What does Obama want GM to do?

[Mac1337]

Silencio wrote:

Left to their own devices to go bankrupt, GM and Chrysler would shed a minimum of 1 million jobs, not including job losses from affected suppliers and subcontractors.

Problem is there are not enough buyers. We have an annual capacity of 15 million cars but sales are running at 8-9 million. No amount of restructuring is going to create new buyers.

[Silencio]

Dakota wrote:
Problem is there are not enough buyers. We have an annual capacity of 15 million cars but sales are running at 8-9 million. No amount of restructuring is going to create new buyers.

Is this a cyclical downturn, or a more permanent reduction in demand for automobiles? Even though GM was getting reamed by $4/gal gasoline and many years of bad executive decisions, the #1 thing that's killing all the automakers is the credit crunch. Many people can't get auto loans even if they want to/can afford to. The credit crunch is not the automakers' fault and yes, I know, life isn't fair and all of that. We have to get that solved first and foremost, otherwise there will be no buyers for whatever new cars GM ends up making.

[Black]

Silencio wrote:
Is this a cyclical downturn, or a more permanent reduction in demand for automobiles?

The end of the automobile age.

[swampy]

kanesa wrote:
[quote=swampy]
I don't see where any Union concessions made the Union bosses give up anything. Shouldn't their pay be capped as well as CEO's of the companies?

Union bosses salaries are paid for with union membership dues. Please explain to me why their salaries should be capped. I don't get this logic at all, swampy. No government money involved in union business. I doubt you will reply to this. I don't know why ask. I guess it is an exercise in futility on my part.
The money runs in the opposite direction, Kanesa. The Unions gave millions of (your dues) dollars to Democrats. They have Congress and Obama in their hip pocket. Of course Congress and Obama now feel an obligation to keep the auto's from going belly up so workers will keep jobs in order to pay union dues and keep the union fat cats living high on the hog. I don't look for the administration to demand more concessions from the unions or cap the pay of Union golden goose execs.

[Rick-o]

Psst, swampy, Gold Bond, try it! It can only help!

[mattkime]

swampy wrote: The money runs in the opposite direction, Kanesa. The Unions gave millions of (your dues) dollars to Democrats. They have Congress and Obama in their hip pocket. Of course Congress and Obama now feel an obligation to keep the auto's from going belly up so workers will keep jobs in order to pay union dues and keep the union fat cats living high on the hog. I don't look for the administration to demand more concessions from the unions or cap the pay of Union golden goose execs.

Its ideas like this that establish swampy's even handed consideration of the facts.

[JoeH]

Gosh, I really wish all those politicians were in the unions' hip pockets. Must be true, swampy says so. Then why have I not received any pay raise on my union contracted wages since July 2007? I might, and that is a big "might", see a 1% COLA this coming July. But that contract is not even finalized yet.

[RgrF]

ajakeski wrote:
Why isn't AIG being held responsible the same way? They seem to be able to do what they want with our money and come back for more with hardle any questions asked.
Let them all go under.
Let their board's of directors starve.

The real losers should be the shareholders. They are the owners. They elect the Directors who then hire the executives who drove the company into a ditch while insuring they have their own golden parachutes.

Wipe out share and bondholder equity first, then set standards for resurrection of any shell that's left.

[$tevie]

RgrF wrote:
[quote=ajakeski]
Why isn't AIG being held responsible the same way? They seem to be able to do what they want with our money and come back for more with hardle any questions asked.
Let them all go under.
Let their board's of directors starve.

The real losers should be the shareholders. They are the owners. They elect the Directors who then hire the executives who drove the company into a ditch while insuring they have their own golden parachutes.

Wipe out share and bondholder equity first, then set standards for resurrection of any shell that's left.
Man oh man, I feel the same way. Shareholders who sat around letting the executives gouge millions and millions from these companies should feel the same pain that the employees felt as massive layoffs occurred to keep the company profitable so its stock would stay high. Frankly, the whole set up is disgusting. Wall Street needs to be smacked down but good.

[Lux Interior]

swampy wrote:
Of course Congress and Obama now feel an obligation to keep the auto's from going belly up so workers will keep jobs in order to pay union dues and keep the union fat cats living high on the hog.

swampy from another thread wrote:
I'll agree with the corrupted politicians and lobbiest, but back off the CEO's. Their pay and compensations are determined by their boards of directors and stock holders. Government has no business capping private enterprise's salary structure.

Let them have their golf outings etc.

I just don't understand a political philosophy that is so hateful and hypocritical.

Ah, I get it. Corporate CEOs tend to be Republicans, so it's okay for them to take huge bonuses after bankrupting a company and taking in billions of taxpayer dollars.

Unions, OTOH, are Democratic in nature, therefore, the money they make, which comes from their members and not taxpayers, is bad.