backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 220 comment(s) - last by Tsuwamono.. on Jun 6 at 2:21 AM

GM just got a new owner -- the U.S. government

Today General Motors becomes the second of the Big Three domestic automakers to succumb to the recession and be placed in bankruptcy by the U.S. Treasury Department.  From once employing over 1 million people, between its employees and direct suppliers, GM has fallen, now becoming the largest industrial bankruptcy in the history of the United States.

The bankruptcy, filed at 8 a.m. this morning, was carefully crafted by the Obama administration's top officials and the U.S. Treasury Department.  The bankruptcy also marks the start of the largest nationalization of a corporate entity in U.S. history.  The government plans to invest an additional $30B USD in GM, bringing its total investment thus far to $50B USD.  In return, it will receive a 60 percent controlling ownership stake in the company when it exits bankruptcy protection.

Canada is also deeply tied to the company will also enjoy a part in the nationalization, taking on a 12 percent stake.  Unions get 17.5 percent and the bondholders are handed 10 percent and the right to buy greatly discounted GM stock.

The Obama administration calls the solution "permanent" and insists that this will be the final bailout for GM.  Meanwhile, it faces critics -- mostly shareholders and bondholders -- who believe it is giving favorable concessions to unions.  These groups are expected to get less out of the deal, and are banding together to voice their discontent.  A group calling themselves the Main Street Bondholders have formed and plan to voice their anger in court.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.) supports the group, writing to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geitner, "The proposal seems to favor the rights and claims of the UAW, a political ally of the current administration and a powerful lobbying force in Washington, over the rights and claims of the company's diverse group of bondholders.  Contractual rights of investors are being trampled by the government under the rationale of 'extraordinary circumstances.'"

Under the new plan, the U.A.W. would exchange its $20B USD in pension and retirement obligations for the 17.5 percent stake and for $9B USD in notes and preferred stock.  Bondholders, which hold $27B USD in GM debt, only get a 10 percent stake and the right to later purchase discounted stock.  It should be noted though, that the Bush administration similarly supported larger cuts by bondholders, and smaller ones from the unions.  The cuts for both parties actually exceed those proposed by the Bush administration, which suggested a 50 percent reduction cut to the union trust, and a 66 percent cut for bondholders.

However, the complaints will likely fall on deaf ears -- similar complaints during Chrysler's bankruptcy process, albeit fewer and less organized, failed to gain traction in court.

During the bankruptcy GM plans to sell or liquidate its Pontiac and Hummer brands.  It will also sell and/or spin off several foreign brands -- Saab, Vauxhall, and Opel.  The Obama administration remains confident of the company's recovery, stating, "For the better part of a century, The General Motors Corporation has been one of the most recognizable and largest businesses in the world.  (Today) will rank as another historic day for the company -- the end of an old General Motors, and the beginning of a new one."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By PARANOID365 on 6/1/2009 12:13:53 PM , Rating: 2
I love how everyone is so quick to jump on the Obama bashing wagon over his decision to try and bail out this sector; what else did you really expect him to do with 1 to 3 million jobs on the line?? (and before anyone gets their panties in a bunch with my 1 to 3 million jobs figure, you need to realize that also includes other companies that depend on these larger companies, e.g. parts manufacturers etc.)

I think a lot of the Obama bashers should really go back to elementary math class, because adding 1 to 3 million people to the unemployment line is going to cost a hell of a lot more than the bailout !!

I guess the Obama bashers would of rather had his administration add 1 to 3 million extra people to the already growing unemployment line; but then again these same people would then turn around and bash Obama for not stimulating the economy and creating jobs!! PATHETIC !!




By captainpierce on 6/1/2009 2:09:15 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I think a lot of the Obama bashers should really go back to elementary math class, because adding 1 to 3 million people to the unemployment line is going to cost a hell of a lot more than the bailout !!

I guess the Obama bashers would of rather had his administration add 1 to 3 million extra people to the already growing unemployment line; but then again these same people would then turn around and bash Obama for not stimulating the economy and creating jobs!! PATHETIC !!


Where does it stop? What is the criteria for who gets a bailout and who doesn't? Are the President and Congress now the ultimate decider of such things?


By zombiexl on 6/1/2009 4:26:33 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
guess the Obama bashers would of rather had his administration add 1 to 3 million extra people to the already growing unemployment line; but then again these same people would then turn around and bash Obama for not stimulating the economy and creating jobs!!


Well not to offend you, but he hasnt done anything to stimulate the economy or create jobs. Maybe thats the reason he changed his promise from creating new jobs to creating or saving jobs.

