Big Win for the Obama Administration

[cal04]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/11/15/big_win_for_the_obama_administration.html

First Read: "The biggest political story that few are talking about right now? GM's initial public stock offering, which is set for this Thursday. Looks like it's going to be a big success and a case where the government may just make money on this deal. This has the potential of being a very good story for the Obama White House, as well as a success of government intervention. How does Team Obama try to sell it? This could be the White House's next (or last?) best chance to sell their intervention. Where would the unemployment rate be in Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Ohio if GM not gotten major government assistance?"



A GM success story?
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/11/15/5468505-first-thoughts-taxing-debate


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101115/ts_alt_afp/useconomyretail_20101115143747
GM, the nation's largest automaker, said it sold 183,759 vehicles in the United States in October, up 3.5 percent from a year ago.

(snip)
Chrysler, which was also saved from ruin by a government bailout, said its car sales rose a strong 37 percent in October compared with a year earlier, marking the seventh consecutive month of increases.

[Phx_Dem]

1. Nice job President Obama! Congratulations to Michigan. They need some good news.

[bigwillq]

2. That's good.

:thumbsup:
K and R

[Clio the Leo]

3. Am reading "The Promise" and was just to the part that talked about the GM deal...

.... the same day this news hit. It was a big gamble ... and it's literally paying off.

[janet118]

4. Please stand up and take a bow . . .

brag on this a bit. Be proud to be a Democrat who helps workers and the middle-class over the outcries and hissy fits of corporations and the wealthy.

Obama needs to get a creative, smart, liberal public relations team together. I'm so sick of the Blue Dog School of PR that comes out of the White House mouthpieces - "We're so sorry we're not Republicans. But, at least, we are not left-wing liberals."

[grumgrum]

5. I doubt the WH will bring it up -- They arent good at Public Relations.

I just hope the government sells out eventually...i just cant see how GM will survive still seeing as how cars are still better built ooutside the US

[StarsInHerHair]

42. trouble with your argument is he was good at pr during his

campaign, he better restart those abilities & talk to us again, & listen!

[DirkGently]

6. The GM bailout appears to have worked. nt

[Historic NY]

9. Well yeah, but people still complain........

GM has paid back some of the borrowed money, we (US) will own some of that stock too.

[sweetapogee]

7. because

we all know that the stock market has a certain risk element and if GM fails, the tax payers will get a high profile screw job. On this one, low profile as a good profile. In the meantime, buy new 2011 GM cars and light trucks, support the cause.

[madmom]

8. The town I live in is a GM town, as in if it weren't for GM it would have

dried up and blown away long ago. At one time this plant employed over 5000 people, today, under 2000. The people of this town HATE GM workers. We have come to believe it is all jealousy. When this plant was at the height of it's hiring phase, people (mostly farmers) around here blew it off didn't want to work in a dirty foundry. There were quite a lot of Mexicans living in the area (town just down the road has a Campbell soup factory and lots of farms and migrant workers in the area). The Mexicans started applying for the GM jobs and when GM couldn't get enough employees the Mexicans brought in their family and friends who also got hired at these good paying jobs. Fast forward...white republican farmers in the area HATE GM because....
To this day the locals (still mostly republican white farmers) rag on GM employees even to the point that the local paper publishes every penny they get from what ever raise, bonus, etc. Note they don't do this with any other company in the area.
It will be interesting to see their take on this bit of good news.

[Kolesar]

31. Radio stations in Mahoning Valley broadcast anti-GM-employee propaganda

WKBN, AM, 570 kHz

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

10. People are too busy beating up the president and making stories up about a lavish

trip to India to notice all the good things that has happened.

[Milo_Bloom]

11. The ends don't justify the means.

I am not for the government bailout of ANY private corporation, be it a mega bank that gambled with our money and lost, an all american institution car company or mother's cookies.

I don't like the concept of "too big to fail", which is what this was... GM employs so many people that if it failed, there would be a huge ripple effect, thus the government HAS TO bail it out.

