Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: RadioFreeSeaLab on March 30, 2009, 02:57:38 PM
-
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090330/r_t_rtrs_bs_company/tbs-uk-autos-obama-remarks-sb-03c9bed_2.html?printer=1
(Reuters) - Following are excerpts from President Barack Obama's Monday remarks about the U.S. auto industry's restructuring effort
In recent months, my Auto Task Force has been reviewing requests by General Motors and Chrysler for additional government assistance as well as plans developed by each of these companies to restructure, modernize, and make themselves more competitive.
Year after year, decade after decade, we have seen problems papered-over and tough choices kicked down the road, even as foreign competitors outpaced us. Well, we have reached the end of that road.
We cannot, we must not, and we will not let our auto industry simply vanish. But we also cannot continue to excuse poor decisions. And we cannot make the survival of our auto industry dependent on an unending flow of tax dollars. These companies -- and this industry -- must ultimately stand on their own, not as wards of the state.
That is why the federal government provided General Motors and Chrysler with emergency loans to prevent their sudden collapse at the end of last year -- only on the condition that they would develop plans to restructure. In keeping with that agreement, each company has submitted a plan to restructure.
But after careful analysis, we have determined that neither goes far enough to warrant the substantial new investments that these companies are requesting. And so today, I am announcing that my administration will offer GM and Chrysler a limited period of time to work with creditors, unions, and other stakeholders to fundamentally restructure in a way that would justify an investment of additional tax dollars; a period during which they must produce plans that would give the American people confidence in their long-term prospects for success.
What we are asking is difficult. It will require hard choices by companies. It will require unions and workers who have already made painful concessions to make even more. It will require creditors to recognise that they cannot hold out for the prospect of endless government bailouts. Only then can we ask American taxpayers who have already put up so much of their hard-earned money to once more invest in a revitalized auto industry.
GENERAL MOTORS
So let me discuss what measures need to be taken by each of the auto companies requesting taxpayer assistance, starting with General Motors. While GM has made a good faith effort to restructure over the past several months, the plan they have put forward is, in its current form, not strong enough.
However, after broad consultations with a range of industry experts and financial advisors, I'm confident that GM can rise again, provided that it undergoes a fundamental restructuring. As an initial step, GM is announcing today that Rick Wagoner is stepping aside as Chairman and CEO. This is not meant as a condemnation of Mr. Wagoner, who has devoted his life to this company; rather, it's a recognition that it will take a new vision and new direction to create the GM of the future.
In this context, my administration will offer General Motors adequate working capital over the next 60 days. During this time, my team will be working closely with GM to produce a better business plan.
They must ask themselves: have they consolidated enough unprofitable brands? Have they cleaned up their balance sheets or are they still saddled with so much debt that they can't make future investments? And above all, have they created a credible model for how to not only survive, but succeed in this competitive global market?
Let me be clear: the United States government has no interest or intention of running GM. What we are interested in is giving GM an opportunity to finally make those much-needed changes that will let them emerge from this crisis a stronger and more competitive company.
CHRYSLER
The situation at Chrysler is more challenging. It is with deep reluctance but also a clear-eyed recognition of the facts that we have determined, after a careful review, that Chrysler needs a partner to remain viable. Recently, Chrysler reached out and found what could be a potential partner -- the international car company Fiat, where the current management team has executed an impressive turnaround. Fiat is prepared to transfer its cutting-edge technology to Chrysler and, after working closely with my team, has committed to building new fuel-efficient cars and engines here in America.
We have also secured an agreement that will ensure that Chrysler repays taxpayers for any new investments that are made before Fiat is allowed to take a majority ownership stake in Chrysler.
Still, such a deal would require an additional investment of tax dollars, and there are a number of hurdles that must be overcome to make it work. I am committed to doing all I can to see if a deal can be struck in a way that upholds the interests of American taxpayers.
