Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Senators oppose auto bailout

The Associated Press

Latest comment posted at 1:10 PM EST 16/11/08

Opposition by top Republican Richard Shelby and other GOP lawmakers raises doubts about whether plan will pass ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. A reader from Canada writes: Let the automakers go bankrupt...then the courts would allow re-opening of labour contracts and the re-structuring of pensions and debt.
  2. garlick toast from Canada writes: Interesting article, too bad there's a friggin' advert. blocking half the text. How stupid. Whatever they're selling, I'm especially not interested when their promo blocks my reading.
  3. Vern McPherson from Canada writes:
    Republicans are dinosaurs. The current US economic and world economic situation is ample evidence of that.
  4. Black Gold from Corpus Christi, United States writes: Republicans doing the right thing as their last act until they regain popularity again.
  5. James Ainsworth from Guelph, Canada writes: GOOD! im glad. No more handouts to bad companies. Especially here in Canada. Why shoudl we give our tax dollars to a foreign company thats going to go under inevitably. Let them die so better asian cars can take over and Canadian auto workers can work for those companies that produce fuel efficient reliable cars that Canadians actually want to drive. And we call this a conservative government... industry bailouts are what the conservative government USED to be against. The American companies had decades to change their ways and stay competitive, they fell behind and now they should not be rewarded for their mistakes by recieving Canadian tax dollars. They will not change with more money, they haven't for years. GM conciders 35mpg 'fuel efficient' thats laughable. Toyotas and Hondas are pushing past 60mpg. At the same time Toyota and Honda were producing their first hybrid vehicles, GM was releasing the Hummer. Now thats bad business, the Detroit 3 deserve to die. The Detroit 3 have a combined worth of almost 8 Billion....and now thay are saying they need a minimum of 25 Billion tax dollars to survive! They'll use the money to continue paying $35-$40 wages to workers with an 8th grade education and continue to produce their gas guzzling monsters. Giving them more money will not make consumers suddenly want to buy their cars. They'll be in the same situation a few years from now. NO BAILOUT PLEASE!
  6. David Stanley from Canada writes: exactly let them go
    whats a bailout going to do?
    there are no sales to retain jobs let alone create new jobs
    bailout small to medium sized businesses where
    jobs can be saved.
    '5$ Trillion already burned through on the bailout'
    and the bread lines for bailout money has no end
    every town ,city, state,all of the people,all businesses and every company except the war profiteers
    stand mouths agape with their hands out for a bailout.
    China has stopped the farce of lending trillions.
    the game is up, it is time for third world war or third world period.
    hey buddy got a dime ,er 100$.

    5 trillion bailout no end in sight as per
    Forbes Magazine
  7. David Stanley from Canada writes: already 5 Trillion bailout madness will reach 10-15 trillion if they start bailing out businesses.

    there is no car sales why would you want to bail out Detroit auto
    no car sale no jobs retained let alone created
  8. Rudy Krueger from Canada writes: This is a complex situation but one that the average person can adequately understand. I am old and business-experienced enough to remember with understanding, the development of the role that auto companies play in society and the economy. When companies folded into AMC (the collection box of many old companies) and it folded into Chrysler, there was not much of a hiccup. This sort of thing is fairly normal in economic history. But if a proposal had come before the anti-trust wags during good times, to merge any two of the big three or to sell one of them to a foreign interest, it would not have gotten through because it is not in the consumer's best interest to concentrate like that. Big industries and corporations are instruments of public policy - too deeply embedded in our collective bureaucracy. WE have to fix the problem without collateral damage. Instead of forcing this industry to be so damned inefficient, it can be divided up on a value chain basis without much of a ripple. Mostly that has already happened. Get rid of company-specific dealerships. They are the worst side of the industry - grossly inefficient, prime sources of fraud, horders of prime commercial land. We have many ways to fix this using internet shopping, and combined brands.... Cause assembly to be done by jobber facilities (like Magna) instead of company-dedicated facilities. This was made possible by the quality management revolution of the late last century. It divides up risk, creates wonderful jobs and supports new technology. This is an easy transition and a fast one. It immediately permits small enterprises to participate in the industry. Engine development for example ... we would have had clean-burners by now. Sit down with the unions and work out a new, 21st century role for them. Make all pensions and welfare benefits into public trusts. And in all seriousness, get rid of the executives of this generation of company. Put them on an island
  9. Mr. Pink from the wet and avalanche prone coast, Canada writes:
    Republicans wrongly held up fuel-efficiency legislation for years so that their oil buddies could sell more, and Detroit could market muscle machines. Now they are rightly against this insane bailout. This is why I will always identify as an independent voter.

