WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama couldn't let General Motors fail, but he won't concede he's taking over the company.
With a 60 percent equity stake in the carmaker and $50 billion in taxpayer money riding on GM's success, the federal government isn't exactly a hands-off investor.
As GM enters into Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, Obama's economic team is stressing that its goals are to maximize the return to taxpayers and to exit from its involvement as quickly as possible. But as one administration official put it Sunday night, there is an inevitable tension between those two objectives.
---------
WASHINGTON, D.C. (daily kenoshan) - General Motors, the 100 year old industrial superpower and maker of Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac and other automobiles, announced they will file for bankruptcy protection, the outcome of which will cut 21,000 jobs and reduce to 2600 the number of automobile dealerships. President Obama applauded the reorganization move and estimated the time frame for the court action to be completed at 60-90 days. Once the bankruptcy is finalized, the government will own 60% of the failed GM Corporationand will pump billions into the leaner, reorganized company. This will be the governments biggest foray into private industry in history.
Obama is against labor for sure, but he is hardly a socialist.
ReplyDeleteBecause if he was REALLY a socialist...you know, those guys who call for a total overhaul of the American government and are considered radicals...Chris would've voted for him!
ReplyDeleteShit yeah! Of course, they would have to have policies I favor. See, I endorsed people like Nader(voted for him!) and McKinney, amongst others who wanted and still want to strongly reduce state power by transferring that power from the few to the many. That was never a priority in Obama's campaign (obviously) because neither he nor anyone else would be able to make it as a major candidate with such convictions and ideas. This is true, not because the people wouldn't support them (though the views would be further left than the general public's views), but rather because the "few" like Wall Street absolutely would not support them.
ReplyDelete