Does President Obama get credit for saving GM?

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'd feel a whole lot better about it if he hadn't fucked over the bondholders. The way the unions came out of it ahead of the bondholders makes it look suspiciously like favoritism. Was there a better way?

I would have liked to see the Board of Directors of many big companies and banks be held to account. They carry liability insurance and they are responsible for much of America's economic ills. and the Bond Holders

 

[Papageorgio]

I'd like the taxpayer out of the auto industry. Until they are, GM is not a success.

 

[Shelzin]

Does President Obama get credit for saving GM?
Here is an old thread OP. Started out fine...

Did Obama Save GM?
GM Profit Rises to $1.54 Billion on Auto Sales Gains
GM Profit Rises to $1.54 Billion on Auto Sales Gains - BusinessWeek

For the longest time we have been subjected to wild rants about Obama 'taking over' GM. Socialism on the march!

Now it looks like GM is on the road to becoming a profitable private entity again -- thanks to Obama.

Does Obama get credit?

---

“Last year GM was shutting down plants when they filed” Chapter 11, said Wall, who is based in Grand Rapids, Michigan. “This summer, most of its U.S. plants were running full out.”

btw, is the above quote an example of the new generation of editors being dumbed down? who is 'Wall'?

I don't have the latest stats handy, but the conversation can go forward as is: Did Obama save GM and does he deserve credit, and if not, why not?




note: old links broken or..

anyway: GM Profit Rises to $1.54 Billion, Plans IPO Up to $16 Billion - Bloomberg

At this point I don't know if I should give him credit for his two kids.

 

[Bfgrn]

I would hope pretty well after getting nearly $50 billion of other people's money. Christ!

The point is, I don't care how they're doing. That's a concern for GM's employees, business partners and stakeholders. They should have faced bankruptcy just like anyone else. It was a gift to unions, a butt fuck for bondholders and taxpayers.

How many corporations in US History have been bailed out with other people's money? Do you consider them all failures, or do you stand up and say GM is an anomaly in American business?

I'm saying NO business should ever be bailed out with taxpayer money.

Is there an enumerated power to bailout union friendly businesses that I missed?

Is George W. Bush a friend of unions?

Bush Would “Do it Again” on Auto Bailouts

It has become one of the rare things that binds the two men, the controversial automotive bailout that was begun by former President George W. Bush and completed by his successor, President Barrack Obama.

The latter defended his actions during the recent state-of-the-union address, during which he declared “The U.S. auto industry is back.” His predecessor used a meeting of the nation’s auto dealers to defend his own actions, insisting he had no other choice but to completely sink the American economy.

“I’d do it again,” proclaimed Bush, speaking to the annual convention of the National Automobile Dealers Association.

The bailout, which ultimately totaled $85 billion, was originally begun during the waning days of the Bush Administration. With a specific rescue effort rejected by Congress, the former Commander-in-Chief decided to tap into a separate, $700 billion fund Capitol Hill did approve for the bailout of Wall Street and the banking industry.

“Sometimes circumstances get in the way of philosophy,” said the ex-President, during his speech in Las Vegas, referring to his normal stand in favor of free trade. “If you make a bad decision, you ought to pay,” he said, referring to the collapse of both General Motors and Chrysler.

But Bush also noted that coming on top of the failure of Lehman Brothers, the meltdown of the banking industry and the collapse of the housing market, a painful shift in policy was needed.

“I didn’t want there to be 21% unemployment,” he stressed, echoing forecasts at the time that the loss of GM, Ford and the automotive lenders also covered by the bailout could lead to the loss of 1 million jobs.

The former President has kept a low-key profile since leaving office in January 2009 – though he did call the bailout “the only option” in his 2010 book, “Decision Points” — leaving his successor to field much of the criticism.

In that book, the 43rd President argued that, “The immediate bankruptcy of (Chrysler and GM) could cost more than a million jobs, decrease tax revenues by $150 billion and set back America’s Gross Domestic Product by hundreds of billions of dollars.”

Republican president candidate Mitt Romney is among those who have said they would have rejected a bailout.

