I tend to think GM was destroyed in the 80s under Smith and the truly dreadful, ugly, poorly designed and manufactured cars he was responsible for. Everything after those years felt like catchup. Pity of it is that GM proved in my mind that they could design and build some excellent cars in recent years. They just couldn't regain the ground lost under Smith.
ezpz
· 9 months ago
The dirty little secret that few, if any, are talking about is that big oil has been paying the car mfgrs NOT to make fuel efficient cars.
Jay
· 9 months ago
I think moderate democrats, not just crazy republicans, also have concerns about this government role in the management of the economy. Where does it end?
And why is Obama so hands on with the auto industry - which has actually taken concrete steps to reform (including renegotiating contracts with labor) but so hands off with the real problem - the financial industry.
I don't see anything to celeberate here.
ezpz
· 9 months ago
Not only 'moderate democrats' and 'crazy republicans', but TRUE Democrats (like me), and REAL liberals have a big problem with the (mis)management of the economy.
While Obama may think it's good that he's being criticized from both the far right and far left, I disagree as I don't think the 'center' makes up a majority. In fact, I would wager that it doesn't even make for a plurality.
Gridlock
· 9 months ago
The auto bailout is fucking peanuts compared to the black hole of suck that is Wall Street.
I want to see heads roll there.. not bonus packages and compensation for failure.
NONANNY
· 9 months ago
This is the past government and the current government holding this up, why blame the American citizens for the government wrongful intervention? Sending billions to these people and business.
sherifffruitfly
· 9 months ago
When I saw that, it made me wonder:
Did/does Obama know that he's getting somewhat rolled by the banksters, but feels unable to do as much as he would like about it, due to the banksters' explosive-vest? Is Obama taking out his frustration on GM/big auto?
Just idle speculation.
AdmNaismith
· 9 months ago
At this rate, why is the corporate structure intact? all those jackasses WHO CRASHED THE WORLD ECONOMY should be selling pencils on a streetcorner.
When things get this bad, you need someone to come in and clear out the deadwood. If I were Obama, I'd be marchin' around Wall Street like Buford Pusser with a Nobel Prize in Economics.
Styve
· 9 months ago
An old fave, "Walking Tall"! AIG and Goldman should suffer the same humiliation.
cowboyneok
· 9 months ago
Buford Pusser! LOL!!! "WALKING TALL!" LOL! Good one.
Savage8862
· 9 months ago
Why doesn't Obama fire the heads of the financial institutions? Why the double standard for the auto industry?
John Aravosis
· 9 months ago
agree
SusieQ
· 9 months ago
Also agree, John and Savage. When the banksteristas were crying last week "we have to honor the bonus contracts" it just gagged me because none of those types had any problem expecting the UAW to give up benefits from their collective bargaining agreements. It's an agreement until management wants to break it.
Lolis
· 9 months ago
AIG has a new CEO and I guess Citi does too (read this on TPM), but I agree with you. We need different leaders.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 9 months ago
the CEOs of Goldman, Fannie, Freddie, Merrill, Citi and AIG are ALREADY gone. so it sounds like you now want to fire the entire boardroom. actually, i like the sound of that.
Lolis
· 9 months ago
Yeah, I'll be curious to see how this plays out. There is no doubt in my mind that if the Big Three automakers had not lobbied Congress for decades to weaken environmental provisions, they would be in a lot better position right now. People might actually want to buy American cars if they had been forward-looking and focused on quality.
Of course, I hope the autoworkers don't get screwed over by whatever happens. They truly had nothing to do with all the bad management, but my momma always taught me life wasn't fair. I just wish more people in America were educated about the corporate welfare in our government.
I just read that Dems forced out Obama's most progressive pieces of taxation on the wealthy from the budget, including the downsizing of farm subsidies and the direct financing of student loans. The Congressional Dems get away with this because the media doesn't cover corporate welfare since they benefit from it, too.
Gridlock
· 9 months ago
seriously? Boo.
Jihad on them.
Stupid DINOS.
cowboyneok
· 9 months ago
Your post reminds me of why the rich can't bitch about socialism. They been socialized for years while the rest of us have had to survive in a hyper-capitalist business environment. Those of us who would like the chance to compete against the "entrenched" "too big to fail" companies can't because they can take the huge risks knowing the government will save them while the little guys know if we screw up its OVER! No one is there but some entitled, "trust fund baby" inheritance Republican, like George W. Bush, wondering why we are "bankrupting America" because we are having to live on welfare or "entitlements." Republicans can't have it both ways. We can't have this idea companies are "too big to fail" but the little guys can just go live under a bridge if they make bad decisions and fail. Same with BLUE DOGS and DINOS.
Johnny D
· 9 months ago
"Of course, I hope the autoworkers don't get screwed over by whatever happens. They truly had nothing to do with all the bad management"
Greedy workers who will not make any concessions and would rather see the company go bankrupt than give up any benefits.