However, if my company, that only employs 10 people got into trouble, the government wouldn't give a damn.


IF we, as a society, are going to provide safety nets to corporations, they should be available equally to all types and sizes of companies and be given out according to strict rules and guidelines.

[no limit]

14. To be fair if your company of 10 goes out of business it doesnt have that big of an effect

sure, it really does suck for the 10 people that worked for you, and we should have safety nets for them. But as far as the economy as a whole it doesn't have any impact.

That is not to say that we should continue to bail out those that are too big to fail. That system needs to change. But I don't think comparing the mom and pop shops to GM or Ford is very logical.

[Milo_Bloom]

21. Its quite logical in that the laws of the country and constitution...

are based on equality of treatment.

What company is too big to fail.. what company is too small to have an impact?

Where do you draw that line?

[no limit]

23. Wether you like it or not the line does exist

if a company has the ability to take down an entire industry then it is too big to fail.

I agree with you, we should all have equal protection under the law. But as long as we have too big to fail then that's just how things are, those companies can't be allowed to fail.

[Milo_Bloom]

25. GM going under wouldn't have taken down an industry.

It would have added a million people to the ranks of the unemployed, but the auto industry would continue.

[no limit]

29. It would have taken down GM, Chrystler, and all the small businesses that provide for them

which could have very well taken down Ford.

When I said an entire industry I meant an entire industry in this country.

[Milo_Bloom]

30. Not necessarily.

Would have bolstered Ford, who likely would have been able to expand production due to increased demand and hired on a lot of the employees.

So, no, it wouldn't have ruined an entire industry in this country at all. Consolodated, maybe... but not taken it out.


This was the second bailout of Crystler in the last 30 years.. I wonder at what point we stop bailing them out?



Ya know what did more for GM than the actual bailout? Toyota having safety issues.

[Kolesar]

32. The GM bailout saved auto-parts companies, and they are customers of my employer

Had the auto parts companies lost business instantly, they would have collapsed due to cash flow problems. Ohio would never have recovered from that.

[Milo_Bloom]

33. Maybe.

It is still a demand game. Had GM collapsed, other companies would have filled the void.. many of whom have manufacturing plants in the US and would have had to order auto parts.

You can't create demand by bailing out a company and if a company overbuys it's supplies, it will just need a bailout later on down the line.

GM got very lucky that Toyota had safety issues, which depressed Honda and Toyota sales.

Which is why I said, the ends don't justify the means.

[Kolesar]

45. You are being obtuse to amuse yourself

There is a word for people like you. Jon Stewart uses that word a lot.

[Milo_Bloom]

51. Nothing Obtuse... just lots of unknowns.

No one can say for sure what WOULD have happened if the government hadn't rescued GM. People who want to spin for Obama will declare THIS bailout a victory, because Obama did it. However, many of those same people were against the TARP bailout when bush did it.

I am also not against bailouts, per se.

I just happen to believe that if the government is going to provide a safety net for corporations, it should be executed in a even handed and transparent manner and be available to all corporations evenly based on a clear set of guidelines.

[jeff47]

46. You're wrong

Ford needs parts to build cars. If GM and Chrysler suddenly imploded, those parts manufacturers would go out of business. So while Ford could have theoretically replaced the other big two, they wouldn't have any parts to make cars. Modern "Lean" manufacturing means you have very few parts on-hand to save warehousing costs. It also means you're vulnerable to supply shocks such as this.

And while theoretically new suppliers would have taken over that market, it takes time to spin up a new company, get a factory, buy equipment and supplies, and start making parts. And that would take much to long to save Ford.

[Milo_Bloom]

50. Nope.

[jeff47]

54. I admire your stunningly detailed reply. Clearly an effective argument (nt)

[Milo_Bloom]

55. How much detail do you need?

Your reply contained a complete misunderstanding of the market and business.


Let's take the whole thing step by step, shall we?

