Skip to comments.With $33.6 Billion Cash, If GM Canít Tell the Truth They Can Give Us Our Money Back
Posted on 09/17/2012 12:57:54 AM PDT by Kaslin
Over the weekend General Motors fought back against critics who have been all over the company after published reports say that the government-subsidized car company is spending as much as $90,000 to produce the breakthrough electric car, the Chevy Volt. The Volt retails for only $40,000.
Although the company refused to release figures regarding Volt production costs, UPI quotes the company as saying that critics have "allocated product development costs across the number of Volts sold instead of allocating across the lifetime of the program, which is how business operates."
The UPI whines that the Volt has become a political football.
Well, yeah, duh.
Thats what happens when a company gets cash, credit and other consideration from U.S. taxpayers to stay in business, most of which will never be repaid to U.S. taxpayers.
Suddenly things become very political for a private company when the government gives them more money than any other private concern in the history of our country and that money essentially becomes a gift.
Thats what happens when you stiff bond holders in bankruptcy to make the political decision to bailout the United Auto Workers pension plan with that gift and even still the pension plan remains underfunded by $25 billion.
Political? Yeah, you bet.
You want to get out of politics? Give us back our money, GM.
You have $33.6 billion of cash in the bank right now.
Yes, well take it. Give it back and we'll call it square.
Or heres an idea for General Motors: If youre concerned about the truth regarding the Volt, then perhaps you might become a little more discriminating yourself.
Release the Volts facts and figures on production.
Oh, thats right. You cant.
Because when it comes to facts and figures, GM has been less than candid with American taxpayers. Their track record for the claims and promises they make are more that of a politician than that of a public company thats required under the law to make truthful public statements.
If a publicly traded mortgage company- or say a bank- made the same types of claims General Motors has made, Rep Maxine Waters (D-Shakedown) would be holding out her tin cup demanding millions in reparations.
If you want to talk political, then just ask General Motors about their recent press release that trumpeted the record number of Chevy Volts that they sold.
GM spokesman Jim Cain said the company expects the Volt's August sales to top 2,500, reports CNN in a article titled Volt monthly sales to hit record in August the best month by far since its December 2010 launch. That would mark a 35% increase over July sales and more than a 700% jump from year ago results.
Problem is that General Motors fails to acknowledge that while sales may have set a record in August, sales are still only about half of what the company promised investors at the start of the year.
In fact, things are going so well for the Chevy Volt that the company has shuttered production on the Volt line so that they can retool to make a car that GM is actually selling, the Chevy Impala.
"We are not idling the plant due to poor Volt sales. We're gearing up for production of the new Impala," Chevy spokesman David Darovitz said in an email to USAToday.
Yes; the poor Volt sales are just an added benefit of the decision to shutter production of the electric car.
And this would not be the first time that General Motors idled production for the Volt this year. The company stopped production earlier this year as inventory levels piled up.
The Volt is hardly the shining success that GMs press offensive would have you believe, nor is GM the model corporate citizen Obama/Biden would have you believe.
Because this isn;t the first time that General Motors played fast and loose with the truth in order to play politics.
In 2010 General Motors ran ads claiming that they paid back the bailout money they took from the federal government, when all they did was repay the loan portion of the bailout with government money that was sitting in the bank.
General Motors announced this week that it repaid its multibillion-dollar taxpayer-backed TARP loans, wrote Republican Senator Charles Grassley on FoxNews.com. GM even bragged that it was able to repay the taxpayers in full, with interest, ahead of schedule, because more customers are buying [GM] vehicles. There was great fanfare, including expensive, around-the-clock GM TV commercials nationwide. But, the hype is not the reality. In fact, GM did not repay the loans with money it earned from selling cars. Instead, GM repaid the TARP loans with money it withdrew from another TARP fund at the Treasury Department.
As of today, taxpayers on the hook for at least a $25 billion loss. Here's a company that took $100 billion in new money since bankruptcy and turned it into $37 billlion in less than two years.
And you want the rest of us to believe that Obama wasn't involved? Ha!
Still, GM sits with $33.6 billion of cash in the bank.
So, iIf they cant start telling us the truth, they should at least give us back our money.
We are never going to see that money.
I do believe one of the most dangerous, corrosive and destructive aspects of this is the way the bond holders, with legal contracts, simply got stiffed.
If a contract means nothing in this country, then our economy is doomed.
So, they paid off one credit card using another credit card.
I think there's a name for that practice. :^)
If the Dems and their supporters don't support the Constitution (THE top contract in the U S of A), why should any lesser contract(s) matter??
Liberals don’t like this math, but they used it first to discredit programs that they didn’t want.
Take the B2 Bomber. We spent $30B to develop it, and then were going to spend something like $500M each to build something like 132 of the planes. Unit cost: $727M each including development, or “$727M each” in Liberal terms.
Then, in two steps, they cut back the order to 20 production planes. Total cost of the program is $40B ($30B for development and $10B for production).
And for the next 10 years, CBS calls it: “The Two Billion Dollar B2 Bomber”, and the liberals whine because each one costs so much.
So it’s fun to hit them back with the same math, although the people doing it likely never did the math for the B2, they just accepted CBS’s word for it.
“So, they paid off one credit card using another credit card.
I think there’s a name for that practice. :^) “
I think that’s called “leverage” in deadbeat society.
The Volt only costs $40,000 dollars.
Where the hell am I supposed to get $40,000 dollars to buy a car?
I drive a Toyota I bought used for $17,000 dollars 6 years ago. I cannot even dream of owning a $40,000 dollar car and if I did it would be Lexus,or a Cadillac ,not a Volt.
Damn has anyone seen the price of new full sized Pickup truck lately?
Re post 4. Bingo. All this crony capitalism started with the rape of the “secured” bondholders. The markets realized that commercial contracts were no longer valid if the president said so. Confidence dropped. Why aren’t there lawsuits about this?
News flash for Slo Joe Biden: Al-Qaeda is alive and GM is dying.
I wish GM would sell a 3500 series extended cab dually with the 8.1 liter Vortec that was discontinued some years ago but now its a multifuel engine, can run on gas or CNG.
I have a 2002 model with that engine, best truck ever, and I may just install my own CNG option, and my own at home natural gas compressor.
But if GM has a new 2014 model with this option I might buy new, if not I’m keeping the 2002, its still very reliable after 10 years.
You are 100% correct on this, Wonder Warthog.
It is simply the treatment of the Constitution in miniature. There are no ramifications to ignoring it.
Or something along those lines.
There was no offer, as I recall. Just a presidential edict. Unbelievable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.