Big 3 bail out?

There was a statement made by one of those goverment people.This was that GM's has average hourly rate was something like $1?? an hour and Toyota was only like $43.Now if this is what I heard than why can't you buy a toyota that is comprable to a GM for half the price? Or does Toyota make a better profit so they can can party like AIG? NO AIG no restriction and restriction for the car companys?AIG should have restrictions.Whats good for the goose is good for the gander!!Thanks for reading!

You can't buy a Toyota that's comparable to a GM because Toyota doesn't make crappy cars. That's the reason the so-called big 3 are in trouble in the first place. It costs them over $100 an hour to make an inferior product. That's called shitty management.

Whereas Toyota can make a better product for less than half the cost. It's that simple.

The point is someone in a high office is making millions and a car may last 200,000 miles and get 25Mpg.Where cars in the 1960's cars got 30 mpg with no computers.Ok maybe there is no lead in the gas or whatever. But I a firm beleiver in the fact that any car can get 100mpg or better.I have heard and seen people that have car that get these numbers, by cars that get out by mistake or someone worked on their cars and have Pattens.( car companys buy these to stop the high Mpg) My company truck(ford) says they recomend BP GAS.Do the car and oil companys work together!Most of these things are done for under$100.There are engineers that make thousands of dollars and are not allowed to put them in cars!This is one of the ways the car companys rip us off!

Haha, nah. Car companies do not buy the ideas from somebody who finds out a way to make a 100 mpg car and then not make it. If they for some reason did, they would be a fool not to make it and make billions in sales off of it. The conspiracy theory is wrong. They just didn't make cars that consumers wanted and they did a poor job of building them. That is why they are now in trouble.

US car companies make shitty use of their resources. what's the point of making the exact same vehicle under three or four different brand names? why have a GMC arcadia, chevy equinox, saturn vue, cadillac SRX and a buick whatever, when deep down they're all the exact same car? make one version of the vehicle under one name and sell it as is. Cadillac makes their CTS with two different engines, one's a 310 hp DI 3.6L V6 that makes better fuel economy and more HP than the 265 hp SEFI version of the same motor. why not just do away with the less efficient motor, do away with 4 of the 5 duplicate vehicles and allocate the money elsewhere and stop frivolously pissing it away.

look at the Japanese competition, nissan uses it's VQ motor in like 9 different vehicles across their 2 brands. why? because it's an awesome motor and with slight changes can be used to accommodate the needs of most consumers depending on if they need an SUV, XUV, family sedan or sports car.

I don't believe that the Big 3 deserve to be bailed out. i'd hate to see so many americans lose their jobs and it'd be a shame to see these legendary companies fall off but if it's truly a free market economy the government needs to step the fuck out and let nature take its course.

There are several major factors that are contributing to the demise of the "Big 3".

1) Government, (Democrat) imposed CAFE standards, (Corporate Average Fuel Economy)

2) The UAW, which everyone knows they're in bed with the Democrats, just as all unions are.

3) Free trade agreement, again, Government, (Democrats) allowing foreign auto manufacturers to flood our market with their crap, stealing our jobs and ruining our economy. They build them here, on our soil! What a slap in the face.

4) Oil dependancy on foreign Nations: Yet again the Government, (Democrats) won't allow us to drill for oil in our own country! Instead, keep sending our money, and jobs, to foreign countries! WTF???

Everything the Democrats get their hands on goes down the toilet. Social Security, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, now the auto industry, and our 401k's are headed for the chopping block. After that will be the military when the "New", "Hope", & "Change" administration takes office. And did you see??? One of his economic advisors is Jennifer Granholm, Governor of the State with the highest unemployment rate and worst economy in the nation, Michigan! She can tell him, from experience, what DOESN'T work. Government has prooved they can't manage money, look at the national deficit, what a joke. What makes them think they can run a car company? Leave them alone! They did fine until the Gov't stepped in. The Government needs to take care of government and leave business to the private sector. That's how capitolism is designed to work. As long as the Democrats stay out of government, and the government stays out of the private sector, things will be fine. There's my 2 cents, take it or leave it!

As long as the Democrats stay out of government, and the government stays out of the private sector, things will be fine.

Yeah, because the last 8 years haven't led us to here.

Anyway, I also don't think they should be bailed out. And I completely agree with the fact that American auto companies should consolidate the various models of the same car...maybe they wouldn't be in so much shit if they knew how to use resources.

