Scared Monkeys Discussion Forum

Current Events and Musings => Political Forum => Topic started by: WhiskeyGirl on November 18, 2008, 05:04:42 PM



Title: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on November 18, 2008, 05:04:42 PM
BLOCKED WEBSITE


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on November 18, 2008, 06:14:11 PM
Ford Offers Employee Pricing, 0% Financing, Cash-Back, on 2009 Models

Quote
"Ford is bullish on fuel economy," said Ken Czubay, Ford's vice president of Sales and Marketing. "Each new and significantly freshened vehicle we've brought to market in the past year has the best or among the best fuel economy in its segment, and we want to provide customers an extra reason to drive one of these high-quality, fuel-efficient cars, crossovers and trucks."

Ford is already offering employee pricing on most of its Ford, Lincoln and Mercury lineup to prop-up slow sales, but it apparently hasn't been enough. Now, to promote the company's newfound dedication to fuel-efficiency, it will also offer 0% financing for 36 months on its nine most-fuel-efficient, non-hybrid, 2009 models, the Ford Focus, Ford Fusion, Ford Escape, Ford Flex, Mercury Milan, Mercury Mariner, Lincoln MKZ, Lincoln MKS and the all new Ford F-150...

Quote
The promotion will run through January 5, 2009.

http://wot.motortrend.com/6349742/marketing/ford-offers-employee-pricing-0-financing-cash-back-on-2009-models/index.html (http://wot.motortrend.com/6349742/marketing/ford-offers-employee-pricing-0-financing-cash-back-on-2009-models/index.html)

Just in time for holiday stocking stuffers.   :)



Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: MumInOhio on November 19, 2008, 07:28:24 AM
Sure…I think under the 2007 UAW Contracts the big three are hiring in at around $10.00 an hour. ::MonkeyLaugh::

At my DH’s plant overtime was cut many months ago, so we now see about half the wages we did then. Of course this means that all that take their bite before he brings home his wages are getting way less as well!

There was something in that 2007 Contract about the UAW and the retiree Healthcare Benefits…just don’t recall how much they were going to cover. Of course if there are no Union Dues… ::MonkeyWink::
 
No jobs for the Auto workers…then nothing going into FICA, Federal , State and local taxes…

Just imagine…all those unemployed…with no money for Unemployment Benefits even though the Big 3 well and truly paid their share for their workers…

No SS for those old enough…that’s already been spent…Medicare…forget it…you just let a huge part of your tax base go under…

For the many who not old enough to even qualify, if the money was there for those programs, their “nest eggs” they put away for their retirement went the same way as the Big 3’s Retirement Funds…Check out the NYSE…

Then again if we had one of those $69 an hour jobs you keep referring to, we may have been able to have enough put away under our mattress to cover our medical bills the next time some part of DH’s body breaks again from 33 years of hard physical work, beginning back when these plants didn’t have the automation they have now!
WhiskeyGirl…You really should check you facts…

And I find it totally despicable that you appear to be gloating over this current state of affairs…Wonder where your Social Security Benefits are going to come? Think about it!!!!

BTW…take a look at Holden in Australia lately…go back to the 80’s and see what really happened to the Australian Auto and Steel Industries…
 


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on November 19, 2008, 09:16:16 AM
Mum,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present another side of the coin...




Sure…I think under the 2007 UAW Contracts the big three are hiring in at around $10.00 an hour. ::MonkeyLaugh::
Quote
...
BLOCKED WEBSITE

$28/$15 is more than a McJob.   I wonder if they will post these new job openings on Monster or CareerBuilder?  Maybe there will be online job applications too?

I was thinking about pensions this morning.  From my own experience, when 401k's first came out, companies RUSHED to end their unsustainable pension plans (often underfunded, or not funded in reality).  Workers got a check for the present value of the future benefit (disappointing).  They had two choices that I remember--roll it over into the new 401k option (http://option) or cash the check and pay taxes on the money.  The worker may have decide to add to the new 401k or let the pension money stay there all by itself.  Thus, many early 401ks were "seeded" with rollover money from pension plans that were ended.  Not wealthy people, but average people, with seed money from many years of dedicated hard work...

Why not end the UAW pension plan and rollover all that money?  401k?  GRA?  This seems to have been the pattern for many years (25 years or more).

*It also seems like pension plans are another tax loophole like the 401k and IRAs are now considered.  IIRC, Teresa G. (UAW consultant/employee?), is trying to 'fix' the 401k/IRA loophole with her suggested GRA.  If the 'GRA' is good for 401ks and IRAs, it should be good for everyone, including private pensons, imho.




At my DH’s plant overtime was cut many months ago, so we now see about half the wages we did then. Of course this means that all that take their bite before he brings home his wages are getting way less as well!
Quote
Corker's question prompted an odd scene in which Nardelli was forced to explain to Gettelfinger, as both sat at the witness table, that what Corker meant was the following: When Chrysler plants are idled because they are not making vehicles, Chrysler is still required to pay its UAW workers 95 percent of their wages.

Gettelfinger stumbled a bit and offered that those wages are actually the workers's "unemployment."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/economy-watch/2008/11/corker_uaw_should_not_be_paid.html?hpid=topnews (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/economy-watch/2008/11/corker_uaw_should_not_be_paid.html?hpid=topnews)
I don't know anyone who gets 95% of their pay when they are unemployed.  Not an expert, but I expect a miserly fixed amount (with a maximum) from my state unemployment department.  It also runs out after a few months...think of all the extensions for the current umemployed.

In practice IIRC, the benefit of 95% UAW unemployment is for like two or more years.  The company pays into retirement and continues healthcare benefits too.  I don't know anyone (except autoworkers) that get that kind of deal when they are laid off or their jobs go to China or India--forever.




There was something in that 2007 Contract about the UAW and the retiree Healthcare Benefits…just don’t recall how much they were going to cover. Of course if there are no Union Dues… ::MonkeyWink::
IIRC, in the past few days, there have been numerous news article that the UAW (Teresa G.) is looking for an additional government bailout to add/fund $25 billion for the UAW healthcare fund of the future--to ensure it is solvent until 2080.  That $25 billion is being funded by taxpayers - many people who work McJobs, are currently unemployed, and who may not have any health or pension benefits.  I have no idea where the funding for my Medicare/Medicaid is coming from.

I've worked hard my whole life too.




No jobs for the Auto workers…then nothing going into FICA, Federal , State and local taxes…

Just imagine…all those unemployed…with no money for Unemployment Benefits even though the Big 3 well and truly paid their share for their workers…

No SS for those old enough…that’s already been spent…Medicare…forget it…you just let a huge part of your tax base go under…

For the many who not old enough to even qualify, if the money was there for those programs, their “nest eggs” they put away for their retirement went the same way as the Big 3’s Retirement Funds…Check out the NYSE…
The nest eggs of many Americans may have been rolled into 401ks and IRAs.  The government seems to be targeting this money, reported to be at least $11 trillion for a new "enhanced" Social Security program/tax.

The reality - people may have worked years for a pension (roll to 401k), then added to that with contributions directly out of their paychecks.  Let's see... 30 years pension + 20 years post pension = 50 years of 401k or IRA money.  Now, the government decides that there is some kind of loophole that needs to be fixed.  ... ::MonkeyShocked::  

Government wants that money for something...spending?  Coerce ("sweeten the pot" in media speak) people into rolling it over to a new "Government Retirement Account" or GRA.  This would effectively end the employer contribution (loophole in government POV) and end the tax deferred treatment of the 401k/IRA.  Hmmm... taxpayers also expected to fund UAW private pensions...  Something just not right about that...imho.

I think 401ks and IRA have been very successful.  The money is still there for people to enjoy.  Where is the Social Security and Medicare trust fund?  Why is that empty?

Why are pensions underfunded?



It doesn't matter how much you make, it's what you save that matters.  
In the end, that's all you've got.  
Now, the government wants to take that too.



Then again if we had one of those $69 an hour jobs you keep referring to, we may have been able to have enough put away under our mattress to cover our medical bills the next time some part of DH’s body breaks again from 33 years of hard physical work, beginning back when these plants didn’t have the automation they have now!
WhiskeyGirl…You really should check you facts…
A lot of people work hard physical labor--farm workers, road workers, day care workers, nurses...  If not hard physical labor, they stand on their feet all day--waitressess, cashiers, flaggers...    If they sit, their arms, backs, and veins go too--secretaries, bus drivers, truckers...

Individuals NOT having a $69 / hr job with lovely benefits, are expected to save for their own retirement and future healthcare needs--Social Security and Medicare are not expected to be there.

Many people have been paying into Medicare for their entire lives.  Will Medicare be there for them?  Is that fund in a healthy condition?

Despite modest incomes, if someone managed to pay off their house, will they qualify for Medicaid?  Or, will they be expected to sell everything?  Maybe not sell, but will the government put a lein on everything?

I think everyone would like to have their healthcare paid for until they die.  I think everyone would like to have trust funds paid for in advance.  How many Americans have that expectation today?  That luxury?

Now should all the little people, without a generous pension, and a healthy healthcare fund for the future, also be expected to pay (through increased taxes)  to fund private healthcare and pensions for others?  There just seems to be something wrong with that.
 



And I find it totally despicable that you appear to be gloating over this current state of affairs…Wonder where your Social Security Benefits are going to come? Think about it!!!!

BTW…take a look at Holden in Australia lately…go back to the 80’s and see what really happened to the Australian Auto and Steel Industries…
Gloating?  I have a 401k and it is appalling to me that the government is EVEN thinking about taking that away.  And, I will be expected through taxes to pay for private benefits (healthcare / pensions) for others.

Why not treat everyone the same?  Roll the healthcare / pensions for members of Congress, Medicare, UAW and other private plans into the new Obama plan(s).  Is something wrong with everyone getting on board the same motor coach?

I don't make anywhere near $69/hr.  I'm already tapped out paying for federal/state/local taxes, FICA, Medicare, health insurance premiums, 401k contributions, life insurance, disability insurance, etc.  


There's something wrong with all these bailouts!   ::MonkeyNoNo::


Will Congress, the president, and  president-elect, be ashamed of themselves?

I have a sneaky suspicion that SS won't be there when I retire, and my 401k won't either.  I won't have Social Security, Medicare, a private pension, or private healthcare fund to rely on--those things are gone forever.


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: MumInOhio on November 19, 2008, 09:39:01 AM
Not going to get into a slogging match with you...Just know where we are now and how it is...53 years of age...little chance of finding further employment...terrible health from multiple surgeries, back, knees that have to be redone...Lot of that came from being required to work 72 hours a week for extended periods of time...and boy did the Feds love us then!

Our retirement funds has not been matched like many others are. That was all our own money.

The Auto Makers pay into States Unemployment Funds and those contributions have hardly been used since the 80's until recently...the rest of the 95% comes from OUR Union dues we pay every month!

Funny they want to bail out people that didn't want to read their Mortgage contracts...or thought they were so clever with variable interest only mortgages, but don't want to help a major part of the nation's economy!

Without a tax base NONE of these Federal programs can survive!





 


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on November 19, 2008, 10:26:02 AM
I do not believe this is a slogging match, it is the opportunity to present differing points of view.  Help us understand where everyone is coming from - discussion.  Not many participating...

thank you for input


If I were to sum up my previous post in fewer words -

Wall Street bailout recipients seem to represent the 'elite' of the financial workforce--the fat cats.   Autoworkers seem to be among the 'elite' of American labor--the fat cats. 

Not many workers have a tidy wages and benefit package like Wall Street or the autoworkers (management and labor).  If they did, it's gone forever. 

How many green jobs or infrastructure jobs could be funded with all that money (the $350 billion balance left for Obama, or the automaker bailout legislation)?

If taxpayers can bailout the pension and health funds of the automakers, can they also restore and fund the pensions and health plans of millions of Americans that have ended over the years?  Why not?

People who worked for the Enron's of this world (many that did not make the news), that went belly-up a  few years ago (or the past 40 years) lost their pensions, 401k money, and healthcare...no government bailout.

Why isn't Washington doing ANYTHING to make Social Security sound for future generations of retirees?  Medicare?


Where is the bailout for Main Street?  The people who make 'everyday money' and have to save for their own retirement and future healthcare?


::MonkeyWink::  Is my billion dollar bailout check in the mail?


That's what I call a stimulus package.   :bigup: 



::MonkeyLaugh::  I'd buy that for a dollar...

(or the payment of union dues)
   


================


Quote
A union-run health care trust known as a voluntary employee benefit association, or VEBA, was supposed to help the automakers escape bankruptcy by capping the amount they would pay for retiree health care expenses. ...the VEBA was described as insurance against losing retiree health care benefits should the automakers file for bankruptcy. ...

But in July, GM deferred paying $1.7 billion into the VEBA, angering GM retirees.

Quote
The total value of the health care trust is to be about $60 billion, with GM providing around $33 billion, Ford roughly $15 billion and Chrysler about $9 billion. Each company will fund and manage the VEBA separately until 2010, after which the UAW will keep the funds for each company’s retirees separate.

Part of the VEBA is to be funded by the deferral of a 3 percent wage increase for current UAW workers...

Quote
“If we get the money [for the VEBA], we’ll be OK,” Ghilarducci says. “If the companies go bankrupt, then we’ll stand in line with all the other creditors.”
http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/94/05.php (http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/94/05.php)

Quote
Will the U.S. Treasury put up the $58 billion that the companies must pay the UAW to support a trust fund for retiree health care?
http://socialistworker.org/2008/11/10/bailout-for-auto (http://socialistworker.org/2008/11/10/bailout-for-auto)

GM delayed a $1.7 billion.  Other sources suggest a $25 billion dollar bailout, it seems to have increased to $58 billion somewhere along the line.

Why shouldn't all workers expect a bail out?  The same fair treatment by government? 


It is very disturbing to me as a taxpayer, that bankruptcy for the Big 3, from what I've been reading, seems to be in the bag (not something that may be preventable at this point in time).  And yet, they continue to lobby for all this money...

A billion dollar bailout for every taxpayer would go a long way to ensuring my personal retirement and future healthcare.     ::MonkeyDance::


Who is representing people at Walmart, McDonalds, or the self-employed?  Congress?  The UAW?  President?  President-elect? 

I don't see anyone looking out for people who make 'everyday' money...


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on November 19, 2008, 10:56:24 AM
This article has several charts with greater details -

Quote
November 19, 2008
Auto Bailout Ignores Excessive Labor Costs
by James Sherk

Without government intervention, one or more of the Big Three automobile manufacturers--General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler--faces restructuring in bankruptcy. Bankruptcy would not be the end of the Big Three but a new beginning.  ...the automakers would start fresh, free of the contractual obligations that have kept them uncompetitive...

Quote
The average private sector worker earned $25.36 an hour in 2006--$17.91 an hour in cash wages and $7.45 an hour in benefits such as pensions, paid time off, and health insurance.[1] Autoworkers at Japanese plants located in the United States earn substantially more than this: between $42 and $48 an hour in wages and benefits, which amounts to over $80,000 a year in total compensation...[2]

The typical UAW worker at the Big Three earned between $71 and $76 an hour in 2006.... The average unionized worker at the Big Three earns over $130,000 a year in wages and benefits.[3]

Average people who make 'everyday' money would have to work three or four full time jobs a week to make $130,000.  Jobs that pay 'everyday' money are hard to find in this economy.

Quote
Gold Plated Health Care ...GM workers and retirees must pay monthly premiums of $10 for an individual and $21 for families.

In my circle of family and friends--people may pay hundreds of dollars each month in premiums for employer sponsored healthcare.  On top of this, they must pay deductibles and copayments.  Drug copayments may be like $80 for a 90 day supply.  Some, cannot afford private insurance and remain uninsured.

Quote
Seven weeks vacation. A Chrysler worker with 15 years' tenure was entitled to 34.5 paid holidays and vacation days in 2006--seven weeks in paid time off.[7] This is three weeks more paid vacation than the average private sector worker with similar tenure.


I don't know many that are able to work at one place for 15 years anymore...


Quote
Taxpayers Should Not Bailout the UAW

...the UAW, along with the Detroit automakers, are asking taxpayers to help keep UAW earnings at $75 an hour when the typical American takes home a third that much. The Big Three also want Congress to use taxpayers' money to pay billions of dollars into the new health care VEBA, thereby funding health care benefits for UAW retirees that are far more generous than those provided by an already under-funded Medicare system.

UAW workers understandably want to preserve the standard of living to which they have become accustomed, but that standard is not sustainable in a competitive economy. Congress should not tax all Americans in order to maintain UAW workers' affluent lifestyles.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2135.cfm (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2135.cfm)



Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on November 19, 2008, 11:02:57 AM
United Airlines and CNW employees (union and non-union) went the route of employee ownership.  Why isn't this an option for the autoworkers?

:smt102


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: vms on November 19, 2008, 11:03:21 AM
If the "Big 3" fail, how many other industry related jobs will go down with them?


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on November 19, 2008, 11:17:00 AM
Quote
... As consumers find vehicles made by Japanese and other transplants more attractive, like those imported from Korea and eventually from China, the Detroit Three will cede market share of one or a few percentage points each year.

If Chapter 11 is put off, the successors to GM, Ford and Chrysler that emerge from a bankruptcy reorganization process will be smaller and support fewer jobs than if these companies endure this difficult transition in 2009.

More jobs can be saved among GM, Ford and Chrysler and their suppliers if bankruptcy reorganization is endured now than in the future.

When Americans buy automobiles from the Detroit Three, more is contributed to the vitality of the U.S. economy than when Americans buy vehicles assembled here by transplants or imports. These vehicles have more U.S. content in terms of jobs, engineering and profits than do foreign nameplate vehicles.

...improve the attractiveness of making cars and parts in the United States by improving the public policy environment. This would include finally addressing, directly and forthrightly, undervalued currencies in Asia—currencies kept cheap by intervention by foreign monetary authorities in China and elsewhere. ...offer an incentive for car buyers to trade in their gas guzzlers—the newer and the bigger the clunker, the more the car buyer would receive under the condition the vehicle is destroyed. This would raise the price carmakers receive from selling smaller vehicles.

