Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • Tags
  • RSS Feed


  • Advertise on RightMichigan.com


    NEWS TIPS!

    Get the RightMighigan.com toolbar!


    RightMichigan.com

    Buzz

    Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?

    Raise the curtain.

    The times, they are a-changin'- A GM Retiree's Perspective


    By apackof2, Section News
    Posted on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 01:37:09 PM EST
    Tags: (all tags)

    (Promoted by Nick... AWESOME Diary.)

    I ran across this paper from my 2005 Writing class, titled "The times, they are a-changin'"in which I wrote about GM's financial woes. Since then I have retired and the question I asked then " "Will it be too little too late to save GM?" is still being answered.

    As a retiree who worked for General Motors for 30 years, my ties are not just financial but emotional as well. I remember the "hay days," when we sold a history making amount of autos. I remember working six days a week, nine hour days in order to supply America with the cars they wanted. I remember the Toronado line, Oldsmobile 98's and 88's, and Cutlasses that were produced here in Lansing.

    And its from that perspective, as an insider, a former employee, a current retiree of General Motors, I believe the best interest of the company would be to go into Chapter 11. I do not say this lightly as I have a huge financial stake in the outcome, my health care is on the line and my pension could be reduced. However, with that being said, I believe Chapter 11 to be in the best interest of not only GM but Michigan and other "Union states" for several reasons.

    1. The ability to make the UAW Union contract null and void

    In 1984 the Supreme Court ruled that employers can unilaterally break an existing collective bargaining contract upon filing a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition.

    1. Keeps doing business and its stock and bonds may continue to trade in our securities markets. This is extremely important as almost 4% of the Gross Domestic Product is auto-related. Three million U.S. jobs ( and families) are dependent on the health of U.S. automakers, and they are not all in the Midwest.

    2. Hold debt at bay while restructuring for profitability

    Federal bankruptcy laws govern how companies go out of business or recover from crippling debt. A bankrupt company, the "debtor," might use Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code to "reorganize" its business and try to become profitable again. Management continues to run the day-to-day business operations but all significant business decisions must be approved by a bankruptcy court.

    The question is, do GM Executives have the fortitude to try and entangle themselves from the chains of the Union in a Chapter 11?

    In an e-mail I received from GM which asks employees to write/call their reps to encourage the "bridge loan", GM addresses the Myth of "GM's biggest problem in North America is its union contracts"

    "As The most recent GM-UAW agreement, signed in 2007, helps close fundamental competitive gaps with our import competitors, and we anticipate significant savings as we implement the key provisions of the agreement between now and 2010.

    GM's unionized North American factories compete with the best in terms of quality and productivity.

    We are confident that a collaborative relationship with our unions continues to be in everyone's best interest." August 26, 2008

    But then at this point what can they say as the UAW with its support of Barack Obama and Democrats is the best hope of a "bridge loan".

    However with all the GM bashing, the fact is that GM has made significant improvements. In the last contract in 2007. GM freed itself of its obligation to pay health care benefits to its nearly 400,000 retirees and their dependents by setting up a multi-billion-dollar union-controlled trust fund--known as a Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association, or VEBA, that will pay out benefits. In addition, the agreement establishes a two-tier wage system--the first ever in a national UAW contract--that will drastically reduce wages and benefits for the next generation of auto workers.

    Cost-of-living increases will be diverted to help offset the cost of retiree health benefits. The four-year contract includes three lump-sum bonuses but no wage increases, The two-tier wage agreed to by the UAW will reduce labor costs (wages and benefits) for new-hires in so-called "non-assembly jobs" to an average of $27 per hour, compared with the current average of $73 per hour. The union and company will offer buyouts and early-retirements to move current workers out of their jobs, so they can be replaced with far cheaper labor

    The jobs bank, which pays laid off workers while they are jobless, will be changed so that the geographical area within which workers will have to move to an open position or lose their incomes will be expanded

    In addition:

    GM cars and trucks have improved significantly over the past decade. Critics are taking note, and customers are responding.

    In 2007, the Saturn Aura, and Chevy Silverado won North American Car and Truck of the year.

    In 2008, the Chevy Malibu was named North American Car of the Year, The Cadillac CTS was Motor Trend's 2008 Car of the Year.

    Customers have responded just as enthusiastically as the critics. Although total U.S. vehicle sales are down almost 13% so far this year, a number of GM cars and crossovers have enjoyed significant sales increases:

    Saturn Vue +5%
    Chevy Cobalt +6%
    Pontiac G6 + 8%
    GMC Acadia +8%
    Saturn Aura +10%
    Cadillac CTS +25%
    Chevy Malibu +36%
    Pontiac Vibe +39%
    Buick Enclave +124%

    October 1, 2008

    However as I have said I also have an emotional tie to GM as a large part of my life was spend as an employee and part of the GM culture. But its not just that, GM IS part of not only Michigan's heritage and culture but America's also, a great American automobile company,conceived and build by Americans.

    From the 1905 song, "In My Merry Oldsmobile", to the 1950's image of Dinah Shore throwing a kiss after singing,"See the USA in Your Chevrolet". Mel Torme's "What a thrill to take the wheel of a Rocket Oldsmobile!" To Bob Seger's "Like a Rock" Chevy Truck To Cadillac's "Breakthtrough" commercials with Led Zepplin. Great GM "muscle cars", Chevy Chevelle ss 454, Chevy Camaro Z/28, Olds 442. And GM cars and trucks in the movies

    Add to that the GM cars and trucks driven by millions of Americans throughout its history. And generations of Americans who worked hard, raised their families and built their communities as GM employees.

    GM is a part of the American Landscape and Experience. There is an old saying, What's good for GM is good for America". Although perhaps in a smaller measure now, I still believe that's true.

    November 23, 2005

    The times, they are a-changin'
    Bob Dylan

    September 18, 1978. To most it's just another day without any significance To me, this date proved to be a milestone in my life.

    September 18, 1978 was the day I started my career at General Motors (GM).GM had just opened a new assembly plant that summer in Lansing. I was one of 20,000 new GM employees. My staring wage was $6.50, per hour (good money then) plus benefits. GM employees build over 359,825 Oldsmobile's that year. (Lansing Production 4 )

    Fast-forward 27 years. The same plant where I started working in 1978 closed in May of 2005 and will soon be demolished. Total number of GM employees in Lansing is approximately 6,200. My hourly wage is over $27.00 plus benefits. GM build approximately 240,000 vehicles the year before the assembly plant was closed. Most astonishingly, GM's debt rating has been downgraded to junk bond status. Immediate costs saving cuts are needed to stave off bankruptcy. As I write this paper, the United Auto Workers (UAW) has just set a precedent by opening up its contract with GM before it expires in 2007 to re-negotiate for concessions in health benefits and wages for its membership.

