwauling about the supposed lack of patriotism of firms that used legal means rather than political favoritism to reduce their tax bills.

Mitt Romney’s proposal for a structured bankruptcy would have necessitated considerable federal involvement, too, but with a key difference: The UAW contracts would have been renegotiated, and GM’s executive suites would have been cleaned out, placing the company on a path toward innovation and self-sufficiency rather than permanent life support. Which is to say, Obama did for GM what he is doing by un-reforming welfare: creating a dependent constituency.

The Democrats cling to the ridiculous claim that the bailout of GM and its now-Italian competitor, Chrysler, saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs. This preposterous figure is based on the assumption that if GM and Chrysler had gone into normal bankruptcy proceedings, the entire enterprise of automobile manufacturing in the United States would have collapsed — not only at GM and Chrysler but at Ford and foreign transplants such as Toyota and Honda. Not only that, the Democrats’ argument goes, but practically every parts maker, supplier, warehousing agency, and services firm dedicated to the car industry would have collapsed, too. In fact, it is unlikely that even GM or Chrysler would have stopped production during bankruptcy: The assembly lines would have continued rolling, interest and debt payments would have been cut, and — here’s the problem — union contracts would have been renegotiated. Far from having saved 1.5 million jobs, it is not clear that the GM bailout saved any — only that it preserved the UAW’s unsustainable arrangement.

Bill Clinton bizarrely tried to claim that the bailout has been responsible for the addition of 250,000 jobs to the automobile industry since the nadir of the financial crisis. Auto manufacturers and dealerships have indeed added about 236,000 jobs since then, but almost none are at GM, which has added only about 4,500 workers, a number not even close to offsetting the 63,000 workers that its dealerships had to let go when the terms of the bailout unilaterally shut them down.

Ugly as the bank bailouts were, the federal government appears set to make its money back on most of them, with the exception of some smaller regional banks and CIT. Even AIG, one of the worst of the financial basket cases, is set to end up being a break-even proposition for U.S. taxpayers. But tens of billions of dollars will be lost on GM. The federal government put up more for a 60 percent interest in the firm than GM is worth today.

At their convention, Democrats swore that GM is “thriving,” but the market doesn’t think so: GM shares have lost half their value since January 2011. And while the passing of the Great Recession has meant growing sales for all automakers, GM is seriously lagging behind its competitors: Its sales are up 10 percent, a fraction of the increases at Kia, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Porsche. With its sales weak, its share price crashing, and its business model still a mess, some analysts already are predicting that GM will return to bankruptcy — but not until after the election.

Cont.

The Obama administration talks up all of the “jobs” it saved at GM — but jobs doing what? Manufacturing automobiles that are not competitive without a massive government subsidy? Propping up an economically unviable enterprise just long enough to get Barack Obama reelected? As much as it will pain the hardworking men and women of GM to hear it, it is not worthwhile to save jobs at enterprises that cannot compete on their own merits. So long as the federal government is massively subsidizing the operation, a job at GM is a welfare program with a fairly robust work requirement. (And we all know how the Obama administration feels about work requirements.)

We have bankruptcy laws and bankruptcy courts for a reason. It may make sense to expedite the proceedings for very large firms such as GM in order to prevent disruptions in the supply chain that would, as Ford’s executives argued, harm other, healthier firms. But bankrupt is what GM was, and bankrupt is what GM is, a fact that will become blisteringly apparent should the government ever attempt to sell off the shares it owns in the company.

The GM bailout was a bad deal for GM’s creditors, for U.S. taxpayers, and, in the long run, for the U.S. automobile industry and our overall national competitiveness. No wonder the Democrats are campaigning on a fictionalized account of it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/316379/democrats-gm-fiction-editors#

I wonder if anyone will buy Chevy's now that GM is the official sponsor of the NFL?

Ford took roughly 6 billion in gov't funds to retool their manufacturing facilities recently.

Ford also actively supported the bailout of the auto industry in 2009 (but publically ridiculed it in 2012). This was for two reasons. Number one was to save their hide if and when their massive mortgage loans ran out. Number two was to save their suppliers from going under. Once they realized they were out of the woods, Ford publically ridiculed the bailout of the auto industry poking fun at their competitors in paid television commercials. Pretty tacky and hyprocritical don't you think? I guess not if you a fan of Ford.

@Steve-I thought this was an article about GMC & NFL sponsorship. I did not realize this was an article about GM bailouts. With all the negative comments about GM and Chrysler bailouts we need to stop buying all their products and then we will have no hopes of getting anything paid back. That would also shrink the tax base and put more people on unemployment. Oh and Ford gets its cricitisms as well for receiving loans to retool their plants to make more efficient vehicles. Maybe I will boycott all domestic manufacturers and support Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, and Kia because they are not receiving any US taxpayers loans and after reading all the comments Ford, GM, and Chrysler all make junk. Thanks for the information Steve, I do not want to support highly paid union labor anymore. I hope you are not a union member because that would include you as well.

