More Bail Out Bull Shit!

[Furball]

Now we have to bailout the Auto industry. Why is it that the Auto industry is always in trouble? And really, isn't the problem that they have built a bunch of cars that no one wants? How is giving 45 Billion tax payer dollars going to help that? Maybe we should give tax payers the money back so we can afford to go buy cars. Maybe take some of that mone and invest it in creating energy efficient cars that are not reliant on fossil fuels.

Look, Detroit has continued to produce gas guzzling monsters over the past 10 years, eventhough any one with a brain has predicted that oil prices were going to rise. They didn't invest in new technology like Hydro Cell, Natural Gas, Electric, and other options. That is their fault. I'm sick of bailing out companies for poor business decisions. Believe me, I run a company of 50 employees and if I invest in bad products and bad business decisions, Uncle Barak isn't goint to be bailing me out.

You want more jobs? Cancel NAFTA yesterday. Penalize companies like Compaq, Dell, Apple, IBM and others who send jobs over seas to cheap labor. Hike up the tarriffs on crap items coming out of China. Empower American Manufactures. Tell Nike, Adidas, and Kathy Lee Gifford they are going to get a tremendous tax penalty for employing cheap labor over seas.

If we can afford to give away 700,000,000,000 to poorly run companies, we can afford to invest in our Made in the USA companies and whack these cheap labor communists who are ruining this country.

 

[MARIS61]

The American Auto industry is a reflection of Corporate-Capitalism Ideology in "Modern" America.

No investment in modern technology, no investment in protecting the environment, no advancement of worker safety, worker pay or worker benefits.

And an absolute dearth of innovative design ideas or creativity in any form.

They're still trying to exploit their successful designs of the 60's by offering Retro versions of Mustangs and Camaros rather than hire someone with a brain to bring them into the 21st Century.

Like throwing money on a bonfire.

 

[Sug]

They stopped innovation because of the oil industry. We sat back and let them decay knowing full well that the rest of the world's auto industry was evolving. It takes 18 months for a Japanese auto company to take a design to market, it takes a US company 8 years. We killed the eletric car, we killed the hydrogen car, and hence we killed ourselves. Now just like the stock market the greedy bastards want the tax payers to pay for their mistakes. As Karl Marx predicted, the greed of capitalism will lead to socialism because it has to. Welcome to the evolution of the "free" market where industries team up to maintain a monoply to make record profits only to come crying when things don't work out. I look at it like this, the free market is basically dead in the US. Percription drugs, airlines, telecommunications, education, aggriculture, sports, television. None of these are competitive industries, they are all connected and owned by a small few. Now those small few cannot make money because of the stock market crashing and taking all of their capital with them. You are watching a country fail, and it is because of greed.

 

[bodyman5001]

I blame NASCAR.

Ok, only half seriously.

My aunt bought a 1987 Ford Taurus. The car was a big deal back then, really advanced for the time. My girlfriend had a 2006 Taurus as a company car.....It was basically the same car with different body panels and a trip computer in the dash. WHOOPTIE DAMN DO!!!!

Hyundai has gone from a joke of a car company to making amazing cars in about the same time frame.

You tell me why.

 

[Draco]

What a joke, the "big 3" US auto makers are about bankrupt with little hope of profitability. GM is worth $1.7 billion with an annual loss of $38 billion. There is no hope no matter how much cash the Gov throws at them.

Obama and the Dems appear to be puppets of corrupt labor unions and faulty businesses while trying to hide behind a fake image of helping the poor.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Simple. If a company can't make it on its own (AIG, GM...), then they go out of business. It basically tells us they are run by poor businessmen. Other smarter ones will probably take their place.

 

[Denny Crane]

Manufacturing is still 10% of the workforce and the auto manufacturers are a nice chunk of that.

It's not entirely fair to say that the automakers have been making the wrong cars. They've been big sellers overseas, particularly in Europe and Japan. GM makes the biggest fleet of ethanol cars for the Brazilian market. Ford makes a 60MPG car that they couldn't sell in the US due to regulations.

