• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

What do you think of the Auto Industry rescue plan proposed by Obama?

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
I thought I remembered you saying that your money maker is tied directly to Auto manufacturing, so whats your take on this.

I don't sell directly to the automotive manufacturers themselves, but I do sell a lot to people doing work for them. My customers that are doing automotive work are about 15-20% of my business right now....and trending down the last few years. My sales staff knows that they'd get fired if they ever sold directly to a Ford or GM plant. They discount you to death and tie up all your resources...it would cost me money to do business with them. :thumbdown

Anywho, my thoughts on the Automotive Industry rescue plan? Not sure what it is yet. But if we are talking about the 25B, I honestly think it's just a bandaid and doesn't fix the problem. They'd burn through 25B in about 75days.

I've been asked by friends and customers to invest in different companies over the last few years. Some of them had just incredible products but they always had liquidity problems. They'd always spin me a variety of bullshit reasons why they needed the cash. In almost every case the reason they couldn't make a profit was that management was overpaid and the workers were unionized....and grossly overpaid. :chuckles: That's just a really bad formula. An infusion of cash wasn't going to make those companies more profitable. It was just a bandaid.

Here are a few of the problems the US manufacturers are facing...none of which can be fixed just by handing them 25B:
- Average worker makes $70 and hour including health care and benefits. That's $10 to $20 more an hour than workers at Honda or Toyota make who are also WORKING IN THE UNITED STATES.
- Too many brands (eliminate half)
- Too many plants (eliminate half)
- They have the "dirtiest" cars in the industry...must commit to clean & high MPG.
- Management is a complete ABORTION. They have created this mess....at the least they have ignored the problems. So why keep them in place and just give them more money to make the same mistakes???

Government sponsored bankruptcy might be the answer. That's the only way they can get the leverage to force the TOUGH changes that need to be made. I just can't see how the UAW(or Obama) with a straight face can ask Americans that don't have gold plated income and benefits packages to write a check when the UAW are unwilling to make major sacrifices themselves. Americans shouldn't write a check until REAL changes are made. I'm shocked at how eager some of you are just to fork over the cash.

Just my opinion...
 
Last edited:
Big 3 carmakers beg for $25B, warn of catastrophe

Nov 18, 6:56 PM (ET)

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS

WASHINGTON (AP) - Detroit's Big Three automakers pleaded with a reluctant Congress Tuesday for a $25 billion lifeline to save the once-proud titans of U.S. industry, pointedly warning of a national economic catastrophe should they collapse. Millions of layoffs would follow their demise, they said, as damaging effects rippled across an already-faltering economy.

But the new rescue plan appeared stalled on Capitol Hill, opposed by the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress who don't want to dip into the Treasury Department's $700 billion financial bailout program to come up with the $25 billion in loans.

"Our industry ... needs a bridge to span the financial chasm that has opened up before us," General Motors Corp. (GM) CEO Rick Wagoner told the Senate Banking Committee. He blamed the industry's predicament not on management failures but on the deepening global financial crisis.

And Robert Nardelli, CEO of Chrysler LLC, told the panel the bailout would be "the least costly alternative" when compared with damage from bankruptcy.

Sympathy for the industry was sparse, with bailout fatigue dominating Capitol Hill. Lawmakers bristled with pent-up criticism of the auto industry, and questioned whether a stopgap loan would really cure what ails the companies.

Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., told the leaders of GM, Chrysler and Ford Motor Co. (F) that the industry was "seeking treatments for wounds that I believe to a large extent were self-inflicted."

Still, he said, "At a time like this, when our economic future is so tenuous, we must do all we can to ensure stability."

Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., complained that the larger financial crisis "is not the only reason why the domestic auto industry is in trouble."

He cited "inefficient production" and "costly labor agreements" that put the U.S. automakers at a disadvantage to foreign companies.....

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081118/D94HLE300.html



Big Three CEOs Flew Private Jets to Plead for Public Funds
Auto Industry Close to Bankruptcy But They Get Pricey Perk
By BRIAN ROSS and JOSEPH RHEE
November 19, 2008—

The CEOs of the big three automakers flew to the nation's capital yesterday in private luxurious jets to make their case to Washington that the auto industry is running out of cash and needs $25 billion in taxpayer money to avoid bankruptcy.

The CEOs of GM, Ford and Chrysler may have told Congress that they will likely go out of business without a bailout yet that has not stopped them from traveling in style, not even First Class is good enough.

All three CEOs - Rick Wagoner of GM, Alan Mulally of Ford, and Robert Nardelli of Chrysler - exercised their perks Tuesday by flying in corporate jets to DC. Wagoner flew in GM's $36 million luxury aircraft to tell members of Congress that the company is burning through cash, asking for $10-12 billion for GM alone.