    No bailout. Write the PM at: pm@pm.gc.ca
  10. Don Portz from Trochu AB, Canada writes: Although I for one am not in favour of a bailout for the Big Three if it does nothing to change the operation or delay its demise. However the Auto industry is a large part of our manufacturing sector and their demise will have denastating economic effects on all of Canada.

    I believe there is a place in the economy for these companies and to some extent even some of their current production. The SUVs and certainly the trucks will not go away any time soon and the other auto manufacturers do not produce a similar product. Certainly the demand will be much lower. Their current operation is unsustainable and so there should be an orderly breakdown of the companies and a restructuring of the worthwhile assets and operations under a totally different entity with the elimination of existing Management and Union. Any new contracts with unions would need to be based on what the competition is presently providing, not the existing contracts.

    If this was to be done then I would be in favour of Govt assistance, provided there would be a repayment as profitability to the sector is returned.
  11. Carl C. from Canada writes: Contrary to the right-wingers above, there are more 1.5 million jobs on the line here, you simply don't care about this?? There should be a bailout with strict conditions, where the automakers should now take into consideration the environment and change their business model and streamline it. I think this is an excellent opportunity to change the way to car makers thing ....
  12. Crusty Curmudgeon from Ottawa, Canada writes:

    Not to mention -- my old hobby horse.

    The big 3 get their bailout -- and the executives get their huge bonuses for a job well done in bilking hundreds of millions of our money.

    Don't let this happen!

    Get the executives to bail out their own companies that they milked for decades with zero risk to themselves.

    They want the taxpayer to take all the risk of the bailout.

    Enough is enough!!!!
  13. Susan Rogan from Canada writes: There will be no 'demise' of the auto industry. People will still buy the same number of cars whether they are made by Ford or somebody else. Obviously the assetts will be valuable, a better car company will buy them, Canadians will still be making cars.

    I agree that it appears that abject stupidity on the part of multi-million dollar a year executives, combined with what almost looks like collusion to keep people consuming lots of oil, put the big 3 in the position they are in now: selling crappy vehicles that nobody wants. Now they cannot raise debt like they used to in order to keep waddling along. That is the problem here folks. They are already dead and the life support dried up.
  14. Edmond Dusablon from United States writes: Mr. Pink from the wet and avalanche prone coast, Canada wrote:
    'Republicans wrongly held up fuel-efficiency legislation for years so that their oil buddies could sell more, and Detroit could market muscle machines. Now they are rightly against this insane bailout. This is why I will always identify as an independent voter.'

