General Motors

The DOJ is About to Take General Motors on a Rough Ride

The criminal penalties that GM faces for the Cobalt debacle could be massive and deleterious to the driving public

|

It is hard to feel sorry for a company that got the government to transfer $10 billion from taxpayers' pockets to its

Crashing Car
JasonParis / Foter / CC BY

own to save itself from bankruptcy. But General Motors' joyride with the administration might be over and rough-ride about to begin. According to the New York Times, the Justice Department is gearing up to slap the company with a record fine for "criminal wrongdoing" in how it handled its ignition switch debacle. If NYT is to be believed, these fines will dwarf even the billion-dollar penalty that Toyota was forced to cough up for its accelerating cars.

This might seem like rough justice for GM given that in addition to the cash, it also received a liability shield as part of its bailout package that has severely limited what its victims can collect in damages from it. However, GM's loss won't be their gain or the gain of the driving public, I note in my morning column at The Week.

Rather, if the Toyota settlement is any indication, most of the money that Justice gets, Justice will keep.

In Toyota's case, the Justice Department put the entire $1.2 billion it collected from the carmaker in criminal fines — along with the$1.7 billion it received in the Bernie Madoff case — into its notorious civil asset forfeiture fund, an all-purpose slush fund where the department also parks assets seized during illicit drug raids from people never accused of a crime.

Although Toyota's victims had the option of filing copious amounts of paperwork to collect additional damages for economic losses relating to accelerating vehicles, it is unclear how many of them actually did so. (My queries to DoJ went unanswered.) What is clear is that the forfeiture program's operating expenses not related to any kind of victim payoff experienced a $1.3 billion boost in 2014 — as per page 8 of this report.

The moral of the story for GM might be that a government that is powerful enough to give you what you want is also powerful enough to take away what you have.

Go here to read the whole thing.

NEXT: '[W]e know what happens when you criticize Muhammad, we know how some people react to that'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I weep for GM. Look at me playing the world’s tiniest violin.

  2. So none of that money goes to the victims, and GM maybe gets setup for another bailout. And Tony is still convinced that heavy handed regulations are the only way to protect consumers why?

    1. Because Tony is a moran.

      1. He’s Irish?

      2. Fun fact – Art Moran is a GM dealer in the Detroit area.

        www,artmoran.com

        1. Fun fact: Tony Moran is the actor who portrayed Jason Voihees in the original Halloween film.

          1. Voorhees. Fucking iphone…

  3. The DOJ is full of shit. I did a rough estimate when the issue first came to press. The probability of the fault causing a fatal accident is in the range of 10-9 to 10-10 per vehicle mile.

    GM noted the problem and issued advise not to hang heavy key chains from the ignition. Then they began the process of phasing the part out of production.

    The ford pinto this ain’t.

    1. We’ve gone over this, but why in the world would a liability criteria be limited to the cause of fatal accidents per driven mile?

      1. Go the fuck away

        1. I know you’re wedded to this standard you learned somewhere along the way, but it’s illogical.

          1. I design safety critical systems for living.

            You are a wet-behind-the-ears new-grad that knows jackshit about engineering and safety processes.

            So seriously, go die in a fire.

            1. This is why lawyers like me (newly minted or not) love to get smug engineers like you on the stand. You’re putting forward data for the wrong question.

              1. Bo is a lawyer in every way! Except for all the ways that actually makes one a lawyer.

              2. Bo puts people on the stand. Except that he’s never put anyone on the stand. But he loves it! Even though he’s never done it.

                1. My, but you’re excitable today FS.

                  1. My, you’re a liar, as usual Bobo.

                    1. You seem to be the only one lying here, FS.

                    2. You seem to be the only one lying here, FS.

                      Really?

                      This is why lawyers like me (newly minted or not) love to get smug engineers like you on the stand. You’re putting forward data for the wrong question.

                      You said this today. I suppose that was a sock too.

