var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
mbz32190
December 3, 2008 6:46 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

Well duh! You don't need to be an economist to see that. Who is going to buy a car (of any make, but especially American) in this kind of economy? Getting a bailout isn't going to get people to buy cars.

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
Decaye
December 4, 2008 4:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mbz32190: Congratulations on being like every other american, and not thinking further than the end of your nose. If they aren't around in a year or two when you need a car, or haven't been doing R&D for a year or two, what then?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
adamondi
December 4, 2008 6:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Decaye: What then? Then we go and buy far superior \"import\" products that are often assembled here in the US by foreign companies like Honda and Toyota that have far better track records than the US companies.

It's not like ours would be the first country to see all of its domestic car companies fail and/or be bought out by foreign companies. The UK experienced something much like this, and their economy has not collapsed.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ageekymom
December 5, 2008 3:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@adamondi: Good luck finding that import. The suppliers will be gone, shutting down Honda and Toyota.
Read more here:
[levelfieldinstitute.org]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
homebrewer302
December 4, 2008 6:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Decaye: I'll go buy one of the cars that will still be sitting there from 2008 and get an even bigger discount :) Don't act as though US automakers are the only companies that make cars... seriously now...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
darkstar
December 3, 2008 11:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mbz32190:
Duh! So they want a (huge) wad of our money to do what? Continue making crappy products?
This would just be throwing good money after bad. same as buying their shitty cars. I'm as patriotic as the next guy, but I worked hard for my money and I won't spend it on crap.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
admiral_stabbin
December 3, 2008 10:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mbz32190: People looking for a bargain. I just bought a car last Friday. It had everything to do with the economy, and nothing to do with a bailout. ;-)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sp00nix
December 3, 2008 8:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mbz32190: I wouldnt' buy an American car. I find a used Jap or Euro car can hold up longer then a new American car.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Bladefist
December 3, 2008 6:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Some people in congress are talking about using the remaining bailout money to give the middle/lower tax bracket a 2 month tax holiday. I think this idea is genius. That would give you between 30-45% of your income for 2 months, it would be 10x better then a stimulus check. I vote we do it that way (assuming we have to stick with this bailout agenda).

I vote we bail out the American people. And if the American people don't use their money for American cars, then we don't need that many American car companies. Is this not common sense?

Reply
12 replies
\"user-pic\"
papahoth
December 3, 2008 9:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Bladefist: We already pay lower taxes than the rest of the developed world and we continue to pile up debt because of it. Stop spending money on Iraq would help much more. I know, \"the tax cuts are working.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Bladefist
December 3, 2008 9:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@papahoth: $200 billion has already been allocated for a bailout. I'm just suggesting a different way to use it. The tax holiday is not in addition to using the full bailout.

Also, look at S. Koreas taxes. _LOT_ less then ours, and they have universal health insurance.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
blackmage439
December 3, 2008 7:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Bladefist: Sounds like Hillary Clinton's tax holidays for gas, which every economist with a brain shot down as ludicrous and ineffective.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HIV 2 Elway
December 3, 2008 7:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Bladefist: Wait tax holiday means income tax holiday? I've seen the weekend sales tax holidays before school starts and it really does help retail sales. Sign me up.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Bladefist
December 3, 2008 8:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HIV 2 Elway Resurrected: Yes, income tax!

@blackmage439: The economist also said the first bailout would solve our problems. You listen to the experts, I listen to common sense.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nataku8_e30
December 3, 2008 7:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Bladefist: Hrmm, this bailout has the disadvantage of directing money to the people who already have jobs / haven't recently lost their jobs. I think the only people who would increase spending as a result are those who are currently employed but are struggling. Maybe this makes up a larger percentage of the population than I think it does, but overall it won't fix consumer confidence issues, it won't lead to job creation and it won't fix credit market issues.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
i_love_life
December 4, 2008 4:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nataku83: and to think... it all started when gas started getting a little more expensive.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Ash78 ain't got time to bleed
December 3, 2008 6:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Bladefist: I read that on Boortz yesterday and it sounded like a nice idea. But I'm too much of a cynic to believe most libertarian economic policies will work in our gigantic country of undisciplined spendthrifts.


Basically, we had a wonderful concept of a nation and completely screwed it up by letting it get too big (geographically, politically, even culturally)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Traveshamockery
December 3, 2008 6:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Bladefist: Seems like a lot of people would just immediately increase their spending, and would be screwed when the tax holiday ended.

A check in the mail has the advantage of being a windfall bonus...a change in your paycheck would be misinterpreted by many dummies as a \"raise\".

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
December 3, 2008 6:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@InfiniTrent: well, i think the entire purpose of a program like that is for americans to increase spending. after all, isn't that the traditional method for getting the ball rolling again?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Traveshamockery
December 3, 2008 6:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@InfiniTrent: But I should add that I like the idea of a virtually no-administrative-cost tax rebate, which is what you described.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Bladefist
December 3, 2008 6:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@InfiniTrent: Sadly you have a point. But, at some point we have to quit thinking about the idiots. America is not a baby sitter for the intellectually challenged.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
DrGirlfriend
December 3, 2008 6:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Maybe it won't help, but if no bailout results in massive loss of jobs, then a bailout will help maintain the status quo, rather than allowing the economy to get worse due to increased unemployment?

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
trellis23
December 3, 2008 8:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DrGirlfriend:

The problem is, is that they shouldn't be threatening that 1000s of people will lose jobs. That's how they manipulate you and the rest of society. There is no reason, that anyone needs to lose their jobs, if they cut their salaries from 5 million (not an exact figure, but no doubt these people are making multi-millions compared to the 30grand the people they'll \"have\" to let go make) to 2 or 4 million, and forfeited their additional 1 million dollar bonuses. And they could stop flying private jets separately and charging the company for it. Etc. etc. etc. This isn't the 30s. No super large corporation like these have any excuse for having to lay people off.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
DrGirlfriend
December 3, 2008 8:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@trellis23: The Big # CEO's have agreed to a $1 salary for the next year, and it doesn't seem to be enough. I agree though that the threat of lost jobs could be used for manipulative purposes, but it does seem like the threat is still quite real.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ageekymom
December 5, 2008 3:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DrGirlfriend: You're right. I live in metro Detroit. The threat is real and we have been living it for a couple of years now. I have friends that are not working directly for the Big 3, but their jobs are in peril. Restaurant workers, retail, etc. will all be affected around here.
Those that say that the Big 3 and unions aren't making changes and cuts are dead wrong. Read more here:
[levelfieldinstitute.org]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Oranges w/ Cheese hates what Christmas has become
December 3, 2008 10:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DrGirlfriend: $1 salary, so what? They can still live on the millions they have socked away whilst their employees get by with the threat of losing their livelihoods.
Even if they go belly up these CEO's won't blink an eyelash whilst the rest of the country will be in mortal peril.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
DrGirlfriend
December 3, 2008 11:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Oranges w/ Cheese: I was responding to the assertion that giving up their salaries and bonuses would be enough to eliminate the need for the bailout. I don't think it is enough and that lots of jobs still hang in the balance. I agree that it shouldn't make us be worried for these CEO's or anything.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Oranges w/ Cheese hates what Christmas has become
December 3, 2008 7:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DrGirlfriend: I admit that's a terrible problem. I don't want to see people lose their jobs, I don't want to see these companies take others down with them from lack of demand -- but is it RIGHT that we suffer with their shit for 30 more years only to be faced with this same problem again down the road?