Don't tell me it is all management's fault. When you decide to strike and cripple your company you can't expect to come back to a company that is competitive. Management, workers, everyone shares in this debacle. I'm sure these people work hard but so have the other 85% of our working population that have seen stagnant wages for the last 5 years
David
· 9 months ago
I have to disagree - the President has no business firing anyone that works for a company. Who is next? You? Me? I like Obama, and glad they are at least stopping to think before giving these losers more money, but if in fact this was what happened, I don't like it.
That being said, there is much more here than meets the eye - I don't buy for a second that Obama fired this guy. There is something else here...
John Aravosis
· 9 months ago
If Obama wants to give me $10bn bucks, he can tell me to change my name to Barack for all I care.
David
· 9 months ago
It's a very dangerous path to go down for a country that is supposed to be a free democracy. That's all I am saying. The govt. gives money to damn near every company to prop them up, but this is the only time I have heard of a President deciding to fire a CEO because of it. I think there is something else to this story...
cowboyneok
· 9 months ago
I think when you mention "free democracy" and then talk about government giving money "to damn near every company to prop them up," you are mixing apples and oranges. As soon as a company takes taxpayer money, it no longer operates under the same rules the rest of private companies have to operate under. Some of us have companies or are trying to build companies that aren't "too big to fail." I don't expect the government to come in and tell me what to do in the few little startups I'm attempting, but I'm not taking taxpayer money. If I did then I would realize I had to answer to the federal government regarding decisions I make in order to repay those "loans."
David
· 9 months ago
Without subsidies, farmers would be out of business. Without subsidies, the airlines would be out of business. Without subsidies, the oil companies might make only $25 billion in profit a year.
My point is that we give taxpayer money to everyone, every day, every year. Why all of a sudden the uproar? That's all. I don't like it either, but this has been going on forever - taxpayer "bailouts" "subsidies" "whatever else they want to call them" are not new.
joshmo
· 9 months ago
I agree, screw this guy from GM... but what about Ford, Chrysler etc. Oh, since they are such great champions for the US economy turning out crap car/truck after the next, where do we draw the line. I have an idea... fire them all along with the AIG execs and everyone else right... give me a break. I know how business runs in this country. Obama has one hell of a job.
(On a side note, why does my browser still say "Obama" is misspelled with the options being words like "Alabama" give me a break)!
Indigo
· 9 months ago
Your spelling checker was specially tooled for the governor of Alaska.
cowboyneok
· 9 months ago
This all goes back to accepting tax payer money for rescue. If they take taxpayer money then they are asking the government to intervene if they don't perform. Companies who remain private have no need to fear Obama will fire them. We can't have people accepting our taxpayer money then demanding they be treated like private corporations.
ZennButtKicker (tlhwraith)
· 9 months ago
Amen!
cowboyneok
· 9 months ago
By the way, this isn't the first time a President fired someone who had become part of the government because they were being financed by the public. Remember when Reagan fired all the Air Traffic Controllers because they attempted to strike?
He did not fire but look going into bankrupcy is the option they should have taken they would come out cleaner. say what you will but I'm from there and did work for a supplier to the auto industries, This economic disaster that yes government has caused, is dragging out, because government will not allow for the bad to fail and new to start up.
Gridlock
· 9 months ago
It can't fail. If it did fail, there would be millions more out of work adding to the economic death spiral. That's the problem.
cowboyneok
· 9 months ago
Obama just said the American government will stand behind the warranties! That is a big RELIEF for those of us who might be thinking about buying a new car from them. That is also a very good idea for American confidence in these products.
Wow, I like his style. He gives people a chance then axes them if they don't perform.
Johnny D
· 9 months ago
Let this be a lesson for all PRIVATELY owned corporations. Don't take money from the government. GM spent too much time begging for money from people who don't have a clue about their business. Now they are paying the price. Even the leading private equity firms don't call the shots like this. Face it, the whole Obama team doesn't really have a grasp on the business world and how it operates. How would they and why do we think they should? GM would have been better off going the bankruptcy route by themselves and throwing all their layed off workers on the government programs. Are we to think people like Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi know the idiosyncacies of the auto industry. I'll bet 50% of all congress people own foreign cars.
ZennButtKicker (tlhwraith)
· 9 months ago
You are right, it is a lesson to private companies...if you run your business so horribly that you cant turn a profit either you shut it down OR take the generous loan from the government with tons of strings attached.
What exactly is the problem here? This is the most pure form or free market I have ever seen. People like you need to answer one simple question, if the Fed said no money under any circumstances...where would GM be right now?
So while you see government intrusion, I see the US taxpayers rightfully putting some serious limits on a very generous lifeline.
