Comments on: Obama, Channelling Orwell, Comes Clean on His Intentions for GM

By: novimir

novimir — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 04:49:30 +0000

Just offer comments on EPL play, say your from North America and read how much respect you receive from UK citizens.

BTW no one has picked up on the meaning of the name except you.

By: youthgrunt

youthgrunt — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:34:50 +0000

The delay is also part of the “don’t do too much too fast” concern.

Hey, someone has to write this Automaker’s Reorganization Bill. It is going to be a sizable document that will take a while to write so that it can be crammed through Congress in 24 hours.

By: aesthete

aesthete — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:37:51 +0000

But I think that Obama’s also using the 60-day period to do two things: 1) formulate a more specific (crappy) plan with details, and 2) make it look like he really was giving GM and Chrysler a chance. I think that he’s going to take every chance that he gets to craft the image that he’s engaging in Hamletian hang-wringing over whether or not the government should be involved, so as to obscure the fact that, for whatever reason, he believes in a socialist, or even possibly pseudo-communist, form of market organization for the US, irrespective of whether or not a company is failing. It’s evident from his speeches that he wishes to obscure this fact, and I believe that this decision partly plays into the image he’s attempting to project.

By: JustLeaveMeAlone

JustLeaveMeAlone — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:26:16 +0000

Call it a “please do it by this day if that’s ok with you”.

Words. Have. Meaning.

And I’m dang tired of Obama and his ilk redefining terms to suit themselves. It’s akin to the Situational Ethics espoused by the Left, and I’m dang tired to that, too.

By: Achance

Achance — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:43:36 +0000

If they’d gone C-11 last year like they should have, all the UAW would have had to do was string out the contract abbrogation process through NLRB actions and court appeals; they could easily hold them hostage for a year or two. Everybody at the NLRB would be looking at a change of administration, figuring the D would likely win, and trying to curry favor with the UAW and the Ds. Then, on a Democrat victory, the UAW’s vengence would be terrible to behold.

Don’t ask me why I know this story so well!

By: larueladue

larueladue — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:13:12 +0000

The money quote: “.. tendency to support/value collective efforts over individual efforts…” Sounds like a communist/socialist to me…

Just think: one of their own admitting to the man being a communist. You must have slept through part of the seminar…

By: Steph C

Steph C — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:02:13 +0000

but they didn’t do that, did they? Just the CEO. Nor do I think it’s the government’s place to do it. All his underlings are still in place and one of them took his job.

I’m no economist so I depend on Blackhedd a lot for that side of things but, I also have to try to look at things from the left’s perspective. I’ve yet to see anything from that side that speaks to any knowledge of how the economy works, except…

Frank is making noise today about determining salaries for bailed out companies and that’s a really bad idea for the economy as a whole. A better idea would be stop bailing out companies. It’s not the government’s business in the first place.

However, given that it has and will continue to do so there is something important that seems to be escaping notice.

If the government gets to determine what the salaries are for bailed out companies, even those companies that are successful and viable will have to follow suit, because the salary caps will reduce those bailed-out companies competitiveness. Those companies will not be able to attract any of the best and brightest who will know full well what they’re worth.

Now, given that the government can’t seem to mind their own business, the next thing we’ll be hearing is that the government needs to set caps on every wage from every company because nothing else would be “fair.” And… they’ll make arguments on that in the interest of fairness.

In addition to Frank, and before his noise, there was the statement from Geithner that he needs more power to take over businesses and the reasons he gives for that are pretty vague. Escaping much MSM notice, a bank or two per week has been seized over the last three months and most of the time the reasons for doing so are as vague as Geithner’s reasons for wanting more power to seize.

Also in the meantime, newspapers and other media outlets are going bust and there’s noise about nationalizing them as well. Once nationalized, they truly become the propaganda machines for which they’re auditioning now.

Control the economy, control the information, and you control the people.

So, while we’re worried and focused on 2010 and 2012, the left is working on making sure that 2010 and 2012 don’t even happen. Nothing they’re doing is Constitutional and they don’t care because they’re working on making it irrelevant.

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:46:10 +0000

By: streetwise

streetwise — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:42:26 +0000

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:41:12 +0000

By: streetwise

streetwise — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:37:26 +0000

Now that’s a fix for Chrysler!

By: streetwise

streetwise — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:35:33 +0000

I believe United spent well over $300MM in legal and advisory fees re its bankruptcy.

GM is a larger and more complicated company. Can you IMAGINE what the bankruptcy expenses will be with the guv-mint footing the bill?

Go (north)west, young man. :>)

By: Cheetah772

Cheetah772 — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:53:01 +0000

I don’t have a car, and I think I’m entitled to one free car. In fact, I think every American is entitled to one free car.

Ridiculous? Yep, but you and I know it, but I’m not so sure if President Obama knows it….

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:38:01 +0000

I bet you are right on the sorid details to a great extent, and yes

it sucks

By: youthgrunt

youthgrunt — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:24:02 +0000

and it is scary. The question that needs to be addressed is what a post-60 day GM looks like. My guess (which is just a guess) is that Congress will create a specific law for the “reorganization” of automakers under the bankruptcy code. It will take on various liabilities of the automakers (i.e. retirement and health insurance), but leave the basic labor agreements in place. I would guess there will be some “concessions” so that it can be said that “everyone” is making “sacrifices”.

Then there will be requirements on the mix or kind of vehicles in exchange for working capital.

Who knows, maybe more onerous things than that. Something must be put in place to insure that Ford falls into this eventually.

By: Alitheia

Alitheia — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:23:57 +0000

By: Moe Lane

Moe Lane — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:23:46 +0000

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

[Blam.]

By: novimir

novimir — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:20:08 +0000

New world.

Also used on football sites to reflect my global location and my second class status as a commentator.

By: chancer

chancer — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:19:01 +0000

So I guess it was money well spent? 14 billion to stop them going bankrupt in november just so they can go bankrupt in april?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29960093

By: Alitheia

Alitheia — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:14:29 +0000