I've got a 2002 Jeep Grand Cherokee and I only have had to change the oil, fill with gas, and wash it. It runs great. But, I fear those days of quality auto products are over for Chrysler. Please no more tax payer money to Chrysler to stay the inevitable consequences of union dominance and poor quality.

I owned a chrysler seabring. The top went bad quickly. There was a recal for a problem with the key. I got it fix and it simply broke again. The back passenger side window broke. I've noticed these same problems in other seabrings I've passed on the road. Quite frankly it was a nice car but I simply cannot afford the upkeep. Not to mention it drank guzzeled gas.

But, I'd like to comment on the bailouts of the auto industry. I've read many complain about the bailouts of both the auto industry and the banks and while I commiserate and understand the complaint I believe many are not looking at the whole story.

Had it only been one company failing, the government would not have bailed out it out. Were it -just- chrysler, they would have gone out of business. Had it been -just- AIG, they would have gone out of business.

But the mass bailouts, while unsavory, were nessesary in avoiding a second depression. And while I understand and share the concern over these bailouts, they were indeed nesessary to our economc survival.

Hey Ender, Chrysler was bailed out in the past while the other auto makers were doing well. This was their second bailout.....and they still suck.

could be wrong, but wasn't chrysler hooked up with mercedes for a while, then mercedes bailed on them, and now fiat owns them? looks like the germans screwed the italians again.

Ender:

The new Sebring I had (past tense) had 18K miles on it. My family and I were on vacation about 300 miles from home on the freeway (about 65mph) when I lost total control of the car, traveled over three lanes of travel sideways and wound up on the medium.

When I got out to see the hell happened, I found the passenger front wheel was 45% offset from the other tire. The ball-joint broke, the front-end collapsed locking the tire to the body and causing extensive panel damage.

The mechanic (not Chrysler) replaced the ball-joint and found the other side was cracked and ready to snap open as well. After paying $500+ to repair, Chrsyler refused to own up to it and reimburse me (it was a Sunday and the dealers were closed).

My wife refused to ride in from that point on. I sold it immediately afterwards.

I'm assuming you are refering to the Loans given them in 1979 to keep them solvent.

The government did not "bail them out" but cosigned on loans from private banks that chrysler paid off in 1983.

I admit that chrysler makes an inferior product and will most likely go out of business eventually. But that does not change my argument. Had it been just chrysler, and had the economy not been in shambles, they would very likely have either gone out of business or declared bankruptcy.

ALL actions are judged from a point of persective. In 79 we were having economic problems due to the oil shortage. In the mid to late 2000's we were in dire straights due to the resession we continue to struggle out of now.

I agree that had the govenment borrowed money from china to bail one company it should have had its collective ass handed to it.

But as things stand, had we not bailed out the MANY banks and the auto industry most of our economy would have crumbled and things would be tragic at this very moment. We've avoided soup lines, mass lootings, and government cheese thanks to the bailouts.

Sometimes you have to do things you wouldn't normally do to continue to survive and to whine about it after the fact is ......... convinent.

Hindsight is always 20-20 you know?

Rallyforge.

I'm sorry to hear that but am glad no one was hurt. I wish the auto industry would take a lesson from other nations and start prducing cars that run well and are good on gas. At least Ford is turning in that direction but have you seen the new line ups at the auto show this year? Near every car manufacturer is producing small CUVs and electric and hybrid vehicals that are small efficent and likely quite dependable. Ford included.

But not Chrysler. They trotted out their new "retro" car. The things is a throwback to the mid to late 70's.

I simply cannot understand what they are thinking.

I really like the header paragraph:

Chrysler Group LLC lost a staggering $3.8 billion from the time it left bankruptcy protection June 10 through the end of last year, but the automaker says its fortunes have improved.

Lose $ 3,800,000,000 in six months BUT "fortunes have improved" !!! If my household budget went over $50 this month, I would be extremely upset.

What a great way to run a company by the government and a great news article by MSNBC. The pot of gold is at the end of the rainbow.

• Does this mean the Economy is improving ?
• How about the unemployment rates declining ?
• The housing market is recovering ?
• Small businesses foreclosure bubble is not coming ?
• The National deficit is being payed down ?
• Our elected leaders are now working for the public instead of special interest groups ?
• Iran is dismantling it's nuclear weapons program ?
• Our troops have been pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan ?
• Our borders have been permanently secured ?

Guess these will be the future MSNBC "NEWS" articles.

I thought the headline was from "The Onion" when I first saw it.

Chrysler has $4 billion loss, but sees progress
Kinda reminds me of jobs saved and created. The rest of the losers in this country probably think that if President Obama can get away with this crap they can too. We are soooo screwed.

their idea of "progress" is to lose enough money to qualify for another bailout out taxpayer expense. Let's let Toyota and Chrysler go under simply to send the message we are mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.

