Does the federal gov't bail out GM?

[MJZiggy]

I think these people should take one look at Detroit and STFU.

http://wtop.com/?nid=116&sid=1517838

Boost the economy by increasing food stamps? Idiotic. Have they thought of working to generate jobs instead? Maybe they should sell bonds like they used to do? People are looking for stable investments for goodness sakes...

[SkinBasket]

The union position has always been they would rather the entire ship sink than they lose a few sailors. Well, the ships are sinking, and now they want to suck as much money out of the taxpayer as possible just like they sucked any profitability out of the auto industry before they go under.

Not true. Don't make a blanket statement about union position.

Several years back, when facing hard times in our industry, (not UAW, but a very large Union) the union asked for a vote from members. The vote was whether to put off a 3% raise for 6 (or maybe more months) to refrain from lay offs, or cutting positions entirely. The Union members voted to refrain from taking their raises to keep others employed. One month later come to find out, even in tough times, the top heavy management went ahead and took their 6% raise. What a kick in the ass. My buddy was management, heard it from him directly. He was embarrassed.

Why should he be embarrassed? He's not part of your union. I guess that's usually another union position: thinking they're entitled to everything their union has negotiated plus everything anyone outside the union gets as well.

[bobblehead]

Mark Belling had a great rant today about GM's union contracts and pension obligations...

Bailing em out now only delays the inevitable... it's only math, and pretty simple math at that. Businesses that are run poorly absolutely should be allowed to fail, they deserve to fail, their stockholders deserve to lose their money, and their employees deserve to lose their jobs - especially in this case, b/c a lot of GM's mess is due to unbelievable union contracts.

Never minding the sheer illegality of it... but, who cares about that???

I'm with you on this. unless they come in and rearrange the management and give a big FU to the union. Treat everyone fairly which is what the unions were design to accomplish in the first place.

MJ, while I appreciate that you agree with me on this particular unConstitutional expenditure of funds - it illustrates my overriding point of principle.

I would argue that you do, in fact, support the bailout b/c you support the underlying premise that allows the bailout - that is to say, you support democracy, you support unlimited government.

Everybody's money is up for grabs, everybody's property is up for grabs, and ultimately everybody's rights are up for grabs. There's simply no stopping it b/c there is no Constitutional limitation - clever misinterpretations of the Constitution have removed any barriers to unlimited government.

You want your pet programs funded, Harlan wants his pet programs funded, the auto workers want their pet programs funded, the elderly want their pet programs funded... and, ultimately, everybody with their hand out will get what they want.

Of course all of this is unsustainable in the long run... the long run may not come for another 10 years, or if I'm lucky, another 40 years - I don't see how I deserve to suffer thru the inevitable collapse, I've understood the folly for many years, and have been trying to sound the alarm

That's the ugliness of the mob, the ugliness of democracy. "As long as I get mine..." mentality, and there's no stopping it now. Just as in all other historical democracies, people will simply vote themselves the wealth, means, and property of the productive and yet to be born generations.

Since the "Rule of Law" has been abandoned - and you agree with this, whether you realize it or not - there is no law to stop any of it. There is only the arguement.

And in case you haven't noticed, Washington is hemoraging money - but who cares, we can just print more, right??? And since your grand children, and great grand children can't vote to defend themselves, we can just go right on stealing their future, right???

So few people understand the principles of limited government laid out in the Constitution. Nothing standing in the way of the mob now. What's the national debt now??? About 10 trillion, and climbing???

Wait till the baby boomers retire enmasse, and more people are taking out of the system than putting in... that'll be a hootin' good time

Social Security, Medicare, bailouts, unfunded mandates... the math alone should make people logically move to rein in the FedGov - never minding the unConsitutionality arguement. Simply from a standpoint of math.

It's all unbelievable to me.

Wist, if you ever hit vegas PM me...we'll have a drink to the demise. I have tried to raise the spectre of the 59 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities our federal gov't has promised but people just don't want to hear it...they want national healthcare.

[bobblehead]

Mark Belling had a great rant today about GM's union contracts and pension obligations...

Bailing em out now only delays the inevitable... it's only math, and pretty simple math at that. Businesses that are run poorly absolutely should be allowed to fail, they deserve to fail, their stockholders deserve to lose their money, and their employees deserve to lose their jobs - especially in this case, b/c a lot of GM's mess is due to unbelievable union contracts.

Never minding the sheer illegality of it... but, who cares about that???

Heard this today when he was talking about the budget issues in Milw. County....

It's spot on. GM tried to pare down some legacy costs in the last contract in 2007, but it is too little too late.