"We want to continue the vital role we've played for Americans for the past 100 years, but we can't do it alone," Wagoner told the Senate Banking Committee.

While Wagoner testified, his G4 private jet was parked at Dulles airport. It is one of eight luxury jets in the GM fleet that continues to ferry executives around the world despite the company's dire financial straits.

"This is a slap in the face of taxpayers," said Tom Schatz, President of Citizens Against Government Waste. "To come to Washington on a corporate jet, and asking for a hand out is outrageous."

Wagoner's private jet trip to Washington cost his ailing company an estimated $20,000 roundtrip. In comparison, seats on Northwest Airlines flight 2364 from Detroit to Washington were going online for $288 coach and $837 first class.

After the hearing, Wagoner declined to answer questions about his travel.

Ford CEO Mulally's corporate jet is a perk included for both he and his wife as part of his employment contract along with a $28 million salary last year. Mulally actually lives in Seattle, not Detroit. The company jet takes him home and back on weekends.

Plants Closed, Company Jets Stay
Mulally made his case Tuesday before the committee saying he's cut expenses, laid-off workers and closed 17 plants.

"We have also reduced our work force by 51,000 employees in the past three years," Mulally said.

Yet Ford continues to operate a fleet of eight private jets for its executives. Just Tuesday, one jet was taking Ford brass to Los Angeles, another on a trip to Nebraska, and of course Mulally needed to fly to Washington to testify. He did not address questions following the hearing.

"Now's not the time to do that sort of thing," said John McElroy of the television program "Autoline Detroit."

"Now's the time to be humble and show that you're sharing equally in the sacrifice," McElroy said.

GM and Ford say that it is a corporate decision to have their CEOs fly on private jets and that is non-negotiable, even as the companies say they are running out of cash.

Private jet travel is perhaps the greatest perk of all for CEOs, who say it allows them to travel more efficiently and safely, even in a recession.

AIG, despite the $150 billion bailout, still operates a fleet of corporate jets. The company says it has put two out of its seven jets up for sale and is reviewing the use of others. Though there are no such plans by GM or Ford.

"It appears that the senior management of the automakers simply don't get it," said Schatz.

Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures
 
Mitt agrees with me in a editorial he wrote this morning.

November 19, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
Let Detroit Go Bankrupt
By MITT ROMNEY
Boston

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.

The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.

Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.


Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was a candidate for this year’s Republican presidential nomination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print
 
It's disappointing because our company is strictly in the automotive industry.

We're are feeling the effects definately but it will definately be worse in the coming years, where we deal strictly with leased vehicles and dealership audits. Our main business is Ford, everyone knows of all the losses pilling up, the near end of leasing vehicles.

Our company is also the 2nd largest Toyota captive.

It's funny you posted that article Max about flying the private jet to lead the outcry for funds. Our company did the same thing a couple weeks ago for a quarterly meeting and we commented amongst ourselves how much money they're wasting by flying private to all these locations todo these meetings. Then they come out with cuts across the board.

I had alot more thoughts and information typed out but I ended up deleting because honestly I don't wanna give any ammunition for big brother here at work.
 
Mitt agrees with me in a editorial he wrote this morning.

I read the Romney ed Tuesday and I agree with him. I sorta wish he wasnt going to try to run in '12, he would make a hell of a treasury secretary. I remember thinking during that Republican Debate that was in the Reagan Library during the primaries, that Romney has the look and stature of a President/Leader.

On the flip side, if somehow in the private sector, he were to get the gig of being the elliott ness for the auto industry, it would offer him a pretty formidable accolade for his next presidential run were he to right that ship somehow or revolutionize the industry from a CEO/CFO standpoint
 
for those of you that havent been updated today, sounds like a revised bailout is going to get put up for vote, and that it will probably pass.

its a revision of the 25 billion set aside to retool the industry.

im excited because this means im going to get to buy my Camaro next year :D

but really disappointed because i almost bought a lot of GM and F at their low points of the day, 1.70 and 1 dollar respecitively. they are now at 3.20 and 1.7.... CRIES
 
Re: watch the movie "who killed the Electric Car?" to get a perspective

The EV1 killed itself. It was the worst car of all time...just a catastophe. First of all, battery technology was nowhere near ready for it to be practical. Second of all, these cars were obscenely expensive to produce....GM lost their ass on this project. Lastly, it was just a shitty car....it didn't go as far as advertised, impossible to service, took too long to charge, they were expensive to charge, batteries were failing after 6 months(battery packs cost over $20K), and they were dangerous to service. I know calling it a conspiracy is sexy, but GM needed help from no one in killing this dog of a project. It was a disaster from start to finish.