They *are not* willing to change, and they have made that obvious. We need to kill them NOW, and get it over with instead of suspending the inevitable and throwing our country into further and further decline.

They could go a long way to ditch the unions and get rid of several hundred billion dollars in overhead - right there!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
B
December 3, 2008 6:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DrGirlfriend: On the otherhand, all the layoffs will create a need for jobs at the unemployment offices.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
DrGirlfriend
December 3, 2008 7:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@B: So, glass half full for you, I see!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Traveshamockery
December 3, 2008 6:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It sucks, but we're all in this together. If these companies go belly up, so do their parts suppliers, and the ripple effect will be devastating.

If it were a strong market right now, it would be no big deal - the car demand that previously translated into Ford, Chevy, and Chrysler sales would move to other car companies. Those companies would start buying from the old Ford/Chevy/Chrysler suppliers, keeping them in business.

As it is, though, these companies would take down dozens or hundreds more with them. Very scary.

Reply
9 replies
\"user-pic\"
trellis23
December 3, 2008 8:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@InfiniTrent:

They won't go belly up if they cut frivolous expenses like private jets and vacations. And cut multi-million dollar salaries.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jim
December 4, 2008 1:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@trellis23: Jets and vacations and big salaries have been part of the operation since before I was born. That isn't what made them broke.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
trellis23
December 4, 2008 4:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jim:

It may not have made them go broke, but had they cut those things when they started losing money, then they wouldn't be where they are.

It's like losing your house, when you're still paying for $100 cable, $50 internet, mani-pedis, tanning appointments, JCrew, Wii, etc.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
IDesigner loves himself some car
December 4, 2008 12:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@trellis23: That will help long-term but the fact of the matter is GM and Chrysler won't make it past January without government assistance.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nicemarmot617
December 3, 2008 6:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@InfiniTrent: I'm opposed to a bailout for the automakers because they need to go bankrupt and reorganize and they will never do it if we don't stop bailing them out. The auto industry is screwed no matter what the next few years - nobody is going to be buying cars. (Well, I will, but I'll probably buy used anyway)

Not to mention, I don't believe for a second that they aren't going to keep outsourcing every part of themselves. They'll bleed out the jobs - just slower, over years, instead of all at once.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Traveshamockery
December 3, 2008 7:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nicemarmot617: I agree on the bankrupcty point - I think they should make BK part of their business plan under the bailout...that would let them shed the union weight and get rid of their insane glut of 6000+ dealers.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Bladefist
December 3, 2008 6:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@InfiniTrent: Oh it will ripple. But the point is, you bail them out, fine, in a year, when cars still aren't selling, you bail them out again? Or do you just take them under the Government wing as a national cost?

All the employees and suppliers will have to adapt. We'll have cars, more cars then we have now, cars cars cars, but it wont be American cars. They'll need to migrate over to the foreign industry. Which, a lot of them are starting to build their plants here. Also those cars will need to be repaired, etc.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ageekymom
December 5, 2008 3:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Bladefist: The Big 3 pay for %80 of the R&D going on in this country. Kiss that goodbye.
You want a part to fix your car (or build a new one?) Sorry, that supplier has gone out of business. Not enough police to keep you safe? Sorry but local, state and federal taxes in the amount of $60 Billion (for the 1st year) weren't paid.
We are not talking a \"ripple\" effect, we are talking a tidalwave.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Traveshamockery
December 3, 2008 7:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Bladefist: Hey, you make good points. I'm just sayin' :)

Since people are sheep, I just worry for the economy. We think we've seen freaking out before? Wait until GM fails - the stock market will drop another 2-3000 points.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Oranges w/ Cheese hates what Christmas has become
December 3, 2008 7:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@InfiniTrent: Good! It's been overinflated for years. Let it fall too and stop using rumor-mongering and speculation as a basis for our economy.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Bladefist
December 3, 2008 6:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Bladefist: And to add, new American car companies will start, that focus on efficiency, etc. Innovation, capitalism will flurish. AKA, someone somewhere has a great idea and wants to get rich. New, better, American companies will rise and take back the market.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
NefariousNewt
December 3, 2008 6:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Spock: Jim, they are dying.
Kirk: Let them die!

Sums up my feelings. If they weren't smart enough to get ahead of the curve, to take the lessons of the expansion of the foreign car market and the quality of foreign name plates to heart, then they need to die. Same goes for Wall Street. Yes, it would create economic chaos, but it would also keep us from propping up tottering, archaic institutions that we're going to have to continually bail out.

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
FunkmasterC
December 3, 2008 7:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@NefariousNewt: Very true. The American auto industry is very inefficient. Companies are releasing way more lines than they can support (I think GM has like 7 or 8?). In contrast, I believe efficient, extremely well managed, foreign companies such as Toyota have under half that. These are just poor companies that can no longer compete. A greater emphasis should be put on retraining the soon to be unemployed workers and facilitating them finding new work.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Traveshamockery
December 3, 2008 6:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@NefariousNewt: Yes, it would create economic chaos

Under your plan, what do you suggest we do about the hundreds of thousands of unemployed, and the resulting escalation of the economic crisis?

\"But we sure showed them!\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Oranges w/ Cheese hates what Christmas has become
December 3, 2008 7:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@InfiniTrent: INFRASTRUCTURE.
WE haven't invested in that in years, which is why our roads, our bridges, all that shit is falling to pieces. Get them jobs building bridges, doing labor like they were doing before. Improve our nation as you employ its masses.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
crabbyman6
December 3, 2008 7:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Oranges w/ Cheese: This is what the governors all over are saying. They're asking for something like $35 billion for projects that are already planned and ready but need funding. They estimate that for every $1 billion the federal government gives them they can create 40,000 jobs and this would be quick since these projects are just waiting for money. I bet the auto workers could quickly adapt to roadworkers and get new jobs doing this instead. I think infrastructure work, which we've pretty much neglected for 50 or so years, is the way to go here.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
crabbyman6
December 3, 2008 8:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@crabbyman6: Found the link: [www.cnn.com] they're asking for $136 billion, actually, but the jobs/$ was correct.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
hellinmyeyes
December 3, 2008 7:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Oranges w/ Cheese: I know, right? Weren't we just talking two years ago about all the deficient bridges on the brink of collapse around the nation??

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jodark
December 3, 2008 7:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Oranges w/ Cheese: BINGO. Imagine what $25Billion could buy us in terms of roads and bridges. That would create a crap ton of jobs as well.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LiquidGravity
December 3, 2008 7:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@InfiniTrent: This should have been handled the same way as in the Air Force One movie's, \"don't give in to terrorist demands\" policy. If you give in for any reason you set a bad precedent and they will take advantage of you over and over.

