I agree Tony, but the government bailout package is already an approved multi-trillion dollar crime scheme IMO. The relatively small percentage GM is asking for would only be a loan and not a gift. If they are going to save these banks that are too large to fail, I would say it's not only fair, but responsible to bailout our automotive industry. Especially at this time. To risk the potential loss of millions of jobs would shatter consumer confidence and might put us closer to a depression.

Has anyone noticed the UAW hasn't come out to play? No big speech's, threats.. Hell, they don't have a word to say!
IMO, the UAW broke the back of the US auto industry years ago but were just finding out how bad it's been because of the home mortgage crisis.

I don't think the retired workers should lose their medical coverage. Medical insurance for older Americans can run up to $1200 Mo and that would be worng
Someone posted earlier; "the workers invested into the pension fund, it's their money and they deserve to keep it" that's simply wrong. The pension fund is part of a benefit package they receive as part of the UAW agreement. You can't elect to not invest in the pension fund, in other words, if the pension plan didn't exist you wouldn't get the $5.90 Hr the put into the pension fund added to your pay check.
The UAW controls those pensions, they use it as leverage for a whole host of stuff.

I employee 34 men and women. Most of which belong to the Ironworker's Union. The average employee gets $34 on the check but I pay $83.21 per hour for those wages and the benefit package.

Non Union workers in the same trade make an average $18- $30.00 and generally receive some sort of medical from their employer.

This doesn't negate the fact the retired workers planned their lives around having that pension plan later on.
Do they deserve a $7k a month retirement package? LOL... I let you be the judge.



This is a huge mess and I don't feel like paying for someone Else's mistakes.
I didn't agree with the other companies getting bailed out either. If the country has to go into a recession for a year or so then that's what it has to do.

This country was founded on free markets, not government intervention.

I'm sorry if that bothers anyone, that's just my opinion.
I still love you.


Rich

Paulson already has said that there is NO WAY that they're getting any of the 700 billion approved for the financial bailout. The auto companies are asking for a whole different bailout package, just for them, *in addition* to the 25 billion they've already gotten this year. The thing about loans is, for you and me, there's an approval process, you have to prove credit worthiness to be loaned any money.

How's the big three planning on paying you and me back? By staying in business until they run out of OUR money again? No thanks. Die now, without my money.
They haven't said what they are planning to do differently. They wont even acknowledge that THEY are the fault. They blame the consumer, the economy, anyone but themselves for why they are losing billions. Bad ideas, bad deals, and bad cars = bad times for them. Show the US something. ANY great idea that's bound to make money, or a world beater product. Fire SOMEONE at the high level and say "it's HIS fault." But they won't.

I'm opposed to any form of loan to the big 2.5 that does not ensure massive restructuring of their Union contracts. The model they are operating under is not sustainable.

Just another perspective.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/op...=3&oref=slogin

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.

The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.

Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was a candidate for this year’s Republican presidential nomination.

Can someone give me a summary.:rofl: :rofl:

HAHAHAHAHAAH *GASP* HAHAHAHAHAH

/comedy gold. That guy deserves his seat.

I know the is an unpopular opinion but I agree with it anyway! :cheers:

LoL.. seriously, with decisions like that, no wonder they're looking to file bankruptcy. I don't like the idea of paying for anyone else's mistakes either, and I've been against the .gov bailout from day one. But now that it's already a done deal, we, you and I, our kids, etc are already on the books for at least 850 bil, some say 3.5 trillion. And that went to buy worthless assets to start.. Who knows where else it's going? But they won't bailout the automakers? I guess I fear the worst of what could happen. That and it's sad to see American business either lose or be bought out by foreign interests.

I hate to see the not so big three fall too. But I cannot wait to see what great American company rises from their ashes. (amc?) That company will be truly awesome, will be unfettered by all the mistakes of the old auto companies, and will give the US an auto industry to be proud of again.