Why buy Japanese when Americans don't know what the fuck they're doing?

General Motors Corp on Tuesday announced a series of steps to cut jobs, costs and its exposure to slow-selling trucks and SUVs in response to a rise in gasoline prices that the automaker now sees as permanent. Chief Executive Rick Wagoner, speaking to reporters after a restructuring plan was approved by the automaker's board, said GM would close four North American truck plants and add shifts at two plants making more popular car models.
In addition, Wagoner said GM was reviewing the Hummer brand and could sell the military-derived SUV brand, which has become synonymous for gas-guzzling excess. "U.S. economic and market conditions have become significantly more difficult," Wagoner said, adding higher gasoline prices have caused consumers to swap out of trucks and SUVs faster than the automaker had expected.

In a related shift, Wagoner also said GM's board had approved funding for a next-generation compact model for the Chevrolet brand as well as a new subcompact Chevy Aveo, expected to go on sale in the U.S. market in 2010. GM's board also allocated production funding to the Chevy Volt, a heavily touted, all-electric vehicle that GM expects to have in showrooms by 2010, Wagoner said. Wagoner said GM, which has lost a combined $51 billion over the past three years, was not ready to detail a timeline for returning to profitability. Unfortunately, it's just a sign that once again they're behind the curve," said Peter Jankovskis, a chief investment officer with OakBrook Investments, which owns GM shares in some of its portfolios.

WP: Really? Ya think? So when gas prices started to dramatically rise THREE YEARS AGO, nobody thought to look ahead? How about with the 1970s oil shortage? 30-40 years not enough lead time either?

The Iraq War vs. The U.S. Economy

More than 7 out of 10 Americans think government spending on the war in Iraq is partly responsible for the economic troubles in the United States, according to results of a recent poll.

WP: Who are the other 3? Oil barons and presidents?

A White House spokesman said the war had cost the U.S. $406.2 billion through December 2007. The spokesman said the economists "throw everything in the kitchen sink" into the study, including costs like interest on the national debt, and called the projection "exaggerated."

WP: Oh, sorry. It's only $400 billion.

And President Bush, speaking on NBC's "Today" last month, disputed the notion that the war was negatively affecting the economy. "I think actually the spending in the war might help with jobs ... because we're buying equipment and people are working," he said. "I think this economy is down because we built too many houses and the economy's adjusting."

WP: That's right...it's too many houses. Houses. Not the exorbitant cost of gas, inflation surpassing salary increases, unemployment on the rise, lay-offs, dramatic increase in stock prices, billions of dollars spent on the war in Iraq, etc. It's TOO MANY HOUSES. Perhaps Bush's next plan of action should be to suggest everyone "double up."