Weary Democratic congressional leaders and White House officials agreed in principle Tuesday on a $15 billion bailout of U.S. automakers that would give the government extraordinary power to restructure the failing industry. But the rescue faced snags as Republicans raised deep concerns.
Congressional aides and a senior administration official said the proposed deal would speed the loans to Detroit's struggling car companies and place a "car czar" named by President George W. Bush in charge of overhauling the auto industry.
A further stumbling block was Democrats' refusal to scrap language, vehemently opposed by the White House, that would force the carmakers to drop lawsuits challenging tough emissions limits in California and other states.
That measure "kills the deal," said Dan Meyer, Bush's top lobbyist.
Senior Democratic aides acknowledged as much Tuesday and said they expected the provision to ultimately be dropped.
Under a republican administration. smh. bush has to be the worst conservative of all time.
There's your future of middle America if you don't want to bail out the auto industry. Save 20 billion now and pay billions more later (in social services). It will just be replicated dozens of times over in cities of all sizes.
why is the auto industry so important. I mean I understand banks but this seems off.
Do they really employ that many people though?
Do they really employ that many people though?
Do they really employ that many people though?
Do they really employ that many people though?
What i find interesting is that people who do support this dont understand that somebody out there is waiting for these three automakers to fail so he/she can step up and deliver.
What i find interesting is that people who do support this dont understand that somebody out there is waiting for these three automakers to fail so he/she can step up and deliver. But instead we are all forced to be bent over and raped for the sake of helping out the middle class. I wonder how the middle class was ever created before bailouts came around. ???
What i find interesting is that people who do support this dont understand that somebody out there is waiting for these three automakers to fail so he/she can step up and deliver. But instead we are all forced to be bent over and raped for the sake of helping out the middle class. I wonder how the middle class was ever created before bailouts came around. ???You'll kill all the small suppliers first.
Yes somebody else is waiting to deliver. In another country.
You think someone would very quickly create a new American automobile company that would offset the job loss resulting from the demise of the Big Three?
Seriously?
What do small businesses have to do with this?
What do small businesses have to do with this?
The bailout scenario doesn't involve a massive unemployment spike that sends local and state economies into self-reinforcing, downward spirals.
yes, let's start an alternative car with no supply chain.
plz ban beardo and icon TA
And since when was it the governments responsibility to keep people employed. Shit thats not what they are there for at all.
And since when was it the governments responsibility to keep people employed. Shit thats not what they are there for at all.
I would hope that many of the alternative car companies out there that have been overshadowed by the big three would take advantage. It would, even judging by this thread, take a whole new way of thinking for Americans though.
Governments are for what their society decides they should be for:bow
And since when was it the governments responsibility to keep people employed. Shit thats not what they are there for at all.Then what are the government's responsibilities then?
I would hope that many of the alternative car companies out there that have been overshadowed by the big three would take advantage. It would, even judging by this thread, take a whole new way of thinking for Americans though.
Tell me about these companies and how they'd be equipped to fill the void in the market, especially compared to foreign competitors.
I would hope that many of the alternative car companies out there that have been overshadowed by the big three would take advantage. It would, even judging by this thread, take a whole new way of thinking for Americans though.
Tell me about these companies and how they'd be equipped to fill the void in the market, especially compared to foreign competitors.
Are you talking jobs or making cars?
Do you guys think the bailout will work?
Do you guys think the bailout will work?
The bailout allows for GM/Chrysler to have a nice slow, measured crash landing instead of a suicide dive.
So, yes. It will work in that regard.
Do they really employ that many people though?
They employ a ton of people, and it's geographically concentrated. That's why TA linked to the story he did; the job losses won't be evenly spread out but will devastate certain communities, killing the retail and services sectors in those places.
We're talking about letting an industry go under, rather than a business. If a restaurant, store, school, etc. goes under then you can expect most of the employees, after a rough patch, to use their skills to get fairly comparable jobs. It sucks a lot for those affected but it's not a national emergency.
You fire a gazillion people whose main skill is in making cars and car parts, living in towns entirely dependent on the auto industry for business, and then tell them that industry isn't there anymore? Yikes.
You realize there are companies out there developing alternative fuel cars. This bail is going to hurt them.The way that patents are owned is an inverted pyramid. Small businesses sell out to the big guys. There might be engineers in a start-up making alternative fuel cars but they're no way that they'll sell the cars or parts themselves.
Okay if get this correct all of you guys are all about helping the middle class and creating jobs. Giving Detroit money might do this, but why are you guys not in support for allowing to drill for oil off shore or in Alaska. Surely that would be a huge boost for jobs and the economy.
Do you guys think the bailout will work?
The bailout allows for GM/Chrysler to have a nice slow, measured crash landing instead of a suicide dive.
So, yes. It will work in that regard.
Still resulting in a failure?
Okay if get this correct all of you guys are all about helping the middle class and creating jobs. Giving Detroit money might do this, but why are you guys not in support for allowing to drill for oil off shore or in Alaska. Surely that would be a huge boost for jobs and the economy.Cause it's a fucking oil rig in the middle of nowhere.
Big picture. Not economic games.
Oil rigs require engineers, operators, maintenance, aka lots of personnel in addition to the increased shipping and port personnel. The petroleum industry probably employs more people and probably at better jobs than the auto industry. Why not subsidize them?Because American cities would not be all that devastated by not having more oil rigs off shore or in Alaska.
The petroleum industry probably employs more people and probably at better jobs than the auto industry.
But think of the middle class jobs. Why do you hate the middle class so?Because the middle class isn't just any job in a certain tax bracket.
SMH @ double standards
My dad worked his whole life in the oil industry and lol @ typical jobs being better than auto jobs. :lol :lol :lol
The petroleum industry probably employs more people and probably at better jobs than the auto industry.
Wait, I thought the problem was that the UAW had strongarmed the Big Three into providing jobs that were too good, making their business model unsustainable.
They didn't have a mechanical engineering department??? Biggest engineering department at my wife's school. weird.
i dont know of any college that has an automotive department.
Total number of engineers employed by industry, as of the most recent data in 2001:Pulling shit out of your ass again I see.
Oil and gas extraction 13,000
Motor vehicles and equipment 26,100
Are the facts of oil being an environmental concern and increased domestic drilling would only serve to reinforce our addiction to it lost upon you?
QuoteAre the facts of oil being an environmental concern and increased domestic drilling would only serve to reinforce our addiction to it lost upon you?
But the American auto makers make the biggest gas guzzlers on the planet. You are supporting them right?
Do you think the big three will produce more fuel efficiant cars like the hybrid when this is passed?
They damn well better. I'm pretty sure the government insists on it.
Back to my point. Why be hypocritical and support one industry and not another. Clearly the petroleum industry is competent enough to not run them selves into the ground They employ middle class people. If you can argue for the auto bailout on the claim that we need to help middle class people, then you have to argue for allowing drilling offshore and in Alaska because of all the middle class jobs it will create. Not only that, but "allowing them to drill off shores" wont cost taxpayers $100 billion or however much you guys think they need.Not jumping into this argument, this is just a thought. I wonder if the big oil and gasline corporations will be able to sustain their workforce, wages and pensions when the oil industry really starts to struggle. The Big Three were fine until foreign competition and a change in markets hit.
So here are the two examples.
1. Bailout one industry that has been slowly failing over the past decade by giving them billions of Taxpayers dollars.
2. Allow off shore drilling and drilling on American soil to allow for cheaper energy and more jobs, not costing the taxpayers anything.
Please justify supporting #1 without supporting #2.
btw how about the house Republicans' alternate bill :lol
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1208/House_GOP_proposes_autoindustryfunded_insurance_program.htmlbtw how about the house Republicans' alternate bill :lol
Oh lordy I haven't heard about this. What's it entail?
"Rather than a taxpayer-funded government bailout that replaces private investment,," explains a leadership memo, "the House GOP plan proposes that the government provide insurance, funded by the participants with a modest FDIC-like fee, which would cover up to 50 percent of the losses of new investment in the case of default, helping to unlock immediate private investment."So instead of the government loaning the big 3 money, instead it will insure 50% of new private investment... because GM stock would be so much more appealing that way.
Probably gives tax breaks to the auto execs.
Manufacturing - Petroleum and coal products 4,600
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/table2.pdf (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/table2.pdf)
This?
I didnt see any engineers listed under Motor Vehicle manufacturing. ???
I didnt see any engineers listed under Motor Vehicle manufacturing. ???
I didnt see any engineers listed under Motor Vehicle manufacturing. ???
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/business/12auto.html
no bailout
beardo prevails!
So after the auto industry goes belly up, what will be left that Americans make? Hamburgers? Is that about it?
So after the auto industry goes belly up, what will be left that Americans make? Hamburgers? Is that about it?
sigh @ today
Bush is gonna use some of the bank bailout money to bailout the auto industry. Good for him
If you've been following the auto industry's crisis, then you've probably read or heard a lot about overpaid American autoworkers--in particular, the fact that the average hourly employee of the Big Three makes $70 per hour.
That's an awful lot of money. Seventy dollars an hour in wages works out to almost $150,000 a year in gross income, if you assume a forty-hour work week. Is it any wonder the Big Three are in trouble? And with auto workers making so much, why should taxpayers--many of whom make far less--finance a plan to bail them out?
Well, here's one reason: The figure is wildly misleading.
Let's start with the fact that it's not $70 per hour in wages. According to Kristin Dziczek of the Center for Automative Research--who was my primary source for the figures you are about to read--average wages for workers at Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors were just $28 per hour as of 2007. That works out to a little less than $60,000 a year in gross income--hardly outrageous, particularly when you consider the physical demands of automobile assembly work and the skills most workers must acquire over the course of their careers.
More important, and contrary to what you may have heard, the wages aren't that much bigger than what Honda, Toyota, and other foreign manufacturers pay employees in their U.S. factories. While we can't be sure precisely how much those workers make, because the companies don't make the information public, the best estimates suggests the corresponding 2007 figure for these "transplants"--as the foreign-owned factories are known--was somewhere between $20 and $26 per hour, and most likely around $24 or $25. That would put average worker's annual salary at $52,000 a year.
So the "wage gap," per se, has been a lot smaller than you've heard. And this is no accident. If the transplants paid their employees far less than what the Big Three pay their unionized workers, the United Auto Workers would have a much better shot of organizing the transplants' factories. Those factories remain non-unionized and management very much wants to keep it that way.
But then what's the source of that $70 hourly figure? It didn't come out of thin air. Analysts came up with it by including the cost of all employer-provided benefits--namely, health insurance and pensions--and then dividing by the number of workers. The result, they found, was that benefits for Big Three cost about $42 per hour, per employee. Add that to the wages--again, $28 per hour--and you get the $70 figure. Voila.
Except ... notice something weird about this calculation? It's not as if each active worker is getting health benefits and pensions worth $42 per hour. That would come to nearly twice his or her wages. (Talk about gold-plated coverage!) Instead, each active worker is getting benefits equal only to a fraction of that--probably around $10 per hour, according to estimates from the International Motor Vehicle Program. The number only gets to $70 an hour if you include the cost of benefits for retirees--in other words, the cost of benefits for other people. One of the few people to grasp this was Portfolio.com's Felix Salmon. As he noted friday, the claim that workers are getting $70 an hour in compensation is just "not true."
Of course, the cost of benefits for those retirees--you may have heard people refer to them as "legacy costs"--do represent an extra cost burden that only the Big Three shoulder. And, yes, it makes it difficult for the Big Three to compete with foreign-owned automakers that don't have to pay the same costs. But don't forget why those costs are so high. While the transplants don't offer the same kind of benefits that the Big Three do, the main reason for their present cost advantage is that they just don't have many retirees.
The first foreign-owned plants didn't start up here until the 1980s; many of the existing ones came well after that. As of a year ago, Toyota's entire U.S. operation had less than 1,000 retirees. Compare that to a company like General Motors, which has been around for more than a century and which supports literally hundreds of thousands of former workers and spouses. As you might expect, many of these have the sorts of advanced medical problems you expect from people to develop in old age. And, it should go without saying, those conditions cost a ton of money to treat.
To be sure, we've known about these demographics for a while. Management and labor in Detroit should have figured out a solution it long ago. But while the Big Three were late in addressing this problem, they did address it eventually.
Notice how, in this article, I've constantly referred to 2007 figures? There's a good reason. In 2007, the Big Three signed a breakthrough contract with the United Auto Workers (UAW) designed, once and for all, to eliminate the compensation gap between domestic and foreign automakers in the U.S.
The agreement sought to do so, first, by creating a private trust for financing future retiree benefits--effectively removing that burden from the companies' books. The auto companies agreed to deposit start-up money in the fund; after that, however, it would be up to the unions to manage the money. And it was widely understood that, given the realities of investment returns and health care economics, over time retiree health benefits would likely become less generous.
In addition, management and labor agreed to change health benefits for all workers, active or retired, so that the coverage looked more like the policies most people have today, complete with co-payments and deductibles. The new UAW agreement also changed the salary structure, by creating a two-tiered wage system. Under this new arrangement, the salary scale for newly hired workers would be lower than the salary scale for existing workers.
One can debate the propriety and wisdom of these steps; two-tiered wage structures, in particular, raise various ethical concerns. But one thing is certain: It was a radical change that promised to make Detroit far more competitive. If carried out as planned, by 2010--the final year of this existing contract--total compensation for the average UAW worker would actually be less than total compensation for the average non-unionized worker at a transplant factory. The only problem is that it will be several years before these gains show up on the bottom line--years the industry probably won't have if it doesn't get financial assistance from the government.
Make no mistake: The argument over a proposed rescue package is complicated, in no small part because over the years both management and labor made some truly awful decisions while postponing the inevitable reckoning with economic reality. And even if the government does provide money, it's a tough call whether restructuring should proceed with or without a formal bankruptcy filing. Either way, yet more downsizing is inevitable.
But the next time you hear somebody say the unions have to make serious salary and benefit concessions, keep in mind that they already have--enough to keep the companies competitive, if only they can survive this crisis.
The only point of this bill is to buy the DEMs time to pass Card Check so the UAW will have an upper hand when the next debate happens in March/April. Its sickening Bush is going along with it (but completely expected) and its awesome how the GOP seems to want to fillibuster the fuck out of it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/24/opinion/main4630103.shtml
as with all things republican, virulent ideological hatred. specifically, hatred of those dirty socialist unions.
this is gonna be the very DEATH of republican economic conservatism, and at a nasty price.
It's a sad sad day when the shrub is smarter than the rest of his useless party
Gettelfinger (UAW rep): "Even if we work for free, GM cannot make it out of December"
Nay votes:
31 Republicans
4 Democrats
Seems pretty one sided to me >:(
spin? please. that voting record was taken right from the source you posted. I have not read this entire thread so I cannot comment if someone claimed that only republicans voted against, but that might as well have been the case.Nay votes:
31 Republicans
4 Democrats
Seems pretty one sided to me >:(
Nice Spin. My point was that it wasn't only the Republican party that stopped this Bill. There were Democrats who voted against it to. This thread was turning into a only Republicans voted against it thread.
But don't forget, besides those 4 that voted against, 4 more didn't vote at all. And as I said, Biden was expected, but those other 3 just decided to stay at home and drink lattes I guess.
Gettelfinger (UAW rep): "Even if we work for free, GM cannot make it out of December"
But, you didn't want to work for free.
In fact, you wanted to delay any wage cuts until 2011. Which actually means you had absolutely no intention of accepting wage cuts in the first place.
Welp, that's that. RGE is reporting Paulson has agreed to use TARP funds.
So much for the needed restructuring...
I do agree that the wages some workers make is unjustified. I have a few family members that are UAW carholders and they make $25+ for what amounts to pushing a broom around. If they finish their work in an alotted amount of time, they are not allowed to do any further work and thus sit around most of the day.
Actual UAW worker wages are substantially the same as foreign competitors.
Actual UAW worker wages are substantially the same as foreign competitors.
Yep...that's why after selling roughly the same number of cars Toyota made $1.7 billion and GM lost $9 billion.
Actual UAW worker wages are substantially the same as foreign competitors.
Yep...that's why after selling roughly the same number of cars Toyota made $1.7 billion and GM lost $9 billion.
GM to close all NA plant for the first 6 weeks of 2009. (http://business.theglobeandmail.com/.../Business/home)Including the Corvette factory? :'(
Including the Corvette factory? :'(I'm betting that most car enthusiasts will hold a grudge against the republican party after this.
An interesting aside here is that now the Republicans are a Southern regional party there's a vested interest in supporting the foreign automakers over the domestic ones, since that's where the non-union foreign plants reside.
Including the Corvette factory? :'(I'm betting that most car enthusiasts will hold a grudge against the republican party after this.
They're true patriots :americanQuoteAn interesting aside here is that now the Republicans are a Southern regional party there's a vested interest in supporting the foreign automakers over the domestic ones, since that's where the non-union foreign plants reside.
and with that, i gained enlightenment and all became clear
QuoteAn interesting aside here is that now the Republicans are a Southern regional party there's a vested interest in supporting the foreign automakers over the domestic ones, since that's where the non-union foreign plants reside.
and with that, i gained enlightenment and all became clear
Here are preliminary estimates, subject to change, of what is being offered for the VW plant and related development:
* $81 million — Property given to Volkswagen. The city and county will provide Volkswagen about 1,350 acres of the Enterprise South industrial park. The land is listed at $60,000 an acre.
* $30 million for worker training. Tennessee will pay for recruitment, screening and training of new workers hired for the plant and will help pay for new training center to be built at Enterprise South. Comparable with retraining incentives at GM’s Saturn plant, the state would spend about $12,000 per employee. Federal, state and local governments also have pledged to build at least a $6 million technical training center on site. Training incentives could be even more over time.
* $43 million on roads, highway connections. Federal and state governments will spend more than $20 million on connector roads and a 4-lane thoroughfare through Enterprise South. A $23 million interchange on Interstate 75 at mile marker 9 was completed in 2006.
* $3.5 million in rail line upgrades. Through the Hamilton County Railroad Authority, the state, city and county have pledged to upgrade rail connections to the VW site from both the Norfolk Southern and the CSX railroads.
* $200 million — Job tax credits over 20 years. A state-offered job tax credit of $5,000 per job over 20 years is available on corporate taxes for companies investing at least $1 billion. It is valued at $100,000 over the next two decades for potentially 2,000 employees VW plans to hire.
* $150 million to $350 million — Property tax breaks over 30 years
Pending approval, the city and county will give up all but the educational component of local property taxes on the $1 billion plant for 30 years. VW will pay at least $5.5 million annually in school property taxes. But the rest of the property tax abatement initially would save at least $12 million a year on a $1 billion plant. Plant machinery is assessed at 30 percent of value and will depreciate after eight years, so the ongoing value of the personalty tax break could drop. But taxes on the land and buildings, assessed at 40 percent of value, will maintain the tax break through 2039, assuming the company meets job and investment targets.
* Other incentives. State and local governments also have pledged to help prepare the site, add utilities and fire protection, offer sales tax exemptions on industrial machinery purchases and pollution control equipment and give job tax credits to suppliers that locate immediately around the plant. TVA and EPB will offer some low-cost loans from the Valley Advantage Fund and provide several million dollars worth of growth credits for power purchases. Local utilities also will extend service to the new plant. The value of such incentives has not yet been calculated.
Sources: Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development, Volkswagen AG, Hamilton County trustee’s office, Chattanooga mayor’s office
Actual UAW worker wages are substantially the same as foreign competitors.
Yep...that's why after selling roughly the same number of cars Toyota made $1.7 billion and GM lost $9 billion.
this statement is incredible. i am going to print it out and hang it on my cubicle.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/ericprva/2-6.jpg)
this is an amazingly laser focused worldview and i will keep it and look at it from time to time with a kind of awe and wonder.
At least foreign automakers make a product that people buy. ZING!:usacry
At least foreign automakers make a product that people buy. ZING!http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html#autosalesD
"Republicans should stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor, instead of taking their first blow from it."
I like how it's just assumed that they should do things which would hurt unions. It really is a bogeyman complex for them.
"Republicans should stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor, instead of taking their first blow from it."
I like how it's just assumed that they should do things which would hurt unions. It really is a bogeyman complex for them.
It's kinda like applying the Bush Doctrine to organized labor
December 13, 2008
Big 3 rescue wins rivals' support
Foreign-based carmakers fear backlash collapse of Detroit's auto industry would have on supply chain.
Christine Tierney / The Detroit News
WASHINGTON -- They may be unrelenting rivals of Detroit's Big Three, but foreign-based automakers don't relish the prospect that one or more of Detroit's automakers might go under.
On the contrary, the risk that one of the U.S. car companies could collapse deeply worries Asian and German manufacturers with U.S. factories.
As the industry's outlook has deteriorated in recent months, executives at foreign car companies have said they want to see Detroit's cash-strapped automakers get through the crisis, noting that they all share the same network of suppliers.
"We're joined at the hip with our Detroit brethren in manufacturing," said Irv Miller, group vice president and chief spokesman at Toyota Motor Corp.'s U.S. sales subsidiary. Whatever the U.S. government proposes to keep the U.S. automakers afloat, "we support it," Miller said.
On Friday the Bush administration signaled that it would extend a financial lifeline to General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC after a bailout bill died Thursday night in the Senate, where it ran into fierce opposition from Republicans. Some of the bill's most vocal critics, such as Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama and Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, represent southern states that have successfully courted investment from foreign automakers.
In the past few weeks, as senators from states with foreign transplants have grown more strident in their criticism of Detroit's top managers and the United Auto Workers union, executives from Japanese and German companies have tried to distance themselves from those sentiments.
Honda executives made it clear last month that they didn't share the views expressed by Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., who said during the opening of Honda Motor Co.'s new assembly plant in Greensburg, Ind., that he would rather see the U.S. automakers file for bankruptcy than receive taxpayer money.
Jeffrey Smith, assistant vice president for corporate affairs at American Honda, told reporters, "Honda supports measures that would maintain the short- and long-term viability and stability of the auto industry."
Like his colleagues at Toyota, Smith noted that all automakers that have U.S. production facilities are "deeply and closely integrated at the supply base."
Some executives at foreign automakers are being tactful to prevent a resurgence of the kind of protectionism and backlash that flared in the 1970s and 1980s. But those sentiments have subsided, particularly in regions where German automakers BMW AG and Daimler AG's Mercedes-Benz and the Japanese and Koreans have built factories.
Executives at the Japanese manufacturers have been surprised to hear lawmakers assert that their workers earn far less than workers employed by Detroit's automakers. One executive who spoke on condition of anonymity confirmed UAW President Ron Gettelfinger's remarks Friday that team members, or line workers, at Toyota's largest North American assembly plant in Georgetown, Ky., earned more than the average UAW worker.
According to Gettelfinger, a UAW worker earns wages of just over $28 an hour, on average, compared with $30.45 an hour for Georgetown's non-union workers. That includes profit-sharing bonuses that are likely to decline for the current year.
Toyota lost about a billion $ in the last six months. (http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre4bc0fs-us-toyota/)
They don't do quarterly reports, they do it by half-years. Anyways, still, the first loss they've reported in almost a decade, but they are still expected to report a profit for the year overall. Also, to combat this Toyota is becoming a bunch of dirty pinko commies. (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nb20081215a1.html)
Toyota lost about a billion $ in the last six months. (http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre4bc0fs-us-toyota/)
They don't do quarterly reports, they do it by half-years. Anyways, still, the first loss they've reported in almost a decade, but they are still expected to report a profit for the year overall. Also, to combat this Toyota is becoming a bunch of dirty pinko commies. (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nb20081215a1.html)
That not communism. That's a rational business decision. Communism would be taking money from one group of people (taxpayers) and giving it to some else that doesn't deserve it (UAW).
Oh thats right, silly me. "To each according to their need."
Why do Republicans hate Joe the Auto Worker so much?All that money flowing out to all those people would be better serving the needs of a couple CEOs.
Why do Republicans hate Joe the Auto Worker so much?All that money flowing out to all those people would be better serving the needs of a couple CEOs.
The alternative - letting the auto industry bottom out/4mil+ people losing jobs - is not even an optionWhy?
because you would spend more in social services and support for 4 million unemployed people than you would on bailing out the auto industry
because you would spend more in social services and support for 4 million unemployed people than you would on bailing out the auto industry
it's like $500 in preventive surgery vs. $5,000 in emergency surgery
because you would spend more in social services and support for 4 million unemployed people than you would on bailing out the auto industry
it's like $500 in preventive surgery vs. $5,000 in emergency surgery
Yes. Can you imagine the trauma the economy would suffer if 4 million people were suddenly jobless? That effects everybody, especially my state
because you would spend more in social services and support for 4 million unemployed people than you would on bailing out the auto industry
it's like $500 in preventive surgery vs. $5,000 in emergency surgery
Yes. Can you imagine the trauma the economy would suffer if 4 million people were suddenly jobless? That effects everybody, especially my state
Yeah I mean people would actually have to find a job in an industry that can support itself. Oh the horror!!!!
because you would spend more in social services and support for 4 million unemployed people than you would on bailing out the auto industry
So the problem is the social entitlements...
What industry or industries do you know of that is able to absorb all these people?
because you would spend more in social services and support for 4 million unemployed people than you would on bailing out the auto industry
So the problem is the social entitlements...
I wish there was a parallel universe that we could jettison you to so you could see what it's like to struggle for a living.
You're living in some kind of fantasy world where wealth and opportunities are distributed equally.
because you would spend more in social services and support for 4 million unemployed people than you would on bailing out the auto industry
So the problem is the social entitlements...
Would you rather have a pack of 4 million hungry auto industry hobos roaming the Great Plains? If somebody is unemployed would you rather see them and their family wither and die than raise a hand to help?spoiler (click to show/hide)I already know how this goes - you'll pretend that private charity groups are sufficient to support the homeless and unemployed - even 4 million additional unemployed - and that the principle isn't charity but the forced charity of the government taking your money. You're depressingly predictable and repulsively amoral.[close]
because you would spend more in social services and support for 4 million unemployed people than you would on bailing out the auto industry
So the problem is the social entitlements...
Would you rather have a pack of 4 million hungry auto industry hobos roaming the Great Plains? If somebody is unemployed would you rather see them and their family wither and die than raise a hand to help?spoiler (click to show/hide)I already know how this goes - you'll pretend that private charity groups are sufficient to support the homeless and unemployed - even 4 million additional unemployed - and that the principle isn't charity but the forced charity of the government taking your money. You're depressingly predictable and repulsively amoral.[close]
I do help charities. All the time. I just dont like being forced to do it.
because you would spend more in social services and support for 4 million unemployed people than you would on bailing out the auto industry
So the problem is the social entitlements...
Would you rather have a pack of 4 million hungry auto industry hobos roaming the Great Plains? If somebody is unemployed would you rather see them and their family wither and die than raise a hand to help?spoiler (click to show/hide)I already know how this goes - you'll pretend that private charity groups are sufficient to support the homeless and unemployed - even 4 million additional unemployed - and that the principle isn't charity but the forced charity of the government taking your money. You're depressingly predictable and repulsively amoral.[close]
I do help charities. All the time. I just dont like being forced to do it.
I, on the other hand, get a huge kick out of forcing you to do it. :)
Pretty much. Looks like we're winning too, so suck it down :)
I'm going to shoot myself long before I suffer the indignities of the aged.
We have people that are worried about surviving in this current economic climate, including retirees and you're worried about our social security?
And then invest your money in something that is 100% failsafe.
We have people that are worried about surviving in this current economic climate, including retirees and you're worried about our social security?
Yeah, I'm so selfish. Wanting to actually see my money again some day. Silly me.
Me and you probably will never see a penny from social security. That doesn't bother anyone?
And then invest your money in something that is 100% failsafe.
I'm going to move to an abandoned off shore oil rig that is made of gold.
I think most Libertarians like FoC are middle class or upper middle class kids that never experienced a hard day in their life. That explains why they have absolutely no perspective outside of their own personal gain.
QuoteMe and you probably will never see a penny from social security. That doesn't bother anyone?
huh? Social Security is fine, Medicare/Medicaid are where serious future problems are anticipated.
Of course. Don't worry SD, the teamsters would never do anything unseemly like slip you roofies and snap pics of you marrying a drag queen.
What will your friends think?