    So who is responsible for the financial descent of one of America's largest corporations? Some will say the culprit is management, while others contend the UAW as a whole is to blame. As a GM employee of 27 years, I feel I am in the unique position to make a qualified judgement regarding the downfall of GM. I believe that both management and the UAW share the responsibility. However, ultimately, I believe that the burden of blame rests with management.

    First, let's review the UAW's role in GM's current crises. Foremost is the UAW contractual costs incurred by GM. Contractual demands for higher wages and benefits have increased with each contract. These costs have made it unfeasible for GM to be competitive with other automobile companies and make a profit in a global economy. Health care costs are exponentially higher for GM than many other companies and are unaffordable. For example, "UAW workers currently pay 7 percent to 10 percent of their health-insurance costs, compared with 20 percent for GM's white- collar workers and 40 percent for Americans generally, according to union data." ( GM Powertrain par 33 )

    In addition to unaffordable health care costs, there is another unsustainable contractual cost, the "jobs bank" This is a program that is initiated after a large layoff or plant closing. A displaced employee attends a job bank and may not do any work, yet still receive a full paycheck and benefits. In Lansing, because there is a lag between the old plants being closed and the new Delta Plant being built, some job bank employees show up at a given place and spend the entire day doing nothing. Others may do community service, while others, like me go to school as my "job".

    I estimate because of my position of being in the job bank, that there about 200 people in Lansing's job bank. The payroll, based on my weekly salary, for job bank employees is over $216,000 per week! What business could possibly survive by paying its employees full wages not to work?

    Another indefensible contractual cost to GM in light of a global economy is the "30 and Out" rule. An employee who hired in at the age of 18 may retire at 48 and can collect pension plus fully paid health care for another 30 years or more. For health care alone in dollars and cents..."GM provides $5.2 billion in health care annually to 1.1 million workers, retirees and dependents. Retirees outnumber current U.S. employees 2.5 to 1. About $4 billion goes annually to retirees does not go into developing products people want to buy." (Will, pars. 11)

    GM cannot continue to incur these costs and survive in the face of manufacturing moving into and competing globally with companies that pay far less to their employees,in wages and benefits, and therefore can design and produce less expensive cars which generate the kind of profits necessary to survive, prosper and grow in a global market. Of these companies, most are non-union including those with plants in America. And because they are non-union, these companies are not forced into contracts that they can ill afford.

    To illustrate the difference in union and non-union on profits, "Toyota generated the highest revenues per vehicle last year, an average $26,514, once you stripped out incentives and other discounts. By comparison, General Motors' net was a meager $20,659 per vehicle. "That's an alarming number," stressed Harbour, "all the more alarming because it hasn't changed much in seven years."

    It is clear that GM cannot continue to give in to Union contractual demands and be profitable. (Eisenstein, pars. 21)

    On the other hand, although GM management has been burdened with these demands, management is not without blame.

    Management has capitulated to the Union's unrealistic demands despite the reality of the monetary bottom line needed to successful compete in the global market place. Moreover adding to the financial overtaxing to GM is the huge salaries and bonus packages given to executives and CEOs even in the face of the coming financial maelstrom.

    One case in point, according to Richard Freedman, for Executive Intelligence Review,Counting some other benefits, GM CEO Rick Wagoner's total compensation came to over $10 million; this does not count an additional lavish pension benefit. GM's Chairman Bob Lutz, and its chief financial officer, John Devine, each received total compensation packages of $6.4 million in 2004. It is estimated that the GM top management team took in more than $50 million in compensation for the year. (Freeman, pars.17)

    In the final analysis, both management and the UAW are responsible for the GM's current financial woes.

    I believe that at one time the union was necessary to fight for the working conditions and wages of the "Average Joe" However, the UAW has become what they have fought against, a bureaucratic organization that has lost focus of what is good for the company is good for its employees.

    I acknowledge I have benefited from many of the UAW benefits, good wages, health care, benefits such as tuition assistance and I am grateful. But at what cost to GM, my employer of 27 years and to my post retirement life?

    In summary, the UAW shortsighted and prohibitive costly contractual demands in the face of a changing business economy has contributed to its membership not just losing pension and health benefits, but also perhaps their jobs as well.

    Conversely GM management's own self-created bureaucratic management hierarchy has contributed to highly paid executives, whom in turn, capitulated to UAW's demands of higher wages and costly benefits in spite of the changing market in the automobile industry. Such demands have made it impossible for GM to compete with other automobile companies and make a profit.

    To GM's credit some changes have been made. GM has consolidated its divisions at the RenCen in Detroit to facilitate communications, implementing new assembly technology, cutting salaried and blue-collar jobs and closing aging plants and cutting benefits.

    But will it be too little too late to save GM?

    Nevertheless, the ultimate responsibility and blame for GM's current financial position must lie with GM management. Management is the final arbitrator of all company decisions and as such carries sole responsible for acquiescing to the unworkable, and unrealistic UAW financial demands, in addition to paying huge salaries and bonuses to non-producing executives.

    Of course I cannot view these events dispassionately. Not just because I face a monetary loss but in view of the fact that a large portion of my adult life was spend as a GM employee. But also in a much larger sense because General Motors is a part of Americana. Cultural and historically, GM, is a part of our American heritage, a great American automobile company, conceived and build by Americans.

    There is an old saying, What's good for GM is good for America". Although perhaps in a smaller measure now, I still believe that's true. So then it is my hope and prayer that like the mythical Phoenix General Motors will rise from the ashes to a new prominence.

    WORKS CITED

    Dylan, Bob, "The Times They Are A-Changin'" The Times They Are A-Changin'
    Atlantic, 1964. Eisenstein, Paul A. "Detroit's productivity gains aren't enough to outclass Japan." The Carconnection.com. 6 June 2005. 23 Oct. 2005 21 pars Freeman, Richard. "Corruption in America:Big Three Execs Get Huge Pay To Ruin Auto Sector ." Executive Intelligence Review 2 Sep. 2005. 23 Oct. 2005 17 pars GM Powertrain. 23 Oct. 2005 (http://uawlocal14.org/News/Regional/04-14GMBoard.htm)Lansing Production. 2004. Lansing: GM Heritage Center, n.d. Will, George. "GM Makes Turn Toward Fiscal Sanity ." The Grand Rapids Press 20 Oct. 2005. 11 pars. InfoWeb. NewsBank. Lansing Community College. 23 Oct. 2005 The World According to Me

    < Unemployment rate hits 9.3% (!!!) while 74,000 Michiganders lose their jobs | Thursday in the Sphere: November 20 >


    Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit


    Display: Sort:
    Yes And No (none / 0) (#1)
    by maidintheus on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 02:07:35 PM EST
    "Nevertheless, the ultimate responsibility and blame for GM's current financial position must lie with GM management. Management is the final arbitrator of all company decisions and as such carries sole responsible for acquiescing to the unworkable, and unrealistic UAW financial demands, in addition to paying huge salaries and bonuses to non-producing executives."

