I guess republicans need to persevere on their quest to try to brainwash those who allow themselves to be influenced by Internet emails. They gave it a real big try during the primaries to no avail, with all kind of lies and made up stories about Obama. They failed miserably, but they do not give up on their quest to impose their thinking about anything and everything. To them, their ideals or rather radical thinking must be disseminated and inculcated on every American, so their party wins. It is winning and not country what moves these people. Definitely party over Nation; corporations over middle class; and control over self expression.
Now that the presidential election is over after being defeated by a better prepared Democratic party, with clear ideas and good intentions to change our precipitous course to the cliff where Bush/Cheney were taking us to, they are trying something else.... The "subtle" emails against the UAW. Don't get me wrong, I am not a union worker defender, but neither am I against them. I believe unions are good to protect the right of the employees who work hard and keep our economy afloat. They are not that good if their only intention is to bankrupt the company. And this is not the case of the UAW. Yes, they have a higher payroll than the foreign auto industry in the south, but it is justified for many reasons, which are mainly associated to the cost-production ratio.
I received today an email which was forwarded to me by someone who had it forwarded to him, who got it from another forward, etc. etc. You know how this cancer spreads.... This email blames the UAW solely for the financial crisis of General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford. It talks about the salaries the UAW receive versus the ones paid to the foreign car companies who build in the "Other United States", the South (with a couple of exceptions, thank God). It wants these Big Three to declare bankruptcy under chapter 11 and to get rid of the union contracts. In other words, whoever started the ball rolling wants the UAW to be busted, like president Reagan did with the Control Tower workers. And we all know where the airline industry is now after that "wonderful" personal achievement plus his other one of "Deregulation" that brought Panam down like other many historical airlines in this country.
Yes! Let's all wish for an American car industry to go bankrupt to add three more million people to the unemployment line. Because this "wished" bankruptcy not only includes 180,681 union workers, but also retired members (419,621) and surviving spouses (120,723), and about 2.3 million people related to the car industry (dealerships, parts manufacturing, raw material industries and other).
But these republicans don't care about creating a bigger hole in our economy. As a matter of fact, the more difficult we could make it for Obama, the better chances they might have four years from now. So they think. How naive!
A bankruptcy by these three car makers with the sole purpose to bust the UAW union only shows that for these extremists their only objective is to
strangle even more the middle class in America. It is a shame that their extreme ideals are above their pride for the prosperity of our country. Without a large and comfortable middle class no nation can advance and prosper. Just take a look at our 50s and 60s, even 70s. After that, with the exception of eight of the best economical years we ever had during Bill Clinton, the middle class has been gradually shrinking to what it is today.
How about blaming the big chiefs? The three CEOs combined made more than $110 millions in 2007, not counting stock options and other benefits.
At an average cost of a typical car, this represents a little bit more than 2 cars per 100 built to offset their obscene salaries every year. We are only mentioning the three top honchos. Don't forget the COOs, the Vice presidents and other top executives. And for your information, there were 18 million cars built by GM, Chrysler, and Ford together in 2007. That 2% mentioned before means that it took 360,000 cars to even the salaries paid to those CEOs, or what sounds even more astounding, they needed to build about 1000 cars per day to afford the payroll of these three CEOs !
On the other hand, the cost ratio between labor and average car sale price was in the same year 8.4% Not bad considering that labor in most other industries, manufacturing, services, wholesale and retail business is way higher than that.
Since we all have a message to convey through the Internet, here is mine:
Don't be impressed by emails than sound very patriotic. Most of the times they are not. They are subtle messages to brainwash us in order for these brain suckers to obtain their goal, which is "Party Fist, Country Second". Research the Internet, get all the input you need to understand what they are telling you and why. Get the facts. All of them, not just one side. Analyze and react appropriately, not "sheeply".
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Friday, December 5, 2008
I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT
It's been a little bit over a month since I don't write. My impulse got broken right after Obama won the election. I had been practically exhausting myself day after day during the presidential campaign, and let's face it...I get inspired when I have to attack to defend the true and to side with the one who is right. I really had a great momentum going taking apart that stupid hick from Alaska and that washed out senator from Arizona who made the wrong choice when he picked Queen Crab as his running mate. Even though, and in spite of both looking like a vaudeville couple trying to make it in the 21st century, the country gave them over 45% of their votes. That is an incredible high percentage in their favor, which tells me we still have a long way to go to get us also in the 21st century. We still have a very strong division in this country. It looks like the South (most of it) still lives under the influence of Tara and does not accept maturing, and does not accept the facts of the times we live in.
I am back for the delight of my readers (maybe 3?) and why should I change my style when the only way I can express myself is by using sarcasm and sometimes strong personal opinions?
