My new Chrysler is sweet, it's amazing what a change in management can do.

DAMN YOU FARTBONGO!

that's a lot of minivans....

and Chrysler 300s to folks that want to pimp 'em out to look like Bentleys...even though they're still just Chryslers.

GOP attacks on Chrysler start in 3... 2... 1...

Four times a negative number is still a negative number, you fools!

Great! Now even more money is being pumped out of the country since every dollar of that profit goes to FIAT, furthering the ever increasing bankruptcy of America.

Lost Thought 00: Great! Now even more money is being pumped out of the country since every dollar of that profit goes to FIAT, furthering the ever increasing bankruptcy of America.

Thanks for mentioning that. I'll tell all my friends that work at chrysler that they're doing it wrong. It seems they are required to stop paying their mortgage, buying food, etc.. and immediately begin "pumping" their paychecks out of the country, correct?

Liberals rip Romney and his private equity firm, yet praise giving billions of tax payer dollars to a private equity firm.

I just bought a new Jeep, so you're welcome, America.

And, still, the dishonest numbnuts continue to act like there can be no consequences because we've managed to restore the status quo.

Clearly we should just always bail out failed companies and prevent healthy competition, it's not like anybody else might have better ideas that they could profit from if they could get a fair foothold in a market place that companies like Chrysler seemingly worked to abandon.

Because fark the future, and fark small businesses, we don't need their ideas when we can just continue to prop up dinosaurs who refuse to stop building things from the 19th century.

Splinshints: And, still, the dishonest numbnuts continue to act like there can be no consequences because we've managed to restore the status quo.

Clearly we should just always bail out failed companies and prevent healthy competition, it's not like anybody else might have better ideas that they could profit from if they could get a fair foothold in a market place that companies like Chrysler seemingly worked to abandon.

Because fark the future, and fark small businesses, we don't need their ideas when we can just continue to prop up dinosaurs who refuse to stop building things from the 19th century.

Why do you hate profit and American jobs?

dforkus: Thanks for mentioning that. I'll tell all my friends that work at chrysler that they're doing it wrong. It seems they are required to stop paying their mortgage, buying food, etc.. and immediately begin "pumping" their paychecks out of the country, correct?

Why are your friends taking Chrysler's profit? You should probably call the authorities. That's called embezzlement and it's quite illegal.

Or would now be a good time to admit your reading comprehension isn't that great?

Why do you hate profit and American jobs?

So you'd be a fan of a WalMart bailout then?

What's the difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney?

One of them made millions while the head of an organization that took over two major floundering US companies in 2009, forced them into bankruptcy, voided union contracts, put tens of thousands out of a job, and defaulted on much of the company's debt while the other one is Mitt Romney.

Splinshints: Clearly we should just always bail out failed companies

You do a remarkable job and presenting a false dichotomy.

MugzyBrown: Why do you hate profit and American jobs?

So you'd be a fan of a WalMart bailout then?

If we're ever at the point of wal-mart needing a bailout, the entire country is f*cked.

No YOU'RE a Towel: GOP attacks on Chrysler start in 3... 2... 1...

They already have. Remember all their butthurt about how Chrysler's super bowl ad was supposedly meant to be a favor to Obama?

Lost Thought 00: Great! Now even more money is being pumped out of the country Italy since every dollar Euro of that Fiat profit goes to FIAT Chrysler, furthering the ever increasing bankruptcy of America Italy.

Farking mergers, how do they work? You realize that door swings both ways, right? Both companies and both countries are benefiting from this, despite your wishes for economic disaster.

meanmutton: that took over two major floundering US companies in 2009,

So Obama is responsible for the $4 billion bailout loan Chrysler got in December of 2008?

Aarontology: MugzyBrown: Why do you hate profit and American jobs?

So you'd be a fan of a WalMart bailout then?

If we're ever at the point of wal-mart needing a bailout, the entire country is f*cked.

A-freaking-men. I'm going to keep my eye on Wal-Mart. When it starts going down, it's type to get my ammo and canned ham cache ready.

WhyteRaven74: meanmutton: that took over two major floundering US companies in 2009,

So Obama is responsible for the $4 billion bailout loan Chrysler got in December of 2008?

Obama's time machine strikes again!

babysealclubber: A-freaking-men. I'm going to keep my eye on Wal-Mart. When it starts going down, it's type to get my ammo and canned ham cache ready.

Conveniently, they're only two aisles over from eachother.

Aarontology: Why do you hate profit and American jobs?

[notsureifserious.jpg]

HMS_Blinkin: DAMN YOU FARTBONGO!

"Leaving taxpayers with an estimated $1.3 billion loss on the rescue."

Worse than the Solyndra loss.

