GM says it doesn't need $2B from gov't in March


DETROIT – General Motors Corp.'s chief financial officer says the company will not need the $2 billion loan installment for March that it requested from the U.S. government in February.

CFO Ray Young said Thursday in an interview with The Associated Press that GM told the Obama administration it won't need the money so soon because its cost cuts are starting to take hold.

GM borrowed $13.4 billion from the government earlier this year. Last month, it said it would need up to an additional $16.6 billion to keep operating, including $2 billion in March and $2.6 billion in April.

Young would not say when the company will need more government loans or whether it would reduce its total financing request.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090312/ap_on_bi_ge/gm_bailout

YES WE CAN!!!

how is that good news?

Does it say in the article what those cost cuts entailed? I mean, if it entails a bunch of people being let go.... IT'S JUST ONE FREAKIN' GORDION KNOT!!! I hope they were sensible cost cuts.

Well lets see. It says,
GM says it doesn't need $2B from gov't in March


Good or Bad?

My question to anyone and I am no liberal or republican or even a independent. Just a observer in the end.

If these loans truly help corporations will it help bring a surplus in the end to this nation?

I ask because the government borrowed this money from countries who had it to spare and with interest% I would imagine.

So these companies like GM need to make profits to pay back the loan and profits to keep the business running. Also to make such profits they would have to create products better then the foreign products available. Can GM make better cars then Germany, Japan, and South Korea in the end?

Will foreign countries reduce taxes when Americans export their products to have more of the people of that country buy the cars?

If this "risk" taking loan the government makes ensures that big companies to survive and make profits then I am all for it, yet if it doesn't we will destroy the economy in the end.

Perhaps "small business grants" would have been a better idea. New trustworthy companies that serve the American people without ripping them off in the end.

What do you think?

You know when many look at the auto companies that are in trouble they talk some poop about the unions and declare, "Let them fail"

Most fail to see the total picture in terms of cause and effect.

For instance, I was listening to a spokesperson from Toyota who was expressing support for loans to GM the other day because Toyota fears the fallout should GM fail because of how it will affect parts suppliers.

Cars, whether it GM, Ford, Saturn...are not built in whole by these companies. Instead they buy parts and components from makers who sometimes maintain small and large parts manufacturing businesses. These businesses employ a huge number of people. These parts makers big and small are having a bad time weathering this slump.

The Toyota worry? That parts manufactures will disappear during the slump.

So when you think about jobs remember...those union auto making jobs are just the tip of the iceberg jobs wise.

that part right there kinda cancels your good news out there buddy.

Here again, if they would cut those high paid executives' wages by about 70 % then they would have the money to survive without letting the little guy go.

little johnny came home and told his parents that they would be able to pay off their debts because a man loaned him the money. if little johnny's daddy isn't working how is he going to pay the new debt off? little johnny's little sister doesn't understand the debt system so she is ecstatic "oh daddy, we can pay off the debts that you owe and then we can eat!" little johnny's daddy just smiles at his little girl because he knows she is too young to understand. he knows you can't pay off debt with debt to get out of debt.


teach a man to fish, he will keep himself alive
put a man in debt, he will be your slave.

the executive pay was a way to divert your attention. those wages aren't even a drop in the bucket when it comes to the operating costs of the companies.

little johnny only changed the name of his father's master.

Thank goodness Bush had the sense enough to use the final part of the first $ 350 billion Tarp to keep the auto jobs. Let's see, Congress if I remember correctly said:


NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Let them fail.


Obama's silence instead of a detailed coherent policy to assure businessses that Geitner isn't just sleeping and the Treasury Department failure to get up and running have been atrocious to jobs.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090312/pl_nm/us_obama_gradesPresident

Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner received failing grades for their efforts to revive the world's largest economy, according to participants in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey.

A majority of the 49 economists polled said they were dissatisfied with the administration's economic policies, according to the paper, a stark contrast to Obama's popularity ratings with the general public.

On average, the economists gave the president a grade of 59 out of 100, and although there was a broad range of marks, 42 percent of respondents rated Obama below 60, the paper said.

Geithner received an average grade of 51, while Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke scored better, with an average 71, the paper said.

On average, the economists now expect the economic downturn to end in October, according to the paper. In the previous survey, they had expected the bottom would arrive in August.

The economists' main criticism of the Obama team centered on delays in enacting key parts of plans to rescue banks, the paper said.

The economists' negative ratings mark a turnaround in opinion, the paper said. In December, before Obama took office, three-quarters of respondents said the incoming administration's economic team was better than the departing team under former President George W. Bush.

Geithner's latest marks are lower than the average grade of 57 that former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson received in January, the paper said.

========================
Notice the importance of the line - "key delays in enacting key parts of plans to rescue banks". Without leadership from Obama and the Treasury Department and an understanding of the complicity of the American Economy too many jobs and too much wealth which has been lost could have been prevented. When people make decision out of fear of not knowing what the exact policies are and are making decidions primarily to safeguard everything that they can the president is not leading.

BLAME THE FEDERAL RESERVE GODDAMMMIT!!!!!!!!!!! PUT THE BLAME WHERE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE!!!!!!!! WHO GIVES A **** ABOUT OBAMA OR BUSH? THE FEDERAL RESERVE IS WHO YOU SHOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT. JOHN F KENNEDY WAS WORRIED ABOUT THEM. I AM TOO. YOU SHOULD BE TOO!!!!!!!

Nope, all Bush's fault. Every last bit. Even Palin's daughter breaking up with her babydaddy.

GM not needing another loan is not a good sign. A good sign would be that they are starting to turn a profit and begin paying back the loans. I don't see that anytime before the end of Obama's term.

He was even responsible for Palin's daughter's break-up with her bf?! Dang.

NO WAY, the break up is all about Rush Limbaugh, he thinks she is way hot and wants her badly.