Congress could provide substantial product development assistance to U.S.-based automakers and suppliers. The latter includes Toyota, Nissan and Honda, as well as the Detroit Three, battery makers and other suppliers to accelerate the production of innovative, high-mileage cars.

The condition for assistance would be that beneficiaries do their R&D and first large production runs in the United States, and share their patents at reasonable costs with other companies manufacturing in the United States. The huge U.S. market would help attract producers from around the world and rejuvenate the U.S. auto supply chain.

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1015302.shtml (http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1015302.shtml)

Not sure I agree with everything, but there are some ideas here.


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on November 19, 2008, 11:37:50 AM
If the "Big 3" fail, how many other industry related jobs will go down with them?

Why would the "Big 3" fail?

The "Big 3" don't have to fail, imho, they need to change. 

Rebirth...a new Phoenix...

Changing instead of failing, would save jobs for a lot of people, including those in industry related jobs. 

Jobs that may still be there to provide opportunities for the children of those same workers.  Jobs that may provide opportunity for thousands that have been laid off over time, and in other industries.

Autoworkers like many, have a death grip on the past, when the present is screaming for CHANGE.  The future is forfeit.

Unlike other workers, those in the auto industry have the ear of Congress.  They have the opportunity to make things better, and possibly the funding.  It's up to them.

I believe there are many people would would welcome those post-bankruptcy jobs with their reduced wages and benefits. 

The alternative?  Hoping that unemployment benefits are extended yet again by Congress...and worrying about your family going without insurance.


One man's bitter apple, is another man's  French toast...


(or in the words of another..."I see opportunity")


Just my humble opinions.


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on November 19, 2008, 11:43:25 AM
Who cries for the steel worker?



Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on November 19, 2008, 11:46:29 AM
Who will cry for the coal workers?  There is STILL the opportunity to fix the coal industry, make it cleaner.  Is anyone in Washington listening to the coal workers?  not


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: MumInOhio on November 19, 2008, 11:56:32 AM
The elite of the Workforce! You are talking regular Blue collar workers here. We are Main Street America! Mailmen make as much an hour as my husband does, and don't tell me they don't have a good benefit package.

As I posted earlier...The auto Industry is encouraging their older workers to retire so that they will be hiring all new staff at the lower rates. This has already been happening. Certain sections of plants have already been sub-contracted out and as I understand it from the horse's mouth, these people are paid $10 an hour and do not receive any benefits from the auto makers.

From what I have heard and read about the bailout for Retiree's Health Insurance it is to cover until the economy picks up, the credit squeeze is over. If they had been able to borrow this money they would already have done it!

Who is going to buy a car from a Bankrupt company? We purchased DD a new GM in February...she chose it, she loves it. Much better, she thought to any else on the market at the time other than a Mustang, which was totally out of the question! She compared Hondas, Fords, everything she could. She made an intelligent decision.

I have been hearing for over a week now that the vehicles the big 3 produce are not inferior to their Japanese counterparts, just the public's perception. The Big Three have been trying to change that perception. Many consumers don't do research before purchasing, somewhere along the line they heard that Japanese cars where better so that it is where they go.

Think we are around 120,000 miles on our Taurus...basically has cost us nothing, but tires, oil changes etc...and our vehicle is a 1996...Ford of course.

If you let this Industry go under, then all the other by products of that industry go under. In two weeks or less, the States and Federal government will have lost such an enormous part of their revenue, that I believe it will be devasting to this country's economy.





Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: MumInOhio on November 19, 2008, 12:20:09 PM
Oops! Consider us everyday people...Making everyday money...Trying as hard as we can to plan or our own future, and done a heck of a lot to support the economy over the 33 years my DH has labored away in the Auto Industry...and I can tell you it is not a labor of Love!

I believe those $60 to $70 an hour figures you keep posting may include our pension, which saves the government on paying us Social Security. We don't get both...but we sure pay a heap into FICA.

Totally at a loss as to what all these benefits actually entail...we have co-pays for Dr.s visits, and hospital stays...we get an eye exam, pay for our lenses and some of our frames, Hubby gets some on his mandated safety glasses, we pay most. Cap on Dental. Actually all our co-pays went up under the new contracts, part of a way to save the Company money.


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on November 19, 2008, 02:33:46 PM
I think Americans make a lot of good cars.  I have an old Ford.  Often, it's  the only vehicle in my extended family that starts up on the coldest days of winter.  It may not be pretty to look at, but the air conditioning works better in the old Ford as well--never needed any maintenance.

An $8 - $10 McJob with few if any benefits is at the opposite end of the wage spectrum.   In my area, the McJobs are hard to find these days. 


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: crazybabyborg on November 20, 2008, 02:26:42 AM
Just my opinion:

IMO, the prime group that should be the object of government intervention are the individuals who have planned for and those who are living on their retirements depending on their pensions, IRA's etc. Those people should have been the recipients of bailout money to restore what they lost and a cushion to help maintain them while they regroup.

The Auto industry is a business that is a victim of their business decisions. When CEO's bring down a 28 million annual salary and deboard one of their fleet of 8 private jets to carry their tin cup to congress, something's terribly wrong. When congress even has to debate taking money earned from the average American wage earner making $18.50 an hour to secure the wages of other workers making 2-5 times that, something is terribly wrong.

The mortgage mess that bears a huge brunt of responsibility for this crisis could have been avoided, and congress and corruption laid out the red carpet for this economic crisis to be ushered in. There's a lot of people who lived and are living beyond their means because of what congress set up and perpetuated. I don't view the sub-prime homeowner as the same ilk of victim as I do those who have lost what they have set back for their future and have lost because our government set them up for sacrifice. They should not have to pay the price for that anymore than the average wage earner should have to pay the price for what the big 3 negotiated with their Unions. At some point, people have to take responsibility for their decisions, and if you sign a contract, you should have known what it said.

"Industry" is not the victim, people within that industry are. Help the workers, but keep in mind that other industries have filed Chapter 11 and have continued to operate and emerged stronger after reconstruction. I'm not at all worried about people's reluctance to purchase American made cars when made under bankruptcy. Don't underestimate free markets. If there is a need for parts that isn't being met, someone will recognize that opportunity and fill the hole. That's just good business opportunity, and as long as "government" doesn't own every business and free markets exist, workers will be needed to man the entrapeuners who seize opportunities.

Something's terribly wrong. CEO's of Fannie and Freddy making millions a year and leaving with multimillion parachutes, members of congress sitting on regulatory committees lining their pockets with Fannie money and utterly rejecting hard evidence of corruption within Fannie and Freddy, Auto Industry Fat cats with fleets of jets making almost 30 million a year, unions throwing the dice to maintain their deals while their members twist in the wind with depleted retirements and are vulnerable to land without a job at all and broke. They should start up a big ball manufacturing industry, because they sure enough have them to be able to even form the words that indicate they give a damn about their workers. Folks living in homes way above their means and smiling while congress contorts themselves to "help" them, while the average wage earner struggles with the mortgage they read for the only house they could afford and keeps looking at their dwindling checks and praying their government won't take away the 60% they are allowed to keep. Who speaks for them?

And Politicians make speeches and ooze the words, "I care". Bull Chit. It comes down to who they owe for helping them obtain the power they crave. Who put them there and who is likely to keep them there? Help the PEOPLE. Most of them are smart enough and ethical enough to make their lives work if Government will just stop rearranging the playing field.

Auto Management, Unions, and Congress do not care or feel responsible for average Americans. They ALL have and have had the power to protect the workers and have methodically chosen to stick it to them at every opportunity. When the Auto CEO's sell the jets, lower their salaries, and use the savings to restore worker's lost benefits and retirements, and when unions come to the table and say "what can we do to keep our workers in a job", and congress stops spending and committing other people's money and begins protecting the American people instead of deal making and pursuing power for themselves, then we can all take an attitude that we are in this together.

Now THAT would be change.



Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: GreatOwl on November 20, 2008, 07:40:03 AM
I do not often get into these discussions, however, I do note one questions by Whiskey Girl that I need to respond to.

It was that of "Why not be employee owned?"

I really do not know about the others, but Chrysler seems to not care to sell any of its rights to subsidiaries.  The goes much further that just the autoworkers.  Chrysler is the parent company of a paper making company by the name of New Page.  The plant in our area has just been shut down.  It has left hundreds of workers out of jobs.  It has had a huge impact on a small community which has always had the paper mill.  The name of the town is Kimberley.  This was the origin of Kimberley Clark many decades ago and then they up and moving corporate to Atlanta.  This mill has been around as long as I can remember and workers have lived and died with each sale.

Now it has closed.....  The signs around the yards all over my area say, "run it or sell it."  They refuse to sell even to those that have proposed making it a employee owned operation.  Just proposing that a company go this route is not the answer.  The owners have to be willing to sell.  Chrysler is not!!!  I am not sure if it is a matter of taking a "tax loss" or they are afraid of competition with the mills that still remain open?

In any case, while I do believe that we need to retain our American identity in the auto industry and in other ventures, it is not as simple as what we perceive on the surface.  These huge companies need to make concessions if they want to be bailed out.  I do support the legislators in my area that are holding firm in opposing a bailout until Chrysler agrees to either sell or reopen the paper mill as a part of their condition for bailout.

I has never been able losing money because of a lack of being competitive.  It has been strictly about turning a larger profit.


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: GreatOwl on November 20, 2008, 08:22:11 AM
I do not often get into these discussions, however, I do note one questions by Whiskey Girl that I need to respond to.

It was that of "Why not be employee owned?"  It can not be employee owned if a company refuses to sell.

I really do not know about the others, but Chrysler seems to not care to sell any of its rights to subsidiaries.  This goes much further than just the autoworkers.  Chrysler is the parent company of a paper making company by the name of New Page.  The plant in our area has just been shut down.  It has left hundreds of workers out of jobs.  It has had a huge impact on a small community which has always had the paper mill.  The name of the town is Kimberley.  This was the origin of Kimberley Clark many decades ago and then they up and moved corporate to Atlanta.  This mill has been around as long as I can remember and workers have lived and died with each sale.

Now it has closed.....  The signs around the yards all over my area say, "run it or sell it."  They refuse to sell even to those that have proposed making it an employee owned operation.  Just proposing that a company go this route is not the answer.  The owners have to be willing to sell.  Chrysler is not!!!  I am not sure if it is a matter of taking a "tax loss" or they are afraid of competition with the mills that still remain open?

In any case, while I do believe that we need to retain our American identity in the auto industry and in other ventures, it is not as simple as what we perceive on the surface.  These huge companies need to make concessions if they want to be bailed out.  I do support the legislators in my area that are holding firm in opposing a bailout until Chrysler agrees to either sell or reopen the paper mill as a part of their condition for bailout.

I has never been able losing money because of a lack of being competitive.  It has been strictly about turning a larger profit.  My own opinion is that too many companies tend to buy up far more than they can afford to in times of prosperity and then when times are difficult they dump what was once a profitable venture before their own take over.

edited because my brain doesn't function at 5:00 am.....  please ignore that mess I originally posted.   I hope this is better.


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on November 20, 2008, 07:23:22 PM
The skeptic in me thinks that some just want enough money to float the company until year end to pay corporate management bonus and other compensation. 

IMHO, good fuel economy is 50 plus MPG.  It's what sells all those Prius, SmartCars, and others.  They don't get 50, but they get much better than say 24.  People are on waiting lists for SmartCars for years.  Prius is a little better.

I'd like a car that gets 50 plus MPG or electric, seats four and has room for stuff, and I can put my dog in there and take it on vacation.  I like to carpool.

I don't know why they wouldn't want to make themselves smaller.  They've already (from news reports) laid off so many people, I don't think it is even realistic to say they will have a lower pay rate for 'new' employees.  I would imagine they need to get all the inactive ones active again.  So, the 'new' employee pay and benefit program is a straw man or red herring at this point in time.

I don't think bigger is always better, just like in banking.  I think "to big to fail" will turn out to be a bad idea.  Maybe some are too big already, and are dangerous to the general welfare of this nation.

Is it better to lose 100% of a sector, or perhaps 10%?

Why lose employment for 100% of your employees, if you could save some of the business and maybe keep 60%?

I have to believe they have smart people working for those companies, creative people that would have done a lot to improve fuel economy over the year.  Where did all the R&D money go?  Compensation?  Bonuses?  How does the R&D budget compare to employee bonuses?

If the Big 3 fail, that will mean consumers will buy other vehicles, and I would imagine that someone will take up those sales and job opportunities that come with them.

I do think that corporate America (and other countries) do not run companies with the idea that the company will exist in the future, or that it has a place to provide future jobs.  It all seems to be about 'gutting the pig' and taking what you can, regardless of the job loss.  There is no future.

jmho


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on November 20, 2008, 07:59:14 PM
I read that Congress is looking for a business plan from the Big 3.

When will Congress bail out Social Security & Medicare?   Is there a business plan for that lurking somewhere?

When will Congress bail out Main Street?


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on November 22, 2008, 10:25:17 AM
Canada weighs in -

Quote
Planes, drains and automobiles
The Journal Pioneer

Apparently, top executives at North America’s biggest automakers haven’t received the memo that we’re in the midst of some tough economic times.
 
At a time when many citizens are pinching pennies and cutting coupons to ensure they have enough money to eat, chief executives from these companies are hopping jets, flying across the U.S. then asking for a $25-billion bailout.

Yes, times are tough for the big automakers, but not tough enough for their CEOs to tighten the purse strings by grabbing a commercial flight or, at the very least, “jet pool” to a meeting where they’re crying poor and begging for money.

Each chief executive from the three major North American automakers landed in Washington Wednesday in a private jet, a very costly way to travel. And each earns a multi-million dollar salary in jobs that aren’t in danger, like those in the assembly room.
In the U.S., 355,000 American workers are directly employed in the auto industry and more than four million work in related industries. Then there are the one million retirees, spouses and dependents that rely on the companies’ retirement and health-care benefits.

In Canada, Ontario relies heavily on that industry. And with that province now considered a “have-not” province, the loss of one or more of the three automakers would be a devastating blow.

While workers are worrying each day if they’ll receive a pink slip, these executives continue to wastefully spend money.


http://www.journalpioneer.com/index.cfm?sid=192764&sc=120 (http://www.journalpioneer.com/index.cfm?sid=192764&sc=120)

How long will the executive salaries be funded if the companies go under?

Quote
GM and Chrysler indicated that without loans from the government, they will be below minimum cash requirements by end of the first quarter of 2009. GM's Wagoner said his company will have about $15 billion in cash at the end of the year. Nardelli said Chrysler has $6.1 billion now. "That is getting very close to our minimum needs of liquidity to operate," Nardelli told the Senate committee.

Ford said it can last into 2010, unless the market gets appreciably worse. But it worries that a GM or Chrysler failure will trigger the failure of hundreds of auto suppliers, freezing Ford's production and thus driving all three companies and an array of suppliers into Chapter 11 reorganization. GM is asking for $10 billion to $12 billion in loans. Chrysler has asked for $7 billion, and Ford, $7 billion to $8 billion.


http://www.wtol.com/global/story.asp?S=9378367 (http://www.wtol.com/global/story.asp?S=9378367)

How long would cash at GM and Chrysler last if they didn't pay year end management bonus and other compensation?

Where would the 'talent' go if they lost their job?


How much do these companies pay out in executive, management, board compensation each year?  If they've really been making money all these years, where has it gone?  Research?

I think there are some pieces to the money puzzle missing.

In my examples of United and CNW (Chicago NorthWester RailRoad) the employees helped to make a future for themselves.  From memory, the took a percentage hit of their pay (like 10% or something) over many years to pay off the loans used to buy the company (CNW).  After a certain point, they received this investment back.  At CNW, it was a lumpsum windfall for many employees.

With the stock trading at such low prices, why doesn't management see this as a solution?  An investment in the future of all employees - management and labor alike?  Sharing the risks and rewards of the future?


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on November 22, 2008, 10:47:19 AM
OPINION: Don't bail out the Big Three
 
November 22, 2008 - 7:03 AM

Quote
...The reluctance of legislators to send more of the taxpayers' money to these companies may reflect a dawning understanding that bailing them out might be the worst thing one could do for them. None of the CEOs that led their companies into deep trouble has offered to resign, and they told the Senate Banking Committee that they think the reorganizing they have done is suflcient - if only they can get a little of the taxpayers' cash to tide them over. As many critics inside and outside of the industry have long recognized, however, the Big Three need not a few layoffs and cosmetic reform, but major restructuring.

Quote
...Investments must be made with an eye toward a future longer-term than the next quarter. Product palnning must be more forward-looking....  Executive perks and salaries need to be on the table.

Quote
The most effective vehicle for accomplishing such major restructuring would be Chapter 11 bankruptcy...  Unless management is even more incompetent than we suspect, such a bankruptcy does not mean a company just disappears, but that it has an opportunity to restructure itself suficiently to become economically viable again. A bailout ofiers no incentive to restructure; rather, it ofiers a rationale for postponing hard decisions. The word is that Congress will be more amenable to a bailout when the Obama administration takes office in January. We hope not.

http://www.gazette.com/opinion/three_43907___article.html/company_senate.html (http://www.gazette.com/opinion/three_43907___article.html/company_senate.html)

If the recession/depression lasts longer than 2008, what will the Big 2 do for funding in 2009? 

How much does it cost to run those companies each month?  How much for management and executives?  Labor?  Would it be cheaper to move all the employees and retirees to standard unemployment, Medicare, and the Obama health plan?

What is the point of carrying all these expenses if American's aren't buying American made cars?  In my experience, the biggest fans of a bailout for the Big 3 do not own an American made car, and they haven't for many years.

Wouldn't it be cheaper to bail out each taxpayer with say $1 billion dollars and let the trickle up economics work?  Is my $1 billion dollar check in the mail yet?

When will someone help Main Street?


