Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Do You Favor A Government Loan To The Detroit 3?
3958 messages, Last post on Oct 02, 2009 at 4:52 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
GM just changed it's sales forecast projections to 10.5 MM!! OK, PUNK! I'll give you under 10 MM SAAR in Q1 AT BEST! Here is a little forecast regarding energy for you to chew on while we wait for the NEXT GM forecast. $25/bbl Oil Make My DAY! Go AHEAD! Regards, OW
|
|
|
Replying to: xrunner2 (Jan 15, 2009 7:42 am) Forget about the banks and what is wrong with that. The loans to the Big 3 or any other industry is a separate issue. Before I think giving a loan is okay, explain to me why the auto industry can not adjust its size and costs to the proper level. Why can't the B3 adjust their costs to meet their revenues and profits? Aren't all the reasons they're spending more than they bring in within the parties (pensioners, workers, dealers, and execs) power to change? Why should we the taxpayer give them money instead of these parties rewriting their contracts? Let me say again "Why should we the taxpayer give them money instead of these parties rewriting their contracts?" If the B3 are losing money then they can't afford the number of workers they have, the number of plants, their advertising budgets, and to continue to pay their pensioners benefits. They need to REWRITE their contracts. It is THEIR REFUSAL to rewrite their contracts, and CUT their size that is causing their loss of money. It is illogical and immoral to ask the taxpayer who is making $35K - $40K / year with no pension and maybe no health care to subsidize people who make more and have better benefits! 
|
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Jan 15, 2009 5:14 pm) Agree Let me say again "Why should we the taxpayer give them money instead of these parties rewriting their contracts?" Agree It is illogical and immoral to ask the taxpayer who is making $35K - $40K / year with no pension and maybe no health care to subsidize people who make more and have better benefits Agree Well, said and I agree 100% |
|
|
Replying to: circlew (Jan 15, 2009 2:35 pm) $25/bbl Oil" Then why did the gas in my area go up $0.20 in the past 3 weeks?????/ Gas should be down to $1.20 a gallon now.... |
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Jan 15, 2009 5:14 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Jan 15, 2009 5:14 pm) Believe that bailout is considered a loan from US govt. |
|
|
Replying to: xrunner2 (Jan 16, 2009 7:29 am) It's only a loan if the receiver has the ability to pay it back...... What are the monthly payments on a $13B payment? |
|
|
Here is a company with 30,000 employees that due to past mismanagement and the current recession, is closing its doors. I'm sure this will strengthen those competitiors that remain - i.e. Best Buy will do better. http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/16/news/companies/circuit_city/index.htm?postversio- n=2009011611 Whether GM or Chrysler go out of business, Ford and the remaining company would be strengthened.
|
|
|
Replying to: xrunner2 (Jan 16, 2009 7:29 am) Yes but what the bailout did was change the urgency and schedule for change. GM, the UAW, the dealers, and suppliers want to delay change for as long as possible, because some or all of them will be hurt. What the bailout did was allow the B3 to change as little as they must to keep in business or keep the wrath of Congress from them. If the bailout hadn't gone thru, calling the B3 execs. and UAW bluff, then we might have had change in a few days! How? Well if the choice is to a) shutdown in a few weeks and lose everything, or to b) lock the parties in a room until new agreements were written and the business could survive, then most rational people would do b). The loans should have been denied, and b) would have been done (by now). Instead what we have now is TALK about cuts ... maybe this, what if we do that, AND they're bleeding the loan $. The longer this change takes the more likely all the loan $ will be spent with no chance for the companies to make a profit, and they'll be back asking for more. What the U.S. Congress did is basically "gave the kid next week's allowance, for a promise that the kid will take out the waste sometime soon". It would have been easy enough for Congress to say to the B3 and Gettelfinger that 1st day of hearings - "Gentlemen call your suppliers, and your dealer reps. and get them and their lawyers here, and we have a conference room reserved for you. Start rewriting your contracts, so you're at least breaking even. Then come back up here 3 days from now, and we'll discuss a loan."
|
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Jan 16, 2009 8:57 am) Regards, OW
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Do You Favor A Government Loan To The Detroit 3?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
