Say no to the auto bailout

[xsited1]

(CNN) -- General Motors, Ford, Chrysler and the United Auto Workers union are pouring millions of dollars into a lobbying campaign for a taxpayer bailout.

The money devoted to influence peddling in Washington would be better spent on improving quality and finding ways to reduce a bloated cost structure, but both management and UAW have decided that fleecing taxpayers is a better option.

A taxpayer bailout would be a terrible mistake. It would subsidize the shoddy management practices of the corporate bureaucrats at General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, and it would reward the intransigent union bosses who have made the synonymous with inflexible and anti-competitive work rules.

Perhaps most important, though, is that a bailout would be bad for the long-term health of the American auto industry. It would discriminate against the 113,000 Americans who have highly-coveted jobs building cars for Nissan, BMW and other auto companies that happen to be headquartered in other nations.

These companies demonstrate that it is possible to build cars in America and make money. Putting them at a competitive disadvantage with handouts for the U.S.-headquartered companies would be highly unjust.

More here

 

[Caligirl]

Agreed.

 

[Isolde]

There is already a bailout option, it's called bankruptcy. Honestly, everyone has their hand out for a piece of the bailout pie, what a dangerous precedent that has been set. Thank you Bush, Dem Congress, et al.

 

[random3434]

(CNN) -- General Motors, Ford, Chrysler and the United Auto Workers union are pouring millions of dollars into a lobbying campaign for a taxpayer bailout.

The money devoted to influence peddling in Washington would be better spent on improving quality and finding ways to reduce a bloated cost structure, but both management and UAW have decided that fleecing taxpayers is a better option.

A taxpayer bailout would be a terrible mistake. It would subsidize the shoddy management practices of the corporate bureaucrats at General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, and it would reward the intransigent union bosses who have made the synonymous with inflexible and anti-competitive work rules.

Perhaps most important, though, is that a bailout would be bad for the long-term health of the American auto industry. It would discriminate against the 113,000 Americans who have highly-coveted jobs building cars for Nissan, BMW and other auto companies that happen to be headquartered in other nations.

These companies demonstrate that it is possible to build cars in America and make money. Putting them at a competitive disadvantage with handouts for the U.S.-headquartered companies would be highly unjust.

More here

I have seen 3 towns within an hour north, east and northeast of me crumble because of Chrysler and GM plants closing. It was the life blood of those towns, and once thriving communities are now dying. It's a shame, it really is.

On the other hand,they just opened a new Honda plant about 30 minutes outside of Indy, and Suburu has a fairly new plant in Layfette, IN.


cbs5.com - Honda To Build New Car Plant In Indiana

Camry to be built by Subaru in Indiana - Autoblog

 

[DavidS]

For the life of me, I can't figure out why GM doesn't go into chapter 11. And I highly doubt Ford, GM and Chrysler are pouring millions into lobbying. They don't have any money left.

 

[ABikerSailor]

There is already a bailout option, it's called bankruptcy. Honestly, everyone has their hand out for a piece of the bailout pie, what a dangerous precedent that has been set. Thank you Bush, Dem Congress, et al.

You know, once McStupid and the rest started to go for the bailout plan, I looked at my room mate and told her that as soon as it was passed, EVERYONE and their brother was going to go to DC with their hands out.

All the mortgage companies, bailed. Now they want to go with GM. If the idiots at the top would have pushed in the direction of more efficient, and alternative energy cars 10 years ago, they wouldn't be in this mess, but, they went in the wrong direction and tried to put everyone in Hummers and SUV's. Unfortunately, that came to a halt real quick when gas hit 4 bucks/gal, because nobody could afford to use them for anything other than a paperweight.

But then again.....what COULD we expect from a man who failed at almost every business venture that he'd tried? Bankruptcy is a way of life for Bush Jr., and now he's managed to pass it over the whole country.

No bailouts......let the fuckers twist like they would us.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Propping up bad businesses only keeps resources from being distributed to more successful enterprises. Also, American automakers have already shown that regardless of however much the government gives them they're not able to compete with foreign automakers. They simply make an inferior product.

 

[Skull Pilot]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWQ1NDliZTU0MzY3ZGNiYTg2MGNiZTRlNWYzNWI4Nzc=

The bailout would be of the United Auto Workers as much as of the automakers. It’s the UAW that saddled the Big Three with unsustainable labor costs and obligations to retirees. Detroit has desperately been trying to get out from under this burden, but Ford still lost $1,467 per vehicle in 2007, while GM lost $729 and Chrysler lost $412. Where the UAW doesn’t reign, the industry thrives. Toyota and others profitably manufacture almost 4 million cars in nonunionized states in the South.

The case for the bailout is that the job losses from a GM going down — 100,000 directly, and many more indirectly — would be too painful to bear, and the government would be left holding the bag on GM’s pensions. This line of reasoning conceives of GM essentially as a job programs and welfare agency.

And here's an oldie but a goodie

A Tale of Two Auto Plants - WSJ.com

In Arlington, GM pays union-scale wages of $26.50 to $30.50 an hour to its 2,800 hourly workers there. On average, GM pays $81.18 an hour in wages and benefits to U.S. hourly workers, including pension and retiree medical costs. At that rate, labor costs per vehicle at Arlington are about $1,800, based on the Harbour Consulting estimate of labor hours per vehicle.

