What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- EMFK, on 12/04/2008, -11/+95Yep! Count us in! We're opposed to any bailout for any industry in this country. You got yourselves into this damn mess---you fix it on your own time and dime.
Thanks for posting, Amy!- MissMyZDtv, on 12/04/2008, -7/+15Hmmm..... Last auto "bailout" simply wasn't a bailout. This one will not be either. Unlike the bastard bankers who just got a hand out, these are loans that will make the US a nice profit. Chrysler paid its (circa 79') 10 year loan off in 3 years and paid fees and interest. In my area there are 8200+ auto jobs. These are good honest people who need to feed their children. With concessions from both Labor and management, this could work just fine.
- jmpeagle, on 12/04/2008, -2/+16which they paid back with federal dollar profits via their military contracts for CUCVs...They only survived because of the federal government. Just because people are honest and hardworking, doesn't mean the industry should be propped up.
If loaning to them is such a no brainer than someone besides the government will quickly step up. There is no need for federal money.
This is why we wrote bankruptcy laws. Just because they go into bankruptcy doesn't mean the company will dissappear. They can come back because bankruptcy will force rapid reorganization. - Rikkochet, on 12/04/2008, -2/+20Those 8200+ people will be out of work for a month and then be working at their same job in the same building, except their pay stub will say "Toyota" at the top instead of "GM'.
Relax. It's not the workers that are facing eradication - it's the company itself. Tangible things like skilled labour and manufacturing facilities don't get mothballed very often - they're extremely valuable. - lordgibbon, on 12/04/2008, -1/+4Toyota hires lean, they're not going to be the savior for these people who lost jobs.
- sodade, on 12/04/2008, -0/+2Yeah well, maybe there are too many people working in the auto industry. Hell, maybe there are too many people for all of them to be gainfully employed.
- Recidivus, on 12/04/2008, -0/+5"Toyota hires lean, they're not going to be the savior for these people who lost jobs."
If they can hire less people to do the same amount of work, why shouldn't they? - Tbyrd073, on 12/08/2008, -0/+1"Toyota hires lean, they're not going to be the savior for these people who lost jobs."
To me it just sounds like the UAW is killing GM/Ford/Chrysler. If Toyota and Honda can make better cars with less people and pay them almost half of what a UAW does then they should and the big 3 should learn from this. The UAW is not helping this situation. The big 3 need to be able to lower wages to compensate for the market.
- jmpeagle, on 12/04/2008, -2/+16which they paid back with federal dollar profits via their military contracts for CUCVs...They only survived because of the federal government. Just because people are honest and hardworking, doesn't mean the industry should be propped up.
- Ne007, on 12/04/2008, -1/+4Yes,and I bet you even more were against bailing out the banks....
- ryrocker, on 12/04/2008, -0/+1but w/o the bailout i wouldntve gotten my student loan!!!!
i disapprove of the bailout also...
but im sort of thankful for it - kosser, on 12/04/2008, -0/+3how blindly dumb do people have to be. this is one of the last manufacturing industries we have left in this country. We have exported everything overseas. How the hell are we supposed to pay any part of our deficit/debt without being able to manufacture or produce anything??!? I'm not for bailouts, I was against the banker bailouts because they caused the problem and they want to pose as the saviors with their own solution. But, this isnt the $800 billion bailout that turned into close to $8 trillion. This is chump change compared to that. It's a double edged sword, if we give them the bailout we lose because it's putting us in more debt w/ the central banks (an idea i expect 10% of you to understand) but if we don't we lose another part of our manufacturing base. man digg.com has really become a community of trends & sheep easily swayed with gossip, misdirection, and half-truths.
In the end we have no say on what's going to happen, just look at the banker bailout i think 90%+ opposed it and it still happened. - donatj, on 12/04/2008, -0/+2Heh, call me crazy, but *we* got them into this mess.
- Valyn, on 12/05/2008, -0/+2please explain...
- Tbyrd073, on 12/04/2008, -0/+4I have a feeling it will pass regardless of how many people oppose it. Congress/The President don't listen to the people. They will do what they want simply because they can and no one will do anything but complain about it when it happens.
- theOster, on 12/04/2008, -0/+1how many people opposed the 700billion bailout and look what happened to that...oh right it's just *who* opposes it that matters...
- vuke69, on 12/04/2008, -1/+2Step 1: Get rid of UAW.
$73.12/hour is at least two or three times what that labor is actually worth.
UAW's practices are nothing more than a protection racket. I can't see how they are even legal.
"That's a nice factory you have there, it would be a pity if something happened to it."
- MissMyZDtv, on 12/04/2008, -7/+15Hmmm..... Last auto "bailout" simply wasn't a bailout. This one will not be either. Unlike the bastard bankers who just got a hand out, these are loans that will make the US a nice profit. Chrysler paid its (circa 79') 10 year loan off in 3 years and paid fees and interest. In my area there are 8200+ auto jobs. These are good honest people who need to feed their children. With concessions from both Labor and management, this could work just fine.
- WestonP, on 12/04/2008, -6/+142This bailout is against the wishes and interests of the American people, so it's bound to pass, just like the last one.
- stanfy86, on 12/04/2008, -4/+55and its also bound to accomplish nothing, just like the last one
- browe07, on 12/04/2008, -1/+12I'm pretty sure the poll numbers were the same if not worse for the last bailout and it passed. It just required a ton of pork to be added to push it through.
- Waterrat, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1 So true..You can rest assured anything the US public wants will not happen.
This should show the America people and the world just how much power the populous really has.
All the "power" we have is to vote for one of two pre selected men already groomed for the president position...Other than that,all we need do is watch TV , work for the big corps and spend money. - faskill, on 12/07/2008, -0/+1I don't typically like to bring partisan bs into conversations but, please remember who was in charge of passing the last bailout... yes, the Dems had the majority, oh, and Pelosi's affiliation? Yea, not republican.
The main reason I interject with this is to point out the shortcomings of democratic leaders. I'll save my Obama bashing regarding more of the same for a different post.
- Ne007, on 12/04/2008, -3/+10the rich are able to protect their asses because they hold all the cards...and all the money printing presses....
- MrPatriotMan, on 12/04/2008, -2/+2It will pass by Government standards and either you or your kids will be paying for it.
Money does not grow on trees ( its printed ).- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/04/2008, -1/+2No, we won't be "paying for it." That's not how loans work.
- donatj, on 12/04/2008, -0/+2Do you have any idea what percent of the American public works for the auto industries?
- Phalanxia, on 12/04/2008, -1/+3Generally because a lot of the American Public are too dumb to realise how many millions of people will lose their jobs if the auto industry goes down.
- gall0wsp0le, on 12/04/2008, -0/+5The auto industry won't go down. They will go bankrupt, which means they have to focus everything on paying their debt, streamlining their operations (and IMPROVING them so they actually make money) and cutting costs.
Will there be pain in the meantime? Yes. Lots of pain. Will jobs come back in the long run when these companies get their ***** in order. Yes. Will they go completely out of business? No.- GroundhogBoy, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1Who's going to be the financier of the bankruptcy? You do realize that bankruptcies require financing to function during the restructuring period, right? GM is burning over $4 billion/month, who else besides the government is going to finance that sort of venture.
Then you've got the pension obligations for the retired union workers. When the the any of the Big 3 fail, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., which like the FDIC, is backed by the government, will take over the pension obligations. Disregarding the unforeseen circumstances like those that we saw after Lehman fell, we can already see how letting them fail will cost us so much more than putting them on life support.
- GroundhogBoy, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1Who's going to be the financier of the bankruptcy? You do realize that bankruptcies require financing to function during the restructuring period, right? GM is burning over $4 billion/month, who else besides the government is going to finance that sort of venture.
- stanfy86, on 12/04/2008, -4/+55and its also bound to accomplish nothing, just like the last one
- taxinfo07, on 12/04/2008, -6/+16I don't know that I'm against a bailout in principal especially since it's been done so much for so many others, but I do want to see what the automakers will do to try to justify the money spent. The bank bailout was supposedly to help free up the markets in general. This bailout is supposed to be about saving jobs for Americans. The banks didn't give a great plan on how they would free up the financial markets and we have what we have - no real change. I want to know how THIS bailout will make the companies stronger to save U.S. jobs.
- damonic, on 12/04/2008, -1/+11The problem I have is that there is no oversight. There was supposed to be with the bank bailout but the treasury dept admits that it has no idea where the money went. WTF? That's a problem.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/04/2008, -0/+4Agreed, the bank bailout has a total mess and likely little more than a tremendous waste.
If the government can't ensure that our money won't be thrown away on corporate retreats they shouldn't be giving it out.
They've taken a much harder line with the auto industry, and here's hoping that results in a positive end result.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/04/2008, -0/+4Agreed, the bank bailout has a total mess and likely little more than a tremendous waste.
- daveisfera, on 12/04/2008, -0/+2Just because one mistake was made before (back bailout) doesn't mean that repeating the mistake again (auto bailout) is a good idea.
- damonic, on 12/04/2008, -1/+11The problem I have is that there is no oversight. There was supposed to be with the bank bailout but the treasury dept admits that it has no idea where the money went. WTF? That's a problem.
