Ellington

President Bush approved a $17.4 billion loan for General Motors and Chrysler today, after Senate Republicans blocked passage of a bailout bill from Congress. The money will come out of the $700 billion Congress already approved for the Treasury Department. This will certainly burnish the outgoing president's conservative credentials:

"If we were to allow the free market to take its course now, it would almost certainly lead to disorderly bankruptcy," Bush said at the White House, in remarks carried live by the national broadcast networks. "In the midst of a financial crisis and a recession, allowing the U.S. auto industry to collapse is not a responsible course of action. The question is how we can best give it a chance to succeed."

Previous Comments

ID

142416

Comment

Interesting what Bush is doing with this: But Dems probably aren't going to be celebrating too much. Bush included the provisions suggested by Senate GOPers that killed the bailout agreement in Congress. Chief among them is a requirement that American automakers lower worker salaries to the same level paid by foreign carmakers with factories in the U.S. by the end of '09. GOP lawmakers have been pressuring Bush to include the provision since he announced he would develop a WH-run bailout.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2008-12-19T14:10:18-06:00

ID

142420

Comment

The anti-worker terms will hopefully change under the new administration. There seems to be an assumption that americans cannot be fair to workers and compete at the same time like Volkswagen does.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-12-20T11:11:34-06:00

ID

142421

Comment

Hail Bush for not following near-sighted southern Republicans by spitefully trying to blow up what's left of the economy on their way out. Yesterday Obama said a final restructuring package shouldn't just include concessions from auto workers. He said they shouldn't be the ones "taking all the hits."

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-12-20T11:39:30-06:00

ID

142422

Comment

What anti-worker terms?

Author

BubbaT

Date

2008-12-20T12:31:40-06:00

ID

142424

Comment

What anti-worker terms? I think Whitley is talking about the terms that call for the Federal government to lower the salaries of auto workers. (I assume you'd be OK if the Federal Government did the same thing to your salary? ;-) The auto industry problem is clearly a mix of high salaries, higher medial and pension costs, mismanagement and the fact that the government has been run over by Big Oil interests for the past eight years. To pin it all on UAW salaries (like GOP Senators seem to be doing) seems to be willful ignorance of the real scope of the problem.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2008-12-20T20:47:54-06:00

ID

142425

Comment

I wouldn't call it anti-worker, I would call it job preservation. When the choice is taking a pay cut to $45/hr from $55/hr or not having a job,because the company went under, I would take the pay cut. That is a $20,000+ a year pay cut,that would hurt like hell, but I think I would survive. I take that back,I know I would survive, I took $13000/yr pay cut by choice once to take a job I really wanted, thought it would really make a difference but it didn't. The only other terms I have heard about the workers is dropping the job bank that pays laid off workers 95% of theirs salaries. This in an article about the job bank from Detroit News from 2005 http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0510/17/A01-351179.htm The auto industries problem can't be pin all on UAW wages, but they are part of their problems. The Federal government just gave me a 5.8% raise. :)

Author

BubbaT

Date

2008-12-21T02:06:42-06:00

ID

142427

Comment

I think most of the blame should go to those who have gotten the biggest salary and bonus increases while destroying their companies. We all know the biggest problem they have is not enough people prefer their products. Did the Joe the Auto Worker make the designs for shoddy, unwanted junk?

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-12-21T21:17:44-06:00

ID

142428

Comment

If the U.S. automakers have not built autos people wanted, why have the Ford F150 and Chevy Silverado been the No 1 and No 2 best selling vehicles in the U.S. since 2000 and the Ford F150 the top selling vehicle for the past 23yrs? Nobody has complained that the Big 3 didn't have small gas saving cars until gas prices started rising. As far as them building shoddy junk, I have 2 Ford cars and one Chevy. The Fords both are 10yrs old and over 150k miles on them and I have never done anything to them other than change the oil and new tires since they were new. The Chevy 3yrs old has 50k miles and no repairs for it either. The last Japanese vehicle I had was a SUV and I put a new transmission,clutch, water pump, diff. bearings and air conditioner compressor in it with less than 50k miles. They can all build a lemon, but most cars are trouble free compared to the cars of the late 70's and early 80s no matter if they are U.S. or Japanese autos.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2008-12-22T00:13:04-06:00

