| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/11/2008 06:39:57 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by JMart:
I'm just not convinced yet that the damage of those bailouts will outweigh the damage of millions of people losing their jobs. |
Me wither, but shouldn't the burden of the bailout be weighted towards those who have disproportionately benefited from these companies?
In order to get Food Stamps you essentially have to wipe out your savings/assets -- your car can't be over a certain value, etc. How about making a condition of receiving Federal aid that those CEOs have to first place all of their assets over, say the $5 million "McCain line (so they'll still be "rich"), into their companies ("matching funds"), and that they earn only the Federal minimum wage they pay their gofers until the Treasury is repaid in full ... |
Yea, I agree, if these bailouts happen for the auto industry, financial sector, or anywhere else, I will be pissed as hell if there are not some strict strings attached including caps on CEO earnings etc. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, haven't bailout proposals thus far been in the form of holding equity in the companies rather than just giving them free cash? Despite how bad the auto industry is doing, they have actually been decreasing their losses over the last couple of years by slashing jobs and closing plants.
It's entirely possible that a company like Ford has positioned itself well through downsizing & R&D for the long term but just doesn't have the cash for the short term economic crisis. If they continue on the trend they've been on for the past couple of years there is good reason to believe they will be returning to profitability in the long term. GM is another story, but it's also a bigger company that will impact more people. I'm encouraged by their development of the Chevy Volt which is supposed to turn into a whole family of electric cars. It gets 45 miles on just electric and then can go 5-600 miles more via a gas powered generator. That's not a technology offered by any of its competitors. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 06:43:05 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by JMart:
Don't get me wrong, I'm willing to accept that bailouts might be a bad idea and letting failing industries sink may be better in the long run despite how many millions of additional people will find themselves needing food stamps and the like in the near term. |
That is my point as well. I simply was curious on how some of those who have historically posted from the left - felt about their brothers and sisters who historically support their candidates - being forced into some pretty bad situations with a rippling effect way beyond the domestic auto makers themselves. Reads to me like the compassion I keep being reading is limited.
And further to address the quality and design issues, some of you are way out of date. Cadillac can match nearly anything from Mercedes or BMW. Buicks are quieter than Lexus. GM powertrains have graced Rolls Royce, Jaguar and Land Rover. Saab has some of the very best turbos in existence. GM has over 30 models that get 30mpg or better and JD Power consistently ranks their quality with the finest in the world. From the award winning Malibu to the HHR to the Solstice Coupe/roadster to the Saturn Outlook to the Escalade Hybrid. Their really is something for anyone - if one wanted to look - and with 100,000 mile warranties. You can buy anything you want, but if fellow american workers have jobs in jeopardy, jobs that use more american steel, more semi-conductors, US resources than any other industrial company, why would you not want to buy their product. Chrysler, Ford and GM employees plus the millions of jobs supported by the industry depend on your choices. The foriegn competition hasn't been better for many years now. In case you hadn't noticed.
It was Biden who said that one needed to be more patriotic and pay more taxes. Obama said the we shouldn't be selfish and should want to pay more taxes. Now if that is the line of the leadership that was soundly elected, then it seems apparent to me that supporting your domestic auto maker would be unselfish as well - especially in light of their outstanding quality and product selection.
Message edited by author 2008-11-11 18:52:00. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 09:46:47 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by JMart:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by JMart:
I'm just not convinced yet that the damage of those bailouts will outweigh the damage of millions of people losing their jobs. |
Me wither, but shouldn't the burden of the bailout be weighted towards those who have disproportionately benefited from these companies?
In order to get Food Stamps you essentially have to wipe out your savings/assets -- your car can't be over a certain value, etc. How about making a condition of receiving Federal aid that those CEOs have to first place all of their assets over, say the $5 million "McCain line (so they'll still be "rich"), into their companies ("matching funds"), and that they earn only the Federal minimum wage they pay their gofers until the Treasury is repaid in full ... |
Yea, I agree, if these bailouts happen for the auto industry, financial sector, or anywhere else, I will be pissed as hell if there are not some strict strings attached including caps on CEO earnings etc. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, haven't bailout proposals thus far been in the form of holding equity in the companies rather than just giving them free cash? Despite how bad the auto industry is doing, they have actually been decreasing their losses over the last couple of years by slashing jobs and closing plants.
