OT: does obama bring change?

[BoulderDawg]

You know, part of GMs problem right now is paying for people already in retirement.

Why should that be a problem?

[1bad65]

That will be the UAW problem come 2010.

Not sure what you mean?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Not sure what you mean?

The auto workers union takes up the responsibility of employee benefits in 2010, that is what GM gave them 30 billion last year.

[BoulderDawg]

Speaking of income tax:

The other night I watched this great documentary on PBS called "Ten Trillion and Counting". My favorite part was the interview with Bush's former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ws/oneill.html

Reading that interview one can finally get an idea about the lack of understanding Bush and Cheney had about how the economy worked especially as it related to cutting income tax.

O'Neill would go up to Bush and say "Mr President now is not a good time to cut taxes". However Bush wouldn't say a word to him. Aparently all he did was just stare out into blank space smiling like a loon. It was a little better with Cheney. He tried to talk with the VP about it and was told: "Ronald Reagan proved budget deficicts don't matter".... O'Neill was stunned!

It's no wonder O'Neill finally threw his hands up in disgust and walked out.

[1bad65]

The auto workers union takes up the responsibility of employee benefits in 2010, that is what GM gave them 30 billion last year.

That was a brilliant move by GM. But you watch, if GM starts making money the unions will suddenly demand more.

I'm assuming GM made the union cut 'job banks' too, right?

[1bad65]

It's no wonder O'Neill finally threw his hands up in disgust and walked out.

He actully resigned under pressure; ie, he resigned rather than be fired. When your job is Treasury Secretary and you do odd things like going on a tour of Africa with Bono, you tend to make the Administration unhappy.

[1bad65]

He tried to talk with the VP about it and was told: "Ronald Reagan proved budget deficicts don't matter".... O'Neill was stunned!

Obama will set all new records for the national debt and budget deficits. Mark my words.

[BoulderDawg]

That was a brilliant move by GM. But you watch, if GM starts making money the unions will suddenly demand more.

Well, of course.....What do you expect? The union bends over backwards to help GM during the bad times by taking massive concessions but during the good times they are not allowed to share in the prosperity? It's a double edged sword.

[BoulderDawg]

He actully resigned under pressure; ie, he resigned rather than be fired. When your job is Treasury Secretary and you do odd things like going on a tour of Africa with Bono, you tend to make the Administration unhappy.

So O'Neill was "fired" because he took a trip to Africa?........

O'Neill quit because he saw what was coming.

[sanjuro_ronin]

That was a brilliant move by GM. But you watch, if GM starts making money the unions will suddenly demand more.

I'm assuming GM made the union cut 'job banks' too, right?

The unions already want more, the see how much it actually costs to pay out all those benefits.

[BoulderDawg]

The unions already want more, the see how much it actually costs to pay out all those benefits.

So you think a bunch of idiots negoiated a contract without a clue as to what they were doing?

[sanjuro_ronin]

So you think a bunch of idiots negoiated a contract without a clue as to what they were doing?

I think that both GM and the Unions has enough idiots to go around, yes.

Here is a link to the original deal:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...contract_N.htm

[sanjuro_ronin]

I can understand GM trying to drop this hot potato on the Unions, but not sure if this is gonna be better for the workers. time well tell.
As for RIGHT NOW:

http://www.autonet.ca/autos/news/200...871091-ap.html

http://www.autonet.ca/autos/news/200...894261-ap.html

[BoulderDawg]

According to that article this hasn't even been voted on yet. If the agreement is not satisfactory (Union wants more) why are union leaders encouraging rank and file to vote for it?

Oh, I forget! It's because they are a bunch of idiots!

[sanjuro_ronin]

According to that article this hasn't even been voted on yet. If the agreement is not satisfactory (Union wants more) why are union leaders encouraging rank and file to vote for it?

Oh, I forget! It's because they are a bunch of idiots!

Pretty much, glad we are in agreement.