Your number is BS and I know you'll disagree because you seem to take these union guesstimates as gospel.

The fact is if there is enough need for the vehciles in the first place another manufacturer would have to produce the cars, which means they would need more employees and plants. Stay with me here... Then they would need more supplies (or their current supplies would have to grow) to meet their needs.

Basically it comes down to producing enough of a product to meet the demand. I know it's a hard concept to grasp, but i think you can do it.


By fownde on 6/2/2009 10:07:48 AM , Rating: 3
I've heard an interesting idea from many people floating around that would have cost the gov less, and stimulated the economy all in one. Give each adult over 18 a decent chunk of money. This amount has ranged from 100k to 1mil though I think the 1 mil would be way excessive. So we'll go with the 100k. Then, through the gift tax on it (which I believe is 15%). So you get 85k. A married couple would get 170k. Couple would then either buy a house or car or pay-off the one that is about to be foreclosed on thus helping the housing problem. Many people would be likely to buy cars possibly fixing the auto problem (though I'm not entirely in on this cuz so many have lost faith in the local auto companies and would possibly buy foreign instead.../shrug)

Anywho, the gist is basically if a smaller amount of money had been given out to the American people instead of bailing out the big companies (like the banks that just paid of CEO's) it would have prevented (or helped prevent) a recession. I'm not entirely sure I agree with all the numbers or that it woulda worked, but I think it would have had a better chance than what they're doing now and cost way less.


By BansheeX on 6/2/2009 10:52:03 AM , Rating: 2
You don't know the first thing about (austrian) economics. Wealth doesn't come from a printing press. The more dollars you print relative to products, the less their value/scarcity is relative to products. A price is how many dollars someone can sell a product for. Printing money just raises prices, discourages savings over consumption at the time it's most needed, forming a bubble with an inevitable bust. Since rising prices on goods/stocks makes bonds at low interest less attractive than goods/stocks, it forces the interest rate at which the bonds promise to pay skywards because otherwise no one will buy them. And if we don't raise them, who's going to finance our debt except for the Fed and their printing press?


In Democratic USA...
By GreenEnvt on 6/1/2009 10:15:52 AM , Rating: 5
In Democratic USA, car owns you!




RE: In Democratic USA...
By iFX on 6/1/2009 10:33:35 AM , Rating: 3
Congratulations! You win the universe. :)


RE: In Democratic USA...
By BansheeX on 6/2/2009 10:57:14 AM , Rating: 2
If we're going to become the USSA, we better start acting like it, comrades.


RE: In Democratic USA...
By msomeoneelsez on 6/2/2009 11:18:15 AM , Rating: 2
6

Please... really, make that a 6


let it die already
By IlllI on 6/1/2009 10:39:31 AM , Rating: 5
seriously, just let the damn company die.
they are at fault for getting themselves into this crap.

what ever happened to SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST?

i for one dont want any of my tax dollars going to this crappy company. why? it wont benefit me at all, and i wont get anything out of it.

or, where is my 30 BILLION bailout mr. government?




RE: let it die already
By Chaser on 6/1/2009 11:17:40 AM , Rating: 1
Sorry it went to GM UAW pensions and healthcare benefits.


RE: let it die already
By PARANOID365 on 6/1/2009 11:52:46 AM , Rating: 3
@ IlllI,

I totally agree with you on this point, because if you or I had a business and our sales went in the toilet do you really think the government would rescue us, of course not, they would just sit back and watch you or I crash and burn !!

I guess if your not big business, or if your not, "donating", large sums of money to these political parties, you just don't matter.


who is in charge of breaking up GM
By tallredeye on 6/1/2009 5:28:16 PM , Rating: 2
A 31 year old who has never set foot in an auto plant is in charge of dismantling GM in his first government job. Great on-the-job learning experience!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/business/01deese...




By Spuke on 6/1/2009 7:22:52 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
A 31 year old who has never set foot in an auto plant is in charge of dismantling GM in his first government job.
GM filed Chapter 11. Look it up.


Blame it on the Unions
By jawqn8 on 6/1/2009 11:16:02 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not saying that the unions are to blame completely but they sure didn't help matters out. Unions were necessary when people were working 15 hour days and getting payed a wage they couldn't survive on, but that is no longer the case. Unions were allowed to gain too much power and controlled the company too much. An example, is when the UAW went on strike the workers still collected a pay check, even though they weren't producing any product.




