Dean, I'm sorry to hear that.
The sad truth is that GM is currently building some of the finest cars I've ever driven, and has made huge strides in the last 15 years.
What the media doesn't seem to understand is that when gas goes to $4.00 a gallon in the period of six months, a company simply can't start making new vehicles the next day. If I were GM three years ago, you're darned right I'd be pushing out every Suburban and Tahoe I could at a 30% profit margin. If I were GM five years ago, you're darned right I'd be sinking development dollars into Cadillac and dumping Oldsmobile. If I were GM fifteen years ago, you're darned right I'd be developing the Saturn line, and looking to buy Saab.
GM actually made some pretty smart moves, and I think the Chapter 11 filing will prove to be another smart move. You simply can't turn a ship this big around overnight.
But what does concern me is that we are all now "reluctant share holders", and our President "doesn't want to be in the car business". If 60% of a company is owned by reluctant shareholders, and shareholder leadership wants to take a hands-off approach, what does that spell for General Motors' future?
I think we should have not got involved, and quite honestly, forced GM's hand last year.
The Brits have been down this road.
In retrospect - British Leyland was nationalized in 1975 during the financial crisis in Great Britain of the 1970's. This action did not avert the crisis, which continued into the early 1980's.
Today, the marques that made up British Leyland are scattered. Jaguar is now owned by a company in India, MG is owned by a Chinese concern that will probably never build a car bearing the marque, Mini went to BMW, and Triumph is lost, probably forever. Rover is dead, and Range Rover is up in the air.