Steve explains in his post that GM vehicles are not competitive with other manufacturers. I would like him to clarify if he means all GM vehicles, or just a select few. If he believes all are not competitive, he is sorely mistaken and is nothing more than a Ford fanboi stirring the pot.

Prayer For The Dying Silverados

Fearless unions,
Careless management.
Bailouts taken,
And lives are broken.

Crossing that bridge,
With lessons GM hasn't learned.
Playing with fire,
And still getting burned!
I may not know what Obama Motors is going through.
But another bankruptcy is the space,
Between Ford and you.
Life carries on... it goes on.
Just say die,
And that would be pessimistic.
In your mind,
GM can walk across water.
Please don't cry,
It's just a prayer for the dying GM trucks.
I just don't know what's got into me.
Been crossin' that bridge,
With lessons GM management hasn't learned.
It's just a prayer for the dying.
For the dying GM trucks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Btl5PYdpcNs

I think you are all missing the point. I really dont think Steves post had anything to do with Ford vs. Chevy. Im a huge Chevy fan and that thought never crossed my mind. His point was about the Dem parties claims that they "saved the auto industry" and how insane they are.

thegoodtruck, Exactly. I am a fan too but GM is not thriving. In the financial press there has been a steady stream of articles predictong that GM will be forced to file for bankruptcy again soon. If it happens, I predict they delay it until after the election. How would that look if Obama’s claim that GM is alive is sullied by a bankruptcy?

@thegoodtruck
@steve

Sooo....you guys would rather have it the republican way and just let the company die? I'm not trying to be political in any way but lets face it, the Dems did save GM and Chrysler. The republicans have stated over and over they would have just let the companies go bankrupt. Now I do think the Dems are stretching the truth a little, but considering GM and Chrysler are still around I think they can celebrate their "achievement." Plus, its an election year so both sides are going to embellish the truth. To get upset about a bunch of people tooting their own horn is a waste of time.

Government Motors Company Sierra!! I want my money back you jerkoffs. NO Company NEEDS 2 trucks!! I will boycott this commercial EVERY TIME it comes on when watching football.

Sooo....you guys would rather have it the republican way and just let the company die? I'm not trying to be political in any way but lets face it, the Dems did save GM and Chrysler.

@Whoever, YES! GM (GovtMoCo) SHOULD have died! As a Dodge guy I know that Dodge would have been picked up anyway by someone.. Chrysler as a whole PAID BACK ALL of their money and Is Not owned by the Feds! Government Motors IS!. I'm With the Chevy guys. Chevrolet should have left GM in the dust and gone one as a Real 1 brand company like Ford did. GM should have died. I Hate GM. Always have, always will. There isn't a single brand outside of Chevrolet they ever had worth owning. None of em are worth any money.

I wonder if anyone will buy Chevy's now that GM is the official sponsor of the NFL?

@ToyCrusher84, please do not associate the once mighty and admirable Chevrolet Motors with GM/GMC. I cannot stand GM nor GMC.

I cannot stand GM nor GMC.

@-A-C, Government Motors sucks. Why the need for all of those stupid brands anyway? A Ford is a Ford. Why is it not that a Chevrolet is a Chevrolet? They did this to themselves.

Can someone explain to me why people think GM will go bankrupt again? They streamlined some (pontiac, oldsmoble and hummer are gone) since the bailout I agree with the masses that they could drop GMC and just go with Chevy, buick (for the chinese) and Cadillac which completely dominates the Domestic Luxury market. I would think that GM is a lot more profitable now than they were 4 years ago.

Chevy and GMC = same trucks, you hate GMC then you hate Chevy, goes back to what you are taught in kindergarden...

@Moparidiot

Hmm, nothing worth owning? Buick? strong seller here and huge in China. Cadillac, is for sure worth owning. Chevy is ofcourse. GMC is too, but a few closed and simple minded people think other wise, and they are welcome to that wrong opinion, we refer to those people are the glue eaters...

BTW, Chrysler did die, then they were bought and saved by Fiat. What is so wrong chrysler having multiple companies and ford too but not GM??? A bunch of hypocrites only believe that!

Unless you work in GM and know their full standings then you have no idea the exact costs GMC is costing and taking in. There is no way not be profitable, you cover two bases or clients, give them a choice in designs and split development costs, duh...

This is what happens when you subsidise industry, especially as a feel good option.

Will GM survive?? Not like this.