What did the Big 3 do to the TUCKER?And why! Because They( BIG3) don't want people to know they can build a better CAR, 60 years later and cars are totaled not rebuilt.Because there junk.Build a stronger car like the 1950's and they will pass a crash test!Yes they were heavier and got 25 mpg.Why is it so hard to understand that they ALREADY have this technology But they support they OIL companys. FORD recomends BP gas.If you can buy a performance chip for your car .They usually get better gas milage.So if carborated cars got 25-30mpg why do the big 3 act like thay can't get better milage.I knew of a1977 Buick wgn with a 455 and a 6spd automatic at 45-50 mpg GM bough it back.

democrat democrat democrat democrat

i don't think it's fair to blame democrats, it was a republican in office for the last 8 years while this shit storm was brewing.

Here's my bitch, the big boys say they'll give up their jets, bonuses, perks, or extras, but now they jack the bailout up $9B for "some" reason". :banghead:

i don't think it's fair to blame democrats, it was a republican in office for the last 8 years while this shit storm was brewing.

Absolutely 100% correct! Our only saving grace was a Republican President, and he was stone walled by a Democrat House and Senate! Come January 20, all three branches of Government will be democrat... God help us. The Democrat party wasn't founded until 1792, it wasn't even around when the Constitution was written.

i don't think it's fair to blame democrats, it was a republican in office for the last 8 years while this shit storm was brewing.

I've got to agree with OldMaster on this one BP2K2Max. Not to mention the problem was arising before the past 8 years. In fact, this has been a work in progress for decades.

Absolutely 100% correct! Our only saving grace was a Republican President, and he was stone walled by a Democrat House and Senate! Come January 20, all three branches of Government will be democrat... God help us. The Democrat party wasn't founded until 1792, it wasn't even around when the Constitution was written.

Bull Puckey!!! How could he be stonewalled by a Democratic Congress when both the House and Senate were taken over by a Republican majority in the Clinton years and hung on in power through out the last 8 years?

The Republicans gained complete control of the 104th Congress (1995–1997), held on to control in the 105th Congress (1997–1999), and remained in power during the 106th Congress (1999–2001) through the end of Clinton’s presidency.

By the way, the Republican party wasn't founded until 1854. The Democratic party traces it's roots to James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, both signers of The Declaration of independence and authors and signers of The Constitution and they were both dead when the Republican party came into being. Rolling in their graves, I'm sure, at the resurgence of the Wigs they had striven so hard to rid our country of.

There are several major factors that are contributing to the demise of the "Big 3".

1) Government, (Democrat) imposed CAFE standards, (Corporate Average Fuel Economy)

2) The UAW, which everyone knows they're in bed with the Democrats, just as all unions are.

3) Free trade agreement, again, Government, (Democrats) allowing foreign auto manufacturers to flood our market with their crap, stealing our jobs and ruining our economy. They build them here, on our soil! What a slap in the face.

4) Oil dependancy on foreign Nations: Yet again the Government, (Democrats) won't allow us to drill for oil in our own country! Instead, keep sending our money, and jobs, to foreign countries! WTF???

Everything the Democrats get their hands on goes down the toilet. Social Security, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, now the auto industry, and our 401k's are headed for the chopping block. After that will be the military when the "New", "Hope", & "Change" administration takes office. And did you see??? One of his economic advisors is Jennifer Granholm, Governor of the State with the highest unemployment rate and worst economy in the nation, Michigan! She can tell him, from experience, what DOESN'T work. Government has prooved they can't manage money, look at the national deficit, what a joke. What makes them think they can run a car company? Leave them alone! They did fine until the Gov't stepped in. The Government needs to take care of government and leave business to the private sector. That's how capitolism is designed to work. As long as the Democrats stay out of government, and the government stays out of the private sector, things will be fine. There's my 2 cents, take it or leave it!

LOL!!!:rofl: :lol2: :lol: That's some of the funniest shit I've ever read. Yep, the Democrats are solely responsible for the demise of the Big 3. It wouldn't have anything to do with their short sighted business models, their reliance on bloated and inefficient cash cow SUV's, their refusal to build smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles, or their complete inability to build quality products. The poor Big 3 are just victims of the liberals:lol2:

Seriously though, that's funny shit

I can appreciate that and I should have made that more clear. GM and the others also had a share in their own demise, not just the government. In fact, I would say that is the main reason. It's just that the government's agenda didn't help out any.

