What is Digg?233 Comments
- atomheartmother, on 04/01/2009, -4/+42It is a sad commentary on today's America when special interests have got such a stranglehold on the balls of a political party that they're willing to spend the country into oblivion rather than let those special interests face the consequences of their actions.
- shig, on 04/01/2009, -13/+49What's the difference between a highwayman and the government?
The highwayman is content after robbing you once. - Trekhawk, on 04/01/2009, -10/+41Chapter 11 should've been the first option. Unload their debt and take that albatross of a union off from around their necks. And you could've bank-rolled that for less than $17.4B I'm sure. And you'd have 2 healthier companies as a result.
- Mnementh2230, on 04/01/2009, -2/+32Bankrupt them or let them die. I'm sick of propping up companies that can't survive on their own.
- fatfreddyscat, on 04/01/2009, -8/+37What's anouther 50 billion or so when Obama's bailout is up to 10.5 trillion.
http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/storysupplement ... - McPork, on 04/01/2009, -4/+31Another bailout? Yeeee Haww - no interruption in overpriced, unreliable, gas guzzling SUVs and pick-up trucks.
- Wreckage, on 04/01/2009, -4/+26Yes I would rather give my money to banks and AIG to make sure their management got huge bonuses while I fight off foreclosure.
At least GM and Chrysler provide me a product and jobs. AIG provided nothing but an epic failure that led to a lot of this. - Rugrash, on 04/01/2009, -2/+24It's not REAL money anyway...it's just paper with no real value. The treasury will just print more...yay!!!
- thinkb4utype, on 04/01/2009, -3/+23I better get a BJ with the next GM truck I buy. God knows I've paid for it.
- gegahrz, on 04/01/2009, -2/+21what about my $10,000 debt? am i gonna get a loan from uncle sam? if not...they dont get paid.
- EMFK, on 04/01/2009, -9/+28Hell has frozen over. I actually agree with Richard Cohen. Good read.
- askjeffro, on 04/01/2009, -1/+18"Hey! Look at this hand over here!"
This discussion about the auto companies is inconsequential relative to the banking discussion. The primary reason we keep seeing this crop up is because GM and Chrysler are being used to draw attention away from the far worse crimes taking place.
I'm not for a bailout of these companies either, but lets try and focus on the big issues before to much wasting mind share on such a small problem.
If I was a conspiracy nut I'd think the media was the puppet of the financial firms being used to relieve pressure off of them. Nah... - inactive, on 04/01/2009, -1/+15Overruled by whom?
- jonnyboy1544, on 04/01/2009, -0/+14I can't tell if Digitalis is being a douche or if he's conveying how most of us feel... either way, GM and Chrysler need to be taken off life support.
- dhughes, on 04/01/2009, -1/+14 You've already been screwed, don't be so greedy.
- jonnyboy1544, on 04/01/2009, -2/+14Gettelfinger refused to negotiate back in December... he said he didn't care what happened to the companies. Thats why we blame the unions as well.
- jason210, on 04/01/2009, -1/+12no the American people do not want to bail these ***** out.
- SmokenJoe, on 04/01/2009, -1/+12So I have to pay because these guys refused to work and make a decent product that people wanted to buy. If they are allowed to fail someone might come in take their place and make a car I might want to buy. The way it stands we continue to support people too good listen to the consumer. I have a message for GM people get a real job because you are not earning your handouts now.
Not fond of the greedy bankers either this just shows how out of touch Washington is with the nation. - dhughes, on 04/01/2009, -2/+12 It's not blindly blaming them it's a valid point to argue, and as clclark33 said it's not just the unions but they certainly aren't helping or being realistic.
They live in a fantasy world anyway, their education versus their wage, so it's not a surprise that during one of the worst economic crisis of this or last century they still feel their jobs deserve to be saved because they're special and everyone else is a nobody - they just don't get it. - atomheartmother, on 04/01/2009, -0/+9Whether I am or I'm not is irrelevant to what's happening today.
- clclark33, on 04/01/2009, -9/+18Yeah, but a significant portion of the cost of that car you buy from Ford is the cost of the union. A few years ago I was looking for a new car and it's absolutely insane that I could buy a Honda Civic for less than a Ford Focus.
The problem isn't JUST the union, but when you have no real incentive because the union backs you up if you get in trouble... then what's the motivation? Non-union workers can be fired for screwing up.... they have to work hard every day to keep a job whereas union workers are typically much less productive and cost more. - chesterogilvie, on 04/01/2009, -0/+9Then buy their products or make a donation, don't force me to do it!
- BassCadet, on 04/01/2009, -0/+9I don't mind bailing out GM but if I am footing the bill, I want some say in the product they make.