That is why we will give Chrysler and Fiat 30 days to overcome these hurdles and reach a final agreement -- and we will provide Chrysler with adequate capital to continue operating during that time. If they are able to come to a sound agreement that protects American taxpayers, we will consider lending up to $6 billion to help their plan succeed. But if they and their stakeholders are unable to reach such an agreement, and in the absence of any other viable partnership, we will not be able to justify investing additional tax dollar to keep Chrysler in business.
BANKRUPTCY
While Chrysler and GM are very different companies with very different paths forward, both need a fresh start to implement the restructuring plans they develop. That may mean using our bankruptcy code as a mechanism to help them restructure quickly and emerge stronger.
Now, I know that when people even hear the word "bankruptcy" it can be a bit unsettling, so let me explain what I mean. What I am talking about is using our existing legal structure as a tool that, with the backing of the U.S. government, can make it easier for General Motors and Chrysler to quickly clear away old debts that are weighing them down so they can get back on their feet and onto a path to success; a tool that we can use, even as workers are staying on the job building cars that are being sold.
What I am not talking about is a process where a company is broken up, sold off, and no longer exists. And what I am not talking about is having a company stuck in court for years, unable to get out.
GOVERNMENT WARRANTY
It is my hope that the steps I am announcing today will go a long way towards answering many of the questions people may have about the future of GM and Chrysler. But just in case there are still nagging doubts, let me say it as plainly as I can -- if you buy a car from Chrysler or General Motors, you will be able to get your car serviced and repaired, just like always. Your warrantee will be safe.
In fact, it will be safer than it's ever been. Because starting today, the United States government will stand behind your warrantee.
AUTO SALES SUPPORT
Therefore, to support demand for auto sales during this period, I'm directing my team to take several steps. First, we will ensure that Recovery Act funds to purchase government cars go out as quickly as possible and work through the budget process to accelerate other federal fleet purchases as well.
Second, we will accelerate our efforts through the Treasury Department's Consumer and Business Lending Initiative. And we are working intensively with the auto finance companies to increase the flow of credit to both consumers and dealers.
Third, the IRS is today launching a campaign to alert consumers of a new tax benefit for auto purchases made between Feb 16 and the end of this year -- if you buy a car anytime this year, you may be able to deduct the cost of any sales and excise taxes. This provision could save families hundreds of dollars and lead to as many as 100,000 new car sales.
Finally, several members of Congress have proposed an even more ambitious incentive program to increase car sales while modernizing our auto fleet.
I want to work with Congress to identify parts of the Recovery Act that could be trimmed to fund such a program, and make it retroactive starting today.
DIRECTOR OF RECOVERY
I am designating a new Director of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers to cut through red tape and ensure that the full resources of our federal government are leveraged to assist the workers, communities, and regions that rely on our auto industry.
Edward Montgomery, a former Deputy Labour Secretary, has agreed to serve in this role. Together with Labour Secretary Solis and my Auto Task Force, Ed will help provide support to auto workers and their families, and open up opportunity in manufacturing communities. Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and every other state that relies on the auto industry will have a strong advocate in Ed.
-
Year after year, decade after decade, we have seen problems papered-over and tough choices kicked down the road, even as foreign competitors outpaced us. Well, we have reached the end of that road.
Funny, I thought that was the government's plan, not the auto industry:
Social Security, Medicare...
Heck, even just paying for the debt- we'll just worry about it later...
-
I am designating a new Director of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers to cut through red tape and ensure that the full resources of our federal government are leveraged to assist the workers, communities, and regions that rely on our auto industry.
Edward Montgomery, a former Deputy Labour Secretary, has agreed to serve in this role. Together with Labour Secretary Solis and my Auto Task Force, Ed will help provide support to auto workers and their families, and open up opportunity in manufacturing communities. Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and every other state that relies on the auto industry will have a strong advocate in Ed.
Ha!
Show me a labor-agitator that has ever been interested in cutting through red tape... and I'll show you the CEO or executive he disemboweled to get his way.
I also like the prioritization here. Auto worker families, manufacturing communities. Not making the auto market exciting and thriving again. Not balancing the books. Not advancing technology.