Gridlock
· 9 months ago
Exactly.
I fail to understand how corporate welfare is simply expected without any conditions on it.
Talk about an entitlement culture.
Johnny D
· 9 months ago
People like you need to answer one simple question, if the Fed said no money under any circumstances...where would GM be right now?
In bankruptcy where they should be. GM has never had the guts to stand up to their union and start living under the new business paradigms. Gone are the days of full blown retirement, guaranteed jobs, company paid healthcare. Do you think the people that work at GM care about saving our jobs and our house? What makes them so special? I'll pose a question to you - where do you think we will all be when China stops buying our debt? That day is coming and it won't be pretty. Obama needs to get off his money lending power trip and take a Quickbooks class in how to balance a checkbook. He is playing with other people's money and getting power drunk on it - sound familiar? It should, it's just what all the greedy wall street execs did - played with OPM until there was no where left to get money. At least the people at Ford knew enough not to take the welfare.
As for your statement about free market - since when is it a free market when the government picks and chooses to help private companies.
Ferdiad
· 9 months ago
I know I am inviting an onslaught of attacks for this, but real leadership is making difficult decisions, in the face of adversity. The reality though is that Wagoner was sacked because he knows what is best for GM is bankruptcy and has advocated for same behind closed doors. There was a failure of leadership in Detroit only because they failed to stand up to the unions. Just like the steel industry during WWII, the auto industry was on easy street during the SUV years and failed to make the difficult decisions to cut back on wage, pension and health care demands. Did leadership lack vision? Of course. They failed to adjust to consumer demands. Smaller cars are less profitable and the Asian automakers learned to make a profit on them years ago. Detroit on the other hand supported its bloated cost structure with more profitable models that couldn't make it in the long term. All good things come to an end. The best route is still bankruptcy, but no one, including Obama, has the leadership skills to say it.
Lolis
· 9 months ago
The problem with your theory is that this plan has bankruptcy as an option. Obama says so himself. In fact it is likely Chrysler will go bankrupt.
Ferdiad
· 9 months ago
Bankruptcy shouldn't be "an option," it should be the only option. Bankruptcy accomplishes all the things Obama is asking these companies to do. It reduces executive pay, renegotiates union contracts, turns debt into equity, etc. It does not mean the end of these companies and "millions of spinoff" jobs. If you answer with that, you lose all credibility. Here is the one major difference between bankruptcy and what Obama is doing: In bankruptcy creditors, shareholders, employees and all other interested parties get a say and negotiate the plan of reorganization - in fact they get to vote on it. In Obama's plan only the politicians get a say.
woodka
· 9 months ago
GM failed because their cars suck. Stop blaming the unions.
NONANNY
· 9 months ago
A Good Union would not allow their company they represent and work for to fail. Look at ATT they have had a Union through thick and thin, but they continue to grow both the company and the worker, this is based off the fact they sit down with the company and do not allow them to set a business plan of losses year after year, they work with management to get the best for both with the knowledge that YES the company has to make money, if they would have worked right along with the company demanding that they lower there CEO wages or show why it needed to be this high.
Ferdiad
· 9 months ago
Not entirely true. The steel industry is a great history lesson. During WWII the steel industry made huge profits selling steel to the government and defense related industries. During those boom years and post-war boom years they were able to cave to union demands and still make money. The problem though is that the money flowed to the unions instead of investments in technology and equipment. No one had the guts or leadership to stand up to labor during this time. They were making money, why would they? The impact was profound. Not only did the well of government business dry up, the domestic steel manufacturers found themselves behind the technology curve in relation to the Germans and Japanese. The foreign steel produces had to make due with less and produce more efficiently. They invested in technology. American steel manufacturers never recovered.
The same is true for American auto industry. For years they built overpriced, gass guzzling, inefficient cars with a bloated model. Eventually, the well dried up and the bubble burst. The Germans, Japanese and Koreans made better cars, more efficiently and have better technology. A large part of the reason is the enormous amount of money the domestic auto companies have to spend on labor and its related costs. Do I "blame" labor? No, I do not. Labor like everyone else will demand the most they can get. I blame management for not standing up to labor and exercising some leadership.
ZennButtKicker (tlhwraith)
· 9 months ago
I'm not going to attack you, just direct you to read a bit closer. The Obama administration mentioned yesterday and today that his commission on the US auto industry concluded that bankrupcy may be inevitable for one or both companies. I think he's trying to avoid that, but perhaps you should look before you talk?
Ferdiad
· 9 months ago
That is all talk. Obama said the same thing last month. March 31st was supposed to be THE deadline. Now it is 60 days out. The auto companies didn't do what Obama wanted them to do by March 31st so he is giving them more time and more money. This is basic parenting folks.