It's entirely possible that a company like Ford has positioned itself well through downsizing & R&D for the long term but just doesn't have the cash for the short term economic crisis. If they continue on the trend they've been on for the past couple of years there is good reason to believe they will be returning to profitability in the long term. GM is another story, but it's also a bigger company that will impact more people. I'm encouraged by their development of the Chevy Volt which is supposed to turn into a whole family of electric cars. It gets 45 miles on just electric and then can go 5-600 miles more via a gas powered generator. That's not a technology offered by any of its competitors. |
GM killed the electric car 10 years ago. They could have been so far out front by now, but they mothballed the EV-1 and everything they learned.
I'm a lot more excited about Honda's hydrogen and fuel cell cars which stand to be much more of a gamechanger than the Volt. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 10:11:20 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Flash:
The foriegn competition hasn't been better for many years now. In case you hadn't noticed.
It was Biden who said that one needed to be more patriotic and pay more taxes. Obama said the we shouldn't be selfish and should want to pay more taxes. Now if that is the line of the leadership that was soundly elected, then it seems apparent to me that supporting your domestic auto maker would be unselfish as well - especially in light of their outstanding quality and product selection. |
Apparently the majority of buyers haven't noticed either. Funny that. You'd think somehow that information would get out. Must be a conspiracy, or maybe it's just a free market.
Message edited by author 2008-11-11 22:11:38. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 10:13:28 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Cadillac can match nearly anything from Mercedes or BMW. |
No, they really don't, sorry
Originally posted by Flash:
Buicks are quieter than Lexus. |
Prove it. Show me the data that shows equal performance and lower cabin SPL.
Originally posted by Flash:
GM powertrains have graced Rolls Royce, Jaguar and Land Rover. |
Well, since BMW owns Rolls Royce, Jaguar is owned by Ford and Rover was also owned by Ford (BMW prior to that) and was recently sold to the Indian Tata Motors, I doubt it. Even then, just because these companies are owned by other companies doesn't mean that the owners re-invent the wheel.
Originally posted by Flash:
Saab has some of the very best turbos in existence. |
Saab, while owned by GM is a Swedish company. Buying a Saab would support Swedish auto workers and since Sweden is more socialist than you can ever imagine, you'd better not support buying a Saab.
Originally posted by Flash:
GM has over 30 models that get 30mpg or better and JD Power consistently ranks their quality with the finest in the world. From the award winning Malibu to the HHR to the Solstice Coupe/roadster to the Saturn Outlook to the Escalade Hybrid. |
I heard that ad on the radio too...I don't believe it any more than I believe that I'm gonna get the same body as that guy on the Bowflex commercial in 20 min a day.
Originally posted by Flash:
Their really is something for anyone - if one wanted to look - and with 100,000 mile warranties. You can buy anything you want, but if fellow american workers have jobs in jeopardy, jobs that use more american steel, more semi-conductors, US resources than any other industrial company, why would you not want to buy their product. Chrysler, Ford and GM employees plus the millions of jobs supported by the industry depend on your choices. The foriegn competition hasn't been better for many years now. In case you hadn't noticed. |
I noticed that the domestic brands still lag behind the Japanese.
FWIW, I drive a Ford, but it's a POS compared to similar Japanese models.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2008 10:44:20 PM · #56 |
Yet Another Satisfied Customer ...
 |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 05:17:24 AM · #57 |
I switched from Chrysler to Lexus the last time I bought a car. American to Japanese.
It will take a huge HUGE shift in the car landscape before I would ever consider going back. I've had the import for two years now... with zero problems, stellar service, free fixes to stuff not under warrantee that was not the fault of the car or dealership... it is a beautiful machine. Even touching the materials that make up the interior is a much nicer experience. And it's loaded with gadgets!
My Chrysler was a POS with numerous electrical problems, noise problems, AC problems, every last window motor died and one died twice, multiple pieces of trim fell off... replacing the battery was an expensive two hour ordeal that involved removing a tire and pulling it out the wheel well... and it drove like crap. Oh, and it was the top rated American full size sedan two years running according to J.D. Powers or whatever. Without gadgets available.
Japanese cars FTW! |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 05:42:12 AM · #58 |
What would be so bad about letting the Detroit three reorganize in bankruptcy court. While Chrysler would probably be sold off in pieces to other manufacurers (Their trucks, minivans and Jeep Brand) would be of interest to some other manufacturers), Ford and GM would survive in that scenario, albeit as smaller companies.
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy would allow them to accomplish 2 things they badly need to do.
1. Void the UAW labor contract. It no longer matters how they got here. To compete they can not offer "benefits" that their competitors (i.e. Toyota, Nissan, Honda) do not - namely Defined Benefit Pensions (competition has 401K's), Jobs Bank (Full Pay when laid off), Retiree Medical, Job Protection regardless of performance.
