Yeah GOP!

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: senseamp
If big 3 fail, government is going to be on the hook for:
1. bailing out their pension and retiree health care plans
2. paying unemployment to their workers and/or bailing out state unemployment insurance funds
3. welfare and health benefits for families of workers
4. creating job programs to employ those workers
5. lost income tax revenues from these workers
That's just for starters.
The cost of cleaning up the mess left by a big 3 bankruptcy is going to be astronomical compared to the cost of bridge loans to delay/avoid it. Even if that money does nothing more than delay an inevitable collapse for another year and is never repaid, it will cost less than simply paying social benefits to unemployed workers, families, and retirees for that same year. Now is simply not the time to let big 3 fail, because there are no jobs to replace the lost ones in the near to medium term. These workers will simply become a much bigger burden on the government if they are laid off.

I get the feeling that alot of people here including those in congress think that if the Big 3 get whiped out the foreign car companies are gonna come in and pick up where the Big 3 left off and save everyone from the effects of a Big 3 failure.

I think once these automakers no longer have to worry about US domestic auto industry's political clout and potential for protectionism, there isn't really much reason for them to build cars in the US, especially if the dollar stays strong. If the US has no choice but to import their cars, they'll go to the cheapest labor, which probably is not going to be in the US.

 

[Drakkon]

I was glad to see the "other senator from NV" - not Reid but Ensign - was the one leading up the charge against the bill. It is a stupid bill with no real concessions being made except by the govt. I don't get why democrats are trying to defy the will of the people - every poll i see says no more bailout money for the autos in a fairly decent majority. I get the need to but everyone sees what the banks did and realizes a bailout with no precondition is like giving a dog a bone - hes just going to take and bury it or devour it quickly - either way its unlikely you'll ever see it again.

 

[venkman]

Well, this is the swan song then isn't it? I feel very bad for all the people in Michigan who are going to lose their homes to foreclosure over this, possibly including my parents (who are college educated professionals, not line workers). When this bill fails tomorrow, Michigan will officially become a dead state and pretty quickly declare a state of emergency. What the government would have loaned to the big three will look like peanuts compared to what they will have give the state of Michigan.

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The auto industry on the contrary adds value, turning raw materials into finished goods, and there are two basic reasons the American auto industry is in trouble compared to foreign competitors also building cars in the USA. (1) The US big three automotive top management has been building and engineering the wrong products. This much change and top management should be fired.(2) And while various foreign competitors operating in the USA pay non union labor equivalent union labor rates, they have not been in business long enough in the USA to have their health care and retirement costs even come close to those of the big three. In 10-15 years the foreign competitors will catch up and lose their cost advantages.

Disagree here. No one told the Big 3 back in the 1980s to guarantee full healthcare benefits to retirees and their families for life. That was management's decision to appease the unions back when the Big 3 were still 'big' dogs. And it was pure stupidity they are regretting some 25+ yrs later. I'm sure there are a few but I can't think of any public companies off the top of my head that have ever done something like this.

 

[venkman]

Originally posted by: Drakkon
I was glad to see the "other senator from NV" - not Reid but Ensign - was the one leading up the charge against the bill. It is a stupid bill with no real concessions being made except by the govt. I don't get why democrats are trying to defy the will of the people - every poll i see says no more bailout money for the autos in a fairly decent majority. I get the need to but everyone sees what the banks did and realizes a bailout with no precondition is like giving a dog a bone - hes just going to take and bury it or devour it quickly - either way its unlikely you'll ever see it again.

No concessions? Are you not paying attention.

1) Every time the auto companies want to spend more than $25 million, they will need to clear it with the government. If you knew anything about this industry, and I suspect you don't, you would understand that most car production programs require much more than that to get off the ground.

2) A single Bush appointed person will essentially given control over the auto companies as he can pull funding at any time he see's fit.

3) The Unions are willing to make major concessions to keep the 3 out of bankruptcy, concessions that will have them paid well below what the foreign car makers get.

4) The CEOs and top executives are willing to leave their positions for the bailout.

5)Anyone who takes the loan money is legally obligated to drop their emissions lawsuits against the state of California. Let me explain one quick thing about California emissions laws, they don't state that only cars with a certain level of emissions will be effected. Instead it takes the average emissions of the entire company line to determine if that brands cars will be effected. To put it into perspective, even though an F250 may never be shipped out to California, it is part of the average of that is used to determine fuel efficency. Ford cannot carry that lawsuit alone and it will falter. In short, the law as written is absolute bull crap.

