Do You Favor A Government Loan To The Detroit 3?

1626365676880

Comments

  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    It's coming..

    Cash for Clunkers is being finalized. That'll be a huge incentive for buyers to return to the market.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    Actually they are getting rid of the failing banks. I heard on NPR today that they're closing about one bank per week this year. The two worst offenders last year were WaMu and Wachovia. pffft poof gone. They were made to disappear with managements and shareholders getting nothing. The two really sticky ones are Citi and BoA. The only reason these two aren't gone yet is that each one currently holds too much of America's money. I believe that I heard that between the two they hold more than 50% of all the money in the US.

    Making these two disappear is a lot trickier.
  • dbostondriverdbostondriver Member Posts: 559
    I wouldn't say it is being finalized. Their are building separate plans in the house and senate. From there they need to make a compromise plan and vote on it. It looks like their is a lot of resistance to this plan as it stands.
    http://www.freep.com/article/20090402/BUSINESS01/904020346/1210/BUSINESS/Cash-fo- - r-clunkers+plan+runs+into+competing+legislation

    I personally am for it, but don't thing that it should be limited to domestic brands as foreign companies make the most fuel efficient cars (Jetta TDI, Insight, Prius) Also any trade in should be for a more fuel efficient car. Example; you can't trade a 1999 Impala for a GMC Sierra.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Nah, GM will wind up with the good brands in C.

    Yeah, because GM doesn't have enough brands as it is. :shades:

    Jeep MIGHT go to Ford if they can scrounge the money, though Honda might take a stab at it, and get an instant set of body-on-frame platforms (which they've never had before). Tata has Rover, Toyota and Nissan already have their own off-road setups and don't need Jeep. Mitsu might want it, but I doubt Mitsu could afford it.

    Nissan will want the Ram line so they don't have to start building Titans themselves again. Toyota is still stuck with the Tundra, and don't seem to be giving up on it. No one else is even interested in getting into the full-size pickup business.

    Volkswagen will want to keep selling minivans and try to grab that line..Hyundai has their own, as do Toyota and Honda, and no one else bothers with minivans.

    Mitsu and Hyundai will battle for the engine designs, since the blocks are already produced under alliance between the three, and it'd be a real cheap bolt-on to their existing stuff. Mitsu is hurting too much, so Hyundai will come up with the better end of the deal. No one else will want them because everyone but Suzuki already has better engine designs.

    That pretty much takes care of the valuable stuff. Challenger will be orphaned, because GM and Ford already have those slots filled, and no one else is interested in building muscle cars. Someone interested in a police cruiser to sell might grab the Charger/300 series (GM might use it to replace the Impala...if THEY don't go BK). I don't see anything else worth having out of Chrysler.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Cash for Clunkers is being finalized. That'll be a huge incentive for buyers to return to the market.

    Slight problem with that. I'm buying a house instead. :shades:

    Then again, my car is an 04 and has several good years and highway miles ahead of it. And it'll be paid for once the government pays me $8k for finding a place to live. :P
  • 05wagon05wagon Member Posts: 9
    Foreign brands using trade-in subsidies would of course be fair and just.
    Perhaps the foreign automakers who have assembly plants in America would be stipulated. This is an economic boost for these american plant workers as well.
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    Forcing Chase and WF to buy cancerous banks is hardly the same as letting them go out of business. Now the cancer sits on those banks books.

    Should have let them fail and given the C and WF the bailout funds without the toxicity.

    Regards,
    OW
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Member Posts: 2,770
    ".....This is the most likely scenario."

    You think so.......

    http://market-ticker.org/archives/921-GM-Bankrupt,-UNLESS.....html
  • dtownfbdtownfb Member Posts: 2,918
    "Is it just me or is the greed (read: politics) even more pronounced now?? "

    Greed is not just in the politics or in corporate America. I think we all had a hand in this mess.