                    3. I am a lawyer today. I graduated and passed the bar recently. It’s that time of year for 3L’s, you know?

                      But, like Warty’s bench press personal bests or RC Dean’s corvette and Harvard degree that both posts about on here, of course it’s fair to not believe me. I can’t and am not going to prove it to someone on an anyomous web forum. So let’s settle for answering the question, regardless of who asked it?

                    4. I am a lawyer today. I graduated and passed the bar recently. It’s that time of year for 3L’s, you know?

                      Then you must have the command of physics to alter the workings of space- time. The S.C. Bar exam is offered in February and July. To qualify to sit for the exam:

                      The South Carolina Office of Bar Admissions says that you must receive a Juris Doctor (JD) or Bachelor of Laws (LLB) degree from a law school that was approved by the Council of Legal Education of the American Bar Association at the time you received the degree, in order to be eligible to take the state’s bar exam.

                      And then it takes about three months to even get the scores.

                      http://www.lawyeredu.org/south-carolina.html

                      So, no.

                    5. Thanks, Dalasio.

                      There is no way a May graduate has taken a bar exam. Not possible. All bar exams in all states are offered on exactly the same schedule – February and July.

                      So, he either graduated in December (highly unlikely) and took the bar in February, in which case its remarkable we didn’t hear about it before now.

                      Or he’s lying. Any real 3L or law student would know that what new grads are doing right now is studying for the bar, so I’m about ready to say he’s been lying about being a law student.

                    6. Shorter RC, “Open the window; it stinks like shit in here.”

                    7. I don’t have a Corvette. Never had.

                      The Dean family has two cars: a 2008 FJ Cruiser and a 2014 FJ Cruiser. Pretty much as far as you can get from having a Corvette.

              3. This is why lawyers like me

                You mean, non-lawyers like you?

                Because you’re not a lawyer.

              4. Bo the only reason you like ‘smug engineers’ is because the only question you’ll ask is ‘what get my client (and me) a payday’.

                Not, is this a serious issue.
                Not, how does this compare to other risks.
                Not, is my client a moron who brought this upon themselves.

                1. Here’s who will think it’s a serious issue when said smug engineer gets on the stand and acts like he knows all the info but is giving it to an irrelevant question: me, my plaintiff and his employer!

                2. If he’s Bo’s client, doesn’t it follow that he’s a moron?

                  Yes, I’m a smug engineer too.

            2. I design safety critical systems for living.

              “If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don’t do one.”

              1. Like I said, kinnath is giving a very informed answer to the wrong question.

                1. You are no where near a smart as you think you are.

                  1. You are no where near a smart as you think you are.

                    But his mommy says he’s really smart! And likeable too! The fact that no one likes him just means they’re jealous of how smart and likeable he is! It couldn’t possibly be him! Because his mommy said so!

                    1. Here’s what’s great about sarcasmic: he doesn’t just stop with the hilarious, schoolyard level argument of ‘no one likes you,’ he doubles down by basing it on the fact that a lot of people whom I disagree with on a particular web forum don’t like me. Hey, sarcasmic, if you posted on a liberal site, do you think you’d be liked? Would that prove something about how liked you are outside that forum?

                      It’s actually triply good, because I’ve pointed this out to sarcasmic before. He’s got no answer but to wait a week or two and just parrot the line again.

                    2. Bo Cara Esq.|5.29.15 @ 11:55AM|#
                      “[…]he doesn’t just stop with the hilarious, schoolyard level argument of ‘no one likes you,'[…]”

                      You poor, insufferable shit; it’s not that no one likes you. It’s that most everyone despises you.
                      Fuck off.

                    3. Way to build on his triple failure there Sevo!

                    4. He’s got no answer…

                      Just because people don’t dignify your inane questions with answers doesn’t mean they don’t have any.

                    5. sarcasmic want a cracker!

                    6. If global warming is real because a majority of self-appointed experts say it is, then Blue is annoying because a majority of self-appointed libertarians say he is. Logic is fun!