- shawns, on 12/04/2008, -2/+31A good portion of midwest people, where the failure of the auto industry will be most felt, also don't want this to pass. This is a unified push against bailing out companies that don't produce products the market wants to buy
- awfl, on 12/04/2008, -2/+0Hmm, maybe even an industry that caters to the relative few, the short-sighted, not necessarily the many or the long view.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/04/2008, -0/+1You're in Ann Arbor. I'm sure people down there feel differently about things those of us in Flint and Detroit proper where we are already feeling the impact of the automotive slowdown. You have a lot of high talk about "companies that don't produce products the market wants to buy," but I don't think you understand the consequences of letting these companies fail in the current economic climate. Any other year I might say yes, let them fail, but, as it is, we might as well get in the soup lines right now if we don't bail out our auto industry.
- buryyourhead, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1When has Flint, MI ever gotten good press?
- amightywind, on 12/05/2008, -1/+2I do understand the consequences of a mindset that feels a person is entitled to a high paying blue collar job in an uncompetitive industry. The industry leadership and the unions have seen the trend for 30 years and done little. A lot of people in Michigan are going to be displaced. People there are going to have to start dealing with that reality.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/06/2008, -0/+1@amightywind:
"I do understand the consequences of a mindset that feels a person is entitled to a high paying blue collar job in an uncompetitive industry."
Hm, still completely narrow minded. Try again. Why did you even bother to reply. It doesn't seem like you even read my comment. We can't let these companies fail right now or we risk suffering dire economic consequences as a nation. My idea is that neither of us will have to start dealing with THAT reality.
- GroundhogBoy, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1No, it's a unified push in favor of knee-jerk, uninformed reactionism. It's ridiculous that the people who oppose these measures because of how they're being skewed are the most likely to be hurt by the fallout.
- joe8pack, on 12/04/2008, -19/+32The poll shows most folks don't understand economics, but they are sick of bailouts and fat-cats.
If we allow the auto industry to die, it will only hurt the taxpayers and the citizenry, the management has its golden parachutes, its fat salaries and its substantial assets which will allow the wealthy to flee from the 3rd world America will become when the economy collapses because of the loss of the automotive industry.
We are like cats with our tails tied together, its uncomfortable, awkward and difficult, but if we don't work together, we all fail. If we lose the automotive industry, we lose an awful lot of ancillary industries and skill sets. We become a weaker nation and unable to even build our own cars. The depression will get even greater, even faster and the stock market will crater, home sales will collapse not for years, but for decades. We are in a tight spot, I'd rather give a 100 billion dollars to the auto industry than give 1.3 trillion (13 times the auto bailout) to the investment banking community as we have already done. At this point its just paper, we are all screwed if it doesn't improve, so lets take a chance we no longer have anything left to lose.- Hosalabad, on 12/04/2008, -3/+22This won't kill the industry if the big 3 fail. Honda is doing great these days.
- Kersius, on 12/04/2008, -5/+4Honda isn't American
- Qumahlin, on 12/04/2008, -2/+14"Honda isn't American"
I suggest you look up how many Americans Honda employs. Do the same for Toyota. Then go read up on why Toyota and Honda are able to offer JIT while none of the American automakers are. - univers3man, on 12/04/2008, -10/+2Except Honda is a terrible carmaker. Tell me you or a friend don't own a Honda with a transmission problem. Or any other problems.
- doctechnical, on 12/04/2008, -0/+11Hell, most American cars aren't "American", if we're going by parts manufactured in the US of A.
- brownsound00, on 12/04/2008, -1/+2My dad has had 2 honda cars for over 10 years each and haven't come across any problems. But then again, my dad takes really good care of his cars.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/04/2008, -0/+2Honda may employ a lot of Americans, but they are not an American company. Believe it or not, that really does matter.
How many Americans Honda or Toyato employ right now isn't going to make the number of American jobs invested in our own auto industry any smaller, and it won't lessen the catastrophic impact the loss of our auto industry would have on our economy. - GroundhogBoy, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1Honda, Toyota, and all of the other car companies that do assembly in the US will suffer if any of the Big 3 go down. They all share the same parts manufacturers. Bankruptcies for the Big 3 could very easily cause numerous bankruptcies in their suppliers (that tends to happen when 50+% of your income disappears)
Secondly, check their stock prices - the foreign companies are in trouble, too. Toyota (TM) is down 50% this year, Honda (HMC) is down almost 50% from it's high this year.
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 12/04/2008, -1/+11Explain to us how 25 billion is going to help them survive, when their products, and brands for that matter, are unpopular AND their debt makes the bailout figure look like chump change?
- Qumahlin, on 12/04/2008, -1/+12Not to mention who is going to want to buy a car from a company that you know is teetering on bankruptcy when you can go get a comparable or better model for the same price from a company that is financially stable.
The bigger concern is the parts market. Not many sites are discussing how devastating a failure in the parts market/suppliers would be to the entire industry. - SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/04/2008, -0/+2"The bigger concern is the parts market. Not many sites are discussing how devastating a failure in the parts market/suppliers would be to the entire industry."
Yes, and there is a lot more than just that. There is a massive infrastructure built around our auto industry. Parts suppliers, chemical producers (paint, lubricants, etc, etc), large machinery manufacturers, transportation/shipping (railroads, trucking, shipping, etc), marketing firms, and many more would all feel a direct negative impact. People think this is all about UAW workers, but it's so much bigger than that. If our auto industry collapses there will be a massive ripple effect that everyone will feel.
- Qumahlin, on 12/04/2008, -1/+12Not to mention who is going to want to buy a car from a company that you know is teetering on bankruptcy when you can go get a comparable or better model for the same price from a company that is financially stable.
- BradBrown, on 12/04/2008, -2/+5"loss of the automotive industry" - It's not going anywhere, even in bankruptcy. Sure, it'll be a much smaller industry, and there will be job loss, but the argument that immediate demand for autos will immediately cease is incorrect. I only care about the car's warranty - and that warranty can be offered by someone else other than the automakers themselves. Surprisingly, so can replacement parts...
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/04/2008, -0/+2No one is going to buy a car from a bankrupt company. That's a fact.
If these companies slip into bankruptcy they won't come back out except to be sold and dissolved completely. If no one will buy your brand because of bankruptcy you can't become profitable no matter how small you become.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/04/2008, -0/+2No one is going to buy a car from a bankrupt company. That's a fact.
- haiduz, on 12/04/2008, -7/+6You are a brilliant voice of reason. All these poeple complaining really have little grasp of the reprucussions of these companies going bankrupt.
Think about it, this panic was largely triggered by the lehman bankruptcy. The negative impact of the big 3 failing will be that much worse.
Think about all the poeple in the big 3 factories being laid off, now think about all supply chain partners being laid off, and finally think about all the dealership closing down. All of this will only spiral our economy down further at a time when we need to recover. These companies are doing bad not just because not one WANTS to buy their ***** cars, but because no one can afford to buy them. Once the economy picks up, so will the business of the big 3 and all their profits will flow back to the public.- Briandrews15, on 12/04/2008, -1/+3The Lehman bankruptcy was also an effect of the cause.
What we are seeing is a natural part of the business cycle. The difference is that the bubble was much bigger than the last recession. If you think a failing company is the reason the economy is bad you are dead wrong. Bailed out companies are black-holes to the economy, they will keep sucking up money until they eventually fail. You must consider what made them fail! It's malinvestments which is the direct cause of the practice of issuing debt at artificially low interest rates. And you can thank Alan Greenspan for that. - SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/04/2008, -0/+2@Braindrews15:
"Bailed out companies are black-holes to the economy"
Tell that to Chrysler in the 80s who paid back the government in full and became profitable again. I'm not denying they ***** things up since then, but this notion that bailouts are inherently bad and evil is flat out wrong.
The truth is that every one of these companies is headed in a positive direction already. They aren't spiraling into deeper failure as so many here imply. The reality is that if not for the credit crisis preventing them from getting credit themselves to stay afloat through the recession none of them would need a bailout. They aren't asking for a bailout just because they are companies failing of their own mistakes. They are caught in a perfect storm of bad economic climate and hard transformations into leaner, better, more competitive companies. - NonLeftistDiggr, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1Lehman had a huge impact because they were leveraged beyond god's imagination, monetary figures vastly bigger than the big 3's ripple would be.
- Briandrews15, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1@SpeedSteamBoat:
Your like a ***** little kid making me go back and explain everything with 100 worlds.
Did you know that the total market capitalization (stock value) of the big 3 is less than 10 billion dollars? Why would you give them 50 billion with slim to none odds on a return. Let them fail, the stock will crash. When the value of the companies reaches what the market pushes it to, someone will buy it and restructure the business assets.
I do admit the union workers will lose their jobs for sure. - haiduz, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1@Braindrews15
Market Cap is nearly irrelevant, Odds on a return are not slim to none, no one is going to buy a company on the brink on bankruptcy so entrenched in debt (have you ever heard of companies being bought for a dollar), tens of thousands of union workers along with many more thousands or non-union suppliers, dealerships, and partners losing their jobs will not make the United States come over of a depression.