LOL!!!:rofl: :lol2: :lol: That's some of the funniest shit I've ever read. Yep, the Democrats are solely responsible for the demise of the Big 3. It wouldn't have anything to do with their short sighted business models, their reliance on bloated and inefficient cash cow SUV's, their refusal to build smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles, or their complete inability to build quality products. The poor Big 3 are just victims of the liberals:lol2:

Seriously though, that's funny shit

It is pretty funny, until you understand that it's true! I agree, Democrats are not fully to blame, but they undeniably contributed, right along with every American that bought a foreign vehicle. IMO, if somebody wants a foreign car, move there, buy it cheaper and help their economy and ours! But don't buy it here and then complain about OUR economy! For over 100 years the big 3 built and sold the vehicles that the people wanted. Who wants to ride around in a cab-over 500cc motorcycle with training wheels, or a limited range 2 seater electric go-cart? Hybrid vehicles comprise 3% of the market, that alone tells you that 97% of the buyers don't want it and why should the big 3 cater to them?

As I will say agian, while I agree the government didn't help them out much in those aspects...they did at the same time bring this on themself. If they made cars that people wanted why didn't more people buy them? I bought a foreign car...the reason? A couple; My first car was a GM and I was very unsatisfied with the cheap interior, everything in there was broken, and it wasn't very appealing. Secondly, I like performance cars but I still have to be able to drive it through Nebraska winters....so, what do you reccomend I should have bought that had awd, was good looking, and had good performance to have fun with all year around that the big 3 could have offered me? I know Subaru has made a killing on Imprezas. My car stock has 320hp and 315lb/ft and is awd....it can be used anytime of the year. GM, Ford, and Chrysler don't have anything that goes in that category. Nothing that is AWD fun! There is a market for it! Imprezas, EVO's, Legacy GT's, etc. And while I love to see our economy flourish...I am not going to throw thousands of dollars at something that doesn't suit me just for the sake of, "buying American."

Sounds like you should have just moved to Japan :screwy:

It is pretty funny, until you understand that it's true! I agree, Democrats are not fully to blame, but they undeniably contributed, right along with every American that bought a foreign vehicle. IMO, if somebody wants a foreign car, move there, buy it cheaper and help their economy and ours! But don't buy it here and then complain about OUR economy! For over 100 years the big 3 built and sold the vehicles that the people wanted. Who wants to ride around in a cab-over 500cc motorcycle with training wheels, or a limited range 2 seater electric go-cart? Hybrid vehicles comprise 3% of the market, that alone tells you that 97% of the buyers don't want it and why should the big 3 cater to them?

Foreign carmakers produce better vehicles. Period. If you don't like a free market economy, move to China. Foreign brands outcompeting their American counterparts is demonstrative of how the capitalist system works. I thought Republicans support free market economics:biggrin:

Let Big oil bail em out!! Isn't it in the interest of Exxon, Shell, Chevron etc to see the big 3 survive. With the amount of money big oil has taken in these past few years, they have plenty of money to loan the big 3.
My prediction is that employees will have their wages and benefits cut and the costs of new vehicles will continue to climb. Just bigger profits for exec's and stockholders.

Let big oil bail 'em out and broom the UAW.... problem solved.

i don't think it's fair to blame democrats, it was a republican in office for the last 8 years while this shit storm was brewing.

Democrats have been in control of Congress the last 2 years, and have only made it worse. More like much worse. Besides that, the trouble brewing now goes way beck, well before Bush. I'd go back to somewhere around when we first started importing oil, and did noting to curb our oil usage. That would put us to somewhere in the 50's. That and when all these union agreements that are burdening them now, when where the signed? Certainly not in the last 8 years. Probably more than 30 years ago.

Hybrid vehicles comprise 3% of the market, that alone tells you that 97% of the buyers don't want it and why should the big 3 cater to them?

This is an excellent example of the short-sightedness that contributed to the fall of the "Big 3".

Hell let's start making 6000lb 16 cylinder behemoths that require leaded gas, that will put our billions of borrowed money to good use.:grinno:

This is an excellent example of the short-sightedness that contributed to the fall of the "Big 3".

