May 21, 2019, 10:00:33 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: NEW CHILD BOARD CREATED IN THE POLITICAL SECTION FOR THE 2016 ELECTION
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Big 3 Auto Bailout  (Read 11742 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7733



« Reply #60 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

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


jmho

Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7733



« Reply #61 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.   


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
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7733



« Reply #62 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

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!!!
   

JMHO
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7733



« Reply #63 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

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
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7733



« Reply #64 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

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
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7733



« Reply #65 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

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
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7733



« Reply #66 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

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.)
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7733



« Reply #67 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

jmho
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7733



« Reply #68 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

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?
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
caesu
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2001



« Reply #69 on: December 20, 2008, 01:22:03 AM »

Logged

WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7733



« Reply #70 on: December 20, 2008, 10:02:21 PM »



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...    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!   

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.   

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/ )
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
flamom
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5480



« Reply #71 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..
Logged

If you can read this thank a teacher. If you're reading this in English thank a soldier..
flamom
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5480



« Reply #72 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
Logged

If you can read this thank a teacher. If you're reading this in English thank a soldier..
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7733



« Reply #73 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
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7733



« Reply #74 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...   

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

jmho
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
Pages: « 1 2 3 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Use of this web site in any manner signifies unconditional acceptance, without exception, of our terms of use.
Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC
 
Page created in 1.901 seconds with 19 queries.