Bail Out Automakers ... or let 'em fall?

[dungeonworks]

The Union did push things. The Companies gave many things. (* The Unions were required for a safe working place in the beginning and other issues as well. *) It was what happened. It is not good to try to blame the past. It is better to find a solution for the future.

Having markets and workers in those markets including the US it helps to benefit the balance of the Dollar versus other foriegn monies. It also helps with over all global markets. The problem is to take advantage of it, this means that capacity needs to be avialable in different markets. The problem is that this capacity costs money as well to have it "sitting" around.

We also gave things too Rich...and FYI, many of those issues are still around today, not just "...in the beggining". If it costs less to perform an operation in an unsafe manor, GM will try it that way first. :whip1: Besides that, auto jobs would've been minimum wage jobs long ago without the union.

I've been to 4 plants, and 2 of the 4 twice. Based solely on what these eyes have seen, it is the same at each. I've seen fingers get cut off, a foot get crushed by a truck frame falling off of a carrier, and many near misses on forklifts. I have also been near two really bad fork truck accidents. My grandfather gave an eye to the company back in the 60's. Both he and my other grandfather died from lung cancer suspected to be caused from the toxicity of their work environment at the foundry. Ventilation is still really bad in both paint shops I have been in. Carpel Tunnel is a right of passage (from all those automated jobs someone brought up earlier in this thread) I won't even bring up ergonomics, that is a topic unto itself.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Bob,

I really hate the auto log out. I just had a real long article typed in about Chapter 11 and an article published.

Is there some way for us slow typers and also people who link in and check facts to not get logged off?

I know type it in another program and then post it.

 

[dungeonworks]

Hey Rich,

I always select the text, then "copy" it for my larger posts. Then I can just "paste" it if their is a problem after which I log back in. I loathe when I lose long posts like that or from browser bugs on my kickstart magneto ignition computer! LOL

 

[FearlessFreep]

what 'auto log out'???

 

[Carol]

If a post of mine gets "lost" to the automatic log out, I just hit the back button on my browser.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Bob,

I really hate the auto log out. I just had a real long article typed in about Chapter 11 and an article published.

Is there some way for us slow typers and also people who link in and check facts to not get logged off?

I know type it in another program and then post it.

Use FireFox as your browser, and make sure you select "remember me" and "save this password". Works for me in IE also. I've already got the time out set for 40 minutes, but I'll push it out to 60. I'm setup to automatically login, so I don't have the auto-logout problem that often.


btw, I haven't checked this thread in a while, so best bet for any support type questions is post em in the support forum or PM me. (Support forums faster)

 

[Rich Parsons]

If a post of mine gets "lost" to the automatic log out, I just hit the back button on my browser.

Thanks Carol, I tried this and it asked me to log back in anyways with the loose of the post.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Use FireFox as your browser, and make sure you select "remember me" and "save this password". Works for me in IE also. I've already got the time out set for 40 minutes, but I'll push it out to 60. I'm setup to automatically login, so I don't have the auto-logout problem that often.


btw, I haven't checked this thread in a while, so best bet for any support type questions is post em in the support forum or PM me. (Support forums faster)

Bob, sorry I know you are busy and PM's are much faster. I was just frustrated. As my desk top is down and stuck using a laptop, that I cannot load Firefox onto.

Thank you for checking into the settings.

 

[GBlues]

Yeah this actually really pisses me off! Instead of throwing money away what they should do is give every American over the age of 21 that make less than a minimum of 250, 000 dollars, 250,000 dollars, hell even just 50,000 dollars. This would actually stimulate the economy. People would, actually be able to pay there mortgages, credit cards, student loans, but new houses, pay off cars, or even buy new cars. Only stipulation would be you can only buy American made goods. The auto makers win, the banks win, the government wins when they collect taxes through the the purchases that you make. They'd have to give this money tax free, and put a price freeze on everything or business owners would have a hayday, and raise pricese to an ungodly amount of money.