In San Antonio, Toyota will use non-union labor and will start its 1,600 hourly workers at $15.50 to $20.33 per hour, which will grow after three years to $21 to $25. Harbour Consulting President Ron Harbour estimates Toyota's total hourly U.S. labor costs, with benefits, at about $35 an hour -- less than half of GM's rates.

So let's see, the UAW has held auto makers hostage and have been responsible for skyrocketing operating costs. U.S. Auto makers have been mismanaging their companies for years and cannot compete with foreign companies.

Yeah lets bail them out. NOT

 

[Annie]

Propping up bad businesses only keeps resources from being distributed to more successful enterprises. Also, American automakers have already shown that regardless of however much the government gives them they're not able to compete with foreign automakers. They simply make an inferior product.

For too many years their profits have been going to UAW workers, retired UAW workers, management and stockholders. R & D were things of the past. As time went on, the benefits increased, the product was stagnant, others passed them by. Today one gets an inferior product, at high cost. Not a good deal. So, the competitors prospered.

If they really want to compete against Japan, etc., Chapter 11 is the only way to get from under those contracts. Throwing billions is NOT going to do anything but pay those workers for a few more months. The signs are on the door.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

For too many years their profits have been going to UAW workers, retired UAW workers, management and stockholders. R & D were things of the past. As time went on, the benefits increased, the product was stagnant, others passed them by. Today one gets an inferior product, at high cost. Not a good deal. So, the competitors prospered.

If they really want to compete against Japan, etc., Chapter 11 is the only way to get from under those contracts. Throwing billions is NOT going to do anything but pay those workers for a few more months. The signs are on the door.

I've said it before, bailing out the auto-industry only postpones the inevitable at the expense of the American taxpayers.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I've said it before, bailing out the auto-industry only postpones the inevitable at the expense of the American taxpayers.

And, while it is postponing the inevitable, they are using US to help prop them up.

However......when the taxpayers are broke, there will be no more money for bailouts.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And, while it is postponing the inevitable, they are using US to help prop them up.

However......when the taxpayers are broke, there will be no more money for bailouts.

Oh ye of little faith. The government will just borrow and inflate at that point.

 

[dilloduck]

The resulting unemployment wil lbe staggering. The only positive I see about a postponement of the inevitable is to come up with plans to deal with the inevitable consequences. We're not just talking about factory workers here.

 

[WillowTree]

We should know by Wednesday. I fully expect the Democrats to pass the bailout for the automakers, (ignoring the cries against it) cause they owe the unions big time..

 

[editec]

It's not JUST GM, FORD and Chrysler that go down when they go down, folks.

It's the tens of thousands of small companies making parts for them, too.

Those foreign made cars are not BUILT here, they're assembled here.

Big BIG damned difference to our economy.

 

[Annie]

It's not JUST GM, FORD and Chrysler that go down when they go down, folks.

It's the tens of thousands of small companies making parts for them, too.

Those foreign made cars are not BUILT here, they're assembled here.

Big BIG damned difference to our economy.

Be that as it may, the bailout won't work! At their rate of spending it won't get them through the next year. While not predicted, if there happened to be some recovery starting, then the failures would kill it.

 

[WillowTree]

It's not JUST GM, FORD and Chrysler that go down when they go down, folks.

It's the tens of thousands of small companies making parts for them, too.

Those foreign made cars are not BUILT here, they're assembled here.

Big BIG damned difference to our economy.

half of me says you are right, save the jobs, the other half says we will throw billions at the problem and they won't correct a thing leaving it all to do over again in ten years.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Be that as it may, the bailout won't work! At their rate of spending it won't get them through the next year. While not predicted, if there happened to be some recovery starting, then the failures would kill it.

Bush Jr. doesn't care if the bailout works permanently, he just wants it to make it through January 2009, because after that, he's outta here.

Probably heading to Dubai with Cheney and Halliburton.

 

[dilloduck]

half of me says you are right, save the jobs, the other half says we will throw billions at the problem and they won't correct a thing leaving it all to do over again in ten years.

If we Congress does provide them with soem time , they sure as hell better be building a big net somewhere too.

 

[NOBama]

There are startups waiting in the wings for us to let go of the big 3. The ONLY argument I see for keeping them, which is weak, is that the big 3 could quickly retool to make military transports in the event of a major war. Conversely, those plants could be scoffed up using imminent domain laws or better yet, we could just buy several of those production facilities for pennies on the dollar from the defunct companies and incorporate them into the military.

It’s time to let the big 3 go by the wayside. We’ve reached the point where they need us more than we need them. As to the assertions that 1000’s of small business that produce parts for the big 3 would have more of an impact on the economy than the loss of the big 3, I agree. However, I think those are the companies we should help survive (bailout) while new companies emerge to take the place of GM, Ford, and Chrysler.

That would probably benefit the people so I wouldn’t count on Washington for making it happen. Why should they do anything for the people when they believe they ARE the people?