Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: March Car Sales

  1. #1
    Havakasha is offline

    March Car Sales

    I think its clear that President Obama made the smart and correct choice in helping the auto industry.


    MARCH U.S. AUTO SALES
    Chrysler poised to lead U.S. auto sales gains as gas rises
    Craig Trudell
    April 2, 2012 - 10:25 am ET

    "Light-vehicle sales in March, set for release Tuesday, may have run at a 14.5 million seasonally adjusted annual rate, the average estimate of 16 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg. That would exceed the 13.1 million pace from a year earlier and set an average rate of 14.6 million for the first quarter, ahead of analysts’ estimates for full-year deliveries. Small-car sales were especially strong."

    Total light-vehicle sales may rise to 1.42 million, the average of eight analysts’ estimates. That would be the highest monthly total since August 2007, according to Autodata.

    Jobs, Confidence

    The 1.2 million jobs created the past six months, the best six-month job growth stretch since 2006, has sent unemployment to a three-year low, according to Labor Department figures. The Conference Board’s consumer confidence index held near the highest level in a year in March as a growing number of Americans said they planned to buy cars, homes and appliances, the New York-based private research group said on March 27.

    Buyers returning

    Compact and subcompact sales were 23 percent of U.S. retail sales through the first 18 days of March, the highest level since the government’s “cash for clunkers” program in August 2009, according to LMC Automotive.

    “The people who have been sitting on the sidelines and want to get a less-expensive car, which probably correlates with better fuel economy, those people are more able to get financed and at the lower borrowing amounts,” said Alan Baum, principal of Baum & Associates.

    Supplies rebounding

    Toyota and Honda’s inventories are recovering after Japan’s tsunami in March 2011 disrupted their production and depleted their car inventories to lows of 34 days and 28 days’ supply, respectively, in August. Entering last month, Toyota carried 36 days’ supply and Honda had 50 days, according to Kelley Blue Book.

    “Vehicles that are two, three or four years old are within $3,000 or $4,000 the cost of brand-new ones,” she said in a phone interview. “I’d rather spend a little bit more and be satisfied and get exactly what I want.”

    Read more: http://www.autonews.com/article/2012...#ixzz1qu48VRj0

  2. #2
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    Auto Bailout Cost $14 Billion

    By JOSH MITCHELL
    WASHINGTON—The White House said Wednesday that taxpayers could lose roughly $14 billion of the money spent on auto industry bailouts, despite the industry's recent recovery.

    The White House cites the potential losses in a report, "The Resurgence of the American Automotive Industry," released ahead of President Barack Obama's trip Friday to a Chrysler Group LLC facility in Toledo, Ohio.

    The report said that of the $80 billion in bailout money supplied to the auto industry, less than 20%, or $16 billion, ultimately may be lost. That's down from the 60% loss projected two years ago, the report said. The White House's top auto and manufacturing adviser, Ron Bloom, later specified the loss at closer to $14 billion.

    WSJ's Josh Mitchell reports The White House estimates the final cost of the auto industry bailout to taxpayers will be $14 billion. Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images
    .While "there is no joy" in acknowledging that loss, the bailout succeeded in saving jobs and preventing a broader industry collapse, Mr. Bloom said.

    "So while we are obviously extremely conscious of our obligation to get every penny we can for the taxpayer, we're also not going to apologize for the fact that there are literally hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Americans who are working today" because of the bailouts, he said.

    The U.S. could lose more than $10 billion in General Motors Co. GM +4.56%alone if the government sold its remaining shares of the auto maker at current share prices.

    The Obama administration has signaled it wants to divest its remaining GM shares within the next few months. Under terms of GM's November initial public offering, the U.S. Treasury could begin selling additional shares of its GM holdings as of late last month. Mr. Bloom said Wednesday the administration has not settled on a price or date for selling its remaining shares, but said the administration may accept a loss

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...678869402.html

    Certainly a better deal than the "investment" in Solyndra.

  3. #3
    Havakasha is offline
    SeriouslyWrong is a Mitt Romney supporter. Said he would vote for anyone against President
    Obama. Supported Ron Paul another Republican before that.


    Fact Checking Mitt Romney On The Auto Bailout: A Short List
    + Comment now
    Maybe Mitt Romney ought to just stop writing op-eds about the auto bailout.



    His first, in the New York Times in 2008, appears to have cost him valuable support in Michigan. Now, Romney is giving it another try in the Detroit News.


    Mitt Romney's Auto Bailout Stand Could Cost Him Michigan
    Micheline Maynard
    Contributor
    In it, Romney lets fly with charges of “crony capitalism,” and contends the Obama administration was “rewarding” union leaders by escorting General Motors and Chrysler through bankruptcy.

    However, his bailout facts seem a bit off. Here’s a short list.

    1) Sell GM shares. The Treasury Department holds roughly 500 million GM shares, what’s left after the initial stake it sold when GM went public in late 2010. Romney writes, “The shares need to be sold in a responsible fashion and the proceeds turned over to the nation’s taxpayers.”

