Politics and Religion

Hey, just like the production of the SUV's, automakers agreed to the terms of union contracts.
9-man 1406 reads
posted


Don't blame unions for getting the best deal the automakers would cut them. A good reason the auto-makers agreed to such pensions expenses is  much like the reason we have huge public debt: auto-makers wanted to pay workers less wages when the contracts were signed, and to do that, they promised to pay pensions later.

A contract takes two sides. If automakers were thinking in the long term, they would have paid more wages and let the workers take care of their pensions.

So, now those "loans" have come due, and it's the workers fault for sending the bill like anybody holding a matured loan would!

Now, suppose the automakers re-negotiate with the Unions to pay less of a pension. What if the Unions agree to that, and then the automakers declare chapter 7 in a few years, the way Eastern Airlines did. The Unions would then be suckers.

A bail out? I'm neutral on it. What if the bailout was the government taking on the pension obligations? Then the automakers could operate freely again, maybe.

But I agree with you that this is getting out of control. The plans have been slip-shod and rushed. The government doesn't have the money to do this, and can't raise the tax revenues in this economy to cover it all. Meanwhile, China's economy is slowing greatly. It's possible now that China will quit financing these expenses.

At least in the Great Depression the government was solvent.

GUNS!!

 I just saw a news bit on "Mourning Joe", and while the entire U.S. auto industry is about to go belly up, and electronics sales are less than flat; ‘Guns’ (especially assault rifles) are flying off the shelves.

 Maybe Barack should retract his past stated support for an assault weapons ban because IT is the impetus for “Joe” Main Street’s current stocking up.

 Our first Civil War was between the North & the South. Maybe our second Civil War will be between Main Street &Wall Street.

  Any wagers on the outcome of THAT ONE!;-)

Well the American people would, for the first time in a long time, be on the right side of an intelligent war if we were to see that war take place.

The aforementioned assault rifles that are "flying off the shelves" carry price tags starting around $1,000.00

or at least restructure so that it is unrecognizable. The future is going to be conservation. Let them suffer for a while until they produce a product we want. That's how it used to be. "Bail out" my ass. Nobody ever bailed me out.  

-- Modified on 11/13/2008 3:32:03 PM

I object to any auto industry bailout on several levels.

First off, the auto makers in recent years have spent millions on lobbying efforts to defeat measures in Congress that would have required higher fuel efficiency standards. The auto makers WANTED to seel SUV's like hotcakes. Admittedly, the public was demanding SUV's, so its hard to blame them for wanting to make the products the public wanted to buy. Even still, the hallmark of a good business with long term viability is not only the ability to supply demand for a product, but also the ability to anticipate where demand will go in the future, and be prepared to meet that demand. Apparently, the auto makers were too stupid to anticipate that demand for gas guzzling vehicles would crater when gas prices hit the $4.00/gallon mark and beyond. Surely they couldn't be so stupid that they didn't realize gas would eventually get that expensive?

So the fact that their sales plumetted over the summer is no one's fault but their own.

Secondly, the real crisis that auto makers are facing isn't just the fact that sales have plumetted, or the fact that they lack the financial flexibility to triple their production of fuel efficient cars overnight. The real crisis they are facing is billions of dollars in debt because of the cushy pension and medical plans union retirees are entitled to. If we bail out auto makers, there will be NO changes to the pension plans, and we will be right back here again in a few years. To be blunt, auto makers simply cannot meet their pension plan obligations and remain solvent. They simply can't. So what we are looking at here is not a bailout at all, it is the first installment of a gov't funded pension plan, and the installments will get bigger as time goes by.

Allowing auto makers to go into bankruptcy would allow them to continue day to day business, while forcing them to restructure their debt, and most importantly, allow them to renegotiate salaries and benefits with the unions. Bankruptcy will NOT cause 3 million auto workers to lose their jobs overnight. THis is the nightmare scenario that Pelosi and others are scaring Americans with in order to gain support for the bailout. The real truth is, that bailing out the auto makers is good for the unions, so its good for Pelosi and company.

I was willing to go along with the first bailout plan aimed specifically at the financial market, but the Dems have taken that and ran with it. Now we have business after business lining up with their hand out. Hell, we are even seeing a few CITIES who are now asking the Federal gov't to bail them out of their financial difficulties. To say that it has gotten out of control is an understatment. Its time for some tough love, and let the chips fall where they may. We might have some really rough economic times ahead of us, but destruction is as much a part of evolution as creation is. Some businesses will fail, and new ones will come along to take their place. Its time to let the market pick the winners and losers the way it should be done.

Echochamber1850 reads

The govt played that game with Lehman Bros & the fallout was the near collapse of the financial system that resulted in the $700Billion bailout...


What is GM fails ...

DETROIT (Nov. 13) - Advocates for the nation's automakers are warning that the collapse of the Big Three — or even just General Motors — could set off a catastrophic chain reaction in the economy, eliminating up to 3 million jobs and depriving governments of more than $150 billion in tax revenue.
Industry supporters are offering such grim predictions as Congress weighs whether to bail out the nation's largest automakers, which are struggling to survive the steepest economic slide in decades.
"We've got to do this because the cost of inaction is so high to communities, to workers, to companies," said Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat from Ohio. He was among many lawmakers worried that an industry collapse would be devastating for everything from school districts to small businesses.
Even if just GM collapsed, the failure could bring down the other two companies — and even the U.S. operations of foreign automakers — as parts suppliers run out of money and shut down.
Concern about the automakers hit new heights Friday when GM and Ford reported they spent a combined $14.6 billion more than they took in last quarter. GM said it could run out of money by the end of the year.
Ford said it could last through 2009, but only because it arranged a hefty credit line last year.
All this comes after tight credit and economic uncertainty in October reduced U.S. auto sales to their lowest level in 25 years — with no rebound in sight.
If the industry failed, among the hardest-hit communities would be Lordstown, Ohio, a village of 3,600 people about 50 miles east of Cleveland that has been home to a GM factory since 1966.
If the plant closed, Lordstown would lose up to 70 percent of its budget, a scary scenario that proponents of a multibillion dollar bailout say would be repeated across the industrial Midwest.
"If they went completely under, obviously it would financially devastate us," said Michael Chaffee, a school teacher and Lordstown's part-time mayor. "It would be catastrophic for our whole area."
Without GM and nearby parts factories, he said, Lordstown's $4.2 million budget would take about a $3 million hit that would almost certainly require layoffs of police and drastic cuts in park programs.
A study by the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor estimated that the failure of Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Corp. would eliminate up to 3 million jobs, including those at parts suppliers and smaller businesses that rely on the automakers.
State, local and federal governments would lose more than $150 billion in tax revenue over three years, the study said.
Next week, Congress plans to consider giving the auto industry part of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout during a lame-duck session.
Opponents of the idea say government money will just delay the inevitable demise of companies that are on death's doorstep because of years of mismanagement and labor costs that are far higher than their global competitors.
"How is this money going to make a positive difference in creating a new competitiveness?" asked Sen. Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican.
Sessions and others also fear that opening the treasury to automakers will invite more industries to plead for federal help.
"Once we cross the divide from financial institutions to individual corporations, truly, where would you draw the line?" said Sessions, who also opposed the Wall Street bailout.
Automakers say bankruptcy protection is not an option because people would be reluctant to make long-term car and truck purchases from companies that might not last the life of their vehicles.
But Sessions and others say Chapter 11 might be a better option than government loans. Airlines, Sessions said, have reorganized through bankruptcy, and the auto industry could do the same, protected from creditors and lawsuits while companies work to become profitable.
"I would prefer they would go through a reorganization process, and sometime in that process, if targeted aid might be effective, I would consider it," he said. "It seems like the larger the amount of money that's being spent, the less attention anybody pays to how it's spent."
Automakers say they are poised to rebound because they have been restructuring for years — shedding jobs, consolidating engineering and design, and making plants more efficient. The Big Three have cut their combined U.S. hourly work force more than 40 percent since 2005, from 244,000 to about 139,000.
David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research, said Detroit is losing money now because it has too many factories making more vehicles than the market is buying. As a result, it must discount with incentives to sell them.
But as factory cuts take effect, automakers will see more profits — about $2,000 per vehicle — because they won't have excess cars and trucks and won't have to discount, Cole said. But that means consumers will probably pay more for cars in the future.
The increased profits, coupled with about $1,000 per vehicle in savings from a cost-cutting contract with the United Auto Workers, will allow automakers to repay debt to existing creditors plus the government, Cole said.
"The earning potential of this industry has the potential of covering that debt surprisingly fast," he said.
Brown, the Ohio senator, said letting the industry collapse would also be a national security risk, eliminating companies that were essential in two world wars.
"If we ever need that national security production for serious defense, for any kind of significant war, it's gone," he said.
If a bailout is approved, it's likely to come with significant strings attached. Even proponents like Brown would like to see limits on executive pay and a ban on shareholder dividends. Others have suggested management changes and tougher fuel economy requirements.
But back in Lordstown, people just want to the government to act.
Joellen Spletzer, owner of a convenience store about a mile from the GM plant, can't understand how Congress could quickly bail out Wall Street but balk at helping an industry that supports so many people.
"I'm not talking about my little store on the corner," she said. "It will affect people in so many widespread ways it's unbelievable."

Associated Press Writer Ken Thomas reported from Washington.

But that didnt stop the steel plants from closing in the late 80's and early 90's. In thier place popped up more efficient smaller mini-mills. The same thing will happen in the auto industry. Survival of the fittest not bail out the fattest.