    The 'yes, i agree' part is obvious because there has been too much capitulation and recklessness through the years by management. No, I don't agree. The unions have gained so much political and economic power that it's been impossible to stand up to them.

     

    Fantastically (none / 0) (#2)
    by maidintheus on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 02:09:37 PM EST
    great article, by the way.

    I can't think of (none / 0) (#5)
    by maidintheus on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 02:40:57 PM EST
    any reason to not agree, JG.

    So, let's contact our elected officials, even the worthless ones.

    Let's call GM headquarters and remind them of this and suggest to them to do this at. Ask where to be directed with a suggestion on how to save their company:
    313-556-5000
    300 Renaissance Center
    Detroit, MI 48265-3000

    GM top brass:
    G. Richard Wagoner, Jr.
    GM Chairman and
    Chief Executive Officer

    Frederick A. Henderson
    GM President and
    Chief Operating Officer

    Robert A. Lutz
    GM Vice Chairman,
    Global Product Development
     

    According to GM (none / 0) (#8)
    by apackof2 on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 06:24:21 PM EST
    Why is bankruptcy not an option for GM?

    Answer: For any automaker that filed for Chapter 11 reorganization, car sales would plummet even further. A study by the automotive market research firm CNW found that 80 percent of people intending to buy a new car would switch brands if the car came from a manufacturer that went bankrupt.

    http://wot.motortrend.com/6264220/auto-news/surprise-surprise-buyers-dont-want-cars-from-bankrupt-au tomakers/index.html

    This is an issue I did not address because with the state of the economy,lots of people can't buy a car anyways because the financing just isn't there.  

    I think the bigger issues with GM exes is that they would be giving up CONTROL of financial operating decisions. Those would be made by or approved by the bankruptcy judge.

    • I'm thinking by maidintheus, 11/19/2008 07:41:07 PM EST (none / 0)
      • oops by maidintheus, 11/19/2008 07:42:35 PM EST (none / 0)
        • What say I? by apackof2, 11/19/2008 08:26:32 PM EST (none / 0)
    Bankruptcy is not an option... (none / 0) (#13)
    by RightMacomb on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 09:36:03 AM EST
    While it sounds nice, but that cannot be a solution.  While breaking the UAW contract sounds nice to us conservatives and republicans, since there is an amount of payback there considering what they have been doing to our candidates for years, that cannot be a driving force.

    In the 2007, the UAW dramatically changed the game by agreeing to take the retiree health burden off of the balance sheets of the companies and shift it to the VEBA.  But, that does not start until Jan 1, 2010.  Which is why the bridge loan is needed for next year.  Their wage structure is also changing.  Any new employee makes considerably less than the current ones.  But, the full benefit of those savings take time to see.

    While you may be critical of GM management, and they have made bad decisions just like many other companies, bankruptcy would just be another horrible mistake.  It would ripple down to bankrupt many of the suppliers and that would lead to supply disruptions to the other companies.

    Plus, as Wagoner testified, 80% of the people would not consider buying a car or truck from a bankrupt GM.  There is no way GM survives that big of a drop in revenue.  GM would basically be force to liquidate the company.  There would be no more GM.

    The fact of the matter, as GM has made strides to get leaner and a profitable company, other forces always seem to come in to derail the recovery.  First, congress increase fuel economy requirements past what available technology would offer.  This forced GM to change its product spending into development spending to meet these new requirements.  Then, $4 a gallon gas killed off the sales of the Trucks and SUV's, which up until then is all people really wanted to buy.  Then the congress inaction on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae led to the melt down of the credit system leading to a 10.8 million annualize vehicle market in October.

    And I know people feel burned by the $700 Billion because our gutless politicians allowed a bill to pass that basically had no protections or provisions for how the money would be spent or how the Treasury Department would be held accountable for the spending.  Again, that is their mistake, not the auto companies.  It would be wrong to let the auto industry go down in flames just so the politicians can mislead themselves into believing they are really doing it for the public good.  

    BS, RightMacomb (none / 0) (#15)
    by John Galt on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 11:42:17 AM EST
    I appreciate the level-headed analysis.  But I have to call BS.

    First, a company who has spent 40 years making bad business decisions needs to be accountable.  If we're going to sit here and say we're for a free market, then we have to let it work - open and uninterrupted.

    I loved a quote from a congressman last night who said "that's a hell of a thing to tell someone you're asking to borrow money from.  You're telling us you're not credit worthy!".  If GM is not credit-worthy to get a loan through conventional means, why should we the taxpayers take on the risk?  As a conservative, the role of government is not a "lending institution" to private industry.

    Second, I call BS on the CAFE standard increase.  GM, Ford and Chrysler did it to themselves.  They lobbied Congress for the increased standards.  This is a fact.  

    So this "factor" in derailing their path to profitability was caused by themselves.  If you purposely shoot yourself in the foot, you should feel the pain. I'm sure it caused them to have to reallocate money.  They shouldn't have advocated for new regulations they couldn't afford.

    Third, yeah the $700bn bailout loan wasn't the automaker's fault.  It shouldn't have existed in the first place.  I don't feel burned by it, but I'm certainly not inclined to repeat it by loaning money to the Auto Industry.

    Every other industry (including government institutions) are seeking bailouts now.  Detroit, Lansing, Michigan, New York, California.  American Express, who makes money off of charging high interest rates to customers.

    Fourth, yeah some suppliers will go out of business.  Some people might not buy cars.  But it's absolute BS that 80% won't buy from GM.  That's simply not true.  But assuming it is, 10 million cars need to be built - and Ford and Chrysler will pick up the slack.  Workers will need to build cars, and suppliers will need to supply parts.  

    And even if the car company goes under, there are methods and processes for handling this.  Just because it's unfavorable doesn't mean we need to drift towards socialism.  

    Fifth, I keep seeing this mantra.  It's not the Automotive Industry's fault.  That's nice.  That doesn't mean we have to reward them, either.  We've given plenty in ways that government SHOULD be providing - tax abatement and incentives for creating jobs and new factories.  We see how well those were used.

    Finally, the bottom line is that the government has to borrow the money (from China?  Germany?  Where?) in order to loan to the auto makers.  It's absurd to think a government with a $10 trillion debt is in a position to advise big business on balancing its books.  When the first few billion are gone, do we reach further into the well to keep the industry from failing?  What other industries do we subsidize?  Stop now, before we make things worse and harder to recover from.

    I agree with Mr Galt!!! (none / 0) (#16)
    by maidintheus on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 12:01:54 PM EST
    And we've already covered the angle of worrying whether the public will buy their product.

    After a Chapter 11, GM will be restructured and the monkeys on the back will have been taken off off the back to a manageable level. GM will be in a position to better be able to price the vehicles in a most competitive way. The Judge will be in a position to not look like a bigger idiot then the government and GM combined and will want to be the one that helped save the day with proper management.

