Automakers $25 billion magically turns into $28 billion

[DavidS]

Ford is requesting $9 billion
Chrysler is requesting $7 billion
GM is requesting $12 billion

Of course with these bailout requests comes massive downsizing. Tens of thousands of jobs cut, dozens of plants closed and a horrible effect on our economy and unemployment.

The automakers are requesting $4 billion extra from what they were originally requesting. Chrysler says it needs the money by the end of this month.

I say it's time to let Chrysler go. How many owners has Chrysler had in the past 20 years? 3. Chrysler Corporation, Daimler-Benz and now Cerberus Investment Firm. Out of all 3, Chrysler's sales were off by the largest percentage. I say it's time to let Chrysler go. We bailed them out 29 years ago and here they are, yet again, asking for a bailout. Time to go.

 

[Hum Dinger]

I'd hope that congress learned something from the $700bil bailout and would put strict controls and conditions on this money....but probably not.

 

[DavidS]

According to CNN, GM is also asking for an additional $6 billion in reserve in addition to the $12 billion. So that's $18 billion which brings the total to $34 billion. Anyone else think this number is going to keep rising?

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

I believe we've bailed out Chrysler twice now, haven't we? So this would be the third time?

 

[Paulie]

Come on, give em a chance. They all drove to Washington in hybrids, they're showing us they CARE!

 

[editec]

Thirty fourty billion here, thirty fourty billion there, this could add up to real money if we're not careful.

 

[cunclusion]

First its best just to ask for what you need instead of constantly coming back which i hope that is what they are doing.
To be honest Chrylser has paid the government back before when getting these types of funding.
These companies are going to shed jobs is going to happen. They are currently at a great disadvantage even when the economy was good.

 

[DavidS]

Thirty fourty billion here, thirty fourty billion there, this could add up to real money if we're not careful.

You mean like the $7 trillion we've spent in the past few months on this crisis?

 

[Paulie]

You mean like the $7 trillion we've spent in the past few months on this crisis?

It flew right over your head, didn't it?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You mean like the $7 trillion we've spent in the past few months on this crisis?

Do you still think it's a great idea to bail these automakers out?

 

[Paulie]

Do you still think it's a great idea to bail these automakers out?

I think David only cares about stimulus checks for the peon consumers so he gets more sales.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I think David only cares about stimulus checks for the peon consumers so he gets more sales.

Well he says he's against another stimulus.

 

[Paulie]

Well he says he's against another stimulus.

Well it's a new day, so it's hard to tell where he currently stands.

 

[Mencken]

I'm sure this comes as a surprise to no one really. The bailout makes no sense because of the following reasons.

1.) The Big Three automobile companies would quickly spend their bailout - it would last until February 2009 and they would be back to square one.

2.) The costs of the Big Three labor wise is approximately $87 to the $47 which is the average cost for foreign companies who operate factories in Detroit. These same companies have lower costs and have 50% of the US car market. Clearly, a bailout would do nothing to reduce costs and the same problems would still exist (high compensation to employees who are members of the labor unions and additionally a failure to innovate).

A Chapter 11 Bankruptcy guided by the Federal Government would be a far better option because it would allow the Big Three to reorganize without being held to many of the stringent rules, conditions, and laws that hinder their reorganization into a successful trio of companies.

Additionally, a bailout to a major companies denies them the incentive to reorganize and become more effective and efficient. By simply asking for a bailout by virtue of their size, they're ensuring that capitalism in a sense fails because capitalism is inherently partially about holding companies in the marketplace to a high standard of efficiency, ability to adapt and innovate, and to remain fiscally productive. Capitalism by ensuring a bailout may pretty much ensure that these companies - with failed business practices, etc - have less incentives to change than they would have otherwise.

 

[NOBama]

I believe we've bailed out Chrysler twice now, haven't we? So this would be the third time?

This evening, CNN's Wolfe Blitzer asked Bob Nardelli why Chrysler's parent company Daimler AG doesn't bail them out. I almost fell out of my chair when Nardelli answered: "They're fully invested already".

 

[NOBama]

THE executives of the Big Three auto makers said today they would be willing to work under the supervision of a federal oversight board as a condition for receiving financial aid from the government.