Jonathan
· 9 months ago
Maybe I'm not well-versed on the issue, but how why do you say that Wagoner was sacked because he advocated for bankruptcy. I haven't heard that anywhere, not that I know everything about this.
tbhull
· 9 months ago
While these people must go why does anyone have any confidence an apparachik appointed by government can do anything but follow government orders? I say this because our government was run by a bona fide buffoon for 8 years.
NONANNY
· 9 months ago
I agree and nothing has changed with this administration. I have seen enough to now know my vote was wrong, but there was not much of a different for either party. I'm done with the two party systems and looking to see who will take this country back to the constitution, I've had enough.
Older_Wiser
· 9 months ago
Maybe the ones who should be forced to take drug tests are the financial CEOs and Big Auto, not people on "welfare" and unemployment.
We could have extended benefits for the many with the trillions already given and loaned to Wall St., and they in turn would have spent the money, putting it back into the economy, not like those corporations are doing, putting it in their own paychecks and paying off their friends.
Wagoner deserved to be "fired", and so does Nardelli. They are leeches on society.
NONANNY
· 9 months ago
Who keeps giving and giving, this is why they keep asking.
barts
· 9 months ago
This is the first time in several years, after doing my tax returns that I owe -a lot. I've always gotten a refund. Several of friends also owe all of sudden. Is it me or did the tax tables change all of a sudden.
Another Bush's classic bait and switch, no doubt.
Indigo
· 9 months ago
You've been "Bush"-whacked!
barts
· 9 months ago
I think Obama also got Bush-whacked. I'm sure this economic mess is Bush's way of screwing his democratic successor.
cowboyneok
· 9 months ago
It certainly wouldn't be the first time Republicans did that, huh? Dig out for four to eight years, and then elect a Republican to dig a hole for us again?
jcgraham77
· 9 months ago
I am a flaming liberal but all of this seems wrong to me. First the companies shouldnt' be taking gov funding, secondly, the president shouldn't be firing heads of privately owned companies. I think bankruptcy should have been the meds for these companies. Regardless of jobs lost. It is captilism. Let it work itself out. It smacks of Chavez and his nationalizing of misc companies. Overlook the mispells and fire away!!!
Gridlock
· 9 months ago
Crawling on your hands and knees to the government for welfare means you are automatically at the mercy of the purseholders. You have surrendered any autonomy for your corporate decision making process. The government now owns you.
jcgraham77
· 9 months ago
Exactly...I don't think they should have rec'd a dime. But then you have the workers who would have suffered. But then there is welfare as a net to catch them. Where does it end???
Gridlock
· 9 months ago
social safety nets are in place for a reason, it's part of living in a responsible society.
CORPORATE welfare, on the other hand, is patently absurd. I have no problems with businesses who are in trouble receiving some kind of help provided they come up with a viable plan to survive, and pay the money back.
cowboyneok
· 9 months ago
Well, we as a society, need to get a grip and get over this whole mish-mash of socialism / capitalism we have going right now. We can't continue to socialize the wealthy and make the poor struggle with the idea its "okay, because they are just a few people who might have to go live under a bridge." Its just not right to throw BILLIONS of dollars at corporations because we can't stand to imagine an ultra wealthy person failing and allowing them to continue to make bad decisions that drove the company into the dirt. I wonder how many of those CEO's stop to give homeless people money when they encounter them on the streets? When you think about it, there really is no difference. If it weren't for all the public largesse saving the CEO's entitled asses they would be wandering around begging for money to survive. We need to have a better way for providing for EVERYONE, not just the entitled wealthy ultra rich. We need to become a more caring society for every American and start looking at each other as brothers and sisters, instead of "the competition." If we don't then the idiots calling for "Revolution" like Republicans Cornyn and Michelle Bachmann will have their way, and things will get EVEN WORSE for everyone. I understand and agree with your frustration with the idea capitalism should only apply to the "little companies." We just can't keep having it both ways. We either go SOCIALIZED or EVERYONE has to live under Ayn Rand's rules. The most socialized ultra wealthy, who live under lower tax rates compared to disposable, and hidden income, are ALWAYS the one's quoting Ayn Rand. They need to start living under the SAME RULES the rest of us do, or we need to just SOCIALIZE everything.
Indigo
· 9 months ago
Wagoner wasn't "fired,' he was given the opportunity to "resign." There's a world of difference. He can't apply for unemployment insurance, for example, because he quit his job, he was not dismissed for cause. Naturally, it amounts to the same event on the surface, but deep-thinking, upper-middle class bloggers look beyond those superficial caps in bold face, right?
cowboyneok
· 9 months ago
I can't help but giggle when I think of "unemployment insurance" for CEO's. Whenever I visualize unemployment insurance I think of some working class guy paying his bills and using food stamps to remain fed, and keep him from living under a bridge somewhere. CEO's who have had plenty of opportunity to "diversify their wealth" receiving "unemployment insurance" makes me giggle because its just so ridiculous.