2. Eliminate Duplicative Brands. Domestic GM should be Chevy, Cadillac and perhaps Saturn. Ford should eliminate Mercury. Bankruptcy allows them to do this without having to pay billions to disenfranchised dealers.
These two items will allow them to redeploy resources into product development which has lagged for decades. If that bears fruit they will survive.
The doomsday scenario of the collapse of the American Auto Industry is premature. Actually a good part of it is thriving, but in places like Marysville Ohio and Georgetown Kentucky rather than Detroit. Much of the slack from the elimination of Detroit production capacity will be picked up by the other manufacturers. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 08:56:19 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by photodude:
What would be so bad about letting the Detroit three reorganize in bankruptcy court. |
I'm not sure anything would be wrong with it, except for the impact on associated support businesses. My interest is to try and understand the mindset of individuals who defend welfare abuse, defend pork barrel attachments to legislation, defend buying foriegn vehicles and giving the profits to foriegn governments, then criticize the help of an industry that supports several million americans. I simply want to understand how some square that reasoning.
After all; One in 10 American jobs depend on the auto industry, as well as the health of communities, dealers and suppliers in all 50 states. Nearly 3 million employees, retirees, and their families also depend on Chrysler, Ford and GM for their pensions and health care. Because of their economic contribution, the cost of allowing this industry to fail would be catastrophic: 3 million jobs lost within the first year; U.S. personal income reduced by $150.7 billion; a government tax loss over three years of more than $156 billion. This level of economic devastation far exceeds the $25 billion of government support that the industry needs to bridge this current period. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 09:14:42 AM · #60 |
The sad thing about your perception Flash is that you seem to suggest that failure to bail out the Big Three would guarantee their demise. What others seemingly are suggesting is that perhaps the time has come for them to face some serious restructuring and to re-organize themselves into a viable and competitive entity.
Throwing money at a problem seldom results in things being fixed, and this case is no different. Yes they should be provided assistance, but only after they have streamlined their procedures and clearly identify what should be kept and what should be disposed of.
Ray |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 09:42:23 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by photodude:
What would be so bad about letting the Detroit three reorganize in bankruptcy court. |
I'm not sure anything would be wrong with it, except for the impact on associated support businesses. My interest is to try and understand the mindset of individuals who defend welfare abuse, defend pork barrel attachments to legislation, defend buying foriegn vehicles and giving the profits to foriegn governments, then criticize the help of an industry that supports several million americans. I simply want to understand how some square that reasoning.
|
No one defends welfare abuse. Of course you, and some others, seem to think that any level of abuse justifies denial of aid to all and that anyone who recognizes that there will be some abuse defends such abuse. Pork barrel spending is so small as to be a non-issue. Buying foreign cars isn't "giving money to foreign governments", it's buying a car from a company that profits from it.
What about all the Americans who work for foreign auto companies? Like Honda in Marysville, OH or Nissan in Tennessee or Toyota in Kentucky or VW's new plant in NC?
Then of course there's the Detroit Three's plants in Mexico and Canada. Aren't those foreign countries? That's not to mention Ford's significant presence in the EU. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 10:24:38 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
The sad thing about your perception Flash is that you seem to suggest that failure to bail out the Big Three would guarantee their demise. What others seemingly are suggesting is that perhaps the time has come for them to face some serious restructuring and to re-organize themselves into a viable and competitive entity.
Throwing money at a problem seldom results in things being fixed, and this case is no different. Yes they should be provided assistance, but only after they have streamlined their procedures and clearly identify what should be kept and what should be disposed of.
Ray |
I don't recall supporting the bailout of the domestic automakers and have agreed with a couple of posts I quoted that perhaps a hard lesson would be good for them. My question is and has been a social one to those who support social programs. The employees of the domestic auto makers plus the employees of the supporting industry will pay a very high price and add to the burden of the housing market foreclosures and unemployment roles. Now from a social standpoint, I am surprised to read the stance of some who are historically social advocates, essentially thumbing their noses at the plight of several million workers. That is the illumination I am making. Thus, I am confused on what dictates social support. The emphasis from those criticizing the proposed bailout to the auto companies is focused specifically on the companies and their unworthiness or undeservedness of said help, where my emphisis is on the workers affected by the decision to with hold financial aid to those companies. Millions will be affected by the revenge against the employer. This reads earily similar to the critique made by Spazmo99 where he continuously misrepresents my welfare criticism and where he continuously defends excess pork spending as negligible. Well - if generation after generation after generation of families can be supported on welfare roles and billions of tax payer dollars can be justified for pork projects, then why are some so adamant against help for the millions of employees that will be affected if the domestic auto makers are denied financial aid. Seems odd to me. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 10:28:52 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
No one defends welfare abuse. Of course you, and some others, seem to think that any level of abuse justifies denial of aid to all and that anyone who recognizes that there will be some abuse defends such abuse. |
Please get my position straight. My complaint is and has been with multi-generational dependence on a social system - when public schools and a work ethic are effective at breaking the dependence. Lots of people depend on social support for a while but work their way off it. Some, make a living off welfare abuse and do so for generations.