    With the job market as dismal as it is and still a bunch of uncertainty in when the economy may turn around, do we really need the government encouraging people to buy new cars? many people are already overextended. The last thing we need is more people with a $15,000-$20,000 loan.
  • 05wagon05wagon Member Posts: 9
    I agree we don't need people with more unsecured debt. BUT.....
    The Government decided to throw billions at the BIG THREE. What good did that do if noone can afford to buy the new manufactured vehicles. Their argument was they needed to stimulate spending. While you and I seem to agree that this strategy may be questionable, I still think that if the billions are going to the Companies from future tax sources then why not directly stimulate the consumption of the subsidized product by placing a percentage of that freebee money into the hands of those paying for the subsidy. Didn't they do that with HOME GRANT MONEY. The truth is, the whole mess stinks to high heaven...and the rich get richer, comments?
  • dtownfbdtownfb Member Posts: 2,918
    the government is only throwing money at GM and Chrysler. The reason is simple....to save as many jobs as possible. A complete collapse of GM and Chrysler would cost at least 500,000 jobs and that is assuming someone comes in and buys them in bankruptcy. The US market for new cars over the past 7 years have been artificially high. Easy credit, a heavy dose of incentives and rebates led to sales over 17M. We don't need more subsidized products! We need GM to become a smaller, leaner company to deal with the new economy. Chrysler.....what a mess? They need more than sales.

    Not sure about the rich betting richer. Everyone is getting royally screwed with this recession.
  • sellaturcicasellaturcica Member Posts: 145
    Agree with this. The GM and Chrysler bailouts are basically cost effective jobs programs for the government. The longer they keep them going, the longer they have before having to figure out what to do about hundreds of thousands of blue collar laborers out of work.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,691
    >The reason is simple....

    To save the company from bankruptcy where the bondholders, including AIG which holds the Congress' pension, from losing money by having their value drop to zero in a bankruptcy. Congressfolk know which side the bread is buttered on.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • 05wagon05wagon Member Posts: 9
    As Leona Hemsley famously snorted: "Only the little people pay taxes".
    The economists tell us the true cost of this episode of unparalled greeed will be the repayment of all this printed paper debt. And we know who pays the bulk of the taxes. Just listen to the squealing from the folks who will pay tax on over $250,000 of income
    I agree that consumer subsidies are not desirable options, I just don't understand throwing billions at GM et al to supposedly build product that none can afford. It was mentioned that 17M units in circulation.
    Why not the outrage over house subsidies?
    As Lou Dobbs likes to say, "Why aren't these people in jail"(Create jobs for jailers)
  • canadiantoyotacanadiantoyota Member Posts: 148
    Regarding Canada writing a check to either GM or Chrysler, both the Ontario and Canadian governments have decided to wait until the U.S. government decides what they are doing. Both the U.S. and Canadian governments conferred before the March 31st deadline and they decided that this was the best course of action. They don't want GM or Chrysler siphoning off funds from Canada to prop up the U.S. operations and vice versa. Also, Ford and Chrysler have told the CAW that they will not accept the recent deal that GM signed. they state that it would still leave them over $10 per hour at a disadvantage to the import plants in North America, and that is before Honda announced wage cuts to the work force. Looks like the Big 3 are trying to hit a moving target.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    Yeah, and a lot of knuckleheads have been used their houses as ATMs. Back in the day, such an idea would've been unthinkable. "Buy that new SUV! Take that dream vacation!" dumb! Dumb! DUMB!
  • sellaturcicasellaturcica Member Posts: 145
    That's the problem with having too much of your net worth tied up in your house- unless you sell the house and trade down, you can't really get your money out.
  • dbostondriverdbostondriver Member Posts: 559
    "No, actually. I, I, I think the consumer should buy exactly what kind of car they think meets their needs and that excites them. And as I look at it, it's our job to make sure we provide that, not necessarily have it mandated or otherwise encouraged. I think we have fantastic cars and trucks. We're going to win in the marketplace and not necessarily because--just because we're a U.S. company." -Fritz Henderson

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30055730/page/2/
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    There aren't 17 MM in circulation. That's the max new car production numbers.