GM and Toyota have been building cars together in the USA for years. All the automakers have a number of vehicles that are hybrids.

GM has a lot of interests aside from autos. GMAC is one of those finance companies that took a big hit, and they bought H. Ross Perot's computer company a few years back...

When I've shopped for cars in recent years, I've been put off by the low quality of the vehicles. On paper, there's nothing wrong with them, but when you touch the radio knobs and they feel like they could break off at any time, you wonder about the rest of the car as well.

I chalk it up to using cheap materials to make up for the high cost of other things, including labor, regulation, and taxes. Toyota has built manufacturing plants here and many of those have closed due to such costs.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Manufacturing is still 10% of the workforce and the auto manufacturers are a nice chunk of that.

It's not entirely fair to say that the automakers have been making the wrong cars. They've been big sellers overseas, particularly in Europe and Japan. GM makes the biggest fleet of ethanol cars for the Brazilian market. Ford makes a 60MPG car that they couldn't sell in the US due to regulations.

GM and Toyota have been building cars together in the USA for years. All the automakers have a number of vehicles that are hybrids.

GM has a lot of interests aside from autos. GMAC is one of those finance companies that took a big hit, and they bought H. Ross Perot's computer company a few years back...

When I've shopped for cars in recent years, I've been put off by the low quality of the vehicles. On paper, there's nothing wrong with them, but when you touch the radio knobs and they feel like they could break off at any time, you wonder about the rest of the car as well.

I chalk it up to using cheap materials to make up for the high cost of other things, including labor, regulation, and taxes. Toyota has built manufacturing plants here and many of those have closed due to such costs.

Did you know the Big 3 have auto plants in Russia?

 

[Denny Crane]

Did you know the Big 3 have auto plants in Russia?

Yes. Why is this interesting?

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Yes. Why is this interesting?

I guess I was very surprised to learn of it. Why not build the cars here and sell them to the Russians?

 

[Denny Crane]

I guess I was very surprised to learn of it. Why not build the cars here and sell them to the Russians?

You pay $45/hour for the labor and then overtime if needed, here, plus taxes on everything, and then you have to pay to ship the car overseas.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

You pay $45/hour for the labor and then overtime if needed, here, plus taxes on everything, and then you have to pay to ship the car overseas.

Ya know, my first thought was that the unions would fight the notion of sending jobs to a communist country hammer & sickle. Then it dawned on me............ unions................communism...............no difference. Commrads in all.

 

[mook]

Ought to be a law that any company we bail out has to immediately fire and re-hire it's entire upper management staff. Make them have to go through interviews just to get their jobs back, explaining why they weren't the incompetent fucks who ran the company into the ground. Broadcast the interviews on tv and let the American people vote the least convincing off the island. Then you take the winners and you force them to suck up to Donald Trump for a month, again on tv, before they get to go back to work.

Would it be effective? Probably not. But I'd feel better.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Ought to be a law that any company we bail out has to immediately fire and re-hire it's entire upper management staff. Make them have to go through interviews just to get their jobs back, explaining why they weren't the incompetent fucks who ran the company into the ground. Broadcast the interviews on tv and let the American people vote the least convincing off the island. Then you take the winners and you force them to suck up to Donald Trump for a month, again on tv, before they get to go back to work.

Would it be effective? Probably not. But I'd feel better.

I'd say they have to have a complete change in management and all executive salaries, bonuses... must be approved until the loan is paid back.