-
I am announcing that my administration will offer GM and Chrysler a limited period of time to work with creditors, unions, and other stakeholders to fundamentally restructure in a way that would justify an investment of additional tax dollars; a period during which they must produce plans that would give the American people confidence in their long-term prospects for success.
Wait, isn't that what companies generally do all along, in order to maintain an increase their share prices? And didn't the American people say that they were NOT impressed and NOT confident in the long-term prospects for success, when the share price plummeted?
-
The remarks apply better to Government. Let them clean up their own house first.
-
I wonder how the feds guaranteeing warranties will work?
-
What we are asking is difficult...... It will require unions and workers who have already made painful concessions to make even more.
Cry me a river. ;/
So auto factory workers, whose families have thrived for generations on artificially inflated benefits and labor costs might actually have to work for (gasp!) what their labor is worth.
I live in SE Michigan, right in the heart of union town. I've been here all my life. What the UAW has created is:
1. The problems with the big 3 that we have today.
2. Worship of the Union labor lifestyle, much like a religion.
3. Four generations of uneducated losers (no, not ALL of them, but plenty. I call some of them family).
-
Chrysler merging with Fiat, eh? =D
-
Chrysler merging with Fiat, eh? =D
Yeah, so they can bring tiny, underpowered re-badged Fiats here that nobody wants, even with gas at $4.30 per gallon. Sounds like a winner!
-
Forget his remarks. I care little bout what the speech writers placed in front of Obama.
Does it not bother anyone else that the President of the United States just fired a private employee of a private company? And he got away with it?
-
Bothers the hell out of me. What can I do about it?
-
It sounds more like Obama told GM that they could either fire Wagoner or get money, but not both.
The position of Auto Czar is interesting. Obama is coming up with all sorts of executive positions to determine who gets what money. George Will and others have pointed out that this is patently unconstitutional. Congress appropriates tax funds, not the executive branch. Congress can't just rubber-stamp a bill that allows an Obama appointee to hand out money.
I wonder if the SC will ever hear such arguments. It may be one of the few ways to stop Obama.
-
It sounds more like Obama told GM that they could either fire Wagoner or get money, but not both.
Who at GM could fire Wagoner? The Board? I hear most of them were forced out alongside Wagoner.
-
Forget his remarks. I care little bout what the speech writers placed in front of Obama.
Does it not bother anyone else that the President of the United States just fired a private employee of a private company? And he got away with it?
Actually, yes it does and that is why I came to visit APS this afternoon. Unfortunately, no one was talking about it then. Maybe it is because there is nothing to talk about? The powers that be just took another large chunk of our freedom, we can complain to them, but we know it falls on deaf ears.
It's like getting punched in the face. You can complain after the fact, but in the end, it will not change that you just got punched in the face.
Edit: I realize it was not a firing in the traditional sense but a 'force out' as described by Monkeyleg. My issue is that if the government fires the head of a company then the government must be hiring the heads of a company (atleast in a defacto manner, firing people hired until one they like is hired). It is disturbing that they are so arrogant that they think they can decide who is most fit to run a company. It is not even socialist, it is straight out communist.
-
I heard a teaser for the nightly news tonight saying that Obama is going to offer $7,000 tax credits to people who buy new cars.
I guess Obama is going to give people money (tax money, other peoples' money) to buy cars from his newly-stolen car company.
Are we scared yet?
-
Yes, I'm scared, and pissed off. There's nothing I can do about it. I write my representatives, and I get, basically, a big f**k you in reply. I never voted for these idiots, but the other idiots in my state keep voting them in.
-
What ever happened to the balanced budget amendment idea that was floating around a while ago? Seems like now would be the perfect time to revive it.
If the elected goons don't do what's right, then we should go over their heads and do it ourselves.
If not that, then we need to make darned sure we vote these goons out of office in 2010. We cannot continue at this pace for very long.
-
How can we go over their heads?
-
I never voted for these idiots, but the other idiots in my state keep voting them in.