Nancy Pelosi is from California, strange huh?

6) Even with the loan, 20,000 jobs will be lost.


If nothing else, expect that precious Toyota to go up in price significantly as the loss of a big chunk of supplier base and the demand for their cars increasing (due to no competition). Also, now that the UAW wages are out of the picture, I would expect significant wage/benefit cuts in the foreign plants.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Drakkon
I was glad to see the "other senator from NV" - not Reid but Ensign - was the one leading up the charge against the bill. It is a stupid bill with no real concessions being made except by the govt. I don't get why democrats are trying to defy the will of the people - every poll i see says no more bailout money for the autos in a fairly decent majority. I get the need to but everyone sees what the banks did and realizes a bailout with no precondition is like giving a dog a bone - hes just going to take and bury it or devour it quickly - either way its unlikely you'll ever see it again.

I need a link to your polls as the one on CNN yesterday (live) showed 48% for and 42% against (vs 27% for and 50% against the bank bailout(s)).

Edit: I found a few of them and you are correct in that most are 60% or more against the bailout.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: venkman

Even with the loan, 20,000 jobs will be lost.

If nothing else, expect that precious Toyota to go up in price significantly as the loss of a big chunk of supplier base and the demand for their cars increasing (due to no competition).

Also, now that the UAW wages are out of the picture, I would expect significant wage/benefit cuts in the foreign plants.

It will be a whole lot uglier than what you just posted.

 

[venkman]

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The auto industry on the contrary adds value, turning raw materials into finished goods, and there are two basic reasons the American auto industry is in trouble compared to foreign competitors also building cars in the USA. (1) The US big three automotive top management has been building and engineering the wrong products. This much change and top management should be fired.(2) And while various foreign competitors operating in the USA pay non union labor equivalent union labor rates, they have not been in business long enough in the USA to have their health care and retirement costs even come close to those of the big three. In 10-15 years the foreign competitors will catch up and lose their cost advantages.

Disagree here. No one told the Big 3 back in the 1980s to guarantee full healthcare benefits to retirees and their families for life. That was management's decision to appease the unions back when the Big 3 were still 'big' dogs. And it was pure stupidity they are regretting some 25+ yrs later. I'm sure there are a few but I can't think of any public companies off the top of my head that have ever done something like this.

You know, there were a lot of things the big three did wrong and this, in retrospect, was a bad decision. Health Care costs are a lot different today than they were back in the 1980s and it is unfair of anyone to expect auto companies to predict 30 years into the future.

The UAW isn't the only one that got these benefits, all of the hard working non-union people eventually got similar benefits also. The big three ended up setting very high quality of living standards for their employees. Is it such a horrible thing for a company to show some loyalty to a person who has shown 40 years of loyalty to that company? How did we get to a point where a corporation trying to do the right thing, trying to reward it's workers for all the hard work over their career, to now where a company trying to take of their career employees is some kind of terrible injustice yet CEOs getting $20 million bonuses, AIG waddling up to the trough to collect $100s of billions at a time FOR NO PHYSICAL PRODUCT, and spending the loan amount every month in Iraq for ABSOLUTELY NO POSITIVE GAIN is perfectly OK with you neocon idiots.

What is wrong with you people?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The auto industry on the contrary adds value, turning raw materials into finished goods, and there are two basic reasons the American auto industry is in trouble compared to foreign competitors also building cars in the USA. (1) The US big three automotive top management has been building and engineering the wrong products. This much change and top management should be fired.(2) And while various foreign competitors operating in the USA pay non union labor equivalent union labor rates, they have not been in business long enough in the USA to have their health care and retirement costs even come close to those of the big three. In 10-15 years the foreign competitors will catch up and lose their cost advantages.

Disagree here. No one told the Big 3 back in the 1980s to guarantee full healthcare benefits to retirees and their families for life. That was management's decision to appease the unions back when the Big 3 were still 'big' dogs. And it was pure stupidity they are regretting some 25+ yrs later. I'm sure there are a few but I can't think of any public companies off the top of my head that have ever done something like this.

