GM CEO asked to step down by Obama

[DJofSD]

In exchange for more federal monies, Wagner, CEO of GM, to step down.

More here (Yahoo Finance). (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/GM-CEO-Wagoner-to-step-down-apf-14777138.html)

Wow. I don't know if I should laugh or cry.

Now Ford will be competing against the government. Any one willing to lay odds who wins?

[Tom]

This jerk is out of control.
Who is he going to put in charge...

Geitner...the moron who couldn't figure out Turbo-Tax? :lol:
Biden, who thinks we had TV in 1920?
Himself, who can't tell the difference between a window and a door?

The UAW is doing far more harm......cut their contract and GM will be fine.


* * * *

DJ...with the guv-mint in charge, Stanley Steamers will be coming back!

[slewis]

In exchange for more federal monies, Wagner, CEO of GM, to step down.

More here (Yahoo Finance). (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/GM-CEO-Wagoner-to-step-down-apf-14777138.html)

Wow. I don't know if I should laugh or cry.

Now Ford will be competing against the government. Any one willing to lay odds who wins?

What's the problem DJ? You (GM) cant survive without taxpayer money, he's been elected by the taxpayers to be the CEO of the USA.
He call the shots on behalf of those taxpayers.

Obviously Wagner didn't like those rules... just like any employee who's boss tells him how it's going to be.... There's the door....

Wagner should have been gone a long time ago. He failed, case closed.

Now, if you have a problem with the new CEO of the USA, that's another story.
Know what? he was unanimously elected. If he fails... in 4 yrs he will be unanimously replaced.

And I dont see how Ford is in competition with the Govt... The GOV has NO interest in seeing GM or FORD fail.... just both to survive.

Where's the problem??

[DJofSD]

DJ...with the guv-mint in charge, Stanley Steamers will be coming back!

Probably not since that'll contribute to climate warming.

Best solution? More horses!

[witchdoctor]

Best solution? More horses!



Not really.Horse$hit contributes to global warming also.

[DJofSD]

OK, then use it as biomass to make electricity.

[slewis]

This jerk is out of control.
Who is he going to put in charge...

Geitner...the moron who couldn't figure out Turbo-Tax? :lol:
Biden, who thinks we had TV in 1920?
Himself, who can't tell the difference between a window and a door?

The UAW is doing far more harm......cut their contract and GM will be fine.


* * * *

DJ...with the guv-mint in charge, Stanley Steamers will be coming back!

I am amazed at some of the stuff I read here.

If the UAW ruined (and unions in general) GM, how did they survive so many years? What caught up to GM?? Are the workers making SO VERY much more on an adjusted for inflation basis then in 1975? 1985? 1997?.

Unions are not the problem as much as a POOR product.
I listen to people say "GM makes a very very good car"... meanwhile I drive around and I see Hyundai, and Nissan, and BMW, and Toyota.... and on and on. I get behind the wheel of an american car and I laugh, it's so poorly made.
I posted a plan on another thread for GM to slash prices and use Govt money to offset those price cuts. I think if you cut the price of a car by 30%, even in this bad econmoy, they will buy. You'll get the ball rolling.... and who knows, maybe they'll come back to GM again next time.
Wasn't this similar to what Iacocca did turning Chrysler around?
Offering inexpensive cars, good warranties.... customer service.
I recently went into a GM dealer to price a top of the line car.. $52K.
I asked the salesman, "hows business"? He said "What's that?" we laughed.
I then said good, sell me the car for $39k and you have a deal.. He laughed at me.... I went right to BMW. Let it sit on the lot.

[Sunday.Silence]

he was unanimously elected


no he was not....perhap by the blacks he was , but not by the USA :bang: :rolleyes:

[Lefty]

slewis, I hate be the bearer of Bad news but, Obama WAS NOT unanimously elected.

[bill]

http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question12551.html

maybe some not so dumb

[newtothegame]

I am amazed at some of the stuff I read here.

If the UAW ruined (and unions in general) GM, how did they survive so many years? What caught up to GM?? Are the workers making SO VERY much more on an adjusted for inflation basis then in 1975? 1985? 1997?.

Unions are not the problem as much as a POOR product.
I listen to people say "GM makes a very very good car"... meanwhile I drive around and I see Hyundai, and Nissan, and BMW, and Toyota.... and on and on. I get behind the wheel of an american car and I laugh, it's so poorly made.
I posted a plan on another thread for GM to slash prices and use Govt money to offset those price cuts. I think if you cut the price of a car by 30%, even in this bad econmoy, they will buy. You'll get the ball rolling.... and who knows, maybe they'll come back to GM again next time.
Wasn't this similar to what Iacocca did turning Chrysler around?
Offering inexpensive cars, good warranties.... customer service.
I recently went into a GM dealer to price a top of the line car.. $52K.
I asked the salesman, "hows business"? He said "What's that?" we laughed.
I then said good, sell me the car for $39k and you have a deal.. He laughed at me.... I went right to BMW. Let it sit on the lot.


You might want to reconsider this statement and look at union memberships since say the last 50 years. Unions have ruined the american companies and workers. Ever held a union job? I have...and let me tell you from my perspective, I find it amazing the company can make any profits at all. And lets not even start to talk about the actual employee who is under union contracts. How about this for starters....I was a member of the UTU (united transportation union) and worked for Union Pacific RR. How about working under a contract in which we didnt have an "agreement" for SEVEN years. Thats seven years without a raise from the same union who was there to "protect our interest". How about "make sure you pay your 113.00 monthly or you could not work! Seems the union made sure they got their increases! I could tell you many stories about unions. namely the UTU. Aweful to say the least. Unions are devisive and INTENTIONALLY place the employee against the company. Without this devisiveness, unions would never survive. Now I will tell you that there was a time and place for unions. And this is not to say that there are not some companies still out there that possibly still need regulatory oversight for things such as safety...but again i would ask...what Is OSHA for??? There is a great reason behind why union membership around the country has declined greatly over the last 50 years....

[ArlJim78]

before assigning blame for GM's problems, please visit some of their factories and work with the folks on the factory floor. i promise you your eyes will be opened.
a few good people but its mostly a bunch of lazy overpaid sniveling crybabies.

[newtothegame]

before assigning blame for GM's problems, please visit some of their factories and work with the folks on the factory floor. i promise you your eyes will be opened.
a few good people but its mostly a bunch of lazy overpaid sniveling crybabies.


This is the next thing that UNIONS ENCOURAGE.....lazy...don't work to hard or your in essence black balled by your fellow UNION workers...They (union leaders) point blank tell you to "screw the company over".

[GaryG]

I have owned practically nothing except Chevies and GMC trucks for the last 40 years. Screw the SOBs. Tomorrow I order a 4-Runner.

[ArlJim78]

This is the next thing that UNIONS ENCOURAGE.....lazy...don't work to hard or your in essence black balled by your fellow UNION workers...They (union leaders) point blank tell you to "screw the company over".
yeah I know, i've seen it for years. frankly it makes me depressed when I have to visit a plant for any length of time. I see how all they think about is how little they have to do, if they should file a grievance, the next contract, how much overtime they can squeeze, etc. It's depressing because you can see that its a pervasive attitude that is killing the company and hurting US manufacturing.
the best thing that could happen is for them to go bankrupt so someone else can pick up the pieces and rebuild.

[newtothegame]

yeah I know, i've seen it for years. frankly it makes me depressed when I have to visit a plant for any length of time. I see how all they think about is how little they have to do, if they should file a grievance, the next contract, how much overtime they can squeeze, etc. It's depressing because you can see that its a pervasive attitude that is killing the company and hurting US manufacturing.
the best thing that could happen is for them to go bankrupt so someone else can pick up the pieces and rebuild.

Sad part, and I say this reluctantly as the employees should of seen this coming, is employees will ultimately suffer. There will be massive layoffs ( of which NO UNION can protect against), massive pay cuts in pay, which will be forced in order for GM to become profitable again, which will lead to more foreclosures, unpaid debts, and the cycle goes on and on...all thanks to your UNION LEADERSHIP and their non negotiate mentality.

[ArlJim78]

Sad part, and I say this reluctantly as the employees should of seen this coming, is employees will ultimately suffer. There will be massive layoffs ( of which NO UNION can protect against), massive pay cuts in pay, which will be forced in order for GM to become profitable again, which will lead to more foreclosures, unpaid debts, and the cycle goes on and on...all thanks to your UNION LEADERSHIP and their non negotiate mentality.
there will be sadness all over. Our #1 customer is GM, so it's a love hate relationship. we need them to be healthy but they have become impossible to work with. anyone that had any experience or manufactruing knowledge is long gone, so now they rely heavily on suppliers to do the work for them, that's where my company comes in. but after you wait on them hand and foot, they stiff you and don't even pay. the bureauacracy is mind-boggling. these days suppliers spend most of their time as bill collectors.

[Tom]

GM has done far more for this country than the democrat party in all of it's history.

[newtothegame]

there will be sadness all over. Our #1 customer is GM, so it's a love hate relationship. we need them to be healthy but they have become impossible to work with. anyone that had any experience or manufactruing knowledge is long gone, so now they rely heavily on suppliers to do the work for them, that's where my company comes in. but after you wait on them hand and foot, they stiff you and don't even pay. the bureauacracy is mind-boggling. these days suppliers spend most of their time as bill collectors.


Trust me, I know what you mean. I know of a lady here locally, who owns a flooring business. They recently have done a 50,000 dollar job for an AIG business complex building. Guess what? yep...stiffed on the bill. BY AIG of all entities. There are local law proceedings taking place...but the beauracracy will keep it help up for many years and the lawyers will wind up with it all when its said and done.

[slewis]

You might want to reconsider this statement and look at union memberships since say the last 50 years. Unions have ruined the american companies and workers. Ever held a union job? I have...and let me tell you from my perspective, I find it amazing the company can make any profits at all. And lets not even start to talk about the actual employee who is under union contracts. How about this for starters....I was a member of the UTU (united transportation union) and worked for Union Pacific RR. How about working under a contract in which we didnt have an "agreement" for SEVEN years. Thats seven years without a raise from the same union who was there to "protect our interest". How about "make sure you pay your 113.00 monthly or you could not work! Seems the union made sure they got their increases! I could tell you many stories about unions. namely the UTU. Aweful to say the least. Unions are devisive and INTENTIONALLY place the employee against the company. Without this devisiveness, unions would never survive. Now I will tell you that there was a time and place for unions. And this is not to say that there are not some companies still out there that possibly still need regulatory oversight for things such as safety...but again i would ask...what Is OSHA for??? There is a great reason behind why union membership around the country has declined greatly over the last 50 years....

I thank you for the reply.

Now I'll tell you that my first job out of college was a union job, and yes, there is this constant war between employee and employer... I never liked that.
But then I worked in a non union enviorment, and know what?
I can tell you many many stories of employer mistreatment...
and publicly traded companies??, lol, the bottom line is all that counts (not that that isn't the case in private) AND they have no problem letting go thousands of workers at a clip, all in the name of keeping the stock price up, without regard for who just started a family, bought a house, etc.
And many wonder why we have reached this point in America.
These people are MIDDLE CLASS WORKING PEOPLE... they are not crap...nor are they rich, they have families... their children will go on cure cancer... to invent a super computer chip... or a solar pannel to heat your home.
America better wake up.

[Lefty]

slewis, it is a corporations fiduciary duty to make money for its stockholders. Sometimes that involves layoffs. I've prob been layed off and fired from more jobs than the avg guy, but always survived.

[newtothegame]

slewis, it is a corporations fiduciary duty to make money for its stockholders. Sometimes that involves layoffs. I've prob been layed off and fired from more jobs than the avg guy, but always survived.

I am not so sure slewis is understanding that a company MUST be profitable. sure its a great thing when both the company and employee can be profitable. In a perfect world, the employees are given the opportunity to be SHAREHOLDERS, which is a win win for everyone involved. When employees are given a 'stake" in their companies success, it usually (before we start on a whole other topic like world com etc etc) wins. This is the premise that america was founded on....entreprenuership. (sp)

[slewis]

slewis, it is a corporations fiduciary duty to make money for its stockholders. Sometimes that involves layoffs. I've prob been layed off and fired from more jobs than the avg guy, but always survived.


Lefty,

I passed all the Securities exams they give.... I know the game... It's immoral and I argued back the early 80's that it will be the downfall of this country.

The very mess we are in is due to this line of thinking.

When a bank does not write loans and business, it does not make profit... At the board meeting, the Bd of D's asks the CEO... why is that bank's profits up 34% and ours only 17%? The CEO replies, "because I am not willing to take the risk with this institutions money that they are".
The bd replies, find a way to get us to 34% and the stock up, or we'll find someone who will!!

Do you want to fill in the rest of this scenario, Lefty?
Discussions (like this boardroom recreation) is what prompted AIG, Goldman, Lehman, etc to act so irresponsibly.. and create the mother of all messes.

[JustRalph]

What's the problem DJ? You (GM) cant survive without taxpayer money, he's been elected by the taxpayers to be the CEO of the USA.
He call the shots on behalf of those taxpayers.

Obviously Wagner didn't like those rules... just like any employee who's boss tells him how it's going to be.... There's the door....

Wagner should have been gone a long time ago. He failed, case closed.

Now, if you have a problem with the new CEO of the USA, that's another story.
Know what? he was unanimously elected. If he fails... in 4 yrs he will be unanimously replaced.

And I dont see how Ford is in competition with the Govt... The GOV has NO interest in seeing GM or FORD fail.... just both to survive.

Where's the problem??

Come on.........when I first read this, I thought for sure you were trying to be funny? What in the hell could make a person think like this? You can't be serious?

[slewis]

I am not so sure slewis is understanding that a company MUST be profitable. sure its a great thing when both the company and employee can be profitable. In a perfect world, the employees are given the opportunity to be SHAREHOLDERS, which is a win win for everyone involved. When employees are given a 'stake" in their companies success, it usually (before we start on a whole other topic like world com etc etc) wins. This is the premise that america was founded on....entreprenuership. (sp)

Easy Newman,

Slewis understands well..... trust me...he's not "newtothatgame".

No pun.

[slewis]

Come on.........when I first read this, I thought for sure you were trying to be funny? What in the hell could make a person think like this? You can't be serious?

Ralph I promise I'll have a respectful debate on my post with you or others..

Explain what about his you dont agree with specifically please.

[newtothegame]

Easy Newman,

Slewis understands well..... trust me...he's not "newtothatgame".

No pun.

I apologize if you misunderstood my comment about not understanding...i was saying I was not sure if you understood what I was talking about...sometimes I can be "mis-understandable" :)
there was no ill intent meant towards you personally....

[Lefty]

slewis, I disagree. Had it not been for the Community reinvestment act making banks lower their standards we would not be in this mess. Corps have the obligation to make money or fail. If they fail they should go into bankruptcy. Bush made a mstk with the Tarp bill now Obama will intensify that mistake to the ultimate. But Obama's not stopping there, is he?

