Bush gave GM and Chrysler $13.4 billion in loans

madmax

They should just give the money to the taxpayers and let them buy whatever they want. For some reason I doubt it would be a car from the big 3.

comfortablycurt

PhantomOG wrote: »

Riiight... it has nothing to do with the fact that people are not buying cars in general in the current state of the economy and has nothing to do with the actual desirability of the cars themselves. :rolleyes:

Actually most of the best selling vehicles in the U.S. are from the big 3, and namely GM and Chrysler, so I don't think desirability has much to do with.

The problems they've been having with financing are namely because of the economy, and the fact that people aren't buying cars. So that's basically what I was saying.

treitz3

madmax wrote: »

They should just give the money to the taxpayers and let them buy whatever they want. For some reason I doubt it would be a car from the big 3.

The last time they gave money to the taxpayers it went mostly to fill up everybody's gas tank. That didn't work out too well unfortunately.

That said, if Uncle Sam wanted to give me my share of what my offspring and I are going to have to pay for? I'd proudly buy American.

PhantomOG

LessisNevermore wrote: »

Quick, name the top 2 selling vehicles in the US, for 2008.
http://www.reuters.com/article/economicNews/idUSN0340419320080303

News flash, ALOT of stuff has happened since February. Show me a list of top selling cars SINCE February. Besides, who cares if they have the top 100 selling cars in the US -- if they can't make a profit and need the government (taxpayers) to bail them out it doesn't mean SQUAT.

LessisNevermore wrote: »

You have absolutely no clue wtf you are talking about. They get unemployment just like everyone else, the company payed the difference. That program has been suspended. If you're going to **** about something, for god's sake, do some reading first.

You should try reading first, follow it up with some *comprehension*. My comment about them being paid by the gov't refers to the workers right now. With this *LOAN* (which won't be paid back), the workers at GM and Chrysler are effectively being paid by the gov't.

madmax

I did hear somewhere that in 07 the sales of GM was very close to toyota sales, 1.4M vehicles. (I think I got that right). The difference is it costs them an extra $2K per car to meet the demands of the union contracts.

BeRad

Bah, just let them go bankrupt. Isn't part of capitalism the idea of having the strong, well run companies survive while the weak and poorly managed companies fold. Who will be the next to drop to their knees begging for a loan *cough handout cough*.

treitz3

AGAIN! As taxpayers, we have to pay for their funeral or we have to offer a LOAN to help.

Which is at a lower cost to the American taxpayer....I.E. you? If you don't know the answer to that question, you need not be posting in this thread.

'Nuff said.

comfortablycurt

treitz3 wrote: »

AGAIN! As taxpayers, we have to pay for their funeral or we have to offer a LOAN to help.

Which is at a lower cost to the American taxpayer....I.E. you? If you don't know the answer to that question, you need not be posting in this thread.

'Nuff said.

Very well said.

LessisNevermore

PhantomOG wrote: »

News flash, ALOT of stuff has happened since February. Show me a list of top selling cars SINCE February. Besides, who cares if they have the top 100 selling cars in the US -- if they can't make a profit and need the government (taxpayers) to bail them out it doesn't mean SQUAT.




You should try reading first, follow it up with some *comprehension*. My comment about them being paid by the gov't refers to the workers right now. With this *LOAN* (which won't be paid back), the workers at GM and Chrysler are effectively being paid by the gov't.

Is November/December recent enough?
http://www.autoblog.com/photos/top-ten-best-selling-vehicles-nov-08/1200861/
Results are the same, and you're still wrong.

I've done my reading on this subject, and if you have anything but stupid "U.S.S.A" comments, something to actually add-like links to prove this won't be paid back, etc.- then by all means......

madmax wrote:

The difference is it costs them an extra $2K per car to meet the demands of the union contracts.

False.
When you compare the current wage for GM and Toyota, without legacy costs (money not paid to working employees) The difference is $800/car. Link

PhantomOG

treitz3 wrote: »

AGAIN! As taxpayers, we have to pay for their funeral or we have to offer a LOAN to help.

Which is at a lower cost to the American taxpayer....I.E. you? If you don't know the answer to that question, you need not be posting in this thread.

'Nuff said.

Wrong... that's your guess as to what will happen. I say its better to pay for the funeral NOW, instead of paying for the LOAN which won't be paid back, and then a bigger funeral LATER.

madmax

LessisNevermore wrote: »

False.
When you compare the current wage for GM and Toyota, without legacy costs (money not paid to working employees) The difference is $800/car. Link

So why would you not consider legacy cost and non working employees? Its money paid out that they don't have and is a big part of the reason they need a bailout. If $800 per car more is going to the employees then it should be cut immediatly in times of trouble.