I think its funny that you accuse the other guy of being a little kid, when I dont even think that you realize what youre talking about:
You may not realize it, you just made a suggestion that the best course of action is to wait till the market cap of the company falls low enough so that someone [ie Japanesse car company cause no one else will] will buy out all the american car brands.
-Obviously this is quite stupid, because the companies will just fall into bankruptcy as soon as they cant meet their short term debt obligations thus a scenario where "the value of the companies reaches what the market pushes it to" will never occur. However even if that wasnt the case and the market cap for the companies arrived at a the price of just one car (&25,000), hoping that someone (funny how you just assume someone MUST step up is the price is right) is just child-dish and misguided. Why the hell would anyone want to assume these labor contracts and debt on their books? Japanese car manufacturers wont do it, they would rather see these companies gone since its just less brands diluting the market. All the private fund are straped for cash, so they wouldnt assume this risk. Poeple like you tend to think that if ownership was transfered all the problems would be magically solved! Doesnt work that way. If the company goes bankrupt, shuts down its operations, and fires all its workers, a new company wont appear the next day to fill in the gap. This process takes years or decades. The bankruptcy of these giants will likely end the automotive industry in the US for decades to come.
Its really people like you would are childish in their thoughts, they just want to pick out a bad guys and see them fall. The CEO are, off with their head! No one really considers they economic impact of a bailout, the destruction of an industry, and the impact on the CEOs. Then there are those who say, unions are evil! These companies should go bankrupt to teach the union heads a lesson! No one really considers the economic impact of automotive partners losing their jobs, and the impacts of 100k+ people losing their jobs to the economy. - Briandrews15, on 12/06/2008, -0/+1I am concerned with the integrity of our economic system. If we save companies that have failed with borrowed money we no longer have capitalism.
You are concerned with job loss. Market cap nearly irrelevant????, you need to go take a few college business classes then come talk to me. I stop here because it would be like teaching rocket science to my dog.. no matter how good i am, hes never going to understand.
- Briandrews15, on 12/04/2008, -1/+3The Lehman bankruptcy was also an effect of the cause.
- Briandrews15, on 12/04/2008, -2/+9I agree most people don't understand economics, but that especially includes you. You are confusing economics with self-preservation.
Economics... There is not enough demand for the big 3's products but they can't afford to reduce supply, so they want the citizenry to chip in. Economics says that companies who make products people don't want will fail. Economics says that the more demand your products have, the more profit you will make. Are you catching on? Economics says that buying bad debt with debt can only result in more debt. Economics says that a tax subsidized industry ignores supply/demand laws and will always fail, otherwise I'm all for it!
Since you seem to like talking point metaphors... The bailout is like cutting off your stuck arm to get to free. We are going to have a deep recession the only question is whether it will be fast/severe or long/progressive. We are not following any economic rules, in fact we are breaking them; so if you think this is economics you don't understand. The U.S. is now in the mode of doing whatever it takes to preserve its global viability. btw: The reason socialism fails is because central planners can't recognize demand for products.- Phalanxia, on 12/04/2008, -1/+2The problem is, that there are millions of jobs which depend on the auto industry, about 2 million. In Britain, that's even higher, with one in six of those in employment has a job related to automobiles. There needs to be a loan to keep these companies a float, but they need to make concessions, i.e. get rid of the private planes, develop fuel efficient vehicles. The big three are failing because they're getting out of touch with what the public want. If the government uses the resources that the Big Three have to forcibly alter "the touch" the companies have, a lot of jobs can be saved. Ofc, it would have to be a loan, not a grant.
Btw, you seem to have confused Socialism with Communism. Saying Socialism is Communism is like saying all bears are mammals, therefore all mammals are bears. - SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/04/2008, -2/+2The auto industry isn't failing of its own accord. They are in trouble because the banks failed. They wouldn't need a bailout if the the credit market wasn't in the complete *****.
The only question about saving the auto industry isn't whether it will shorten or lengthen the recession. It is whether we will enter a depression or not. Our economy is far too fragile right now to endure the loss of our auto industry.
Consider this, people work for the auto industry and its infrastructure and make money doing it. That money gets spent (DEMAND) on products produced by other sectors of the economy (SUPPLY). They also happen to pay taxes. So where do we end up when all that economic business disappears during a recession you've already said yourself is going to be severe as it is? This isn't complicated, and if you still don't understand why it's important to save our auto industry NOW I'm sorry. This is absolutely related to understanding economics, and if you can't see clearly the devastating consequences of letting our auto industry fail then I think your own understanding is rightly called into very serious question.
btw: the term "socialism" has real meaning, and it doesn't mean giving a federal loan to a company during economic hard times. You can't just call something socialist, communist, or fascist just because you disagree with them. Words do have meanings, and you'd serve yourself well to understand what those meanings are before you make a fool of yourself using words you don't fully grasp out of frustration and zealotry for your own cause. - Briandrews15, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1Morons getting offended about me saying socialism please read:
"Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"
I suspect you both have bias in this issue and you don't want to lose your job. Your supply and demand explanation was ***** ridiculous. Don't think you can call it a loan by the government as it is a bailout. Obviously you don't understand word usage as well as you think. The government has no money, they aren't going to raise taxes to get the money either, they are going to borrow it. Who are they going to borrow that from? No one is going to invest in failed companies, so they are going to turn to the Federal Reserve and they will be forced to lend reserves (issue debt to fund debt).
Dumb people make me sick. Go to college.
- Phalanxia, on 12/04/2008, -1/+2The problem is, that there are millions of jobs which depend on the auto industry, about 2 million. In Britain, that's even higher, with one in six of those in employment has a job related to automobiles. There needs to be a loan to keep these companies a float, but they need to make concessions, i.e. get rid of the private planes, develop fuel efficient vehicles. The big three are failing because they're getting out of touch with what the public want. If the government uses the resources that the Big Three have to forcibly alter "the touch" the companies have, a lot of jobs can be saved. Ofc, it would have to be a loan, not a grant.
- 3tcp, on 12/04/2008, -1/+4It seem s more like you don't understand economics. The auto industry cannot survive without reorganization that bankruptcy will allow them. No matter how much money you give them their costs are significantly higher than the foreign companies.
The car industry does not depend on the big 3 anymore since most foreign companies have plants in the US that build the cars that are sold here. The long term health of the auto industry in this country requires that American automakers declare bankruptcy, renegotiate and reorganized so that they can be competitive.- Briandrews15, on 12/04/2008, -1/+2well put
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/04/2008, -1/+2On the contrary, the auto industry WOULD NOT survive a bankruptcy. People won't buy cars from bankrupt companies. If you can't sell your product you can't become profitable no matter how much you shrink and reorganize. That means you come out of bankruptcy only to be sold and dismantled.
Do you not understand the meaning of the term "foreign company"? The American auto industry has a much larger stake in the American economy then Toyota or Honda. Those plants making foreign cares are nice, but they won't make up for the massive job losses that will occur upon the downfall of our own auto industry. They also won't make up for all the supply and sales chain companies and jobs that will disappear in addition to those within the big 3.
Maybe the global auto industry doesn't depend on the big 3, but the American economy DOES.
In addition, all three of these companies were already headed in a positive direction. They are all restructuring. They are all developing and building more fuel efficient cars than trucks with plans to do so even more in the near future. They are all spending millions on R&D work on electric, hybrid, and alternative fuel platforms. They are all in a very precarious place between old and new ways of doing business. This credit crisis could not have come at a worse time, and without it these companies wouldn't need a bailout to begin with. If they failed simply of their own accord without showing any sign of improving their business practices and products and our economy was strong enough to withstand their collapse (which it usually is) I'd be right with you in opposing any bailout. However, that is not the reality of the situation.
It's simply not enough to just say "Well, if these companies aren't profitable right now they clearly can't hack it and should be allowed to die." You need to look at the bigger picture.
- BlackJackJester, on 12/04/2008, -2/+7People aren't going to stop driving, so there won't be any loss of industry. If GM, Ford, Chrysler all fail completely and close up shop (which won't happen), then there is a HUGE hole in the market that any one of a dozen automakers would be happy to fill. Those jobs aren't going anywhere.
If the bailout passes, nothing will change and the companies will continue to lose money.
If the bailout doesn't pass, then they'll be forced to abandon old practices and actually innovate for once.- jameson5, on 12/04/2008, -1/+3Agreed! And I guarantee the companies that fill in the gaps will be a whole lot more innovative and fuel-efficient than the big three. If anything, the government should be working on a way to fill in the infrastructure that's already built with fresh new minds that actually understand the auto market.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/04/2008, -1/+2They're already abandoning old practices and innovating. Do some research. You're basing your opinions on public misconceptions and stigma.
Yes, foreign companies have some plants here, but this is not all about factory workers. Most of the technical, high paying jobs offered by those companies are overseas. It's foolish to suggest that the failing of the American auto industry wouldn't be a massive blow to the American job market (which is bad enough as it is).
"Those jobs aren't going anywhere." I only wish I possessed your glowing optimism.
- buddypriefert, on 12/04/2008, -1/+4If you are thinking short-term, then sure, a bailout will help.
Long-term?
So, let's see, they build crappy cars and union ran. Once, America had a fine railroad system that now is a joke due to the unions and Europeon rails laugh at us. What's next? Bailing out IBM and Microsoft for crappy computers and software?