The short-sightedness falls on the people that don't understand the concept of buying American products is what keeps our economy strong. You know, the ones with 2 or 3 foreign cars in the driveway. Instead, their philosophy is "Gee, I don't like domestic vehicles, I'll show them." :screwy: Then they complain about our economy and the unemployment rate. They just don't get it! Reminds me of a bumper sticker... "Out of a job yet? Keep buying foreign".

The short-sightedness falls on the people that don't understand the concept of buying American products is what keeps our economy strong. You know, the ones with 2 or 3 foreign cars in the driveway. Instead, their philosophy is "Gee, I don't like domestic vehicles, I'll show them." :screwy: Then they complain about our economy and the unemployment rate. They just don't get it! Reminds me of a bumper sticker... "Out of a job yet? Keep buying foreign".


Nah, that is really not how it goes down. When I first started driving everyone in our family had domestic cars. We were unsatisfied with them so we took our business elsewhere. We didn't have a, "let's show them attitude." If we just bought American cars and didn't give any other competition a chance the Big 3 would still be making the crap they made before. I see you did not answer my question before as well. Also, quit making us into criminals. And BTW, they are in the position they are because of what they did for the most part. So basically you are telling us that buy American...regardless of what they put on the table just buy it whether it is good or bad...whether it suits what you need or not...just buy it. Nope, not going to do that. We are in the shape we are today with these automakers because of their neglect for what people wanted. Stats even show it. Look at the most reliable cars for the past 10 years....foreign. Look at the most fuel efficient cars for the past 10 years...foreign. Many of them didn't take into the market of big SUV's because that is not what everyone wanted. Quite blaming the consumers and get an idea that maybe GM and the others did in fact have something to do with their downfall...because they did.

GM just released a confession/apology to their customers admitting part in this debacle. this was posted in the politics section:

DETROIT (Reuters) - General Motors Corp on Monday unveiled an unusually frank advertisement acknowledging it had "disappointed" and sometimes even "betrayed" American consumers as it lobbies to clinch the federal aid it needs to stay afloat into next month.

The print advertisement marked a sharp break from GM's public stance of just several weeks ago when it sought to justify its bid for a U.S. government on the grounds that the credit crisis had undermined its business in ways executives could never have foreseen.

It also came as Chief Executive Rick Wagoner, who has led the automaker since 2000, faces new pressure to step aside as GM seeks up to $18 billion in federal funding.

"While we're still the U.S. sales leader, we acknowledge we have disappointed you," the ad said. "At times we violated your trust by letting our quality fall below industry standards and our designs became lackluster."

The unsigned open letter, entitled "GM's Commitment to the American People" ran in the trade journal Automotive News, which is widely read by industry executives, lobbyists and other insiders.

In the ad, GM admits to other strategic missteps analysts and critics have said hastened its recent decline.

"We have proliferated our brands and dealer network to the point where we lost adequate focus on the core U.S. market," the ad said. "We also biased our product mix toward pick-up trucks and SUVs."

But GM also says in the ad that it was hit by forces beyond its control as it tried to complete a restructuring earlier this year.

"Despite moving quickly to reduce our planned spending by over $20 billion, GM finds itself precariously and frighteningly close to running out of cash," the ad says.

A failure of GM would deepen the current recession and put "millions of job at risk," according to the ad, which also highlights the automaker's pledged restructuring and intention to begin repaying taxpayers in 2011.

GM spokesman Greg Martin said the ad was an attempt by the automaker to present "a pledge directly to the public."

"We believe we need to deliver this commitment unfiltered since quite a bit of media commentary has not kept pace with our actual progress to transform the company," Martin said.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut who is central to the effort to craft an auto bailout bill, on Sunday said GM should replace Wagoner.

GM says Wagoner has the support of the company's board.

The short-sightedness falls on the people that don't understand the concept of buying American products is what keeps our economy strong.

You're very confused. The "short-sightedness" is the domestic manufacturers failure to realize that concepts and technology discovered in researching developements like hybrid vehicles lead to even newer concepts and technology. That continuous type of research and developement is what keeps foreign manufacturers competetive, and it keeps domestic manufacturers struggling to keep up, or in this case, failing to keep up.

You know, the ones with 2 or 3 foreign cars in the driveway. Instead, their philosophy is "Gee, I don't like domestic vehicles, I'll show them."

Since when is America about being forced to buy something we obviously don't want? And my philosphy is "Gee, I don't like crap, I'd rather buy something better".

"Out of a job yet? Keep buying foreign".

