Topic: Will there be a car bailout before bankruptcy?
started by: TheCatt
Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 11 2008,14:21
I hate Congress.
Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 11 2008,14:48
I'm hoping not. It's pretty clear that most everyone in the country outside of Detroit hates the idea. I'm - perhaps foolishly - hoping that our representatives in Congress will actually, you know, represent us for once.
Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 11 2008,14:54
I'm hoping not, but I'll put money on it.
Posted by thibodeaux on Dec. 11 2008,14:59
No Congressman can resist the power of the Dark Side.
Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 11 2008,16:01
I contacted both of my senators to let them know my feelings.My company's going under, where's our bailout? And hell, we were profitable. GM hasn't been able to say that since < 2004. > And you can't tell me the economy was in the shitter in 2005, 2006, or 2007.
Posted by thibodeaux on Dec. 11 2008,16:09
"There's a great deal of ruin in a nation."Our government seems hell-bent to find out just how much.
Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 11 2008,16:10
Much as I don't want it to happen, it'll probably occur.
Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 11 2008,16:24
I will agree to a bailout on one term:Every Congressperson that votes for it put up 100% of their assets into the bailout fund.
Posted by thibodeaux on Dec. 11 2008,17:23
< Those days are long gone, I'm afraid >:QUOTE
"We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 11 2008,20:37
QUOTE
Senators voted down a bill to rescue of Detroit automakers after a last-ditch attempt to renegotiate the deal died.
The bill failed in the Senate by a 52-35 vote, despite it's earlier passage in the House of Representatives and its endorsement by the White House.
The bill failed in the Senate by a 52-35 vote, despite it's earlier passage in the House of Representatives and its endorsement by the White House.
< Article >
Of course... there's still time for a new bill, or something.
Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 11 2008,20:38
Stock market is down 4-5% in futures trading (ie what price it will open at in the morning)
Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 11 2008,21:11
What a pile of bullshit.QUOTE
The proposal to loan $14 billion to Detroit's struggling automakers collapsed late Thursday night but the Big Three may get some money anyway.
Bush officials warned wavering GOP senators that if they didn't support the legislation, the White House will likely be forced to tap the Wall Street bailout to lend them money, two Republican congressional officials told CNN earlier.
This is a noteworthy change since the White House and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson have previously refused to use bank bailout funds to help General Motors (GM, Fortune 500), Ford Motor (F, Fortune 500) and Chrysler LLC.
The sources asked not to be named because of the sensitivities of private conversations.
The White House negotiated a deal with Democrats to give Detroit a short term $14 billion loan with strings attached, including a so-called "car czar" charged with helping the companies draw up restructuring plans.
Most Senate Republicans opposed the plan as too weak in terms of focusing long-term viability for the U.S. auto industry.
As part of their full-court press to urge skeptical Republicans to back it, they made clear that if Congress didn't act, the White House would have to step in to save Detroit from collapse with funds from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), according to the sources familiar with the conversations.
"I would only hope that the president, who has worked so well with us for the past several weeks, would now use consider using the TARP money," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., after the vote.
One of the sources said the a White House official made clear to a GOP Senator that would be the worst option, because the loan could go to the auto companies with few or no requirements along with it.
Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 11 2008,21:11
< Article >
Posted by WSGrundy on Dec. 11 2008,21:14
The sad part is those 35 that voted no are just waiting for their rider to get attached to the bill.
Posted by Mommy Dearest on Dec. 11 2008,21:56
(TheCatt @ Dec. 12 2008,00:11)
QUOTE
What a pile of bullshit.
The proposal to loan $14 billion to Detroit's struggling automakers collapsed late Thursday night but the Big Three may get some money anyway.
Bush officials warned wavering GOP senators that if they didn't support the legislation, the White House will likely be forced to tap the Wall Street bailout to lend them money, two Republican congressional officials told CNN earlier.
This is a noteworthy change since the White House and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson have previously refused to use bank bailout funds to help General Motors (GM, Fortune 500), Ford Motor (F, Fortune 500) and Chrysler LLC.
The sources asked not to be named because of the sensitivities of private conversations.
The White House negotiated a deal with Democrats to give Detroit a short term $14 billion loan with strings attached, including a so-called "car czar" charged with helping the companies draw up restructuring plans.
Most Senate Republicans opposed the plan as too weak in terms of focusing long-term viability for the U.S. auto industry.
As part of their full-court press to urge skeptical Republicans to back it, they made clear that if Congress didn't act, the White House would have to step in to save Detroit from collapse with funds from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), according to the sources familiar with the conversations.
"I would only hope that the president, who has worked so well with us for the past several weeks, would now use consider using the TARP money," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., after the vote.
One of the sources said the a White House official made clear to a GOP Senator that would be the worst option, because the loan could go to the auto companies with few or no requirements along with it.
QUOTE
The proposal to loan $14 billion to Detroit's struggling automakers collapsed late Thursday night but the Big Three may get some money anyway.
Bush officials warned wavering GOP senators that if they didn't support the legislation, the White House will likely be forced to tap the Wall Street bailout to lend them money, two Republican congressional officials told CNN earlier.
This is a noteworthy change since the White House and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson have previously refused to use bank bailout funds to help General Motors (GM, Fortune 500), Ford Motor (F, Fortune 500) and Chrysler LLC.
The sources asked not to be named because of the sensitivities of private conversations.
The White House negotiated a deal with Democrats to give Detroit a short term $14 billion loan with strings attached, including a so-called "car czar" charged with helping the companies draw up restructuring plans.
Most Senate Republicans opposed the plan as too weak in terms of focusing long-term viability for the U.S. auto industry.
As part of their full-court press to urge skeptical Republicans to back it, they made clear that if Congress didn't act, the White House would have to step in to save Detroit from collapse with funds from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), according to the sources familiar with the conversations.
"I would only hope that the president, who has worked so well with us for the past several weeks, would now use consider using the TARP money," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., after the vote.
One of the sources said the a White House official made clear to a GOP Senator that would be the worst option, because the loan could go to the auto companies with few or no requirements along with it.
Okay with me. Bail out the banks unconditionaly may as well bail out the automakers.
Posted by Cakedaddy on Dec. 12 2008,00:02
Detroit WILL be bailed out. WWWAAAYYYY too many union votes to lose. Democrats have been buying the union vote since. . . I have no idea when. But it's been a long time.Letting them go down would hurt. A TON. But, then they can come back in a new, more efficiant form. It's not like GM would just disappear. It would be reborn as something different. Hell, maybe even something better. And then everyone goes back to work at fair rates and life moves on.