Read this from an employee who actually worked for Hughes:

Sort of true, but all the Hybrids Toyota made the first couple of years they sold at a loss, but they eventually came down in price do to MASS PRODUCTION and consumer demand. You have to take a loss sometimes to get a new technology into the market. In general an electric motor needs almost 0 servicing. So, even if the batteries were really failing, that would have been the only bad component. These are bugs that could have been fixed with the next release. The emissions laws in California were relaxed so GM didn't care about the project anymore. If they had kept it up, they would have looked like geniuses now. Isn't it kind of dumb to give up on a project that you know you will need in the future? Who didn't realize even in the early 90's that we need cars not powered by gas? I did and I was 12 years old at the time. I agree that people maybe weren't ready for the electric car then, but why wouldn't you put it on the back burner instead of chucking the whole thing? That car had a lot of design innovations such as the recharging brakes that hybrids used today. Smart people don't give up on good ideas unless something else is going on.

People are saying make sure they make clean cars. We have already allocated 25 billion to this this very year. Some in the administration want to cut this up and say there are no longer strings attached to make eco-friendly cars. That would be a mistake and a step backward. If they keep making the same old product, they will keep having the same old problems.

As far as the bailout is concerned. I am just worried that there is still no accountability. The management is awful in these companies, and you saw how all those executives came on their private jets, and none was willing to make any personal sacrifices. They are asking the taxpayer to make personal sacrifices tho. What if they had to file bankruptcy like normal people have to do when they get in such a mess? If they go into bankruptcy they can re-negotiate the union contracts that have them by the balls, and they can discontinue superfluous brands without paying big penalties due to state laws. Why does ford make a Mercury villager and a ford escape? They are the same chassis with subtle changes in the body. It is so stupid. I know that everyone is in trouble and this means a lot of jobs, but it is obvious that these companies need an entirely new structure, and that won't change unless they can get around some of the rules that are holding them back with bankruptcy.
 
I saw a rep for the auto industry on Charlie Rose last night. He was of course all for the bailout. At the end he admitted that 25B probably wasn't enough. He said 50 might be adequate.
 
Hey what do ya know, hiring, raises and bonus freeze at work.. yipeeeeee

What is this I heard about the GM CEO said he wouldn't take a pay cut?

What's disappointing is alot of companies we deal with are in holdign pattern because the future is so uncertain.
 
I saw a rep for the auto industry on Charlie Rose last night. He was of course all for the bailout. At the end he admitted that 25B probably wasn't enough. He said 50 might be adequate.

I know you are just repeating what you heard....but adequate for what? To get them through 2009??? Then what...another 50B for 2010? They will still have workers making $70 per hour and trying to compete against Volkswagen, Toyota and Honda that are building cars here with a workforce that gets compensated half of that. Until they are willing to make major sacrifices and FIX THE PROBLEMS I say F*** em.

This is our money and I want to know that it will be invested wisely. Anything else is like handing crack addicts money....it will get smoked and then they'll come back asking for another handout.



Looks like Bush and the Republicans finally got the Dems to play hardball....at least they are now demanding a "plan" instead of just giving them a check.

Dems delay auto bailout vote, seek plan from Big 3

Nov 20 04:51 PM US/Eastern
By KEN THOMAS and JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS
Associated Press Writers


WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic leaders in Congress sidetracked legislation to bail out the auto industry Thursday and demanded the Big Three develop a plan assuring the money would make them economically viable. "Until they show us the plan, we cannot show them the money," Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said at a hastily called news conference in the Capitol.
She and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Congress would return to work in early December to vote on legislation if General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC produce an acceptable plan.

The decision averted a likely defeat of legislation providing $25 billion loans for the industry. Reid and Pelosi said there was no plan in circulation that could pass both houses of Congress and win President George W. Bush's approval.

While the decision headed off the defeat of one bill, it did not necessarily translate into passage of a different one.

As a result, the fate of hundreds of thousands of auto workers and even of an iconic American industry hang in the balance.

The chief executives of the Big Three automakers appealed personally to lawmakers for the loans this week, and warned that their industry might collapse without them. In testimony, they said their problem was that credit was unavailable, and not that they were manufacturing products that consumers had turned their backs on.

But whatever support they found sagged when it became known that each of them had flown into Washington aboard multimillion dollar corporate jets. Reid observed that was "difficult to explain" to taxpayers in his hometown of Searchlight, Nev.

