It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama has decided bankruptcy best for GM

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 02:35 AM
reply to post by Vitchilo


I know, I know...

I saw the news reports from Pakistan that showed how they, the Gov't of Pakistan, basically further 'stripped' women of any basic rights, in that even married women must submit to being raped by their "husbands"...

This is a systemic problem in a culturally repressed society, whether it is the cult (if an appropriate term) of the 'Taliban'....or what is an alleged 'progressive' society that is masking the hatred, the terrible truth, under the guise of being somewhat 'western'....and I'm talking about Saudi Arabia.

Now....We've ranted a bit, so's done.

How to tie this to the OP.....hmmmm......this is a stretch, I admit, but I would like to bring this to some sort of topical relevance....

Saudi Arabia is very wealthy....yes, they are very bad men....BUT, perhaps good ole' George H.W.Bush, (Pres41) could call in a few favors???

I mean....why not?!? So, the US gets into a bit of debt.....I would think the Saudi Arabians could certainly afford to just....well, pay us our if you work hard on your Paper Route, and you always take out the long as you do your chores, you should be rewarded.

Is this too esoteric????

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 02:46 AM
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

Forgive me, but if the company was making money, it wouldnt be closing now would it.
If a company was contributing that 2% you talk of, it wouldnt be going bankrupt.
If a company was creating jobs and helping the economy, it wouldnt need government bailouts now would it.

if your going to use any reason under the sun to blast Obama, aleast do it with some dignity!

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 03:35 AM
reply to post by Agit8dChop

AChop, you make a good point....but, so does the man with the Mask...
I see only one prob with a potential GM BK11.....

What will happen to the Union Contracts.

We've seen, in the Airline (and, I assume, the RailRoad) Industries....Union Contracts being shredded as a result of a BK11 filing.

BUT...that may only be peculiar to the NLRB rulings, as pertains to the Transportation Industries.

Now....I don't want to get any Attorneys all hot and bothered here....and PLEASE don't try to make a name for yourself (YES!! I'm talkin' to YOU!! The one who wants to fight for the little guy!!!)

I do NOT want to see the UAW Contracts come under fire, just because of the BK11 possibility...NOR should the 'threat' of BK11 filing be used at the bargaining table.

I've seen this tactic, from Management, too many times to count.

From my perspective, albeit a different Union, but the concept stays the Industry, the Airlines....gave and gave and gave....with the 'promise', from Management, of greater rewards, 'once' the Industry turned around.

Well, I see the same BS in this scenario.

Sure, the CEO of GM was 'ousted' the tune of $23million in Pension payments....hmmmmm....I feel for him.

C'mon!!! This, for a guy who in the last two years as CEO earned upwards of $40 Million????

I cry for them!!!!

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 04:04 AM
and again we have the REAL reason why the US economy is down the toilet


when they demand massive pay raises for there staff it comes to a point when the comapny cannot pay its wage bill and folds - sure the detroit 3 have been paying the wage bill since they got a free loan but that money has gone

go see your union rep when everyone is laid off and the company folds , then see how fast they run away and watch the benefits` evaporate.

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 04:15 AM
reply to post by Harlequin

You are NOT the same person, with a similar name, that I used to call a 'friend'.

Not, based on your last post.

I will check......

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 04:21 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

today i am angry because the leaders of the union at GM have had an inflation busting pay RISE whilst the workers get nothing and cuts.

THAT is why im angry , as they are in it for themselves and not the people they are supposed to represent.

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 04:25 AM

Originally posted by jam321
I am eagerly awaiting to see how the labor unions view this latest news. I am so glad that we have such an expert President who knows which businesses should survive and fail. With a President like Obama, who needs capitalism.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but are you kidding me? Letting a failing business, is what capitalism is all about. He's not deciding anything, he just doesn't want to provide them with more bailout money. If he gave them more money, that isn't capitalism. So he is an expert in capitalism in this *individual* case. Bankruptcy will help break the labor unions which will help costs.

Why isn't he doing the same with the freakin' banks?

Uh, maybe because the precedent was set under Bush? The banks were bailed out on Bush's watch, the beginning of socialism was at the end of Bush's term.

Nationalize them. Restructure them.

And this is so ridiculous... Obama is screaming at GM while GM is important for the industrial production of the US, and he gives everything he wants to the banks without saying anything or firing anyone.

I don't get some of you guys, if he does nothing, he gets criticized. Doing nothing to help them would be the capitalist thing to do. If he does something, he gets criticized. Doing something to help them would be socialist.