Posted by unkbill on Dec. 12 2008,05:13
Ya unions bad. Same old story. Unions give up 40% of thier wages to save company. Execs are going for deferred payment of wages. Which mean they will recieve all thier pay. Lets get rid of unions and union contracts the CEOs will make sure the workers recieve fair pay. Bullshit. How many company execs will work without a contract. Come up with a better way than unions. And don't give me the crap about there are laws now. That is BS in the highest form. The trickle down effect doesn't work anymore. The only thing that trickles down is the cum down the workers leg after the company or exec fucks them.
Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 12 2008,05:33
The financial crisis wasn't about bailing out the banks, it was about making sure we didnt end up in the Great Depression 2.0.The auto companies have a chance to simply reorganize under bankruptcy protection. That's what it's for. There will be some pain, but it won't be 3 million jobs or whatever bullshit they've been claiming.
Posted by unkbill on Dec. 12 2008,05:53
(TheCatt @ Dec. 12 2008,05:33)
QUOTE
The financial crisis wasn't about bailing out the banks, it was about making sure we didnt end up in the Great Depression 2.0.
The auto companies have a chance to simply reorganize under bankruptcy protection. That's what it's for. There will be some pain, but it won't be 3 million jobs or whatever bullshit they've been claiming.
The auto companies have a chance to simply reorganize under bankruptcy protection. That's what it's for. There will be some pain, but it won't be 3 million jobs or whatever bullshit they've been claiming.
Well my thinking is that alot of people think it just might be 3 million out. Are there any good signs saying no? Well my house payment might ride on it. To me it is a 3 million job gamble I don't know if I am willing to take. And I don't really care if the unions have to take a 40% pay cut to make them stay afloat. I want the execs to do the same. No the rich keep their money while joe working man takes the hit.
Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 12 2008,06:12
(unkbill @ Dec. 12 2008,07:13)
QUOTE
...the CEOs will make sure the workers recieve fair pay...
Now you're just saying absurd bullshit and claiming that is what we are saying when we aren't.
The market will make sure workers receive fair pay. If the pay is not good enough, people will take other jobs, and that company will have to raise wages to attract workers until the wages are fair. This isn't the 1800s when people had to take whatever job they could because they had no mobility. It's time to join the 21st century already.
Posted by thibodeaux on Dec. 12 2008,06:29
First, don't come around here with that "working man vs. the rich" bullshit. It just won't fly here. That may go over in a crowd of "working men" who don't know how to pour piss out of a boot with the instructions printed on the heel, but you're talking to actual educated, thinking human beings here.Second, whose job is it to insure that I get "fair" pay for my work? Well, that would be ME. I don't expect some mafia thug to intimidate my company into paying me more than they think I'm worth. And if I think I'm worth more than what I'm getting, I'm 100% free to go earn that somewhere else. If the "working man" doesn't like the way the company is treating him, he should quit!
I guess it's tough to think like that when you realize, like "Joe working man," that there's 3 million other guys that can do your job. Sucks to be him! But, see, unlike "Joe working man" who spent all his time in high school not paying attention, I actually decided to spend that time learning stuff.
There's a reason that rich people are rich and poor people are poor: poor people don't PRODUCE. On average, they're stupider and lazier than rich people. This is just cold hard fact.
Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 12 2008,06:44
Treasury has announced that they will bankroll the automakers until Congress reconvenes. I dont know if that means next year, or what.But it's fucking retarded.
Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 12 2008,06:46
Clarification: Until January/new administration.
Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 12 2008,06:49
Now all of this having been said, does that mean that without unions auto industry workers would make the same amount they are now? Absolutely not. Without the unions they would make a lot less, and lots of jobs would be gotten rid of. This is NOT because "the CEOs want to screw the little guys", however. This is because many of those jobs are not needed and many of them are horribly overpaid, thanks to strong-arm union tactics. Remove the unions and those things return to sanity.Bottom line is there are a lot of people making a lot of money they don't deserve thanks to the unions. And all it costs us is a completely gutted auto industry that will never be able to survive except for regular government bailouts. The unions are turning into welfare representatives, with the so-called "hard working" blue collar workers being the recipients of welfare funneled through the corporate structure of the Big 3.
Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 12 2008,06:52
GMAC may fail today. So, that'd be nice. But I doubt it. Someone will bail that shit out too.Fuck America.
Posted by unkbill on Dec. 12 2008,06:52
(thibodeaux @ Dec. 12 2008,06:29)
QUOTE
First, don't come around here with that "working man vs. the rich" bullshit. It just won't fly here. That may go over in a crowd of "working men" who don't know how to pour piss out of a boot with the instructions printed on the heel, but you're talking to actual educated, thinking human beings here.
Sorry some ignorant fuck like me decided to tell you your wrong. Being you are so book learned and all. You need to look up out of your books and look around.
Posted by unkbill on Dec. 12 2008,06:57
(thibodeaux @ Dec. 12 2008,06:29)
QUOTE
Second,
There's a reason that rich people are rich and poor people are poor: poor people don't PRODUCE. On average, they're stupider and lazier than rich people. This is just cold hard fact.
There's a reason that rich people are rich and poor people are poor: poor people don't PRODUCE. On average, they're stupider and lazier than rich people. This is just cold hard fact.
That is the biggest load of horseshit I have ever had the misfortune to read.
Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 12 2008,07:27
(unkbill @ Dec. 12 2008,09:52)
QUOTE
(thibodeaux @ Dec. 12 2008,06:29)
QUOTE
First, don't come around here with that "working man vs. the rich" bullshit. It just won't fly here. That may go over in a crowd of "working men" who don't know how to pour piss out of a boot with the instructions printed on the heel, but you're talking to actual educated, thinking human beings here.
Sorry some ignorant fuck like me decided to tell you your wrong. Being you are so book learned and all. You need to look up out of your books and look around.
Where's my bailout, unk?
Posted by Mommy Dearest on Dec. 12 2008,07:37
(TPRJones @ Dec. 12 2008,09:12)
QUOTE
(unkbill @ Dec. 12 2008,07:13)
QUOTE
...the CEOs will make sure the workers recieve fair pay...
Now you're just saying absurd bullshit and claiming that is what we are saying when we aren't.
The market will make sure workers receive fair pay. If the pay is not good enough, people will take other jobs, and that company will have to raise wages to attract workers until the wages are fair. This isn't the 1800s when people had to take whatever job they could because they had no mobility. It's time to join the 21st century already.
Mobility comes with workers being able to afford to move. I do not think that is a good example. It could very well come to that.
Posted by thibodeaux on Dec. 12 2008,08:12
(unkbill @ Dec. 12 2008,09:57)
QUOTE
(thibodeaux @ Dec. 12 2008,06:29)
QUOTE
Second,
There's a reason that rich people are rich and poor people are poor: poor people don't PRODUCE. On average, they're stupider and lazier than rich people. This is just cold hard fact.
There's a reason that rich people are rich and poor people are poor: poor people don't PRODUCE. On average, they're stupider and lazier than rich people. This is just cold hard fact.
That is the biggest load of horseshit I have ever had the misfortune to read.
And this is why people are poor. They don't want to believe that wealth actually has to be created, and it has to be created by THINKING.
The poor are parasites living on the wealth created by their betters. The "working man" would starve to death if someone with a brain hadn't created a way for the "working man" to use his labor to create something of value. The labor itself has no value.
Posted by thibodeaux on Dec. 12 2008,08:14
(unkbill @ Dec. 12 2008,09:52)
QUOTE
Sorry some ignorant fuck like me decided to tell you your wrong. Being you are so book learned and all. You need to look up out of your books and look around.
I'm sorry you either didn't have the brains or the character to get an education. But the fact that I did, and am not ashamed of it, does not mean I don't know anything outside of books. Only a fool would sneer at education as you are doing.
Posted by thibodeaux on Dec. 12 2008,08:17
But let's not get off topic or anything. < Remember this? > Only 8.2% of private sector employees are represented by unions. Are you telling me that 90+% of "working men" in this country are getting shafted, since they're not unionized? That seems pretty unlikely.Unions are a racket. Period.
Posted by unkbill on Dec. 12 2008,09:25
(thibodeaux @ Dec. 12 2008,08:14)
QUOTE
(unkbill @ Dec. 12 2008,09:52)
QUOTE
Sorry some ignorant fuck like me decided to tell you your wrong. Being you are so book learned and all. You need to look up out of your books and look around.
I'm sorry you either didn't have the brains or the character to get an education. But the fact that I did, and am not ashamed of it, does not mean I don't know anything outside of books. Only a fool would sneer at education as you are doing.
Only a fool would let themselves be sneered at by the booklearned because I did not to finish college and took another road.
Posted by unkbill on Dec. 12 2008,09:31
(TheCatt @ Dec. 12 2008,07:27)
QUOTE
Where's my bailout, unk?
Don't know. Don't even know if the bailout of Detroit is right. But I do know that Toledo is going to get creamed if the big three go under. Toledo host the Toledo Jeep plant and many satilite companys. My bailout would be if those people keep working and fixing up thier homes in the spring.
Posted by unkbill on Dec. 12 2008,09:43
(TPRJones @ Dec. 12 2008,06:49)
QUOTE
Now all of this having been said, does that mean that without unions auto industry workers would make the same amount they are now? Absolutely not. Without the unions they would make a lot less, and lots of jobs would be gotten rid of. This is NOT because "the CEOs want to screw the little guys", however. This is because many of those jobs are not needed and many of them are horribly overpaid, thanks to strong-arm union tactics.
I have no idea where everyone thinks there is a guy with a broken nose at the table when the contracts are signed.
This is the chance to get rid of the unions. Execs can do it with government aid. Unless you think men in trenchcoats will come and kill thier familys.
Posted by thibodeaux on Dec. 12 2008,10:45
(unkbill @ Dec. 12 2008,12:25)
QUOTE
Only a fool would let themselves be sneered at by the booklearned because I did not to finish college and took another road.
First, it's "himself," not "themselves." English: do you speak it?
Second, I know lots of people who never went to college, and I respect them---lots of them in family, as a matter of fact. But I don't respect people who assume that having "book learning" means a person is unworldly. That's the mindset of someone who KNOWS he's ignorant, and is jealous of those who are not.
Posted by unkbill on Dec. 12 2008,11:08
(thibodeaux @ Dec. 12 2008,10:45)
QUOTE
(unkbill @ Dec. 12 2008,12:25)
QUOTE
Only a fool would let themselves be sneered at by the booklearned because I did not to finish college and took another road.
First, it's "himself," not "themselves." English: do you speak it?
Second, I know lots of people who never went to college, and I respect them---lots of them in family, as a matter of fact. But I don't respect people who assume that having "book learning" means a person is unworldly. That's the mindset of someone who KNOWS he's ignorant, and is jealous of those who are not.
Would it be themselves if I were refering to a group. Not that I much care.
Change the quote to only an idiot would let himself be fucked with because a booklearned person doesn't like his outlook on reality.
Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 12 2008,11:14
Makes sense, if he's and idiot it means his outlook on reality is probably already fucked.
Posted by WSGrundy on Dec. 12 2008,11:24
thibodeaux the nerve! We all know that people are poor because someone else steals from them. Just like people are stupid because their teachers didn't make them learn and there wasn't enough money spent on their school. Not to mention that people are fat because McD's and Burger King sell food at such a cheap price and since the little guy has no money he has to buy their unhealthy food.
Where the hell do you get off suggesting that that people are poor because of their own choices and decisions!
Don't forget the crackheads who are victims of the CIA!
Posted by unkbill on Dec. 12 2008,16:31
(TPRJones @ Dec. 12 2008,11:14)
QUOTE
if he's and idiot
What the fuck does that mean. Oh we only do spelling on people that didn't go to college.
Maybe I just don't like to be patronized by people that think they are fucking smart. So now you can win the arguement by calling me a troll that is disruptive because I don't agree with you. Bite me.
Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 12 2008,17:16
That was supposed to be "an". Sorry, but typos happen.And that comment wasn't directed at you, but at the theoretical idiot you had described. For the record I do no consider you an idiot. Just ... misguided.
Posted by thibodeaux on Dec. 12 2008,18:01
(unkbill @ Dec. 12 2008,19:31)
QUOTE
Maybe I just don't like to be patronized by people that think they are fucking smart. So now you can win the arguement by calling me a troll that is disruptive because I don't agree with you. Bite me.
And I don't like being patronized by dumb fucks who think that "book learning" means "ignorant of the world." I don't know why you have a chip on your shoulder, but you clearly tell yourself that to compensate for something. Hate to burst your bubble, but it's just not true.
So go have a beer with your working man buddies. Console yourselves with the notion that it's all the fault of THE RICH, and not the "working man" extorting so much out of the companies that they can't make a profit. Tell yourselves how things would work out so much better if Uncle Sugar would just steal some dough from everybody else in the country (who obviously are not "working men," because otherwise they'd be UAW members). Be sure to remind yourselves that you're helpless victims of The Man, who don't have the brains (or balls) to get a job that pays you what you're worth, not without Joey the Hammer standing behind you getting his piece of the action.
Maybe if you could read a fucking book, you'd know that you and your bailout-begging working-man friends are just one more gang pushing the bobsled on down the road to Hell.
Posted by Cakedaddy on Dec. 13 2008,12:31
When shopping for something you want, do you not look for the cheapest price? Or do you buy the more expensive one because of principle, or they deserve it, or whatever?Why must the big three pay more than the market will bear? There are TONS of people that would do the same job for less money. But the big three can't hire them. There are LOTS of people at Wal-Mart that would KILL for a big three job at half the pay that the current big three workers are getting. But no. Let's not hire them. Let's keep the price of that product artificialy high.
You get the luxury of shopping around for the labor you want to hire, and for what you want to pay. The big three do not. They have to hire who they are told to, and pay what they are told to. For no other reasons than being strong armed by thugs.
You act like unions aren't violent and there are no broken noses. Have you ever tried to cross a union line? Ya. Pleasant group of people there. There's nothing violent about unions. Nothing at all. It's all hugs and hand shakes in that crowd.
Posted by thibodeaux on Dec. 13 2008,13:18
< Michigan's Gov. says it's un-American to not pass a bailout >
Posted by Cakedaddy on Dec. 13 2008,16:04
Fuck her. Fuck her right in her nasty goat ass. Fucking democrats. Buying more votes with tax payer money.
Posted by unkbill on Dec. 14 2008,07:09
(thibodeaux @ Dec. 12 2008,18:01)
QUOTE
And I don't like being patronized by dumb fucks who think that "book learning" means "ignorant of the world." I don't know why you have a chip on your shoulder, but you clearly tell yourself that to compensate for something. Hate to burst your bubble, but it's just not true.
So go have a beer with your working man buddies. Console yourselves with the notion that it's all the fault of THE RICH, and not the "working man" extorting so much out of the companies that they can't make a profit. Tell yourselves how things would work out so much better if Uncle Sugar would just steal some dough from everybody else in the country (who obviously are not "working men," because otherwise they'd be UAW members). Be sure to remind yourselves that you're helpless victims of The Man, who don't have the brains (or balls) to get a job that pays you what you're worth, not without Joey the Hammer standing behind you getting his piece of the action.
Maybe if you could read a fucking book, you'd know that you and your bailout-begging working-man friends are just one more gang pushing the bobsled on down the road to Hell.
So go have a beer with your working man buddies. Console yourselves with the notion that it's all the fault of THE RICH, and not the "working man" extorting so much out of the companies that they can't make a profit. Tell yourselves how things would work out so much better if Uncle Sugar would just steal some dough from everybody else in the country (who obviously are not "working men," because otherwise they'd be UAW members). Be sure to remind yourselves that you're helpless victims of The Man, who don't have the brains (or balls) to get a job that pays you what you're worth, not without Joey the Hammer standing behind you getting his piece of the action.
Maybe if you could read a fucking book, you'd know that you and your bailout-begging working-man friends are just one more gang pushing the bobsled on down the road to Hell.
Chip on my shoulder. What about yours. GM and the rest never made a profit. Do they pay thier execs millions of dollars. Why do the execs sign the contracts if they don't think they can make money. Oh I forgot about the broken nosed union official holdong a hammer over the other hand threating to break it if they don't sign. Did they ask the execs to give up half thier pay? Sure most of the high up said they would work for a dollars. Til the company becomes profitable again and they collect thier back pay. Are they going to pay the blue collar worker back his money? NO
So ya I have a chip on my shoulder abut high payed execs making so much off the sweat of the working man. If there wasn't someone to force him back he would have people working for free.
Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 14 2008,07:12
QUOTE
If there wasn't someone to force him back he would have people working for free.
Then what's holding back the non-union automakers in the US from paying their people nothing?
Posted by unkbill on Dec. 14 2008,07:17
(Cakedaddy @ Dec. 13 2008,12:31)
QUOTE
Why must the big three pay more than the market will bear? There are TONS of people that would do the same job for less money. But the big three can't hire them. There are LOTS of people at Wal-Mart that would KILL for a big three job at half the pay that the current big three workers are getting. But no. Let's not hire them. Let's keep the price of that product artificialy high.
Thats fine lower the pay scale for joe worker. I expect the overpaid execs to give up half their pay also.
As for paying more yes I do because I refuse to shop at Walmart. That is a separate arguement you can pick on later. So yes I do pay higher prices at times. I also don't shop at Home Depot or Furniture Row.
Posted by unkbill on Dec. 14 2008,07:17
(TPRJones @ Dec. 12 2008,17:16)
QUOTE
That was supposed to be "an". Sorry, but typos happen.
And that comment wasn't directed at you, but at the theoretical idiot you had described. For the record I do no consider you an idiot. Just ... misguided.
And that comment wasn't directed at you, but at the theoretical idiot you had described. For the record I do no consider you an idiot. Just ... misguided.
Sorry for saying bite me.
Posted by Cakedaddy on Dec. 14 2008,10:32
I have an idea!! Lets just get rid of the executives that run the company! Pay them nothing! Cut off the hand that's feeding the working man!!! See how long the working man has a job then. . . .Maybe the execs make so much money, because they keep so many people working. How many people does GM employ? Divide that into what the execs make. I bet it would be cheaper for the employess to pay the execs their crazy salaries out of their own pockets, than what they pay in union dues every year. . .
Exec makes say $10,000,000. GM employs. . . 25,000 (I have a feeling this is a very low estimate) people. That's $400 a year that the workers would pay the exec to have a job. . . they pay more than that to the unions! (I made those numbers up because I couldn't find real ones. But you can see how little it costs to pay the execs anyway)
Anyone could do the working man's job. . . only a few can do the exec's job.
And what kind of naive do you have to be to think there's no strong arming going on at the bargining table? You think the GM execs want to sign those contracts? They can choose not to sign them, and then everyone walks off their jobs, then GM doesn't make anything, and isn't making money. Or, the execs sign the contracts and hope people want to buy their over priced, under qualitied cars. If the execs don't sign, then the union fucks with them. To me, that's extortion. Unk makes it sound like the unions present good/fair contracts and the execs just want everyone to work for free. The execs KNOW they can get cheaper labor than they are getting from the unions. But they also know that the unions would beat the shit out of (litteraly. As in, with bats and other things) anyone that tries to cross the union lines. So, they can choose between no work being done, or paying too much for who the goons at the hall will allow into the building. Oh, and if you want a job at GM, you have to pay your protection money to the goons at the hall.
If you don't think that violence is a part of unions. . . . your crazy.
QUOTE
QUOTE
If there wasn't someone to force him back he would have people working for free.
Then what's holding back the non-union automakers in the US from paying their people nothing?
And please don't skip this question. I'd really like to hear your thoughts.
Posted by Vince on Dec. 14 2008,19:55
From what I'm hearing, the unions are agreeing to pay cuts, but they aren't agreeing on giving an actual date for the these paycuts to actually happen.These paycuts are starting to resemble those other mythical creatures "Hope" and "Change".
Posted by DoctorChaos on Dec. 15 2008,03:53
A few years back, I would have gone with the executives keeping the company working argument. I'm not supporting unions, I'm just not supporting executives. These days it's a good ole boy club that rewards the 'rape and pillage' mentality that drives companies under with their obsessive quest for quick profit at the expense of longevity and vision. It's the leaders that keep longevity in their vision that deserve these ridiculous bonuses we hear about. In my limited experience I have yet to see that in any company, startup or otherwise. It's all about turning a quick buck. Corporate whores all of them.As for unions, they served their purpose. Now they serve their own purpose of existence at the expense of the the people the supposedly represent. Forcing other members to picket for an unrelated strike just hurts the other workers who could be earning a full day's wage. The entitlement mentality in the workforce is a huge productivity suck that cost countless soft dollars in lost work. In my one time experience, if I was billing at $20/hour they paid $120 for me to find the right person to turn a wrench to replace a valve on a machine sitting idle for 2 days. Keep in mind I wasn't the only tech there.
Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 15 2008,05:47
QUOTE
President Bush said Monday he might use money from the Treasury program to aid financial services companies in order to avoid the bankruptcy of U.S. automakers, but he would not provide a timeline.
In an interview with reporters on Air Force One en route to Afghanistan, Bush said that "an abrupt bankruptcy for the autos could be devastating for the economy."
In an interview with reporters on Air Force One en route to Afghanistan, Bush said that "an abrupt bankruptcy for the autos could be devastating for the economy."
Hmmm, so can we have a not-so-abrupt one?
Posted by unkbill on Dec. 15 2008,06:22
(Cakedaddy @ Dec. 14 2008,10:32)
QUOTE
I have an idea!! Lets just get rid of the executives that run the company! Pay them nothing! Cut off the hand that's feeding the working man!!! See how long the working man has a job then. . . .
Because the working man is so stuppid righht. Can't take care of himself. Home many execs walked away from bankrupt companys with millions of dollars in golden parachutes. Leaving the working man holding the bag. So explain to me why they deserve so much money.
Posted by Leisher on Dec. 15 2008,06:38
The unions not being willing to sit down and renogotiate their contract so that a bailout can be passed is disgusting and shows their true colors. For or against the bailout, anyone can see that unions do NOT have their members' interests as their highest priority. They should be at the table 24/7 trying to figure out a way to make the car companies profitable. Instead they're sitting on their asses doing nothing except trying to hold onto their sweet deal. If the autos do go bankrupt and it voids the union's contract the people who are going to get fucked the most are the retirees and/or those about to retire.
Doctor Chaos - My company is all about the long term and not the quick buck. So, it's not ALL companies and executives. Our CEO doesn't make millions. We have an ESOP in which the company puts 25% of our annual salary each year. In 6 years we get to walk away with 100% of that cash. We have massive annual bonuses (obviously affected by the company's profits).
Oh, and we don't have a union.
I know unions served a purpose back in the day, but they've become so rife with corruption that they've produced nothing but sloth, greed, and poor work habits.
A very large number of my family and friends are in the UAW (I am in Toledo...). I could tell you lots of stories about how the union has protected shitty employees and keeps people from working.
However, everything you need to know about unions can be summed up by my mom's company. She's an office manager for a company that provides parts to the big three. She is not in the union, nor does she negotiate with the union or have anything to do with their contracts. She does, however, work alongside all the union folks and is friends with them. She has worked at this place for 28 or so years and has been credited with single handedly keeping it afloat at various times.
Recently, the union there went on strike.
While driving into work, where she has to show up if she wants to keep her job/benefits and get paid, the striking union members would try to block her path, curse at her, call her names, throw things at her car, etc. Another office worker had her car damaged and there was at least one instance of violence. After the strike, the union members somehow go back to acting like they did before the strike. Like their behavior wasn't fucking insane.
Justify that.
Fuck unions for their corruption.
Fuck unions for protecting worthless employees.
Fuck unions for driving up our prices.
Fuck unions for limiting good employees.
Fuck unions for the bailout as they're a major part of why there is one.
Fuck unions for the "us against them" mentality they imprint on their members.
Oh, and a note on my mom's company: They are doing horrible because of the auto troubles in the U.S. Had the union not demanded ridiculous wages, their members would still be there working instead of being fired or forced into accepting buy out packages.
And FYI, I'm not on the side of these asshole executives who burn their companies for their own gain, but I certainly am not on the unions' side.
Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 15 2008,07:12
Executive compensation is an issue. The largest problem is the inbreeding of corporate boards, and lack of board independence. It really is like an old boys' club. These people allow outrageous pay, etc, because they know these people. They're the guys they see on vacation, at social events, and at Augusta National. Executive compensation is also quite tricky. It's hard to say what the value of the CEO is, or how to align the interests of the CEO with those of the owners of the company (the shareholders). A lot of people smarter and more knowledgeable than I have tried to tackle the issue, but there's just not a good long term solution.
Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 15 2008,10:04
The number of good and valuable CEOs is probably quite close the number of good and valuable Union Representatives. You know statistically that some must exist, but it just seems so damn unlikely that you'll ever actually see one.
Posted by Cakedaddy on Dec. 15 2008,10:58
(unkbill @ Dec. 14 2008,23:22)
QUOTE
Because the working man is so stuppid righht. Can't take care of himself.
No. He can't. That's why there are unions.
Posted by unkbill on Dec. 16 2008,08:14
Unions may be apart of the past but it the best there is for now. Come up with something better and I will be for it. Yes the entire company should be talking 24/7 to help save the industry.I guess the part that bothers me is that no one seems to say fuck the execs what are they pitching in. From what I have read they have discussed pay cuts but when it turns around they want all there backpay and bonuses. They get a free pass because they went to school and are smart. Give me a break.
I guess the other thing I have learned is that I can't argue with the criminally sane.
Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 16 2008,08:19
(unkbill @ Dec. 16 2008,11:14)
QUOTE
I guess the part that bothers me is that no one seems to say fuck the execs what are they pitching in. From what I have read they have discussed pay cuts but when it turns around they want all there backpay and bonuses. They get a free pass because they went to school and are smart. Give me a break.
I guess the other thing I have learned is that I can't argue with the criminally sane.
I guess the other thing I have learned is that I can't argue with the criminally sane.
QUOTE
Now that President-elect Obama has suggested that General Motors and the rest of the Detroit Three may need to install new management
Yeah, losing your job isn't "pitching in."
Posted by Leisher on Dec. 16 2008,08:47
QUOTE
Unions may be apart of the past but it the best there is for now. Come up with something better and I will be for it.
?
Not sure what you mean there.
Do you mean like the other auto companies that doesn't hire union workers and are profitable or do you mean the other 90% of the American work force who aren't treated like slaves despite not having union representation?
Posted by unkbill on Dec. 17 2008,06:20
Check the fourth paragraph down. Unions have raised wages in non union plants. Now look at one of the biggest companys in what 20 states. They fire people for even joking about a union. I will say I shop non union Aldis. The difference is the people at A's voted the union down because the company treats them well. The other company fires people fires for even thinking about it. So keep shopping at Walmart because we can't let things like the law or peoples rights keep us from lower prices. By the way I have caught shit for even slighting the name of all might Walmart before. People in my family shop there. I just keep it to myself. I just chose not to and it isn't even all about the unions. And just people do the same for me and let it lay.
< http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/laborpr....-w.html >
Posted by Cakedaddy on Dec. 17 2008,06:47
The insanity of the whole thing is. . . . they would have NO problems filling those positions at $15 an hour. People will be happy taking those jobs. And that is what the market will bear. Hondas will be priced at a fair price as the labor that built it was bought at a fair price. Insert unions, and things get artificialy increased. Both wages and what the consumer will pay for the car. Why do we need to mess with stuff? If people are happy working at that rate. . . why change it? Don't people see that increasing wages simply increases the cost of goods that gets passed on to consumers? In what way is that good? Are you really any better off making more money if everything costs more anyway?It's like the unions are getting together and saying "Ok, boys! We've taken two down, let's go after the other two now!!" They've sucked the big three dry and they are on the verge of dying. So now, they have to move on to the other two. I mean really. When will they stop?
Posted by unkbill on Dec. 17 2008,07:47
(Cakedaddy @ Dec. 17 2008,06:47)
QUOTE
I mean really. When will they stop?
I think when the need is there. Just like they were formed when the need arrives. Doesn't anyone think it is time to get rid of the money sucking execs. They can be smart and do deserve money for thier troubles but what has been going on here the last few years with pay should turn peoples stomachs.
Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 17 2008,07:54
Something is already being done about the execs. Stockholders are selling off their shares, the stock is plumetting and the company's are going down the tubes. That's how you get rid of execs.Unfortunately the federal government is determined to bail them out and save the execs. Bah.
Posted by GORDON on Dec. 17 2008,07:55
UAW pay rates affect the costs of cars much, much more than executive salaries do.Do I think golden parachutes for failure is a good thing? No. But really, the entire issue is the high cost of inferior cars that no one wants to buy, and that is it. Cutting executive salaries down to minimum wage would make little difference to the cost of the cars, except that now no one with the ability to run a car company will want to run the company for shitty pay, and the entire operation would be shut down in about 45 days and then NO ONE will have a job.
Posted by WSGrundy on Dec. 17 2008,13:48
QUOTE
So keep shopping at Walmart because we can't let things like the law or peoples rights keep us from lower prices.
There are 5 general types of people that work at walmart. Mentally/physically challenged, retired old people serving as greeters, young kids, people looking for some extra cash, and those that are too stupid or lazy to get a job anywhere else.
It is the perfect setup. None of those above groups deserve more then the 8-9 an hour they are paid. People get paid what they are worth and customers get good deals.
QUOTE
Doesn't anyone think it is time to get rid of the money sucking execs.
I am all for getting rid of those execs who preform poorly but I am not willing to throw them out into the street for failure when they don't have any say or control over their biggest cost which is labor. If it was Honda execs asking for money and still getting big bonuses I would be pissed because they are running the company poorly and getting rewarded for it. The execs at the Big 3 don't have that control. Hell their doing a bang up job considering what they have to deal with.
Get rid of all the poorly performing money sucking execs at GM, just make sure you get rid of all the poorly performing money sucking line workers first.
I also don't have an issue with execs making crazy cash because as other have said they keep the company running and not everyone can do their jobs. With the people working the line everyone can do their jobs so their pay should reflect accordingly and be lower then others. Their are 6 billion people in the world and when all 6 billion can do a job the pay level should be low.
Posted by Vince on Dec. 17 2008,16:04
(unkbill @ Dec. 17 2008,09:47)
QUOTE
(Cakedaddy @ Dec. 17 2008,06:47)
QUOTE
I mean really. When will they stop?
I think when the need is there. Just like they were formed when the need arrives.
That's so wrong. They won't go away any more than the feminist groups or the environmental groups or the NAACP. They won't go away because they've transitioned from being a cause to being a business. When the majority of their complaints are addressed they can either say, "Job well done. Time to scale back our operation". Or they can manufacture the next big crisis they have to address in order not to have the money or power erode. That's what they've done every time. There are few advocates leading of these organizations any more. They're lead by power hungry extortionists.
Posted by GORDON on Dec. 17 2008,16:11
That's a good point. Jim Crow Laws won't suddenly return if the NAACP disbands.
Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 17 2008,16:44
Yeah, I can see unions voluntarily declaring the job done and disbanding about as quickly as I can see federal agencies doing the same.It'll never happen. Governments, special interest groups, unions, religions, these things only ever go away if they are forced to do so. They never give up power willingly. Especially when they've gotten corrupt (which they all inevitably do).
Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 17 2008,21:53
Alexander Hamilton is rolling over in his grave right now. I imagine Jefferson doing the same.
Posted by unkbill on Dec. 18 2008,06:49
(Vince @ Dec. 17 2008,16:04)
QUOTE
(unkbill @ Dec. 17 2008,09:47)
QUOTE
(Cakedaddy @ Dec. 17 2008,06:47)
QUOTE
I mean really. When will they stop?
I think when the need is there. Just like they were formed when the need arrives.
That's so wrong. They won't go away any more than the feminist groups or the environmental groups or the NAACP. They won't go away because they've transitioned from being a cause to being a business. When the majority of their complaints are addressed they can either say, "Job well done. Time to scale back our operation". Or they can manufacture the next big crisis they have to address in order not to have the money or power erode. That's what they've done every time. There are few advocates leading of these organizations any more. They're lead by power hungry extortionists.
Well for one I never said they would go away on there own. Alot of unions are getting weaker and having to merge. My wife has been in 3 different unions in as many years. Right now she is a steel worker. Funny she works at a glass company.
Posted by GORDON on Dec. 18 2008,08:26
And her job still isn't safe, in spite of all the union dues she has paid.
Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 18 2008,12:33
My thoughts:Bush fucked up when he said he would make TARP funds available BEFORE the Senate even voted, so the UAW/Democrats knew that he would cave, and didn't bother negotiating more.
Bush has since realized he fucked up, and is now sounding alarms bells such as "orderly bankruptcy" in order to regain the negotiating strength.
Bush won't allow a bankruptcy. Or might allow Chrysler, but not GM.
Overall, I think the government, on behalf of taxpayers, should play it's strong hand. It KNOWS that there is no other option for these companies for funding other than the government. They should demand significant cuts from everyone involved, force a bankruptcy to allow for easier reorganization, but publicly state that they will back/endorse warranties/service from the companies.
Posted by GORDON on Dec. 18 2008,12:37
Ah, so Bush lied.
Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 18 2008,12:47
I'm not aware that he lied on this yet.
Posted by Vince on Dec. 18 2008,16:28
(TheCatt @ Dec. 18 2008,14:33)
QUOTE
Bush fucked up when he said he would make TARP funds available BEFORE the Senate even voted, so the UAW/Democrats knew that he would cave, and didn't bother negotiating more.
Bush has since realized he fucked up, and is now sounding alarms bells such as "orderly bankruptcy" in order to regain the negotiating strength.
Bush won't allow a bankruptcy. Or might allow Chrysler, but not GM.
Bush has since realized he fucked up, and is now sounding alarms bells such as "orderly bankruptcy" in order to regain the negotiating strength.
Bush won't allow a bankruptcy. Or might allow Chrysler, but not GM.
I agree with your assessment. I think bankruptcy is the way to go. The unions REALLY don't want that. My understanding (and tell me if I'm wrong on this) is that the bankruptcy judge would be the final arbiter on the union contact if they had to renegotiate. The judge could effectively side with the company and tell the unions, "No, they aren't going to do that and no, you can't strike. Call for a vote on a strike and you're in contempt."
Posted by GORDON on Dec. 18 2008,16:29
The automakers are gearing down for a 30-day shutdown in order to save money, but I heard the union workers still get 95% of their pay during that time.That's a good fucking contract.
It's almost like they have an incentive to shut down their plants by any means necessary.
Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 18 2008,18:07
(Vince @ Dec. 18 2008,19:28)
QUOTE
(TheCatt @ Dec. 18 2008,14:33)
QUOTE
Bush fucked up when he said he would make TARP funds available BEFORE the Senate even voted, so the UAW/Democrats knew that he would cave, and didn't bother negotiating more.
Bush has since realized he fucked up, and is now sounding alarms bells such as "orderly bankruptcy" in order to regain the negotiating strength.
Bush won't allow a bankruptcy. Or might allow Chrysler, but not GM.
Bush has since realized he fucked up, and is now sounding alarms bells such as "orderly bankruptcy" in order to regain the negotiating strength.
Bush won't allow a bankruptcy. Or might allow Chrysler, but not GM.
I agree with your assessment. I think bankruptcy is the way to go. The unions REALLY don't want that. My understanding (and tell me if I'm wrong on this) is that the bankruptcy judge would be the final arbiter on the union contact if they had to renegotiate. The judge could effectively side with the company and tell the unions, "No, they aren't going to do that and no, you can't strike. Call for a vote on a strike and you're in contempt."
Basically, in bankruptcy, any obligation (contracts, debts, etc) can be invalidated. So yes, the judge would be able to completely nullify the UAW contracts, or modify them.
As for mgmt, GM mgmt clearly needs to go as well. They had losses even in the past 3 years when the economy was soaring. They have no competence. I have no idea how they've even stayed around this long.
Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 18 2008,18:31
QUOTE
GM, Chrysler Said to Be Poised for U.S. Loans to Get Into March
By John Hughes and Robert Schmidt
Dec. 19 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC would get U.S. loans to stay afloat until March under a Bush administration rescue plan that may be unveiled as soon as today, people familiar with the talks said.
The government could take back the money should the automakers not comply with federal restrictions as a condition of receiving the funds, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the discussions are private. The plan isn’t final and may change, the people said.
The aid is intended to help GM, the largest U.S. automaker, and No. 3 Chrysler avoid collapse because they may run out of operating funds by early next year. GM and Chrysler have said they need $14 billion to stay in business through March and are temporarily idling plants to trim expenses.
“I’m worried about a disorderly bankruptcy and what it would do to the psychology of the markets,” President George W. Bush said yesterday during a forum at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. Bush said he doesn’t want to “dump a major catastrophe” on his successor, Barack Obama. Still, he added, he also is “worried about putting good money after bad.”
The Treasury Department may lend to the automakers through their credit arms, GMAC LLC and Chrysler Financial, to avoid having other industrial companies line up for access to the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, the people said.
Using TARP
“The idea of TARP is to help with troubled assets, so Treasury can do it this way, and it already has permission to do it,” said Ed Fredericks, a professor at Pepperdine University’s Graziadio School of Business in Malibu, California. “This is one way that Washington can do it without, possibly, having to deal with congressional oversight or at least limited additional oversight.”
Greg Martin, a spokesman for Detroit-based GM, and Chrysler spokeswoman Shawn Morgan declined to comment. Ford Motor Co., the second-biggest U.S. automaker, isn’t seeking emergency aid.
White House spokesman Tony Fratto said in an interview, “We’re not going to discuss any of the details, and especially since decisions haven’t been made.”
The negotiations with the Treasury Department have involved the three U.S. automakers and each of their finance arms, one of the people said. The talks have been difficult in part because Treasury’s expertise is in banks, not manufacturers, the person said.
While the option of placing Chrysler and GM into a prearranged bankruptcy has been considered, the administration decided that such a move would put Ford at a competitive disadvantage, the person said.
GM is reeling from almost $73 billion in losses since 2004 and a 22 percent slump in U.S. sales this year, while Auburn Hills, Michigan-based Chrysler’s drop is 28 percent.
GM reported having $16.2 billion in cash as of Sept. 30 and needs at least $11 billion to pay monthly bills. Chrysler ended last quarter with $6.1 billion and needs at least $3 billion to operate, Chief Executive Officer Robert Nardelli told Congress on Nov. 18.
Bah.
Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 18 2008,18:47
QUOTE
The government could take back the money should the automakers not comply with federal restrictions as a condition of receiving the funds...
Anyone wanna bet on this?
Posted by Vince on Dec. 18 2008,19:35
How many airlines have filed for bankruptcy and realigned their debt and are still around? I don't get this doom and gloom if they file for bankruptcy.
Posted by WSGrundy on Dec. 18 2008,19:40
(Vince @ Dec. 18 2008,19:35)
QUOTE
How many airlines have filed for bankruptcy and realigned their debt and are still around? I don't get this doom and gloom if they file for bankruptcy.
I think it is because bankruptcy means that the Big 3 can throw out the union contracts and having a non-union job is the same as being unemployed. Probably worse. That is my guess after hearing some of the workers talk.
Posted by Mommy Dearest on Dec. 18 2008,20:44
(Vince @ Dec. 18 2008,22:35)
QUOTE
How many airlines have filed for bankruptcy and realigned their debt and are still around? I don't get this doom and gloom if they file for bankruptcy.
And how many airlines have been bailed out by the government? Especially since 911?
Posted by Vince on Dec. 19 2008,04:07
(Mommy Dearest @ Dec. 18 2008,22:44)
QUOTE
(Vince @ Dec. 18 2008,22:35)
QUOTE
How many airlines have filed for bankruptcy and realigned their debt and are still around? I don't get this doom and gloom if they file for bankruptcy.
