Yes |
 |
19.3% (17) |
No |
|
75% (66) |
Other (state reason in post) |
|
5.7% (5) |
| (Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4) | |
Beat Writer  Posts: 176 Joined: 8 May 2008     | |
Video Producer  Posts: 1066 Joined: 19 Feb 2006     |
Even their fuel efficient cars don't sell. On average their sedans sell for thousand of dollars less then an equivalent Honda or Toyota. The difference is that Honda and Toyota choose to cut costs by using standardized parts. These auto makers try to cut costs by inserting inferior parts. The consumers prefer to buy the more dependable vehicle that is also in turn cheaper to repair. Some of the 3 don't have that much trouble selling either. GM for instance makes more money then all the other auto makers, the problem is that they spend more then everyone else as well. All in all, they are simply poorly managed companies that are paying far to much for labor. Any loan that we extend to them is likely to not be paid back, meaning the tax-payers will have to eat that cost. |
Pulitzer Laureate  Posts: 742 Joined: 2 Nov 2008     |
OK here's the thing yes if the company goes under people will lose their job in the short run but will eventually find a new job. If we give them bailouts it gives the companies an excudse to be lazy and not take responsiblity for their failures. So they will either fold or be bought out and then they can rebuild under beter management. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 2586 Joined: 6 Jun 2008    |
We could easily make that scale. Especially for wind. There's almost constant wind over the oceans, it wouldn't be hard to set up windmills near the coast and run coastal towns and cities. Of course it would make more sense to use wave power And there are very few places where solar can't get energy. We just need to take a bigger look at it. |
Beat Writer  Posts: 159 Joined: 17 Nov 2008   | The collapse of the three American car companies would not be fatal for the US. The collapse of all the American car companies would not be fatal for the US! The collapse of the main American banks would bring down the rest of the country with them. As unpalatable as it is to fund the bankers, the banks cannot be allowed to go under. Companies who make substandard automobiles (in comparison with European and Japanese cars) have no God-given right to stay afloat. Recessions are no places for rose-tinted spectacles. |
Press Junketeer  Posts: 356 Joined: 28 Aug 2008  | No. This is what i like about capitalism, you've got to run a tight ship to survive. These guys didn't, and now they're paying the price for it. This is the essence of capitalism in play. |
BANNED  Posts: 2505 Joined: 19 Aug 2008   | Where the fuck is the government getting all this money? We are in some sort of huge ass financial crysis yet the government has 700 billion to give to business's and banks. The auto companies should earn their bailout by making, or at least working on a more environmentally friendly car. I would vote yes then, and only then!! I also might vote yes because where I live GM is a big job provider, something like 1500 got laid off like 3 months ago, and it helps my cities economy. User was banned for: Poll: Round 5 - Field of Four - (1) Turbine vs (1) Nintendo. (Permanent) |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 2633 Joined: 30 Sep 2008   | This is really hard to really nail down, If we don't help them one one-hundreth of all americans will become unemployed, and One of America's last remaining industries will be gone, and we will be more or less completely reliant on foriegn companies. On the other hand if we do bail them out and they squander it, then we will be up shit creek yet again. But GM has slowly been starting to turn it around and Ford is also (not as much, but whatever) so maybe we can help them restructure their companies and have them set guidelines that can help their doughy asses in the changing world. |
Infamous Scribbler  Posts: 645 Joined: 27 Mar 2008   | According to a popular factoid, the Big Three account for nearly 10% of the U.S. workforce (albeit indirectly in many cases). This is the only reason I'm willing to consider the bailout seriously. The figure given is probably high, and there is a great deal to argue, but the basic fact remains- losing all three automakers would put a lot of people on the street. Both the short- and long-term effects would be very unpleasant. The right thing to do, in my humble and un-boffinish opinion, is to bail them out on the condition that they present and carry out a plan for becoming competitive again, and that the UAW play along with the plans- even if it means a pay cut. I'm willing to put up with the Big Three provided they're willing to smarten up and retool.