              2. +1 What car company do you work for?

                1. I do not work for a car company.

                  1. My reply was for

                    Rhywun|5.29.15 @ 11:38AM|#

                    I design safety critical systems for living.
                    “If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don’t do one.”

                    1. ok. nesting failure. at some point they all hit the end.

          2. I know you’re wedded to this standard

            No, Tulpa, we want you to go away because we think you’re an asshole.

      2. I don’t know Bo. Maybe we should ask you, as the “newly minted attorney” that isn’t actually a newly minted attorney. I think that makes you the resident expert who isn’t really an expert. But make no mistake, you are for all intents and purposes an attorney, if we set aside for a moment the fact that you’re not actually an attorney.

        1. No one wants to take a crack at it, eh?

          1. You’re basically a neurosurgeon too, except that you’re not a neurosurgeon. That’s how that works right?

            1. It’s so simple no one can explain it. I like that.

              1. You’re the expert, Bobo.

              2. You’re doing a bang up job as both an engineer and a lawyer Bo.

                Maybe if you turn a few more passive observers/jurors in favor of the SME, you’ll come out looking like a proper shyster.

                1. As usual, engineers have a lot of information, now if only they knew it’s relevance to the question at hand.

                  1. We can’t all be fake lawyers like you, Bo.

                    1. You’re a real something FS, and whatever that is seems either unwilling or incapable of answering my question, let it be noted.

                    2. Maybe I could just pretend that was a sock puppet. That works so well for you.

                  2. As usual, engineers have a lot of information, now if only they knew it’s relevance to the question at hand.

                    Actually engineers usually know the relevance their information is to the question at hand. The problem is lawyers, politicians, and far too often lay people don’t care what the answer really is and will distort and/or misquote the facts to mislead the public to get what they want.

                    From what I’ve seen you already are an expert at distorting and misquoting.

        2. You know that yesterday’s orange Bo, who didn’t have a period on Esq, was a joke/troll/sock/whatever, right?

          1. They ‘know’ whatever makes them happy about whatever.

          2. It’s exactly as real as this one is.

          3. You know he referred to himself as a newly minted attorney again in this thread right? You know he’s repeatedly passed himself off as an attorney in the past? This is the same lying blowhard, have no doubt.

            1. “You know he referred to himself as a newly minted attorney again in this thread right?”

              It was a reference to your use of the term smart guy.

              “You know he’s repeatedly passed himself off as an attorney in the past?”

              No, never, always up front I was a law student (until recently when I graduated).

              Any more lies?

            2. The other one with the link in its name and no period is a clear sock. Notice how easy it was for the puppeteer to nail Bo’s voice. That should tell the people who think Tulpa’s too stupid to pull off running the Bo character for this long something.

              1. Fantasies and obsessions mix well, right Warty?

              2. This is why lawyers like me (newly minted or not) love to get smug engineers like you on the stand. You’re putting forward data for the wrong question.

                I suppose this is fake Bo too? In fact, let’s just assert that Bo has never lied or said anything stupid and every time that seems to have happened, it was just a sock puppet. Ergo, Bo is always right. The real Bo anyways.

                1. It’s funny that “real” Bo made the same mistake as “fake” Bo, isn’t it? Anyone who’s been through law school ought to know that graduating doesn’t make one a lawyer.

                  1. That’s right, you take the bar too.

                    1. I see you’ve figured out some things since yesterday

          4. MJ, I missed that missing period.

            The mimicry was pitch-perfect.

            Ah, well.

            1. And so easily done. Real Bo’s not real either. Why do you think he was instantly confrontational when he arrived here a year or so ago? Because he already knew us and hated us.

              1. Bo is minge?

            2. Was the mimicry “perfect”? The writing was totally sloppy. Unless he was also drunk or something, Bo wouldn’t have all those grammatical mistakes.