 

[mook]

Pretty good commentary on this today by Thomas Friedman:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/opinion/12friedman.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin

O.K., now that I have all that off my chest, what do we do? I am as terrified as anyone of the domino effect on industry and workers if G.M. were to collapse. But if we are going to use taxpayer money to rescue Detroit, then it should be done along the lines proposed in The Wall Street Journal on Monday by Paul Ingrassia, a former Detroit bureau chief for that paper.
“In return for any direct government aid,” he wrote, “the board and the management [of G.M.] should go. Shareholders should lose their paltry remaining equity. And a government-appointed receiver — someone hard-nosed and nonpolitical — should have broad power to revamp G.M. with a viable business plan and return it to a private operation as soon as possible. That will mean tearing up existing contracts with unions, dealers and suppliers, closing some operations and selling others and downsizing the company ... Giving G.M. a blank check — which the company and the United Auto Workers union badly want, and which Washington will be tempted to grant — would be an enormous mistake.”
I would add other conditions: Any car company that gets taxpayer money must demonstrate a plan for transforming every vehicle in its fleet to a hybrid-electric engine with flex-fuel capability, so its entire fleet can also run on next generation cellulosic ethanol.
Lastly, somebody ought to call Steve Jobs, who doesn’t need to be bribed to do innovation, and ask him if he’d like to do national service and run a car company for a year. I’d bet it wouldn’t take him much longer than that to come up with the G.M. iCar.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Pretty good commentary on this today by Thomas Friedman:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/opinion/12friedman.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin

Absolutely!

 

[hasoos]

I guess I was very surprised to learn of it. Why not build the cars here and sell them to the Russians?

Because they don't build the same cars for over there that they do here. They have different emissions and safety regulations. It is most likely, that they would not even be able to produce the vehicles here, that they do there due to those regulations.

Secondly, everybody knows you avoid Tariffs if a certain amount of the vehicle is assembled in country. This saves them thousands of dollars to make parts elsewhere but assemble it in Russia.

 

[Furball]

So now we have to bail out the auto industry so they can send more jobs over seas? Bull shit. If they want bailout money, force them to shut down all oversea operations and bring every job back to the US. Same with AIG. Make them close their foreign offices and bring those jobs back over hear. If we are going to invest in these companies, we need to get assurances that they will invest in US jobs.

 

[Furball]

Oh, and we need to have Manchester United remove "AIG" off the front of their jersey's and put "USA". Boy, that would piss off the Limey's.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Because they don't build the same cars for over there that they do here. They have different emissions and safety regulations. It is most likely, that they would not even be able to produce the vehicles here, that they do there due to those regulations.

Secondly, everybody knows you avoid Tariffs if a certain amount of the vehicle is assembled in country. This saves them thousands of dollars to make parts elsewhere but assemble it in Russia.

Ah. Good points.

 

[Furball]

I think this is one subject that crosses political boundries. Republicans and Democrats think this bailout is BS, yet our leaders continue to push it through and spend our money. McCain was not better than Obama and Obama is no better than Bush. Democrats realize how important the unions are to their elections and suck from that tit till it is dry. Up Lou Dobbs!!!

 

[Masbee]

Pretty good commentary on this today by Thomas Friedman:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/opinion/12friedman.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin

“In return for any direct government aid,” he wrote, “the board and the management [of G.M.] should go. Shareholders should lose their paltry remaining equity. And a government-appointed receiver — someone hard-nosed and nonpolitical — should have broad power to revamp G.M. with a viable business plan and return it to a private operation as soon as possible. That will mean tearing up existing contracts with unions, dealers and suppliers, closing some operations and selling others and downsizing the company ... Giving G.M. a blank check — which the company and the United Auto Workers union badly want, and which Washington will be tempted to grant — would be an enormous mistake.”

I am confused.

Why would any executives want the government to "help" them when that help entails firing them all?

Answer: They wouldn't and wouldn't support such a plan.

Why would any board members sign off on any plan where they would be removed AND all stockholder equity is wiped out, when the main legal duty of the board is to protect the stockholders?

Answer: They wouldn't and wouldn't support such a plan.

Why would any union want a plan where the "help" is to rip up their hard won contracts? Nevermind that their stranglehold on U.S. autoplants and subsequent excessive (above market) compensation and productivity sapping work rules are part of the problem.