    The politician most responsible for fighting higher fuel economy mandates was John Dingell (D-Michigan).
  15. garlick toast from Canada writes: This month it's the auto makers. Who's next?
  16. Mister Fartleberry from Toronto, Canada writes: I can't believe any senators from states like Arizona, Utah or Alaska are going to pony up big money to help dirty old Detroit make muscle cars for their dinosaur customers. Pun intended.
  17. Ron Hartlen from Canada writes: Great post above by Rudy Krueger.
    My two cents worth:
    Good to see a few influential politicians trying to do the right thing, rather than the easy thing.
    Nobody really needs the old big three. Let them fail. Get a big shake-out and industry-wide restructuring done as soon as possible. Let competent managements start with a clean sheet of paper. Then get the workers (not all of them obviously) reemployed.
    By the way - there's nothing wrong with SUV's per se. Consider this. One older couple, living in a rural area buys a mid-size SUV for winter-safety reasons, and drives 12000 km / year consuming 15L / 100km. Another person buys a little fuel-efficient vehicle, say it's 5L / 100km. , but drives it 36000 km / year. They both use the same amount of fuel.
  18. Rudy H from Canada writes: .
    Carl C. wrote: Contrary to the right-wingers above, there are more 1.5 million jobs on the line here, you simply don't care about this??
    .
    Yes of course we care. But that does not change the fact that there is too much supply of cars that people are not buying. If you are making products that you can't sell, and you can't make a profit doing it, you have to adapt. This will require cutting jobs. Subsidizing the industry will only make a bad situation worse.

    Does it hurt. Sure it does. I've been there (Northern Telecom 1985). But you find new work in a company at a reduced wage. One that is healthy and can survive without continued government handouts.
  19. Lyn Alg from Canada writes: It is certainly reassuring that there still are a few sane and intelligent republican politicians remaining in Washington. In fact, the financial behemoths should also never be bailed out by taxpayers' monies. I think Obama is about to make his first biggest mistake if he tries bailing out these large corporations that created their own problems at the expense of the taxpayers. Are you listening Stephanie?
  20. West Coast from Canada writes: Mr. Pink from the wet and avalanche prone coast, Canada writes:

    Republicans wrongly held up fuel-efficiency legislation for years so that their oil buddies could sell more, and Detroit could market muscle machines. Now they are rightly against this insane bailout. This is why I will always identify as an independent voter.

    -----------------------------------------------------------

    And an uneducated one at that. I sometimes read the posts on these threads and, quite literally, am astounded at the ignorance.

    So, let us start with the names of the two senators from Michigan. Do you know who they are? Hint: Levin and Stabenow. Oh, both are DEMOCRATS who have been trying to water down the CAFE proposals.
  21. He Shoots! He Scores! from Chicago, United States writes: 'A reader from Canada writes: Let the automakers go bankrupt...then the courts would allow re-opening of labour contracts and the re-structuring of pensions and debt.'

    The fact that no one wants to buy 'Big 3' vehicles is not the fault of the assemblers. However, the unions like any other vested interest better be willing to play ball. Through organization, they bargained a good wage out of near sighted management whose short term goals back in the day were focused solely on market share and not product improvement. The domestic makers were (and maybe still are) run by bean counters and, while they have important role to play in any going concern, their focus lay in the quarterly report. Honda and Toyota looked decades down the road not three months.
  22. West Coast from Canada writes: The Messiah is beholden to the unions and will give the Big 3 the Big Mo. Count on it.
  23. J S from Canada writes: It's the quality of the vehicles they make. It's not so much as the fuel efficiency if I were purchasing a vehicle today.

    Suppose it is the Japanese 3 that reaped the profits of producing large SUVs when gas was cheap, and 'forgot' to offer good small cars. I would still buy a LARGE Japanese SUV even if I have to pay today's gas prices, because I know my Japanese vehicle is superior to 99% of what Detroit produces.

    I have never owned a Detroit product, never will. I sold my 1990 Honda Accord for $1200 in July 2008. It had 300,000 kms on the odometer. It was in good running condition. How many 1990 Chevy Cavaliers are on the road today?

    Detroit has never learned their lesson, never will. There are better uses for the proposed bailout money. Enough of the wailing about how many jobs will be lost. I work in an industry that is highly competitive, and if our management makes a mistake, I do not expect a bailout from the gov't.
  24. kevin o'connor from Canada writes: Folks,
    It's hard not to have sympathy with the general 'let the dinosaurs fail' sentiment on this board (I own a toyota hybrid, myself) but it is wrong headed.