NONANNY
· 9 months ago
You people crack me up! Instead of stepping back from your party and look at the real abuse that is going on and who is saying stop giving the peoples money to wall street, and who is handing it out, and saying stop giving American tax dollars out to companies. Stop the spending. Look you will pay for it all, the banks that are being bailed out through interest on your loans and lower interest rates on your savings, auto bailout through cars you buy, taxes through products you buy, yes when taxes go up on business, they call it cost of doing business, and you keep supporting making the rich richer. Open your eyes, both parties have you in this loop, jump out. Get back to basics. Government promises you everything and you are depending on them to fix it, it was the people that built this country, so it is the people that can fix it NOT government. When you realize this and stop bickering between Left and Right, we can then fix it.
Gridlock
· 9 months ago
That post didn't make any sense at all. You didn't actually *say* anything.
What were you trying to get across? Some kind of solution?
It's all very cryptic.
John Aravosis
· 9 months ago
He basically said let's not do anything, and instead watch the country sink into another Great Depression as we pat each other on the back (in the food line) for holding firm to our principles.
Gridlock
· 9 months ago
I guess years of parsing through DC dreck has gifted you with superhuman nonsense translation powers LOL
Jonathan
· 9 months ago
Yeah, I read this a couple of times. It makes no sense.
Older_Wiser
· 9 months ago
March 30 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC must survive without becoming “wards of the state” and the companies have one last, limited chance to “fundamentally restructure.”
After his administration forced GM Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner to resign and pressed Chrysler to form a partnership with Italy’s Fiat SpA to get more taxpayer aid, Obama today said that company creditors, shareholders, workers, dealers and suppliers will be expected to make more sacrifices.
“We cannot, we must not, and we will not let our auto industry simply vanish,” the president said at the White House, announcing new and final deadlines for the No. 1 and No. 3 U.S. automakers to remake themselves. “But we cannot continue to excuse poor decisions. And we cannot make the survival of our auto industry dependent on an unending flow of taxpayer dollars.” (more at bloomberg.com)
Actually, I believe workers have already given up quite a bit...and many thousands have been put on unemployment already.
PorridgeGun
· 9 months ago
I know it's become a cliché, but this president explains things better than anyone. He covers all the bases, or at least it feels like it.
It's funny, you could also argue that his comprehensive and wide-ranging speeches tend to undercut his overall message. Reagan and Bush's simple-mindedness put emphasis on a single line of a speech which became the soundbite on the the evening news, and now the 24/7 cable networks. The rest of the speech quickly became irrelevant.
That being said, Obama made clear what his expectations are of GM and Chrysler, and what his intentions are. The cries of socialism are complete bolocks, and any media outlet that continues to push that meme should be boycotted. Especially after AIG. Like I said, Obama covered all the bases, every concern was addressed.
KarenMrsLloydRichards
· 9 months ago
OBAMA LE DIRIGISTE!
We're like the French, but without the social safety net and the fresh food.
Arizona Mildman
· 8 months ago
I wish the bloggers would quit over exagerating this story. President Obama told GM and Chrysler to restructure their management in order to get bail out money. The CEO, not the president of GM got fired since he was under scrutiny for YEARS. Remember the Michael Moore movie "Roger and Me" when he asked how this guy could keep eating out at the country club after running his company into the ground? His employees were all fired and lost their homes, cars, and had no where to go since all most of them had done most of their lives was work in a auto plant. He finally got fired. The idea that Obama fired someone in the private sector was preposterous since he doesn't have to power to do that. One of the blogger posted that he "Just About Fired the President or GM" and the rest of them twisted it from there. I think somene might be trying to discredit the bloggers since they helped control some of the vote on the last election.
ezpz
· 9 months ago
The reason Repubs are mum is because it's a victory for their union busting campaign.
Workers and unions just got shafted big time!
Though Obama didn't say it per se, I heard it in his speech when he mentioned that workers and unions have made painful concessions, but they weren't enough, needed to do more, according to him. (paraphrase).
dannyinla
· 9 months ago
G'morning (out here in L.A. anyways) AmericaBlog!
Okay, couple of things: 1. Not sure how I feel about a poll that allows multiple answers... But also 2. Did the stock market really drop 200 points just because of this? While perhaps Obama's announcement had and (most likely) will continue to have some bearing on the market, I think stating it so simply (a la the MSM) isn't the way to go.
And, for whatever it's worth, I'm inclined to give Obama the benefit of the doubt regarding auto industry vs. financial industry. While the language used to say AIGFP contracts are sacred certainly seemed to contradict the language used concerning union workers' contracts, didn't we just put the heads of AIG and Citibank into the jobs? Perhaps they suck and should be fired, but let's hear the full story with one sector before laying the actions taken within it as a blanket over the other industry.