    At the time of its IPO, GM shares traded at $33. On Monday, they closed at $25.34, as we point out at Changing Gears.

    That means the Treasury would lose about $14 billion on its GM stake, writes Justin Hyde on Motoramic. Likewise, there would be no profit for American taxpayers, since the stock needs to sell around $50 a share for Treasury to break even on what GM received in bailout money.

    2) Who bailed out Detroit. Three years ago, writes Romney, President Obama stepped in with “a bailout for the auto industry.” In fact, the first $17.4 billion for the industry came from the Bush administration.

    The money was lent to GM and Chrysler (Ford did not accept bailout money) when Congress rejected bailout legislation. Hyde points out that Bush said last week he’d provide the assistance again.

    To be sure, the Obama administration provided the rest of the $82 billion received by the auto companies as well as suppliers, dealers and auto towns. But Obama didn’t start the fire, as Billy Joel might tell you.

    3) Auto titans found help elsewhere. Romney, writing about auto pioneers like William C. Durant, Henry Ford, and Walter Chrysler, says, “These giants never envisioned a role for government in their business, but relied on the hard work and commitment of private individuals.”

    That didn’t work out so well, at least for Durant. He went to East Coast bankers for help shortly after he founded GM in 1908. They agreed to provide financing, on the condition that he resign. Although Durant later regained control of GM, he was kicked out yet again by investors in 1920.

    Auto industry aside, Romney is trying to re-ingratiate himself with Michigan voters. On Wednesday, there will be a “welcome home” rally in Grand Rapids — not his home town, but home to a number of big GOP donors. He released a new ad Tuesday that stresses his Michigan roots.

    And in his op-ed, he spoke of drinking Vernors ginger ale and attending ball games at Michigan and Trumbull, the home of now-departed Tiger Stadium.


    Of course, his support for the Boston Red Sox is well known.



    Lots more to come.lol
    Last edited by Havakasha; 04-02-2012 at 05:18 PM.

  4. #4
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Havakasha View Post
    SeriouslyWrong is a Mitt Romney supporter.


    Fact Checking Mitt Romney On The Auto Bailout: A Short List
    + Comment now
    Maybe Mitt Romney ought to just stop writing op-eds about the auto bailout.



    His first, in the New York Times in 2008, appears to have cost him valuable support in Michigan. Now, Romney is giving it another try in the Detroit News.


    Mitt Romney's Auto Bailout Stand Could Cost Him Michigan
    Micheline Maynard
    Contributor
    In it, Romney lets fly with charges of “crony capitalism,” and contends the Obama administration was “rewarding” union leaders by escorting General Motors and Chrysler through bankruptcy.

    However, his bailout facts seem a bit off. Here’s a short list.

    1) Sell GM shares. The Treasury Department holds roughly 500 million GM shares, what’s left after the initial stake it sold when GM went public in late 2010. Romney writes, “The shares need to be sold in a responsible fashion and the proceeds turned over to the nation’s taxpayers.”

    At the time of its IPO, GM shares traded at $33. On Monday, they closed at $25.34, as we point out at Changing Gears.

    That means the Treasury would lose about $14 billion on its GM stake, writes Justin Hyde on Motoramic. Likewise, there would be no profit for American taxpayers, since the stock needs to sell around $50 a share for Treasury to break even on what GM received in bailout money.

    2) Who bailed out Detroit. Three years ago, writes Romney, President Obama stepped in with “a bailout for the auto industry.” In fact, the first $17.4 billion for the industry came from the Bush administration.

    The money was lent to GM and Chrysler (Ford did not accept bailout money) when Congress rejected bailout legislation. Hyde points out that Bush said last week he’d provide the assistance again.

    To be sure, the Obama administration provided the rest of the $82 billion received by the auto companies as well as suppliers, dealers and auto towns. But Obama didn’t start the fire, as Billy Joel might tell you.

    3) Auto titans found help elsewhere. Romney, writing about auto pioneers like William C. Durant, Henry Ford, and Walter Chrysler, says, “These giants never envisioned a role for government in their business, but relied on the hard work and commitment of private individuals.”

    That didn’t work out so well, at least for Durant. He went to East Coast bankers for help shortly after he founded GM in 1908. They agreed to provide financing, on the condition that he resign. Although Durant later regained control of GM, he was kicked out yet again by investors in 1920.

    Auto industry aside, Romney is trying to re-ingratiate himself with Michigan voters. On Wednesday, there will be a “welcome home” rally in Grand Rapids — not his home town, but home to a number of big GOP donors. He released a new ad Tuesday that stresses his Michigan roots.

    And in his op-ed, he spoke of drinking Vernors ginger ale and attending ball games at Michigan and Trumbull, the home of now-departed Tiger Stadium.


    Of course, his support for the Boston Red Sox is well known.



    Lots more to come.lol
    Mitt Romney supporter? Not. Anti Obama, yes. Remember, I don't have a "party".