              People wanted it to be Bo because they want to believe he is that stupid and obnoxious. He is stupid and obnoxious, but that was clearly an impression pushed to the extreme.

              1. “People wanted it to be Bo because they want to believe he is that stupid and obnoxious.”

                Wanted? Nay, *needed* it.

                You have to love FS and Warty, they get taken in and then crow about it the next day. To most grown people this kind of thing would be a wake up call to ease up on the obsessions.

                  1. Yo Free Society, how much ya bench?

              2. Was the mimicry “perfect”?

                The insecure braggadocio, the half-smart assertions, the snarky focus on irrelevancies, the dismissal of anyone who disagreed or challenged . . . .

                Yeah, it was a good fake. If it was a fake.

      3. but why in the world would a liability criteria be limited to the cause of fatal accidents per driven mile

        What else would you base it on? Doesn’t that metric provide a parameter or probability? Shouldn’t that probability be used to determine if the fault lies with the operator, or the manufacturer?

        What else are you going to do – say it failed and it’s a design flaw, so give my client (oh, and me!) a big fucking check?

        1. I’d say my client had this accident and the accident was caused by the feature in question, which clearly doesn’t work the way it’s supposed to (GM admits this).

          1. And, the probability of failure being infinitesimally low would never come into question? It is so low as to be improbable – and would point toward an exacerbating cause, like operator error? Would that ever work into your thinking – or are you more interested in simply scoring a big settlement?

            1. For one thing, it depends on the cause of action, right?

              But let’s concede that in some causes of action that kind of question might be relevant. Still, the probability of failure criteria shouldn’t be limited to just fatalities per whatever.

          2. And if I were on that jury you would have just lost the case because I am smart enough to know the difference between “presents a small chance of catastrophic failure” and “does not work as designed”.

            Your entire argument is based on a lie and any reasonably intelligent person would know that.

            Of course this is why scumbag lawyers like you would never in a million years let someone like me on the jury

            1. You got the scumbag right, lawyer is not right. Although Bo is qualified for Hell just as a lawyer would be…

      4. Shouldn’t liability be limited to, I don’t know, actual damages?

    2. For anyone that cares, GM is absolutely liable for the injuries caused by the defective part in their product. What is bullshit is the DOJ is pursuing criminal charges against GM for a defect that only becomes apparent through the negligence of the operator of the vehicle and which only results in a death once every billion or so vehicle miles.

      1. “For anyone that cares, GM is absolutely liable for the injuries caused by the defective part in their product.”

        My entire point.

        1. Now, follow it through.

          They’re absolutely liable for making a conceded defective part. They had knowledge the part was defective and still released the product into the stream of commerce. But they put out an advisory not to hang heavy keys on it and vehicle miles!!! so there is no basis for this action? Lol. The contributory negligence misanalysis alone is worth it!

          1. Re: Bo Cara Esq.

            They’re absolutely liable for making a conceded defective part.

            A defective part would be one that does not perform the job it was designed to do. If a doorknob does not turn when torque is applied to it, that part is defective. If a part does not work as intended because the actions taken by the human operator are beyond the intended standard operating procedures, that’s a different matter. You cannot accuse the company of being malicious because operators were not following the standard operating procedures.

            1. And the ignition key was not supposed turn off the airbags when gently bumped. Gentle bumps and even (gasp) heavy keys are foreseeable btw.

              1. Re: Bo Cara Esq.

                And the ignition key was not supposed turn off the airbags when gently bumped.

                I don’t know about “gently bumped”. What is that? How much force is “gently bumped”? I only know newtons as the measure of force, not “gentlys”, and I am sure the GM engineers had the same reaction when someone mentioned “gentle bump”. What I suspect is that there may have been a flaw that was very difficult to debug, but that does not mean the GM engineers designed the part to maliciously turn-off the airbags.

      2. Re: kinnath,

        For anyone that cares, GM is absolutely liable for the injuries caused by the defective part in their product.

