Should the government bailout the American car companies?

[SteveR]

Tim is right, image is everything. People still think of the 90's and...hell..even early 2000's. You also have people that might have bought one 80's GM or Ford vehicle and it turned out to be junk, they still swear they'll never buy another domestic. The media doesn't help either...Toyota, Nissan and Hon-duh are Gods in this country, RARELY do you hear of any recalls over the news for them(and yes, they are recalls) yet the second GM or Ford has one it's like someone insulted Jesus...it's all over the news.

GM and Ford will be fine, they made mistakes and were late to the party on what vehicles are selling but they'll come out of this.

Very true, but Ford and GM's recalls have been pretty major :lol: Like Ford's recall of the Crown Vics... because if mildly hit in the rear, the gas tank would explode :lol: or the Mustangs, with deadly killer airbags :lol: Or the whole reason the Explorer got its nickname, the Exploder

[NJSPEEDER]

We can talk about Toyota with the magic 2 piece cams or Honda with their flammable heated seats (not actually catch fire but burn your ass cause the regulators were defective). Even Volkswagon, everyone's favorite cute little car, spent several years finishing dead last in initial customer satisfaction

At the same time you can look at some defects and find something impressive from them, Ford had several thousand trucks go off the assembly line several years ago without head gaskets, none of the engines failed. That is pretty damn impressive.

The American companies got used to winning all the awards and stopped hyping themselves on them. When you stop putting yourself out there as the best, people stop believing you are any good at all, regardless of how much proof of value and quality you actually have.

-Tim

[BonzoHansen]

...with their flammable heated seats (not actually catch fire but burn your ass cause the regulators were defective)...
-TimThe seat in my Olds does the same thing.



Toyota was buying tundra engines due to sludge issues and complete tundras due to frame rot. that is pretty major, no?

[BigAls87Z28]

Tacomas had frame rot.
The 3.0 V6's had the sludge problems, so thats every variant of the Camry.
The new Tundra has had a slew of problems. Cam shafts snapping, tranny problems, torque converter shudders, not to mention the tailgates falling apart.
The greatest part is that Motor Trend talked about it in the middle of the article in which it proclaimed it Truck Of The Year??

Toyota also reported its first loss in America for the Q3.

[SteveR]

The new Tundra has had a slew of problems. Cam shafts snapping, tranny problems, torque converter shudders, not to mention the tailgates falling apart.
The greatest part is that Motor Trend talked about it in the middle of the article in which it proclaimed it Truck Of The Year??

That I will never understand.

[BigAls87Z28]

Especially when it was against the new 08 Silvy 2500 Dmax and the new F250 with the twinturbo diesel, it beat it cause the 3/4 tons and 1 tons were too truckish...

[BonzoHansen]

That I will never understand.

Typical

Toyota does major recall = great customer service
Ford does major recall = ford sucks ass.

[BigAls87Z28]

Yeah, I hear that too. "Well they are taking care of the problem." THE TRANSMISION STOPS WORKING AND THE CAM SHAFTS ARE SNAPPING!!

[shane27]

Typical

Toyota does major recall = great customer service
Ford does major recall = ford sucks ass.
more like

toyota does 1 major recall=great success!
ford does 11 major recals=yeah, ford sucks ass.

[BonzoHansen]

more like

toyota does 1 major recall=great success!
ford does 11 major recals=yeah, ford sucks ass.

So when toyota recalled more vehicles than they sold in 2006 that is ok? Was that just 1?

[Mulletbird]

Now, I think a recall on 2-piece cams and frame rot (as well as a few others I know of from work that I'm not allowed to talk about until ... hmm ... 2018) is a bit more major than the ones from Ford. I will stand by any American car.

Now, to get back onto the original topic - we need to do something, bail-out, buy-out, whatever. Either way, think about the economic effects of a loss the big 3 on Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, etc. Keep in mind, it's not just the jobs of the workers at the factories, but those at the supermarkets, cafes, diners, auto service stations, etc. that are on the line. Yes, the big 3 has not been doing as well as they should have for the past 20 years (as in they could've done better, could have forseen the disappearing SUV market, and if they saw that, they would have re-tooled their factories earlier) but then again, we can't afford to have them go out of business.

Now, should we set standards for them? Yes. I think the CEO's flying separate private jets was stupid and imo they should've been forced to hitch-hike their way out there with how poorly they've done their job, but we can't afford to lose GM, Mopar, and Ford. Now a buy-out of one company or another might be necessary (as has been said, we might not in the current economy be able to support 3 but 2 companies might be able to survive) but we can't manage losing all 3 imo.

[BigAls87Z28]

First off, lets dispell the myths.

1) Private Jets. EVERY CEO HAS A PRIVATE JET!! All the clowns from the fiancials that were put in front of the same commitee all flew there on private planes. Was it a bad PR move? Yeah. Did it need to be brought up? No, not at all.

2) The Big 3 did not see the forcoming fuel crisis and kept making SUV's. Well then neither did Toyota, Honda or Nissan. Lets look back in the 5 years. Toyota has upsized its Tacoma and Tundra, and then it moved its SUV's in size as well with the Sequia growing from the size of a large Explorer to bigger then a Suburban. Also included would be the Lexus variants. Lets also not forget Toyota doubling its line up with SUV's. Rav4, Highlander, 4Runner, Land Cruiser, FJ Cruiser and Sequia.
Honda has also added an 7 passanger SUV AND a "half ton" Pick up.
Nissian has also brought in the Titan, Armada (like a fleet of ships) and upsized the Pathfinder now with a V8, Xterra, Fronteer, and added to smaller SUV's the Roque and Murano.

So they didnt "forsee" any sort of gas crisis. Toyota used thier trucks to to built up thier sales. And if you can imagine what profit GM makes off UAW-built Suburbans, imagine the profit on a Sequia built in a non union plant in the deep south. Toyota couldnt stay away, neither could Nissian.

[Frosty]

Maybe the Jap companies didn't see the gas crisis coming up but it seems to me they reacted a lot quicker...lets not give the Big 3 a pass here because other companies didn't see the upcoming crisis.

[foff667]

First off, lets dispell the myths.

1) Private Jets. EVERY CEO HAS A PRIVATE JET!! All the clowns from the fiancials that were put in front of the same commitee all flew there on private planes. Was it a bad PR move? Yeah. Did it need to be brought up? No, not at all.

2) The Big 3 did not see the forcoming fuel crisis and kept making SUV's. Well then neither did Toyota, Honda or Nissan. Lets look back in the 5 years. Toyota has upsized its Tacoma and Tundra, and then it moved its SUV's in size as well with the Sequia growing from the size of a large Explorer to bigger then a Suburban. Also included would be the Lexus variants. Lets also not forget Toyota doubling its line up with SUV's. Rav4, Highlander, 4Runner, Land Cruiser, FJ Cruiser and Sequia.
Honda has also added an 7 passanger SUV AND a "half ton" Pick up.
Nissian has also brought in the Titan, Armada (like a fleet of ships) and upsized the Pathfinder now with a V8, Xterra, Fronteer, and added to smaller SUV's the Roque and Murano.

