Very much agreed. No more bailouts! No business is ever to big to fail. Government needs to back out and let them fall on their face, pick themselves back up and start all over again. I own a car company now and I didn’t even get a say in it, nor did I get a car.
The goverment could lose money running a cathouse it will lose 100 of billions running GM puting on top a man that knows nothing about building cars.There labor cost have not changed and are pushing small cars that have a razor thin profit and as a rule do not sell well.
you are all wrong. they (we) should take gm and use it to build all the post office vehicles and police cars. then the profit that now goes to the gougers would return to the u.s. treasury. worried about socialism? don’t worry. be happy.
why should the government take only the ‘loser’ functions like schools and police and fire? if you think you won’t have a chance to start up that widget factory and make a mint, you are wrong again. there will always be someone who wants to buy a widget and a religious icon or graven image.
Letting the car companies fail in a healthy economy might have been an option. But in a recession, losing that many jobs – from the manufacturers to the vendors that supply them to the dealerships – would have made a bad situation a catastrophe. At least the workers are still productive, tax-paying workers rather than on the unemployment roles.
It was GM’s poor, bureaucratic-heavy management that led them to rely on gas-guzzling SUVs and not be prepared for the inevitable rise in gas prices, motivating consumers to want gas efficiency to save money. The only difference between a unionized carmaker and a non-unionized carmaker is the pension plan. The pay is basically the same. So don’t go blaming the unions for this.
And many of the big banks that have not accepted government funds are hiding the sour loans on their books so as not to cause a panic among their customers and to try and wait out the spiraling decline in the value of their assets so they don’t have to take the loss. (Let the customer to that.)
In the meantime, both industries continue to spend huge chunks of money on lobbyists and political contributions in an attempt to keep Congress from returning to the pre-Reagan regulations that protected consumers (banks) or implementing regulations that would increase gas efficiency which have been passed by 13 states and supported by the general public (automakers).
Obama has done the best he can in a bad situation. At least he is looking out for the voters, while these other players continue to look out for their own best interests
When I put together radio programs in southern California in the early 1960’s calling for smaller cars and mass transit, it was Chrysler and Standard Oil of California that launched a massive counter campaign. “Our” companies have indeed shot down many good ideas, including better product lines.
The hilarious and sad thing at the same time is that GM was going to do that anyway. Except now, we’ve spent billions of dollars and made practically no difference.
Re: RedRock2512 - It was GM’s poor, bureaucratic-heavy management that led them to rely on gas-guzzling SUVs and not be prepared for the inevitable rise in gas prices, motivating consumers to want gas efficiency to save money.
If GM had built the so called econobox they would have been out of business in 2002 because no one would have bought them when gas was cheap. Then the criticism would have been they built cars no one wanted. If they had started building a fleet of econoboxes in 2005 they would have been hailed as visionaries. It boils down to timing.
While Democrats and their supports do not seem to care about anything except lining some people’s pockets with other people’s money. Well, that and making sure that they’re the ones who get to put the people into the groups.
hank197857 almost 15 years ago
replace obama next election with an excutive from one of the big banks which did not need or accept the bailout bribe.
Adora68 almost 15 years ago
Or someone from Ford.
cynof3 almost 15 years ago
Very much agreed. No more bailouts! No business is ever to big to fail. Government needs to back out and let them fall on their face, pick themselves back up and start all over again. I own a car company now and I didn’t even get a say in it, nor did I get a car.
raycity almost 15 years ago
The goverment could lose money running a cathouse it will lose 100 of billions running GM puting on top a man that knows nothing about building cars.There labor cost have not changed and are pushing small cars that have a razor thin profit and as a rule do not sell well.
patersondave almost 15 years ago
you are all wrong. they (we) should take gm and use it to build all the post office vehicles and police cars. then the profit that now goes to the gougers would return to the u.s. treasury. worried about socialism? don’t worry. be happy. why should the government take only the ‘loser’ functions like schools and police and fire? if you think you won’t have a chance to start up that widget factory and make a mint, you are wrong again. there will always be someone who wants to buy a widget and a religious icon or graven image.
RedRock2512 almost 15 years ago
Letting the car companies fail in a healthy economy might have been an option. But in a recession, losing that many jobs – from the manufacturers to the vendors that supply them to the dealerships – would have made a bad situation a catastrophe. At least the workers are still productive, tax-paying workers rather than on the unemployment roles.
It was GM’s poor, bureaucratic-heavy management that led them to rely on gas-guzzling SUVs and not be prepared for the inevitable rise in gas prices, motivating consumers to want gas efficiency to save money. The only difference between a unionized carmaker and a non-unionized carmaker is the pension plan. The pay is basically the same. So don’t go blaming the unions for this.
And many of the big banks that have not accepted government funds are hiding the sour loans on their books so as not to cause a panic among their customers and to try and wait out the spiraling decline in the value of their assets so they don’t have to take the loss. (Let the customer to that.)
In the meantime, both industries continue to spend huge chunks of money on lobbyists and political contributions in an attempt to keep Congress from returning to the pre-Reagan regulations that protected consumers (banks) or implementing regulations that would increase gas efficiency which have been passed by 13 states and supported by the general public (automakers).
Obama has done the best he can in a bad situation. At least he is looking out for the voters, while these other players continue to look out for their own best interests
Motivemagus almost 15 years ago
Well said, RedRock.
Dtroutma almost 15 years ago
When I put together radio programs in southern California in the early 1960’s calling for smaller cars and mass transit, it was Chrysler and Standard Oil of California that launched a massive counter campaign. “Our” companies have indeed shot down many good ideas, including better product lines.
dshepard almost 15 years ago
The hilarious and sad thing at the same time is that GM was going to do that anyway. Except now, we’ve spent billions of dollars and made practically no difference.
nomad2112 almost 15 years ago
Re: RedRock2512 - It was GM’s poor, bureaucratic-heavy management that led them to rely on gas-guzzling SUVs and not be prepared for the inevitable rise in gas prices, motivating consumers to want gas efficiency to save money.
If GM had built the so called econobox they would have been out of business in 2002 because no one would have bought them when gas was cheap. Then the criticism would have been they built cars no one wanted. If they had started building a fleet of econoboxes in 2005 they would have been hailed as visionaries. It boils down to timing.
Adora68 almost 15 years ago
While Democrats and their supports do not seem to care about anything except lining some people’s pockets with other people’s money. Well, that and making sure that they’re the ones who get to put the people into the groups.