ETA: in another post it was stated that even if we accepted a nominal 5-10% abuse rate then.....but here in my state we see rates as high as 30-40% with highschool graduation rates as low as 25%. That is a 75% dropout rate and those kids/young adults are going to be supported how? Off welfare. That is a 75% abuse rate in some communities. That is not a nominal 5-10%.
Apparently you are comfortable with throwing 3 million workers out into the street next year - yet you have the audacity to calim that I am the one with no heart for challenging generation after generation on welfare and excess waste of taxes on pork.
Message edited by author 2008-11-12 10:47:03. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 10:29:39 AM · #64 |
| It is weird that given the recent policies, that anyone is even blinking at $25 billion. Just add it to the tab... |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 10:45:15 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
No one defends welfare abuse. Of course you, and some others, seem to think that any level of abuse justifies denial of aid to all and that anyone who recognizes that there will be some abuse defends such abuse. |
Please get my position straight. My complaint is and has been with multi-generational dependence on a social system - when public schools and a work ethic are effective at breaking the dependence. Lots of people depend on social support for a while but work their way off it. Some, make a living off welfare abuse and do so for generations.
ETA: in another post it was stated that even if we accepted a nominal 5-10% abuse rate then.....but here in my state we see rates as high as 30-40% with highschool graduation rates as low as 25%. That is a 75% dropout rate and those kids/young adults are going to be supported how? Off welfare. That is a 75% abuse rate in some communities. That is not a nominal 5-10%. |
How does being a HS droput qualify as being a welfare abuser? |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 10:57:13 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
How does being a HS droput qualify as being a welfare abuser? |
1. I am not addressing a solitary dropout. I am adressing a system where 75% dropout.
2. What marketable skills do these 75% that dropped out of school have?
3. What jobs are available for this 75%.
4. Who is going to support this 75%?
5. What social structure did these 75% come from?
6. How many generations of family have been supported by welfare?
Yet in another thread when I suggested that children be required to stay in school and get a "C" gpa, you argued how heartless I was. When I suggested that people who lose employment not be allowed to stay on welfare for decades - you charged me with persecution of the poor. When I suggested that people receiving benefits actually perform a service for the community, you cherry picked one or two examples of disabled persons, then extrapolated my position as unfair. Yet you defend billions in pork spending as insignificant. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 11:28:47 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
How does being a HS droput qualify as being a welfare abuser? |
1. I am not addressing a solitary dropout. I am adressing a system where 75% dropout.
2. What marketable skills do these 75% that dropped out of school have?
3. What jobs are available for this 75%.
4. Who is going to support this 75%?
5. What social structure did these 75% come from?
6. How many generations of family have been supported by welfare?
Yet in another thread when I suggested that children be required to stay in school and get a "C" gpa, you argued how heartless I was. When I suggested that people who lose employment not be allowed to stay on welfare for decades - you charged me with persecution of the poor. When I suggested that people receiving benefits actually perform a service for the community, you cherry picked one or two examples of disabled persons, then extrapolated my position as unfair. Yet you defend billions in pork spending as insignificant. |
The solution is not, as you suggest, to cut people off and tell them, "too bad, no soup for you!"
It sounds like the question that needs answering is: Why are these kids dropping out?" Then it will be possible to address those issues. Your proposals are like treating the symptoms while ignoring the disease.
As a part of the entire Federal Budget, yes, pork barrel spending is insignificant. Especially compared to the rate at which the current administration has mortgaged our future. Why is helping other people so offensive to you? |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 12:11:34 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The solution is not, as you suggest, to cut people off and tell them, "too bad, no soup for you!"
It sounds like the question that needs answering is: Why are these kids dropping out?" Then it will be possible to address those issues. Your proposals are like treating the symptoms while ignoring the disease.