The American taxpayer can't keep bailing out EVERY firm. There will be many inside and outside the auto industry who would be hurt if GM failed. But GM could reorganize under bankruptcy protection laws.

I said it before, but we do run the risk of hyperinflation if we don't stop bailing out every financial institution, major corporation, etc.

You make some interesting points. There are some key factors the employees and retirees, unions, and the hyperinflation risk.

The first one is the HUGE domino affect the would result if 1 or 2 of the Big 3 go under.

"GM and Chrysler, through a network of 10,000 dealers, have combined U.S. sales of between $110 billion and $130 billion, a figure that approaches 1% of the U.S. gross domestic product. They employ an estimated 145,000 people in the United States at more than 110 assembly, stamping and parts plants. An additional 600,000 retirees depend on the two carmakers for health care and pensions."

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/general-motors-and-chrysler-on-the-brink.aspx

The above stat doesn't refer the the more than 2,100 business that are suppliers to the Big 3, so the above figures could be double if you add them in and many of them would go under if GM or Chrysler go under.

We could see unemployment hit 10% in this country if these dominoes fall, because all those lost jobs will hurt every store, coffee shop, etc.

The second part is that unions are a HUGE part of the problem.

"Should U.S. taxpayers really be providing billions of dollars to bailout companies (GM (GM), Ford (F) and Chrysler) that compensate their workers 52.5% more than the market (assuming Toyota wages and benefits are market), 54% more than management and professional workers, 132% more than the average manufacturing wage, and 157% more than the average compensation of all American workers?"

http://seekingalpha.com/article/105061-should-we-really-bail-out-the-big-three-automakers-with-73-20-per-hour-labor

How is it that Honda, Toyota, Nissan, and Hyundai are building cars successfully in THIS country and do not need a handout? The Big 3 have failed to adapt and deal with the unions. In my neck of the woods Caterpillar has a huge plant that employs thousands. I recall reading an article how CAT has over the years stonewalled the union and basically made them powerless. CAT is still a profitable company even though their market share has gone down (I know a handful of people tha work for CAT).

The third thing is hyperinflation. The government diluting the economy with tons of worthless paper to save wall street and the auto industry COULD work or it could sink our economy even further down a never ending spiral.

I just hope the government makes the right decision, because they are playing poker right now.

Again, my answer is this. Best to leave the bullet in to fester and infect until it destroys the entire organism.

No one said it is supposed to tickle when a corp/industry goes bankrupt though their own innefficiencies, but maybe our auto industry needs new blood, new managers, new union contracts who can get it right instead of big bailouts to cover their lack of ability.

What is good for this immediate second might not be what is best 5 years from now...but hey, fuck the kids, they can pay for our bailouts.

[packinpatland]

The other two were/are Volvos. The present one is a 2000 model. And it'll probably last another 10+.

What you smiling at Howard?
My next car will be probably be a Volvo too............and now that it's owned by Ford, that shouldn't bother anyone, right?

It doesn't bother me at all. I own two Toyotas, that's not what makes me smile. It's the Volvos, right out of the Catechism

Hmmmm.............the nuns never mentioned them

[wist43]

Mark Belling had a great rant today about GM's union contracts and pension obligations...

Bailing em out now only delays the inevitable... it's only math, and pretty simple math at that. Businesses that are run poorly absolutely should be allowed to fail, they deserve to fail, their stockholders deserve to lose their money, and their employees deserve to lose their jobs - especially in this case, b/c a lot of GM's mess is due to unbelievable union contracts.

Never minding the sheer illegality of it... but, who cares about that???

I'm with you on this. unless they come in and rearrange the management and give a big FU to the union. Treat everyone fairly which is what the unions were design to accomplish in the first place.

MJ, while I appreciate that you agree with me on this particular unConstitutional expenditure of funds - it illustrates my overriding point of principle.

I would argue that you do, in fact, support the bailout b/c you support the underlying premise that allows the bailout - that is to say, you support democracy, you support unlimited government.

Everybody's money is up for grabs, everybody's property is up for grabs, and ultimately everybody's rights are up for grabs. There's simply no stopping it b/c there is no Constitutional limitation - clever misinterpretations of the Constitution have removed any barriers to unlimited government.

You want your pet programs funded, Harlan wants his pet programs funded, the auto workers want their pet programs funded, the elderly want their pet programs funded... and, ultimately, everybody with their hand out will get what they want.

Of course all of this is unsustainable in the long run... the long run may not come for another 10 years, or if I'm lucky, another 40 years - I don't see how I deserve to suffer thru the inevitable collapse, I've understood the folly for many years, and have been trying to sound the alarm

That's the ugliness of the mob, the ugliness of democracy. "As long as I get mine..." mentality, and there's no stopping it now. Just as in all other historical democracies, people will simply vote themselves the wealth, means, and property of the productive and yet to be born generations.

