Well duh!

They (along with Ford and Chrysler) got slammed for having the exec's fly to Washington on their private jets to beg for a handout....I mean bail out.

GM is still keeping 3 jets though. They need to get rid of those too.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,456145,00.html

No they don't. They just need to be used more appropriately. No more flying exec wives around for spa treatments. They could downsize them though to smaller jets as I am sure the current jets are mostly empty everywhere they go.

Jet pooling is good too. Had they done that, they'd had blown the Democrats off their chairs and left DC with a big fat check.

Scott Simon said on NPR this morning they should have driven one of their hybrid subcompacts to Washington taking turns driving the 9 hour trip. Then he mentioned Detroit had no such car.

I'm glad the dems told them to go back and put it on paper WHAT exactly they were going to do with this money if it was loaned to them. Heaven knows we got stung by the banking industry after loaning them under the honor system. I'm not totally against a bailout, this is about saving jobs. They need to pledge in writing this money goes to the good of the company and the workforce, NOT to the execs and NOT for buying other companies. Again quoting NPR, if one of these companies goes under, it will affect more than the people who actually work for the company, THAT'S the kind of thing that could trigger a depression. We're talking millions of job losses if one of the big three goes down.

What they don't get is they are the face of their companies right now and they need to show some good faith if they want the taxpayer to loan them money. It's expected of anyone else.

I'm there too.

I do think there is a big ass double standard here. We've got the financials basically asking for a bucket of money, and we are giving it to them, with no plan.

There was supposed to be oversight, and some public ownership in trade for that deal. We don't have much of either that I can see.

Taking the show us the plan approach with the auto manufacturers is a different way of forcing some change. Perhaps it's the better way.

If so, maybe then we can go back and apply that to the financial bleeding.

I could care less about the jets. Perhaps they make sense. They are not the problem. It's an excess, like salaries are for high executives, but the core problem is absolute and utter failure to innovate and add value.

This is systemic with a lot of the US and it's finally coming home to roost. We've bled ourselves dry. Time to suck it up and start applying labor and innovation over time to build real wealth and with that will come stability and security.

IMHO, asking for the plan appears to be a reasonable way to do that, so I watch with interest...

Have you noticed though, the Republicans were so FOR giving a handout to thier buds on Wall Street, but not so much for thier unionized non-buds in Detroit?

I mean really, a case could be made that helping the automakers would help more people overall than the Wall Street bailout would.

Politics rears it's ugly head again.

No kidding.

Yeah, I totally noticed, and I'm hoping a lot of people did.

I would push that case, and I think it's a winner more often than not. Say we have the markets doing well, but we are all stuck doing each others laundry and selling crap on e-bay for a living.

As a nation, we will have failed to compete, and for that we lose nearly everything.

On the other hand, markets could be in the tank, but we all are making things we all can use. Innovation comes from that, and eventually greater success and likely NEW markets.

Much better scenario.

Most Republicans I know, simply are looking up, hoping they can become one of those market people, not realizing that in order for those people to exist, there have got to be a lot of other people busting their ass.

If those people, busting their ass, are not making it work life wise, then it's ugly all the way around.

All I can say about the whole mess is that THIS time I can trust our (soon-to-be) president to make the right decisions on our behalf.

What needs to happen is the whole economy needs to change. A paradigm shift.

It wont be easy either. And it will take a lot of time. We need incentives but with restraint and come to some kind of reasonable profit margins. And do it without turning ourselves into some kind of socialist/marxist society. Tall order, especially when you consider that we have a worldwide economy now.

Before one dime of money is given feed the US auto dinosaurs, they should be required to go into chapter 11 bankruptcy and have their entire operations put under a microscope. Bankruptcy might also allow them to break UAW contracts, which is the proverbial dinosaur in the room in Detroit.

As I have stated previously, I am not anti-union, just anti-UAW. The bloated, inefficient, anti-change UAW is a huge factor in the failure of Detroit.

When a plant shuts down, as has three Chrysler plants recently, all the union workers still continue to receive 90 percent of their wages indefinitely from the company. They have many laid-off workers who go to the factories at night, pull out cots and sleep for 8 hours, then go out and work day jobs somewhere else.

It takes 3 weeks and 3 union electricians just to replace an office light bulb at a UAW-run factory.

In no other industry I'm aware of can a high school graduate make $70 per hour plus benefits.

Something that was brought up on NPR a few days ago is the fact that GM's new Volt car will run 40 miles between charges while cars that are now ready for production from small upstarts like Tesla claim to run up to 200 miles on a charge. It was opined that the small innovative companies are the ones deserving of government support to get their cars into mass production, not the big three dinosaurs proposing third-rate crap that's not practical for most buyers.

When a plant shuts down, as has three Chrysler plants recently, all the union workers still continue to receive 90 percent of their wages indefinitely from the company. They have many laid-off workers who go to the factories at night, pull out cots and sleep for 8 hours, then go out and work day jobs somewhere else.

Again, the no-layoff clauses weren't put in the contract by CEOs with a gun at their heads. They willingly agreed to this during contract negotiations. You cannot highlight one part of a contract without disclosing what the UAW gave up (or agreeded to) to get that clause. (Most likely a set number of UAW jobs permanently deleted and/ or shipped overseas).

One cannot deny Detroit help squarely on the basis that you don't like the UAW contracts. For better or worse, the money paid to UAW workers fueled the nation's economy for decades all while suffering a severe decline in members as a result of more effiecent manufacturing. Its unfair to now single them out.

It takes 3 weeks and 3 union electricians just to replace an office light bulb at a UAW-run factory.

It takes three jets to fly 3 Detroit automaker CEOs to and from the same places to the same meetings.

This idiotic culture is probably why the UAW is the way it is -- employees to needing be protected from these idiotic managers. Unfortunately, the UAW is also likely to be uncooperative with any bailout just for the sake of making management miserable if it appears the bankruptcy filing is solely to break a contract.

n no other industry I'm aware of can a high school graduate make $70 per hour plus benefits

I can think of a number of them, Longshore workers, for one. I also know some Teamsters in this area have no layoff clauses (Which they got in return for some giveaways). Yeah, why not take a cot to work?

But I don't think your figure is correct on the $70 dollar/hr. If it is correct, it most certainly includes benefits and contribution to previous retirees. The total amount doesn't go to the employee working that hour. The UAW contract calls for the shoring up of the pension plan for current retirees as well. Again, with less employees actually working, the pension plan is weakened, thus Detroit likely agreed to shore it up in return for plant closures or worker cutbacks.





Having said this, Detroit needs revamping from top to bottom -- everybody sacrifice. Management, suppliers and hourly workers all take an equal hit.

With Obama being from that area, I think he'll find the right balance.

I wonder how much DICK and DUHbya could give back????

You know I just thought about this some more. I too think the $70 counts bennies to retirees. The actual is more like $45, and that's perfectly reasonable, given where the cost of things is at.

Take the average bennies package at 35 percent. Let's factor backward then:

Take the $45, multiply it by (1-.35), then multiply that by 2000 hours per year, round up and you get $60k.

In most parts of the country, this is a modest middle class income. In most parts of the country, this means both parents need to be working.

Now, I hear the whole, things cost too much, so we have to outsource them deal, over and over and over. Look around people! Don't things still cost too much?

I sure think so, and I'm over that 60K mark, and it all still hurts way more than it needs to. (factor out the health care hassle, and I think I would be comfortable, if modest, in terms of my buying power per hour worked.)

If you are a high school grad, but are a hard worker, skilled, then this amount is a reasonable expectation. 60K / year isn't rich! It's making it, if you are very careful!

Now, why do things cost so much, when we clearly have cut a lot of the cost out of them by outsourcing!

Think hard.

Ready?

Because wages fell also! That's why. If we are not making things here, we don't have employment that pays the kind of wage that can afford the things that are made! We have a largely services based economy.

Remember, 70 percent of our GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is financials, not manufacturing! It used to be flipped, and when it was flipped, people could afford shit!

That was New Deal times, not Reagan Trickle Down times.

Think hard about that too.

During those times we had plenty of unions, and those unions made sure wages were solid for people. Also during those times we saw lots of good, solid business growth too, so clearly it's possible to compensate people for their time at a level that makes spending that time worth it.

Don't let anybody tell you it isn't. Just go look pre-Reagan and it's all there. Nothing has changed, and it wasn't bad.

Now, we move a majority of the good jobs overseas, lowering our wage potential here, while also lowering our ability to generate wealth at the same time and what do we get?

Booms followed by crashes over and over!

Why?

Because people borrowed to keep up their modest lifestyles, that's why. Also, our greater emphasis on financials, allowed us to over value what we do produce, such that growth is seen, despite the actual amount of real wealth being created declining.

This is a mess. This is a lie, and it should be criminal.

Now, go back to the outsource time. For each industry where we allowed this to happen, one company did it, and suddenly had a huge cost advantage over the others! To compete then, the others either had to repurpose their resources and move to another niche, get purchased by somebody else, go out of business, or outsource too.

Subtract one industry from our economy, wash, rinse repeat.

This has hammered the Unions, and it's hammered our wage expectations. The downward pressure result is that we earn less buying power per hour worked, on average, than we have in a long time!

And of course, that is exactly why shit costs so much!

Look around at what we do now. The last viable manufacturing done here is either aerospace / defense, Medical, or Automotive, and all of those have some requirement to be manufactured here for national security and safety reasons.

Even those industries have been significantly impacted by outsourcing as most of their component industries are overseas.

We actually have to buy parts from China to wage war, and doesn't that seem a little bit hosed up, national security wise?

(continued)

Business found out that they could be making more, if only they could pay us less.

The problem with that, is that they always could make more, if we allow them to over exploit us. The check and balance there is essentially unions and the politics. If people are not busting their ass just to make ends meet, they will be somewhat political, vote their interests, and we have some balance.

Business needed leverage. Outsourcing and trade agreements gave them that leverage.

The last 30 years or so, has been all about making more, leaving us less, and building power to keep it that way.

It's not the better way to do things, nor is it improving us or or quality of life, or our strength as a nation.

It's just dollars and control. Period.

Why did Republicans bail out wall street, and why did they do it with almost no oversight? Because they believe that wall street represents the perfect control, the market. Greed arbitrates all, in their view.

And in that view, the most dollars moving up means the best decisions are being made, because costs are low.

Guess what people? We are a cost! The less we get, the better the decision is! Does that make sense, given how hard we work and for how long?

Does it make sense when pensions go broke, or benefits get stripped, and people work 30 years, only to end up in a tralier trying to get along on the only insurance plan not tainted by these asses?

Social Security.

No it doesn't, and a clear majority of us know this.

Republicans want to break the Auto industry because of unions. They have let foreign auto makers here to "prove" it can be done without unions. They have sent the jobs overseas to eliminate unions, and they have passed a lot of legislation that is anti union.

Why?

Because we are just cattle. We work hard and shit cash, only to consume stuff, and repeat the cycle. Nobody really cares how well we live, how long we live, where we live, or anything else.

They only care about how much they can get us to produce before we tip over, because greed trumps all.

Now to be fair, I think the auto makers have some problems with management. They haven't innovated like they should and that's a problem. We can fix that one though.

And it can be done paying people a fair wage, because one of our biggest and best economic periods of growth and innovation happened doing exactly that!

If we let this big chunk of manufacturing go, then we put tons of people on the street and that will cost us a ton, and we lose skill and capacity that we could be using to build wealth.

Say what you will about this problem, the bigger one still exists; namely, we still don't make much of anything, meaning we can't produce what we need to in order to pay our debt.

And that brings me to my last point here:

(cont)

Is a free person really free if their debt is so high that they must consume large amounts of their time to service it?

Are they wealthy?

No and no.

If all of our time is spent producing, and our compensation for that is low, then we literally are not free. We cannot build hobbies, families, learn, grow, improve, or just live and have some pleasure.

We do however make it very easy for those that own us to do those things!

And, guess what? If we balance that back a bit, we get some of our time back, are free enough to be a democracy, not some corporatitocracy (however you spell that), and grow as people.

And those that own us, just own a bit less, and still have it very easy to do those things!

So which is the better deal for us?

Let's say Toyota comes here and makes all our cars. They are doing it "right", showing us how to best exploit the people for dollars. This is what they are doing.

Where do those dollars go? That's right, overseas, making other nations stronger, and us weaker.

IMHO, that comes with a cost, and that cost is our future! We might get cheap goods right now, but our wages will continue to fall, and with that goes the price advantage, and with that our time and energy and freedom.

Just how freaking hard to you think you have to work to live a modest life and enjoy it?

That is what this is all about.

We can pay people a living wage, make stuff, build our economy and work ourselves right out of this mess, leaving our kids a fair shot at having a better time of it than we did.

My generation is one of the first that hasn't had it better than their parents did. I want that to be the last, not the first of many.

Forcing the automotive industry to step it up, innovate and produce good product is good for all of us. It can be done, and when it is done, we can then wash, rinse and repeat with other industries, building things back up again.

New industries, protected from outsourcing, can help with this, and frankly I like that idea.

We can leave what is outsourced, where it is. Makes no sense to move it again. So we take those products and build bigger and better ones, and we do it here, and everybody is happy.

We reduce our wage pressure, start building wealth, and drag up the other economies we now depend on at the same time.

This auto decision is about that. Do we move forward and start doing the right things, or do we knife the baby, hobbling Obama further before he even gets into office?

Does it occur to anybody that this crap is being done to hose it so badly that it can't be fixed in enough time to demonstrate what this election was about?

I sure think it is.

I think that's exactly what is being done. Drain the treasury, break the last major manufacturing, and just hobble it all, so that it's painful enough and difficult enough for everybody so that innovation and building CAN'T be done.

If it CAN'T be done, then we don't get to find out how badly we've been fucked for the last 30 years, leaving those fuckers and their ideas on the table for the next election.

On the other hand, if we start down that new road, and it does work, wouldn't that mean the absolute end of those policies and the Republican party that brought us here?

Damn right it would, and that's why I'm all for helping the auto makers get it done. Asking for a plan is good. No worries there.

Notice the Republicans gave wall street a blank check, and what did they spend it on? Buying each other! Didn't help us much did it?

Handing the automotive companies a blank check would result in the same thing. Count on it. Ford will buy GM, or something like that. Not what we need.

(continued)

If we are gonna change things and improve the state of the nation, we have to at some point fish, or cut bait, right?

That means finally coming to some level of acceptance about how bad our economic policies have been. That has been the core of the Republican party, and with those policies go the Republicans that brought us

Republican war

Republican depression (and Hannity calling it an Obama depression just galls me huge!)

Republican wages

Republican economy

Republcan division between all of us

Republican rewarding of greed

and...

lots of Republican debt!

Think about that you tax and spend guys. Kind of hard to get away from it. It's huge, it's there and it's gonna cost us big. And it's Republicans that got us here.

They had the keys to the kingdom and this is what they did to us.

So that's it. If we start down the new road and ANY of it works, that is the end of the old ideas and in with the new.

That is what this is about and NOTHING else.

We need to either find out the new ideas can't work, or that they will work, and for that to happen we have to close the door on these Republicans.

There will be new ones. We need the new ones for balance and growth.

We don't need the old ones, who want to keep us blind to what could be our success, largely because our success means their utter political failure.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that America cannot make a good quality, affordable, effecient green automobile in smaller quantity when it relates to styles of auto. We can be and should be an international leader within the industry yet we are not. Silly, scratch your head silly why we aren't already!

So here are some radical ideas on radical solutions for radical times.

Let Detroit go bankrupt! In the reorganization of the companies bring in people from California from the various auto start-ups like Tesla. Let's be honest the guys running the start-ups are hungry and capable but just lack the money. Give them the money and the control over Detroit and they along with others from other industries that have proved themselves capable are the ones that need to be running Detroit.

Second, the unions and the auto workforce in general needs to realize that they also unfortunately need to make sacrifices also in these hard times.

Finally, If all else fails what needs to happen is that if we are gonna give Detroit a bailout it needs to be mandated that it strictly goes towards Research and Development, AND that is specifically used in R&D for green solutions that give the consumer both what they need not want.

KSKD, did you get on the Obama team or what?

I wanted to comment on a few things you said:

Because people borrowed to keep up their modest lifestyles, that's why.

That's pretty much the result of union busting. People are always thinking things will get better (because well, this is America, isn't it?) and eventually they'll land another job, but the step for retraining for a new career in another high wage field is a sacrifice many don't take.

'foreign countries can make cars better and cheaper'

People pretty much forget Japan's economy has been dead for over a decade even though Toyota is the world largest car maker. Whats wrong with this picture? Can Toyota employees afford the cars they make? We know Detroit workers can. Hmm?




Anyway, man, Obama is going to have to pull a rabbit out of a hat to solve this. We need to think of something entirely new and different -- employee-owned? Hmm? Government owned? Can the government build better cars (or at least substancially cheaper) than Toyota?

Good points, all.

The requirement for the companies to submit a plan prior to receiving any government help is a step in the right direction but I'm sticking to my main premise that Chapter 11 reorganization with court supervision should be another requirement to receive handouts.

I don't advocate letting any of the "Big Three" go completely out of business. This is not just about CEOs, the UAW, nor the many suppliers of parts, but it's also about a worldwide network of dealers (How many GM dealers are there in Portland alone?), and millions of car owners who will still need access to parts to fix their crappy Detroit cars.

One could argue this is a bigger mess to solve than the banking crisis. Fixing Detroit doesn't mean anybody will buy any of their cars.

Maybe a small low-priced 4 cylinder stick shift no-options, no-power-anything "people's car" subsitized at $6,999 until greener big cars are brought on line. One from each of the Big 3.

It'll help families, help Detroit, help the planet and kill the SUV as new Americans adapt to "simple vehicles" as the personal car standard here as they do in Europe. This could be an excuse to get us to quit could turkey from the overpowered, power-ladened vehicles we're used to.

I won't be giving up my air conditioning though!

And they just fired Tiger Woods, he is no longer a pitch man for GM.

Now when will GM give up their Super Bowl Ticket rights?