[slewis]

I apologize if you misunderstood my comment about not understanding...i was saying I was not sure if you understood what I was talking about...sometimes I can be "mis-understandable" :)
there was no ill intent meant towards you personally....

Oh, None taken.

Thanks for the posts... interesting debate.

[DJofSD]

It gets better and better. Details of the threat here. (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Sources-Obama-to-give-GM-2-apf-14777567.html)

How is this different than the Black Hand?

[slewis]

slewis, I disagree. Had it not been for the Community reinvestment act making banks lower their standards we would not be in this mess. Corps have the obligation to make money or fail. If they fail they should go into bankruptcy. Bush made a mstk with the Tarp bill now Obama will intensify that mistake to the ultimate. But Obama's not stopping there, is he?

Lefty,

Stop it. If I run a bank... I dont want to loan to people who cant pay...I dont.. that simple...

The community act stuff is a pimple on this problem...

Your key word is MAKING banks. You cant force a banks to make those decisions. Or are you saying that for much of the BUSH admin. yrs that banks were FORCED to lend to low income/high risk people?
Or was it only during the Clinton yrs? Neither.

We wont go round in circles, because we are both aware of Freddie & Fannie pitfalls... and Im not putting this blame on Bush or his administration.

My problem is that many aspects of our poorly regulated capitalist system have just been exposed with leaks and cracks. I am NOT advocating socialism. No way. Just proper regulation with safeguards (and no POLITICOS lobbying for the easing of those, which maybe the real problem here).
Many on this board believe less Govt is better.. but there reaches a point where money and greed overrides the system to such an extent (as we know), that the system collapses.. as we are seeing.
Proper regulation prevents that... and we will be seeing these changes.

BTW.. Im sure you can recall (or maybe not) me mentioning that I used to trade derivatives, (although not credit default d's) when they first were introduced in the international banking market.
Do you know what makes a derivative attractive for a bank to trade (or gamble)?
Im sure you dont, it's not your business, so I'll tell you.
It's an OFF-BALANCE SHEET instrument. Which means, it does NOT have to be reported to the fed and does not get listed on a banks Assets or Liabilities.
People need to know that banks engaged in activity to PURPOSELY take risk that will avoid regulations set in place to prevent such.
THAT"S ONE OF THE MAIN PROBLEMS HERE.
A gentleman posted that he's getting screwed on his bonus at AIG and that he's in the Insurance end and that it's not fair that the AIG FP division did this and he's innocent but paying the price.
Well, go and tell this guy that had the market not collapsed and AIG FP would have made bundles, he would be getting a BIGGER RAISE next yr and BIGGER bonus, regardless of what division he works for.
He should go get his money from the savings of those managers of AIG FP that took these risks knowing of the possible outcome.
Not from the taxpayers who bailed out the OBLIGATIONS to counter-parties of trades.

[newtothegame]

Lefty,

Stop it. If I run a bank... I dont want to loan to people who cant pay...I dont.. that simple...

The community act stuff is a pimple on this problem...

Your key word is MAKING banks. You cant force a banks to make those decisions. Or are you saying that for much of the BUSH admin. yrs that banks were FORCED to lend to low income/high risk people?
Or was it only during the Clinton yrs? Neither.

We wont go round in circles, because we are both aware of Freddie & Fannie pitfalls... and Im not putting this blame on Bush or his administration.

My problem is that many aspects of our poorly regulated capitalist system have just been exposed with leaks and cracks. I am NOT advocating socialism. No way. Just proper regulation with safeguards (and no POLITICOS lobbying for the easing of those, which maybe the real problem here).
Many on this board believe less Govt is better.. but there reaches a point where money and greed overrides the system to such an extent (as we know), that the system collapses.. as we are seeing.
Proper regulation prevents that... and we will be seeing these changes.

Here in lies the problem.....what is "proper regulation"? I hope it is not congress asking the head of a corporation to step down because they now run it.Nor do I hope it is The government TELLING chrysler it must merge with Italian Fiat or no more money for them. Why Fiat? Why not Ford? What interest does Fiat have in this? I am sure I am missing something......:bang:

BTW.. Im sure you can recall (or maybe not) me mentioning that I used to trade derivatives, (although not credit default d's) when they first were introduced in the international banking market.
Do you know what makes a derivative attractive for a bank to trade (or gamble)?
Im sure you dont, it's not your business, so I'll tell you.
It's an OFF-BALANCE SHEET instrument. Which means, it does NOT have to be reported to the fed and does not get listed on a banks Assets or Liabilities.
People need to know that banks engaged in activity to PURPOSELY take risk that will avoid regulations set in place to prevent such.
THAT"S ONE OF THE MAIN PROBLEMS HERE.
A gentleman posted that he's getting screwed on his bonus at AIG and that he's in the Insurance end and that it's not fair that the AIG FP division did this and he's innocent but paying the price.
Well, go and tell this guy that had the market not collapsed and AIG FP would have made bundles, he would be getting a BIGGER RAISE next yr and BIGGER bonus, regardless of what division he works for.
He should go get his money from the savings of those managers of AIG FP that took these risks knowing of the possible outcome.
Not from the taxpayers who bailed out the OBLIGATIONS to counter-parties of trades.
But ultimately, the money WILL come from the tax payers...thats what Obama passed in his stimulus (pork laden) bill.

[slewis]

True,


We all agree this pork stuff is disgraceful.

I love Chuck Schummer saying "The American people dont care about the little porky things, they see the big piture"

Schummer can rot in hell... with Pelosi....

Our kids are screwed.

As far as congress telling a CEO to step down... Do you want tax money? Yes they DO HAVE THAT POWER... The alternative is go bankrupt. I didn't hear of any board members voting for that!

Cant have it both ways..

[DJofSD]

Schummer can rot in hell... with Pelosi....

Our kids are screwed.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[boxcar]

Our kids are screwed.

Has anyone noticed the irony and hypocrisy on the part of these statists? (Mark Levine in his new and very hot selling book correctly employs this term to describe the socialist scum that is currently in power, refusing to use the term "libs" because they are far, far removed from classic liberalism. Therefore, from now on, I will cease to glorify these vermin with the use of the liberal labe.) Nearly every time these statists want to increase their power by enlarging the welfare rolls, it's always, always out of concern for the "children", isn't it? They have all this love -- all this compassion -- all this empathy -- all this sympathy...for THE CHILDREN. It's always for the children's sake that we must act so that they don't go hungry, so that they get the best education, etc., etc., etc. These statists claim to always be looking out for the best interests of "the children". Do they not? Then how is it that these same people have utter disregard for the huge, incomprehensible debt load with which they are strapping our children? They so glibly and easily spend trillions upon trillions without any regard for the exceedingly heavy yokes which they are laying upon the necks of our children. Maybe one of you statists out there who are in favor of Big Gov, would like to explain this to me? How can this be so, since your favorite politicians and the man who you voted into office, give every indication of not caring a whit about how much they burden our future generations with debt through this administration's reckless and irresponsible spending policies?

Boxcar

[slewis]

Has anyone noticed the irony and hypocrisy on the part of these statists? (Mark Levine in his new and very hot selling book correctly employs this term to describe the socialist scum that is currently in power, refusing to use the term "libs" because they are far, far removed from classic liberalism. Therefore, from now on, I will cease to glorify these vermin with the use of the liberal labe.) Nearly every time these statists want to increase their power by enlarging the welfare rolls, it's always, always out of concern for the "children", isn't it? They have all this love -- all this compassion -- all this empathy -- all this sympathy...for THE CHILDREN. It's always for the children's sake that we must act so that they don't go hungry, so that they get the best education, etc., etc., etc. These statists claim to always be looking out for the best interests of "the children". Do they not? Then how is it that these same people have utter disregard for the huge, incomprehensible debt load with which they are strapping our children? They so glibly and easily spend trillions upon trillions without any regard for the exceedingly heavy yokes which they are laying upon the necks of our children. Maybe one of you statists out there who are in favor of Big Gov, would like to explain this to me? How can this be so, since your favorite politicians and the man who you voted into office, give every indication of not caring a whit about how much they burden our future generations with debt through this administration's reckless and irresponsible spending policies?

Boxcar

Boxcar,

You can point all the fingers at this administration you'd like, but I NEVER read a post where you come up with a solution to the serious problems we have.

The trillions borrowed from the Chinese and other foreign investors have only served to stabilize the current situation, or things would get MUCH worse then they already are. You call it "BIG GOV".
Just remember, the first go round in this debackle took place during the Bush administration with HANK PAULSON.
The majority of this debt was and is being used to bail out AIG and other entities of their finacial obligations.

Rather then complaining and trying to deflect the blame entirely on the Dem's and left wing, why dont you come up with a solution or suggestion to what they should be doing or should have done, Bush or Obama, take your choice.

BTW, Bankruptcy, and letting the market "take it's course " was and is not an option. Geitner and Bernanke expressed that to congress on capital hill.
I dont like either of them, but I shook my head "yup" to virtually every explanation of what they said to your elected leaders who dont understand the international banking market.
YOU WOULD HAVE A WORLD ECONOMIC COLLAPSE and possibly a world war.
It would start with countries seizing others assets and spirial from there.

So lets get back to the "children". Are you suggesting that this is really is not a problem, or is the left trying to lay guilt in order to set their agenda.

Either way you spin it, the next two generations will work many hours per week to cover the losses accrued by this one.
But of course, on your street of one way traffic, It's all the Dems fault.

[HUSKER55]

I don't think blaming unions is the answer. But for the sake of debate lets start out with a couple of questions.

If Labor Unions were to blame then where was management years ago to sound the alarm and prove it? Where were our leaders back then? Now is the time to blow the whistle and exact some judicial revenge. I don't see that happening.

When Lee Iacoca was in charge of Ford he said that as long as a demand resulted in a lower price to the consumer he would listen if quality was maintained. If memory serves it was reported in TIME.

If unions are to blame then where were the citizens to blow the whistle. Have a large gathering of employees spoken out against the unions? If they are to blame then certainly it would seem to follow that a violent reproach is in order. If that point is in order then lead the charge.

Don't see that happening either.

If unions are to blame then so are the people that followed their lead. That should not be a tough point to follow.

Perhaps Joe the Plumber IS our target?

My point is simple. If these companies are in crisis then let the money pay off the loans owed by the consumer. Detroit has their money now. Consumers get a break which enables them to buy more.

If Detroit can't turn around with no debt structure and an economy with a trillion dollars of new disposable income then let them go under.

It is not the fault of the poor civilian here who caused the problem. Why should we have to pay for our car, pay for the same car again and then do it again if Detroit isn't happy.

Detroit has to accept their fair share of the responsibility and shoulder their share of the load.

That does not include sending a bill to us. Of course if BO says ok then I would take the money and run too.

I don't see how unions are at fault here.

[The Judge]

its hard for me to believe that there are a bunch of lazy no goods working at the auto plants and its because of the unions. Aren't these plants automated and aren't they assembly-line productions? This means the worker must keep pace with the assembly-line or the line must be constantly stopped and started. Which must be some dangerours.

I am sure that the workers have bosses, foreman who are union members themselves and whose job it is to keep the line moving, I am also sure that each plant produces X amount of cars a day, a week, a month, per year and that this mark is reached.

So I don't buy this blame the Union talk. If the workers weren't keeping up with the "line" they would be fired for not doing their job.

[newtothegame]

its hard for me to believe that there are a bunch of lazy no goods working at the auto plants and its because of the unions. Aren't these plants automated and aren't they assembly-line productions? This means the worker must keep pace with the assembly-line or the line must be constantly stopped and started. Which must be some dangerours.

I am sure that the workers have bosses, foreman who are union members themselves and whose job it is to keep the line moving, I am also sure that each plant produces X amount of cars a day, a week, a month, per year and that this mark is reached.

So I don't buy this blame the Union talk. If the workers weren't keeping up with the "line" they would be fired for not doing their job.

ACTUALLY no.....thats not how it works. I can only speak from perspective but as I mentioned earlier in this thread, i will speak about the UTU (united transportation union). I worked for UPRR. Number one, we could not be fired without the Union Representing us. Which was a joke to say the least but the point here is that you COULD NOT BE FIRED. Secondly, we as workers were regularly told to "slow" down to save union jobs. It was very common for us to take an engine....less then a thousand yards down the tracks to another shop and spend HOURS getting water. When a company official would come down to check on us, we would just leave that shop with the engine and head down the track to the opposite end of the yard for "more supplies". Our rule book...was almost eight inches in thickness and the union used it at every chance to their advantage. Such as two hour "water" breaks....(now if you find this to be ridiculous....thats just a beginning. I could go on and on. But the point is that EVERY job can be made as slow or as fast as you liked. if you made it fast, the union was on your ass. And an example of this was their "use" of seniority". In a one month period, I was "bumped" off of 15 jobs by senior members. Amazing how this coincided with the same time I was pulled to the side by senior union membership for working to fast...
The stories can go on and on....

[newtothegame]

Bottolne is the workers arent lazy when they get there as new hires. It is a "taught" practice....

[newtothegame]

I don't think blaming unions is the answer. But for the sake of debate lets start out with a couple of questions.

If Labor Unions were to blame then where was management years ago to sound the alarm and prove it? Where were our leaders back then? Now is the time to blow the whistle and exact some judicial revenge. I don't see that happening.

When Lee Iacoca was in charge of Ford he said that as long as a demand resulted in a lower price to the consumer he would listen if quality was maintained. If memory serves it was reported in TIME.

If unions are to blame then where were the citizens to blow the whistle. Have a large gathering of employees spoken out against the unions? If they are to blame then certainly it would seem to follow that a violent reproach is in order. If that point is in order then lead the charge.

Don't see that happening either.

If unions are to blame then so are the people that followed their lead. That should not be a tough point to follow.

Perhaps Joe the Plumber IS our target?

My point is simple. If these companies are in crisis then let the money pay off the loans owed by the consumer. Detroit has their money now. Consumers get a break which enables them to buy more.

If Detroit can't turn around with no debt structure and an economy with a trillion dollars of new disposable income then let them go under.

It is not the fault of the poor civilian here who caused the problem. Why should we have to pay for our car, pay for the same car again and then do it again if Detroit isn't happy.

Detroit has to accept their fair share of the responsibility and shoulder their share of the load.

That does not include sending a bill to us. Of course if BO says ok then I would take the money and run too.

I don't see how unions are at fault here.


you ask one basic question in all of this...."where are the citizens to blow the whistle"...
I would suggest to you look at union membership around the country and its HUGE decline in the past fifty years....that is the peoples way of saying they dont like whats going on....

[slewis]

Bottolne is the workers arent lazy when they get there as new hires. It is a "taught" practice....