It is sad that the government screwed this up long ago. Now everyone wants their handout.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NefariousNewt
December 3, 2008 7:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@InfiniTrent: We find them work. I'd rather the government took the $700 billion or $3.2 trillion that is in fact just more debt, and found all these workers new jobs, or paid for them to be retrained for new sectors. Now is the perfect opportunity to stop pouring money down holes and start trying to build a new society with better, more secure jobs.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
snowburnt
December 4, 2008 5:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@NefariousNewt: I'm all for it so long as they don't increase the incompetent government bureaucracy

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Darklighter
December 3, 2008 7:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@NefariousNewt: Where is this miraculous supply of jobs you have that can take in the entire US auto industry, and all the other jobs that industry is responsible for?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NefariousNewt
December 3, 2008 8:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Darklighter: We're going to create them. In clean power generation, infrastructure repair and replacement, alternate-fueled vehicles (I imagine auto workers would be handy for those!), technological applications. Many a sector of our economy has been starved for the money and the manpower to make progress, and we're going to have both in abundance. And for many, we supply them with further education, and get them into other industries. We have a chance to seize this opportunity and create strong growth, or keep pouring money into decrepit industries and watch our economy suffer like we always do.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
m4ximusprim3
December 3, 2008 10:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@NefariousNewt: Great post. I kept getting visions of donald trump - pick yourself up by the bootstraps, leverage your strengths, and get the fuck out of debt.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Traveshamockery
December 3, 2008 6:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Oranges w/ Cheese: Spock came back though...Night of the Undead Car Companies! Blargh!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Mr.DuckSauce
December 3, 2008 6:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The American Auto industry is so bad at making cars that the CEO's didn't even drive their brand cars to the bailout hearings./Rimshot

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
trellis23
December 3, 2008 8:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mr.DuckSauce:

Nope they all came in their private jets. Separately. Couldn't even be bothered to \"jet-pool.\" And then they whine about how they need money. Riiiight.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
failurate
December 4, 2008 3:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@trellis23: GM had $170+ billion in sales in 2007. Rated amongst expenses, Jets and flights on those jets are most likely not in the top 1,000.
The jet thing is nit pickery.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
mike
December 3, 2008 6:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Bladefist: Even though you're right, you're also very wrong.


As long as people think Uncle Sam is there to give you hand outs if you are lazy, people will continue to treat it like so.


I'd like savings accounts to be exempt from taxes.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Bladefist
December 3, 2008 7:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mike: I said this above, and maybe should have pointed it out more, \"Assuming we have this bailout Agenda\"

I agree with you. I hate this bailout stuff and the government keeps growing and @$@$ things up as they go. Right now we need conservatism! :)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
milqtost
December 3, 2008 8:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Bladefist: I'm all for shrinking the government too but I don't think conservatism has anything to do with it. I know you were joking but the government got bigger under Bush than under anyone else. I seem to remember it got bigger under him than the last, I don't know, 40 some presidents combined? :P

We as a nation need to learn fiscal responsibility and damn the political affiliation.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
JohnDeere
December 3, 2008 6:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

it all boils down to bad loans. there wasnt a huge demand for cars to begin with. just a bunch of greedy corporations force feeding subprime auto loans. now they wanna cry b/c its backfiring. boohoo. want a kleenex? just use the billions and trillions of dollars for these bailouts for the people losing their jobs, i mean come on you could hire everyone of them and put them into some research and development company and probably cure aids and cancer. or put a colony on the moon.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
ageekymom
December 5, 2008 3:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JohnDeere: Hmm R&D.. oh yeah, %80 of R&D is done by the Big 3.. nice thought though!
Read more here:
[levelfieldinstitute.org]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
copious28
December 3, 2008 7:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JohnDeere: Except that most of them work the line and dont have any more than a high school education. They are going to be hard pressed to find another job paying anything close to what they make now.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Pyrusticia
December 4, 2008 8:44 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@copious28: True. Because they're vastly overpaid now.


Let them put themselves through college and then start looking in the same salary range. Or else they can keep their current education, and get a job paying significantly less. Their option.


Or they can join the Army, and earn regular pay increases as they work up through the ranks. Heck, many specialities are offering signing bonuses equivalent to a year's salary for a high school grad in a minimum-wage position. Personally, I have a hard time feeling a lot of sympathy for any able-bodied person who complains that they can't find a job, when the military is so consistently undermanned.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Darascon
December 3, 2008 7:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Let them die. Throwing money at a failing industy is not going to solve anything. The overhead to produce is out of control and the quality is not there to justify the price. The industry needs to crash so that it can be rebuilt from the ground up, without UAW. There's equal pay laws etc on the books, what do we need the unions for anyway? maybe universal health care would help overhead for employee benefits and such.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
the_wiggle
December 17, 2008 3:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Darascon: equal pay laws? i scoff. enforcement is lax to say the least.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nataku8_e30
December 3, 2008 7:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Darascon: Get rid of the UAW part and I would have sworn you were talking about the finance industry 3 months ago...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Darascon
December 3, 2008 7:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nataku83: I had the same feeling then as I do now. Giving money to greedy SoB's who run shit into the ground providing services that are way overpriced is no answer. banks, Housing, Auto... what's next Agricuture? PC's? Telcos? Fast food? When will it end?

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Burgandy
December 3, 2008 7:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm torn. Many of our customers are auto dealers, and their business is slowing daily. In principle, I am a financial darwinist, but if they go under, I may be looking for a new job too.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
m4ximusprim3
December 3, 2008 7:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Burgandy: No offense, but you're screwed whether or not they get bailed out. You might get screwed later instead of sooner, but there are 3x as many gm and ford dealerships as need be, and this will be adjusted, bailout or not.

Time to get creative!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
2719
December 3, 2008 7:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If the US auto industry fails and I hope it will I won't be shedding any tears. I never liked US cars and I always hated 'patriotic Americans' driving around in huge gas guzzlers and talking crap about far superior foreign cars. They have been quiet lately ;)

I just love it!

Reply
11 replies
\"user-pic\"
the0
December 4, 2008 3:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@2719: Giving the Big 3 more money, doesnt mean that anyone has money to buy a car right now anyway. Retool Detroit to make trains.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
IDesigner loves himself some car
December 4, 2008 12:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@2719: First goes the automakers, then the dealers, then the supply companies... with supply companies going under the other automakers will run out of parts to build their cars and have to shift to whatever suppliers may remain or they will go under also... frankly it could quite possible lead to the next great depression. Is your \"patriotic american\" self looking forward to that?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NitrousO
December 3, 2008 8:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@2719: They have misplaced patriotism then. A patriot would believe in the power of the free market (which has made America the super power it is) and buy whatever was the most competitive product. In this case the Big 3 just aren't as competitive.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
BrianDaBrain
December 3, 2008 7:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@2719: I agree with Bladefist that this probably isn't the best reason to oppose the bailout, but I wanted to point out that my more of my Honda was made/assembled in the United States than any \"American\" vehicle on any Big 3 lot right now. That actually factored into my decision to buy it. Almost 80% of my car was made and assembled here in the US. When I was shopping the big 3, their cars were only 50%, give or take, American built.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Oranges w/ Cheese hates what Christmas has become
December 3, 2008 7:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@2719: Its the whole American attitude that got us into this mess. Bigger cars, bigger spending, bigger houses, more more more.

If people SAVED and lived within their means instead of spending every single penny they have and then running up the credit cards to boot, we wouldn't be here.

But.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GuinevereRucker
December 3, 2008 11:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Oranges w/ Cheese: I agree with you, and am putting all our extra money into our mortgage since i have no other debt.

However, there's this movie I saw recently from a link on this site called \"Money as Debt\" and, if true, it means that our economy is dependent upon people being in debt all the time to stay afloat. It was quite shocking (but I'm still getting out of debt asap).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jodark
December 3, 2008 7:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Oranges w/ Cheese: We are seeing the fallout of a spend spend spend economy now. People are finally realizing they can't live outside their means, so they aren't spending as much and the economy is slowing down because it relied on that attitude.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
weakdome
December 3, 2008 7:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@2719: yes... although spite is not the right reason to make any decision, it would at least make me feel good if they went under :)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Bladefist
December 3, 2008 7:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@2719: This is the exact attitude we don't need.

