President Obama: We Are ‘Reluctant Shareholders’ of GM

I would believe he was reluctant and didn’t want to do this if he didn’t do it. I can not see how he would be doing things differently if it were something he relished doing.
It bothers me that today, in laying out his plan for his GM, he mentions fuel efficient cars. He has the ability to greatly influence the price of gasoline (especially via taxes) if the cars his company decides to build aren’t selling well enough with consumers.
Saying he’s spending taxpayer’s money to protect taxpayers is like the father getting ready to spank his child, saying “this will hurt me more than it hurts you”.

Oh great!!!
We are now the proud owners of a “White Elephant” that we can’t drive and will eventually eat us out of house and home!!

The tradeoff is debatable between the cost of preserving productive assets through a short-term financial system ‘glitch’ and the cost of delaying the collapse of a non-productive industrial base. It probably wouldn’t be very helpful to add another cook to that kitchen at this point. But what is the difference between taking a loss on loans and taking a loss on shares? Or sitting on a board powered by government subsidy and sitting on a board powered by a government payroll?

Ralph Nader has a statement today on the gm situation that foreshadows many unintended consequences and outlines the real losers. Meanwhile I am sure the administration will again have no comment of substance. I hope that this works, but the outlook is bleak

So, now when Americans buy a GM vehicle, will they receive a tax rebate commensurate with their “investment” in the company?

How about a deep discount if you apply your tax return to buy a new GM vehicle?

Having read Nader’s letter, I quote from Migs: “Nader is well known for his self-serving words. Notice, you have to read all the way to the bottom to see his ‘real agenda’… ‘this should involve revisiting the serious drag-down, concessionary wage terms imposed on the United Auto Workers; demanding a moratorium on GM’s outsourcing of production of cars for sale in the United States; and establishing successorship liability for the new GM, so that victims of dangerous and defective GM cars can have their day in court.’… No thought that the reason GM built those big, tough, SUV’s, was due to morons like Nader suing the car makers for small and unsafe vehicles. Nader hasn’t changed, still brain-dead and still out of touch.”

Skittles:”No thought that the reason GM built those big, tough, SUV’s, was due to morons like Nader suing the car makers for small and unsafe vehicles.”
Well, no one who actually knew the fatality rates for vehicles and the unusually high single occupant death rate that made the whole “SUVs are safest!” line just a sales pitch to people ignorant of reality (a high center of gravity vehicle with acceleration that could beat most 1960′s muscle cars is not really safe).

Love the “we inherited this economy” line. Gee, inherited from whom? A lame duck President or a Democratic Congress that he was a major leader in? Gotta go to the stats to answer that one….
Gosh, what power change happened in early 07 that took a falling unemployment rate and made it start rising exponentially?

Scott Malensek:”Gosh, what power change happened in early 07 that took a falling unemployment rate and made it start rising exponentially?”
Uh, you do know that employment is a lagging indicator? (Nevermind that Republicans set new records in 2007 and 2008 for alltime number of procedural filibusters protecting the Republican Administration policy.) The economy does not turn on a dime upon anything Congress does except declare war. You could just as easily ask why has unemployment never gotten as low as in 2000 despite 8 years of tax cut after tax cut from the Spend and Debt it Republicans?

MayBee:”Also, as long as it’s taxpayer money, GM, Chrysler, and the UAW should be banned from lobbying or being involved in any PACs.”
The level of contempt that shows for the Constitution is breathtaking. I’m not sure I’ve heard anyone propose that receiving money from the government requires you to rescind your first amendment rights, except to the extent of restrictions on active military.

If he thinks he is reluctant, think about the taxpayers.. we never had a choice or a vote.. he invested our money and we will lose it all..
He should go talk to his friends at the UAW and tell them that he will be reluctant to help them in the future.. they are now on their own.. they have been paid back IN FULL!!

Don’tGet818OnMeNow:”we never had a choice or a vote”
What nonsense. The vote was just last November, and it was a landslide. Obama’s actions are consistent with what he promised on the campaign trail, and his current approval polls even support that (although the Nov poll is the one that is irrefutable).

“But for years, G.M. has been buried under an unsustainable mountain of debt. And piling an irresponsibly large debt on top of the new G.M. would mean simply repeating the mistakes of the past.”
————————————-
This somehow applies to thw automotive industry…BUT NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! Very Interesting!

539
No argument here…

“the government will not interfere with or exert control over day-to-day company operations and very much will ensure that no government employees will serve on board or be employed by the company it makes investments in. As a shareholder, the government will limit what it votes on to core governance issues, particularly the selection of the company’s board of directors; major corporate events or transactions.”
———————————–
LOL, they still have the UAW to do the day-to-day stuff.
Is there really anyone who thinks that this administration is NOT going to be the driving force behind every single important decision? Please!!!!!

I spoke yesterday with a Venezuelan friend who has lived in the U.S. for 9 years. While discussing news in the U.S. and his home country of Venezuela, several times during our conversation one of us would ask the other “are you talking about the U.S. or Venezuela?”
A year ago, it would have been pretty clear that when topics such as nationalization of industries, cronyism, propagation of Marxist & populist policies, promotion of class welfare tactics, targeting/silencing of political enemies, state-owned media, etc. were raised, the subject would be Venezuela. In the Age of Obama, it is much less obvious.
BTW, Chavez remarked on state-TV last week that his next book for Obama will be a work by Lenin.

I’ll be curious to see which of the shuttered GM facilities will be selected to produce the new fuel efficient tin-box that has been announced for production…Anyone think political considerations will not be involved in facility selection?