RE: Blame it on the Unions
By HotFoot on 6/1/2009 12:56:42 PM , Rating: 2
I have to say my opinion on this matter has been swaying to the side of abolishing unions and relying on national working standards. There are so many more laws governing employment now than there were back when unions saved the West from Marxism. Perhaps it's time to look at what would be required from a regulation point of view to make unions redundant to the point we can shed this incredibly inefficient union system.

In my line of work, I will never be part of a union unless I change careers. However, back when I was in univiersity I had to belong to the Teaching Assistant union (whatever it was called). While doing an incredibly easy job helping a professor with a maximum of 10 hours per week of teaching duties, I was making an effective $35/hour - and that's if I needed to work all 10 hours. In reality, it was more like 5 hours/week so I was getting $70 an hour to work with a group of students. Cushy job? Hell yeah! And you know what? It wasn't good enough for half the union. They kept saying they wanted more because tuition was going up every year. While that's utterly ridiculous, the sad thing is the only people complaining are the ones who will probably never see that kind of wage/salary again in their lives. They're just not worth that much.


The irony of it all...
By IcePickFreak on 6/1/2009 3:55:53 PM , Rating: 2

Approx. 60 years ago:
-Japan bombs Pearl Harbor, US enters World War II (Oddly enough, for cutting off their funding and supply of oil.. go figure, the US was one of their major suppliers.)
-US Auto makers retool their manufacturing plants, GM being the biggest as they converted all their US plants over, to manufacture planes, tanks, trucks, ect
-Allies win the war, US hits it's golden era, car business is booming

Fast Foward about 60 years later:
-Japanese auto makers outsell US auto makers in the US
-Oil prices are all over the place, +25% in two days isn't even shocking any more. "Third-world" countries have more money than god.. and indoor ski slopes in the middle of the desert.
-Entire rest of the world in massive recession. (OK, not the guys on Wall Street taking advantage of the peopl.. I mean situation)
-Citizens praise Japanese and German cars.
-2 of 3 auto makers to help the war effort in WW2 file chapter 11 bankruptcy after government help - US citizens spits at the US auto makers & government.
-Nothing to see here (government gives a couple hundred billion to financial sector ) go watch American Idol or something.

WTF happened?




RE: The irony of it all...
By IlllI on 6/2/2009 4:34:13 AM , Rating: 2
dumb people were allowed to reproduce


Meanwhile, Rick Waggoner....
By marvdmartian on 6/1/2009 10:15:40 AM , Rating: 2
....with his gazillion dollar golden parachute, sits at home humming, "We're number one! We're number one!!" ;)




UAW Pensions
By wallijonn on 6/1/2009 12:36:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the U.A.W. would exchange its $20B USD in pension and retirement obligations for the 17.5 percent stake and for $9B USD in notes and preferred stock.


This is certainly better than GM going into bankruptcy and raiding the pension fund to pay the creditors and bond holders. If GM does go fully under then they will lose everything, but time is on their side - as opposed to Enron, Gloabl Crossing, World Com, many NJ based pharmaceutical companies which raided their employee pension funds, and Polaroid, where only poverty was left in it's wake.




By flurazepam on 6/1/2009 5:50:30 PM , Rating: 2
It's
By axias41 on 6/2/2009 12:54:03 PM , Rating: 2
It's the American wwaaayyy!!!




By Beenthere on 6/1/2009 2:13:03 PM , Rating: 1
In the aftermath of this bloodbath millions of U.S. jobs are gone. Visteon and Metaldyne filed bankruptcy last week so it's all over now but the crying.




Hello turoists:
By Joz on 6/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hello turoists:
By Bender 123 on 6/1/2009 10:04:29 AM , Rating: 1
It amazes me that we have just swapped positions...The US is the USSR and, somehow, Russia is the new beacon of freedom. Just read this article from Pravda...scary that the media in Russia is the only one that seems to understand how bad we all are.

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459...


RE: Hello turoists:
By clovell on 6/1/2009 10:15:04 AM , Rating: 4
The Russian government controls the Russian media; of course their media says that.


RE: Hello turoists:
By captchaos2 on 6/2/2009 6:59:11 PM , Rating: 2
And the US govt. controls most of the US media, almost like Russia.


RE: Hello turoists:
By arazok on 6/1/2009 10:19:12 AM , Rating: 4
I’m dead against government rescues of failing businesses, but I don’t get the whole communist/totalitarian comparison with the US government nationalizing failing banks and automakers.

Totalitarian governments, like in Venezuela, nationalize successful companies. They just do it to get their hands on the cash they generate so they can spend it on their pet socialist/military projects.

The US government is bailing these companies out in an attempt to protect key sectors of the economy. I don’t foresee the government hanging on to them any longer than necessary.