"Ford needs parts to build cars." True

"If GM and Chrysler suddenly imploded, those parts manufacturers would go out of business." Bzzzzz. Other than your problem with simply using the word "those" (which asks the question of WHICH parts manufacturers you are talking about), you are making an incredibly silly assumption. Why would they suddenly "go out of business". They may reduce production for a time, but suddenly, instantly get knocked out of business? No. They would have a new demand structure for a short time, but most businesses can adjust to that. Given the fact that Ford would still be buying parts (more parts in fact) it would be a simple adjustment. They likely had large credit accounts which would be fought over in court and some may need to take write downs or restructure based on a credit line going down, but since DEMAND for their product would remain with other suppliers, they wouldn't go bankrupt.

"So while Ford could have theoretically replaced the other big two, they wouldn't have any parts to make cars." Completely backward assumption. You are confusing supply and demand.

"Modern "Lean" manufacturing means you have very few parts on-hand to save warehousing costs. It also means you're vulnerable to supply shocks such as this." Again, backward assumption that ASSUMES a supply shock, which wouldn't exist because the manufacturers would still be in business. The only manufacturers in real danger would be ones who dealt EXCLUSIVELY in GM and Crystler parts, which wouldn't have any effect on Ford, Toyota, Honda, Kia, Hyundai or any of the other companies that have manufacturing plants within the US and use parts purchased from many of the same companies and would now have to INCREASE their orders to compensate for the lack of GM and Crystler vehicles.

"And while theoretically new suppliers would have taken over that market, it takes time to spin up a new company, get a factory, buy equipment and supplies, and start making parts. And that would take much to long to save Ford." Again, you assume the parts manufacturers would suddenly go belly up with GM and Crystler going out of business. You are missing the entire demand side of the equation, which doesn't change with GM and Crystler going under. This all comes from the faulty assumption that manufacturers would suddenly go under... which they may have SAID because life is much easier if the government backs your bets.. but it ain't reality!

[jeff47]

58. Apparently your economics education missed the whole 'reality' part

Other than your problem with simply using the word "those" (which asks the question of WHICH parts manufacturers you are talking about)

There are many suppliers that supply all 3 US automakers. It is very unusual to have a parts manufacturer that only produces parts for a single auto company. This is the result of 40 years of consolidation: Are you a Ford parts supplier and want in on GM business? Buy a GM supplier.

you are making an incredibly silly assumption. Why would they suddenly "go out of business".

Because 2/3rds of their customer base would cancel their orders, refuse to pay outstanding invoices, and render 2/3rds of your factory useless. In one day. It's not the future production that's the problem. You could do massive layoffs and such to handle a future production problem.

But the parts manufacturers have an immediate problem. They are not going to get paid for product they already made. Much of it was already shipped to GM/Chrysler, and so they can't even sell it for scrap. Meanwhile, the company that sold them steel on a net-60 invoice isn't going to be satisfied with "GM went bankrupt and didn't pay us for the steel we used to make parts".

So how can they deal with their immediate problem?
Option 1: The parts manufacturer has enough cash-on-hand to eat the sudden losses. This is not gonna happen - companies are not going to carry enough cash to have 66% of their inventory and outstanding invoices suddenly become worthless. Especially when sales were already down due to the economy. They'd have insurance for a natural disaster destroying their inventory, but this isn't a natural disaster.

Option 2: The parts manufacturer gets a loan to cover the losses. This is what would happen in "normal" economic conditions. But this is happening during the height of the credit crisis. Loans are not an option because banks are not lending.

Option 3: Parts supplier goes bankrupt too.

Given the fact that Ford would still be buying parts (more parts in fact) it would be a simple adjustment.

You don't seem to understand the time frames involved. Ford can't just start making double the number of vehicles. They'd have to acquire new factories, new assembly line equipment and re-tool them. If we're gonna assume they try to pick up GM's assets that would take years to get through bankruptcy court. If we assume they are going to buy new, that will also take years. It's not like there's a Wal-Mart of auto plant equipment.