Deal is it does no good to bail out the auto makers if people still can't buy there vehicles. This plan of action would creat jobs. Lots of them, and real quick, it get the economy rolling long enough that it could right itself. The banks they haven't even done what there supposed to be doing with the money. They were supposed to start loaning money, but now they're just hoarding it, and blowing it on parties. Give it to the poor and middle class, they'll put cash back into the economy, cause we actully need certain necessities in life.

Last but not least, one politician came on the news and said, ( and just paraphrasing here), " That it was the poor and middle classes fault that the economy is going like it is because they are greedy. They want microwaves, and dishwashers and you don't need those things to live." Yeah betcha he's got one though doesn't he. GREED, let's talk about the good old senator of arizona's 12 houses that he owns. How many houses do you need JOHN?

Bailing out people that don't need it. That haven't helped creat jobs, which gives people money to buy stuff, which still means what? That nothing has happened. Bush bails out the banks and America's new boy Barrack Obama comes right behind him, and wants to bail out the BIG 3 AUTO MAKERS. CHange we need. YEah right what's the difference. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

 

[BrandonLucas]

Yeah this actually really pisses me off! Instead of throwing money away what they should do is give every American over the age of 21 that make less than a minimum of 250, 000 dollars, 250,000 dollars, hell even just 50,000 dollars. This would actually stimulate the economy. People would, actually be able to pay there mortgages, credit cards, student loans, but new houses, pay off cars, or even buy new cars. Only stipulation would be you can only buy American made goods. The auto makers win, the banks win, the government wins when they collect taxes through the the purchases that you make. They'd have to give this money tax free, and put a price freeze on everything or business owners would have a hayday, and raise pricese to an ungodly amount of money.

Deal is it does no good to bail out the auto makers if people still can't buy there vehicles. This plan of action would creat jobs. Lots of them, and real quick, it get the economy rolling long enough that it could right itself. The banks they haven't even done what there supposed to be doing with the money. They were supposed to start loaning money, but now they're just hoarding it, and blowing it on parties. Give it to the poor and middle class, they'll put cash back into the economy, cause we actully need certain necessities in life.

Last but not least, one politician came on the news and said, ( and just paraphrasing here), " That it was the poor and middle classes fault that the economy is going like it is because they are greedy. They want microwaves, and dishwashers and you don't need those things to live." Yeah betcha he's got one though doesn't he. GREED, let's talk about the good old senator of arizona's 12 houses that he owns. How many houses do you need JOHN?

Bailing out people that don't need it. That haven't helped creat jobs, which gives people money to buy stuff, which still means what? That nothing has happened. Bush bails out the banks and America's new boy Barrack Obama comes right behind him, and wants to bail out the BIG 3 AUTO MAKERS. CHange we need. YEah right what's the difference. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

This could possibly derail the thread, so I only want to touch on these things...

First thing I want to touch on is what the politician said....he's right. What he's referring to, though, is not that the poor and middle class shouldn't buy the things that they need...what he's saying is that the poor and middle class go in debt using credit to buy things that are trivial, and then when the time comes to purchase something they do need, they have to use credit for that as well.

The upper middle class and the rich don't have this problem because they have the money to purchase what they want and need outright, without using credit for the most part.

Secondly, giving Americans money to spend willy-nilly will get us further in the hole than we already are. It's the same as giving a drunk bum a 50 dollar bill and telling him to straighten out his life...all he's going to do is go buy more alcohol. And as far as putting restrictions on where to spend the money...you can't make people spend wisely. You can't even make people spend money the way you think it should be spent...they spend it how they want to, because it's their money.

Take, for example, the stimulous checks the government sent out back during the summer. That did absolutely nothing to stimulate anything.

I think, and this is just my .02, that as far as bailing out the automakers goes, that they should just leave it alone. Citibank is getting a bailout from the 700 billion....how many other companies are going to step forward with their hands out?

The way I see it, there really isn't a solution to any of this mess, except to try to ride it out and stop throwing money at everything as a fix. I think of it like this:

I'm broke...I owe all kinds of money for medical bills and insurance bills, and my car has just broken down, and I need to get a new car. I'm not wanting to settle for getting a small $500 car to get back and forth to work in, I'm wanting to buy a brand new car that I can be comfortable in, and I want to get a loan to get one. The problem is that I can't get the loan unless my dad cosigns with me.