Ok,

So lets agree on the following:

1) The basic Union concept is a good one that has worked in this industry for years (and other industries). and....

2)It's certain union's bad work ethic/policies that are to blame (if you're being honest on this forum)
I've worked in a union and have seen some of this but not to the extent your telling.

Keep in mind that many in this country who are anti-union are not this way due to this bad work ethic policy. They are anti union because they feel that business should have the right to hire and fire freely and at as low a wage as possible.
If you dont agree with this statement, you're not facing reality.
The US Chamber of commerce is probably the biggest supporter of unfair labor practices: like undocumented labor, like unlimited skilled foreign workers getting visas... and no restrictions on outsourcing of jobs.

[ArlJim78]

Unions are great unless you're interested in having a competitive business.
is it really any coincidence that every heavily unionized industry is dead or dying?

[newtothegame]

Ok,

So lets agree on the following:

1) The basic Union concept is a good one that has worked in this industry for years (and other industries). and....

2)It's certain union's bad work ethic/policies that are to blame (if you're being honest on this forum)
I've worked in a union and have seen some of this but not to the extent your telling.

Keep in mind that many in this country who are anti-union are not this way due to this bad work ethic policy. They are anti union because they feel that business should have the right to hire and fire freely and at as low a wage as possible.
If you dont agree with this statement, you're not facing reality.
The US Chamber of commerce is probably the biggest supporter of unfair labor practices: like undocumented labor, like unlimited skilled foreign workers getting visas... and no restrictions on outsourcing of jobs.

First, I will agree that the besic union concept...when originated, was a good one. Workers were dying left and right in many unsafe places (work areas). but they key there in my opinion is when it ORIGINATED. With government regulations such as osha, there is no need for the original concept.
secondly, if your gonna talk pay and fair wages, I will tell you that fair is dictated by the market place. Just look at the wages we are referring to with the car manufacturer's. How can any of these companies be competitive with those wages in place? The U.S is now nearly double in price, if not more, on its low end vehicles versus the rest of the world.

When you say that those in this country who are anti union are so because they believe a company should be able to hire and fire freely, well I dont know any WORKER who would feel that way. Workers want to feel that if they provide good quality work, they should be compensated appropriately (again determined by the market) and a safe work environment. I for one never went to any employer and asked "do you have the ability to hire and fire freely". I want to know that I have some job security. that security comes in the form of performance...not in whether or not I am in the click at work.

I have no reason not to tell the truth on this forum...I don't gain one thing either way. I am just telling my experiences with the unions. You even said that you saw it. I would ask you...when you saw it...did you report it? if not, why? if you didn't then you condoned it. if you did, you were black balled from the other union members. So its a no win situation for those who want to do the right things when it comes to a union.
can unions work and be viable? I believe they can. I also believe that with the right management, on both ends, the workers can thrive in the U.S. I just think unions need to be more open to listening versus demands. unions need to understand that if the company fails...NOBODY wins. Yet they take their stances and force bad positions on everyone including the workers who in most cases, just want the right things.

[slewis]

First, I will agree that the besic union concept...when originated, was a good one. Workers were dying left and right in many unsafe places (work areas). but they key there in my opinion is when it ORIGINATED. With government regulations such as osha, there is no need for the original concept.
secondly, if your gonna talk pay and fair wages, I will tell you that fair is dictated by the market place. Just look at the wages we are referring to with the car manufacturer's. How can any of these companies be competitive with those wages in place? The U.S is now nearly double in price, if not more, on its low end vehicles versus the rest of the world.

When you say that those in this country who are anti union are so because they believe a company should be able to hire and fire freely, well I dont know any WORKER who would feel that way. Workers want to feel that if they provide good quality work, they should be compensated appropriately (again determined by the market) and a safe work environment. I for one never went to any employer and asked "do you have the ability to hire and fire freely". I want to know that I have some job security. that security comes in the form of performance...not in whether or not I am in the click at work.

I have no reason not to tell the truth on this forum...I don't gain one thing either way. I am just telling my experiences with the unions. You even said that you saw it. I would ask you...when you saw it...did you report it? if not, why? if you didn't then you condoned it. if you did, you were black balled from the other union members. So its a no win situation for those who want to do the right things when it comes to a union.
can unions work and be viable? I believe they can. I also believe that with the right management, on both ends, the workers can thrive in the U.S. I just think unions need to be more open to listening versus demands. unions need to understand that if the company fails...NOBODY wins. Yet they take their stances and force bad positions on everyone including the workers who in most cases, just want the right things.


N game....

Dictated by the market place? No, manipulated by big business. Like when Mr. Gates gets up on cap hill and swears he needs UNLIMITED H-b1 visas to get "the best and the brightest" talent around the globe.
Are you buying this crap??? His statement really means "I want people as bright as Americans who are willing to work for half the salary, and India has many of them. I need them".
I have friends who are immigration attorney's for large corps and they know every trick in the book to get visas for cheaper foreign labor.
Wanna challenge me on this one? Dont. Free market place? BS

Dont give me crap about auto workers sal. and benefits being the reason American auto can't compete. TOYOTA AND NISSAN are JAPANESE co's.
Do you think the avg sal. in Japan is so much less then in the US (if less at all)??? I've worked, as stated, in Int'l banking and have worked next to Japanese Nationals and have had ample discussions regarding their society incl. salary, etc. Dont be fooled... they earn large salaries in JPN.
NOt to mention JPN auto co's make cars here in the US, and maybe the workers make slightly less, BUT that is NOT the reason for TOYOTA's success my friend. They produce a BETTER PRODUCT. Case closed. I've posted this arguement on this forum.
It's all about engineering and management. Notice how our Military applications are always best on the planet? Why??
Are the Japanese better at making cars and we at making weaponry?
NO, we are capable.. have been in the past. They at GM just think it's ok to sell crap... Id have fired those execs a long time ago.

Build good quality cars at lower prices and Americans will buy.
SH*T.. I dont want to send my money to JPN or GER....
But a car is too big an investment to give away 75,000 miles of use.

[boxcar]

Boxcar,

You can point all the fingers at this administration you'd like, but I NEVER read a post where you come up with a solution to the serious problems we have.

The trillions borrowed from the Chinese and other foreign investors have only served to stabilize the current situation, or things would get MUCH worse then they already are. You call it "BIG GOV".
Just remember, the first go round in this debackle took place during the Bush administration with HANK PAULSON.
The majority of this debt was and is being used to bail out AIG and other entities of their finacial obligations.

Rather then complaining and trying to deflect the blame entirely on the Dem's and left wing, why dont you come up with a solution or suggestion to what they should be doing or should have done, Bush or Obama, take your choice.

BTW, Bankruptcy, and letting the market "take it's course " was and is not an option. Geitner and Bernanke expressed that to congress on capital hill.
I dont like either of them, but I shook my head "yup" to virtually every explanation of what they said to your elected leaders who dont understand the international banking market.
YOU WOULD HAVE A WORLD ECONOMIC COLLAPSE and possibly a world war.
It would start with countries seizing others assets and spirial from there.

So lets get back to the "children". Are you suggesting that this is really is not a problem, or is the left trying to lay guilt in order to set their agenda.

Either way you spin it, the next two generations will work many hours per week to cover the losses accrued by this one.
But of course, on your street of one way traffic, It's all the Dems fault.

The DEMS are in charge NOW. Therefore, they are responsible for all the money being spent.

And if you bother to get your head out the sand, I stated very early on (as have several others here) that the solution to these problems are our bankruptcy laws. Oh...but that's not a solution, is it? And I could care less what the two above mentioned meatheads' opinions are on the matter. But you and they prefer to have is fascism, don't you? You expect the State to fix all the financial problems at horrendous and unspeakable costs to future generations. All government is doing is putting off the inevitable. The trillions that are being spent will only stem the tide temporarily. So, why not take the bitter medicine now and let capitalism and the free markets set the course for recovery by make the necessary adjustments/corrections?

And I suppose you're in favor of the 900+ pork provisions in the last bill? Those are going to do much to fix the economy, aren't they? :rolleyes:

And since you're in such favor of all this debt as a solution, then you're certainly going to favor the very high taxes that will soon be imposed upon us and the future generations? In fact, you must believe that the State can spend its way out of debt and tax us into prosperity? Get real already. You don't have the first clue!

And don't forget this either: It was government's social engineering experiment that caused the Freddie and Fanny crisis. After all, the government wanted to provide affordable housing for all -- just like it next wants to provide affordable health care for all. :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

[newtothegame]

N game....

Dictated by the market place? No, manipulated by big business. Like when Mr. Gates gets up on cap hill and swears he needs UNLIMITED H-b1 visas to get "the best and the brightest" talent around the globe.
Are you buying this crap??? His statement really means "I want people as bright as Americans who are willing to work for half the salary, and India has many of them. I need them".
I have friends who are immigration attorney's for large corps and they know every trick in the book to get visas for cheaper foreign labor.
Wanna challenge me on this one? Dont. Free market place? BS

Dont give me crap about auto workers sal. and benefits being the reason American auto can't compete. TOYOTA AND NISSAN are JAPANESE co's.
Do you think the avg sal. in Japan is so much less then in the US (if less at all)??? I've worked, as stated, in Int'l banking and have worked next to Japanese Nationals and have had ample discussions regarding their society incl. salary, etc. Dont be fooled... they earn large salaries in JPN.
NOt to mention JPN auto co's make cars here in the US, and maybe the workers make slightly less, BUT that is NOT the reason for TOYOTA's success my friend. They produce a BETTER PRODUCT. Case closed. I've posted this arguement on this forum.
It's all about engineering and management. Notice how our Military applications are always best on the planet? Why??
Are the Japanese better at making cars and we at making weaponry?
NO, we are capable.. have been in the past. They at GM just think it's ok to sell crap... Id have fired those execs a long time ago.

Build good quality cars at lower prices and Americans will buy.
SH*T.. I dont want to send my money to JPN or GER....
But a car is too big an investment to give away 75,000 miles of use.


You decide....now the numbers I have found are from 2006. I would love to see more recent data...but heres the 2006 numbers including benefits. doesnt look close at all as you implied in the above post....


Avg. per Hour
(US 2006):A.B.C.D.E.F.G.H.GM 1 (http://bigthreeauto.procon.org/viewadditionalresource.asp?resourceID=2050#1)Ford 2 (http://bigthreeauto.procon.org/viewadditionalresource.asp?resourceID=2050#2)Chrys ler 3 (http://bigthreeauto.procon.org/viewadditionalresource.asp?resourceID=2050#3)Toyot a 4 (http://bigthreeauto.procon.org/viewadditionalresource.asp?resourceID=2050#4)Honda 4 (http://bigthreeauto.procon.org/viewadditionalresource.asp?resourceID=2050#4)US Natl. Avg. 5 (http://bigthreeauto.procon.org/viewadditionalresource.asp?resourceID=2050#5)Michi gan
Avg. 6 (http://bigthreeauto.procon.org/viewadditionalresource.asp?resourceID=2050#6)
(2007)Ohio
Avg. 6 (http://bigthreeauto.procon.org/viewadditionalresource.asp?resourceID=2050#6)1.Wag e $39.68$28.88$29.15$24$24$19.12$20.30$18.382.Value of Benefits $33.58$41.63$46.71$24$24$8.19??3.Compensation (Wages and Benefits)$73.26$70.51$75.86$48$48$27.31??

[newtothegame]

sorry it didnt come out in graph form as I found but basically, american auto workers with benefits made nearly DOUBLE that of our counter parts over seas....

[newtothegame]

N game....

Dictated by the market place? No, manipulated by big business. Like when Mr. Gates gets up on cap hill and swears he needs UNLIMITED H-b1 visas to get "the best and the brightest" talent around the globe.
Are you buying this crap??? His statement really means "I want people as bright as Americans who are willing to work for half the salary, and India has many of them. I need them".
I have friends who are immigration attorney's for large corps and they know every trick in the book to get visas for cheaper foreign labor.
Wanna challenge me on this one? Dont. Free market place? BS

Dont give me crap about auto workers sal. and benefits being the reason American auto can't compete. TOYOTA AND NISSAN are JAPANESE co's.
Do you think the avg sal. in Japan is so much less then in the US (if less at all)??? I've worked, as stated, in Int'l banking and have worked next to Japanese Nationals and have had ample discussions regarding their society incl. salary, etc. Dont be fooled... they earn large salaries in JPN.
NOt to mention JPN auto co's make cars here in the US, and maybe the workers make slightly less, BUT that is NOT the reason for TOYOTA's success my friend. They produce a BETTER PRODUCT. Case closed. I've posted this arguement on this forum.
It's all about engineering and management. Notice how our Military applications are always best on the planet? Why??
Are the Japanese better at making cars and we at making weaponry?
NO, we are capable.. have been in the past. They at GM just think it's ok to sell crap... Id have fired those execs a long time ago.

Build good quality cars at lower prices and Americans will buy.
SH*T.. I dont want to send my money to JPN or GER....
But a car is too big an investment to give away 75,000 miles of use.

As for gates and microsoft...I cant argue that point excpet to say I said "the market place" determines pricing. Microsoft has had a strangle hold on the market for sometime. To use Microsoft as an example avoids what I was saying. there is NO market place there...MICROSOFT OWNS IT!!
in the case of the Big 3, there is not the same monopoloy as in Microsofts example. Competition...thats the driver in pricing at which you can sell a product. Now of course you have to have a QUALITY PRODUCT as you mentioned. I agree. And if the designers at the big three have gotten lazy and complacent, I agree...fire their asses. Here is an idea...how about hire away some of the competition istead of continuing down a hopeless road and blaming it on the other companies and your inability to compete.

[DJofSD]

Hey, maybe Wagner can move to France. Here's (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Peugeot-shares-tumble-after-apf-14779448.html) a job opening for him.

[slewis]

As for gates and microsoft...I cant argue that point excpet to say I said "the market place" determines pricing. Microsoft has had a strangle hold on the market for sometime. To use Microsoft as an example avoids what I was saying. there is NO market place there...MICROSOFT OWNS IT!!
in the case of the Big 3, there is not the same monopoloy as in Microsofts example. Competition...thats the driver in pricing at which you can sell a product. Now of course you have to have a QUALITY PRODUCT as you mentioned. I agree. And if the designers at the big three have gotten lazy and complacent, I agree...fire their asses. Here is an idea...how about hire away some of the competition istead of continuing down a hopeless road and blaming it on the other companies and your inability to compete.

OK,

So we are all in agreement here.

In the 70's the japanese introd their cars to America... friend bought one, I laughed at him

In the 80's they were getting the rep for good reliable cars that ran forever and got great gas milage. I bought a nissan B-210 in '79 as a second car... 40 MPG.. 5 bucks to fill up.

In the 90's till present date, they cornered the market (JPN and GER).... but instead of GM rebounding, they let a company like HYUNDAI cut into another piece of their market share.. This is what we finally agree on.... GM rode the crest of mediocrity... kind of like the Shug McGaughey of the auto world... you know all the talent at their disposal... cant produce..