Ford can't just turn up a production knob to replace the lost GM production. So Ford isn't going to suddenly buy a lot more parts. They're gonna be buying the same quantity of parts for quite a while, even if their future plans include a massive expansion.

Similarly, the parts suppliers can't just turn a knob and switch to more Ford parts from their factories. They were making GM parts, which are not compatible with Ford vehicles. They have to re-tool also. Meanwhile, the parts suppliers have to pay their bills NOW. Even if we pretend that their creditors are suddenly understanding, they don't have the cash to re-tool.

Anyway, the rest of your post falls from this error. In simple economic theory, yes Ford would instantly produce more cars and the parts suppliers would instantly switch to more Ford parts. But simple economic theory only works in Econ 101 classes. In the real world, there are time constraints, equipment realities and financial considerations that complicate the situation. It's those complications that would have caused the parts manufacturers to fail, taking Ford down with them.

[Milo_Bloom]

61. LMAO!!!!

I haven't seen this much spinning, assuming and backward thinking since watching the GOP convention in 2008.


"Because 2/3rds of their customer base would cancel their orders, refuse to pay outstanding invoices, and render 2/3rds of your factory useless. In one day. It's not the future production that's the problem. You could do massive layoffs and such to handle a future production problem."

So you ASSUME again, that they only make parts for Ford, GM, and Chrystler??? I guess in all that consolidation, they decided not to make parts for the many other companies that have manufacturing plants in the US. Might a few parts manufacturers who planned their businesses poorly go under? Yes. However, thanks to all that consolidation you went on about, they would only be losing about 1/3 of their business, which really wouldn't be lost.. just temporarily displaced.


"Because 2/3rds of their customer base would cancel their orders, refuse to pay outstanding invoices, and render 2/3rds of your factory useless. In one day. It's not the future production that's the problem. You could do massive layoffs and such to handle a future production problem.

But the parts manufacturers have an immediate problem. They are not going to get paid for product they already made. Much of it was already shipped to GM/Chrysler, and so they can't even sell it for scrap. Meanwhile, the company that sold them steel on a net-60 invoice isn't going to be satisfied with "GM went bankrupt and didn't pay us for the steel we used to make parts".

This one just doesn't understand the way business actually works. That invoice is only as payable as the company can pay. Often in extenuating circumstances that net-60 turns into a payment plan. A friend of mine owns a financial company (stocks, mortgage, insurance, tax, etc..). He became involved in a massive fraud lawsuit (was suing someone for several million due to fraud committed when he purchased their company) and due to costs involved in the lawsuit was unable to pay mortgage on the building where his offices are housed and some other basic expenses. Due to the circumstances, he was able to work out deals with all of these entities to extend payment times and temporarily reduce payments in some cases. After he won the lawsuit the 30K per month in lawyers fees and court costs went away and he was able to resume payments. Similarly, that net 60 invoice becomes tied up in the GM bankruptcy, with it being reduced with monthly payments. Any decent business can navigate this type of obstacle and should be planning for it (especially when one of your main customers is bleeding cash every quarter).

In a similar instance, a company I own a portion of recently had to completely revamp a its website. Even though we owed the programming company thousands of dollars, we got them to do the additional work... FOR FREE.. why? Because the only way their previous invoice was ever going to get paid was if the site complied with some new regulations in this industry and we couldn't generate revenue without the changes. Simple.. you want to get paid on ANY of your invoice? Well, then these steps need to be taken.


So your 3 options are basically thrown in the garbage, b/c of the basic misunderstandings and assumptions you made, along with your basic lack of understanding of how business in the real world works.

Since MOST manufacturers deal with many companies, they will continue to have plenty of business from the other companies. If they didn't. Oh well. That was a poor business plan.