No thanks. I'd rather suffer in a downspin of depression knowing captitalism forced out the fat cats who thought we'd throw them a bone. America will come together and create new auto manufacturing. This isn't the first time a mega company that was intertwined in America was washed off the face of the planet. It will leave a void that real entreprenuers will fill.- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/04/2008, -1/+1"I'd rather suffer in a downspin of depression"
You obviously have no idea what you are really saying. Reality is a cruel mistress, and I, for one, do not volunteer to be a part of your outrageously idiotic and self destructive adherence to raw principle over reason and common sense.
Oppose the bailout all you want, but don't you dare volunteer me and my family for the suffering of a depression in the name of your free market fanaticism. - buddypriefert, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1@SpeedSteamBoat "don't you dare volunteer me and my family for the suffering of a depression in the name of your free market fanaticism"
And don't dare volunteer me and my famiy's direct tax $'s to bail out poorly managed, short-sighted car companies, who, just because I have chosen not to buy their crappy cars, are going to take my $ anyway.
Let's see - GM has 9 lear jets at a cost of $35 million each. There's a measureable amount to contribute to their cause. How many of the exec's are taking a pay cut? None. $75 per hour for their average factory worker versus $40 per hour for Toyota? Unions are running the show? They had the warning in the 70's on making more fuel efficent cars but haven't improved MPG in over 40 years? (or wait, is your GM getting over 22mpg?)
And this is "common sense" to you for their downfall? - PigGeneral, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1@buddypriefert
Execs taking a paycut - All of them actually.
GM is selling 5 of the 9 jets. Sorry to bust your bubble, private jets are a requirement of a global company.
If I remember correctly as I watched the most recent meeting yesterday, that the execs would be quite happy to restructure and compress their organization with a government backed loan, exactly the same way everyone here says they should. UAW agreed to massive massive concessions 2 days ago to keep GM afloat.
If this government backed re-org of our auto industry has strong oversight and a unified direction, it would be money well spent. ESPECIALLY in contrast to way the banks were managed.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/04/2008, -1/+1"I'd rather suffer in a downspin of depression"
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/04/2008, -1/+2Thank you for reminding me I am not alone in apply real reason and logic as opposed to blind principle and naive optimism to this situation.
- buddypriefert, on 12/05/2008, -1/+1Had any "one" of these 3 pigs been more far sighted and spent more of their $75/hr labor buget (demanded by their union - the same organization that bites the hands that feed them) on fuel efficiency, they would have seen a huge surge in sales of these cars to more than offset the economy.
Nice try, but 22mpg average (of cars) and 14mpg (of trucks) for the past 30 years speaks volumes for how these fat cats run their companies. My wallet said "no" to having them crammed down my family's throat and now you are trying to force me to cough up $1,800 to bail them out. - SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/05/2008, -0/+2@buddypriefert:
See, here's the real problem. In reality GM has more 30mpg+ and more hybrids than any other auto manufacturer, yet people like you insist on believing they are "the same old same old." So the truth is that all 3 of these "pigs" have been focusing heavily on fuel efficiency. You're just too blind to see it. - buddypriefert, on 12/05/2008, -1/+0@SpeedSteamBoat
"...have been focusing heavily on fuel efficiency" are you kidding?
Please, spare us the idea that GM has stepped up to the plate on fuel efficiency over the past 30 years. Face it, America drank oil faster in their cars than any other nation and rather than plan ahead and hedge for the days when oil prices would sharply rise by investing more $ in fuel technology, they took short-term profit and focused less on fuel efficiency. Now they are paying dearly for it. Just because they have a few toys (again, I am talking "average" mpg of their product line) to throw us a bone today, doesn't indicate their committment to making the US less dependent on oil. That is crux of your falicy. - SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/06/2008, -0/+1@buddypriefert: Your inability to concede the validity and factual accuracy of my points exposes your comments as the illogical, slanted rantings they are.
Congrats on learning the words "crux" and "fallacy." Perhaps one day you will learn what they mean.
- buddypriefert, on 12/05/2008, -1/+1Had any "one" of these 3 pigs been more far sighted and spent more of their $75/hr labor buget (demanded by their union - the same organization that bites the hands that feed them) on fuel efficiency, they would have seen a huge surge in sales of these cars to more than offset the economy.
- buddypriefert, on 12/05/2008, -1/+0SpeedSteamBoat seems to be a nice tool for the auto union. Not unlike a tool that blamed demand for oil in India and China for the Big 5 oil companies burning us a few months ago which, with a little bit of public pressure, came back to reality.
- Hosalabad, on 12/04/2008, -3/+22This won't kill the industry if the big 3 fail. Honda is doing great these days.
- themellowmarsh, on 12/04/2008, -17/+7I heard, and I don't know if this is true or not, but 10 out of 10 Fresca drinkers, drink Fresca.
- freezerburn666, on 12/04/2008, -3/+4they also are gay
- rheemglas, on 12/04/2008, -0/+0Fresca is the bomb
/not gay- 3tcp, on 12/04/2008, -0/+2only a fresca drinker would say 'the bomb'
- texpundit, on 12/04/2008, -0/+1I'm drinking a Fresca right now and I'm the farthest thing from gay...unless by "gay" you mean "happy." :)
- 3tcp, on 12/04/2008, -1/+2Yeah well... only 2 things come from texas...
- texpundit, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1Steers and your mom?
- Treason, on 12/04/2008, -18/+13I guess no one here realizes the many millions of jobs that will be lost if the big 3 go down...
- dortiis, on 12/04/2008, -5/+15Do you think that if they go down that that's it?
There are still cars out there, and someone will fill the gap. Maybe not completely, and they probably won't pay 5-10x the going rate for services, but adaptation is better than submission.
We cannot continue to let these companies stagnate and make money.- Treason, on 12/04/2008, -8/+7Sounds to me like you're talking out the ass. Every GM, Ford, Chrysler dealership will be gone. Thousands of lenders and banks will crumble. Every factory worker will be out of a job. It's a chain reaction brother.
- dortiis, on 12/04/2008, -2/+7And all of people who would have bought cars from those places would just not get cars at all?
Think of economics. Supply and Demand... - Wetzilla, on 12/04/2008, -3/+3Lets see, millions of jobs lost means those people won't be buying many things, which means the economy as a whole will shrink, which means that people overall will have less money than before, which means that they will buy fewer things (including cars), which means the economy will slow more.....
- dortiis, on 12/04/2008, -0/+3Wetzilla, please do not think of this so close-minded. Reread my statement, go back to your economic books and THINK
more demand will create more jobs... Gaps will be made, and because the labor rates will have gone down drastically, America will look like a pleasant place to find educated people already trained in the business.
Its a lot easier than you guys are giving it credit for. - Wetzilla, on 12/04/2008, -0/+1And you aren't understanding how the economy really works. Where is this increased demand going to come from when people have less money? Yes, increased demand creates more jobs. However, the big 3 going under will recess the economy creating less demand. I'm going by the facts. The economy has been recessing throughout the last year, and consumer spending has gone down. How can demand go up when spending is down?
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/05/2008, -0/+2@dortils:
"And all of people who would have bought cars from those places would just not get cars at all?"
No, most of them won't because they will have either lost their job or be trapped in the depression that resulted from letting our auto industry fail. Think of economics indeed. There is no demand if people can't afford your product because they are laid off or having their hours cut.
"more demand will create more jobs... Gaps will be made, and because the labor rates will have gone down drastically, America will look like a pleasant place to find educated people already trained in the business."
Where is this demand coming from during an economic slowdown? Do you not realize that foreign automakers too are suffering and have sold not even 2/3s the cars this year they did last year? There won't be a huge increase in demand for them. They will be sitting about where they were in 2007, perhaps a little better. That will not create the need for huge, rapid U.S. expansion (which is what you would need to do anything for the economic slow down that will follow the collapse of the auto industry).
Yes, America will look like a pleasant place to find educated people already trained in business... and fly them overseas to work for you. Educated people follow jobs not the other way around. Do you think that educated people from around the world have been coming here for decades to work because they just wanted to live here? No, it's because there have been jobs for them here. As jobs go so goes the people who do those jobs.
It's a lot more serious than you guys are giving it credit for. - dortiis, on 12/05/2008, -2/+1@ SpeedSTeamBoat
No they come to this country because we have a history of over paying thanks to hand outs and Unions. are you actually thinking that the doctors in this country couldn't find work elsewhere? its the money that drives people here, and the people with money aren't going anywhere.... there loyalty is.
You are proposing that we would continue this structure when it has drove us into so much debt, the average american cannot fathom the number they put before us. - SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/06/2008, -0/+1@dortiis: Haha, okay, well, I don't understand why you bother replying if you don't even give what wrote a little bit of though before doing so.
- KaseyCarbone, on 12/04/2008, -4/+8The market always corrects itself, just like nature does. Like when there are mass die-offs of species because of climate or other factors. The herd is thinned with a merciless hand to make room for new species. Pain, suffering, and slow painful death among the masses is completely natural.
This message brought to you by the National League of Social Darwinists.- KaseyCarbone, on 12/04/2008, -3/+1BTW, that was sarcasm.