ID

142432

Comment

BubbaT - UAW workers really don't make much more than $3-4 more on average than the foreign car companies in the South. One could argue that the foreign car companies have to pay such good wages because of the UAW precedents. Your figure of $55 down to $45 actually looks more like $27 down to $24/hr. The significant difference in what American car companies are paying for labor per hour and what the foreign companies are paying has to do with their history of providing jobs in America and therefore having a high number of pensions and medical bill pay-outs to retirees. Imagine what the foreign-owned companies balance sheets will look like in 30 years when their situation starts to become similar. Considering they have received bail-outs from their own governments in the past, i suspect they won't have anything to worry about in the future. Considering the way state and local governments bend-over backwards to subsidize the foreign car companies i suspect they can expect some help from that end too. It is disgusting the way UAW workers have been marched out for accusation and ridicule over the idea that they should receive a dignified wage for their work. The fact is, it would be harder to demonize them if everyone else was valued fairly in our economy. Now, the jobs bank....i can only defend in principle...it's reality seems a little egregious...but i'm also suspect that it is commonly used to the extent that has been reported. i assume that the common statement you hear about being able to collect 90% of your wages for 2 years while doing crossword puzzles is not a common occurrence.

Author

daniel johnson

Date

2008-12-22T04:03:28-06:00

ID

142434

Comment

I think that this should finally put an end to the notion that Bush is any kind of a conservative or free marketeer. Well, besides a really bad one. The Automotive industry in this country needs a top down restructuring and we are bound and determined to bend over backwards to save them so no meaningful change is made. What are we trying to accomplish by continuing to prop up failed business models? Why should the taxpayers subsidize an industry that consumers don't patronize to the extent needed to maintain profitability? We don't want to lose the jobs associated with the industry but we don't want to buy their crappy product either? To me it makes no sense. The farther you get from actual free market principles the harder it is to maintain anything that can stand on it's own.

Author

WMartin

Date

2008-12-22T08:24:19-06:00

ID

142442

Comment

The best-selling vehicle in the U.S. is now the Honda Civic. USA Today explains, "Not only was Ford's F-Series pickup, a longtime sales king, passed by Honda's Civic, the May leader, but also by three more cars -- Toyota's Camry and Corolla, and Honda's Accord." http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/daily-news/080604-Honda-Civic-Now-America-s-Best-Selling-Vehicle/ Also, Ford is probably the strongest of the *Big Three*. They declined to participate in the *bail out*. I agree with you WMart on the need for top down change. I think the most important stipulation should not necessarily be for workers to take pay cuts but for the inept management to turn in their resignations before any bail out money can be drawn down. The boards need to step up and give pink slips to those who have earned them.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-12-22T13:44:13-06:00

ID

142443

Comment

Well that's just it Whitley. No one can force those boards to do anything. If they think these guys have the right idea for the future then they can keep them and pay them whatever they like (Why they would, I have no idea, but they could). Even if they did fire all the executives aren't they the same board that hired this bunch? What happens if in a couple of years they are still hemorrhaging red ink? We gonna bail 'em out again? and again? Just so we don't lose our precious auto industry? If they can't make cars and trucks that people are willing to buy, pay their employees a wage that labor and management can agree on and make a profit then it is already gone anyway. It reminds me of the Terry Schaivo situation. All that's left is the body and gubment life support isn't going to bring it back without a brain transplant.

Author

WMartin

Date

2008-12-22T14:19:09-06:00

ID

142445

Comment

I disagree WMartin. If the directors want a bail out the government can demand a quid pro quo on our behalf. He who has the bail out gold makes the rules (or should). If we require applicants for public assistance to meet requirements, the same should be true for the boards of companies wanting public assistance....

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-12-22T15:04:48-06:00

ID

142447

Comment

Whitley, this year when gas prices started rising was the first time in 17 years that a car has out sold the F150 for a month and probably will for the year when its over with. The Camry,Corolla,Civic and Accord have always been in top ten selling autos in the U.S. So its no suprise that they are selling more and have passed the F150. The only reason they have is because of gas prices. What you wanna bet that if gas prices stay what they are now the F150 and Silverado will move back into the first two spots in sales next year? The U.S. automakers gave up in the lates 80's trying to build cars to compete with the Japanese cars. There's no profit in it if gas prices stay low, the American drivers want big cars and big trucks, been that way for 50yrs, but the Japanese have been scrambling for years to build full size trucks to compete with the U.S. automakers because that's where the money is. They can't do though, Nissan is dropping there full size truck and are going to start selling rebadged Dodge Rams as Nissans. So,I don't see how it can be said they didn't build what people wanted, they did until gas went up. And people started screaming. They can't design, build, start marketing a car overnight. It takes years for a car to go from the drawing board to show room.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2008-12-22T15:16:21-06:00

ID

142448

Comment

Yes, the government could demand that the same way they are wanting the UAW to take big concessions. There is a word that describes government control of the means of production but it escapes me.

Author

WMartin

Date

2008-12-22T15:20:55-06:00

ID

142449

Comment

Communism? LOL

Author

BubbaT

Date

2008-12-22T15:27:19-06:00

ID

142450

Comment

lol indeed. I don't think the government saying is socialistic at all. That is not like a forced government takeover and control of production that you would see in a true socialist system. If you guys misuse the term socialism or communism so liberally, then when it is actually proposed, then no one will care. There are often requirements to participate in government programs --- as there should be. Those requesting public assistance should be held accountable. Otherwise, I agree with Bubbat's historical overview. Detroit is like the Titanic (hopefully not the ending) --- they are so huge that they cannot stop and turn on a dime. It will take them quite a while to come up with a more profitable product mix.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-12-22T15:37:41-06:00

ID

142451

Comment

It's one of those ism's Bubba. One that we are not supposed to use here cuz we are a "free" country.

Author

WMartin

Date

2008-12-22T15:41:52-06:00

ID

142452

Comment

I was joking but I did a search to see what the word you were thinking of was,after I posted that, and the top 50 google results for "government control of the means of production" all were about Communism,Socialism,and few Nazi references thrown in there. LOL I think what you are thinking about is during WWII the government took control of the production of companies for the duration of the war but I can't remember the the word either. I don't know if there really is a word for it.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2008-12-22T15:44:14-06:00

ID

142453

Comment

$17 billion buys a lot of cheese. Governmental control is governmental control no matter what you want to call it and the last time I checked those automakers were in the production business. So it is being proposed whether those are the terms that are being used or not. Actually Michael Moore is out in front on this. He said, talking about the heads of the big 3, "These guys, for all that stuff they've been telling us all these years about, 'Go capitalism! Free market! Free enterprise!' They don't believe in any of that. They don't believe in free enterprise or free market. They want socialism for themselves. They want a handout and a net for themselves. To hell with everybody else, but give it to them." Moore is proposing that for the billions we are giving away we could own the company. According to Moore all the common stock in general motors is only about $3 billion. If we pay $17 billion shouldn't we own it? It's not a half bad idea once you get past all the ism's involved.

Author

WMartin

Date

2008-12-22T16:03:00-06:00

ID

142454

Comment

Let's buy 'em for 3 billion and just lease the factories to the Germans. They have proven that they know how to make a profit while playing nice with unions.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-12-22T16:09:33-06:00

ID

142455

Comment

Anything Michael Moore supports I am against. Do you really want the cars and trucks designed and built by the U.S. government? A econo box would cost $100,000.00! Remember the $75 hammers?

Author

BubbaT

Date

2008-12-22T16:16:37-06:00

ID

142456

Comment

Ya''ll are deep enders. I am not aware of anyone proposing that the government actually run a company. The $75 hammers were purchased from a private company They were not manufactured by the government.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-12-22T16:19:20-06:00

ID

142457

Comment

That part was a joke.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2008-12-22T16:27:50-06:00

ID

142458

Comment

If you guys misuse the term socialism or communism so liberally, then when it is actually proposed, then no one will care. Amen. And it moves the conversation backward if anything. Those terms have been so abused, and so incorrectly, that most people don't know what they mean. Remember, in our state, they were both used freely to mean "integration" or not-outlawing-government-sanctioned-segregation not long ago. Today, we actually have people who think it's socialism to regulate companies. Re the auto bailout, the saddest part is that we're at this stage, just as with the financial institutions. There is nothing more American, sadly, than not planning ahead and ignoring warning signs in favor of partisan excuses. The auto companies are a perfect example of where smart, targeted regulation could have helped us not been in this mess. Same with financial institutions. Now we're here, and our economy can collapse further if we don't act. Sigh. There is no right answer because there never really is when you let problems go so long that you can't turn back. Partisan politics in the U.S., and Americans' desire for quick fixes and easy greed—not to mention every benefit the government can give us and our cities/states/businesses/families but without paying the taxes and supporting the regulations to make it work—has made us a nation in which we are continually reactive, instead of proactive. Then we whine incessantly when the climate of greed puts us somewhere like this. Folks, in a nation where some of our citizens think that multi-million bonuses for corporate executives who don't want to treat workers well are OK, we're asking for exactly the trouble we're in.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-12-22T16:28:29-06:00

ID

142459

Comment

Donna, I agree with you most of your post, but tell me how the auto workers are mistreated? They have the highest wages, the best health care, the best retirement programs and the best unemployment benefits of any factory workers in the U.S. That doesn't sound mistreated to me.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2008-12-22T16:45:47-06:00

ID

142460

Comment

What you wanna bet that if gas prices stay what they are now the F150 and Silverado will move back into the first two spots in sales next year? If so, it proves everything I just said. Surely, surely, Americans aren't that stupid. It is so insanely dumb to argue for offshore drilling for oiling that won't benefit us for a decade, and then only temporarily, while continuing to buy ridiculous vehicles. (And people like Palin, Wicker, etc., just hope that most Americans are too gullible to read the fine print to know the truth.) If Americans continue these kinds of shortsighted habits, we're not going to be a world power for much longer. We simply can't sustain our own greed and tunnel vision if we can't learn from our past mistakes. And for the record, our government of late (and not just Bush-Cheney) helped create a situation where American auto companies were encouraged to produce gas guzzlers and Americans to buy them. The oil execs who have owned the White House and the Republican Party in recent years (remember, Condi even has an oil tanker named after her) haven't wanted the changes that would have kept us from being at this point. It's not like you can throw their cushy relationship with Washington, not to mention folks like Barbour and his friends, including some Democrats, down the memory hole. Of course, WMartin is right that Bush is no free marketeer. He has never been. Neither are the partisans and corporate conservatives who put him there, or the party he's been leading. Free enterprise should have indeed kept us from being here. But free enterprise cannot work with all the interference from corporations wanting constant government assistance, corporate welfare and tax breaks, and protection from regulation (including tort reform) under the guise of "creating jobs," and an entire party doing nothing except pandering to their interest. You can't allow the government to give them everything they want, and then suddenly start whining later when it didn't work that "free enterprise" should have kept us from this point. Right. Free enterprise. Right here in this state, we are led by a governor who has no sense what "free enterprise" really is. Corporate Republicans have conflated that idea and fooled the public into thinking that corporate whoredom is free enterprise. Meantime, that anybody with a fully developed brain would now buy the line that it is the unions and the wages of auto workers that is the problem is just proof of how well the brainwashing has worked. Believing that is akin to believing that the mortgage crisis was caused by the CRA. Americans have got to stop being so gullible or we're not going to solve these problems and become proactive! At this point, it shouldn't be about saving face; it should be about facing the truth. I'll be honest: I'm no more a union fan than I am a fan of the auto or Wall Street bailout, but if we don't want the potential corruption of unions to deal with, we have to stop giving corporate fat cats anything and everything they want. All that does is strengthen the need for unions. That is, you lesson the power of unions by stopping the corporate whoredom with good regulation before it reaches crisis point. Right now, we're at crisis point. And everybody posting here knows damn well that were those car companies in this state, and those workers were ours, we would be whining to kingdom come for a bailout just like Barbour and every Republican and Democrat from this state begs for federal pork and earmarks all. the. time. The least we can do is lose the hypocrisy and stop blaming American workers for the problems created from the top down and by the most corrupt presidential administration and partisan fat cats in recent memory.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-12-22T17:11:20-06:00

ID

142461

Comment

Bubba, you're the only one who has used "mistreated" here. The biggest mistreatment of the auto workers I'm seeing is the use of them as a scapegoat, as I just stated in the last post. Otherwise, it makes no sense for the Republicans to insist that their wages be lowered to those set by foreign automakers. No sense whatsoever. And boy does it speak volumes. That's partisan politics to appease southern lawmakers who have sold their souls to foreign corporations. Not to mention their states. They would rather give overseas companies everything they want instead of helping American and state-owned companies create the jobs, because that is risking having a union presence in their own states. I guess it never crossed their partisan little minds that negotiating with unions (of citizens) is part of free enterprise. Of course not. Hell, I'd prefer not to have to negotiate with printers, but it's not like I can just decide not to because they might raise my cost of doing business.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-12-22T17:18:36-06:00

ID

142462

Comment

I understand what you are saying about the way the term was used as a scare tactic back in the day but I don't believe it was misused at all here, not in the context of the discussion we are having. If the next heads of major corporations had to have governmental approval there could be a strong case made that they were under direct governmental control. The guy in charge backed by the U.S. Government would look like a puppet to his car czar master. Kind of like the problem the Iraqi and Afgan Presidents have with their people. I certainly believe it's our right and duty to regulate companies to some extent in the areas of product and workplace safety. But what are the regulations we are talking about? We want to lose no jobs or at least no pay cuts. No cuts to any pension or health care benefits. Executive salaries and compensation packages limited or possible termination powers. Only certain green or fuel efficient cars produced and new deals made with the dealers. That covers labor, management, production and distribution. If that isn't controlling the company what would be? We might as well have seats on the board of directors. We want to do their job and are willing to pay them for it.

Author

WMartin

Date

2008-12-22T17:24:51-06:00

ID

142463

Comment

Isn't saying "corporate executives who don't want to treat workers well" the same as say they are mistreated? If not then I stand corrected. :) "What you wanna bet that if gas prices stay what they are now the F150 and Silverado will move back into the first two spots in sales next year? If so, it proves everything I just said. Surely, surely, Americans aren't that stupid." Yes, we are.LOL Look what happened after the gas crisis of the '70s. Detroit rush to build small cars and once it was over it was back to normal building big car and trucks because small cars didn't sell. I'm betting history will repeat itself.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2008-12-22T17:39:43-06:00

ID

142464

Comment

I understand what you are saying about the way the term was used as a scare tactic back in the day Do you? It was very similar to how it's used today, in fact. A major reason that southerners were so quick to push/believe the idea that integration was "communism" or "socialism" was because white business owners did not want to pay African Americans the same wages. Ultimately, of course, it was mostly about greed—fueled and supported by racism, of course, but still greed. but I don’t believe it was misused at all here, not in the context of the discussion we are having. I'm not sure the term was actually used here in any kind of comprehensible way ... not that I saw ... but I'll leave that to others to decide. You have to be careful about turning any deal the government has to make with a corporation or business in order to keep it afloat to protect American workers, jobs and the economy into "socialism." That simply makes no sense and is disingenuous, not to mention unhelpful. And you're using the word "control" very loosely. It doesn't take much thought to differentiate between a government disallowing any private enterprise and competition in a country (socialism) with the government making a deal with a company, or steering things for a while, because the company is begging for taxpayer funds. It's one thing not to be pleased with that scenario (and I'm not, either), but for God's sake, don't start hurling around "socialism." Talk about the issue instead of using loaded scare labels such as that, especially in this state. If the taxpayers give a single thing to a company, whether a bailout or a tax credit or smaller corporate welfare, then the taxpayers have the right to ask for guarantees in return. And to enforce those agreements. Calling that kind of deal in exchange for our help "socalism" is simply absurd. Corporations and their lapdogs, however, have done a great job of convincing many Americans of such madness, though. Fortunately, that number is shrinking. Hopefully that means we can return to real "free enterprise" in the U.S., as well as the regulation to guarantee it.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-12-22T17:48:01-06:00

ID

142465

Comment

Isn't saying "corporate executives who don't want to treat workers well" the same as say they are mistreated? If not then I stand corrected. :) Obviously not. Read it again, as well as the context above. I'm betting history will repeat itself. Then, one can argue that we're getting what we deserve. Sad. Look what happened after the gas crisis of the '70s. Detroit rush to build small cars and once it was over it was back to normal building big car and trucks because small cars didn't sell. If that bothers you, why not flesh out the reasons a bit? Do you think it was simply about Americans not wanting to drive small cars?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-12-22T17:50:07-06:00

ID

142466

Comment

Only certain green or fuel efficient cars produced and new deals made with the dealers. That covers labor, management, production and distribution. If that isnââ,¬â„¢t controlling the company what would be? We might as well have seats on the board of directors. We want to do their job and are willing to pay them for it. Now, wait. Remember that we're not talking about the government starting up an auto industry that it owns to compete with private industry; thus, ensuring that competition is unfair between government and private business. I don't even like most public-private partnerships, much less that. What we're talking about here, and that is what we should focus on rather than mixing up apples and oranges, is what the taxpayers get in return for putting our money into those companies and saving them (and, hopefully, our economy) at this point of crisis (that came after many, many mistakes that need to be avoided in the future). Thus, if those companies get our money, we get to ask for stuff in return -- like fuel-efficent cars, reasonable pay for both workers and execs, a balance between labor and management, and so on. That is simply *not* socialism. In the future, what the companies need to do once/if they're back on their feet, is to return to a free-enterprise mode where they are actually planning ahead and responding to real market forces (including impending oil crises/world dynamics) and then produce/market vehicles that make sense. And, perhaps most importantly, the government needs to return to a balanced place where it does not militantly work to allow industry any leeway it needs in order to make quick bucks, regardless of their effect on the economy, world security, safety and so on. And where the government is not populated with free-enterprise posers whose primary concern is to make money for their oil-company buddies. There's a hint in here, by the way, of why Barbour's precious "tort reform" interferes with free enterprise. It protects companies from market forces that should align against them when they create unhealthy or dangerous products. We're really out of whack when our politicians try to protect them at all cost to the consumer. We've *got* to get away from the very-anti-free-enterprise mentality of these corporate politicians who want to protect business and industry no matter what they do, and give them leeway to do any damn thing they want. Of course, the moment to suddenly decide that is probably not when our economy is in the toilet because of all the pro-corporate meddling. That's essentially the point of everything I've written on this today. Sadly, we're in crisis, reactive mode at the moment, but that doesn't mean we should allow the corporate politicians to do ridiculous things like require American automakers to lower the wages of American workers. Yeah, *that* will help get money flowing in our economy again. Ridiculous, and a clear sign of who owns Bush, et al. This moment is a time to put clear requirements on what we get for that financial assistance, and we need to ask for guarantees that will help us return to a real free-enterprise state in the long view. We've got to get smarter about this stuff, and reject the partisan rhetoric. The stakes are very high if we don't, as we're learning.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-12-22T18:25:54-06:00

ID

142467

Comment

I want them to start building tire melting,earth shaking, fire breathing muscle cars they built from 1960 till 1972 again, forget the puny little boxes with wheels..LOL but that's just me. Small American made cars have never sold well, it's the American ego thing. BIGGER the BETTER. What soccer mom needs a Hummer H3 ? It's a combination of not wanting small cars and as long as gas is cheap in the U.S. to hell with oil running out and what happens to the rest of the world.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2008-12-22T18:38:54-06:00

ID

142468

Comment

Now, wait. Remember that we're not talking about the government starting up an auto industry that it owns to compete with private industry Well actually we started talking about that, it was sort of tangential to this thread though. Michael Moore is proposing something very close to it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipLUYRdDDT8

Author

WMartin

Date

2008-12-22T18:42:21-06:00

ID

142469

Comment

Bubba, you seem to assume Americans are hard-wired to think that way. Are you sure it has nothing to do with the automobiles that companies have been encouraged to manufacture and market, and rewarded for making? Has the U.S. government had nothing whatsoever to do with that, er, preference? I see what you're saying, though; the difference is that I think it's a very serious problem and one that we all need to work on reversing. Personally, I firmly believe I've convinced at least one dude to curb his dumb-ass Hummer just by glaring at him. ;-) Seriously, though, to put on my liberal-bashing hat for a moment, it makes me crazy to see a "progressive" drive some big hog of a vehicle (unless they have a real reason to). Talk about hypocritical. Americans must start walking the talk. And driving the gas-sippers. If not, we can whine all we want about the auto industry, unions and our politicians, but we are to blame.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-12-22T18:45:12-06:00

ID

142470

Comment

Has the U.S. government had nothing whatsoever to do with that, er, preference? You mean like this from way back in 2007? http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=3326593 It's one of the many loopholes buried within the fine print of the tax code: Business owners who purchase heavy luxury SUVs, those weighing over 6,000 pounds, get to take deductions up to $25,000. And prior to 2004, it was $100k. The government was literally incentivizing small business purchases of Hummers, etc.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2008-12-22T18:51:53-06:00

ID

142471

Comment

WMartin, Michael Moore seems to be tangential to any conversation. He's useful in a gadfly sort of way to get people's attention, but that's about it for me. Frankly, I don't care what he's proposing. I don't think we're at any risk of the U.S. owning the auto industry over the long haul, and mixing that in, with socialism scare tactics, seems to confuse the issue at hand—which is that the taxpayers asking for something in return for financial bailout is not socialism and should not be confused as such. And the bigger issue—what free enterprise is, and isn't. What it isn't is big industry immunized by the U.S. government so they don't have to be smart, plan ahead and, well, compete. We're forced to bail them out now because of too much government laissez-faire largesse in the past, which hurts real free enterprise. (Remember that immunity against regulation is the biggest handout, or "welfare," a company can get.) That must change in the future. I believe it will now that Americans are wising up to the boondoggle of corporate "conservatism." Hell, we've been warning about it long enough! ;-) If it's not clear to everyone by now, free enterprise does not, and cannot, mean no regulation (just as "free speech" doesn't just happen without watchdoggery and enforcement). And it certainly can't happen when regulation is expressly forbidden by the protectors of industry. I look forward to a time in our history when this dumb little era of corporate protection-at-all-costs is just a mind-boggling section in our history books, alongside McCarthyism and Jim Crow.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-12-22T18:53:47-06:00

ID

142472

Comment

Thanks, iTodd. I was wondering when someone was going to bite and post the punchline. I thought it would be Ronni. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-12-22T18:55:49-06:00

ID

142473

Comment

Here's the part that really chaps my butt about southern Republicans selling out to foreign automakers: By making these deals, and paying out all these massive incentives, to foreign automakers who want to locate to union-weak states that give up the farm to them, these lawmakers are keeping our wages in the state lower than they have to be. That, in turn, hurts our tax base and contributes to our brain drain and our overall economic condition (which serves a certain brand of Republican). Meantime, in states where unions are stronger, it makes more sense to give incentives to companies that are going to create jobs with higher wages, which can translate into better economic growth in the state. It is proactive for states to give incentives for higher-wage jobs, which will in turn directly impact their state. However, if you then have an oil-industry-enslaved federal government that is working against those states, and trying to skew free enterprise away from fuel-efficient cars (see tax breaks for SUVs above), it's all going to end up a fat mess, as it has. One could argue that the federal government might owe the auto makers, considering that Bushco gave incentives for them to build stupid cars and refused to put regulation in place to protect fair competition. The southern strategy—pardon the expression—of pandering to foreign companies who are only coming to our states to avoid unions is a very bad one and is already biting us in the butt. Worse, it is unconscionable that the same lawmakers are trying to ensure that other states suffer the same fate, and wages, by saying those auto companies have to lower wages to those paid by foreign companies. Gotta love that brand of Americanism. Meantime, of course, the ultimate irony is that unions will become stronger to meet such federal-industry collusion against state economic health and workers. (Which, I pray is ending.)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-12-22T19:49:07-06:00

ID

142474

Comment

Are any of the foreign auto companies in the U.S. unionized?

Author

BubbaT

Date

2008-12-22T20:28:27-06:00

ID

142475

Comment

The fine print didn't say SUVs it said vehicles weighing over 6000 lbs. The wording made the Hummer legal, seems kinda hard to blame the gov't for giving that kind of loop-hole/incentive when Hummers and other large SUVs didn't exist when that tax code was written.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2008-12-23T00:55:29-06:00

ID

142477

Comment

The wording made the Hummer legal, seems kinda hard to blame the gov't for giving that kind of loop-hole/incentive when Hummers and other large SUVs didn't exist when that tax code was written. BubbaT, I ain't buying. First, yes, the 6,000 lbs designation was for farm equipment and heavy trucks. But it soon came to include Hummers, Escalades, Suburbans, etc. The legislators knew all about that and probably likely the lobbyist dollars too much to do too much about it during the gravy years. I bet you GM was loving that its radio station customers were getting massive subsidies for buying Hummers! The H1 came out in 1993. It took 12 years to amend the legislation the first time and nearly 15 to get it close to right. I feel OK "blaming" the government on that one...

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2008-12-23T09:37:25-06:00

ID

142478

Comment

... and it's not like it's a secret what they were doing even if some people are just now becoming aware of it. They didn't used to hide this kind of stuff.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-12-23T09:40:30-06:00

ID

142479

Comment

Bubba, I am not aware of any unions in foreign owned plants in the U.S. Volkswagen is heavily unionized in Germany and they have been one of the more successful companies. If you can make a profit with a strong union in Germany, you ought to be able to make one here. A key factor is that Germany has a great, lower cost health care system and excellent government subsidized social safety nets so their companies are not saddled with the backbreaking health insurance and other benefit costs that disadvantage U.S. based companies.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-12-23T10:30:09-06:00

ID

142480

Comment

This article gets right at the bottom line: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/opinion/23herbert.html?_r=1