There are many reasons not to support this bailout, but yours is the worst.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NitrousO
December 3, 2008 8:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Bladefist: @Shamoononon has hebetudinous dog ★★★★★: You must be an outlier then. My parents Fords both took a dive within 5 years.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
BrianDaBrain
December 3, 2008 7:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

In order for the auto industry, specifically the Big 3, to recover, people need to start buying cars. People aren't buying cars right now because the economy sucks balls. Loaning money to the Big 3 won't do anything to change that. They'll burn through their $34B doing pretty much what they're doing right now (perhaps short a few brands), and then they'll come back to grovel for some more.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
snowburnt
December 4, 2008 5:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@BrianDaBrain: Not only that but no one has faith in the big 3's cars anymore. Unless you're buying a BIG car, truck, or SUV, you're going to look foreign first.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 3, 2008 7:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Be careful what you wish for, those of you who think it will be no big deal for ALL of us, in all areas of this country, and no big deal for the economy. You think it's bad now? If even one car company fails, OR has to go into bankruptcy, I think there's an excellent chance it could ripple, or even cascade, into a severe recession or depression. We are talking about more than just the car companies. Every part of this country is already seeing the effects from their problems. It is starting to have dramatic effects on the tax bases of cities, counties, states. And do you really think further degradation of our American manufacturing base is a GOOD thing? I sure don't. You think they and the unions have been fat and happy? They've been working and planning for downsizing and concessions since 2000. Their quality HAS improved, and there is good product in the pipeline. But they have hit the perfect storm, of a bad economy, gas prices, government regulation, etc. Just let the foreign car companies take over, take the jobs? The southern states have already given the foreign companies MILLIONS in tax rebates and escapements, to build their plants, and that continues. And how long would it take for those supposed 'others' to pick up the slack? Are you sure our economy can take that blow. Read www.autoextremist.com and see beyond the crap that they keep throwing out in the media and congressional hearings. He's got some good info on his site.

Reply
1 replies
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
gafpromise
December 3, 2008 7:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm guessing CNN didn't actually poll anyone in Detroit. I think a bailout is a bad idea too but if the big 3 go under, there will be some pain and it's foolish to just write that off.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
CumaeanSibyl
December 3, 2008 8:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gafpromise: Speaking from Michigan, the general consensus here is HEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLP.

Even those of us who resent the Big Three for fucking up repeatedly, and fucking us over in the process, are scared shitless at the idea of them disappearing completely. Unlike the CEOs, we'd pretty much go along with anything anybody wanted. Fire everybody! Blow up the unions! Destroy all the brands you want! Just for the love of God, help us!

Personally, I'm in favor of Chapter 11 for the reorganization and bailout money from the government. They can reorganize all they want, but they still need an infusion of capital to get anywhere beyond that.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
snowburnt
December 4, 2008 5:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@CumaeanSibyl: It'll be like when the steel industry collapsed...there'll be lions fans everywhere! Wait, are there any lions fans right now?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ageekymom
December 5, 2008 4:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@snowburnt: Unbelievably, yes, there are still Lions fans. I'm not one of them.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Shamoononon: I shave my legs.
December 3, 2008 7:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm buying a Ford, to replace the Ford that I've been driving for the last 15 years and is still in perfect running condition.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
failurate
December 4, 2008 4:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shamoononon has hebetudinous dog ★★★★★: That's very good. Hopefully your luck continues. Maybe your good fortune will inspire someone else to take the same gamble and maybe it will pay off for them too.
Me, I like the sure things.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
minsky
December 3, 2008 7:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This entire auto industry bailout is a bunch of fucking crap. They are claiming that the sky is falling if they don't get their money, just like the financial institutions did before they got theirs.


Whatever 'plan' the big moronic three come up with and present to Congress will be changed and modified once they get their money and once again, the taxpayer, will be completely screwed.


Let these overbloated, mis-managed, no foresight companies go bankrupt and pay the price for their own stupid mistakes. Oh, but I guess we don't do that here anymore in America, we bailout any company because it seems they're all 'too big to fail.'


BOHICA!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
MeOhMy
December 3, 2008 7:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Why can't they just do a Chapter 11? If they are worried about the American Public losing faith in the products...well...hello and welcome to the 1980s.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Geekybiker
December 3, 2008 7:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

They need to let them fail so they can finally shed the abusing contracts of the UAW. Once they've voided that then maybe there is something worth saving. Right now it'll be throwing money down a rathole.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
wgrune
December 3, 2008 7:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Geekybiker:


Amen. The UAW killed the American Car. Let the Three file chapter 11 and start over with people who are paid a fair wage for the work they are performing.


Oh and to all those who are saying the auto industry doesnt directly affect them, think again. As many as 1 in 10 jobs could dissappear if The Big Three ceased to exist. That means our unemployment rate would approach the levels seen in the great depression

Reply
\"user-pic\"
insideedge
December 4, 2008 6:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wgrune: Let me get this straight, you blame the UAW for the downfall because of their high union wages. Then you get upset because they will no longer be spending their union wages to keep your economy going. Good paying jobs do not hurt economies, they keep them going. People with money in their pockets tend to spend it, and they spend it where they live. Not in foreign markets.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
kwsventures
December 3, 2008 7:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Chapter 11 BK would be the best thing for these companies. They would get leaner, reorganize and come out of it much better off. Avoiding BK is an error from the \"nobody can fail\" crew in congress. Recessions clean out the economy. Get rid of the losers companies and the strong hands pick up the remains. Do we really want to be 1990s Japan? The lost decade in Japan? The \"zombie companies\" that the Japanese used taxpayer money to keep barely alive? In 1990 the Japanese stock market hit 39,000. After the Japanese bailout madness, 18 years later, the stock market is under 8,000.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 3, 2008 7:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.- Will Rogers

If you are going to throw money away, please be so kind as to throw it MY way. The Big 3 in the U.S. auto industry need dramatic restructuring and the best way to do that is through the bankruptcy courts.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
kepler11
December 3, 2008 7:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The concept of economic health in this country is grounded in only the few numbers that measure GDP, output, imports/exports, etc -- regardless of whether the industries behind those numbers have any worth or not. So you have people trying to justify a bailout by saying that it'll bring our sales numbers back up and get economic activity back to its previous levels. Government's philosophy now is, \"regardless of what economic activity people chose to engage in, we'll clean up the mess when it fails. We just want our sales figures to look good, who cares what it is.\"

But let me suggest that perhaps government in particular, should have a more forward-looking view, and make some real judgments about what is worth stimulating, as un-democratic as that may sound. Just because Detroit decided to make it's fortunes on cars, need not mean that we all have to panic and rush to save them when they fail -- and as many have stated, failed repeatedly with a poor product and high costs. Do we need to have our economic output brought back to previous levels, when you wouldn't choose to start those businesses today, given the choice?

Instead, I say let government put the money they might've sent towards a bailout, towards programs that set these workers up for something in the future -- especially things like free or discounted education, that will pay us back later. It will be cheap in comparison, and in the long run especially. Billions of dollars to the carmakers now are a single flush down the toilet -- like a silly tax incentive check that people spend on what, a DVD player? A few DVD players or cars are going to stimulate the economy? How about free education instead?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
the_wiggle
December 17, 2008 3:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kepler11: best idea seen yet.

fwiw i'd be happy with 1/2 price education. . . .

