Should we bail the Big Three?

Poll Poll Do / Would you support the bailout of US automakers?

  • Yes, it would be catastrophic to let even one fail.

    Votes: 5 33.3%
  • No, let them suffer the consequences of their ineptitude.

    Votes: 5 33.3%
  • I don't know — and really don't care.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Oh, well, who would really miss Chrysler anyway?

    Votes: 5 33.3%

  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .

rollingstone

Member
 Richmond, Va.
I'm curious what this international assemblage of automotive enthusiasts thinks about the potential bailout of the US automakers. You needn't be a star-spangled yank to yield the power of opinion! In fact, a world view is welcome.

Cheers.
 
We want $25 billion......we don't know how we will spend it.

Oh....you want us to submit a plan???


Okay...

We want $34 billion.....we won't fly corporate jets anymore. How about it? Anyway, Barry, Pelosi and Barney said we could have the money and bust the unions if we carried certain States Democratic...and we did. So where's our phuqing money b!tches?
 
The auto companies are asking for a LOAN. They are going to pay the money back, unlike the other bailout of AIG & Citibank. Yes, part of the automotive problem is the way they do business; executive compensation, union contracts etc, but the economic recession has affected sales dramatically. Total collapse of the big three would impact the American economy more than people realize. the collateral damage would cost far more than they're asking to borrow.

here are excerpts from a newspaper article a few days ago.

BY MITCH ALBOM • FREE PRESS COLUMNIST • November 23, 2008

OK. It's a fantasy. But if I had five minutes in front of Congress last week, here's what I would've said:
Advertisement

Which makes me wonder why you're so against our kind of business? The kind we do in Detroit. The kind that gets your fingernails dirty. The kind where people use hammers and drills, not keystrokes. The kind where you get paid for making something, not moving money around a board and skimming a percentage.

You've already given hundreds of billions to banking and finance companies -- and hardly demanded anything. Yet you balk at the very idea of giving $25 billion to the Detroit Three. Heck, you shoveled that exact amount to Citigroup -- $25 billion -- just weeks ago, and that place is about to crumble anyhow.

Does the word "hypocrisy" ring a bell?
Protecting the home turf?

Sen. Shelby. Yes. You. From Alabama. You've been awfully vocal. You called the Detroit Three's leaders "failures." You said loans to them would be "wasted money." You said they should go bankrupt and "let the market work."

Why weren't you equally vocal when your state handed out hundreds of millions in tax breaks to Mercedes-Benz, Hyundai, Honda and others to open plants there? Why not "let the market work"? Or is it better for Alabama if the Detroit Three fold so that the foreign companies -- in your state -- can produce more?

And the rest of you lawmakers. The ones who insist the auto companies show you a plan before you help them. You've already handed over $150 billion of our tax money to AIG. How come you never demanded a plan from it? How come when AIG blew through its first $85 billion, you quickly gave it more? The car companies may be losing money, but they can explain it: They're paying workers too much and selling cars for too little.

AIG lost hundred of billions in credit default swaps -- which no one can explain and which make nothing, produce nothing, employ no one and are essentially bets on failure.

And you don't demand a paragraph from it?

Look. Nobody is saying the auto business is healthy. Its unions need to adjust more. Its models and dealerships need to shrink. Its top executives have to downsize their own importance.

But this is a business that has been around for more than a century. And some of its problems are because of that, because people get used to certain wages, manufacturers get used to certain business models. It's easy to point to foreign carmakers with tax breaks, no union costs and a cleaner slate -- not to mention help from their home countries -- and say "be more like them."

But if you let us die, you let our national spine collapse. America can't be a country of lawyers and financial analysts. We have to manufacture. We need that infrastructure. We need those jobs. We need that security. Have you forgotten who built equipment during the world wars?

Ask fair questions. Demand accountability. But knock it off with the holier than thou crap, OK? You got us into this mess with greed, a bad Fed policy and too little regulation. Don't kick our tires to make yourselves look better.
 
The US is printing mon(e)y like crazy right now (Inflation :thumbsup: ) - No one quite knows where it's all going? What's a few more billion to support the socialist ideology that prevails at all levels of government in the once developed free market world? Perhaps the "Big Three" should refocus whatever engineering prowess and resources they have left (or we give them) to technologies in the GreenTech field? The Chinese will be big buyers in 2-3 years when they can't feed themselves...