You can debate whether or not this is the right move, but when people start screaming about socialist motivations I can’t help but roll my eyes. The argument wreaks of partisan BS to get the masses onside.


RE: Hello turoists:
By deltadeltadelta on 6/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hello turoists:
By zombiexl on 6/1/2009 10:38:51 AM , Rating: 5
I have to disagree with your short sight of history. Socialism started with the great society programs. It got bumps along the way including larger ones by Bush and Clinton.

I do agree that Obama is taking it to another level. It almost eems like he's trying to get it so far gone by the time mid-term elections occur that there will be no turning back.

We are nearing the fall of our country and the end of a democracy. Poeple have been telling me that for the last few years. I am finally starting to believe them.


RE: Hello turoists:
By clovell on 6/1/2009 10:49:08 AM , Rating: 2
Not to be contrarian, but just to point out - Bush also bucked that trend with the whole 'children's health care' debacle and Clinton with welfare reform. I've yet to see what Obama will do to try to strike a 'balance', but I hope against reason that it will come quickly.


RE: Hello turoists:
By zombiexl on 6/1/2009 11:10:40 AM , Rating: 3
Not to correct your correction but the republican lead house pushed for welfare reform. Because the republicans held the purse string Clinton had no choice but to throw them a bone once in a while.

I'm responsible for my kids healthcare so I didnt follow that too closely. So I cant make any comments on that.


RE: Hello turoists:
By clovell on 6/2/2009 1:42:12 PM , Rating: 2
It was not a correction. I just showed that during both those administrations, there were forces that were able to successfully 'push back' against government spending, however infrequently they succeeded.

Not too sure how your kids' healthcare fit in. I think we ought to all be concerned with how the government spend our money, but it is a lot to keep up with.


RE: Hello turoists:
By Tsuwamono on 6/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hello turoists:
By Hiawa23 on 6/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hello turoists:
By B3an on 6/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hello turoists:
By mdogs444 on 6/1/2009 1:38:56 PM , Rating: 5
In case you forgot, or you're just a 19 year old liberal hack from Media Matters, this country was founded by people who left other countries because they WERE crap!

Now, you people are trying to change this country into the type of country that people wanted to get away from....taxation, government control, entitlement, religous persecution, less control as a parent, less control of your daily lives, and seeing your disposable income shrink by the day because of the government.

Oh wait, did I just describe how the US is transitioning into the CRAP that burdens the lives of many of France, UK, Australia, etc.


RE: Hello turoists:
By Iaiken on 6/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hello turoists:
By Suntan on 6/1/2009 2:19:12 PM , Rating: 2
There’s more to life than everybody being equal.

-Suntan


RE: Hello turoists:
By Ammohunt on 6/1/2009 2:21:56 PM , Rating: 4
You know the old ARMY saying "Be all you can be"? that applies to all Americans. Those under the poverty line can only choose to be there.
You should read up on some history the first colonies on the North American continent, such as Jamestown and understand why they failed miserably.


RE: Hello turoists:
By sxr7171 on 6/1/2009 2:42:37 PM , Rating: 5
Yes, there is no better land of opportunity like the USA, and yet some would rather hang out and father kids all day and deny responsibility for anything. One forced watching of an episode of The Maury Show, opened my eyes. Why should the rest of us take up the slack of supporting the products of these people's romps in the hay? PUT ON A FRICKING CONDOM, we give them out for free.


RE: Hello turoists:
By Spuke on 6/1/2009 2:29:36 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
16th. United States 15.4%
What does this have to do with anything? Like Suntan said, just about everyone of those 15.4% can choose to improve their life dramatically. I, personally, moved from below poverty level to the upper middle class (and I am also "African" American). Anyone can do it, it just takes some drive, determination, and education. It's not really all that hard. The path is already laid out.


RE: Hello turoists:
By MrBungle123 on 6/1/2009 2:38:12 PM , Rating: 5
I really don't care about how many people live below the poverty line. Freedom is not about equality of outcome it is about equality of opportunity. This idea that if we simply build some sort of leftist utopia with social programs for every ill in life that everyone will be happy is a lie.

Satisfaction in life comes from accomplishing things on your own not having them handed to you on a silver platter by some nanny state bureaucracy. I would rather live under a bridge in a nation where I knew that I could scratch and crawl my way to prosperity beyond my wildest dreams with hard work and determination than live in another county with government provided housing, food, healthcare, transportation, and welfare where I was locked into a life of low end mediocrity because the majority of any wealth I generated was confiscated by government officials that think they know how to spend it better than I do.