Thanks, good stuff.

[Tom]

GM quality is hardly in question.
What is different with GM than Hyundai is the damn anchor of a union.

Why did Bummer not ask for the resignation of the UAW prez who is not negotiating in good faith? Could it be Obama counts on the bribe money from the unions? Uh huh.

[ddog]

s

as to your analogy , i have thought of GM as more like a Scott Lake kind of deal.

They were spread too wide and didn't take care of the financials.

They used a financial arm to bribe consumers into buying vehicles that they would not have otherwise sold as they were crap for many years and they built way too many different kinds of cars.

They thought they could retain mrkt share with loss leaders and make it up on the back end though creative finance and overseas markets until they could get right with the public.

They were (imo) about half way through that process when the little crash took them out.
Just like many americans and companies here they would not take advantage of the "good times" to put away some seed corn.
THey need(ed) massive short term funding and that isn't to be had for one in their shape these days.

They should have concentrated on a couple of lines at most and been the best at those couple of lines.

As to the endgame, i expect Waggoner and (part) of the board were the sacrifical lamb to appease the public blood lust.

They will come back with a revised plan and bama will give them the bailout.

Will the bailout get them to the other side?

I don't know.

I do know this, if they tank and have to file , you will see an equities dump and a financial crash like you have not seen yet.

many say the markets have it priced, don't believe it, some symbolic events are too much of a shock for the system.

As to union up or down, they have taken big cuts and will take more, but they are a bit player.

They never were the lead in this dance.


People and their "mustard seeds of recovery" just do not realize, still (imo) the whole systemic rot under the system here and much of overseas.

[Lefty]

Obama is demanding that Chrysler complete a merge with Fiat. Doesn't this put Fiat in one great bargaining position?

[ddog]

Obama is demanding that Chrysler complete a merge with Fiat. Doesn't this put Fiat in one great bargaining position?



fiat has been looking at this forever.

uh, lefty , if you are at dead , but not yet buried, you really don't have a bargainning position.


anyone that does a deal with Chrysler will go bust if they stay in it long enough.

[newtothegame]

fiat has been looking at this forever.

uh, lefty , if you are at dead , but not yet buried, you really don't have a bargainning position.


anyone that does a deal with Chrysler will go bust if they stay in it long enough.

So are we saying that Obama (by his words forcing chrysler to do a deal with fiat) is attempting to put fiat out of business as well?

[JustRalph]

x
What's the problem DJ? You (GM) cant survive without taxpayer money, he's been elected by the taxpayers to be the CEO of the USA. He call the shots on behalf of those taxpayers.

What the hell Constitution are you reading? The CEO of the U.S. ? Where do you get this crap from? Come on........you can't be serious? There is no authority in the Constitution for the Government to take over private commerce. Even if they loan them money.

Obviously Wagner didn't like those rules... just like any employee who's boss tells him how it's going to be.... There's the door....

Wagoner was a fool to take bailout money............he allowed the Company to be nationalized. The Ford CEO has handled this the right way. Wagoner didn't. He sacrificed the company at the benefit of the Union. He wasn't any good at running the company, but he was very much worse at seeking a lifeline......Obama's actions are about saving the UAW....Wagoner went along with it..... Obama making him step down is the kind of action a dictator takes. The board at GM is now irrelevant. We are officially in a state of Government control beyond the pale. The founders are spinning in their graves. The company is dead in the water now. It will never come back. With 46% of Americans understanding what the hell has happened to GM.......you just cut the market in half for GM. I will never buy another GM product. I am sure there are many like me out there.



Wagner should have been gone a long time ago. He failed, case closed.
See above comments

Now, if you have a problem with the new CEO of the USA, that's another story. Know what? he was unanimously elected. If he fails... in 4 yrs he will be unanimously replaced.

Unanimously elected? Where they hell are you getting your election results? He has no constitutional authority to regulate private corporations pay? At GM or at the Banks. LOOK AT THE MARKET TODAY! AMERICANS REALIZE WHAT IS GOING ON AND OBAMA CONTINUES HIS ASSAULT ON AMERICA'S 401K'S

And I dont see how Ford is in competition with the Govt... The GOV has NO interest in seeing GM or FORD fail.... just both to survive.

Ford is now going to be in direct competition with GM/USA motors. And Ford will win out. The Government can't run anything.

[cj's dad]

So are we saying that Obama (by his words forcing chrysler to do a deal with fiat) is attempting to put fiat out of business as well?

He can't possibly think ahead that far !!

[ddog]

So are we saying that Obama (by his words forcing chrysler to do a deal with fiat) is attempting to put fiat out of business as well?




"We" are not saying anything, I on the other hand was very clear.

Chrysler junk is dead and fiat if they try to maintain it (those brands) will bail out of the deal and shut the joint down.

"we" can read that however "we" wish.

that "WE" think bama has the juice to demand anything is funny , I guess the paranoid droids are out in force.

:lol:


oh and you may do well to read the last sentence AGAIN since you are so fascinated by thinking "ahead" it seems as opposed to your "we" twin there who seems only to think of the past. :lol: those evil unions anyway!!!! damn them!!!!

Notice the last couple of words.


"anyone that does a deal with Chrysler will go bust if they stay in it long enough

[mostpost]

before assigning blame for GM's problems, please visit some of their factories and work with the folks on the factory floor. i promise you your eyes will be opened.
a few good people but its mostly a bunch of lazy overpaid sniveling crybabies.

I have. Well I haven't visited a GM factory floor, but I worked in a union shop for twenty seven years at the U.S. Postal service. I'm telling you it is just the opposite of what you state above. A few "lazy overpaid sniveling crybabies, but mostly good, hardworking people. The people I worked with were dedicated to the job of moving the mail in and out of the building. And we cared about getting it to the proper recipient in a timely manner. (I know someone is going to post a story about one of their bills being a month late and how they had to pay a penalty or somesuch.) That is anecdotal evidence and anecdotal evidence is as valuable as a screen door on a submarine. Statistical evidence shows that over 99% of mail is delivered to the proper address and in a timely manner.
Your comments are obviously delivered with a deep seated anti-union bias.
My comments are delivered from the perspective of one who has actually worked with union members. I get just as upset as you at those who refuse to pull their weight. The difference is that I realize those people are a small minority whereas you think they are everyone.
For those of you who are trying to weigh the divergent arguments here; keep this in mind. I actually worked in a union and am speaking from that perspective. ArlJim is a latex saleman for crying out loud:lol:

[Lefty]

what? If the govt said, no matter what, i had to do a deal with you, wlouldn't that put you in a tremendous bargaining position?
Of course it would. Fiat is in tremendous bargaining position.
Obama without so much as 1 day running any sort of business is now telling companies what to do. I don't even think he even ran a paper route.
Frightening, eh what?

[cj's dad]

At least where I worked.

Until recently, I was a union worker most of my life and for every individual that did not pull his weight, there were many many more that did.
Just a few-

*United Steelworkers of America - 8 years
*Int'l Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America - 15 years
*United Food & Commercial Workers of America - 15 years

It is absurd to think that there are no slackards in the non-union sector !!

As a negotiator, I'm pretty sure that I remember the company's reps being in the room during contract negotiations and that they also signed the contracts that were ratified.

[ddog]

mr post

you do great damage to your union argument here imo.

U.S. Postal service OMFG :rolleyes:


back when I was but a small tyke , i used to drive a route during the summers for my dad who had what they called Star Route contracts with the postals.

You basically drove 3/4 tons around between the small local p.o. and the large centers , kind of like a hub/spoke setup.

Anyway, I can't tell the number of times I pulled into a main p.o. and the guys were sleeping on top of the mail bags or out in back relaxing.

They were to help unload the stuff but no way.

And this was back in the day when they shipped those SEARS and MonkeyWard catalogs in huge bags, those things were freakin HEAVY.



Now, mainly this was during the night and early morning hours , so maybe more work was getting done faster during the daylight hours ;) but I tend to doubt it.

Anyway, they didn't strike me as the most motivated of unions I have ever run across.

However, having said that , unions on the whole are a good thing.
Mgmt in this country has grown dumber and lazier over the years , so what's the difference anyway?

[ddog]

what? If the govt said, no matter what, i had to do a deal with you, wlouldn't that put you in a tremendous bargaining position?
Of course it would. Fiat is in tremendous bargaining position.
Obama without so much as 1 day running any sort of business is now telling companies what to do. I don't even think he even ran a paper route.
Frightening, eh what?


lefty

no sense.

the fiat deal is already done anyway last I heard.

a dead guy won't bargain with the doc who holds the defib, never happens.

if a company is coming for gvt bail then somebody better be telling them what to do , they sure have not been able to figure it out on their own.

[Lefty]

dog, guess logic escapes you. I can't help you there. Last i heard, the deal wasn't done. If it is, ok. If it isn't Fiat is in a better bargaining position than Chrysler because Obama told Chrysler to get the deal done. If i'm Fiat, i'm now gonna get more than I thought cause now i'll demand more, because Obama is making Chrysler do a deal.

[mostpost]

GM has done far more for this country than the democrat party in all of it's history.

Ok, Let's see what GM has done; Provided millions of cars to the American people, which have certainly improved the quality of life for many, by providing transportation to a larger choice of jobs and recreational opportunies. NONE OF WHICH CARS WOULD HAVE EVER LEFT THE FACTORY FLOOR WITHOUT THE WORKERS WHO BUILT THEM. GM provided military vehicles and equipment which aided our troops in many wars. NONE OF WHICH ETC. And certainly GM provided jobs for millions over its lifetime. But, it could not have done so without the workers who built the cars it sold to pay the workers and MAKE A PROFIT. Oh yeah, and it paid taxes, but I bet not as much as it should have!

What has the DemocraTIC (Tom, I thought I told you about that "Democrat" Party nonsense!!!!) Party done? We can start with the Louisiana Purchase, which gave us most of the country between the Mississippi River and the Rockies. (Under the Democratic Administration of Thomas Jefferson)
The Democratic Party were leaders in passing legislation for weman's sufferage, Social Security, workers rights, racial equality, voters rights, and many other social issues. But, silly me, I forgot...you think those are bad things. :bang: :bang:

[ddog]

dog, guess logic escapes you. I can't help you there. Last i heard, the deal wasn't done. If it is, ok. If it isn't Fiat is in a better bargaining position than Chrysler because Obama told Chrysler to get the deal done. If i'm Fiat, i'm now gonna get more than I thought cause now i'll demand more, because Obama is making Chrysler do a deal.


like you said , I DO KNOW ALL.

it's not possible to wean you off the company line, oh well.

You just don't understand the concept of a beggar and a funding source, that's ok, it's not required.

[Lefty]

yeah, doggy. I understand when one is in a better negotiating position than another.

[ddog]

yeah, doggy. I understand when one is in a better negotiating position than another.



you certainly put that claim in doubt in this thread.................... :lol: :D

[Lefty]

mostpost, prob with dem party it's no longer the party of Jefferson. It's not even the party of JFK.
They are power hungry socialists.
Racial Equality? Wasn't it Lincoln that authored the Emancipation Declaration?
Social Security? That's turned out great, eh?
I'll give you the Louisiana purchase but that's about it.
Obama is telling companies what to do. i don't think Jefferson or even JFK would be doing the crazy things Obama is doing.

[ArlJim78]

.
For those of you who are trying to weigh the divergent arguments here; keep this in mind. I actually worked in a union and am speaking from that perspective. ArlJim is a latex saleman for crying out loud:lol:
they should also keep in mind that on a thread about the auto industry you are weighing in with your post office experience, which is like apples and oranges.

anti union bias, you betcha.
i've been inside of and worked with at least 15 GM transmission plants, in five countries over 30 years. several of them bit the dust long ago. not so many will survive the current debacle. for twenty of those years the company I worked for had a unionized shop floor, USW. (I was in management and not in the union), so I also have direct day to day experience working with big labor.

[ArlJim78]

not all of the blame goes to the unions. I'm just saying based on my experience they are not good in the long run because the company/industry can't survive. they grow increasingly uncompetitive over time. its not sustainable. our manufacturing base in this country is like a wasteland and we cannot survive forever on a service/consumer economy.

[Lefty]

no doggy, it's you that are lacking. I used logic you just keep coming up with bovine excrement. Until you write something substantive, that's it.

[newtothegame]

First off Dog, I have no twins here...

Secondly, yes I used the word "we".
But let me be "clear" as you so eloquently put it. I didn't realize that i was talking to the CEO of Fiat, or a president of an Italian Bank who would oversee this deal. Or wait, maybe your the CEO of Chrysler?? Nahh doubt that too... so what makes you so sure that Fiat will go under (or in your words "anyone who stays long enough)?
Now I am not saying they will or won't. You took the definitive stance...and it is that in which I was asking.
I anxiously await your final word ohhh mighty one who has all the answers....

P.S the ohhh mighty one referrence was in jest. In all honesty, you are nothing more then the rest of us with an OPINION. Just didn't want you to assume I would give you more credit then I think you deserve...:)

[The Judge]

Are you saying once you are in a union you can't be fired or are you saying you get a hearing with representation by the union? It should be difficult to fire a person from their job. I am sure that people in unions are fired everyday. Union representation at hearings is weak at best.

Next, while you were down at the hall with the engine or someone else was getting water what happened to the assembly-line I assume it kept moving and union members did "your job" while you were having a drink of water. Looking into those 8 inch rule books I am sure there is something in there about the amount of work a person is suppose to do in order to get a check.

Its been my experience that if "X "doesn't do his job "Y" has to work harder, how do you get around this? It would seem that there would be dissension in the ranks it this wass a regular practice.

[newtothegame]

Are you saying once you are in a union you can't be fired or are you saying you get a hearing with representation by the union? It should be difficult to fire a person from their job. I am sure that people in unions are fired everyday. Union representation at hearings is weak at best.

Actually the term Fired, as it is used by the UTU is a term to indicate a persons employement status has changed for a certain amount of time. The term fired in the non union world means you no longer work there period! Employees are given different levels of infraction (based on what transpired) and that level determins if and how long you were out of work. For example...(true story) a friend of mine wrecked two trains together...after some back room negotiations (between union rep and company officials) he was fired for one month. The accident caused literally THOUSANDS of dollars in damage as well as EPA fines. He got one month. Unless you actually committ murder, I never saw anyone leave under the term fired. Now I will tell you there were several who left under their own reasons which had nothing to do with the union nor the company.
And your right...representation is very WEAK...yet you pay monthly for that weak representation.