Answer: They wouldn't and wouldn't support such a plan.

How is the Friedman plan better for these (and other) parties than bankruptcy would be?

Answer: It doesn't seem like it would be.

And if GM (as run by or aided by the Feds) gets to rip up contracts with unions, suppliers, dealers, executives, etc. that it doesn't like and doesn't want to honor any longer, how is that fair to the businesses that don't get that amazing and extremely beneficial power, and what does that kind action do to the legal system?

 

[hasoos]

I think this is one subject that crosses political boundries. Republicans and Democrats think this bailout is BS, yet our leaders continue to push it through and spend our money. McCain was not better than Obama and Obama is no better than Bush. Democrats realize how important the unions are to their elections and suck from that tit till it is dry. Up Lou Dobbs!!!

Do they? Or are you just making yet another, blanket statement trying to make it like you are right. If most people actually did the research on the matter, I am pretty sure those of us who actually have home mortgages, whether we have been responsible with them or not, would be for the bailout. The reason? If those companies go under, that will leave most americans with mortgages uninsured, which is technically, illegal. That would mean folks would have to go out and arrange for new insurance for their current loans, which would probably be raised through the roof with the current financial debacle. So make blanket statements if you want. Every person has a different level of involvement, and difficulties if the bail out does not go through. If you don't own a house, you probably don't give a shit. But if you do, and have a loan, and have done your research, you probably would back what they are doing.

 

[maxiep]

Do they? Or are you just making yet another, blanket statement trying to make it like you are right. If most people actually did the research on the matter, I am pretty sure those of us who actually have home mortgages, whether we have been responsible with them or not, would be for the bailout. The reason? If those companies go under, that will leave most americans with mortgages uninsured, which is technically, illegal. That would mean folks would have to go out and arrange for new insurance for their current loans, which would probably be raised through the roof with the current financial debacle. So make blanket statements if you want. Every person has a different level of involvement, and difficulties if the bail out does not go through. If you don't own a house, you probably don't give a shit. But if you do, and have a loan, and have done your research, you probably would back what they are doing.

Wow, you're way off the mark. No matter how many firms go down due to the freezing of the credit market, your mortgage is a done deal. No one can take it away from you and it doesn't magically become uninsured. If you stop paying it, you will be removed from your home, however.

 

[hasoos]

Wow, you're way off the mark. No matter how many firms go down due to the freezing of the credit market, your mortgage is a done deal. No one can take it away from you and it doesn't magically become uninsured. If you stop paying it, you will be removed from your home, however.

If the company that is providing the insurance is gone, it is uninsured. Note, I did not say their mortgage is gone, I said they would have to find a new mortgage insurer to maintain legality. Just as when you have a mortgage, and if you are paying the mortgage insurance yourself, and if you quit paying, the bank can find a provider, arrange for mortgage insurance, and charge you whatever they arranged to pay. That is a fact. So am I still off the mark?

 

[CelticKing]

I work in the aviation industry and some of my co-workers were wondering why aren't the airlines being bailed out like everything else?

It's really BS what the govt is doing, by choosing who to save and who to let go bankrupt.

 

[maxiep]

If the company that is providing the insurance is gone, it is uninsured. Note, I did not say their mortgage is gone, I said they would have to find a new mortgage insurer to maintain legality. Just as when you have a mortgage, and if you are paying the mortgage insurance yourself, and if you quit paying, the bank can find a provider, arrange for mortgage insurance, and charge you whatever they arranged to pay. That is a fact. So am I still off the mark?

Yes. You're way off the mark. Learn more about the process and then we can talk. It's not my responsibility to teach you about the mechanics of the mortgage market.

 

[Furball]

I do have a mortgage, and probably bigger than yours. I realize Uncle Barak isn't going to bail me out. I run a manufacturing company and I guarantee no one is bailing my company out if we have problems. Instead, Bush is trying to sell me out buy opening up a free trade agreement with Columbia in order to finance a bailout of Detroit.