RE: Hello turoists:
By sxr7171 on 6/1/2009 2:43:52 PM , Rating: 2
AMEN brother.


RE: Hello turoists:
By arazok on 6/1/2009 3:38:02 PM , Rating: 3
The question that never gets asked to people who’s goal is the elimination of poverty, is what exactly do you need to achieve this goal? How high do you need to tax the productive people in society to raise the standard of living of the unproductive to an acceptable level? What is an acceptable level? Everyone in America is fed, housed (street people generally refuse shelter), and clothed. So what are you after?

You have to remember that 10-25% of your population in any society will consist of people who have no goals, and no aspirations in life. They essentially wake up each day, do what they need to do to feed themselves, and beyond that they just let life take them wherever it may. If you showed up at their door with a bag full of money, it would be gone tomorrow. Spent on whatever excited them at the moment, but certainly not invested for the future.

In times past, poverty was imposed by the ruling class using their power to actively oppress the average citizen through taxes, outright theft of property, and denial of recourses.

What made America so great was that the government did not impose these barriers, and left people to their own devises. The American Dream used to be about everyone having a level playing field. It could mean that you could choose to work hard, save your money, and better your life. Or it could mean that you sit under the sun, smell the roses, and enjoy only what god provides. Life was supposed to be about what you made it.

Somewhere along the line the American Dream got twisted to be about equality. The right to live just like everyone else. Can’t feed yourself? Here’s some food. Don’t want to work for a house? We’ll give you one. Kids have no clothes? Here ya go. Got cancer? I’ll spend millions if that’s what it takes to make you better – you’re entitled to it.


RE: Hello turoists:
By Suntan on 6/1/2009 1:54:58 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I agree, some Americans are so dramatic, thumping their chest, & rubbing it in everyone's face.


Actually, during most of my travels abroad, or when spending time with expat colleagues here, I almost always run into two or three people that go out of their way to tell me how their country is better than America at one specific thing or another. Most recently, had a Brit go on about how their temperate climates allowed their farms to be more bountiful than America's (as we were driving through the Midwest no less.) Had a guy in Prague constantly telling me how their beer was better than ours. A guy in France at a “fancy” restaurant going on about some beef dish that was prepared with cow flesh that wouldn’t even pass muster in any local greasy spoon in any small town in America… Always the same, they find out you are American and then rag on you based on some inconsequential specifics. A guy in Denmark that had to stop the conversation at the dinner banquet to point out to me (and everyone else) that the restaurant we were eating in was older than our country.

I’ve never traveled with a fellow American that went on about how someone else’s country or culture was rubbish because of this or that technicality. If I had to put a finger on it, I would say that most non-Americans are just so mad that most Americans could care less that this country produces 32% more chocolate per capita than America does. Deal with it.

There are rednecks in Paris just as plainly as there are in Kansas City. There are Hillbillies in the countryside that surround Prague just as there are around Knoxville, TN. There are crusty deadbeats all over Dublin same as there are in San Francisco. There are scammers and street thugs in Milan same as in New York.

If you don’t think America is all that great of a place, move to some place that makes you happier. In lieu of that, why don’t you spend a bit of your free time trying to change it into a place that you do feel proud of. …Or you can just continue to piss’n moan about it.

-Suntan


RE: Hello turoists:
By Hiawa23 on 6/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hello turoists:
By Spuke on 6/1/2009 2:38:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You don't know me, so I don't want to change anything, I live life, let live, & mind my own business.
Then why bother to post?


RE: Hello turoists:
By Suntan on 6/1/2009 2:41:56 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Here's the thing, & I think many minorities agree with me.


I really don’t see what race has to do with it. So you’re a minority, big deal. You want a cookie for that? You’ve got a SS card right? Therefore you are just like the 300 million others of us when it comes to discussions of patriotism.

quote:
I know this is a great country & I don't have to do the things I mentioned in my earlier post like some do by rubbing it in everyone's else face displaying this attitude


I've never seen someone "rub" their Americanism in someone's face. Me thinks you are just seeing what you want to see.

If you really boil down your argument, what you are actually saying is that you just don’t like it when other people don’t act like you… …that is just plain selfishness and closed mindedness, nothing to do with race or patriotism.

quote:
I do believe you can be Patriotic without all the theater that you see out there especially on FOX News.


News flash, the union does not march in lock step with Fox News. I am ardently against all the “It’s ok to be a wimp in everything you do as long as you vote Democrat” rhetoric that is being pumped out by the left as any other person, but I can’t say as I’ve watched more than an hour of Fox News in my life.

