Let GM go Bankrupt

Hawkeye all you need to do is plug the car in at night and any normal commuting range you would used zero gas so why would anyone not charge them and used the engine instead?

our experience, using only standard-household 120-volt power, it took about 13.4 kWh of electricity to replenish the Volt’s 9 kWh of usable energy. Using a 240-volt setup instead is more efficient and would have boosted the mileage figure.

And these numbers also differ from the Volt’s fairly optimistic fuel-economy readout, which leaves the electrically driven miles out of the calculation entirely. Technically, the displayed number is accurate in that it is the “miles per gallon of gas,” but should electric miles really  be counted as infinite mpg?

Either way, one thing’s for sure: Operating an EV can be exceptionally cheap. Assuming 35 miles of electric range for the Volt yields a cost per mile of just 4.6 cents. That’s almost 40 percent less than that of a Volkswagen Golf TDI diesel getting 40 mpg and 24 percent cheaper than a Prius getting 45 mpg.

The economic picture is dimmer when operating the Volt using its gas engine. We averaged 35 mpg for our gas-powered miles and saw 33–34 mpg at a steady, near-80-mph cruise—not exactly spectacular compared with today’s hybrids. Then again, no one should buy a Volt if they plan to run it extensively in extended-range mode.

From the GM website. http://gm-volt.com/about/

Yes, this will increase your electric bill, but you will charge the car overnight when rates are lower. Much more importantly, you will need NO GASOLINE for drives from 25 to 50 miles.

As my parents might have said, GM "made its bed and should lie in it."

Quote:

. Taxpayers were already on the hook for billions of dollars before the Obama admin worked out a deal, thanks to Bush's previous bailouts.

Maybe the numbers in my head are all wrong,but more likely you dont know what you are talking about. GM was into the american taxpayer for about $14 billion by the time Obama had 90 days to figure out what he wanted to do, and they now owe us about $30 Billion after the IPO, and that does not even include the $15 billion that the old GMAC (was part of GM at the time) still owes us. Last run I saw that the CBO ran said that best case saving GM will cost the taxpayers $27 billion,,,which is a lot more that the $14 billion Bush is responsible for.

Quote:

I don't think you've put any serious thought into this.

I dont think that you have any understanding of the facts. You sound like an administration official reading off talking points.

GM's stock has continued to rise since the IPO - initially at 33, it's around 38.75, if it got up to 50 we'd break even

Could the taxpayer end up doing okay on its controversial investment in automaker GM?

The restructured company's IPO is in process, and should GM shares achieve a price of $134 per share then the taxpayer will break even according to the special inspector general of the government's bailout programs.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/gm-ipo-taxpayers-break-even-2010-9#ixzz1BK4QFeN1

This is not just some AP or al Reuters piece that the News picked up from the news wires. This was actually written by David Shepardson of the Detroit News Washington Bureau: White House: U.S. will recoup GM funds

The White House said today it still believes the Treasury Department will recoup the money the Obama administration invested in General Motors Co.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs reiterated that the administration believes it will at least obtain $36.1 billion of the $49.5 billion GM bailout — the amount President Barack Obama agreed to invest in GM.
The whole thing is a fraud, and either the News Washington Bureau isn't reporting it, or they should give up their day jobs in DC. Here's what the News isn't reporting: GM Doesn't Have to Pay Taxes. That's right - in yet another shell game, Government Motors is exempt from paying roughly $45.4 billion in taxes the next few years, all at taxpayer expense.

General Motors won’t be government-owned for much longer, but it’s getting a parting gift from Uncle Sam: a $45.4 billion tax exemption that could leave it tax-free for years. GM will be able to shield its future profits using past losses using so-called “tax-loss carry-forwards,” the Wall Street Journal reports. Companies that have recently changed ownership aren’t supposed to be able to take full advantage of those, but a little-noticed ruling last year exempted TARP companies from that restriction.
Essentially, Obama is touting that GM is going to pay the government back $36 billion by doling out another $45 billion to the company; paying back the taxpayers with the taxpayers money. How is it that a 2-bit blogger like me can use Google and find this stuff out, but the Detroit News Washington Bureau cannot?

Some credible journalists need to be delving into the relationship any of the GM management has and continues to have with the Democratic Party and with Obama. This whole thing smells to high heaven, in my opinion.

Some credible journalists need to be delving into the relationship any of the GM management has and continues to have with the Democratic Party and with Obama. This whole thing smells to high heaven, in my opinion.

You mean something like the close bond between the Democrats and Fannie & Freddy ? Or perhaps the public service labor unions? or the UAW? or the AFT? etc.etc.

The Bust Administration tried hard to persuade a Democrat Congress to restrain and increase regulatory restraint with respect to Fannie and Freddy - eliciting steadfast opposition from barney Frank and Maxine ("It ain't broke, so don't fix it") Waters in the House Finance Conmmittee.

and the coal burned to produce the electricity that these cars have about zero improvement on the carbon footprint over the current normal best that the internal combustion engine can produce.

Hawkeye no that will not work as a lot of funds went into harbors and canals and river improvements also.