Bush Would

 

[buckeye45_73]

How many corporations in US History have been bailed out with other people's money? Do you consider them all failures, or do you stand up and say GM is an anomaly in American business?

I'm saying NO business should ever be bailed out with taxpayer money.

Is there an enumerated power to bailout union friendly businesses that I missed?

Is George W. Bush a friend of unions?

Bush Would “Do it Again” on Auto Bailouts

It has become one of the rare things that binds the two men, the controversial automotive bailout that was begun by former President George W. Bush and completed by his successor, President Barrack Obama.

The latter defended his actions during the recent state-of-the-union address, during which he declared “The U.S. auto industry is back.” His predecessor used a meeting of the nation’s auto dealers to defend his own actions, insisting he had no other choice but to completely sink the American economy.

“I’d do it again,” proclaimed Bush, speaking to the annual convention of the National Automobile Dealers Association.

The bailout, which ultimately totaled $85 billion, was originally begun during the waning days of the Bush Administration. With a specific rescue effort rejected by Congress, the former Commander-in-Chief decided to tap into a separate, $700 billion fund Capitol Hill did approve for the bailout of Wall Street and the banking industry.

“Sometimes circumstances get in the way of philosophy,” said the ex-President, during his speech in Las Vegas, referring to his normal stand in favor of free trade. “If you make a bad decision, you ought to pay,” he said, referring to the collapse of both General Motors and Chrysler.

But Bush also noted that coming on top of the failure of Lehman Brothers, the meltdown of the banking industry and the collapse of the housing market, a painful shift in policy was needed.

“I didn’t want there to be 21% unemployment,” he stressed, echoing forecasts at the time that the loss of GM, Ford and the automotive lenders also covered by the bailout could lead to the loss of 1 million jobs.

The former President has kept a low-key profile since leaving office in January 2009 – though he did call the bailout “the only option” in his 2010 book, “Decision Points” — leaving his successor to field much of the criticism.

In that book, the 43rd President argued that, “The immediate bankruptcy of (Chrysler and GM) could cost more than a million jobs, decrease tax revenues by $150 billion and set back America’s Gross Domestic Product by hundreds of billions of dollars.”

Republican president candidate Mitt Romney is among those who have said they would have rejected a bailout.

Bush Would

So you're a fan of Bush?

 

[buckeye45_73]

I'd feel a whole lot better about it if he hadn't fucked over the bondholders. The way the unions came out of it ahead of the bondholders makes it look suspiciously like favoritism. Was there a better way?

I would have liked to see the Board of Directors of many big companies and banks be held to account. They carry liability insurance and they are responsible for much of America's economic ills. and the Bond Holders

Youre right, they should have told the unions to Fuck off? I agree with that.
GM Said to Increase Entry-Level UAW Wage by $2 to $3 an Hour - Bloomberg

So how long til the next bailout? You cant increase the price of cars, when people are buying kias and cheap crap, why? becuase it's CHEAP.

I love liberals you really think companies exist to create jobs? You really dont understand what a business is do you?

 

[Papageorgio]

Does President Obama get credit for saving GM?
Here is an old thread OP. Started out fine...

Did Obama Save GM?
GM Profit Rises to $1.54 Billion on Auto Sales Gains
GM Profit Rises to $1.54 Billion on Auto Sales Gains - BusinessWeek

For the longest time we have been subjected to wild rants about Obama 'taking over' GM. Socialism on the march!

Now it looks like GM is on the road to becoming a profitable private entity again -- thanks to Obama.

Does Obama get credit?

---

“Last year GM was shutting down plants when they filed” Chapter 11, said Wall, who is based in Grand Rapids, Michigan. “This summer, most of its U.S. plants were running full out.”

btw, is the above quote an example of the new generation of editors being dumbed down? who is 'Wall'?

I don't have the latest stats handy, but the conversation can go forward as is: Did Obama save GM and does he deserve credit, and if not, why not?




note: old links broken or..

anyway: GM Profit Rises to $1.54 Billion, Plans IPO Up to $16 Billion - Bloomberg

At this point I don't know if I should give him credit for his two kids.

