moreluck
golden ticket member
And, they are building your next car......
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/2...beer-smoking-pot-lunch-break/?test=latestnews
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/2...beer-smoking-pot-lunch-break/?test=latestnews
Government Motors
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
diesel96
Well-Known Member
It's a good find Moreluck, and each one of those par-taking should be let go..... But why the political angle on the story ? If you don't think this goes on in any-town USA on workers lunch breaks your very niave.....I bet if we follow some Fox News employees with hidden camera's we can get a scoop on some Martini lunches and oxycotin desserts.....But the same ole song and dance routine of Fox's disingenuis journalistic spin is so evidently transparent in their quest to put a Republican in the Whitehouse.
rod
Retired 22 years
Now days I don't believe anything if I don't see it in person and sometime not even then. Not saying it didn't happen but stranger things have been faked or set up just to make the other side look bad. To be honest I wouldn't buy another Jeep even if the workers were shown going to church on their lunch break. I've always loved the UAW----------------they make the Teamsters look like angels.
moreluck
golden ticket member
My point was...our $$$ rescued this company and this is how grateful the workers are to have a job. I'm sure they think because they work for a gov't owned entity, they can't lose their jobs (like the USPS)
cachsux
Wah
Why not just as well say that since these people should be grateful they work for a union company they think they can`t lose their jobs ( like UPS).
The anti-government loan types fail to look beyond the loan to the automotive companies to see what a domino effect it would have had to allow them to go under. It wouldn`t have been just the car company, it would have been felt all the way to the suppliers of every part made. Those people would have been affected just as well, even us at UPS who ship those parts. The dollars spent on the manufacturers was a small piece of the overall pie that would have been a negative hit on an already weak economy if they were allowed to fail.
There`s plenty of "our" dollars being pissed away on the most wastefull stuff you can imagine. Worry about those if you want. This wasn`t one of them.
brett636
Well-Known Member
Wrong. Bankruptcy laws are setup so companies can remain in business while they re-organize their debt. Under bankruptcy protection both companies could have continued producing cars while they reduce loan payments, renegotiate labor contracts, and setup new terms with their suppliers. Neither company needed those loans, and we wouldn't have a leftover stigma in the bond market from when Obama forced bondholders to be the last to get paid when by law they should have been first. The loans were a bad idea, the subsequent bankruptcies and the boondoggle they came will be not forgotten soon. Quite frankly if a company is not organized well enough to handle the worst of times they don't deserve to enjoy the best of times.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
diesel96
Well-Known Member
Source-- The Economist : http://www.economist.com/node/16846494
So was the auto bail-out a success? It is hard to be sure. Had the government not stepped in, GM might have restructured under normal bankruptcy procedures, without putting public money at risk. Many observers think this unlikely, however. Given the panic that gripped private purse-strings last year, it is more likely that GM would have been liquidated, sending a cascade of destruction through the supply chain on which its rivals, too, depended. As for moral hazard, the expectation of future bail-outs may prompt managers and unions in other industries to behave rashly. But all the stakeholders suffered during GM’s bankruptcy, so this effect may be small.
Socialists don’t privatise
That does not mean, however, that bail-outs are always or often justified. Straightforward bankruptcy is usually the most efficient way to allow floundering firms to restructure or fail. The state should step in only when a firm’s collapse poses a systemic risk. Propping up the financial system in 2008 clearly qualified. Saving GM was a harder call, but, with the benefit of hindsight, the right one. The lesson for governments is that for a bail-out to work, it must be brutal and temporary. The lesson for American voters is that their president, for all his flaws, has no desire to own the commanding heights of industry. A gambler, yes. An interventionist, yes. A socialist, no.
I fixed it for you. I misspell stuff all the time.