- 3tcp, on 12/04/2008, -0/+2Your analogy sucks. There's no inherent advantage to preserving crappy companies just because they exist and were successful at one point in time.
- KaseyCarbone, on 12/04/2008, -0/+1I'm didn't endorse "preserving crappy companies" with my sarcasm, I simply pointed out the disregard for human suffering so many social Darwinists seem to share. Yes, an unhealthy market will always correct if you let it, but there will often be lots of innocent lives destroyed unless the correction is handled actively and intelligently.
- squarepegs, on 12/04/2008, -1/+8I realize it, but why should we give the automakers money to make cars no one is going to buy?
If you want to donate your paycheck to CEOs who cry about their stock options, go right ahead. But I earn my money and I'm tired of sleazy politicians giving it away. - jmpeagle, on 12/04/2008, -1/+4going into bankruptcy doesn't mean they will dissappear. They can come back, but the industry is overbloated and does need to lose millions of jobs.
Oh and by the way, those millions of jobs are going to disappear even with the federal money, it will most likely be a requirement from the government that they trim down their workforce a lot.- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1"going into bankruptcy doesn't mean they will dissappear." In this instance, it very likely does.
- browe07, on 12/04/2008, -3/+4Supply and demand control the reality of the job market. A bailout won't change either. Part of the problem is that due to the UAW the big three must pay their workers amounts which do not allow them to be competitive in a world market. By bailing out the big 3 it will perpetuate the socialistic welfare which is causing the problem in the first place. The country as a whole will suffer. The more we try to prop up and pretend, the more the reality of global competition will smack us in the face.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/05/2008, -1/+2The UAW has already agreed to renegotiate their contracts. Keep up.
This bailout isn't socialist. Look up words before you use them, and if you still can't grasp them after looking them up it'd be better to just refrain all together.
Furthermore, "socialist welfare" isn't "causing the problem in the first place." What is causing the problem is an unprecedented credit crisis which preventing these companies from taking out loans that would otherwise suffice to get them through tough financial periods.
We aren't trying to "prop up and pretend." We are trying to survive an severe recession and prevent it from turning into a depression.
In other words, you have no clue what you are talking about. - browe07, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1I suppose with minimal perspective it would seem that way. Go join Washington in the perpetual tail chasing. If there's gonna be any real change though you've got to get down to the meat and potatoes. Not this "what did the media tell me last week" regurgitation.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/05/2008, -1/+2The UAW has already agreed to renegotiate their contracts. Keep up.
- 3tcp, on 12/04/2008, -3/+1Go down is not out of business, it's into bankruptcy. Jobs will be preserved.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1Jobs will be cut en mass in bankruptcy, and these companies would likely never be able to rebuild their images. The result would be the total dissolution of our auto industry when they do come out of bankruptcy to be sold.
- dortiis, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1You know what they're going to do if we give them the money?
Cut Jobs en mass to "restructure"
and you know what happens when you give a dog a treat for barking?
it learns that it gets treats for barking....
This would result in the total dissolution of working for the american dream. and no amount of money will fix that.
- BlackJackJester, on 12/04/2008, -1/+2none? People aren't going to stop driving, so when one fails, another will move in. The jobs aren't going anywhere.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1Who's going to be buying cars in a depression (foreign or otherwise)?
These companies falling into bankruptcy will kick the economic slowdown into overdrive and the result will be a lot of jobs disappearing very quickly. - GroundhogBoy, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1Why do so many of you people think that bankruptcy suddenly erases debt? Maybe when you default on $60K in credit cards, you can see it as "erased," but really it's just absorbed by the system (i.e. everyone else). There's a reason that these companies are "Too Big to Fail" and it's because the collapse of the micro-economies that they create aren't small enough to be absorbed.
The amount of the requested bridge loan is the same as the federal tax income derived from these companies and their vendors in 1 YEAR. You'd rather kill that revenue and give it to foreign companies than give these companies what is the equivalent of a 1 year tax break to the companies?
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1Who's going to be buying cars in a depression (foreign or otherwise)?
- vinod1978, on 12/04/2008, -0/+1Yes, 2-3 million people would be out of a job pretty quickly, but what information can you give to prove that 10 years from now those same 2-3 million jobs won't be at risk again. They already increased their "asking price" from 25 B to 34 B. Unless they are able to change their strategy buy building more reliable, and more efficient vehicles I don't want to give them a dime, even if their CEO salary is $1.
These car companies are married to oil companies, which is why they haven't built more efficient vehicles - so here is an idea - sell 20% of your company to Exxon - and leave us (the taxpayers) out of it. - RoflCoptah, on 12/05/2008, -1/+1not neccessarily, bankruptcy means that they hafta to be restructered and that foreign interests will buy up the assets. you'll still have your job, you'll just have a different boss
- nexmachina, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1It's thousands, not millions. As if these are the only 3 auto manufacturers in the world. The crappiest 3 yes, the only 3, no.
- dortiis, on 12/04/2008, -5/+15Do you think that if they go down that that's it?
- pintomp3, on 12/04/2008, -4/+9why is it the media didn't harp on corporate jets when the banking execs flew down? there seems to be a weird double-standard here. i am not arguing for a bailout, but the auto industry is much more deserving than the banking industry. the main reason car sales for all companies, not just american ones, is down is because people can't get loans to buy cars. the auto-industry execs have made many boneheaded decisions and should be fired, but not by simultaneously putting millions out of work in the middle of a recession. it shouldn't be a simple yes or no on the bailout, but how the bailout is implemented.
- skellener, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1I think most people in the U.S. were against the wall street bailout as well.
- fuckingusername, on 12/04/2008, -2/+156 out of 10
who's the other 4 the ceos ?
whos gona bail out Jhon Doe when his little shop goes out of business ?
so guess what ...F U CEO's- harrisbradley, on 12/04/2008, -7/+6General Motors, Ford Motors, Chrysler Corp, and Pelosi Inc.
- LonesomeFighter, on 12/04/2008, -1/+5Ford's alright. They don't need the money, but if all their big competitors get billions for free, then they need the money to keep things fair. sucks
- sponeil, on 12/04/2008, -2/+2Don't be silly. It's all the members of the UAW.
- harrisbradley, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1true dat, true dat
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/05/2008, -2/+4The other 4 are people who realize that denial of the bail means "F U AMERICAN WORKERS" not "F U CEO'S"
The CEOs are rich and will be fine regardless. The collapse of their companies will only hurt those who they employ, jackass.
I guess it's cool to needlessly sacrifice the livelihood of millions of people just to make a political point about your frustration with corporate CEOs but not really.
- harrisbradley, on 12/04/2008, -7/+6General Motors, Ford Motors, Chrysler Corp, and Pelosi Inc.
- tomakaze, on 12/04/2008, -0/+46Against bailouts in general principle, but it should be noted that all this airtime dealing with the Auto company bailouts is pretty much a dog & pony show to redirect peoples focus from the recent massive rape they pulled off on behalf of the banks...
- PrincessSalami, on 12/04/2008, -0/+5so so SO true!
- PrincessSalami, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1I might also refer you to this article:
http://digg.com/business_finance/Bailout_vs_Bailou ...
"lets compare the bailouts.
3,092,000,000,000 vs. 34,000,000,000.
Do you know how much bigger the Wall Street parasite theft is as opposed to the automakers loan?
115 times bigger"
"both parties - this should bring you closer to realizing that both parties are paid by the same lobby groups, and do the bidding of their masters - both corporate and extra-national - diligently and without fail) in a rare bout of cooperation passed this ASAP.
No partisan rhetoric here, no democrat vs. republican - both parties elders' worked overtime, calling their lesser congress people to goddamn pass this bill - or else!
Isn't it great that finally, we have achieved a government in which both parties cooperate so well and work efficiently and diligently?
No ugly partisanship here!
It's almost as if both parties had one paymaster (or several lobbies) who told them how to vote, regardless of the wishes of their American constituents... hmmmm?"
"Do you see how this game was played?
How we are no longer talking about the Wall Street trillions but instead are arguing about a much smaller, piddly number (relatively speaking) of a few billion?
And we Americans can be counted on to be guided, steered and led by the big media propaganda machine."
- PrincessSalami, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1I might also refer you to this article:
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/05/2008, -1/+1Absolutely. I don't get why people are so worked up over a bailout package that is a minute fraction of the one we just handed the shameless, greedy bankers who started all this.
Send AIG upper management on corperate retreats and give them multimillion dollar "retainment bonuses" because they've been doing such a wonderful job (!?). We can live with all of that, but when you want to actually save blue collar jobs you've gone too far? What the *****? - Sinnic, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1Another +
It's shameful when we need to have a televised debate/cross examination when these companies are asking for a relative pittance as compared to the money handed out to the banks - in order to retain American automobile manufacturing capacity! As if the banks actually provide a something tangible - as if the banks weren't the damn cause of this in the first place! And here's this public campaign, pretty much out in the open, that seeks to oppose them. Shameful.
- PrincessSalami, on 12/04/2008, -0/+5so so SO true!
- bluehouse, on 12/04/2008, -6/+11Just because 6 out 10 people disagree doesn't mean it's a good idea to let the auto industry go under. At some point in our country's history, 6 out of 10 people thought segregation was a good idea
- pintomp3, on 12/04/2008, -2/+9almost 6 out of 10 voted to violate the separation of church and state and take away rights by banning gay marriage.
