
The bill will now go to the Senate and if passed will need to be sworn in by president Obama
Enlarge Photo
The
collapse of General Motors has seen some of the most divergent views on both politics and the automotive industry appear in recent times, and even though the collapse of GM had been predicted for months, if not years, there is still arguing over who was responsible and what American consumers should do about the situation now.
In Washington, senior officials who worked with former President Bush are claiming that new president Barack Obama is as much to blame as anyone else for GM's collapse, due to his support of the Bush government's decision to
bail out GM in January. Meanwhile, advocates of Obama claim that the bailout money was given to Detroit simply to prevent the two companies going under while George Bush was in power - in other words, they were given enough money to survive until the new president was sworn in.
Obama's team is claiming that by not putting conditions on the bailout money, the move was little more than a passing of the buck onto the next President. A similar sentiment was expressed by former vice president Dick Cheney, who revealed that the Bush administration
didn’t want to be the one to pull the plug on GM.
Whoever was responsible, however, wasn't of much concern to conservatives angry about the government's decision to meddle in the affairs of private companies, calling the new GM a failure of free enterprise. Controversial conservative personality Rush Limbaugh claimed that America doesn't want to support an "Obama company". However,
The Detroit News reports that polls are showing 83% of Americans are not planning on boycotting GM in the future.
While Limbaugh never explicitly called for a boycott of GM, his sentiments toward the company were not exactly a resounding appreciation for its survival. A spokesman from the Democratic party expressed surprise that the Republican party was "silently going along" with Limbaugh, especially considering "how many hard working Americans rely on GM for a living."
Have an opinion?Join the conversation!
Why does the press mostly avoid making this point, do you suppose? I can understand why politicians avoid telling this truth, but why the press?
As far as the union is concerned, they were simply acting as rational maximizers for their members and got as much as possible at the time and they've fought like hell to keep it.
Some how, G-man and NC2010, I doubt if your bosses were willing to pay you 50% more for half as much work you'd turn them down because it would hurt the company down the road.
The unions didn't cause GM's problems, GM's management did.
The problem is that our tax policies promote spending all profits. If a company wants to create a "bank account" for future investments (or a rainy day fund) it has to pay more taxes than if the money was spent. Remember after 9/11 and the airline industry was down 10%, and they all shouted bankruptcy? If companies can't weather a temporary 10% drop in revenue then you're always going to have problems. Much less the gargantuan drop the auto industry has seen.
Have an opinion?Join the conversation!