Reply
\"user-pic\"
BluePlastic
December 3, 2008 11:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kepler11: Yes, free education! I want to go back to school and get outta my crap job that I'm afraid will fail soon anyway.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Ssscorpion
December 3, 2008 7:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The auto industry's problems are (1) bad management and (2) overly expensive labor. How would the bailout solve either of those problems? A bailout would just postpone Judgment Day.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Shamoononon: I shave my legs.
December 3, 2008 8:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Ssscorpion: \"overly expensive labor\"

So, do you propose then we bring the auto industry to China and support child labor?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
leb0wski
December 3, 2008 11:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shamoononon has hebetudinous dog ★★★★★: No, how about just trash the union contracts that call for tons of stupid crap like placing workers on \"lay off\" status where they don't have to work, but still paying them 90% of their normal salary. It's stupid crap like that that's dragging these companies down.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
admiral_stabbin
December 3, 2008 10:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shamoononon has hebetudinous dog ★★★★★: Actually, the common practice has been to bring the auto industry to America and Mexico. The American car companies have been having their cars built in Mexico, and the Euro/Asian companies have come to America. Pretty weird stuff, huh?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 3, 2008 8:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

OK, let's be honest here. We all hate it but congress is going to give them the bailout no matter what the public thinks. Why? Because big banks and big auto companies get bailed out. period. Average guys who struggle to make ends meet get no help. period. Our tax money belongs to the rich. It sucks but there isn't anything we can do about it.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
AskCars
December 3, 2008 8:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Most comments here are the type of folks who have no ties whatsover to the industry thinking that they'll see no impact from the three going down which is not true. If you work in the retail, media, manufacturing, healthcare, investment and other industries you will be hurting if these three companies, their dealers and their suppliers go bankrupt.

Also what is being completely overlooked is that Nissan saw a worse sales drop than GM. Toyota, Kia and Hyundai Worse than Ford. The difference is they get govt support from their govts.

The other misthinking is that all three need to be bailed out. Instead of giving Chrysler (the weakest of the three) $7 billion, they should give some of that money to suppliers to keep them afloat as they downsize from losing Chrysler business.

Chrysler's products are the weakest. Their plan was the thinnest and their future looks bleak. GM has a fighting chance of coming out of this as a very healthy company and their plan was pretty well thought out.

Ford says it can make it on its own unless the economy gets even worse, which it easily could.

Everyone needs to open up their narrow field of vision on this topic.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
trellis23
December 3, 2008 8:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rabbi Dave:

The point is, is that if they managed their companies properly, they wouldn't go under. There's no excuse for the frivolous expenses or the exorbitant salaries, if they are having such problems. The problems didn't just appear, and I've seen no sign that they have done anything to slow the problems as they were coming. I mean they all flew separately to DC in private jets. Give me a break. Sorry if people get laid off without a bailout, but that is the corporations decision and fault if they do. Not the lack of a bail out.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AskCars
December 3, 2008 8:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@trellis23: I totally agree on the CEO excesses etc. But why would you put down three major companies because of the mistakes of management in these areas? Especially when the govt. can say \"you're fired\" to certain executives with oversight etc?

Ford and GM have been scaling back dealers, employees and costs in huge amounts for the past decade.

Does everyone forget the huge concessions in the 2007 UAW agreements?! They just haven't gone into effect yet.

There has been plenty of change going on, but most of it not fast enough to escape how quickly the economy tanked the past three months.

What I don't understand is the raking going on over the loans for the Detroit 3 and nothing even close for the bankers who took 300 billion and counting with no oversight, no cut in salary etc.

AIG is at $120 billion and counting! this is a drop in the bucket to save hundreds of thousands of blue collar jobs, not wall street jobs.

And I can't wait til everyone decrying the detroit 3 gets to see the window stickers of the next generation of imports without the generally more affordable domestic competition around.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Frank the Tank
December 3, 2008 10:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rabbi Dave: I'll be the first person that cannot stand the thought of a strong hand of governmental intervention in the free markets. However, there are a number of key differences between the banking industry and the auto industry. Whether it was right or not, there were millions of transactions between all of the banks that were intertwined, such that the failure of one bank would put the otherwise healthy (or at least stable) banks on the side of the failing bank's transactions into jeopardy. Indeed, if the government could change one thing over the past couple of months, it wouldn't have let Lehman Brothers die because this is exactly what happened.

Regardless, our entire economy, whether we're talking about individuals with their credit cards and mortgages or businesses both small and huge with credit lines and loans, is fueled by the free flow of credit that largely is supported by those handful of banks. The failure of those banks wouldn't simply resulted in tons of layoffs to their own and peripheral suppliers (which is the main reasoning advanced by many of the supporters of an auto industry bailout), but also a complete freezing of our credit markets for people and companies both big and small. As bad as the economy might be now, it would be completely dead in the water with no chance for recovery without access to credit.

It might not be \"fair\", but after a lot of initial reservations about the bank bailout, I have come around to understanding the reasoning why the banks were deemed \"too big to fail\" and how it really is a different situation than the current automaker bailout proposal. That's why it's a complete misnomer for people to suggest that somehow \"Main Street\" is separate from \"Wall Street\". When it comes to everyday finances, Main Street is absolutely tied to Wall Street (and that's simply not the case with respect to the automakers).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AskCars
December 4, 2008 4:28 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Frank the Tank: But wouldn't a million (the smallest number of employees 250K of direct employees of Big 3, 700K+ of dealers) jobs lost in already fragile areas be too many to lose? Too big an impact on an already battered recession/economy? The shock to consumer confidence would be huge.

Could it be the catalyst to a real great depression?

I think those are big questions that may be as big as any bank failing. What about 1 million more homes foreclosed on? etc etc.

And many think the number of jobs is closer to 3 million with the suppliers.

If GM and Chrysler could run out of money by Jan and go bankrupt with the supplier disruption definitely hitting Ford, well we'll know soon enough.

If anyone's interested my idea is this:
Let Chrysler go. It's the smallest company with the least employees and worst position in the market. The govt could spend the billions in bailout money for Chrysler on their suppliers to keep them afloat and not impact the other two.

That would shrink the bloat along with the other two's restructuring plans.

The group think that they all have to survive or die is stupid and small.

When your buddies at ad agencies in NYC and at TV studios lose their jobs because there is no more ad revenue or your loser cousin loses his job as a car jockey at the local dealership, you'll see the larger impact of the big 3 going down the tubes.

BTW the German government is already in talks to save BMW and Mercedes which will be in similar positions to GM soon. This has less to do with mismanagement than it does with the economy, again, caused by Wall Street, not Detroit.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
concordia
December 3, 2008 10:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rabbi Dave:

>AIG is at $120 billion and counting!
>hundreds of thousands of blue collar jobs
>not wall street jobs

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NefariousNewt
December 3, 2008 8:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rabbi Dave: Of course there will be an impact. It will be horrible. Hundreds of thousands unemployed. Soup kitchens. Even more foreclosures. But we have the ability to right the ship if we take the resources and apply them to industries and areas that will show true growth, rather than squandering the money bailing out the fat cats because they were too stupid to see the writing on the wall. We have a unique opportunity to start fresh -- let's seize it!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
cubejockey
December 3, 2008 8:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It will destroy the Midwest with the exception of the \"transplants\". Ohio and Michigan will lose congressional seats big time.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Oranges w/ Cheese hates what Christmas has become
December 3, 2008 8:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@crabbyman6: Seriously. How'd they find jobs for all the suddenly unemployed factory workers after WWII?? THEY BUILT THE INTERSTATES!

