F150 Man Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 (edited) http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081112/auto_bailout.html?.v=9 Hank takes tough love to a new level. First he begs for $700B (literally goes down on one knee and virtually kisses Nancy's ring). Now that he HIS the cash, he's not spending it in the way in which it was voted upon by Congress. Instead it going DIRECTLY to his 'friendly' bankers. Then come the poor beleaguered autos to beg for some small scrap of the pie, and their told #$^& off! Tough love. Edited November 12, 2008 by F150 Man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081112/auto_bailout.html?.v=9 Hank takes tough love to a new level. First he begs for $700B (literally goes down on one knee and virtually kisses Nancy's ring). Now that he HIS the cash, he's not spending it in the way in which it was voted upon by Congress. Instead it going DIRECTLY to his 'friendly' bankers. Then come the poor beleaguered autos to beg for some small scrap of the pie, and their told #$^& off! Tough love. don't beleive it, Pelosi is pushing for the Auto industry.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
focus05 Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 Such short-sightedness. You would hope that whoever had control of the money would be cognizant of the impacts of the failure of large companies like GM. I'm not asking GM to be saved from bankruptcy, but I'm asking the industry be saved from GM's bankruptcy. I think a controlled bankruptcy where GM sheds its liabilities; suppliers are kept propped, Ford, Toyota, Honda and Chrysler protected (until it's sold off); and the company reorganizes to a much smaller and more efficient one is probably the best scenario. Just letting GM fail will be a disaster to our economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081112/auto_bailout.html?.v=9 Hank takes tough love to a new level. First he begs for $700B (literally goes down on one knee and virtually kisses Nancy's ring). Now that he HIS the cash, he's not spending it in the way in which it was voted upon by Congress. Instead it going DIRECTLY to his 'friendly' bankers. Then come the poor beleaguered autos to beg for some small scrap of the pie, and their told #$^& off! Tough love. If the American 3 thinks they can hold America hostage...... What makes anyone think our taxes should bail them out? Poor management should not be rewarded... And yes... the bank problem is different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnostic Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 I agree with him. - "Asked about Democratic a congressional leadership plan to rush financial aid to the industry, Paulson cautioned that "any solution has got to be leading to long-term viability" for auto companies." I dont know if giving cash to GM will save them or just delay the inevitable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 Such short-sightedness. You would hope that whoever had control of the money would be cognizant of the impacts of the failure of large companies like GM. I'm not asking GM to be saved from bankruptcy, but I'm asking the industry be saved from GM's bankruptcy. I think a controlled bankruptcy where GM sheds its liabilities; suppliers are kept propped, Ford, Toyota, Honda and Chrysler protected (until it's sold off); and the company reorganizes to a much smaller and more efficient one is probably the best scenario. Just letting GM fail will be a disaster to our economy. I would support such a plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron W. Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 don't beleive it, Pelosi is pushing for the Auto industry.... Pelosi's a friut loop, should never been elected. (my opinion of course) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8-X Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 I question these statements: At the White House, press secretary Dana Perino said the administration is not responsible for the automakers' woes but understands the importance of the industry. But officials there are reluctant to make any proposals for new aid, suggesting the car companies hold much of the responsibility for their own survival. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the companies had made business decisions "over the years that have led to this situation, but we have gone as far as we can with the authority Congress has given in order to help industries." And the administration is supposedly responsible for the financial institutions woes? Who were the people writing the bad loans and putting themselves into this situation by using bad business practices? Didn't these financial institutions make decisions over the years that have led to this situation as well? Now I agree the auto makers have done much of this to themselves, but shouldn't the financial institutions be held to the same standard of accountability? Aren't these financial institutions partly at fault for the decline in auto sales, due to the credit crisis and they prveious bad loans? Don't get me wrong, the domestics are to blame as much if not more for their situation, but just see this as a double standard. I agree 100% with this quote: Pelosi said any assistance to the industry should include limits on executive compensation, rigorous government review authority and other taxpayer protections. Limits, heck I think there should be NO executive compensation allowed! They got them into the situation, why should they get compensated for doing this? Heck, just look at the AIG situation currently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8-X Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 (edited) And yes... the bank problem is different. In some fashions yes, but in others no. They still got themselves into the situation to start with, so both should be held accountable for their actions. Not let one off while making the other pay severly for it. Why is it okay to bail out the financial institutions with $700B, but not appropriate to assist the auto industry with $25B? I agree with him. - "Asked about Democratic a congressional leadership plan to rush financial aid to the industry, Paulson cautioned that "any solution has got to be leading to long-term viability" for auto companies." I dont know if giving cash to GM will save them or just delay the inevitable. +1 Edited November 12, 2008 by V8-X Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bored of Pisteon Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 Pelosi's a friut loop, should never been elected. (my opinion of course) She's from San Francisco so what do you expect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