JWSwift
· 9 months ago
OK, so let's see if I have this correct: The public is COMPETELLY in favor of the gov't using their influence to dictate what bonuses are or aren't OK but perhaps NOT so OK with influencing a staff change (that perhaps really, REALLY needed to happen)?
So, they're willing to start down that slippery slope for the bonuses issue but want to go no further with it than that (until they see something else to get righteously indignant about)...
Yeah, riiight... That's not the LEAST bit hypocritical or anything...
benb
· 9 months ago
I don't see what all the fuss is about. If these companies get financial help from the US Govt then the Govt has every right to act in it's own interest to protect it's investment.
If Business doesn't like the terms then they can leave the money on the table.
Older_Wiser
· 9 months ago
Did anyone notice the ABC headline to the right which says Wagoner leaves GM with a $20 million platinum parachute?
ezpz
· 9 months ago
Statement from Michael Moore on Departure of General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner:
"I have never heard of such a thing in all my days: The main representative of the people ordering a corporate chieftain to step down — today! And not just any corporate CEO, but the head of the company that has spent more years at #1 on the Fortune 500 than any other corporation in the world." – Michael Moore
I grow weary of the incessant Obama boosterism going on here at AmericaBlog. Not one single word on the double standard being applied here to the auto industry vis wall street. The scorecard at the bottom of the post is incorrect, it should read
Obama 0 America 0 GOP 1
The GOP got what they wanted -- a breakup of the unions. Go read CrooksAndLiars take on this.
But keep up the rah, rah, john boy...jerk
Steve_in_CNJ
· 9 months ago
It's still misposted.
the former CEOs of Goldman, AIG, Citi, Merrill, Fannie, Freddie are ALL OUT. It's hard to compare financial institutions with manufacturers, but what is the double standard exactly?
ezpz
· 9 months ago
I take exception. I have not been blindly cheerleading the Obama admin. Au contraire! And I was an ardent supporter from way back when -- before he was even the nominee. I supported him over Hillary.
I said the same thing about Repubs being mum because it suits their union busting agenda. (Scroll down.)
mtiffany
· 9 months ago
Anyone else notice that the snap poll percentage totals add up to more than 100%?
chuck
· 9 months ago
One of the major problems is people like Ferdiad. Factually incorrect with just a tangential bit of truth. Then extrapolate to sweeping generalities and broadly drawn conclusions. During the SUV years the unions gave concessions on contract after contract. Jobs were trimmed along with wages,work rules and benefits. Those are facts that have been reported in major daily newspapers during that whole time. The media has selective memory about this and doesn't like to be reminded of their past stories ala Iraq. The auto industry, both domestic and foreign, have a "lead time" of a few years from design stage to showroom floor. This is simply due to engineering, supply chain and other requirements needing to be worked out and completed. GM has currently quite a number of models getting more than 30 miles per gallon. This means they were in fact working on these for several years before now. The Japanese cars are produced at a more profitable level largely due to those companies not having to pay for employee health care. It is paid for by the Japanese government for workers in Japan and the companies receive subsidies from the Japanese government for their costs abroad. The Ford Focus Hybrid now gets better mileage than the Prius but there is barely a mention from the media or Consumer Distorts. People are comfortable repeating their favorite scripts the media gives them to read. Really digging in to find the facts is too much bother for our American Idol obsessed society.
Ferdiad
· 9 months ago
Chuck, I'm sorry, but you are just wrong. First of all, the American auto companies have long received subsidies from the government. They do it in the form of grants or research assistance through grants to universities. The problem with people like you is that you read way too much into what I post. I am not solely blaming this on the unions. The fact of the matter though is that Detroit has a cost structure that has long been prohibitive and is now killing them. No matter how you slice it, you haven't come up with one idea or statement that turns these companies into profitable enterprises. They need to get rid of their legacy costs, reduce labor expenses and, yes, first and foremost make cars people want to buy. Keep in mind though, that even if you make cars people want to buy, you have to make them profitably or you won't be in business very long (unless you get bailed out).
The other problem with those on the left (which I used to be on, but admittedly moving right) is that we don't allow any free thinking. Any mention of the unions possibly being part of the problem is met with "you must be a troll!" Whatever that even means. The reality is that we have a global economy and if some guy in India is willing to work for less money, should we deny him that opportunity? If a company can't survive any longer manufacturing in the US, should they not move operations to where they can survive?
I love how people like Chuck and all these other rocket scientists that have all the answers can't turn Detroit profitable. Why is that Chuck?
chuck
· 9 months ago
The facts still stand as I stated for anybody willing to research. You are trying to counter that with straw man type arguments and grandiose statements that don't deal directly with what I critriqued you on. You resort to name calling (rocket scientist) in order to demean the person so as to try to diminish their argument. That's weak. You further assume I am on the left. I am not. Furthermore, nowhere in my post did I say to you that you were blaming only the unions.