PhantomOG

LessisNevermore wrote: »

Is November/December recent enough?
http://www.autoblog.com/photos/top-ten-best-selling-vehicles-nov-08/1200861/
I've done my reading on this subject, and if you have anything but stupid "U.S.S.A" comments, something to actually add-like links to prove this won't be paid back, etc.- then by all means......

Again, who cares how many top selling autos they have? If they can't survive without a huge government bailout it doesn't matter.

You honestly need a link from me to prove that the Big 3 (especially GM and Chrysler) have not been making a profit? That's why they're getting a bailout!! Here you go, ww.cnn.com Read up.

LessisNevermore

madmax wrote: »

So why would you not consider legacy cost and non working employees? Its money paid out that they don't have and is a big part of the reason they need a bailout. If $800 per car more is going to the employees then it should be cut immediatly in times of trouble.

Go back and read the article that Curt posted, it outlines the fact that the UAW is taking on the legacy costs. GM will also get more wage concessions.

madmax

As a country I think we would do better to invest the bailout money in Toyota.

madmax

LessisNevermore wrote: »

Go back and read the article that Curt posted, it outlines the fact that the UAW is taking on the legacy costs. GM will also get more wage concessions.

Is this what you are talking about?

"So here’s a little experiment. Imagine that a Congressional bailout effectively pays for $10 an hour of the retiree benefits. That’s roughly the gap between the Big Three’s retiree costs and those of the Japanese-owned plants in this country. Imagine, also, that the U.A.W. agrees to reduce pay and benefits for current workers to $45 an hour"

LessisNevermore

PhantomOG wrote: »

Again, who cares how many top selling autos they have? If they can't survive without a huge government bailout it doesn't matter.

You honestly need a link from me to prove that the Big 3 (especially GM and Chrysler) have not been making a profit? That's why they're getting a bailout!! Here you go, ww.cnn.com Read up.

Apparently,....you care.

PhantomOG wrote: »

Riiight... it has nothing to do with the fact that people are not buying cars in general in the current state of the economy and has nothing to do with the actual desirability of the cars themselves. :rolleyes:

I can see you won't be bothered with facts, but here's one more. It's a done deal, and there's nothing you can do about it.

The best we can hope for, is that they get profitable and repay the loans.

fossy

PhantomOG wrote: »

UAW took down its first target (the big 3)... next target? The US taxpayer.

+1

Every taxpayer should get a $10,000 credit towards a new car if my $$$ are going to bail-um out--- OOO wait then I should get free insurance also from AIG :D:D:D yea right

IMO this is only the beginning cause the big 3 will take years, if ever, to get the confidence of the american/world market buyers going to them for a car

Im glad they got something going to save jobs but........

madmax

Oh, I found it, I think:

"The contract also created a UAW-run trust fund -- known as the Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association, or VEBA -- to relieve automakers of their nonsalaried health care costs. GM will contribute about $34 billion, which would cut its health care costs by $3 billion a year, beginning in 2010."

So GM is going to give UAW 34 billion to handle the health care costs which will go down by 3 billion next year. Now that makes a lot of sense. :eek:

Not to mention GM is getting the 34 billion FROM THE BAILOUT!

Have a nice weekend all...
madmax

PhantomOG

The fact is the US automakers have been sucking it up or they wouldn't be in the position they are in. My comment on desirability of cars was in reference to a comment that stated the biggest problem for the US automakers was lack of financing for buyers. Slice it any way you want to but that's a load of bull. The US automakers can't and haven't been making profits. Do you honestly need me to give you a link detailing the decline of the US automakers market share? You think that has nothing to do with the desirability of their cars?

comfortablycurt

LessisNevermore wrote: »

I can see you won't be bothered with facts, but here's one more. It's a done deal, and there's nothing you can do about it.

The best we can hope for, is that they get profitable and repay the loans.

Very true...

Another thing we all seem to not be keeping in mind is that Ford isn't part of this bailout. So they aren't really bailing out the Big 3...it's just GM and Chrysler. Ford did a lot of restructuring a few years ago, and that's what is saving them right now. Sounds like GM and Chrysler should have followed suit a few years ago.

If GM and Chrysler were to go down though, Ford would get sucked down with them.

LessisNevermore

madmax wrote: »

Is this what you are talking about?

"So here’s a little experiment. Imagine that a Congressional bailout effectively pays for $10 an hour of the retiree benefits. That’s roughly the gap between the Big Three’s retiree costs and those of the Japanese-owned plants in this country. Imagine, also, that the U.A.W. agrees to reduce pay and benefits for current workers to $45 an hour"

Not sure where that quote came from..