    Those arguing for this Fed "loan" aren't looking at the facts. If there's good reason to make the loan tell me some that go along with All The Facts, because this is important.  

    If GM declares Chapter 11... (none / 0) (#18)
    by rdww on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 01:31:16 PM EST
    ... one job I would NOT want to hold would be that of the bankruptcy judge in charge.  Not only would he (or she) be facing the biggest bankruptcy ever, but you can bet they will face massive political interference to keep UAW voters happy, force GM to build unprofitable "green" cars, etc.

    48% Say Failure of GM Best for the Economy (none / 0) (#19)
    by apackof2 on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 05:09:47 PM EST
    Mr. Galt (none / 0) (#21)
    by maidintheus on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 06:58:04 AM EST
    again makes a great point for balance and measures designed to protect our freedoms. Forced measures in a market like the auto industry by the unions and feds is a critical part of the problem. What are they/we going to do to eliminate that abuse?

    Though Rep. McCotter's speech on behalf of 'the loan' is moving and appreciated, I'm not convinced that there's a bit too much emphasis on on bad management as main problem. Horse pucky! What about even more pressure to stop abuse bny unions and other regulations, such as CAFE in recent yrs.

    Yeah, I might want a face lift someday but I'd look silly and obvious asking relatives/associates for money after years of cosmetic tweaks.

    It's not so much how the money for wall street or any other bailout is used as it is an honest effort to write in steps that acknowledge the real problems and stop gaps so they don't continue/happen again.

    Our elected officials should be screaming about how this is a forced failure. Those outside of this country want to ensure a continued anti America stance by guilt and psychological pressure, as exampled by the "house negro' statement slandering our President Elect.        

    Wagoner testified, 80% (none / 0) (#22)
    by maidintheus on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 07:12:45 AM EST
    What's Wagoner smoking: "Plus, as Wagoner testified, 80% of the people would not consider buying a car or truck from a bankrupt GM." B.S. He must be ignorant of his own current sales department. He must also be ignorant of the possibility that if there were more truth in lending by his company, more truth in lending by the actions/statements of those working on a loan for his company, the public might be more amenable to purchase from and make loans to his company.

    He's shown great ignorance towards me personally in that if a loan goes through that doesn't address the power of the union, bad manage, crippling regulations, I won't ever buy their vehicles again until addressed, regardless of any loan. So there!!      

    80% won't buy a car.... (none / 0) (#23)
    by John Galt on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:09:21 AM EST
    It's bull.  He admitted people flew the bankrupt airlines.  Even though the mechanics and pilots unions were getting raped by the bankruptcy courts.  People still flew the airlines despite speculation that "all it takes is just one pissed off mechanic to cause catastrophic damage."

    People bought merchandise from a bankrupt Kmart.  Hell, they came out of bankruptcy and bought Sears.

    Worldcom filed bankruptcy, and yet people still have phone service and large internet connections.  You might have heard of "Verizon" and "Verizon Business"?

    Bankruptcy isn't a bad solution here.  Heck, the hardliners could argue that it's not viable in a "truly" free market economy.  But it's a tool already in place for situations like these.

    The automakers are trying to scare people into loaning the money.  The simple truth of the matter is that, if they were credit worthy they could get a normal loan.  And if the loan doesn't help, the american taxpayers get fscked, again, by the same "bad management" that got them here in the first place.


    Interesting Prespective Bailout vs Bridge Loan and (none / 0) (#24)
    by apackof2 on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:50:55 AM EST


    • Thanks for Posting!!! by RightMacomb, 11/21/2008 11:54:19 AM EST (none / 0)
      • Yes by apackof2, 11/21/2008 11:57:29 AM EST (none / 0)
    80% is a real danger. (none / 0) (#30)
    by RightMacomb on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 12:06:19 PM EST
    Buying products from a bankrupt Kmart or a bankrupt airline is far different than buying a car from a bankrupt automotive company.

    If you go into a Kmart, when they were in bankruptcy, and buy say some towels.  You have no expectation that you will need to go back to have the towels serviced.  And you have no expectation that you will need to have the threads of the towels fixed because they came unraveled or worn.

    Or you probably bought a ticket from a bankrupt airine where they could assure you that the plane will fly.  But when it doesnt, you just sit and wait for the next plane or you go home and try again another day.  More than likely, due to limitations in flights and pricing you would still fly that airline again, despite their issues.

    That test is far different for an auto company.  When people are making a $20,000 to $30,000 or more investment in their vehicle, they tend to be a bit more picky.  Everyone has had their vehicle in for warranty fixes (even you import drivers, you just dont care to admit it).  And they expect that service to be there for years.  But, if a company is bankrupt, the average buyer does not look at them at being around for years.

    Being in the industry, I can tell you that the figure is a real threat.  Going into bankruptcy and then having 80% of your revenue stream cut off would lead to sure liquidation, not restructuring.

    As a conservative, this is not something I would want to happen.  As a proud member of the automotive industry for 15 years, I hate that we are in this position.  But the reality is that the government has screwed things up so badly that we are forced into this situation.

    It is time we stop thinking in formula/pre-programmed responses and look at the facts of the situation.  Inaction will lead to a far worse result than the comparably small investment that the auto industry is asking for compared to the financial bailout that is already in place.

    As a conservative? (none / 0) (#32)
    by John Galt on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 01:15:27 PM EST
    Come on.  I'm one of the most lenient when it comes to giving conservatives some latitude.

    <blockquote>As a conservative, this is not something I would want to happen.</blockquote>

    Okay, explain to me which conservative principles are used to justify practically nationalizing the auto industry?

    Is it the want for smaller government?  How do we achieve that by increasing the role of government in private industry?  China "invests" in its companies the same way you're proposing.  How is "conservatism" okay with socialism?

    Perhaps it's the want to bring the country back to a more "strict constitutional" government.  So which article of the Constitution allows the government to invest and provide loans to private industry?  There's a clear line between the government that prints currency ensuring its circulated to banks and what you're proposing.

    <blockquote>As a proud member of the automotive industry for 15 years, I hate that we are in this position.</blockquote>

    I see how you're using the term "conservative" now.  You want to "conserve" the good old days.  You want to preserve a heritage... for the good of what, exactly?

    <blockquote>But the reality is that the government has screwed things up so badly that we are forced into this situation.</blockquote>

    Wow, you are truly a Ronald Reagan conservative.  I can smell it a mile away.  Government hurt us, so let's look to government for more solutions.  I'm sorry, but fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.

    You truly have not convinced me of anything.  Aside from the 80% reduction in business, you haven't countered a single, realistic point I've made.  The auto industry has gotten THEMSELVES in this mess.  Negotiations with the labor unions.  Rallying for increased CAFE standards.  Offering 0% financing "just to keep the plants open".