        Only for those cases where the plaintiffs can prove damages directly attributable to that defect, which is nearly impossible in most cases. People in the past have driven cars that are 10 times more dangerous to drive than the current models and most of the cases where injuries have happened can be directly attributable to the drivers’ lack of ability or some type of impairment.

        What is bullshit is the DOJ is pursuing criminal charges against GM

        That’s no bullshit. It’s a space station.

    3. But a broke-ass government it is.

      Of course, part of the reason the government is broke is because its regulatory fetish for the last 60 years is coming home to roost by killing private sector employment.

  4. So the DOJ is going to prosecute the same company that Obama used as a shining example of his success as President? Obama saved GM from bankruptcy (supposedly) and now his DOJ is likely to push them right back into it. Democrats have an amazing ability to fix a problem by replacing it with one that is larger and more costly.

    1. Well said…

  5. A de jure arm of the federal government sues a de facto arm of the federal government, and this will play out in the media with the normal sober reflection: CAPITALISM AMOK.

    1. Weren’t the cars in question designed before the bailout?

      1. Wasn’t the issue rattling around GM before, during, and after the bailout, during which nothing was done to mitigate the potential harm while the executives, typical of bureaucrats, claim to have known nothing? As a company they should be bankrupted, consolidated, folded up and sold off piecemeal to pay off victims, debtholders, investors, and pensioners. Under the aegis of the feds they’re under no such threat and they act like it.

        1. Of course the government shouldn’t have given them a cent.

          But if someone wants to claim it was the company pre-bailout that was at fault here, they’re largely correct.

          1. Agreed. And they needn’t act as if they were, nor are they now, and that colors the whole organization a client if not an extremity of the federal government.

            1. And I happily concede your point that the government had some knowledge of this issue, or reason to look into it, when they took our money and gave it to GM. At the very least it gives another reason why government should not do that sort of thing.

              1. I’m more concerned with firms behaving like bureaucracies because they’re largely insulated from risk and can grow precipitously and act perilously. Government will do what it does with its usual degree of graft and incompetence, but GM at this point is little different from Freddie and Fannie.

          2. Which just lends more weight to the fact that they should never have received the bailout in the first place.

            The question in my mind is did the executives, and by extension the Administration, know about this defect before the bailout. Because it’s one thing to bailout a company that is under-performing (still fucking stupid as shit), but it’s a whole ‘nother ball game to bailout a company that is under-performing and making inferior/defective products (Tony and shriek levels of retardedness).

            1. Well said.

            2. it’s a whole ‘nother ball game to bailout a company that is under-performing and making inferior/defective products

              Boy, somebody in DC reaaaaly loves Detroit, huh?

              1. Does Merkin jerbs doe

            3. If memory serves, this defect issue was coming to a head about the time the bailout was going through, hence the liability shield. This gets the absurd result that GM was protected by the government from damage claims by people who were actually harmed but does not protect it from the government intends to extract a few pounds of flesh for its own use.

      2. Bo used to be a top executive for Chevy, if you can set aside the fact that he was never an executive for Chevy. He knows his shit, except that he doesn’t actually know his shit. So listen up peasants.

  6. So basically, the government is suing companies to get the funding they are denied by Congress. Gee sounds like they are running a protection racket….

    1. Nice corporation you got here. Be a shame if anything happened to it….

    2. Gee sounds like they are running a protection racket….

      I’m no Bo, but I think at the point where you stop protecting your ‘client’ companies and start beating the money out of them it’s just extortion.

  7. I have a Cobalt. They fixed the ignition quickly. No problem. I agree this is not the Pinto. Not even close.
    Every time I think I’ve seen the limit of how bad government can be, they always up the ante. In that regard, it-they never disappoint(s).

    1. I have a Cobalt.

      I’m sorry.

      1. Why? They’re perfectly nice, reliable, economical transport. The steering and suspension aren’t great (unless it’s the SS Turbocharged, which is muthafuckin awesome) but the ride’s nice and it handles well enough.