General Motors and Chrysler will receive up to $17.4 billion in short-term loans from the US government as part of an aid package to the troubled auto industry.
According to details of the plan made available to CNBC.com. the package involves $13.4 billion in short-term financing from the $700 billion Wall Street bailout fund, known as TARP.
An additional $4 billion will be made available in February, though that will be contingent on drawing down the remaining $350 billion of the TARP fund.
The money comes with strings attached. If the companies are not viable by March 31, 2009, the loan will be called and all funds returned to the Treasury, according to the plan.
The terms also include limits on exceutive pay and warrants for non-voting stock.
This bailout is complete shit.
Every one of the targets is non-binding.
We should cut the middle man and just have the government pay all of our salaries. Seems like a god way to streamline this whole thing.
This bailout is complete shit.
Every one of the targets is non-binding.
What targets were financial companies required to hit for their several trillion dollars in aid?
They should have just bailed out the workers and third parties. Give the useless car companies a bit of breathing room to restructure and save their own sinking ships.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-car-makers-to-get-loan-aid-worth-174bn-1204481.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-car-makers-to-get-loan-aid-worth-174bn-1204481.html)
With only a month before leaving office, Bush emphasized that he normally opposed intervening in the free market but that the US economy was too fragile now to allow the two big automakers to go bankrupt and throw thousands out of work.
Chrysler, which is the weakest of the automakers, will get $4 billion in initial funding. The company said concessions would happen quickly and it would continue to undertake "significant cost reductions."
GM, due for $13.4 billion, said the bailout will lead to a leaner and stronger company. Ford, which says its liquidity is adequate for now, said it hoped to continue restructuring without need for a government line of credit.
Conditions imposed by the White House include requiring the automakers to provide restructuring plans by March 31, with an interim report in mid-February. There would also be limits on executive compensation and other perks and the government would receive warrants for non-voting stock.
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Joel Kaplan told reporters that the terms of the loan were tough and tried to accomplish many of the goals laid out in legislation that Congress failed to approve earlier this month.
"I think that they have to be tough if we're to be successful in achieving the restructuring that I think most objective observers would say is necessary for these companies to be viable," he said.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson will serve as Bush's designee to oversee the loans until he leaves office on 20 January and Obama will be able to select his own designee when he takes office, Kaplan said.
Kaplan also said that if the Obama team had a name already in mind to serve as the designee, the Bush White House was open to discussing it.
The designee, which for the moment seems to take the place of the "car czar" that some in Congress had envisioned, will determine whether the carmakers' plans to become viable are sufficient.
Viability would be mean that the companies must have a positive net present value going forward, which doesn't necessarily mean immediate profitability but would require them to reach that point relatively soon, one administration official said.
Under the deal, GM and Chrysler must cut workers' wages and benefits to the level of counterparts at Japanese manufacturers by the end of next year, a timetable which employees view as unfair. In a direct challenge to Bush's authority, the UAW said it would appeal to president-elect Barack Obama to change the terms when he takes office next month. "While we appreciate that President Bush has taken the emergency action needed to help America's auto companies weather the current financial crisis, we are disappointed that he has added unfair conditions singling out workers," said the UAW president, Ron Gettelfinger.
In return for the money, the firms must prove by the end of March that they are financially viable, with prospects for long-term profits.
They will have to sell their private jets, halt bonus payments to senior executives and seek government approval of transactions worth more than $100m. They must even tell the treasury of any deviations from expenses policy on minutiae such as travel, Christmas parties and conferences.
GM's chief executive, Rick Wagoner, said there had been little room for negotiation after a "stunning slowdown" in business.
"You wouldn't wish this kind of crisis on any industry, or company, or on our people," he said. "It's been very difficult."
This bailout is complete shit.
Every one of the targets is non-binding.
What targets were financial companies required to hit for their several trillion dollars in aid?
The United Auto Workers may be out of the hole now that President Bush has approved a $17 billion bailout of the U.S. auto industry, but the union isn't out of the bunker just yet.
Even as the industry struggles with massive losses, the UAW brass continue to own and operate a $33 million lakeside retreat in Michigan, complete with a $6.4 million designer golf course. And it's costing them millions each year.