Next, while you were down at the hall with the engine or someone else was getting water what happened to the assembly-line I assume it kept moving and union members did "your job" while you were having a drink of water. Looking into those 8 inch rule books I am sure there is something in there about the amount of work a person is suppose to do in order to get a check.
Not an assembly line...this is a railroad I was employed by. And it all STOPPED for obvious reasons. We were blocking entrance and exit to the 'roundhouse". No movement would happen in any direction to or from that point. So i could actually make a case that one job would slow or stop other jobs.
And no, there is no where in those "rule" books about the amount of work to be done. What it does state is the manner in which the work is to be done (safety). And trust me when I tell you those guys drag their feet at EVERY opportunity. "safety glasses fog up cause they broke a sweat...got to stop...go to the round house..get tissue to clean them, after all wouldnt want to have an accident due to not being able to see properly". Goes on daily!

Its been my experience that if "X "doesn't do his job "Y" has to work harder, how do you get around this? It would seem that there would be dissension in the ranks it this wass a regular practice.
Not sure what union you were a part of but no one out there works hard. That is why I am no longer there. I got myself between the company and the union and was left to hang out to dry by both trying to do the right things which I thought was work. When one job "lays down" (term they used to slow the pace) , all the jobs were to lay down. Everyone had "signals" and everyones phone numbers.
I know this seems like a far fetched story...but trust me..i lived it.

[The Judge]

If there is no assembly-line then what I said doesn't apply but in an "auto Plant" there are cetainly assembly-lines. In the grocercy business I know there are rules as to the amount of groceries a clerk is expected to check out in a given time period its in the contract.

While all this slacking was going on what was the foreman saying. Their job is to get things done or they are replaced. They crack the whip as the bosses gripe to them they pass it along. Why should they put up with the aggravation when all they have ot do is pass it along?

[newtothegame]

If there is no assembly-line then what I said doesn't apply but in an "auto Plant" there are cetainly assembly-lines. In the grocercy business I know there are rules as to the amount of groceries a clerk is expected to check out in a given time period its in the contract.

While all this slacking was going on what was the foreman saying. Their job is to get things done or they are replaced. They crack the whip as the bosses gripe to them they pass it along. Why should they put up with the aggravation when all they have ot do is pass it along?

Only response I have Judge is that the UTU sounds alot different the the union you were affiliated with. Our union rep worked a job just like we did. so he was usually out there "seeing" what was happening all the time. He is the one who ensured work didnt happen to fast...

[mostpost]

mr post

you do great damage to your union argument here imo.

U.S. Postal service OMFG :rolleyes:
(I can only go by the situation where I worked. A small suburban Post Office near Chicago..about 35 employees)


back when I was but a small tyke , i used to drive a route during the summers for my dad who had what they called Star Route contracts with the postals.

You basically drove 3/4 tons around between the small local p.o. and the large centers , kind of like a hub/spoke setup.
(I didn't think "small tykes" were allowed to drive. I don't know if they still have Star Routes...it may be a rural thing)

Anyway, I can't tell the number of times I pulled into a main p.o. and the guys were sleeping on top of the mail bags or out in back relaxing.

They were to help unload the stuff but no way. (We always helped the driver unload, but I do know that there were offices where guys would "disappear")

And this was back in the day when they shipped those SEARS and MonkeyWard catalogs in huge bags, those things were freakin HEAVY.
(Yes they were!!!!!)


Now, mainly this was during the night and early morning hours , so maybe more work was getting done faster during the daylight hours ;) but I tend to doubt it.

Anyway, they didn't strike me as the most motivated of unions I have ever run across.

However, having said that , unions on the whole are a good thing.
Mgmt in this country has grown dumber and lazier over the years , so what's the difference anyway?

See My replies in Parentheses. I don't know how to do that thing where you shade just the quotes and intersperse your replies. :bang:

[boxcar]

Rush predicted months ago -- back in November right after the election -- that this whole moronic bailout was passed for ultimate the benefit of the union. In fact, he felt and still does that the administration's goal is to get the union to control the GM operations.

In this regard, it's interesting to note that while BO was slamming the GM CEO, he said not a word about the intransigence of the union when called upon by GM to renegotiate contracts -- cut backs on benefits, pay rates, hours, etc.

We are witnessing right before our eyes a highly disturbing piece of history taking place -- namely fascism! The unions will eventually get control of the automakers and the unions will be controlled by the State. This is a very sad day in America. Capitalism is slowly but surely and methodically under assault and is being destroyed by the government. I wonder if this is what
Michelle had in mind when she said the "face of America will be changed"?

Boxcar

[mostpost]

You decide....now the numbers I have found are from 2006. I would love to see more recent data...but heres the 2006 numbers including benefits. doesnt look close at all as you implied in the above post....


Avg. per Hour
(US 2006):A.B.C.D.E.F.G.H.GM 1 (http://bigthreeauto.procon.org/viewadditionalresource.asp?resourceID=2050#1)Ford 2 (http://bigthreeauto.procon.org/viewadditionalresource.asp?resourceID=2050#2)Chrys ler 3 (http://bigthreeauto.procon.org/viewadditionalresource.asp?resourceID=2050#3)Toyot a 4 (http://bigthreeauto.procon.org/viewadditionalresource.asp?resourceID=2050#4)Honda 4 (http://bigthreeauto.procon.org/viewadditionalresource.asp?resourceID=2050#4)US Natl. Avg. 5 (http://bigthreeauto.procon.org/viewadditionalresource.asp?resourceID=2050#5)Michi gan
Avg. 6 (http://bigthreeauto.procon.org/viewadditionalresource.asp?resourceID=2050#6)
(2007)Ohio
Avg. 6 (http://bigthreeauto.procon.org/viewadditionalresource.asp?resourceID=2050#6)1.Wag e $39.68$28.88$29.15$24$24$19.12$20.30$18.382.Value of Benefits $33.58$41.63$46.71$24$24$8.19??3.Compensation (Wages and Benefits)$73.26$70.51$75.86$48$48$27.31??

A couple of things here; first, GM, Ford and Chrysler include the cost of Retiree benefits and charge it to the hourly rates of current employees, even though those employees see none of that money. I understand that is a cost to the employer, but it paints a false picture to say that a worker is receiving $72 in benefits, when $15-20 of that is money he will never see.

The second point is GM, Ford and Chrysler have been in operation for 100? years. Many of their employees have been there 25 years or more. I don't know your occupation, or how many years you have been employed in your present position, but I'm sure you would consider it unfair if a new employee were paid the same as you, even if he were doing essentially the same job.
Since Honda and Toyota have been in this country much less time, it stands to reason that their workforce has less seniority and therefore the average pay is less. I would like to see a comparison based on seniority, I think we would see a much different result

[mostpost]

Social Security? That's turned out great, eh?

Yes, it has. Thanks to Social Security I am able to live like a human being in my retirement. I don't have to live with relatives, I don't have to eat Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwiches every day and I can have a reasonable entertainment budget. The problem with Social Security is not the program itself. The first problem is we keep borrowing against it. (All Administrations!) The second problem is the cap on contributions. If you earn money that is eligible to be taxed for Social Security, you should pay the tax regardless of the amount you earn. Not doing so not only limits the amount of money in the fund, it also has the effect of imposing a higher tax rate on those who earn less.

Abraham Lincoln did issue the "Emancipation Proclamation" and the Republicans have been trying to overturn it ever since.

[Lefty]

mostpost, SS is a Ponzi scheme, do you not know that? When it started there was 80 workers to 1 retired. Now it's 8 or less. Can you not see SS's future if it is not privatized. It won't be there for our kids, let alone our grandkids. If it had been done right to start with, you and I would really be in clover.

[newtothegame]

A couple of things here; first, GM, Ford and Chrysler include the cost of Retiree benefits and charge it to the hourly rates of current employees, even though those employees see none of that money. I understand that is a cost to the employer, but it paints a false picture to say that a worker is receiving $72 in benefits, when $15-20 of that is money he will never see.

The second point is GM, Ford and Chrysler have been in operation for 100? years. Many of their employees have been there 25 years or more. I don't know your occupation, or how many years you have been employed in your present position, but I'm sure you would consider it unfair if a new employee were paid the same as you, even if he were doing essentially the same job.
Since Honda and Toyota have been in this country much less time, it stands to reason that their workforce has less seniority and therefore the average pay is less. I would like to see a comparison based on seniority, I think we would see a much different result

I never said (if you go back and look at the original post on my behalf), it was the employees who hurt the big three. it was in referrence to the UNIONS. The retiree accounts you mention are in fact what the unions got. But at least we both still agree it is paid for by the company.
I never said a new employee should recieve the same as a person who had been there for 25 years. Your trying to confuse the topic at hand. If x employee works for a company for 25 years and a new employee comes into SAME said company, he should not make the same as the senior employee depending on job and responsibilities. But to say that x employee who is working for a company makes (you fill in the blank) and has worked for twenty five years, should be paid more then another employee who works for a different company...well my friend all I can tell you is not every company pays the same. If x employee doesnt like what he makes at say GM, then go to toyota. But it still doesnt change the fact the exuberant cost, lower quality over time, and union negotiations (or lack there of to assume some cost) have driven GM to the brink.

[mostpost]

I never said (if you go back and look at the original post on my behalf), it was the employees who hurt the big three. it was in referrence to the UNIONS. The retiree accounts you mention are in fact what the unions got. But at least we both still agree it is paid for by the company.
I never said a new employee should recieve the same as a person who had been there for 25 years. Your trying to confuse the topic at hand. If x employee works for a company for 25 years and a new employee comes into SAME said company, he should not make the same as the senior employee depending on job and responsibilities. But to say that x employee who is working for a company makes (you fill in the blank) and has worked for twenty five years, should be paid more then another employee who works for a different company...well my friend all I can tell you is not every company pays the same. If x employee doesnt like what he makes at say GM, then go to toyota. But it still doesnt change the fact the exuberant cost, lower quality over time, and union negotiations (or lack there of to assume some cost) have driven GM to the brink.
I guess I am not being clear. I was trying to explain the difference in compensation between American car companies and Foreign car companies operating in America. My point is exactly that a worker who has been employed at General Motors for 25 years will naturally be making more than an employee who has been working for Toyota for 5 years. That is what is causing a great deal of the difference in average hourly rates. Not unions, but the fact that American car companies have more workers with greater seniority. As for the retiree question, you are the one saying GM has a greater per employee cost. I'm saying the reason for that is they are including the cost of retiree payments on the cost of current employees. In the meantime they are including the costs they are paying to the present employee's retirement fund. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the money paid to a retired employee comes from a fund paid into by the company and THE EMPLOYEE, during the employee's term of employment. (Supplemented by investments)
It seems to me they are counting this money twice.

[newtothegame]

I guess I am not being clear. I was trying to explain the difference in compensation between American car companies and Foreign car companies operating in America. My point is exactly that a worker who has been employed at General Motors for 25 years will naturally be making more than an employee who has been working for Toyota for 5 years. That is what is causing a great deal of the difference in average hourly rates. Not unions, but the fact that American car companies have more workers with greater seniority. As for the retiree question, you are the one saying GM has a greater per employee cost. I'm saying the reason for that is they are including the cost of retiree payments on the cost of current employees. In the meantime they are including the costs they are paying to the present employee's retirement fund. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the money paid to a retired employee comes from a fund paid into by the company and THE EMPLOYEE, during the employee's term of employment. (Supplemented by investments)
It seems to me they are counting this money twice.

You are possibly right here about the retiree fund. I have not done enough homework. but I had believed it is similiar to the SS fund where as you being an employee now are paying for past retiree's. Either way, it is a cost. Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying that employees do not deserve a retirement. All I am attempting to say is ALL cost add up to create a company that has in essence been living on borrowed time. Now before alot jump on me here...this is not the only problems at GM and I understand that. There are many problems which need to be fixed. In my eyes...as a consumer, they need to get QUALITY fixed first and foremost.

[Lefty]

I think a lot of these companies have more retired and drawing benefits than working.
Like SS it's Ponzi scheme that must eventually topple.

[Tom]

I've been in a lot of assembly plants - the UAW worker is grossly overpaid for his value added to the car. COST added, yes, value added, not so much.

[slewis]

The DEMS are in charge NOW. Therefore, they are responsible for all the money being spent.

And if you bother to get your head out the sand, I stated very early on (as have several others here) that the solution to these problems are our bankruptcy laws. Oh...but that's not a solution, is it? And I could care less what the two above mentioned meatheads' opinions are on the matter. But you and they prefer to have is fascism, don't you? You expect the State to fix all the financial problems at horrendous and unspeakable costs to future generations. All government is doing is putting off the inevitable. The trillions that are being spent will only stem the tide temporarily. So, why not take the bitter medicine now and let capitalism and the free markets set the course for recovery by make the necessary adjustments/corrections?

And I suppose you're in favor of the 900+ pork provisions in the last bill? Those are going to do much to fix the economy, aren't they? :rolleyes:

And since you're in such favor of all this debt as a solution, then you're certainly going to favor the very high taxes that will soon be imposed upon us and the future generations? In fact, you must believe that the State can spend its way out of debt and tax us into prosperity? Get real already. You don't have the first clue!

And don't forget this either: It was government's social engineering experiment that caused the Freddie and Fanny crisis. After all, the government wanted to provide affordable housing for all -- just like it next wants to provide affordable health care for all. :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

You are WRONG WRONG WRONG about the bankruptcy.
Boxcar, stop with the head in the sand shit...

If your thory were to hold ANY water, then why did BUSH BUSH BUSH (did I say it enough times), CHANEY, one of the slickest pols around... ROVE... one of the most intelligent, devious, politico of this era, why did they give in to this WHILE THEY WERE STILL IN CHARGE.
Rhetorical, I explained it already, you just think Im a blabbering fool. You're knowledge of banking is Pete and Steve's credit union up the street.
When I tell you you were looking at world economic collapse, I wasn't the only one, brother... Your Republican boys were staining brown big time. Trust me.
And that would have been the LEAST of our worries. Wars would have broken out. Countries would have seized assets of others. Life would (as it did for 2 weeks) come to a standstill. Banks were not setting LIBOR, oh, excuse me, you dont know what LIBOR is, or what happens to overnight, or Tom next, all banking problems created with no realistic LIBOR.
You're a fish out of water....
Im not saying I would have tried to solve the problems exactly the way they are doing... and I certainly would have FIRED EVERY ONE OF THE TOP 100 employees at AIG FP, and forbid any Bank or institution taking GOV money to ever hire them. BUT THIS HAD TO BE DONE....
Bankruptcy laws.... You're not even a lawyer...

As far as the pork goes.. Ive voiced many many opinions on here against ANY pork.. and called Pelosi and Reid irrelevant and fools.

[mostpost]

mostpost, SS is a Ponzi scheme, do you not know that? When it started there was 80 workers to 1 retired. Now it's 8 or less. Can you not see SS's future if it is not privatized. It won't be there for our kids, let alone our grandkids. If it had been done right to start with, you and I would really be in clover.