If you’re watching Fox News even though you don’t like its message, you have issues. And if you’re best argument against “America” is that Fox News is our mouthpiece, you need to open your eyes and get a better understanding of the country you are in the middle of.

quote:
I don't want to change anything,


So you do just want to sit and piss’n moan…

-Suntan


RE: Hello turoists:
By rcc on 6/1/2009 2:52:06 PM , Rating: 3
It's an age old attitude. The have nots want what the haves have.

But these days, rather than build themselves up, they'd just as soon drag them down to their level. Because the perception isn't about what they actually have, as long as no one has it better.

Clear as mud?

: )


RE: Hello turoists:
By deltadeltadelta on 6/4/2009 10:52:18 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Poor choice of expression on my part. I should have said something like, "Bush was not innocent of the bailouts." Certainly he didn't "start" it. Duh on me.


RE: Hello turoists:
By Tsuwamono on 6/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hello turoists:
By HotFoot on 6/1/2009 12:29:05 PM , Rating: 1
The point you're trying to make is right, but it's not quite true that we don't own any companies. We own plenty of companies, called crown corporations. We used to own a hell of a lot more. Even some mining operations were crown corporations.

It doesn't seem to me that there has been any improvement in the health of our democracy since many or most of these corporations were spun off into private businesses. Rather, I think the two concepts are completely unrelated, which I understand is the point of your post.


RE: Hello turoists:
By Tsuwamono on 6/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hello turoists:
By Ammohunt on 6/1/2009 2:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
Well when you don't have to spend money on defence becasue you southern neighbor has you covered you can take that money and give it away to all the free loaders. I am not ready to give up of my any of my freedoms for governemnt hand outs. Personally i just want to be left the hell alone.


RE: Hello turoists:
By sxr7171 on 6/1/2009 2:33:27 PM , Rating: 2
Wish there was a way to make them share the cost.


RE: Hello turoists:
By Spuke on 6/1/2009 2:39:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wish there was a way to make them share the cost.
I like the Canadians but sometimes I wish we could just go back to being isolationist.


RE: Hello turoists:
By sxr7171 on 6/1/2009 2:54:07 PM , Rating: 2
I wish too, but I guess it's too late now. If only the Wright brothers knew how their feat eventually enabled 2 World Wars.


RE: Hello turoists:
By arazok on 6/1/2009 4:02:50 PM , Rating: 2
I’d say we’re sharing the costs now, but we have some catching up to do.

Some historical perspective is in order.

Once you take our small population into account, Canada’s military spending was on par with most modern countries until the 1990’s when decades of back to back deficit spending finally caught up with us. Our debt to GDP ratio was approaching 100%, and the US media began referring to Canada as a “bankrupt 2nd world country”. We were running deficits at 8% of GDP, and the credit rating agencies began to downgrade our debt ratings as people feared we would default on our debt.

When reality hit, the government was forced to slash spending. The bulk of the cuts were in healthcare, and the armed forces. After a few years with no budget, or armed forces were a shell of their former selves, however we have been steadily rebuilding them for the past 5-6 years. Our military has been doing all the heavy lifting in Afghanistan (with the US), we bought new subs a few years ago, we just bought a bunch of new choppers, and the military is eying a Stryker purchase, as well as new frigates.
America is looking a lot like Canada in the 1990’s right now. I wonder what you’re military budget will look like in 10-15 years from now…


RE: Hello turoists:
By Ammohunt on 6/2/2009 11:46:37 PM , Rating: 3
Which is alot more then other NATO countries are doing. I feel we are on that current path lets hope America wakes up to the idiocy.


RE: Hello turoists:
By Tsuwamono on 6/6/2009 2:21:11 AM , Rating: 2
We do spend quite a bit of our budget on armed forces and we have one of the best trained armies in the world. Keep in mind our army trains a lot of yours.


RE: Hello turoists:
By sxr7171 on 6/1/2009 2:51:56 PM , Rating: 2
Are you joking? I mean imagine if there were no USA below your country. You guys would be half French colony and half English colony. Probably part Japanese and Russian too. Notice how 90% of your population lives within 80 miles of US border or something thereabouts?

Understand that first, before posting about how great your country is.

We don't expect any gratitude per se, but think twice before running your mouth about how much better your country is than ours.


RE: Hello turoists:
By Crowbar77 on 6/1/2009 9:50:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Notice how 90% of your population lives within 80 miles of US border or something thereabouts?


Well a big reason is because of the warmer climate...


RE: Hello turoists:
By zombiexl on 6/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hello turoists:
By FITCamaro on 6/1/2009 10:39:29 AM , Rating: 4
One of my good friends LIVED in the USSR growing up and he recognizes how crazy this is. He and his family sold everything they had to escape the US and now we're going down the same road.