SusieQ
· 9 months ago
Did I get lost? I thought I was on AmericaBlog. What's with all the union bashing here? Are you all trolls?
Ferdiad
· 9 months ago
A union is not always a union, unless it is taking someone else's money:
This is an act of a socialist government. But so is the fact that they got the bail-out money in the first place.
In a capitilist environment, a company would make and sell a product or service for which they would be compensated. If they are unable to do so... they should go out of business. If that leaves a hole in the economy... it will be filled by someone capable of doing so.
Obama not only has no business firing anyone in the private sector... he has no business competing with other private sector businesses by propping up failing companies.
All Comments
And why is Obama so hands on with the auto industry - which has actually taken concrete steps to reform (including renegotiating contracts with labor) but so hands off with the real problem - the financial industry.
I don't see anything to celeberate here.
While Obama may think it's good that he's being criticized from both the far right and far left, I disagree as I don't think the 'center' makes up a majority.
In fact, I would wager that it doesn't even make for a plurality.
I want to see heads roll there.. not bonus packages and compensation for failure.
Did/does Obama know that he's getting somewhat rolled by the banksters, but feels unable to do as much as he would like about it, due to the banksters' explosive-vest? Is Obama taking out his frustration on GM/big auto?
Just idle speculation.
When things get this bad, you need someone to come in and clear out the deadwood. If I were Obama, I'd be marchin' around Wall Street like Buford Pusser with a Nobel Prize in Economics.
Of course, I hope the autoworkers don't get screwed over by whatever happens. They truly had nothing to do with all the bad management, but my momma always taught me life wasn't fair. I just wish more people in America were educated about the corporate welfare in our government.
I just read that Dems forced out Obama's most progressive pieces of taxation on the wealthy from the budget, including the downsizing of farm subsidies and the direct financing of student loans. The Congressional Dems get away with this because the media doesn't cover corporate welfare since they benefit from it, too.
Jihad on them.
Stupid DINOS.
Greedy workers who will not make any concessions and would rather see the company go bankrupt than give up any benefits.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AI...
Don't tell me it is all management's fault. When you decide to strike and cripple your company you can't expect to come back to a company that is competitive. Management, workers, everyone shares in this debacle. I'm sure these people work hard but so have the other 85% of our working population that have seen stagnant wages for the last 5 years
That being said, there is much more here than meets the eye - I don't buy for a second that Obama fired this guy. There is something else here...
My point is that we give taxpayer money to everyone, every day, every year. Why all of a sudden the uproar? That's all. I don't like it either, but this has been going on forever - taxpayer "bailouts" "subsidies" "whatever else they want to call them" are not new.
(On a side note, why does my browser still say "Obama" is misspelled with the options being words like "Alabama" give me a break)!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_T...
Wow, I like his style. He gives people a chance then axes them if they don't perform.
What exactly is the problem here? This is the most pure form or free market I have ever seen. People like you need to answer one simple question, if the Fed said no money under any circumstances...where would GM be right now?
So while you see government intrusion, I see the US taxpayers rightfully putting some serious limits on a very generous lifeline.
I fail to understand how corporate welfare is simply expected without any conditions on it.
Talk about an entitlement culture.
In bankruptcy where they should be. GM has never had the guts to stand up to their union and start living under the new business paradigms. Gone are the days of full blown retirement, guaranteed jobs, company paid healthcare. Do you think the people that work at GM care about saving our jobs and our house? What makes them so special? I'll pose a question to you - where do you think we will all be when China stops buying our debt? That day is coming and it won't be pretty. Obama needs to get off his money lending power trip and take a Quickbooks class in how to balance a checkbook. He is playing with other people's money and getting power drunk on it - sound familiar? It should, it's just what all the greedy wall street execs did - played with OPM until there was no where left to get money. At least the people at Ford knew enough not to take the welfare.
As for your statement about free market - since when is it a free market when the government picks and chooses to help private companies.
The same is true for American auto industry. For years they built overpriced, gass guzzling, inefficient cars with a bloated model. Eventually, the well dried up and the bubble burst. The Germans, Japanese and Koreans made better cars, more efficiently and have better technology. A large part of the reason is the enormous amount of money the domestic auto companies have to spend on labor and its related costs. Do I "blame" labor? No, I do not. Labor like everyone else will demand the most they can get. I blame management for not standing up to labor and exercising some leadership.
We could have extended benefits for the many with the trillions already given and loaned to Wall St., and they in turn would have spent the money, putting it back into the economy, not like those corporations are doing, putting it in their own paychecks and paying off their friends.
Wagoner deserved to be "fired", and so does Nardelli. They are leeches on society.
Another Bush's classic bait and switch, no doubt.
