Bail Out the Auto Industry

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: palehorse
Absolutely not.

Like TWA, DHL, and a million other companies over the years, they can file Chapter 11, reorganize, and come back with a more efficient and effective business plan sometime in the future. If that means that some people lose their jobs, then so be it.

Unlike the bailout of the banks, there would be no monetary return on the "investment." IOW, we, the people, will never get the money back.

Fuck that.

It's estimated that if "one" of the big three fail, the US government will lose nearly 50 billion per year in tax revenue, FWIW.

I'd like to see the supporting data and "logic" behind that claim.

But regardless, the premise that we "should" bail them out due to supposed lost tax revenue is silly.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Genx87

I agree there will definately be a hit on the suppliers. But I dont think they would go away as the person I replied to said.

From the internal numbers I've seen, quite a few could just quit or move out of North America alltogether. The rest of the world is in pretty good shape and many suppliers are making money elsewhere. Here in North America, the supplier industry is in dire straights. My company has been ahead of the curve and isn't in nearly as bad a shape as many others are, but we are still struggling and it's getting worse, not better. Time will tell though.

If they can't compete - why prop up a failing business that uses uncompetitive suppliers?

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: chess9
I've changed my mind on this issue. Initially I was opposed, but after considering some of the consequences to our economy and tax base, to say nothing of the pain to the 3 million workers involved, I think we should give them a hand.

The problem with a bailout is properly managing it. Without concessions by labor and management, a viable business plan, and completely new management, I don't think a bailout would do anything but prolong the inevitable. I would give it ONE try.

-Robert

I agree. I was initially against this, but I think the blow to our automotive industry and everything connected to it would be too much to an already struggling economy.

I do think that this should be clearly a loan, and they should have to prove that they have a viable plan going forward that doesn't include future loans.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: chess9
I've changed my mind on this issue. Initially I was opposed, but after considering some of the consequences to our economy and tax base, to say nothing of the pain to the 3 million workers involved, I think we should give them a hand.

The problem with a bailout is properly managing it. Without concessions by labor and management, a viable business plan, and completely new management, I don't think a bailout would do anything but prolong the inevitable. I would give it ONE try.

-Robert

I agree. I was initially against this, but I think the blow to our automotive industry and everything connected to it would be too much to an already struggling economy.

I do think that this should be clearly a loan, and they should have to prove that they have a viable plan going forward that doesn't include future loans.

You do realize there was a 25BILLION loan earlier this fall - right?

 

[CptObvious]

I believe the Big Three should be allowed to go into Ch. 11, re-structure and come out more streamlined. Yes, it's going to suck for the near future as thousands of people are going to be laid off, but it's the better option in the long term rather than keep a bloated, obsolete model on a lifeline.

I'm speaking as someone who recently found his specific area of work was outsourced/made obsolete and who is trying to transition into a new career. Of course I wish I could still be working in the same field and earn a good living (I was earning roughly the same as some of these assembly line workers). But the market has changed and frankly, the idea that I should be paid the same rate to sit around and do nothing while the government foots the bill is not going to help the economy as a whole.

Instead of paying the auto industry billions just to keep people employed for the sake of being employed, we should be funding more career transition and re-education programs, to encourage people into areas that need growth like new energy, infrastructure and transportation.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: chess9
I've changed my mind on this issue. Initially I was opposed, but after considering some of the consequences to our economy and tax base, to say nothing of the pain to the 3 million workers involved, I think we should give them a hand.

The problem with a bailout is properly managing it. Without concessions by labor and management, a viable business plan, and completely new management, I don't think a bailout would do anything but prolong the inevitable. I would give it ONE try.

-Robert

I agree. I was initially against this, but I think the blow to our automotive industry and everything connected to it would be too much to an already struggling economy.

I do think that this should be clearly a loan, and they should have to prove that they have a viable plan going forward that doesn't include future loans.

You do realize there was a 25BILLION loan earlier this fall - right?

Yes, but to the Big Three. Pocket change, as we've already established.

-Robert

 

[Modelworks]

Yes , but only if they change to manufacturing something that has a market.
If all they are going to do is promise to start making cars that will sell, then I say let them close.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: WaTaGuMp

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: WaTaGuMp

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: bozack
You know, I used to only buy american, and while I had ok luck with that I was pretty peeved at the lack of service that I was offered especially when I talked to others who owned japanese cars...you'd think with how horrible the companies were doing they would do a little more for their customers.

We now own two japanese cars and the likelihood of my buying american again is really small.

LOl at least you admit it. You do seem to be the kind of person who would make a decision to "buy American." Of course Japanese cars are better. Wtf do you think anyone buys them? Because they hate America? Welcome to the global free market, where you buy what's cheaper and better. Why do people continue to thinnk that conservatives understand the free market?

american cars are as good as japanese, this isn't 1995 any more. The real crap is made in germany.