Splinshints: dforkus: Thanks for mentioning that. I'll tell all my friends that work at chrysler that they're doing it wrong. It seems they are required to stop paying their mortgage, buying food, etc.. and immediately begin "pumping" their paychecks out of the country, correct?

Why are your friends taking Chrysler's profit? You should probably call the authorities. That's called embezzlement and it's quite illegal.

Or would now be a good time to admit your reading comprehension isn't that great?

His point is that Chrysler is employing people to make products that other people are buying. Producing things for which there is demand is a good thing.

The fact that part of the profits go to a firm that's incorporated overseas doesn't really mean anything. Americans can own stock in foreign companies too. And foreign investors can easily reinvest any money they make back into American markets.

I guess now would be a good time to admit your understanding of anything to do with business isn't that great.

MugzyBrown: Liberals rip Romney and his private equity firm, yet praise giving billions of tax payer dollars to a private equity firm.

this was a $1,300,000,000 loss for taxpayers but somehow good.
Romney, afaik, didn't lose taxpayers any money.

Wendy's Chili: Splinshints: dforkus: Thanks for mentioning that. I'll tell all my friends that work at chrysler that they're doing it wrong. It seems they are required to stop paying their mortgage, buying food, etc.. and immediately begin "pumping" their paychecks out of the country, correct?

Why are your friends taking Chrysler's profit? You should probably call the authorities. That's called embezzlement and it's quite illegal.

Or would now be a good time to admit your reading comprehension isn't that great?

His point is that Chrysler is employing people to make products that other people are buying. Producing things for which there is demand is a good thing.

The fact that part of the profits go to a firm that's incorporated overseas doesn't really mean anything. Americans can own stock in foreign companies too. And foreign investors can easily reinvest any money they make back into American markets.

I guess now would be a good time to admit your understanding of anything to do with business isn't that great.

SNAP

tenpoundsofcheese: "Leaving taxpayers with an estimated $1.3 billion loss on the rescue."

"On May 24, 2011, Chrysler repaid its $7.6 billion loans to the United States and Canadian governments"

Splinshints: dforkus: Thanks for mentioning that. I'll tell all my friends that work at chrysler that they're doing it wrong. It seems they are required to stop paying their mortgage, buying food, etc.. and immediately begin "pumping" their paychecks out of the country, correct?

Why are your friends taking Chrysler's profit? You should probably call the authorities. That's called embezzlement and it's quite illegal.

Or would now be a good time to admit your reading comprehension isn't that great?

Do you really believe that every dime of Chrysler profit is going to Turin? Do you have any proof to support that claim? Do you not realize that Sergio Marchionne splits his time evenly between Turin and Auburn Hills, or that Chrysler plants in America are already making engines, and will soon be making trucks and SUVs for export to the European market?

But keep spouting lies and half-baked thoughts. If you FEEL like it's true, it must be!

If we're ever at the point of wal-mart needing a bailout, the entire country is f*cked.

I bet people would have said the same about GM 20 years ago.

How about Sears or HP?

Want to bail them out too?

meanmutton: What's the difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney?

One of them made millions while the head of an organization that took over two major floundering US companies in 2009, forced them into bankruptcy, voided union contracts, put tens of thousands out of a job, and defaulted on much of the company's debt while the other one is Mitt Romney.

Obama made millions from the auto loans? Or are his book sales somehow linked to them?

And you think that GM and Chrysler would have avoided bankruptcy and maintained their entire workforce had they not been given loans from the government.

meanmutton: What's the difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney?

One of them made millions while the head of an organization that took over two major floundering US companies in 2009, forced them into bankruptcy, voided union contracts, put tens of thousands out of a job, and defaulted on much of the company's debt while the other one is Mitt Romney.

actually in this case the taxpayers lost 1.3B.

ftfa "leaving taxpayers with an estimated $1.3 billion loss on the rescue."

WhyteRaven74: tenpoundsofcheese: "Leaving taxpayers with an estimated $1.3 billion loss on the rescue."

"On May 24, 2011, Chrysler repaid its $7.6 billion loans to the United States and Canadian governments"

":Chrysler received $11.2 billion in federal bailout funds in 2009, most of it in the form of loans, although the government also took a small equity stake in the automaker as well.

The company repaid the loans in May of last year, six months ahead of schedule. In July, it repurchased the shares owed by the U.S. Treasury, leaving taxpayers with an estimated $1.3 billion loss on the rescue.

meanmutton: What's the difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney?

One of them made millions ... while the other one is Mitt Romney.

obama made millions? really? off a bailout that was put into place under george w. bush?

jesus - that man is a farking GENIUS.

tenpoundsofcheese: HMS_Blinkin: DAMN YOU FARTBONGO!