Only in a Government run automobile company could a 4 billion dollar loss be spun as progress...

Hmmm....a company that is now a collaboration between Union and Government and they are losing money. Shocking!

The administration needs to make one of the bailed out too big to fail banks buy Chrysler. The bank's record profits would be wiped out, the combined will still squeak out a little profit, and the ridiculous bonuses to the execs would evaporate. Solves problems on many levels....right!!!

So, when are we going to get back the auto industry bail out money???

I'd like to make a couple of points clear. The taxpayers do not own Chrysler or any of the banks that benifitted from the bailouts. The government does not own or run any of these businesses that money has been lent or given to through the bailouts.

I know some of you wish to claim that the bailouts were a "government takover". You do this to try and gain politcial points but in exaggerating, you cheapen your argument and make yourselves look uninformed or inconsolable.

You folks peeped not a peep during 9 trillion dollars of deficit spending under Republican administrations. To suddenly come out now screaming about overspending and attacks on your "liberty" where none exist leads to a great deal of disbelief in your "cause".

The fact of the matter is, you folks are only "fiscally conservative" when the -Democrats- are in power and your actions show this far more clearly than your snide comments.

Period.

Ender is right. And even more pertinent are some new numbers from Fortune Magazine (not Twitter or Facebook). Under the 700 billion TARP funding -

Only 376 billion has been paid out: 244.9 billion to banks; 45.34 to AIG; 79.69 to auto manufacturers; 1.27 for making homes affordable mortgage program; 4.71 for taking bad assets off bank balance sheets; and .1 billion for consumer and business lending.

Banks and auto manufacturers are paying back their loans with interest. Expected income is 165.2 billion from banks and others; 12.9 from interest and dividends; 4 billion from warrant income.

Net cost of the TARP AT THIS POINT IN TIME, appears to be 117 Billion, and NOT 700 Billion. I understand that to be half of what the 1980s S&L crisis cost.

117 Billion, NOT 700 Billion. In part because banks and auto companies ARE paying back their loans with interest.

Not nearly as horrible as some of you apparently hope. And something I'm happy to blame Obama and the current administration for.

As far as Chrysler. I don't expect them to survive, and I don't expect any more Government bailouts. If they and the unions and Fiat can't make it now, the won't make it. The rest of the economy is coming along fine and they're on their own this time.

What we need -

Source, please. Your numbers disagree with most I've seen, although I don't dispute that there does appear to be profit being made from these "ventures".

Ender -

If you believe that only Democrats voted for Democrats in '06 and '08 and thus got the non-conservative, big spending, RINO's and neo-cons thrown out of office, go ahead with that.

The fact is, the Republicans at the time - between Bush and Congress - were barely holding on to their base, much less the independent non-party affiliated voter. THAT'S who threw out the bums in '06 and '08, that's who elected Obama and the Democrats and that's who will throw the bums out in '10, from both parties.

Unfortunately, that will just mean a fresh crop of bums who are for sale to the highest bidder.

The broad swath, middle of the road voter rejects big spending, big government and corporatist policies - no matter which party is behind them. And if you think this is just about conservatism, or lack there of, you're mistaken about that, too.

It's bigger than that. Much bigger.

Ender-971496

While they may not own Chrysler, they do own GM with over 60% of the company.

Ender - I'd like to make a couple of points clear. The taxpayers do not own Chrysler or any of the banks that benifitted from the bailouts. The government does not own or run any of these businesses that money has been lent or given to through the bailouts.

"The U.S. government owns about 61 percent of the Detroit automaker (GM), which came in exchange for the aid." That is from an MSN article. The government DOES own GM. How you own that is up to you. I didn't bother to read the rest of your post because if you can lie with such conviction, then who knows if the rest of your post is fact or fiction.

If I had to guess, the rest of your post is a bunch of talking points on how the bad Republicans are, and how great the Democrats are. Let me clue you in on something - neither of them are REALLY looking out for you. Period.

Pragmatic.

Im not sure why you think I believe only Democrats voted for Democrats. I do not see where I alluded to that.

And to claim that "The broad swath, middle of the road voter rejects big spending, big government and corporatist policies - no matter which party is behind them" just doesn't seem the case.

I have to ask you. Where were the "middle of the road voters who are against big government and big spending" during the latest Bush administration? Where were the "Tea Parties" and calls for "Less spending and less government"?

Where were these voters when George Bush created the largest expansion in government in history? I truly didn't see them.

And yes, I realize the problem is larger than the argument I made but I'm not here to write a book nor attempt to point out every single problem we have as a nation.

