POLL: Should taxpayers bailout Ford, GM, and Chrysler?

Hear, hear. Right on!

The US bailed out the big 3 back during the last oil crisis, when Japanese carmakers cashed in once before. What do you do with corporations that won't learn...let them die.

No buissiness Should ever under any circumstances recieve a bail out payed for with tax dollars.

Am I dreaming or are liberals and conservatives agreeing?

You won't wake up from this one Samantha it's real and not a dream.

You know, and yes this goes against my philosophy, if just once the bailout was REALLY for the little people I might go for it, but housing--for the big guys-not the homeowner--market, for the big guys, banks-for the big guys, auto-for the big guys. See a pattern here. No matter how they spin it, it is not for the little guy---how can it be--he's the one paying for it.

No matter how they spin it, it is not for the little guy

But the little guy works for the big guy.  When the big guy falls, he lands on the little guy.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm against the bailout of the automakers but I'm afraid it will hurt us all.

This loss of jobs thing. Won't people still need cars? In many industries new owners buy the assets of bankrupt companies and begin anew without the old debt and/or costs to hold them down. Maybe we would see an increase in jobs as a brand new auto company with brand new management and a brand new way to compete used these same assets in a more productive way. After all, that is capitalism.

It's the big investors that have the ear, and maybe the pocketbook of the Government, who we are talking about being bailed out here. Remember that. The investors took the risk, most of whom have a lot more money than I have, and yet want me to bail them out. Remember you are the taxpayer, not some anonymous guy somewhere else, who is going to have his money taken away in some fashion without your consent to enrich someone who already is a lot richer than you are.

Loss of jobs is actually only a localized issue to where the current assembly plants are. The same suppliers who provide GM,Ford, and Chrysler also supply Toyota,Honda,etc. For every plant that GM or Ford has been closing Toyota and others have been building new plants, and the dealerships will simply switch what they sell not go out of business. The overall economic impact nationally to losing the Big 3 would be negligible.

Now I know if you live in Detroit it would be bad but if you live in Texas where Toyota just built their new truck plant it's not bad. The only impact here will be a shift in where cars and trucks are built.

I totally agree, Dan, that's a great idea. Nationalize them. That threat alone would make them think twice and perhaps do better planning.

Fascism anyone.

Socrates, get your definitions striaght and stop trying to scare people. You Republicans are so silly. The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43), and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach.

fascism
noun
his brand of so-called patriotism sure seems like fascism to me authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy; Nazism, rightism; nationalism, xenophobia, racism, anti-Semitism; jingoism, isolationism; neofascism, neo-Nazism.

We still have the power of the Vote in America and as long as we do the People are the Sovereigns of America. We own parks and Lakes and Resources, having stock in companies who ask to be bailed out and making our investment back is only fair. What?, is this some kind of pussy corporate Nanny State?

Nationalization leads to larger bureaucracies

Really? Name one.

1. Sorry babe, nationalism is fascism.
2. Naming-Mexico's oil company, Venezuela, etc.
3. Getting exact definition but fascism is all for state, ie the individual is but a cog in the state and exists for the state. Nationalism, state ownership, cog in the state exists for the state. It's ok though, we're still friends--whoops just checked we're not. how come?

NOTE: Nazi = National Socialist Party)

Really, actually it's short for Nationalsozialist, or the National Socialist German Workers' Party.. I'm German America. It's as Far-Right as you get next to Fascism. But then what's in a name? North Korea is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (or DPRK) the name Doesn't make it a Democracy. Do you need the short history, or the long? Why don't you try a few dictionaries?

The party's socialist orientation was basically a demagogic gambit designed to attract support from the working class.

Or do you know more then the Encyclopedia Britannica? And my 40+ years of studing history. {it's fun] This was also the same ploy used by the "Peoples Republic of China", [you don't think this is a republic do you?] Cuba,, ect ect... Useing the pretense of caring about the suffering of the majority [they always are] working middle class [or proletariat] and dangling the quixotic carrot of one form of Marxism or another in front of them is what many totalitarian a right wing government has done to lure a people into the despotism of a totalitarian government and to keep them form or trick them into giving up a Democracy. {Hitler was voted for}. What they did was infiltrate government at almost every level and caused a systematic failure of basic public services so they could then claim that Democracies don't work and take over in steps as Hitler did by claiming they had a better way and declaring himself Supreme Chancellor for life.. When the people discovered what was going on, it was too late. This is the short version. Let me just finish by saying, there has never been a working form of Marxism in all of History, ever. They don't work and never will. They have all been Right-wing totalitarian dictatorships of one kind or another. Now in America. The "Fear" of Socialism is being used for the same reason.

"A nation, as a society, forms a moral person, and every member of it is personally responsible for his society." ~ Thomas Jefferson to George Hammond, 1792.

Is that Marxism?

Karl Marx wasn't born until 1818. Don't belive the Anti-American fear mongering of the Far-Right mob that would proclaim that statement as being a "Left-Wing, or a Socialist" or a Marxist one if made today. As they would claim this to be as well;

"In America, no other distinction between man and man had ever been known but that of persons in office exercising powers by authority of the laws, and private individuals. Among these last, the poorest laborer stood on equal ground with the wealthiest millionaire, and generally on a more favored one whenever their rights seem to jar." ~ Thomas Jefferson: Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786.

The "Government Schools" are the first to be corrupted and discredited, Why? "Ignorance and bigotry, like other insanities, are incapable of self-government." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1817. This all was once considered to be common knowledge when I grew up. Now if you know history, you are called an elitist. I don't think American will last as a free country into the next generation unless something turns us around.

In a Fascist country or the so called Communist, and socialist states, the "State" is the government. In America the "States" are the sovereign Democracies within the Republic that together form the United States America. This is all very clear in the U.S. Constitution. You really don't need to be a lawyer to understand it, perhaps just a Noah Webster Dictionary, the first english version, but most words are still the same as when it was fist written. And each State has their own State Constitution.
If you hear someone argue otherwise, they are one of three things. Ignorant of the truth and nature of American principles and Government, or form another country who use these terms differently, or subversives trying to corrupt America. Remember one thing You are not just an American, You are America. Without the people and what they know and believe, this is just another piece of land with people on it, and we can be tricked, forced and molded into whatever the person with the most power wants it to be. That's why in America the constitution was made so that Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors. It tells us what Government can not do, not what we can;t do. As Benjamin Franklin wrote, "In free governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns." The ultimate powers in a society, therefore, rest in the people themselves. But like I said in the other post, it's probably to late. America has become a nation of idiots. "When a nation's government becomes more fearful of its citizens' rights than protective of them, that nation's future is only despotism and extinction." I forgot who said this, but it was someone who lived through such a thing so knows what the @!$%# he's talking about. G'night.

I agree with everybody's criticism of nationalization in a socialist manner, but this would only be in case the business is worth saving and is aiming at bankruptcy to blackmail the public purse. It wouldn't have to stay nationalized forever. It could be sold when the public has got back the money they invested, unlike the way they do it now.

thedoctori....And these are Governments that didn't have the VOTE! The VOTE, this is what makes America different, Better, fairer, Humane! Not that liberals care about the down trodden and have Social Security, or public education or that they Tax the wealthy, to pay for social services, but that the PEOPLE actually have power here, not some Authoritarian head of State.

It's still a mystery why those who have benefited the most from this country and how it is set up, @!$%# the most about paying for it? And cry to be protected the loudest with the lives of the children they distrust and look down on as rabble and whiners!

"There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents... There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class... The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendency." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813.

Yes I own it, it was very accurate, but not as deep as I would have liked. I'd like to see this kind of production on each of the founders. I'm researching a book on the political turmoil between Hamilton and Jefferson, up to the death of Hamilton by Burr.

1. Fascist and Socialist can have the same end result but have different definition.
2. Ironic the sarcasm regarding what's in a name and then not realizing the same applies to the United States.
3. Nationalism is certainly not democracy which seems to be what is being argued.
4. Bail outs have never been successful from the standpoint of the "little people" S&L for example, little people insured, but risk was rewarded. Bears/Stearn Big guys protected. No Bail outs unless for the little guys. There is no such thing as too big to fail. 5. Arguing over the Constitution is just plain sad. I see very few people who stand up for the rights, in this case certainly not nationalism of a private enterprise, enumerated in the Constitution. Nationalising a company as a Constitutional matter. UM Um

... same applies to the United States.

You are not an American are you. And if you are you missed civics 101. America Is a federated union of sovereign Democracies. Any Immigrant who takes the entrance exams to become a US citizen knows this. What is corrupted can be uncorrupted.

"If we find our government in all its branches rushing headlong... into the arms of monarchy, if we find them violating our dearest rights, the trial by jury, the freedom of the press, the freedom of opinion, civil or religious, or opening on our peace of mind or personal safety the sluices of terrorism, if we see them raising standing armies, when the absence of all other danger points to these as the sole objects on which they are to be employed, then indeed let us withdraw and call the nation to its tents. But while our functionaries are wise, and honest, and vigilant, let us move compactly under their guidance, and we have nothing to fear. Things may here and there go a little wrong. It is not in their power to prevent it. But all will be right in the end, though not perhaps by the shortest means." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1811.

I could respond in kind but I will simply say:

1. You fail to address what I have said.
2. Words do not always reflect reality
3. I must admit, I am not even sure what it is you are trying to say at this point. If you are trying to say that the United States is truly what the founding fathers meant it to be....

Fascism-Contemporary Political ideologies

"Everything within the State, everything for the State; nothing outside the State." I believe nationalizing production would fit into this definition.

This doesn't really have much of anything to do with the unions. For example GM made an argument that because of union contracts they pay out somewhere around $70 an hour for total labor costs including benefits. Toyota on the other hand spends around $40 an hour average. The two of them both have plants which are US factories using US suppliers, and both have UAW union contracts.

The difference is that Toyota has lower costs because overall numbers as a per hour average include total salaries of all employees including upper management and CEO's. GM's CEO makes several million a year and their upper echelon management makes salaries over $200,000 a year so those salaries increase the average. Toyota on the other hand pays their upper people more modestly and using the millions the Big 3 give to CEO's, to instead build new plants and design better vehicles.

It might be interesting to you to know as well that since I was a union officer for 4 years I've seen the heads up comparisons. Toyota who has lower costs provides better benefits to their workers than GM does. The failure of the Big 3 can be attributed to nothing more than short sighted greed in their upper management ranks. They made poor business decisions and should be allowed to fail.

Thanks for your input, Amused. It's good to hear from an insider on this. I hate to see people losing their jobs, but bailing out corporate stupidity and greed can't be a good idea.

Any bail-out bails out the unions as well. I might be tempted to support it if the union members pay for their own retraining.

Your welcome Glad I just thought that insight might prove useful.

Backroads I'm not advocated that anyone should be bailed out. The Big 3 dug their own graves and should be left to lay in them. I just wanted to point out that their failure could not be attributed to the unions as is evidenced by their competition. If the union benefits were what's killing them then Toyota would be suffering the same fate.

Unlike the airlines which have a semi-quasi national interest in bailing them out in the past. The Detroit auto makers do not represent any vital economic or security interest and have no reason to be bailed out. If there were no other auto makers it might be different, but the loss of these giants will not impact the US in any meaningful way.

AmusedinVa. Perhaps the Big Three have higher overall legacy costs due to the number of retired persons they are also paying for which might not be included at Toyota. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the cost per labor hour excluding any pension, health, or non-working person costs. ie retirement. Thanks.

Retiree pensions would play a larger role in the US plants for say GM over Toyota because Toyota has not had US factories for as long a period of time and less American retirees. Overall though the numbers wouldn't be to far off because Toyota is paying out the pension benefits to its retired Japanese workers putting them corporately on an about equal scale.

On the other costs issue I don't have any available information on the hourly costs excluding benefits that is recent and will have to do some digging for that. The last information I saw on those numbers was from 2004 and excluding salaried employees and benefits the average per hour rate was $22 for Toyota and $26 for GM. That would be applying to only union eligible employees whether they were in a union or not.

I just wanted to point out that their failure could not be attributed to the unions as is evidenced by their competition. If the union benefits were what's killing them then Toyota would be suffering the same fate.

How can it be that unions don't have anything to do with them going broke? I saw a piece on 60 Minutes a few months ago that said GM is broke because they are paying out more in union pensions than they are paying their actual workforce. That sounds to me like the unions squeezed GM for more than they could afford to pay out and in turn may end up bankrupting them. I'm not saying it's all the fault of the unions, but they have to take some of the responsibility for their predicament.

I live in the south and the labor unions tried for decades to get into the textile mills around where I live. The plants were paying a living wage to the townspeople but the unions were persistant and eventually got the employees to unionize for what turned out to be about a dollar an hour more pay. Well, five years later all of those mills were either out of business or had moved overseas because they couldn't afford to pay what the unions demanded. All of the "former" mill employees @!$%#ed and moaned about how unfair it was but it was them who allowed the fox into the henhouse so to me they got what they deserved, just like the big 3.

Point of reference on pensions and retirement. The money being paid out by GM or the others for retirees comes from established pension funds. The reason they are having problems is because federal law allowed a loophole to let them not fully fund these pension accounts. GM and other big companies funded their accounts until they reach federal minimum standards and then quit adding money to these funds. They counted on making huge returns from the stock market to make these pension funds grow instead of putting actual money in them every year. So when stocks didn't perform to expectations the funds didn't have enough capitol to pay benefits.

If they had properly invested their money in equipment and capacity instead of CEO bonuses and corporate jets they wouldn't be short on cash now. Which BTW GM has around $16 billion in cash reserves still and is looking for a government handout. Maybe they should consider firing the management that caused them to lose sales.

If they had been putting the money aside those benefits would never had been granted.

Don't worry, the Fed can always print more. As long as there is paper.......

Unfortunately this is actually a hidden tax placed mainly on the working person through inflation. Read up on the Fed. Debt backed by paper is not good. The other part of the story is that this very debt is the basis for the money supply which means that it cannot be retired without severely restricting the money supply which would result in a depression. Example---USA-Each dollar represents debt.

All of that works, too. It just seems to me that people aren't buying what's there because they obviously recognize that they can't afford it, and don't want to invest in it. If the government forced the issue and bailed them out, I would see it as a slap in the face of all the taxpayers.

Good point, River, that's exactly what they are doing, in effect.

Right on! Let the market decide. Jobs are important but supporting a Buggy Whip Company that makes products that no one wants to buy is throwing money away and helps no one.. Fire all the stupid lazy, failed upper management CEO's and kiss asses, you pay Millions to, and not the workers how actually MAKE the money and care about it. then the company, will turn it around on it's own.

people forget that labor leadership extracted concessions from management that they knew were promises that could never be kept

We don't forget. I was an officer in the USW and we often thought the UAW got a little too greedy as well. Unions have at times asked for too much as well and they know it. I think the major problem though still came from and still does come from overpaid under performing CEO's. Hypothetically speaking if the CEO of GM was running your company and you had been losing sales and dropping quarterly profits for 4+ years would you be giving him pay raises? Or would he be looking for new work?

Not here to defend management, simply agreeing that "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" as shown by promises for payment in the future are a lot easier than paying out today.