Well - I'm off to learn French again :headbang:
 
Here is a fair question:

On an average vehicle (GM/Ford/Chrylser take your pic) that has a sticker of $25k how much of that goes for pension benefits?

On an average vehicle (non-union, US made (BMW, Toyota e.g.)) that has a sticker of $25k how much of that goes for pension benefits?

What did NAFTA do for the big three since Clinton's administration signed off on the bill?

What lack of government de-regulation did Barney Frank have to do with Fannie/Freddie?

How much did Barry & Nancy promise the big 3 and the UAW in their meetings before and right after the election?

The AIG money is a loan. The government bought toxic paper from them or is that not correct?
 
If it were just the executives that would have to suffer, I would be all for letting them die. But we are talking about little people who have worked for what they are getting. I know there are all kinds of jabber about staying home and getting paid etc. I don’t know if any of the stuff we hear is true. I was not even able to find a reliable place I could find what a person working on the line makes per hour including or not including benefits. Some folks trying to grind their point of view take total employee expenses and divide it by total number of employees. However that figure is not fair as many employees are grouped into the pot, and do not work on the line.

As I understand it, every car that was sold by GM this past year was a $500.00 loss per each car. If there are no changes how do we think they are going to be successful in the recovery? I would like to fix the salary of the big 3 line workers to their competition including benefits. If they truly think they can build as good a car as foreign makes, then they should work for the same wages. I am talking about domestic productions not on foreign soil. That goes for all employees; executive, salaried, technical staff, everyone in the company. That would be new employees only. There are people who have fixed expenses like anyone else and they have to be able to pay the bills they already have committed to in good faith. Also retires who have to have their current plan continued as they are to old in most cases to start working again. At a minimum we are going to have to have a very powerful oversight committee with power to correct any deviation from a recovery loan package. Of course this is salary fixing, and socialism and will never ever happen. :(

I am sorry, but unions are obsolete and not needed. There are way too many federal laws already in place to protect employees. If the fair labor standards act (FLSA) book fell on you it would kill you. All a company would have to do is match wages and benefits to keep good employees and provide free legal services so employees who feel they are being treated or terminated unfairly would have some recourse. Labor unions are only good for their own autocracy and only look after their own interests. Many times they are in the pocket of management and actually work against their members. Been there done that. :(
 
20ducks said:
What lack of government de-regulation did Barney Frank have to do with Fannie/Freddie?
How much did Barry & Nancy promise the big 3 and the UAW in their meetings before and right after the election?

You've posed these questions before. Are they speculative or do you know something? Please share because I would truly like to know. If Barry promised something, why are they there now asking? Wouldn't they wait a month and collect what was promised?


WaZZZZman said:
I am sorry, but unions are obsolete and not needed. There are way too many federal laws already in place to protect employees. If the fair labor standards act (FLSA) book fell on you it would kill you. All a company would have to do is match wages and benefits to keep good employees and provide free legal services so employees who feel they are being treated or terminated unfairly would have some recourse. Labor unions are only good for their own autocracy and only look after their own interests. Many times they are in the pocket of management and actually work against their members. Been there done that. :(

Absolutely right! The unions are a big business. Too much money being made there now. Their role as protector to the working man ended long ago.
 
Barney (I like 'lil boyz) Frank is the chairman of the United States House Committee on Financial Services. Doesn't he oversea Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as chairman? De-regulation was blamed when it was inept and incompetency at the helm: Barney Frank. It didn't need more regulation as the liberals claim, it needed leadership.

Pelosi met with the biggies in Michigan not long after the election. They didn't talk about selling cars in China now did they? They were after what was promised them by Barry: politics, SouthSide Chicago style.
 
A bunch of the physicians at work were just talking about this a couple days ago. As I understand it, the average assembly line guy in Detroit makes $77 an hour while non-union guys working for the competition make more like $44. And they guys laid off by Detroit within the last three years due to closings and whatnot still get 90% of their wages. Add to this their retirement package that adjusts their yearly retirement to current wages (retired at 45 years old, twenty years ago, and your monthly pay is 90% of what a current worker in your job makes). Those numbers were just some of the fuel for the discussion.