The government can claim all they want that they'll get rid of their stake as soon as possible. I doubt it. Look at the banks who are trying to repay the TARP money they didn't want in the first place. They're being told that they'll be "allowed" to repay it slowly over time even if they want to repay it all at once.


RE: Hello turoists:
By The0ne on 6/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hello turoists:
By acase on 6/1/2009 11:25:34 AM , Rating: 3
...obviously just a typo. Really not THAT confusing.


RE: Hello turoists:
By crystal clear on 6/1/2009 11:32:06 AM , Rating: 2
Yes you got to go to Russia to see for yourself like I do & did- (I am NOT from the USSR)

You could then & now SELL & BUY anything under the sky - A highly regulated market under the watchful eye of the corrupt govt officials & the police,who get their due commissions plus overidding commisions.

You have the local mafia that acts as a revenue collection agency.

Officially this does NOT exist... but ...it does

Everybody is happy in this arrangement...the buyer the seller the regulators & the revenue collection agencies.

A thriving trade & nobody complains.


RE: Hello turoists:
By FITCamaro on 6/1/2009 12:16:21 PM , Rating: 1
I don't see how its confusing. They lived there when he was young, then sold everything they had to escape to the US. They took great risk to get here as you weren't allowed to just leave if you wanted to and had the money.


RE: Hello turoists:
By hyvonen on 6/1/2009 2:19:27 PM , Rating: 1
I was confused as well; I didn't know if you meant that they escaped to the USA, or escaped the USA and went somewhere else... Typos and poor grammar can cause significant confusion.


RE: Hello turoists:
By The0ne on 6/1/2009 3:13:31 PM , Rating: 1
he was missing the "to" from "escape TO the US". now it makes sense :)


RE: Hello turoists:
By arazok on 6/1/2009 10:53:48 AM , Rating: 4
You’re argument doesn’t make sense. Obama doesn’t need to take ownership of these companies to make them produce the cars he wants. He can just legislate it.

All governments have the power to make any company do anything they want it to. The only motivation for governments to nationalize a company is to take its assets. But these companies are worthless money losers, so I can’t see any reason for doing this other then what the government claims – to bail them out.

I agree that this IS a socialist move. It’s taking money from everyone, and giving it to a few. It is not, however, an evil government plot to control the economy for some nefarious purpose. It’s just stupid politics as usual. Nobody wants to face the wrath of a bunch of out of work union people.


RE: Hello turoists:
By zombiexl on 6/1/2009 11:33:20 AM , Rating: 2
First, he cant technically legislate anything. He isnt part of the legislative branch anymore, although that doesnt seem to matter these days.

Second, the government is already moving up the standards to make it harder for SUV's and Trucks to exist. Although not as fast as he'd like.

Third, there are other things the govermnet can do as 60% majority holder that would take years to legislate.

Lastly, screw the union, they helped casue this as did the workers who waited far too long to make concessions.


RE: Hello turoists:
By danrien on 6/1/2009 1:31:30 PM , Rating: 3
I don't think anybody is under the illusion that he can legislate it. That doesn't prevent him from proposing legislation that his party would vote for.


RE: Hello turoists:
By nycromes on 6/2/2009 1:45:30 PM , Rating: 2
You're right about one thing, its not about the cars that will be made. Its about taking a huge group (the unions) and giving them what they want. They will become govt employees and they will of course give votes to the people that gave them jobs and income.

All of these socialist programs are about one thing. The politicians getting more votes. I think at this time its pretty obvious the left wants people dependent on the govt, you can't get rid of something you depend on. And there are enough impoverished people in this country to keep them in power. Its a smart plan, but not one in the best interests of our country. I hope people wake up and see the writing on the wall.

To the people calling everyone dramatic, they aren't being dramatic, but they are looking ahead at what is coming. Today it's GM, tomorrow what will it be? Where is the line drawn? Can you answer that? Thats what all the fuss is about, if you think they are being overly dramatic, you are looking at this in a very short sighted manner. Try thinking long term. Do you know of any politician that willingly gave away power after they got it?


RE: Hello turoists:
By nycromes on 6/2/2009 1:45:31 PM , Rating: 2
You're right about one thing, its not about the cars that will be made. Its about taking a huge group (the unions) and giving them what they want. They will become govt employees and they will of course give votes to the people that gave them jobs and income.

All of these socialist programs are about one thing. The politicians getting more votes. I think at this time its pretty obvious the left wants people dependent on the govt, you can't get rid of something you depend on. And there are enough impoverished people in this country to keep them in power. Its a smart plan, but not one in the best interests of our country. I hope people wake up and see the writing on the wall.

