• musclemecca bodybuilding forums does not sell or endorse any bodybuilding gear, products or supplements.
    Musclemecca has no affiliation with advertisers; they simply purchase advertising space here. If you have questions go to their site and ask them directly.
    Advertisers are responsible for the content in their forums.
    DO NOT SELL ILLEGAL PRODUCTS ON OUR FORUM

$15 Billion auto bailout coming

Ironslave

Ironslave

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
4,608
Points
38







WASHINGTON (AP) - Congressional Democrats and the White House worked to resolve their last disputes Monday over terms of a $15 billion bailout for U.S. auto makers - complete with a ``car czar'' to oversee the industry's reinvention of itself - that's expected to come to a vote as early as Wednesday.

Top Democrats gave the White House their proposal for rushing short-term loans to Detroit's Big Three through a plan that requires that the industry remake itself in order to survive. The Bush administration gave a cool initial response, saying the measure didn't do enough to ensure that only viable companies would get longer-term federal help. Negotiators worked into the night Monday to resolve differences.

``We've made a lot of progress in recent days to develop legislation to help automakers restructure and achieve long-term viability,'' Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, said in a statement. ``We'll continue to work with members on both sides of the aisle to achieve legislation that protects the good faith investment by taxpayers.''

President George W. Bush himself said it was ``hard to tell'' if a deal was imminent because definite conditions had to be met. ``These are important companies, but on the other hand, we just don't want to put good money after bad,'' he said in an interview with ABC's ``Nightline.''

Despite optimism on both sides that Congress and the White House could reach a swift agreement on the measure, it was still a tough sell on Capitol Hill.

``While we take no satisfaction in loaning taxpayer money to these companies, we know it must be done,'' said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. ``This is no blank check or blind hope.''

The bill puts a government overseer named by Bush - a kind of ``car czar'' - in charge of setting guidelines for an industrywide overhaul, with the power to revoke the loans if the carmakers weren't taking sufficient steps to reinvent themselves.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the restructuring would require tough concessions from management, labor, creditors and others.

``We call this the barbershop. Everybody's getting a haircut here,'' Pelosi said.

Still, the White House said a preliminary look at the draft didn't appear to contain strict enough conditions to ensure that long-term financing would be available only to companies that could survive, according to officials who would comment on the continuing negotiations only on condition of anonymity.

The crux of the White House's concern is that there may not be enough clear, immediate protection for taxpayers if a company is not meeting its own promises for long-term viability after review by the president's overseer. The latest proposal suggests Congress may have to get involved again in a few months and pass a law to force a company to stick to its own plan - a potentially unwieldy political step.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the House Financial Services Committee chairman who is leading negotiations on the measure, said he was optimistic that the differences could be resolved.

``There are a couple of specific issues to be negotiated. I think they can be worked out,'' Frank said Monday afternoon.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., a key ally of the auto industry, said getting the roughly 15 Republicans needed to support the plan was an uphill battle.

``This is a real hill to climb even if we can get agreement between the White House and congressional leaders,'' he said.

Even sympathetic Republicans weren't ready to sign on. Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, has ``numerous concerns'' about the bill, including the strength of the taxpayer protections and the role of the so-called car czar, said spokesman Chris Paulitz.

There are lingering differences between the administration and Congress on details of the czar's role and responsibilities, essentially a proxy fight between the White House and Democrats over whether Bush or President-elect Barack Obama should have the final say on who runs the auto industry restructuring.

Democrats are pressing to allow the president to choose other people beside the czar to help oversee the bailout, while the White House wants just one person tapped by Bush to have control.

Congress Republicans and the White House also are balking at a requirement Democrats included in their proposal that the carmakers drop their opposition to efforts by California and several other states to impose stricter emissions rules than the federal standard.

Pelosi is seeking that bar at the behest of environmentalists who are angry that money to bail out the auto industry will be drawn from an existing loan program that was meant to help the Big Three build greener vehicles that burn less gasoline.

That's just one of several restrictions the bill places on the automakers while they're receiving the loans.