It should be the government, not GM, guaranteeing healthcare to people for life. Big 3 and UAW would have been better off putting their weight behind Hillary Clinton's healthcare reform back in the early 90s instead of their constant infighting.

 

[43st]

Why can't they just take .5% from the TARP funds? The banks aren't doing anything with it other than more pay bonuses, etc.

 

[venkman]

Originally posted by: 43st
Why can't they just take .5% from the TARP funds? The banks aren't doing anything with it other than more pay bonuses, etc.

Because Hank needs every penny for his buddies at Goldhman, why else?

 

[venkman]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: venkman

Even with the loan, 20,000 jobs will be lost.

If nothing else, expect that precious Toyota to go up in price significantly as the loss of a big chunk of supplier base and the demand for their cars increasing (due to no competition).

Also, now that the UAW wages are out of the picture, I would expect significant wage/benefit cuts in the foreign plants.

It will be a whole lot uglier than what you just posted.

Yes, you are right. Sad, isn't it? I get a front row seat to watch an entire state and eventually an entire country die.

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: venkman
You know, there were a lot of things the big three did wrong and this, in retrospect, was a bad decision. Health Care costs are a lot different today than they were back in the 1980s and it is unfair of anyone to expect auto companies to predict 30 years into the future.

The UAW isn't the only one that got these benefits, all of the hard working non-union people eventually got similar benefits also. The big three ended up setting very high quality of living standards for their employees.

I know things are much different today and the cost of healthcare is out of control. But GM wasn't even making good cars in the 80s when they gave away the farm. It's just that Americans weren't as adopting of foreign brands back then as they are today. It took years before Honda shed that 'rice burner' initial antipathy consumers had even while they continued to make highly reliable cars that got great gas mileage. Styling improvements came soon after and IMO, overtook most of the Big 3s fleet in the early 90s.

I have only owned 2 cars in my 21 yrs of driving, both Audis. The engines last forever, and the styling is conservative and tasteful, even though after 10yrs some electrical stuff (lights, door window, etc) starts to creep up. Most of my family owns Japanese -- Hondas & Acuras. My Dad got 241k miles on one of the first gen RLs and my brother has 150k so far on a 4 yr old TSX. Virtually no maintenance outside of tires, oil changes, and brakes. It's very simple: build a reliable car that lasts 10+ yrs and wears well. When the Big 3 can do that, they'll get my $$.

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: brencat
*snip*
It's very simple: build a reliable car that lasts 10+ yrs and wears well. When the Big 3 can do that, they'll get my $$.

During these threads in "The Garage", in OT, and here in P&N numerous members have come forth with their own anecdotal stories of their domestic products working flawlessly 200+K mi.

I drove a '81 Camaro and a '91 Dakota until they both were 10+ years and 150+ K mi.

Neither are considered to be some of the shining examples of excellence from the Big 3.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: venkman

Originally posted by: 43st
Why can't they just take .5% from the TARP funds? The banks aren't doing anything with it other than more pay bonuses, etc.

Because Hank needs every penny for his buddies at Goldhman, why else?

It's a classic sales con, as old as the shell game. They make you feel empowered by letting you hold onto your pocket change after they've already stolen your wallet.

 

[Squisher]

Text

I guess the talks are stalled, but they are still working on it.

The thing I found very interesting from that article is that basically you have congress negotiating a contract with the UAW in a matter of hours. The automakers are out of the room.

If I could only be a fly on the wall there.

 

[Squisher]

Agreement Reached

 

[Eeezee]

This is the first time in a long time that I have been happy about a GOP decision.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: venkman

Originally posted by: Drakkon
I was glad to see the "other senator from NV" - not Reid but Ensign - was the one leading up the charge against the bill. It is a stupid bill with no real concessions being made except by the govt. I don't get why democrats are trying to defy the will of the people - every poll i see says no more bailout money for the autos in a fairly decent majority. I get the need to but everyone sees what the banks did and realizes a bailout with no precondition is like giving a dog a bone - hes just going to take and bury it or devour it quickly - either way its unlikely you'll ever see it again.

No concessions? Are you not paying attention.

1) Every time the auto companies want to spend more than $25 million, they will need to clear it with the government. If you knew anything about this industry, and I suspect you don't, you would understand that most car production programs require much more than that to get off the ground.

2) A single Bush appointed person will essentially given control over the auto companies as he can pull funding at any time he see's fit.