Perhaps Obama could lay off GM if, IDK, they were a half way decent company that could take care of itself like a big kid? They can't even wipe their butt right not and they depend on another entity to support them. You give power to others when you depend on them, and rightfully so. That's why the we have some input in these businesses because they gave us some of their power when they accepted the bailout money. If you don't want to have higher regulation, don't accept public funds, simple.

I hope GM and Chrysler go belly up, bad businesses deserve to die.

[edit on 1-4-2009 by ghaleon12]

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 04:27 AM
I take it everyone here bemoaning the President's decision does actually drive an American built car, yes ? And a GM marque or a Chrysler ?

If not, why not ? What's tempted you to buy Japanese or European instead ?

Bailing out GM or Chrysler, or allowing either to file for bankruptcy & remain trading, gives both a competitive edge other manufacturers don't share. It rewards poor management, greedy unions, lame product ranges & a lack of innovation. That plus it's protectionist ... and beggars thy neighbour.

In the UK a few years ago, a leading manufacturer Rover was simply allowed to go to the wall. Tens of thousands of jobs lost, hundreds of thousands of disgruntled customers chasing spares & left with worthless auto warranties. Bad companies should be allowed to fail unless there's some particular strategic interest to your country (like Rolls Royce aero engines, which went bust in the 1970's & got bailed out by the British government).

Bailing out companies simply to court public opinion is just plain wrong.

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 04:32 AM
Ron Gettelfinger recieved a pay increase this year of 2.3% taking his before expenses salary to over $162,000 , at present US inflation is at 0.2%

it was his `no comprimise` stance to GM that has forced it into this situation - and the problem with GM also forced Rick Wagoner out , and yet the other side of table stays , with a pay rise?

no thats the problem

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 04:53 AM

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
Wait wait wait, wasnt Obama supposed to create more jobs and bring us out of the stooper we are in?

How does a bad company failing reflect on Obama? How is a bad company failing Obama's fault? I know everyone wants him to be a father figure and lead you by the hand, but come on.

Oh ya deciding to let GM go is going to create a lot of jobs, oh not to mention the loss of 2 percent GDP is going to REALLY help us pay off the money America owes, not to mention the money hes been spending

Umm, heard of capitalism? He isn't "deciding" to let GM go. GM did this to itself. I swear you people would complain about anything he does, if he keeps them going by injecting money, you'd criticize him for being socialist. Enough already.

Yeah good call on closing down a company that helps pay off all those lil bills

The government is not closing down any company. The company, shocker, did this to itself without Obama's input. Who was making the decisions at GM and Chrystler the last 15 years? I know, Obama did it !

[edit on 1-4-2009 by ghaleon12]

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 09:01 AM
Detroit is going to be a ghost town at this rate. I remember reading unemployment was at 21% before this and now I imagine we will see that number rise further. Bad situation with plenty of blame to go around. The main cause was the financial crisis caused by the banks but you could go back further and look at why they were in such a weak situation to begin with - unions and bad management. Not that it really matters at this point, plenty of working families will suffer regardless of who the finger is pointed at and the best that can be done is to learn from mistakes and move forward.

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 10:00 AM
General Motors has been in trouble for decades and there are arguments that they never really came back after the nasty 1980s.

Truth be told, the supply sector has been bailing GM out for ten years now, what with piece price reductions, givebacks, scrap allowances and the like.

I had laugh the other day when new GM boss Fritz Henderson came out with the notion that the recently negotiated contract between GM and the CAW would not be reopened because was an accepted contract.

Meanwhile, in the supply sector, dspite what your contract is with GM, they open up those agreements daily and threaten to pull their work if you don't belly up to their demands.

Case in point . . . the supplier for which I work was awarded some parts due to go into production in 2009. It has not yet gone into production. In that contract, there are negotiated piece price reductions at the rate of thre percen per year. That is pretty much the accepted business practice as you should be finding those efficiencies to offset the reductions.

But, and even before these parts are in production GM sent us notitfication that we had to cut our prices by five percent or the would cancel the contract under some other trumped up reason.

GM has done this over and over for the past ten years, netting millions of dollars from each of their suppliers which has driven many of them into bankruptcy.

GM should be forced, through an immediate cut off of any government funding, to die the same aweful death

What is good for the goose is . . . well you get the point.

As an aside . . . i can see why the goverenment identifies with GM so well . . . boh are burdened by the similarly bloated bureaucracies that will do anything and sell out anyone to further their own survival.

To my own detriment and it would ultimately lead to the demise of my employment, I truly hope beyond all hope that both GM and Chrysler go belly up.

If they're propped up again, it will only lead to a treadmill-like process of living handout to handout.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in