I think that President Obama should take the $101,000 that he received in campaign contributions from AIG and donate it to The Special Olympics.

I was being totally serious in my original post because I think that it was horrible that the President made an analogy like that on national television. But at least he had class enough to admit that what he said was wrong and apologize.

Nitti -


While I was totally disgusted at his analogy, and agree somewhat that his going on the Leno show only adds to the notion that some have that he is intruiged with the hollywood glitz and glamour and enjoys the spotlight, I do not agree with those who say that he is not an educated man. I think that he is a very educated man, a smart man in many ways. I also think that sometimes he tries, just a little too hard, to give the appearance that he's just another regular Joe who can relate to the average working man / woman.

And in all fairness to our President, his slip-up, stupid remark, or whatever you want to call it only goes to show that even people in his position, of his stature, let their guard down at times and make dumb mistakes. When push comes ot shove he's only human.

He is NOT. There were a lot of people who took offense to what the President said. Personally, I'm not one of them. That doesn't mean it wasn't offensive. I just feel that with the country in shambles, we have more things to worry about than being PC.

Cardi is still on his witch hunt.

Certainly, on a talk show which prides itself on its humor and by president Obama should be understood for what it was.

Painful Changes

The President's latest statements about the auto industry are NOT going over well locally. I work in that industry so I am definitely biased but I really don't think the President's statements show that he gets it.

US automakers have been laying US workers off by the thousands. Costs have been slashed to the bone. Unions have been decimated. Salaries and benefits have been cut. Work has been outsourced to India, Mexico, China, the Phillipines, etc.. That outsourcing is accelerating in every arena.

Pensions and health care benefits for retirees have been reduced or eliminated -ignoring the promises that were made.
Michigan has a 12% unemployment rate in large part because of all the "painful changes". The rare new hires at auto supply companies are making $12-14/hr with few or no benefits.

Compuware just removed all of its people from Ford in a dispute over salary. Most of those people won't be hired back. GM is cutting hundreds this week alone. GM has said that there will be at least 3400 reductions among US salaried this year and a total of 47,000 employees cut in total. Another 7500 GM UAW workers are taking buyouts. My team's budget was slashed by over 60% compared to last year. Every team meeting we have our group VP tells us she doesn't know if she will be able to keep the entire team past mid year.

NO ONE in the auto industry whose name is not on the outside of the building has a safe job. Obama doesn't have a thing to tell anyone in the auto industry about "painful changes".

Even if everything he said was true , which it ISN'T, not by a long shot, where were his similar comments and tone directed to the financial industry which has sucked up in three months more federal tax dollars than the entire auto industry has even dreamed of asking for?

Talking about having taxpayer money chase after bad money when he is planning to spend even more billions if not TRILLIONS subsidizing banks is tone deaf in my opinion. The banks and insurance companies get whatever they want with no strings attached while the auto industry has to bow and scrape for peanuts.

I hope he succeeds as President but I definitely think he needs to find out what's really going on in the auto industry before making such seemingly cavalier statements.

Was that your post Lilo? Or from the article? If it's you, very well written...

Hi DT:

My point isn't that the US auto industry is a paradigm of unmatched quality. I don't believe that to be the case at all. I would suggest that with trucks and SUV's they were responding to consumer demand, though. But that's all irrelevant.

The issues with the Administration's latest moves are

1) By what right does the federal government take it upon itself to fire the head of a private company? There's no statute that allows the President to do that. His aides were talking about remaking the board of GM. Again, even if Obama's team were competent enough to do that, what gives them the right? Who else is eligible to be fired by the President?
What gives the President the right to dictate mergers?

There is no "right" for the president to fire the head of a private company. When Truman took over the steel industry in the late 40's to avert a strike the Supreme Court struck him down. Obama was able to force Waggoner out because after the first bailout GM was told to come up with some kind of plan which they did not. Their "plan" turned out to be to ask for another bailout. The administration said if you keep Waggoner you dont get the bailout. So the authority I guess is the almighty dollar.

2)The Administration appears to have a thinly disguised dislike of "old technologies" such as coal and internal combustion engines. Well fair enough. But there are millions of people that make their living through those technologies. It's not at all clear that American consumers want or will pay for "green" cars or will pay extra for electricity through cap-and-trade schemes. Either way it should be up to the consumer market to make those decisions, not the Administration.

For all of our history the government in partnership with private entities has pushed technology forward. Would you prefer we had no transcontinental railroad, no interstate highways, no products derived from NASA technology? Technology changes with the times, and it is not always up to consumers to decide.

3) In Michigan there is currently growing unity around the idea that the auto industry is getting the shaft while the banking industry is literally being wined and dined. For this to happen in a place as politically/racially/economically divided as Michigan is nothing short of astounding.