3) The Unions are willing to make major concessions to keep the 3 out of bankruptcy, concessions that will have them paid well below what the foreign car makers get.

4) The CEOs and top executives are willing to leave their positions for the bailout.

5)Anyone who takes the loan money is legally obligated to drop their emissions lawsuits against the state of California. Let me explain one quick thing about California emissions laws, they don't state that only cars with a certain level of emissions will be effected. Instead it takes the average emissions of the entire company line to determine if that brands cars will be effected. To put it into perspective, even though an F250 may never be shipped out to California, it is part of the average of that is used to determine fuel efficency. Ford cannot carry that lawsuit alone and it will falter. In short, the law as written is absolute bull crap.

Nancy Pelosi is from California, strange huh?

6) Even with the loan, 20,000 jobs will be lost.


If nothing else, expect that precious Toyota to go up in price significantly as the loss of a big chunk of supplier base and the demand for their cars increasing (due to no competition). Also, now that the UAW wages are out of the picture, I would expect significant wage/benefit cuts in the foreign plants.

Really did you just list those as significant?

Real reform would be bond holders get 30 cents on the dollar. And force the union to give up benefits now not some future time. Instead what do we get? the CEO is ready to deploy his golden parachute?

 

[venkman]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: venkman

Originally posted by: Drakkon
I was glad to see the "other senator from NV" - not Reid but Ensign - was the one leading up the charge against the bill. It is a stupid bill with no real concessions being made except by the govt. I don't get why democrats are trying to defy the will of the people - every poll i see says no more bailout money for the autos in a fairly decent majority. I get the need to but everyone sees what the banks did and realizes a bailout with no precondition is like giving a dog a bone - hes just going to take and bury it or devour it quickly - either way its unlikely you'll ever see it again.

No concessions? Are you not paying attention.

1) Every time the auto companies want to spend more than $25 million, they will need to clear it with the government. If you knew anything about this industry, and I suspect you don't, you would understand that most car production programs require much more than that to get off the ground.

2) A single Bush appointed person will essentially given control over the auto companies as he can pull funding at any time he see's fit.

3) The Unions are willing to make major concessions to keep the 3 out of bankruptcy, concessions that will have them paid well below what the foreign car makers get.

4) The CEOs and top executives are willing to leave their positions for the bailout.

5)Anyone who takes the loan money is legally obligated to drop their emissions lawsuits against the state of California. Let me explain one quick thing about California emissions laws, they don't state that only cars with a certain level of emissions will be effected. Instead it takes the average emissions of the entire company line to determine if that brands cars will be effected. To put it into perspective, even though an F250 may never be shipped out to California, it is part of the average of that is used to determine fuel efficency. Ford cannot carry that lawsuit alone and it will falter. In short, the law as written is absolute bull crap.

Nancy Pelosi is from California, strange huh?

6) Even with the loan, 20,000 jobs will be lost.


If nothing else, expect that precious Toyota to go up in price significantly as the loss of a big chunk of supplier base and the demand for their cars increasing (due to no competition). Also, now that the UAW wages are out of the picture, I would expect significant wage/benefit cuts in the foreign plants.

Really did you just list those as significant?

Real reform would be bond holders get 30 cents on the dollar. And force the union to give up benefits now not some future time. Instead what do we get? the CEO is ready to deploy his golden parachute?

I'm sorry I consider the fact that you are ESSENTIALLY TURNING OVER OPERATIONAL CONTROL OF THE COMPANY TO THE GOVERNMENT as somewhat of a significant concession.

 

[Jhhnn]

I have a better idea wrt the big 3- make a stock buyout offer at the current price, buy out the shareholders, then toss the current management out, replace them with Japanese management. Then loan 'em money to transition to a more competitive model, sell off the stock when and if it becomes profitable to do so...

If it works, everybody comes out ahead. If it doesn't work, we'd get back some of the investment thru bankruptcy liquidation.

Automakers need to give up control of their pension plans in the process, while continuing to provide a set % of wages to the plans to insure their longterm solvency. Current pensioners may need to take some cuts, particularly those receiving the most, to insure that their pensions will continue. Letting the management control pensions is always a bad idea- their purposes and the purposes of the workers aren't the same, at all...

 

[chess9]

So....