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on November 22, 2008, 01:37:15 PM
Another POV, with some interesting ideas -

Quote
One thing is clear with the auto industry- those $70 per hour wages are a fraud- they can only work if they are subsidized by the U.S. government.

There is message about Medicare that often relates to the number of workers needed to support one Medicare recipient.  How many workers would be needed to continue supporting all these bailouts?

Quote
Is it fair to pay $50 Billion (if that’s even enough) to the Big 3 Automakers while successful companies get nothing? Why would we reward failure and incompetence by the companies and unions?


Quote
I’m a small business owner. I’m having tough times as well. My friends with small businesses are all in big trouble right now. We’re struggling to survive. If you sell anything for a living right now, you are in big trouble- because American consumers have stopped buying anything. Small business creates a majority of private sector jobs in America and 75% of all new jobs. Aren’t we too important to the U.S. economy to fail? Who is bailing us out? If we create by far more jobs than the Big 3 Automakers, why isn’t there a small business bailout plan from the U.S. Treasury?

Is my $1 billion dollar check in the mail?  I'm thinking that by the time all these bailouts and jobs are created, it would have been more effective (and fair) to have given every taxpayer $1 billion dollars to help stimulate the economy.  imho

Quote
The free market alternative is to let the automakers go bankrupt or otherwise find their own way. Will they go out of business? Probably not. The courts will allow them to reorganize. They can and should renegotiate their union contracts, through bankruptcy.


I keep hearing echos of Obama stumps about being able to negotiate contracts like for mortgages.  Why not apply those concepts to the Big 2?  For some reason, it seems like Ford's biggest problem is losing suppliers if and when the other two go under.  I wonder if Ford is looking into alternatives?   That's a scary kind of monopoly - all parts from the same companies.

Quote
Did the airline industry as we know it end when TWA went out of business? Of course not. Out of the ashes, Southwest Airlines emerged with a new business model. And it works! They get you there on time, don’t lose your luggage, charge low fares, and a nice profit. A profit both they and their shareholders pay taxes on, too!

TWA deserved to fail. If we had bailed out TWA, there may never have been room in the marketplace for a Southwest Airlines. What we need right now is a “Southwest Motors.”

Yes, a "Southwest Motors" for America.  Where our least efficient models start at 50/mpg, and our best only need to be plugged in every 2,000 miles for a quick recharge of all systems!   Maybe that will be Ford in the future.  ::cartwheel::

Quote
It’s not government’s money to give. It is our money- yours and mine. These endless bailouts will keep our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren enslaved. Enslaved by big government, with oppressively high taxes for generations to come...

Yup.  Debt bondage.  Washington can dole it out in the trillions to those on Wall Street, Detroit, and others.  In the end, if I still have to pay it back through taxes, I think Washington should have started with Main Street first, and give the "trickle up" theory a chance to work.

read more of the captivating opinion here -
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/11/wayne-root-predicts-obama-presidency-will-be-a-disaster/ (http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/11/wayne-root-predicts-obama-presidency-will-be-a-disaster/)

just my humble opinions


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: LouiseVargas on November 22, 2008, 11:21:50 PM
I don't support a Big 3 bail out. No way, no how. ::MonkeyNoNo::

I don't drive American cars. People from my parents' generation had no choice. But back then, almost everything was made to last. Gasoline was very cheap. As time passed, American cars became more and more cheaply made. My step dad and my mom bought a new 57 Chevy and went on their honeymoon to Las Vegas. Halfway there, the brand new car broke down. They called the Chevy dealer in LA, took a bus back and got their money back. Then they went to another dealer and bought a 58 Chevy Impala, which was always a "problem" car.

Eventually, they switched to Ford and bought a 65 Mustang. Step dad died in 1966 and I inherited the car in 1967. Talk about a lemon! This car was the worst and my mother paid for all the repairs. Finally in 1987, we sold the Mustang for $4,200 (it was $2,300 new) to a Professor from Cal Tech for his son to tinker with. 

Mom bought me (43) and my daughter (21) 1987 twin red Honda Preludes. After several years, someone bought Kristi a Ford Explorer, while I, on the other hand, was content to keep driving my Prelude forever. I loved that car.

In 2002, three cars crashed together and smashed into my Prelude. Insurance gave me only $3K for a car that was pristinely maintained, was just serviced and had brand new tires, not to mention a complete service record which I kept in a book with receipts. I had to buy a new car. A 2002 Honda Accord black Coupe with leather interior, moon roof and a spoiler on the back. I finally just paid it off after six and 1/2 long, bitter years. During those years, I had oil changes, one new tire and an alignment. I have just under 20,000 miles. It is like new.
::MonkeyHaHa::

As far as I'm concerned, the Big 3 do not deserve to be bailed out. They can take their assembly line and blow it to smithereens. It is outdated. They will need a TON of money for the cost of the tools and dies needed to build a new assembly line; and that does not guarantee the cars will be made well and/or the first cars rolling off the assembly will meet the high expections we will be awaiting after bailing them out. It may take some more time and MORE money to refine the cars. After all that, there is no guarantee that Americans will have any interest in those cars. 
::MonkeyRoll::


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: crazybabyborg on November 27, 2008, 11:47:46 AM
Lot's of wisdom in these posts. If the bailout for the auto industry could be given to the people, not just the auto workers, but certainly to the workers who would be displaced because of the industry's failure, we would all have enough money to feel much better about the economy.

I don't ever want to hear the wailing about the cost of war from those who support this bailout. What we've spent on bailing out corporations far exceeds what we've spent securing a democracy in the Middle East. Agree with the war or not, we at least know what our objectives are and what has been accomplished there, and one objective is close enough to being met that we have begun the phase of drawing down troops. The democratic process there is now moving through the second phase. Our troops will draw back from the cities, and titrate to the background, able to step in if their efforts should need support, but in a true and temporary watchdog position. And what's on the table has such impact on their own and our own security. We would be able to establish a permanent missile base within a Democratic Iraq, giving us a strategic imperative in the most volatile part of the world. When Iran threatens and rages, we are there with capabilities to protect Israel and ourselves. That's what we purchased for our future and have done that while freeing Iraqis from a bloody terroristic regime.

As bad as the terrorist's attack is that is going on in India, the target was Western civilization, and the front was there, not on American soil. That is a testament to our diligence and to a large part the weakening of Al Quieda in Iraq. We paid for that with dollars and American blood, but we did not spend in vain.

Now, we commit our children and their children to a tax bill created to rescue failed companies that have so abused their wealth through corruption, union demands, and short sightedness that it has strangled the American entrepreneurial spirit. Let the big three die knowing that if the environment can be maintained to encourage taking a risk, someone with a dream will do it better. Someone will see the opportunity and step in to take their place. They will succeed having learned from the mistakes the big three made. That someone will be Americans pursuing the American Dream, and there will be jobs created to support a healthy industry.

What are we doing?   ::MonkeyNoNo::




Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 03, 2008, 11:03:20 PM
Quote
The Latest Song of Detroit
Barack Obama's opening to practice some tough love.

At least the last time we faced an automotive bailout crisis -- the $1.5 billion in government loan guarantees for Lee Iacocca's Chrysler in 1979-80 -- we got a great song out of it. Country-music singer Tom Paxton recorded "I'm Changin' My Name to Chrysler," and the refrain went like this:

I'm changin' my name to Chrysler.
I'm goin' down to Washington, D.C.
I'm gonna tell some power broker
What you did for Iacocca,
Will be perfectly acceptable to me.

Is my check for $1 billion in the mail?  I've been checking every day, and it hasn't arrived.

Quote
...GM suggests a federal "Oversight Board" to monitor its progress in meeting its "restructuring benchmarks."

But here's the problem: GM, by its own admission, is out of time. The benchmarks, while moving in the right direction, remain too low and too slow...

Quote
There are no painless solutions here. But amid this dismal picture, there is a real opportunity for our new president-elect. If Barack Obama can stare down the UAW, the pro-CAFE environmental lobby and the corporate-welfare supplicants by insisting on the sort of tough-love measures outlined here, he'll establish himself as a true leader. Rahm Emanuel, the president-elect's designated chief of staff, says a good crisis shouldn't be wasted. That goes for presidents, too. Can you rise to the tough-love challenge, Mr. Obama? If so, a lot of people will be singing your praises.

Lots more good reading here -
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122835159000377899.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122835159000377899.html)

Who can afford to buy GM & Chrysler cars?  A citizen of a foreign country making $5 / day? 


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: GreatOwl on December 04, 2008, 05:03:51 PM
I remember the song.  Arlo Guthrie used it in his stage performance.


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: crazybabyborg on December 05, 2008, 12:09:48 AM
You know, I keep waiting for SOMEBODY in the media to replace making the point that Americans are asking where THEIR bailout is, with this point:

Americans are suffering difficult times, filing bankruptcy, watching their property values plummet, and loosing their jobs. We are in trouble just like some of these businesses. Congress's response to THEM is to consider giving them Billions of dollars. Congress's response to us is to HIT US WITH A TRILLION DOLLAR BILL!!!

Who speaks for us when this crap is being discussed in Senate hearings? We're paying the bill, we need to be heard!


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: GreatOwl on December 06, 2008, 08:38:01 AM
CBB, your legislators speak for you.  That is why we need to contact them.  I know that ours are refusing to vote for any bailout until "New Page" either decides to run or sell the plant they just closed down.  Their parent company is GM.  We have a whole community depending upon those jobs.  We may not get a direct bail out monetary benefit, but by forcing some of these companies to do the responsible thing would keep people employed and able to spend.  As we have known for a long time, it is not just the money that is given to the employee.  That dollar is passed on in a community from one business to another.  Taking a complete payroll out of a community hurts the entire community.

We need to stop closing down factories and businesses.  This is something that those in northern states have been dealing with long before this crisis.  It has been going on for decades.  We not only have plants closed, disassembled and rebuilt in another country, but we have to deal with these closings and relocation in the south.  There needs to be a way of dealing with this besides asking every one to move to a southern state.  This may be one point of support for the automakers, but part of their restructuring plan is to lay off workers and even close out support for companies that they took over in times of prosperity.   We have allowed far too many mergers to the point that it is difficult to tell just who is making the decisions for our local companies any more.




Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 06, 2008, 11:49:14 AM
CBB, your legislators speak for you.  That is why we need to contact them.  I know that ours are refusing to vote for any bailout until "New Page" either decides to run or sell the plant they just closed down.  Their parent company is GM.  We have a whole community depending upon those jobs.  We may not get a direct bail out monetary benefit, but by forcing some of these companies to do the responsible thing would keep people employed and able to spend.  As we have known for a long time, it is not just the money that is given to the employee.  That dollar is passed on in a community from one business to another.  Taking a complete payroll out of a community hurts the entire community.

We need to stop closing down factories and businesses.  This is something that those in northern states have been dealing with long before this crisis.  It has been going on for decades.  We not only have plants closed, disassembled and rebuilt in another country, but we have to deal with these closings and relocation in the south.  There needs to be a way of dealing with this besides asking every one to move to a southern state.  This may be one point of support for the automakers, but part of their restructuring plan is to lay off workers and even close out support for companies that they took over in times of prosperity.   We have allowed far too many mergers to the point that it is difficult to tell just who is making the decisions for our local companies any more.

There are many things I did not understand years ago. 

What is the difference between "free trade" and "fair trade"?  Can there ever be "free trade" if one place pays living wages and another uses workers that are paid very little or exist in a kind of slavery? 

I am reminded that about 100 years ago, Henry Ford raised the wages of his workers to $5 a day to ensure that they could afford (by saving) the products they made.  I remember reading this numerous times in my life, but it just didn't sink in.

In the I.O.U.S.A. movie, they showed a Chinese couple that made $10 a day together, saved half for the future and lived a good life.  Their apartment appeared spartan to what one would have in the west.

There is a hundred (or so) years difference.  How can workers like these making $5 a day, living on $2.50 afford a product made by people making at least $10 an hour?   How can the worker making $10 an hour compete with someone making $5 a day (or less) in the global economy?

I believe people should be paid fair wages.  I do not believe free trade will ever exist--in my mind, goods and wages will be controlled by global carpet baggers. There is a lot of inequity in standards of living over the globe.

I believe the focus should be on sustainable jobs.  I believe there should be opportunity for "fair trade".  Fair trade and free trade are not the same.  Balance things on the local level first. 

Bigger is not better.  I think the focus should be on retaining competition among smaller and medium sized companies.  Bigger government is not better, I think things are better balanced on a local level, with people in the community.

What is the worst thing that would happen if GM were liquidized?  Maybe there are pieces that can be saved with a better business environment.  I remember how good Saturn was when that brand was new.  It competed favorably with imports and had a loyal following.  At some point in the past, it was folded into the other GM business and now people I know say "let it go".  Why?  Saturn was one good thing to come out of GM in the past.  People bought their cars, some still have their old original cars.  I don't know anyone who'd buy a new one.

What's wrong with breaking GM apart and into a few smaller companies?

Can the nation afford to subsidize GM & Chrysler for $15 billion a month?  Quarter?  Would unemployment for all of these people cost $15 billion a month?  Job retraining?   Why not see if someone would be willing to buy and run a piece of GM?  Offer financing to those offering new blood?

Somehow, I do not see anyone, like another automaker, stepping up to buy off the pieces.  They're already getting those customers.  Who would be willing to risk failure on a new venture?  GM is already failed, it's just waiting for nails in the coffin. Is any money going to keep it going and make it profitable the way it is?   

Government should be working on making Social Security solvent.  Medicare and Medicaid solvent.  How much money could be saved by rolling all these government healthcare programs into one?  One administration?  One package of benefits? 

I prefer fair trade.

Where is my $1 billion dollar bailout?   Check in the mail yet?

just my humble opinions



Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 06, 2008, 01:29:34 PM
This is a good read -

The Big Three, The Big Swindle
And The Boat We Are Missing

By Ivan Hentschel

06 December, 2008
Countercurrents.org


Quote
Mary Ann Keller, a noted automotive journalist, has been saying for years, that there would eventually only be two or three automobile companies in the world. Every day it becomes clearer that one of those will be Toyota (or some Japanese conglomerate with Toyota at the center). We are witnessing manufacturing Darwinism as the world gets “flatter” (Friedman) and GM’s position as the center of (their own) universe is passing. Must I remind you of the old adage about throwing good money after bad?

This reminds me of an old movie in which all restaurants were "Taco Bell" - after the great restaurant wars left only Taco Bell intact...

Quote
An auto assembly line worker making $26.00/hr. is currently an endangered species (that $70/hr worker is a myth). Were he/she to be re-trained to assemble/manufacture the thousands of HD TV sets that are in such huge demand, they might only make $16/hr., but they would not be out of work and in danger of losing their home...

Can someone making $16/hr really compete with someone making $5 a day, without any benefits?

Quote
I am left with three principal thoughts. Right up front, we should recognize that the model employed by Wall Street for the past several decades simply does not work. The events of the past several weeks and months have borne this out, without contradiction. Short-term, high yield greed is no way to build and maintain a robust economy. It should not be difficult for anyone to see that the net loss in earning power without reasonably equal accumulations of wealth for the traditional middle class has been both destructive and counter productive. And as far as the auto industry debate is concerned, GM, Ford, Chrysler and their minions are representatives of this failed model. Simple life support and prolongation of life as it has been is no remedy.

I must add to that a quote I read in a NYT editorial this week by Prof. Krugman. An Indian economist, Prabhat Patnaik, said that, the “free market system [demonstrates] the incapacity to distinguish between speculation and enterprise.” Put simply, greed ( unfettered speculation) is what prompts GM to have far too many “brands” (who the hell needs a Hummer, anyway?), and for Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Lowes and Handy Andy or some other home supply company or discount outlet to have a big box store on every available scrap of land in America. As Michael Moore pointed out (again) last night on “Countdown”, if no one has a job, who will there be to buy the automobiles, shop at Wal-Mart or buy even discounted clothing? If we engaged in and invested in real growth-oriented enterprise, we would not be confronted so bluntly by this dilemma. It seems that you can buy anything at Wal-Mart except logic.

How can the government ever expect to pay back these trillions of dollars in bailout loans?  Who is giving us the money?

Who's looking out for the little person on the bottom?  The one with slave papers being prepared by the next administration?  The current administration has us indentured, but I'm not seeing any way out of the tunnel.  imho

Quote
The realities and the disappointments of the Wall Street rescue plan are becoming more obvious every day, and we surely do not need to have a repeat performance when it comes to Detroit, even if it is on a much smaller scale. But we cannot merely set the auto industry completely adrift, either. We should find a method and pathway that will rescue the untapped potentials that are lying about to be optioned nearly for the taking. But, as we learned from the Wall Street debacle, that old line about “too big to fail” is too big to swallow. And this applies equally to Detroit.


What potential lies trapped at GM and Chrysler?  Should everyone go down with the ship?  Maybe there are a few lifeboats that are not gutted, rotted, and still seaworthy?

http://www.countercurrents.org/hentschel061208.htm (http://www.countercurrents.org/hentschel061208.htm)

I only want $1 billion, I will buy a new Ford, I will spend money on a US and an island vacation next year, and I will pump this money into the economy.  I will work hard to empower the "trickle up" theory.  Is my check in the mail?



Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: crazybabyborg on December 06, 2008, 01:44:15 PM
Great Owl, I'm not insensitive to communities or workers loosing their jobs, honest. I do get worked up over the bailout mindset, and infuriated over Congress's responsibility for their hands in creating this mess. They are not culpable for past or current actions and I think THEY are the ones that need to be reminded of their responsibility to represent us all. Looking at their role in Freddy and Fannie which was the nexus for all this causes me to have a zero trust rating for their judgement. I have no choice in this and even though it's my pockets being robbed, I have no voice, and let me tell you why.

First, I do write my representatives. The election of Obama had long coat tails. The mandate and mindset he expressed during the campaign are the exact roots that caused the Fannie and Freddy debacle. Acorn, something for nothing, lining the pockets of legislatures, and pulling up the "underclass" regardless of the risk it placed on everyone else, Huge salaries and Golden parachutes for the cronies running Fannie and Freddy with no accountability or oversight. OK, that's done and ALL Americans are paying for their crime. You would think that our voice would have at least changed the players who were responsible. Take a look, Great Owl. Obama's coat tails and the media campaign for him have brought us the return of Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, etc. and have given them a bigger mandate. Those representatives should have been brought up on charges, IMO, not reelected.