"Leaving taxpayers with an estimated $1.3 billion loss on the rescue."

Worse than the Solyndra loss.

Yeah, you're right, it would have been a LOT better to let a few hundred thousand people lose their jobs and let tons of factories and a whole international supply chain stop functioning. But hey, at least the gov't would have saved $1.3 billion. And besides, it's not like the people whose jobs were saved, or the cars that will keep being sold, or the general economic activity that DIDN'T stop because of the bailout could have ever made a $1.3 billion difference in tax revenue.

By the way, sine you're so concerned about individual billions, isn't that the exact same amount of money that the "Buffett rule" would have raised in increased revenues each year? So, I am assuming you fully support that. Also, since a billion dollars is the approximately the cost of a week in Iraq or Afghanistan, I am assuming that you are against those wars as well? Good to know.

MugzyBrown: If we're ever at the point of wal-mart needing a bailout, the entire country is f*cked.

I bet people would have said the same about GM 20 years ago.

They would have been stupid if they did, because there was an auto bailout just ten years before that.

Wendy's Chili: because there was an auto bailout just ten years before that.

Only for Chrysler.

MugzyBrown: If we're ever at the point of wal-mart needing a bailout, the entire country is f*cked.

I bet people would have said the same about GM 20 years ago.

How about Sears or HP?

Want to bail them out too?

Sears is now kmart.

tenpoundsofcheese: $1.3 billion loss

tenpoundsofcheese: this was a $1,300,000,000 loss

tenpoundsofcheese: actually in this case the taxpayers lost 1.3B.

You know, the three of us who don't have you on ignore read you perfectly fine the first time...

HMS_Blinkin: it would have been a LOT better to let a few hundred thousand people lose their jobs

So then you're good for my proposed $10B Sears bailout?

What a $1.3B loss may look like.

MugzyBrown: So then you're good for my proposed $10B Sears bailout?

You mean Sears Holdings Corporation? Sears as an independent company doesn't exist any more.

Flab: What a $1.3B loss may look like.

A nice $1.3 billion loss due to almost comically bad sensor design. Apparently no one thought that the sensors on a plane might get wet.

MugzyBrown: HMS_Blinkin: it would have been a LOT better to let a few hundred thousand people lose their jobs

So then you're good for my proposed $10B Sears bailout?

Are those two situations the same? Or are you trying to compare apples to oranges? Retail != auto manufacturing. If the circumstances are similar, then yes, but you're drawing a false comparison.

WhyteRaven74: You mean Sears Holdings Corporation? Sears as an independent company doesn't exist any more

Yes.. Sears. I'm sorry I didn't use their full legal name.

Ohh wait is this thread about Chrysler Group, LLC? I thought it was about Chrysler, LLC

Flab: [www.popularmechanics.com image 470x354]

What a $1.3B loss may look like.

that should put everything in perspective.

/i read somewhere that the b2 would be cheaper if it were made from solid gold
//i think that's ron paul's defense policy, btw.

Are those two situations the same? Or are you trying to compare apples to oranges? Retail != auto manufacturing. If the circumstances are similar, then yes, but you're drawing a false comparison.

They employ 300,000 people.

So those people's jobs aren't worth a bailout?

MugzyBrown: So those people's jobs aren't worth a bailout?

If it makes Obama look bad, no, those people are worthless.

MugzyBrown: Are those two situations the same? Or are you trying to compare apples to oranges? Retail != auto manufacturing. If the circumstances are similar, then yes, but you're drawing a false comparison.

They employ 300,000 people.

So those people's jobs aren't worth a bailout?

Depends. Is the country losing 700,000 jobs a month already? Is Sears the largest employer in many major cities? Is retail one of the most important infrastructure industries?

No? Then it's not an equal comparison.

MugzyBrown: HMS_Blinkin: it would have been a LOT better to let a few hundred thousand people lose their jobs

So then you're good for my proposed $10B Sears bailout?

A retail store is a bit different than our industrial base.

cameroncrazy1984: Depends. Is the country losing 700,000 jobs a month already? Is Sears the largest employer in many major cities? Is retail one of the most important infrastructure industries?

How is building a car an infratructure industry? How is one private company more important than another?

So 300,000 employees can go scratch so that you can bail out Chrysler and their 50,000 employees?

2,000 Sears locations go under, down goes the tax revenues for all of those communities. Anchor stores across the country go dark closing malls and all of those small businesses. More jobs lost.

All of the independent truckers who delivered Sears merch across this great country lose their rigs.

Property owners lose their rents, can't pay their lenders and default. Credit default swaps!


Cats and Dogs sleeping together.

Sears is too big to fail!