- bluehouse, on 12/04/2008, -2/+6exactly
- scoot2006, on 12/04/2008, -2/+160% of the time it works all the time?
- sponeil, on 12/04/2008, -4/+4So why not just let them file for bankruptcy protection? They wouldn't go completely under, and they would be able to kick the union out. It would be the quickest and way to save them, and it wouldn't require a bailout.
- pintomp3, on 12/04/2008, -2/+3except the unions weren't the problem. the problem was bad management decisions.
- Briandrews15, on 12/04/2008, -3/+2I don't know the numbers but for example, when a union worker for GM makes $50/hr and a worker at Honda makes $10/hr... unions are the problem.
Organized labor is important, but some of the US's bigger unions have gradually demanded a higher standard of living, forcing GM to pay them much more than non-union equivalent workers at Honda. When people get paid more regardless if the company is doing well, they are going to eventually destroy the company.
Your right that management is to blame too because they could have seen this coming and restructured cash-flows to favor labor costs. But most importantly, the US auto industry has funded a massive marketing campaign to raise demand for gas-guzzlers. Now people suddenly prefer economical to horsepower, and they have nothing to sell. To follow blame further see historical relationships of big-oil and big-auto, and you will see why we still drive cars with the same gas mileage as 40+ years ago. - pintomp3, on 12/04/2008, -0/+8except the average union worker makes $28/hr, not $50. if you are going to use that comparison, please use accurate numbers. the larger figures have been debunked because they included things like benefits and pension of retired workers. one of the competitive advantages foreign auto companies have is they don't have to pay for health care, that's taken care of by the government. until we we universal health care in this country, our companies will always be at a disadvantage.
- rushiku, on 12/04/2008, -2/+1When an entity that organizes your employees makes it nearly impossible to fire ***** so you can hire people interested in working for a living, that entity becomes a problem.
- Lockean, on 12/04/2008, -2/+1Even paying $28/hr for a manufacturing job is ridiculous, especially in the midwest. On top of excessive wages for unskilled labor, the union has created a situation where workers can get paid that excessive amount to not even work when the company closes lines or entire plants. The industry made its own bed, as did those who chose to rely on it for their own livelihood. Not only will other companies come in to fill the void that these three will leave but they will pay realistic wages and make better products that more people will want to buy. The era of excess and subsidy is finally over in Detroit and we should be proud of the market self-regulating, not trying to stop it from functioning as it should.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/05/2008, -1/+2For the record, the UAW has already volunteered to renegotiate their contracts. So there is no need to let these companies go bankrupt just to get at the Unions.
- sponeil, on 12/05/2008, -1/+0pintomp3 - Management is forced to make bad decisions when they don't have enough capital to make good ones. SUV's didn't kill the US auto industry. On the contrary, their popularity and profitability postponed its death by a decade. The union has been choking them for many more decades than that.
SpeedSteamBoat - I'm sure they have. There's no way they'll come anywhere near the non-union average, or allow the auto industry to eliminate incompetent workers who happen to be union members. That will make the gesture too little too late. They need to be scrapped. - pintomp3, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1sponeil: how exactly are unions choking the industry if the average union worker makes $28/hr while the average toyota worker makes $25. are you saying those 3 dollars are made all the difference? are you claiming the plummet in SUV sales after gas prices went up had nothing to do with it?
- FrEaK40, on 12/04/2008, -5/+1segregation was a good idea...
- 3tcp, on 12/04/2008, -2/+1Government exists to protect the rights of individuals. Beyond that, the government should be able to take on other responsibilities if its citizens want it to, like bailing out broke-ass companies. The 6 of 10 is relevant because without the support of it's citizens, the government has no right to do this.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/05/2008, -1/+2The government exists to preserve and ensure the natural born right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It doesn't exist to protect the civil liberties of individuals. The Bill of Rights is an outline of what the government MUSTN'T do, not of what it must protect. We must protect our own rights from the government. That should be fairly obvious since only the government can really threaten our rights.
Never the less, I think it's fair to say keeping millions of Americans employed and the country out of a depression is a pretty clearly outlined responsibility of the government. It's hard to exercise liberty and pursue happiness in oppressive poverty.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/05/2008, -1/+2The government exists to preserve and ensure the natural born right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It doesn't exist to protect the civil liberties of individuals. The Bill of Rights is an outline of what the government MUSTN'T do, not of what it must protect. We must protect our own rights from the government. That should be fairly obvious since only the government can really threaten our rights.
- BlackJackJester, on 12/04/2008, -2/+4I'm not sure how you can really compare an unprofitable business to civil rights. "They can't use my water fountain because I don't like them" doesn't hold as much water as "We shouldn't give them money because they're running a bad outfit"
- pintomp3, on 12/04/2008, -0/+2it has to do with lack of information. many of those who voted for prop 8 were woefully misinformed.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/05/2008, -1/+2I think you're wrong.
The situation isn't "We shouldn't give them money because they're running a bad outfit"
It's "We should let them collapse because I don't like their CEOs and assume it won't really affect me"
How is encouraging the government to abandon any effort to preserve the livelihood of millions of Americans based on your dislike of their bosses better than encouraging the government to deny the right of millions of Americans based on the your dislike of the color of your skin? Either way it seems you are condemning a large, innocent minority of Americans based on the misguided belief that you are somehow justified in doing so.
For the record, the collapse of our auto industry WOULD affect you. It's bigger than you think.
- TheOneTrueGod, on 12/05/2008, -0/+110 out of 10 people know that I am not God.
- pintomp3, on 12/04/2008, -2/+9almost 6 out of 10 voted to violate the separation of church and state and take away rights by banning gay marriage.
- scareyh22a, on 12/04/2008, -12/+13If GM closes it's doors, over 2 million people will lose their jobs. The job market will flood and it will most likely affect you negatively. Chrysler received a loan back in the 70's that they repaid in 7 years with interest. 7 years is impressive but and at the time, it was questionable that they would be able to bounce back. GM is asking for a loan, not a bailout like the mortgage and housing industry. The automobile industry paid something like $157 billion in taxes last year. They're essentially asking for a tax break. Something they would've paid the government anyways. If they go out of business, it doesn't do the government any good because they would be losing billions in tax revenue.
- gourami, on 12/04/2008, -0/+5We are all paying whether we loan them the money or not. I'd rather avoid another economic meltdown if possible. We just need to ensure that their plans are solid so they can pay the money back in time. But I agree.
- 3tcp, on 12/04/2008, -2/+1The only sector of the economy that can cause an economic meltdown is the financial sector. It's the backbone of the economy and every sector relies on it for normal operations. A weak auto industry will cause an economic meltdown no more than weak agricultural prices would.
- Target91, on 12/04/2008, -0/+1@3tcp
Remember if millions of people are out of work they can no longer pay bills such as water, electricity, mortgage, etc. Sure some people would find replacement jobs soon enough but most workers will be out of a job for over a year. That many people foreclosing in that 3-12 month span would cause the housing market to collapse. (Kind of like what the housing market is doing now) and with it the credit markets seize up. (like what's happening now.) - Lockean, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1The majority of these jobs only exist right now due to mismanagement and union boss greed. They should not be employing 2 million people to do jobs that a 10th of that could do with automation and lean manufacturing like the Japanese or even European automakers do. How long should we be propping up ineffective, inefficient and wasteful labor pools that have no business existing right now. Those people should be doing other work already and if not for the union they would be. They made their own bed and the market has decreed that these companies should fail for it. Bailing them out just puts off the inevitable. At least with a vaccuum to fill in the industry there is hope that other manufacturers, be they start-ups or foreign, can come in and re-create the domestic manufacturing industry in an efficient manner and employ people in a fair working agreement. The UAW needs to fall apart and the big 3 failing will hurt in the short term but make us far stronger in the long run.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/05/2008, -1/+2@3tcp:
"To put GM failing into perspective, in 1998 during a GM strike that lasted for 3 months, the aggregate US GDP dropped by 1/3rd. Think about that, it’s huge, and if GM now goes under completely, the consequences will be profound as it employees close to 266,000 people and about 1,000,000 people would be directly affected with their jobs."
http://business2press.com/2008/11/11/gm-is-a-mess- ...
Care to reconsider that statement? - Sinnic, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1I cannot imagine who is digging you down for offering some actual numbers.
- squarepegs, on 12/04/2008, -1/+5The auto industry paid $157 billion in taxes last year? Where in the world do you get your statistics? Toyota's worldwide profits last year were only about $17.8 billion and the US auto industry was pretty much entirely in the red.
Taxes are paid on PROFITS. It's a bit of an oversimplification because of accounting rules, but essentially if the company is losing money, it doesn't pay taxes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_ ...- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/05/2008, -2/+2I think you might have forgotten how employees still pay income tax no matter how well the company is doing. The automotive industry employs just a couple of people (easily over a quarter million directly and many more through the supply chain and other infrastructure). So I don't think $157billion is too far fetched.