Well, I have a bad history of not paying my bills on time, and I've been sent to collections on several occasions and have even been to court once or twice to collect on a debt. Now, I'm asking my dad to be responsible for paying what I owe "just in case" I'm not able to pay for it myself.

My dad has the option of declining to cosign, and probably should. Afterall, given my past history of late and null payments, why should he be expected to pay for my screwups if I'm not able to pay? If he's paying for the car because he cosigns for it, then rightfully, he should be able to have the car, and that puts me right back in the situation I started from.

The whole situation could have been corrected if I had accepted the fact that I can afford to be uncomfortable for the amount of time it takes me to earn the money to pay for my other bills and put a good downpayment on a good car. Sure, it could take a while, and no body likes to be uncomfortable, but it's better than not being able to afford the cost of living at all.

That was not a true story, by the way. I hate asking my dad for stuff like that, because he says no regardless...lol.

The point is that if people and companies would priortize what they spend on, none of this would happen. That's what the reporter was referring to...people who can't afford to buy expensive things are buying expensive things on credit to make it appear that they can, in fact, afford to buy the expensive things. Instead, they should be spending that money on things they need, not things that they want.

Companies are the same way. The execs from the Big 3 pull up to Washington in private jets asking for money...why not sell the jets and put that money toward the failing companies?? These are points that have been brought up many, many times by other posters with far more info than I have. I think it's just worth mentioning again.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I would like someone, anyone, to point out where in the Constitution it says that the Federal goverment should bail out failing businesses. Because I just can't find it.


Of course, I'd loan them the money, loan being the operative word, require that the executive & management core makes $1 per year while those loans are in effect. Then again, maybe if they did that for a few years, they wouldn't need the money.

 

[BrandonLucas]

I would like someone, anyone, to point out where in the Constitution it says that the Federal goverment should bail out failing businesses. Because I just can't find it.


Of course, I'd loan them the money, loan being the operative word, require that the executive & management core makes $1 per year while those loans are in effect. Then again, maybe if they did that for a few years, they wouldn't need the money.

That's pretty much my take on it. If I start losing money because I spent it on crap that I didn't need as opposed to what I do need, then who's going to bail me out? Should the government help me get back on my feet when I've already proven that I can't stand on them on my own? Even if I have spent my money wisely, and a crazy turn of events caused me to lose all the money that I just earned, is the government going to bail me out for that? Or even understand why I can't pay my taxes at the end of the year that I'm expected to pay religiously?

 

[dungeonworks]

Yeah this actually really pisses me off! Instead of throwing money away what they should do is give every American over the age of 21 that make less than a minimum of 250, 000 dollars, 250,000 dollars, hell even just 50,000 dollars. This would actually stimulate the economy. People would, actually be able to pay there mortgages, credit cards, student loans, but new houses, pay off cars, or even buy new cars. Only stipulation would be you can only buy American made goods. The auto makers win, the banks win, the government wins when they collect taxes through the the purchases that you make. They'd have to give this money tax free, and put a price freeze on everything or business owners would have a hayday, and raise pricese to an ungodly amount of money.

Deal is it does no good to bail out the auto makers if people still can't buy there vehicles. This plan of action would creat jobs. Lots of them, and real quick, it get the economy rolling long enough that it could right itself. The banks they haven't even done what there supposed to be doing with the money. They were supposed to start loaning money, but now they're just hoarding it, and blowing it on parties. Give it to the poor and middle class, they'll put cash back into the economy, cause we actully need certain necessities in life.

Last but not least, one politician came on the news and said, ( and just paraphrasing here), " That it was the poor and middle classes fault that the economy is going like it is because they are greedy. They want microwaves, and dishwashers and you don't need those things to live." Yeah betcha he's got one though doesn't he. GREED, let's talk about the good old senator of arizona's 12 houses that he owns. How many houses do you need JOHN?

Bailing out people that don't need it. That haven't helped creat jobs, which gives people money to buy stuff, which still means what? That nothing has happened. Bush bails out the banks and America's new boy Barrack Obama comes right behind him, and wants to bail out the BIG 3 AUTO MAKERS. CHange we need. YEah right what's the difference. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

I agree with everything you said except using the term bailout for the big three. It's a loan, plain and simple. Chrysler got one in 1979 and the government made money off of it. I'd say a loan is much better than the money Citigroup gets, no questions asked, and with no regulation or accountability.

It's all a big joke. I am now rooting for the "Economic Armageddon". LOL When it happens, we will all be in the same boat with the same needs and can be a united country instead of one that just pretends to be.

 

[MA-Caver]

Ford says CEO will work for $1 to get gov't loans


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081202/ap_on_bi_ge/autos_congress
By TOM KRISHER and KIMBERLY S. JOHNSON, AP Auto Writers Tom Krisher And Kimberly S. Johnson, Ap Auto Writers – 26 mins agoDETROIT – Ford Motor Co. will tell Congress that it plans to return to a pretax profit or break even in 2011 when its CEO appears before two legislative committees this week.
Also, CEO Alan Mulally said he'll work for $1 per year if the automaker has to take any government loan money.
The plans Ford submitted to Congress on Tuesday also say the company will cancel all management employees' 2009 bonuses and will not pay any merit increases for its North American salaried employees next year.
The company also said it will sell its five corporate aircraft. The CEOs of all three Detroit automakers were harshly criticized during congressional hearings last month for flying to Washington in separate corporate jets while seeking loan money.
Mulally said in an interview with The Associated Press on Tuesday that Ford will emphasize its cost cutting efforts with the United Auto Workers union and will give much more detail to Congress than it did when lawmakers grilled the automakers' CEOs last month.
(full story at link)

Awfully magnanimous of the bloke wouldn't you say? Willing to work for a buck a year. Gotta wonder what's in his bank account and how's his stock porfolio looks. Gee to take a hit like that just to bail out his own company, with free money from the government... oh wait, excuse me it's a loan...
Ah well... it at least shows spirit. eh?

 

[elder999]

Awfully magnanimous of the bloke wouldn't you say? Willing to work for a buck a year.

It's what Lee Iacocca did, back in the 79.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Hey, I said I'd back a loan if they all worked for a buck.
Now pass that on to the rest of their exec staffs and we have a negotiable position.

 

[jks9199]

Awfully magnanimous of the bloke wouldn't you say? Willing to work for a buck a year. Gotta wonder what's in his bank account and how's his stock porfolio looks. Gee to take a hit like that just to bail out his own company, with free money from the government... oh wait, excuse me it's a loan...
Ah well... it at least shows spirit. eh?

Hey, it's a step in the right direction. At least he's accepting that his salary should somehow be linked -- other than getting bonuses! -- to the company performance.

I don't have a problem with a CEO walking away with a huge salary, IF the company is doing well. But they should be taking the first hits if the company isn't, too.

 

[Carol]

My employer (manufacturing) just announced their first ever two-week shutdown for the holidays. Reason: financial.

I don't suppose there's any extra bailout money going around, is there?

 

[Rich Parsons]

CNBC will be covering GM this evening:

FYI

A Fresh Look At Saving GM
CNBC will air an updated version of their special -- Saving GM: Inside the Crisis -- this evening, December 8, at 10 pm EST. The special includes video and interviews shot over the past week pertaining to the current situation, the GM plan put forth to Congress and an extensive interview with Fritz Henderson regarding the development of the plan and its implications for GM and the industry. The program will also include a segment from Fairfax Assembly plant looking at what the plant is doing to save cost and improve quality.
The hour-long program also will include video of Rick Wagoner and Bob Lutz from the earlier special which ran during the summer.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I want to bring this to people attention even though it is in my signature:

www.GMFactsAndFiction.com


This site has lots of information and is updated almost daily with links to new articles in the press and updates on the situation at hand.

An example new article:

http://www.cnbc.com//id/27647852

Cramer: Why GM Matters So Much
...http://www.cnbc.com/id/15837548/cid/97524
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15837548/cid/97309


The U.S. markets will not have a sustainable rally until General Motors is saved, Cramer said during Monday’s Mad Money.
...