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Brazell
December 3, 2008 8:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This poll is intentionally inaccurate and misinformative. There is not a relationship between \"needing the US Auto industry\" and bailing them out. If we bail them out or not, it is still entirely likely that they will have to declare bankruptcy in two years time anyway. They CONTINUE to loose money on every sale that they make, and so whether they're loosing their money or loosing our money, bankruptcy and a massive drop in their ludicrous pension and worker treatment policies is the only \"solution\" for them.

\"Do you need the US auto industry.\" Hello? YOU'RE paying for them; skip the middle man (the US government, the automakers, the massive bureaucracy in between) and pay yourself your own money.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
technopimp
December 4, 2008 4:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MichaelBrazell:
Except for the fact that if the automakers go under, I lose my job, therefore I have no money to pay anyone.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Brazell
December 3, 2008 8:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

As for CNN/Opinion poll, it goes without saying: it's about time the big US automakers go bankrupt. Subsidizing the US auto industry, and having the federal government functionally employ every union worker is not the solution to 50-years of broken corporate policies and ineffective ceo's who weren't able to manage Unionization.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
hustler
December 3, 2008 8:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Where is the vAPR student loan bail out? Oh wait, we're educated and know how to manage money.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
everfade
December 3, 2008 10:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hustler: Yea, just like the educated individuals running the big 3.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
BusyBusyBusyBusySleep
December 3, 2008 9:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"but a majority of Americans polled thought that bailing out the automakers wouldn't help the economy.\"

Does this majority of Americans know anything about economics? I sure as hell don't. Maybe I wasn't polled because I don't know anything about it, but there are so many forces at work in any economy, that I don't think any Joe (Sixpack/the Plumber/Lampshade) could 100% say, with certainty, that they were confident that bailing out Detroit would not help the economy.

Note: I'm not sure if I'm for or against it, but I simply can't believe that every last person sitting near their phones at 6:17pm has a much better idea of how supply/demand, GDP, market failure, inflation, and international trade all work.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
AskCars
December 3, 2008 9:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@BusyBusyBusyBusySleep: Amen. Yet these same people all call-in to radio stations with absolute knowledge of how bad american cars are and why these companies should all go out of business.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
BusyBusyBusyBusySleep
December 3, 2008 9:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rabbi Dave: Generally because they knew a guy who had this girlfriend whose father got a flat in his Chevy. For shame, Detroit.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
howtragic
December 3, 2008 9:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@BusyBusyBusyBusySleep:

I sort of agree with you, but you gotta understand, the \"experts\" couldn't tell you if this would help the economy either. So nobody really knows. It's all supposition based upon a lot of \"what ifs\".

Also, if you don't think that Americans have every right to question the ability of the people at the top to make good financial decisions, then you're been living under a rock for the past five years.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
BusyBusyBusyBusySleep
December 4, 2008 2:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@howtragic: I see what you're saying, in that no-one really knows...I've been learning this from my friends in finance since they started their jobs. It scares the hell out of me.

However, the question really was \"Will (action A) result in (outcome B)?\", something that economists are much more qualified to answer. If CNN asked a question about whether brain surgery or chemo were the better option for someone with a brain tumor, I don't think I'd put a hell of a lot of stock into that poll either. (Yes, it's a bit of a strawman argument, but hear me out - both situations involve a lot of specialized education and knowledge (that the random public doesn't necessarily have), and both are heavily influenced by non-educational sources (e.g. CNN, Forbes...House MD, ER, etc.))

To ask an office worker whether the Freescale 68HC08 or the Zilog Z8 were better to use is another good comparison. Someone lacking core knowledge in that area might make an uneducated guess, but that's all it is - uneducated.

Questioning the motivations and the thinking behind economic decisions, now that's another thing. That's where finding conspiracy theories, kickbacks, and past performance is something that the masses CAN do without education. But again, this is a different beast from asking people to weigh in on the long-term economic effects of a decision.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
m4ximusprim3
December 3, 2008 11:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@howtragic: Agreed. While I don't believe the automakers failing will be good for the country (at least in the short term), I firmly believe that if the last 2 years have taught us anything, it's that our \"representative government\" needs to fucking represent us.

Letting the economists and bankers run the show only results in rich economists and bankers. If our country is going to fail, it should fail because the populace made the bad decision, not offloaded it onto \"experts\".

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
explosivo2k2
December 3, 2008 9:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

A bailout of the Big 3 probably wouldn't help the overall economy much, but it would help Michigan's economy immensely. Nearly everyone in Michigan works at/has retired from/knows someone who has worked at the Big 3. There are countless industries that count on the incomes of the workers of the Big 3, not to mention all of the suppliers of the Big 3.

As a resident of Michigan it has been frustrating to look at these national polls and see that most people don't know about/don't care about the plight of my state.

I understand the auto industry is dinosauric in many ways and changes need to be made. But we can't just let one or more of them fail and put countless people's livelihoods in jeopardy.

Also, why didn't Congress ask for a plan before shelling out $80+ billion to AIG first?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Oranges w/ Cheese hates what Christmas has become
December 3, 2008 10:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@explosivo2k2: How about we ensure these people have adequate replacement jobs in infrastructure and other projects, let the awful companies die and solve everyone's problems. No more industry leeching your state dry with the threat of possibly cutting jobs!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
howtragic
December 3, 2008 9:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@explosivo2k2:

If it only affects Michigan, then shouldn't Michigan bail them out?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
copious28
December 3, 2008 9:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Another thing that you all are missing is that the pensions and health care costs tied to each car manufacturer would, in bankruptcy, fall to the taxpayer. I am curious what that would amount to in dollars, but either way, the taxpayer is paying something.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
copious28
December 4, 2008 2:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@copious28: I found this nugget:
[www.iht.com]

This says their pension is funded, but the health care is not. Health care would not be backed by the government. This ties in with what the UAW was giving up in concessions.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AskCars
December 3, 2008 9:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@copious28: The figure I have heard is that GM's pensions alone will crush the govt's emergency pension fund and basically wipe it out.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
papahoth
December 3, 2008 9:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Americans like simple answers to complex problems. I certainly don't know the answer, but I do know that we need to consider the impact on capacity to produce military vehicles in case we ever get into a large war. We currently build a submarine at Electric Boat that we don't need for this very reason. If we want Pax Americana, then there are burdens to bear.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Oranges w/ Cheese hates what Christmas has become
December 3, 2008 10:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@papahoth: Yeah, they don't do that anymore. There are seperate manufacturing companies because of the classified and highly techincal nature of war machines these days.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AskCars
December 3, 2008 9:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@papahoth: Today's military will never need the excess manufacturing of an auto industry. I believe the Pentagon has wiped away this idea, which was accurate back in WWII obviously when the automakers did build war machines

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Bakkster_Man
December 3, 2008 9:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Living in Michigan, I'm sure my perspective is slightly different. I have three friends who work directly for the auto industry, designing parts.