And how many airlines have been bailed out by the government? Especially since 911?
I wish we'd had a conservative in office the last 8 years...
Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 19 2008,05:15
QUOTE
President Bush will make a 9 a.m. announcement about a possible bailout for troubled automakers. More soon.
Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 19 2008,05:52
Up to $17.4 billion in low interest loans. No details yet on concessions.
Posted by Mommy Dearest on Dec. 19 2008,07:08
(Vince @ Dec. 19 2008,07:07)
QUOTE
(Mommy Dearest @ Dec. 18 2008,22:44)
QUOTE
(Vince @ Dec. 18 2008,22:35)
QUOTE
How many airlines have filed for bankruptcy and realigned their debt and are still around? I don't get this doom and gloom if they file for bankruptcy.
And how many airlines have been bailed out by the government? Especially since 911?
I wish we'd had a conservative in office the last 8 years...
Yes that would have been nice.
Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 19 2008,07:13
Agreed.Apparently the rules require "UAW work rules and compensation to be competitive by the end of the year." I don't know if that's the end of this year or next year.
Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 19 2008,07:15
QUOTE
The loans come with strings attached, including limits on executive compensation and a ban on the use of corporate jets. The automakers will need to restructure, getting tough concessions from creditors, suppliers and the labor union.
The deal also includes as non-binding "target" key provisions, including making work rules and wages competitive with workers at foreign car companies in the U.S.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson will administer the plan until Jan. 20, at which point there will be another presidential designee to oversee the loans under the new administration.
If the companies cannot prove they are financially viable by March 31, the loans will be recalled and the money returned to the Treasury.
The White House is also calling for no dividends for stockholders until the money is paid back, and stipulating that the government can block transactions over $100 million.
Other non-binding targets of the plan include debt reductions by two-thirds as well as the elimination of jobs banks, a system that allows workers to get paid a large percentage of their wages even when they're not called in to work.
The deal also includes as non-binding "target" key provisions, including making work rules and wages competitive with workers at foreign car companies in the U.S.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson will administer the plan until Jan. 20, at which point there will be another presidential designee to oversee the loans under the new administration.
If the companies cannot prove they are financially viable by March 31, the loans will be recalled and the money returned to the Treasury.
The White House is also calling for no dividends for stockholders until the money is paid back, and stipulating that the government can block transactions over $100 million.
Other non-binding targets of the plan include debt reductions by two-thirds as well as the elimination of jobs banks, a system that allows workers to get paid a large percentage of their wages even when they're not called in to work.
"non-binding"?
Posted by Vince on Dec. 19 2008,17:34
They worried about consumer confidence if they'd filed chapter 11. My gut tells me there's going to be a bigger backlash for this than there would have been for filing ch 11. I know I can't see buying a car made by them for the next decade or two. Maybe Ford since they said, "No thanks", but it's too soon to tell.
Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 19 2008,18:04
I'd say something like "I'll never buy a GM/Chrysler car," but I mean - I wasn't going to anyway. Cept maybe a Jeep, as a 2nd car. So I won't do that.
Posted by Vince on Dec. 22 2008,20:16
Giben the reasons given for giving the big three money, does that mean they're going to give Toyota money now too? They're scrapping plans on opening new plants here in the states which will impact jobs here.
Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 26 2009,19:23
< This is bullshit. >8,000 GM employees get free cars every 6 months + unlimited free gas.
Well, apparently it does cost $250/month, so not entirely free.
what the fuck?
Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 26 2009,21:26
I expect a hue and cry from the green crowd about this being why GM doesn't do more for building environmentally friendly vehicles.
Posted by Vince on Mar. 26 2009,21:41
I would expect a hue and cry from everyone that was screaming about the AIG bonuses, but somehow I doubt this'll get the same coverage.
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 27 2009,09:40
QUOTE
GM has talked about ending the program, but a spokesman said employees have built their lives around it. It allows many to live far from their offices and commute at little expense.
The spokesman said killing the program now would be "extremely" disruptive.
The spokesman said killing the program now would be "extremely" disruptive.
Fuck you. How about we 86 your entire company, jerkweed?
Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 27 2009,10:43
This is why we need bankruptcy.
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 27 2009,11:43
(TheCatt @ Mar. 27 2009,12:43)
QUOTE
This is why we need bankruptcy.
This is why we need firing squads that aim for the kneecaps.
Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 30 2009,11:14
(TheCatt @ Dec. 18 2008,15:33)
QUOTE
Overall, I think the government, on behalf of taxpayers, should play it's strong hand. It KNOWS that there is no other option for these companies for funding other than the government. They should demand significant cuts from everyone involved, force a bankruptcy to allow for easier reorganization, but publicly state that they will back/endorse warranties/service from the companies.
< *cough* *cough* >
Posted by Vince on Mar. 30 2009,15:51
So our government's in the auto business now.Great.
They aren't even that great at the government business.
And wasn't the first bailout to prevent them from going into bankruptcy?
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 31 2009,06:17
No, the first bailout was to get the kickbacks. The second one is to actually get something done.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 08 2009,13:09
Posted by TheCatt on May 08 2009,12:43
QUOTE
Under the Treasury Department-led reorganization, the UAW would get 55% of the equity in a reorganized Chrysler to cover money it is owed for retiree health care costs. Fiat would get a stake of up to 35% as part of an alliance to bring its vehicles to the U.S. market. The U.S. and Canadian governments would get a 10% stake in return for loans that would not be repaid.
Buy Chrysler, support the union.
Fuck Chrysler.
Posted by Malcolm on May 08 2009,12:53
They still have to honour their pensions & all that bullshit? Of course that's going to be massive. Perpetuating bloat does that sort of shyte to costs.
Posted by TPRJones on May 08 2009,13:06
Great, the best way to fix the problem is to put the leaders of the gangs that caused most of the bloat to begin with in charge of the whole thing. Wonderful idea!
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 01 2009,09:15
We should have had a "pick the day" thread.< http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....topnews >
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 01 2009,15:33
So, how big does a biz've to get before it can apply for gov't-sanctioned immortality?
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 01 2009,16:51
Got to find the "too big to allow to fail" threshold. Or have a really good lobbyist?
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 01 2009,19:13
(GORDON @ Jun. 01 2009,18:51)
QUOTE
Got to find the "too big to allow to fail" threshold. Or have a really good lobbyist?
I just want a hard number on it so I know when I can officially stop trying & say, "Fuck you, it doesn't matter anymore," to all my employees & shareholders.
Posted by WSGrundy on Jun. 01 2009,19:29
(GORDON @ Jun. 01 2009,16:51)
QUOTE
Got to find the "too big to allow to fail" threshold. Or have a really good lobbyist?
Or have an overwhelming majority of the employees help put you in office.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 01 2009,19:31
I think it's measured in lobbyist budgets.