Here there are left-wing people that sound like Pat Buchanan and right wing people that sound like Noam Chomsky when it comes to the auto industry and trade issues. People see that AIG alone lost $61 billion in one quarter and no one said boo about giving them more billions while a loan request from the auto industry for a smaller amount causes apoplexy.
Michigan is in a mess, but this has been a long time coming, and the so called "Big Three" have had their heads in the sand. They created through advertising the "demand" for unnecessary products like the Hummer and super sized pick up trucks for people who have white collar jobs and live in cities.
4) The primary cost difference between the traditional Big Three and their German or East Asian competitors is not labor cost or material cost. It's health care-primarily retiree health care. The Big Three already ended (white collar) retiree health care benefits in 2007-8. Those people now have to be on Medicare or scramble to get supplemental coverage if they can. The foreign companies all have government provided health care in their home countries and have generally not been operating in the US long enough to build up massive legacy costs. So when the President talks about people "giving up more" he is taking dead aim at the remaining health care benefits of unionized workers (current and retirees) and current white collar workers.
The UAW already opened up the contract to increase the worker contribution to health care, create a jointly run health care fund and allow the companies (well at least Ford) to substitute stock for cash in this fund.

Perhaps the companies should be able to immediately refuse to pay for health care. That would solve much of their cash problems but not immediately-certainly not in 30 or 60 days. It would involve the breaking of contracts-something the Administration didn't want to do in the AIG case.

But the most important point in all of this is political. Regardless of whether or not it is the "right" thing to do, the people in Michigan that voted for Obama certainly didn't do so thinking he would cause them to lose their health coverage or job. So if the Administration gets too closely identified as one that is unfriendly to the auto industry, Michiganders will remember that in 2010 and 2012.

Hi DT:

1) By what right does the federal government take it upon itself to fire the head of a private company? There's no statute that allows the President to do that. His aides were talking about remaking the board of GM. Again, what gives them the right? Who else is eligible to be fired by the President? What gives the President the right to dictate mergers?

In a move sure to spark outrage, the White House announced today that GM and Chrysler must cease participation in NASCAR at the end of the 2009 season if they hope to receive any additional financial aid from the government. Companies around the globe—Honda and Audi, to name two—have drawn down racing operations, and NASCAR itself has already felt the pinch in the form of reduced team spending. A complete withdrawal from America’s premier racing series is expected to save more than $250 million between GM and Chrysler, a substantial amount considering the drastic measures being implemented elsewhere.

“Automakers used to operate on the principle of ‘win on Sunday, sell on Monday,’ but the Auto Task Force’s research just doesn’t validate that as true,” said the statement from President Obama. While fans have decried the Car of Tomorrow for heavily limiting what little personalization the cookie-cutter series had previously allowed to participating manufacturers, and drivers have slammed its brick-like aerodynamics and unpredictable handling, even the governmental oversight committee sees that the full-scale regulation of the cars leaves the manufacturers very little space for research and development. “NASCAR is a racing series that regulates down to the smallest detail of the cars, where a car badged a Chevrolet or Dodge differs only marginally from a Ford or a Toyota. There’s no technological development to speak of.”

The statement goes on further to say the same demand will be made of Ford if it asks for government assistance. “In order to receive this money, corporations must demonstrate they will spend it wisely. Racing has been said to improve on-road technology, but frankly, NASCAR almost flaunts its standing among the lowest-tech forms of motorsport. NASCAR is not proven to drive advancements that transfer from the racetrack to the road, and this nation’s way forward does not hinge on decades-old technology. We need new, and we need innovation.”

The President realizes this will be an unpopular call, but stands behind the decision, saying, “This is an obvious cut to make, but it is not an easy one. This administration is not ignoring the tremendous sentimental value and emotional appeal NASCAR holds for so many Americans. But now is not the time for sentiment and nostalgia; now is a time for decisive financial action. If our automotive industry is to emerge from this recession intact, then these difficult decisions must be made.”

Both Chevrolet and Dodge see the move as only temporary, and fully expect to resume racing in NASCAR as soon as they have stabilized and the government’s hand in their operations is minimized. “There is nothing really to say at this point,” said one representative, who wished to remain anonymous. “We’ve been doing this since the beginning, and we always assumed we’d be doing this until the end. Heck, nobody ever thought to think that there would be an end. But we ain’t done. As soon as this is over, we’re taking back our spot at the top.”

NASCAR officials remain tight-lipped about the call, but sources say series president Mike Helton and team managers are exploring several options, including other manufacturers to fill Chevrolet and Dodge’s vacated positions. Given the company’s recent interest in motorsport and the steady cash-flow and V-8 engine provided by its new Genesis sedan, sources indicate that NASCAR is pinging Hyundai to gauge the Korean company’s interest in occupying a spot in NASCAR. “Toyota was not well-received their first year in the sport, nor was their first season an easy one,” the source says. “But they learned, they applied the lessons, and they have proven very competitive this year.”

If Hyundai does indeed join the series, there will no doubt be a steep learning curve, and the move would leave Ford the lone domestic battling a pair of Asian makes in America’s most popular racing series. We wonder, however, how long NASCAR could hold that title without two of its most storied participants.

Hi DT:

The issues with the Administration's latest moves are

1) By what right does the federal government take it upon itself to fire the head of a private company? There's no statute that allows the President to do that. His aides were talking about remaking the board of GM. Again, even if Obama's team were competent enough to do that, what gives them the right? Who else is eligible to be fired by the President?
What gives the President the right to dictate mergers?

Okay... Obama is taking it WAY too far now!!

Obama Orders Chevrolet and Dodge Out Of NASCAR - Car News

Does this mean no more fantasy Nascar league Geoff?