- sponeil, on 12/04/2008, -2/+4Over 2 million grossly overpaid people that have nearly destroyed the US auto industry. The auto companies wouldn't need a loan if we'd let them file for bankruptcy protection and allow them to crush the union in order to get back on their feet. If they are allowed to bring employee compensation in line with the rest of the industry and lay off the poor performers (which they can't do because of the union), they'll be able to save themselves without a big loan.
Economic bubbles need to be pricked to let some air out (preferably at a controlled rate before they pop), not fed by loans to keep them going.- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/05/2008, -2/+1Wow, no, terrible logic all around. The union has some part in this, but to place all the blame on their shoulders is outrageous. They've also already volunteered to renegotiate contracts so there's no need to "crush the union in order to get back on their feet." My god, if you had read some history about how and why the UAW began you'd understand what a really horrible thing to say that is. They're not perfect and have done plenty of stupid crap, but they are not an inherently evil entity. They are a relatively small part of the problem when you considered some of the mismanagement that went on 20 and 30 years ago as well the inherent disadvantages laid on companies that operate within the U.S. such as providing health care for their employees.
You're out of your mind if you think union workers don't get laid off. GM has cut tens of thousands of jobs in the effort to become competitive over the past few years. Many of those were union jobs.
Also, what the hell are you talking about "economic bubbles"? This has NOTHING to do with economic bubbles. This about companies that collectively employ millions of people struggling to stay in business because people can't get loans to buy their products right now, and they can't get loans to cover their losses in the meantime. There is no bubble here, just a financial crisis that is threatening to send us into a depression if we let a substantial part of the foundation of our economy (JOBS) disappear over night. - sponeil, on 12/05/2008, -0/+0SpeedSteamBoat - I have read the history, and I've lived through a decent amount of it. All companies that large have periods of good and bad management. But management decisions, good or bad, are always constrained by available resources. When it costs a LOT more to make a car than Toyota, even with Toyota's factory on US soil, the US auto industry must do one or more of the following:
1) Take a loss.
2) Make a crappier car.
3) Sell at a higher price.
4) Try to trick/screw consumers and/or employees.
5) Insert some other bad management decision.
I don't really see any other realistic options for them under the constraints caused by the union. This is the reality the US car companies have been living with for several decades. I'm not saying the union started off evil, or that it was unnecessary when it started. It has, however, gotten way too fat and greedy. And as I said in another reply to another post of yours, their offer to renegotiate will amount to too little too late. The only offer they can make that would be enough at this point wouldn't require any negotiation.
The economic bubble I was referring to was the UAW workers' salaries. Unrealistic inflated prices = economic bubble. When there's an economic imbalance like that in any market, it will cause problems.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/05/2008, -2/+1Wow, no, terrible logic all around. The union has some part in this, but to place all the blame on their shoulders is outrageous. They've also already volunteered to renegotiate contracts so there's no need to "crush the union in order to get back on their feet." My god, if you had read some history about how and why the UAW began you'd understand what a really horrible thing to say that is. They're not perfect and have done plenty of stupid crap, but they are not an inherently evil entity. They are a relatively small part of the problem when you considered some of the mismanagement that went on 20 and 30 years ago as well the inherent disadvantages laid on companies that operate within the U.S. such as providing health care for their employees.
- AndrewMoyer, on 12/04/2008, -0/+1Please provide citations!
(Your arse is not a valid reference.)- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/05/2008, -1/+1http://gmfactsandfiction.com/wp-content/uploads/20 ...
"The collapse of the U.S.-based auto industry would be devastating. In just
the first year:
12
o Direct, indirect and spinoff employment would drop by 2.95 million people
o Personal income would drop by $150.7 billion
o Government transfer payments would increase by $14.3 billion
o Social security receipts would drop by $21.1 billon
o Personal income tax paid would drop by $24.7 billion"
About the '79 Chrysler bailout:
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/economy/a/chryslerB ...
This took me only slightly longer to find then it took you to think of a smarmy comment about citation.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/05/2008, -1/+1http://gmfactsandfiction.com/wp-content/uploads/20 ...
- 3tcp, on 12/04/2008, -1/+12 million is a total lie
1.3% of the american labor force will not become unemployed because congress didn't hand over a bunch of money to a failing company.- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/05/2008, -1/+1http://gmfactsandfiction.com/wp-content/uploads/20 ...
You're right. It's closer to 3 million.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/05/2008, -1/+1http://gmfactsandfiction.com/wp-content/uploads/20 ...
- BlackJackJester, on 12/04/2008, -2/+2You make it sound like those jobs will disappear. What happens when a company goes under? Another, less ***** company takes over their assets and workforce.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/05/2008, -1/+1Uh, no. When a massive company goes under they flood the already poor employment market and unemployment sky rockets. Eventually things would improve, but not until after we all live through the next great depression. Are you honestly suggesting that ~3 million people losing their jobs all at once wouldn't seriously affect the economy as a whole?
- iceman0113, on 12/04/2008, -2/+2GM has not been profitable since the 70s. If the government wants tax revenue, they have a better chance at it by taxing marijuana.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/05/2008, -1/+1Workers still pay income tax, sales tax, property tax, etc. If the government wants any taxes at all people need to be employed.
Thought I agree we should be taxing marijuana. That's totally unrelated.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/05/2008, -1/+1Workers still pay income tax, sales tax, property tax, etc. If the government wants any taxes at all people need to be employed.
- gourami, on 12/04/2008, -0/+5We are all paying whether we loan them the money or not. I'd rather avoid another economic meltdown if possible. We just need to ensure that their plans are solid so they can pay the money back in time. But I agree.
- Rethcir, on 12/04/2008, -1/+2Why, that's nearly 60%!!!
- acaloiar, on 12/04/2008, -2/+7Why not say 60%?
Anyway, 60% opposed the Paulson bailout too, what did their opposition mean? - Frnnkdlxx, on 12/04/2008, -3/+17So what? Alex Jones has recorded testimony from Congressmen and women that they were recieving thousand to one calls against the bank bailout. Yet that went through. A congresswoman even went as far as to admit that on one line, there were 9,000 to 1 calls by the American public against the bailout, which now stands at $7.4trillion!!!!!! WITH A T!!!!!! in less than 2 months! This makes the $2 trillion stolen by the Pentagon, which Rumsfeld admitted to, look like interoffice petty theft of pencils.
So, the U.S federal gov't is saying to us: WHO GIVES A DAMN about what you want. We're doing what benefits us and our high paying lobbyist pals and vested interests in Europe, like the Rothschilds and Harrimons. That's who's really benefitting. Because the destruction of U.S. hegemony ensures that they get to keep running the game of international, global politics from the top, since we will be too broke to pursue the very individuals who destructed us.
infowars.com- asgardshill, on 12/04/2008, -11/+4Alex Jones is a freaking nutbar.
- Frnnkdlxx, on 12/04/2008, -2/+5He resembles more of a marshmallow to me... But i'm sure your psychiatrist has his own explanations as to why you see a nutbar...
- Wetzilla, on 12/04/2008, -5/+3Were these thousands of callers economic experts? No? Then they should be ignored, as they were. If the majority of economists said that we didn't need the bailout and it still passed, that would actually mean something. And Alex Jones is insane and a horrible human being, profiting off of the fears and deaths of other people.
- SpectralSounds, on 12/04/2008, -0/+9The reps are supposed to support their constituents agenda, not their own personal one. Also, those economic experts were the ones that caused this ***** storm in the first place.
- iceman0113, on 12/04/2008, -0/+7As an economist, I opposed the bailout. If your company cannot do something simple as breaking even or making payroll, you should not be in business in the first place. What the bailout does is say, "Hey, if you fail we'll save you." When in fact, people need to fail in order to start new innovations and move towards something better.
- Frnnkdlxx, on 12/04/2008, -0/+5Speaking of economic experts calling Alex Jones, here's a quick list:
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, father of Reaganics, which plotted our course out of stagflation.
Max Keiser, someone who's credentials are too numerous to identify here, but whose credibility is world reknowned
Congressman Ron Paul, whom we all know and whose economic opinions have won him awards worldwide
man others. many, many others. So yes, his is an opinion and intellect which we can "bank" on.
And addressing your other argument that he profits on fears and death.... uhh.. what? isn't he the guy with the youtube vid that has him announcing that there will be a giant terrorist attack 2 weeks before 9/11 and of him actually going to the world trade towers to warn people about it? then, afterwards, you call him a liar, a joke, a fearmonger, when all it is apparent he's doing is warning people?
hmm.... Please, kind sir, take deep inside your mind so I can find where you acquire your "logic"... SO I CAN KILL IT! *unsheathes book* - sliksta, on 12/04/2008, -0/+4SpectralSounds hit the nail on the head.
These crooked bastards are supposed to be our REPRESENTATIVES. So no, the citizens should not be ignored Wetzilla, you ignoramus. - Wetzilla, on 12/05/2008, -1/+1So they should best represent our interests by passing policy that would hurt the citizens in the long run? Representatives are not there to do our bidding. We elect them because we feel that they are the best choice to protect and represent our interests. So in some situations, yes, the citizens should be ignored. If that was the case no social progress would ever be made. A representative who only does what their constituents want is not doing a very good job as a rep. It's the go reps that are willing at certain times to make tough, unpopular stances on a position they think to be the right course. If the reps did whatever the people wanted we would have free healthcare, perfect roads, free gas, and pay no taxes. So yes, the citizens should be ignored on certain subjects, you ignoramus.