What brought me back? Something that is happening and I cannot understand. It's about the three major auto companies that, like all big companies in the USA were given total and complete freedom to be greedy, irresponsible, and arrogant, just as the eight years of the Bush administration. However, no matter how bad they ran their businesses,
their debacle and possible bankruptcy filing could lead to a worse situation to their workers, families, suppliers, and related industries. It could topple a vast sector of the USA industry with catastrophic consequences. What would our government do when this bleak picture would be the one to face, instead of finding a quick solution now for these three automakers? Maybe our politicians are so blurred by their own ego
and maybe their complicated minds do not allow them to think straight and see forward, but it is clear that they are playing a legal game of words and the solution right in front of their noses escape them.
Yes, we acted irresponsibly when we listened to Henry M. Paulson and Ben Bernanke to give out 700 billion dollars or more, to bail out the glorified pawn shops that went under, in spite of their greed, or perhaps because of it.
AIG, Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and maybe others which I can't think of right this moment, acted irresponsibly and millions of Americans suffered the consequences for their lack of scruples and total disregard for their clients and borrowers.
So what does our government does? They, without conditions and any kind of assurances of these financial institutions to correct themselves in their new existence, released the sum of 700 billion dollars to keep them afloat. No special finance panel to interrogate them, no questions asked. 700 billion dollars of new made money, or perhaps from the Federal Reserve, which probably has more money than China. I know, I may be exaggerating to make my point.
And this is what I don't understand...Why are we making it so difficult for these three auto companies to get only 5% of what the financial institutions thieves got with no strings attached?
No matter how many possible reasons I try to find to answer my own question, I can't find any logical one. Before I give you my own illogical explanation of our government attitude on this case, I would like to give a brief background of what these companies mean to America and our economy.
I am back for the delight of my readers (maybe 3?) and why should I change my style when the only way I can express myself is by using sarcasm and sometimes strong personal opinions?
What brought me back? Something that is happening and I cannot understand. It's about the three major auto companies that, like all big companies in the USA were given total and complete freedom to be greedy, irresponsible, and arrogant, just as the eight years of the Bush administration. However, no matter how bad they ran their businesses,
their debacle and possible bankruptcy filing could lead to a worse situation to their workers, families, suppliers, and related industries. It could topple a vast sector of the USA industry with catastrophic consequences. What would our government do when this bleak picture would be the one to face, instead of finding a quick solution now for these three automakers? Maybe our politicians are so blurred by their own ego
and maybe their complicated minds do not allow them to think straight and see forward, but it is clear that they are playing a legal game of words and the solution right in front of their noses escape them.
Yes, we acted irresponsibly when we listened to Henry M. Paulson and Ben Bernanke to give out 700 billion dollars or more, to bail out the glorified pawn shops that went under, in spite of their greed, or perhaps because of it.
AIG, Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and maybe others which I can't think of right this moment, acted irresponsibly and millions of Americans suffered the consequences for their lack of scruples and total disregard for their clients and borrowers.
So what does our government does? They, without conditions and any kind of assurances of these financial institutions to correct themselves in their new existence, released the sum of 700 billion dollars to keep them afloat. No special finance panel to interrogate them, no questions asked. 700 billion dollars of new made money, or perhaps from the Federal Reserve, which probably has more money than China. I know, I may be exaggerating to make my point.
And this is what I don't understand...Why are we making it so difficult for these three auto companies to get only 5% of what the financial institutions thieves got with no strings attached?
No matter how many possible reasons I try to find to answer my own question, I can't find any logical one. Before I give you my own illogical explanation of our government attitude on this case, I would like to give a brief background of what these companies mean to America and our economy.
General Motors. Was founded in 1908, a hundred years ago! In 1942, during WWII, GM gave its entire production, 100% to the American troops and its allies. They provided over 12 billion dollars in materials, which included airplanes, tanks and other equipment, all for FREE!
That was in 1942, which translated into 2008 it could be the equivalent of 40 billions? Maybe more? Granted that GM screwed up big, and when I say BIG I mean, like building Hummers with 15 mpg consumption and any of the Savana series, good for a family of 12 but used for single moms taking their only child to kindergarten, devouring gas like a dinosaur feeding on other creatures or on gigantic prehistoric flora; or on Chevy Corvettes with an engine big enough to compete with a 747 on any airport runway, for highways that allow a maximum speed of 70 miles per hour only.