Of course this also assumes that some of the other car companies (some of which were cash rich at the time), wouldn't just buy up some of the bankrupt brands at bargain prices and continue production OR spend the money to retool the factories (which would still be at a bargain price since most of the equipment would be sold for a fraction of the original cost). In such instances, yes, retooling takes time, but plenty of time for them order parts and the parts manufacturer to begin production on its new orders.

So, in short the answer to your original post remains... NOPE.

[jeff47]

62. You're still in theoretical land, instead of the real world

I haven't seen this much spinning, assuming and backward thinking since watching the GOP convention in 2008.

Projection is a terrible problem.

So you ASSUME again, that they only make parts for Ford, GM, and Chrystler??? I guess in all that consolidation, they decided not to make parts for the many other companies that have manufacturing plants in the US. Might a few parts manufacturers who planned their businesses poorly go under? Yes. However, thanks to all that consolidation you went on about, they would only be losing about 1/3 of their business, which really wouldn't be lost.. just temporarily displaced.

The suppliers for Ford, GM and Chrysler are unionized. The suppliers for Toyota and Honda are not. That means the suppliers for the US automakers typically lose on price to the Toyota/Honda suppliers. And the Toyota/Honda suppliers can't supply to the US automakers without upsetting the UAW. So they don't usually compete directly.

And you still don't seem to understand the time component. The supplier already made the parts. They spent money on wages and raw materials, then shipped them to GM/Chrysler, effectively extending credit to GM/Chrysler. A bankruptcy means they won't get paid for the parts they already made. Meaning the supplier now needs cash to recoup that loss. With the credit markets frozen at the time, there was no source of cash to weather the storm.

That invoice is only as payable as the company can pay. Often in extenuating circumstances that net-60 turns into a payment plan

Only if the creditor wants to. And the steel mill is a steel mill, not a bank. They're not in the business of extending long-term credit. Mostly because it impacts their ability to pay their suppliers. The mill would have to go get more credit from the smelter, who would have to get more credit from the mine...and now you're stuck. Either the mine has enough money to finance the situation, or the mine can't afford to give credit, which then ripples up the chain to the supplier not receiving credit.

The example you cite is a poor fit for this situation. The landlord was not out a significant amount of money, and the cost of evicting your friend and finding a new tenant are not trivial. In addition, your landlord has a reasonable expectation that the money would start to flow again in the near future. Lastly, the landlord is already engaged in a speculative business.

In the supplier's case, the money will not start flowing again quickly. Ford can't increase production without new factories, so Ford won't be buying more parts. In addition, the supplier would have to finance converting the GM/Chrysler part of his operation over to Ford parts, at a time when credit is not available. Lastly, that steel supplier can go ahead and sell the steel to someone else. His product is fungible, and he has no lock-in to his current customers. Why extend long-term credit to the parts supplier when you can get paid today(-ish) from someone else?

Similarly, that net 60 invoice becomes tied up in the GM bankruptcy, with it being reduced with monthly payments

Wrong. It goes into the pool with the rest of the creditors. It will not be serviced without approval from the bankruptcy judge, and every other creditor will fight tooth-and-nail against the supplier getting paid. Those creditors don't want to reduce any of GM's assets or cash until they are paid.

It is precisely because your friend was not in bankruptcy that such a payment deal could be worked out. Enter bankruptcy, and it is extremely difficult to get any payment until the bankruptcy is resolved.

In the example of your own company, the money involved is again trivial and there's a short and straightforward path to paying off the debit. Again, Ford can't turn up a mythical "production" dial. It literally would take years for Ford to expand enough to replace the lost GM/Chrysler business. So the path for this parts supplier paying the bill is not short.

In addition, I severely doubt that the "programming company" is operating at capacity during this economy, meaning the opportunity cost of extending more credit to your company. They don't have other customers to take up all of their time. This is not true with suppliers of fungible commodities, such as the steel supplier example. If they don't sell steel to the parts supplier, they sell it to someone else.

Fundamentally, your examples involve small amounts of money between small businesses. Things get different when businesses get big.