The gap is actually $15-18.
Toyota's wage and benefits are $48/hour, GM's are currently around $50-54, so I can see them reducing to within a couple dollars.

This is what I referenced.

The contract also created a UAW-run trust fund -- known as the Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association, or VEBA -- to relieve automakers of their nonsalaried health care costs.

comfortablycurt

PhantomOG wrote: »

The fact is the US automakers have been sucking it up or they wouldn't be in the position they are in. My comment on desirability of cars was in reference to a comment that stated the biggest problem for the US automakers was lack of financing for buyers. Slice it any way you want to but that's a load of bull. The US automakers can't and haven't been making profits. Do you honestly need me to give you a link detailing the decline of the US automakers market share? You think that has nothing to do with the desirability of their cars?

A lot of the **** cars that have been selling like crazy, aren't selling quite as well anymore either. You've got to keep that in mind too. If people can't afford to buy a new car from GM, odds are they aren't going to be able to buy a new car from Toyota. Desirability really has nothing to do with it, as has already been proven. The American cars outsell the Japanese cars still, which logically would make them more desirable.

LessisNevermore

comfortablycurt wrote: »

A lot of the **** cars that have been selling like crazy, aren't selling quite as well anymore either. You've got to keep that in mind too. If people can't afford to buy a new car from GM, odds are they aren't going to be able to buy a new car from Toyota. Desirability really has nothing to do with it, as has already been proven. The American cars outsell the Japanese cars still, which logically would make them more desirable.

You might as well be clapping with one hand........;)

markmarc

treitz3 wrote: »

AGAIN! As taxpayers, we have to pay for their funeral or we have to offer a LOAN to help.

Which is at a lower cost to the American taxpayer....I.E. you? If you don't know the answer to that question, you need not be posting in this thread.

'Nuff said.

Dead on target Treitz! Nobody wants to look at the short and long term costs of any of the Big 3 dying. What about national security issues in having large scale manufacturing base in case of a big war. $18 billion is chump change compared to the hundreds of billions lost in cleaning up after they die. 75% of the labor that goes into making a car comes from third party non-union factories. The big 3 are just a shell of what they were in 1980 as far as total workforce. I'd much rather have the gov't loan a private company $$$ to create jobs than have the gov't create public works projects to temporarily ease unemployment.

I remember pundits claiming that Iacocca would never repay the 1 billion he borrowed from the feds in the early 1980's. What happened, the taxpayers made $400 million and it was paid off ahead of schedule.

treitz3

MM, short term and long term costs are of no consequence of the uneducated. They are just venting. Had they been educated on the situation, maybe a change of attitude would be in order.

treitz3

comfortablycurt wrote: »

That doesn't really help to stimulate the banks...........

The banks are what got us into this mess. What in the hell are you talking about?

comfortablycurt

treitz3 wrote: »

The banks are what got us into this mess. What in the hell are you talking about?

That's very true. If the banks don't improve though, the auto companies aren't going to improve either. Big companies like GM rely on banks to make their orders. They don't pay cash for all of their overhead costs, they get it on a credit basis. If they aren't able to get credit, they aren't going to be able to run.

Believe me, I have a lot of problems with the way banks are run in this country, but unfortunately what affects one will affect the other. From what I understand, the deal has been worked out so that the auto companies are going to be able to get credit again, but that would have been a big problem otherwise. If they had went bankrupt like a lot of people have suggested they should have, how would they have been able to get credit? When you're bankrupt, it's not the easiest thing in the world to get a bank to give you credit.

treitz3

You have a business plan. You go from there.

ND13

Banks and Oil Speculators.

My wife works for a privately owned local bank and they are doing just fine and so are the credit unions. It's these GINORMOUS banks like BOA, Chase, and Citi that's the problem......oh and let's not forget the oils speculators that set it all off in the first place.

tommyboy

LessisNevermore wrote: »

The gap is actually $15-18.
Toyota's wage and benefits are $48/hour, GM's are currently around $50-54, so I can see them reducing to within a couple dollars.

I'm sorry, I still don't see your logic. I doesn't matter how much any other company is paying employees, only if paying a certain amount will still create a profitable product.

I'm not sure if the japanese companies are still making as much money now with the bad economy, but the fact is, they are not running to their governments for money cause they make a more efficient car and they sell. If your company is losing millions of dollars a year, it doesn't matter how well those companies are paying their employees, you can't afford it (and even with your lower estimates, its still MORE than the japanese companies, what does that tell you!),

No profit = no jobs = no cars