As a part of the entire Federal Budget, yes, pork barrel spending is insignificant. Especially compared to the rate at which the current administration has mortgaged our future. Why is helping other people so offensive to you? |
We have been down this road before. Helping is not the question. It is one of volunterism vs mandate and more specifically the generation after generation after generation that doesn't or won't rise up from its dependence. Regarding this help question, it seems to me that it is you who are bent on displacing about 3 million people next year due to a revenge against their employer. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 12:15:39 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by photodude:
2. Eliminate Duplicative Brands. Domestic GM should be Chevy, Cadillac and perhaps Saturn. Ford should eliminate Mercury. Bankruptcy allows them to do this without having to pay billions to disenfranchised dealers.
|
I would think about keeping Buick and nixing Saturn. The older population love their Buicks. I honestly think GM should have kept Oldsmobile and gotten rid of Pontiac instead.
That being said...I don't buy new cars. That's insanity to me. If I were to buy a new car, I'd want something that'd get awesome mileage and had a rep of retaining some of it's value. Can't think of an American car that really fits that bill, certainly not anything from GM. What is GM's latest contribution...the hybrid Escalade that gets a whopping 20 mpg, as a hybrid, and starting at 71 grand. And I keep thinking of Studebaker, Tucker, Nash and Hudson. Maybe it's time to allow some new automakers a chance without the threat of the big 3 putting a stop to them. That is what competition/capitalism is really about isn't it? The big 3 just aren't competitive anymore. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 12:38:24 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The solution is not, as you suggest, to cut people off and tell them, "too bad, no soup for you!"
It sounds like the question that needs answering is: Why are these kids dropping out?" Then it will be possible to address those issues. Your proposals are like treating the symptoms while ignoring the disease.
As a part of the entire Federal Budget, yes, pork barrel spending is insignificant. Especially compared to the rate at which the current administration has mortgaged our future. Why is helping other people so offensive to you? |
We have been down this road before. Helping is not the question. It is one of volunterism vs mandate and more specifically the generation after generation after generation that doesn't or won't rise up from its dependence. Regarding this help question, it seems to me that it is you who are bent on displacing about 3 million people next year due to a revenge against their employer. |
There's no revenge involved. But to suggest that I purchase an inferior product to support a corporation is laughable. I do find it entertaining that you as someone who so warmly embraces the Republican and conservative ideals agrees wholeheartedly with the notion of aiding the Detroit Three as promoted by people like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama.
You object to welfare for people who refuse to help themselves, but endorse welfare for major corporations that do the same. Does that mean you think companies are more important than your fellow human beings? |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 12:50:34 PM · #71 |
As usual, it seems that Thomas L. Friedman has captured the essence of what may needed.
Originally posted by Thomas L. Friedman:
Lastly, somebody ought to call Steve Jobs, who doesn’t need to be bribed to do innovation, and ask him if he’d like to do national service and run a car company for a year. I’d bet it wouldn’t take him much longer than that to come up with the G.M. iCar. |
|
|
|
|
11/12/2008 12:59:49 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
As usual, it seems that Thomas L. Friedman has captured the essence of what may needed.
Originally posted by Thomas L. Friedman:
Lastly, somebody ought to call Steve Jobs, who doesn’t need to be bribed to do innovation, and ask him if he’d like to do national service and run a car company for a year. I’d bet it wouldn’t take him much longer than that to come up with the G.M. iCar. |
|
You aren't going to like when it crashes. I've had some involvement in the design process for cars and the timescales are quite significantly different to those in the consumer electronics realms - decades, instead of years. It takes a lot of visionary leadership to do well, even with the writing on the wall for 3 decades. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 01:11:51 PM · #73 |
| Supposedly the only reason the Chevy Volt isn't on the market yet is because the batteries aren't "good enough" -- OK, offer a "free upgrade" to early-adopters and get what's actually an innovative product onto the market now. I presume they've already built in the airbags and seatbelts ... |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 01:26:04 PM · #74 |
How about the Tesla Roadster?
At it's current price ( ~$110K ), it's a bit too pricey for the average family, but with mass-marketing / manufacturing / distribution agreements with the Big-3, or even infusion of cash by them for Tesla, that should be able to be dropped significantly, no?. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 01:30:33 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Flash:
. Regarding this help question, it seems to me that it is you who are bent on displacing about 3 million people next year due to a revenge against their employer. |
You would seem to imply by this that without government assistance that the Big Three would fold... and that I would suggest is mere speculation on your part.
As advocated by someone else at an earlier juncture, having to go through a bankruptcy type of review, it could well be that the companies might be the better off for it in the long run.
Yes there are ramifications, but surely you can appreciate that Free Trade has probably had just as severe an impact on the prospects of jobs in the north american automotive industry as the prospect of restructuring under the current scenario.
I for one do not believe this is a "Gimme what we want or we will fold" scenario. Provide help, you bet... but only after the key players have taken a hard look at their performance measurements and have re-organized and re-structured their operations of meet current market demands.
Ray |
|
