# Government behind GM



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Did yo see what happened to the stock market today when Obama announced the government was behind our warranties now? I may have purchased my last GM vehicle. I sure would not leave any stock in the company. Talk about the kiss of death.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Damn, and we were close to pulling the trigger on this baby.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

no problem, soon Obama will be "running" all the major US corps and setting executive pay and union pay and benes and..and....and...taxing your 401K an extraordinary amount....Obama is not the President, not even a dictator....he is the self proclaimed EMPEROR!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

pretty scary people with no business experience running all the major banks, and now the automobile business.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

g/o said:


> pretty scary people with no business experience running all the major banks, and now the automobile business.


Sure thing! Look at how the "experienced" people did.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

What else is Obama going to take over?


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

> I may have purchased my last GM vehicle.


Glad to see I'm not the only one drawing a hard line with GM. I trade trucks every 3 years and almost went back to Ford last year.

After the way GM has beat a path to DC to ask for money I will not make that mistake again.

Looking at this from Ford's perspective, what a way to reward a company for having the most efficient management team.................give lots of money to both of your competitors !


----------



## szm69 (Apr 28, 2006)

...


----------



## goodkarmarising (Feb 8, 2008)

x


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> If they made a car that was halfway reliable I would buy it,


I disagree I've been driving chevy pickups for years, I currently own 3. I have an 89 with over 500k on it a 2001 with 260k and a 2005 with 100k. Other than fuel pumps, I've had virtually no problems what so ever. all have original motors and transmissions.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

I agree with g/o. American cars nowadays are quite good and can hold their own against the imports. The problem is, however, the stigma that they earned through prior years of selling junk. It will take a long time for domestic auto makers to shake that reputation.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Robert A. Langager said:


> g/o said:
> 
> 
> > pretty scary people with no business experience running all the major banks, and now the automobile business.
> ...


You have a point Robert, but I think the unions are even more to blame. I was listening to talk radio the other day and a fellow who had worked in Detroit for 11 years called in. I think his retirement was nearly 90 percent of his original salary, and he had been retired 22 years. Another called in and said his brother in law had been laid off for six years. His factory had moved 300 miles and the unions have it set up so if his factory moved more than 200 miles he didn't have to move with it, but could withdraw 95 percent of his salary. I worked for 36 years and get 56.5 percent of my salary minus 10 percent for survivor benefits and pay taxes on all of it. I thought that was good. I still do. The retirement system for current federal employees is nearly worthless. Federal employment went down every year since I started in 1971. If I was starting over I certainly would not celebrate getting a federal job. Of course you would have to be a female, minority, wounded, gay, veteran to get a job today.


----------



## jgat (Oct 27, 2006)

What scares me is that the government is forcing the U.S. auto industry to produce "green autos." People aren't buying them because we don't want to drive them. I believe that is the real underlying problem with why the U.S. car companies are in the shape that they are.


----------



## goodkarmarising (Feb 8, 2008)

x


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> Robert A. Langager said:
> 
> 
> > g/o said:
> ...


So what about the car execs that agreed to these terms?


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

goodkarmarising said:


> > If I was starting over I certainly would not celebrate getting a federal job. Of course you would have to be a female, minority, wounded, gay, veteran to get a job today.
> 
> 
> Since I'm none of the above, guess that makes me the exception to be a federal employee and our retirement is a lot better than a lot of other companies out there. The retirement system isn't nearly worthless, just have to know how to work the system, like a lot of other things. Going from being an otr trucker to working 40 hours a week with weekends off and getting paid a lot better, working for the federal goverment is indeed something to celebrate. And I disagree, if I was given a new domestic car, point being a car, not talking their suv's or trucks, I would drive it straight to a toyota dealer and trade it in on a toyota.


The Thrift Savings plan is one of the best funds out there and is for Feds only... It's not as good as Plainsman's pension, but it is still a great option for federal employees from what I've heard.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

The only salvation for GM is to file a chapter, not more bail out money. By going into a chapter 11 or 13 they can reorganize and come back stronger by ridding themselves of a bunch of debt. It will be interesting if they do, which Obama is indicating they should. They will be able to get rid of the union concessions which is killing them. The unions are democrat strong holds, will Obama and crew play politics or do what is necessary. If don't play politics then I will say he really is concerned, should be interesting.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Robert A. Langager said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > Robert A. Langager said:
> ...


 :beer:

That has been my stance from day one, who signed the deals? they are not unilateral. The union has screwed companies for a while now but they used to do some good.

If retirees have to give up their pensions the execs should have to pay back a proportionate amount. On the bright side it could lower their taxes.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> So what about the car execs that agreed to these terms?


I have more questions than answers about that. I would think they were very stupid to agree to those terms. However, what political pressure was put on them. When problems arise it appears to be traceable back to Washington to often. How did unions get so strong that they can push the car execs into agreements like this?