The automakers are on a tight timeline. Reid and Pelosi said their plan must be turned over to key lawmakers by Dec. 2 They said hearings were possible the first week of December, and Congress may return to session the following week to consider legislation.

Pelosi stressed that whatever the Big Three provided to Congress, it must show they had a plan for "viability and accountability," meaning that the were transforming their industry in a way that it would become competitive, and that they were clear about how the federal loan money was used.

Even if lawmakers return to vote, they are likely to insist on numerous conditions on any loans. One possibility is to seek a partial ownership of the companies. Another is to limit salaries of top executives. A third is to prohibit use of the funds for any lobbying.....
 
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this as I couldn't read all of the previous posts.. but say if we get in another large scale war and need to produce some large machines.

Do you think Toyota or Honda is going to let the US GOVT take over one of their plants to make tanks or other items? I doubt it friends.
 
First and foremost I think it's important to establish the fact that the auto industry CANNOT be allowed to fail. When Romney argues for a restructuring of the industry giants during the process of bankruptcy he's obviously either playing to his 2012 aspirations (moving to the right) or he's delusional (which I doubt)..

What's my solution? Well, as Maximus said earlier in the thread, the $25B bailout really is just a band-aid; there's no solution to the problem there. After listening to the reasoning of the big three CEOs on C-SPAN and the reaction they garnered from Congress; quite honestly, I believe the auto industry is trying to blackmail the United States Congress.

So... what's my solution??

Well.. If we've established that the auto industry cannot fail, for a myriad of reasons including the loss of millions of jobs across multiple sectors of industry and perhaps the advent of a new global depression the likes of which the world has never known. And, we've determined that the current corporate CEOs simply cannot be trusted to develop a solid and viable business plan that the American people would be interested in investing their tax revenues toward. Then, we have very few options.

So WTF is my solution?!?

Heh.. here we go.. I think the U.S. Congress should authorize the Treasury department to temporarily nationalize a majority stake in the failing automakers. This would allow us to fire the current CEOs and establish an entirely new business model based on developing energy efficient cars. From that point we can give substantial tax-breaks (via deficit spending) to all new purchases of plug-in hybrids. If the companies become profitable again, which they should considering the tilted playing field the U.S. gov't could create to benefit our auto industry, the Treasury could sell off its stake in these companies in it's entirety.

So the best plan, imho, is to nationalize the automakers, temporarily. Install sympathetic but business oriented CEOs. And levy tax incentives, tax breaks, and rebates to all purchases of new vehicles produced by the big 3. Finally -- sell every government owned share at what should be a profit.

Also, Congress should pass special legislation halving (or even nullifying) the capital gains tax for all purchases of the various automakers stock.. Or perhaps a tax deduction/rebate... Obviously, a sunset provision would be appropriate.

Again... My reasoning for arguing for nationalization is based on the premise that the automakers, by their own admission, do not possess the necessary credit particulars to warrant a bridge loan in excess of $25 billion dollars. Furthermore, the CEOs of these companies have refused to step down, and want to manage the loan as they see fit with the current business model remaining in place, by their own admission before Congress... The most reasonable solution that I can fathom would be to directly buy and hold a majority share of each automaker in danger of collapse, so that the U.S. Treasury department can effect real and significant change throughout the industry and actually get a return on its investment rather be asked for yet another handout.

p.s.
I know these sound like drastic measures, but I think these are drastic times. If we just dole out $25B to the auto industry, they'll be back in 3 months asking for another $50B, just like AIG... I think at this point, it's almost unavoidable. Besides, if these automakers' stability is just as important, if not more so, than that of the banking industry, then why not nationalize them? It's exactly what we've done to numerous banks over the past few months... Chrysler, GM, and Ford should be no different.

And no... I'm not a socialist.
 
First and foremost I think it's important to establish the fact that the auto industry CANNOT be allowed to fail. When Romney argues for a restructuring of the industry giants during the process of bankruptcy he's obviously either playing to his 2012 aspirations (moving to the right) or he's delusional (which I doubt)..

So is Obama moving to the right or just delusional like Mitt and I? :chuckles:

Obama Transition Said to Consider a ‘Prepack’ Auto Bankruptcy

By Linda Sandler and Jeff Green

Nov. 21 (Bloomberg) -- President-Elect Barack Obama‘s transition team is exploring a swift, prepackaged bankruptcy for automakers as a possible solution to the industry’s financial crisis, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Obama’s team has already contacted at least one bankruptcy- law firm to say that Daniel Tarullo, a professor at Georgetown University’s law school who heads Obama’s economic policy working group, would call to discuss the workings of a so-called prepack, according to this person.
 