The country is addicted to entitlement (if not through welfare, in public safety, public schools, public roads, public healthcare, public disability insurance, public retirement, ect). Like all drug addicts, they won't change until they crash and are forced to change. The Dems spend like this because this is what their base wants. Their base wants cars for everyone, houses they can't afford, ect. ect. all while whining "I am a hardworking American, I deserve these things! I think that my boss doesn't do sh** so gimme!". There are very few places (population wise) that one person could run on the kind of entitlement cuts that we need and ever even have a laughing chance of getting elected. The country's financial system needs to collapse before that will happen. Since national financial collapse can only be talked about in relative terms, I don't forsee our financial system collapsing for a long time, because we are proped up by so many other countries. Everytime we go down, they go down, making us look as good or better.
-
I actually liked my Fiat Spyder 2000.
Fiat owns a large chunk of the automotive world, btw.
We see their products via Case, International Harvester, New Holland, Steyr, Iveco, etc.
GM and Fiat had a partnership from 2000-2005, too.
Ford and Fiat had considered a partnership in 2004.
So it's not terribly unheard of...
I also note with interest, per CNN, that Wagoner is eligible for a $20 million retirement package?
Nice.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/30/gm.ceo.compensation/index.html
-
I also note with interest, per CNN, that Wagoner is eligible for a $20 million retirement package?
My first though about this was, "What kind of Golden Parachute does he get as soon as he bails?"
My second thought wasn't really thinking...rage doesn't qualify as rational thought.
-
Fiat is probably a better company than Chrysler anyways.
Heck, maybe a merger will even help push diesel.
From my my point of view, here in 2009:
Town & Country? Good job. Keep improving it.
300? Decent. Didn't live up to the hype, but could be salvaged.
Aspen? Decent, but unnecessary. What could come of it?
Sebring? Scrap it. Seriously.
PT Cruiser? Scrap it. Seriously.
Charger? Good job. Keep improving it.
Caravan? Good job. Keep improving it (along with the Town & Country).
Ram? Good job. Keep improving it.
Dakota? Good job. Keep improving it.
Avenger? Decent. Needs improving.
Caliber? Decent. Nothing special but is priced pretty well.
Durango? Decent. Could use some improving.
Journey? Decent. Unnecessary though. Where can it go?
Charger? Can't say yet. I don't see how it can go wrong though.
Nitro? Scrap it. Yuck.
Wrangler? Good job.
Grand Cherokee? Good job.
Liberty? Decent. Don't like the latest changes much though.
Patriot? Decent. With some improvements it could stick.
Compass? Scrap it. This could be a way better vehicle than it is. There's potential if there's a will.
Commander? Scrap it. It doesn't have legs to stand on.
Added up, that's really only 7 good vehicles they're making out of the 21 I listed (just over a 30% "success" rate). There are others that have the potential to be more, but for some reason aren't. A few are getting worse. Some look like they were manufactured after missing a deadline. Chrysler doesn't even seem to be trying. I'm sure there's plenty of potential for debate with my opinion, but really, how many of those vehicles would you actually want to drive when you look at other manufacturers?
Sidebar: What role might Alfa Romeo play in this if it happens? That could bring some interesting cars into the US market.
-
The position of Auto Czar is interesting. Obama is coming up with all sorts of executive positions to determine who gets what money. George Will and others have pointed out that this is patently unconstitutional. Congress appropriates tax funds, not the executive branch. Congress can't just rubber-stamp a bill that allows an Obama appointee to hand out money.
This is but a rational conclusion of decades upon decades of government expansion. In a government that takes care of approving new medicine, regulating children's toys, drugs, the Internet, new electronic, bailing out banks, education, urban development, model rocketry, guns, dog food, protected species, national parks and monuments, border security, a two-million-man army, anti-discrimination statutes, health care for the elderly, the postal service, interstate highways, driver's licensing, and several dozen issues, it is not possible for either the legislature or the voting public to keep reasonably informed about all of these issues.