You made the point that there has to be another solution rather than moving to the South. Let me pull that thread. Those who live in the South are equally being tapped for bailouts with their more valuable and fewer dollars. My cost of living in Tennessee is cheaper in terms of housing than it is up North, but when the deficit is raised to accommodate the escalating bailouts, the total debt doesn't respect the Mason Dixon line. When gas prices skyrocket to nearly $5.00 a gallon, or drought causes groceries prices to rise, I also take the hit with less of a shield. The obligation for that total National debt, likewise, is bigger for me and my children than it is elsewhere in the country.

The argument is that because Southern dollars go further, pay is less and therefore fewer taxes are paid. Huh-uh, doesn't work. We no longer live in a local community. Our IRA's are equally devastated and the amounts that, prior to this mess, would accommodate retirement in the South, have been raped away, our home values have proportionately plummeted and credit is no easier for us to procure than for anyone else. Cars cost us the same nationally, as does insurance, healthcare, etc.

I cannot afford to pay legacy benefits to retired persons who make more than I do. I cannot afford to pay CEOs multimillion dollar annual salaries. I cannot afford to pay Union wages and I cannot afford to pay for Luxury retreats or Congress's attitude that private sector companies in need, deserve my paycheck. Left alone I'll figure this out, but I, unlike our government, always keep an eye on my debt and figure that component into any assessment of my financial health. The debt is at least equal in importance to the spending.

The only thing I trust and believe in, is the entrepreneurial spirit of Americans and Congress is doing all they can to choke it out of individuals. Whether it's Democrat, Republican, Obama, or Bush, If a business and it's practices has failed, WHY would any responsible person take from those who are successful enough to be able to pay taxes and give to the same people running the failed business? Let them go, and make room for somebody else who will fill the void and do it better. There will be jobs if our Government doesn't make it impossible for people to start businesses, and fill that void.

I just don't get it. I don't run AIG, Chrysler, Ford, or GM, but I do know this: When my small company runs short, my paycheck is the first to be cut, and if that's not enough I personally borrow the money to meet payroll. When there is a growing profit I catch up all the bills, invest in needed office equipment and then I give my employees health benefits and distribute raises to them before my paycheck is ever increased. I simply cannot fathom the salaries being pulled in by these CEO's when their workers are in danger of loosing everything and their companies cannot limp through without pulling out a tin cup as they descend the stairs from their fleet of private luxury jets. They come before the Senate and lament how their poor workers will suffer if the hard hearted public isn't saddled with Billions to pay their bills and wave around threats that the economy will collapse if we don't give them American taxpayer dollars. Well, they wouldn't want to talk to me, because I think it's all bullsh*t. I'll tell you this; my first criteria to even listen to them would be a prerequisite that by simply coming to ask for money, they agree to hit the exit door of that company without one dime of severance. Don't knock on my door without laying that down first.

You'll never see a post from me complaining about extending unemployment benefits, tax incentives to create private businesses and therefore create jobs, or offering aid to QUALIFIED home buyers who have gotten caught in this mortgage mess. But get rid of the garbage economic practices.

There's an idea out there that's a good one. Let workers keep their paychecks for a couple of months without paying taxes. Right now, people aren't spending and it's slowing everything. Let the American worker vote with their dollars which businesses are worth patronizing. We keep talking "stimulus", well that would be a stimulus and it wouldn't be government distributed but would simply allow workers to keep what they earn for a couple of months. They are the ones that have no voice. For once, let them speak effectively. For once, let people who go to work everyday and are paying for these bailouts speak. Just a couple of months. We'd learn a lot from them.


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 06, 2008, 01:58:02 PM
Quote
Where to Draw the Bailout Line?
It’s time for supply-side tax cuts.


By Larry Kudlow

The bailout-nation saga continued this week as the little-three carmakers from Detroit drove to Washington to plead for a $34 billion federal package to save themselves from bankruptcy and insolvency. Hot on their heels was a devastating report of 533,000 lost jobs in November. Actually, it’s a loss of 732,000 jobs, including downward revisions from the prior two months. Unemployment moved up to 6.7 percent from 6.5 percent, a number that’s going to get worse as the volume of discouraged workers continues to rise.

Quote
So here’s the painful choice for both Republicans and Democrats in Congress: Will the political class risk a Detroit-carmaker bankruptcy that might lead to catastrophic liquidation — including, realistically, a couple million car-related jobs — all while the recession deepens and job losses mount (1.2 million in just the past three months)?
 
Meanwhile, the pressure for more bailouts grows daily. The Avis rental-car company wants a bailout from TARP...BlueFire Ethanol wants a bailout...equipment-leasing companies wants a bailout. There’s no end to it...

Is my $1 billion dollar check in the mail yet?

Quote
Corker wants Detroit to have the exact same compensation levels as the Japanese transplants in the non-union Southern states. That means moving hourly labor costs down from roughly $70 to $48...

Quote
...bondholders will have to be satisfied with a complete renegotiation of GM’s $62 billion in debt, including the union retiree healthcare fund that is under-funded by $30 billion.

What are the chances that GM will pay back any taxpayer bailout money?

Quote
...tough federal action under the aegis of oversight-board enforcement also should relieve the CAFE fuel standards that have plagued U.S. automakers. At the very least, worldwide standards should be substituted for domestic ones. Making expensive small green cars is an unprofitable business.

I had the opportunity to listen to a Congressman on the radio yesterday.  His suggestion was that 35 MPG isn't very good and I agree.  Detroit should be producing cutting edge economy.  In my mind, I wonder why they didn't innovate and make those big SUVs & other things more fuel efficient over the past 20-30 years.

"Yah...we know we're good.  You get all that comfort and change back from your dollar at the gas pump too."  What a dream - take one dollar and fill up at the fuel pump.

Quote
President-elect Obama has been cagey about the details of his massive $700 billion infrastructure spending plan and whether he’ll raise taxes on successful earners. But this new New Deal, including Obama’s middle-class tax credits, will not create permanent economic growth incentives.

What will? A genuine supply-side growth agenda to reduce tax rates across-the-board.

Will taxpayers in communities that have made investments in building and MAINTAINING roads, bridges, schools and hospitals be left out in the cold?  Will they have to pay not only for their own community, but for those that have refused to pay for anything?

It's one thing to pay for communities that have no jobs, no industry, no cash flow...

It's another to pay for communities in states that are rich and that have refused to raise taxes to provide for basic services, or to maintain existing infrastructure.

Which taxpayers get to pay for everyone?  The country is broke.  Who's going to pay to maintain all this infrastructure?  The money has to come from somewhere.