So your 3 options are basically thrown in the garbage, b/c of the basic misunderstandings and assumptions you made, along with your basic lack of understanding of how business in the real world works.

You've got that backward. You're speaking on a purely theoretical basis that ignores the time required for your proposed adjustments. I'm bringing up points like "you can't re-tool a parts factory instantly and for free" which you completely ignore.

Since MOST manufacturers deal with many companies, they will continue to have plenty of business from the other companies. If they didn't. Oh well. That was a poor business plan.

The people selling the commodities that are turned into parts are indeed selling to many different companies. However, there's not a lot of carmakers to sell to. Selling to 100% of the domestic carmakers means you've pretty much covered all the available market. You'd be looking to expand into the foreign automakers in and out of the US, but most of those are pretty vertically integrated. US automakers outsource parts to a far greater extent than anyone else.

Of course this also assumes that some of the other car companies (some of which were cash rich at the time), wouldn't just buy up some of the bankrupt brands at bargain prices and continue production OR spend the money to retool the factories

You're still completely missing the problem. So lemme put it on a line all by itself in a big font.

TIME

The other companies can't just "buy up" the bankrupt ones. The assets can not be sold without resolving the bankruptcy, which takes time. The bankruptcy court would have to work it's ass off to resolve something the size of a GM bankruptcy in less than a year. Then they have to re-tool GM's old factories to make their products (They're not going to build the same vehicles that drove GM into bankruptcy). You've now got a minimum of another 6 months.

In your fantasy, the parts supplier has not been paid for a year despite having paid his suppliers and labor. How does the parts supplier pay to re-tool his factory to make parts for the new company? The buyer isn't going to order any parts until they've completed the purchase...or if they do they're very poor businesspeople.

Really it comes down to this: Who am I going to believe? Nobel prize winning economists, Ford and it's parts suppliers, or you.

[Milo_Bloom]

63. Wrong.

Too much fail to even bothering addressing.

The only time that is actually a factor is my time, which would be spent going back AGAIN and correcting you making the same errors as before.

Unions aren't a factor, because the parts companies are seperated into subcompanies. I worked at a company that ran a non-union shop in a unionized industry. It was done by creating a seperate corporation under the parent company. Same way it is done in the parts industry.

And yes, you can buy companies within a bankrupcy... it is a fairly simple matter and often done exactly that way.

Whatever, you are going to go on in your fantasy world... I'll live in the real world where I own several companies and have made 20%+ investments in others.

don't really care you who believe, because your belief isn't a factor in reality.

[impik]

18. Please tell this to more than million people who still have a job because of this rescue

Purity is a bad bad thing,

[Milo_Bloom]

19. Remind me to thank bush for TARP as well, then.

Or do those millions of people not matter as much because bush did it?

Or the bailout of the airline industry that everyone whined about as well?

The hypocrisy is amazing sometimes.

[ClarkUSA]

47. Bush's TARP had no strings attached. In Feb. '09, Obama created payback terms which paid off.

Any thanks goes to President Obama and his economic team for giving back to taxpayers what was borrowed.

[Milo_Bloom]

56. Uhhh.. NO.

They were basically the same deal. Both carried risk of failure, both were considered loans and both were backed by stock in various companies.

The ONLY difference is the government had a small say in how GM restructured.


The spin that comes from people just amazes me.

[impik]

64. TARP was the right thing to do, and candidate Obama supported it

As ugly as this is, it was the right thing to do. The difference is that Obama put it in order and actually made profit for tax payers. There's no hypocrisy here. And yes, the auto bailout ends justified the means. More than million people have a job because of it. But I don't expect the purists to actually live in reality.

[Dr Morbius]

40. Actually, sometimes the ends do justify the means.

But that's irrelevant right now. The notion of a "private corporation" strikes me as the heart of the problem, not the government's earnest desire to keep another million people from losing their jobs - which, by the way, was a pretty darn desirable end.

