What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Much Are You Over-Paying For Your Auto Insurance view!
howlifeworks.com - Car insurance rates have dropped leaving many people paying far more than they need to...
293 Comments
- TheH2OMan, on 12/16/2008, -16/+129Is there something wrong with this? Why should inefficient companies get protection just because they're "American" companies?
- SteelChicken, on 12/16/2008, -15/+84no bailouts. live or die on your merits, not your ability to suck on the governments teat
- oboshoe, on 12/16/2008, -17/+64"Southern auto industry" Well thats a new term.
I swear, people are always trying to find ways to divide us based arbitrary things.
I wonder why they didn't call divide it up into "financial viable auto industry" vs "financial unstable auto industry". I suppose that wouldn't fit their bias. - inactive, on 12/16/2008, -8/+49Hey, it's not my fault that the Big 3 didn't expand their operations and factories to the rest of the U.S. instead of setting up factories in Mexico and Canada. And it is not my fault that the states that the Big 3 are dominant in did not diversify their economies over the past 30 years. Instead they used their lobbyists and the hundreds of millions in political "donations" to get what they wanted and protect them from competition.
- haydukeqc, on 12/16/2008, -24/+59I love these GOP senators! No bailouts, no unions, no way!
- DaDrake, on 12/16/2008, -6/+37How dare these foreign companies provide a better automobile, a more environmentally friendly product, and hundreads of thousands of new jobs.
Damn them.... who do they think they are! - ILoveBoobies, on 12/16/2008, -10/+38Be competitive or die. That's how capitalism works....!!
- rizzo2008, on 12/16/2008, -9/+36except many of the GOP are hypocrites because they supported the Wall Street bailout but not the auto one. The only consistent congressman and senators are those that voted against both.
- kingmanic, on 12/16/2008, -0/+26American only in history. The money goes to their investors which are a very diverse group.
- geekee, on 12/16/2008, -15/+38Good. Why should the taxpayers bailout companies that overpay their workers? If you want the big 3 to survive, buy their cars, don't make me subsidize their cars. Same thing with TARP. That's bs too.
- oboshoe, on 12/16/2008, -9/+32Oh please.
Even the financially unstable "American owned NORTHERN auto industry" is outsourcing jobs and suppliers as fast as they can to foreign sources. They are trying to pull the wool over our eyes that they are worthy of bailout because they are American based, yet a quick look at the parts content on any domestic auto will show how untrue that is.
The fact is, the *ONLY* growth in domestic auto production is coming exclusively from foreign owned manufacturers. - kingmanic, on 12/16/2008, -1/+23"The government is very bad at picking winners but the losers are very good at picking government."
- tman84, on 12/16/2008, -15/+37Damn those Republicans and all those jobs they helped create for Americans, and damn them from keeping Socialist Unions out of the process!!
- inactive, on 12/16/2008, -4/+25http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_Toyota_Repub ...
- Peabdog, on 12/16/2008, -20/+40Once again, I love the tolerance of the left. "Wait, you mean those backwards Southerners are churning out better cars at a lower prices than us brilliant Northerners?! Screw them!"
- Harabeck, on 12/16/2008, -4/+20Berkana, youre not very bright are you? They dont need a bailout, theyre doing much better than the big 3. The foreign companies arent doing anything wrong, theyre actually helping us more than the big 3, who have been moving their facilities out of the country for decades now because they dont have to pay the taxes foreign companies have to pay to bring the goods into the country. So they build their factories here to get around the import tariffs and provide Americans with jobs, instead of moving factories to Canada and Mexico like the Big 3.
- JHW539, on 12/16/2008, -6/+21The "Southern auto industry" already has received about $3.5 billion in subsidies - not loan guarantees, but free government money from the host state just to set up shop. How exactly is that more financially viable than the Big 3, who have not received any such support in decades?
- Harabeck, on 12/16/2008, -3/+17Pfft, the Big 3 are in the process of moving their facilities elsewhere anyway, they arent helping us. Half their factories are in Mexico or Canada now, while the foreign companies are the one giving Americans jobs. The nationality of the founders of a company mean less and less these days. It's truly becoming a global economy where you can't see things as black and white. These days, a subaru is more American made than a ford.
- LostOnion, on 12/16/2008, -2/+15Actually, I think that's exactly what it means. The Southern senators who voted against the bailout are certainly aware that without the bailout the Big 3 may fail, thus enhancing the South's position in the auto industry. That keeps the voters happy and gets the senators reelected. Everybody has an angle to play in this sorry saga one way or the other.
- muckemuck, on 12/16/2008, -7/+20Why should the inefficient government continue to get protection?
Vote them out. - skipdog172, on 12/16/2008, -4/+16lets add you to the list of idiots who think america would stop producing cars if the big 3 didn't get a bailout. i am so tired of hearing this ignorance.
- rizzo2008, on 12/16/2008, -10/+21The UAW needs to die seriously. Well looks like they are going to anyway when GM and Chrysler go into bankruptcy
- inactive, on 12/16/2008, -3/+14If they go bankrupt, then many of the UAW contracts could be made void. UAW is a big Democratic contributor. The Dems don't want one of the biggest fans to be upset. As usual, its all about politics.
