What's new
  • Guest
    As per our long standing policy of not permitting medical advice on the forum - all threads concerning the Coronavirus will be locked.
    For more info on the coronavirus please see the link below:
    https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/summary.html

US automaker bailout poll

Should the US bail these ungrateful automakers out?

  • Too bad, let them sink!

  • Blindly hand over 25 billion

  • Provide limited assistance in other ways.


Results are only viewable after voting.

Alacrity59

Wanting for wisdom
Moderator Emeritus
+1 for CEOs suck but so many workers should not have to suffer unemployment. I think limited, monitored assistance on the conditions that they stop making giant cars for soccer moms.
Let's talk sternly to the owners.
 
The auto industry is tied in with so many different jobs from factory employees,salesman,mechanics and financing. When these people lose their income they will stop purchasing non-essentials and that effects everyone,unless you sell food or clothing.
 
I think a limited bailout with certain conditions is in order. Like executive pay is tied to company profit after loan is repaid, if they have to work a year or 2 for free then well I'll bet there is a food bank in Detroit where they could get something to eat. The union should also have to make some changes....like if a worker signs up for temporary layoff they not longer get 90% of their normal pay plus unemployment. If both management and the union thinks that they can't afford to make these concessions then ....no loan, sink or swim in the mess you made.
 
I have mixed feelings about the bailout. I am from Michigan and my job is currently related to one of the big three automakers. If GM does go into chapter 11 it does not mean I will lose my job for sure but it is possible. My father and grandfather both retired with a big three automaker and many of my other family members did also. .So I have big reasons to support these low interest loans but I have decided not to support it and have written my congressmen asking them not to support the legislation

Working with them I have seen so much waste and poor management that a time spent in chapter 11 bankruptcy may be better for them collectively. The American people don't want to pay for this right now. There will be many other sob stories by CEOs in the coming months and this country cannot afford to bail them all out. Let them go into chapter 11 first and then help them out as needed.
 

rtaylor61

Moderator Emeritus
Give limited assistance and eliminate the unions. For a least a limited time, top brass on a pay scale similar to the rank and file. And accountability is a must. The ripple effect of these companies going under is not comprehensible.

Randy
 
Sadly I feel that we need to allow them to sink or swim on their own. They made their beds with chooseing gasaholic platforms dspite the knowlage that fuel prices would eventually rise. However, it is a two fold problem. The unions are to blaim at least a little bit. I say that as a union locomotive engineer, but greed all the way around has brought down more than one great company, i.e. International Harvester. The unions should go to their members and say hey, we are faceing a crisis like no other, give some up in order to save what we can and in time build it back up when the company is on firm footing again. I would rather have a decent job then no job at all...
 
It would be unfortunate that thousands of people would be out of work. Unfortunately, it will a cause a ripple effect with their suppliers not being paid and ultimately these people would also lose their jobs. It's an endless cycle.
It wouldn't be an endless cycle, though it would be tough and possibly tragic. Once the free market righted itself and stabilized, things would be manageable again. Granted it won't be like the hey days of the late 90's and early 2000s but these things are cyclical -- soon enough there will be the next market rush and in a few decades the whole thing starts all over again.

I vote stick 'em. I have friends and family members who will be directly affected should GM close completely, but do companies this big really close up forever, or do they simply enter bankruptcy/reorganization and continue to do business?
 
Its not only the CEO's but the unions are to blame as well. I say no handouts whatsoever, I am okay with a loan with reasonable terms to pay back, but why reward bad behavior. If the car companies want to stay in business they are going to have to make big cutbacks and sacrifices that the workers and Unions will have to compromise to. It is better to have less pay and benefits than no pay and no benefits. I do blame the CEO's to not have enough foresight to see and start developing more fuel efficient cars a long time ago. That should be another stipulation attached to the loan is a requirement to make better fuel efficient automobiles.
 
what is wrong with filing bankrupt? They've all got assets and products that are useful to the marketplace? Why wouldn't another manufacturer like say Audi be interested in GM or Chrysler? I can't recall the last time I bought anything from these folks anyway.

GM, Ford, and Chrysler are not industry representatives that are key to national defense like steel, the railroads, or the airlines. So I say, let them file like any other company would have to if it failed as a business.

I'm pretty much apposed to any bailout coming out of my pocket that is not directly tied to homeowner relief and mortgage relief.
 

TimmyBoston

Moderator Emeritus
I'm very much in favor of the bailout. I'll admit I'm biased, my dad worked for Ford for 30 years and I don't want to see him lose him pension or his insurance nor do I want to see anyone there lose anything.
 
I'm very much in favor of the bailout. I'll admit I'm biased, my dad worked for Ford for 30 years and I don't want to see him lose him pension or his insurance nor do I want to see anyone there lose anything.
But if they file and reorganize, what would your father lose out on? Ok, maybe on the short term someone like your father may stand to lose some of the profit sharing plan + pension value. If he has worked for Ford for 30 years though, certainly he will get a retiirement with dignity. But, for the long term, wouldn't a restructuring of the organization be good for the company's survival? I'm afraid that bailout does nothing to ultimate save a bad business model from failing. The tax payer (you and I) being the guaranteer of the bond to your dad's company will lose out if the model is not fixed. I myself am personally suffering some economic hardships as a result of this financial crisis and I don't see how after throwing 700 billion to the banks (which is of questionable merit), bailing out Ford, GM, and Chrysler will help anything. Let them reorganize I say.
 