Since the "Rule of Law" has been abandoned - and you agree with this, whether you realize it or not - there is no law to stop any of it. There is only the arguement.

And in case you haven't noticed, Washington is hemoraging money - but who cares, we can just print more, right??? And since your grand children, and great grand children can't vote to defend themselves, we can just go right on stealing their future, right???

So few people understand the principles of limited government laid out in the Constitution. Nothing standing in the way of the mob now. What's the national debt now??? About 10 trillion, and climbing???

Wait till the baby boomers retire enmasse, and more people are taking out of the system than putting in... that'll be a hootin' good time

Social Security, Medicare, bailouts, unfunded mandates... the math alone should make people logically move to rein in the FedGov - never minding the unConsitutionality arguement. Simply from a standpoint of math.

It's all unbelievable to me.

Wist, if you ever hit vegas PM me...we'll have a drink to the demise. I have tried to raise the spectre of the 59 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities our federal gov't has promised but people just don't want to hear it...they want national healthcare.

Will do

You're right... no one wants to do the math, they're too busy debating how to rearrange the deck chairs.

[MJZiggy]

If you've ever tripped over a deck chair, you'll understand why it's important to arrange them properly...

[wist43]

If you've ever tripped over a deck chair, you'll understand why it's important to arrange them properly...

My plan is to trip over the deck chair, and launch myself high into the air... flinging myself far enough away from the sinking ship so as not to get sucked into the undertow

[MJZiggy]

Moving to Istanbul are you?

[Sammy4Pack]

The union position has always been they would rather the entire ship sink than they lose a few sailors. Well, the ships are sinking, and now they want to suck as much money out of the taxpayer as possible just like they sucked any profitability out of the auto industry before they go under.

Not true. Don't make a blanket statement about union position.

Several years back, when facing hard times in our industry, (not UAW, but a very large Union) the union asked for a vote from members. The vote was whether to put off a 3% raise for 6 (or maybe more months) to refrain from lay offs, or cutting positions entirely. The Union members voted to refrain from taking their raises to keep others employed. One month later come to find out, even in tough times, the top heavy management went ahead and took their 6% raise. What a kick in the ass. My buddy was management, heard it from him directly. He was embarrassed.

Why should he be embarrassed? He's not part of your union. I guess that's usually another union position: thinking they're entitled to everything their union has negotiated plus everything anyone outside the union gets as well.

Are you 6 yrs old, or did you daddy tell you to write that?

Did I mention anything about Union members feeling entitled to everything anyone outside the union gets? dumbass.

He was embarrassed because top heavy management did NOTHING to help out the situation, and took their fat ass 6%, while Union employees attempted to save jobs and took nothing.

So you see, the union position has NOT always been they would rather the entire ship sink than they lose a few sailors.

[SkinBasket]

The union position has always been they would rather the entire ship sink than they lose a few sailors. Well, the ships are sinking, and now they want to suck as much money out of the taxpayer as possible just like they sucked any profitability out of the auto industry before they go under.

Not true. Don't make a blanket statement about union position.

Several years back, when facing hard times in our industry, (not UAW, but a very large Union) the union asked for a vote from members. The vote was whether to put off a 3% raise for 6 (or maybe more months) to refrain from lay offs, or cutting positions entirely. The Union members voted to refrain from taking their raises to keep others employed. One month later come to find out, even in tough times, the top heavy management went ahead and took their 6% raise. What a kick in the ass. My buddy was management, heard it from him directly. He was embarrassed.

Why should he be embarrassed? He's not part of your union. I guess that's usually another union position: thinking they're entitled to everything their union has negotiated plus everything anyone outside the union gets as well.

Are you 6 yrs old, or did you daddy tell you to write that?

Did I mention anything about Union members feeling entitled to everything anyone outside the union gets? dumbass.

He was embarrassed because top heavy management did NOTHING to help out the situation, and took their fat ass 6%, while Union employees attempted to save jobs and took nothing.

So you see, the union position has NOT always been they would rather the entire ship sink than they lose a few sailors.

So you expected non-union employees to take a pay hit to protect union jobs?

BTW, when I originally referred to "the union" in my post you quoted, I was referring to the UAW, though I would feel comfortable extending that to most unions, your wonderful example of one vote for one union aside.

Also, in my analogy, the ship is the business or industry, not the union.

[Freak Out]

Enough said.

http://www.cerberuscapital.com/about_comp_prof.html