That sticker is about as old as dirt, back in the days when "foreign" meant 100% produced in a foreign country. Do you not realize that several thousand people right here in the good ol' USA (where good ol' free trade is practiced) are employed by Nissan, Honda, Toyota etc....? And isn't it funny how most American companies outsource to foreign countries anyway? And should people in other countries stop buying American cars? That would mean even less sales for our "Big 3".

You're very confused. The "short-sightedness" is the domestic manufacturers failure to realize that concepts and technology discovered in researching developements like hybrid vehicles lead to even newer concepts and technology. That continuous type of research and developement is what keeps foreign manufacturers competetive, and it keeps domestic manufacturers struggling to keep up, or in this case, failing to keep up.



Since when is America about being forced to buy something we obviously don't want? And my philosphy is "Gee, I don't like crap, I'd rather buy something better".



That sticker is about as old as dirt, back in the days when "foreign" meant 100% produced in a foreign country. Do you not realize that several thousand people right here in the good ol' USA (where good ol' free trade is practiced) are employed by Nissan, Honda, Toyota etc....? And isn't it funny how most American companies outsource to foreign countries anyway?

Don't try to use your logic around here. This is America, and we don't buy no Jap Crap or German Scheisse. America, Fuck Yeah!!:cheers:

I have to agree old master, what you have said has completely gone agianst what is American in the first place. You are basically telling us to buy something regardless of how good it is or how much it costs, just because it is made by us. In all honest, you cannot be serious about that. By your rule you could basically say, "let's lower the standards of everything, because people should be forced to buy our product regardless if it is good or bad." C'mon.

:grinyes:
Everything the Democrats get their hands on goes down the toilet.

You have reached what we conservatives call 'enlightenment'.:grinyes:

I oppose the bailout 100%.

- If a company doesn't plan for future problems and they go bankrupt, it's their fault for not planning ahead.

- If you can't compete with other manufacturers, you go under. Its called a 'free market'.

- It's not the goverments place to interfere with these companies, let me stress that-it's not the goverments job.

- The goverment has no right to stael taxpayer dollars to help a failed buisness, it's not hte goverments money.

so you prefer the 3 to go under, make hundreds of thousands of people worldwide unemployed and further the global economic recession?

so you prefer the 3 to go under, make hundreds of thousands of people worldwide unemployed and further the global economic recession?

Even if we go through with the bailout they'll go under anyway.
You can't fix a reccesion by shoveling money into failed buisnesses.

Even if we go through with the bailout they'll go under anyway.

Is that a 100% given fact?

The question that I have regarding this and any other bailout plan is exactly this; that of the viability of their survival with a cash injection. Without knowing further details, simply saying that they will fail no matter what is pointless and ignorant in the true meaning of the word. To simply say let them die and bring on the unemployment and global effects of their demise is short-sighted.

For some of the major companies that are having cash problems is just this, a cash problem. The nature of a manufacturing business is such that the company could well be profitable but without cashflow, they can't continue with the process/manufacture that equates to the profit.

the worlds fastest rower isn't going to much without oars.

Of course, these guys' problems, especially GM's, is well documented and a superficial cash injection is not the sole solution but it may well be what is needed for it to move towards fixing their problems.

The big problem is that they are handing over the bailouts with no strings attached. If you want to use taxpayer dollars to reinvigorate a failing buisness, you have to change the fundamentals of how that company is run.

If the feds come up with an actual plan that involves removing the ceo's and managers, rewriting standard procedure, and reducing the power of the unions, I might reluctantly agree. But thats not what they're doing, the incompetent people running these buisnesses want money, not a solution.

Giving them a bailout without adressing the actual problem is pretty much like throwing money up in the air and walking away.

The big problem is that they are handing over the bailouts with no strings attached.

who said that the bailout comes with no strings?
As far as I was aware, the Senate, before it completely collapsed due to wage cut issues, was that the restrictions on the three companies wasn't enough.
i.e there were restrictions in the first place.

I'm confused here: the unions refuse to agree to a wage cut but would rather see their employers go bust and thus, the workers lose their jobs.

Who benefitted and who lost here?

I think that you need to look at the bailouts in their proper prospective. The automakers will do fine under Chapter 11. It's the unions that will get screwed. So stop talking about a bailut for the big 3, and start talking about how all this is going to do is bail out the unions (who don't deserve a bailout).