On the one hand, if the auto industry goes down, the entire state's economy is hosed,even more so than already. Sure, other things are going on, but the auto industry is still our lifeblood.

On the other hand, the American auto industry is being strangled from every direction. Nobody is buying cars, the CEOs and marketers keep pushing for shitty cars to be made, UAW makes its living off of taking advantage of the big 3, and the foreign auto companies take advantage of American designers and steal their designs while producing the parts overseas.

There's no doubt the industry is screwed, it's just a question of whether they can survive, or if we just need to accept that our industry is going to crash no matter what and we're already hosed.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
m4ximusprim3
December 3, 2008 11:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Bakkster_Man: I don't even think it's a question at this point - hosed.

Let's move on to a battle we can win.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 3, 2008 9:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Why not do something directly related to Americans. 1) Force these banks getting my tax dollars to bring jobs back to America.2) Force these banks to convert Credit card debt to a fixed, simple interest loan.3)Don't bail out those home purchasers who are in homes more expensive than they can afford, There are plenty of less expensive homes available.Just my $.02, but Mr. Obama, if you need a strategist, I am available for a pittance compared to most.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 3, 2008 9:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

First off. I'm not saying we need to bailout the big 3, but it would be very wise.

First off- We gave banks billions.. no questions asked.
2nd- the UAW has decided to reopen contract talks to take less money.
3rd- 2 of the 3 car-makers need loans... 1 just wants to know that it has money in case of worse economy.

Now. Lets look at this from someone living in Michigan. Has anyone seen that stupid Michael Moore film about Flint? How bad it became when the Big 3 left? Imagine that for more then 1 city.

People that will lose jobs
Big 3 Execs! oh yay....
Big 3 workers.. thousands...
Suppliers.. Jap and euro cars aren't selling and why would a new company start in this market?
Car salesmen. Like i said, cars aren't selling.
Truck Drivers- People that transport the cars and the parts.

Now that all these people have lost their jobs... they will spend less...

Malls will hurt, stores will hurt.
McDonald's will flourish.
Stores will lay off the people they dont need. More jobs gone.

So now that all these people have lost their jobs....

OMG . they have mortgages too??!
Now we need to give more bank bailouts....
Credit cards in default. Mortgages.

Lets see... Let them fail... Everyone will hurt and it will cause more bailouts....

Personally, I'd love to see what happens. Let society pick its fights and I'll sit back and watch.

Oh yea... private airplanes compared to resort stays... and oh yea, the resorts were after the bailout... not b4

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
explosivo2k2
December 3, 2008 9:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@howtragic:

Michigan doesn't have enough money to bail them out. If one of the Big 3 failed, it wouldn't only affect Michigan. It could affect the entire country, there are plants all over. But the highest concentration is in Michigan.

I just don't want to see them fail if it can be avoided. As long as they make changes (fuel efficiency, more tightly focused brands, etc), we can still support 3 major domestic auto companies.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
MooseOfReason
December 3, 2008 10:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Smell ya ater, GM.

Reply
1 replies
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
bradym80
December 3, 2008 10:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Maybe they should ask the gas companies for a loan.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
ephdel
December 3, 2008 11:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It may not 'fix' the economy, but it will help prevent things from getting worse while other sectors are able to recover and become profitable again.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
ephdel
December 3, 2008 11:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

not to mention, on average there are 4 or 5 jobs tied to every auto maker job, in various parts of the economy in various parts of the country. if GM or Ford goes down, so do a lot more jobs and companies tied to them directly or indirectly.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
CyberSkull
December 3, 2008 11:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hell, I don't think my immediate family has driven an American made car for at least a decade. American auto makers have known for decades that what the public wants is a good car with great gas mileage. Why do you think Japanese cars sell so well?

It's their own damn fault that they are in this position.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
CyberSkull
December 3, 2008 11:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@CyberSkull: I do concede, however, that if they fail there will be a negative impact on the economy. However, this would create an opening for a new American auto manufacturer. If (when?) they fail, it would be a good time to pick up their assets (factories, workers (but not management), etc) and start a new car company.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon.
December 4, 2008 12:58 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

If the government wants to bail out the auto industry, it should skip the middleman and just buy every taxpayer a new car or truck. Everybody wins! I'd consider driving an American car if it were free. Besides, think of how that would energize the auto-repair industry.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
copious28
December 4, 2008 2:54 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@☠Gяяяяяяя! I want to sing the doom song now!: OMG! That is hilarious! It would work! It would keep the auto industry making cars and give the American taxpayer the ability to not have a car payment! We would all win!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon.
December 4, 2008 4:23 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@copious28: What could be a better economic stimulus than eliminating everyone's car payments?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
oneliketadow
December 4, 2008 1:41 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

A more accurate headline would be \"US-based auto industry\". My current car and previous car were not made by any of these clown companies.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
johnnya2
December 4, 2008 2:46 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

OK you people haveno clue about the intertwined nature of industries that have been allowed to become oligopolies. IF say GM goes under, many parts suppliers will go under. This means less competition and not enough parts for the remaining auto companies. Then Toyota is forced to either import products or purchase from more expensive company. This leads to higher priced cars which means fewer sales, which leads to company number two closing up shop and so on until we have one car company and no price differential. People forget other governments use thier resources to develop new technologies for the good of their industries (Toyota didn't make Hybrids alone, the Japanese govt helped fund this project) EVERY other industrialized nation has single payer universal health care, which means they dont have the large insurance portion of employing people.
If I were runnign for governor of Michigan, I would propose offering universal single payer health care to all who live or work in the state. Most companies would see the competitive advantage and start relocating there.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
wiley14
December 4, 2008 5:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

All you folks that say \"let them fail\" and drive foreign cars ARE part of the problem. Rather than support Americans who work in the factories and spend their money in America, you'd rather buy an import and send the money overseas, where it leaves our economy for good.


Did you know that the foreign car companies get tax breaks from the government, while the domestic companies do not? Did you know that alot of the Japanese car companies are also funded in part by the Japanese government? Did you realize that that the foreign manufacturers get other special concessions in the US? It has never been a level playing field for the US manufacturers.


BTW, if this does happen and the ripple effect takes out the part suppliers - are you going to buy out my two American made sedans when I can no longer get parts for them? Why, that's only fair - right?


You guys say build more highways - for what? When a large majority of the cars on the road will essentially become obsolete, what difference will it make?


No, let millions of people lose their job because you have some beef with some stupid management decisions - but bail out banks and insurance companies who allowed unqualified people buy a house and then default on their mortgage.


Yeah, makes perfect sense...

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
neon.fever
December 4, 2008 4:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wiley14: For the record, I think a lot of people here and certainly most people I know were opposed to the $700 billion bailout package, the purchase of AIG, and now the proposed automaker bailout.

I don't have a \"beef\" with just the management decisions, I have a serious problem with the Big 3 either refusing or being unable to produce quality vehicles with good gas mileage, which is what Americans want, need, and ask for. When they came to Washington in private jets with tin cups in hand, they had no real plan to accomplish this goal. WHY should we prop them up when they're failing because of their own choices?

If a bailout is planned, we better see some incredible plans lined up by the Big 3 to get their shit together. So far? I'm not convinced.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 4, 2008 7:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well, first, if I remember rightly, about 85% of the country was against the original 700b bailout – they did it anyway.

In our totalitarian democracy, we get the illusion of freedom through rare votes while they do whatever they want. They have represented us less and less over the years, and since 1988 have not represented us at all – they're even starting to fail the special interests in their race to do whatever asinine plot comes into their heads.