CORPORATE welfare, on the other hand, is patently absurd. I have no problems with businesses who are in trouble receiving some kind of help provided they come up with a viable plan to survive, and pay the money back.
What were you trying to get across? Some kind of solution?
It's all very cryptic.
After his administration forced GM Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner to resign and pressed Chrysler to form a partnership with Italy’s Fiat SpA to get more taxpayer aid, Obama today said that company creditors, shareholders, workers, dealers and suppliers will be expected to make more sacrifices.
“We cannot, we must not, and we will not let our auto industry simply vanish,” the president said at the White House, announcing new and final deadlines for the No. 1 and No. 3 U.S. automakers to remake themselves. “But we cannot continue to excuse poor decisions. And we cannot make the survival of our auto industry dependent on an unending flow of taxpayer dollars.” (more at bloomberg.com)
Actually, I believe workers have already given up quite a bit...and many thousands have been put on unemployment already.
It's funny, you could also argue that his comprehensive and wide-ranging speeches tend to undercut his overall message. Reagan and Bush's simple-mindedness put emphasis on a single line of a speech which became the soundbite on the the evening news, and now the 24/7 cable networks. The rest of the speech quickly became irrelevant.
That being said, Obama made clear what his expectations are of GM and Chrysler, and what his intentions are. The cries of socialism are complete bolocks, and any media outlet that continues to push that meme should be boycotted. Especially after AIG. Like I said, Obama covered all the bases, every concern was addressed.
We're like the French, but without the social safety net and the fresh food.
Workers and unions just got shafted big time!
Though Obama didn't say it per se, I heard it in his speech when he mentioned that workers and unions have made painful concessions, but they weren't enough, needed to do more, according to him. (paraphrase).
Okay, couple of things: 1. Not sure how I feel about a poll that allows multiple answers... But also 2. Did the stock market really drop 200 points just because of this? While perhaps Obama's announcement had and (most likely) will continue to have some bearing on the market, I think stating it so simply (a la the MSM) isn't the way to go.
And, for whatever it's worth, I'm inclined to give Obama the benefit of the doubt regarding auto industry vs. financial industry. While the language used to say AIGFP contracts are sacred certainly seemed to contradict the language used concerning union workers' contracts, didn't we just put the heads of AIG and Citibank into the jobs? Perhaps they suck and should be fired, but let's hear the full story with one sector before laying the actions taken within it as a blanket over the other industry.
The public is COMPETELLY in favor of the gov't using their influence to dictate what bonuses are or aren't OK but perhaps NOT so OK with influencing a staff change (that perhaps really, REALLY needed to happen)?
So, they're willing to start down that slippery slope for the bonuses issue but want to go no further with it than that (until they see something else to get righteously indignant about)...
Yeah, riiight... That's not the LEAST bit hypocritical or anything...
If Business doesn't like the terms then they can leave the money on the table.
Departure of General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner:
"I have never heard of such a thing in all my days: The main representative of the people ordering a corporate chieftain to step down — today! And not just any corporate CEO, but the head of the company that has spent more years at #1 on the Fortune 500 than any other corporation in the world." – Michael Moore
http://www.michaelmoore.com/
I grow weary of the incessant Obama boosterism going on here at AmericaBlog. Not one single word on the double standard being applied here to the auto industry vis wall street. The scorecard at the bottom of the post is incorrect, it should read
Obama 0
America 0
GOP 1
The GOP got what they wanted -- a breakup of the unions. Go read CrooksAndLiars take on this.
But keep up the rah, rah, john boy...jerk
the former CEOs of Goldman, AIG, Citi, Merrill, Fannie, Freddie are ALL OUT. It's hard to compare financial institutions with manufacturers, but what is the double standard exactly?
I have not been blindly cheerleading the Obama admin.
Au contraire!
And I was an ardent supporter from way back when -- before he was even the nominee. I supported him over Hillary.
I said the same thing about Repubs being mum because it suits their union busting agenda. (Scroll down.)
The other problem with those on the left (which I used to be on, but admittedly moving right) is that we don't allow any free thinking. Any mention of the unions possibly being part of the problem is met with "you must be a troll!" Whatever that even means. The reality is that we have a global economy and if some guy in India is willing to work for less money, should we deny him that opportunity? If a company can't survive any longer manufacturing in the US, should they not move operations to where they can survive?
I love how people like Chuck and all these other rocket scientists that have all the answers can't turn Detroit profitable. Why is that Chuck?
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09045/949094-28.stm
In a capitilist environment, a company would make and sell a product or service for which they would be compensated. If they are unable to do so... they should go out of business. If that leaves a hole in the economy... it will be filled by someone capable of doing so.
Obama not only has no business firing anyone in the private sector... he has no business competing with other private sector businesses by propping up failing companies.