    First, notice how this auto collapse is happening very soon after the general collapse that started mid sept (I know that had been brewing for years, lots of reckless driving, but the train jumped off the rails when Lehman failed). Yes these companies are weak compared to their counterparts but the real reason they now face death is the financial crisis (or perhaps they are lying about their imminent death to take advantage of it, but how to verify that for certain is beyond me).

    If they are allowed to fail hundreds of thousands of jobs could be lost (direct and indirectly) and our wounded economy will crash even further. They simply cannot be allowed to fail. The pain to all their workers and the workers indirectly effected by a failure is compelling enough. The damage to the overall economy that is likely with their failure, and all of us will feel, makes this a no-brainer.

    And no it's not fair, companies that aren't big enough to have this kind of damaging effect to the whole economy should not be bailed out. It's not about fair, it's about damage control, battlefield triage; save the ones we need to help us move forward, focus our resources on the ones that keep the main corps of our economy fighting for another day, and let the other ones die.

    We have to put ideology and one or two point simplistic arguments aside. When you look at the whole picture, both scenarios, failure or rescue, The answer is then obvious. As odious as it may be, these companies have to be saved.
  25. Michael S from Canada writes: I want my bailout when I become a dino making bad business decisions for decades, too! No f***ing way!!
  26. He Shoots! He Scores! from Chicago, United States writes: 'West Coast from Canada writes: The Messiah is beholden to the unions and will give the Big 3 the Big Mo. Count on it. '

    'Messiah'? Interesting that it's only right wingers and Farakhan who employ such silliness.

    Unions by and large supported the Dems but union workers don't make up as much of the electorate as they once did.

    However, one has to look at the big picture. For instance, here in Illinois we are reaching a rather serious state of affairs caused by falling tax revenues. One disturbing and basic story I heard was that the state is falling behind in paying its bills which is raising the spectre that food suppliers to prisons will stop deliveries. That is the type of basic stuff that would confront large areas of the US if the domestic auto industry is allowed to fail.
  27. Michael Richardson from OakvilleMontreal, Canada writes: Thank God there are some Republicans left to be the voice of reason in Washington. NO MORE BAILOUTS!!
  28. Brad Richert from West of Canada, Canada writes: All of the right-wing and left-wing idealogues out there should take heed to Mr. Rudy Krueger From Canada's sensible and non-partisan words.

    The auto industry needs to crash, and crash it has - over the past several years. The Big Three have shown that they are thoroughly reactionary, so much so that it has killed them. The CEOs will get their pensions and fat checks whether the governments bail them out or not, that is simply a fact of corporate life. Any bailout will need to have major strings attached and should be focused on saving Canadian jobs, not specific companies. I don't care if the company is called Timbuktu Motors or not, so long as what jobs still in Canada stay in Canada.
  29. charles ANTHONY from Canada writes: Good. No more corruption. If a mafia leader is guilty for his organizational abuse,why not our gatekeepers[regulators,Bankers,lawyers,accounting firms and bureaucracies? Time for criminal charges against our gatekeepers who have led a massive fraud upon it's citizens! they hold no moral high ground. They are paid ridiculous wages and remunerations for pointing fingers after the facts are out. Anyone can qualify for those job parameters. Cronyism,nepotism and phonyism rule the day. Because they are funded by the tax payer ,they are immune from the financial ills of the day and prosecution by an independent entity. Dispicable.
  30. Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville, Canada writes: 'Rudy Krueger from Canada writes: This is a complex situation but one that the average person can adequately understand............... ================================================= Your comment was very constructive and I am fully in agreement with it. There are a lot of legal problems, unfortunately. As far as I know, the pension debt, which is huge, cannot be wiped out; the only way, I believe, they can get relief is through bankruptcy when the courts might be able to alter the contracts. Of course, when you think of Enron and how many thousands lost their 401ks or whatever, this is quite similar. Unfortunately for a lot of those already used to drawing big pensions, and depending on them for survival (even at an 'elite' level), it will be devasting. This makes the whole idea of bankruptcy very calamitous. In my opinion, whatever restructing is done will be very painful, but there is no other alternative. It just means that these workers will join the millions worldwide who will be hurting. It just might make for better societies when there is more equalization but it definitely will be a painful process; in my opinion, the most important thing is for everyone to adapt and try and assume the right attitude towards what is definitely coming to some degree.
  31. Anti Elvis from Calgary, AB, Canada writes: Republicans will vote against this because they know when the Big 3 lay off millions it'll hurt Obama in the White House. That's how politics works.