> The Thrift Savings plan is one of the best funds out there and is for Feds o


When I started in 1971 the federal government had the best retirement plan. By 1980 they were no longer in the top 500 of retirement plans. Then to save social security Reagan robbed our retirement fund and put it into social security. He then started the new federal retirement system. They match 6% of your salary. However, you have to save it, and to make it a decent retirement system you have to put it into the higher risk. I know I had a lot of money in it. They didn't match mine. I was looking at campers a couple weeks ago. Some were over $50,000. I should have bought one before Obama got in office because I lost enough to buy one of those. My fault, I have never been in the Army and I thought for the economy I would leave my money in and try to help. After loosing that much I had to pull out of the high risk while I still had some left. I have been retired 2.5 years and have not taken my money out yet. I leave it to try help, but I hope I don't loose it all.
You younger guys can recover, but how many of you are willing to risk your life savings to help the economy. I'm doing that now, and I hope it's not a mistake.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

I'm in a little over my head on this subject, and can barely match wits with most of the posters here on my good days, so please bare with me while I try to discuss another angle.

What Plainsman illustrated with his explanation of how the fed pension went from one of the best to not even on the list is just one other in a long line of examples that shows the fed govt doesn't know how to run *SQUAT*!

And now they're in the insurance and auto business?

Hope they're better at those than they were at the mortgage business.

As to the unions, wow, lots of angles there. Like TK mentioned, not only were there no guns at the heads of auto execs at contract time....I seriously doubt the company ever felt like anyone other than themselves were in total control.

We can't discuss all issues with unions here, as there are MANY! But I think one thing we forget is that those negotiated union wages that many think are too high are responsible in large part for the white collar salaries being what they are...not to mention the wages of countless non-union workers.

Although I am a union member, I am not very proud of my union and am most certainly not trying to defend any unions now. Unions in general have come to symbolize..to me, anyway..everything that is wrong with government. We've lost control of the union, as even the word "union" now has different meaning. Where it used to mean the collective group of brothers, the word union now refers to a money consuming machine that dictates to it's members what they can and can't do...and exactly how much of THEIR money they are going to take. They then use that money to help elect people like Mr. Obama.

I hope the UAW leadership has some tough questions to answer at their next meeting concerning that very thing. 

As far as union pensions, when weighing what's "fair" in that regard, you should know that over $6 per hour, of every hour that I work goes to my pension fund. That's *MUCH* more than 6%, and it's *MY MONEY*......not my employer's and not my union's.* MINE*. Money that I could otherwise use to buy a another house or a faster corvette (damn GM !).

I suspect the same is also true of the UAW auto workers.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Csquared, in the 70's GM had 45% of the market share and the imports had 7%. The unions went on strike and asked for many of the benefits that are killing them today. GM gave in because they didn't care they kept building junk and raised the prices. We had an oil crisis in the 70's and consumers wanted better mileage. GM started losing to the imports and have been doing it since then. The union concessions they made are killing them and they need to rid themselves of them and bankruptcy is the only way.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

How does that info relate to the yellow tractors they make here...with a union workforce? Or the green ones they make up the road a ways, but also with a union workforce?

Caterpillar has been no friend to unions, but their leadership has kept them profitable while minimizing lay-offs...with no bankruptcy or government bailouts necessary.

I realize we're comparing apples to oranges.......sort of, but blaming all of this on the unions is too simplistic.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

I believe that when the "sh*t hits the fan, whether its GM or The US government, there is no "one" group you can put the blame on. Unions, Exec's at GM and Dems and Republicans at state and federal levels all contributed to the cause. The problem is the rest of us have to pay for it.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Csquared, I'm not blaming the unions they got what they asked for and GM gave in. GM management felt that with 45% of the market share they had nothing to loose. It came back to bite them in the a$$, now the only way out is to get rid of the commitments they made in the 70's


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

I know, but contracts expire, and my response was only to point out the apparent disparity in management skills at the respective companies, because many companies of comparable structure have successfully negotiated with greedy unions....and still employ a union workforce.

GM's negotiating skills don't appear to be worthy of their current bonus' .....whatever they may be. :wink:


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Bowstring said:


> I believe that when the "sh*t hits the fan, whether its GM or The US government, there is no "one" group you can put the blame on. Unions, Exec's at GM and Dems and Republicans at state and federal levels all contributed to the cause. The problem is the rest of us have to pay for it.


amen to that :beer:

The unions around here don't even make their workers and employers follow the union rules and the union way. I know some people who joined the union a few years ago and they regret it, nothing changed, nothing safer, nothing better, so much for live better work union. The union cannot hold a candle to what we do in the non-union side, just like Caterpillar.

The main function of the union was fair pay and safety. Now with insurance costs, workmen's comp rates, and emr's that is a thing of the past. The way our schools have pushed kids away from the trades and towards tech and finance jobs the wages for workers have taken care of themselves too. The only advantage of the union is overtime after 8 hours and some of the double time policies, but then you have to give the union their kickback too. Horse a piece.


----------



## goodkarmarising (Feb 8, 2008)

x


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Plainsman wrote:


> I worked for 36 years and get 56.5 percent of my salary





> I know I had a lot of money in it. They didn't match mine.


goodkarmarising wrote:


> If you started in 1971 then you should be covered under the CSRS, not the FERS system


Thanks, I thought the above statements explained that, but many people not familiar with government perhaps didn't get it when I explained my benefits and that they didn't match the money I put in FERS.
Also, please understand that when you retire you depend on that money and can not simply ride it out like you could if your 40 years old and still working. Our money is still in the fund, but we are out of the game.


----------