My concern is that future slave generations will have the "Obama" name on their slave papers.
 


~~~ Another ripoff for the responsible.~~~


Quote
We will not bailout our way into prosperity. Nor will we spend our way into prosperity. Somebody has to stand up and yell: It’s time to cut tax rates on the supply-side. That will reinvigorate growth and infuse new spirit into a demoralized economy.

I agree.  I want to help the trickle up economy.  Is my check in the mail?

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2M5NjY5ODZiYjY1MzcxM2JmZjg0ZDcwMzBkM2EwMzA= (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2M5NjY5ODZiYjY1MzcxM2JmZjg0ZDcwMzBkM2EwMzA=)

just my humble opinions



Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: LouiseVargas on December 07, 2008, 12:51:22 AM
I want to say I'm very proud to be associated with such smart Monkeys. I am learning so much from all of you.

I'm not sure this is applicable, but I have a 2002 Honda Accord Coupe Special Edition. The car came with a warrantee for a number of years/miles. After that ran out, I received an offer in the mail every month from different companies to extend the warranty.

I've been extremely lucky that my car was not a lemon so I did not accept any of those offers. In 6 years, I ran over the edge of a street divider (curb) and needed a new tire and alignment. I have a dent in my right front bumper. Oil changes, etc. Nothing major. I have 20,000 miles. 

Well, thank you again for the serious  car talk.


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: crazybabyborg on December 07, 2008, 02:43:25 AM
I've had two Hondas, Louise; both Accords. The first was traded in with 165,000 miles on it for the second which was an Accord wagon. I stopped driving the wagon when it had 235,000 miles on it and started using it for backup transportation at work. The paint integrity wasn't in good shape and an employee asked if he could work something out to use it as a second car. His wife had gotten a job and they only had one car. I gave it to him, and it's still on the road with 315,000 miles. I admit, it doesn't look new, but I think you'd have to shoot it with an elephant gun to kill it.

I wish I had stuck with a Honda. Are you ready for this? I'm driving a CHRYSLER 300. Can I pick 'em or what???  ::MonkeyNoNo::

I plead insanity during the time I bought it. I had a bad wreck in a Chrysler 300 that my ex bought and was paying for. The emergency workers couldn't believe the entire front seat was intact and that the passenger and I weren't killed. The car was a complete loss but I no longer had a car. I was so skiddish that I didn't drive for 3 months and when I did, I just wanted the same car that had kept us alive.  ::MonkeyNoNo::

That's what I get for crediting a vehicle rather than God!   ::MonkeyWink::


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: GreatOwl on December 07, 2008, 09:10:44 AM
CBB, first of all let me apologize if you took my reference to moving south as having to do with either the standard of living or cost of living.  It is a difficult time for all individuals and we find that more and more of our spendable income is being eaten up by tax burden.

My reference was more to a long standing process of companies moving out of Wisconsin because of either the high cost of energy or the high cost of taxation.  We have consistently ranked in the top ten states for taxation, most times 2nd or 3rd.  This is a problem that has evolved over many decades and has nothing to do with the current economy.  I am well aware that Tennessee either has or is near the top in sales tax and taxes on corporations.  I can only assume it is having much the same impact. 

Over time, a huge majority of small companies have been swallowed up by major corporations.  Company loyalty to the employee is no longer a standard within the corporate world.  Profit at all costs has driven these huge corporations now for decades.  I have no idea how a small company can stand a chance any more.  I grew up with corner grocery stores and ice cream parlors.  It was a much simpler way of life; not necessarily better.

We simply can not support our population on just tourism.  When companies move the only choice many people have is to move with the company.  It is very deceptive when our governments point out that they are "x" number of jobs available in any one area.  The major problem is that those available jobs do not pay a wage that a family can live on.  When I grew up, both my parents worked to make ends meet.  Money was difficult to come by and a family only bought the absolute necessities.  This was a time when most mothers stayed at home.  Now very few can afford that luxury. 

I guess my point in all this is perhaps I am just not comfortable with accepting the idea that "bigger is better."  We have lost a great deal of our loyalty and family closeness in the pursuit of larger profits.  I just envision that perhaps there should be more to life than just profit.  I am sure it will never change and I shall just pass on watching the world spin wildly out of control until it self destructs.  My view is in a minority, but I would certainly feel more comfortable with smaller companies who have a vested interest in surviving with their neighbors.






Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: crazybabyborg on December 07, 2008, 01:22:55 PM
CBB, first of all let me apologize if you took my reference to moving south as having to do with either the standard of living or cost of living.  It is a difficult time for all individuals and we find that more and more of our spendable income is being eaten up by tax burden.

My reference was more to a long standing process of companies moving out of Wisconsin because of either the high cost of energy or the high cost of taxation.  We have consistently ranked in the top ten states for taxation, most times 2nd or 3rd.  This is a problem that has evolved over many decades and has nothing to do with the current economy.  I am well aware that Tennessee either has or is near the top in sales tax and taxes on corporations.  I can only assume it is having much the same impact. 

Over time, a huge majority of small companies have been swallowed up by major corporations.  Company loyalty to the employee is no longer a standard within the corporate world.  Profit at all costs has driven these huge corporations now for decades.  I have no idea how a small company can stand a chance any more.  I grew up with corner grocery stores and ice cream parlors.  It was a much simpler way of life; not necessarily better.

We simply can not support our population on just tourism.  When companies move the only choice many people have is to move with the company.  It is very deceptive when our governments point out that they are "x" number of jobs available in any one area.  The major problem is that those available jobs do not pay a wage that a family can live on.  When I grew up, both my parents worked to make ends meet.  Money was difficult to come by and a family only bought the absolute necessities.  This was a time when most mothers stayed at home.  Now very few can afford that luxury. 

I guess my point in all this is perhaps I am just not comfortable with accepting the idea that "bigger is better."  We have lost a great deal of our loyalty and family closeness in the pursuit of larger profits.  I just envision that perhaps there should be more to life than just profit.  I am sure it will never change and I shall just pass on watching the world spin wildly out of control until it self destructs.  My view is in a minority, but I would certainly feel more comfortable with smaller companies who have a vested interest in surviving with their neighbors.






You're right, Great Owl, and that's an excellent, heartfelt post. We're a lot alike I think, and only caring people get passionate.

I have 14 employees. Five months ago, I had 15. The lady whose job needed to be cut was in her early 50's. I hadn't been able to justify her position for months and months but she was one of the highest paid office staff. She had been essential when I first started, but had become unreliable to be at work or accomplish a task when she was there. The problem had grown to the point that others who depended on her simply did the piece they needed from her, themselves, including me, and in a slow discovery, we all learned that things went more smoothly and more accurately, when we did.

I knew she would have difficulty finding another job, and also knew that her Health benefits were important to her and her family. It took 3 1/2 months, but I finally arranged a job with benefits for her with one of the insurance carriers we deal with, and waited until the job opened up before letting her go. Oh, I dreaded it! To be employed in a small business means you meet the family, attend funerals, weddings and baby showers, and sometimes have a strong or damp shoulder. I was so afraid she would cry and braced myself when I asked her to step into my office one Friday to give her three weeks severance ( I know it doesn't sound like much, but I made part of it up by not taking my own full check home that payday. )

In the end, she didn't cry.

I did.

Hardly professional, I know. That's the first time I've ever had tears at work except during 9-1-1. I'm relaying this story only because I just can't accept what's going on or relate to it. I had to let her go, because it's my job to ensure the company uses it's money wisely and efficiently. That keeps us in business. It was right to redistribute her salary to those who were doing the job she was no longer doing, and I was able to give 3 people a bump the next month because of it, and still have a bit more every month in the bank to hedge against slow months. It was also right that I honor the loyalty she had given the company by doing all I could to take care of her.

Of this I'm positive: If my business had started out with the mindset that the purpose of the effort was to produce an inferior product, make me rich, give employees only what I was forced to give, and develop a strategy that included going outside of the company for financial security, I wouldn't have lasted 6 months. And I wouldn't have slept at night or been able to live with myself, period.

At the very least, I would really like to see a group of successful business owners tackle issues like the Big three Auto Makers. There is no prerequisite to understand running a business for a lifetime politician. Most are lawyers, and most do not live in the real world. Their world is so very different and the nucleus it revolves around is personal reelection. If it were a sales pitch problem, they'd be better qualified.

{{HUGS, Great Owl!}}


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 07, 2008, 08:02:15 PM
Do all nations treat their workers fairly?  Do all workers get paid living wages?  Comparable wages? 

Do all nations enjoy similar environmental, business, and tax conditions?

Is the playing field level?  I do not believe it is. 


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: LouiseVargas on December 07, 2008, 10:10:32 PM
Thank you for that very poignant story, CBB. I've read that the thing bosses hate the most is firing people.   


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 08, 2008, 09:03:37 AM
CBB, your legislators speak for you.  That is why we need to contact them.  I know that ours are refusing to vote for any bailout until "New Page" either decides to run or sell the plant they just closed down.  Their parent company is GM.  We have a whole community depending upon those jobs.  We may not get a direct bail out monetary benefit, but by forcing some of these companies to do the responsible thing would keep people employed and able to spend.  As we have known for a long time, it is not just the money that is given to the employee.  That dollar is passed on in a community from one business to another.  Taking a complete payroll out of a community hurts the entire community.

We need to stop closing down factories and businesses.  This is something that those in northern states have been dealing with long before this crisis.  It has been going on for decades.  We not only have plants closed, disassembled and rebuilt in another country, but we have to deal with these closings and relocation in the south.  There needs to be a way of dealing with this besides asking every one to move to a southern state.  This may be one point of support for the automakers, but part of their restructuring plan is to lay off workers and even close out support for companies that they took over in times of prosperity.   We have allowed far too many mergers to the point that it is difficult to tell just who is making the decisions for our local companies any more.

I look at the state of GM and it looks a lot like the US.  GM, I read somewhere, is like 62 billion dollars in debt.  Now, they want the taxpayers to bail them out.  The taxpayers are broke and struggling to make ends meet.

The US government (taxpayers) are trillions (from what I've read) of dollars in debt.  The government/taxpayers are broke.  Who is going to bail us out and at what cost?

Will there be any free land for purchase by common Americans in the future?  Will everyone be able to buy a home?

What real restriction have been placed on the GM board and management?  Are they required to hold any and all stock interests for at least ten years?  Until after taxpayers are paid back?  From my reading they seem to feel the company is worth saving with the same management team that has been leading for years.  I wonder how much of their own money would be willing to risk.

What about the GM UAW pension plan?  Why don't they take GM stock in lieu of payments?  Hold the stock and sell when it increases in value?  Make a tidy profit for the pension?  From my reading they seem to feel the company is worth saving with the same management team that has been leading for years.  I wonder how much of their own money would be willing to risk.

It seems over the past 20-30 years I've read of more boards/management of companies squeezing the life out of retirement plans and leaving Uncle Sam and taxpayers holding the bag.

Why not end the pension, set up 401Ks for 403Bs for everyone and let them invest for themselves?  Manage their own money?  Keep it out of union, company, and government hands?

Why doesn't the GM union take an ownership stake in the company?  Why aren't they looking for radical solutions?  Solutions that will be profitable for all stakeholders?

Taxpayers are broke.  There is no more money.  Why is it that some in the government want to bail out the UAW pension, but Social Security is broke?  Medicare is broke?  Government has been looking into 'government retirement account' s to take people 401Ks and pretend to give back money that was lost?  Taxpayers, one way or another have to foot the bill.

Where is the reality check?  When does the spending spree stop?  We're in the days leading up the Great Depression.  The party for some of the rich and wealthy and criminals continues with taxpayer money.  No control.  The crash is yet to come and it won't be pretty.

just my humble opinions


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: GreatOwl on December 08, 2008, 04:18:10 PM
I can not speak for GM union organization because I just do not know enough about how they operate.  In the case of the Paper Mill and plant I mentioned, the employees and union have offered to buy into it.  "New Page" with GM as principle owner just refuses to sell.  As I wrote earlier, there are signs on lawns through out this area which read, "run it or sell it."  This has been going on for months now.  Workers have protested locally, at the State Capitol and even rented buses to take them to New York where the corporate headquarters are located.  There is a report that the CEO and high ranking officials are going to come to the state to meet with the Governor and community, but it has not happened yet.

While I do support those employees who have put in decades with GM and the other automakers, I can't help but imagine that part of the corporate plan for the bailout will be to divest themselves of other holdings.  This may help the auto workers, but will probably leave thousands of employees of subsidiary companies out of work.  It will not become know to the public until after everything is signed, sealed and delivered with a bailout.

We all know that in sports that a "vote of confidence" during the season probably means a "firing" at the conclusion.  How many times have mergers taken place in your areas with a statement by the take over company, "we have no immediate plans to lay any one off."  About a year later, every begins to close down.  I can't begin to tell you how many times I have witnessed and heard that statement over my years.

We need to be careful and understand fully what a bailout means to the economies of all communities within a holding company.


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 08, 2008, 04:54:30 PM
I am old enough to remember when there was just one phone company, "Ma Bell".  One stop shopping.  Some thought it was to big and stifled competition.  It was broken up into many smaller pieces.  Some had difficulties, some morphed into better things, there were price increases, competition, etc. 

Things continue to change.

It seems like today, things are "to big to fail" - and it always costs taxpayers more money.  Taxpayers, that neverending source of money seem to back everything, and then it goes sour/bad and they end up paying for everyone's failure.  Taxpayers aren't on the bonus program, and do not make millions on any of these ventures that I am aware of.  

When was the last time taxpayers came out ahead?  I can't think of any.

Why not bring back competition?  Break up these giants?  Make them small enough to be successful? 

As soon as taxpayers back things financially, it a sure recipe for disaster.   I have also seen the same message - "We have no immediate plans to change, close, move..."  It's a sure sign that people will be out of work.  What's wrong with competition?  Competition NOT backed by taxpayers?

If something is to big to fail, it should be to big for taxpayers to back.  To big to fail seems to mean it has become a risky business, a gambling proposition, and taxpayers always have the losing hand.

What's wrong with GM becoming several highly competitive companies?  Cut loose the pieces that don't fit?  I been reading about big companies doing that for years.  Sometimes, the little pieces become bigger and better than the parent.

"To big to fail" is another buzzword holding taxpayers hostage for corporate failures.

Privatize profit, socialize failure.

just my humble opinions


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 08, 2008, 08:59:22 PM
I found this interesting tidbit in the last post.  The link is still valid and is a good read in itself.

Quote
Car dealers, with their low-production-value TV commercials and glad-handing tactics, seem like the archetypal small businessmen, and it’s hard to believe that they could sway the decisions of global corporations like G.M. and Ford. But, collectively, they have enormous leverage. Dealers are not employees of the car companies—they own local franchises, which, in every state, are protected by so-called “franchise laws.” These laws do things like restrict G.M.’s freedom to open a new Cadillac dealership a few miles away from an old one. More important, they also make it nearly impossible for an auto manufacturer to simply shut down a dealership. If G.M. decided to get rid of Pontiac and Buick, it couldn’t just go to those dealers and say, “Nice doing business with you.” It would have to get them to agree to close up shop, which in practice would mean buying them out. When, a few years ago, G.M. actually did eliminate one of its brands, Oldsmobile, it had to shell out around a billion dollars to pay dealers off—and it still ended up defending itself in court against myriad lawsuits. As a result, dropping a brand may very well cost more than it saves, since it’s the dealers who end up with a hefty chunk of the intended savings.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/09/04/060904ta_talk_surowiecki (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/09/04/060904ta_talk_surowiecki)


Quote
In fact, the end of some GM brands could represent a singular opportunity for small dealers to get some value for a business with a questionable financial future. In fact, under these rules, it appears to me that a GM bankruptcy would be the real nightmare, unless the dealership laws grants dealers a superior position in the credit line.

We are going to have fewer brands and fewer dealers, especially in rural America.  Which means to me the number one quality for my vehicles will be reliability.  But as we have become adapted to machinery dealers an hour or more away, perhaps this too is an adjustment we can make more easily than we think.

http://johnwphipps.blogspot.com/ (http://johnwphipps.blogspot.com/)


What a tangled web.  Someone recently said something like - make the best use of a crisis to get things done. 


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: Sam on December 09, 2008, 06:18:35 PM
Thought you all might enjoy seeing this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYSZ8TUa3Vg&NR=1




Japan Air Lines (JAL) CEO interview on CNN

                                                       
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYSZ8TUa3Vg&NR=1


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 10, 2008, 10:46:29 AM
Quote
End bailout secrecy, McGuinty tells Big 3

Today's markets Highs and lows Mutual fund finder Dec 10, 2008 10:27 AM

Canada's struggling Detroit 3 automakers should end the secrecy around their restructuring plans if they expect the public to support $6 billion in government financial aid, Premier Dalton McGuinty said today.

"We're on a two-way street here," McGuinty told reporters.

"Ontarians are people of goodwill and they do want to lend a hand...but don't try to pull the wool over our eyes, be honest with us."

Quote
While CAW president Ken Lewenza said yesterday that the union doesn't need to cut benefits and wages because it's already agreed to wage freezes and made other concessions worth up to $900 million for the Detroit 3 with hard times coming.

But the premier suggested that will not be enough.

"That was then...we have a new crisis in front of us."


http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/551450 (http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/551450)




Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 10, 2008, 10:51:36 AM
Quote
I'm Changing the School's Name to Chrysler

By Jesse Hagopian, December 9, 2008

I am going down to Washington, D.C. to ask for a handout.

My industry is falling on hard times and needs at least $34 billion to cover basic operating costs—but I assure you the emergency aid isn't just for me and my associates. The truth is my industry is too big to fail, and if it were to go under it would have disastrous effects for the economy and millions of Americans lives.

No, I am not an automaker executive from one of the Big Three (General Motors, Chrysler, Ford)—I teach social studies to 13-year-olds and the Public Schools are my trade.

Quote
"I'm changing my name to Chrysler/I am leaving for that great receiving line/When they hand a million grand out, I'll be standing with my hand out/Yes sir, I'll get mine!"

http://www.progressive.org/mag/mphagopian120908.html (http://www.progressive.org/mag/mphagopian120908.html)

I told my friend the other day she should apply for bailout money for her business.  I think we should all apply to buy someones piggy bank, and claim we want to buy a bank to at taxpayer expense.

I'm still waiting for my $1 billion.  I'm having a few concerns.  The Illinois stories that made the news yesterday made me think I live in the wrong state and don't have the right connections to get anything from the Obama stimulus package.   ::MonkeyWaa::

Time will tell.

jmho


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: crazybabyborg on December 10, 2008, 11:51:38 AM
Thought you all might enjoy seeing this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYSZ8TUa3Vg&NR=1




Japan Air Lines (JAL) CEO interview on CNN

                                                       
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYSZ8TUa3Vg&NR=1

Thanks for bringing that to our attention, Sam. Now, THAT, I can relate to.


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 10, 2008, 06:48:33 PM
Quote
Chrysler's Hidden Coffers

Dan Gerstein, 12.10.08, 12:01 AM EST
Why is Cerberus, one of the world's richest private equity firms, begging for a bailout?
 
When I wrote about the bailout blunders of the auto industry two weeks ago, I thought the Big Three had most likely topped out on the political outrage meter. But that was before the shady story of Cerberus, the uber-connected private equity firm that owns Chrysler, reared its three ugly heads over the weekend.

Somehow, I thought Cerberus was poor.  Why did they buy Chrysler in the first place?  Did they do their due diligence?

Quote
...Cerberus is sparing no expense to spare their investors any exposure. Together with Chrysler, it has spent $7 million to hire such high-rent lobbyists as Dan Quayle (who runs one of Cerberus' international units), former Sen. John Breaux (D-La.) and former Bush legislative liaison David Hobbs. Their goal: $7 billion from the auto industry bailout package Congress is working on now and another $8.5 billion in loans from the Energy Department that have already been authorized.

Seems like $7 million would insulate a lot of homes, build some homeless shelters, and feed the poor.

Quote
...Turns out that Cerberus CEO John Snow, who spent three-and-a-half lackluster, and some might say lap-doggish, years as President Bush's second Treasury secretary, is leading a who's who of crony capitalists in a lobbying campaign for a taxpayer bailout to "salvage Cerberus' investment in Chrysler."


How much is Cerberus pumping into Chrysler?  Loaning?  If we're all in this together, why aren't they digging deep first?

