Republicans Squeal Like Pigs Over GM Restructuring
By Susie Madrak Saturday May 23, 2009 3:00pmThe Congressional GOPers (Party of Corporate Pork) are so, so upset when the wrong people are on the losing end in government bailouts. See if you can spot the delicious irony!
Dozens of lawmakers are challenging the authority of President Obama's auto task force, saying its swift restructuring of General Motors and Chrysler is unjust to investors, dealers and others.
In a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner yesterday, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.) said the auto task force is waging a "war on capital" by favoring the United Auto Workers, who are being offered a 39 percent equity stake in the new GM, over bondholders, many of them small investors and retirees, who are being offered 10 percent.
"Choosing sides between equal classes of creditors sets a terrible precedent -- one that could cause serious long term challenges to the financing marketplace by eroding investor confidence at the worst time in our recessionary period," Hensarling wrote in a letter signed by 20 other House members.
Yes, I know there's more to the story. I know Chrysler promised there would be no job losses or closings (which I put right up there with "the check is in the mail). But the absolute cojones of the Republicans, to complain about a protected class - well, I can't let that go without comment.
Login or Register to post comments.
And of course, the Hensarlings, Pences, Cantors, etc. haven't said diddly about all the workers losing their jobs, their homes, their pensions, and their healthcare. McCotter said it best: these Rethuglican sociopaths have "selective sympathy."
He just happens to selectively sympathize with the auto workers in his district. Otherwise, he's just a garden variety Republican.
The thing is, a lot of the workers jobs will be restructured to Brazil.
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?CategoryId=12...
Or China.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/05/11/will-g...
Opens up with:
Then it never addresses what the problems are, or how it is that they'd be solved by moving to Brazil. And it appears that this is about expanding production in Brazil to meet the needs of the growing Brazilian/South American market:
That can't be growth in the US/North American market.
The Republicans see that as good, its Globalization.
But American workers having a stake in the company they have sacrificed to save? Socialist!
Hey, Democrats love them some globalism too.
Hell, Obama wants us all to be "Global Citizens."
Being a citizen of the world is being true to our own stated values. It means being a partner with other nations, not a dictator nation.
Globalization is corporate profits from sending jobs overseas to nations without child labor laws and lower standards of safety.
Globalization is a way to avoid the taxation that supports the nation whose laws protect the very corporations that break them.
It's a legitimate grip, as Obama & Geithner set a precedent by saving bond and shareholders of AIG, Goldman, etc.
Well, Goldman as Obama's largest campaign contributor, so why shouldn't Obama favor their bondholders over GM's.
A: Bush and Paulson
Is your memory that short?
ok? Wasn't Obama gonna "change" Warshington?
Seeing that this affects that big chunk of the auto industry that's located in your country. I don't see you offering any solutions to the situation- nor do I see the tax money coming out of your wallet.
Last I heard BILLIONS were coming out of my tax wallet. Perhaps you should catch some real world news once in awhile instead of just Americanized. You might learn something. And Obama's wonderful solution of slash and burning jobs and setting up rules and regs is an awesome idea, that unfortunately he didn't see necessary for Wall Street or the banks that contributed so much to his political coffers.
Oh, yeah, I'll match my trillions to your billions any day.
You keep making the mistaken assumption that we're all so parochial.
You know, last weekend you started going off on the separation of church and state in this country, but when I asked you about the "Notwithstanding" clause of the Canadian Charter of Freedoms and Rights, I got absolutely no answer back from you. And you've been equally evasive when questioned about your Governor General- you know, the representative of your unelected head of state- proroguing your minority-led Parliament until the majority cracked.
In short: Piss off.
Some of us have lived close enough to the border of your country our whole lives. Some of us even have many generations of Canadians in our family trees. I'm guilty in both cases.
..favors some at the expense of others.
The precedent here provides for the workers who have already made concessions to keep these companies afloat.
I think that much of the complaint deals with senior debt not being satisfied in full before subordinated debt is dealt with. And I don't have the complete story, but it's looking like UAW instruments were junior to other debt.
But, since the government has made its own infusion of capital into Chrysler, one could say that the government should have a say on how the stakeholders are dealt with, at least to the extent of the government infusion.
But I read stuff like "At Chrysler, the UAW agreed to take 55 percent of the company's stock in exchange for roughly $6 billion of the $10.6 billion that Chrysler owes its retiree health care trust" and I say, it's time to end the BS and institute single payer national health care, and then the UAW need not worry about the retiree health care trust.
In other words, what are we really bailing out? A medical system that costs 16% of GDP when other countries have systems that cost 11% of GDP and cover everyone? We all need a bailout, which comes in the form of a health care system that costs no more than 11% of GDP, covers everyone, and delivers a level of care commensurate with the level of care in Europe, Canada, and Japan.
I'm incredibly weary of the R's blathering about 'capital' is if it were some magical elixir with world saving properties.
I really think they completely lost their minds during the dot.com era, and what we've seen the past 10 years is their loony inability to understand that -- essentially -- 90% of that was smoke and mirrors. Sure, some things were created and others invented and others renewed, but a whole lot of that was in the low-wage service sector.
These R's think 'capital' is the solution to everything.
If that's the case, then why are so many office parks in my region emptying?
'Capital' without labor is useless and has zero value.
It's not complicated.
You'd think these idiots could figure out something as simple as the fact that simply because you have a factory does not 'create wealth' if you don't have qualified employees who are well enough compensated to show up and do good work.
Idiocy.
Login or Register to post comments.