During the Senate hearing, the chiefs of General Motors, Ford Motor and Chrysler responded to a question from Banking Committee chairman Christopher Dodd, who asked whether they would be willing to work within a structure similar to that established for the federal bailout of the former Chrysler Corporation in 1979-1980.

GM's Rick Wagoner, Ford's Alan Mulally and Chrysler's Robert Nardelli said they would. Each subsequently agreed that the board could have the legal authority to dictate restructuring terms to the companies and others including unions, suppliers and dealers.

Emerging from a nearly six-hour hearing, Senator Dodd said that he believed there was growing consensus among lawmakers that something needed to be done to help the companies.

More

"Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, told the panel of senators today that Congress shouldn't hesitate to save the auto makers but that the bailout would likely far exceed $US34 billion if it were to succeed. The price tag would likely be between $US75 billion and $US125 billion, Mr Zandi said."

 

[DavidS]

More

"Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, told the panel of senators today that Congress shouldn't hesitate to save the auto makers but that the bailout would likely far exceed $US34 billion if it were to succeed. The price tag would likely be between $US75 billion and $US125 billion, Mr Zandi said."

Of course Senator Dodd said that. Senator Dodd has been for this proposal for a long time.

Meanwhile, back in reality, Senator Reid says there aren't enough votes in the Senate to pass this bill and even if there were, it would need to pass in the House of Representatives and if it passes there, Bush would veto it. If you haven't noticed, the Democrats won the Senate in 2006 51-49. Obama vacated his seat and Biden won the election. Clinton was nominated. So that really leaves Republicans in control of the Senate 49-48. There are no Republicans that want to pass this bill and not all of the Democrats want to pass it. Thus there aren't the votes to pass this bill. The United States government isn't going to bail out the auto industry. If that happens, 2/3 of the Senate would be needed to over ride his veto.

If Biden or Clinton were to resign their seats, the Senate would officially be under Republican control - something the Democrats don't want.

 

[NOBama]

Dodd didn't say that, Zandi did.

Also, Biden hasn't given up his seat and I doubt Clinton will either, until necessary.

And CNN says Biden said he won't resign until Jan 20:

Vice president-elect Joe Biden, who was also re-elected in Delaware to his Senate seat on November 4, told an interviewer several weeks ago that he would resign when he's sworn in as vice president in January

I'm against this bailout so I hope it gets denied, but if there's any way the Dems can get legislation in front of Bush next week, they will, IMO.

 

[DavidS]

Dodd didn't say that, Zandi did.

Also, Biden hasn't given up his seat and I doubt Clinton will either, until necessary.

[/size]

I'm against this bailout so I hope it gets denied, but if there's any way the Dems can get legislation in front of Bush next week, they will, IMO.

Clinton nor Biden will vote on this. Clinton is busy gearing up for her job as SecState and Biden is busy with the transition. This bill will not pass. GM is playing games by saying they're going to go bankrupt if they don't get money by the end of the year. If they had 3 weeks left they would be cutting massive costs immediately. They still haven't sold Saab, and shut down Saturn or Pontiac. They're BSing us.

And the worst is Chrysler. 3 owners in the past 3 decades.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Of course Senator Dodd said that. Senator Dodd has been for this proposal for a long time.

Meanwhile, back in reality, Senator Reid says there aren't enough votes in the Senate to pass this bill and even if there were, it would need to pass in the House of Representatives and if it passes there, Bush would veto it. If you haven't noticed, the Democrats won the Senate in 2006 51-49. Obama vacated his seat and Biden won the election. Clinton was nominated. So that really leaves Republicans in control of the Senate 49-48. There are no Republicans that want to pass this bill and not all of the Democrats want to pass it. Thus there aren't the votes to pass this bill. The United States government isn't going to bail out the auto industry. If that happens, 2/3 of the Senate would be needed to over ride his veto.

If Biden or Clinton were to resign their seats, the Senate would officially be under Republican control - something the Democrats don't want.

This is going to be legislative reality going forward. The House and the Senate may have fairly large Dem majorities, but you've got to remember, most the Dems that outed Repubs in the last two election cycles are CONSERVATIVE, "Blue Dog" dems and will in no way go along with Harry Reid's or Nancy Pelosi's secular-progressive agenda. And it appears the new President isn't very inclined either.

Sorry you hard left wing loons, it appears you have still lost!