Congressional Leaders Want Bush to Help Automakers

[DavidS]

If Obama says yes to a handout for the auto industry, do you think they'll put a mandate on it for it's use so the money doesn't go for bonuses and such?

He absolutely should. No CEO or executive makes more money than a veteran plant worker for Ford. Hell, the POTUS only makes $250,000 a year and he runs the most important corporation: America.

 

[DavidS]

Bush should leave this decision to Obama. That way when people complain about bailouts, they won't place all the blame on Bush.

Yes, in the meantime how many people are going to lose their jobs? How many more plants are going to close? And Bush wants to put this off for political reasons? Absolutely the WORST president we've ever had.

 

[DiveCon]

He absolutely should. No CEO or executive makes more money than a veteran plant worker for Ford. Hell, the POTUS only makes $250,000 a year and he runs the most important corporation: America.

i cant argue with that, but how do you enforce something like that?
its up to the board of directors how much these guys get paid, and the BoD are sellected by the shareholders
those that actually have a financial stake in the companies

 

[elvis]

Yes, in the meantime how many people are going to lose their jobs? How many more plants are going to close? And Bush wants to put this off for political reasons? Absolutely the WORST president we've ever had.

I don't know why Bush wants to put this off. Many jobs that Michigan and Ohio used to have are in Mexico and Canada because of NAFTA, which Clinton signed. Eventually, the vast majority of mfg jobs in Michigan and Ohio will be in either Mexico or China. This bailout may buy the workers time, but that is all.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Hey, smartass, find any other industry that is not only responsible for millions of jobs in this country, but also is responsible for the economies of many medium sized cities. If Ford, GM or Chrysler goes under, so does Detroit. If Detroit goes out, so does Michigan. The ripple effect of the failure of one or more of these auto giants would massive and would send shock-waves around this country. You think 6.5% unemployment is bad? Try 12%. Try 13%. Try DOW 3000. All the banks that loaned the homes for these auto-workers could go under as well because if they don't have a job, how are they going to pay their mortgages? What about a massive healthcare crisis around the country as we now have over a million more people without healthcare because they lost their jobs. You want to sit there in your nice cozy chair while 1 million+ people lose their job and you pay your $10,000 a year in income taxes while the backbone of America caves in.

The economic impact of one of the big 3 collapsing would be massive... far worse than $50 billion of the $750 billion we already have allocated.

But you go ahead and you keep making your snide, ignorant remarks because you think you know better.

Slow your roll there bud, my cozy chair? I've felt the effects of the American auto-industry. I worked at a Chevrolet dealer that went under a few years back. So I can sympathize with the people who will lose their jobs, it's going to be hard for them.

However, bailing out these companies isn't a solution to their problems. They make an inferior product than their foreign competition, and that's not going to change. I repeat, bailing them out is simply delaying the inevitable at the expense of the American taxpayers.

I also think I know that there are other industries that are being affected by this crisis, and their employees think their industry is pretty important too. These bailouts set a dangerous precedent, you bail out one industry they all want it. If you can't compete then you go out of business, that's the nature of Capitalism and of the free market.

Let's also not forget that the federal government has no Constitutional authority to bailout failed businesses.

 

[DavidS]

i cant argue with that, but how do you enforce something like that?
its up to the board of directors how much these guys get paid, and the BoD are sellected by the shareholders
those that actually have a financial stake in the companies

If the government gives any private corporation money, it should get a seat on the board of directors. The more money you give, the more powerful your vote is. It's the way I run my corporation and it's worked perfectly since day 1. I know a lot of other people who run their corporation the same way. You can also oust the Chairman of the Board in exchange for the money. Believe me, if the auto companies want the money badly enough, they will do anything for it. There are many, well qualified CEOs who only work for $1 per year to help an ailing company out. Especially corporations that mean so much to America. 1 out of 3 Americans drive a car manufactured by one of the big 3... imagine the consumer confidence if Ford went under.

 

[elvis]

Why should the US taxpayer pay because the big 3 has refused for three decades to make adjustments to compete with Japan?

 

[DavidS]

I don't know why Bush wants to put this off. Many jobs that Michigan and Ohio used to have are in Mexico and Canada because of NAFTA, which Clinton signed. Eventually, the vast majority of mfg jobs in Michigan and Ohio will be in either Mexico or China. This bailout may buy the workers time, but that is all.

NAFTA was the worst idea Clinton ever had. HORRIBLE. I remember everyone used to say that for every job we outsource to Mexico, they would send us 2 workers. They were right... they just didn't tell us that the workers would be illegal immigrants used for slave labor in the Southwest. I certainly hope Obama repeals NAFTA.

 

[tigerbob]

However, bailing out these companies isn't a solution to their problems. They make an inferior product than their foreign competition, and that's not going to change. I repeat, bailing them out is simply delaying the inevitable at the expense of the American taxpayers.

Saying that's not going to change may be a bit presumptive. If they want the $25bn already voted by congress they have to demonstrate that it will be spent wisely - that's a fair sized incentive.

Ford is making some progress, at least on quality.

On the other hand, Chrysler is in deep shit - but then we all knew that. Too many trucks, no foreign income.

 

[DiveCon]

NAFTA was the worst idea Clinton ever had. HORRIBLE. I remember everyone used to say that for every job we outsource to Mexico, they would send us 2 workers. They were right... they just didn't tell us that the workers would be illegal immigrants used for slave labor in the Southwest. I certainly hope Obama repeals NAFTA.