Among the requirements included in Democrats' draft proposal is one that the carmakers getting federal help get rid of their corporate jets - which became a potent symbol of the industry's ineptitude when the Big Three CEOs used them for their initial trips to Washington to plead before Congress for government aid.

The automakers also would be subject to some of the same restrictions imposed on banks as part of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, including limits on executive compensation, a prohibition on paying dividends, and requirements that the government share in future profits and taxpayers be repaid before any other shareholders.

The special inspector general overseeing the Wall Street rescue also would keep tabs on the carmaker bailout. The Senate on Monday confirmed Neil M. Barofsky, a federal prosecutor in New York, for that post.

The proposed automakers' bailout also gives the car czar say-so over any major business decisions by the companies while they're taking advantage of federal aid. The companies would have to open their books to the government, including informing the overseer of any transaction of $25 million or more.

Under the plan, the carmakers' could get emergency loans right away. Then the overseer would write guidelines, due on the first of the year, for restructuring the Big Three.

In testimony before Congress last week, General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, which have said they are weeks from collapse, made it clear they would need a total of $14 billion to $15 billion to survive through early 2009. Ford Motor Co. has said it has enough money to stay afloat unless one of the other Big Three goes under or the economy deteriorates more sharply.

While the measure would put an administration official selected by Bush in charge of setting terms for restructuring, the decision about whether the terms were being met would not be made until Obama had been sworn in. Some Democrats were pushing to name Kenneth Feinberg, the lawyer who oversaw the federal Sept. 11 victims' compensation fund, to the post, but top congressional officials said there had been no discussion of that.

In the latest gauge of public opinion, people were split about evenly over providing federal money to keep the car companies functioning.

Forty-five percent approved and 44 percent were opposed, according to a CBS News poll released Monday. Nearly six in 10 Democrats favored the aid, while nearly the same share of Republicans opposed it.

About seven in 10 said the government should have a say in managing the companies if taxpayers provide assistance, and nearly as many said requiring more alternative fuel vehicles should be a condition of such aid. Fifty-six percent blamed management for the companies' problems, double the number who blamed uncontrollable economic problems.
 
Duality

Duality

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
3,439
Points
38
one of them is going to die. and it is likely going to be chrysler. ford and gm have the engineers to make the cars to compete with their foreign competition, they just don't have the money. chyslers reportedly has neither the money nor the engineers and is the weakest of the big 3.
 
Ironslave

Ironslave

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
4,608
Points
38
They're all probably (hopefully) going to go under.
 
Duality

Duality

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
3,439
Points
38
kinda sad to say i hope they will too. but when i say i hope they will, i mean, i hope the Gov doesn't go through with this, which would would mean thier demise. but lets not kid ourselves, does anyone really think those factories and all the assets these companies have would be left to collect dust? someone would take over, and hopefully someone who can run them better than their predecessors. so even though they would fail, they wouldn't disappear
 
Ironslave

Ironslave

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
4,608
Points
38
kinda sad to say i hope they will too. but when i say i hope they will, i mean, i hope the Gov doesn't go through with this, which would would mean thier demise. but lets not kid ourselves, does anyone really think those factories and all the assets these companies have would be left to collect dust? someone would take over, and hopefully someone who can run them better than their predecessors. so even though they would fail, they wouldn't disappear

... i just repped you, never thought I'd see the day. santawhat
 
Braaq

Braaq

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
6,569
Points
38
Although I am not for government bailouts, letting them fall would result in millions of job losses with an even larger economic backlash. But with this bailout they need to prove that they should deserve it by creating cars that can compete with foreign competitors and are gas efficient and long lasting.

Duality, Chrysler does have engineers after they bought out Mercedes. That is when you saw the overhaul of Chrysler models to what they look like now, but that also started a decline in Mercedes.

I hope they survive this, but get their "shit in gear" and come out as better companies with a better product. We use to be ahead of the curve with automobiles.. now we are struggling to catch up. It would be great to be able to compete on the world market again with our automobile industry.
 
