Should Bush help the automakers?

6SpeedTA95 · 11-15-2006, 05:14 PM

Should Bush help the automakers in their financial distress?

I thnk the answer is most definately no. The auto companies and the unions got themselves into this shit hole and I DO NOT want my tax dollars going to bail their asses out. They've had plenty of time to change, they've been in trouble before, hell Chrysler was bailed out once 20 or 25 years ago and they're right back in the same boat because they refuse to make the necessary fundamental changes to their business models.

Phantom · 11-15-2006, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

hell Chrysler was bailed out once 20 or 25 years ago and they're right back in the same boat because they refuse to make the necessary fundamental changes to their business models.

I don't think the companies have the negotiating room to make themselves competitive. The blame can be placed all over the place, but the workers are too well protected and the benefits are so high that they are unable to compete. It's sad, but these companies need to go away before a healthy industry can be rebuilt here.

ballz2wallz · 11-15-2006, 05:30 PM

I thought the auto companies already stated to Bush that they didn't want help?

6SpeedTA95 · 11-15-2006, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by Phantom

I don't think the companies have the negotiating room to make themselves competitive. The blame can be placed all over the place, but the workers are too well protected and the benefits are so high that they are unable to compete. It's sad, but these companies need to go away before a healthy industry can be rebuilt here.

Or bag the unions.

6SpeedTA95 · 11-15-2006, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I thought the auto companies already stated to Bush that they didn't want help?

No, they met with the president yesterday to discuss it.

Phantom · 11-15-2006, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Or bag the unions.

That's just not an option. The unions have too much legal protection. That's why I think the companies themselves just need to disappear before anything good can begin here.

ballz2wallz · 11-15-2006, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

No, they met with the president yesterday to discuss it.

Perhaps you'd better read up on it again:

The auto executives said they pressed Bush about their concerns on health care, energy and trade issues, while making clear that the troubled industry does not want a federal bailout.

Automakers meet with Bush | Chicago Tribune

6SpeedTA95 · 11-15-2006, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Perhaps you'd better read up on it again:

Automakers meet with Bush | Chicago Tribune

Considering the head of North American operations for Chrysler was on TV saying they hoped the government would make some changes to the healthcare system to help the auto industry, I'd say htey're fishing for federal help/bailout. No matter how you slice whether its direct cash infusions into the companies or altering some major piece of government functionality the result is the same.

RMNIXON · 11-15-2006, 07:37 PM

NO!

I was against the Chrysler bailout! The argument is that the money saves American jobs and industry. But you could just as easily spend that money on more productive areas of the economy. Do not reward bad economic behavior with handouts! If you do the lesson is more bad behavior begets more government support and you don't have to give a damn about your mistakes anymore. Look at banking!

KatKanPlay · 11-15-2006, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Should Bush help the automakers in their financial distress?

I thnk the answer is most definately no. The auto companies and the unions got themselves into this shit hole and I DO NOT want my tax dollars going to bail their asses out. They've had plenty of time to change, they've been in trouble before, hell Chrysler was bailed out once 20 or 25 years ago and they're right back in the same boat because they refuse to make the necessary fundamental changes to their business models.

They should have led the world in change back during the oil bust in the 80's and instead let Toyota do it.

6SpeedTA95 · 11-15-2006, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

They should have led the world in change back during the oil bust in the 80's and instead let Toyota do it.

Thats correct and the unions should be now and should have been less demanding. Management should not have renewed contracts with union members who refused to accept a reasonable wage and benefits. There's a whole host of problems that led us to where we are today. The industry has had more than 2decades to turn their shit around and they have refused to do it.

Donkey® · 11-15-2006, 09:50 PM

He helps the oil companies constantly...why not the companies that make products that use the precious oil?

Rouger2 · 11-15-2006, 10:31 PM

I think that the American auto companies long ago should have started making fuel efficient cars, but they have always stuck with their gas guzzlers. They have depended on Advertising on TV and the american people who have to have the latest neat thing advertised on TV. Well now they are paying for it. First though, do their competitors especially from Asia have all of the extra cost that American companies have. Do they or their governments provide health care for the workers in the US the companies have to. Do their companies have to provide pension plans and unemployment insurance. Do their plants have to be enviormentally safe. These are all costs that a first world company has to provide. I know that or think that Japan does do these things but how about their suppliers in Mexico and other places. If we don't watch it we all will lose these benefits, of a first world country, by competiting with countries that don't have them. We have to lower ourselves to their level to compete. Ah, but thats free trade. What a wonderful thing huh?

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Considering the head of North American operations for Chrysler was on TV saying they hoped the government would make some changes to the healthcare system to help the auto industry, I'd say htey're fishing for federal help/bailout. No matter how you slice whether its direct cash infusions into the companies or altering some major piece of government functionality the result is the same.

Kytro · 11-15-2006, 11:30 PM

I do not agree with government assistance for companies in nearly all cases. If they can't be profitable, too bad.

6SpeedTA95 · 11-15-2006, 11:33 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

I do agree with government assistance for companies in nearly all cases. If they can't be profitable, too bad.

You mean you do NOT agree with it?

Diamond Cross · 11-15-2006, 11:47 PM

Presaiden t Bush is owned by big business so of course he'll more than likely help them out. It just remains to be seen how.

KatKanPlay · 11-16-2006, 12:29 AM

Originally Posted by Kytro

I do agree with government assistance for companies in nearly all cases. If they can't be profitable, too bad.

I do not approve of corporate welfare. They should have seen this coming.

TheScatman · 11-16-2006, 12:53 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

No, they met with the president yesterday to discuss it.

and to think he cosniders himself a fucking economic conservative. ronald reagan would have told them to get teh fuck out and stop asking for a bailout

Kytro · 11-16-2006, 01:03 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

You mean you do NOT agree with it?

Indeed

thomez · 11-16-2006, 08:42 AM