    Truthfully though, the auto bailout did help the people in Michigan - me included. Who knows what would have happened had GM and Chrysler declare Ch11 themselves...

  5. #5
    Havakasha is offline
    He said you would vote for anyone against President Obama. So i am welcoming him to the candidate he now supports. Is he sure he wants to defend his position on the auto bailout? LMFAO.

    Dont you just wish that SeriouslyWrong would do a little research before always just looking for ways to bash the govt.
    He just might learn something.
    Remember this is the same guy who belittled the $20 to $40 billion we could save by eliminating
    oil company subsidies. Hypocrisy is his middle name.



    NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Including the $1.3 billion loss on its Chrysler investment, announced Thursday, the United States government has lost about $14 billion on the auto industry bail-out. All in all, it was a bargain.
    That $14 billion figure is far less than than the $40 billion bath the Congressional Budget Office expected U.S. taxpayers to take in the total auto industry bailout.

    Saying the U.S. taxpayer "lost money" is probably the wrong perspective, considering that spending no money at all likely would have meant a financial catastrophe for millions of Americans far in excess of a mere $14 billion.
    Had GM and Chrysler collapsed, it would have cost the federal government about $28.6 billion in lost tax revenues and assistance to the unemployed in just the first two years alone, according to the Michigan-based Center for Automotive Research. In other words, doing nothing could have cost more than twice as much the bailout.
    By the way, that $28.6 billion figure doesn't include the business taxes the federal government would have lost but can now expect from two large, profitable automakers and their suppliers. It also doesn't include any lost state and local tax revenue.
    At any rate, the federal government didn't become involved in lending money to Chrysler, General Motors (GM, Fortune 500) and others in the auto industry in order to make a profit. Had that been the goal, the Treasury Dept. should have bought Google (GOOG, Fortune 500) stock, instead.
    Chrysler's new line-up: Reviews are in
    No, the government stepped in to secure a pillar of American industry that was in the process of disintegrating. In the year leading up to the Chrysler and General Motors' bankruptcies, the auto industry lost 400,000 jobs. Since the bailout, about 113,000 of those jobs have been recovered, according to the Treasury Department.
    Last edited by Havakasha; 04-02-2012 at 05:28 PM.

  6. #6
    Havakasha is offline
    A 2009 Center for Automotive Research report put the potential job losses if GM and Chrysler had been allowed to fail at more than 1 million in the first year, alone.
    That's because the auto industry is complex and deeply interconnected in a way few other industries are. Thousands of parts are used to build one automobile. Those parts are generally made and supplied to the automakers by a constellation of smaller companies. If an automaker goes down, so do the hundreds of dependant companies with thousands of employees. This is not to mention the auto dealerships that are a sources of jobs and tax revenue in communities across America.
    There can be no question that America's auto industry is far better off today thanks to the bail-out. Both General Motors and Chrysler are profitable even at today's relatively low rate of auto sales and their sales are rising.
    In a good sign for the future, both automakers are getting positive reviews for their new products, exactly what's needed to keep things moving in the right direction.

    Instead of failing and dragging a big chunk of America's economy down with it, GM says it has has hired 15,720 people since the bail-out and has invested $5.4 billion in the U.S.
    Chrysler, meanwhile, reports it has hired 6,000 and invested $3.2 billion.
    In the end, the $14 billion loss may well have been a small price to pay for a strong American auto industry that can finally succeed on its own merit.

  7. #7
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    Quote Originally Posted by SiriuslyLong View Post
    Mitt Romney supporter? Not. Anti Obama, yes. Remember, I don't have a "party".

    Truthfully though, the auto bailout did help the people in Michigan - me included. Who knows what would have happened had GM and Chrysler declare Ch11 themselves...
    You needn't defend this..................

  8. #8
    Havakasha is offline
    "truthfully". How refreshing for a change. Now if we can pull the words: President Obama was
    correct in his auto policy from those biased lips we might start to believe a little bit of what he says.




    I quess that means SeriouslyWrong only supports govt help when it benefits him personally and his state. So typical. LOL.
    Last edited by Havakasha; 04-02-2012 at 05:24 PM.

  9. #9
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Havakasha View Post
    "truthfully". How refreshing for a change. Now if we can pull the words: President Obama was
    correct in his auto policy from those biased lips we might start to believe a little bit of what he says.




    I quess that means SeriouslyWrong only supports govt help when it benefits him personally and his state. So typical. LOL.
    Seeing is believing. Accepting whatever whatever you post by Krugman or The Daily Kos is not. And by the way, the legislative process helped the auto companies, not just your boy Barack.

  10. #10
    Havakasha is offline
    Thank god for Democrats and President Obama.

    And now once again we see and understand just how hard it is for the right wing to compliment our President. Psychology 101-- "Boy."
    Last edited by Havakasha; 04-02-2012 at 06:13 PM.

  11. Ad Fairy Senior Member
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •