Finally, something I can agree with Obama on!
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 50

Thread: Finally, something I can agree with Obama on!

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650

    Finally, something I can agree with Obama on!

    With the exception of his comments on the housing market, I agree with him here.


    Obama: Auto bosses should adapt or go - Yahoo! News

    CHICAGO — President-elect Barack Obama fired a warning shot today at the top executives of the Big Three auto companies, saying that they should either agree to drastic reforms or be sacked.

    “If this management team that’s currently in place doesn’t understand the urgency of the situation and is not willing to make the tough choices and adapt to these new circumstances, then they should go,” Obama said at a brief Sunday afternoon news conference here.

    In similarly plain terms, he portrayed the Bush administration as dragging its feet on the home mortgage crisis, and pledged that he would act immediately upon being sworn in next month.

    “We have not seen the kind of aggressive steps in the housing market [from the administration] to stem foreclosures that I would like to see,” he said.

    Without going into details, he said his transition team had had conversations with Bush officials on the mortgage issue and is preparing plans.

    “If it is not done during the transition it will be done by me,” he promised.

    But Obama tempered his language toward Detroit and the White House with notes of caution and patience.

    “If on the other hand they are willing, able and show themselves committed to making those important changes then that raises a different situation,” he said of the auto company executives.

    “I think the administration understands the severity of the problem,” Obama said of President Bush, offering a more generous assessment than he'd made during the campaign. “I think they want to do the right thing.”

    Obama, who warned during an appearance on Meet the Press earlier today that the economic news "is going to get worse before [it] gets better," expounded at length upon the jobs and economic growth package he began to outline in his Saturday radio address.

    Citing his plans to spend money on energy efficiency, school construction, broadband and medical information technology, he explained why he was proposing infrastructure investment beyond the typical fare of roads and bridges.

    Mixing job growth and technology upgrades, he said, was aimed at getting people back to work now and benefiting them again down the line.

    “All of these things are designed to have long-term payoffs for taxpayers, not just for individual businesses,” Obama said.

    Obama spoke for just under 20 minutes, taking three questions from reporters.

    The purpose of the session was to officially announce that retired Army Gen. Eric Shinseki would serve as secretary of veterans affairs in the new administration.

    Obama, wearing an American flag lapel pin and standing before eight flags, used the occasion to mark the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, vowing to honor today’s veterans in the same fashion as those who fought in World War II.

    “We owe it to all our veterans to honor them as we honored our Greatest Generation – not just with words, but with deeds.”

    Shinseki, a combat-wounded Vietnam veteran and former chief of staff of the Army who famously clashed with the Pentagon’s civilian leadership over Iraq war policy, also singled out the unique needs of those who have served there and in Afghanistan.

    “They deserve a smooth, error-free, no-fail benefit-assured transition into our ranks of veterans,” Shinseki said. “That is our responsibility, not theirs.”
    Last edited by tattedupboy; 12-07-2008 at 07:32 PM.
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Battle Creek Mi
    Posts
    1,853
    If the Democrats do not give them the bail our they will loose the support of the AFLCIO and that is what helped get him there.

  4. #3
    boyzoi Guest
    if the presidents of the big 3 need to go, so do Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, etc as well as the president of the union. imho......

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    1,225
    heck get rid of the union!!! Here in AL we have a Honda plant, Mercedes, and Hyundai plant. There are always people in line to get these jobs. No shortage of workers whatsoever. And guess what??? If you talk to the union, they fire you!! And guess what else?? These companies actually make money!! Who would of thunk it???

  6. #5
    good article tatt. Thanks for posting it. i agree with you.

  7. #6
    gpbarth Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Glockster20 View Post
    heck get rid of the union!!! Here in AL we have a Honda plant, Mercedes, and Hyundai plant. There are always people in line to get these jobs. No shortage of workers whatsoever. And guess what??? If you talk to the union, they fire you!! And guess what else?? These companies actually make money!! Who would of thunk it???
    And those workers are very happy with the pay they're making, too. The unions claim to fight for the "middle class," but they want all of their workers to get paid exorbitant salaries for doing even menial tasks. Union wages, when bennies are figured in, make about $70 per hour. What? For welding a part on every bumper? For operating a robot? The unions want most of the profits the companies make, because "without them the companies wouldn't make any money." Weird thinking, eh?

