"hk" wrote in message
. ..


DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

General Motors Corp. (GM) posted a stunning $15.5 billion second-quarter
net loss, as the auto maker piled up $9.1 billion in charges and
write-downs and suffered a deep drop in North American sales.

The company had warned in mid-July that it would post "a significant
second quarter loss." But the actual numbers were far worse than analysts
had expected, and point to the enormous challenges facing GM as buyers
turn away en masse from its most profitable offerings.

GM shares fell more than 7% in premarket trading to $10.20.

GM reported a net loss of $27.33 a share, compared with net income of $891
million, or $1.56 a share, a year earlier. Excluding items, the loss was
$6.3 billion, or $11.21 a share.

Revenue fell 18% to $38.2 billion.

Analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters had been looking for a loss,
excluding items, of $2.62 a share on revenue of $44.57 billion.

GM's Latin American operation was a bright spot - profit rose to $445
million from $296 million. But Asia swung to loss and European profits
tumbled 94%.

Excluding charges, the North American business had a $4.3 billion loss as
revenue dropped by one-third to $19.8 billion, pushing market share down
to 20.2% from 22.7%.

A year ago, GM swung to a second-quarter profit as it relied on continued
strength in international operations and a slim profit in its core North
American automotive unit to dramatically improve its bottom line.

GM's earnings were also dented by a $1.2 billion loss from its 49% stake
in its GMAC LLC financing arm. Thursday, GMAC swung to a second-quarter
loss as it took a $716 million write-down on leases and recorded more
losses from its Residential Capital LLC unit.

Second-quarter cash levels fell to $21 billion at the end of the second
quarter from $23.9 billion at the end of the first quarter.

The dismal second quarter caps four consecutive years of disappointing
results, dating back to the beginning of 2005, when GM shocked Wall Street
with an abrupt string of deep losses. Since then, Chief Executive Rick
Wagoner has been racing to cut costs, slim down operations and remake the
vehicle portfolio.

*At the same time, Wagoner has invested heavily into emerging markets,
placing big bets in Latin America, Eastern Europe and Asia even as market
share dwindles at home.*

- - -

Any bets as to when GM will abandon manufacturing in the U.S. market?



No time soon.

Although dismal financial results, the bulk of the "losses" are write offs
and charges to re-tool for the manufacture of more smaller, fuel efficient
cars for the US market.

Sounds horrible, and I am not making light of the problems, but it's not as
bad as the media (and you) are making it out to be.

Eisboch

BTW ....

*This* little news tidbit ought to get your blood circulating ..... :-)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080801/...t_democrats_dc

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
BTW ....

*This* little news tidbit ought to get your blood circulating ..... :-)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080801/...t_democrats_dc

Eisboch




I *love* it. It tells me Wal-Mart is scared.


" (Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc is mobilizing U.S. store managers to
lobby against Democrats in November's presidential election, fearing
they will make it easier for workers to unionize, The Wall Street
Journal reported on Friday.

In recent weeks, thousands of Wal-Mart managers and department heads
have been summoned to mandatory meetings at which the retailer stresses
the downside for workers if store workers unionize, the paper said."



- - -


Wal-Mart is among the most exploitative major employers in the United
States. The so-called "health insurance" it "offers" its employees is a
fraud. It is a major violator of wage-hour laws. It is the major seller
of crap ChiComm products in the USA.

"hk" wrote in message
. ..


I *love* it. It tells me Wal-Mart is scared.



Wal-Mart is among the most exploitative major employers in the United
States. The so-called "health insurance" it "offers" its employees is a
fraud. It is a major violator of wage-hour laws. It is the major seller of
crap ChiComm products in the USA.




It seems to me that Wal-Mart has a specific goal to remain a low-cost outlet
for limited income families and/or those that like to pinch pennys when
buying basic necessities. In your quote you left out the part whereby by
unionizing, Wal-Mart would need to raise prices and lay off employees.

Why not let the public chose where they want to shop and work?

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..

I *love* it. It tells me Wal-Mart is scared.



Wal-Mart is among the most exploitative major employers in the United
States. The so-called "health insurance" it "offers" its employees is a
fraud. It is a major violator of wage-hour laws. It is the major seller of
crap ChiComm products in the USA.




It seems to me that Wal-Mart has a specific goal to remain a low-cost outlet
for limited income families and/or those that like to pinch pennys when
buying basic necessities. In your quote you left out the part whereby by
unionizing, Wal-Mart would need to raise prices and lay off employees.

Why not let the public chose where they want to shop and work?

Eisboch




Shop wherever the hell you want. Free choice in shopping is fine if the
"public" has the ability to have influence on how its area is developed.
In our part of our rural, conservative county, we have an older Wal-Mart
store (that I've never been in), but we stopped Wal-Mart dead in its
tracks with its plans to built a "super Wal-Mart" in our area. Wal-Mart
spent a ton of money on PR and political bribes to force it way. All it
took to defeat Wal-Mart was a number of petitions signed by enough
voters to let the county pols know they'd be out on their asses if they
approved building the new store.

hk wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..

