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
|
Replying to: rogeliov (Nov 27, 2008 9:33 am) The agency asked Congress last week to allow it to dip into a trust fund to pay for its retirees’ health care. In addition, the agency plans to cut 100 million work hours this fiscal year, its board of governors announced last week. Both steps illustrate the Postal Service’s dire financial condition: It lost $2.8 billion in 2008, despite slashing nearly $2 billion in expenses. Experts say the 2008 numbers underline the need for more sweeping changes. And they say the next Congress will have to make a tough choice: Either allow the Postal Service to operate more like a business, which could mean numerous facility closures and the end of Saturday delivery, or hand out billions of dollars in subsidies to keep the Postal Service solvent. A postal reform law passed by Congress two years ago accelerated the Postal Service’s financial woes by requiring it to fully fund its retiree health care accounts within 10 years. That means the Postal Service owes $7.7 billion this fiscal year toward its health benefits. Most of the money, $5.4 billion, goes into a trust fund that’s used to pay future benefits; the other $2.3 billion pays the Postal Service’s contribution toward insurance premiums for current retirees. “We no longer believe that payment schedule can be maintained, and we’re seeking relief from some of our health benefit payments,” said Alan Kessler, chairman of the board of governors. “But this relief will not fix our underlying issues.” http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=3821780 |
|
|
|
might that mean that the price of a stamp could go up to 88 cents?  BTW-internet news from late last night said that Obama is not for giving the automakers a handout, I mean bailout, I mean loan. At least without some kind of definite plan for his Administration. Which popped my mind to this thought: wait a minute, Obama's not President yet!
|
|
|
Replying to: iluvmysephia1 (Nov 27, 2008 10:09 am) |
|
|
Replying to: dave8697 (Nov 27, 2008 9:47 am) Plus Ford isn't in as bad of shape as GM and Chrysler yet. If those two go banko and actually get concessions and survive, that'll leave Ford at a big disadvantage. I'm not convinced that a bailout is going to help the Big 3 much either though. Perhaps the focus should be on consumers somehow. Buy a car and get a rebate to stimulate the economy and let the consumer choose who survives. Maybe get a bigger kickback for buying a car from a US company with content made in the US. And toss us a bone for trading in and scrapping a gas guzzler or polluter. Oh yeah, a Subaru and a Nissan are parked in my garage.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Nov 27, 2008 8:58 am) Well, that makes you consistent in your opinion. That was my point all along. If we are a benevolent enough society to help them rebuild then we should be benevolent enough to help our sagging auto industry to get them through a tough time. The only difference is that GM and the UAW can CHOOSE to be more competitive (which I believe they have begun to do with the 2007 contracts). New Orleans can't CHOOSE to be above sea level, and SF can't CHOOSE to be off a major fault line.
|
|
|
|
|
GM didn't make enough in little 'ole 1998 to justify staying in business and to weather another UAW strike? Jumpin' mexican beans purchased at an Ocean Shores, WA gift shop! |
|
|
Replying to: cooterbfd (Nov 27, 2008 11:18 am) How would you propose we restructure the D3 so that they can not be a sagging industry? Do you think that just a bridge loan is going to be enough? Do you agree with Wagoner that the "restructuring has already been completed" and they just need to wait out the recession to be successful?
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Nov 27, 2008 11:08 am) Absolutely right. It will also give Toyota, Honda and others the right to protest subsidizing the competition. I hear having a level playing field all the time in here. How much more level than two companies both building cars in the USA. Maybe get a bigger kickback for buying a car from a US company with content made in the US. I thought of that as a good stimulus. It would have to include all vehicles sold in the USA. Trying to figure out content is tough. Those charts treat Canada the same as USA made. I DON'T THINK SO. Mexico should be just as much American as Canada. Giving it directly to the tax payer as a credit seems a bit more fair.
|
|
|
Replying to: tlong (Nov 27, 2008 11:39 am) No. It's on it's way, but not complete. One of the things that seems to have worked against the Big 3 is how the NA market seemed to have turned into the European market so quickly. Even Toyota was caught off guard, as Tundra sales have TANKED. But the Jap big 3 have vehicles like the Fit and Versa that they can just send here, where the NA big 3 don't. It appears to me as though with the consolidation of platforms worldwide that GM and Ford are beginning to become more fluid, but this is still going to take time. I do applaud them for taking their time and trying to get products such as the Aura and Malibu right, and right from the first one!!! I have 2 co-workers who own '08 Malibus and they absolutely LOVE them. Not one unscheduled trip to the dealer either. This is why I have faith that the Volt will be as good or better than advertised.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Nov 27, 2008 9:12 am) One thing I don't understand. Is he making more or less in Indiana than he was in SD.
|
|
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