    In fact new car sales have run about 15-16 MM for the last several years.
    Used car sales generally run twice that number at about 30 MM annually.
    In the United States we have about 250 MM 'eligible' drivers ( including those in NYC, Chi, Boston and other places that will never own a vehicle ).
    In the United States we have about 250 MM vehicles on the road today.

    The CEO of GM did nothing wrong legally but he was 'sent to jail' for being a business criminal ( he lost his job ). This is how it should be.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    The CEO of GM did nothing wrong legally but he was 'sent to jail' for being a business criminal ( he lost his job ). This is how it should be.

    Of course. And this is why so many are complaining. They thought that once you get beyond a certain level, you are "above the law" as far as business and economics are concerned (where, in the real world, if you do a rotten job you get fired). Waggoner thought he was in that club. And it took a U.S. President to fire the guy for doing a rotten job because no one else would...which is a scary thought in so many dimensions (we don't want the government to be running businesses, and we DO want the BUSINESSES to start running themselves like businesses!)
  • dbostondriverdbostondriver Member Posts: 559
    Exactly, Wagoner never brought in a profit, lost the company over $80,000,000,000, brought GM to the brink of bankruptcy, and embarrassed the US auto industry by flying to DC on private jets and begging for money.
    GM's culture and inept board of directors kept him employed. Name another company that would have kept this failure around.
    Only good thing Wagoner did was push for the ZR1. To bad he could have them upgrade the steering wheel from the same one on the Cobalt. :lemon:
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    I don't know the politics of the outgoing GM CEO, but I suspect it had more to do with the lack of contribution to the Obama presidential campaign than any "perceived/real rotten job". After all, the BIG FOUR are literally RIFE with "peceived/REAL rotten job performance/s and in a lot of ways this has been literally the job of rearranging deck chairs on 4 Titanics and for literally DECADES. So now there are three(amigos) left???? Well now that GM who has been "liberated," now has a CEO that has been a virtual auto and GM insider for decades is now in charge!!?? Waggoneer is the sacrificial lamb, no matter how deserving or not he is/was.
  • dbostondriverdbostondriver Member Posts: 559
    Yeah, but Wagoner is the first one to show up to the White House door and ask to be put on permanent life support.
    Don't forget, it was the last administration that gave GM and Chrysler the last check. Not congress or Obama.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    I think you have made or agree with my points.
  • dbostondriverdbostondriver Member Posts: 559
    Maybe he is a sacrificial lamb, but any competent business person would have sacrificed him years ago. It is more like putting him out of his misery.
    GM and Wagoner will be studied by business students for years as the classic case of what not to do.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Don't forget, it was the last administration that gave GM and Chrysler the last check.

    That was a courtesy I would not have given Obama. It gave him time to weigh the situation to take care of his UAW voters. He still has done nothing after 6 months from the first handout to GM and C.
  • dbostondriverdbostondriver Member Posts: 559
    Maybe, but he has only been in the office for two and a half months. Ideally the last administration would have taken care of this and not handed it on a silver plate to the new President.
    I mean, congress did vote against that, and we vote for congress.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,691
    >suspect it had more to do with the lack of contribution to the Obama presidential campaign than any "perceived/real rotten job".

    My thoughts exactly.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    All I can say is, if I had the final say last year, the C11 modification would have been done already. These guys are still politicians at the end of the day.

    By now, the new entity would be as follows:

    GM - Chevy, Cadillac - Jeep, Chrysler Minivans would be part of Chevy.

    Ford - On it's own. Good job.