I *love* it. It tells me Wal-Mart is scared.



Wal-Mart is among the most exploitative major employers in the United
States. The so-called "health insurance" it "offers" its employees is
a fraud. It is a major violator of wage-hour laws. It is the major
seller of crap ChiComm products in the USA.




It seems to me that Wal-Mart has a specific goal to remain a low-cost
outlet for limited income families and/or those that like to pinch
pennys when buying basic necessities. In your quote you left out the
part whereby by unionizing, Wal-Mart would need to raise prices and
lay off employees.

Why not let the public chose where they want to shop and work?

Eisboch




Shop wherever the hell you want. Free choice in shopping is fine if the
"public" has the ability to have influence on how its area is developed.
In our part of our rural, conservative county, we have an older Wal-Mart
store (that I've never been in), but we stopped Wal-Mart dead in its
tracks with its plans to built a "super Wal-Mart" in our area. Wal-Mart
spent a ton of money on PR and political bribes to force it way. All it
took to defeat Wal-Mart was a number of petitions signed by enough
voters to let the county pols know they'd be out on their asses if they
approved building the new store.


What Harry is really saying:

Free choice in shopping is fine as long as I can tell people what their
choices are.

Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
hk wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..

I *love* it. It tells me Wal-Mart is scared.



Wal-Mart is among the most exploitative major employers in the
United States. The so-called "health insurance" it "offers" its
employees is a fraud. It is a major violator of wage-hour laws. It
is the major seller of crap ChiComm products in the USA.




It seems to me that Wal-Mart has a specific goal to remain a low-cost
outlet for limited income families and/or those that like to pinch
pennys when buying basic necessities. In your quote you left out
the part whereby by unionizing, Wal-Mart would need to raise prices
and lay off employees.

Why not let the public chose where they want to shop and work?

Eisboch




Shop wherever the hell you want. Free choice in shopping is fine if
the "public" has the ability to have influence on how its area is
developed. In our part of our rural, conservative county, we have an
older Wal-Mart store (that I've never been in), but we stopped
Wal-Mart dead in its tracks with its plans to built a "super Wal-Mart"
in our area. Wal-Mart spent a ton of money on PR and political bribes
to force it way. All it took to defeat Wal-Mart was a number of
petitions signed by enough voters to let the county pols know they'd
be out on their asses if they approved building the new store.


What Harry is really saying:

Free choice in shopping is fine as long as I can tell people what their
choices are.

WAFA is talking out of his ass...again.

"Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq." wrote
in message ...
hk wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..

I *love* it. It tells me Wal-Mart is scared.



Wal-Mart is among the most exploitative major employers in the United
States. The so-called "health insurance" it "offers" its employees is a
fraud. It is a major violator of wage-hour laws. It is the major seller
of crap ChiComm products in the USA.




It seems to me that Wal-Mart has a specific goal to remain a low-cost
outlet for limited income families and/or those that like to pinch
pennys when buying basic necessities. In your quote you left out the
part whereby by unionizing, Wal-Mart would need to raise prices and lay
off employees.

Why not let the public chose where they want to shop and work?

Eisboch




Shop wherever the hell you want. Free choice in shopping is fine if the
"public" has the ability to have influence on how its area is developed.
In our part of our rural, conservative county, we have an older Wal-Mart
store (that I've never been in), but we stopped Wal-Mart dead in its
tracks with its plans to built a "super Wal-Mart" in our area. Wal-Mart
spent a ton of money on PR and political bribes to force it way. All it
took to defeat Wal-Mart was a number of petitions signed by enough voters
to let the county pols know they'd be out on their asses if they approved
building the new store.


What Harry is really saying:

Free choice in shopping is fine as long as I can tell people what their
choices are.

The same way unions work.

"hk" wrote in message
. ..


Shop wherever the hell you want. Free choice in shopping is fine if the
"public" has the ability to have influence on how its area is developed.
In our part of our rural, conservative county, we have an older Wal-Mart
store (that I've never been in), but we stopped Wal-Mart dead in its
tracks with its plans to built a "super Wal-Mart" in our area. Wal-Mart
spent a ton of money on PR and political bribes to force it way. All it
took to defeat Wal-Mart was a number of petitions signed by enough voters
to let the county pols know they'd be out on their asses if they approved
building the new store.



Your neighbors on fixed or limited incomes thank you.

Eisboch

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 10:27:47 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"hk" wrote in message
...


Shop wherever the hell you want. Free choice in shopping is fine if the
"public" has the ability to have influence on how its area is developed.
In our part of our rural, conservative county, we have an older Wal-Mart
store (that I've never been in), but we stopped Wal-Mart dead in its
tracks with its plans to built a "super Wal-Mart" in our area. Wal-Mart
spent a ton of money on PR and political bribes to force it way. All it
took to defeat Wal-Mart was a number of petitions signed by enough voters
to let the county pols know they'd be out on their asses if they approved
building the new store.



Your neighbors on fixed or limited incomes thank you.

Eisboch


Harry (WAFA), being the hypocrite that he is, surely does not want any
neighbors like that.