This forum simply does not allow THAT much text to be posted.

Ender -

You alluded to that by asking the same question you asked again, "where were the Tea Party/middle of the road voters during the Bush administration?" As if they didn't vote, and contribute to throwing the Republicans out. They did.

The Tea Party movement actually started during the Bush administration, in response to HIS overspending and expansion of government not Obama's. Had Obama been the centrist he campaigned as, had he stuck by his promises of transparency, getting the lobbies out, change, etc., and NOT struck backroom deals with pharma and etc., the Tea Parties may have lost their steam. Quite the opposite has happened.

And when you have a fairly comprehensive study like this, conducted by what's largely viewed as reliable pollsters, that says 76% of the people in this country do not trust the government, that includes Democrats and Republicans. Read the text attached to this link, it's very interesting and informative - and certainly should not be a source of pride for either party, but since the Democrats are in control right now .... just saying. Making the assumption that the people objecting to Obama now weren't objecting to Bush is simply off base.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1569/trust-in-government-distrust-discontent-anger-partisan-rancor

Well if you were an American you'd care as our economy has been sold out by the GOP under the guise of "the free market". The GOP have been spreading our wealth acorss the world and wehn someone comes along and asks "Why not spend some of these monies on Americans for a change" they are screamed down as being socialist by the GOP and their mocking bird supporters.

Whatever country you live in must be doing at least half way well and I commend you. Hopefully we can eventually get our house in ored here in the United States also.

Right on Ender, Our country has been sold out. They should have let Crysler fail. GM or Ford could pick up the slack with sales and jobs.

Ender -

What's up with the partisan hackery? Are you THAT convinced that the GOP is the root of all evil? I'm not, it seems to me Congress and the balance of the government - no matter which party - is the root of all evil.

You can trace the roots of pretty much everything you've tried, in various posts, to lay squarely at the feet of the GOP and in most instances that GOVERNMENTAL malfeasance can be laid at the feet of both parties. I'm no fan of the GOP, so spare me the ranting because I could come back with an equally long and boring dissertation on the faults of the Democrats.

The big mistake isn't believing the Democrats or the Republicans - the mistake is believing the government, as long as they're selling legislation, regulation and enforcement to the highest bidder - whether it's big fat campaign contributions or pandering to voting blocks.

And the "you don't have a problem with the war, but you have a problem spending on Americans" line fails too, since in case you didn't notice, that was yet ANOTHER reason the Republicans got thrown out of office in '06 and '08 was ..... a problem with the war. To take it one step farther, spending borrowed money on anything is a bad idea to be avoided - whether it's war, bailing out companies that should just fail or latching on millions more Americans to the government tit.

Period.

The GOP sold our economy out? You make very valid points on your posts but you are looking at it through only one eye. You need to open the right one. between 2000 and 06 (and even before) numerous alarms were sounded by people working in both parties that the economy may crash. The people in power in BOTH parties ignored them. and now here we are.

Face it, both parties in congress and the white house are not taking care of americans (except welfare and unemployment, two programs that, by design, make it easier for people not to work). The money being repaid by these corps is a good thing and I'm glad to see they are paying it back, BUT what is the govt doing with it? giving it to americans? No. Paying down the debt? No. Using it to pay for the crappy health care bill that was passed? No.

Neither democrats or republicans are going to be getting our house in order anytime soon. they are too busy worrying about re-election. Gotta keep those corporate sponsers happy.

Draconas:

You're lucky that you never had issues. Three cars, nothing by problems, stike three you're out.

Maybe. I live in a big Dodge town though, and to my discredit, my grandfather worked for Chrysler for 20 years I believe it was, so I'm probably a bit biased. =)

Your family just got used to keep fixing as you have no idea what is a good modern vehicle is like.

A loss is "getting back up?"

Umm..no, we didn't have to keep fixing them, sorry. Ford on the other hand, we've had nothing but bad from them. =/

Toyota does not need any help, they are self destructing. How do you connect Obama with the Toyota problems ? Time to pull your head out.

Toyota and the Catholic church have done a pretty good job of destroying themselves because of their long standing policies of cover up and denial rather than openly facing and correcting their problems. This is old world thinking.

15 years ago Bill Gates was a rube sitting on a pile of cash. Once the politicians in the U.S. and Europe became aware of it, they descended on him to pick his pockets. It's the same with Toyota. They have dumb, old world management but are sitting on a pile of cash. The politicians will pick their pockets and, with so much blood in the water, the trial lawyers and everyone else will pile on.

I was wondering how long until the locusts gathered..I would really like to understand the broken logic that everything bad that happens is somehow connected to Obama, I really would.