    I worked 24 years for Motorola, a non-union company, and every few years the unions would try to get in. They were always voted out by the employees. I worked my way up from technician to network engineer, and ended up making $76K per year, which I never had any problems with. And I was salaried, which meant I worked a lot of OT with no extra compensation.

    Unions? What unions? We don' got no unions! We don' need no steenkin' unions!
    Last edited by gpbarth; 12-10-2008 at 07:24 PM.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,437
    It doesn't matter if the companies agree to "drastic reforms" or not - they shouldn't be bailed out, regardless of the short-term consequences. We shouldn't have bailed out the banks, either.

    The concept of a bailout should simply not exist - it should be off the table as an option. This is going to happen again in another 30 years, just as it did a while back with Chrysler. Clearly, that was a learning experience - now they're back for more.

    So what, in a few more decades we'll be bailing out everyone from Chrysler (yeah, again!) to probably even foreign companies? Awesome.
    Silent Running, by Mike and the Mechanics

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Glockster20 View Post
    heck get rid of the union!!! Here in AL we have a Honda plant, Mercedes, and Hyundai plant. There are always people in line to get these jobs. No shortage of workers whatsoever. And guess what??? If you talk to the union, they fire you!! And guess what else?? These companies actually make money!! Who would of thunk it???
    Exactly as it should be. And, while these companies' profits are less than they have been in previous years, they're still profitable. They don't have to rely on taxpayer money to survive; all they have to do is cut back on production until things pick back up again, and they don't have to lay off anyone.
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Battle Creek Mi
    Posts
    1,853

    Exclamation

    A big part of this that is kicking me in the rear is the part about how the "Unions" must take concessions to help keep the companies afloat, how the lower wages of the other companies is a contributing factor to the high prices and lack luster sales...

    As a retiree and ex union member Unions are a very necessary evil, if you have ever worked someplace, any place that has a total A$$ for a supervisor, one that thinks they are Gods gift to the world, one that has a goal of making every ones life miserable, tries to make them work to standards that a robot could not adhere too, then your union is your only recourse. Believe me I have seen this situation many times in my 40+ year work history, you need someone on your side that can act as a counsel with upper management.

    It is a Fallacy that labor adds significant cost to the end price of anything in a union shop vs non union. Yes they have been posting the 2K figure for a union shop but what is the price for a non union shop 1.8K? Doubtful, in fact my guess would be closer to 8 hundred per, management has a real bad habit if inflating numbers like that when it is to their advantage, and I mean hugely inflating.

    Do this how long does it take to produce a car, start of production line to end of... X 1 -2 laborers per hour and that is the actual number, not the one they provide. Let me guess 8 hours to assemble a vehicle end to end. let's give them 28 bucks a hour, times two laborers per unit, even though ti is usually only one. But 8 hours two workers is 16 man hours to assemble, times 28 bucks equals less than 450 bucks even if you double it and call that the cost of benefits it is only just a bit underr a K still way bellow the cost stated.

    So how about the money the execs make, bonus's, perks, AKA free cars to drive, country club memberships, huge homes that are supplemented by the company, the list goes on and on... Now the fact that the average high end exec makes as much as 100 laborers make no that is not a typo and it can be significantly higher in the US has nothing to do with this I suppose, now times that by every one on the board, and the trickle down effect through managment.... Just like the fiscal institutions want to take a huge amount of the bail out and hand it to their execs as bonus's to keep them around is total BULL ****!

    The only way the Union should agree to any reductions is if the Execs do first, here is a novel idea, if the company prospers then the execs get a wage or bonus based upon the performance of that company and not the big salary's they get regardless now.

    So how many of you remember a number of years back when GM was negoating a contract, times were hard, the Union members took a huge concession, and the contract was signed... How was this greeted by management... they gave them self bonus's ranging in the Millions, a sum that exceeded the amount that the Union members had to give up.

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    The proof is in the pudding. The American companies, whose workers are represented by the UAW, are failing, while the foreign companies, while not doing as well as in years past, are still surviving. Why is that? I'll tell you why. The unions are placing such unreasonable demands upon the companies that the cost of doing business has become unsustainable.
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast