I think taxpayer bailouts of big companies are bullshit, even for the car companies

[mtnsnake]

Why enable companies who have gotten it wrong for decades to continue getting it wrong for a few more months? Enabling them to survive by giving them a handout will not solve anything.

IMO, these bailouts are just an excuse for CEO's to continue getting their obscene salaries and bonuses, and they're also an excuse for owners to be able to pay their employees salaries and hourly wages....wages that are possibly a little out of line, too, thanks to the unions who have gotten just a little bit overzealous over the years themselves.

Bailouts schmailouts. The only way to solve the problem over the long haul is to let nature take its course. If the Big 3 can't make it without receiving a monumental handout from the taxpayers, then so be it. Maybe they should just restructure a little bit on their own so they can make it on their own. By restructuring, I mean accepting the reality that their CEO's are getting to much money and their workers might have to be satisfied with taking slight pay cuts in the future if that's what it takes to save their own livelihoods. I'm sure most of the autoworkers could easily survive on making $25/hour plus healthcare and their awesome pensions as opposed to $28/hour plus healthcare and their pensions. Better to have a good job, making a small amount less, than no job at all, right?

[Cirque du So-What]

1. I'd like to see some basis for these economic assumptions

Something more substantial than mere opinion.

[mtnsnake]

5. You won't find what you're looking for anywhere

because if there was "something more than subtantial than mere opinion", they'd know how to solve the problem by now. All anyone has to offer on this IS opinion, even the lawmakers who all admit they can't project what's gonna happen 3 months from now.

[HereSince1628]

2. yes, Yes, YES!!! Revenge on the fuck-ups and TOO TOUGH for the innocent.

Seems to me that much of the debate over the automaker bailout seems to be based on mythic beliefs.

An important myth behind this argument is that the fuckups in Detroit and Lansing should be punished--how exactly does putting a million people out of work punish the fuck-ups?

Seems to me that there is a lot of willingness to overlook the collateral damage of that punishment.

What sort of fucked up Democrat would prefer to see kids on the welfare rolls rather than being cared for by parents with jobs?

[mtnsnake]

6. Your drama shows me several things

1 You either didn't take time to read the entire post or

2 You can't read

My post was about saving jobs, not losing a single job or putting a million people out of work. Nice try, Drama Meister!

[Windy]

3. Come to Michigan before you speak. You have no basis in fact to speak about.

And if the auto industry fails, what has happened in michigan will happen in other states.

[MichiganVote]

26. Amen to that.

[elocs]

4. Yes, let nature take its course.

One of this country's major political parties is in total agreement with that.

[mtnsnake]

11. Yes, let it. If that makes me just like a Republican in your eyes, well woopie do for you

There are a great many Democrats in this country who do not agree with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid on this bailout either. I'm one of them.

[elocs]

13. Well, I'll just ignore you then. As far as I'm concerned you're not worth reading. n/t

[Cirque du So-What]

15. You got that right

Not in my wildest dreams did I expect to hear a supposed 'democrat' calling for any worker's wages to be reduced. Fucking travesty that deserves my first use of the 'ignore' feature.

[mtnsnake]

17. Oh now that is just crushing news

lmao

[Lerrad]

52. I'm one of them as well. n/t

[sampsonblk]

7. K & R for independent thought!

I disagree with your point, but there is far too much group-think going on. We are Democrats and we ought to think for ourselves. Good on you

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. True, but the independent thoughts should also be intelligent thoughts.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[doc03]

8. We had people make your same argument in

the steel industry years ago "a half a loaf is better than none at all" is one of the ones we heard. Once we started agreeing to concessions they came back again, and again and again until we finally had our pensions dumped on the PBGC and all our retirees lost their health insurance. The UAW gave into a two tier wage system just last year I believe, that's where new hires start out at a lower wage rate than the senior employees. I don't think $28 an hour or less than $60000 a year is exactly a extravagant wage today. Do you think a retired UAW worker should lose his pension and health insurance? The transplants haven't been here long enough to have much legacy costs like pensions and retiree health insurance is that being fair to our industry. Oh and if you take their pensions and the PBGC picks them up you will be obligated to bailout the PBGC to the tune of $150 billion and someone is going to have to pay for their health care too.

[snooper2]

74. Umm..

"The UAW gave into a two tier wage system just last year I believe, that's where new hires start out at a lower wage rate than the senior employees."

Why is this a bad thing?

[doc03]

76. What's bad about that? That's why we have Unions

equal work for equal pay. If an employee with 1 year is doing just as good a job as I am with 30 years on the same job why should he be paid less? The older employee has seinority to move to higher paying job if wants. Just because a person has more time on a job doesn't necessarily mean he should be paid more. We have a man that works my job with 35 years service and it's only by pure luck and help from us others that he gets by without being disqualified. Now I don't know if the younger employee is locked into the lower wage for life or not at the UAW. Some places like Kroger Stores they have 3 pay scales and they are permanently locked in at the lower rate while an older employee doing the same job is making twice as much doing exactly the same thing.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. Oh, brother, you really don't get it...

By "restructuring" I assume you mean traditional bankruptcy. GM et al. would file under Chapter 11, they come up with a business plan that's approved by a bankruptcy court, everybody takes "slight" pay cuts and eventually, maybe 18 months later, everything is all better.

Except it won't work that way. First: Chapter 11 requires money -- a lot of it. You can't go into Ch. 11 without Debtor In Possession financing. And the car makers, especially GM, are not going to be able to get that kind of money because credit sources have dried up. DIP financing has unfavorable interest rates in good times; it would be unavailable now. If you can't get DIP financing, which gives you enough operating capital to stay in business while reorganizing, you have to go into Chapter 7, which is liquidation. The result of liquidation, of course, is no jobs for anybody.

The other effect of bankruptcy, whether reorganization or liquidation, is that your creditors get paid little or nothing. So all those parts and materials suppliers who are owed millions of dollars would be stiffed, and their workers would get screwed, too.

And even assuming GM could manage a Chapter 11 reorganization, the result would not be "slight" pay cuts for the workers. The result would be the voiding of all union contracts, huge pay cuts and layoffs. As a survivor of an airline bankruptcy I know what I'm talking about (and the airlines that reorganized were in MUCH better shape than GM to start out with). Some employee groups took 40-50% pay cuts and lost their pensions. It was really ugly.

And it would be much, much uglier for the car makers, their employees, their suppliers, their customers, and the cities and towns that depend on all those business. It wouldn't be just a little haircut; it would be a bloodbath. Traditional reorganization is simply not possible in this situation. Either they get government help (and it's not a "bailout," it's a loan) or they liquidate. No jobs. No pensions. A real kick in the groin for everybody, including the rest of us.

[mtnsnake]

10. The only person talking about bankruptycy is YOU

...not me.

Your assumptions only prove how much YOU don't really get it.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. OK, if not bankruptcy, then what?

The only way an insolvent company can restructure is through the bankruptcy process or through government assistance. If you have some other suggestions I'd like to hear them.

BTW, labor costs comprise only about 10% of the cost of a new car. Do you seriously think that cutting wages from $28 to $24 an hour is going to restore GM to solvency?

[mtnsnake]

16. You don't HAVE to go bankrupt to restructure how you operate

My suggestion was just one example of what it might take to keep our 3 big automakers alive without losing any jobs. It's called self sacrifice without going bankrupt. Get the CEO's and the union together to discuss whatever changes it will take to AVOID going bankrupt, such as sacrificing some wages if that's what it takes to insure a future job for everyone.

I have to restrucure my own small business all the time, especially in these hard times, and the thought of bankruptcy has never entered into the picture. I just have to do with a little less for a while.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

21. "Doing with a little less for a little while" will not fix GM.

A small business that doesn't have publicly traded stock and millions of dollars of debt can do that. You can "restructure" Joe's Bait & Tackle without going into bankruptcy; Joe raises the price of nightcrawlers by a dime, stops serving free coffee, and cuts back the hours of his minimum wage bookkeeper. Joe isn't GM.

[madmom]

23. The union has agreed to go back to the table but only if everybody else does

too, so far nobody else will. So what does that tell you?

[mtnsnake]

25. That's smart

So what does that tell you?

It tells me that the union realizes that to get through these tough times everyone is going to have to make a sacrifice if they want to keep their jobs. It also tells me that the greediest people at the top need to be replaced, period, because they deserve no help whatsoever if they're not willing to compromise their own self interests a little.

[madmom]

33. UAW has made consessions in the last 2 contracts,

why should they have to do more when the others are not even willing to meet?

[Lerrad]

53. So if they get this "bailout," (loan) do you honestly think...

... that they will be able to pay it back?

What happens to all the cars that they manufacture?

Who is going to buy them when all auto plants are cutting back, including Toyota and Honda?

So how long will it be before the big three need another loan to keep above water?

This country is in deep trouble, and things are going to get MUCH worse before they get better, with or without a bailout.

[KakistocracyHater]

57. no bailout, Detroit='failed city'

So you went thru the airlines bankrupt, I thought they got a 'bailout', after Sept 2001? I also thought they got a gov bailout 1st in the 80s, then 2nd in the 90s, then another in the double 0s.

I think the airlines need the railroads to come back, they are arrogant & nasty-I saw that show about airline workers. Competition keeps wages higher when it's among corporations, when competition is among workers it's a race to the bottom, where quality of life is concerned. That's all they mean when they talk about 'staying competitive', they mean lowering American workers' wages & benefits to 'compete' with Chinese & other nations' work-forces.

How would that look if we apply the same 'medicine' to our military?

[mopinko]

18. the wage line- it's not that the uaw has gotten out in front

it is that the guys behind them have gotten screwed. people in construction are making a few pennies more than when i was in it 30 years ago. they are all just glad to still have insurance.
instead of thinking they should be cut, we should be thinking that the rest should be raised. that is the real trouble with our economy- more and more people making less and less money.

you want some economic stimulus- RAISE THE FUCKING MINIMUM WAGE!!

[mtnsnake]

20. I couldn't agree more with your last sentence

you want some economic stimulus- RAISE THE FUCKING MINIMUM WAGE!!

Amen to that a hundred times over.

Everyone is so worried about people who might have to make a little less than the $28 per hour they've been making, even though they get health care and great pensions, yet nobody seems to be concerned about the people who are only making minimum wage or a little above that. Those are the people who should be getting help, not just the ones who are making 4 times what the poor people are making, not including benefits they get besides.

[last1standing]

22. You're better at the humor posts, mtn.

The problem with your OP is that you don't seem to understand some of the basics involved here.

First, you suggest the auto companies "restructure" but don't explain how they can do this with no capital or credit to make these changes. It would take money to restructure as I'm sure you're aware. In the case of a company the size of GM it would take billions to do so.

Second, you suggest that everyone take "slight pay cuts in the future" but you don't mention that the UAW's contracts from just last year do exactly that. New employees now come in at $14.00/hour, much less than competitors at Honda and Toyota. How much lower than $14.00/hour would you have them go, mtn?

And third, you talk about their "healthcare and their awesome pensions" not realizing that the new contracts also move much of this burden off of GM and onto the union, itself. New hires don't even get much, if any, pension and their healthcare is much less "awesome" than it was just a few years ago.

What we really need is far less extremist ideology that doesn't take the lives of millions of workers into account. Unfortunately, that is exactly what you have provided for us, mtn, just more ideology devoid of empathy.

[DeadManInc]

24. He runs his mouth about the unions, and he has no

idea what they have already given up.

[MichiganVote]

27. That's a great analysis...for a 3rd grader.

A lousy job with poor pay and no benefits, btw, is servitude, not employment. Its what this country used to do before unions acted to civilize the workplace. Its what employers used to do with child labor, before citizens worked their asses off to change that.

A good job in a country as wealthy as ours can afford to pay the auto workers....

[mtnsnake]

28. $25/hr plus healthcare & a good pension is a "lousy job with poor pay and no benefits"?

On what fucking planet do you reside?

And before you make another idiotic comment that's even more foolish than your previous one, read my OP over again, this time more slowly so you can read where I suggested nothing other than the workers POSSIBLY considering a pay cut from $28/hr to $25 per hour if it meant saving their jobs PLUS keeping all their benefits they have now.

[MichiganVote]

32. You have deliberately misled yourself about my comments. Your problem, not mine.

Like I said, 3rd grade logic friend.

[mtnsnake]

36. You are simply lying. n/t

[MichiganVote]

37. LOL!! Must be having a bad day. Good luck with that logic thing!! Bye, Bye!

[WinkyDink]

29. I just wish they had saved Bethlehem Steel. They actually made stuff to make other stuff.

[Unsane]

31. fuck you

fucking anti-union asshole

[MichiganVote]

34. Sometimes its like a tonic that phrase. :) Meaning, your right on target.

[mtnsnake]

35. Oh boy, we've got a keyboard warrior here

who would NEVER accuse someone in real life as what you did here on some anonymous message board. Fucking coward.

[CrackHound]

38. bailouts are for losers

why bailout the losers? why not just give the money to new companies that are doing well. the auto industry cant compete because they gave the store away to the unions years ago. hell not the unions fault, they took all they could get. you cant give pensions and health care benefits for life. people come and work for twenty years, retire and get stuff forever how crazy is that. the management screwed it up long ago. they will never be able to compete again. time for new car company's, if they cant adapt they should die. minimum wage is for teenagers...my son has two minimum wage jobs (16) lives at home and is doing real well. kid is gonna be business owner someday and do real well. Twicw as smart as the people running the place.

Why do union guys always sink into name calling vs offering solutions.
if the union is so smart, why don't the union bosses start their own car company?

first post, thanks for having a newbie.

[last1standing]

42. Wouldn't 'CrackTroll' be a better name?

Maybe if you ask Skinner real nice, he'll change it for you before the tombstone's ready. :shrug:

[Flatulo]

39. I for one would like to see any bailout money come with the conditions

that the entire management compensation plan be brought in line with the foreign competitors. The GM CEO makes 14X what the Toyota CEO makes.

Everyone seems obsessed with the UAW wages, but there are layers upon layers of managers who need to feel the pinch as well.

American management has had an entitlement mentality for decades now. There is no fuckup large enough to merit forfeit of the bonuses.

In Japan, at least they have the decency to kill themselves when they send a company into the ditch.

[quaker bill]

40. Only if we are very skilled and lucky

will nature not take its course. Conservatives argue for the free hand of the market and allowing the chips to fall where they may.

Of course, Nicaraqua is one place where they had their way (by force). Women and children live at the landfill in shelters constructed of blue tarps and scrap building materials where they market their services to men to feed the kids. Public schools were shut down for a lack of tax revenue (until they re-elected Daniel Ortega)

The market will indeed eventually sort things out, the problem is where you end up and how long you stay there. Free markets, despite all notions to the contrary, do not always produce desirable results. Sometimes they produce a very durable poverty.

[CrackHound]

41. better business will replace the failed

people will still buy cars if the big three go under. maybe we need a new big three. if the workers at these plants decided they could build a car why not start their own plant and build one. there will be a lot of plant and equipment for sale for cheap. put up a sign that reads no management needed! no bonuses given! we have a lot of talented people in this country. If there is demand there will be someone supplying. if people move from detroit to milwaukee or atlanta so be it. this failure presents alot of opportunities for someone else to succeed. those are the people who should get the bailout money or shall we say opportunity money.

[quaker bill]

48. One could attempt to

look at this in isolation. In the abstract, and looked at in isolation from the rest of reality, the failure of a poorly run business can be a good thing. Businesses fail everyday.

It is alot like evolution. In evolution "survival of the fittest" has a corollary, specifically, "extinction of the less fit". The fact that the less fit go extinct opens a niche in which a new species may thrive. So why the concern that so many species are currently on the verge of extinction? Perhaps this is just opening new niches.

The problem lies in the rate of extinction, and that it vastly exceeds the rate at which new species can arise to fill the niche. Also the "less fit" today are those not quick enough or adaptive enough to survive pesticides, bulldozers, and living in urbanized environments. In short, the rate of extinction lies outside of natural evolutionary selective forces. Beyond this, food webs are being broken, this results in extinctions beyond mere direct cause and effect, in short an ecological "collateral damage".

In business, times like these can be much the same. Changes we may yet experience can be permanent or very enduring. There is no reason to believe that a domestic auto industry will arise to replace this one. The domestic TV manufacture industry died. We still buy plenty of TV sets, but no one here makes them anymore. There is absolutely no reason for confidence that once these jobs are terminated that they will arise here ever again. Recent history clearly indicates that one industry after another has moved off shore over the last thirty years, and none have come back.

They will perhaps come back some day, but likely only when our standard of living has fallen enough for us to qualify as a "cheap labor" market. If you have not noticed, the living conditions of a third world country are the living conditions of a cheap labor market.

Notions that we can "train our way out" of this are easily refuted. Just read Freerepulic and imagine what it would take to make rocket scientists and biochemists of them. It is never going to happen. One only needs remember that by definition, one half of the population has lower than the median IQ. (Don't argue with this, it is a mathematical identity) Manufacturing is a means that many of these folks can make a decent living. We need to have this sort of job in the economic mix. It will be vastly cheaper to prop the big 3 up than it will be to clean up the damage of their failure.

[mtnsnake]

49. Crackhound is gone. I hope he wasn't banned for what he said in his 2 & only posts

ever on this forum. Yikes.

[Sebastian Doyle]

69. I'm taking a guess that he was banned because he was a right wing freeping bastard

who sounded like he just crawled out of Ayn Rand's rotting crotch :shrug:

[Undercurrent]

43. The idea that ordinary citizens

through no fault of their own, in this case the auto workers, should suffer at the hands of unregulated big business, and a lazy government is rejected by the classic principles of the Democratic party. I support those principles, and reject your short sighted thinking.

So, before you jump on that horse, you might want to read up on laissez-faire capitalism, and decide if that is a workable economic idea. Especially information on the Austrian School. (Wiki has a pretty good article on laissez-faire - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire ). Also check out the writings of von Hayek, Friedman, Ayn Rand, von Mises, and Ron Paul to see the ideas of laissez-faire capitalism explored and fleshed out.

[mtnsnake]

44. You're doing the same exact thing as a couple other posters here did

You're interpreting my post as being 100% anti-union, anti-people, and anything else anti that fits your own narrow-minded scope of how the country should be run.....when all I suggested as far as the workers was that they might consider a slight pay cut if it means SAVING THEIR JOBS AND THEIR FUTURE. I also suggested that unions aren't angels. Arrest me for that why don't you. Jesus H Christ and this board is supposed to be open minded? Gimme a fucking break. This place is becoming more close-minded than the worst freeper sites out there.

No where did I suggest that auto workers should suffer. Considering taking a pay cut to save their jobs is not suggesting that they suffer. That notion only exists in your imagination.

[Undercurrent]

45. It isn't about a pay cut as you suggest.

What you have outlined is basically bankruptcy, and subsequently the very real possibility that folks could loose their jobs all together. And it would not be limited to the auto workers. The effect would be felt broad and deep, as has ben widely discussed.Everything from retail to restaurants, parts suppliers, and real estate. All of us. (I'm very fortunate in that I'm not in the employ of someone else. I'm a silversmith with a micro business, and this recession is already kicking my ass.)

Anyway, back to the wage cut that the Republicans propose is thinly veiled union busting. You agree with them. I do not. I'm stickin' with the union.

[mtnsnake]

46. There really is no need for you to put your words into my mouth

and that is exactly what you've done.

Anyway, back to the wage cut that the Republicans propose is thinly veiled union busting. You agree with them. I do not.

I see. If someone disagrees with a single aspect of something it means they disagree with it in its entirety according to you. Wow.

[Undercurrent]

47. No. Not at all.

I said I disagreed with you and the Republicans about the wage cuts.

[Lerrad]

51. And we are headed down thi sroad with or without the bailout>>

>>>And it would not be limited to the auto workers. The effect would be felt broad and deep, as has ben widely discussed.Everything from retail to restaurants, parts suppliers, and real estate. All of us.<<<

Things are going to get much worse before they get better. It starts from the bottom up, not from the top down.

[Marrah_G]

60. Your post is in fact anti-union Mntsnake. Even if you did not mean it to be

It is the same anti-union propaganda that has been being spread through the media for decades. Divide the workers. Don't allow the workers any power.

If anything we should be screaming for MORE unions.

[Lerrad]

50. I think any bail out is bull as well, but for very different reasons...

No one wants to see these autoworkers lose their jobs. No one. But the way I see it most of them will lose their jobs anyway, because people are just not buying cars.

Many of the foreign auto makers are cutting back on production, so they are feeling a real pinch as well. And I might remind everyone that these foreign auto manufactures employee lots of American workers. And these workers get paid about the same as the union workers, this is not the problem. Parts suppliers are already laying off thousands of workers, because production and demand for new car and truck parts are at an all time low.

If the big three are bailed out, people will still lose their jobs period. There is no way around it. The bail out may help in the very short term, but for the long term it will be a failure. It will just add to an already out of control deficit. If the money is loaned, I feel we will be throwing it away. The big three will not be able to pay it back, because they will eventually go under anyway. There will just be more cars sitting in the lots with no one to buy them.

The only way to save those jobs is to get money and credit in the pockets of the people who need it. And until that happens the economy will continue to go down.

[gravity]

54. Why don't we try to fix out problems instead of giving up

Every other government in the world would definitely bailout their major industries because it is in the national interest. Allowing ours just to go under is just letting the rest of the world take over is just stupid, especially when these companies can be viable with some restructuring. It isn't a lost cause.

Not to mention the economic consequences of allowing such massive companies go under. Removing 1 million jobs will costs the government more money than the actual costs of the bailouts.

[treestar]

55. Totally great post

If my firm fails, shouldn't the taxpayers bail it out so the employees can keep their jobs?

[Condem]

56. I posed this question on a GD thread.

Why are we bailing out Chrysler LLC? Privately owned by Cerebus who have plenty of $$$$. Anybody?

[doc03]

58. What you are talking is parity with the transplants

aren't you? The big difference between the UAW workers at the Big 3 and the workers in the Japanese owned plants is the legacy costs. In order to bring parity the UAW would probably have to work for minimum wage or even less unless they give up all their pensions and retiree health care. Just dropping the UAW pensions on the PBGC would require the US Government to bailout the PBGC, I have read that if the PBGC takes over their pensions they will be underfunded by around $150 billion. That's what we did years ago in steel we lost all our pensions and retiree health insurance because we ran out of wages to cut. Is that what you want to take several hundred thousand retirees pensions and insurance off of them? If that's the case I have to agree with the comment one of the previous posters told you to do.

[Marrah_G]

59. I'm surprised to see this post from you- I couldn't disagree more

For any progressive democrat to be wanting workers to take wage and benefit cuts to compete with a foriegn company who's government backs them...........

Why not insist on better wages and benefits for those working for the foriegn country.

Why not try lifting people up instead of insisting that they take wage cuts?

The republicans are counting on people to fall for the propaganda. They want you to want those workers to take less. They want you to oppose unionization of workers. They want you to think that less then 60,000 dollars a year makes the workers some sort of fats cats.

They want you to think "how dare those whiny workers demand good pay and benefits".

[mtnsnake]

61. You got parts of my message completely wrong, Marrah_G, but I'm very used to that on DU

No problem, though.

For any progressive democrat to be wanting workers to take wage and benefit cuts to compete with a foriegn company who's government backs them...........

I didn't suggest the workers consider a pay cut in their hourly wage in order for them to compete with a foreign country. I suggested that they consider taking a slight reduction in their hourly wage if it meant saving their jobs.

Nor did I suggest they take any benefit cuts. Where did you see that in my post, Marrah? :shrug:

[Marrah_G]

62. They don't need to take the cuts to save their jobs.

If the big three cut wages it won't make one lick of a difference in their viability.

They are trying to break the unions. They have come right out and said it.


I just do not get where you are coming from on this issue, my friend.

:hug:

[mtnsnake]

65. hugs back

:hug:

[doc03]

63. Who said they are not willing to take a slight reduction? From

what I have heard they have already made concessions in the last couple contracts. One Thing they did in the last one is agree to a two tier wage scale, new employees are hired under a lower wage scale. They also agreed to eliminate thousands of jobs, GM offered an early retirement buyout to every employee I believe. From what I understand it would take way more than a slight $3.00 an hour cut to bring them in line with Toyota and Honda. The difference is legacy costs, can't you understand that? I heard one report that Toyota has a total wage cost about $20 less than the Big 3 because they have little legacy costs. The Big 3 have been around for a century and have lots of retirees depending on them for their pensions and health insurance. Do you want the UAW to take a $20 pay cut to make parity or do you want them to abandon their retirees? I will also add that if the Big 3 dump their pensions on the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) it will be underfunded by about $150 billion. The PBGC is an Agency of the Federal Government similar to the FDIC and we are obligated to bail it out. So just what is it you want?

on edit: I have made the same argument 3 times in this thread but you don't want to discus the facts I guess, just throw out your anti-union opinion and run.

[mtnsnake]

64. What is it I want?

I want them to save their jobs without having to do it with government intervention in the form of a bailout. I want them to make the necessary changes within their companies that will solve their problems in the long run. I want them to start making the changes that should have been made decades ago when the writing was already on the wall for them to do so. I want our US automakers to not only be able to compete with the foreign car companies but to eventually outshine them. I want them to be more green in their approach to their product. I want them to make whatever changes it takes to keep their factories running and their livelihoods secure, only I don't think a government bailout is the answer because it will only suffice to enable the same philosophy that has our companies in such trouble to continue. Bottom line: I want management and the workers to fix this on their own, not some bandaid fix by government.

[doc03]

66. Read my posts please, before you just give your

opinion. Isn't the point of this to discuss your opinions. You know sometimes you could just possibly be wrong I know I am not right all the time.

[mtnsnake]

70. You asked me just what it is I want & I answered you the best I could

Isn't the point of this to discuss your opinions. You know sometimes you could just possibly be wrong I know I am not right all the time.

That's exactly what I've been doing from the start and throughout this thread is discussing opinions, inlcluding mine, and yes, I know I am not right all the time.

I also have the feeling that I could spend more time "discussing" your concerns and you wouldn't be satisfied no matter what.

[doc03]

71. Do you want the UAW retirees to give up their

pensions and health care? I have been through this myself for years we made concessions long ago it started when Chrysler got the loan way back when. It didn't take more than a couple months after Chrysler took concessions the companies wanted concessions from the USWA. We gave then what they wanted several times over about a 8 year period. Then finally in 1985 they filed Chapter 11, at that time the company claimed we made $28 an hour (1985) wages and benefits. The Bankruptcy Judge (Republican Appointee) voided our contract and offered us a job with about a 2/3 pay cut we refused to work for that and went out on strike. To make a long story short we ended up taking a smaller pay cut but we lost our retirement plan and all the retirees lost their health insurance. That is what that Republican asshole from Tennessee wants when he says parity with Toyota. Sorry if I don't answer your response but I have to go to work now, I still have a job but if the Big 3 go under I won't.

[mtnsnake]

72. Any suggestion I made in my OP included the autoworkers keeping their healthcare and pensions

that they/you currently enjoy now.

It's right there in my OP for you to see in the last two sentences of that post. It's obvious there that I intend for them to lose nothing in the way of healthcare and pensions. It's there in black and white.

[doc03]

75. Can't you understand there is a

$22 an hour difference in labor costs between Toyota and the Big 3. They claim the total labor cost at the Big 3 is around $72 an hour at Toyota it's around $50 an hour. By the UAW cutting their wages from $28 to $25 adds up to a savings of $3.00 an hour. In order to bring their wages in parity with Toyota they will need to cut labor costs another $19 an hour and the only way they can do that is give up their pensions and retiree heath insurance. We have gone through this in the steel industry and believe me once you start giving in every time the company is in trouble the company will be back for more until you have nothing to give. At our company we lost two pension plans and our retirees lost their health insurance. That is what those southern Republicans want is to break the Unions, where have you been for the last 28 years? I heard today that the workers at Toyota actually make slightly more in wages than at GM, it's the legacy costs.

[Kalyke]

67. Not sure what company has gotten it "wrong" for decades.

The car companies were producing what people would buy.

I'm sorry - the world is NOT DU. Most people either don't want or can't afford electric or hybrid cars.

They will - but not right at the moment.

Now, I do agree with you about CEO salaries.

[doc03]

68. It's not just CEO salaries, what about the dozens of

VPs and Assistant VPs and Assistant to the Assistant VPs.

[Obamanaut]

73. What's next? Seat belts on bicycles and motorcycles? nt