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-12-23T11:21:27-06:00

ID

142481

Comment

Yes, it does. In part: Last year, before the economy went into free fall and before any talk of a government rescue, the autoworkers agreed to a 50 percent cut in wages for new workers at the Big Three, reducing starting pay to a little more than $14 an hour. That is a development that the society should mourn. The U.A.W. had traditionally been a union through which workers could march into the middle class. Now the march is in the other direction. Mr. Gettelfinger noted that his members "have not received any base wage increase since 2005 at G.M. and Ford, and since 2006 at Chrysler." Some 150,000 jobs at General Motors, Ford and Chrysler have vanished outright through downsizing over the past five years. And like the members of Ms. Weingarten's union (and other workers across the country, whether unionized or not), the autoworkers are prepared to make further sacrifices as required, as long as they are reasonably fair and part of a shared effort with other sectors of the society. We need some perspective here. It is becoming an article of faith in the discussions over an auto industry rescue, that unionized autoworkers should be taken off of their high horses and shoved into a deal in which they would not make significantly more in wages and benefits than comparable workers at Japanese carmakers like Toyota. That's fine if it's agreed to by the autoworkers themselves in the context of an industry bailout at a time when the country is in the midst of a financial emergency. But it stinks to high heaven as something we should be aspiring to. The economic downturn, however severe, should not be used as an excuse to send American workers on a race to the bottom, where previously middle-class occupations take a sweatshop's approach to pay and benefits.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-12-23T12:01:51-06:00

ID

142487

Comment

Whitley- one major difference between U.S. auto companies and German and most European car companies is their upper management and CEOs are car nuts. They have a passion for cars thats their counterparts in the U.S. don't have. They remember when their companies started out it was just a few craftsmen in a small shop building hand built dream cars and that's what they still want to build. The American auto executive doesn't have that passion for anything except money. While I know they all want to make money it's more about the cars to the European companies.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2008-12-23T14:45:07-06:00

ID

142488

Comment

Todd- businesses and farmers have been using the tax loop-hole for 40yrs. Every kid I went to HS with 30yrs ago drove a "farm vehicle".

Author

BubbaT

Date

2008-12-23T14:48:38-06:00

ID

142489

Comment

What does that have to do with oil-connected politicians pushing tax credits for people who buy gas hogs ... not for farm use, Bubba? You can't just excuse away the fact that Bush-Cheney-Delay's Washington did everything in their power to ensure that American car companies manufactured, marketed and sold gas-guzzlers? It's not just a matter of Americans refusing to drive smaller cars. It's never that simple. Americans are the most marketed-to people in the world.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-12-23T14:57:17-06:00

ID

142490

Comment

An another thing, all those "farm vehicles" were paid for with low intrest gov't farm loans. How's that for abusing loop-holes?

Author

BubbaT

Date

2008-12-23T14:57:58-06:00

ID

142491

Comment

That the tax credit was there already in some form, before our gov't was full of oil-connected people.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2008-12-23T15:04:48-06:00

ID

142492

Comment

Ah. But agree with it or not in its previous state, it wasn't there in a form that could influence the entire state of the auto industry. That happened with the oil-rich crowd. Put another way, soccer moms weren't getting tax breaks to drive farm equipment to Nordstrom's.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-12-23T15:25:57-06:00

ID

142495

Comment

Ladd, LOL! What a great analogy! I do think we won't hear again from BubbaT on his farm boy in paradise comparison. Goood job!

Author

FrankMickens

Date

2008-12-23T17:19:09-06:00

ID

142498

Comment

;-D

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-12-23T17:48:11-06:00

ID

142499

Comment

Casual- I am still here, just been doing last minute Christmas shopping. Alot of those soccer moms are driving $50,000.00 SUVs "business/farm vehicles" to Nordstom's and do get tax breaks. Tax breaks for business/farm vehicles has been one of the most abuse tax loop-holes ever, long before our now oil-connected politicians in Washington ever got elected. I am proud to be a farm boy!

Author

BubbaT

Date

2008-12-23T23:02:15-06:00

ID

142500

Comment

I'm outta here for a few days. Hope ya'll all have a Merry Christmas.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2008-12-23T23:19:48-06:00

ID

142501

Comment

Tax breaks for business/farm vehicles has been one of the most abuse tax loop-holes ever, long before our now oil-connected politicians in Washington ever got elected. That may be true, Bubba, but it still doesn't negate the point that Americans were urged, prodded and rewarded by oil-soaked politicians of late to influence the vehicles built here in America, which led us to this exact point. It would seem that these guys found a way to put ye old-fashioned farm vehicle tax on steroids and control the whole damn industry. We know they're getting tax breaks for driving SUVs; that's the point and counters directly the idea that Americans just lean toward big ole cars because we're American. It also counters the argument that the U.S. government shouldn't bail out an industry that it helped drive into the ground. I don't say that because I love the bailout, mind you; I say it because there is way too much bad information and worker-blaming going around by the people who supported all these oily politicians and their nefarious strategies. Happy holidays, Bubba.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-12-23T23:27:13-06:00