GM Flight Dept?

[LRvsH25B]

You guys are pathetic, I looked up F on the NYSE and it stood for Ford, I looked up T and guess what it doesn't stand for Toyota. That's because it's NOT an American company.

The money goes out of the country and stays out of the country. It's controlled by and managed by foreigners.

Now get over this BS that they make cars here, big deal. Let me stop and think, is it because they care about the American worker or the American Economy? Heck NO! It's CHEAPER for them to do it, they improve their bottom line doing it, which means more profits go back to Japan (foreign soil). AKA Dollars Leave the US.

FYI Buick makes cars in China, Ford makes cars in Europe. Does that make GM a Chinese company?

Pathetic? Are we insulting each other now?

In some respects you are correct, the $ does go out of the country; some of it. But plenty of it stays right here in the US. I don't care they they are not an american company. I like their cars. What do you say to all the Jews who have Mercedes? The Germans did some pretty rough things to the Jews, but they still buy German.

It may of may not be cheaper for them to build cars here in the US, I don't know and I won't just take your word for it as they still build plenty of cars over in Japan. I do know that Honda is able to put out a commercial telling all of us their Accord is made in Marysville, OH? That's enough for me. I know what a car plant does for a community in terms of jobs, revenue for business owners, tax collection, etc. I spent plenty of time at my Grandfather's farm in BWG, home of the Corvette and it's jumping down there. A car plant brings plenty of $$ to communities; why do you think cities fight/bribe for the right to have them? If a majority of the $ goes to Asia, fine by me as there is plenty left here for the workers who put those cars together, the landlords who rent those people Apartments, the cities who collect their tax from their paychecks, the small business owner who sells gas, squares, booze, toilet paper, and so on and so on.........

 

[jj21211]

I worked at a Ford plant in the 70's, and thats exactly how it was. You'd go to the parking lot during lunch and 3 or 4 out of five were having beer or liquor with lunch (at 2AM). You'd get crap if you worked too fast. Parking lot strewn with bottles during shift change. Grafitti written inside door panels and yes, the occasional empty liquor minature laying in there as well. Driver side power windows failed on both my Suburbans, 500-700 bucks to fix. The four wheel steer rear end failed on my '03. Sorry, theyre discontinued, have to manufacture one from parts, about $4000. etc etc. They fooled me twice. Shame on me.

 

[satpak77]

The money goes out of the country and stays out of the country. It's controlled by and managed by foreigners.

Now get over this BS that they make cars here, big deal. Let me stop and think, is it because they care about the American worker or the American Economy? Heck NO! It's CHEAPER for them to do it, they improve their bottom line doing it, which means more profits go back to Japan (foreign soil). AKA Dollars Leave the US.

FYI Buick makes cars in China, Ford makes cars in Europe. Does that make GM a Chinese company?

I know this is a revolutionary idea, but if GM and the Big Three made better cars than Toyota, profits could stay in the US and money would stay in this country.

Oh wait, thats why we are asking for a bailout.

Silly me

 

[Publishers]

That pales compared to the oil money going out.

 

[G4G5]

TC,

I could not disagree more. My Wife has a 2003 Chevy Trailblazer and it has been perfect. My Dodge Pickup has been flawless for years. I had more problems with my Honda CRV and the never ending check engine light.

Did the big 3 make crap, sure. I put myself through college as an auto mechanic(back in the 80's) making plenty of money off of the crap that they sold.

Today's US made car is not what it was just 10 years ago. Ask any auto mechanic. Does Japan make good car, sure, I drove a Camary for 180,000 miles on the same engine, it only need 4 transmissions to make it that far.

As far as trucks go, the big 3 have the market.

I buy oil so I am sending my money overseas? Somehow that's the same as not buying an American car. I am missing the point

Now back to the topic. From what I read, you are OK with letting the big 3 go ch11? If that's the case you and I differ greatly on the subject.

 

[G4G5]

I know this is a revolutionary idea, but if GM and the Big Three made better cars than Toyota, profits could stay in the US and money would stay in this country.

Oh wait, thats why we are asking for a bailout.

Silly me

No, Toyota and Honda can't ask for a bailout because they ARE NOT US COMPANIES!