The solution, if you have a government that big, is to appoint executive officers (that's 'bureaucrats' in non-euphemised English) and delegate the daily management of such issues to them. To some extent this is remedied by earmarks – which are corrupting, but at least they are administered by a democratic process - but in general this is the irresistible trend of a government this size. Look at Europe. They have hordes of bureaucrats for this very reason.
Now, one could argue that this is not what the Founders meant – but then, how many people care about that, these days?
-
The automakers, along with other major industrial and financial players, demanded a welfare state to cover their losses and risks. They got it.
That's how this system works-people with lots of financial and social influence demand things, and the politicians respond. It's not a direct democracy, and if it were, you'd probably see more European style socialism, as the population gets wise to the fact that it can vote itself a bigger share of the GDP fairly quickly in a straight up democracy. This is especially true where much of the GDP is in the hands of unsympathetic types (like execs who take millions in bonuses after they nearly wrecked the entire nation's financial system.)
In terms of the constitution and the role of the Federal government, well folks, if you couldn't get people outraged enough to stop the government from asserting its right to throw you in prison for life with no trial, and to torture you to boot, it's pretty much a guarantee that constitutional arguments will be laughed off-scene when it comes to the automobile bailout.
-
Sidebar: What role might Alfa Romeo play in this if it happens? That could bring some interesting cars into the US market.
FIAT is supposedly gonna bring 4 cars between Fiat and Alfa Romeo, to include the Alfa Romeo MiTo and the Fiat 500, as well as some of their small engines. As far as small, underpowered cars go, I'd rather drive either of those, especially the MiTo, than the Yaris, Versa, Fit, or any of those hideous Japanese mini cars. If it happens I might even buy a MiTo, although, I really hope they bring the GTA concept.
http://www.worldcarfans.com/9090223.006/alfa-mito-gta-concept-officially-revealed
http://www.worldcarfans.com/9090310.039/alfa-romeo-mito-gta-promotional-clip-hits-the-spot
-
Forget his remarks. I care little bout what the speech writers placed in front of Obama.
Does it not bother anyone else that the President of the United States just fired a private employee of a private company? And he got away with it?
Not at all. GM stuck their hand out. Sleep with dogs, wake up with fleas, this is of GM's own doing...
-
Lemme see, the federal government cannot even run a whorehouse in Nevada, but suddenly The One, whose last business decision was paper or plastic at the Treasure Island or kings or 100s at the White Hen, is suddenly qualified to run an entire industry. ;/
We are in deeeep trouble.
FIAT=fix it again, Tony.
-
That's how this system works-people with lots of financial and social influence demand things, and the politicians respond.
:rolleyes:
-
This is especially true where much of the GDP is in the hands of unsympathetic types (like execs who take millions in bonuses after they nearly wrecked the entire nation's financial system.)
You mean like:
Franklin Raines (http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSWAT00783420070703)
or
Richard Syron (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25740405/)
Oh... oops, you don't mind their bonuses, it's only the bonuses of those evil wall street people. They're the problem.
-
I'd buy another Fiat, like a Panda or Uno, in a heartbeat.
It's not as if Daimler wants another go at Chrysler, either.
They learned their lesson and dropped them like a bad habit.
-
Does it not bother anyone else that the President of the United States just fired a private employee of a private company? And he got away with it?
Even worse.....doing so will inflate his pseudo-messianic ego to infinite proportions....and he'll keep doing it.... ;/
Can't wait to see him "fire" Rush Limbaugh.... :lol:
-
Does it not bother anyone else that the President of the United States just fired a private employee of a private company? And he got away with it?
No, not any more than the fact that the Congress of the United States voted hundreds of billions of dollars to private companies. =D
-
Still trying to find the exact verbage that says the president fired Wagoner.
Nope. Can't see it.
I did see a reference somewhere that says the White House would consider further government assistance to the company if they restructured, and Wagoner's departure would be part of that restructuring.
Shock?
Outrage?
Hardly.
-
Still trying to find the exact verbage that says the president fired Wagoner.
Nope. Can't see it.