  8. A Dalmia article that’s not about knuckle-dragging opponents of open borders or the intricacies of Indian politics. I’ll be damned.

    1. She writes about Detroit, including the Big Three quite a bit. Your inflamed sensitivities on the other subjects may have caused you to overlook that.

      1. Bo, Esquire. The attorney who wasn’t.

      2. If by “quite a bit” you mean one other time this year, than sure.

    2. GM went astray when they forgot their Hindu heritage!

    3. That’s not uncommon at all, actually. Just look at April and May alone. You may be suffering from confirmation bias.

  9. You’re all going to play with Tulpa then?

    1. It really makes you upset, doesn’t it?

    2. Maybe you missed it yesterday. I would be remiss if I let him forget that his lying, blowhard foolishness was on full display.

      1. I didn’t post the past few days, busy working and such. Did you get taken in by a sock?

        1. Lies come so easy to you. I can understand why you’d claim that wasn’t you yesterday. It’s pretty damn embarrassing. Yet today you still pass yourself off as an attorney and act like the guy yesterday wasn’t you. We’ll have to take you at your totally trustworthy word.

          1. Lol, even Warty seems to concede it was a sock (just for him, it’s false but factual!). You were taken in. What a rube.

          2. FS, it was definitely a different handle. He certainly could’ve registered a second handle that was almost identical to the first one, used it for a day and reverted to this one, but that’s unlikely.

            1. A piece of punctuation that can be easily added or removed proves what? The fact that he in this very thread claimed to be a lawyer I guess means for that one single post the evil sock puppet returned.

              1. It can’t be easily added or removed. It’s a totally separate handle. I’m making no other comment about Bo, just that creating a sock with a tiny change in the name isn’t an uncommon way to sock. Be upset with him for stuff he’s said as “Bo Cara Esq.”, but it was definitely a different handle. It could’ve been him, but it would be weird to create a fake, almost identical second handle and then return to the first.

                A few months ago Jordan was posting and someone started posting as “Jordan.” on the same day. People didn’t notice because the handle was so minimally different and got shirty with “Jordan” over things “Jordan.” was saying.

                1. I just added three exclamation points to my name in 5 seconds flat.

                  1. Then I removed them in another 5 seconds. It’s unfortunate and certainly facilitates the art of sock puppetry, but it’s easy to do.

                  2. Wow, he doesn’t get it…

                  3. You should be careful about that. If you change your handle you open your old handle up to being stolen.

                    1. You should be careful about that. If you change your handle you open your old handle up to being stolen.

                      Well I survived this time 🙂

                2. I figured he changed his handle to something else, then changed it back and forgot the period.

                  Machs nicht. Just filter the regular expression “Bo.*Cara” from the name in reasonable and one doesn’t have to bother either with the garbage or the garbage pretending to be garbage.

                  1. I figured he changed his handle to something else, then changed it back and forgot the period.

                    Calling someone a sock puppet is generally cheap and easy to do. But with Bo the shoe fits and that’s the safe assumption I was working from.

                    Just filter the regular expression “Bo.*Cara” from the name in reasonable and one doesn’t have to bother either with the garbage or the garbage pretending to be garbage.

                    I’m not a fan of filters. Genuine stupidity must be quashed lest it infects an innocent bystander.

                    1. You can’t quash Bo. She’s an unflushable.

                      What people do when they interact with her is quash interesting, legitimately educational discussions.

                    2. I sincerely hope Bo’s not a woman, because if she didn’t have her period yesterday than that means there will be Bo-spawn in a little less than a year…

              2. Fine. I guess since I’ve beenmworkingmin a law office and just graduated I consider myself an attorney. I’m not,doing,litigation obviously but I am doing the legwork.

                Come on man, it’s not just the handle. It’s the entire style. When has Bo ever written something as bad as the above?