Bill: Toyota's destroying themselves? Who are you listening to? NBC News ran an in-depth story the other evening on how Toyota owners refuse to believe the smear job, and continue to praise the product. Also, Toyota's sales were up 41% last month. Doesn't sound like destruction to me.

Hey Draconas...you just may be having select memory problems...everything something bad happened from 2000-2008, Bush got blamed for it by the Liberal media.

Now that he's out, he's still being blamed, and if you show one bit of distaste for Obama, for any reason, you're nothing more than a redneck, obstructionist, gun-toting, teabagging racist.

Yes,, the Left in this country is SOOO intelligent.

Oh come now Bob you know you are exaggerating. When those towers were taken taken down we ALL rallied around Bush. I never liked the man. Never trusted him or republican policies of "do as we say, not as we do". But when those towers were taken down Bush was MY president and I and most Democrats supported him and would have taken up arms to fight for him and our nation.

Unfortunatly Bush decide to wage a personal war against Saddam instead of attacking the real culprits and many of us rasied our eyebrows in collective befuddlement.

He took our trust and patriotism and used them to forward his personal agenda and for THAT he is and should be dispised.

Ender

Right on again. Seems to me, that when the republicans saw that we belived Bush's lies about WMD's, they could tell us anything they wanted. Case in point is their mouthpeice Rush Limpjaw. The brain dead republicans take this weasles lies as gospel.

Ender -

Bush also started the big rush of bailouts you seem to be so enamored of.

Was he still "your president" then, or are you going to (falsely) give Obama credit for that?

Because that's sort of typical hypocrisy: Within the past 15 months, if it was/is bad, it was all Bush's fault. If it was/is good, Obama did it.

You do realize, right, that as much as we find the excuses for the Iraq war abhorrent now, they were the prevailing intelligence at the time and were supported in bi-partisan votes in both houses of Congress?

I was not a Bush fan, by any stretch - nor am I a fan of Obama's. Why? Because he's doing the same crap Bush did of which I was not a fan - spending too much money and ignoring the American people, maintaining the Patriot Act, continuing the wars, etc.

So, Ender, is this about the actual President and his policies for you, or is it about party?

Sorry buddy, the evidence was made up. Congress was lied to just like we were. It's easy to call it bipartisan when they were lied to equally.

Prove that.

Chysler is not a government entity so your point is moot.

Ender

You should give up argueing with these fools. They have more crap between their ears than in their combined butts.

Chrysler is a "government entity" to the extent that they would no longer exist without the government (more accurately, taxpayers) money and intervention.

Close enough for government and union work, especially given the industry, wouldn't you say?

Chrysler should be out of business.

http://www.motortrend.com/oftheyear/truck/112_1002_2010_motor_trend_truck_of_the_year_winner_ram_heavy_duty/index.html

Just one opinion showing that not everyone thinks Chrysler is behind the times. In fact, according to the article, the Ram truck was ahead of its time, fitting environmental requirements a year before they were set while other companies had to make changes.

My daughter has a Ram.....transmission went at less than 40,00 miles, air conditioner went in first year. Four wheel drive went as well. not to mention gazillions of little problems. Her son has had to come in his FORD truck to help her out several times.

Thank god for Ford.

Best damn trucks on the planet.

My nieghbor has a 2005 Ram and it's nickle-diming him to death. Most of his problems are suspension because they used a non-heavy duty suspension on a heavy duty truck and it cant handle it. (not real smart thinking there, Chrysler). He's been having dome mechanical problems with the deisel engine as well.

I have a 2006 F150 and so far the biggest issue I've had with it was a bad tire (dryrot because it sat on the dealer lot for over 400 days before I bought it at a steal of a price) I wanted bigger tires anyway, so it actually helped me to get my wife to let me spend the money. LOL

My father has a '97 Ram, runs good. Normal wear and tear, but that's unavoidable.

They nicknamed that car the "PT Looser". Chrysler was into fad cars for a while. They generally sell well for a couple of years, but the quality is pretty poor. The PT Looser had a pretty good run, but they couldn't give them away in the last couple of years.

Our little Wrangles works well but gets lousy gas mileage and is not really a quality car. We drag it behind our motohome...not for anything else.

To bad you show what a moron you are. Your comment is worth less than your GOP.

I notice you don't refute the argument, just call names. Obviously, you can't handle the truth or cannot understand the implications of ObaMao's health care program or the basics of economics.

Haven, you are right. The sad part is some won't see it until their doc tells them that the government guidelines restrict them from performing the procedure. Just like in England, where you can't get cataract surgery for an eye, unless you can prove you are legally blind in both, then you can get surgery on one of them.

I voted against Obama's communist policies, not for McCain.