Interesting issue.. would the Obama Administration remove/fire any GM Director or Officer that supports filing Bankruptcy??? Would the Obama Administration remove/fire any GM Director or Officer that votes for terminating the UAW CBA, Pensions, or Retiree Health Care Plans?

Kind of a "Saturday Night Massacre"--- Corporate Style.

April 6 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Corp. is speeding up preparations for a possible bankruptcy filing even as directors seek deeper savings this week to avoid that outcome, people familiar with the plans said.

The bankruptcy readiness focuses on forming a new company from GM’s best assets if necessary, said the people, who asked not to be named because the matter is private. The cost-cut discussions center on how to go beyond GM’s proposal to slash debt by 46 percent and shed 47,000 jobs in 2009, and will include talks with Treasury officials, the people said.

The moves are a response to President Barack Obama’s March 30 rejection of GM’s bid to keep $13.4 billion in federal loans. With bondholders and the United Auto Workers balking at concessions, a push for more savings makes bankruptcy more “probable,” Chief Executive Officer Fritz Henderson has said.

GM’s board met today and yesterday, and more discussions are planned inside GM and with the Obama administration, the people said. Obama gave the biggest U.S. automaker 60 days to restructure, without specifying what steps were needed to stem $82 billion in losses since 2004.

Planning for a court filing was ratcheted up in February as a precaution against a defeat for GM’s bid to keep its U.S. loans, the people said. Detroit-based GM said it prefers to restructure outside bankruptcy court.

GM’s preparations include looking at a so-called 363 sale, a reference to a section of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy code that would help create a new automaker from the assets and brands of GM, boosting the company’s survival chances, the people said.

Reducing Debt

GM has $62 billion in debt, and its Feb. 17 presentation to Treasury envisioned shrinking that sum to $33.5 billion by trimming obligations to a union-retiree health fund and getting bondholders to accept less in an equity swap.

Until new savings requirements are hashed out, substantive talks with the UAW and bondholders may be delayed, the people said. The board meetings and feedback from the Treasury’s auto task force may create a framework for new discussions this week, they said.

A GM spokesman, Greg Martin, declined to comment today on any specific meetings this week.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2...worldwide#

I was thinking the other day the UAW may have been better off with McCain as president. It would of been a political nightmare for a Republican to let one of the Big 3 fail. Now it looks like an Obama administration is going to let it go bankrupt. I don't want to rehash if it is a good thing or bad thing. You know how I feel. I'm saddened more than anything. Think of welfare reform under Clinton. No way a Republican gets that done. Politically unfeasible.

Clinton Vetoed Welfare reform 3 freaking times, he finally submitted to the Republican congress and signed it eventually. Many on the left still hate it and are trying to get it overturned under Obama.

I always thought that he triangualted it. Made it his issue and brought some Democrats with him. Probably just another thing both sides see out of their partisan views.

Q: Why did President Clinton veto two versions of the welfare reform bill, and what ultimately made him acquiesce?

A: Many Democrats were horrified by the Republican welfare reform bill because, among other reasons, they believed it put young mothers and their children at risk and because it reduced or eliminated welfare benefits for noncitizens. Thus, Clinton vetoed two early versions of the bill both because he thought the bills were too harsh and because he was trying to force Republicans to change the bill so that more Democrats would support it. Republicans made a few changes in the bill, including adding more money for child care, expanding Medicaid coverage for children, and reducing some of the cuts in social programs, and passed the bill a third time in July of 1996. On this occasion, half the Democrats in Congress voted in favor of the bill and Clinton signed it. Some critics charged Clinton with abandoning his party or trying to strengthen his political position in a cynical bid to be re-elected (he signed the bill less than three months before the presidential election of 1996). But I think he signed the bill because he believed the welfare system was flawed, he believed in tough work requirements, and he also supported several other reforms in the bill, especially the child support enforcement reforms. Republicans were able to change the bill enough, while preserving all its basic features, to convince



http://www.brookings.edu/interviews/2006...skins.aspx

no, he signed it to get elected. Thats all clinton ever cared about, and he was put in his place in 1994 which strenghtened that view.

it was an election year issue, that favored the GOP

GG

It was 2 times and he campaigned on welfare reform. So that kind of counters what you are saying. Nontheless, It doesn't get done on a Republican's watch. I think that's the lesson I'm trying to get through.

the vote split was 50/50 on Dem side, all the GOP pretty much. the GOP controlled both houses

Clinton did triangulate which he mastered, but I think its crazy to say that GOP congress with a GOP POTUS wouldn't be able to pass that. Unless the minority Dems would've been able to push public support against it by overwhelmingly opposing it with crazy rhetoric(possible). It had broad support publicly at the time, just the hard left nuts were against it. Check out who voted against it.

O.K. why did Paulson and Bush Bush bail out the Big 3 the first time? My answer. They weren't going to let it fail on their watch. Political Suicide. When the Republicans ran everything why didn't they gut all welfare? Why didn't they bulldoze public housing? There are some things that Democrats can do...... and there are things Republican's can do.