    So much for the worker.
  32. Scrappy T from Canada writes: I think we need to see how much management and unions are willing to sacrifice before we talk about bailing out anyone.
  33. Mr. Pink from the wet coast, Canada writes: West Coast from Canada writes: Mr. Pink from the wet and avalanche prone coast, Canada writes:...

    Republicans wrongly held up fuel-efficiency legislation for years so that their oil buddies could sell more, and Detroit could market muscle machines. Now they are rightly against this insane bailout. This is why I will always identify as an independent voter.

    -----------------------------------------------------------

    And an uneducated one at that. I sometimes read the posts on these threads and, quite literally, am astounded at the ignorance.

    ================================================
    From July, 2003:

    By a 65-32 vote, the Senate turned back a proposal that would have required automakers to produce a fleet average of 40 miles per gallon by 2015 from the current 27.5 mpg now required.

    Republicans: Nay 47, Yea 4
    Democrats: Nay 18, Yea 27
    Independents Yea 1

    Hint: It's fine to disagree with people, but when you call them names and it turns out things aren't quite what you think they are, you end up looking ridiculous.
  34. Ob Server from Canada writes: ALL bailouts are wrong. They run contrary to the capitalist credo of sink or swim, do or die, eat or be eaten. Bailouts perpetuate inefficiency and lack of productivity. Even if the automakers got $50Billion, they'd just be postponing the inevitable. At their cash burn rate, they'd survive less than a year anyway all the while still making cars people will not buy. Why bail out these bozos who were unable to save themselves over the past 30 years? Its wrong and bailouts have to end....this is ridiculous!
  35. NOTAFAN OFTHEFEDS from Canada writes: Good, but while they are at it they can throw all the investment bankers , executives and CEO's from wall Street in jail! While they are at it, they can offer free courses on ethics in business to MBA's, and Lawyers !
  36. If in doubt, rotate from Canada writes: I watched millions and millions of pounds poured into the coal mining industry in the UK, all for nothing....

    Somebody please show me an example of massive government intervention in any industry, that in the end made a difference.

    The auto industry is facing huge structural problems that are decades in the making, don't cry to me about sub prime or oil spikes.

    If you really want government cash to have an impact give it to the employees for retraining or business start up
  37. Rick Jolly from Ladysmith, writes:
    kevin o'connor from Canada writes:
    '...but the real reason they now face death is the financial crisis...'

    -------------------------

    Oh, please. High gas prices killed GM due to their short-sighted neglect for fuel effiecient, quality cars. They lost over $60 billion since 2007. That is more than GM made in the previous 20 years. They lost $38 billion in 2007 before this financial crisis.
  38. C K from Vancouver, Canada writes: Many people on this thread justify the bailout on the grounds that we need to save the workers' jobs. Folks, there is no guarantee that a bailout will work to save these companies and their workers. These companies have been in bad shape for a long time; their problems run deep (and originate in low-quality products that are poorly situated for the current market). What I have not seen in any analysis are estimates of whether this bailout will save these companies and if so, for how long. I certainly don't want to have to be bailing them out again in 2-5 years.
  39. Moe Unting from Calgary, Canada writes: The Big 3 will take the money and cut the jobs anyway. How can you keep people on the assembly line if no one is buying the cars? Are auto workers getting some kind of full salary unemployment benefit wherein they continue to work for the company but actually produce no vehicles? Not only is it economic madness it is also patently unfair to anyone working in subsidiary industries that have to lay off people because the auto plants are no longer buying parts or indeed anyone who is layed off, or anyone who is an employed taxpayer. They can merge or file bankruptcy and restructure, but to take our money with the only string that they invest in 'green' is us giving them a cricket bat, dropping our drawers, painting a bullseye on our butts and expecting them not to give it a slap.
  40. Ed Long from Canada writes: In the 1970's, I was a member of an union and during the pre-negot.s roadshow I suggested we go after industrial democracy, as existed in the German auto industry. Unions surrendered certain adversarial policies in exchange for seats on the Board of Directors and input in company direction and job stability. I was speaking Greek.

    In the 1960's, while a student, I attempted to find a school that had degrees in industrial design. None existed except in Europe. My best friend had the money, went to Austria, and upon graduation went to work for a Formula One team.

    We are now realizing the major mistakes of the North American industrial base.
  41. Wilma Guywin from Allover Canada, Canada writes: Rick Jolly from Ladysmith, writes:
    kevin o'connor from Canada writes:
    '...but the real reason they now face death is the financial crisis...'

    -------------------------

    Oh, please. High gas prices killed GM due to their short-sighted neglect for fuel effiecient, quality cars. They lost over $60 billion since 2007. That is more than GM made in the previous 20 years. They lost $38 billion in 2007 before this financial crisis.

    Rick, please, do not cloud the issue with facts.
  42. Ob Server from Canada writes: kevin o'conner....Why should $15/hour workers who work all day, some in 2 or 3 jobs just to survive bail out the $75/hour plant workers at the Big (smaller now) 3?? Bailouts are bad because they do not incite companies to perform. If the car companies file for protection aka Ch. 11, they can re-organize maybe into 1 or 2 more productive companies. Does North America NEED some 200 models from GM, Ford and Chrysler??...Do you see the folly in that? These are marginal businesses at the best of times and failures when the squeeze is on and all the poor management and fat becomes plain for the world to see. When GM had $90Billion in the bank and the share price was $90., did you get a bonus from them? Did they subsidize the working stiff who made $10/hour outside the fat-cat union run shops they fed? NO. They did not. Now that they are failed businesses, the world's economy is at stake? I don't think so. For over 30 years these bozos have watched their market share crumble and what has their response been?...Keep doing what clearly did not work, which is also the definition of insanity. Who will bail you out if you are over-extended to the point of bankruptcy? Nobody. These bailouts are becoming a bad joke. Only politicians who lack ba!!s and creativity will buy that load of crap and then only to get votes. No kevin, the world will not fall apart if they fail. In fact, it may be a better place because new industries will arrive and those that exist will be incented to grow appropriately rather than have a governmant backstop to support inept, idiotic and unaccountable management. Bailouts are for the weak, unimaginative and lazy so-called management.....If you don't believe that, look at what the $152Billion bailout to AIG has brought the US taxpayer...Nothing, and those idiots still want to pay themselves deferred 'bonuses' of $502Million...Unbelievable!
  43. He Shoots! He Scores! from Chicago, United States writes: 'Anti Elvis from Calgary, AB, Canada writes: Republicans will vote against this because they know when the Big 3 lay off millions it'll hurt Obama in the White House. That's how politics works.So much for the worker.'

    Yep. The GOP is trying to lay a trap by leaving a poison pill. This happens all the time when new admins come in. The thing is that Obama has outsmarted all his opponents at every turn.

    The ironic thing is that GM and Ford products in the tough European market are pretty well regarded. There was some talk of retooling the Ford production lines to begin producing its fuel efficient European winners in NA. It must be noted, however, that it is the Republican recession that has taken this problem from serious condition to critical.
  44. alex just a canadian from Canada writes: Best quote to date:

    “They're not building the right products,” he said. “They've got good workers but I don't believe they've got good management. They don't innovate. They're a dinosaur in a sense.”

