GM's Letter to Current Customers

We received the letter last week because of our SAAB, but no Owner Appreciation Certificate was included.

... Just who is paying for those cash back coupons? Our tax dollars? Oh no.

Being a current Chevy owner, I received this letter and "certificate". The "certificate" states it is not valid for Saab vehicles. It also says you don't really need the certificate to receive the discount. It seems to be a subtle advertisement for their current loyalty incentives.

This is the 3rd such communication I have received from GM. The other 2 were an email, and then a letter in th mail 2-3 weeks ago.

The negative spin is because the author seems to realize that Government Motors will never be a viable "company" as long as Obama is its CEO.

I think the author is smart enough to know Obama is not the CEO and the government has no intention of staying in the auto industry.

I would really like to know what all you anti-government intervention people think the outcome of Obama's actions will be.

Lets get it in writing so we can see if you're right or wrong in five years.

heartlessbstrd-- both of my parents own GM vehicles (my mom has a Trailblazer SS and my dad has a 1999 LS1 Camaro) so we've received two such letters.

I own a 2003 Dodge SRT-4. Both my dad and I are planning on getting new vehicles in the next two years, and both of us are planning on getting Fords.

My obvious bias out of the way--here's what I see going down. Comrade Obama's intervention will stretch into keeping constant incentives to buy Government Motors vehicles to the point that it doesn't make economic sense to buy any other vehicle. This will drive Ford out of business as they aren't using incentives that we're already paying for through our taxes. We'll be seeing mostly GM vehicles being sold soon because, hey, let's spread the wealth around like the Messiah wants and make sure the UAW is the only beneficiary.

Government bailouts are poor practice in a supposedly free market society anyway. 1. It gives an unfair competitive advantage to those who receive government backing, in the form of seemingly limitless taxpayer dollars, and puts those companies who better managed their resources at a competitive disadvantage. Yes, supposedly GM and Chrysler will have to pay back their "loans", but if their subsidized increase in market share causes otherwise successful car companies to fail or exit the US market, we will officially have government-sponsored business, just like the other socialist countries of the world. 2. And what right does the the federal government have to selectively pick which failing companies it supports? A failing airline or small business doesn't make the list, but a failing bank or automobile company does? There is not enough public outrage at this overt demonstration of favoritism. Either the government flexes muscle in _every_ bankruptcy and potential bankruptcy case (not feasible at best) or in none. It is simply not right and, I'd argue, unconstitutional. 3. We're focusing on the wrong thing here anyway. Forget the tens of billions given to the auto industry. What about the nearly one trillion given to the banking/insurance industry? Again there are examples of favoritism in Big Government: AIG gets support but Lehman fails? And again what right does the government have to step in at all?

So to confirm what I'm hearing, the predictions are that are that the bail out will cause Ford to go bankrupt, and that the government will try to monopolize the auto market using GM?

Also, we do understand how many jobs would be lost of GM was to go bankrupt, right?

I wouldn't say that what Obama is trying to do is the perfect solution; I can't predict the future, so trying to do so would be presumptuous and arrogant on my part. I can, however, see some logic in what the administration is doing.

GM doesn't employ that many people, especially in the US. We lose over 6 GMs every month (assuming 40% of GM employees work in the US, which is probably an overestimate).