Auto industry

I feel the same way I felt about the bank bail-outs.  I would say no bail-outs for ANY business.  I think it borders on extortion.  First the banks need a bail-out, then it's the auto companies, then AmX reorganizes so they become a holding company so THEY an qualify for some of that free money.  Latest I read the newspapers are to be next in line.  Where does it all end?

My reason for my no bail-out opinion is, what did it accomplish for the banking industry?  Nothing if we are to believe there is a credit crisis.  I noticed this evening one of the local banks was advertising that they still have money available for loans.  Why is it that it's the big guys that get into trouble?  Let 'em suffer.  Bail-outs are going to do nothing for working middle class people.

As I said in an earlier post where do you think new automobiles will fit in consumers priority list when they are trying just to put food on the table and a roof over their heads?  Pretty far down I'd say.  There are new layoffs announced every day, many have nothing whatsoever to do with the automotive industry.

So that is why I say NO BAIL-OUTS. 

One more thing...UAW role in the automobile woes.  The public has been dreadfully misled.  Most seem to think the workers make some $70 an hour when in truth they make in the neighborhood of $27.00 an hour.  Not a word have I heard objecting to the executives who are paid some $6000 PLUS per hour and all kinds of perks like private jets, etc.  Wouldn't one think this would have a whole lot to do with their finances?  The one thing I think the union should concede is the job bank where they are paid 95%, I think it is, of their wages when they are laid off.  The rest of the workforce (and my husband spent his life working as a Teamster) should have to suffer through unemployment just like the majority of other employees.  I do think that employer provided benefits such as the unions have should be available to all workers.  It most surely comes in handy at retirement.  I  think everyone should have an opportunity to retire in their older years and Social Security sure doesn't covere living expenses.  I wonder if there are any MTs who have retirement benefits?  Probably not.  Most seem now-a-days hard pressed to even make a living.

• Big 3 loan - Yah or No?
  • We must LOAN them the - stumpgrinder
    • It's not a matter of resentment or disliking....... sm - m
      • Most of the people on this board - stumpgrinder
        • Most of the people on this board........ sm - m
          • For every auto job loss - it's estimated
  • AGAINST-used to be for it but - Backwards typist
  • I'm against it..........sm - m
  • NO! Major corporate & CEO greed & mismanagement - took them down. Let 'em go under.
  • Auto industry - gourdpainter
    • I see both sides, but this is technically a LOAN - not bailout. There is a difference.nm
      • Technicality s/m - gourdpainter
        • Then they should have not "bailed out" AIG and the - likes either. Those guys were REAL crooks.nm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

I happen to think that the auto industry does need a bailout.  No, I don't agree with keeping the current management, and I do believe in making stipulations for how that money is spent.  I know most of you will disagree with that, but here's what I'm seeing in TN.

Congressman Zach Wamp (R) from TN was on the tube last night talkiing about how he does not want to do the bailout.  If that's his opinion that fine ----- However, lets look at his reason.  TN has been bidding for a new Volkswagon plant which has recently come to fruition---right here in my home town by the way.  He has been pushing for this for years.  This is obviously a good thing for people in TN because of the jobs it would create.  What I find ironic though is that he would let American companies go down the tubes and yet support a foreign auto maker.   My honest opinion about guys like this, is that they want the job creation, regardless of where the real money is going (overseas) and they would like to do this in such a manner so as to cut out unions. 

ARRRGGGGHHHH!!!!

They keep flip-flopping. The second link is Paulson's idea. That was probably posted before but am posting again just in case.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/27721013

http://www.cnbc.com/id/27712153

Good article and the guy they interviewed, Peter DeLorenzo (?) - a guy all up on the auto biz - said neither McCain nor Obama had a clue when it came to the auto industry.  The article gave a little bit of the voting records on both related to the auto industry.

Candidates Voting Record On Auto Industry-Related Issues:
Clean Energy Achievement Criteria (2007): McCain - no vote; Obama - Yes
Preventing Petroleum Export Organizations (NOPEC Act of 2007): McCain - no vote; Obama - Yes
Reduction in Dependence on Foreign Oil (2005): McCain - No, Obama - Yes
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (No) Drilling Amendment (2005): McCain - Yes, Obama - Yes

Does Palin kno McCain voted no on reducing dependence on foreign oil?

We get 28-30 MPH with it. Why they didn't brag this up, I have no idea. It has power, too. We could keep up with the V8's with no problem. Had a very large luxury Delta 98 LS and it was the best car we ever had...but the frame rotted away, so we kept the motor and put it into a Buick LeSabre.

Part of the problem is the unions. I've always been a union supporter, but they have really killed the industry in this country in the past 20 years. That's why there are no steel industries here anymore. That's why auto workers make a fantastic wage. Once they make good to fantastic wages, they won't back down.

Face it. People are greedy and this is a gigantic wake up call, but if they don't want to, or aren't willing to, take pay cuts, or pay more for their health insurance, then we're doomed to fall into a greater depression than seen in the 30s. A me-first-and-only-me economy doesn't work.