I agree with everything this post said. The tendency to go doe-eyed at the prospect of another green technology is all-too-rarely challenged. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 2331 Joined: 18 Sep 2008  |
They are simply printing the money. The federal reserve borders on treasonous, and the congress just follows them like puppy dogs. Factoid: the federal reserve is not federal, and they really don't reserve a whole heck of a lot. its name is to make us feel warm and cozy, its a private national bank. The government borrows this money from somewhere, raiding social security and the like. But the real bailouts are the ones outside the 700 billion (850 after the votes were purchased). The federal reserve just deposits numbers into a bank account. That number is in the trillions. its amazing what the federal reserve is doing. Don't even need to print it, you just type a number into a computer and now you have that money. ANd then they transfer it. Horay federal reserve! The federal reserve was created to protect our money against inflation. They've done a great job: the dollar we have was worth 4 cents when we created the federal reserve. And while it seems old fashioned to pay a nickle for a candybar, all we've done is decrease the value of the dollar. Now we pay a dollar for a candybar, but the candy never changed its inherent value. I really hope it doesn't destroy our nation. And all the sheeple just go right along with it. So you can have your bailouts, but do you really trust the government to make your cars? |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1455 Joined: 6 Feb 2008    | Dont bail them out, wait for them to go into administration. Bail out the smaller subsidiary car manufacturers that arnt bought up by other competitors. |
BANNED Posts: 2505 Joined: 19 Aug 2008 |
I don't really trust the government to do anything. 0_0 They never seem to do it right, leave it to the professionals. User was banned for: Poll: Round 5 - Field of Four - (1) Turbine vs (1) Nintendo. (Permanent) |
Press Junketeer Posts: 440 Joined: 10 Mar 2008  | I being a full heart American say NO, and I say we should chop GM and Ford up and sell them to the Japanese. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2586 Joined: 6 Jun 2008 |
Why GM and Ford? At least they're trying to fix themselves. It's Dodge/Chrysler that should be chopped up. |
Beat Writer  Posts: 198 Joined: 18 Jul 2008    | no. just no. if they come to expect it they'll do whatever the hell they want, sell no cars and come to the american ppl with their hand out also if the american tax payer bails them out...what do they get? what if i would still rather drive a Toyota? are they going to make better cars...why would they change anything the gov bailed them out...would we get free cars? no they can't do that...would they lower the prices? |
On the Record  Posts: 6029 Joined: 25 Jan 2008    | QUESTION Can you fix a leaking bucket by pouring more water into it? If your answer is no, then no bailout. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2586 Joined: 6 Jun 2008 |
If the water is mixed with a glue or plaster it might. |
Infamous Scribbler Posts: 666 Joined: 3 Jul 2008   | For years I've seen GM reporting layoffs and downsizing in the wake of their SUV wet dream turning into a nightmare, that was before the mortgage market took a nosedive on the back of speculative folly. Let them die, others are ready to take their place. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 3664 Joined: 21 Jan 2008   | No. It's not the responsibility of the government to make sure a company stays afloat. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2586 Joined: 6 Jun 2008 |
Yeah, but now their Chevy division is at least trying to save themselves as opposed to Dodge/Chrysler. We must focus our hatred on one company to have it drown! |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1563 Joined: 8 Oct 2008 | They dug themselves into the hole and unlike the banks their disapearance will mean companies with better management can take over, the way economics should work. |
Press Junketeer Posts: 440 Joined: 10 Mar 2008 |
Well you see its not hatred of the company and the workers its hatred of their really horrible business style. Realistically the company is not keeping up its falling behind. Like social darwinist I believe if a animal is too weak to survive it shouldn't have to be picked up weight by the rest of the herd, it will be left along to die. I can never support a company who's shareholders tell their former CEO "We don't make cars we make money" |
Muckraker  Posts: 288 Joined: 10 Aug 2008 |
They also make a diesel 300 that gets like 45 mpg. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2586 Joined: 6 Jun 2008 |
If they did, they don't anymore. And I highly doubt it would have got 45 MPG without modifications. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2586 Joined: 6 Jun 2008 |
Yes but all three companies suck at that, so if we're going to hate one, we might as well hate the lame duck among them. It's hard to turn a large company onto a different track, but Chevy is trying to save their asses and Ford is as well (not as hard, but they are). But Dodge/Chrysler's best car gets 30MPG highway and they don't feel like changing that. |
On the Record Posts: 6029 Joined: 25 Jan 2008 |
No, no it wouldn't. Obviously water is money and the hole in the bucket is the problem. If you fix the problem first, then refill the bucket, it would work. But while adding glue to the water may slow some of the drip, you've tainted the water and still failed to stop the leak, instead just making more of a mess. The American big-3 auto manufacturers are fuckups, plain and simple. They made bad business choices, and in a fair and legal market, they would simply go under as the international companies fill the void, namely the German and Japanese auto makers. So what is Toyota getting from the bailout? They were business savvy and invested in fuel-efficient engine research while GM was shoving the H2 up our ass, what's their reward for good business practice? And what will this bailout mean for every other industry? If I opened a restaurant then ran it into the ground with dumb moves, technically I should be entitled to a bailout too. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2586 Joined: 6 Jun 2008 |
And obviously I made a joke about being oblivious to the fact you were using a metaphor. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1288 Joined: 21 Nov 2007 | They should divert $40 billion from the $750B bailout that they're giving to the banks who are squandering it, and give it to the auto industry. Hey, at least they can make something tangible. The people they're giving 750 billion to make...securities backed by the potential worth of future loans. How does that help the American people? The best part is that the banks gave no guarantee that it will work, and they EVEN SAID THAT THEY WOULD NEED MORE IN THE FUTURE. And we still gave them the money. At least the auto industry is saying that they can get out of the hole with $40B kick in the pants. I was against giving the banks a bailout because they created this mess, and I knew letting them get their hands on more money wouldn't help. After listening to the Auto CEO's testimonies, I say give them the bank's money. The banks had their chance, and squandered it. Lets give the Big 3 what's left of the money we tried to help them out with.
I dont see this as a leaking bucket. I see it more as I see it a person bleeding to death. And the bleeding is caused by an appendage that can't figure out that giving blood to cells who declared bankruptcy 3 times is a bad idea. And that appendage is for whatever reason, being saved by doctors instead of amputated, even as the rest of the body loses its jobs, houses, and vehicles. Anyway, no you can't stop the bleeding by infusing the guy with more blood, but you can keep him alive long enough to fix the problem. |
On the Record Posts: 6029 Joined: 25 Jan 2008 |
That's not a joke... A joke goes something like: Or if it's too early in the morning for dead baby jokes: A young man wished to purchase a gift for his new sweetheart's birthday, and as they had not been dating very long, after careful consideration he decided a pair of gloves would strike the right note -- romantic, but not too personal. During the wrapping, the clerk mixed up the items and the sister got the gloves and the sweetheart got the panties. Without checking the contents first, he sealed his package and mailed it to his sweetheart along with this note: Darling, I chose these because I noticed that you are not in the habit of wearing any when we go out in the evening. If it had not been for your sister, I would have chosen the long ones with buttons, but she wears short ones that are easy to remove. These are a delicate shade, but the lady I bought them from showed me the pair she had been wearing for the past three weeks and they were hardly soiled. I had her try yours on for me and she looked really smart. I wish I were there to put them on you for the first time, as no doubt other hands will come in contact with them before I have a chance to see you again. When you take them off, remember to blow in them before putting them away as they will naturally be a little damp from wearing. Just think how many times I will kiss them during the coming year. I hope you will wear them for me on Friday night. All my Love, P.S The latest style is to wear them folded down with a little fur showing. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2586 Joined: 6 Jun 2008 |
Well my talking was not to be taken seriously. That's my point. |
On the Record Posts: 6029 Joined: 25 Jan 2008 |
And, with the exception of my rants, I am never to be taken seriously or personally. I should however be taken sparingly and for the right woman, I can be taken orally. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1505 Joined: 12 Dec 2007   | It goes against the idea of a free market. Irresponsible and inefficient companies should be allowed to fall under their own ineptitude. These companies are hugely wasteful and showed it to everyone by flying their CEOs in individual private jets to Washington. If they want to stay afloat they need to keep up with the Market. The need to cut costs: Only manufacture and sell the most profitable cars. Streamline operations. Stop unnecessary R&D. Sell the jets. Cut 6-7 figure executive salaries. Negotiate factory and land rental costs. Reign in spending. Acquire money owed to them. Cut the workforce. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2586 Joined: 6 Jun 2008 |
Well said. But I still stand behind that if we could pick one car company to kill and pretend never existed it would be Dodge/Chrysler. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1735 Joined: 29 May 2008 | Right, saving banks... good idea. With a recession at this point guaranteed, people aren't going to be going out and buying lots of cars. They will make do with what they have, unless have a fairly large amount of spare money. I've only seen one 58 plate in the UK so far. That's how bad it is. People are just not buying cars. Giving the industry money is essentially washing it down the drain, effectively. |
On the Record Posts: 6029 Joined: 25 Jan 2008 |
No way! Ford. What has ford given us? The Pinto. Though Hyundai is high up on my off-list, cheap assed rust buckets. |
| (Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4) | |
Reply to Thread
|
|
Not registered? Sign up for a free account! |
In all fairness though there is the three strike rule.