Take 10 of your smartest engineers and designers. Lock them in a studio with a Honda Accord. If they cannot design a car that is superior in every way to the Accord for the same price, fire every single one of the 10 people.
Are you listening, Bob Lutz? Look, we know you can build a fast Corvette or a car (you think) is better than the BMW M5 (CTS-V), but those cars won't make GM solvent.
This is what GM's entire range should look like:
Civic-beater (?)
Accord-beater (Malibu?)
Honda CR-V beater (?)
Volt
G8 GT/GXP
Corvette
Cadillac Escalade
Cadillac CTS and CTS-V
Buick Enclave
Buick Lacrosse
GMC Sierra
GMC Yukon/Denali
Strip it to the winners. Quit making ***** like the Trailblazer. Stop selling the same vehicle in 3 different brands. Start refusing to sell cars to rental car companies until you can make a car that we like better than the Altima we own. - Stingwolf, on 04/01/2009, -0/+9Also, when he does it, it's illegal.
- jason210, on 04/01/2009, -0/+8I'm propping them up I give the government 13,000 dollars a year.
- snypez, on 04/01/2009, -6/+14Hey, lets give wall street hundreds of billions without a second thought even though they caused the recession but when it comes to a measly 20 billion for the manufacturing base for this country, 3 companys that account for 10% of the GDP and upon whom hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs rely, screw it. Let em fail and send all of our money overseas. Whats the worst that could happen right? Its not like the world is going to stop lending money to the US right? We aren't going to see hyperinflation if we just print more money are we?
- inactive, on 04/01/2009, -0/+8They're doing "better", relatively speaking, but are still hurting. The global auto industry is pretty much in the ***** right now, so every major auto maker is having a hard time.
- serif69, on 04/01/2009, -1/+8I find it absolutely egregious that our government under both Bush and Obama, in the last year or so, managed to spend about 18% of our GDP during the same period just on bailouts and rescue plans. The 2008 GDP was estimated at $14.26 trillion, and they spent $2.6 trillion.
Our politicians have lost any knowledge that they might ever have had about the true value of the dollar. It's just numbers on a page to them. - lornefs, on 04/01/2009, -0/+7I can't believe you got 16 (at this posting) nimrods to agree with you.
- RetardoCrisp, on 04/01/2009, -0/+7Survival of the fittest. Make poor products and karma will one day bite back. I think it is silly to keep them afloat based solely out of a reminiscent classical root based ideal of being an "old familiar friend" that has been with the US for close to 100 years. Empires are built and crumble and nothing lasts forever. Impermanence will always win so I think they should be allowed to slowly fade away
- foohookups311, on 04/01/2009, -3/+10exactly what clcark33 said.
When the CEOs do a ***** job they are booted by the investors. It's when they hoodwink the investors that they get to do the ***** job and reap the benefits without being booted. In most companies this does not happen. You may believe that it happens in most companies because the news media is shoving it in your face 24/7 and making you believe that while keeping the union problems quite. Capitalism for the most part works but is by no means a perfect system. - firesphotons, on 04/01/2009, -1/+8As the son of a former Fiat dealership owner, I can tell you anyone who said Fiat would be vital to Chrysler's survival in the future would have been laughed at incessantly, strange how the world turns..
- byronm, on 04/01/2009, -7/+13@Archica
I agree.. notice how they mod you down rather than answer the question. Labor unions aren't perfect but they're NOT the problem.
We need skilled people making cars we trust our families to. In America that means livable wages, experience and people who can get the job done and done reliably. Dumping unions in favor of cheap labor doesn't solve the financial woes of the auto industry. - byronm, on 04/01/2009, -11/+17Whats with blindly blaming the unions? Automakers the world over are having problems regardless of their labor contracts.
- bobjrn2, on 04/01/2009, -0/+6Bankruptcy isn't the end of the world. Bankruptcy is a company's natural way of restructuring when they can't pay off their debts. The government is bankrupt too (we are trillions of dollars in debt with sliding revenue because of the retiring baby boomers). The government doesn't have any money to invest. Not to mention the government was never created to manipulate the economy. The government was in charge of Freddie Fannie which was one of the key causes of this recession.
- Frankttank, on 04/01/2009, -1/+7DigitalisAkujin, you left off the /sarcasm
- inactive, on 04/01/2009, -0/+6Why are their jobs more special than other Americans?
And stop acting like bankruptcy means GM will disappear forever, it doesn't mean that at all, they would just have to restructure. - Crazyredivan, on 04/01/2009, -0/+6@Emjaysea- I think the comparison is because, while there was outrage over the trillions given to the banks, there was no one holding them to a standard of benchmarks to be met, no plan for fixing things. They were just handed money.
The auto industry, on the other had, was given a set of goals to accomplish before they were given more money. While the auto industry DOES have issues of its own and, as it is structured right now, may not be viable, its situation has gone from bad to horrendous as people lack the credit to purchase new cars. Yes, they should have stopped producing giant SUV's years ago; yes, they should have embraced alternate fuels earlier. But to hold them accountable for credit issues that are, for the most part, not of their doing is a ridiculous risk, seeing as how hundreds of thousands of people have jobs because of these few companies.
To hand over trillions to the banks- the main cause of this mess- without stipulations, then to hold the auto industry to such high standards, is the issue; they should all be held to scrutiny, but something needs to be done to try to rescue such a huge number of jobs. - hexydes, on 04/01/2009, -1/+7Actually, you haven't. Your money is currently paying for past debt. This will be your childrens' problem.
- inactive, on 04/01/2009, -0/+6by the man. lol.
- mcquitty, on 04/01/2009, -0/+6Now if we could just extend this to all the other "bailouts".
- bemenaker, on 04/01/2009, -0/+6Why are we giving Chrysler a dime? They are owned by one of the wealthiest investment banker corporations in the world. Cerebrus has the money to take care of Chrysler, and they should. Why give them cash when their owners have it.
- DavidOchs, on 04/01/2009, -0/+6That's GM. Ford is under no such restrictions because they have not asked for any money from the Government.
Money lent from Government:
GM: 13.4 Billion -- They're now asking for 16.6 billion more.
Chrysler: 4 Billion -- They're now asking for $5 billion more.
Ford: $0.00 - Stingwolf, on 04/01/2009, -0/+6"if not...they dont get paid."
Unfortunately, that's not up to you. Your "representatives" in DC have decided what your money should be spent on. You could stop paying taxes in protest, but they would just arrest you. - FuzzplugJones, on 04/01/2009, -2/+8Whoa. Now THAT's an Obama voter!
- Crazyredivan, on 04/01/2009, -0/+6Aside from the billions/trillions issue in your comment, I have to agree with you. How is it that we gave the banking industry trillions to re-start lending and open credit lines (which they haven't done) without guidelines on what they could and could not use the money for, and yet when it comes to the auto industry- which actually produces a product (no matter the quality)- people are freaking out?
The option of bankruptcy is before these companies, and the new GM CEO said that it's likely looking that way for them. They had to meet bench marks to get more money; now, they have gone back to ask for more money and their plans are being reviewed. This is how it should have worked with the banks. By not subjecting the banking industry to rigorous standards, we've been put in this awkward angry position of trying to get the money back from them. Yes, there are fundamental flaws with the auto industry, and they need to be restructured, but adding that many more people to the unemployment numbers would overwhelm an already stressed system. - clclark33, on 04/01/2009, -1/+6The point is that there shouldn't be ANY bailouts, so trying to justify this by saying "the other guy got some money too" is the most asinine justification I think I've heard. That's even worse than the idea of a company being "too big to fail."
And no, if our manufacturing base was actually competitive and showed a desire to change with the times then I may agree with you. However, between UAW (which really makes me laugh when you mention a hard days work related to a union shop) and the management of the companies, the U.S. auto industry has been crap for decades. - inactive, on 04/01/2009, -3/+8"Yeah, I know, all you conservatives out there assume only the private sector can turn things around and that the government is incompetent. I think recent events in the business world have disproved *that* myth."
I disagree. Recent events have proved that there are some (very few, comparatively) crooks with connections who are incompetent. But I see no evidence that the vast majority of executives out there aren't doing the right thing and are more than capable of doing a better job than the government.
A government, I might add, that passed a 780 Billion dollar bill without ***** reading it. - Wetzilla, on 04/01/2009, -6/+11Obama's bailout? about 15% of that 10.5 trillion was since January, which was when Obama took office. But sure, let's blame it all on him.
And that 10.5 trillion number is misleading, we haven't actually spent that much money. Much of that is just in guarantees in order to keep people investing in the market, and probably will never be spent. Also, the FDIC money should not be included in this, as they are totally self funded, they don't take any taxpayer money. - hexydes, on 04/01/2009, -1/+6No, he doesn't. The best thing Congress and the Presidents (both Bush and Obama) could have done is just let all of these bad deals shake out. It would have been rough for 6-12 months, but after all the losers were shaken out of the mix, the real winners would have come out on top, and probably better for it (getting some great deals on investments).
They are simply prolonging this process, for the sake of those behind the scenes that want to spend the US into a slave-debtor's position. -
Show 51 - 100 of 234 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is