Braaq

Braaq

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
6,569
Points
38
kinda sad to say i hope they will too. but when i say i hope they will, i mean, i hope the Gov doesn't go through with this, which would would mean thier demise. but lets not kid ourselves, does anyone really think those factories and all the assets these companies have would be left to collect dust? someone would take over, and hopefully someone who can run them better than their predecessors. so even though they would fail, they wouldn't disappear

If that is a possibility then it could help curb the potential job losses and economic backlash expected if they fall. The question is... who would take on this huge investment?
 
Duality

Duality

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
3,439
Points
38
If that is a possibility then it could help curb the potential job losses and economic backlash expected if they fall. The question is... who would take on this huge investment?

that's a question no one but the future knows. but it is highly highly unlikely someone (anyone?) will not be willing to take the risk and run things differently. but there was a thread back where it put how many people these companies actually employ in perspective, did you know abercrombie and fitch employs more people than ford. wtf?!? do you think anyone would even scoff at the notion to bail them out? hell no. it's peoples' nostalgia getting in the way to not want to see these age old american companies go that is IMO causing people to back them so.


Originally posted by Ironslave
... i just repped you, never thought I'd see the day.

thank goodness i'm finally getting through to you :xmaskekegay:
next up.....Line :spy:
 
Braaq

Braaq

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
6,569
Points
38
that's a question no one but the future knows. but it is highly highly unlikely someone (anyone?) will not be willing to take the risk and run things differently. but there was a thread back where it put how many people these companies actually employ in perspective, did you know abercrombie and fitch employs more people than ford. wtf?!? do you think anyone would even scoff at the notion to bail them out? hell no. it's peoples' nostalgia getting in the way to not want to see these age old american companies go that is imo causing people to back them so.

They are not just worried about the people Ford, GM and Chrysler employ directly it is the billions they spend on parts from other companies. Those companies rely on the big 3, with them gone those are surely to go under. That is where they got the large number of possible and likely unemployment numbers if they go under.
I had no idea that A & F had more employees than Ford, that is hilarious, but I can see that since the one story I worked at had 100 employees who worked once a month for a discount.
 
skindnef

skindnef

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Oct 23, 2008
Messages
494
Points
16
I wonder if there was a poll on the Mecca, How many people actual drive American cars/trucks? Saw this coming years ago, as Toyota kept developing more efficient vehicles at a better price point. The big 3 dropped the ball IMO, poor innovation and keeping smaller more economical vehicles out of the US. For instance the Ford Ka. Big oil in the White house has been a supporter of less innovation, I mean just look at Oil's record profits. The smart car gets 60-80 MTG in Europe, the ones they sell here get 30-50. The only way for any of the big 3 to succeed would be to change the game. A car that costs less than 8k, that gets 50 or better MPG & looks cool/fun to drive or is all electric. You know Arnold was great once too, but he would look pretty out of place next to Heath, Wolf, Cutler etc... now. The Big 3 either will adapt or die. The old paradigmn has crumbled away, times have changed, change with them or be left in the dust.
 

MuscleMecca Crew

Mecca Staff
Daniel Andersson

Daniel Andersson

Mecca Mod (not)
VIP
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
8,226
Points
38
The only american brand I see working good here in sweden is Ford. Sure there are Chryslers but thats not very common to see at all.

Its all Fiestas and Focus if I see any cars from america. I have seen one or two 300C as a taxi and some fool with a thing for big thirsty cars too.
Thats just nuts in a county were you pay almost $6 per gallon and for that you might go 30km...Dodge are also trying here in sweden...I dont really see how they (Dodge) can make such a horried cars as Nitro. Critics has called the Nitro for a "Wooden shed with wheels.

I think Ford, GM and Chrysler will die if they dont start to do cars that are appealing to more then the american market, as I said before Ford does that, they can make smaller cars without a V8..that might save them.

You wont find much GM cars around here except for Saab, and Chryslers are only bought by people that needs to prove that they think they are better then others.