I'm glad we aren't paying for this over here in Australia

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/10/us-generalmotors-autos-volt-idUSBRE88904J20120910

I didn't know politics and football were closely linked together, "hail mary" plays notwithstanding ;)
NFL football is big in USA so it makes sense to advertise with them. GM's advertising claims are flamboyant to say the least. One does not expect anything less from any of the manufacturers.
"Never Say Never" is a catchphrase that I'm sure that I could have a "field day" with, but I'll let it past. Poor GMC has been hammered enough for the day.

If GMC is overstocking retailers in preparation for retooling for 2014 than this is a great strategy. Store all of your excess inventory at NFL stadiums under the guise of advertising.

Chevy and GMC = same trucks, you hate GMC then you hate Chevy, goes back to what you are taught in kindergarden...

@Tyler, not necessarily. Chevrolet and GM-GMC were two different entities in the beginning. Lot's of Chevrolet guys hate GMC. Most of the GMC trucks in my lifetime were Chevrolet powered. I suppose you could technically call them the GMC versions of Chevrolet but why then not just call them Chevrolet's? It's very brand diluting to me.

Hmm, nothing worth owning? Buick? strong seller here and huge in China. Cadillac, is for sure worth owning

@Tyler again, Cadillac is ok. Buick's are just Opel's with a different emblem. My understanding is Opel is a huge money pit and very draining on GM. That's nice and all that they are big seller's in China but A) We don't live in China and B) GM took American taxpayer dollars to stay alive not Chinese. Well, maybe it was borrowed from China but our kids will have to pay it back. It's highly unlikely GM ever will. Buick is not a big seller in the States and still has that geriatric stigma I don't feel they'll ever escape from. I wouldn't own one. If I was forced to own something from GM it would be a Chevrolet. Possibly one of the newer Cadillac's. That's about it.

I'll take college football over modern day NFL any day of the week these days. Apparently I'm missing something with NFL and Nascar being the 2 sports in America with the largest viewing audience. I tend to change the channel on both. Something about the NFL has been lost with me. I'd also take the Chevrolet over this.

For the FORD GIRLY MEN FAINBOIS out there: GMC was in existence before Chevrolet trucks ever was. Lots of Chevrolet guys hate GMC? What is your basis for this claim?? This silly blog?? Did you go out in public and poll several different truck owners to back your claim??? Doubtful on the second but most likely on the first. FordtrucksDumb and his cronies are just using this as an excuse to come in here and TROLL AROUND with their typical BS.

^^Go away troll!

For the FORD GIRLY MEN FAINBOIS out there: GMC was in existence before Chevrolet trucks ever was.

@Bob, (SierraGS,Bvonscott,Tyler etc.) actually if you want to get technical, Chevrolet was incorporated in 1911. GM didn't make GM"c" a brand until 1912. Now GM did rebadge a Rapid truck which was renamed General Motors Company truck for their launch in 1912. So if you ask which brand was legitimately first, the answer would be Chevrolet came first. You cannot change the legal history of that fact. The Chevrolet trucks however did not come along until 5 years or so after that. So in that sense, the truck itself from GM came first. Yet was it even a real "GM" truck or something taken from the Rapid days? Who knows. However, Chevrolet trucks as well as the entire Chevrolet brand outsold the entire GM enterprise by a long shot once up and running. Chevrolet trucks by themselves had more market share without GMC added than Ford had until the 1970's if I recall. Without Chevrolet trucks and cars, I don't think those GM initials would even exist today. Chevrolet however would probably be here just like Ford is. I know lot's of guys outside of this forum who love Chevrolet and hate GM. I don't have any respect for GM at all myself.

It is true that Chevrolet used to sell more trucks than Ford.

What went wrong?

@ Frank

You are the troll.

@Lou, I do believe Fordtrucks just may be correct on that. After I read that I did a quick search and the first thing that came up was this collector's car listing for an old 51 Chevy truck. I quoted part of it below. If true, I'd be interested to know where the slide came in. I think GM did much damage to Chevrolet with all of their other brands. It may not have hurt them before the 50's but in the latter part of the decade I think it hurt Chevrolet badly. I'm also with the majority opinion that Chevy hasn't had all that great of a truck for some time now. At least since the 90's model ended in 1998. That was the last really good Chevy truck. Very good looking and very well built.

"The 1/2 ton Chevrolet pick up was renamed the 3100 in the 1940's and they were outselling the Ford's with a 33.8% market share in 1949 compared to Ford's 21.6%."

@Lou, yes it's true. Chevrolet on their lonesome outsold Ford nearly 2 to 1 for many years. I think the "What went wrong" question has been addressed many times here on this forum. Brand dilution of Chevrolet is for sure a big one, interiors (quality, durability and options) would be a big one, body durability and longevity would be a big one, no SFA on the post 1987 HD's would be a big one as well. I really think the bottom line boils to the old 'GM Got Cheap' train of thought. They really did.