I'm very much in favor of the bailout. I'll admit I'm biased, my dad worked for Ford for 30 years and I don't want to see him lose him pension or his insurance nor do I want to see anyone there lose anything.
If the market won't sustain everyone keeping everything, how will it ever logically or feasibly be sustained? Anecdotal personal feelings aside (and I am 100% in the same boat as you are, re: family members who will be directly affected) it doesn't make sense to keep pouring money into a losing proposition -- and right now the big 3 Auto makers are a losing proposition (and have been for a few years now).
 
i see alot of people complaining about worker legacy costs,
healthcare, social security, pensions, that those costs are part of the weight which puts US automakers in a disadvantage,
but you resist all forms of restructuring healthcare, social security and pensions becuase it would be SOCIALISM and will remove your rights for proper care,

someone has to pay those costs, and with the current structure, from what i understand, healthcare costs fall mainly on the employer, which has to contract a private healthcare insurance company for the workers insurance,

the question is, what you save in taxes by not having a state healthcare system like in most european countries compansates the extra cost on employers ? becuase they have to pass down the cost to someone, either in reducing benefits, wages or making their product less competitive,

but then again, the japanese system also has private medicare, but the costs are controled and theres more regulation on the system to make sure healthcare is affordable and dosnt become much of a burden on the product/production/wage system,


but the problem is alot deeper then just "us cars are crap", the way the employment and health insurance system is set up might be putting an extra burden on US automakers,
 
What's interesting to me is that ~50% of the country seems to think that the big 3 shouldn't get a bailout and just fail. If I was CEO of one of these companies this would frighten me more than not getting any money. Is their image (e.g. image of the US automakers) that bad?
 
maybe becuase the "domestic" automakers actually manufacture in mexico, while you have foriegn automakers manufacturing on US soil,
 
The fact that they can't raise private money shows that they have no plan to become profitable. If this is indeed the case, they must be allowed to fail. That is, the labor, land and capital tied up in the current operations of the big three must be freed up for use in more profitable ventures.

Worry over jobs lost does not take into account jobs in other sectors now being lost or not even created because of the money and goods being squandered to keep the US automakers afloat in their inability to satisfy consumer demand. A bailout will only make this situation even more dire. The 'ripple effect' is also nonsense. Companies in the big 3's supply chain will adjust (the smart ones already are I'm sure). You can buy parts for MG's, AMC's and Model A's so there is no reason to believe that after-sale material support would vanish.

In short, letting the US makers fail would be good for the economy, not bad. This would be the case whether they close their doors completely or emerge from bankruptcy as one or more companies who can succeed in making cars that will sell. Either way, consumer wants will be better satisfied and everyone will be wealthier as a result.
 
In short, letting the US makers fail would be good for the economy, not bad. This would be the case whether they close their doors completely or emerge from bankruptcy as one or more companies who can succeed in making cars that will sell. Either way, consumer wants will be better satisfied and everyone will be wealthier as a result.
I think this is probably true in isolation, but I'm not sure if that's the wisest course right now in the current situation. We're on the edge of a huge recession, unemployment is high, and the credit market is crippled. Somebody needs to take a step back and figure out how a big 3 bankruptcy works into a much bigger picture.
 
I wasn't for the financial bailout either. I believe the only way the economy is going to get truely stronger is to let the poorly run companies fail. All the bailout is doing is postponing the inevitable.
 
So is the idea that these mind-boggling bailouts are going to give these bloated entities a chance to restructure? That the economy as a whole can adjust more gently this way, avoiding total collapse?

If so (and that's the only rationale I can think of), how's the restructuring supposed to work? Is the thinking that it feasibly could result in a more productive economy one day (compensating for the debt we're shouldering now), or are these bailouts just a desperate Hail Mary of sorts? Injecting a whole f-load of inefficiency into the system isn't exactly an obvious path towards recovery.

But hey, as long as we have the automakers over a barrel, might as well demand more stringent fuel-efficiency regulations while we're at it.
 
What's interesting to me is that ~50% of the country seems to think that the big 3 shouldn't get a bailout and just fail. If I was CEO of one of these companies this would frighten me more than not getting any money. Is their image (e.g. image of the US automakers) that bad?


IMO, yes. Someone said give every adult 100k but they must buy an American car... can we settle and say assembled in the U.S.? :rolleyes:
The last ' American ' car I bought was a ***. I said I will never buy another after owning an import and I stand by my decision. The big 3 don't care about anything but profits vs. the imports who care about customer satisfaction, and it shows. My import has almost 300k miles on it, my American truck got 52k miles before it threw a bearing., just magically after the 50k warranty expired. May have been a lemon but the fact is import cars are better than American ones, period. Why should I support and buy from people who won't change and ask for hand outs?

I am sorry for the people that might lose a job and their retirement but why are they special? Are they the only people that have lost it due to others mismanagement, abuse or flat out stealing? What about the poor working class people at Enron for example? There have been lots of people that got the shaft..., good, honest working folk. We will continue to get the shaft while the rich take jets to meetings, go to retreats and ask us all to foot the bill for it all.
I am willing to help out my fellow human beings, the ones that work, try or even try to work. I do not want to help the ones that refuse to help.. get their hands dirty and want others to do it while they sit back and take the credit. I don't know what they teach in management training / school.. ... but it isn't working. If they are doing what they learned, we need new teachers.
Please understand I want to help the people, not the company and their yes men. Let the companies go down in flames.
 
Top Bottom