I did see a reference somewhere that says the White House would consider further government assistance to the company if they restructured, and Wagoner's departure would be part of that restructuring.
Shock?
Outrage?
Hardly.
Quibble over the semantics if you like. The substance remains the same. The President issued an ultimatum, "he goes or else!" It's an outrage that he would make the ultimatum. It's an outrage that he could make it stick. And it's an outrage that he's suffering no consequences afterwards.
-
No, not any more than the fact that the Congress of the United States voted hundreds of billions of dollars to private companies. =D
What a sorry state we've come to. The President does something atrocious, and our response is "meh, that's no worse than what they did last month."
-
The President issued an ultimatum, "he goes or else!" It's an outrage that he would make the ultimatum.
It would be an outrage if the "or else" meant something like forcefully shutting them down. In this case "or else" means they would not be receiving yet another "capital investment" from the federal government. While not bailing out companies would be preferable, I think some prerequisites and conditions attached to a bail out are probably better than none. An example would be to make sure the same people who drove a company into the ground would not be in charge to manage that company in the future. I can't say I'm too familiar with Wagoner's history and performance with GM, but judging by the fact that they are begging the government to keep them afloat I'm guessing it wasn't very impressive.
-
It would be an outrage if the "or else" meant something like forcefully shutting them down. In this case "or else" means they would not be receiving yet another "capital investment" from the federal government. While not bailing out companies would be preferable, I think some prerequisites and conditions attached to a bail out are probably better than none. An example would be to make sure the same people who drove a company into the ground would not be in charge to manage that company in the future. I can't say I'm too familiar with Wagoner's history and performance with GM, but judging by the fact that they are begging the government to keep them afloat I'm guessing it wasn't very impressive.
The "or else" threat was a threat to shut them down. The threat was that Obama would demand immediate repayment of the money already lent to GM, secure in the knowledge that much of the money had already been spent and couldn't possibly have been repaid immediately. GM had no choice whatsoever, and that's exactly why Obama did it.
As a CEO Wagoner has been competent, if not spectacular. I'm not sure anyone could have done much better with the mess that was GM when Wagoner took over 8 years ago. GM's problems date back many decades, and they'll decades to fix (assuming no bankruptcy and no cooperation from the unions).
If this was about punishing the people responsible, then Ron Gettlefinger should have been fired right alongside Wagoner and GM's board. The fact that GM's senior leadership was brought to heel while the unions weren't even scratched should tell you all you need to know about what's really happening here.
-
Merely competent is not enough now, unfortunately.
It wasn't as cut and dry as "He goes, or else".
It was, IMHO, "You aren't getting another dime out of the U.S. taxpayers until you reorganize and show us a workable business plan. That plan should be sound enough to prevent another bailout request, and if you're not the man who can do it, find somebody else who can. We aren't going to dump more good money after bad."
At which point GM agreed - pretty much a carrot and stick approach. GM was under no obligation to oblige President Obama's request, but if they want to belly up to Uncle Sam's cash trough for a second helping, they'd better show some serious effort, both to the White House and the American public. Saving face means getting rid of the management who steered that behemoth's helm into the current mess, even if they were nice people and brought milk and cookies for the staff every day. If there was an "or else", it would only have meant they were free to get their financing elsewhere. The government wasn't going to shut them down. Their own business practices would do that in due time, without any assistance or intereference from Uncle Sam.
I dunno, maybe I don't see a Brownshirt Kristallnacht Pt. II happening next, although looking back at the results of the first bailout, the White House and Congress should've just said "no" to any more cash injections. If they really want to survive, GM and Chrysler need to file and reorganize the right way.
-
Merely competent is not enough now, unfortunately.
It wasn't as cut and dry as "He goes, or else".
It was, IMHO, "You aren't getting another dime out of the U.S. taxpayers until you reorganize and show us a workable business plan. That plan should be sound enough to prevent another bailout request, and if you're not the man who can do it, find somebody else who can. We aren't going to dump more good money after bad."