To the people calling everyone dramatic, they aren't being dramatic, but they are looking ahead at what is coming. Today it's GM, tomorrow what will it be? Where is the line drawn? Can you answer that? Thats what all the fuss is about, if you think they are being overly dramatic, you are looking at this in a very short sighted manner. Try thinking long term. Do you know of any politician that willingly gave away power after they got it?


RE: Hello turoists:
By grandpope on 6/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hello turoists:
By bhieb on 6/1/2009 12:37:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
ld enough to remember


Not born in 1989 you troll rather old enough to understand the implications in 1989 so presumably 40+ now.


RE: Hello turoists:
By grandpope on 6/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hello turoists:
By The0ne on 6/1/2009 10:44:55 AM , Rating: 1
I agree. I don't like the government hands in this but it's needed until GM can do without. The comparison to Russia, now especially, is very baffling. I don't think these people see clearly what each country IS doing and provide link here and there to satisfy and fulfill their reasoning.

Maybe they would like to try these kinds of talks in Russia or China and see if they wouldn't end up in a ditch somewhere or in "training camps."


RE: Hello turoists:
By PARANOID365 on 6/1/2009 11:39:05 AM , Rating: 1
I completely agree, people really need to stop with this, "evil government plot business". If these same people ever got just a little taste of what it's truly like to live in a country like China or Russia, they would be quickly tucking their tails between their legs and begging to come back to North America !!


RE: Hello turoists:
By Bender 123 on 6/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hello turoists:
By clovell on 6/1/2009 10:52:15 AM , Rating: 5
It does, except they didn't give it to the people; they gave it to the lobbyist and special interest groups that help put them in power.

This deserves no fancy name; it is simply robbery.


RE: Hello turoists:
By zombiexl on 6/1/2009 10:52:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Call it a bailout, but a government forcing an ownership change and giving it to the people sounds like Marxism to me.

I think we all know Obama is a Marxist. Thats not news. The only correction I have is that he is not giving it to the people. He is giving a chunk to the union (which is not the people) and another large chunk to the federal government.

On another note, I wonder if we'll all get dividend checks when GM becomes profitable.. OK I'm joking, we all know the federal government cant run a profitable gumball machine.


RE: Hello turoists:
By Helbore on 6/1/2009 12:22:07 PM , Rating: 1
Buying up a failing company isn't really forcing an ownership change, though. No more than a hostile takeover, anyway.

If the government came in and ordered the shareholders to turn over their rights of ownership without buying out the company, it would be like the old communist states.

But, as I read it, the government is buying out a company that is about to go bust. They are not forcing an ownership change, because the owners are happy to sell a company that is about to fall into the dirt.

Its no different than if some big multinational corporation came along and bought out GM. The ONLY difference is that its the US government fielding the capital.

So the only issue is whether or not the government should be investing public money into private industry and there are lots of big questions that go along with that (eg. would the government be losing more tax income by letting GM go under than they are losing by investing in it). But I see very little Marxist about this.

In fact, calling it Marxist seems to be greatly oversimplifying the basis of Marxism.


RE: Hello turoists:
By Bender 123 on 6/1/2009 1:14:10 PM , Rating: 2
The govt owning business is Marxism...There is a large difference between an enterprise buying a company and the Govt.

The fact that GM wasn't purchased by another company is very telling. Businesses only buy businesses if they feel they can profit or advance from the purchase. That nobody did, means that there is very little sentiment in the market, that GM will ever be viable, much less investment grade.


RE: Hello turoists:
By Ammohunt on 6/1/2009 2:11:58 PM , Rating: 2
You are exactly the type of person that belongs in a totalitarian society.
quote:
What me worry?

Alfred E. Neuman


RE: Hello turoists:
By sxr7171 on 6/1/2009 2:25:58 PM , Rating: 1
Well it remains to be seen. Why isn't there an exit strategy or did this article miss that whole aspect?

If in 5 years all shares are sold back to private investors then the end result would have been positive. In some ways we need this to prevent unions from ever again becoming so powerful in our critical manufacturing industries.


RE: Hello turoists:
By deltadeltadelta on 6/1/2009 10:23:18 AM , Rating: 2
That is a chilling article.


RE: Hello turoists:
By Iaiken on 6/1/2009 10:54:35 AM , Rating: 2
Pravda would never lie,

I wouldn't have known I could breast feed had they not told me...

http://english.pravda.ru/science/health/25-01-2008...

:P