In 2007, GM ranked number 3 in the Fortune 500 list, but rankings mean nothing nowadays in the business world when you lose money. They lost in 2007 over 2 billion dollars. They are probably going to show a 2008 loss of 4 billions, and they are now asking for $18B, and not as a handout but as a loan. With 266,000 employees (maybe less by the time I finish this blog) and their families at the risk of joining the unemployment line to cause an even bigger problem to our government,
it would be a no-brainer to lend them those 18 billions...with conditions, of course, such as...no more Hummers, unless they want to open an assembly shop in the Sahara desert and its paid by the Saudis...no more Savana mastodonts; 50% reduction in the production of SUVs, and by the way imposing a luxury tax to be used by states education funding purposes, for owning these gas guzzlers; and above all with the imperative requirement to switch their operation to alternate energy cars, such as nitrogen, or fuel cell vehicles, or any other invention which will allow us not to be dependant on other countries' oil.
But if we were to disregard all of the above, should the government consider this bailout of $18 billions like a payback for 1942 GM $12 billions contribution to win a war? The answer is YES. It may not sound logical, stripped down of all the conditions that should be attached as mentioned before, but it is the only one and more decent I can think of, plus it keeps millions of people working. That in itself is more than conclusive.
Chrysler. Founded in 1925. has now 129,000 employees under the ownership of Cerberus Capital Management, thus no longer a public company, but private. If I had to choose among the three, I would say let Chrysler go under. Let them file for bankruptcy. Why should Cerberus be different than any other private company? However, my concern is that
we are looking again at the bigger problem, the unemployment one and the suffering of innocent families to no fault of their own. Chrysler is asking for $9B, a drop in the bucket compare to what we freely gave to the financial institutions thieves. Chrysler also asked for a loan in 1979 when Lee Iacocca, and they paid it back. It was however a public company, not a private one, and that is where the thin line comes to play.
I really, honestly don't have an answer. It could go either way, but the fact that it is a loan and it might save many workers jobs...you know where I may be leaning to. Now if they get the money they should be totally under legal scrutiny of the ones who will loan it to them, the US government. No big cars, new energy saving automobiles, salary caps for top executives and any bonuses for CEO and the like to be used to repay the loan faster. Once they have paid back then they are on their own with the knowledge that next time they screw up they are out for good.
Ford. This company should be to the USA like the TajMahal is for India, or the Segovia Roman Aqueduct in Spain. It is history. it was founded in 1903. it was the first car company in the USA and fifth oldest in the world after Peugeot in France (1882), Renault (France 1899), Fiat (Italy 1899).
and the now defunct Daimler of England, founded in 1896 and gone in 1960. Ford Motor Company is an American relic and we should not allow it to disappear like we did with Pan American World Airways, under another Bush in 1991. It seems to me that the Bushes don't care much about real history and traditions, no matter how religious they think they are.
Ford is only asking for $7 billions to save their asses (sorry, I was trying to be clean as a whistle on this blog, but it makes my point) and to protect their 129,000 employees and families. It is an insignificant amount considering that we already screwed up when Panam, the best and most recognizable American product in the world airline industry, or perhaps outside the industry too, was abandoned and allowed to die under the republicans regime, while Panam airplanes had helped "Bush41" conduct his war in the Gulf in 1990/1991 by providing airplanes, war material transportation, supplies at their own expense and sacrificing their business for the country. Apparently the Bushes don't care much about this type of patriotism and their retribution is to abandon their friends and collaborators, at the expense of the American people.
All this said, and taking into consideration that a loan must have strings attached, Ford should be given the same type of conditions than the other two culprits and the bailout is a must, without any hesitation.
I purposely wanted to leave for the end of this article something that bothers me and most Americans, which is the salary that these auto makers CEOs and Chairmen and other top executives make. It is obscene and if any loans are to be given to these greedy bastards (here I go again)
it should require that their salaries be capped to a more reasonable and comparable level with other top business leaders. These are new times, new economy (or lack of it for now), and new government. Please, democrats don't let the few extreme right wing republicans convince you that giving these loans will create a worse economical crisis. They have their own agenda for 2012 and nothing would make them happier than leaving Obama with the heavy burden of having sunk Ford and the car industry, which is also a pillar for the USA in other industries, and in generating millions of jobs. A real heavy recession might be impossible to recover in four years and they will blame the democrats and Obama for not being successful in delivering the promises of renovation and health care as a right, affordable education, stem cell research and development, and millions of jobs creations with new and existing infrastructure. I may be a little paranoid, but why are these republicans (the majority of them) against this rescue plan or bailout, or whatever we want to call it? I honestly do not understand it, unless my paranoid mind is unfortunately right.
That was in 1942, which translated into 2008 it could be the equivalent of 40 billions? Maybe more? Granted that GM screwed up big, and when I say BIG I mean, like building Hummers with 15 mpg consumption and any of the Savana series, good for a family of 12 but used for single moms taking their only child to kindergarten, devouring gas like a dinosaur feeding on other creatures or on gigantic prehistoric flora; or on Chevy Corvettes with an engine big enough to compete with a 747 on any airport runway, for highways that allow a maximum speed of 70 miles per hour only.