    <blockquote>It is time we stop thinking in formula/pre-programmed responses and look at the facts of the situation.  Inaction will lead to a far worse result than the comparably small investment that the auto industry is asking for compared to the financial bailout that is already in place. </blockquote>

    This is the kind of fear that is driving people to do stupid things.

    1)  This is not the role of our government.  Neither constitutionally nor as a Republican.  
    2)  Someone still needs to make 10 million cars.  One of the companies might get sold off.  But cars will still be made.
    3)  Reality of "free markets" means that sometimes companies fail.  Small companies fail all the time, and nobody bats an eye or seeks federal "bailout".  Nor should they.
    4)  Just because $25bn is smaller than $700bn doesn't mean this is justified and "okay".  It must be okay if I kill 5 people, because Hitler killed millions.  When something is wrong, it's wrong no matter the degree.
    5)  The talks of first 1 million jobs, then 3 million jobs that "could be affected" are bull.  See number 2, above.
    6)  Nobody is talking alternatives, just like nobody talked about alternatives to the $700bn bailout package.  Tax cuts?  Tax abatement?  Reducing regulations and repealing CAFE?  Why is it the only solution is giving money away?  Why is it the only solution involves the taxpayers taking on the risks?
    7)  Finally, nobody has been able to justify this with any principles.  Only fear using emotionally clouded mantras like "think of the children!".  Justify your "as a conservative" view with actual conservative principles.

    This is absolute CRAP.  We said it during the bank bailout that it would be a slippery slope.  Now we have the auto industry saying "we can bailout the banks, but not the auto industry?".  Next you'll have other industries saying "You can bailout the banks, but not the _______ industry?".  Slippery slope, indeed.

    This CANNOT be allowed to happen.  We cannot allow our government to keep borrowing from CHINA and other countries to pass on the loan to others.  We cannot allow our government to slowly morph into the socialism we see coming.  I'm not urging a revolution, I'm simply urging we do not bailout any industry for any reason.  

    As a Conservative? (Fixed) (none / 0) (#33)
    by John Galt on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 01:16:58 PM EST
    Come on.  I'm one of the most lenient when it comes to giving conservatives some latitude.
    As a conservative, this is not something I would want to happen.

    Okay, explain to me which conservative principles are used to justify practically nationalizing the auto industry?

    Is it the want for smaller government?  How do we achieve that by increasing the role of government in private industry?  China "invests" in its companies the same way you're proposing.  How is "conservatism" okay with socialism?

    Perhaps it's the want to bring the country back to a more "strict constitutional" government.  So which article of the Constitution allows the government to invest and provide loans to private industry?  There's a clear line between the government that prints currency ensuring its circulated to banks and what you're proposing.

    As a proud member of the automotive industry for 15 years, I hate that we are in this position.

    I see how you're using the term "conservative" now.  You want to "conserve" the good old days.  You want to preserve a heritage... for the good of what, exactly?

    But the reality is that the government has screwed things up so badly that we are forced into this situation.

    Wow, you are truly a Ronald Reagan conservative.  I can smell it a mile away.  Government hurt us, so let's look to government for more solutions.  I'm sorry, but fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.

    You truly have not convinced me of anything.  Aside from the 80% reduction in business, you haven't countered a single, realistic point I've made.  The auto industry has gotten THEMSELVES in this mess.  Negotiations with the labor unions.  Rallying for increased CAFE standards.  Offering 0% financing "just to keep the plants open".

    It is time we stop thinking in formula/pre-programmed responses and look at the facts of the situation.  Inaction will lead to a far worse result than the comparably small investment that the auto industry is asking for compared to the financial bailout that is already in place.

    This is the kind of fear that is driving people to do stupid things.

    1.  This is not the role of our government.  Neither constitutionally nor as a Republican.  
    2.  Someone still needs to make 10 million cars.  One of the companies might get sold off.  But cars will still be made.
    3.  Reality of "free markets" means that sometimes companies fail.  Small companies fail all the time, and nobody bats an eye or seeks federal "bailout".  Nor should they.
    4.  Just because $25bn is smaller than $700bn doesn't mean this is justified and "okay".  It must be okay if I kill 5 people, because Hitler killed millions.  When something is wrong, it's wrong no matter the degree.
    5.  The talks of first 1 million jobs, then 3 million jobs that "could be affected" are bull.  See number 2, above.
    6.  Nobody is talking alternatives, just like nobody talked about alternatives to the $700bn bailout package.  Tax cuts?  Tax abatement?  Reducing regulations and repealing CAFE?  Why is it the only solution is giving money away?  Why is it the only solution involves the taxpayers taking on the risks?
    7.  Finally, nobody has been able to justify this with any principles.  Only fear using emotionally clouded mantras like "think of the children!".  Justify your "as a conservative" view with actual conservative principles.

    This is absolute CRAP.  We said it during the bank bailout that it would be a slippery slope.  Now we have the auto industry saying "we can bailout the banks, but not the auto industry?".  Next you'll have other industries saying "You can bailout the banks, but not the ___ industry?".  Slippery slope, indeed.

    This CANNOT be allowed to happen.  We cannot allow our government to keep borrowing from CHINA and other countries to pass on the loan to others.  We cannot allow our government to slowly morph into the socialism we see coming.  I'm not urging a revolution, I'm simply urging we do not bailout any industry for any reason.  


    I forgot to mention (none / 0) (#34)
    by John Galt on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 01:51:52 PM EST
    Oh my gosh, how could I forget?

    Chrysler was sold to Cerberus for $7.4 billion.

    Based on today's stock price, someone could buy a controlling stake in General Motors for about $1 billion.  Or Ford for $3 billion.

    Ford has mortgaged all of its assets to raise $23 billion, and General Motors sold half of GMAC for $10 billion.  Surely there are other assets that make these companies worth plenty.

    So why is the United States in the position to "give away" $25 billion to help retool for CAFE standards, and looking at another multi-billion loan to them?  

    No wonder RightMacomb says "the credit markets don't exist".  Consider the following scenario.  If my house was worth $1 million, i had it mortgaged, and asked for a loan of $2 million more "to get me by a year or two".  You be the loan officer - are you going to laugh at me?  You certainly aren't going to give me a loan in that situation.

    I'm still waiting to hear how providing a loan in that very same situation fits a "Conservative" model.

    Brand Image (none / 0) (#36)
    by michiganmav on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 07:57:02 AM EST
    Although GM's primary business is building and selling cars and trucks, its also marketing a brand image.
    When you market a brand that stands for baseball, apple pies and Chevrolet... its kind of hard to seem unwilling to comply with Gov CAFE standards that hurt your business, because it also hurts the publics perception of your brand image.
    It also hurts to be viewed as a company that profits shamelessly off the sweat of its workers without socializing some burden.
    I think this is where pride part comes into play.