Clinton actually inherited NAFTA
but made it his own

 

[DavidS]

Why should the US taxpayer pay because the big 3 has refused for three decades to make adjustments to compete with Japan?

Because if we don't, the ramifications of one of the big 3 going under would be disasterous. It's not so much a matter of demand for the cars American companies make, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, F-150s, Explorers and Focus' were selling lot hotcakes. Japan doesn't pay their workers nearly as much as the US pays theirs... a symptom of the unions, unfortunately.

In the end, we've gotta play ball with Detroit. If we don't, September/October 2008 could look like a walk in the park. Assume 1 million jobs would be lost if Ford collapses, about 500-750,000 if Chrysler collapses and about 3 million if GM collapses.

 

[DiveCon]

Saying that's not going to change may be a bit presumptive. If they want the $25bn already voted by congress they have to demonstrate that it will be spent wisely - that's a fair sized incentive.

Ford is making some progress, at least on quality.

On the other hand, Chrysler is in deep shit - but then we all knew that. Too many trucks, no foreign income.

well, GM wants the money to merge with Chrysler
how would that do much more than close the duplicate plants and those people lose their jobs anyway
personally, i think they should not get government money
if this was such a good idea, private financial institutions would be backing it

 

[elvis]

NAFTA was the worst idea Clinton ever had. HORRIBLE. I remember everyone used to say that for every job we outsource to Mexico, they would send us 2 workers. They were right... they just didn't tell us that the workers would be illegal immigrants used for slave labor in the Southwest. I certainly hope Obama repeals NAFTA.

It certainly wouldn't match his rhetoric. "Ohioans cling to antitrade....." He has said repeatedly that he supports free trade. I would be happy if he renegged on that.

 

[DavidS]

Clinton actually inherited NAFTA
but made it his own

Whoever's fault it is, NAFTA needs to be repealed. If American corporations can't afford to hire American workers, they need to scale down operations so they can start to. No more CAFTA in exchange for loans to the auto-makers, no more FTA's ever again. American jobs stay on American soil.

 

[elvis]

Because if we don't, the ramifications of one of the big 3 going under would be disasterous. It's not so much a matter of demand for the cars American companies make, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, F-150s, Explorers and Focus' were selling lot hotcakes. Japan doesn't pay their workers nearly as much as the US pays theirs... a symptom of the unions, unfortunately.

In the end, we've gotta play ball with Detroit. If we don't, September/October 2008 could look like a walk in the park. Assume 1 million jobs would be lost if Ford collapses, about 500-750,000 if Chrysler collapses and about 3 million if GM collapses.

It's a connundrum, I agree. But how many times are we going to do this? How high can the debt get before it ruins the economy?
I have seen the unions send jobs to Mexico. They wouldn't give in on their $27/hour assembly line jobs. So Delphi told them where to go and went to Mexico. I am sure those workers make about $10/hr now.

 

[elvis]

Whoever's fault it is, NAFTA needs to be repealed. If American corporations can't afford to hire American workers, they need to scale down operations so they can start to. No more CAFTA in exchange for loans to the auto-makers, no more FTA's ever again. American jobs stay on American soil.

Obama should have sworn to this. As I remember, Ross Perot was the only one who said NAFTA was a bad idea. Everyone said he was stupid. Where would we be if he hadn't dropped out in 1992?

 

[tigerbob]

well, GM wants the money to merge with Chrysler
how would that do much more than close the duplicate plants and those people lose their jobs anyway
personally, i think they should not get government money
if this was such a good idea, private financial institutions would be backing it

No, GM wants an additional $10bn for a merger with Chrysler, which so far has been turned down. And I agree, $10bn just about pays the layoffs and closures - bad idea.

I think they should get government money, but with a huge number of safeguards in place. Without it, there is no doubt one or more than one will tank.

Then again, I live about 25 miles from downtown, so I'm probably more sensitized to it than many.

 

[Neubarth]

America doesn't need 3, or 1. It needs whatever the market decides it needs. If the market decides GM isn't cutting it anymore, then GM goes bye-bye. So be it.

Well spoken!

We don't need to build small cars that can not compete with those of foreign countries. The UAW has priced GM and Ford and Chrysler out of the small car market. Time to do away with all those outrageous contracts and set up new car companies. New is good!

 

[elvis]

No, GM wants an additional $10bn for a merger with Chrysler, which so far has been turned down. And I agree, $10bn just about pays the layoffs and closures - bad idea.

I think they should get government money, but with a huge number of safeguards in place. Without it, there is no doubt one or more than one will tank.

Then again, I live about 25 miles from downtown, so I'm probably more sensitized to it than many.

I am not as sensitized as you, but fairly close. I live in West Michigan, which used to have Tier I and Tier II suppliers like Prince (JCI) but are now in Mexico. I don't see how this bailout is going to prevent the inevitable. What is to stop GM from moving to Mexico or China AFTER they receive this government money? The workers are screwed anyway.

 

[elvis]

What adjustments will the big 3 make if the government gives them this money? Will they decide they want to compete with Japan or will they continue on their path of "same ole same ole" and run the companies into the ground, so that in ten years, the taxpayer gets to bail them out again?