The businesses themselves might still be doing OK (But it is obvious that they are not making cars that people want to buy), but with the unions involved their expenses are just too much. I just recently read a couple news stories about how these factory workers are making between $40 and $55 per hour! That does not include benefits. I also read one about how many of them who are laid off still get 95% of their pay...I wish I could sit at home and still make almost as much as I did when I was working.

Here's what gets me... Having seen President Bush address the nation about this bailout - he mentioned that the reason the government is opting to bail out the big 3 is because consumers will be afraid to buy the products if the companies enter bankruptcy. WTF???? :sly:

So my tax money going to save the big 3 AND having to spend more money on an inferior product is going to make the situation better?!?! Since when? And having the government bail out the company is going to increase my confidence whereas bankruptcy would shatter consumer confidence? :headshake Someone needs to remove their head from their sphincter and THEN talk.

Here's what gets me... Having seen President Bush address the nation about this bailout - he mentioned that the reason the government is opting to bail out the big 3 is because consumers will be afraid to buy the products if the companies enter bankruptcy. WTF???? :sly:
This is quite true. People will buy quickly-consumed services (like airline tickets) from a bankrupt company (and have done so in the past) but not cars.
People look towards a long-term relationship with the manufacturer for warranty issues, parts/service and resale value when they buy a car. It's been shown many times (Kaiser, Packard, Studebaker, Bricklin, DeLorean and even recently, Daewoo) when a company is rumored to be going under, people will not buy their cars, thus hastening the demise.

Also Bush had to put a conservative spin on what is a pretty center-left decision.


So my tax money going to save the big 3 AND having to spend more money on an inferior product is going to make the situation better?!?! Since when? And having the government bail out the company is going to increase my confidence whereas bankruptcy would shatter consumer confidence? :headshake Someone needs to remove their head from their sphincter and THEN talk.
The government is doing their job of protecting the public interest with this bailout...... so long as they ensure the companies meet certain performance criteria.
The companies deserve bankruptcy due to their mismanagement. But the population of the US and Canada should not be made to suffer the economic fallout if they do.

:grinyes:

You have reached what we conservatives call 'enlightenment'.:grinyes:

I oppose the bailout 100%.

- If a company doesn't plan for future problems and they go bankrupt, it's their fault for not planning ahead.

- If you can't compete with other manufacturers, you go under. Its called a 'free market'.

- It's not the goverments place to interfere with these companies, let me stress that-it's not the goverments job.

- The goverment has no right to stael taxpayer dollars to help a failed buisness, it's not hte goverments money.


Absolutely 100% correct on all counts!

:grinyes:

You have reached what we conservatives call 'enlightenment'.:grinyes:

I oppose the bailout 100%.

- If a company doesn't plan for future problems and they go bankrupt, it's their fault for not planning ahead.

- If you can't compete with other manufacturers, you go under. Its called a 'free market'.

- It's not the governments place to interfere with these companies, let me stress that-it's not the goverments job.

- The goverment has no right to stael taxpayer dollars to help a failed buisness, it's not hte goverments money.
Your principle here makes little sense,
Remember this bailout is a LOAN, not a GIFT!! It's no different than if you lost your job and had to borrow money so you could feed your family and keep your house until you got another job!!

Many businesses require financing to see them through rough spots. If financing did not exist, industrialization would never have happened and we all would be peasant farmers. In this case, the firms are so large, the government is the only source of sufficient capital.

Furthermore, what you promote here is laissez-faire capitalism, as envisioned by Adam Smith (look him up).

It's great in theory, but any economist would say it is unenlightened.
The government MUST get involved in the economy in an intelligent and thoughtful way, to moderate the extreme highs and lows that an unregulated economy experiences.

Frankly, if the Big 3 went under the loss in tax dollars would be far greater than the bailout would coast.

The government MUST get involved in the economy in an intelligent and thoughtful way, to moderate the extreme highs and lows that an unregulated economy experiences.


Aye, there's the rub. The operative thought is intelligent and thoughtful. Precious little of that coming out of congress these days. Witness the bank handou....er, I mean, "bailout".

We'll be lucky if that little gem doesn't eventually bury us all.

Not much confidence that the auto makers' bailou... er, um, "loan" will be administered a whole lot better.