                Maybe he is some master troll, and this is a triple or quadruple fake out, using a sock of a sock to embiggen the first sock, or whatever the hell, but… come on. Occam’s razor.

                1. They all got taken in because it’s what they wanted so very, very badly.

                  Why grown men would invest that level of emotionality into what could at most be a ‘troll’ and at least is some anyomous poster that disagrees with them on a website is beyond me. But as I understand it a lot of people who have unsatisfying ‘real’ lives invest a lot into their online ‘communities.’

      2. Licensing laws are stupid, but I try to not go around calling myself an Architect or an Engineer, since I don’t have my license yet (plus I don’t want to get fucked with by the Boards).

        What a moron to say that in writing. Jesus, at least put air quotes around it.

        1. I agree. But if you’re going to be a blowhard, best not to lie about your credentials.

        2. It’s not like anonymous web forums need to have professional licensing standards followed meticulously on them.

          1. Ideally in web forums it’s better for everyone if people debate in good faith. Even when anonymous, a person not debating in good faith needs to be called out.

            1. Yeah, someone who doesn’t believe in basic liberties like immigration rights such as yourself shouldn’t go around with the handle ‘Free Society,’ but I prefer to just point out your statist arguments than to criticize your bad faith handle.

              1. Immigration rights? You have a right to someone else’s property? You have a right to stolen property? Interesting conception of rights you have there.

                1. Rather than getting into that whole thing with you, let’s just note you’ve lost your ability to detect sarcasm here.

                  1. So are you asserting that immigration is a fundamental right or not? What part of your post was sarcastic exactly?

                    1. Swoosh!

                    2. If you’re going to swoosh someone, the sarcasm needs to have been readily apparent. Do you even know what wooooooshed over my head?

                    3. Do you know what sarcasm actually is? It’s a factual statement that I don’t believe in “immigration rights”. But yeah, you woooshed me real good.

          2. It is possible that I am overly cautious and a little paranoid about licensing boards. But that’s mainly for their ability to severely fuck up your entire life by fucking with your career.

  10. The moral of the story for GM might be that a government that is powerful enough to give you what you want is also powerful enough to take away what you have.

    Only because the right people weren’t in charge. Oh, wait….

    1. Whaaaooooh take me to the zoo!

      Down a winding road
      with the botards screamin

  11. Toyota was forced to cough up for its accelerating cars.

    And considering Toyota didn’t really even have accelerating cars, that’s pretty significant.

    in other news, I heard the economy shrank a bit, I know my portfolio is suffering this morning more than usual.

    I guess Yellen can always lower interest rates to get the economy going again.

    Oh wait.

    1. The statute of limitations has to have run out on those Supra turbos by now.

    2. She could make interest rates negative and then the government would just pay banks to hold money.

      1. Government pay the banks… that’s an idea I hadn’t thought of…

  12. The moral of the story for GM might be that a government that is powerful enough to give you what you want is also powerful enough to take away what you have.

    definitely.

    They took money away from others and gave it to GM – after skimming off a percentage for themselves.

    Then they took that money away from GM anyway.

    1. Don’t forget the money that got laundered back to the DNC through the UAW.

  13. Such a missed opportunity:

    The DOJ is About to Take General Motors on a Rough Nickel Ride.

    1. More like 40 billion nickels.

    2. TRIGGER WARNING! MICROAGGRESSION!!

  14. The lord taketh, and the lord giveth away.

  15. The devil in this story is an unmentioned filthy, despicable federal prosecutor by the name of Preet Bharara.

    Phoney Americans like Bharara ought to be deported to Caracas or Havana. They are worse than any “islamic” male. Bharara is pure human garbage.

  16. For what it’s worth, if Bo graduated a few weeks ago, there’s no way he’s taken the South Carolina bar exam. The exam is only offered in July and February and requires proof of graduation. Stop treating the sock like a real person.

    Qualifications for Admission, Rule 402 of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules (SCACR)
    No person shall be admitted to the practice of law in South Carolina unless the person:

    (1) is at least twenty-one (21) years of age;

    (2) is of good moral character;

    (3) has received a JD or LLB degree from a law school which was approved by the Council of Legal Education of the American Bar Association at the time the degree was conferred. An approved law school includes a school that is provisionally approved by the Council. An applicant who has not provided proof of graduation by July 10th for the July Bar Examination or February 10th for the February Bar Examination shall not be allowed to sit for the examination. An applicant, however, who has not graduated may sit for the examination if the law school certifies in writing that the applicant has completed all requirements for graduation by July 10th for the July Bar Examination or February 10th for the February Bar Examination; the applicant must provide proof of graduation by April 1 following the February Bar Examination or October 1 following the July Bar Examination;

    1. Bo has proven himself to be a liar who argues in bad faith. Anyone who has been unfortunate enough to attempt an honest discussion with him should realize this, and take any claims he makes with a grain of salt.

      1. Does that remind you of anyone? Anyone whose old handle began with the letter T?

        1. I seem to recall those two being in the same room though.

          1. Tulpa has a long history of talking to himself. Remember Rollo?

            1. Thankfully I missed those threads. But I remember hearing about them. Someone’s got to be one heck of a loser to post under multiple names. As pathetic as my cat that paws at me for attention while I’m getting dressed.

              1. I have one that does that. She knows how to get what she wants.

    2. Warty’s a college expert, he’s already told us that college students are virgins. Also in Warty’s college experience, I guess, people never walk in the Spring graduation ceremony that completed all of their requirements in the Fall semester!

      Lol, poor, obsessed Warty, he’s sniffing so hard but doesn’t know where to sniff.

    3. Note also that law schools are strict about entering and graduation dates. If you people want to continue to believe that Bo is a lawyer, have fun.

      1. He fucked up, pretty badly. He can’t walk it back now.

        1. Oh, he can, because idiots will continue to play with him. It’s worked for him for a bunch of different handles for a decade, why would it change now?

        2. Its such an elementary error that not even a real law student would make it.

          So I’m pretty sure he’s been lying about that, too.

          Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus.

    4. My apologies for posting similar upthread. I hadn’t seen your comment.

  17. So, pass a law that transfers all the fines to the debt service on our deficit and outlaw asset forfeiture to anywhere else except debt service for all government entities nationwide – forever. After due process of course, no asset freezing or forfeiture without a conviction.

  18. I think it’s a good time to remind everybody of this:

    They dominate the Internet by blocking access to independent websites, hiring “trolls” to flood comments pages with pro-regime spam, and paying hackers to vandalize opposition online media sites.

  19. Wow. Way to Botox a perfectly-good thread.

    Fuck GM. Fuck the government even more.

    1. Yeah, it really sucks….. I just wish people would ignore her instead of letting her divert them.

    2. Meh. It’s a Dalmia article. She’s lucky to even get 30 comments.

  20. There was a young lady of Niger
    Who smiled as she rode on a tiger;
    They returned from the ride
    With the lady inside,
    And the smile on the face of the tiger.

  21. I love opening up the comments to find that 90% of them are a lame ass slap fight with bo/tony. Sad face emoticon.

  22. I wondered how this post got so many comments. Now I know.
    .
    Here’s what else I want to know: will Rick Wagoner be going to the slammer?
    Because he should, for the merciless campaign of wealth destruction he carried out as head of GM.

  23. I take umbrage with Shikha’s first sentence. The $10B was to save the UAW from bankruptcy, not GM. As you may/may not recall, the administration put GM through a legally specious “accelerated” bankruptcy process.

  24. embiggen the first sock

    awesome album name.

  25. How US Government Works:

    1. Car maker builds defective car
    2. People die in defective car
    3. US Government fines car company billions.
    4. Vitims families receive basically nothing
    5. Profit!!!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.