It isn't. Social Security is a pay as you go system. Think of it as a pipeline. Money comes in to the front of the pipe contributed by workers and employees and goes out the back of the pipe as payments to retirees. As long as there are workers contributing there will be money to make payments. Difficulties arise when you have a situation where there is a large "bubble" of retirees such as is occurring now caused by the Baby Boomer retirements. But if the BB's are receiving a disproportionate share of payments, they also made a disproportionate share of contributions. Since the birth rate has declined since the Baby Boomer era, more maney will be available for less people. There is a problem at present but the answer is not in privatizing.

Privatizing would take money out of the system at a time when we should be adding money. The solution is to eliminate the cap on contributions. As it stands now, the SS tax is a regressive tax. That is the person with the least earnings pays the highest percentage of tax. Personally, I would prefer a progressive tax, but I will settle for a flat rate.

As far as you and I being in clover; maybe you would, but I have no clue when it comes to the Stock Market. I am sure there are many people like me. Wall Street gives no guarantees. So, not only are you asking people to give up a guaranteed retirement income, you are asking them to risk money they have saved for their retirement.
I am not saying investing in the stock market is a bad idea. But not everyone has the expertise to do so.

[slewis]

Oh Boxcar, one more thing...


Dont think the Bear isn't pissed about all of this.

Do you know who the bear is??? No, not Yogi....

Putin has a hatred for this country, and that ex-KGB knows all the tricks.
We've just put a hurting on their economy.... things were crusing along nicely. World demand for OIL was at a high. Now, with this downturn, oil is WAY down, production down, and the BEAR is now hungary.
We (USA) have woken him out of semi-hybernation.
Putin will make us pay..... maybe a dirty bomb to the wrong hands, who knows, but trust me, we wont get off easy... he will have a hand in it.
But .......
Of course our country is SO SAFE...... So safe that you could get a passport with a dead person's SS number. (DONE DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION)...
Lets hope our kids get to pay off this debt to China.

[Tom]

Hey, here is what GM should do.
Declare the contracts with the UAW null and void, stop making all the payments to the retirees, and cut wages and bennies by 50% effective immediately.

What you say? How can they just violate a contract?

Well, AIG execs had a legal contract, not only prior to TARP, but specifically authorized by congress and signed into law by Obummer. And now they are ignoring that fact.
So the message from the White House and both houses of congress is that a contract - re: your word - is not binding.

In other words, your president is a stinking liar.

[DJofSD]

B. S. -- SS is not a pay as you go system. It is suppose to be a trust fund. Look it up. I contribute to MY retirement fund not to every other Tom, Dick and Harry that can not or will not look out for themselves.

[Lefty]

Dj,everyone working today is paying for us retirees. It's the perfect definition of a Ponzi scheme. The trust fund idea is long gone. Johnson put that SS money into the general fund soooo many moons ago.

[mostpost]

B. S. -- SS is not a pay as you go system. It is suppose to be a trust fund. Look it up. I contribute to MY retirement fund not to every other Tom, Dick and Harry that can not or will not look out for themselves.

B.S. your own self
The Social Security Administration responds to the criticism as follows:

There is a superficial analogy between pyramid or Ponzi schemes and pay-as-you-go insurance programs in that in both money from later participants goes to pay the benefits of earlier participants. But that is where the similarity ends. A pay-as-you-go system can be visualized as a simple pipeline, with money from current contributors coming in the front end and money to current beneficiaries paid out the back end. As long as the amount of money coming in the front end of the pipe maintains a rough balance with the money paid out, the system can continue forever. There is no unsustainable progression driving the mechanism of a pay-as-you-go pension system, and so it is not a pyramid or Ponzi scheme.

The words of the SSA themselves; I would say they are more relevant than the opinions of the fanatic right.

You are correct if you are saying that your Social Security payments will be based on your contributions, but they do not keep your money in a cookie jar to be returned to you upon request. If you live a long time (I hope you do) you could very well take a lot more money out of the system than you put in. If you die early (Don't worry, only the good die young;) ) your money will stay in the system and all be given to those slackers. :lol:

[mostpost]

From Lefty:
Johnson put that SS money into the general fund soooo many moons ago.
From me:
I agree that is a big part of the problem but the solution is not to throw the baby out with the bath water. The solution is to fix the problem.

[Lefty]

I agree. But Bush tried and got shouted down by the left from all sides. SS is screwed up and must be fixed. But it will take Republicans to do it because dims just not interested.

[mostpost]

Bush wasn't trying to fix it; he was trying to destroy it!

[Lefty]

Really. Explain that. He was trying to privatize a portion of it for our kids and grandkids so it would be there for them. If nothing is done, there will soon be on SS than working. Then it cannot survive. You got a better solution?

[HUSKER55]

The postal union is proof positive that unions are a bad thing. I will yield to that ONE but it should be noted the employer is the US government and allowing a union for those workers seems with the politiacians is a receipe for trouble.

With the current administration in mind, I don' think they are in a position to say who should be hired or stay on the job and who shouldn't. The current administration has problems paying their own taxes that are legally due. For people in that positin they should be arrested.

The real problem is that America should let the economy do its job. A true free economy will take care of itself. But if the government is going to guarantee success then that is not an economy that is free. That is an economy under seige.

If Detroit can not make a competitive product and show a profit then they must fail. If the Union is at fault then they have to accept defeat and their share of the responsibility for failing in business. That also applies to management.

Detroit can compete with anybody if they want to. They made their bed and I do not see any reason why I should have to make it for them.

Sorry guys, I still don't see how blaming the union for anything is correct. The bottom line is they are not competitive and that is not my problem. I sure as hell do not want government involved in running any business.

JMHO :)

[riskman]

slewis, I disagree. Had it not been for the Community reinvestment act making banks lower their standards we would not be in this mess. Corps have the obligation to make money or fail. If they fail they should go into bankruptcy. Bush made a mstk with the Tarp bill now Obama will intensify that mistake to the ultimate. But Obama's not stopping there, is he?

What does this have to do with GM or the UAW? Is it the responsibility of the U.S. taxpayer to make sure these automakers remain solvent? No. Is it the responsibility of the U.S. taxpayer to make sure that people who work for the Big Three keep working? No. Is it the fault of the U.S. taxpayer that the GM and Chrysler are currently insolvent? Yes, partially.Taxpayers comprise the market and, it is a market response that causes firms like GM to be losing money. GM is selling a product that people don’t want to buy, for whatever reason and so, few buy. GM is supposed to be losing money! Until and unless the U.S. automakers manage themselves in a way that: a) creates products that people want to buy and b) at a price that supports the expenses of the business, they should lose money. That’s the choice that the market is destined to make, unless the government intervenes and screws things up. A business is beholden to its customers, not the other way around.

If the choices made by customers eventually cause a lot of people, people who previously made a good living dependent upon that business, to lose their income, those are the breaks. This contraction is necessary for a healthy economic future. No customer is bound by any moral responsibility to buy from a particular vendor.

Yes, at this time the big three are suffering due to reduction of sales because of the credit crisis as many have cut back on purchases because they are either overexstended , their credit score does not meet the current standards for the financing they require or the vehicle they want is above what the bank feels they can handle. There is a new world out there. My friend recently bought a new GM car. He got an unbeleivable deal and a real competitive interest rate with a few extra goodies thrown in. He has an above avereage credit score. The money is there if you qualify and there are still plenty of banks offering financing for people on the edge at higher rates. The bottom line-- people are not buying period. There is a scary aura out there. People are in fear of layoffs, cut backs and many other things real or imagined. Scary, to say the least.

[Lefty]

risk, what I said was a big part of the overall problem. Unions have been another part of the problem along with govt interference. I really can't disagree with anything you've said.
I think bankruptcy is the solution, not interminable bailouts.

[The Judge]

the cars that people wanted to buy the Big Three wouldn't make they had the lead on electric cars and what did they do, they Killed the project. WHY!!! There was a waiting list for Hybrid cars ,but the U.S auto maker wouldn't listen to what the people wanted.

Sure now they are all ears, when gas was sky high they could have sold every energy efficient car they could make, but they were already behind they had lost the big mo. If the public wanted gas savers they looked elsewhere. They are dinosaurs headed for the tar pits.

They fought emission standards tooth and nail rather then seeing this as an opportunity to do something new. If I'm not mistaken there was government money to help them out.

[PaceAdvantage]

I posted a plan on another thread for GM to slash pricesYou mean to tell me you can't get a really good deal on a GM car right now? I thought I read where cash buyers WERE getting something like 30% off the sticker...

[PaceAdvantage]

Hey JustRalph, I find it interesting not one person has responded to your reply to slewis, including slewis himself.

Maybe they all missed it?

[boxcar]

You are WRONG WRONG WRONG about the bankruptcy.
Boxcar, stop with the head in the sand shit...

If your thory were to hold ANY water, then why did BUSH BUSH BUSH (did I say it enough times), CHANEY, one of the slickest pols around... ROVE... one of the most intelligent, devious, politico of this era, why did they give in to this WHILE THEY WERE STILL IN CHARGE.
Rhetorical, I explained it already, you just think Im a blabbering fool. You're knowledge of banking is Pete and Steve's credit union up the street.
When I tell you you were looking at world economic collapse, I wasn't the only one, brother... Your Republican boys were staining brown big time. Trust me.
And that would have been the LEAST of our worries. Wars would have broken out. Countries would have seized assets of others. Life would (as it did for 2 weeks) come to a standstill. Banks were not setting LIBOR, oh, excuse me, you dont know what LIBOR is, or what happens to overnight, or Tom next, all banking problems created with no realistic LIBOR.
You're a fish out of water....
Im not saying I would have tried to solve the problems exactly the way they are doing... and I certainly would have FIRED EVERY ONE OF THE TOP 100 employees at AIG FP, and forbid any Bank or institution taking GOV money to ever hire them. BUT THIS HAD TO BE DONE....
Bankruptcy laws.... You're not even a lawyer...

As far as the pork goes.. Ive voiced many many opinions on here against ANY pork.. and called Pelosi and Reid irrelevant and fools.

You would have fired!? You mean if you were president!? And bankruptcy is out because I'm not a lawyer!? :bang: What are bankruptcy laws for!?

You're right: Your head isn't in the sand. It's in a tarpit!

It's morally reprehensible what these lowlife politicians are doing to future generations -- these hypocrites who feign such compassion and interest for "the children". Our innocent children didn't vote these maggots into office. WE DID! Therefore, we should be the ones taking the bitter medicine, not our kids, grandkids and greatgrand kids -- kids still in the womb or not even a gleam in anyone's eye yet!

And the Bush administration was wrong, too, for going the bailout route. But I say it again: BO could have altered that course when he took office but he didn't. The buck stops with him. He's now in charge. And he's the one wanting Congress to spend trillions.

Boxcar

[cj's dad]

Dj,everyone working today is paying for us retirees. It's the perfect definition of a Ponzi scheme. The trust fund idea is long gone. Johnson put that SS money into the general fund soooo many moons ago.

I believe it actually started wit JFK and the space program.

[slewis]

You would have fired!? You mean if you were president!? And bankruptcy is out because I'm not a lawyer!? :bang: What are bankruptcy laws for!?

You're right: Your head isn't in the sand. It's in a tarpit!

It's morally reprehensible what these lowlife politicians are doing to future generations -- these hypocrites who feign such compassion and interest for "the children". Our innocent children didn't vote these maggots into office. WE DID! Therefore, we should be the ones taking the bitter medicine, not our kids, grandkids and greatgrand kids -- kids still in the womb or not even a gleam in anyone's eye yet!

And the Bush administration was wrong, too, for going the bailout route. But I say it again: BO could have altered that course when he took office but he didn't. The buck stops with him. He's now in charge. And he's the one wanting Congress to spend trillions.

Boxcar

First of all, yes, Obama could have changed course but didn't because HE was there, in on meetings, and heard all the evidence presented by Paulson and other economic leaders regarding what WOULD TAKE PLACE if certain action wasn't taken, when this first occured in Sept. But he didn't alter, for the reasons I presented to you, PLUS many more I (and you) probably dont know about because these meetings were secret.
So now you have to ask yourself, are YOU, BOXCAR, smarter then these guys? An economic wiz, where you can confidently say, no, bankruptcy was the way to go?
I have a lot of Int'l banking experience, but I am not an economist or an expert on the economy. I have working knowledge, but if these guys, very intellegent leaders, caved in, you can bet the evidence presented was overwhelming.
Boxcar, you can stick to your belief that if you let the market take it's own course everything will work itself out.
But there are virtually NO world economists, politicians, financial or banking experts, that have taken your view.
You're a man on a lonely island.

[boxcar]

First of all, yes, Obama could have changed course but didn't because HE was there, in on meetings, and heard all the evidence presented by Paulson and other economic leaders regarding what WOULD TAKE PLACE if certain action wasn't taken, when this first occured in Sept. But he didn't alter, for the reasons I presented to you, PLUS many more I (and you) probably dont know about because these meetings were secret.
So now you have to ask yourself, are YOU, BOXCAR, smarter then these guys? An economic wiz, where you can confidently say, no, bankruptcy was the way to go?
I have a lot of Int'l banking experience, but I am not an economist or an expert on the economy. I have working knowledge, but if these guys, very intellegent leaders, caved in, you can bet the evidence presented was overwhelming.
Boxcar, you can stick to your belief that if you let the market take it's own course everything will work itself out.
But there are virtually NO world economists, politicians, financial or banking experts, that have taken your view.
You're a man on a lonely island.

I would greatly prefer loneliness over rubbing shoulders with the fascist inmates who are running the asylum.

Boxcar

[slewis]

I would greatly prefer loneliness over rubbing shoulders with the fascist inmates who are running the asylum.

Boxcar

You know that expression, watch what you ask for, you might just get it.

Hey, thanks for the debate.....:ThmbUp:

[ArlJim78]

i love the argument that says that we should put our faith in the smart people.:lol: what could go wrong?

no matter how deep they dig the whole, no matter how bad they wreck our economy, no matter how high the debt, no matter how much they ignore the constitution, you will hear claims like "imagine how bad it would be if we didn't act", or "we didn't take bold enough action"

balderdash. plenty of economists oppose the bailouts and of course the bailouts were wrong, we would have survived all of them and been better off. bailouts and government meddling simply prolongs the problem and all this bailout mania is simply an effort to reinflate a bubble thats trying to burst. we're fighting a losing battle.

we are shoveling money into numerous black holes, and we'll have nothing to show for it at the end of the day except more debt and a weaker dollar.

[slewis]

i love the argument that says that we should put our faith in the smart people.:lol: what could go wrong?

no matter how deep they dig the whole, no matter how bad they wreck our economy, no matter how high the debt, no matter how much they ignore the constitution, you will hear claims like "imagine how bad it would be if we didn't act", or "we didn't take bold enough action"

balderdash. plenty of economists oppose the bailouts and of course the bailouts were wrong, we would have survived all of them and been better off. bailouts and government meddling simply prolongs the problem and all this bailout mania is simply an effort to reinflate a bubble thats trying to burst. we're fighting a losing battle.

we are shoveling money into numerous black holes, and we'll have nothing to show for it at the end of the day except more debt and a weaker dollar.