Corporations, by their very nature, are not private. They are quasi-persons, legally, enjoying all the privileges of private citizens (save the actual vote but they've managed to be the ones counting said votes) but bearing none of the responsibilities. It isn't the size of these corporations which is the problem but their nature, and their power. We will as Americans fight to the death to prevent our government from taking our freedoms but we surrender them readily to corporations.

The lesson to be learned from the GM bailout can best be seen not by looking at GM but at Ford. Ford declined the bailout and got their own house in order rather than surrender any measure of control to government. Today Ford makes the hottest products in the market. The point to me is clear: when businesses have a reason to straighten their act out and get it together, they will. And whatever the Constitution says, government needs to act as a foil (or a safety net) towards big business. Toss it under the "all enemies foreign and domestic" clause, for it is clear that no corporate agenda is going to parallel America's interests.

[SidDithers]

12. K&R...nt

Sid

[slay]

13. Sounds like a big win for GM at the cost of a huge bailout for us

but hey, what do I know. :shrug: Even if we do "make money" off the bailout eventually, corporations are what count to the Obama admin - not ending wars, not creating NON-PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS (i'm so sick of hearing "private sector"), not even mentioning single-payer when it came to that so called "health care reform", not investigating the crimes of the Bush admin at all, and just generally leading us down a path of corporate slavery - where we are the slaves to our corporate masters.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

22. The "cost"?

Hey pal, if we "make money", then it "costs" you NOTHING. So why are you so upset that the President saved tens of thousands of people their jobs?

Jimmny F. Cricket on a stick, the D.U. sounds more and more like my teabagging neighbors every time I come in here to read it.
With moron friends like these, who needs enemies?

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[slay]

27. Hey "pal"

i do not care to discuss this with an admitted conservadem like yourself. i edited this so i'm not violating any rules - i'm sure you'ld love to get rid of us liberals off of DU if you could. EOM.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

39. You are quite incorrect...

I care not one whit about whether you stay on DU or not.

But I will say this: if you think that cheering for Presidential inaction that would have drove auto manufacturers out of business, hundreds of thousands if not over a million (when counting all the suppliers) of people into unemployment, and driving a stake through the heart of unions in America.... is in any way "liberal", you are so deluded, it really doesn't make any sense for you to be commenting here.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[slay]

41. Yeah.. I get that you don't care. I really do. But I'll still keep posting regardless

You're so kind, so caring - I can just - you know - tell by your thoughtful and compassionate words. Sigh. Whatever dude. How bout you leave me alone and I'll afford you the same favor. You're so trapped in your Dem/Repub box anyways there is nothing to be gained by discussing this with you. You ignored everything from my original post about the wars, health care, etc but that's fine. Am I glad the auto-workers still have jobs? Yes. Did GM buy up tons of mass transportation systems over the years and then destroy them so they could sell more cars - YOU BETCHA! Look it up. But you probably don't want to hear that do you so - you know - just - Have a nice day I guess!

[stevenleser]

59. Does it ever begin to bother you that you are wrong? The government, i.e. 'we' are making money on

this. So, no, it isn't costing us anything. Why you want to continue pushing an incorrect point beyond that I have no idea.

[jaysunb]

57. +1

:thumbsup:

[KeyserSoze87]

15. Obama 2012 here we come!

Obama is going to destroy the Repigs and Teatards in the next presidential election. 2012 will be payback time for Democrats and Liberals everywhere!

[ProgressiveLiberal]

73. You seem to be confusing the political process with a Sports team....

One of the those things recruits millions of clueless "Joe Six-packs" into rooting for a spectacle while shelling out their hard earned cash in order to support a bunch of overpaid wonks hired by Billionaires who end up with all the real profit anyway.

The other one is a Sports team.

[impik]

16. There's no meaning for the actual work anymore. It's all about the noise

[jenmito]

17. "The biggest political story that few are talking about right now?..."

