|
|
PARTS
| | |
| |
  
 
Subject:
Re: Obama now owns GM
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:10:11 -0700
From: WayneC <WayneC(at)linkline.moc>
Subject: Re: Obama now owns GM
Lines: 35
Bytes: 3197
________________________________________________
Speaker of the Truth wrote:
> Ever hear the song "too much too little too late"
>
>
I`d argue that Wagoner was steadily doing the right things, but hampered
(slowed & blocked) by pesky little things like union contracts &
negotiations, local politics in every town affected by his proposed
changes, green laws, etc, etc. The guy was a 31-year employee, not an
outsider emotionally unaffected by the changes he attempted to make.
When Obama gave Wagoner the choice of resigning or foregoing bailout
money, he knew full well Wagoner would acquiesce, because Wagoner
wouldn`t sign GM`s death warrant by refusing. In my opinion the wrong
guy was fired... it should have been Gettlefinger, who openly refused to
negotiate any concessions at all. If the changes begun by GM speed up
now, it`ll be because Obama screws the union and local politicians,
something that Wagoner could not do without dooming GM. More likely, GM
will now quickly go out of business or become a federal-run experiment
in building expensive "green cars" which will require heavy subsidies by
the taxpayer in order to sell to greenies.
It`s always seemed to be an axiom that republicans tend to buy GM cars,
while democrats prefer Fords and Chryslers (if they didn`t switch to
Volkswagens or riceburners), so I`m not surprised that Obama went after
GM. The fact that GM has lately been advertising heavily on the
Limbaugh, Hannity, and Miller programs probably sealed Wagoners fate.
Question is, what will Obama do to mollify the UAW as GM goes under?
Or will the workers be so overjoyed at seeing management get screwed
that they`ll forget that they screwed themselves?
GM was my first & favorite auto maker, I was never disappointed by one
of their products (I owned at least 7 over my lifetime, including 4
Corvettes, plus another half-dozen cars powered by Chevy small blocks);
how sad that it`s come to this.
From: JimH <JimH(at)invalid.net>
Subject: Re: Obama now owns GM
Lines: 38
NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.208.4.50
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:29:37 -0700
Bytes: 3004
________________________________________________
WayneC wrote:
> I`d argue that Wagoner was steadily doing the right things,
I worked for IBM in the 90`s when they were bleeding red ink and it
looked like they were on the verge of collapse. John Akers, a long time
IBM employee and executive was at the helm. He had to step down in order
to bring about the change in the company necessary for survival. Like
Wagoner, he was not just a part of the good old boy network in the
company, he was the core of it. IBM brought in an outsider, and turned
the company around.
> become a federal-run experiment in building expensive "green cars" which will require heavy subsidies by
> the taxpayer in order to sell to greenies.
Toyota seems to be able to make good money selling the Prius at a
premium. They are expanding the hybrid technology across their products.
The Volt looks like it could be the base on which to build the next
generation of GM cars. Combining performance, fuel efficiency, and clean
operation should have been the goal twenty years ago. Better late than
never.
> It`s always seemed to be an axiom that republicans tend to buy GM cars,
> while democrats prefer Fords and Chryslers
I`m a Democrat. I have driven GM cars almost exclusively for my entire
life. My first car was a 1964 Impala. I currently own 3 GM vehicles. The
Republicans that I know drive Lexus, Mercedes, or BMW. The ones with
less money drive Toyota or Mazda.
> GM was my first & favorite auto maker, I was never disappointed by one
> of their products (I owned at least 7 over my lifetime, including 4
> Corvettes, plus another half-dozen cars powered by Chevy small blocks);
> how sad that it`s come to this.
On this, we agree. But, I remember reading an article at least 10-15
years ago that forecast this exact set of events for GM. I didn`t or
more probably couldn`t believe it at the time.
From: "CardsFan" <me(at)here.com>
Subject: Re: Obama now owns GM
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:37:55 -0400
Lines: 72
NNTP-Posting-Host: cfs98-112.cfs.purdue.edu
Bytes: 4483
________________________________________________
"WayneC" <WayneC(at)linkline.moc> wrote in message
news:ReCdnesQTdMLxk_UnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d(at)linkline.com...
> Speaker of the Truth wrote:
>> Ever hear the song "too much too little too late"
>>
>>
> I`d argue that Wagoner was steadily doing the right things, but hampered
> (slowed & blocked) by pesky little things like union contracts &
> negotiations, local politics in every town affected by his proposed
> changes, green laws, etc, etc. The guy was a 31-year employee, not an
> outsider emotionally unaffected by the changes he attempted to make.
The whole point is the corporation has to have someone with an entirely new
agenda to survive, not someone who`s sitting around pining for the good old
days. The automotive world has radically changed and if it does not adapt,
GM is dead. It would have been dead already without taxpayer help, so Mr.
Wagoner was out of a job either way.
> When Obama gave Wagoner the choice of resigning or foregoing bailout
> money, he knew full well Wagoner would acquiesce, because Wagoner wouldn`t
> sign GM`s death warrant by refusing. In my opinion the wrong guy was
> fired... it should have been Gettlefinger, who openly refused to negotiate
> any concessions at all. If the changes begun by GM speed up now, it`ll be
> because Obama screws the union and local politicians, something that
> Wagoner could not do without dooming GM.
No, GM was doomed without those changes. Mr. Wagoner didn`t have the
stomach for it. I can`t blame him for that; these changes are radical and
seemingly merciless, but in not reshaping GM over the course of his tenure
he and his board brought it to where it is.
> More likely, GM will now quickly go out of business or become a
> federal-run experiment in building expensive "green cars" which will
> require heavy subsidies by the taxpayer in order to sell to greenies.
>
> It`s always seemed to be an axiom that republicans tend to buy GM cars,
> while democrats prefer Fords and Chryslers (if they didn`t switch to
> Volkswagens or riceburners), so I`m not surprised that Obama went after
> GM.
This is ludicrous. My dad was as Democrat as you can get and he drove
Chevys and Buicks all his life. If Ford were in the same financial boat as
GM it would have gotten the same treatement, or worse, a la Chrysler.
> The fact that GM has lately been advertising heavily on the Limbaugh,
> Hannity, and Miller programs probably sealed Wagoners fate.
Ridiculous. GM is advertising heavily practically everywhere.
> Question is, what will Obama do to mollify the UAW as GM goes under?
> Or will the workers be so overjoyed at seeing management get screwed that
> they`ll forget that they screwed themselves?
Both white and blue collar have to sacrifice. So do retirees. There`s no
other way.
> GM was my first & favorite auto maker, I was never disappointed by one of
> their products (I owned at least 7 over my lifetime, including 4
> Corvettes, plus another half-dozen cars powered by Chevy small blocks);
> how sad that it`s come to this.
Because of loyalty inherited from dad, I owned three Buicks, all of which
had quite numerous mechanical, electrical, and body problems. I gave up on
GM back in 1987 except, of course, for the `Vette, which is a lifelong
reclamation project, a labor of love both now and, fate and finances
willing, in retirement.
AJM
`93 40th Anniversary coupe, 6 sp (both tops)
NEXT POSTS:
| | |