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/blog/eyeonasia/archives/2008/11/will_japans_car.html

 

[satpak77]

I feel that Ch.11 exists for a purpose. I don't see why big government should bailout the car makers. Who is next? At what point do we draw the line on who and who does not get bailed out?

The banks? I see some argument based on the way the world financial system works, major bank failures would not be good.

Sure "many people depend on GM." Fine. More reason for Mr. CEO to be cognizant of how he does things. What about Dell computer? Or United Airlines?

Where do we draw the line?

 

[G4G5]

I feel that Ch.11 exists for a purpose. I don't see why big government should bailout the car makers. Who is next? At what point do we draw the line on who and who does not get bailed out?

The banks? I see some argument based on the way the world financial system works, major bank failures would not be good.

Sure "many people depend on GM." Fine. More reason for Mr. CEO to be cognizant of how he does things. What about Dell computer? Or United Airlines?

Where do we draw the line?

Six months ago I would have agreed, let them go ch 11 but 6 years ago the government was denying that we were in a recession. In todays economic climate you can not let them go under.

GM has approximately $43 Billion in debt. Who holds the debt? The banks, the very same ones that WE have given hundreds of billions of dollars to in this bailout. What happens to the debt if GM goes ch11? These very same banks get left holding the bag, only to revieve cents on a dollar.

These very same banks also issued CDO's (insurance on the debt) to the large instutional investors holding GM stock and debt. So guess what, the very same banks that we baild out now have to pay out on the bad GM debt. Guess what, after GM files CH11, we get to bailout the banks once again because they can't afford to eat $43 billion in debt and pay out on the CDO's.

Now do the same thing for Ford.

What about the legacy costs, if GM files ch11 who pays the benefits for the retired workers? You and I do via the PBGC. SO now you get to add the auto works pensions to the likes of Pan AM, the steel and rail road industry. The PBGC can't afford it, this is fact not fiction,and will need to be bailed out. By us, aka tax increases.

Let's, not forget unemployment Ford and GM have OVER a half a BILLION employees combined. A little know fact, when Chrysler when bankrupt in 1979, they laid off half of their work force. Who pays for all of the unemployed?

Now add this to the fact that the govenment now knowledges that we are in a recession. How does letting the big 3 go ch11 shorten the recession? It doesn't. How does it stop it from going deeper? It doesn't, some economist believe that this could be the trigger that takes us from a recession into a depression.

Still think that letting the big 3 go ch11 is a good idea. I'd love to hear any of your arguments. I have given you mine.

GM is looking for a $18 billion dollar bridge loan. Citi got a $20 billion dollar check two weeks ago over a Sunday night (on top of the $25 billion). I say give it to them or we can just send it directly to the banks.

 

[Raskal]

Six months ago I would have agreed, let them go ch 11 but 6 years ago the government was denying that we were in a recession. In todays economic climate you can not let them go under.

GM has approximately $43 Billion in debt. Who holds the debt? The banks, the very same ones that WE have given hundreds of billions of dollars to in this bailout. What happens to the debt if GM goes ch11? These very same banks get left holding the bag, only to revieve cents on a dollar.

These very same banks also issued CDO's (insurance on the debt) to the large instutional investors holding GM stock and debt. So guess what, the very same banks that we baild out now have to pay out on the bad GM debt. Guess what, after GM files CH11, we get to bailout the banks once again because they can't afford to eat $43 billion in debt and pay out on the CDO's.

Now do the same thing for Ford.

What about the legacy costs, if GM files ch11 who pays the benefits for the retired workers? You and I do via the PBGC. SO now you get to add the auto works pensions to the likes of Pan AM, the steel and rail road industry. The PBGC can't afford it, this is fact not fiction,and will need to be bailed out. By us, aka tax increases.

Let's, not forget unemployment Ford and GM have OVER a half a BILLION employees combined. A little know fact, when Chrysler when bankrupt in 1979, they laid off half of their work force. Who pays for all of the unemployed?

Now add this to the fact that the govenment now knowledges that we are in a recession. How does letting the big 3 go ch11 shorten the recession? It doesn't. How does it stop it from going deeper? It doesn't, some economist believe that this could be the trigger that takes us from a recession into a depression.

Still think that letting the big 3 go ch11 is a good idea. I'd love to hear any of your arguments. I have given you mine.

GM is looking for a $18 billion dollar bridge loan. Citi got a $20 billion dollar check two weeks ago over a Sunday night (on top of the $25 billion). I say give it to them or we can just send it directly to the banks.

Very well said. To add a couple of points, there is NO other country who would let its auto industry fail, not one. France is shoving money at Peugot as an example. The reason? Think about it for a minute.

Auto manufacturers actually "make" things which means they are huge consumers as well as manufacturers (rubber, plastic, steel-the auto industry is still the biggest purchasers of these items) so their well-being is tied to industries all over the board. They don't just play with paper all day like AIG, Citi and so on. They are companies that "make" or produce absolutely nothing besides excellent incomes for lobbying firms and gifts for our corrupt government.

Face it, we all got royally screwed by our politicians in the mother of all butt%^&ks with this financial industry bailout-arguably the greatest screwing of a civillian population since Marie wanted everybody to eat cake. I realize you think this is terrible and want the "bailouts" to stop, but it was done wrong in the first place, the money went to the wrong people. Now, we have the opportunity to give a couple of much smaller loans to an industry that means everything to this country, something I know my fellow democrats hate to admit. It is by far the only sensible thing to do.

 

[G4G5]

Boy, I really need to get into proof reading my posts. Too difficult to do from the Iphone

 

[waka]

Hi!

The Big Three have been helping out the Japanese for years. Their biggest mistake was to send Edwards Deming packing instead of hiring him as a consultant.

He wanted to improve the efficiency of the automobile companies starting in the '50s. He was rejected by the former Big 3, and went to Japan, where companies like Toyota and Honda revered him.

Guess what happened?

cliff
YIP

Are you kidding? It is the big 3 that "borrows" from Japanese and German technology and production techniques. Ford from Mazda, Diamond Star from Mitsubishi, GM from Toyota, Ford (again) from Europe. If anything, the Japanese has helped the US. i.e. Reliability of the big 3 didn't start to improve until the late 80's with models like the Geo Prizm (a.k.a. Toyota Corolla) or Geo Metro (a.k.a. Suzuki Swift) etc.

 

[AA717driver]

G4G5--I'm glad your experience with U.S. autos has been different than ours. We just can't gamble on a U.S. made vehicle anymore.

On the bailout: A bridge loan won't fix the problems of the Big 3. It just gets them to next year. In a Ch.11, the banks won't get hung for the entire amount, payment is just restructured. The union contracts MUST be altered. It won't happen outside of Ch. 11. The UAW isn't ALPA.

With $45B in debt, what's their plan to pay us back?
Do we go to the head of the line?

Who gets a bailout next? UAL? Macy's?

Who's going to bail out the United States when no one will buy our paper?

TC

P.S.--The oil we buy probably didn't come out of the ground here. We send $700B to OPEC each year. The U.S. is not a member of OPEC.

 

[SansPlane]

P.S.--The oil we buy probably didn't come out of the ground here. We send $700B to OPEC each year. The U.S. is not a member of OPEC.

[FONT=&quot]I believe the article below is attributed to Charles Pena. Even if the number is 700 billion, that number would fluctuate with the price of oil which is trading under $50.00.

I appreciate the comment at the end of this article; “phantom menace.” Too many “factoids” pawned off as factual information seeded in the minds of otherwise intelligent persons.[/FONT]



What $700 Billion?

In accepting the nomination as the Republican candidate for U.S. president, Sen. John McCain proclaimed that if elected, "We are going to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much." One can't help but wonder what $700 billion the good senator is talking about. (He certainly couldn't have been talking about U.S. foreign aid. According to U.S. Agency for International Development [USAID] report U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants, Obligations, and Loan Authorizations [commonly known as "The Greenbook"], in 2006 the United States provided almost $27 billion in economic aid to foreign countries and another $12 billion in military assistance for a grand total of $49 billion, the bulk of which was spent in the Middle East and North Africa [$15 billion].)

Apparently, the $700 billion is money we're spending for energy, presumably foreign oil. According to McCain, "We will produce more energy at home. We will drill new wells offshore, and we'll drill them now. We will build more nuclear power plants. We will develop clean coal technology. We will increase the use of wind, tide, solar, and natural gas. We will encourage the development and use of flex fuel, hybrid, and electric automobiles."

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the United States imports about 58 percent of the petroleum products (which includes crude oil and other refined petroleum products such as gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil, jet fuel, chemical feedstocks, and asphalt) it consumes. In 2007, the United States imported 4.9 billion barrels of oil at an average price of $72 per barrel, or roughly $352 billion – about half of the $700 billion claimed by McCain. Using 2007 consumption levels (although oil consumption is currently declining as Americans adjust to the increased price of gas at the pump) and the current price of oil ($105 per barrel as this is written), the cost of foreign oil would be $515 billion. Even at the EIA's 2009 projected price of $123 per barrel, foreign oil would cost $603 billion – still less than McCain's $700 billion.

So where did McCain come up with $700 billion? Apparently he's been talking to Texas billionaire oilman turned wind farmer T. Boone Pickens.

In July Pickens rolled out a $50 million media campaign to tout his energy plan. According to Pickens, America is addicted to foreign oil, and "As imports grow and world prices rise, the amount of money we send to foreign nations every year is soaring. At current oil prices, we will send $700 billion dollars out of the country this year alone." In the first half of this year, the United States imported 2.4 billion barrels of oil. If we assume that 4.8 billion barrels is a good estimate for the entire year, the price of oil would have to average $145 per barrel for the cost foreign oil to equal $700 billion in 2008 – but the record high for a barrel of oil was $147 per barrel for only one day in July, and according to EIA the projected average price for this year is $119 per barrel, which would equal a total of $571 billion. (Pickens also claims we import 70 percent of our oil, which is significantly more than the 58 percent figure from the EIA.)

Pickens is also apparently the source of McCain's claim of sending $700 billion "to countries that don't like us very much." In a September 2006 interview, Pickens stated that "others [countries we buy oil from] are not friendly." And in July of this year he told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that many of the countries supplying oil to the United States are "not friendly."

Clearly, "not friendly" is a euphemism for the Middle East. But in 2007, only 16 percent of imported oil (a little less than 800 million barrels) came from the Persian Gulf (Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates). The reality is that nearly half of imported oil comes from Western Hemisphere sources, which account for three of the top five suppliers of foreign oil:

• Canada: 18.2 percent (which accounts for more barrels of oil – not quite 900 million – than all of the Persian Gulf countries)
• Mexico: 11.4 percent
• Saudi Arabia: 11.0 percent
• Venezuela: 10.1 percent
• Nigeria: 8.4 percent

The last time I checked, both Canada and Mexico were considered friendly neighbors.

Ultimately, John McCain's pledge "to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much" amounts to the same kind of exaggeration and fear-mongering the Bush administration engaged in to demonize Saddam Hussein as a dire threat to America – which he clearly wasn't. Similarly, imported oil is not a threat to the United States, simply an economic reality. (One thing McCain is right about is that "[t]he issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should.") More importantly, the foreign countries that sell oil are not enemies. The last thing we need to do is chase another phantom menace.

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

G4G4 is correct: Bailout the Big Three now and pay a lot of money to keep them going,
OR
Let them go Chapter 7, and pay 10-50x MORE money in costs associated with them going out of business.

Two items that G4G5 did not mention:

1-There is NO Chapter 11 option for Detroit. If DTW goes Chapter 11, it turns into Chapter 7.

I was just discussing this with my former crashpad mate (former as we depended too much on DTW, are basically out of business, and 4/5 guys in our crashpad were fired-no union, no furlough): He said that UAL/DAL, etc., went Chapter 11, and came out of it just fine-let's just do the same with DTW.

BUT, that was then, this is now. Now if DTW goes Chapter 11, they need FINANCING to come out of it. Who will give them financing??? No one, and they go Chapter 7.

2-If GM goes under, how will that effect our economy. What I was SHOCKED at, is that many of our Congressmen and even Senators, had no clue.

Many of them are from Southern states, and have Hyundai, Kia, BMW, etc. factories, and aren't keen on helping DTW.

If GM goes under, there are a number of Tier 1, 2 and 3 suppliers, that will ALSO go Chapter 11/Chapter 7, and go out of business. They have enough business with GM, that a GM failure means they are gone.

If this occurs, there will be NO AUTO PRODUCTION in NORTH AMERICA, for a substantial period of time. These suppliers also make parts for Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, etc. Virtually ALL auto assembly lines will shut down, until the existing suppliers can re-organize, which will be months. Towns in non-DTW areas, will be DEVASTATED!

Bottom Line: A shutdown in DTW would be catastrophic for the US, and the global economy.

cliff
YIP

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

I am siding with the Republicans and Conservatives on this one: We need to lower taxes and costs on our manufacturing sector. We need to ensure that companies want to locate factories here in the US, and not send them overseas. We need to ensure that foreign companies don't have an unfair advantage over US companies, when they are competing in the same industries.

We need Nationalized Health Care:
DTW pays HUGE dollars per car on health care.
Toyota doesn't.
Hyundai doesn't.
Puegot doesn't.
VW doesn't.
Volvo doesn't
etc., etc.

To even the playing field, to ensure global competitiveness, to increase our exports in a globally competitive market, we need to ensure that DTW is not penalized by having to pay worker health care costs.

Here is a specific example:
Toyota was choosing a site for a new factory. They narrowed it down to Tucson, and Ontario, Canada. They picked Ontario for two reasons:
1-Toyota would have NO health care costs in Ontario, and LOTS in Tucson
2-The local people in Tucson decided to pay ver little money towards public education, unlike Ontario. Ontario's average worker, Toyota found, was much more educated, and would require much less money to train to work in their factories.

Nationalized Health Care is needed, to ensure global competitiveness for our manufacturing base.

cliff
YIP

 

[atpcliff]

Hi.

To any GM/Ford guys: I am very sorry you lost your jobs, and hope you can land on your feet.

Mesaba and GoJet are both hiring street captains.

I found several gov't jobs flying a Predator B. The bases are CA, AZ and GFK, but the ad says that MI, FL and NY may be added as bases in the future.

Good Luck, and God Bless!!!

cliff
YIP
PS-Anything I can do to help out, PM me. Between me and a couple of my buddies, we are pretty up on the current (not-so-good) hiring situation. With your jobs, you probably weren't looking at other options. I wouldn't have been.

 

[captainv]

Mesaba and GoJet are both hiring street captains.

Since when is Mesaba hiring street captains?

 

[Shag McNasty]

Go ask a Canadian how much he pays in taxes per year. Just because it's nationalized doesn't mean it's free!(unless you're unemployed)

 

[G4G5]

It's not the same to compare the big 3 to UAL, if UAL goes ch11 or even ch7, then Delta, AMR or CAL are all set to take their place gain market share, keep jobs and the dollar in the US.

We aren't left with JAL or All Nippon to fly us from NY to Orlando.

The same goes with any other industry, you name it, housing, consumer goods, whatever. Nobody is running to the mall to shop at the Japanese version of Macy's.

Plain and simple their is no US replacement for the big 3, only foreign.

If Boeing comes begging for some money, your answer is No? It's better to let them go under and have us all fly Airbus? I say lend them the money too. The cat's out of the bag. When we can give $25 billion to Citi and then another $20 billion more without a Congressional head hunt, we can give $18 to GM.

Their are almost 3/4 of a BILLION jobs (GM, Ford and Chrysler alone) on the line. Then add in everything from the guy who sells the coffee on the truck outside the Ford plant to the folks who work at the plastic vendor who supplies Delco who supplies GM the spark plug wires.

Do the math, their are well over a BILLION jobs at stake here folks!!!!

Once again I ask any of you. How does letting (any of) the big 3 go ch 11 shorten the recession? How does it stop it from going deeper?

 

[G4G5]

TC

P.S.--The oil we buy probably didn't come out of the ground here. We send $700B to OPEC each year. The U.S. is not a member of OPEC.[/quote]

I still am missing the point, type slower for me. How does buying oil compare to letting the big 3 go under?

FYI.
OPEC does not refine any oil. When I buy my gas it has to go through a US refinery that uses US technology. Without the US refinery and the US technology their is NO GAS. Just ask IRAN, they can produce all the oil they want but they can't refine a single ounce. Still missing the comparison.

Hence the reason that Exxon Mobil can produce record profits all day long.