There are people stupid enough to buy GM stock after the "restructuring" in 2009?
If Romney wins election, GM will go bankrupt and won't be bailed out.
If Obama wins re-election, when GM is on the edge on insolvency, again, he'll screw the stockholders just like he did last time.

It's lose-lose for GM investors.

Of course he had to open it in the Ukraine.There you CAN build your own bussiness.

I live near a GM dealer forced out by obozo's stupidity - a few years of struggle with just used cars, but now he's a Hyundai dealership. And who's laughing now?

Yeah!

54.5 mpg for we peons;

15 mpg in their bullet proof limousines.

I seem to recall, back in the 1970's, when the CAFE requirements were first brought in, GM, Ford, Chrysler, AMC ('member them?) were all moaning that it was impossible to reach the 18 mpg standard.

Suuuuuuuurrrrre.

KevinB "I seem to recall, back in the 1970's, when the CAFE requirements were first brought in, GM, Ford, Chrysler, AMC ('member them?) were all moaning that it was impossible to reach the 18 mpg standard.

Suuuuuuuurrrrre."

My pickup with a V8 tells me it gets 14 mpg. That's about the same or a bit worse than 40 years ago and it's probably American gallons.

Mileage targets have been met with unsafe undersized engines and lightweight cars that end up in 2 pieces when T-boned. Cars have no bumpers, so you touch another bumper or a snowbank and repairs are in the thousands.

I had an Impala fairly recently and the constant repairs were annoying. GM recapitalized with no changes and expected different results. Where did they find the idiots to buy GM shares?

The Ukraine luxury car dealership funding for Biden's friend encourages me. I've been dying to open a Prius Dealership on Hans Island and now I think I see my chance!

Mileage targets have been met with unsafe undersized engines and lightweight cars that end up in 2 pieces when T-boned.

If what you say is true, then deaths per million miles driven should have risen dramatically. Of course, they haven't; they've fallen dramatically since the 1980's. So I call 'shenanigans'.

As an engineer, my response is: instead of continuing to build big, unsophisticated, hunks of iron for engines, the car companies learned/were forced to, you know, design something lighter, smaller, with higher specific output.

1970-era car companies are like 2000-era kids - fat, lazy, and unwilling to slim down. They fought every change - 3-point belts, back seat belts, air bags, etc. - designed to make cars safer. I still remember car company marketing men in interviews saying "We don't want to talk about safety. Safety doesn't sell."

I trust free enterprise much, much more than I trust government, in general. But I don't trust free enterprise all that much. Everybody - me included - needs a kick in the pants sometimes.

Government has no business telling any corporation what to do or how to run their business. Not in a free country. Competition will decide the optimum standard and this is just another reason to dump these socialists before the whole country looks like California.

KevinB "If what you say is true, then deaths per million miles driven should have risen dramatically. Of course, they haven't; they've fallen dramatically since the 1980's."

I suspect better roads, seatbelts, airbags, and less drunk driving have cut traffic deaths in half. I also suspect that pretty close to 100% of mileage increase is related to underpowered low weight vehicles as opposed to any great technological developments.

Legislate mileage all you want and suddenly you notice everyone drives a pickup or a van and you can't lighten them up because they serve a legitimate need. I drive one of each and no car. In rural Alberta cars are few and far between, maybe a third of vehicles. Remind me. What has been accomplished?

"...the real power lies with federal bureaucrats and their Green allies. Together they have forced unreasonable environmental standards down corporate throats..."

So glad I'm here in Ontario - where The Dildo got things right.