Aye, there's the rub. The operative thought is intelligent and thoughtful. Precious little of that coming out of congress these days.
I would agree, hence my inclusion of those caveats.
When a government chooses to get involved in business, for the sake of the public good, often they can do a reasonably good job of it.... like the Post Office, NASA etc.

When a government feels that they are forced into a business they often seem to screw it up. The British government nationalized many companies, including most of their domestic auto industry. That governments refusal to fix the basic problems that industry had meant they drove it right into the ground in a few short years.

I sincerely hope GM, Chrysler etc do not become synonymous with 'British Leyland'

Combine All 3 into the Big One! ''American Motors''

If we are going to compete with the rest of the world,the UAW needs to Retire!

MCGIVER

Honestly the UAW in it's current form and regime has screwed up so bad, the head honchos and their lawyers should be in jails. I'm pretty pro-union myself.

States need to change Laws, ''Right-to-work State''

The union is already divided (States,unions,dem,and Rep),let workers decide to join!

Put Union dues into 401K instead, and let the dinosaurs die in peace.

They will make good fossil fuel,the BAD deficit spending will be over!

MCGIVER

Right to work State,Any employee can be terminated at ant time for any reason.Must enployee don't have a say so.I managed a company that said right to work ment all documantion didn't need to be completed to terminate an employee.May have good points but this is not one.

The businesses themselves might still be doing OK (But it is obvious that they are not making cars that people want to buy), but with the unions involved their expenses are just too much. I just recently read a couple news stories about how these factory workers are making between $40 and $55 per hour! That does not include benefits. I also read one about how many of them who are laid off still get 95% of their pay...I wish I could sit at home and still make almost as much as I did when I was working.

Some make as much as $75 an hour. That's $3,000 a week. That's $150,000 a year. I only wish I could stand on an assembly line, do the same thing day in day out and make as much as the president of the United States only a few short years ago. With the cost of labor as it is, the auto companies have to make cuts in other areas....gives new meaning to quality control.

Some make as much as $75 an hour. That's $3,000 a week. That's $150,000 a year. I only wish I could stand on an assembly line, do the same thing day in day out and make as much as the president of the United States only a few short years ago. With the cost of labor as it is, the auto companies have to make cuts in other areas....gives new meaning to quality control.
There's no need for the UAW to have it's members not in high management to be making 150k a year. It's plain outrageous.

I WAS A UAW WORKER this is a subjuct that needs looking at im not defending the unions but i will say some valet point it hard to stnd on a line day after day doing the same thing thats why they get payed but it did get out of hand uaw pensions were payed by the companys were teamsters are payed through the locals if your a good worker you dont need a union but you get this company feel there paying you to much they get rid of you that happening rite now it not just union places it non union also corp greed and invester greed has taken over . companys cut back by sending job out of this contrie to make a bigger buck i cant blame them but with all that has gone on corprate america has bite the hand that fed them and as for the unions they do need to change there selling out the worker as we write this im not the lazy guy who didnt come to work or did not do my job i worked hard for my companyand the union turned there backs to us and sold us out no support no nothing and here i am no job THEY GOT THERE MONEY we could go on forever but have a very happy day

There's no need for the UAW to have it's members not in high management to be making 150k a year. It's plain outrageous.

Show me a UAW worker making 150k. Toyota is paying it's working the same or better than the UAW.

One of the "perks" to being a UAW member was higher salaries as compared to those at (import) factories. Now, according to the Detroit Free Press, that may no longer be true, as foreign automakers are offering bonuses. So the old UAW argument of higher salaries going to UAW workers is no longer a selling point in terms of joining the UAW.

For example, Toyota Motor Corp... gave workers at its largest U.S. plant bonuses of $6,000 to $8,000, boosting the average pay at the Georgetown, Ky., plant to the equivalent of $30 an hour. That compares with a $27 hourly average for UAW workers, most of whom did not receive profit-sharing checks last year.

all that about the toyota worker is true but they dont have pensions they only 401k .The pensions is whats killing the big three .but over a year ago it was said that those import comanys where thinking of cutting the pay of the souther worker to what is conclusive of the area. That would bring most of them to 18 to 20 $ hour you watch that GM will file bankrupeci and give the pensions to the feds and gm retirees will get half of what they nomaly got like America airline did is that a union promise broken. There only looking out for them self did you know high up union officer get a pension from the uaw and there one from the big three is that RIGHT its looking out for them self you dont see them looking to cut there pay. UAW is in a survival mode