Quote
At a bare minimum, there is something deeply unseemly and unsettling about one influence-peddling ex-Treasury secretary using his special access to personally lobby his even more bank-beholden successor for favors. If I were running the House or Senate banking committees, I would be asking some tough questions about this conflict of interest cornucopia before giving Chrysler a dime--starting with what kind of financial connections Paulson's old firm, Goldman Sachs (nyse: GS - news - people ), has to Cerberus.

Good idea!

Quote
...even a casual ******* can see what a taxpayer ripoff Cerberus appears to be getting away with--but Congress and the Bush administration somehow cannot or will not. Why are they unable tell the obvious difference between General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ) and Chrysler?  GM is broke, can't get a loan and is actually facing an emergency. Via Cerberus, on the other hand, Chrysler has access to loads of capital, and the only thing collapsing is its credibility.

Ripoff, ripoff, flipoff of the taxpayers.  How many generations of Americans unborn will be paying for this?  Maybe we'll just give the nations creditors Florida?  Arctic mineral rights?

http://www.forbes.com/business/2008/12/09/chrysler-cerberus-bailout-oped-cx_dg_1210gerstein.html (http://www.forbes.com/business/2008/12/09/chrysler-cerberus-bailout-oped-cx_dg_1210gerstein.html)

wow.

jmho


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 10, 2008, 06:51:59 PM
Thought you all might enjoy seeing this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYSZ8TUa3Vg&NR=1




Japan Air Lines (JAL) CEO interview on CNN

                                                       
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYSZ8TUa3Vg&NR=1

Thanks for bringing that to our attention, Sam. Now, THAT, I can relate to.

Me to.

Excellent journalism.


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 11, 2008, 08:55:36 AM
Update on the bailout -

Quote
I'm really skeptical that the federal government can appoint somebody who can do a better job of running these businesses than the board of directors and the management of these car companies, but let's say they can,” says Sen. John Cornyn (R) of Texas. “They still need to have the appropriate powers to restructure the companies in a way to make them competitive and viable in the long run. I don’t think that power and authority have been given.”

Why leave the important requirement for restructuring out of the bill?  There doesn't seem to be a plug in place to keep taxpayer money safe.  Who's looking out for taxpayers?  Future generations of Americans?  Old saying "you don't throw the baby away with the bathwater".  Taxpayers, in this instance are the baby, and they're being thrown out with the dirty water. 

Does anyone think GM or Chrysler will enter Chapter 11 voluntarily?   


Quote
The House bill, which passed on a 237-to-170 vote, allows US auto companies to tap bridge loans as early as next week.Over the longer term, it sets up a federal administrator, dubbed a “car czar,” to preside over bargaining among stakeholders ­- auto companies, unions, suppliers, dealers, and other creditors  -  on how to cut costs and restructure the industry to be more competitive.

I think the car companies need a "car czar" from day one.  Bankruptcy court is already in place, and has worked for a number of companies.  Could they get the paperwork done and in place by December 31, 2008?

"over the longer term" - why doesn't that make me feel warm and fuzzy?  It sounds like another political appointee with special interest connections.

Quote
If the parties are not able to come together over a restructuring plan by March 31, then Washington can require immediate repayment of the loan.

What value does this clause have?  What am I missing?  As an example, if GM doesn't have enough money to make it to December 31, where does anyone in their right mind think they'd be able to repay the 'loan' immediately on April 1 or any other date?

If GM hasn't been able to accomplish the restructuring they've been working on for years (from what I've read), are they "likely" to come together with anyone on a plan for success?


Quote
“The taxpayers get a return on their investment or are the first in line to be repaid,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a floor speech just before the vote.

Sounds like all the reform that went into Fannie/Freddie.  Somehow, in my negativity, they'll be some reason NOTHING is left to repay taxpayers.  Maybe everything is already 'leveraged' through some lease/buyback scheme promoted over the years.  What exactly does Nancy think will satisfy these loans in the end?

As a safeguard to taxpayers, the legislation provides that the government be given nonvoting shares in company stock to ensure that taxpayers benefit from any future growth. Lawmakers also added a requirement that taxpayers be repaid first, even if the company enters bankruptcy.

Enough to make a real difference?  Using a stock price from two years ago?  What will be left if the company (GM) enters bankruptcy?  Maybe a bankruptcy judge will decide taxpayers are getting "0"?   What if NOTHING is left to repay taxpayers? 

Are the senion management/board on the hook for anything?  Maybe they will dig deep and return the money taxpayers have invested in their salaries and bonuses and other compensation?

The negative me feel the management/board is already plotting alternatives to ensure that they remain "whole" from a financial standpoint.
 

Quote
Companies accepting bridge loans would be barred from paying dividends or bonuses or “golden parachutes” for highly paid employees for the duration of the loan. The bill also mandates the sale of corporate jets.

Will companies be barred from funding the UAW retirement and healthcare funds?  Social Security is broke, Medicare is broke. 

Ok...they have to sell the corporate jets.  Does that mean they'll turn around and lease them?  Yearly?  Daily?  On-call?  Any requirement to travel like the common business traveler?  Maybe in a budget seat with no no leg room?

I'm guessing they will sell them and lease them back... ::MonkeyWink::


Quote
In a bid to ensure that car companies do not use taxpayer loans to shift more production overseas, the bill also requires management to notify and allow the car czar to disapprove of any asset sale, investment, contract, or commitment of more than $100 million, up from $25 million in the first draft of the bill.

Who will keep an eye on the "car czar"?  Somehow, I imagine at least one car company, maybe two will go under and take the taxpayer investment with them.  Hindsight will be 20/20, but the car czar will be blind and deaf, like many in government, imho

They raised the contract thing from $25 million to $100 million?  Makes no sense to me.  I imagine at that level, the car czar will have less to do.  Not much chance of catching house flies if the net has holes the size of Texas, fly won't even be bothered by currents in the wind.

Why not lower the contract level?  Maybe contracts $100,000 or higher?  How much spending will they be doing without car czar knowledge? 

At the $100 million dollar level, it seems real easy to just break up the contracts so they don't meet that threshhold.  Even at the $25 million level, just bread up the contracts. 

This reminds me of the $10,000 transaction reporting to catch money laundering and drug dealing and such.  How well is that working?  Seems like I read that those intended for the net learned to work around it real quick.

Why not track imports by the recipients of these loans?  Check at the boarder?


Quote
After negotiation with the White House, Democrats dropped a measure that would have banned automakers accepting financial assistance from supporting legal challenges to state laws that impose greenhouse gas emission standards than those in federal law.

Quote
“Green is gold. Making a commitment to innovation, fuel economy, and better emission standards makes the auto industry in our country more competitive. People will want to buy their cars,” Speaker Pelosi added.

In my mind, "Making a commitment to innovation, fuel economy" and restructuring is the only road to the future.  Why didn't some of them commit before? 

When will the 75-100 mpg cars show up at the dealers?  When can I stand in line to buy one?  How popular will the prices be?  Fuel efficient cars are already here and at good prices.  I'm not seeing an action plan for competition. 

I just see a rehash of what went on in November.  Why not start the restructuring through Chapter 11 now?  Before year end?  What is wrong with Chapter 11 for these folks (the ones that want the money - GM and Chrysler)?  It seems that is the only way to get things done.  I don't see an action plan, just more empty promises and future failures to recover taxpayer money.

In a few words - another example of trying to fix Fannie/Freddie in 2005/2006.  Fail, fail, fail.

What if they don't want to buy those cars?  Who's going to pay those autoworkers not to work?  Who's going to pay them 95% of there wages for 4 years as I read or heard somewhere?  What if those green cars never get off the ground?

Are there assurances the taxpayer money WILL NOT be used to fund the UAW retirement?   I read they were looking for money and wanted the government to fund the plan until 2080.  Social Security is BROKE.  MEDICARE is BROKE.  When do all Americans come first, and not special interests?
 

Quote
Republican lawmakers opposing the bill insist that $14 billion isn’t enough to leverage those changes.

“This is only a down payment. We had testimony last week by one noted economist [that] it’d be $125 billion. Other people say more,” said Sen. Richard Shelby (R) of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, at a briefing on Wednesday. “Unless Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors become lean and innovative and competitive in the marketplace, this is only delaying their funeral.”

IIRC, Ford doesn't seem as desperate as GM.  Chrysler has an ownership group with funds available to invest in their success.  GM is set to close the doors at the end of the year.  Apples to Oranges to Grapes. 

Chapter 11, Chapter 11, Chapter 11...a serious commitment to the future of your car company success.

Why not tie loans to Chapter 11?  I don't know why taxpayers always come last.

Are all of these loans (and future loans) really cheapers than just paying standard unemployment?  The county is already broke/bankrupt and has no pot for waste products. 

Maybe the grand plan includes a collapse of the US government, currency, and the destruction of a nation.


http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/12/11/auto-bailout-clears-house-bigger-hurdle-ahead/ (http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/12/11/auto-bailout-clears-house-bigger-hurdle-ahead/)

just my humble opinions


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 11, 2008, 09:32:49 AM
The Donald weighs in -

Quote
Trump: Rescue Big 3, but Then Its Bankruptcy 

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 4:04 PM

By: Gene J. Koprowski  Article Font Size   
 
(snip)

Trump on Wednesday said a combined bailout and bankruptcy would restore consumer confidence in the carmakers and allow Detroit to pay its creditors, which will boost the U.S. economy. The survival of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler is important to the long-term health of the United States, Trump told CNBC.

"It would seem to be that they should Chapter 11 it and the country should put up the financing," said Trump. "You have to save the car industry in this country. General Motors can be great again. Ford can be great again. And Chrysler could be great."

Dismissing arguments that bankruptcy filings would spook consumers...

...

"When Delta went, when United went, and so many others, people didn't stop flying. In fact, I think their business went up. As long as they know the company is going to exist, people will continue to fly. You sit there as long as it takes to get wonderful union contracts and wonderful contracts with your suppliers and everyone else."


http://moneynews.newsmax.com/streettalk/trump_auto_bailout/2008/12/10/160419.html (http://moneynews.newsmax.com/streettalk/trump_auto_bailout/2008/12/10/160419.html)

I nominate Donald Trump as "Car Czar" .  This car thing could be a REAL reality based TV show.  See the inner workings of restructuring.  The goal - save the taxpayers, save the nation.

jmho



Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 11, 2008, 08:06:50 PM
I can't believe I posted this in the wrong thread...

White House: Nation 'can't withstand' failure of automakers

By TODD SPANGLER • FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF • December 11, 2008


Quote
“We believe that the economy is such — is in such a weakened state right now that adding another million jobs – another possible loss of 1 million jobs is just something our economy cannot sustain at the moment,” said Perino.


Can the nation afford $15 billion a month?  A quarter? 

Why is it so hard for those interested in the bailout money to formally reorganize through Chapter 11 as a condition for future success?  


Maybe Chrysler should look to it's ownership group for financing first?  Ford just wants a line of credit...why not TARP funds for Ford only?

GM seems to be so far past resuscitation, is there hope at ANY price to taxpayers?


Quote
Perino said that while some skeptics believe tough concessions must be forced on the automakers and their workers upfront, the auto czar whose position would be created by the legislation would have wide-ranging powers to bring all parties to the negotiating table and, in the end, put them in a place where they either had a plan for long-term viability or were headed toward an “orderly” bankruptcy proceeding.

Was anyone in Congress or the White House able to fix Fannie/Freddie before they became such a problem?   IIRC, there were many warnings, and smart people who predicted that they would fail and cost taxpayers trillions...

Maybe the government will be going door to door after January 21, 2008 and force money on every American?   Here--billions with no strings attached!!!   ::MonkeyWink::

I would love the government to offer me $14 billion with no strings attached. 

I would still love the government to offer me $14 billion with a few strings - lose a few pounds/shed some dead weight, change your diet for a healthy future, buy some new clothes, buy a new car, get some job training for the future...

Where is my $1 billion?  I'm cheap compared to GM/Chrysler/Ford.  Maybe I should apply for billions too?  Rebuild my aging vehicle from the ground up for a few billions of taxpayer money?

jmho



Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 11, 2008, 08:12:24 PM
In my mind, when I read about people saved from disaster, they are usually very happy with whatever lifeline has come along.

"Thank you so much for thowing me that rope.  I don't know what I would have done if you hadn't happened along."

"Thank you so much for being a firefighter and going into that burning building for my family..."

"Thank you for throwing that financial lifeline.  It was just what we needed to help us through Chapter 11 and restructuring.  Thanks to your help, future generations will have the opportunity to drive an American made care, with cutting edge technology, and punch the timeclock in the factory that made them..."

or

"This the lifeline we want you to throw.  Not that one, this one.  We want this color, this quality, and no we will not allow ourselves to be rescued unless you meet our conditions.  We WILL threaten you will loss of our life.  It will be all YOUR fault if WE do not take the lifeline you offer us.  Your lifeline is not to our liking.  Try again.  We do not want just any lifeline FORCED on us.  It's YOUR fault if WE die because you threw a lifeline we did not approve of and refused to grab hold of." 

What is the worst thing that could happen if they didn't take hold of a lifeline with a few strings attached?  Maybe there is a better offer?  A bidding war somewhere? 

I think I could walk down Mainstreet in my town and others, and find a lot of people that would take the government bailout - the one being refused by Detroit.

Is my $1 billion dollar check in the mail yet?

jmho


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 11, 2008, 08:22:28 PM
Quote
...Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell. "Government help is not the only option. It's not even the best option."

...

The Corker plan, which grew out of a combative exchange with U.S. auto chief executives at a hearing last week, would require a number of concessions before federal money is awarded. The companies would have to file Chapter 11 bankruptcy if conditions were not met by a fixed date.

...

The Corker alternative would require the companies to immediately bring unionized wages in line with scales at foreign competitors, mainly Japanese companies, that operate assembly and other plants.

Japanese, Korean and German manufacturers have or are building 18 auto assembly plants in the United States. None is unionized and 11 are located in Southern states, including Tennessee.

Another provision would require a portion of contributions to a United Auto Workers retiree healthcare trust be in stock instead of cash, a move that would improve the industry's liquidity crunch.

...

Corker said GM "was very supportive" of his alternative, which he said was the "only way" a bailout was going to happen right now.

...

GM has warned its cash levels would dip below minimum levels by the end of this month absent help. Chrysler has said it could hold on into 2009 and Ford's liquidity is stable for now. Ford is seeking a government line of credit as a hedge against worsening finances down the road.

http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2008/12/12/business/OUKBS-UK-AUTOS-BAILOUT1.php (http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2008/12/12/business/OUKBS-UK-AUTOS-BAILOUT1.php)

[color=green]I recall reading for many years that politicians in Washington are awash with legal degrees.  With so many lawyers, why is it taxpayers seem to get the short end of the stick?  Why don't taxpayers come out ahead once in awhile?

The country is broke.  Where is the money coming from for all of these bailouts?[/color]


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 11, 2008, 08:37:13 PM
I found an excellent web site with transcripts and summaries -

Quote
Corker Proposes Amendment to Auto Bailout Plan

DECEMBER 11, 2008 - 05:31 PM

(snip)

Following are (1) a summary, provided by the senator's office, of the terms of the amendment; and (2) a transcript of Corker's remarks on the Senate floor Thursday:

(1)

The draft "Corker plan", which is still open to enhancements, imposes specific conditions on the Detroit 3 automakers to ensure these companies make the necessary changes that would allow them to be viable and competitive for the long-term while protecting any taxpayer investment. A responsible plan should have far more accountability and preserve strong competitive jobs across our country.

It addresses required changes in the following areas:

1)Debt Load Reduction

2)Wage Cost and Work Rule Competitiveness

3) Changes to VEBA Payments

4)Elimination of Jobs Bank and Supplemental Unemployment Benefits

First, the legislation would require that participating companies reduce their outstanding unsecured debt obligations by at least 2/3rds by forcing bondholders to accept an equity swap or debt for debt and equity swap. At current levels, the companies have unsustainable debt loads and cannot have long-term viability without significant reductions. Government money would be wasted if it were to come in on top of existing debt holders with no reductions on outstanding debt.

Second, in an effort to make these companies more competitive with foreign automakers that operate in the United States, the legislation requires that the "all-in" labor costs and work rules of the Detroit 3 be immediately brought on par with companies like Nissan, Toyota and Honda as certified by the Secretary of Labor.

Three, the legislation would require that changes in payments to the UAW VEBA accounts occur to help the liquidity and cash-flow of the automakers. Specifically, it would require that at least half of any scheduled payment be made in stock.

Four, any compensation (outside of customary severance pay) that occurs for workers who have been fired, laid off, furloughed, or idled is immediately terminated. This will allow the companies to accurately size their workforce and not continue to be saddled with the labor costs associated with programs like the JOBs Bank and other arrangements that force continued pay--even when no work is going on.

Funding will immediately go out to companies but they must achieve a reduction in debt load by March 15, 2009 and then additional funding for UAW agreements in place by no later than March 31, 2009.

Failure to adhere to any one of these conditions by any such date will result in the requirement that the company file bankruptcy under Chapter 11.

(2)

Floor Remarks of U.S. Senator Bob Corker

Regarding the Detroit Three's Request for Federal Assistance

December 11, 2008

Mr. President, thank you. I rise today to talk about where we are in this auto bailout. And in essence, it's show time here. A bill came over from the House last night. It's the end of the year. There's an impending crisis that we're dealing with here in the country, and so today we'll be debating that and hopefully in the next few days taking votes. You know, Mr. President, I've spent a lot of time in the committee talking with the various parties involved. I've spent a lot of the time outside of the committee doing the same thing. No doubt we're going through an economic time that is very, very difficult to the auto industry. It's also difficult for businesses all across this country, just as it is for families as they try to make their budgets work.

I know there's been a lot of negotiations that have taken place between the White House and House Democrats. I really feel the product that's been developed is a very poor product, and I really don't blame that on my Democratic colleagues who negotiated, because I know the White House is actually at a point where they're looking for the next flight out of town on January 20th and basically want to kick the can down the road and let some other administration and some other Congress deal with this issue.

But all of us are going to be here next year, and I think it's our responsibility to deal with this issue in a professional, competent manner and actually solve this problem. I want to say to all of my colleagues on both the left and right, on the Democratic and Republican sides, we have a historic opportunity to actually solve this problem, and I think the solution is very, very simple. I've looked at this legislation that's come over. It's like so many things we do around here, it's like a three hump camel. You couldn't make it almost more ineffective and more complicated.

Mr. President, we put in place a czar. It seems like that everything we do around here, we try to find a person who can save us, if you will, from the crisis that's happening. We did the same with the financial rescue package not long ago. I've looked at the actual responsibilities of the czar. I said yesterday that I had a banking staff person who actually could fulfill those responsibilities. She read that in the paper this morning and came in and said she wouldn't. She's overqualified. That in essence, you know, this is not something she'd want to take on. Look, I think we can use some help certainly from the outside, and there may be a role for somebody like this. But, Mr. President, what we're really looking at is a fairly simple transaction. A lot of money, fairly simple transaction.

Here's what we have. We have three companies, okay. Two of the companies are on the verge of bankruptcy. As a matter of fact, I would say that two of the companies are in bankruptcy. I know that Chrysler today is meeting with their supplier group. I know that if they don't win concessions today, they're in great trouble. General Motors told us if they don't receive funding by the end of this year that they're going to have to file bankruptcy. And, by the way, I believe that. We have a lot of Republicans that would like to see that happen, would like to see Chapter 11 occur and to see them go through the laws that exist here in our country for reorganization in a way that's clean and allow them to move ahead in a financially stable way. As a matter of fact, many Republicans would actually agree to something called debtor-in-possession financing after that occurred so that these companies could evolve.

There are people on the other side of the aisle that have decided that that's a cost that's too great to bear. I will tell you, Mr. President, I started out along the path that I felt like the best way for us to solve this problem was to actually cause these companies to go through reorganization, and any role that we might play as the federal government would be in the way of debtor-in-possession financing. After listening to the testimony and after talking to people all across our country that are involved, I do believe that the supply chain is in great stress. I think they're undercapitalized. I think that three companies have already been utilizing the supplier chain for financing by paying late and carrying payments for lengths of time and so I do think the supply chain is very fragile. What I tried to do is figure out a way to create a piece of legislation that is elegant, is simple, actually solves the problem and causes these companies to be in great shape and for us to be able to move ahead and know that that has been done.

You know, there are a lot of times I've heard people say, "we're from the government and we're here to help you." And obviously when people hear that, they usually run for the hills. I think this is a case where if we will just take a moment, we can actually do something that is great for these companies because we have a big stick. These companies cannot get financing any place except from the federal government. And so we have an opportunity to sort of thread the needle in a very simple way and cause these companies to be successful.