“I’ll be curious to see which of the shuttered GM facilities will be selected to produce the new fuel efficient tin-box that has been announced for production…Anyone think political considerations will not be involved in facility selection?”
————————————
LOL,
I am sure the various lobbying interests are already lining up to get their say in to this “Non-Lobbyist” administration.
Posted by: tjp612

jlw,
HUGE difference between closing dealerships and deciding where a major new manufacturing facility is going to go.
OBVIOUSLY, the will be heavy lobying involved. Do you honestly beleive that all these various towns are not going to be all over their congressional delegatinos to push for the plant to be in their towns? Places that can afford to hire lobbyists wil most certainly do so!
Wether the final decision is at all affected by all this wont really be known, but certainly allegations will fly.

“Just like Army base closings, there could be some political considerations in play.”
Shouldn’t the facility which is most appropriate (i.e., cost effective) to build the vehicle be selected? There shouldn’t be ANY political considerations involved in the decision-making process.
But, let’s not forget that this is the federal govt., so there WILL be political considerations involved in decision-making process rather than making decisions based on financial analysis. Which is a big reason why, ultimately, Govt. Motors will fail (unless, of course, it is propped up by govt. subsidies, tariffs on foreign made vehicles, gas taxes, etc. which are not outside of the realm of possibility for CEO Obama).

for jhw:
The mandatory ethics pledge also includes “revolving door” restrictions on the activities of new officials before and after entering government service.
For two years after joining the Obama Administration, an official may not participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to his or her former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts. In addition, an official who was formerly a lobbyist may not, for two years, participate in any particular matter on which he or she lobbied during the two years before entering the government, work in the specific issue area in which he or she lobbied or accept employment with any executive agency that he or she lobbied during the two years before government service.
========
And yes, I am well aware that lobbying and PAC donations are two entirely different things. That’s why I mentioned them both as activities I would like to see limited for our new employees.

Mike_C:”Wether the final decision is at all affected by all this wont really be known, but certainly allegations will fly. ”
Like any private plant decision, it should go where the local populace is most supportive. Duh. This is the place that will cut the most red tape and offer the best environment for profitability.

Diane Feinstein had also proposed companies receiving Federal Bailout money be banned from lobbying with that money.
I’m not sure if that passed.

MayBee:”The president said that when top White House aides leave government, they are barred from lobbying ”
Sorta like Senators after 2007 then? Actually, that was a 2 year restriction. Which, by the way, is strongly suspected to be why Trent Lott retired just before that restriction goes into effect – he wanted to cash in on lobbying (getting paid off by thankful industries) and that restriction would have blocked it.
Stopping the revolving door of people lobbying the people who were their colleagues a month ago is hardly the same as suggesting every government employee of any sort is barred.

MayBee:”Diane Feinstein had also proposed companies receiving Federal Bailout money be banned from lobbying with that money. ”
Restricting corporate rights is different from restricting the rights of private citizens. Giving $1000 to the NRA’s lobbying arm is not the same as Goldman Sachs hiring a $1 million/yr lobbying firm, and inteligent people would evaluate them accordingly.
(Although I don’t agree with Feinstein’s position either, I don’t see it being a Constitutional infringement.)

===BTW: if you’ve never seen Moore’s movie, ‘Roger & Me’ you should , you might learn something instead of posting one liners taken out of context like a good lil Repub.
Posted by: Oh Yeah | Jun 1, 2009 4:21:24 PM===
Obviously you have never seen the parts Moore left out. The one liners certainly made an impression on you.

Moore, unlike many here, was more correct more often than not…. but hey, that shouldn’t bother any rightist fringers here….if it didn’t come from St. Reagan’s lips, surely couldn’t be true.
Propaganda…..? you guys are such a joke…

Obama says:
General Motors “will be run by a private board of directors and management team,” he said. “They, and not the government, will call the shots and make the decisions about how to turn this company around. The federal government will refrain from exercising its rights as a shareholder in all but the most fundamental corporate decisions.”
***************************************
Hmmmmmm……wonder who gets to appoint that Board of Directors and management team???
How’s that “change we can believe in” thing working? Is the Kool Aid starting to taste a little bitter?

We’re not going to let Obama take GM and make it his. This man is a one-timer if he doesn’t stop with the cutie appointments and taking over GM, by telling GM what they can do. He’s not going to get GM to make tiny cars that kill people. After all, Obama has a limo with tons of steel and 6″ glass windows, we’ll be thinking anything you want to put on the road will not be anything we would even drive. If you think that you’re going to run GM, that will never work.
When you use Air Force One, is when you are doing to people’s work, not campaigning or taking the family for a vacation. After all, you cheapskate, you’re earning $400,000 and all you need to pay for is your family meals.
P.S. the papers were telling us this morning that you took Mrs. Obama to New York for a play as you had promised her. The papers said you $24,000 ran a tab us for a Gulf Stream to get there. If you are doing personal things, get you own damn jet. Fork over the $24,000 that you probably stuck the American citizens and find some fine friends like Bill and Hilly have. They always have plenty of friends with planes.

Somehere somebody knows a lot more about the Obamas than they are willing to share with the public.
Will they tell us the truth in time? Or will they protect their buddies until the house of cards collapses on us all?

It’s apparent that a certain whack of posters here think President Obama can do nothing right, does everything wrong, that he’s evil, corrupt, incompetent, naive or stupid and so on . . .
You have your personal political agenda to smear the President and you play it out here everyday.
Anyone who sees what you’re doing, knows exactly what you’re doing.

“You can’t get corporate jets. You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas, or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers’ dime.”
But the Chief Executive (Oval) Officer had made a promise to his good wife that after the campaign, they’d take in a Broadway show, and darn it, he meant to keep that promise.

Guess again, Tony.