The SIX recalls of the 2008 Dodge Avenger might make you think a little different about the qaulity of american cars, lol.

You do realize Toyota had the highest number of recalls last year.

Nope I dont know about last years recalls, all I do know is an article yesterday on yahoo had Honda and Toyota at the top for quality if their cars, Chrysler held the bottom spots and the Avenger was mentioned. It made it veery clear that the japanese cars were much better in terms of quality.

thats what happens when you go to yahoo for anything.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I believe the VW hit the US around 1957. It was inexpensive, reliable, and got good gas mileage. I also believe that the implications of the end of oil have been foretold, understood and anticipated since the early 1950's Let the auto companies die. They are not only incompetent, they have actively worked to destroy our nation by standing in the way of progress.

The US consumer has held the US back. Companies build and sell what consumers want, not the other way around.

And if the companies don't build what consumers want, they.......

 

[piasabird]

If they want help let their boards resign and then put them in Chapter 11, Let them reorganized, then let them ask for help.

I am of a mind that they need real change and the current management needs to be replaced first. Maybe they need to be put into receivership so the government can force a breaking of the unions. Let them make more realistic wages like the rest of the world, so Ford and Chevrolet can compete on more equal terms.

I am for some kind of help, but I think the help needs to come after change not before it. The US Govt needs to have some domestic vehicle manufacturers to make things like Tanks, and Personnel Carriers. So the US Government should be able to make some basic changes that benefit both parties.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: chess9
I've changed my mind on this issue. Initially I was opposed, but after considering some of the consequences to our economy and tax base, to say nothing of the pain to the 3 million workers involved, I think we should give them a hand.

The problem with a bailout is properly managing it. Without concessions by labor and management, a viable business plan, and completely new management, I don't think a bailout would do anything but prolong the inevitable. I would give it ONE try.

-Robert

I agree. I was initially against this, but I think the blow to our automotive industry and everything connected to it would be too much to an already struggling economy.

I do think that this should be clearly a loan, and they should have to prove that they have a viable plan going forward that doesn't include future loans.

You do realize there was a 25BILLION loan earlier this fall - right?

You do realize they have not received one nickel of that yet - right?

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: chess9
I've changed my mind on this issue. Initially I was opposed, but after considering some of the consequences to our economy and tax base, to say nothing of the pain to the 3 million workers involved, I think we should give them a hand.

The problem with a bailout is properly managing it. Without concessions by labor and management, a viable business plan, and completely new management, I don't think a bailout would do anything but prolong the inevitable. I would give it ONE try.

-Robert

I agree. I was initially against this, but I think the blow to our automotive industry and everything connected to it would be too much to an already struggling economy.

I do think that this should be clearly a loan, and they should have to prove that they have a viable plan going forward that doesn't include future loans.

You do realize there was a 25BILLION loan earlier this fall - right?

You do realize they have not received one nickel of that yet - right?

They should get it pretty soon. I would think before the end of the year. This proposed bailout money wouldn't get there until March or April at least.

-Robert

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: chess9
I've changed my mind on this issue. Initially I was opposed, but after considering some of the consequences to our economy and tax base, to say nothing of the pain to the 3 million workers involved, I think we should give them a hand.

The problem with a bailout is properly managing it. Without concessions by labor and management, a viable business plan, and completely new management, I don't think a bailout would do anything but prolong the inevitable. I would give it ONE try.

-Robert

I agree. I was initially against this, but I think the blow to our automotive industry and everything connected to it would be too much to an already struggling economy.

I do think that this should be clearly a loan, and they should have to prove that they have a viable plan going forward that doesn't include future loans.

You do realize there was a 25BILLION loan earlier this fall - right?

You do realize they have not received one nickel of that yet - right?

They should get it pretty soon. I would think before the end of the year. This proposed bailout money wouldn't get there until March or April at least.

-Robert

I'm trying to figure out why this one is so hotly debated, and the last one happened mostly under the radar?

 

[Genx87]

Right on the money

So true.

 

[ponyo]

GM just needs to do what the insurers are doing and buy a small thrift so they can qualify for the TARP money. I mean insurers like Genworth, Hartford, etc are rushing to buy the smallest thrift they can buy so they can get the bailout money. I'm even thinking about doing this myself so I can get some free govt money.

 

[Ferocious]

There is really no sane or logical reason not to bail them out....in this economic environment.

No bailout = $200 Billion cost

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

How old are you?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Right on the money

So true.

LMAO

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
There is really no sane or logical reason not to bail them out....in this economic environment.

No bailout = $200 Billion cost

Yup.

Capitalism is just Communism in drag.

-Robert

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: palehorse
Absolutely not.

Like TWA, DHL, and a million other companies over the years, they can file Chapter 11, reorganize, and come back with a more efficient and effective business plan sometime in the future. If that means that some people lose their jobs, then so be it.

Unlike the bailout of the banks, there would be no monetary return on the "investment." IOW, we, the people, will never get the money back.