Let me just say other than the economic issues, these companies have three major issues. Each of them are different. We know that basically we're talking about General Motors here. We wouldn't be having this discussion if it weren't for General Motors. Chrysler wouldn't be here really if it weren't for that. They're in serious trouble but wouldn't have the clout to be able to talk to us in this way. Ford has money today because of refinancing that they did back in 2006, and they're not even part of the discussion today. They might be down the road, but today they are financially viable, although burning cash at a rate that's almost equal to that of General Motors.

So we're really talking -- I just want to make this clear to people. We're talking about three entities that we need to talk to: General Motors, Cerberus or Chrysler and the U.A.W. and there are three things that are basically causing these companies difficulty. One is the capital structure. The debt that these companies have is not sustainable. It doesn't matter how much money we were to put into General Motors with the $62 billion in debt that they have today, there is no way that they can sustain their company. They cannot. G.M. only has a market cap today of around $2 billion. $2 billion. Toyota has a market cap of $130 billion. BMW has a market cap of $14 billion. This is a company that has a huge amount of debt and very little value. Chrysler probably has no value. They're privately held. And so we have two companies that we need to deal with in a very similar way, as it turns out. Let me lay something out.

Right now their capital structure in both places is too high. Cerberus and Chrysler can't withstand its debt. GM cannot withstand its debt. Secondly, the labor cost is out of line. I know there's a lot of talking about the U.A.W. Candidly, I will just admit, I think in some cases they get a bad rap. A lot of the people that are my friends won't like me saying that. But in some cases they actually get a bad rap as to the way the comparisons go. The third issue is the dealership issue. I don't think we can deal with that today. There's two issues that we can deal with in this loan and solve the problem; okay? One is the capital structure. The other is the labor issue.

So here is what I propose. And we're going to be putting this forward, as Senator Reid mentioned. We have some alternative legislation. I hope it's something that both Democrats and Republicans can embrace. Very, very simple. Let's go ahead and fund the money. Let's fund the money that's been requested. To Republicans, that's like debtor in possession financing anyway, because these companies are basically bankrupt anyway. To Democrats, the funding is in place to cause these companies to be whole. So let's go ahead and fund the request that has taken place. And let's have three covenants, only three covenants. We can do this with a very short bill which we drafted. Three covenants.

The first covenant is that by March 15, the outstanding indebtedness at the two companies that are going to apply for this has to be reduced by two-thirds, two-thirds, or the companies have to file for bankruptcy on March 15th. That gives the companies, it gives the bondholders, which we've talked to on the phone, plenty of incentive to make sure that the debt is reduced by two-thirds so these companies have a capital structure that allows them to go forward. This is the only way they're going to be successful. We've had plenty of people testify and say that if we put our money on top of the $62 billion in debt that G.M. has, there is no way they can be successful. Even if we're selling 20 million cars a year in our country, and today we know we're selling at a $10 million rate.

So that's number one. Give them the money. If by March 15th, they haven't reduced their capital structure in that regard -- and by the way, we've talked to people on all sides who believe this can happen. But it can only happen with the stick of government, meaning that we're going to force them into bankruptcy if they don't do this. That's the first covenant. The second covenant is - and I listened to Mr. Gettelfinger's testimony and talked to him on the phone this morning-- he says the only way the U.A.W. can make concessions is if they see the bondholders have done so first. This legislation makes that happen by March 15th. So, secondly, after the U.A.W. has seen that the bondholders have -- quote - "taken a haircut" - a word that's used around here a lot -- they have to do two things.

Number one, they have to convert half of the VEBA obligations--Voluntary Employee Benefit Association obligations-- they have to convert half of those to equity. If a company goes bankrupt, these future payments are never going to happen anyway. And that again, that reduces the debt at G.M. by another $10.5 billion, and it gives the U.A.W. equity in a company that actually has value now, because the debt by the bondholders has been reduced too. That's the second covenant. Very, very simple. And then the third thing they have to do is at that same public meeting where they take a vote, they have to agree to have a contract in place that puts them on parity -- on parity - with companies like Toyota and Nissan and Volkswagen and other companies here in our country.

Now before everybody goes crazy over that, that is certified by the Secretary of Labor. That's not something we prescribed. I realize there are subtleties in that. There are comparisons that have to be made. By the way, just to my friends on the left, that would be a Secretary of Labor by the Obama administration, okay, that has the ability to look at the various differences and nuances to actually certify that.

Now, listen, I talked to Ron Gettlefinger this morning. Because of the debates we had recently, I'm probably not on his Christmas card list this year, I realize. But he actually is talking, ok? He's talking with his leaders about this. I have talked to the COO at General Motors last night and this morning. He was a former chief financial officer, and he agrees that this will work. This gives the stick to the government to make them have to do the things that they need to do to actually cram down their bondholders.

I've heard a lot about Main Street and Wall Street. And for those people who want to take an ounce or a pound of flesh, if you will, from Wall Street, those are mostly the people, by the way, that own these bonds that are going to be taking this huge haircut, if you will. Two-thirds. In G.M.'s case, it's about $20 billion. It would be converted to equity and taken away.

Let me just say this, I plan to be here all day today. I'd like to take 30 minutes off from 12:30 to 1:00 to give a talk someplace. But I would ask any Democrat, any Republican to please come down here to the floor. Call me, e-mail me. Tell me why we couldn't put these three covenants in place, which are very reasonable. They are the only things that can happen in real time to make these companies successful. And let's pass a bill that causes these companies to be strong, gives them the money to breathe.

And, by the way, we had somebody testify the other day in banking that said that if we give money to these companies in the form that they're in today, we're going to end up giving $75 to $125 billion. Okay? I talked again to the president of G.M. this morning. He says if we can make this happen -- of course the bondholders say we can, he says we can -- that they will be limited in their request to only what they've asked for. They do not believe any more US dollars will be required.

So I would just ask of my colleagues: why would we not take a simple piece of legislation, put it in place? It acts like debtor in possession financing. It does the things we need to do to make sure that the bondholders and the U.A.W. themselves do the things they need to do to make the company whole. Management is already hamstrung by the bill. It lays out the things that management must forego for these loans to be in place. And let's leave here having done something that actually causes these companies to be healthy, vibrant, able to go into the future in a strong way for the first time in 30 years. We can do something great today if we will just sit down and do it.

I would ask my colleagues to do one other thing, and I'll sit down. I think my 25 minutes is probably close to up. I would say to my colleagues, we've tried to make this so complicated. There are three groups that each of you can call to see if this work. Call Chrysler. Call General Motors. Call the U.A.W. and ask them if this will work, if there's a sentence we need to change, a comma we need to put in place, let's do it. But it's really very simple. We've drafted a bill as if we're saving the world. We're talking about three companies alone -- actually, two companies today alone and three covenants can solve this problem, put them on a solid foundation, move them ahead. We will have done the right thing for the American taxpayers. We will have done the right thing for these companies, and we would have acted responsibly together in concert doing something that, again, is great for our country, Mr. President. I thank you for the great length of time. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will come down and tell me why this won't work. Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

###

-- Jackson Baker is senior editor of The Memphis Flyer, a contributing editor of the Tennessee Journal, and a contributor to Memphis magazine. His primary concerns are political coverage and general news; other duties include editorials, op-ed contributions, and the paper’s online edition. He has worked as a reporter for the Arkansas Gazette and as an aide in the U.S. House of Representatives in Washington, D.C. He was a panelist on the WKNO-TV series Informed Sources and an assistant professor of English at the University of Memphis. Jackson has won numerous journalism awards, including four Green Eyeshade Awards from the Society for Professional Journalists. A frequent TV commentator, he has written for such periodicals as Time Magazine and the New York Times. He is married and has four children and two grandchildren. He lives in Cordova.
COMMENTS


http://www.memphisflyer.com/memphis/Content?oid=oid%3A53151 (http://www.memphisflyer.com/memphis/Content?oid=oid%3A53151)

Looks like a lot of phone lines burning today.  ::MonkeyCool::


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 11, 2008, 09:39:01 PM
Quote
Auto Workers of Big 3 Sound Off About Life Within

By Glassdoor

When reading the hundreds of reviews employees from these Big 3 companies have contributed to Glassdoor to date (take a look at the November review of the month to start), we found a mix of sentiment: many have pride in their jobs and work but are frustrated - and even embarrassed - with the current situation, the number of management layers and poor decision-making processes. Just look at some of these excerpts from auto industry employees:

Quote
A General Motors Journeyman/Trainer tells management:
"Constant threat of lay-offs, plant closings, and job loss. Continual mind games in regard to security. The fact that the general public has such a horrid view of hourly GM employees make it unpleasant to tell people you work there even if you're proud of the job you do."

Quote
A Ford Senior Engineer/Six Sigma Master says:
"Ford is a top heavy company with too many chiefs and not enough workers. We have managers for managers. Every time I turn around there is another layer of management to meet with to get my job done. If I could change one thing I would reduce the numbers of management starting at the top by cutting 50%. Then every level down I would cut 5% less than the previous level. This would not only streamline processes (reduce the crazy meetings for approvals) but would reduce our pay structure by millions."

Quote
A Chrysler Product Engineer offers this advice:
"The company should focus on the core business with a defined plan going forward. Continue to focus on the customer and their needs and wants in the products. Build cars and trucks the customers want to buy. Remove the amount of tracking and reporting as it detracts from the core job functions. Examine the working levels to improve efficiencies in order to have a smaller, more productive company"

Quote
...As one Grand Rapids GM employee advises senior management:
"Be honest with employees. Knowledge is power, true, but shared knowledge is even more power. Stop giving lip service, if you say it, MEAN it and LIVE it yourselves. Respect your hourly employees enough to treat them the way you would wish to be treated."

Quote
Since Glassdoor launched in June, carmaker employees have been suggesting a universal theme: companies need to restructure, improve decision making and flatten the organization. While this one continues to play out in the public arena, we think management - and Congress - would be well served by visiting Glassdoor and looking at some sound advice from the people who know best - the employees on the inside.

http://newsblaze.com/story/20081211180300zzzz.nb/topstory.html (http://newsblaze.com/story/20081211180300zzzz.nb/topstory.html)

http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/General-Motors-Reviews-E279.htm (http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/General-Motors-Reviews-E279.htm)


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 12, 2008, 07:25:35 AM
I am sorry to see that there was no agreement.  New comments today -

Auto bailout stalls: White House gets ‘cold shoulder’ from Senate GOP

By Lisa Mascaro · December 11, 2008 · 12:26 PM

Quote
The real problem, the Times says, is not the labor costs at the Big Three – their vehicles are still cheaper than those made by the foreign competitors. It’s that “many people don’t want to buy the cars that Detroit makes.”

How much do management/board labor costs add to the price of a car?  Retreats?  Management expenses?  Will management costs be adjusted along with other costs?

What is the cost for just parts?  Research?

What is the point of bailing out GM and maybe Chrysler when there is no market for the product the make?  Perhaps it's a quality issue?  Do GM and Chrysler cars last 200,000-300,000 miles before needing expensive repairs?  Do they get 50-75 mpg?  40 mpg?


Quote
“These retirees make up arguably Detroit’s best case for a bailout. The Big Three and the U.A.W. had the bad luck of helping to create the middle class in a country where individual companies — as opposed to all of society — must shoulder much of the burden of paying for retirement.”

Social Security is broke.  Medicare is broke.  The US is bankrupt. 

Were is all this money to come from?  TARP funds - banks, Wall Street, and insurance companies party on, buy other banks, and how many new jobs have been created?  Anyone adjusting management/board compensation?

In other companies, they converted private pension plans to 401Ks and retirees were responsible for managing their own retirement funds.  Adjustments are made for age and length of service.

Much of the manufacturing middle class disappeared over the past 30 years.  All that was left was the illusion of prosperity, rising stock prices, and taxpayer ripoffs.

What does the US make?  What wealth does the US create?  Is there anything other than spending money that does not exist?


http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/early-line/2008/dec/11/auto-bailout-stalls-white-house-gets-cold-shoulder/ (http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/early-line/2008/dec/11/auto-bailout-stalls-white-house-gets-cold-shoulder/)

When will Congress worry about fixing Social Security and Medicare?  The country is broke.  Stop spending the TARP funds.  I haven't read anything to suggest that all that "money" has done ANY good.  Maybe it's just the media bias.   ::MonkeyShocked::

just my humble opinions

(doesn't anyone else have opinions about the bailout?)


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 12, 2008, 08:24:51 AM
Sweden: competitive auto bailouts begin with Saab and Volvo

Edward Harrison | Dec 12, 2008

Quote
...the German newspaper Die Welt which outlined the desire for VW and Daimler Benz to receive bailouts in response to the state aid being offered to American car makers. I warned that a competitive bailout situation was underway. Now, this competition has spread to Sweden, where the Swedish government has introduced a bailout package for its auto makers Saab and Volvo.

What levels the playing field?  Trade among equals?  Those with similar cultural values?  Similar benefits?   

Quote
...As the global auto industry suffers from a glut of manufacturing capacity, this can only serve to reduce the viability of vulnerable companies including US automakers.

What is balance for any society?  Community?  Jobs?  Cheapest price? 

Quote
While I applaud the desire to do something to stop a catastrophic outcome for the US auto industry, we should see the German and Swedish responses as a sign that the proposed bailouts are not going to be successful.

Who can compete with labor costs of $5 a day?  Slave like labor?  Human trafficking?

Quote
The plan provides Sweden’s carmakers with a 5 billion-krona rescue loan, additional funding of much as 3 billion kronor for research and development as well as credit guarantees of 20 billion kronor, Finance Minister Anders Borg and Industry Minister Maud Olofsson told a Stockholm press conference today.

“We will exercise significant influence in regards to how the money is spent,” Borg said at the meeting. “This is essentially a measure to secure jobs and production in Sweden.”

General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co., the owners of Saab and Volvo Cars, are seeking financial aid from the U.S. government to avert collapse. Ford is exploring the sale of Volvo, and GM is considering options for Saab. Volvo Cars employed 13,000 people in Gothenburg in southern Sweden last year and is cutting more than 2,700 employees in Sweden.

http://www.rgemonitor.com/euro-monitor/254743/sweden_competitive_auto_bailouts_begin_with_saab_and_volvo (http://www.rgemonitor.com/euro-monitor/254743/sweden_competitive_auto_bailouts_begin_with_saab_and_volvo)

In the end, can any of the companies compete with slave labor?  Goods from extreme low wage companies?  Can a company paying $75 / hr for labor compete with one that pays $5 a day?  $48 / hr?   $20 / hr?  Living wage?

Should the goal be to balance the local needs with regard to jobs? Trade?  Housing?

Or should society focus on always finding the lowest wage available?  Lowest government taxes?  Fewest concerns for the environment?

Should the playing field be level?   Where do moral and ethical values come in? 

Fair trade or free trade?   Do either of these really exist?  Is extreme profit for a few the only answer?

When a country is broke, who pays the bills?


Just my humble opinions.



Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 12, 2008, 08:35:53 AM
Quote
Daimler buys 10 percent of Russia's Kamaz 
 
By CATRINA STEWART
Associated Press
2008-12-12 06:15 PM
 
Daimler AG, the world's largest truck maker, will buy a 10 percent stake in Russian truck maker OAO Kamaz in a $300 million deal signed Friday...

I wonder if Daimler employees will be losing their jobs?  Jobs moving to Russia?

Quote
"Daimler now has 10 percent of Kamaz," Daimler truck business head Andreas Renschler said after the signing ceremony in Moscow.

The deal comes as the international auto industry faces plunging demand amid the global economic downturn.

Daimler has been eager to enter the Russian truck market, estimating earlier this year it could grow 20 percent a year over the next two years.

Quote
"We don't know how long this crisis will last, but when the global economy gets back on track, the world will need new trucks," Renschler said.

And who in the US is going to help supply them?  Anyone?  Saab?  Volvo?

Quote
"The arrival of Daimler gives us the chance to create a modern truck that will sell well not only in Russia but also abroad," said Sergei Chemezov, head of Russian Technologies. He also chairs the Kamaz board.

'nuf said.

Quote
Kamaz is Russia's leading truck company, with a market share of about 30 percent. It sold more than 53,000 trucks in 2007 and had $3.8 billion in revenue.

I wonder how that compares with the Big 3?
 
http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=812044&lang=eng_news (http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=812044&lang=eng_news)

Maybe managment of the Big 3 will take a salary/compensation right sizing?  Provide some breathing time for the little people?  Make sure the workers can afford to keep making their car payments? 

All those coins in the Salvation Army kettles add up and help someone.

just my humble opinions


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 12, 2008, 06:32:25 PM
Quote
In its submission to Congress, GM said that market research showed more than 30 percent of consumers who had considered buying GM cars but ultimately decided to buy another brand cited the possibility of GM bankruptcy as their top reason.


Is it the uncertainty of GM's future?  If GM had plans to continue in operations, demonstrated some commitment to continuing to operate, would consumers still hesitate?

When will GM go under?  January 2009?  February?  March?  When the US finally collapses from debt?  Why aren't they willing to restructure and move forward?


Quote
Experts say that some consumers would worry that a bankrupt automaker wouldn't be able to honor its warranties or that parts needed for repairs wouldn't be available.


Why not set everyone up with, or transfer this obligation to a third party vendor of service warranties?  A separate trust fund? 

Why would anyone buy a GM today?  With all their bragging about going under by the end of the year, I think they have created their own elephant in the corner.  The stage is already set.  What are they doing to instill consumer confidence?  Broadcasting their impending failure over and over and over?  Month after month?   GM is their own worst enemy.


http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/Story?id=6443946&page=2 (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/Story?id=6443946&page=2)

Quote
"We are going to take the hit to the economy with the failure of the Big Three car companies sooner or later," D'Aveni said. "It's much better to do it now when there's something left to work with in the companies."


Why not break up GM?  Several smaller, tighter operating companies?  No more "to big to fail".  Rather "small enough to be responsive and succeed where others fail".  Scale back executive compensation to match similar sized global/competitive companies.

Quote
Altman said that for a successful Chapter 11 restructuring the companies would have to find what's known as "debtor-in-possession" or DIP financing that would fund the companies' restructuring efforts and also backstop consumers' warrantees.

Altman projected that such financing would amount to $40 billion to $50 billion in loans...
 

Would Ford have to face GM bankruptcy sooner than later?  Are they exploring alternate sourcing for their parts?  Losing big contracts happens every day in business.  Why are the automakers so dependent on one another?  That just seems odd to me.

Quote
The safety net of a bankruptcy, he said, could help the automakers ride out the worst of the recession.

"In two years' time, when they come out of the bankruptcy, there's a better chance that the economy is going to be in better shape and the credit markets will be flowing again to help the companies," he said.


Daimler is looking to come out ahead when the economy improves.  Why doesn't GM see a future for their products?  Why aren't they willing to invest in their future?

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/Story?id=6443946&page=4 (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/Story?id=6443946&page=4)


jmho



Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 14, 2008, 09:13:11 AM
GM, Chrysler, and Ford are to Obama, what Haliburton is to Bush.

GM, Chrysler, and Ford are the new Haliburton.

GM, Chrysler, and Ford...


Welcome to "No Bid" Business Obama style...



How much better would the American market be if there was competition for the business of American taxpayers?  Bailout money?  What kind of "business plan" did GM, Chrysler, and Ford show up with?  Seems to be some missing pieces to this puzzle.

I keep wondering why all these businesses would fail?  With so many businesses going out of business, why would one smaller company have to fail?

There is just something wrong with this logic.

How many of these businesses have already cut back due to the economy?  As an example, Where they may have been at 100% capacity two years ago, they are at 75% capacity today?

Why can't they continue on with 75% capacity?  If they lose GM business, they would maybe go down to 50% capacity?

Why can't they operate at 50% capacity during the mean times?  30% capacity?  Until good times return?  With fewer people buying cars, what is there for taxpayers to prop up?  The 95% unemployment workers get for four years?  Sounds like an even better deal than AIG employees "retention bonuses". 

The "to big to fail" is a mantra holding taxpayers hostage...another sign of taxpayer and future generations being ripped off by politicians, American style.

The Big 3 have had decling market shares for many, many, years.  How did they adjust during those times?  What happens when the Big 3 have just say 10% share of the American market, few if any exports?  I believe Ford has a diverse base and builds great cars in other places to.   ::MonkeyEek::


Why can't these people work at expanding their operations?  Work at the replacement car parts business?  IIRC, from years ago, Japan had a program to retool their displaced businesses.  If you previously make scalpels, they had people help suggest other markets for those companies - like steak and paring knives.