So they didnt "forsee" any sort of gas crisis. Toyota used thier trucks to to built up thier sales. And if you can imagine what profit GM makes off UAW-built Suburbans, imagine the profit on a Sequia built in a non union plant in the deep south. Toyota couldnt stay away, neither could Nissian.

1. Did it need to be brought up? eh, I think I would've understanding it probably costs them $20k+ to fly that thing to & from Detroit, now if they filled up that jet with dozens of their own people then it shouldn't be an issue. If it was just the CEO on the plane it sounds a little more disturbing that he couldn't just fly commercial. Its just too easy to point out wastefulness in this case & it definitely didn't help their case.

2. I totally agree, Toyota has gone larger & larger with their vehicles because they know they sell

[BigAls87Z28]

Im not giving them a pass, and yes the Japanese 3 did see to react quickly.
The Big 3 did not pay attention to the car market, that is for sure. But as of about 3-4 years ago, Ford and GM have moved foward with better cars. Chrysler has tried.
First big move was the new Malibu in 04. Its visual appearance was a big polarizing, but it was GMs first solid mid sizer. It was about 2-3 years too late, but still held strong vs Camry in quality. GM then revamped it in 08 and now is class leading. In between, you had the G6 and Saturn Aura to take up the gap.
The Fusion brought another excelent car to the market, along with Milan and Zepher/MKZ. 3 good cars to replace the lower end of the gap left by Taurus.
The Big 3..well, maybe 2, have put together solid vehicles since 2003, and they are getting better.

The Chevy Volt, Cruze, and the whole Family Zero engines have been coming together for years, well before the fuel crisis, not to mention the movements they already made with two-mode hybrids, BAS hybirds, E85, direct injection and HCCI.
Ford has been developing Ecoboost engines for some time as well. Ford has had a hyrbid vehicles on the market for 2 generations now, and coming out with more.
Things have been moving quickly for these large giants. They have developed technology to revolutionize the auto industry, but people cant see past the Hummer H2.

[BonzoHansen]

First off, lets dispell the myths.

1) Private Jets. EVERY CEO HAS A PRIVATE JET!! All the clowns from the fiancials that were put in front of the same commitee all flew there on private planes. Was it a bad PR move? Yeah. Did it need to be brought up? No, not at all. .
First, it was a GIANT PR mistake - they should have known the wolves would have their fangs out - especially the ones from the south that give the foreign companies big incentives to build. Second, just about no CEO shoud have one - it is a colossal waste of sharholder funds. Just because others do it doesn't make it right. Faulty logic.

[Frosty]

Im not giving them a pass, and yes the Japanese 3 did see to react quickly.
The Big 3 did not pay attention to the car market, that is for sure. But as of about 3-4 years ago, Ford and GM have moved foward with better cars. Chrysler has tried.
First big move was the new Malibu in 04. Its visual appearance was a big polarizing, but it was GMs first solid mid sizer. It was about 2-3 years too late, but still held strong vs Camry in quality. GM then revamped it in 08 and now is class leading. In between, you had the G6 and Saturn Aura to take up the gap.
The Fusion brought another excelent car to the market, along with Milan and Zepher/MKZ. 3 good cars to replace the lower end of the gap left by Taurus.
The Big 3..well, maybe 2, have put together solid vehicles since 2003, and they are getting better.

The Chevy Volt, Cruze, and the whole Family Zero engines have been coming together for years, well before the fuel crisis, not to mention the movements they already made with two-mode hybrids, BAS hybirds, E85, direct injection and HCCI.
Ford has been developing Ecoboost engines for some time as well. Ford has had a hyrbid vehicles on the market for 2 generations now, and coming out with more.
Things have been moving quickly for these large giants. They have developed technology to revolutionize the auto industry, but people cant see past the Hummer H2.

...and they need to really advertise that. Most people that are looking for economical cars have already dismissed Ford and GM as options due to the stigma they've had for decades...the biggest way to reverse that is advertise and market!

[BigAls87Z28]

Its expected. I have no problem with them having jets. I have no problem with any CEO traveling on company private jets at all.
I have a problem with execs getting rub and tugs to the tune of a half a million dollars, only to return to Washington to get ANOTHER 50 BILLION DOLLARS!! And no one batted an eye lash! NO ONE NOT A SINGLE ****IN SENATOR!!!

[Tsar]

I didn't get a chance to watch today's drama due to end of the semester work, anyone have summary? I only heard that they want more money now. :lol:

[BonzoHansen]

I want more money too!

[Tsar]

I want more money too!
Same, I gotta buy more Christmas presents!

[NJSPEEDER]

It baffles me why so many of these congressmen and senators keep telling the auto industry to help themselves, meanwhile they want to create a socialized 401k system at the same time. So companies are expected to get f'ed over and take it on the chin when they make bad decisions but individuals that are too stupid to invest or be patient enough to see investments mature get a free ride?

We already have one defective Social Security system, it scares me to think these chuckle heads want to add a second instead of insuring millions of people have jobs.

-Tim

[BonzoHansen]

Watching the news right now, GM will over next 3 years....

Cut 31000 jobs
Close 11 of 48 plants
Phase out 2000 dealers
Sell Saab
Sell Saturn

Edit: Add GM excerpt from article on WSJ site:
In the conference call on Tuesday, Mr. Henderson said GM is seeking $12 billion in loans and an additional credit line of $6 billion. In return, GM would be open to giving taxpayers warrants for company stock, a senior position in the company's lineup of creditors, and a promise to pay the money back sometime around 2012.

He said GM believes its North American operations can break even by 2012.

GM plans to begin discussions this week with bondholders and the United Auto Workers in an attempt to cut its debt load by $30 billion, or in about half. That initiative will include a an offer for investors to swap debt for equity in GM, and a restructuring of GM's obligations to a UAW health-care trust set to begin paying benefits to retirees in 2010.

The attempt to restructure the balance sheet is essentially an out-of-court bankruptcy reorganization, Mr. Henderson conceded.

To slim down its operations, GM told Congress it is looking at selling its Saab division, could sell or consolidate its Saturn brand and trim its vehicle line up to about 40 models from 60.

Mr. Henderson said that GM's sprawling manufacturing footprint will be at the same cost level as chief rival Toyota's "no later than 2012." GM will continue trimming jobs, structural costs and attempt to hire lower-cost workers in order to achieve or exceed that goal.

[SteveR]

What's the point of closing out dealerships? That makes no sense, the dealerships are privately owned. Unless they're saying that all this will force them to close on their own :rofl:

[FBODS4EVER]

not just the private jet issue. i heard one ceo makes 21 million a year. he needs a pay cut. but id like to see the car companies get their money. no reason for the banks to get it. and car co.'s not. they play a major factor in the economy as well. id hate to have to buy one of them bikes with the big wheels like in the 1800's. it'll hurt my arsh.:moon:

[Knipps]

To stir the pot, I want to know what you guys think of this
http://theamericansentinel.com/2008/11/24/definition-of-insanity-us-to-pledge-another-77-trillion-to-bailouts/

[NJSPEEDER]

That is exactly part of the problem that I have with the hard time that the Big 3 are getting in securing help. The finance companies have been handed a blank check and it has been given freely. The auto manufacturers ask for a loan and the government is acting like it is some horrible thing.

The financiers need a reality check.

-Tim

[SteveR]

To stir the pot, I want to know what you guys think of this
http://theamericansentinel.com/2008/11/24/definition-of-insanity-us-to-pledge-another-77-trillion-to-bailouts/

"regulators commit far more money while refusing to disclose loan recipients or reveal the collateral they are taking in return"

Nice. Bankrupt the country. 10 trillion? Pocket change. These are all great reasons why not to pay your taxes.

[BonzoHansen]

"regulators commit far more money while refusing to disclose loan recipients or reveal the collateral they are taking in return"

+1 to that.

[Tsar]

That is exactly part of the problem that I have with the hard time that the Big 3 are getting in securing help. The finance companies have been handed a blank check and it has been given freely. The auto manufacturers ask for a loan and the government is acting like it is some horrible thing.

The financiers need a reality check.

-Tim

This is a stab in the dark, but perhaps other industries are more profitable than auto industry, as indicated on this chart. :shrug:
http://smarteconomy.typepad.com/smart_economy/images/2007/09/26/profit_margins_2.gif Don't kill me if I'm wrong. And I'm aware that the chart is old but I doubt it changed much.



Also question to anyone, the most recent FORTUNE magazine states that GM has operated in a negative since 2000, is that true?

[BigAls87Z28]

This is a stab in the dark, but perhaps other industries are more profitable than auto industry, as indicated on this chart. :shrug:
http://smarteconomy.typepad.com/smart_economy/images/2007/09/26/profit_margins_2.gif Don't kill me if I'm wrong. And I'm aware that the chart is old but I doubt it changed much.



Also question to anyone, the most recent FORTUNE magazine states that GM has operated in a negative since 2000, is that true?

That was 2005, the peak of "profit" from subprime morgages....
Poor poor poor sample.
Comparing profit margins of someone who makes a profit making a product vs someone who sells a service are TOTALY different.

GM automotive has not been profitable for a while, its GMAC that kept them afloat, yes.
The current management didnt take control till 2003, and reorganization didnt start till 2005.

[BigAls87Z28]

There is a small small small part of me wants all three of them to get into massive car accidents ont he way to DC. Its December, its snowing in the midwest, temps are below freezing, its not unimaginable.
I would hope that The Big 3 and thier familes would sue the **** out of the Goverment for making them jump through these stupid hoops to get a measily 25 billion dollars.
Drive ****in cars nearly 1000 miles ONE WAY through the worst part of the country, at teh worst part of the year. Every stupid fat lazy southern senator that made them do all these stupid things like take a dollar for salary, give up thier private jets, and other stupid things that WONT DO **** TO MAKE THEM MOVE FOWARD AND MAKE BETTER CARS.

[SteveR]

Every stupid fat lazy southern senator that made them do all these stupid things like take a dollar for salary, give up thier private jets, and other stupid things that WONT DO **** TO MAKE THEM MOVE FOWARD AND MAKE BETTER CARS.

And that these senators won't do themselves. They all have private health care plans just for them, they have private jets too, get paid good money, and they are the leaders of the Senate Finance Committee, yet our finances are crap. Will they give up their jets and health care and benefits and salary too because our financial system is crap and it's their oversight? I think not.

[Tsar]

Where can I sign up for the "measly" 25 bil?

[Mulletbird]

1. Did it need to be brought up? eh, I think I would've understanding it probably costs them $20k+ to fly that thing to & from Detroit, now if they filled up that jet with dozens of their own people then it shouldn't be an issue. If it was just the CEO on the plane it sounds a little more disturbing that he couldn't just fly commercial. Its just too easy to point out wastefulness in this case & it definitely didn't help their case.

2. I totally agree, Toyota has gone larger & larger with their vehicles because they know they sell

Yes, they do fly others on those jets USUALLY (I know because when I worked at Borg-Warner - that's right, tier-1 supplier, and I worked in Diesel Systems for the big 3 + numerous others) and I got an email about once a week about openings on a corporate jet. But, Borg-warner is still doing great because we work with anyone, so if anybody makes money in the auto industry, so do we. On the other hand, I got an inside-look at how the big 3 work, and there's alot that imo could be done better. Like with government, too much politics wastes time and money.

[Mulletbird]

Im not giving them a pass, and yes the Japanese 3 did see to react quickly.
The Big 3 did not pay attention to the car market, that is for sure. But as of about 3-4 years ago, Ford and GM have moved foward with better cars. Chrysler has tried.
First big move was the new Malibu in 04. Its visual appearance was a big polarizing, but it was GMs first solid mid sizer. It was about 2-3 years too late, but still held strong vs Camry in quality. GM then revamped it in 08 and now is class leading. In between, you had the G6 and Saturn Aura to take up the gap.
The Fusion brought another excelent car to the market, along with Milan and Zepher/MKZ. 3 good cars to replace the lower end of the gap left by Taurus.
The Big 3..well, maybe 2, have put together solid vehicles since 2003, and they are getting better.

The Chevy Volt, Cruze, and the whole Family Zero engines have been coming together for years, well before the fuel crisis, not to mention the movements they already made with two-mode hybrids, BAS hybirds, E85, direct injection and HCCI.
Ford has been developing Ecoboost engines for some time as well. Ford has had a hyrbid vehicles on the market for 2 generations now, and coming out with more.
Things have been moving quickly for these large giants. They have developed technology to revolutionize the auto industry, but people cant see past the Hummer H2.

Do you own an E-85 vehicle? It is too expensive, and comes nowhere near the regular gas mode in terms of power (I have a friend, who happens to have won brackets with his e-85 truck in Lapeer, MI after I left) and just all around runs like **** according to him.

[Mulletbird]

First, it was a GIANT PR mistake - they should have known the wolves would have their fangs out - especially the ones from the south that give the foreign companies big incentives to build. Second, just about no CEO shoud have one - it is a colossal waste of sharholder funds. Just because others do it doesn't make it right. Faulty logic.

yep. Now, if the company is doing great and the CEO is doing a good job, it's one of those benefits to help keep a good ceo. Not that they're bad, but imo if your company suffers, you should take a hit - especially if you're asking people to find other work after keeping up their side, and 100% if you're saying your company is about to go under.

[BigAls87Z28]

Do you own an E-85 vehicle? It is too expensive, and comes nowhere near the regular gas mode in terms of power (I have a friend, who happens to have won brackets with his e-85 truck in Lapeer, MI after I left) and just all around runs like **** according to him.

Uh..E85 is on average cheaper then regular gas. In Penn alone, E85 is average 1.49, which is deff. cheaper then Penn gas, since 1.49 is cheaper then NJ.
No, it doesnt produce the same amount of power in conventional engines, but in engines DESIGNED for it, such as Ford's Ecoboost and Saabs Biopower vehicles.

http://www.e85prices.com/

[Tsar]

That was 2005, the peak of "profit" from subprime morgages....
Poor poor poor sample. Ok, well where are the top industries now as far as the profitability goes? And the better question, I think, has the automotive sector become more profitable than 1.1 cents of a dollar?

Comparing profit margins of someone who makes a profit making a product vs someone who sells a service are TOTALY different. Profit is profit, I care about money.

GM automotive has not been profitable for a while, its GMAC that kept them afloat, yes.
The current management didnt take control till 2003, and reorganization didnt start till 2005.So wait, before you were saying that this recent Big 3 "crysis" has been due to the financial sector crap-out. Well what happened the other 7.5 years? The business has been failing for 8 years and now they want our money to keep themselves aflot? What is gonna change when they get their money (I do not doubt that they will get it)? Will they turn profit next year? No. Year after that? probably not, WHEN?? Kepping a business that has been in a slump for nearly a decade is...well poor business practice, but we have been over this part.


Oh didn't you say that it was going to cost us "only" 25 billion? What happened to that "factoid"? it's up to 34 now, How much more will they need after they WASTE 34 billion?

[Knipps]

Now the execs are saying they'll accept $1 pay.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/02/big.three.bailout.plans/index.html?iref=newssearch

and there's something on CNN now about the UAW in talks to renegotiate with the Big 3

[Mulletbird]

Yeah, those are the two things that need to happen - exec pay has to drop, and the pay of basic labor has to be more merit-based than the number of years you have. If those two things change, at least two (ford and gm) will be able to pull it off. Mopar/chrysler's been struggling for over a decade, and it doesn't look too good for them still.

[BigAls87Z28]

Ok, well where are the top industries now as far as the profitability goes? And the better question, I think, has the automotive sector become more profitable than 1.1 cents of a dollar?

No, but financials sure aint that big.

Profit is profit, I care about money.

If you want profit, go pump oil.

So wait, before you were saying that this recent Big 3 "crysis" has been due to the financial sector crap-out. Well what happened the other 7.5 years? The business has been failing for 8 years and now they want our money to keep themselves aflot? What is gonna change when they get their money (I do not doubt that they will get it)? Will they turn profit next year? No. Year after that? probably not, WHEN?? Kepping a business that has been in a slump for nearly a decade is...well poor business practice, but we have been over this part.

One of the major factors into the recent total loss of funds is the crapping out of the financial area, yes. On both buying the cars, and loaning the money to move foward with large programs.
Im gunna have to check, but GM posted a profit several times over the past 8 years, just not a tremendus amount.
What is gunna change is what they have been doing for the past 3years now. Shaking 100 year old traditions dont happen over night, you cannot turn around a ship this big that fast. THIS IS AMERICA'S PROBLEM!!! In this microwaveable world, they want to see them make a profit with a small drop in the bucket.
GM has made moves to cut its structual costs 9 billion dollars over the last year, and come 2010, will jump another 20 billion. When will it be profitable? When the dollar can be maniuplated against the Euro and we can dump thousands of cars in Europe or any other country's currency.

GM and Ford have both made MAJOR moves while making everyone happy and while they werent making money hand over fist like oil companies or financials, they werent ****ing the people that bought thier products or services.

Oh didn't you say that it was going to cost us "only" 25 billion? What happened to that "factoid"? it's up to 34 now, How much more will they need after they WASTE 34 billion?

I dunno, maybe you should ask AIG what they did with teh first 50 billion. Or where any of the trillion bucks went to stabilizing the financial industry? Oh yeah, buy other banks.

Ford wants access to a low intrested loan for 9 billion dollars
GM wants an infusion of 10 billion for the next few months, with a revolving credit of 4 billion
Chrysler wants 7 billion, but IMO they should get nothing.

If I was The Big 3. I would have marched in and came up with a much more agressive plan.
**** the jets, **** the dollar a year, **** all that.
100 billion dollars, Chrysler is absorbed into GM and Ford.
35 Billion into each Ford and GM.
Both GM and Ford get a 10 billion dollar infusion from each of their 35b.
The other 25 billion would be available in low intrest loans from the goverment in a revolving loan.
With the 10 billion, that should get GM and Ford to an even point and keep moving foward as the economy tries to rebount.
Then each 25 billion could be used to fund, destroy, or develop new products.

The other 30 billion dollars would go to the UAW's VEBA fund for both GM and Ford, helping to reduce IMMEDIATLY the costs on the automakers for legacy costs, etc etc. UAW would also have to increase its current input into VEBA as well on top of cutting things like job bank, etc etc which will reduce the total cost for VEBA.

[Mike]

mulletbird, you do know we have a multi-quote function right?

[Tsar]

One of the major factors into the recent total loss of funds is the crapping out of the financial area, yes. On both buying the cars, and loaning the money to move foward with large programs.
Well that's recent, I can see this as an "excuse" but I'm talking about 7.5 prior to that. I had no idea they have not been profitable for so long.

Im gunna have to check, but GM posted a profit several times over the past 8 years, just not a tremendus amount. The reason I asked is because I skimmed an article from FORTUNE magazine, where they had a chart with GM not posting profits since 2000. I can post it the chart, if needed, but I don't wanna scan the whole article (6 pages long).


What is gunna change is what they have been doing for the past 3years now. Shaking 100 year old traditions dont happen over night, you cannot turn around a ship this big that fast. THIS IS AMERICA'S PROBLEM!!! In this microwaveable world, they want to see them make a profit with a small drop in the bucket. Well exactly, you can;t do it that fast, they haven't done it themselves for the past 8 years, I have a hard time believing they will turn turd into gold if they are given this "loan" money.


When will it be profitable? When the dollar can be maniuplated against the Euro and we can dump thousands of cars in Europe or any other country's currency. So you want to place profitability of a company into governments hands? Because I do not think GM can manipulate the Euro. :shrug:

I dunno, maybe you should ask AIG what they did with teh first 50 billion. Or where any of the trillion bucks went to stabilizing the financial industry? Oh yeah, buy other banks. You're like that odd looking jealous kid on the block that keeps saying "mommy, mommy, he has it I want one too." Just because someone got government money doesn't mean GM should. Otherwise lets start giving it to everyone :shrug: I'll take a Christmas bailout please!


Don't get stressed out over there big guy! :mrgreen:

[Frosty]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081204/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_nissan_recall

Whoops, I thought the imports were above recalls. :rofl:

[Tsar]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081204/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_nissan_recall

Whoops, I thought the imports were above recalls. :rofl:

Faulty breaking lamps? Seriously? :lol:

[WildBillyT]

Faulty breaking lamps? Seriously? :lol:

Hyundai had a big recall a few years back over faulty flares on a bunch of brake lines or something like that. Funny because most of us could probably do better with crappy hand tools.

[BonzoHansen]

Faulty breaking lamps? Seriously? :lol:

Ever get behind a car with no brake lights? It's more dangerous than it sounds.

[Tsar]

Ever get behind a car with no brake lights? It's more dangerous than it sounds.

Sure but I follow proper following distance so no problems here. My car also randomly shuts off while driving, local mechanics and GM dealership had it and all of them gave me back the car and said "there's nothing wrong with it". I'll take the faulty brake lights please!

[SteveR]

Nardelli seems like a fairly smart dude, Wagoner seems fairly brain dead :lol:

[Mulletbird]

mulletbird, you do know we have a multi-quote function right?

Wow, really?

[BigAls87Z28]

Well that's recent, I can see this as an "excuse" but I'm talking about 7.5 prior to that. I had no idea they have not been profitable for so long.

The reason I asked is because I skimmed an article from FORTUNE magazine, where they had a chart with GM not posting profits since 2000. I can post it the chart, if needed, but I don't wanna scan the whole article (6 pages long).


Well exactly, you can;t do it that fast, they haven't done it themselves for the past 8 years, I have a hard time believing they will turn turd into gold if they are given this "loan" money.


Turn around program didnt really take effect till 2003 the earliest with product. There havent been major reorganization or renegotiations with teh UAW till 2005 and even more in 2007.
GM was planned on making a major turn around into 08 with major product introductions.
Its not like its been all down hill and its just been bad desision after bad. The current managment hasnt been in place for very long, 3-4 years tops.
They HAVE been doing it for the past 2 years, and untill this little hickup, there wasnt any major probelm. Sure GM was on the ropes for a little while, but they were moving towards profitability.

This recent economic crisis is the current problem. Its nothing else.
If it was GM's stupid marketing moves, or that they didnt make cars that everyone wanted, or some other reason, then THEY woudl be the only ones having problems.
EVERYONE is having problems selling cars. All the major automakers were down 30% or more. Its just that GM has spent so much money on trying to turn around itself, that it got caught with thier pants down on top of the fact that GM doesnt make the profit that the imports do based on several things
Is GM perfect? No way, they have plenty to do, but they can do it and they are showing that they are ready to do this.

So you want to place profitability of a company into governments hands? Because I do not think GM can manipulate the Euro. :shrug:

You go from trying to act smart one line, and trying to be a smart ass the other.
Currency manipulation is the name of the Japanese game. Its been going on for a long time.
Euro's havnet made the same type of profit that the Japanese have, even though they have the same labor programs that the Japanese do.
Hrm....
Doesnt matter, why do I waste my breath on you.

You're like that odd looking jealous kid on the block that keeps saying "mommy, mommy, he has it I want one too." Just because someone got government money doesn't mean GM should. Otherwise lets start giving it to everyone :shrug: I'll take a Christmas bailout please!

Now you are getting personal, so I guess you are really starting to get into this. Im not asking for the money, and Im not jealious of anyone, and I sure as hell aint odd looking. But you like to include me as if Im the one standing in front of the Senate. Maybe its becaues you would like to pin it onto something you know, something tangeable, who knows, but you keep including me into this. Its starting to get creepy.

Yes, if you are gunna give AIG and several banks blank checks, be ready to hand it out to everyone. Should have had more control over the banks, but thye didnt. Oh well, so now we get to take it out on the automakers I guess.

[Tsar]

Turn around program didnt really take effect till 2003 the earliest with product. There havent been major reorganization or renegotiations with teh UAW till 2005 and even more in 2007.
GM was planned on making a major turn around into 08 with major product introductions.
Its not like its been all down hill and its just been bad desision after bad. The current managment hasnt been in place for very long, 3-4 years tops.
They HAVE been doing it for the past 2 years, and untill this little hickup, there wasnt any major probelm. Sure GM was on the ropes for a little while, but they were moving towards profitability. I thought you were gonna look up that profit chart we were talking about earlier. Moving towards profitability would imply that they sustain lesser and lesser loss every year, and they should achieve profit sometime in the near future, right? At least that's how I see it. Didn't GM post the biggest loss in its history last year? or am I mistaken them for someone else, I don't remember.

Also if I'm reading the fortune graph correctly GM has only come close once since 2000 in posting profits, every other year it has been a loss of more than 5 billion dollars. And the trend does not seem like it was reversing itself like your post indicated, rather it is getting worse. Just reading a chart here.

This recent economic crisis is the current problem. Its nothing else.
If it was GM's stupid marketing moves, or that they didnt make cars that everyone wanted, or some other reason, then THEY woudl be the only ones having problems. I do not think I said that GM makes outright ****** cars (they did in the past, but that's irrelevant to me), hell I like some of them and would possibly buy them.

EVERYONE is having problems selling cars. All the major automakers were down 30% or more. Its just that GM has spent so much money on trying to turn around itself, that it got caught with thier pants down on top of the fact that GM doesnt make the profit that the imports do based on several things
Is GM perfect? No way, they have plenty to do, but they can do it and they are showing that they are ready to do this. Tell me about the highlighted part, if you want that is.



You go from trying to act smart one line, and trying to be a smart ass the other. You got me, I inserted a little funny :lol:




Now you are getting personal, so I guess you are really starting to get into this. Im not asking for the money, and Im not jealious of anyone, and I sure as hell aint odd looking. But you like to include me as if Im the one standing in front of the Senate. Maybe its becaues you would like to pin it onto something you know, something tangeable, who knows, but you keep including me into this. Its starting to get creepy. :lol:It was just an observation, and I dunno about not odd looking. :lol:

Yes, if you are gunna give AIG and several banks blank checks, be ready to hand it out to everyone. Should have had more control over the banks, but thye didnt. Oh well, so now we get to take it out on the automakers I guess.Plainly put, banks are more important than automakers. If all the banks failed tomorrow we would be in a lot more trouble than if big 3 failed tomorrow.
If JPMorgan didn't buy WaMu from feds, it has been said that FDIC would be UNABLE to cover all the money, and people would lose whatever they had in the bank. Hell there were several, pretty good, articles that talked about how FDIC was gonna be next on the bailout list. Just think how much more we would lose if all the banks would go down, after people found out that their money is not covered by FDIC if anything was to happen to their bank. People would make a run for their money just like they have done in the past, and it would have been a big poo-fest!

I can type more about the banks, but I do not think many people care, so I'll just stop.



Late EDIT** Don't worry, I'm almost positive they will get their bailout/loan. At the end of the day it doesn't matter to congress what I think. :lol:

[Mulletbird]

Actually, you don't seem to understand what would happen if the Big 3 were to fail tomarrow. How many does each still currently employ today, even after all their layoffs? And add to that number the number of people who live and work in the communities surrounding their facilities that have jobs, plus suppliers. Think about it, if the big 3 went under, all those people would suddenly become unemployed. There is no way we could handle that unemployment.

Granted, many suppliers (borg warner, bosch, recaro, autoliv) could find other means of producing goods, working for a jap import company, building the replacement parts (autoliv is the only listed that doesn't) , or even switching to build goods for other industries. But still, it would be a hard blow to several dozen companies. Plus, all the unemployment is in the region that already has the worst unemployment (the upper mid-west - Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, etc.) issues in the US. What happens then is that nobody can get a job because the market is flooded - there were times that a business wouldn't even get their "Help Wanted" signs up before they found a replacement already back when I was there!

[Tsar]

Actually, you don't seem to understand what would happen if the Big 3 were to fail tomarrow. How many does each still currently employ today, even after all their layoffs? And add to that number the number of people who live and work in the communities surrounding their facilities that have jobs, plus suppliers. Think about it, if the big 3 went under, all those people would suddenly become unemployed. There is no way we could handle that unemployment.

We have been over this...

(1) I do not believe in the figure they have provided (3million). I heard that menial jobs such as car wash attendant have been included in those estimates. So far NO ONE in this thread has posted anything that would contradict this statement.

(2) Smart people save part of their paycheck, so when they get laid off or fired they have money in the bank to survive from 6 to 12 months of unemployment. Those who have not done so, have do so at their own risk.

(3) With money saved in the bank it's easy to find some menial job and wait out the bad times. Or you can just dedicate 40 hours a week to look for a new job. If you're willing to relocate, have diversified yourself, you will eventually find something decent.

(4) HAVE A BACK UP PLAN FOR GODS SAKE! Personally I have a back up, of a back up, of a back up plan if I do not find a job right after I graduate. First one includes joining the military, with my "skill" I should not have too much problem getting into the field that I want. And then there's a back up plan, and that is followed by another back up plan. Moral of the story - use your brain, and plan for an emergency (they teach that in a flight school but I guess not everybody went there.)

[DevilDougWS6]

(1) I do not believe in the figure they have provided (3million). I heard that menial jobs such as car wash attendant have been included in those estimates. So far NO ONE in this thread has posted anything that would contradict this statement.


its still a situation that should be completely avoided.

3 million is the estimated number of jobs that COULD be lost if the big 3 fall in the first year of their total collapse, that are employed by other companies that provide for the big 3 (rubber, plastics, steel etc.)

From usnews.com:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/the-inside-job/2008/11/18/detroit-jobs-the-nub-of-the-numbers.html
Big Three Jobs: The Nub of the Numbers
November 18, 2008 10:59 AM ET | Liz Wolgemuth

While it's certain that a failure of any Big Three automakers in Detroit would bring a new kind of pain to the country's jobs market--there is some dispute over the numbers.

The New York Times Economix blog takes a look at the oft-quoted figure that 1 in 10 U.S. jobs is supported by the auto industry (a figure harvested from a 2003 Center for Automotive Research study) and offers some insights.

From Economix:

The study concludes that “new vehicle production, sales, and other jobs related to the use of automobiles are responsible for 1 out of every 10 jobs in the U.S economy.” The term “responsible for” is interpreted quite broadly, and covers jobs in steel, glass and electronics (the so-called “upstream” jobs) as well as those in taxi-driving, travel and advertising companies (”downstream” jobs), among others.

The broadness of the term “responsible for” aside, the study has minimal relevance to the question of how many jobs are at risk if the Detroit Three go bankrupt, for two reasons:

1) The study uses data from 1998 to 2001, and the industry has changed significantly since then. Employment in the motor vehicles and parts manufacturing sector has fallen, for example.

2) Much more importantly, it is an industry-wide study: The auto-related jobs covered in the report cover more than those dependent on the Detroit Three; they are related to cars sold by any manufacturer, domestic or international, in the American market.

Economics editor Catherine Rampell notes: "The failure of General Motors, for example, wouldn’t eliminate the entire car-wash industry."

The most recent report from the Center for Automotive Research--available here--studies the potential job losses if two or three of the Big Three carmakers failed. Researchers included jobs at the automakers, their suppliers, suppliers to suppliers, and jobs lost through a "spin off" effect when Big Three employees and suppliers reduce their spending.

If all three ceased operations in 2009, 3 million jobs would be lost in the first year, according to the report. If two failed--or if total employment and production was reduced by 50 percent--2.5 million jobs would be lost in the first year. In both scenarios, researchers estimate the employment picture would begin to recover in 2010, as international carmakers beefed up U.S. production and workers began to find work elsewhere. In the latter scenario, the remaining member of the Big Three would help by picking up production again as well.


even in essence, if they failed, now we would have the import companies stepping in with more dealers, production facilities, etc. so more jobs. but who is going to be buying cars still? its going to be a long and painful process for all of us to get this economy right.

but then again, that income from the jap, german, etc car companies will be going to....you guessed it, their country. with a small portion going to local workers.

i like the idea now that the bigwigs (for chrysler atleast) are taking a $1 year salary, Gm and ford should soon follow suit.

[BonzoHansen]

i like the idea now that the bigwigs (for chrysler atleast) are taking a $1 year salary, Gm and ford should soon follow suit.they did, you are behind. :lol:

[Tsar]

Good article DevilDoug; however, it does prove that the numbers are very skewed and the data they have used is old. Which to me makes their estimation irrelevant. :shrug:

[BonzoHansen]

Good article DevilDoug; however, it does prove that the numbers are very skewed and the data they have used is old. Which to me makes their estimation irrelevant. :shrug:


You? :lol:

[Tsar]

You? :lol:
Well we are arguing about opinon's here. In the grand scheme of things none of them matter. :lol:

[BigAls87Z28]

We have been over this...

(1) I do not believe in the figure they have provided (3million). I heard that menial jobs such as car wash attendant have been included in those estimates. So far NO ONE in this thread has posted anything that would contradict this statement.


Ok, so lets say we take out the car washers and a few other trivial little jobs that they threw in. How many jobs is that total? 50k? 100k?
So even if we take out all the other little small jobs, that still leaves you with 2.9 million people. Thats still 1 million more people then ALL THE people current on unemployment. WOW!!
Lets say ALL the trival jobs equal 1 million people, thats still a 100%+ increase in unemployment not to mention the loss of America's major manufacturing base.

[Tsar]

Ok, so lets say we take out the car washers and a few other trivial little jobs that they threw in. How many jobs is that total? 50k? 100k?
So even if we take out all the other little small jobs, that still leaves you with 2.9 million people. Thats still 1 million more people then ALL THE people current on unemployment. WOW!!
Lets say ALL the trival jobs equal 1 million people, thats still a 100%+ increase in unemployment not to mention the loss of America's major manufacturing base.
The fact is, you or I do not know how many trivial jobs there are. It might be 1% or 60% no one knows, because who ever used old data, and exaggerated the number did so deliberately to make it seem a lot worse, to provoke the response that you are having.

I believe I never said it was gonna be easy to get out of it, impossible? No. People have survived worse.

[Mulletbird]

But, keep in mind, many of the lost jobs will be localized. Not only are the big 3's manufacturing based out of Michigan and surrounding states, but so to are many of their suppliers. It's a major hit to one area, and while yes, we all try and plan for the worst, with people losing money in stocks and banks and if you add lost jobs to the mix, it can get really tough for lots of people. And with all the lost jobs localized (Auburn, Flint, Saginaw, Detroit, Waterford, Cleveland, Windsor, etc.) it would be tough to find another job locally (very few, if any, places out there are hiring) and relocating isn't always that easy to do either. Yes, you do what you need to, and I've done that (did that when I took the job in Michigan, which is why it was easy for me to leave ... no ties left there) but it's not necessarily fun or what you want to do.

[Fast92RS]

But, keep in mind, many of the lost jobs will be localized. Not only are the big 3's manufacturing based out of Michigan and surrounding states, but so to are many of their suppliers. It's a major hit to one area, and while yes, we all try and plan for the worst, with people losing money in stocks and banks and if you add lost jobs to the mix, it can get really tough for lots of people. And with all the lost jobs localized (Auburn, Flint, Saginaw, Detroit, Waterford, Cleveland, Windsor, etc.) it would be tough to find another job locally (very few, if any, places out there are hiring) and relocating isn't always that easy to do either. Yes, you do what you need to, and I've done that (did that when I took the job in Michigan, which is why it was easy for me to leave ... no ties left there) but it's not necessarily fun or what you want to do.

Yes very true and its even harder to relocate when you have children. Picking up and moving your entire family to a new school can be difficult. Its been done before so not impossible.
Not everyone can afford to have months of salary saved especially when there strugiling to make ends meet right now. Plus as you get older and closer to retirement it can be very hard to pick up and start all over again to start learning a new job. Especially when youve been doing the same job for 20, 30 or even 40 years. That backup plan they may have had when they were younger is long gone now.

[Tsar]

Yes very true and its even harder to relocate when you have children. Picking up and moving your entire family to a new school can be difficult. Its been done before so not impossible.

No one on the face of this earth will ever win this argument with me. :lol: I have lived in 5 different countries, 20+ different places, went to 2 middle schools, 3 high schools, 3 colleges and 1 University. I have done all of the following within 22 years of my life (current age).

[Fast92RS]

No one on the face of this earth will ever win this argument with me. :lol: I have lived in 5 different countries, 20+ different places, went to 2 middle schools, 3 high schools, 3 colleges and 1 University. I have done all of the following within 22 years of my life (current age).

:nod: I see your point. But I think your being a little one sided. Your young, with no ties. So your plan that you have is great, but it does not mean it will work for everyone. The younger you are in life the easier it is to accept change and learn a new work skill. For people that are older its take longer for them to accept change and move on. Everyone is different and there situations in life are different. So what works for one may not work for another. Just my 2 cents.

[Mulletbird]

We have been over this...

(1) I do not believe in the figure they have provided (3million). I heard that menial jobs such as car wash attendant have been included in those estimates. So far NO ONE in this thread has posted anything that would contradict this statement.

(2) Smart people save part of their paycheck, so when they get laid off or fired they have money in the bank to survive from 6 to 12 months of unemployment. Those who have not done so, have do so at their own risk.

(3) With money saved in the bank it's easy to find some menial job and wait out the bad times. Or you can just dedicate 40 hours a week to look for a new job. If you're willing to relocate, have diversified yourself, you will eventually find something decent.

(4) HAVE A BACK UP PLAN FOR GODS SAKE! Personally I have a back up, of a back up, of a back up plan if I do not find a job right after I graduate. First one includes joining the military, with my "skill" I should not have too much problem getting into the field that I want. And then there's a back up plan, and that is followed by another back up plan. Moral of the story - use your brain, and plan for an emergency (they teach that in a flight school but I guess not everybody went there.)

Well, let me take an example from my real-life experiences. This is a bit extreme, but none-the-less, I saw it happen right before my eyes to one of the nicest, most helpful co-workers at the place I did my freshman co-op with. The guy's name is Jim, worked at Borg-Warner's Cleveland facility, back before it was borg-warner, building carbeurators for holley and others since 1950 (until the late 80's, 1988 or 1989 - around the time I was born) when he started working for Borg-Warner (after the buy-out of his division), then switched to buiding solenoids, wastegate systems, and finally idle air pumps. Back in late 2007, he started suffering from a herniated disc, which hurt pretty bad from what I heard from him (he went on medical leave regularly) and with just months left until he planned to retire, he was fired from the job.

Let's just say that that sucks pretty bad. He has 5 grandkids in college, two of his sons lost their jobs, so yeah. :-x So, I guess the guy, who is now well into his late-70's, should be diversified and have several backup plans? Or he should pack up everything and move out somewhere else? For me, it was nothing at all ... I'm 20 years old (19 when I left the job), born and raised in NJ with a farm to come back to and work on, meaning I have some food to eat, a little money, and a roof over my head while I work on finishing my studies. But, there are others (like Jim as one example, I could name 20-30 others like him that I know) who are in a similar boat. He now works at Walmart as a greeter, making $9/hr with no benefits, rather than being a senior tech, making $45/hr, with full benefits, and probably will never be able to retire all right and proper - he still has his social security and his savings from paychecks towards his eventual retirement, but that was meant to be in addition to his retirement checks from work, not instead of.

Basically, the higher-up execs were looking for money to save, which meant firing a few workers, and co-ops and older people with health issues came up top of the list. If they didn't need to try and cut costs because business was good, they might have kept Jim and me both, but instead we were both let go.

[Tsar]

:nod: I see your point. But I think your being a little one sided. Your young, with no ties. So your plan that you have is great, but it does not mean it will work for everyone. The younger you are in life the easier it is to accept change and learn a new work skill. For people that are older its take longer for them to accept change and move on. Everyone is different and there situations in life are different. So what works for one may not work for another. Just my 2 cents.

Point taken and understood; however, while it can be hard to do and difficult to adopt, it is not impossible. At least it doesn't seem impossible to me, I'm not impossible kinda guy :mrgreen:

[Tsar]

Back in late 2007, he started suffering from a herniated disc, which hurt pretty bad from what I heard from him (he went on medical leave regularly) and with just months left until he planned to retire, he was fired from the job. He was in his late 70's and didn't save any money? See point number 2. Each individual is responsible for his own life.

So, I guess the guy, who is now well into his late-70's, should be diversified and have several backup plans? Or he should pack up everything and move out somewhere else? No, he should have saved money from his 50+ years of employment for his retirement/rainy day. I would imagine with such wonderful things such as compounded interest rate you could save quite a lot... Don't make me break out the finance calculator.


He now works at Walmart as a greeter, making $9/hr with no benefits, rather than being a senior tech, making $45/hr, with full benefits, and probably will never be able to retire all right and proper - he still has his social security and his savings from paychecks towards his eventual retirement, but that was meant to be in addition to his retirement checks from work, not instead of. And I'm sure he will be the first one to tell you that life is not fair.

Basically, the higher-up execs were looking for money to save, which meant firing a few workers, and co-ops and older people with health issues came up top of the list. If they didn't need to try and cut costs because business was good, they might have kept Jim and me both, but instead we were both let go.
If you have actual proof of that you can easily sue for discrimination, but I'm thinking you do not.

[DevilDougWS6]

they did, you are behind. :lol:

oh, i must have missed the part where GM and Ford did. Sorry Ive been away on drill duty and cant keep up on everything, lol.

[DevilDougWS6]

Good article DevilDoug; however, it does prove that the numbers are very skewed and the data they have used is old. Which to me makes their estimation irrelevant. :shrug:

well in that sense, since the data (numbers) were old, IMO there would be a higher number of jobs to be lost. but I haven't been keeping up on what goes on behind the doors of the big 3, so i could be very wrong. it would only make sense that companies EXPAND and would essentially hire more workers. which is the reason why they are hurting to begin with no? paying too many employees and not making enough profit off of each vehicle?

[Tsar]

well in that sense, since the data (numbers) were old, IMO there would be a higher number of jobs to be lost. but I haven't been keeping up on what goes on behind the doors of the big 3, so i could be very wrong. it would only make sense that companies EXPAND and would essentially hire more workers. which is the reason why they are hurting to begin with no? paying too many employees and not making enough profit off of each vehicle?

Um.. pretty sure Al has been saying that they have been downsizing/ and cutting back on the costs. My point is that the numbers are inaccurate, thus the results are not accurate, which means they should not be trusted. :shrug:

[Mulletbird]

He was in his late 70's and didn't save any money? See point number 2. Each individual is responsible for his own life.

No, he should have saved money from his 50+ years of employment for his retirement/rainy day. I would imagine with such wonderful things such as compounded interest rate you could save quite a lot... Don't make me break out the finance calculator.


And I'm sure he will be the first one to tell you that life is not fair.


If you have actual proof of that you can easily sue for discrimination, but I'm thinking you do not.

Actual proof? No. Besides, they almost did me a favor, as I was going to either get a decent pay raise or leave the job soon anyways. Wasn't gonna complain. Besides, that's to be expected - they didn't fire me. It's similar to if GM were to, say, be paying a bunch of people to check the clear-coat on new vehicles (not that they do, just naming some menial task that there's no reason to pay for imo) and then remove that position from their company, laying off all those workers. Is that discrimination? No.

[Tsar]

Actual proof? No. Besides, they almost did me a favor, as I was going to either get a decent pay raise or leave the job soon anyways. Wasn't gonna complain. Besides, that's to be expected - they didn't fire me. It's similar to if GM were to, say, be paying a bunch of people to check the clear-coat on new vehicles (not that they do, just naming some menial task that there's no reason to pay for imo) and then remove that position from their company, laying off all those workers. Is that discrimination? No. Eliminating a certain position might not be discrimination, but firing people of certain age, specifically for their age is. But if there's no proof, it didn't happen.

[BigAls87Z28]

Good show by Jon Stewart on the bail out.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/47436/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-thu-dec-4-2008

[Knipps]

Possible 15B + a Czar? to oversee everything
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/09/AR2008120903055.html?hpid=topnews

[BigAls87Z28]

Yeah, congress is gunna appoint someone to semi-dictate on how to build cars....

[Tsar]

Czar... ? It's Tsar.

[Mike]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/czar

czar = roman
tsar = slavic

[Tsar]

Roman empire did not have Tsar's it had Ceaser's and the like. Czar Is actually a Polish name for Tsar... And furthermore, here it is right from the dictionary.

Usage Note: The word czar can also be spelled tsar. Czar is the most common form in American usage and the one nearly always employed in the extended senses "any tyrant" or informally, "one in authority." But tsar is preferred by most scholars of Slavic studies as a more accurate transliteration of the Russian and is often found in scholarly writing with reference to one of the Russian emperors.

I dare you to pronounce "Czar" and be anywhere near close the pronunciation of the actual word. :lol:

[Mike]

i dont care enough to be one of the people that got this to 12 pages arguing with you.....

[Mulletbird]

Roman empire did not have Tsar's it had Ceaser's and the like. Czar Is actually a Polish name for Tsar... And furthermore, here it is right from the dictionary.



I dare you to pronounce "Czar" and be anywhere near close the pronunciation of the actual word. :lol:

I studied some russian, and spoke it with my grandfather (RIP) and grandmother (RIP) back when they were alive. No problemo for me.

[NJ Torque]

http://www.turbobuick.com/forums/attachments/turbo-lounge/61719d1229095149-big-three-bailout-bigthree.jpg

[OldCamaroNut]

Anywho........back on topic......

Let them fail. A free market capitalist society demands it. My son's inlaws all buy Hondas instead of backing the big three. Why should my tax monies pay for their lack of Americanism?

[qwikz28]

Anywho........back on topic......

Let them fail. A free market capitalist society demands it. My son's inlaws all buy Hondas instead of backing the big three. Why should my tax monies pay for their lack of Americanism?

my idea has always been a non-big 3 tax (or to make it more publically appealing, a Big 3 tax exemption) so people who insist on foreign cars can help with the healthcare burden of the big 3. its unethical, retarded, biased, but it would work.

[WildBillyT]

my idea has always been a non-big 3 tax (or to make it more publically appealing, a Big 3 tax exemption) so people who insist on foreign cars can help with the healthcare burden of the big 3. its unethical, retarded, biased, but it would work.

I'm with you. Not necessarily a non-big 3 tax but a tax on all companies who do not have their headquarters/base in the US.