I believe you are mistaken. It wasn't a matter of throwing good money after bad. The issue wasn't about whether GM would receive additional money, it was about whether GM would be forced to immediately return the money they had already borrowed, which would have been impossible.
The terms of the first loan required that GM submit a restructuring plan by March 31, or else they'd have to repay that first loan in 30 days.
Well, GM held up its end of the bargain. They submitted a plan by the due date. By all accounts it's a decent, workable plan. GM could have survived under that plan and eventually repaid the loans.
Obama threatened to reject the plan out of hand if Wagoner wasn't forced out. By arbitrarily rejecting the plan, Obama presented GM with n impossible choice: Either Wagoner goes or GM will be dead within 30 days.
I don't know how else to look at it but that Obama fired Wagoner. There's some plausible deniability and misdirection built in to the arrangement, there always in in political maneuverings like this one. But the substance of it remains the same. Obama fired Wagoner.
GM should have gone bankrupt late last year. But for whatever reasons they didn't. Now Obama has turned the situation his advantge. Instead of either bailing them out of forcing them into bankruptcy (either of those alternatives would have been defensible) he's done something far worse. He fired the CEO and Board of Directors of a private company, and stole de facto control of the country's largest industrial company for himself.
-
This current administration is like a loan shark. Not that I think the government should be loaning money (which it doesn't even have) to private enterprise. But when you borrow money from uncle sam and this current administration especially, and you have a barely viable business model as it is, expect them to pull the strings. I've got no sympathy for the outing of the GM CEO.
-
This current administration is like a loan shark. Not that I think the government should be loaning money (which it doesn't even have) to private enterprise. But when you borrow money from uncle sam and this current administration especially, and you have a barely viable business model as it is, expect them to pull the strings. I've got no sympathy for the outing of the GM CEO.
I have no sympathy for the GM CEO, either.
That's the problem: too many people are assuming that those who object to Obama's forcing Mr. Wagoner out aren't saying he was a good CEO who should be kept around.
We aren't. We honestly don't care if he stays or goes so long as it is at the behest of the shareholders. Our problem is the government saying what has to happen in a private company.
-
Our problem is the government saying what has to happen in a private company.
Maybe your definition of a private company is different than mine. The federal government is guaranteeing their warranties for them. They've already received billions of dollars from the federal government and are asking for billions more. They failed on their own, and once the government propped them up the government got some control over how things will go. GM chose not to remain a private company and they are experiencing the consequences.
-
They are no longer a private company. By accepting money from the government for a stake in the company, they've essentially become nationalized.
-
They are no longer a private company. By accepting money from the government for a stake in the company, they've essentially become nationalized.
GM has indeed been nationalized, though it wasn't accepting the loan that did it, it was Obama's firing of the CEO and the Board of Directors.
GM should have been put through bankruptcyt. Barring that, they should have been bailed out. What Obama did was much worse. Obama stole the company for himself, and he used our money and the power of the government to do it.
Only three months into office and Obama has already nationalized the biggest industrial company in the country. Give him another few weeks and he'll have a big bank or three under direct government control.
Are you scared yet?
-
GM has indeed been nationalized, though it wasn't accepting the loan that did it, it was Obama's firing of the CEO and the Board of Directors.
GM should have been put through bankruptcyt. Barring that, they should have been bailed out. What Obama did was much worse. Obama stole the company for himself, and he used our money and the power of the government to do it.
Only three months into office and Obama has already nationalized the biggest industrial company in the country. Give him another few weeks and he'll have a big bank or three under direct government control.
Are you scared yet?
The only thing I'm scared of is that large corporations might keep asking for and receiving money until the Government is bankrupt.
It's silly to pin the blame on the evil uncle sam for this when the origin of the problem is these same corporate boards begging for cash. If they were silly enough to think they were going to get cash with no strings attached, they shouldn't be in business in the first place.
The nationalizing is going on so that bad debts can be absorbed by the public. No one with a profitable and secure business is being owned by the government in this process, because those people weren't in line for bailouts. This is hardly a scam to end private business as we know it.
-
No one with a profitable and secure business is being owned by the government in this process, because those people weren't in line for bailouts.
Tell that to the banks that were forced to take TARP monies they neither wanted nor had need of.
-
GM has indeed been nationalized, though it wasn't accepting the loan that did it, it was Obama's firing of the CEO and the Board of Directors.
GM should have been put through bankruptcyt. Barring that, they should have been bailed out. What Obama did was much worse. Obama stole the company for himself, and he used our money and the power of the government to do it.
Only three months into office and Obama has already nationalized the biggest industrial company in the country. Give him another few weeks and he'll have a big bank or three under direct government control.
Are you scared yet?
There are bigger things to be scared of with this administration. The nationalization of businesses happened because those businesses asked the world's biggest meanest loan shark for money (uncle sam). Bad move. Hopefully the canning of the GM CEO and the new legislation allowing everyone's favorite tax cheat to set salaries for those companies.....hopefully businesses will wake up after seeing that.
-
There are bigger things to be scared of with this administration. The nationalization of businesses happened because those businesses asked the world's biggest meanest loan shark for money (uncle sam). Bad move. Hopefully the canning of the GM CEO and the new legislation allowing everyone's favorite tax cheat to set salaries for those companies.....hopefully businesses will wake up after seeing that.
Uncle Sam is like a big mean loan shark?
Funny, Uncle Sam didn't show any loan shark tendencies back when Chrysler borrowed money in the 80's. That transaction played out as an honest loan deal. Money was borrowed and repaid without a fuss. Nobody ended up nationalized, and neither party tried to twist the loan agreement into a phony pretext for taking over the other party.
Come to think of it, Uncle Sam didn't show any nasty loan shark behavior at all until just recently.
Hmm, I wonder what happened recently that turned the honorable Uncle Sam into the big mean loan shark?
-
I was just going to mention the Lee Iacocca Chrysler loans.
He paid back Uncle Sam 7 years earlier than expected.
No loan shark mentality, at least, not from what I remember at the time.
-
I believe the feds provided loan guarantees for chrysler. Big difference.
I have no sympathy for Wagoner or GM. If your company depends on government handouts to stay out of Chapter 11, then the government owns you.
-
Tell that to the banks that were forced to take TARP monies they neither wanted nor had need of.
I'd be interested to hear of this bank and how it was forced to take money.
As for Chrysler's bailout, it allowed Chrysler to bounce on its debts, to the tune of sticking creditors with a good 70 percent loss.
Also, it was enacted by the President that many on this forum consider to be the historical Obama - Jimmy Carter. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=32978
The loan guarantees will not be made by the Federal Government unless the other contributions or concessions are given to Chrysler by its own owners, stockholders, administrators, employees, dealers, suppliers, foreign and domestic financial institutions, and by State and local governments. It's got to be a package deal, and everyone understands this. And because they have already probed for the best possible interrelationship to form a team to protect Chrysler's viability, I believe there's a good chance that this package will be put together.
Here's a good article about how the Chrysler bailout compares to the most recent bailout plans:
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40005_20081217.pdf
A board that oversaw Chrysler management and conditioned all the money on Chrysler's continued operation in accordance with the Government's requirements? Hrmmm...looks a lot like what they're doing to GM. It's quite difficult to see how the program is different, apart from the direct cash versus guarantee to get cash method.
-
I'd be interested to hear of this bank and how it was forced to take money.
Banks, plural. This subject falls into the "common knowledge" category as it has been discussed at length here at APS in more than one thread. Do a search.
There are any number of news stories available on the web from main stream outlets, as well. It's not WND stuff. Google is your friend.
-
On banks forced to take TARP money, and banks trying to pay it back, but not being allowed to.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html
-
On banks forced to take TARP money, and banks trying to pay it back, but not being allowed to.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/14/AR2008101403378.html
And another.
From the article,
Regulators said some banks will be pressed to take the taxpayer dollars anyway. Others banks judged too sick to save will be allowed to fail.