Example:  Teachers in my area are screaming and going on strike because they don't want to pay more for health insurance. They pay $40 biweekly.  I pay $200 a pay and before that, I paid $630 a month.  I'm happy paying $200 a month. Are they? Nope. It's me-me-me. When are people going to wake up?

My DH and I were talking the other day and we were talking about the criticism of GM.  For one, we are both so sick and tired of hearing people say that GM was stupid for building bigger trucks and SUVs.  Once again....GM built these because that is what consumers wanted. 

Remember back when your parents had a smaller vehicles and we used to cram 5 kids in the back seat.  How many of those kids were in car seats?  How many even had their seat belts on?  Nowadays....you can't do that.  Kids have to be in a booster seat until they are 4 feet 7 inches and all people must wear a seat belt.  Now tell me this.....how many car seats can you fit in a small car?  If you have more than 2 children....you are really pushing it.

I've heard numerous complaints about why GM didn't make more fuel efficient vehicles.  Well....let's discuss this a tad bit shall we.  The government regulates certain safety standards for vehicles.  They go through several crash tests to see which cars are safer.  What does this mean.....this means more reinforcement in the vehicles frame which makes vehicles heavier.  What does the weight do?  Well, the extra material as well as the crash testing causes prices to go up and the extra weight makes the vehicles less fuel efficient. GM made the vehicles it did because at the time....that is what consumers wanted and they also had to meet Government safety standards. 

Compact cars are great for single people or married couples without children, but I'd like to see you take a trip in one of those with three kids in car seats plus all of your luggage, etc. 

I just came across these stats in an article I was reading.  How can there possibly any doubt that lobbying has single handedly taken over Washington?  Especially in light of the fact that the healthcare plans on the table are pushing for more insured rather than single payer system?  If we don't shove out the insurance companies, how are the prices for our healthcare ever expected to go down, or even stay at the current level for any length of time? 87% in 10 years?  Absolutely ridiculous.  We are not reaping any benefit from it whatsoever.   

"As premiums have ballooned by 87 percent in the past decade, insurance-industry profits have climbed from $20.8 billion in 2002 to $57.5 billion in 2006. During that same period, health-care interests spent $2.2 billion on federal lobbying, more than did any other sector, and as of last month, had flooded the presidential candidates with over $11 million in campaign contributions to keep the present system intact."

I opened my post, and the text was there.  I saw an empty box with the "dead x," so that may have been what didn't go through.

Were you unable to read the text, too?  Try going to OneNewsNow.com (Fred Jackson) - 11/3/2008 7:35:00 AM, and you should be able to open it.  That should be the easiest.

When my grandparents came over from Italy via Ellis Island (& legally, too!), they settled in Monongahela, PA.  My grandfather worked in the coal mine, & they managed to raise 9 kids, all who went on to get doctorates, DDS, etc.  So it can be done (sorry for the memory lane)! 

LMK if you can open it, etc.  Setting family aside, I respect the hard, dangerous work these coal miners do.  The Global Warming (now named Climate Change) goofs are behind this, too.  It's a joke--on us.

Read the following report.  8-10% of total cost doesn't seem like a huge percentage for labor costs.  Maybe they can't afford  the big salaries and bonuses for the top dogs?  About time the wealth started being redistributed.  Funny I haven't heard any outrage over the outrageous salaries the top dogs in these automobile business are paid.  Just whining about how much the UAW workers are paid.  It's about time the working class started standing up for the working class!!!!!

Let 'em all go bankrupt. I have no doubt the idjits in Washington are way more concerned about job losses in "developing countries" than those of American citizens.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081115/ap_on_bi_ge/auto_bailout_gettelfinger

Let the oil companies bail them out since they directly benefited from some of the bad management decisions.

Don't bail out the companies.  Give the money to the workers for re-education, etc., while the auto companies restructure.

My first suggestion was a little cynical, but I'm not sure why the second hasn't occurred to anyone.  ...

want to watch it tonight, it will be on at 8 p.m. In the meantime, the plans of GM and Ford are online.

I feel sorry for the Chryler guy. He seems to be the most honest and wants the least amount of money. Sen. Corker - TN told him right out he doubts Chrysler is going to make it even with the money and they should just be bought out by someone and leave the company go.

He was also tough on the UAW Gettlefinger (or whatever his name is). I don't blame him there. The guy was squirming but he kept talking about all the concessions hurting the workers; i.e., not willing to make concessions.

Hope the link works.

to the tune of 17.4 billion.

Mr. Bush, in a televised speech before the opening of the markets, said that under other circumstances he would have let the companies fail, as punishment for their own bad business decisions. But given the economic downturn, he said the government had no choice but to step in.

“These are not ordinary circumstances, in the midst of a financial crisis and a recession allowing the US auto industry to collapse is not a responsible action,” Mr. Bush said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20auto.html