    People bought KMart products during bankruptcy because they knew there was little pride, their products were'nt perceived as being produced by Americans.
    Although it went hardly noticed that they ended up selling one of their crown jewels, Kmart world Headquaters in Troy, it was the most valued piece of property in Oakland Co. A historic slice of Michigan and the American entreprenurial spirit that spurred enough economic activity to turn Troy from rural farmland into the largest hub of economic activity in our region.
    The home of the "Blue Light Special" went dim but who cares if your "idiot light" grows dim or is slated for demolition, as long as profits are maintained for future viability.
    Its disturbing to see a titan of business such as GM show up on national TV with hat in hand asking for a loan. Should pride and brand image be thrown out as factors in dealing with the realities of systemic problems that plague GM, which in the reality of todays marketplace are the main stumbling blocks that are conducive to viability and repayment of said loans. One of main problems for companies that go through bankruptcy and emerge healthier and have access to new and growing revenue streams is the fight for for their brand image. GM has many problems to overcome but while developing competative products and fighting for market share the competition would find it easy as pie to steal market share during a GM bankruptcy.
    Nobody buys a GM product because its perceived as a "Blue Light Special", its their brand image and pride that's sustained them and to see a historic slice of Michigan and the American entreprenurial spirit diced up as long as profit is maintained for future viability is as equally disturbing.

    I don't buy GM cars (none / 0) (#37)
    by John Galt on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 09:31:51 PM EST
    There are many reasons I don't buy GM cars.

    Add "failing to make their business profitable" and "asking the government for loans because their business is so far tanked they can't get a bank loan" to the list.

    I'm glad you think that people won't buy cars when they're in bankruptcy.  You haven't explained why bailing them out with federal loans meets any conservative principle.

    SOME COMPANIES WILL FAIL.  

    The role of government should have been to ensure our companies have a fair playing field from which to compete.  This doesn't mean providing free health care because Japan does.  That means not forcing car companies to comply with strict laws that really don't provide any benefit.

    None of the losers in this game asking for the bailout are appealing to anything other than "some people will lose jobs" and "people won't buy their cars".

    SOME COMPANIES WILL FAIL.  

    The car companies were able to compete when the market was 16 million cars a year.  Now it's 10 million.

    AT&T didn't need a bailout when operators were being replaced by automated computers.  Thousands of operators lost their jobs.  Being a secretary is now an exclusive job - because there are so few anymore.  Perhaps we should have given the buggy-whip manufacturers a bailout, so they could compete in a shrinking market.

    Simply put, when the market shrinks it means businesses will suffer.  Shame on Ford, GM and Chrysler.  Now it's going to be Russian Roullette to figure out which one dies.

    SOME COMPANIES WILL FAIL.  It's a fact of life and market economics.  I'd rather have the market choosing winners and losers than the government.

    The Big 3 are not "SOME COMPANIES" (none / 0) (#38)
    by apackof2 on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 11:40:02 PM EST
    Center for Automotive Research (CAR) Research Memorandum:
    The Impact on the U.S. Economy of a Major
    Contraction of the Detroit Three Automakers

    "Two scenarios are presented: first, what would be the impact of the Detroit Three
    automakers ceasing all operations in United States, or the 100 percent contraction
    scenario, and second, what would result from a 50 percent reduction in overall Detroit

    Direct Employment
    Indirect Employment
    Spinoff Employment
    Total Employment

    An interesting factor also considered is the effect on international auto companies in the US:

    "We assume that domestic production by international automakers in the United States
    would be seriously affected by a major contraction of the Detroit Three automakers for
    at least a period of one year due to the high likelihood of many U.S. supplier company
    insolvencies."


    80%? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ed Burley on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 08:27:38 AM EST
    That's about the same percentage as won't buy a GM car no matter what.

    I wouldn't touch one with a ten foot pole, after the experiences that I've had with them.

    I love my '99 Dodge Ram Wagon (it's a van, a big honking van), and I love my little '01 Nissan Sentra.

    If I were to buy another vehicle, I would buy a Dodge truck or a Nissan passenger car. Those are the products I trust right now...no matter what.

    Big 3 won't all cease production (none / 0) (#40)
    by John Galt on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 12:31:23 PM EST
    I'm sorry, but this is getting more ludicrous by the minute.

    If all three of the Big-3 are in the position to need a handout, and none of them can't possibly survive until January, 2009... let them fail.

    Surely a "bridge loan" in an amount equal to the value of the company will not help them now.  If all three companies are in such a dangerous position that we can't possibly wait to talk this out and find alternatives... then the loan itself is going to be 'too little, too late'.

    That means letting them go bankrupt, and being purchased by someone who could manage them better.  This isn't talking about "firing management" or other white collar jobs.  This means replacing the company with another one entirely.

    If that means Toyota becomes the #1 automaker, so be it.  

    There are NO principles here, neither constitutional nor conservative, to justify a bailout.  Republicans need to back away from this bailout and seriously consider the rhetoric about why we lost the election, and fit in "big government bailouts to failed CEOs".

    Wow, twice in a month (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ed Burley on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 07:19:05 PM EST
    I've agreed with Mr. Galt.

    We sell a certain amount of cars per year in this country. If 10+ auto manufacturers who build cars in this country make too many (keep in mind that, at one time, 25% of Honda's production here was EXPORTED, some even back to Japan) than the market can bear, then some of these companies need to go bye-bye; and it will make the others stronger - THEY will make enough cars to meet the demand.

    A higher demand on Toyota, Honda, Nissan et al. will result in more hiring. Empty GM plants in the north might just entice one of those companies to establish a facility in its place (of course, each time this was tried in the past, our Unemployment Office forced them to unionize before they even hired - a clear violation of Labor law). This would mean that efficient, profitable companies would come to Michigan to replace these inefficient dinosaurs who are nothing but a drain on our state and national economies.

    I love this thread! (none / 0) (#44)
    by maidintheus on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 11:25:30 AM EST
    Go Galt!

    Go Nick!

    And anyone else who chooses to be 'right'.

    Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

    Keep the faith!!!

    Michigan needs bridge loan (none / 0) (#45)
    by Eric T on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 08:30:07 PM EST
    With the 9.6% unemployment rate in Michigan, I hope GM Ford and Chrysler get that bail-out Dec 2.
    Their Bankruptcy would destroy our state. I can't even imagine thousands more job losses and home foreclosures. My home was worth about 80k a few years ago, now there are tons of them on my street for sale between 20-29k. Hopefully they can make a deal where they can loan the money to the auto companies, but in return, they have to keep some jobs here and back off the outsourcing for a while.