    Regards,
    OW
  • dbostondriverdbostondriver Member Posts: 559
    I agree 100%. Chrysler wouldn't even be a word in the dictionary anymore.
    GM would be in Chapter 11. End of story.
    I also like the gas guzzler incentive. Any car before 2001 traded in is eligible for a tax credit if you buy a more fuel efficient car. Run the plan till the end of the year.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,691
    Nice try but they've been using that "it's Bush's problem we found when we took office" for 70 days now. The knowledge was there during the campaign; Obama was the expert on the economy--remember all the ridicule of the experience McCain?--; and BO wanted a bill from Pelosi ready when Jan 20th came; so he could have had a bill to do whatever he wanted with the US auto industry at the same time. "It was Bush's problem doesn't play anymore." Time for "Hope and Change We CAn Believe In."

    I only hope the right things will be done with further subsidy of the US auto industry decimated by the imports through the past 15 years. I hope the political Chicagolike games won't take precedence over someone, someone in DC actually doing the right thing. Loans are fine. Gifts are fine. As long as the UAW isn't the beneficiary of political payback like ACORN is being, looking forward to the next elections.

    Myself I have little hope that the DC free of lobbyists and tax cheats in the government rolls we were promised would be the DC we get; we don't have it yet, certainly. But what needs to be done is a full bankruptcy to eliminate all contracts with UAW and let the GM start over. The problem is that bond holders, including AIG who holds the pensions for Congress I heard, would be hurt by a true bankruptcy. In a government controlled situation emulating bankruptcy the bondholders, including AIG, would be benefitted financially and even enriched.

    I'm in favor of continuing to turn GM around. Chrysler? I'm not sure it should be. It's held by a hedge fund which is the group that ran the market down with short-selling under the new rules that allowed it and others to bring doom and gloom to the economy for several months. The lack of spending due to the psychological depression of many of the US people has slowed the recovery.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,691
    >Any car before 2001 traded in is eligible for a tax credit if you buy a more fuel efficient car.

    I would go back further to include all cars, maybe 1998. Cars from 1998-2001 must be EPA high fuel use models and that could be a lots of cars and trucks. Car must be traded for US brand car. Eligibility will be determined by registered autos list as of date certain so that people don't go out and take a clunker, register it in their name, and go trade it in. Also people receiving subsidy (welfare) will not be eligible--only those with a real job.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    Any car before 2001 traded in is eligible for a tax credit if you buy a more fuel efficient car. Run the plan till the end of the year.

    Agreed. No talk, just action. These guys are wasting our money with their mouths. Incent sales and back the environmental rhetoric with real targeted spendin and save money from bailout nation disease.

    Clueless to say the least. Now that "Cash for Clunkers" is being spun, Congress will get behind it instead of rolling it into the budget in the first place. Now it will cost more as a stand-alone bill. The usual. The more political, the more it costs.

    Regards,
    OW
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    I suspect it had more to do with the lack of contribution to the Obama presidential campaign than any "perceived/real rotten job"

    Then why does Nardelli still have HIS job? For another 25 days or so anyway...
  • dbostondriverdbostondriver Member Posts: 559
    True. I think more than a the job clause, strict credit evaluations would have to go hand in hand. Usually, someone with a '98 Geo can't afford a Cadillac.
    But as it would be a tax-credit, people would have to poney up cash up front. They would get a rebate or pay less taxes when filing in '10.
    And Obama has only been in office for 70 days, name one president that has done more in that time.
  • dbostondriverdbostondriver Member Posts: 559
    Nardelli has only been at Chrysler for two years. Also don't worry, May first we won't be hearing about him. He was a bad CEO at GE and Home Depot.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,691
    Steve doesn't want skiing here.

    > for 70 days, name one president that has done more in that time.

    But I honestly can't think of a president in my lifetime who has done more to the country so fast. :blush:

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    "name one president that has done more harm in that time."

    Instead of having the testicular fortitude to enable Natural Economics play, he went for the no pain, quick answer solutions. That it increases the national debt to be burdend by our great grandchildren is not to be admired.

    He is not, nor never has been, a businessman, only a socialistic politician.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Good question ! In what context do you mean?
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    If it was all about campaign funds, Nardelli would have been bounced too. It's about doing a rotten job, which Waggoner has been doing for much longer, and the board failed in THEIR job to fire his Aztek-loving rearend. Really, the board should be fired too.

    I suppose that isn't surprising...Waggoner wasn't doing his job right, the board wasn't doing their job right...because of this executive management wasn't doing their job right, and right on down the chain. Which is why GM is going bankrupt.

    The scary thing is we have a socialist-leaning president having to tell the right-wing free-marketers how to do their job (meaning if someone sucks at their job, fire him). And he's right, which should REALLY wake up corporate boardrooms. Not that it will wake their ultra-complacent toupee-insulated brains, but it should.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Well if I understand the question which you did not answer, I would swag the answer is Home Depot is not yet in the position of asking for government/aka taxpayer monies. So the comparison with Nardelli is completely off the topic.
  • dbostondriverdbostondriver Member Posts: 559
    No, Nardelli is an awful CEO too. His history at Home Depot and GE are not favorable. He was kicked out of Hope Depot (and given a golden parachute I might add). The main difference is that he joined Chrysler when the ship was sinking. Wagoner took over the last year GM was still making profits. Chrysler is gone anyway. Leaving Nardelli just assures that the Fiat deal doesn't go through.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I agree, he should have let Congress take the blame for GM going out of business. You know GW Bush, always the benevolent leader. He should have let the banks and especially AIG fail also. It was Congress that created the mess. Let them fix it.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    So if he is now the Chrysler CEO, then yes I would agree. Again I would swag he probably made substantial contributions to the Obama campaign. The other side of "the one hand clapping" of my original point !!??

    I mean think about it. The UAW is the 800# gorilla (camouflaged) in all of this and there is absolutely no talk of firing or even union de certifications !!!! Makes the case as far as I am concerned. Even the repubs even when they had the Congressional and executive majorities, whom would hardly be on the UAW's LOVE list didn't mess with them. So on the other hand, it takes a demo like Obama with an overwhelming demo Congress, to really tell them the truth which has been known by all for decades !!! The dirt swepted under the rug is now a mountain. I mean in the worst case, what is the UAW going to do?... Vote republican??
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    the C11 modification would have been done already. These guys are still politicians at the end of the day.

    I don't think it would be nearly reorganized. Delphi filed for C11 in 2005. They are still flailing in BK court and have the UAW noose around their neck.
  • dbostondriverdbostondriver Member Posts: 559
    UAW vote republican, hahahahahahaha. Only if they all get laid off.
    The banks are the biggest contributors. Geithnher goes to the same county club as all the bank crooks.
    Don't sweat Nardelli, he is gone 25 days. Good riddens.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    I mean think about it the UAW is the 800# gorilla in all of this and there is absolutely no talk of firing or even union de certifications !!!!

    I love it how the unions are the cause of everything from bad breath to the End of Days, heh. :shades:

    Anyway, no one's going to fire UAW leadership. Not when they have shown that they're willing to deal and make concessions, like they did with Ford...you know, that car company that didn't need a bailout? They saw Ford could be viable long-term, made a deal with them so they'll be involved long term, and derive benefits from Ford long term. Makes sense to me.

    With GM, the UAW needs to make additional concessions, yes. But so do the bondholders and everyone else, and right now they're not budging. If they won't, why should the UAW? All parties need to make concessions. None are willing, primarily because none think GM will be viable, so they're all protecting their own stakes, so they can get as much as possible in some possible future liquidation. From each one of their perspectives that makes perfect sense. So I don't see the problem.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    ..."I love it how the unions are the cause of everything from bad breath to the End of Days, heh. "...

    Comes with the territory of being the 800# gorilla. They could do the Harry Truman, if they do not like it !! They have been riding free for way too long.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    ..."So I don't see the problem. "...

    It is more than obvious you don''t see the problem, aka long term strategy but neither does the American public. They inked the "do or die deal with Ford" and the rest of the drama is being acted /scammed out with GM and Chysler. Smart if they get folks to buy the Hollywood in it !? SOS just DD.
This discussion has been closed.

Your Privacy

By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our Visitor Agreement.