After the bail out, both GM and Chrysler has done slightly better than before. They have begun to see some improvements over their sale of cars, although the market is still dominated by Japanese and European cars. It might not have been the best decision to bail them out, but at least the employees managed to keep their jobs.

MEMO:

  From; Plutoligarchy front-man ‘du jour’ Barack Obama,

To; “....your huddled masses,”

Re; Fixing the “global” economic crisis.

THIS IS GOING TO HURT YOU A LOT MORE THAN IT HURTS US!

HokaHey!

Jackpine Savage

Thanks for your correction.

My questions now are:

1. Who builds the tanks for our army?
2. Who builds the troop carriers for our army?
3. Who builds the trucks that ferry goods across the Khyber pass (and more recently from Tajikistan/Turekmenistan)into Afghanistan?
4. Who builds the personal cars for Generals/Admirals of the US Forces?

Can you inform the readers of Truthdig on these questions?

dihey,

The auto companies don’t make armaments anymore, nor could they retool in a fashion even approaching what happened in the 40’s.

A few defense contractors exist under the GM umbrella, but that’s it.  The companies that make armaments won’t be allowed to go bankrupt, but that doesn’t include Ford, GM, or Chrysler.

Folks, stop and reflect one moment. Do you really believe that President Obama will ask Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi, Volkswagen, or BMW to build the tanks and other vehicles which his war in Afghanistan needs? The military production of the US automakers will never be allowed to go bankrupt and its workers will continue to be paid well.

Until recently I thought that only the war in Afghanistan/Pakistan might sink the Obama administration. I now add the GM/Chrysler muddle to the potential derailments.

Luckily for Obama, the Republicans have so little to offer Middle Class voters in Michigan and other important auto-producing states that these states are likely to remain in the Democratic column in 2010/2012. Likely, but not absolutely certainly especially if Obama demands that the UAW contracts are shredded while CEO’s walk off with multimillion dollar ‘contractual’ severance packages.

A potential third stumbling block is Obama’s abysmal subservience (I cannot think of a better word) to the Pentagon. Once again General Petraeus has become the administration’s spokesman. Did he check his recent statement in Congress that Israel might soon attack (bomb)Iran with his commander-in-chief? If he did, then that is the opinion of President Obama too. In that case, where is Mr. Obama’s statement that he will prevent such an attack with all means available to the US? If Petraeus did not consult with the President he must be fired for insubordination. Our history has a fine precedent for this: General D. McArthur vs. President Truman.

President Obama must rid the military of those officers who are beholden (by their swift promotions during the Bush years) to ex Vice Cheney and replace them with younger officers that are loyal to his international policy aims. Number one that must go is Petraeus, the perpetual scaremonger. Failure to do so will cost Obama dearly soon.

My observations suggest that Mr. Obama stubbornly continues to walk into the trap set for him by the neo-neocons and Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld leftovers in the military. It is probably already too late to extricate himself.

And why has “Don’t ask don’t tell” been kicked down the road? Apparently some “changes” are too toxic to promote. My conclusion: the military brass or the US Congress, or both do not really want DADT to be rescinded and Obama has caved in.

“There is clearly a double standard at work: Just a few days ago, Wall Street executives were hosted at the White House for a cheery photo op and reassurance that they will be getting hundreds of billions more in no-strings-attached bailout cash. Then this week, Obama demanded the firing of GM’s CEO, and said he may withhold the mere $30 billion or so that the automakers are requesting.”

Couldn’t agree with that more, the hypocrisy is amazing yet.  What a mess things have come to.

Now let’s make one thing clear.  Everything sent “Detroit’s” way has been in the form of a loan.  What’s gone Wall Street’s way has been a bailout/“investment”.

Looks like politics to me.  Obama picking on someone smaller than himself in order to look tough for The People.

And i think that it lacks a certain class to have the President firing the CEO’s of major corporations.

But (and this is a big but), Wagoner is a major part of the problem…disciple of Jack Welsh and his Quarterly Profits of Doom, shareholder value bullshit.  Wagoner’s not an industrialist or a car guy…for god’s sake, he approved the Aztek hitting the road.  He’s an MBA who got on the GM executive fast track.

Still, i don’t see the gov doing any better and predict bankruptcy.  Fiat is actually a far better fit for Chrysler than Daimler was, but keep in mind that Chrysler is owned by a private equity fund…if the gov needs to step in, then buy out the employees and let the shareholder’s hang.

The facet to watch is GMAC (now a bank holding company and therefore TARP eligible) because it’s 51% owned by Cerberus, the private equity group that owns Chrysler.

Finally, yesterday’s Detroit Free Press sums it up pretty well with the headline story from Ford’s point of view.  “Why are Ford execs smiling?”  Because they didn’t take any government money.