In 2007, GM ranked number 3 in the Fortune 500 list, but rankings mean nothing nowadays in the business world when you lose money. They lost in 2007 over 2 billion dollars. They are probably going to show a 2008 loss of 4 billions, and they are now asking for $18B, and not as a handout but as a loan. With 266,000 employees (maybe less by the time I finish this blog) and their families at the risk of joining the unemployment line to cause an even bigger problem to our government,
it would be a no-brainer to lend them those 18 billions...with conditions, of course, such as...no more Hummers, unless they want to open an assembly shop in the Sahara desert and its paid by the Saudis...no more Savana mastodonts; 50% reduction in the production of SUVs, and by the way imposing a luxury tax to be used by states education funding purposes, for owning these gas guzzlers; and above all with the imperative requirement to switch their operation to alternate energy cars, such as nitrogen, or fuel cell vehicles, or any other invention which will allow us not to be dependant on other countries' oil.
But if we were to disregard all of the above, should the government consider this bailout of $18 billions like a payback for 1942 GM $12 billions contribution to win a war? The answer is YES. It may not sound logical, stripped down of all the conditions that should be attached as mentioned before, but it is the only one and more decent I can think of, plus it keeps millions of people working. That in itself is more than conclusive.
Chrysler. Founded in 1925. has now 129,000 employees under the ownership of Cerberus Capital Management, thus no longer a public company, but private. If I had to choose among the three, I would say let Chrysler go under. Let them file for bankruptcy. Why should Cerberus be different than any other private company? However, my concern is that
we are looking again at the bigger problem, the unemployment one and the suffering of innocent families to no fault of their own. Chrysler is asking for $9B, a drop in the bucket compare to what we freely gave to the financial institutions thieves. Chrysler also asked for a loan in 1979 when Lee Iacocca, and they paid it back. It was however a public company, not a private one, and that is where the thin line comes to play.
I really, honestly don't have an answer. It could go either way, but the fact that it is a loan and it might save many workers jobs...you know where I may be leaning to. Now if they get the money they should be totally under legal scrutiny of the ones who will loan it to them, the US government. No big cars, new energy saving automobiles, salary caps for top executives and any bonuses for CEO and the like to be used to repay the loan faster. Once they have paid back then they are on their own with the knowledge that next time they screw up they are out for good.
Ford. This company should be to the USA like the TajMahal is for India, or the Segovia Roman Aqueduct in Spain. It is history. it was founded in 1903. it was the first car company in the USA and fifth oldest in the world after Peugeot in France (1882), Renault (France 1899), Fiat (Italy 1899).
and the now defunct Daimler of England, founded in 1896 and gone in 1960. Ford Motor Company is an American relic and we should not allow it to disappear like we did with Pan American World Airways, under another Bush in 1991. It seems to me that the Bushes don't care much about real history and traditions, no matter how religious they think they are.
Ford is only asking for $7 billions to save their asses (sorry, I was trying to be clean as a whistle on this blog, but it makes my point) and to protect their 129,000 employees and families. It is an insignificant amount considering that we already screwed up when Panam, the best and most recognizable American product in the world airline industry, or perhaps outside the industry too, was abandoned and allowed to die under the republicans regime, while Panam airplanes had helped "Bush41" conduct his war in the Gulf in 1990/1991 by providing airplanes, war material transportation, supplies at their own expense and sacrificing their business for the country. Apparently the Bushes don't care much about this type of patriotism and their retribution is to abandon their friends and collaborators, at the expense of the American people.
All this said, and taking into consideration that a loan must have strings attached, Ford should be given the same type of conditions than the other two culprits and the bailout is a must, without any hesitation.
I purposely wanted to leave for the end of this article something that bothers me and most Americans, which is the salary that these auto makers CEOs and Chairmen and other top executives make. It is obscene and if any loans are to be given to these greedy bastards (here I go again)
it should require that their salaries be capped to a more reasonable and comparable level with other top business leaders. These are new times, new economy (or lack of it for now), and new government. Please, democrats don't let the few extreme right wing republicans convince you that giving these loans will create a worse economical crisis. They have their own agenda for 2012 and nothing would make them happier than leaving Obama with the heavy burden of having sunk Ford and the car industry, which is also a pillar for the USA in other industries, and in generating millions of jobs. A real heavy recession might be impossible to recover in four years and they will blame the democrats and Obama for not being successful in delivering the promises of renovation and health care as a right, affordable education, stem cell research and development, and millions of jobs creations with new and existing infrastructure. I may be a little paranoid, but why are these republicans (the majority of them) against this rescue plan or bailout, or whatever we want to call it? I honestly do not understand it, unless my paranoid mind is unfortunately right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