We give Detroit $14 billion dollars while millions of people are losing their jobs, credit availability is almost at zero, Americans have low esteem for American made cars, people are wary of buying from a failing automaker, consumer confidence is at historic lows...YET

Someone obviously is delusional enough to think that there are plenty of Americans who will actually buy American cars.

Please explain to me how doing this makes any sense?

Are we prepared to spend $200 billion on the automakers to keep them afloat for at least one and maybe two years? How deep will we go?

We survived the Great Depression, Two World Wars and George W. Bush (almost), so I think we can survive the loss of the Big Three.

The big pain is coming and this bailout won't stop it, but WILL make the pain worse. This is like giving aspirin to someone with a ruptured appendix. The patient is going to get very sick because the remedy is inappropriate.

What was it Einstein said? ""Two things are infinite the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the former".

-Robert

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Squisher
Agreement Reached

It's getting deeper

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: venkman

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: venkman

Originally posted by: Drakkon
I was glad to see the "other senator from NV" - not Reid but Ensign - was the one leading up the charge against the bill. It is a stupid bill with no real concessions being made except by the govt. I don't get why democrats are trying to defy the will of the people - every poll i see says no more bailout money for the autos in a fairly decent majority. I get the need to but everyone sees what the banks did and realizes a bailout with no precondition is like giving a dog a bone - hes just going to take and bury it or devour it quickly - either way its unlikely you'll ever see it again.

No concessions? Are you not paying attention.

1) Every time the auto companies want to spend more than $25 million, they will need to clear it with the government. If you knew anything about this industry, and I suspect you don't, you would understand that most car production programs require much more than that to get off the ground.

2) A single Bush appointed person will essentially given control over the auto companies as he can pull funding at any time he see's fit.

3) The Unions are willing to make major concessions to keep the 3 out of bankruptcy, concessions that will have them paid well below what the foreign car makers get.

4) The CEOs and top executives are willing to leave their positions for the bailout.

5)Anyone who takes the loan money is legally obligated to drop their emissions lawsuits against the state of California. Let me explain one quick thing about California emissions laws, they don't state that only cars with a certain level of emissions will be effected. Instead it takes the average emissions of the entire company line to determine if that brands cars will be effected. To put it into perspective, even though an F250 may never be shipped out to California, it is part of the average of that is used to determine fuel efficency. Ford cannot carry that lawsuit alone and it will falter. In short, the law as written is absolute bull crap.

Nancy Pelosi is from California, strange huh?

6) Even with the loan, 20,000 jobs will be lost.


If nothing else, expect that precious Toyota to go up in price significantly as the loss of a big chunk of supplier base and the demand for their cars increasing (due to no competition). Also, now that the UAW wages are out of the picture, I would expect significant wage/benefit cuts in the foreign plants.

Really did you just list those as significant?

Real reform would be bond holders get 30 cents on the dollar. And force the union to give up benefits now not some future time. Instead what do we get? the CEO is ready to deploy his golden parachute?

I'm sorry I consider the fact that you are ESSENTIALLY TURNING OVER OPERATIONAL CONTROL OF THE COMPANY TO THE GOVERNMENT as somewhat of a significant concession.

No that is not significant. How does it save the car company money or make them more likely to be able to repay the loans? All that creates is one more unless layer of management sucking on the government tit.

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: chess9
So....

We give Detroit $14 billion dollars while millions of people are losing their jobs, credit availability is almost at zero, Americans have low esteem for American made cars, people are wary of buying from a failing automaker, consumer confidence is at historic lows...YET

Someone obviously is delusional enough to think that there are plenty of Americans who will actually buy American cars.

Please explain to me how doing this makes any sense?

Are we prepared to spend $200 billion on the automakers to keep them afloat for at least one and maybe two years? How deep will we go?

We survived the Great Depression, Two World Wars and George W. Bush (almost), so I think we can survive the loss of the Big Three.

The big pain is coming and this bailout won't stop it, but WILL make the pain worse. This is like giving aspirin to someone with a ruptured appendix. The patient is going to get very sick because the remedy is inappropriate.

What was it Einstein said? ""Two things are infinite the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the former".

-Robert

Do you even know what you're talking about? GM is still outselling Toyota. The American public has lost confidence in the economy, not the US auto industry. EVERYONE is losing sales even Toyota and Honda.


http://online.wsj.com/mdc/publ...osales.html#autosalesE