If you look at the swedish roads today its mostly : Volvo, Saab, german cars and Japanese cars..probably mostly Japanese car after Volvo and Saab...The american companys need to mimic these companys more.

That being said, I hope Volvo and Saab survive this crisis, Im not so sure about GM and Chrysler though
 
TJ

TJ

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
1,455
Points
38
They're all probably (hopefully) going to go under.

I hope they do, too.

As far as these companies going under and the jobs lost I disagree. Yes, in the short term jobs will be lost but the demand for vehicles, parts, workers, etc will still be there. So, I think the workers would still find secure jobs in the long run.
 
Ironslave

Ironslave

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
4,608
Points
38
I hope they do, too.

As far as these companies going under and the jobs lost I disagree. Yes, in the short term jobs will be lost but the demand for vehicles, parts, workers, etc will still be there. So, I think the workers would still find secure jobs in the long run.

Yep, that's pretty much what Duality said.

.... I wonder if Braaq or someone hx0red his account?
 
Tech

Tech

Ron Paul FTW
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
10,333
Points
38
bigthree-1.jpg
 
R

Ryeland

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
491
Points
16
They're all probably (hopefully) going to go under.

Usually you have great arguments, but this one is unfounded. There is a lot more to the financial situation of the Big 3 than mismanagement.

The automotive trade agreements between the US and Asia are appalling. It is almost impossible for North America to compete. When the Asian companies can sell their cars here with no huge taxation and tariffs but we can't do the same over there. It's not even close to a level playing field.

The CAW and UAW have held these companies hostage for years. This is not unfounded union hate I am spewing, I worked in one of Ford's Cylinder Head Casting Plants. I personally witnessed a worker do a line of coke off of a cylinder head while on his shift. Due to union protections he was unable to be fired. I saw many people smoking joints, getting drunk, and sleeping for hours a day on the job, and the company has no way to discipline them. The union protected them.

Why don't toyota and honda have union problems, because everytime the employee's try to organize them the company will either fire them all or move out of town till the union dies off.

Don't get me wrong the union did some great work in terms of safety, and I knew some great union workers who went above and beyond, but when you support the people that just take from a company it hurts everyone.

Ford has dozens of cars in europe that we never see over here, but because of our stupid emissions laws they can't import em. The european diesel ford fiesta gets 73mpg.

These companies dying would not be a good thing for the car industry. We are talking about 3 of the most innovative companies on the planet. Honda and Toyota have nothing on the creations of the North American auto companies. Entire segments of vehicles did not exist until these companies made them, the pick up truck, the suv, the jeep, the station wagon. The moving assembly line was an invention of Henry Ford.

No, Toyota and Honda do not simply produce better product. They market it better no doubt, but their truck's suck compared to Dodge, GM and Ford. Toyota's quality has started to suffer since they started manufacturing on the scale of Ford and GM.

The loss of Ford, GM and Chrysler is not the result of poor management, it is the result of years of poor governance and greedy unions. The reason Ford, GM and Chrysler are in such big trouble is the fact that they are so heavily invested in North America, so when our stock market took a massive hit so did they.

They will not all survive, Chrysler I doubt will make it. But hoping they fail is just stupid. If we lose these 3 the automotive market and us as customers will suffer.
 
Ironslave

Ironslave

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
4,608
Points
38
Usually you have great arguments, but this one is unfounded. There is a lot more to the financial situation of the Big 3 than mismanagement.

The automotive trade agreements between the US and Asia are appalling. It is almost impossible for North America to compete. When the Asian companies can sell their cars here with no huge taxation and tariffs but we can't do the same over there. It's not even close to a level playing field.

The CAW and UAW have held these companies hostage for years. This is not unfounded union hate I am spewing, I worked in one of Ford's Cylinder Head Casting Plants. I personally witnessed a worker do a line of coke off of a cylinder head while on his shift. Due to union protections he was unable to be fired. I saw many people smoking joints, getting drunk, and sleeping for hours a day on the job, and the company has no way to discipline them. The union protected them.

Why don't toyota and honda have union problems, because everytime the employee's try to organize them the company will either fire them all or move out of town till the union dies off.

Don't get me wrong the union did some great work in terms of safety, and I knew some great union workers who went above and beyond, but when you support the people that just take from a company it hurts everyone.

Ford has dozens of cars in europe that we never see over here, but because of our stupid emissions laws they can't import em. The european diesel ford fiesta gets 73mpg.

These companies dying would not be a good thing for the car industry. We are talking about 3 of the most innovative companies on the planet. Honda and Toyota have nothing on the creations of the North American auto companies. Entire segments of vehicles did not exist until these companies made them, the pick up truck, the suv, the jeep, the station wagon. The moving assembly line was an invention of Henry Ford.

No, Toyota and Honda do not simply produce better product. They market it better no doubt, but their truck's suck compared to Dodge, GM and Ford. Toyota's quality has started to suffer since they started manufacturing on the scale of Ford and GM.

The loss of Ford, GM and Chrysler is not the result of poor management, it is the result of years of poor governance and greedy unions. The reason Ford, GM and Chrysler are in such big trouble is the fact that they are so heavily invested in North America, so when our stock market took a massive hit so did they.

They will not all survive, Chrysler I doubt will make it. But hoping they fail is just stupid. If we lose these 3 the automotive market and us as customers will suffer.

I don't wish failure on them, so much as I don't wish that taxpayers have to fork over their hard earned money for it.
 
Braaq

Braaq

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
6,569
Points
38
Usually you have great arguments, but this one is unfounded. There is a lot more to the financial situation of the Big 3 than mismanagement.

The automotive trade agreements between the US and Asia are appalling. It is almost impossible for North America to compete. When the Asian companies can sell their cars here with no huge taxation and tariffs but we can't do the same over there. It's not even close to a level playing field.

The CAW and UAW have held these companies hostage for years. This is not unfounded union hate I am spewing, I worked in one of Ford's Cylinder Head Casting Plants. I personally witnessed a worker do a line of coke off of a cylinder head while on his shift. Due to union protections he was unable to be fired. I saw many people smoking joints, getting drunk, and sleeping for hours a day on the job, and the company has no way to discipline them. The union protected them.

Why don't toyota and honda have union problems, because everytime the employee's try to organize them the company will either fire them all or move out of town till the union dies off.

Don't get me wrong the union did some great work in terms of safety, and I knew some great union workers who went above and beyond, but when you support the people that just take from a company it hurts everyone.

Ford has dozens of cars in europe that we never see over here, but because of our stupid emissions laws they can't import em. The european diesel ford fiesta gets 73mpg.

These companies dying would not be a good thing for the car industry. We are talking about 3 of the most innovative companies on the planet. Honda and Toyota have nothing on the creations of the North American auto companies. Entire segments of vehicles did not exist until these companies made them, the pick up truck, the suv, the jeep, the station wagon. The moving assembly line was an invention of Henry Ford.

No, Toyota and Honda do not simply produce better product. They market it better no doubt, but their truck's suck compared to Dodge, GM and Ford. Toyota's quality has started to suffer since they started manufacturing on the scale of Ford and GM.

The loss of Ford, GM and Chrysler is not the result of poor management, it is the result of years of poor governance and greedy unions. The reason Ford, GM and Chrysler are in such big trouble is the fact that they are so heavily invested in North America, so when our stock market took a massive hit so did they.

They will not all survive, Chrysler I doubt will make it. But hoping they fail is just stupid. If we lose these 3 the automotive market and us as customers will suffer.

Wow, couldn't have said it myself. That was very well put bro :xyxthumbs: repped
 
GetSize

GetSize

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2006
Messages
126
Points
16
``While we take no satisfaction in loaning taxpayer money to these companies, we know it must be done,'' said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. ``This is no blank check or blind hope.''

We'll see how much of this "loaned" money I'm going to see back.
 
Top