I wonder who promised Mr Thomas what exclusive to print that heart-breaker?

The "big three" are NOT about to collapse. They really, truly, geniunely aren't. I promise. They ARE however, two steps from being forced to enter bankruptcy. You do know they've done that before don't you? Did you know that other corporations, Delta Airlines for instance, have also entered bankruptcy in the past?

The difference between companies like AIG, Fannie, and Freddie, and other financial companies is that these companies weren't facing a situation in which they were on the brink of bankruptcy. The issue there was a complete lack of liquid assets. There was simply no liquidity in the market, banks couldn't even loan to one another, let alone anyone else. The effects of that had the potential to cause not just the financial companies to come crashing down, but to create a domino effect that could have caused the collapse of small businesses and even not so small businesses all around the country.

That is NOT the case with the auto makers. They are not in imminent danger of complete and total collapse. Three million workers are NOT in imminent danger of losing their jobs. The auto maker's best bet is to enter bankruptcy. It is the ONLY way to break the stranglehold the unions have on them. The reason these companies are struggling is not the fact that sales have dropped. Other businesses are seeing dropping sales as well, but aren't teetering on the edge of bankruptcy because of it.

GM alone is 90 BILLION in debt right now to their pension fund. THAT is the cancer that is eating away at their profits and pushing them toward bankruptcy. Bailing them out now will do NOTHING to reduce their pension obligations, and the problem will only worsen over time. It is time, and PAST time to force the unions to renegotiate a fair and equitable contract that doesn't pick the pocket of the very employer who gives them the jobs in the first place.

Look at the article you've just cited. It mentions "strings" and calls for limits on executive pay and shareholder dividends. Great, lets encourage people NOT to invest in these companies with the assurance that the auto makers are forbidden to pay shareholder dividends. Not smart. And lets cut out a couple Million from executive pay, while completely ignoring the BILLIONS the company is currently in debt to their pension funds to. That is kind of like saying "Well, the tornado took the house and barn, and destroyed the crops, but the outhouse is still standing!"

If we bail out the automakers with $25 billion, that will give them enough cash reserve to continue operating for the next year or so. It won't even begin to get them caught up on their debt to their pension fund though. So we will be right back here where we started a year or so from now, talking about ANOTHER bailout, and another one to follow, and another one after that. Why? Because the outrageous pension benefits shoved down the throats of the auto execs by the unions will continue to suck the companies dry, and essentially turning those pensions into federal pensions paid for by you and I through one "bailout" after another.

The alternative? Let the companies go into bankruptcy. That will NOT result in the complete collapse of these companies, and three million workers will NOT lose their jobs overnight. The auto makers will be able to restructure their debt, reorganize, and most importantly, break the stranglehold of an overburdened pension system that they can't afford.

Echochamber1653 reads

Whether it is caused by liquidity or bankruptcy, failure has spillover consequences.  Lehman's failure had ramifications in money market funds & hedge funds.

Letting car manufacturers file bankruptcy is a little different than the airlines.  How many people will buy a vehicle from a company that is in bankruptcy?

When Chrysler ran into trouble in the early 80s, the Govt bailed them out with loan guarantees.

The pension obligations are not due tomorrow.  They are LONG TERM obligations. But they ARE OBLIGATIONS ... you can't seriously be advocating them walking away from their pension obligations? If GM can reorganize & return to profitability, they can begin to fund those obligations.

In my original post, I did not make a case for a bailout. I merely offered an article that looks at various scenarios. But you come out with the koolaid reference.

Your problem is you believe the shit that rattles in your head to the exclusion of all else.  If you're so f***ing smart maybe you should head over to the Treasury Dept & offer your prescription to fix the economy.






-- Modified on 11/13/2008 4:17:09 PM

RightwingUnderground2498 reads

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/business/economy/13bankruptcy.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin

I applaud the NYT's rather even handed treament. They do appear to come down a bit harder on the bankruptcy side.

Face it. This is simply a proposed bailout of the U.A.W. first and foremost.

Echochamber2392 reads

The NYT's is not more correct or less correct on the issue than the previous articles I cited. There are as many opinions on the subject as there are economists.

My point was that there is no simple straightforward fix.  There are many facts & outcomes to ponder. And rational debate is required to reach a solution.

And in the earlier arguments I read this gem: "GM alone is 90 BILLION in debt right now to their pension fund.", whereas, according to NYT, "the company says its pension obligations are largely financed for its 479,000 retirees and their spouses."

RightwingUnderground2149 reads

I have no idea what the real story is on their retirement obligations, but it is possible to 'owe' money, not have the money in hand and claim that projections will cover it.

I am thnking this is the same type of situation where retirement plan 'debt' is really future obligations. The money isn't really debt, yet. Likewise is often said about the Federal government debt really equaling $50 trillion, not $10. Again, it includes future obligation, not money that is actually owed today.

You're wrong about the pension obligations. Delta, Northwest, US Air, United, all went through bankruptcy, and all eliminated their pension fund obligations. Bankruptcy Court judges approved it. Whatever money was left in each airline's pension fund after the executives and lawyers got their cut, was doled out in a lump sum payment to the retirees at pennies on the dollar. Same thing at Eastern, PanAm, TWA. Pension obligations were turned over to the PBGC, Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp, which is a government run insurance entity. Companies with a pension plan pay into the PBGC fund depending on how large the individual pension plans are. My friend at Delta was getting several thousand a month, now he gets $1,700/month from the PBGC. Same thing is about to happen to me with my former airline. In bankruptcy, all union contracts are null and void by court order. Airline bankruptcies affect more people than you might suspect, but not as large a number as the 3 automakers would.

9-man1407 reads


Don't blame unions for getting the best deal the automakers would cut them. A good reason the auto-makers agreed to such pensions expenses is  much like the reason we have huge public debt: auto-makers wanted to pay workers less wages when the contracts were signed, and to do that, they promised to pay pensions later.

A contract takes two sides. If automakers were thinking in the long term, they would have paid more wages and let the workers take care of their pensions.

So, now those "loans" have come due, and it's the workers fault for sending the bill like anybody holding a matured loan would!

Now, suppose the automakers re-negotiate with the Unions to pay less of a pension. What if the Unions agree to that, and then the automakers declare chapter 7 in a few years, the way Eastern Airlines did. The Unions would then be suckers.

A bail out? I'm neutral on it. What if the bailout was the government taking on the pension obligations? Then the automakers could operate freely again, maybe.

But I agree with you that this is getting out of control. The plans have been slip-shod and rushed. The government doesn't have the money to do this, and can't raise the tax revenues in this economy to cover it all. Meanwhile, China's economy is slowing greatly. It's possible now that China will quit financing these expenses.

At least in the Great Depression the government was solvent.

But the worker bees and the subsequent industries around it don't deserve bankruptcy.

For over 30 years the lobbyists have quashed any serious attempts for CAFE standards along with the Motor City's bought elected officials.
Meanwhile Japan & Europe just kept turning out more fuel efficient cars while making them better and better all the time.


Several years AFTER a several BILLION Dollar incentive for Hybrid R&D from the Fed; Detroit suddenly realized they were 10+ years behind the Japs, and the American public was paying nearly $5.00/gal for fuel.

Neither the American auto worker nor our nation deserves the economic catastrophe of Motor City's failure; but the guys at the top along with the army of bought politicians and lobbyists should be tried for treason.

Baloney. The autor worker, AKA the unions have brought this on themselves. Union strongarm tactics have created a workforce in which workers are making $40-78/hr to push a button, AND expect a pension package that most workers in America would salivate over. The Unions have priced themselves out of jobs time and again in every industry in this country, and have pushed their demands to point of bankrupting the very companies they work for.

As I said in my first post, contrary to popular belief allowing the auto makers to go into bankruptcy does NOT mean these companies will collapse. What it WILL do is allow them to restructure themselves from top to bottom, AND most importantly, allow them renegotiate their pension and benefits agreements with the unions.

Bankruptcy is the ONLY way to break the stranglehole the unions hold over the auto makers.

But I do like your idea of trying the bought and paid for politicians, along with the lobbyists for treason. Once convicted, I will vote to hang them by their thumbs for a few years too. Lets just make sure the union bosses who also helped create this mess hang right along side them.

They too are/were certainly able to see they were eventually going to kill their own cash cow. But hanging them by their thumbs is cruel and unusual punishment.
I vote we hang them by something they've never used, and don't need....their BALLS.
;-)




-- Modified on 11/13/2008 10:47:50 AM

And kills the competetion or at least the potential for it. Let them crash and burn. Maybe some smart guy in production will take out a loan and start his own company. Forget jail time just make them the guys who killed Ford or Chevy. Detroit is already a pit anyway, I hate going there.

will be from the airlines.  And it won't be peanuts.

lackeys say its good for the US and  claim it's god's will. Anyone
opposed to the bailout will be charged with treason and excommunicated from the capitalist dog pack. Those forced out of the dog pack will get interest free loans from Asian extremists to buy shares of the bailed out auto companies. Those shares will be bundled with stocks from the rest of the bailed out capitalist ventures and converted into a new class of derivative financial paper. This paper will be used to finance the mortgage industry bailouts and pay for my next 6 sessions with my ATF. :)

9-man2468 reads

I see that people are either bracing themselves or arming themselves for personal gain.

-- Modified on 11/15/2008 2:17:12 PM

Register Now!