96 Pony Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 She's from San Francisco so what do you expect? I would just like to go on record as saying she is not in my district and I did not vote for her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TStag Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 Paulson is right he does not have a mandate to spend this money on the auto industry. Bush and congress must work out a new plan to rescue the big three and that plan should include selling any company that asks for a bailout to the highest bidder. Let the private sector foot some of the bill at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 In some fashions yes, but in others no. They still got themselves into the situation to start with, so both should be held accountable for their actions. Not let one off while making the other pay severly for it. Why is it okay to bail out the financial institutions with $700B, but not appropriate to assist the auto industry with $25B? It's $50B now not 25. Loans were made in good faith, but with the housing bubble issue and many "forced" loans made to people that can not pay the banks back, Congress should be obligated to support the banks. The problem with the American 3 is that they refused to build cars that the NA consumer are now buying. or will buy after this "slow down" in the economy. All of the American 3 problems are self induced. Much of the banking issues were forced on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGallun Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 i dont agree with the banking stuff, others i talk to do, they say AIG and Banks run the global economy and need to be helped.. but to come back and say sorry auto companies you did this to yourself and kind of give them a cold shoulder because they dont think they will survive in the long term is wrong... i mean really, how long are we the taxpayers have to keep forking over billions of dollars to AIG each month to make them viable.. at some point enough is enough. how many jobs does AIG actually provide? iam sure if AIG dies some other bank can come along and take the stuff they did? What if GM or ford and chry all go under? thats alot of jobs lost which, to me imho not really knowing much about this stuff, would hurt us alot more than AIG going under, iam not looking at all these stupid stocks or insurance moneys in place or whatever AIG does, iam looking at the Billions of people who would be jobless, iam looking at the people factor, not the money factor..???? iam i wrong or just dont undertand it at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8-X Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 Loans were made in good faith, but with the housing bubble issue and many "forced" loans made to people that can not pay the banks back, Congress should be obligated to support the banks. The problem with the American 3 is that they refused to build cars that the NA consumer are now buying. or will buy after this "slow down" in the economy. All of the American 3 problems are self induced. Much of the banking issues were forced on them. Good faith loans? And that's why we are having the foreclosure rates and story after story of how the bank fudged the numbers to get people into homes they truly couldn't afford or qualify for? I admit, a lot of blame needs to be put on the consumer, but the financial institutions are just as much to blame for many of these bad practices and digging themselves a hole. They basically got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Seems by sales figures, plenty of NA customers are still buying domestics over foreigns. Sure not at the rate they used to, but seems the foreigns are seeing very similar downturns in NA sales as the domestics. Exactly how were the banking problems forced on them? Please elaborate how. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 If the American 3 thinks they can hold America hostage...... What makes anyone think our taxes should bail them out? Poor management should not be rewarded... And yes... the bank problem is different. so leave the 2,000,000 employed taxpayers working for the big free to handle the ripple effect themselves no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smok Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 I don't want to give them tax money when I read stuff like this: "Even as Ford has lost billions ($8.6-billion through June for this year alone), Mulally has earned nearly $50-million in compensation since taking the helm of the auto maker. On top of that, Ford still allows Mulally and his family to use the company jet to travel between Dearborn, Mich., and Seattle, the former family home. Cost to Ford: $752,203 in 2007. Having a family plane has, we're told, been a way to "ease the burden" of his move to Michigan from Seattle, where he worked for Boeing." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 (edited) There is no other lending available to GM at the moment, especially Chapter 11 lending under regulation. If they do not receive government loans them that's it - they cannot trade with insufficient funds. And while it's easy to be hard headed and say GM deserve everything they get, their employees and suppliers will suffer badly - those consequences are bigger than punishing GM. They need immediate funding for the whole motor industry's sake. And btw, Alan Mulally is worth every cent Ford pays him, it is based on what he was earning at Boeing, remember he lost all his boeing shares when he left, that's a big hit for a long term employee. Edited November 12, 2008 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 I question these statements: At the White House, press secretary Dana Perino said the administration is not responsible for the automakers' woes but understands the importance of the industry. But officials there are reluctant to make any proposals for new aid, suggesting the car companies hold much of the responsibility for their own survival. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the companies had made business decisions "over the years that have led to this situation, but we have gone as far as we can with the authority Congress has given in order to help industries." And the administration is supposedly responsible for the financial institutions woes? Who were the people writing the bad loans and putting themselves into this situation by using bad business practices? Didn't these financial institutions make decisions over the years that have led to this situation as well? Now I agree the auto makers have done much of this to themselves, but shouldn't the financial institutions be held to the same standard of accountability? Aren't these financial institutions partly at fault for the decline in auto sales, due to the credit crisis and they prveious bad loans? Don't get me wrong, the domestics are to blame as much if not more for their situation, but just see this as a double standard. I agree 100% with this quote: Pelosi said any assistance to the industry should include limits on executive compensation, rigorous government review authority and other taxpayer protections. Limits, heck I think there should be NO executive compensation allowed! They got them into the situation, why should they get compensated for doing this? Heck, just look at the AIG situation currently. The problem the Domestics have right now have nothing to do with gas guzzlers, shoddy workmanship, or crummy dealership experience, but simply the credit markets froze up after record high gas prices already weakened them, and no one can qualify for auto loan with such tight credit. That is not their fault. A 10 million new vehicle market is not normal. Credit is still tight and only lender of last resort is government. For our own government to watch the Domestics just drown is not acceptable and GM may just have to hang in there until Obama is sworn in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8-X Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 "Even as Ford has lost billions ($8.6-billion through June for this year alone), Mulally has earned nearly $50-million in compensation since taking the helm of the auto maker. On top of that, Ford still allows Mulally and his family to use the company jet to travel between Dearborn, Mich., and Seattle, the former family home. Cost to Ford: $752,203 in 2007. I agree 100%, and believe compensation pkgs need to be taken away from anyone in an executive position within these companies. Compensation should be based on the bottom line. But you'll always have situations like this. Just like Gore telling everyone to conserve energy and be green, while his house in Tennessee costs more to keep heated in a month than the average Americans house uses in a year. Or the amount of fuel he uses taking weekend vacations in his private jet, while telling everyone else to buy hybrids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bored of Pisteon Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 Everytime I see him somewhere, the phrase "Chrome Dome" comes to mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8-X Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 The problem the Domestics have right now have nothing to do with gas guzzlers, shoddy workmanship, or crummy dealership experience, but simply the credit markets froze up after record high gas prices already weakened them, and no one can qualify for auto loan with such tight credit. That is not their fault. A 10 million new vehicle market is not normal. Credit is still tight and only lender of last resort is government. For our own government to watch the Domestics just drown is not acceptable and GM may just have to hang in there until Obama is sworn in. Exactly! Agree 100% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harley Lover Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 (edited) I agree 100% with this quote: Pelosi said any assistance to the industry should include limits on executive compensation, rigorous government review authority and other taxpayer protections. Limits, heck I think there should be NO executive compensation allowed! It would be truly noteworthy if the quote about Pelosi was: Pelosi said any assistance to the industry should include limits on executive compensation, a rewrite of union compensation and benefits, rigorous government review authority and other taxpayer protections." I don't mind the idea of regulating the compensation of the execs until the loans are repaid, but everyone in the party should be held accountable, and that includes the unions. I'll use your quote: Limits, heck I think there should be NO union compensation allowed! <not really> Edited November 12, 2008 by Harley Lover Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8-X Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 It would be truly noteworthy if the quote about Pelosi was: Pelosi said any assistance to the industry should include limits on executive compensation, a rewrite of union compensation and benefits, rigorous government review authority and other taxpayer protections." I don't mind the idea of regulating the compensation of the execs until the loans are repaid, but everyone in the party should be held accountable, and that includes the unions. I'll use your quote: Limits, heck I think there should be NO union compensation allowed! <not really> Agreed! Unions should face similar limitations. Everyone needs to be held accountable, and I believe these unions are partly to blame for the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 What makes anyone think our taxes should bail them out? Poor management should not be rewarded... What is poor about Ford's current management? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.