Read a little closer ... I wasn't referring to this situation. I was referring to the labor agreement referred to by titletownclown.

 

I gotta you. Still, the approach of kissing up to the unions at the expense of all the rest of us isn't a positive approach. Of course, I am assuming that those running the show are trying to promote what is best for the country rather than certain compatible groups.

 

I would hope that someone will have the backbone to test the constitutionality of some of this.

Excellent post by Bluegrasscard. Regardless of the apparent popular belief, we aren't moving in a good positive direction.

 

:thumb: I agree on both parts.

 

Why reward those that are a major cause of the collapse, and penalize those that are just investing capital?

Why reward those that are a major cause of the collapse, and penalize those that are just investing capital?

Because a strong middle class is more important to maintain than growing the wealth gap.

 

A large and vibrant middleclass provides a much bigger consumer base than a large poor and small rich population. A rich person in spite of the amount he/she spends on items only needs so many cars washing machines dishes and clothes and so on. Having more people with the means to make purchases is better for the overall economy than just a few people having a lot of money.

 

Additionally the UAW only plays one factor in the auto problem, it just so happens that this factor becomes "the" issue due to the political nature of unions.

Because a strong middle class is more important to maintain than growing the wealth gap.

 

I understand the logic here, but I don't believe in the shifting world economy that we can continue to pay labor more than a large percentage of professionals. I believe we have came to a point where concessions have to be made or we let the industry die and go elsewhere.

 

A large and vibrant middleclass provides a much bigger consumer base than a large poor and small rich population. A rich person in spite of the amount he/she spends on items only needs so many cars washing machines dishes and clothes and so on. Having more people with the means to make purchases is better for the overall economy than just a few people having a lot of money.

 

I agree totally. But we cant pay the workers so much that the company cannot compete or survive.

 

Additionally the UAW only plays one factor in the auto problem, it just so happens that this factor becomes "the" issue due to the political nature of unions.

 

I agree again and I did not mean to shift it that direction. Poor management decisions and growing outside markets play a huge role here. I didn't get into that aspect because they are not benefitting from the decision.

Because a strong middle class is more important to maintain than growing the wealth gap.

 

A large and vibrant middleclass provides a much bigger consumer base than a large poor and small rich population. A rich person in spite of the amount he/she spends on items only needs so many cars washing machines dishes and clothes and so on. Having more people with the means to make purchases is better for the overall economy than just a few people having a lot of money.

 

Additionally the UAW only plays one factor in the auto problem, it just so happens that this factor becomes "the" issue due to the political nature of unions.

 

Are you assuming that all of these you seek to raise to the middle class are willing to work for a living? Many won't work so what do we do about them?Or, are you suggesting that we all need to "prosper" fairly equally- contributor or noncontributor? That sounds like a bit of socialism.

Because a strong middle class is more important to maintain than growing the wealth gap.

 

A large and vibrant middleclass provides a much bigger consumer base than a large poor and small rich population. A rich person in spite of the amount he/she spends on items only needs so many cars washing machines dishes and clothes and so on. Having more people with the means to make purchases is better for the overall economy than just a few people having a lot of money.

 

Additionally the UAW only plays one factor in the auto problem, it just so happens that this factor becomes "the" issue due to the political nature of unions.

 

Are you assuming that all of these you seek to raise to the middle class are willing to work for a living? Many won't work so what do we do about them?Or, are you suggesting that we all need to "prosper" fairly equally- contributor or noncontributor? That sounds like a bit of socialism.

I slightly disagree, it appears to me that RRR's assumption is that the UAW is being raised to the level of the bond investors. The opposite is the reality. The investors are losing 90 cents on the dollar right off the bat. The only way GM survives is with benifit and wage reductions, regardless who runs the company. The UAW's 39% will be worth much less if many of it's members still have to be laidoff to maintain viability or if the Government prints more worthless money to hold the company up. Therefore, it's a lose-lose situation for both.

Some more example of this unfair deal:

 

http://wallstreetpit.com/4434-george-c-joseph-letter-from-a-dodge-dealer

 

On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them. My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars.

Because a strong middle class is more important to maintain than growing the wealth gap.

 

A large and vibrant middleclass provides a much bigger consumer base than a large poor and small rich population. A rich person in spite of the amount he/she spends on items only needs so many cars washing machines dishes and clothes and so on. Having more people with the means to make purchases is better for the overall economy than just a few people having a lot of money.

 

Additionally the UAW only plays one factor in the auto problem, it just so happens that this factor becomes "the" issue due to the political nature of unions.

 

How do you reconcile your "strong middle class" argument with Bluegrasscard's post about the Dodge dealer losing his family's operation? My guess is that man is middle class as probably most of his 50 employees who will lose their jobs are. This scenario is being repeated all over the country.

As most of us know by now the administration just sweeps things like this under the rug... What we do not know won't hurt?? IMO the solution is to not buy their cars, think we can get the public to participate?

Of course. Just like a child kidnapped by a child molester agrees to be tortured to death. Surely, you realize that there is a bit of governmental duress involved here.

 

Also, the company does not speak for its legitimate creditors- the screwed bondholders- who loaned money to the company and purchased those corporate bonds.

 

Any you find no problem here? George Orwell may well have been a prophet who merely used the wrong year for the title of his book.

 

Your reference to Orwell's book "1984" is accurate, but I originally thought of "The Animal Farm" when I read this thread.

The bondholders turned down the offer of stock for their bonds. GM is headed for Chapter 11.

The bondholders turned down the offer of stock for their bonds. GM is headed for Chapter 11.

 

So now we get to be even more annoyed that the government even gave them any money to begin with, a waste of money from the get-go.

As most of us know by now the administration just sweeps things like this under the rug... What we do not know won't hurt?? IMO the solution is to not buy their cars, think we can get the public to participate?

 

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss ...

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss ...

 

Some of us never expected anything less. Hoped for it but didn't expect it.

It keeps getting better:

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Furor-grows-over-partisan-car-dealer-closings-46261447.html

 

White House car czar Steven Rattner is married to Maureen White, the former national finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee. And let's not forget that before Rattner became a Wall Street mover and shaker, he was a New York Times reporter.