They better not mess with the Corvette.

(04-07-2009 01:07 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  O.K. why did Paulson and Bush Bush bail out the Big 3 the first time? My answer. They weren't going to let it fail on their watch. Political Suicide. When the Republicans ran everything why didn't they gut all welfare? Why didn't they bulldoze public housing? There are some things that Democrats can do...... and there are things Republican's can do.

Bush wasn't an ideological conservative for one, and Paulson is a Democrat. Bush was/is a ideological contradiction and political pragmatist. Bush knew with Detroit, it was getting done either then or wait a few months. My guess is he wanted to get a say in it and something in return. It was floated he was trying to get Free Trade in Columbia passed.


I know what you are saying, a "Nixon goes to China" type thing. I'm not sure how much it applies to welfare reform, and most republicans don't want to completely gut everything along those lines, just reform it anyway.

(04-06-2009 10:51 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Interesting issue.. would the Obama Administration remove/fire any GM Director or Officer that supports filing Bankruptcy??? Would the Obama Administration remove/fire any GM Director or Officer that votes for terminating the UAW CBA, Pensions, or Retiree Health Care Plans?

Kind of a "Saturday Night Massacre"--- Corporate Style.

April 6 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Corp. is speeding up preparations for a possible bankruptcy filing even as directors seek deeper savings this week to avoid that outcome, people familiar with the plans said.

The bankruptcy readiness focuses on forming a new company from GM’s best assets if necessary, said the people, who asked not to be named because the matter is private. The cost-cut discussions center on how to go beyond GM’s proposal to slash debt by 46 percent and shed 47,000 jobs in 2009, and will include talks with Treasury officials, the people said.

The moves are a response to President Barack Obama’s March 30 rejection of GM’s bid to keep $13.4 billion in federal loans. With bondholders and the United Auto Workers balking at concessions, a push for more savings makes bankruptcy more “probable,” Chief Executive Officer Fritz Henderson has said.

GM’s board met today and yesterday, and more discussions are planned inside GM and with the Obama administration, the people said. Obama gave the biggest U.S. automaker 60 days to restructure, without specifying what steps were needed to stem $82 billion in losses since 2004.

Planning for a court filing was ratcheted up in February as a precaution against a defeat for GM’s bid to keep its U.S. loans, the people said. Detroit-based GM said it prefers to restructure outside bankruptcy court.

GM’s preparations include looking at a so-called 363 sale, a reference to a section of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy code that would help create a new automaker from the assets and brands of GM, boosting the company’s survival chances, the people said.

Reducing Debt

GM has $62 billion in debt, and its Feb. 17 presentation to Treasury envisioned shrinking that sum to $33.5 billion by trimming obligations to a union-retiree health fund and getting bondholders to accept less in an equity swap.

Until new savings requirements are hashed out, substantive talks with the UAW and bondholders may be delayed, the people said. The board meetings and feedback from the Treasury’s auto task force may create a framework for new discussions this week, they said.

A GM spokesman, Greg Martin, declined to comment today on any specific meetings this week.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2...worldwide#

You sound like you are getting sexually stimulated at the thought of a bunch of Union memebers losing their jobs and benefits they have worked long days for.

(04-07-2009 02:17 PM)RobertN Wrote:  You sound like you are getting sexually stimulated at the thought of a bunch of Union memebers losing their jobs and benefits they have worked long days for.

I'm jealous of these UAW workers. I could be making over 2x what I make now, and have excellent benefits, pension, etc. . .
And I wouldn't have had to spend all that money on college.

Something just doesn't seem right to me. But maybe I made a huge mistake with my life by investing in education.

(04-07-2009 01:07 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  O.K. why did Paulson and Bush Bush bail out the Big 3 the first time? My answer. They weren't going to let it fail on their watch. Political Suicide.

When the Republicans ran everything why didn't they gut all welfare? Why didn't they bulldoze public housing?

There are some things that Democrats can do...... and there are things Republican's can do.

Because they DID NOT WANT the South Central Riots Multiplied TIMES 5000 U.S. Cities ... that's why.

You can not just jump in an kill off a Beast like the FDR/LBJ Welfare System after it has had nearly 70 Years to Fester into the Putrid Sore it has become and believe you can just run in as a Single Political Party and LANCE the Wound, then all will be well and good in Eden.

We would have Dead and Bleeding still lying in the Streets, all over and for a freggin Welfare Check ......

They Repubs aren't going to try to tear down what Uncle Jesse, Rev. Al, the Liberals, and all the other Co-Conspirators have built into a Viable Franchise and have molded into a Super-Dependent Voting Power Block .... you will end up sucking the bottom of some filthy river chained to a Concrete Block.

That is why the Republicans won't do it.

.

(04-07-2009 01:27 PM)STLouis Blazer Wrote:  They better not mess with the Corvette.

I'd bet they'd spin Corvette off into it's own dealer network.