They say that if the auto makers fail, it will cause a huge surge in unemployment and dish out a number, usually of 1,000,000. There are 300 million people in our country, 1 million jobs is 0.33% – unemployment is sailing up about 0.25% a week and they are worried about 8 days worth of lost jobs more? When the unemployment plateaus back out, we'll probably be around 16% – 16.33% is not a big enough deal to warrant the plot and waste of money.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Blue387
December 4, 2008 8:47 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Save Ford, let GM and Chrysler go into Chapter 11.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ArmyCats
December 4, 2008 12:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

They want bailout so they can sell us more overpriced cars? I'll agree to the bailout if I get a free car within the next 3 years!

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
ScottCh
December 4, 2008 3:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The way the text of this article and the poll are worded shows a considerable level of bias. It essentially implies that you'd have to be stupid to vote to save our auto industry.

While I agree that our auto industry has been greedily managed and pushing all the wrong things: huge, incredibly wasteful vehicles; ridiculous amounts of speed, which inevitably leads to accidents on our overcrowded municipal highways... I still think that there is merit to not sending our nation's auto industry down the drain.

When you look at how auto manufacturers in Japan, Taiwan, and Europe operate, you can see that they are all substantially subsidized by their national governments. Those countries aren't stupid; in fact, they've been showing a lot more sense than ours has for the last several years. Why should the USA have the only auto industry that is allowed to die by its own sword? If the likes of Fiat and Kia are subsidized by their own nations, then the playing field isn't level.

Note that this is not a vote for a free ride. If the US Auto Makers want taxpayer money, then they need to answer to the taxpayers. If we are to be the major stakeholders, then the industry needs to serve us, not their CEOs and board members. Fire most of them, and make them produce cars that don't kill 40,000 people every year outright plus tens of thousands more through wasteful use of resources and emissions.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
l3lueSunScar
December 4, 2008 4:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I see no gain in bailing out the big 3. As others have said, if you bail them out, how long before they need it again? I don't see the gerneral public running out to buy cars right now. Why should the rest of the country be expected to keep these companies alive after they ran themselves into the ground? I have to agree with others, I think the best bet is to let these dinosaurs die and let newer companies with fresh ideas come in.


As for the argument about people losing their jobs... should the government bail out every company that goes belly up because people will lose their jobs? Its hard to say it, and I am not trying to be cold, but people lose their jobs all the time and have to find new work.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
The_Legend
December 4, 2008 4:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I hope your McDonalds jobs living in your momma's basements and your 432 FICO can get you a ToyoHonda.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Ninjanice
December 4, 2008 5:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I have a few issues with some of the comments I've read here. First of all, people are saying to close down the auto plants and have those people buld infrastructure. While that may sound like a brilliant solution, it has its faults. One of the main ones being that most of the jobs where people are working directly for the Big 3 are in the midwest. Guess what? Winter makes it pretty difficult to make building infrastructure a viable year-round job for anyone that lives in the midwest. And, we already have a joke in Michigan about there only being two seasons- winter and construction. That also doesn't solve the problem of all the lost tax revenue and charitable contributions in areas where the plants close down. Many towns that these plants are kept financially solvent by the billions of dollars in taxes that the Big 3 pay and as well as the charities that they contribute to in these communities.
If the Big 3 no longer exists, we are basically delegating responsibility to make fuel-efficient, environmentally friendly cars to another country. We also would have to have another country manufacture our military vehicles. That certainly wouldn't make me feel comfortable, not only because we couldn't ensure that the vehicles would be made to the highest standards, but because we would have to divulge a certain amount of our military intelligence to have vehicles made that meet our needs.
People need to think about the entire ripple effect this will have. Not just the initial job loss we will experience. I certainly do not want to give a blank check to companies that couldn't get their shit together, but but I definitely don't think we should cut off our nose to spite our face here...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
narq
December 4, 2008 5:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The cost of a single UAW worker is more than I get paid in a year as a programmer. Not only should they not be bailed out, the UAW should go away. They are the sole reason for this problem. Let them file bankruptcy and reformulate the car companies into a solid corporation free from unions, then they will have plenty of money. That's the reason the big 3 are so far behind Asian car makers, they can't afford the big R&D. All thanks to union costs. I mean if Wal-Mart had to pay the same for their workers totaling a cost of $70 per hour per worker, they would be in this same exact situation.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
l3lueSunScar
December 4, 2008 7:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@narq: That is so true, the unions that once saved people are now part of the problem. Unions have gotten way out of control and have gotten to where they have companies bent over a barrel. I am honestly suprised that we haven't seen more business going under due to over paid workers with unrealalistic demands.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
johnnya2
December 5, 2008 1:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

To all you union bashers out there. If these are such easy high paying jobs, why didn't YOU get one. Oh thats right, because they are dangerous, do require some skill, and in some instances be mind numbing. YOU made the choice of being a programmer or whatever, and because somebody makes more than you, you have no right to whine like a bitch. I could say programmers are paid WAY too much, for developing Grand Theft Auto 2009. It provides NO value to anybody but pimply assed teenage boys who will never get laid in real life. The fact is, the auto companies made LOTS AND LOTS of money even with these contracts that you call bad. They continued to pay stockholders dividends until last year. If they had REINVESTED that money into more fuel efficient cars they would have been fine. Union membership does what management tells them to do, they do not determine the failed strategy of any company. In fact, the real spiral downward has come as the union has actually renegotiated lower rates. It allowed less people to buy the cars they were selling. Of course the fact that the imports have a built in advantage of no retirees YET, and health insurance that is provided by the government in the industrialized world makes competing at the level GM and Ford have amazing.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 5, 2008 2:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

isn't the alternative to bailout their filing for bankruptcy?

bankruptcy does not mean they disappear. it means that they can stop paying the banks and renegotiate with their lenders.

it means they bust the UAW contract (that forces them to pay $74 hour), etc.

they stay in biz with less overhead!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
jiminator
December 5, 2008 8:45 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

if the american public wanted to bail out the american automakers they could simply buy their products. An alternative method would be to use the 37 billion to buy 1.5 million cars and pass them out in a lottery. anyway the two companies are too bloated to succeed. Their stock values have done nothing for the past 40 years. There is a reason for that.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
whuffo
December 8, 2008 11:58 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The business boom-and-bust cycles have been going on for a very, very long time. What's happening now is neither unique nor is it unexpected and for any competent corporate executive to pretend that this came as a surprise - I think the technical term is \"bald faced lie\".

Their business is down because the economy is in recession. Giving these corporations big wads of taxpayer's money isn't going to improve their sales; it'll just maintain the status quo until the money is spent and we'lll be right back where we are now.

If we really wanted to do something to prop these marginal businesses up, we'd bail out the american citizens. If they had the discretionary funds to spend on new cars they'd be buying them. But raising taxes to \"bail out\" the car companies is just going to make the situation worse in the long run. Yes, taxes will be raised; where did you think these billions were going to come from?

As hard as it may seem, it's time to let the businesses that can't make a profit fail. That's one of the risks of doing business, right? When did it become law that businesses are guaranteed to make money?

Yes, there will be vacant auto factories and unemployed auto assembly workers. But there's also still a market for cars and another company will rise to fill the need. Hopefully one well enough managed to stay in business, but if not we should let them fail too.

Reply
","","");