EVERY story that is positive for Obama has few talking about it. And that includes the "liberal" media.

[great white snark]

20. Sweet news! It's up to us to spread it around.

:bounce:

[Greyhound]

24. Yay! The parasites are going to make more money! Woo Hoo!

I'm sure this will lead to big gains in union contracts and the recalling of thousands of workers and restoring of the looted pensions.

I can hardly wait until the announcements of dozens of factory re-openings...

[slay]

26. +1

brave of you to post a dissenting opinion in GD:P - even though you're right.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Greyhound]

53. Meh. As always events will expose the BS for what it is.

:shrug:

I wonder if the term 'O'zone was what the very sensitive objected to. I guess we'll never know...

[Kolesar]

36. I have kin who work for GM

They are not parasites.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Greyhound]

52. I have no idea why they deleted the first response to this

but you seem confused as to whom the parasites are.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[polichick]

28. imo it would be an enormous win if the company had been required...

...to produce only affordable hybrid or electric cars.

[bobburgster]

34. Way to go Obama....

too bad the repugs have successfully drowned out, or turned into a negative, everything he's done.

[dreamnightwind]

35. I'm in

I mostly supported the GM takeover.

Don't know all the facts, but what happened to labor in this takeover? Didn't they exact huge concessions from the workers? I guess it at least saved a lot of their jobs.

We should have done an actual government takeover of the health insurance system, which would have decoupled healthcare from employment, which would have made it less expensive for private companies like GM to hire workers an produce their products, which would have made them more competitive with foreign companies whose governments provide their citizens with healthcare.

[craigmatic]

43. Great too bad this white house is bad a messaging and selling policy.

[Scurrilous]

44. K & R

:thumbsup:

[ClarkUSA]

48. President Obama ignored the whining & saved the US auto industry. Not that MI & OH appreciated it.

[JNelson6563]

49. This Michgander is celebrating!

Damn we're so desperate for good news! :toast:

[ProgressiveLiberal]

65. GM To Spend ONE BILLION in India the next 2 years ...

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/106913/gm-india-plans-showcase-electric.html

"GM in India has developed local suppliers and awarded contracts to them for components worth approximately USD 500 million from India, and it intends to source components worth USD one billion in the next 2 years time for its overseas operations, Sawhney said."

Thanks for shipping jobs overseas GM - enjoy your bailout!

[rucky]

66. They're making cars to sell in India.

Just like they produce the Opel in/for Europe.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveLiberal]

68. Oh, What could Possibly be wrong about an American Company spending a Billion Dollars overseas?

It's not like Americans need jobs here , right?

[rucky]

69. Those aren't jobs we would've had going elsewhere.

It would be awesome if we could make cars here to sell to India, but I don't think the different costs of living, currencies, or shipping expenses would make it viable.

[ProgressiveLiberal]

70. Are you sure about that?

Because we import darn near everything we get in America lately from India and China (including workers).
Maybe we need Republicans AND Democrats to alter the way business is done in America so American factories and American workers manufacture goods - whether they be used here or in India.

The GM CEOs didn't go to India for their bailout - they got it from OUR tax dollars . Maybe they should use American workers and American factories to manufacture their goods . Maybe they should invest that one Billion dollars back in America. Maybe we need legislation to force them to do that.

[stevenleser]

71. Yes, we are sure

It's common for auto companies selling cars in other large countries to build plants in those host countries to manufacture the cars there. It makes a lot more sense than to assemble the cars in the US and ship the large heavy fully assembled cars 8000 miles.

[ProgressiveLiberal]

72. Sigh - that's not the point...

The point is that American companies who accept bailouts should NOT be spending billions of dollars overseas. They need to spend that investment right back here - in America.

I can't speak for you - but me, I'm for the American middle class worker over the multi-billion dollar corporation.

(and regarding your point that it's cheaper to make the cars in the host country - I guess that's why Toyota , Nissan and Kia have so many manufacturing plants here in America, right? )