Fuck that.

It's estimated that if "one" of the big three fail, the US government will lose nearly 50 billion per year in tax revenue, FWIW.

I'd like to see the supporting data and "logic" behind that claim.

But regardless, the premise that we "should" bail them out due to supposed lost tax revenue is silly.

I heard it on CNN yesterday but a new one today states it could cost $200 billion if allowed to fail. Click me.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Genx87

I agree there will definately be a hit on the suppliers. But I dont think they would go away as the person I replied to said.

From the internal numbers I've seen, quite a few could just quit or move out of North America alltogether. The rest of the world is in pretty good shape and many suppliers are making money elsewhere. Here in North America, the supplier industry is in dire straights. My company has been ahead of the curve and isn't in nearly as bad a shape as many others are, but we are still struggling and it's getting worse, not better. Time will tell though.

If they can't compete - why prop up a failing business that uses uncompetitive suppliers?

Didn't argue one way or another on that one. Simply stating that every single US automaker stands to be idled if this is allowed to happen (failure). Too many cross suppliers in the market at risk of failure, but that's up to Congress and the market to decide.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Genx87

I agree there will definately be a hit on the suppliers. But I dont think they would go away as the person I replied to said.

From the internal numbers I've seen, quite a few could just quit or move out of North America alltogether. The rest of the world is in pretty good shape and many suppliers are making money elsewhere. Here in North America, the supplier industry is in dire straights. My company has been ahead of the curve and isn't in nearly as bad a shape as many others are, but we are still struggling and it's getting worse, not better. Time will tell though.

If they can't compete - why prop up a failing business that uses uncompetitive suppliers?

Didn't argue one way or another on that one. Simply stating that every single US automaker stands to be idled if this is allowed to happen (failure). Too many cross suppliers in the market at risk of failure, but that's up to Congress and the market to decide.

Didn't say you were arguing it. However, I do think you are overstating the realistic outcome of a reorganization. Sure, some suppliers will be hurt but it's not like the car market can stand losing 3 large car manufacturers. Either the others will pick up the demand(and thus buying more from suppliers) or the 3 will continue operations during reorg - thus still buying from suppliers. IMO, people are buying into the doom and gloom chicken little BS. The market will take care of this on it's own - it has in the past and we should just leave it alone. If we keep messing with it - we're only delaying the mess and potentially making it worse down the road.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: palehorse
Absolutely not.

Like TWA, DHL, and a million other companies over the years, they can file Chapter 11, reorganize, and come back with a more efficient and effective business plan sometime in the future. If that means that some people lose their jobs, then so be it.

Unlike the bailout of the banks, there would be no monetary return on the "investment." IOW, we, the people, will never get the money back.

Fuck that.

It's estimated that if "one" of the big three fail, the US government will lose nearly 50 billion per year in tax revenue, FWIW.

I'd like to see the supporting data and "logic" behind that claim.

But regardless, the premise that we "should" bail them out due to supposed lost tax revenue is silly.

I heard it on CNN yesterday but a new one today states it could cost $200 billion if allowed to fail. Click me.

Doesn't matter where you heard it - I'd like to see the supporting data and "logic" used to make the claims.

Also - see my note on the premise of such a claim.

To continue with this silliness though - anyone done a study/estimate how much revenue a healthy and efficient company would provide? Hmmmmnm.....

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Genx87

I agree there will definately be a hit on the suppliers. But I dont think they would go away as the person I replied to said.

From the internal numbers I've seen, quite a few could just quit or move out of North America alltogether. The rest of the world is in pretty good shape and many suppliers are making money elsewhere. Here in North America, the supplier industry is in dire straights. My company has been ahead of the curve and isn't in nearly as bad a shape as many others are, but we are still struggling and it's getting worse, not better. Time will tell though.

If they can't compete - why prop up a failing business that uses uncompetitive suppliers?

Didn't argue one way or another on that one. Simply stating that every single US automaker stands to be idled if this is allowed to happen (failure). Too many cross suppliers in the market at risk of failure, but that's up to Congress and the market to decide.

Didn't say you were arguing it. However, I do think you are overstating the realistic outcome of a reorganization. Sure, some suppliers will be hurt but it's not like the car market can stand losing 3 large car manufacturers. Either the others will pick up the demand(and thus buying more from suppliers) or the 3 will continue operations during reorg - thus still buying from suppliers. IMO, people are buying into the doom and gloom chicken little BS. The market will take care of this on it's own - it has in the past and we should just leave it alone. If we keep messing with it - we're only delaying the mess and potentially making it worse down the road.

You're being way too Ideological about the issue. Sure, let the Big 3 fail and I'm sure the Demand will be met, but it will be by Foreign Automakers and with the amount of Demand out there they won't be adding 1 Job to meet that Demand.

 

[Slew Foot]

If GM put as much effort into their cars as they are putting into getting a bailout, we'd be driving flying cars by now.