- nesagwa, on 12/16/2008, -2/+13Offering subsidies to attract new industry into your state isnt the same thing as bailing out a failing company.
- inactive, on 12/16/2008, -15/+26we have to give the united auto workers union welfare that's why.
- bigtoes, on 12/16/2008, -1/+12Just a couple of years back in Atlanta there was a Ford plant that built the Taurus & a GM plant . Both have been sitting there vacant for a nice long while . Very large , very empty , & still being paid for . The big 3 has as many issues other than labor .
- DaDrake, on 12/16/2008, -1/+11State governments give incentives to ALL corporations willing to build and provide jobs in there state. They don't discriminate between companies as long as they can provide good jobs. And why wouldn't they?
- nesagwa, on 12/16/2008, -0/+10So foreign cars are built in the US and US cars are built in foreign countries.
Its like some creepy bizzaro world! - bpoteat, on 12/16/2008, -4/+13There are drastic differences there. Those subsidies, which as you point out are STATE based, were to lure the car makers to their areas to create jobs and stimulate their economies, NOT just to make sure they survive. As the article points out, those investments have paid off for those areas and then some.
- CylonsOfTheLamb, on 12/16/2008, -0/+9@doctechnical
I'm not gonna tell you your idea is dumb. Hell at least you've given some thought to this instead of the standard knee jerk reaction. I will tell you I see some problems with your plan though.
The big problem with that plan is that the "foreign" automakers here in the U.S. are seperate corporations, and they ARE headquartered here in the U.S., so the tariff thing wouldn't work too well, nor should it. Yes, their parent corporation is located in Tokyo, or Berlin, or someplace outside of the U.S., but Toyota Motor Sales USA is a U.S. corporation, founded in 1957 in California. Yeah, some of the cars they sell on the Toyota lots are imports, about 40%, but the other 60% are manufactured here in the U.S., not Mexico, not Canada.
When Daimler-Benz acquired Chrysler, did Chrysler suddenly become a foreign car? No. The Toyotas being made in the U.S. are just as much an American car as anything coming out of Detroit. Yeah, they ship in a lot of the parts from overseas, but take a look at the parts being manufactured in Mexico and Canada and elsewhere for GM, Ford and Chrysler. The big 3 are doing more than just importing parts though. They've moved a lot of the actual assembly outside of the U.S. Some of those cars being made by the big 3 are more deserving of the "import" classification than the Toyotas and Hondas are.
According to Wikipedia's entry for General Motors Canada, the following GM vehicles are being made in the several assembly plants GM has north of the border.
Buick Allure and Buick LaCrosse
Chevrolet Equinox
Chevrolet Impala
Chevrolet Monte Carlo
Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra
Pontiac Grand Prix
Pontiac Montana SV6
Pontiac Torrent
Should those tariffs apply to these cars? Should these cars be considered American cars, or imports? The 2009 Chevy Camaro is being built in GM's plant in Oshawa, Canada. Another import?
Your idea isn't dumb. But the issue is way too complicated to be solved with a simple solution like that.
- inactive, on 12/16/2008, -4/+13Is this what they meant for "The South will rise again."?
- garryw, on 12/16/2008, -3/+12Who cares, it's their own damn money. They didn't go to DC to get it, so it's not taken from MY taxes.
If Michigan wants to do the same I say go for it guys. - sdwilly, on 12/16/2008, -2/+11You don't think the Big 3 get incentives to have their factories in the various states they do?
- TheShad0w, on 12/16/2008, -5/+14Wrong. The big-three have thrown their weight around toting themselves as the back bone of America. Yet they failed as a business to see the changing trends. They failed to produce a better product that their markets would want. No one out side of the U.S. wants their product. Why should we save them when they failed to save themselves. They've had the exact same opportunities other companies have and they didn't take them. I say screw'em. If they want my help. I want them to file for bankruptcy, get off their pompous self entitled asses and speak with the foreign auto makers and see what they are doing right. Then, reorganize. If all goes well they won't need our help.
- jbella, on 12/16/2008, -0/+8Don't forget to save some of that outrage for the $15.5 million dollars that the CEO of GM made in 2007. When do we start asking corporations if their CEOs are really worth that much money.
- garryw, on 12/16/2008, -2/+10southern state taxes vs federal taxes
huge difference
I pay one but not the other - apackofmonkeys, on 12/16/2008, -0/+8@zip000:
Yes, foreign companies pay much more in taxes and tariffs, another one of the artificial government-imposed "protections" of American companies, who can't make an affordable car because of the ridiculous unions. That's why foreign cars traditionally cost more even though they cost less to make; the government has to handicap them to give American cars a chance. - garryw, on 12/16/2008, -2/+10no good sir, if we reward failure with our tax money then we are BEYOND @#$%&^ as you say and might as well follow communist N. Korea into tree bark eating.
You really think nobody outside detroit produces anything? Have you ever visited another city? - inactive, on 12/16/2008, -3/+11Yeah, they left out the fact that Honda built their first US plant in Marysville, Ohio.
- curtisag, on 12/16/2008, -2/+10Math lesson 101:
3.5 billion < 25 billion
Plus, that was STATE money, not federal money. Let Michigan bail themselves out if they want to throw good money after bad. But don't throw my money at it. - inactive, on 12/16/2008, -8/+16Isn't horrible that Toyota and Honda are here in this country making better cars and employing thousands of Americans. Yeah, that's terrible. Its better to continue to prop up companies that put out a sub par cars, refuse to innovate and pay their workers to stay home and do nothing.
- CylonsOfTheLamb, on 12/16/2008, -1/+9Yeah, pretty much. The last time, the North won because most of the manufacturing facilities in the U.S. were in the North. Now the manufacturing is shifting to the South....get ready.
- rizzo2008, on 12/16/2008, -10/+17I dont get it. Just because GM and Chrysler go into bankruptcy if they dont get bailed out (which they shouldn't) isn't necessarily a bad thing. It means they will downsize, restructure, sell of bad divisions and assets and probably emerge as smaller, leaner, and more competitive car companies that will benefit the US more in the long run.
- reasonyousmile, on 12/16/2008, -0/+7The car, in its most rudimentary gas-guzzling form, was invented simultaneously and independently by both Gottlieb Daimler and Karl Benz. Germans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Benz
Henry Ford was responsible for the assembly line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_ford
and even then:
"Although Henry Ford is often credited with the idea, contemporary sources indicate that the concept and its development came from employees Clarence Avery, Peter E. Martin, Charles E. Sorensen, and C. Harold Wills." - muckemuck, on 12/16/2008, -0/+7.... over 90% of Congress was re-elected. You didn't vote them out.
- aadyss, on 12/16/2008, -1/+8In 2007 GM sold a few more automobiles than Toyota.
GM sales in 2007: 9,370,000 vehicles. GM lost $4,055 per car.
Toyota sales in 2007: 9,366,418 vehicles . Toyota made $1,874 per car.
Now...that is a major problem. If a bailout is issued without addressing this problem, what do you think will be the end result? - datacowboy, on 12/16/2008, -1/+8Where are the consumers for the domestic brands? Seriously, I'm thinking the target demographic is mid 30's to early 40's. Think about what these folks drove as teen drivers. If, like me, their first car was a domestic from the mid 1980's, they probably have a bad view of GM, Ford, and Chrysler. My first car was a domestic. It was of such poor quality that my second car, and every car since then has been either Japanese or German. And a few of the Japanese cars I have owned were built in America. So building a quality car in America is possible. And maybe GM, Ford, and Chrysler build a quality product now. But I would not know. My first car as an early drive was so bad that I don't consider domestics at all. Especially since every "import" I've ever owned has never been a disappointment.
The big three just might have lost a generation of buyers, just as this generation achieves clear financial stability and capability. - DaDrake, on 12/16/2008, -7/+13First --- as far as senators go, that isn't true. You might have noticed that the senate bashed both bills (although, the bailout did eventually pass).
Secondly --- this issue isn't following party lines; MANY democrats against it also.
Thirdly --- Supporting banks (which are ESSENTIAL to any modern economy) is going to be seen differently than supporting any individual industry.
Most republicans ... and democrats.... have been consistent in their voting... and it doesn't always follow party lines. - PennFarmer, on 12/16/2008, -5/+11This is misleading on two counts.
One, the foreign auto manufacturers would prefer that we bail out the big 3. The turmoil that would hit the industry would wash over them as well and hurt their profitability.
Two, most of the Southern senators are conservative and likely oppose the bailout on ideological grounds. Toyota is not in every Southern state and it is not just the Southern senators that oppose it. If it were, this wouldn't be an issue as their numbers are not big enough to stop it by themselves.
It takes 61 to overcome a block. That means that 40 senators have to oppose something. Last time I checked, there were not 20 states in the South, much less Southern with a foreign car company. According to the article there are 8. That only makes 16 senators if they all vote in lockstep, less than half of what is needed. Only three are mentioned by name. Three cannot stop the Senate. Only 40 can. Once more the truth hurts so the MSM ignores it.
This is just a cheap shot at Republicans in general and Southerners in particular. Trying to say that they dance to the strings of Toyota. Does that mean that the Democrats and the Rust Belt ones in particular dance to the tune of the big 3? - beters, on 12/16/2008, -2/+8Uh oh skintigh, looks like you forgot to finish your sentence. I noticed the trailing "..." at the end, so maybe you just got distracted by something shiny, or were going to come back and finish it later. Don't worry though, I'll finish it out for you:
"No unions!" cry the Americans who work 40 hour weeks thanks to unions, who have health insurance thanks to unions, who have breaks and vacation and sick time thanks to unions, who weren't child laborers thanks to unions...and no longer have jobs and are on unemployment due to their companies having to shut down due to the ungodly union demands, such as obscene pensions, free health care, and paying people that don't even work for them, that bled their golden goose dry, causing them to no longer be able to compete in the market they invented. While their competitors have a booming business, and are making tons of profits on the exact same amount of sales, employing many many happy workers thanks to their not having union bloodsuckers to bankrupt them.
There we go, that should straighten that up for you. -
Show 51 - 100 of 297 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is