I have a feeling this was directed towards me, regardless, I'll set the record straight.

The only part of this situation that was not negotiable was the backing of AIG and all financial institutions financial banking (not labor) obligations.
Plenty of economists may be against a bailout (per say) but Id challenge EVERY ONE OF THEM, regardless of their education, to what the catastrophic outcome would have been had AIG and others defaulted into bankruptcy.
As far as stimulus goes.... I dont like the way it's being handled, and I wouldn't pretend to have guaranteed answers. The brightest minds in the world have very varying positions....But regarding keeping AIG and others solvent, (or, just saying to other institutions around the world that AIG's debt is now on the back of the US GOVT) this HAD to be.
No compromises. I dont like it... but I have enough of a backround to say IT HAS TO BE.

[ArlJim78]

http://www.merkfund.com/merk-perspective/insights/2009-03-31.html

Bailout Economics: Politics of Self Destruction

Work with the market forces, not against them
"The cost of the bailouts is staggering, amongst others, because the government is fighting market forces. In the end, however, you cannot print wealth, only currency. When you print money, you destroy a fundamental attribute of currency, namely that it is supposed to be a store of value. If currency is nothing but a government imposed medium of exchange, a flight to hard assets, including gold, may accelerate. Great Inflation may be upon us as both fiscal and monetary policies are forceful, but ineffective. Policies are ineffective because they prevent prices from reaching a market based equilibrium; because the stimulus package is mostly a spending package that is foremost expensive, but otherwise has mixed signals; because money is taken from strong hands to prop up weak hands – be that consumers of financial institutions; because policies remain without clear direction and change unpredictably; because policies don’t encourage more sustainable consumer spending; because, in our assessment, the Fed has no exit strategy that is viable – it seems impossible to us the Fed could tighten monetary policy if and when inflation breaks out without causing yet another collapse in economic spending; and finally, the Fed – in our view – wants to have inflation as inflation bails out those with debt. By inducing inflation, fewer homeowners will be “under water” on their mortgages, possibly providing relief. It’s a dangerous road to proceed on, and, moreover, runs against the mandate of the Fed."

"By the way, when Congressman Ron Paul recently asked Fed Chair Bernanke whether the Fed extends the bust cycles, the Fed Chair responded that the Federal Reserve was created to smoothen the business cycle. Pressed again to clarify whether it wouldn’t be preferable to have a short and painful bust followed by more growth, Bernanke did not disagree, but said that it is his job to follow the Fed’s mandate."


Failure must not be rewarded
"What doesn’t work is to reward failure. Taking money from prudent people to give it to the imprudent is a recipe for disaster; or, as the outgoing president of the European Union stated, will put the U.S. on a “road to hell.” There are about 8,000 banks in the U.S., most of them sound; however, the government is propping up the largest banks, injecting hundreds of billions of dollars in capital and guarantees. Warren Buffett laments in his letter to shareholders that he cannot compete with businesses that receive government subsidies. The government is not encouraging private sector activity, but replacing private sector activity."

[slewis]

http://www.merkfund.com/merk-perspective/insights/2009-03-31.html

Bailout Economics: Politics of Self Destruction

Work with the market forces, not against them
"The cost of the bailouts is staggering, amongst others, because the government is fighting market forces. In the end, however, you cannot print wealth, only currency. When you print money, you destroy a fundamental attribute of currency, namely that it is supposed to be a store of value. If currency is nothing but a government imposed medium of exchange, a flight to hard assets, including gold, may accelerate. Great Inflation may be upon us as both fiscal and monetary policies are forceful, but ineffective. Policies are ineffective because they prevent prices from reaching a market based equilibrium; because the stimulus package is mostly a spending package that is foremost expensive, but otherwise has mixed signals; because money is taken from strong hands to prop up weak hands – be that consumers of financial institutions; because policies remain without clear direction and change unpredictably; because policies don’t encourage more sustainable consumer spending; because, in our assessment, the Fed has no exit strategy that is viable – it seems impossible to us the Fed could tighten monetary policy if and when inflation breaks out without causing yet another collapse in economic spending; and finally, the Fed – in our view – wants to have inflation as inflation bails out those with debt. By inducing inflation, fewer homeowners will be “under water” on their mortgages, possibly providing relief. It’s a dangerous road to proceed on, and, moreover, runs against the mandate of the Fed."

"By the way, when Congressman Ron Paul recently asked Fed Chair Bernanke whether the Fed extends the bust cycles, the Fed Chair responded that the Federal Reserve was created to smoothen the business cycle. Pressed again to clarify whether it wouldn’t be preferable to have a short and painful bust followed by more growth, Bernanke did not disagree, but said that it is his job to follow the Fed’s mandate."


Failure must not be rewarded
"What doesn’t work is to reward failure. Taking money from prudent people to give it to the imprudent is a recipe for disaster; or, as the outgoing president of the European Union stated, will put the U.S. on a “road to hell.” There are about 8,000 banks in the U.S., most of them sound; however, the government is propping up the largest banks, injecting hundreds of billions of dollars in capital and guarantees. Warren Buffett laments in his letter to shareholders that he cannot compete with businesses that receive government subsidies. The government is not encouraging private sector activity, but replacing private sector activity."

Good article,

I dont know of one thing in there I disagree with.

I think you are misreading the statement of "strong hands vs weak hands".

Please correct me if Im wrong, but you're using that statement in the context of higher taxes on the wealthy.... ?

Or... in helping to bailout homeowners who shouldn't be in those homes, in essense, artificially proping up real estate prices at the expense of others?

or something else???

As far as a small tax increase (to Reagan levels) on high incomers, I dont like it, but it's necessary..... regarding keeping people in their homes, artificially, at other tax payer expense, to keep home prices propped (artificially).
Ive stated on this forum I AM VERY VERY MUCH AGAINST IT.

If they let the real (estate) market crash, we will all be better off in the long term.
Ive stated the GOV should take over foreclosed property, then cover the banks loss in exchange for the deed. They (the gov) would have a REAL asset... the property.
By throwing money down a black hole and hoping for something good to happen, we (US govt) may have nothing to show for it.
Im confident that 25 yrs from now I could recoup losses on overvalued and foreclosed beach property in Miami.... Im not sure I will recoup money from stimulus money going to programs that cant be controlled.

[JustRalph]

Hey JustRalph, I find it interesting not one person has responded to your reply to slewis, including slewis himself.

Maybe they all missed it?

Tick Tock..............

[DJofSD]

Hey JustRalph, I find it interesting not one person has responded to your reply to slewis, including slewis himself.

Maybe they all missed it?Would that be #24?

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage
Hey JustRalph, I find it interesting not one person has responded to your reply to slewis, including slewis himself.

Maybe they all missed it?


Tick Tock..............
What the hell Constitution are you reading? The CEO of the U.S. ? Where do you get this crap from? Come on........you can't be serious? There is no authority in the Constitution for the Government to take over private commerce. Even if they loan them money.
I don't know what "CEO of the U. S. means either, but the Constitutional authority for the government to regulate commerce is contained in Article one, Section eight, paragraph three; "Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." Congress passed this power on to the Executive in the limited circumstances that we have here. The various bailout bills call for the recipients
of bailout money to provide a workable plan of action to alleviate their problems, to forego excessive executive compensation and to adhere to certain other criteria.
The Government is not running the companies, it is vetting the plans which company execs are formulating to solve their problems. Since I have read you and many others saying that GM deserves its fate because management was incompetent, I have to assume that you agree these men need oversight.

Unanimously elected? Where they hell are you getting your election results?

My dictionary definition of "unanimous" says "of like mind...lacking dissent". Slewis must have a revised edition. The election wasn't unanimous. It was an
a__whuppin, but it wasn't unanimous:D

[Tom]

There is a huge difference between regulating commerce and regulating a business. The government clearly has over-stepped it's authority, imho.
No one in government is anywhere near as qualified to run GM as Wagoner was.

Barny and Dodd meddled in business and look what they did to the housing market!

What we have here is a guy who lost billions getting lectured by a jerk who lost trillions!

[slewis]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage
Hey JustRalph, I find it interesting not one person has responded to your reply to slewis, including slewis himself.

Maybe they all missed it?


Tick Tock..............
What the hell Constitution are you reading? The CEO of the U.S. ? Where do you get this crap from? Come on........you can't be serious? There is no authority in the Constitution for the Government to take over private commerce. Even if they loan them money.
I don't know what "CEO of the U. S. means either, but the Constitutional authority for the government to regulate commerce is contained in Article one, Section eight, paragraph three; "Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." Congress passed this power on to the Executive in the limited circumstances that we have here. The various bailout bills call for the recipients
of bailout money to provide a workable plan of action to alleviate their problems, to forego excessive executive compensation and to adhere to certain other criteria.
The Government is not running the companies, it is vetting the plans which company execs are formulating to solve their problems. Since I have read you and many others saying that GM deserves its fate because management was incompetent, I have to assume that you agree these men need oversight.

Unanimously elected? Where they hell are you getting your election results?

My dictionary definition of "unanimous" says "of like mind...lacking dissent". Slewis must have a revised edition. The election wasn't unanimous. It was an
a__whuppin, but it wasn't unanimous:D


You just made an ass of yourself with the CEO statement.

Start with google, better yet, go back and get you're HS equiv.

[Lefty]

slewis, earlier in this thread you blamed Bush for a guy getting a Passport with a dead guy's SS number. That loophole has existed before Bush was even born. They don't cross reference birth certificates with death certificates. People have using this loophole to create new identities long before Bush, you or i was born. So puleese, stop blaming Bush for every frickin thing under the sun!

[slewis]

There is a huge difference between regulating commerce and regulating a business. The government clearly has over-stepped it's authority, imho.
No one in government is anywhere near as qualified to run GM as Wagoner was.

Barny and Dodd meddled in business and look what they did to the housing market!

What we have here is a guy who lost billions getting lectured by a jerk who lost trillions!

Tom,

GM has a bd of directors... they could have turned down the money.

Go ahead, go it alone I say.... they would be history very very shortly.
Bankruptcy?? They could have chosen that route. The Govt cannot FORCE their hand... the bd of directors made a choice.....
You state that no one is better to run GM then that clown who stepped down.
Go ahead Tom, keep rewarding execs for FAILURE...

So I pose the question... If things are so bright at GM?? why do they need a GOVT bailout:lol:

[boxcar]

Tom,

GM has a bd of directors... they could have turned down the money.

Go ahead, go it alone I say.... they would be history very very shortly.
Bankruptcy?? They could have chosen that route. The Govt cannot FORCE their hand... the bd of directors made a choice.....
You state that no one is better to run GM then that clown who stepped down.
Go ahead Tom, keep rewarding execs for FAILURE...

So I pose the question... If things are so bright at GM?? why do they need a GOVT bailout:lol:

And who in government is qualified to run a freakin' candy store, let alone a multi-billion dollar corporation?

Boxcar

[Lefty]

back during the Clinton Admin, the govt took over a cathouse in Nev because the owner committed tax fraud. It was Sherry's Ranch and the govt ran it into the ground. Now if the fed govt can't even run a cathouse, i see bleak things in our future as thet take over company after company.

[Greyfox]

It was Sherry's Ranch and the govt ran it into the ground. .

The problem was that the girls wanted more "back pay.":D

[Tom]

slewis....you did not read what I wrote. Try again.

[slewis]

And who in government is qualified to run a freakin' candy store, let alone a multi-billion dollar corporation?

Boxcar

Not many,

But they are not running it... only dictating who will be/is.

[slewis]

back during the Clinton Admin, the govt took over a cathouse in Nev because the owner committed tax fraud. It was Sherry's Ranch and the govt ran it into the ground. Now if the fed govt can't even run a cathouse, i see bleak things in our future as thet take over company after company.


I know bout it......

Read what I told Boxcar....

[slewis]

slewis....you did not read what I wrote. Try again.

I did Tom,

And you know my feelings regarding laurel and hardy. Throw Pelosi and Reid in too.

[JustRalph]

You just made an ass of yourself with the CEO statement.

Start with google, better yet, go back and get you're HS equiv.

You are entering "ignore" territory. You walk into multiple threads screaming about your banking experience and in other threads you are the king of horse ownership and run the upper levels of the NYRA. I don't give a shit who you think you are.........but on this board, you are another loud mouth who thinks he knows it all.

The president is not the CEO of the Country. He is the head of one of 3 branches of Government. What are the odds you would have never declared Bush Ceo of the Country? The President may be the closest thing to CEO we have in Government, but his authority is specifically outlined in the Constitution. He cannot direct private companies to do anything. The fact that the GM CEO stepped down after Obama "required it" changes everything. The Government is now running GM. End of Story.

Congress can "regulate" interstate commerce.......but they cannot control the companies.........in this instance the Government has bought into the banks, the Car companies and the United States government now owns a percentage of these companies. That makes you and me...... owners of failed companies......... it isnt' regulation..........it is ownership. There is a vast difference in the the two concepts.

In fact, the United States Government now owns what amounts to 80% of the failed divisions of AIG. Congress just passed a law that will force the top executives from the company. How would you like to overpay by 3000% for 80% of a failed company...........and then run off the execs? No matter how bad they were, now that you have limited the pay...........who comes to work for you? The bottom tier of execs........that's who. It is a setup for failure. Some regulation.

[mostpost]

back during the Clinton Admin, the govt took over a cathouse in Nev because the owner committed tax fraud. It was Sherry's Ranch and the govt ran it into the ground. Now if the fed govt can't even run a cathouse, i see bleak things in our future as thet take over company after company.

If my memory is correct, the government stepped in and ran that "Business" in order to recoup delinquent taxes they were owed. I believe they succeeded in that endeavour and then got rid of the business. They weren't interested in being involved permanently with a bunch of shady characters. (They already have Congress!)

[JustRalph]

3Olrg2uKyNs


Is this regulation or Ownership?



In the Video below............ Congress dictates salary and money rules to Private Companies.............Please watch everything after the 3 minute mark at least
6Uhn1SgpmdE

[slewis]

You are entering "ignore" territory. You walk into multiple threads screaming about your banking experience and in other threads you are the king of horse ownership and run the upper levels of the NYRA. I don't give a shit who you think you are.........but on this board, you are another loud mouth who thinks he knows it all.

The president is not the CEO of the Country. He is the head of one of 3 branches of Government. What are the odds you would have never declared Bush Ceo of the Country? The President may be the closest thing to CEO we have in Government, but his authority is specifically outlined in the Constitution. He cannot direct private companies to do anything. The fact that the GM CEO stepped down after Obama "required it" changes everything. The Government is now running GM. End of Story.