Needless to say, the only way Detroit could ever become competitive again, is to level the field, and that makes it absolutely necessary for them to get out from under the union wages and entitlements. If going bankrupt is the path, so be it. The only thing they have been looking at for years has been the next quarterly report; never the future; bonuses are based on now, not what they could accomplish 10 years from now.

To the workers that have benefited from the high wages (my college education doesn't earn me but half their wage), I would say, you have made a lot of money and I hope you were smart enough to put a lot of it away, because you will be earning a lot less in the future. Some may have to settle working at a convenience store or similar type job, but hey, it's not like you have a degree in rocket science; just be glad you benefited as long as you did.

There should be no bail out unless it includes voiding all union agreements, past and present. If bankruptcy is the only way to do so, then that is the only path to become competitive in the future. Of course, I would not expect the likes of Barney and Nancy to understand complicated matters like these, but they will bail them out just to perpetuate the jobs of their most ardent supporters, bought and paid for.
 
Don't forget Barry owes Michigan et al whatever he promised them. January 20th is not that far away. Thank God Saxby won otherwise we would have an anointment instead of a swearing in.
 
Well, the weekend poll results are in and there's no small bit of humor to be enjoyed in an all but even split in the voting... kinda like a forum microcosm of our own Capitol Hill. :lol:

At least those who voted had opinions, as the "It don't know." box remained unchecked.

And if we loosely infer that allowing Chrysler to fail (because who'd really miss 'em) is a vote agaist the bailout, then the winner is leaving the Big Three to their fates. I'm sure their lawyers would contest that.

Cheers and thanks for playing along.
 
While this poll basically reflects the feelings of the average American citizen, our representatives are voting to bail them out; hardly being representative, but that is business as usual. No plans to change, no real union concessions, and no hope to become competitive in the future; hardly the incentive to invest in such companies. :thumbsdown:
 
I thought Chrysler was part of Daimler-Chrysler.

Would a failure of Chrysler mean that Mercedes would go down as well or just a massive write off?

Daimler-Chrysler also owns Debis Air Finance, so it would affect major airline finance as well I suppose.
 
pvr said:
I thought Chrysler was part of Daimler-Chrysler.

Would a failure of Chrysler mean that Mercedes would go down as well or just a massive write off?

Daimler-Chrysler also owns Debis Air Finance, so it would affect major airline finance as well I suppose.


As far as I remember that whole thing was an aborted cock-up and Daimler ditched Chrysler to a US investment firm back in August last year.

Better Daimler saves themsleves than be taken down by Chrysler.
 
pvr said:
I thought Chrysler was part of Daimler-Chrysler.

Would a failure of Chrysler mean that Mercedes would go down as well or just a massive write off?

Daimler-Chrysler also owns Debis Air Finance, so it would affect major airline finance as well I suppose.
I believe what we call Chrysler Corp was sold to Cerberus Capital Management in May 2007 for about 6 billion USD. I believe that Mercedes still has some interest in Chrysler but I don't recall to what extent.
 
cj10jeeper said:
pvr said:
I thought Chrysler was part of Daimler-Chrysler.

Would a failure of Chrysler mean that Mercedes would go down as well or just a massive write off?

Daimler-Chrysler also owns Debis Air Finance, so it would affect major airline finance as well I suppose.


As far as I remember that whole thing was an aborted cock-up and Daimler ditched Chrysler to a US investment firm back in August last year.

Better Daimler saves themsleves than be taken down by Chrysler.

I thought that too - but wasn't sure...
 
Actually Daimler paid Cerberus to take it away, bar 20%... :rofl: :rofl:

The terms saw Daimler pay Cerberus US$650 million to take Chrysler and associated liabilities off its hands. This is a remarkable reverse in fortunes on the US$36 billion paid to acquire Chrysler in 1998. Of the US$7.4 billion purchase price, Cerberus Capital Management will invest US$5 billion in Chrysler Holdings and US$1.05 billion in Chrysler’s financial unit. The de-merged Daimler AG received US$1.35 billion directly from Cerberus but directly invested US$2 billion in Chrysler itself.
 
ah, ok. Did not know that. I did a lot of work in Debis in Amsterdam over the years when the Chrysler thing was going on, but did not know it was aborted.
 
Pretty terrible when you have to pay someone to take your company. Just shows how bad the big three really are run. :driving: :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom