President Offers Automakers Little Encouragement

[z28luvr01]

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic.../601260442/1361

---

Dear Mr. Bush,

I've been supporting you and your administration despite your obviously unpopular actions since takng office. I've been a believer in the Iraq war, even though it's questionable as to whether or not we belong here. I don't even mind you supporting the invasion of my privacy. I have nothing to hide.

However, after reading the article above, I now see things as they are. You and your administration really don't care about the well being of this country. The last six years have been more about personal agendas than making America a better place to live. If you have a better explanation, I'd like to hear it. Why else would anyone in a position of authority in this country turn his back on the two largest manufacturing organizations in the country, while doing everything in his power to promote the growth of foreign companies?

Are you even remotely aware that if GM and Ford do cease to exist, so will the American economy. Have you taken notice how good news from GM or Ford boost the stock market, or how bad news from them causes it to plummet? Thanks to your tax breaks, your nonexistant tariffs, and your inaction while foreign governments manipulate themselves a trade advantage, pretty soon the US will be nothing more than a provider of real estate to foreign companies. Thanks so much for that. I'm sure Americans won't mind the fact that their hard work will benefit a country on the other side of the world that would rather nuke us than giving us any show of support. I guess I should start saving the cheese out of my discarded pizza boxes. I'm going to need it when my job gets shipped overseas.

So before you replace your limosine with a stretched Toyota Avalon, before you replace Air Force One with a fleet of Airbuses, if you even have one shread of concern for this country, step down as President and save what is left of our great nation's economy.

Sincerely,

Frank A. Donato

[CSpec]

Remember the last time Bush tried to put a tariff on something (steel)? Look how that turned out.

[zete]

Remember the last time Bush tried to put a tariff on something (steel)? Look how that turned out.

Hey, he had no problem putting it to us Canadians with a softwood lumber tax/tariff, even though it's illegal and was tossed by every court on both sides of the border. It's just Europeans and Asians he won't stand up to, just us Canucks.

Edited January 26, 2006 by zete

[cmattson]

I don't think that tariffs are the answer -- or any kind of bail out. I do think that the US government does need to act on behalf of US manufacturers-as a whole. It needs to tackle some of the core issues that affect US business's competitiveness:

1) Healthcare costs. Something needs to be done to get these under control. Double digit increases are killing virtually every labor-intensive business

2) Prescription drug costs (see #1, above)

3) Pensions. If you are a historied manufacturer in this country, you can virtually guarantee that:

3a. You've had a pension plan (it was commonplace back then)

3b. Your workforce today is much smaller than it was back then,

3c. Competition has forced you to cut into your profits and your market share.

3d. That the combination of 3a, 3b & 3c leaves you unable to afford your pension liability.

The key to #1 and #2 is to increase competition. When I can see a company like Exxon making $1b/day in profit, then you can't tell me that there aren't industries that are "closed" to competition. I believe that healthcare and prescription drug companies are largely sheltered from competition - as is the oil sector. Who couldn't undercut $1b/day? You don't need expertise: you can hire that. You don't even need all the money. Investors should be banging down your door if $1b/day can be made.

#3 is a bit more tricky. They need to be able to transition their current workforce to a 401k plan; something where the business isn't on the hook for the workers retirement - which is more of the workplace climate nowadays. Throw them a tax-break to help them out.. make it contingent on them building a top3 selling car - or a 40-45mpg car or something like that. The public benefits and so does the auto manufacturer.

Edited January 26, 2006 by cmattson

[thedriver]

reluctant to help? not how the market works? is this the same administraion who has been giving money hand over fist to airlines since 2001 to try and keep them afloat?

you have got to be kidding me...

[Flybrian]

What if one of the oil companies was in trouble?

Yeah.

I guess the Inuguration Edition Tundra made all the difference, huh, George?

before you replace Air Force One with a fleet of Airbuses

You say this jokingly but remember, this is the same cat who's going to be flown around in a Eurocopter EH101 instead of an American Sikorsky, so I can't say this surprises me.

[usa1]

"As these automobile manufacturers compete for market share and use technology to try to get consumers to buy their product, they also will be helping America become less dependent on foreign sources of oil," Bush said.

If Bush cared about "helping America become less dependent on foreign sources of oil" he would propose meaningful increases in CAFE. He's not and he never will.

Mark

[Croc]

Bush is a f@#king moron, and a very callous one at that. He needs to be taken out of office ASAP. He clearly doesn't have America's best interests at heart.

Edited January 26, 2006 by Croc

[andy82471]

What if one of the oil companies was in trouble?

Yeah.

I guess the Inuguration Edition Tundra made all the difference, huh, George?

You say this jokingly but remember,  this is the same cat who's going to be flown around in a Eurocopter EH101 instead of an American Sikorsky, so I can't say this surprises me.

How about an AIRBUS A380 replacing the 747 as the next Airforce One ? I guess this is what it would look like.

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairline...php?id=00000696

[Flybrian]

How about an AIRBUS A380 replacing the 747 as the next Airforce One ? I guess this is what it would look like.

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairline...php?id=00000696

Yeah, that's a pretty sickening thought. Joke would be on whoever makes that decison anyway as the President of the US wouldn't be able to fly into the majority of airports and would have to use the executive transport squadron of 727s, 737s, and 767s.

[slider]

I too am not a fan of the "Bush Man". Buzz Hargrove talks a little bit about trade imballances when it comes to tarriffs and so forth with foriegn countries. The Auto Assembly line worker can only assemble the car or truck that the manufacterer assigns them to assemble. If people chose not to buy that product it's not because of an inballance on trade issues. It's because we're (GM)

building the wrong cars!

[carman21]

Bush will help if he must. He will not want to until GM or Ford really need it.

The big 3 must build great cars to survive. They will.

The worst case scenario is that GM sells off some brands to another American owned automotive company, say Harley Davidson, etc.Honda once built only motorcycles. Say Buick, Pontiac,& GMC for example. I wouldn't like it but, GM surviving is better than going the Studebaker way.

A GM with just Chevy, Saturn, & Cadillac would be healthy. GM could even surpass current volume levels with those three brands. However, GM should never need to worry about it.

[Newbiewar]

Ohh... great, so Chrysler was aided by the government in 1979... but did it accually help Chrysler? did that 1.5 billion accually help them to be better? because look at them now?

I think, America should endorse American workers, make Globalism frowned upon...

What would it do if one the consumer was taxed for purchasing a vehicle not made in the USA (now i know mexico and canada make a lot of GM and Ford Vehicles so it wouldnt really help) and perhaps that tax can be applied for the US government to bail out retiries, making the Legacy cost dissapear... As seen by the new autoshows GM and Ford are again becoming innovative, but will their new products come soon enough before they are in too much financial troubles?

Our Government must get more involved with its companys. Many American companys are fleeting to other countrys for cheaper work and importing... importing is terrible for the american ecconomy... Comon...

Here is a nice article regaurding trade practices of the Japanese, its very intresting. I didnt get a chance to read it all, but it was very enlightening...

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

LOL...

Motivating Washington to get off it's ass and "tackle issues" facing our country and economy is about as likely and ludicris as motivating a Hummer H1 to go 90 MPH... It just ain't gonna happen.com, UNLESS a LONG downhill slide is involved.... In which case both could never be saved or controlled without huge damage.

Washington=worthless. The american people are increasingly understanding that. Money and "buddies" talk. Washington will not promote DOMESTIC business because it's to busy with it's hands down every other country's pants pleasing them at our expense... Seriously, if we were to screw with Japan (Who owns us anyway, and is viewed as superior to our society by most americans anyway) the kickback would be killer... We'd have every country in the world jumping on board the "We're jealous and we hate america bus." Much like what happened with Europe when we tried to keep them and China from destroying our steel industry; we got boycotted.

"I think it's very important for the market to function," he said in an interview in Thursday editions of The Wall Street Journal.

It's all about the market.... it's all about the all mighty global economy... If we as americans are screwed then so be it! But by-god, we'll be proud to say that we "let the market function"

and that his administration has discussed new fuel technologies with the nation's top two automakers.

You mean the very same administration that publicly took a dump on GM's very costly, very promising and very proud fuel cell program and hydrogen economy?

Bush suggested his sympathies are more with the workers than the corporations, saying his administration would focus on retraining laid-off employees.

Yep... retrain them for a $h!ty service job... America: servicing the world.... A shadow of it's former INNOVATIVE, MANUFACTURING power... But, what the hell... I'm sure we can all survive on the WAL-MART salary of $6.50 an hour... Right???

"This is going to be a very troubling time for workers and their families,"

Rack up those votes Mr. President..... Put on that "Politician face" That's what you "leaders" are good for anyway these days...

adding that companies had an obligation to assist employees who are laid off.

LOL..... You mean much like the obligation the GOVERNMENT has to assist domestic industry?!?!?!?

"I'm very firm on seeing to it that this government hold people to account."

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!! :rotflmao:

Leave it to W. to end on a joke!!!!!!!

[Snate]

If Bush cared about "helping America become less dependent on foreign sources of oil" he would propose meaningful increases in CAFE.  He's not and he never will. 

Mark

This is also the same guy that had a 100K tax deduction on SUV's or Trucks for business uses....not cars...just trucks and SUV's. It's really no shock coming from someone with strong ties to the oil industry...why would he want american's to consume less oil?

[cmattson]

I agree with you FOG; but I think that improvements can be made and I think that it all depends on the packaging.. take for instance this scenario: rather than giving "big bad business" a tax break.. why not wrap some legislation in the flag (works for selling every other damn thing in ths country--from war to t-shirts) and pull this one out: A tax break for people buying a domestic-manufacturer automobile. (Give them an additional credit if it gets over 35mpg. ?) It isn't anti-anybody. It still requires GM/Ford/(DCX?) to build a quality/competitive vehicle, it drives their sales and gives them more income/market share. Which in turns keeps GM/Ford in business and workers employed (& hopefully, out buying more American goods).

Edited January 26, 2006 by cmattson

[Snate]

I don't agree with GM and/or Ford getting a financial bailout from the taxpayers. I don't want to pay for them.

What I do want to see is the government grow some nuts and start enforcing fair trade. Examples like this Nissan exemption should never be allowed. Sure some people may have lost their job...but within the past couple of months, both GM and Ford have announced big layoffs...yet the government does nothing at all.

[cmattson]

"I'm very firm on seeing to it that this government hold people to account."

Speaking of accountability... did Kenny-boy's trial ever get started? Funny how Martha-Stewart can get a trial, conviction, and serve her time before an Enron executive (and more importantly: a campaign contributor) can be brought to justice. Forget the fact that Martha's incident took place 6 months AFTER Enron's screwing of millions of Californians.

[Snate]

I agree with you FOG; but I think that improvements can be made and I think that it all depends on the packaging..  take for instance this scenario:  rather than giving "big bad business" a tax break.. why not wrap some legislation in the flag (works for selling every other damn thing in ths country--from war to t-shirts) and pull this one out: A tax break for people buying a domestic-manufacturer automobile. (Give them an additional credit if it gets over 35mpg. ?)  It isn't anti-anybody.  It still requires GM/Ford/(DCX?) to build a quality/competitive vehicle, it drives their sales and gives them more income/market share.  Which in turns keeps GM/Ford in business and workers employed (& hopefully, out buying more American goods).

Makes sense...but you would have the Foreign companies whining about it until it got taken away. Especially the ones that produce vehicles in North America. Our government seems to have no problem filling the needs of Foreign companies...tax breaks...CAFE exemptions...you name it.

[sciguy_0504]

No bailouts, no tax breaks, no help from taxpayers. Comments like, "Bush is a f@#king moron," et al, really show a lack of depth on the subject, not to mention immaturity and a lack of credible arguments.

Edit: If my tax dollars go to bail out the Big 2 I would be even less inclined to purchase their cars.

Edited January 26, 2006 by sciguy_0504

[daves87rs]

No bailouts, no tax breaks, no help from taxpayers.  Comments like, "Bush is a f@#king moron," et al, really show a lack of depth on the subject, not to mention immaturity and a lack of credible arguments.

Edit:  If my tax dollars go to bail out the Big 2 I would be even less inclined to purchase their cars.

Maybe not so much about Bush, Sci, as some of them just take a look around

their own areas...

Times are not good. And they are not going to get better soon either...

And of course blame is going to be everywhere....

[jbartley]

No bailouts, no tax breaks, no help from taxpayers.  Comments like, "Bush is a f@#king moron," et al, really show a lack of depth on the subject, not to mention immaturity and a lack of credible arguments.

Edit:  If my tax dollars go to bail out the Big 2 I would be even less inclined to purchase their cars.

I agree. Bailouts isn't how capitalism works. Chrysler's bailout never really got them back on the both feet.

And President Bush isn't going to start offering money before the big three have negotiated with the unions THEMSELVES. They are still far away from bankruptcy and "crunch" time. Bailout is a LAST resort, and they are nowhere near it.

The Big Three need to adopt the slogan, "we don't negotiate with terrorists" and then condsider the union workers who refuse to quit or take reasonable pay cuts terrorists, end of story.

[cmattson]

but you would have the Foreign companies whining about it until it got taken away.

Let them whine away.

As for subsidizing GM/Ford.. get over it. You don't think our gov't doesn't subsidize big business? Our government is bought and sold everyday. We give out land deals to incent a business to build on spot x. My state of Minnesota has something called a "JOBZ" program (short for JOB-ZONE) where a business can get free-land, COMPLETE tax-free operation (construction costs, operating material costs, income -> the whole deal) for x years -- all as an incentive to locate here. And it doesn't just stop at the state level. My old city (Ramsey, MN) gave away free land to lure businesses to develop there. You'd be foolish to think that it doesn't happen more and more - especially the farther you get away from the public eye (up from local, state, and into the federal level).

Today's business climate is killing our heritaged manufacturing firms. More sales would help, but when you are the NUMBER ONE MANUFACTURER IN THE ENTIRE WORLD and you still can't make a profit here, at some point you could step back and think -- maybe the sales numbers aren't the whole problem. The fact is that we can idly let them wither and die and put all of those workers FULLY on taxpayers backs, or we can do something to help the auto manufacturers transition themselves and ease them through it. You think I like the idea of giving my tax money to a multi-billion dollar business? Hell no. But I really don't like the idea of putting every 7th american on the soup-line even more.

[jrockb4]

I agree with you FOG; but I think that improvements can be made and I think that it all depends on the packaging..  take for instance this scenario:  rather than giving "big bad business" a tax break.. why not wrap some legislation in the flag (works for selling every other damn thing in ths country--from war to t-shirts) and pull this one out: A tax break for people buying a domestic-manufacturer automobile.   (Give them an additional credit if it gets over 35mpg. ?)  It isn't anti-anybody.  It still requires GM/Ford/(DCX?) to build a quality/competitive vehicle, it drives their sales and gives them more income/market share.  Which in turns keeps GM/Ford in business and workers employed (& hopefully, out buying more American goods).

Man this is just what I was thinking!!! I have seen things like this in other countries and it works, but this would take some creative and forward thinking people to actually serve in Congress Too bad the auto industry does not have the money to hire Abramoff lol.

I still think that the big issue for the domestics is the $1500/vehicle deficit that pensions and health care put on each vehicle. What could GM and Ford do as far as engineering and materials were concerned if they had that $1500?

Edited January 26, 2006 by jrockb4

[cmattson]

I agree. Bailouts isn't how capitalism works. Chrysler's bailout never really got them back on the both feet.

And President Bush isn't going to start offering money before the big three have negotiated with the unions THEMSELVES. They are still far away from bankruptcy and "crunch" time. Bailout is a LAST resort, and they are nowhere near it.

The Big Three need to adopt the slogan, "we don't negotiate with terrorists" and then condsider the union workers who refuse to quit or take reasonable pay cuts terrorists, end of story.

Don't you think that's a little harsh? Union member = terrorist? Personally, I think that's way over the top. Those people banded together into a union to provide bargaining power that allows them to get a salary/benefit package better than they'd otherwise be able to have. Most of us don't belong to a union, and as a result, are more subject to declining wages & benefits. So we are going to tear down someone who was smart enough to do better for themselves? That makes a hell of a lot of sense.

The unions do need to give GM and Ford significant concessions. They need to realize what the current market looks like in terms of benefits and wages & that a significant correction needs to occur to provide GM and Ford a fighting chance of staying in business.

[PontiacTechNJ]

Man this is just what I was thinking!!!  I have seen things like this in other countries and it works, but this would take some creative and forward thinking people to actually serve in Congress     Too bad the auto industry does not have the money to hire Abramoff lol.

socialism is proven not to work in the long run , when you have no argument or are too dumb to come up with one , make yourself sound smart and call the other guy names , I don't think a bailout using my tax money is necessary , it did not help BLOPAR in the long run as most socialist programs Edited January 26, 2006 by PontiacTechNJ

[Snate]

Let them whine away.

As for subsidizing GM/Ford.. get over it.  You don't think our gov't doesn't subsidize big business?  Our government is bought and sold everyday.  We give out land deals to incent a business to build on spot x.  My state of Minnesota has something called a "JOBZ" program (short for JOB-ZONE) where a business can get free-land, COMPLETE tax-free operation (construction costs, operating material costs, income -> the whole deal) for x years -- all as an incentive to locate here.  And it doesn't just stop at the state level.  My old city (Ramsey, MN) gave away free land to lure businesses to develop there.  You'd be foolish to think that it doesn't happen more and more - especially the farther you get away from the public eye (up from local, state, and into the federal level).

Today's business climate is killing our heritaged manufacturing firms.  More sales would help, but when you are the NUMBER ONE MANUFACTURER IN THE ENTIRE WORLD and you still can't make a profit here, at some point you could step back and think -- maybe the sales numbers aren't the whole problem.  The fact is that we can idly let them wither and die and put all of those workers FULLY on taxpayers backs, or we can do something to help the auto manufacturers transition themselves and ease them through it.  You think I like the idea of giving my tax money to a multi-billion dollar business?  Hell no.  But I really don't like the idea of putting every 7th american on the soup-line even more.

Oh I agree completely. Problem is neither you nor I are running the government. No doubt about it foreign companies would start whining about it and our government has already shown in the past that it is more than willing to bend to foreign companies...yet not domestic companies...if that makes any sense. I wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with unions...but I won't make any assumptions.

America is the biggest financial "muscle" in the world right now. Japanese car companies make most of their profits from America and we should be able to tell them what they can and cannot do here. Start threatening penalties for non-compliance (and actually follow through) and you better believe the import companies will fall right in line.

I don't really like the government interfering with the market...but I'm much more concerned about the overall future health of the country.

[jrockb4]

socialism is proven  not to work in the long run , when you have no argument or are too dumb to come up with one , make yourself sound smart and call the other guy names , I don't think a bailout using my tax money is necessary , it did not help BLOPAR in the long run as most socialist programs

There is only one country in the developed world that does not see medical care as a right, not a priviledge. That is an added burden to our industries. I am not for socialism as a whole, but I do not think that a pure capitalistic society is the answer. As this auto workers and others become unemployed, where do you think your tax money goes? Medicaid, unemployment, criminal justice system?

[Cory Wolfe]

I used to be a Bush supporter. That's all I'll say...

[Angry Dad]

It's not a matter of GM or Ford getting a bail out. it's how can state governments go out and give Toyota, Nissan, Honda and Hyundai huge tax incentives to build plants here? They build plants for virtually nothing while those tax breaks are courtesy the long term existance of GM and Ford.

They are the ones getting a bail out. Do they need one or are "our" politicians that skillful at lying that anybody really believes they are "creating" jobs. Label it correctly, it is theft of jobs by politicians.

And at the same time the moron in the White House ignores predatory currency practices by the Japanese.

It's not a question of if GM and Ford will exist, it's how long and what standard of poverty is acceptable.

But short term thought is acceptable, just don't expect your kid's kids to have a nickle.

BTW: http://www.aiada.org/article.asp?id=28744

Edited January 26, 2006 by Angry Dad

[Newbiewar]

Don't you think that's a little harsh?  Union member = terrorist?  Personally, I think that's way over the top.  Those people banded together into a union to provide bargaining power that allows them to get a salary/benefit package better than they'd otherwise be able to have.  Most of us don't belong to a union, and as a result, are more subject to declining wages & benefits. So we are going to tear down someone who was smart enough to do better for themselves?  That makes a hell of a lot of sense.

The unions do need to give GM and Ford significant concessions.  They need to realize what the current market looks like in terms of benefits and wages & that a significant correction needs to occur to provide GM and Ford a fighting chance of staying in business.

its not harsh at all becuase Toyota doesnt have Unions... so... Union against Corperation... when things get competative... Corperations can reduce wages, Unions will resist.

[bearrunner44]

You say this jokingly but remember, this is the same cat who's going to be flown around in a Eurocopter EH101 instead of an American Sikorsky, so I can't say this surprises me.

I believe the military requires everything they buy to be at least 60% American in origin; since Air Force One and Marine One are military aircraft, they have to follow that guideline. The new Marine One helicopters are actually a new version of the EH101 designated the US101; the new version is at least 60% U.S. in origin.

I don't like Bush either, but he does fly around in (mostly) American-made metal.

[Flybrian]

I believe the military requires everything they buy to be at least 60% American in origin; since Air Force One and Marine One are military aircraft, they have to follow that guideline.  The new Marine One helicopters are actually a new version of the EH101 designated the US101; the new version is at least 60% U.S. in origin.

I don't like Bush either, but he does fly around in (mostly) American-made metal.

There is a guideline that states some percentage like that (55% I believe), yet its still based on a European design, so forth. This is in spite of the fact that Sikorsky has been building and delivering Presidential helicopters since Eisenhower and its S-96 SuperEagle is a fantastic helicopter.

[-Camaro-]

Ohh... great, so Chrysler was aided by the government in 1979... but did it accually help Chrysler?  did that 1.5 billion accually help them to be better?  because look at them now? 

I think, America should endorse American workers, make Globalism frowned upon... 

What would it do if one the consumer was taxed for purchasing a vehicle not made in the USA (now i know mexico and canada make a lot of GM and Ford Vehicles so it wouldnt really help) and perhaps that tax can be applied for the US government to bail out retiries, making the Legacy cost dissapear... As seen by the new autoshows GM and Ford are again becoming innovative, but will their new products come soon enough before they are in too much financial troubles?

Our Government must get more involved with its companys.  Many American companys are fleeting to other countrys for cheaper work and importing... importing is terrible for the american ecconomy...  Comon...

Here is a nice article regaurding trade practices of the Japanese, its very intresting.  I didnt get a chance to read it all, but it was very enlightening...

Great article in that link... Japan pisses me off!

[PontiacTechNJ]

There is only one country in the developed world that does not see medical care as a right, not a priviledge.  That is an added burden to our industries. I am not for socialism as a whole, but I do not think that a pure capitalistic society is the answer.  As this auto workers and others become unemployed, where do you think your tax money goes?  Medicaid, unemployment, criminal justice system?

The problem is the neo socialists were in charge for forty years - taxing the crap out of us with tarrifs and fees that are hardly constitutional , the republicans do not have the stones to roll back all of this evil , so , we get puny tax cuts that yield BIG results , helping out poorly managed car makers is not in the constitution , the airlines might be another story , as in a national security issue , but most of you Bush Bashers think we have domestic spying anyway

[regfootball]

Don't you think that's a little harsh?  Union member = terrorist?  Personally, I think that's way over the top.  Those people banded together into a union to provide bargaining power that allows them to get a salary/benefit package better than they'd otherwise be able to have.  Most of us don't belong to a union, and as a result, are more subject to declining wages & benefits.   So we are going to tear down someone who was smart enough to do better for themselves?  That makes a hell of a lot of sense.

The unions do need to give GM and Ford significant concessions.  They need to realize what the current market looks like in terms of benefits and wages & that a significant correction needs to occur to provide GM and Ford a fighting chance of staying in business.

sometimes the way union members refer to the companies they work for as, is the same deal......

'workers unite' as in "WAR"

the automakers shouldn't be bailed out, but the fair trade issue need to be fixed, and even after all that, one of two things needs to happen or they are still toast anyways.

1- break the unions at GM and Ford and DCX and thereby level the playing field with the non-union import shops

or

2-unionize nissan, hyundai, honda, toyota plants and let them deal with all the same old crap GM and Ford have had to deal with all these years.....overcompensation, lack of flexibility in manufacturing (i.e. shifting production, closing plants, cutting shifts, cutting or increasing staff, freedom to hire and fire)

I just wonder what sort of $$$$$$ T paw is offering up to Billy so that he gave a stay of execution to the St. Paul plant. If I had been T Paw, i would have offered up state money to pay Ford all of their costs to design and develop and renovate the plant for an all new Ford Ranger series truck / platform and a contract that they need to keep the plant open 10 years. In addition I would negotiate that Ford move a large contingent of engineers and tech folks working on the project to Minnesota also. In exchange I would demand from the UAW union concessions on pay and benefits to bring them more in line with 'the rest of the working world'. Put it up to vote to the workers there, take it or leave it, your jobs are gone in six months anyways. If i am throwing state money at the problem, then i am not gonna do it in the name of factory jobs only, i would be saying, Ford..you bring a large amount of white collar jobs here as well.

or, i would offer to build ford a factory for this new 'recyclable' car they have in mind. if this truly is the 'new model t'....what a way to guarantee a long stay....offer up a new plant and with a guarantee of many jobs for like a minimum of 20 years or ford pays the state back huge.

Edited January 26, 2006 by regfootball

[Angry Dad]

Let's see anybody that is against "bailouts" provide any rational reason that healthy corporations should be given tax incentives. Changing the words does not change the result or the intent.

W has no grasp of the situation. Strange thing is GM is heading overseas to get the same sort of deals "our" politicians are giving away here. No wonder GM is prospering elsewhere.

I look at this as if you built a successful business. You are doing well for your customers and your workers. Done so for decades. Now somebody decides to enter the same business. He simply pulls up into the parking lot you built, and puts up building on the other side. He pays you nothing and then demands that the taxes you paid in the past are used to build his building. The he lays down a load of baloney for the gulible, pays off a few politicians and puts you out of business. Sound familar?

[Drew Dowdell]

socialism is proven  not to work in the long run , when you have no argument or are too dumb to come up with one , make yourself sound smart and call the other guy names , I don't think a bailout using my tax money is necessary , it did not help BLOPAR in the long run as most socialist programs

Uh, by all accounts Chrysler is still standing today... and the government actually MADE MONEY on the Chrysler bailout since it held stock in the company AND Chrysler paided the loan back ahead of schedule.

It was a very smart business move.

[tama z71]

Im one/eighth of the way down on that read.

I can only say one thing. If you are one of those folks who believe talk of the Japanese "Continuing WWII through economics" is a bunch of conservative-driven and outlandish crap, you are so far wrong.

Why is Japan allowed to get away with this? This is just unbelievable. And taking Bush's reaction into account? I now have no respect for the man.

[BuickEight]

No bailouts, no tax breaks, no help from taxpayers.  Comments like, "Bush is a f@#king moron," et al, really show a lack of depth on the subject, not to mention immaturity and a lack of credible arguments.

Edit:  If my tax dollars go to bail out the Big 2 I would be even less inclined to purchase their cars.

It's nice to see you still have your teenage head up your ass. And you want to talk about immaturity? What the hell do you know about anything?

[haypops]

its not harsh at all becuase Toyota doesnt have Unions... so... Union against Corperation... when things get competative... Corperations can reduce wages, Unions will resist.

That isn't entirely so. Toyota produces cars in our own state using UAW employees. As a matter of fact, it is my understanding that the Freemont factory had some of the worst union emloyees i the GM stable.

I don't think that tariffs are the answer

I don't know whether tariffs are the answer or not, but I would remind you that there is a 25% tariff on imported trucks last time I checked.

No bailouts, no tax breaks, no help from taxpayers. Comments like, "Bush is a f@#king moron," et al, really show a lack of depth on the subject, not to mention immaturity and a lack of credible arguments.

Even ardent Bush supporters might have appreciated a little jaw bonning as in "I really enjoy my Ford HD pick up". He certainly has used this in his photo-opps, today would have been an opportune time to verbalize it.

Edited January 27, 2006 by haypops

[I hope GMRULES again]

When Bush was cornered on this question what would be wrong with him saying something to encourage the pubilc to take another look at American cars when their in the market for one. Yes they have a lot of work to on their costs,pensions,health care etc, but he is the captain of the home team so what's wrong with saying someting positive about them, it would take 15 seconds for him to make a comment like " I know GM and Ford have a lot of tough issues to face but I know they have a lot of excellent products, U.S. manufacturers can compete with the best in the world".

[Robert Hall]

When Bush was cornered on this question what would be wrong with him saying something to encourage the pubilc to take another look at American cars when their in the market for one. Yes they have a lot of work to on their costs,pensions,health care etc, but he is the captain of the home team so what's wrong with saying someting positive about them, it would take 15 seconds for him to make a comment like " I know GM and Ford have a lot of tough issues to face but I know they have a lot of excellent products, U.S. manufacturers can compete with the best in the world".

I'm sure if GM and Ford had contributed more to his campaign in '04 he'd say more for them...

[Viperfan07]

Bush is a f@#king moron, and a very callous one at that.  He needs to be taken out of office ASAP.  He clearly doesn't have America's best interests at heart.

I agree with him. I cant stand Bush and every since he's been in office America is basically goin to hell in a handbasket.

[carguy22]

I don't believe in bailouts. They should be an absolute last resort. GM is not going to go bankrupt anytime soon, they have way to many assits to do that. I do believe that the Gov't needs to level the playing field to be able to compete in a free trade world. The Gov't needs to subsidized health care not pick up the whole tab just a part. Health care is a huge problem not just for GM and Ford. The UAW needs to enter a new phase were it is going to help and not hinder, were it can work and be just as competitive as the non-union foreigns. There are too many politicians in the back pocket of the health care industry thats why there is not a national health care system. In a free trade market you have to make offer a company something good for them to stay there and sadly the U.S. is not doing it.

Just to let you know I am not a Bush fan or supporter.

Edited January 27, 2006 by carguy22

[w00t_man]

Getting bailed out is precisely what GM and Ford DON'T need. They need to sell better product, not get saved from going bankrupt and keep doing the same thing. It's not the way to run a business, relying on handouts.

I think Bush is doing the right thing here.

[Robert Hall]

Getting bailed out is precisely what GM and Ford DON'T need.  They need to sell better product, not get saved from going bankrupt and keep doing the same thing.  It's not the way to run a business, relying on handouts.

I think Bush is doing the right thing here.

You can bet that if it were big oil companies or defence contractors in trouble, he would be bailing them out...those f*ckers bankrolled his campaigns.

[w00t_man]

You can bet that if it were big oil companies or defence contractors in trouble, he would be bailing them out...those f*ckers bankrolled his campaigns.

Got any proof for that?

[Robert Hall]

Got any proof for that?

Bush's history of oil industry connections and Cheney's past with Halliburton are proof enough....they are corrupt, vile, evil men...

[jbartley]

The problem is the neo socialists were in charge for forty years - taxing the crap out of us with tarrifs and fees that are hardly constitutional , the republicans do not have the stones to roll back all of this evil , so , we get puny tax cuts that yield BIG results , helping out poorly managed car makers is not in the constitution , the airlines might be another story , as in a national security issue , but most of you Bush Bashers think we have domestic spying anyway

Yeah! what you said!