Do we credit him for Solyndra? Do we credit him with 8.3% unemployment?

How much credit should we give, do we give him credit for all small businesses?

 

[buckeye45_73]

No we dont, because GM aint out of the woods yet, the unions just jacked up the wages again...so the cars are even more expensive and they'll lose more market share to places likeKia...Liberals have no idea what business is and how it works. For one thing, if you want to make money, dont have entry level jobs like line work at a factory, I've done it and there is no reason to get paid as much as we did....

 

[Bfgrn]

I'm saying NO business should ever be bailed out with taxpayer money.

Is there an enumerated power to bailout union friendly businesses that I missed?

Is George W. Bush a friend of unions?

Bush Would “Do it Again” on Auto Bailouts

It has become one of the rare things that binds the two men, the controversial automotive bailout that was begun by former President George W. Bush and completed by his successor, President Barrack Obama.

The latter defended his actions during the recent state-of-the-union address, during which he declared “The U.S. auto industry is back.” His predecessor used a meeting of the nation’s auto dealers to defend his own actions, insisting he had no other choice but to completely sink the American economy.

“I’d do it again,” proclaimed Bush, speaking to the annual convention of the National Automobile Dealers Association.

The bailout, which ultimately totaled $85 billion, was originally begun during the waning days of the Bush Administration. With a specific rescue effort rejected by Congress, the former Commander-in-Chief decided to tap into a separate, $700 billion fund Capitol Hill did approve for the bailout of Wall Street and the banking industry.

“Sometimes circumstances get in the way of philosophy,” said the ex-President, during his speech in Las Vegas, referring to his normal stand in favor of free trade. “If you make a bad decision, you ought to pay,” he said, referring to the collapse of both General Motors and Chrysler.

But Bush also noted that coming on top of the failure of Lehman Brothers, the meltdown of the banking industry and the collapse of the housing market, a painful shift in policy was needed.

“I didn’t want there to be 21% unemployment,” he stressed, echoing forecasts at the time that the loss of GM, Ford and the automotive lenders also covered by the bailout could lead to the loss of 1 million jobs.

The former President has kept a low-key profile since leaving office in January 2009 – though he did call the bailout “the only option” in his 2010 book, “Decision Points” — leaving his successor to field much of the criticism.

In that book, the 43rd President argued that, “The immediate bankruptcy of (Chrysler and GM) could cost more than a million jobs, decrease tax revenues by $150 billion and set back America’s Gross Domestic Product by hundreds of billions of dollars.”

Republican president candidate Mitt Romney is among those who have said they would have rejected a bailout.

Bush Would

So you're a fan of Bush?

I give him credit for doing the right thing.

As a matter of fact, I supported President Bush after 9/11 and I agreed with going after bin Laden and al-Qaeda. It was the invasion of Iraq that turned me against him.

 

[Bfgrn]

No we dont, because GM aint out of the woods yet, the unions just jacked up the wages again...so the cars are even more expensive and they'll lose more market share to places likeKia...Liberals have no idea what business is and how it works. For one thing, if you want to make money, dont have entry level jobs like line work at a factory, I've done it and there is no reason to get paid as much as we did....

The union automakers have two tiered pay. Entry level workers make half as much. About $14/hr.

Conservatives talk out of their assholes and always spew their contempt for the working man or anyone who isn't opulent enough to be worthy of their Monica Lewinsky worship.

The FACTS:

In 2007 the UAW gave each of the Big 3 automakers the right to hire new workers at half the normal rate, about $14. The tier-two workers were supposed to be limited to certain “non-core” jobs or to 20 percent of the workforce, and to bump up to traditional status when 20 percent was reached.

But with the 2009 bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler, the new-hire wage was set at about $14 with no path to full pay, no pension, and no raises or bonuses for six years. The auto industry was set on course to become a fully low-wage industry as older workers retired.

The national average manufacturing wage, union and non-union, is $17.20.

By 2010, the wage-cutting had spread. The UAW agreed to let 40 percent of workers at a Detroit-area GM plant work at $14, to help the company turn a profit on subcompact and compact cars. Last month UAW Vice President Joe Ashton said the union was open to similar arrangements elsewhere to save jobs.

Contracts with the Big 3 expire in September, and both GM and Chrysler workers are facing negotiations without the right to strike—a condition imposed by the U.S. government when it bailed out the two companies in 2009.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY American car manufacturers lose more market share to places like Kia


2007

Health care: an issue that cries out for leadership.

Health care in this country is in shambles. At a cost of almost $12,000 a year for the average family, the system is bankrupting families and it's bankrupting companies - specifically my old industry. Take General Motors. They're currently paying out $1,525 per vehicle for health care. Compare that to the $201 Toyota is paying and it sounds even more absurd. And what about those families and individuals who can't afford insurance at all? Junior breaks his arm and all of a sudden, a fall off a bike is an $8,000 trip to the ER.

Despite all of this, none of our politicians will touch the issue. Oh sure, they'll talk about it during campaign season, but once the votes are cast, it's the forgotten issue again. The last time anyone proposed real reform was in 1993, and that plan went nowhere. Fourteen years later, Hillary Clinton's failed plan is still used as an excuse to continue ignoring the problem. That's disgraceful.

I suggest you listen carefully to the '08 candidates' "plans" for health care. Let's see if any of them have the political courage to really tackle it this time around. I don't want band-aid ideas either. I want concrete solutions - and I want to hold these guys to their promises.

 

[Claudette]

So. The can't build the plant in America and sell to the Chinese??

Not really. China imposes crippling tariffs on imported vehicles from the U.S. Its either build the cars in China to sell to the Chinese - or not sell to the Chinese.

Nice to know.

As I said. Good business move on GM's part but not so good for jobs in America.

Like you give a shit whether or not GM employs people in the U.S.

Unlike an ingnit mofo like You. I do care about jobs in America. Especially since my tax dollars bailed out GM.

Good business move for GM. No damned unions to cater to in China. Bad move for jobs in America. Nothing will make that palatable.

 

[BlindBoo]

The 37 % of likely GOP voter are voting against the President because they hate him with a passion not seen in this country since the days of the Civil War. Those folks will never give him credit in any endeavor.

 

[Claudette]

More like his policies suck and he sucks at POTUS.

Hates a strong emotion and quite frankly most people aren't worth the effort it takes to hate em.

Hate Barry?? Naah. Just like to see him out of the WH and somebody in who can actually get the economy up and rolling.

 

[BlindBoo]

More like his policies suck and he sucks at POTUS.

Hates a strong emotion and quite frankly most people aren't worth the effort it takes to hate em.

Hate Barry?? Naah. Just like to see him out of the WH and somebody in who can actually get the economy up and rolling.

You might not hate him. However 37% of the likely GOP voter are voting that way because they hate him and will pass along any and every lie to denigrate him or anyone who supports him.

 

[Interpol]

GM went and asked the White House if they could save their ass, and the President said he would, but under his conditions.

The rescue worked and it worked on the terms set out by President Obama. He didn't need to rescue them, he wasn't looking to rescue them, he didn't owe them anything, but when the chips were down and the private sector was fucked, Obama decided to help and he made a good business decision by doing so, as reflected in their success ever since.

A Republican President would be equally proud to say they rescued America's car company, or at least the Republicans I used to know.

I don't care what letter you've got next to your name, a success is a success, and Obama risked a lot on that decision and proved that he could govern beyond what was required of him.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So. The can't build the plant in America and sell to the Chinese??

Not really. China imposes crippling tariffs on imported vehicles from the U.S. Its either build the cars in China to sell to the Chinese - or not sell to the Chinese.

Nice to know.

As I said. Good business move on GM's part but not so good for jobs in America.

Like you give a shit whether or not GM employs people in the U.S.

Unlike an ingnit mofo like You. I do care about jobs in America. Especially since my tax dollars bailed out GM.

Good business move for GM. No damned unions to cater to in China. Bad move for jobs in America. Nothing will make that palatable.

How many of your tax dollars (individual/personal) do you think GM got?

Seriously. You're comments betray an ignorance that stuns the mind.