So is Obama moving to the right or just delusional like Mitt and I? :chuckles:

If you actually read what I wrote I think you'd understand I said Mitt Romney is most likely playing politics, not delusional -- I said that explicitly, but somehow you missed it as always...

Regarding Obama... Since his election, he's tried to play both sides of the fence.. which, as a progressive, I don't mind. I understand his politics. What he's doing is threatening the industry with bankruptcy because he doesn't have the balls to support a nationalization program - something like that would need to come out of the House, and most likely backed by Pelosi..

What Obama and Romney are doing are 2 entirely different things.. Obama is setting himself up to have a better bargaining position with the automakers -- it's governance, even though I don't think it will bring about the best possible result and will inevitably be wasteful (ie another bailout); whereas, Romney is simply positioning himself for 2012.. If Obama doesn't get much of what he promised in the first term done, or decides his election was change enough and doesn't pursue a progressive administration as he claimed, then there will be many liberals who will simply sit out 2012, or will vote 3rd party.. Romney knows this..

But please.. nobody in their right mind is arguing for a bankruptcy; at least, not without a bailout first. The consequences would be catastrophic. Who would buy a car from a company that is likely to fail? What of the lending arms of these companies? Imagine GMAC and other forms of financing drying up overnight. Imagine warranties not being worth the paper they were printed on? Even if the companies were restructured in a quick and orderly process, once it was publicly known that these companies filed bankruptcy, the strength of their brand would be worthless. So even if the automakers could restructure without firing a considerable number of their workers, people would eventually be laid off because of the inevitable decline in sales associated with the loss in product confidence.

I'm wary of buying an American car today, why on Earth would I buy a car of a company that filed bankruptcy? C'mon... I know for certain my next car will be a Prius unless the American car companies can get their act together..

Furthermore, there are many people in the insurance industry who will gladly tell you (including my dad who is regional v.p. of a national insurance company) that American cars are garbage. And it's the worst kept secret in the world. How many times has someone told you, "Yea, buy American. Just not when buying your car!" Or, "you're going to buy a Ford? Seriously?" I remember my folks wouldn't let me buy a Mustang GT when I was younger.. said I was making a huge financial mistake and they wouldn't support it.. And you know what, they were probably right.. Although I didn't buy the Mustang, every American car I've ever owned was garbage.. They run GREAT for the first year, and then they break and continue to have numerous problems forever. I bought a 2 year old Honda Accord LX, and NEVER had a problem for the 2 years I owned it..

My point? My point is that the underlying problem with the auto industry is not the credit crunch (entirely), it's their business model.

p.s.
Out of the American cars I've owned, including a Chrysler Sebring convertible, Pontiac Sunfire GT, Pontiac Grand Prix GT, and a Ford F-150 (among a few others I can't recall), the Sunfire's water pump exploded (brilliantly it was built inside the engine! so that was the end of that car), the Sebring was just racked with a myriad of problems damn near as soon as I drove it off the lot (brand new car with more problems than my used Honda), my Grand Prix was used and it actually rode pretty tight - but not a family car, and the F-150 had it's share of problems but I never really drove it - it was for work.
 
I know you are just repeating what you heard....but adequate for what? To get them through 2009??? Then what...another 50B for 2010? They will still have workers making $70 per hour and trying to compete against Volkswagen, Toyota and Honda that are building cars here with a workforce that gets compensated half of that. Until they are willing to make major sacrifices and FIX THE PROBLEMS I say F*** em.

This is our money and I want to know that it will be invested wisely. Anything else is like handing crack addicts money....it will get smoked and then they'll come back asking for another handout.



Looks like Bush and the Republicans finally got the Dems to play hardball....at least they are now demanding a "plan" instead of just giving them a check.

A lot of people are saying 25b is not enough money for what they want to do. The rep I saw on Chalie Rose basically said this had to be done, but then by the end of the piece said that he thought 25 was an underestimate and something like 50 might be adequate to keep them out of bankruptcy. He basically had the point that American cars have recently become as reliable as foreign, and that because they have renegotiated with the UAW they are making 1000 more dollars per car(GM) when they were losing money on some models before. He also said it is not a 2-3 year time frame for these companies to be profitable agin, but more like 6mos-1 year.

I don't think I believe him. Chrysler has already been through this once. Ford has been failing for years. All of them focused on SUV's for so long that they had no plan or flexibility for when the gas hit the fan. They have been stupid. Why do we have to keep rewarding stupidity.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-15: "Cavs Survive and Advance"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:15: Cavs Survive and Advance
Top