Congress can "regulate" interstate commerce.......but they cannot control the companies.........in this instance the Government has bought into the banks, the Car companies and the United States government now owns a percentage of these companies. That makes you and me...... owners of failed companies......... it isnt' regulation..........it is ownership. There is a vast difference in the the two concepts.

In fact, the United States Government now owns what amounts to 80% of the failed divisions of AIG. Congress just passed a law that will force the top executives from the company. How would you like to overpay by 3000% for 80% of a failed company...........and then run off the execs? No matter how bad they were, now that you have limited the pay...........who comes to work for you? The bottom tier of execs........that's who. It is a setup for failure. Some regulation.

Oh,
Now your taking the role of educating me?:lol: :lol:

Let me see if I get you straight?
You doubt my knowledge and experience in the banking industry?:lol:
You doubt my crediblity regarding my experience in the racing industry?:lol:

All you know how to do is post dumb ass comments like:

"Hey slewis?, Isn't admitting you worked on wall st these days like admitting you're a hooker"


The definition of the job is Chief Executive of the United States.
I am aware of the 3 branches of our Govt, thank you.
The powers of the executive branch are clearly defined.
Lets hope this president doesn't overstep those powers as much as the last did.

You've made it clear in your very limited (as in zero) experience in the Int'l banking world (because it's the fact that it's global that forced the US govt into bailout mode)that you would have preferred the bankruptcy route.
Take you're percentage stats and show them to your buddies over at Pete and Steve (or is it Neil and Bob's ) credit union where you Ohioans bank.

Remember it was YOUR MAN GEORGE W. BUSH, while your # 2 man, JOHN MCCAIN that agreed to this deal... uhhhh..as did the board of AIG, who, like GM, could have turned the whole deal down and taken your route.
Have you seen any board members of AIG or GM crying in the media that OBAMA is taking over the free world?
NO....so obviously... they aint doin' it your way for a reason....

Go down to the credit union... they're serving coffee and Dunkin Donuts.

[slewis]

Powers and duties

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/SOU2007.jpg/180px-SOU2007.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SOU2007.jpg) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SOU2007.jpg)
President George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) delivering the 2007 State of the Union Address (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_State_of_the_Union_Address), with Vice President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States) Dick Cheney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney) and Speaker of the House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representati ves) Nancy Pelosi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Pelosi) behind him.


Main article: Powers of the President of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_of_the_President_of_the_United_States)
The President is the chief executive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_executive) of the United States, putting him at the head of the executive branch of the government, whose responsibility is to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." To carry out this duty, he is given control of the four million employees of the federal executive branch, including one million active duty personnel in the military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States). Both the legislative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_branch) and judicial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_branch) branches maintain checks and balances (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checks_and_balances) on the powers of the President and vice versa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(S-Z)#vice_versa).

Here Ralph,

While your dunking your donuts in the free coffee provided by the powerhouse credit union you do your banking, you know, the one where the president of the bank cleans the coffee pot each morning (after all, he must be the one educating you on this banking problem, how it must be a left wing wall st, hoax and there's really no international crisis or danger.
Print out the following and study up.

[ArlJim78]

The new White House office of warranties.

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/phonefail.jpg

"you say the muffler on your Impala is rattling? bring it on in and we'll put it up on the hoist and someone from my team will have a look"

[JustRalph]

you just prove my point for me..........

you are a blow hard........

[DJofSD]

The new White House office of warranties.

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/phonefail.jpg

"you say the muffler on your Impala is rattling? bring it on in and we'll put it up on the hoist and someone from my team will have a look"
OMG, are you now trying to tell me the "Car Guys" are in the sights of BO? Say it ain't so!

[PaceAdvantage]

You just made an ass of yourself with the CEO statement.

Start with google, better yet, go back and get you're HS equiv.See, I knew you must have missed it. Not like you to pass this kind of thing up...

So you agree Obama is within his constitutional rights here?

[Tom]

Oh,
Now your taking the role of educating me?

Start with google, better yet, go back and get you're HS equiv.

Someone better - your grammar is sorely lacking. You're making an arse of yourself.:lol::lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

In post #26 in this thread, slewis wrote:

Ralph I promise I'll have a respectful debate on my post with you or others..

Explain what about his you dont agree with specifically please.

Oh well.
So much for respectful debate.

[slewis]

See, I knew you must have missed it. Not like you to pass this kind of thing up...

So you agree Obama is within his constitutional rights here?


Was this a reply to Ralph???

[slewis]

Someone better - your grammar is sorely lacking. You're making an arse of yourself.:lol::lol:

Yes I'll admit Tom I often make that typing mistakes.....

Make sure you give me a D for Grammar/ English.

When my English professor asked me if I ever heard of Shakesphere, I told him sure, He's a son of Theatrical, trained by MOTT.

Now that we've got past my spelling, punctuation, and grammar???

Is this the best the far right can do??

[PaceAdvantage]

Was this a reply to Ralph???No, it was a reply for you.

[PaceAdvantage]

Is this the best the far right can do??Is anybody who sits even slightly to the right of Obama considered 'far right' these days? Because it sure seems that way...

I get it...they're throwing around 'far right' and 'conservative' and 'Republican' like they did the words 'liberal' and 'Democrat' during the Reagan years.

That ought to convince the left that they won't be in power for the next 100 years, no matter how much they state the contrary here on off-topic.

[newtothegame]

And does it get worse then where were already are...???????

Frank-ly Control Freaks: Congressional Committee Passes Bill Controlling ALL Pay at US-Involved Companies

http://newsbusters.org/files/user_pics/picture-2198.jpgArchive (http://newsbusters.org/user/2198))
March 31, 2009 - 12:34 ET

<LI class=last_task>http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/graphics/email.png (http://newsbusters.org/forward/29161)
http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/graphics/print.png (http://newsbusters.org/node/29161/print)

http://www.bizzyblog.com/wp-images/ObamaAndGeithner0109.jpgIs it okay to call them socialists yet? (/sarc)

And to think we were "only" worried about having a known Tax Cheat (http://www.bizzyblog.com/2009/01/22/geithners-tax-troubles-theres-much-more-and-the-press-is-virtually-ignoring-it/) overseeing everyone's taxes.

With Barney Frank's help, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is trying to expand his power (and by inference that of his Dear Leader boss) well beyond that. The "Pay for Performance Act," which has already gotten out of committee, would give him veto power over salaries at every company into which the government has inserted its intrusive claws.

Besides the utter outrageousness of the news itself, the story leads to the question of how the establishment media will handle it. Whitewash it? Minimize its significance? Ignore it? Given the fact that the news is over a week old, I vote for a continuation of Door Number Three.

Byron York reports the following in the DC Examiner (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Beyond-AIG-A-Bill-to-let-Big-Government-Set-Your-Salary-42158597.html):





Beyond AIG: A Bill to let Big Government Set Your Salary


..... in a little-noticed move, the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill. The new legislation, the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives -- of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.

The purpose of the legislation is to "prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards," according to the bill's language. That includes regular pay, bonuses -- everything -- paid to employees of companies in whom the government has a capital stake, including those that have received funds through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The measure is not limited just to those firms that received the largest sums of money, or just to the top 25 or 50 executives of those companies. It applies to all employees of all companies involved, for as long as the government is invested. And it would not only apply going forward, but also retroactively to existing contracts and pay arrangements of institutions that have already received funds.

In addition, the bill gives Geithner the authority to decide what pay is "unreasonable" or "excessive." And it directs the Treasury Department to come up with a method to evaluate "the performance of the individual executive or employee to whom the payment relates."

The bill passed the Financial Services Committee last week, 38 to 22, on a nearly party-line vote. (All Democrats voted for it, and all Republicans, with the exception of Reps. Ed Royce of California and Walter Jones of North Carolina, voted against it.)




Geez, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to extend Geithner's reach to:


Any company with a Small Business Administration loan.
Any university with students who have borrowed money from the government to attend (i.e., almost every institution of higher learning in the US).
Any company whose employees use government services (i.e., an interstate highway or a subsidized mass-transit ride) to get to work.
That is, it's not a very far trip to controlling everyone's earnings.

Well, at least the self-employed won't be affected .... Don't count on that either. Tax Cheat Tim will probably want to control hourly rates and prices paid to vendors.

[Tom]

Now that we've got past my spelling, punctuation, and grammar???

This is an incomplete sentence.

[michiken]

And in todays news, our goverment wants to divide GM into two companies:

Thru a structured bankruptcy, one company will be owned by Obama and crew.

Welcome to NATIONAL MOTORS!

[lsbets]

Let me see if I get you straight?
You doubt my knowledge and experience in the banking industry?:lol:
You doubt my crediblity regarding my experience in the racing industry?:lol:



Since no one else answered this (and I know this was directed towards Ralph, but .............)

I've generally found that the people who need to shout the loudest that they are the smartest and most knowledgeable guys in the room aren't really that smart or knowledgeable. You could be the exception, but Ralph's description of "blowhard" seems pretty accurate.

So to answer the two questions - yes and yes. Experience doesn't equal understanding and being in the room with smart guys doesn't make you smart.

[ArlJim78]

I've generally found that the people who need to shout the loudest that they are the smartest and most knowledgeable guys in the room aren't really that smart or knowledgeable. You could be the exception, but Ralph's description of "blowhard" seems pretty accurate.

So to answer the two questions - yes and yes. Experience doesn't equal understanding and being in the room with smart guys doesn't make you smart.
I would say it's always true. The smartest and sharpest never have to resort to pounding the table and shouting to others about their greatness, or put down others that they feel are inferior.

everyone in the room knows who the sharp ones are without being told.

[Tom]

And in todays news, our goverment wants to divide GM into two companies:

Thru a structured bankruptcy, one company will be owned by Obama and crew.

Welcome to NATIONAL MOTORS!


Would YOU buy a used car from that man?

[ddog]

You mean to tell me you can't get a really good deal on a GM car right now? I thought I read where cash buyers WERE getting something like 30% off the sticker...



and that's a viable go forward, huh???

The problem is that there are not enough, buyers of any stripe to help them.

Selling at a loss and making it up on volume......hmmm

Also, once Gm goes pre-pak or whatever and the debt is rolled into preferred or something similiar and they do up the union side and dump a ton of dealers, then what do you think Ford will be doing?

Won't they end up having a lower mrkt share going in and with the share overall seeming to decline, what then becomes of Ford with their OLD high relative cost structure??

12-15% unemplyment and those who have jobs not wanting to buy buy buy is not good for Ford GM ,etc.

There are not going to be "new jobs" for those about to be dropped out of the car biz, forget about it. At least a decade long shift to a new normal is underway, all sectors.


You guessed it , tarp o ford anyone.

The auto biz was "subprimed" long before the RE and CRE boys climbed into their pits of debt.

on and on it goes , outrageous leverage really is the cat's meow ain't it now!

[Tom]

Why aren't people buying cars?

Because the dope-n-chief is bailing out everyone BUT people.
His porkulus will not create many jobs and the number of lost jobs is increasing under the witless one.

Cut taxes, on both people and GM and sales will go up.

So far, Obama has totally failed to accomplish anything. Because he is not trying he;lp anyone but himself and the demacrooks.

[ddog]

i really think people will have to buy cars again someday.

But, the main reason people (that have jobs and money) are not buying know, I think is they don't NEED to.

Using the cheap money and cash back for anyone schemes to keep trying to prop up demand for the last several years is now coming back to haunt them big time.

They were not making much if anything in the latter stages anyway selling the things.

They essentially "porked up" their customer base and now all those people don't need to replace a 2-5 year old vehicle.

ironically, the best thing that could (will ) happen to car makers is for gas to jump again.

I hear that now the lenders are going to go all out again to lend to anyone that seems to have a pulse.

That won't end well.


I am ok with a no fed tax / no ssn / no med on everyone under 150K or so for the next two years, i just don't think it's going to matter much in the medium run.
So, at this point, try it and see.

After all to quote Timmay, the fear is that WE do TOO little.

I really don't understand that as it relates to taxes for the little guys.
The holes that are going to open up are too deep.

[PaceAdvantage]

and that's a viable go forward, huh???No, it's not. My reply was simply an extension of the discussion on what kind of deals are out there at the moment.

Right now is probably one of the best times ever to buy a new car. Provided of course you have someone to honor your warranty and fix it if it should break down.

[ddog]

yeah - plus these "cars" being put out by GM and Chrysler are just junk.


When i saw Uncle obama on tv pushing his gvt backed warranty I had to sit down before I fell down from laughing.

Who in their right mind would buy a car with a warranty backed by the gvt?

If Us made from the big guys, i think it's a terrible time to buy one unless you are in dire need.

They will be giving them away after the summer when nothing sells.

Far as I am concerned they should just hold raffles for the homeless to pick them up for free and buy the gas for them.

That's the only way they are going to clear.

I was talking to a Honda general sales mgr for a couple of dealerships and he was saying the last 2 months are the best they have had in a couple of years.

[PaceAdvantage]

ddog, do you ever simply just address the main points of the discussion at hand? You are definitely a 'macro' type of guy, aren't you?

[DJofSD]

AD/HD.

[ddog]

ddog, do you ever simply just address the main points of the discussion at hand? You are definitely a 'macro' type of guy, aren't you?



Pa

I couldn't resist...


Like this one or this one or ......

Someone better - your grammar is sorely lacking. You're making an arse of yourself


I would say it's always true. The smartest and sharpest never have to resort to pounding the table and shouting to others about their greatness, or put down others that they feel are inferior.

everyone in the room knows who the sharp ones are without being told


That ought to convince the left that they won't be in power for the next 100 years, no matter how much they state the contrary here on off-topic.


OK, then use it as biomass to make electricity


This is the next thing that UNIONS ENCOURAGE.....lazy...don't work to hard or your in essence black balled by your fellow UNION workers...They (union leaders) point blank tell you to "screw the company over


I agree. But Bush tried and got shouted down by the left from all sides. SS is screwed up and must be fixed. But it will take Republicans to do it because dims just not intere



Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatt


now , I will repost the thread title for you here........

GM CEO asked to step down by Obama



Now, kimmosabe really , really NOW........
:lol:

[ddog]

ddog, do you ever simply just address the main points of the discussion at hand? You are definitely a 'macro' type of guy, aren't you?

now , on the macro side, some would call that a plus , others who didn't make their living from advising others or trying to get "a view" may think of it as AD/HD.

Of course many of those AD/HD types are what built your country, such as it is.
It's a cure, but we all have to bear something for the greater good!

;)


am I/we still on point here???? which point?????



HAY HAY HAY , wait just a minute.

read the previous post and notice how those comments kind of flow , they could have been of a piece.


Have I just discovered the Bible's creation here.

Any postings randomly snipped make perfect sense in the right context.

GEEEEjjjjjjuuuuuuuuuuuuzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!