The New Reagan (David Sirota has it about right)

“I appeared on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC show last night to discuss the seeming double standard between the Obama administration’s treatment of car companies and Wall Street firms. You can watch it here.

There is clearly a double standard at work: Just a few days ago, Wall Street executives were hosted at the White House for a cheery photo op and reassurance that they will be getting hundreds of billions more in no-strings-attached bailout cash. Then this week, Obama demanded the firing of GM’s CEO, and said he may withhold the mere $30 billion or so that the automakers are requesting.

I’m not saying that automakers don’t deserve to be pushed around, nor am I saying even that GM’s CEO shouldn’t have been fired. What I am saying, however, is that there are two different standards at work here.”

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009031431/obamas-bailout-double-standard-and-revival-reaganism

There will be pressure on the five big banks that will result in four of the five ganging up on one bank to sacrifice it on the alter of public opinion.  Obama will soon move on that sacrificial bank to soothe public anger.  Which bank will it be:  Goldman, Bank of America, Citi, Morgan, or Wells Fargo.

“Today five US banks according to data in the just-released Federal Office of Comptroller of the Currency’s Quarterly Report on Bank Trading and Derivatives Activity, hold 96% of all US bank derivatives positions in terms of nominal values, and an eye-popping 81% of the total net credit risk exposure in event of default.

The five are, in declining order of importance: JPMorgan Chase which holds a staggering $88 trillion in derivatives (€66 trillion!). Morgan Chase is followed by Bank of America with $38 trillion in derivatives, and Citibank with $32 trillion. Number four in the derivatives sweepstakes is Goldman Sachs with a ‘mere’ $30 trillion in derivatives. Number five, the merged Wells Fargo-Wachovia Bank, drops dramatically in size to $5 trillion. Number six, Britain’s HSBC Bank USA has $3.7 trillion. “

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12953

Thanks, Dude.

I do believe that Obama is a mistake for the US. He appears clueless as to how to manage this economic disaster. He is moving from one problem to another but not proactively - he reacts to a problem which shows that his team is not considering all of the angles. Too bad really since the US had such high hopes for this young man. If we get out of this mess it will be by happenstance and not by design.

Without an auto industry the United States is just a rusted out hulk. The auto industry is a large part of the real economy. The finance oligarchs do not make real things. How are we going to build up railroads, farms, and heavy industries without the autos? Obama is pushing for a new feudalism. The goods of industrial production will become the expensive baubles of the very wealthy. Brazil could become more of an industrial nation than the United States.

Chrysler is being forced to merge with Fiat, which stands for Fix It Again, Tony.  I don’t get it.  Do you mean to tell me that Chrysler can’t make a small car on its own?  It’s easy.  You take a typical Chrysler and make it smaller.

Right out of the gate, this article exemplifies the major flaws in framing the discourse of this latest global psy-op propaganda attack (i.e. the economic crises, tax-funded bank-bailouts, insane bonuses to career criminals… etc… etc…)

First of all, none of the obviously criminal corporations should be allowed to keep their corporate charters or do business with or within the territory of the United States. But this is repeated over and over in public discourse but not the psy-op propaganda line. But what really has been bothering me with regards to the American automotive corporations being even considered for public funds to help them out is that these companies have chosen their paths, they chose to operate in conditions their research should have told them they would be wise not to operate under.

Ford, GM, Chrysler… None of these companies operates in the public interest. What would happen to America if GM or Ford simply shut down operations temporarily? The point is that they are irrelevant to the conversation about banks. Putting them togther in the same half-hour segment or using the same vocabulary such as “bailout” makes it seem like the automotive monopolies in this country somehow serve some public interest.

And, please, don’t tell me they provide thousands of jobs and it is in the public interest to shift tax money in any way, shape or form to them to preserve jobs, because that’s the most irrelevant point that is constantly parroted by media idiots.

Car companies are no different from any other manufacturer in the world. The product they manufacture is of no inherent way any different than any other manufactured product.

How many other manufacturers has the government ever bailed out? I don’t know, but I’ve never heard of such a thing. Since when did it become government’s responsibility or prerogative to shape public policy in the interests of big business? Since when did the government assume responsibility for managing the economy?

I understand commerce well enough, and I understand that the Congress is given express responsibility to managing the value of the currency as it sees fit.

I don’t understand where the government gets its authority to manage any aspect of the economy other than to collect taxes and tariffs and provide the forum in which the rules are hashed out and agreed upon by all involved and for all who must understand. Job creation is not the business of the government and neither is helping dying monopolies keep their tyranical empires. It just makes no sense to me…

Anyone still buying obama’s rhetoric?
  Even so, watch the growing criticism still removed, to a certain extent, from Obama himself- there is always a caveat or disclaimer supporting Obama despite the reality of his betrayal.
  How long do you think that will hold up?
What is to stop him if his supporters keep hoping against hope that in time he will prove to be the slogan they long for rather than the diappointment they dread?