Or lets put it into another situation. If you were sick, you go to a doctor for a diagnosis. He gives you one diagnosis, but a bunch of other random people you know who aren't in the medical field tell you it's something else, who are you going to believe? The people with no medical experience, or a doctor?
@Frnnk - I say he profits off of fear and death because he puts out misleading dvds about terrorist events, and profits off of spreading bad information, causing people to be fearful, and having them buy his products, listen to his show, and visit his website. And I've never heard of this youtube clip you speak of, and I've listened to him on "coast to coast am" without a single mention of anything of this sort. - Frnnkdlxx, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1Wetzilla, you're in luck:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGtOFudmHG8 - Wetzilla, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1I watched the video, all I saw is a guy claim we are going to be attacked by our own government. He said nothing about specifics of 9/11. It just happened to be a month and a half before 9/11. He's been doing this all the time. On Coast to Coast AM he would routinely come on and predict terrorists attacks in the next month or so, and they never happened. He happened to get lucky once. And I'm not even going to get started on his statements of the government perpetrating every terrorist attack. Guess what, martial law wasn't declared. That kind of hurts his statements in this video.
And there was nothing of him going to the WTC to warn people. He just made a broad sweeping statement of "terrorist attacks", which, like I said, he does all the time.
- netant, on 12/04/2008, -1/+21) I don't believe for a second there were 9000:1 calls against the bank bailout.
2) If that was actually the case, that MAY be good news. That would mean MANY incumbent politicians will lose their jobs voting for the bank bailout.
So what do you believe? That Jones was factually correct, and we'll be seeing many incumbent out in 2010-2012? Or that the voting public is too stupid to exercise their Constitutional rights?- iceman0113, on 12/04/2008, -1/+7http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZFwRAfkV1g 91,000 total calls, 85,000 people opposing the bailout and she voted for it. 93.4% people called in and emailed her opposing it and she called the people that she's representing dumb.
- PrincessSalami, on 12/04/2008, -3/+4"That would mean MANY incumbent politicians will lose their jobs voting for the bank bailout."
Barack Obama voted for the bailout and so did McCain, but that didn't stop all the tools out there from voting him in, now did it?
Apparently a good speaker with a different skin colour is enough to convince people that real change is on the horizon. *sigh*
"the voting public is too stupid to exercise their Constitutional rights?"
Agreed they ARE too stupid, most should have just stayed home on election day... but instead of taking the time to fully investigate the Candidates for themselves; they were OH SO PATRIOTIC! and they went in droves to vote for pony #1 or pony #2... INSTEAD OF INVESTIGATING TO FIND THE REAL CHOICES 3-7 Which were: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney -all very vocally opposed to the bailout.
all were very poorly represented in the media...
By playing off of the Americans feel good emotions of hope and change... The only thing that the American sheeple actually changed was the skin colour of their Faux leader. There will still be a federal reserve 4 years from now and any substantial economic "change" simply will not happen, as that doesn't fit the MO of the powers that be, now does it?
They ingeniously played people like the fools that they are...
mark my words: Barack Obama will only make things worse.
Just WATCH!
You can only HOPE that I'm wrong. - sliksta, on 12/04/2008, -1/+4Well put PrincessSalami and you could not be more right.
The Amercian sheeple hurt all of us by voting for an R-crook or a D-crook everytime. And yeah the media is 100% biased, crooked, bought and paid for. That won't change so the sheeple have to grow a couple more brain cells and learn to find alternative news sources. Anyone with an internet connection or shortwave radio can do it.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1Okay, I agree with you about the bank bailouts, but this is the automotive industry. It actually employees people. It actually employees A LOT of people.
- rlbond86, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1that's because only the angry ones call in
- asgardshill, on 12/04/2008, -11/+4Alex Jones is a freaking nutbar.
- AmericanParty, on 12/04/2008, -3/+7Who the hell are the 4 out of 10 people who favor it?
- scoot2006, on 12/04/2008, -1/+6The people who work in the factories and their friends and family. Just my guess.
- Wetzilla, on 12/04/2008, -9/+6the people who actually have some sort of understanding about how the economy works.
- AndrewMoyer, on 12/04/2008, -1/+5These days, it's looking like you are referring to "nobody."
I mean, seriously... we're letting the assholes that are responsible for this mess make the recovery plan and make the decisions. - 3tcp, on 12/04/2008, -2/+3Well that's absolutely false. People who know how economics works know that the industry can't compete as long as their costs are so high.
- Wetzilla, on 12/04/2008, -1/+2@3tcp - That's why they aren't just going to give these companies a blank check. They are requiring them to come up with cost cutting plans in order for them to save money, and plans for new revenue. They aren't going to get the money to run their businesses the same way they have been.
- sliksta, on 12/04/2008, -1/+2Wetzilla, armchair economist. BTW, you're wrong.
- Wetzilla, on 12/05/2008, -0/+2@silksta - great argument. Way to prove me wrong. Nuh uh, you're wrong.
- AndrewMoyer, on 12/04/2008, -1/+5These days, it's looking like you are referring to "nobody."
- netant, on 12/04/2008, -1/+3...And can understand the OBVIOUS difference between a loan and a bailout.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/05/2008, -1/+2People who don't want to live through another great depression.
- AmericanParty, on 12/05/2008, -1/+2so printing off billions of dollars causing inflation won't get use into a depression? you should probably think before typing.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/06/2008, -1/+1"so printing off billions of dollars causing inflation won't get use into a depression?"
What the ***** are you talking about? Yes, the bank bailout was a horrible idea and shouldn't have happened. I agree, but how will letting millions of automotive industry jobs disappear or otherwise fall into serious jeopardy keep us out of a depression?
"you should probably think before typing."
Hypocrite. - AmericanParty, on 12/06/2008, -0/+1Money doesn't grow on trees, so where do you think we are getting all these billions of dollars? Let me guess, you think a unicorn named "Bubbles" comes down from the sky and grants the US with money when we ask for it.
And just because a company fails, doesn't mean jobs will disappear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_11,_Title_11, ...
Did you attend any school? Seriously...
- SteelChicken, on 12/05/2008, -0/+2Union workers and morons who think whether or not a company goes out of business has nothing to that companies ability to function and make a decent product, but how many people it employs.
Definition....socialists.
- toxsid, on 12/04/2008, -11/+6....is the bailout a-FORD-able?
- actionscripture, on 12/04/2008, -1/+2Wrong site...try your puns on reddit, much better response.
- BlackJackJester, on 12/04/2008, -0/+1*rimshot*
dugg for the pun - the unappreciated comedy. - gowjo18, on 12/04/2008, -0/+0IDC I lol'd
- shauncorleone, on 12/04/2008, -1/+4While I am against continually bailing out every failing company (tax success and reward failure?), the bailouts wouldn't be so bad for the auto industry if there weren't so many stipulations incorporated. Congress is basically saying, "With this $25 billion, you will make the vehicles we tell you to make."
Bankruptcy does not mean that the American automakers will cease to exist. What it will likely result in is dozens, if not hundreds, of independent automakers. As for the millions that we say will be hurt by it, my question is whether this bailout will really help anybody, or simply delay the inevitable?- netant, on 12/04/2008, -1/+2"What it will likely result in is dozens, if not hundreds, of independent automakers. "
You are obviously a Libtard. (And not all Libertarians are Libtards.) What would most likely happen is that overseas car manufacturers fill the void left by American car companies, and the U.S. cannot build their own tanks or military support vehicles anymore.- Demener, on 12/04/2008, -0/+1You are obviously paranoid [insert name calling here].
If they fail they will file for CH11 bankruptcy and restructure. Ford will likely come out of it alright, GM and Chrysler will likely be acquired by competitors. Competitors includes Ford. - KoffKoffus, on 12/04/2008, -0/+1Finally someone who recognizes the inherent value of US manufacturing. Those industries enabled the US and her Allies to defeat Nazism.
We must be able to manufacture in this country. - Tbyrd073, on 12/04/2008, -0/+2General Dynamics is responsible for Tank production in the US. At least the M1A1/M1A2 Abrams.
- Demener, on 12/04/2008, -0/+1You are obviously paranoid [insert name calling here].
- rushiku, on 12/04/2008, -0/+1I have to agree, 'hundreds' of independent car makers is lunacy.
If current US auto makers can't make a decent car at an affordable price, an independent, who enjoys almost zero economy of scale, will produce either crap or cars no one can afford.- shauncorleone, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1Perhaps you ignored the quotes flying around that union guaranteed pensions and paying a worker $72 an hour to tighten a bolt adds $1000-2000 on average to the price of an American car. That is a major reason why they can't make the car at a competitive price.
- vinod1978, on 12/04/2008, -0/+1shaun - you hit the nail on the head. This bailout won't fix anything because they will not build more reliable and more efficient vehicles. They will continue selling substandard products are higher prices and these millions of jobs that they say will be lost will be gone either now or later. The only real way to do this bailout right is to force them to build 70 MPG
- netant, on 12/04/2008, -1/+2"What it will likely result in is dozens, if not hundreds, of independent automakers. "