    I seen this article, it would be nice if they could work this out.
    http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/GMAC-moves-tap-government-funding/story.aspx?guid=%7BEE39F0DF% 2DD671%2D4025%2D8A5F%2D51FED5B82CA8%7D

    How government could help U.S auto industry (none / 0) (#46)
    by Eric T on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 07:55:00 AM EST
    1. Get rid of jobs bank
    2. Get that 25 billion from energy bill, for CAFE standards.
    3. Give GMAC bank status so it can get the 38 billion from TARP program.
    4. Make better trade policy, countries like Korea that put high tarriffs on U.S autos, need us to see the U.S return the favor, when they bring their garbage over here to sell.
    5. Offshore drilling to keep gasoline prices at affordable levels so people can get back into buying SUV's, and pick-ups.


    reverse stock split? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Eric T on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 08:13:55 AM EST
    Alot of Banks and big institutional buyers, like mutual funds, ect... The will not trade stocks under $10 a share. If Hank Paulson was to do a 1 for 10 or a 1 for 20 reverse split. It would get the price back to where banks, mutual funds, ect... can trade it.

    • Um, what? by jgillmanjr, 12/01/2008 10:36:35 AM EST (none / 0)
      • jgillmanjr by Eric T, 12/01/2008 01:50:22 PM EST (none / 0)
        • Er, yeah... by jgillmanjr, 12/01/2008 02:13:13 PM EST (none / 0)
    Eric, what conservative principles? (none / 0) (#49)
    by John Galt on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 12:54:43 PM EST
    Eric, I appreciate the sentiment.  Helping people is always the right thing.  But we don't need government to do it.

    I wonder what principles you subscribe to, particularly if you tihnk you're conservative in any way.

    This isn't meant to demean you - I'm truly curious.  None of the "conservatives" I've pressed this question to have responded with anything other than emotions.  They can't cite any actual principle to backup that emotion.

    Here are some of your words:

    Get rid of jobs bank
    The jobs bank was established by contract between two negotiating businesses - the UAW and the respective Auto Manufacturer.  What business is it of the government to pro-actively interfere in contracts?

    Even under common-law, courts are reticent to get involved and dictate contract terms.

    The simple answer is that conservatives believe that two negotiating businesses are free to make their own choices.  As much as I decry the job banks, it's up to the Auto Makers to renegotiate the jobs bank, not the government.  The side effect is that two negotiating entities have the right to drive each other out of business.  It happens from time to time.  The government shouldn't protect businesses, especially "big, billion dollar" ones against bad business decisions.  Especially the big ones, since they can afford the expertise to know better.

    Get that 25 billion from energy bill, for CAFE standards.

    Again, what conservative principle backs this idea?  As best I can tell, the $25bn CAFE "bailout" was actually a handout - not a loan.  The better solution, the actually-conservative solution big Government can adopt is to repeal "CAFE Standards".  Look, we just saved $25 billion!

    Give GMAC bank status so it can get the 38 billion from TARP program.

    We are a nation of laws.  GMAC should be required to follow the laws established, not seek loopholes to get a hand-out.  

    Perhaps Congress can rewrite the laws to allow GMAC to become a bank.  But remember: Conservatism is about "prudent changes", not "reactionary changes" or "revolutionary changes".  So I caution anyone who adopts this to proceed in a truly Conservative manner.

    American Express, GMAC, and others want to reform as banks to get bailout money.  The prudent must seriously ask: why weren't these companies formed as banks to begin with?  Because banks are subject to excruciating regulation that add costs to the business structure.  The same companies will be asking for lean deregulation in a few years or even de-banking regulations.  It's better to keep the course, and let some fail than to rewrite our laws overnight.

    And the "TARP" program seems to be used to invest in the banks by buying stock - not purchasing bad "toxic" mortgages as originally planned.  Fool me once, fool me twice, fool me three times... How many times are we going to "modify" TARP and other bailouts to fit the newest crisis?  

    Make better trade policy, countries like Korea that put high tarriffs on U.S autos, need us to see the U.S return the favor, when they bring their garbage over here to sell.

    I saw Pat Buchanan say this in a recent "Bailout GM" article.  I think I'm fine with adding tarriffs to cars that are imported.  But it is literally infeasible to add a tarriff to foreign cars built in Ohio and Kentucky.  They're not imported.  The Supreme Court would strike that down in a second using none other than the 14th Amendment.

    And despite your use of the term "garbage", people actually buy that garbage.  It's not like TVs that are only made in China - we have domestic car makers that nobody's buying from.  The government is not going to change public reaction to domestic manufacturers through trade policy alone.  The gov't isn't going to produce "better cars" that people want.

    As the anonymous saying goes, "the people buy what the people want."

    jgillmanjr (none / 0) (#52)
    by Eric T on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 02:32:56 PM EST
    I understand why Hank Paulson, makes you upset,he ruined the election for the GOP. John McCain was up 5% here in the State of Michigan, until Paulson needed the bail-out. As a GOP guy, that bail-out flys in the face of the low taxes, less government, and alot of the core stuff. But what now?, All the bail-out money is going to New York, Wall ST. Why not try and help GMAC get a slice. And keep Michigan from having the probably 30-40-50% unemployment that will come with the Big 3 folding up. If these trade deal were so great, you'd think at least one or two of the big 3 would be doing OK, but they are not.

    John Galt (none / 0) (#55)
    by Eric T on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 06:14:31 PM EST
    John-You said "But it is literally infeasible to add a tarriff to foreign cars built in Ohio and Kentucky.  They're not imported"

    I agree if it is made in Georgetown KY, it is not an import.and therefore pretty much American made! But, How many cars Daewoo,Daihatsu,Suzuki, izuzu,mitsubishi,Kia,ect...Are built and assembled overseas then shipped over here to be sold. If 11 million is the number, why not throw out some of these IMPORTERS or simply tell them due to the state of our economy we are not currently interested at this time in flooding our markets with you cars, go sell them in India, China, Iran, ect... Our own industries our struggling. Check back with us at another point in time! Law of supply and demand, reduce supply create demand.

    As for me being conservative, what is conservative? The defination in the dictionary is-"slow to change". I like traditional values, gay marriage is change we don't need. Gun bans, more change we don't need. I like George Bush voted for him twice, is he like a big government democrat with spending, government programs, military spending ect...well yeah, he kinda out libbed the liberals on spending.And Alot of the GOP were a bunch of yes men the whole time and going along with the spending.I'm just a voter,I really did'nt give the issue much thought. but I seen this ad for McCain, and it looked like he supported the auto loans here.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk_zBZ-pjHs

     But with the Big 3, if the choice is spend some on a loan , or the people in your state go to Hooversville. Or spend more when they line up for welfare, unemployment, food stamps, health care, ect... Either way there will be spending, with the loan there is a chance you'll get the money back, throw out some importers and the chance you get the money back will be even better. With the plants closing cities like mine that get 30+% of their tax from GM or DCX will cut police, firemen, teachers, ect... more jobs gone, foreclosures will rise, home values will go even lower. Small businesses will be impacted as well.

    So there's really no principles. (none / 0) (#56)
    by John Galt on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 07:14:39 PM EST
    Eric, all you give is emotional descriptions of "a possible future" that's not even possibly true.  You evade the question about what you believe in to support your position by pulling a Clinton - 'whats the definition of IS'.  Worse, you don't provide any actual supporting facts to justify this "future".  

    I came looking for reason and intellect and got a lame plea that sounded exactly like Ron Gettlefinger's UAW Press Conference.  I'm hardly convinced.

    I'll ask one more futile question.  You seem keen on avoiding them, so I'll be succinct.

    Where do we stop if they get the loan?  Yesterday it's Banks.  Today it's auto makers and governors asking for handouts.  What industry do we say "No" to?  Every industry will leave "millions ravaged and unemployed".  Where do we stop, if we don't stop now?

    I recommend you really examine what you believe and ask yourself - "am I really a conservative?"  Perhaps you should explore your own question, on "What is a Conservative".  There are multiple answers, and it's okay if you're just a social conservative whose okay with inflated government doing things they're not chartered for.  

    But really, seriously look deep into the hypocrisy between wanting small government compared with increasing the debt to provide loans that even subprime-lending banks wouldn't give the automakers.  

    I'm not the holder of the definition of conservatism.  Better leaders than me have been down that road:  Russell Kirk, Dr. Hayek, Edmund Burke, Bill Buckley.  Look to them to help you justify or resolve your position.

    John Galt (none / 0) (#57)
    by Eric T on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:24:48 PM EST
    You said-"I came looking for reason and intellect and got a lame plea". And you said "if you're just a social conservative whose okay with inflated government doing things they're not chartered for".

    I'll be honest with you, I don't think this country has seen conservative on anything but social issues in years. We wouldn't know what it looked like. Now we got a government packed with democrats, and even with the social issues we will see less and less conservatism. In principle I would want to always protect the tax payer but in keeping industry up and running or defending the country, spending may be neccesary.

    To me conserving thousands and thousands of jobs and keeping our Great State from a severe depression would come before principal. I would work to conserve the fiscal health of the State and its people, before the interests of other states and definately before the interests of foreign companies. To me localism trumps globalism.

    To answer this question
    Where do we stop if they get the loan?
    My wife and I ran a business, when it failed, we got NO BAILOUT, however my company did not effect half the workers in the State. The biggest employers in the state would get help until the economy improves. I would put the State first. If you really think the Big 3 going bankrupt won't effect the State and drive unemployment to levels never seen before, stick to your principles, protect the tax payers, but If you don't wanna spend the money maybe tarriffs, would be a better way to help. It wouldn't burden the taxpayers.

    For the GOP to offer no help at all, voters may not be willing to help the GOP in 2010 or 2012. Michigan families need to see the GOP in action, crankin out plans to fire up the economy, keep people workin, in their homes, a few extra bucks in there pocket at the end of the week.


    Sweet jesus (none / 0) (#58)
    by jgillmanjr on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 02:36:23 PM EST
    Paulson would have NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to do with GM doing a reverse split. Nothing. He's not on the board of directors, he's not an executive. Hell, he doesn't even work for the company.

    Therefore, Paulson would have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH A REVERSE STOCK SPLIT

    Then you have this bonehead idea that just by having the price per share higher is going to put banks at ease? Sweet jesus man, they have a CCC+ bond rating for God's sake.

    jgillmanjr (none / 0) (#59)
    by Eric T on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 02:51:34 PM EST
    I confused SEC with Treasury, Sorry to pollute the blog with nonsense.

    You know (none / 0) (#60)
    by apackof2 on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 11:28:12 PM EST
    I think we can discuss our ideas without taking my Lord's name in vain. Using Jesus name other than to give honor and praise to Him is a insult to His fellowers. Please be respectful

    Thank you

    GM Restructuring Plan (none / 0) (#61)
    by apackof2 on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 11:41:07 PM EST
    Submitted to Senate Banking Committee & House of Representatives Financial Services Committee December 2, 2008

    Restructuring Plan for Long-Term Viability

    http://twitter.com/gmblogs

    GM (none / 0) (#62)
    by Eric T on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 09:33:28 PM EST
    Trickle down economics (none / 0) (#63)
    by Eric T on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 06:54:57 AM EST
    For a long time the idea that you give the break, to a large company like GM or GE or whoever, and the trickle down is jobs provided people, smaller companies like parts suppliers create jobs. And this creates growth in the economy.

     I personally think George W Bush was better than Reagan, because not only did he help the big corporations with Wall St bail-outs ect... He also sent money to the bottom to trickle-up with rebate checks and economic stimulus packages.

    With this Big 3 bridge loan, the trickle down effect is alot greater, than the effect it will have with Citibank or AIG.
    I really don't see why a Republican would not see the trickle down economics with this.

    Eric T (none / 0) (#65)
    by jgillmanjr on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 09:22:07 AM EST
    I'm confused how you can claim to do this economic prediction that throwing our money at a corporation with bad business practices will be good, yet you can't even rationalize your statement that a reverse stock split somehow will make the company look better to lenders with anything other than "the stock price is higher".

    JGillman (none / 0) (#66)
    by Eric T on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 10:13:04 AM EST
    G.W.Bush said the Big 3 could use the 25 billion from the energy bill for the govt mandated Cafe standards. This really would get them by. Ford said it just wanted a line of credit in case one of the others folded up. So really GM and DCX could split up the 25 billion, and give Ford their 1/3 of that down the road or something.

    JGillmanjr- THe reverse stock split idea, was like the icing on the cake,if they were going to get the TARP funds on top of the Cafe standards money, and do it up right. I still really think that GMAC becoming a bank would be the best thing for them, I think they qualify because GMAC does home mortgages where as Ford Credit and the rest of the gang is just auto loans , they could set their own interest rates, ect.. Loan to people with shady credit, and have their own repo companies go get the cars back if people can't make the payment.

    jgillman (none / 0) (#67)
    by Eric T on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 06:23:41 PM EST
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081205/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown

    "Somehow Wall Street found a silver lining, betting that so much bad news would force fresh government action to revive the foundering economy. The Dow Jones industrial rose 259 points."

    The stock market rallies of half a million job losses. Some may think this is perverse, but most people would probably like to see their 401k's come back to life.

    My idea for a reverse stock split is just a lame idea. I got penny stocks that do it all the time. Their bankrupted, in debt to their ears kind of companies. It really doesn't mean anything but stuff like that makes trading the stocks exciting.
    I'd personally like to see the market take off like a rocket. If they were to mention they were thinking about a reverse split, it might create some interest, and generate some buying.

    Congress might just float them enough to get buy till Obama is running the show. They might not help at all. The split would nt do much, real help would come from the loans, tarrifs, and offshore drilling. Too little too late will just mean more jobs lost, more drastic cost cutting measures. They give'em a decent amount of money and they could offer rebates, or maybe just sell'em at a big loss, just to blow cars out of the dealership lots.

    Display: Sort:

    Login

    Make a new account

    Username:
    Password:
    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!
    create account | faq | search