Is the bailout money for GM and Chrysler going for retention payments for employees?  Funding retirement programs for the next 70-80 years?  Resorts? 

It's like one sibling complaining to Mom and Dad that "gee you let Billy spend your money on drugs.  Why can't I?  How come I can't have money for drugs?  Billy was always your favorite."  Apples to oranges from the parent perspective.  Are drugs something the parents wanted Billy to buy?  Maybe they sent him for milk, and he came home with drugs.  Does that make what Billy did OK?    

How many Americans would love for Social Security to be funded/solvent for the next 70-80 years?  Would like retention payments for the next year instead of unemployment?  How many would love to go to expensive resorts for two or three weeks every quarter?   Every year?

Is "no bid" a form of "integrated supply chain"  --  anyone put anything out to bid?  Look for competition?  For some reason, "integrated supply chain" seems to work for other countries, but not for the US. 

If Haliburton is an example of "no bid" waste, what example are the Big 3 setting?  

Something is just not right about all this bailout money - for those on the receiving end, the party continues on the taxpayer dime...


just my humble opinons


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 16, 2008, 09:56:30 AM
Quote
Edward Achorn: Bailing out Detroit: It boils down to $70 vs. $45 an hour

AS THE DEBATE RAGES over bailing out America’s Big Three automakers, Sen. Tom Coburn (R.-Okla.) offers these striking numbers: “In 2007, GM sold 9.37 million cars worldwide. Toyota, that same year, sold 9.37 million cars  worldwide. GM lost $38.7 billion. Toyota made $17.7 billion.”

Interesting stuff. General Motors makes good cars that people want. It can sell as many of those cars as Toyota. The problem is, GM cannot make money selling them.

Quote
Of course, many Americans seem to view federal cash as play money — a cascading fountain of dollars supplied by somebody else. In truth, those dollars are every bit as real as the ones that we must produce to pay our property-tax bills, or the rent, or for heating and electricity. There is no free money. We, and our children, foot the bill for every bailout, one way or another — in higher taxes, a cheapened dollar, and/or deficits that could bring our whole financial system crashing down.

Quote
But throwing money at a business model that everybody knows cannot work will only lengthen the death rattle of these companies. Must taxpayers be forced to go tens of billions of dollars deeper into the hole before politicians will concede that business as usual is not working for GM, Ford and Chrysler?

As Senator Coburn points out, Toyota made plenty of money last year. The auto industry in America is not going broke — just the Big Three.

http://www.projo.com/opinion/columnists/content/CL_achorn16_12-16-08_4SCJRJQ_v13.3e2eefc.html (http://www.projo.com/opinion/columnists/content/CL_achorn16_12-16-08_4SCJRJQ_v13.3e2eefc.html)

I would also have to wonder how the compensation for management and board members of the GM compare to Toyota or other non-US car manufacturers.  The money has to be going somewhere.

Who on Mainstreet has money to buy a car?  The average person on unemployment?  Underemployed?

How many NEW jobs will the bailout create?  How many people other than bailout recipients get retention bonuses in this economy?  A free year of pay?   

I keep reading (The Color of Money) and watching (Suzie O) financial advisers suggesting strongly that people should live BELOW their means.  In my mind at one time the US could afford all kinds of entitlement programs and generosity.  However, I'm thinking the government cannot afford to supply the water that comes out of my faucet.  Overspending in times of plenty, not saving for the mean times. 

Is there any scaleback of services?  Anything from the next administration that would suggest some belt-tightening?  Nothing. 

A new administration of squandering wastrels.  No attempts to scale back spending to something the nation can afford.  Nada. 

Any attempt to bring back common sense to government?  I know that all representatives are not pork mongers, but WOW--let's just PRETEND THERE IS PROSPERITY AND MONEY AND GOOD PROSPECTS FOR GENERATIONS OF AMERICANS.  Just keep that money tapper open!!!
   ::MonkeyShocked::

JMHO


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 16, 2008, 10:40:14 AM
Quote
Forum: Bailout should be tied to U.S. security

By JOE WIESENFELDER

Of all the rationales presented for and against granting federal aid to the U.S. automakers, the worst-expressed has been national security. The notion is that America must maintain a large-scale manufacturing base to ensure the capacity, should the need arise, to build weapons of war on a massive scale.

It's actually a legitimate argument supported by our experience in World War II. The problem is that it misses the greater threat and perpetuates the mindframe that American national security starts and ends with our capacity to manufacture and deliver munitions. Have we learned nothing?


Does the US have any money to pay for war?  Does the US have any money to pay for all the entitlement programs that currently exist?  Does the US have any money to pay for more pork? 

Quote
In the current economic climate, Americans with foresight envision the massive unemployment and broad-ranging consequences that will result if Detroit's automakers are allowed to collapse. We've witnessed enough in the past decade or so to accept that our actions as a nation have unintended but predictable -- and often predicted -- consequences.


Does unemployment by ANY name make it better?  Will the bailout keep the autoworkers working?  Or just fund their job bank instead of standard unemployment benefits available to anyone?  Will the bailout help other American's buy cars?  Help those struggling to make payments on the cars they currently have?

Will bailout money help make GM profitable?  How long will entitlement bailouts keep GM, and Wall Street going?  Will any of these bailouts produce something other than an extension of the inevitable?   When all the bailouts fail, what will be left for rebuilding?

I'm failing to grasp how any of these bailouts will help the nation return to prosperity.  Maybe bailing out Wall Street helped lighten the financial burdens of those that helped propel this country on the long road to hell? 

Congress cancelling their raise?  Lightening the entitlement load?  Everyone sacrificing?  Seems like Washington is cancelling the future for the majority of Americans.  With the deficit burden, who will have money to buy cars?  Maybe those that have stolen the future?  Tricked others into buying homes and cars they could not afford?  How can the autoworkers have jobs if there is no one to buy their product?

When will the turnaround come?  Fifteen, may twenty years in the future?

Maybe we're engaged in money for job retraining programs?  Small business startups?  Helping medium sized businesses?  Helping the "to big to fail" become small enough to succeed?  Or, just spending money that does not exist, on pork that is unnecessary? 

Maybe there a new government plan to build massing cities for the homeless and hungry?  The next generation of destitute individuals that will never recover from these losses?

http://www.record-eagle.com/opinion/local_story_351093526.html (http://www.record-eagle.com/opinion/local_story_351093526.html)

I have to wonder if those that have damned America for years, will finally see their wishes rewarded in the new administration. 

Steal from the future and the hardworking to support the unsustainable in the present.  Rob the unborn, tax the voiceless--squander and waste prosperity for future generations of Americans.


jmho


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 16, 2008, 11:01:16 AM
Where is the bridge going?  A sustainable business model?  Cars that can be produced with a profit?  Will taxpayers ever get paid back?  Will the bridge pay for bonuses, job banks, retirement and healthcare funds, while other American's lose their homes?

Quote
$15 billion to the auto industry as a bridge to save General Motors Corp. and Chrysler Corp. from possible bankruptcy.

''We don't want to see this recession turn into a depression, which is what would happen if General Motors or Chrysler declared bankruptcies,'' the Democratic governor said Monday at a press conference at Saginaw Valley State University.

The depression has already arrived.  Is it possible to 'save' GM and Chysler at this point in time?  I'm thinking GM and Chrysler have been in trouble for years, and failed to make changes. 

Did anyone at GM or Chrysler have plans for future success?  Management?  Unions?  Or, did they (management/unions) just plan to mike the companies for a few years more and let them go under?  Fund the retirement and health plans until 2080? 

Social Security and Medicare are broke.  Any plans to ensure their funding until 2080?

What happened to "we're all in this together"?   Maybe "we" is supposed to support the "together" folks for life.  Nothing for Mainstreet, just more pork spending for the "together" folks.


Quote
''GM has said they cannot get to the end of the year without it, and we are getting to the end of the year,'' he said.

Sounds like the patient is already dead, and life support is failing fast. 

http://www.mlive.com/news/saginawnews/index.ssf?/base/news-28/122944084427610.xml&coll=9 (http://www.mlive.com/news/saginawnews/index.ssf?/base/news-28/122944084427610.xml&coll=9)

I believe the depression is already here, the wheels were put into motion years ago.  Failure to regulate Wall Street, and save the patient a few years back by reforming Freddie/Fannie and others.  It's just a matter of waking up and smelling the coffee.

Where is my $1 billion dollar check?  Is it in the mail yet?


jmho


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 16, 2008, 11:08:46 AM
Quote
RON GETTELFINGER - UAW PRESIDENT
"We're on third base. Nobody else is even in the ball park. Labor costs make up 10% of what a vehicle in production comes out with. So how can you take 10% and fix this problem? You can't."

http://www.tv20detroit.com/36229299.html (http://www.tv20detroit.com/36229299.html)

Where does all the money go?  I wonder if Gettlefinger shared where the other 90% of the money is going?

Does anyone know where the money goes?  Management?  Parts?  Retirement benefits? 

Maybe the bailout should include some forensic accountants. 

Where is the money going?  Why aren't they profitable like Toyota?

jmho


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 16, 2008, 11:20:11 AM
Quote
I feel for these states and the Big Three workers who may be facing layoffs this holiday season, and I fully understand the desire to do something "anything" to stabilize the economy. Still, we have the responsibility as a government and as a nation to not just take any action, but to take the right action.

Quote
This principle lead me to oppose the $14 billion automobile bailout when it came before Congress. It offered a big and bold plan "yes" but it was a flawed and expensive one, destined to do more harm than good.

Quote
No matter how its supporters spin it, the crux of this proposal was to hand the Big Three automakers "Ford, Chrysler and General Motors' an enormous amount of taxpayer money. Like many struggling companies, the automakers could surely use a cash handout. A temporary infusion of cash does not, however, address the underlying problems these companies face: a business plan that is not viable.

Quote
American automakers have been in decline for obvious reasons: they are working under an unsustainable business model that fatally burdens them with excessive payroll obligations and expensive emissions standards. Solving this problem must involve dramatic structural changes. While the bailout plan before us did provide some of that change, it did not go far enough and it moved too slowly to save an industry that needs change now. It was the end result of a series of negotiations in which all parties were dragging their heels. That's just not good enough when you are asking for $14 billion in taxpayer money.

Quote
There is a future for the Big Three and its employees, but only if we work towards long term stability and address the structural problems that plague the industry. In an economy like the one we face today, nothing is easy. If, however, we take the approach I have outlined above, we can and will chart a way forward.

(Mary Fallin, a Republican, is Oklahoma's Fifth District Congressional representative, which includes Edmond.)

http://www.edmondlifeandleisure.com (http://www.edmondlifeandleisure.com)

I think the government was hasty with TARP.  Now, all the money that I read about is being spent on resorts, buying banks in China, retention bonuses in a depression, and who knows what else.  Mainstreet doesn't seem to be reaping any benefits.  There are no plans that I've read about for building cities and kitchens for those left homeless and hungry by the economy, squandering wastrels on Capitol Hill...the homeless need some showers and laundry facilities too.

jmho


(I see wide margins, but don't know why.)


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 16, 2008, 08:39:34 PM
Here are some ideas -

Quote
Our plan also contains a process for reaching expedited agreements instead of nationalizing America’s auto companies. Because of the many legal and contractual hurdles to restructuring, the companies are urged to accomplish their restructuring through the use of a pre-packaged bankruptcy or another mechanism to bring all stakeholders to the table for an agreed-upon determination of their future. It is important that these stakeholders reach reasonable compromises amongst themselves. Creating a government bureaucracy or “car czar” to arbitrarily pass judgment on the thousands of details involved with a restructuring would effectively nationalize the auto companies.

Most importantly, our plan emphasizes the use of government-backed insurance, rather than relying on a taxpayer-funded government bailout that replaces private investment. We propose that the government provide insurance, funded by the participants with a modest FDIC-like fee, that would expire on March 31, 2009. This would help to unlock immediate private investment in the auto companies while protecting taxpayers and providing a strong incentive for the Big Three to move quickly with their restructuring.

Washington also needs to take responsibility for the wounds it has inflicted on the American auto industry and learn from its mistakes. Washington has contributed to the industry’s woes by imposing extreme environmental mandates, turning a blind eye to abuses that sparked a global financial meltdown, and failing to end our country’s dangerous dependence on foreign oil, leaving Americans vulnerable to the sort of wild price spikes that wiped out thousands of American jobs this year.

I note that the author uses the word "Washington" and not party or president or something else.  The buck stops in Washington.

Quote
...the new chairman of the powerful House Energy & Commerce Committee, are advocating legislation that would allow states to set their own auto emissions standards on top of the federal standards already in place. Such new standards would effectively bar American automakers from competing in states like California, destroying thousands of American jobs and hurting the industry at a time when the same lawmakers want to inject it with billions of taxpayer dollars. I hope President-elect Obama will stop such legislation from moving forward in the year to come.

I'm not sure why emisisons would be an issue.  I the back of my mind, in bygone times I recall that if someone ordered a foreign made car, the dealer had to specify state of destination to ensure that the car included "California emissions equipment".  The customer paid extra.  At some point, that was no longer necessary, as the car company included equipment that met or was better than California emissions.  I keep thinking that other countries have tougher standards.  Do electric cars have emission standards?  Hybrids?  Flexible fuel? 

Maybe the auto mfg. need to work on being more flexible.  Fresh thinking - flexible manufacturing, tooling, car emissions, plug and play engines/motors/powerplants, transmissions, fuel sources, etc.


http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idCategory=34&idsub=127&id=17223&t=Autoworkers+and+Taxpayers+Deserve+Better (http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idCategory=34&idsub=127&id=17223&t=Autoworkers+and+Taxpayers+Deserve+Better)

jmho


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 19, 2008, 10:34:35 AM
Quote
Under the terms of the plan, if the companies can’t demonstrate financial viability by March 31 the loans will be called. The government’s debt would have priority over any other debts.

“If a company fails to come up with a viable plan by March 3l it will be required to repay its federal loans,” Bush said.

The government rejected letting the companies go bankrupt, as had been urged by some lawmakers opposed to a bailout.

Bankruptcy would “worsen a weak job market and exacerbate the financial crisis,” Bush said. “It could send our suffering economy into a deeper and longer recession.”

‘Huge’ Restructuring

It also would force President-elect Barack Obama “to confront the demise of a major American industry” in his first days in office, Bush said.

In exchange for the money, the automakers must provide warrants for non-voting stock, accept limits on executive pay, give the government access to financial records and not issue dividends until the debt is repaid. The government will have the authority to block transactions larger than $100 million.

The automakers must cut their debt by two thirds in an equity exchange, make half of the payments to a union retirement fund in equity, eliminate a program that pays union workers when they don’t have work and have union costs and rules competitive with foreign automakers by Dec. 31, 2009. The requirements could be modified by negotiations with the union and debt holders.

“The restructuring they’re going to have to go through will be huge,” Maryann Keller, an independent auto analyst and consultant in Greenwich, Connecticut, said in a Bloomberg Television interview. “I can’t see a way for GM to operate properly with the capital structure they have.”


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aGDw_DxtA_Fs&refer=home (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aGDw_DxtA_Fs&refer=home)

Let's hope they do something good by March 31, and the new administration doesn't make the Big 2 another entitlement program.

I am still waiting for my $1 billion dollar check.  Is it in the mail?


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: caesu on December 20, 2008, 01:22:03 AM
(http://buffalobeast.com/133/bigthree.jpg)


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 20, 2008, 10:02:21 PM
(http://buffalobeast.com/133/bigthree.jpg)

I've owned a number of cars in my life.  My family has owned lots of different brands.

When I was real young, my father was a Chevy guy.  Station wagons in pastel colors, Chevelle for my mom when she learned to drive.  Cool stuff for a kid.  No idea what a carmaker was.  Everyone wanted a Corvette or a Cutless.

I owned two GM vehicles when I was younger, and it would be hard to sell me a GM vehicle at this point in time.  Other family members owned some of the early Saturns, but wouldn't buy a newer one.  I know others love their industrial vehicles, Suburbans (old style), equipment, and Humvees.

When I was in high school, my family inherited a number of Chrysler vehicles from older family members and friends - Dodge Darts.  Those things were just NOT cool (read "butt ugly") in high school and we hoped that no one would recognize us on 'family' excursions.  I'm not sure any of us wanted to drive them in the light of day.  Unfortunately, they just didn't die like we'd hoped.  Another family member was fond of the Chrysler station wagon - "three on a tree" or something like that to save on gas.  Parents were sad when car accidents took them away, or new vehicles replaced them.  For some reason, the want ads for these Darts got lots of responses.  Saturday meant dorks running up the driveway to buy them...  ::MonkeyWink::  It was a seller's market for used Chryslers.

I can imagine Chrysler building beautiful, elegant vehicles that last.  Give those wings on the emblem a chance to fly like the wind.   I can see Chrysler's craft in space, gently lifted by those same wings.

Ford seems to have the most diversified offering.  When I was younger, I went to a Ford dealer and asked if I could order one of those cool Euro models.  No, just the Ford's they make in America.  Mustangs were outside of my budget.  Ford Fairmont anyone?   Granada?   Escort?  Taurus?

A few family members have owned Fords.  They tend to last a long time and I think Horses beat Flags any day!   ::MonkeyCool::

My experience with Ford has been good.  Few repairs, they've lasted over 100,000 miles and the air conditioning has been excellent.

I'm not sure what my next car will be.  I've been holding out for 75-100 mpg, electric plug in or battery swap, or solar with energy storage.  It has to have air conditioning like an igloo, dual side mirrors, rear defogger, heated seats, and a good sound system.  I always hoped there would be an interstate light rail system (part of the existing interstate system) that I could just attach my next car to for longer drives.  There would be computer controlled merging, speed, and GPS system.  Just tell the car where you wanted to go, when you wanted to get off for breaks, etc.  Wishful thinking, but sometimes, wishes do come true.   ::MonkeyLaugh::

I just wish Ford sold smaller cars in the US like they sell elsewhere.  I can see Ford building the vehicles carried on the Chrysler Craft that colonize new planets and other heavenly objects.  The Big 3 have been given the chance of a lifetime and I hope to see amazing things from those companies.

That's just me and my humble opinions and thoughts.


(that is a funny web site http://www.buffalobeast.com/ )


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: flamom on December 27, 2008, 09:11:26 AM
I am a college educated registered nurse who has your life in my hands and I certainly dont even come close to $78/hr
The unions are very responsible for this mess, let the auto companies go thru an organized bankruptcy to divest themselves of this mess.
Enough is enough.. even if the bailout continues, the problem wont go away by throwing money at it..


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: flamom on December 27, 2008, 09:15:03 AM
The Fords I had were crap, the transmissions died when the loans were paid
I like Chevy's and have one now.. the speedometer says 180 and spins like ferris wheel
The best car i ever had was a Datsun280z back in the 80's
I will always buy American but our cars are not comparable to the foreign ones IMO


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 29, 2008, 05:38:01 PM
For comparison to the "Job Bank" benefits -

Quote
The 50 U.S. states -- plus Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands -- offer a wide range of unemployment-insurance dollars to recipients, from Puerto Rico's $133 weekly maximum to Massachusetts' $900. They also use different methods to determine who is eligible to collect: In South Dakota, 18% of the jobless receive benefits, compared with 69% in Idaho.


Quote
The federal average weekly benefit is $293 a week, and about 38% of the jobless receive payments, but state by state the numbers vary wildly. Mississippi joins Puerto Rico on the low end of the spectrum. Its weekly maximum is $210, with weekly payments averaging $180.77 going to about a quarter of that state's jobless. In South Dakota and Texas, just 18% and 20% of the unemployed receive benefits, respectively. That compares with Massachusetts' average weekly benefit of $383.77 to 57% of its jobless workers, or Hawaii's $414.17 average weekly payment and 42% recipient rate.

http://www.wfmj.com/Global/story.asp?S=9589282 (http://www.wfmj.com/Global/story.asp?S=9589282)


Title: Re: Big 3 Auto Bailout
Post by: WhiskeyGirl on January 15, 2009, 03:13:42 PM
New or saved jobs for Americans?

Quote
GM announced on Monday, however, that it would buy lithium ion cells from LG Chem of Seoul, South Korea. The cells will be manufactured in Korea and assembled into battery packs at a new facility that GM will build in Michigan. Robert Lutz, a GM vice chairman, said that his company preferred the Korean design.

And, will this new GM facility be paid for with TARP dollars?  Paid for by taxpayers?  Wouldn't it be "greener" to make the 'cells' in the US to?  Avoid burning carbon units for transporation?  Somehow, this doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy...   ::MonkeyShocked::

Quote
"LG Chem has massive support from the Korean government," Lutz said at the Detroit Auto Show on Monday. "Korea recognizes that advanced battery technology is a key component of the country's competitiveness."

How about an import tax to level the playing field for US taxpayer investment in GM?  Taxpayers have been providing lots of bailout money and when do the benefits start rolling into the treasury?

Quote
American lithium ion backers acknowledge that their batteries face a number of problems before they can be widely used in cars and trucks. They include cost, endurance, and the need for a nationwide infrastructure of recharging stations.

Don't the Korean batteries need a nationwide infrastructure of recharging stations?  Maybe the same kind that cell phones use today?

In the back of my mind, I remember discussions about NASA and some excellent batteries.  Never come to market because they were durable and didn't need to be replaced very often.  Maybe NASA has a better idea? 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/260/story/59776.html (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/260/story/59776.html)

jmho