    It has been stated over and over these guys are out of touch with what consumers want, now that the time has come when they can blame no one but themselves for their lack of vision, years of sub quality materials on various models, dealerships on every corner selling the same cars but under a different banner. Basically competing against themselves. Take a page from your European divisions, one example the Netherlands population around 20 million they have less Opel/GM dealerships in the entire country than here on the island of Montreal with a dealer in every city/suburb. Big cities in NA don't need or want truck dealerships they want cars, and good cars. Time to stop blaming and start doing.
  45. Ob Server from Canada writes: Yvonne....Your post demonstrates a painful lack of creative thinking and a regurgitation of the predominantly union-run credo that bankruptcy is bad for workers and pensioners and therefore bad for Canada, the USA and the world. This is false and has always been false. It is the summum of ineffectual management that has culminated in this calamity for the automakers and therefore, they are required to become creative overnight and go fix the mess which is exclusively of their making over the past 30 plus years. Finally, even if you gave these idiots $100Billion, they'd still blow it, lay off thousands more workers, still build cars that people will not buy and file for bankruptcy in 2 years rather than today. Why postpone the inevitable....Let them fail and re-organize.
  46. p m from Canada writes: 1.5 million jobs on the line here, you simply don't care about this??..

    yes..the blacksmiths and the livery stables and what are we going to do with all the oats the farmers are growing...what will happen to the saddle makers!

    when the time comes...the plug gets pulled!
  47. Gary Dare from Portland, Oregon, Canada, writes: He Shoots! He Scores! writes, 'For instance, here in Illinois we are reaching a rather serious state of affairs caused by falling tax revenues. One disturbing and basic story I heard was that the state is falling behind in paying its bills which is raising the spectre that food suppliers to prisons will stop deliveries.' I saw that on the Chicago news online (WBBM, WLS). Add to that list, fuel for the Illinois State Police. And for the City of Chicago, the spectre of tapping into the Chicago Skyway privatization funds 'if we are approaching bankruptcy' (Mayor Daley). And those types of problems are popping up all over the place.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27583162/

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27406747/

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27426551/

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27437442/

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27577140/

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27577250/

    General Wesley Clark made a good argument in today's NYT, that the US military needs Detroit for its vehicles. (I'm a bit skeptical since the G-Wagon used by the Marines and our CF is by Daimler-Benz.) But given the massive need to replace worn out, trashed or old vehicles, the Congress should consider a massive replacement program rather than a bailout. (And from Canada's end, an order and/or 2 more C-17's as a gesture in kind.) Let Detroit work its way out of its hole, or at least get a soft landing.
  48. Ed Long from Canada writes: An industry that makes unpopular products is an industry that makes unpopular products.

    Bail-out is the last option and only for social reasons.
  49. M McGeachy from Toronto, Canada writes: Once again, the stunning lack of consistency is what is most distressing about Republican politicians, who can't even be relied upon to keep a single ideology. If such a massive sum is being proposed to save the banks, who truly do not deserve to be saved for the greed they showed, why not the automakers, who probably don't deserve to be saved for stupidity.

    I think it comes down to old-fashioned class hating. It seems more intolerable for suit-wearing investment bankers to have to dip into their precious 401(k)s and take a tax hit than to see auto workers in Detroit lining up at the food bank. And if the autos go under, that's exactly where we are headed.

    Not to mention, of course, the jobs tied into the auto industry indirectly. But hey, why not let 'private enterprise' take its course and let the equity firms come in and carve GM to the bones... then again, why not do that for AIG as well?

    How long until the Republican party is exposed for the sham that it is and we can all move along with a genuine conservative party in the States, worthy of respect?
  50. crazy fiddler from Canada writes: Ed Long: Thank you for expressing a long overdue idea; to rewrite the relationship between the auto unions and their management. Give them seats at the table wherein they can shape the direction that their companies go and how they get there, and while they're at it, re-establish sensible relationships between the salaries of the workers on the company floor and executive positions. Make them stakeholders in the truest sense. Then, get to work on making quality automobiles that are environmentally responsible and attractive to buyers. Perhaps then they can generate some meaningful, long lasting improvements in how these companies operate, ones that may allow them to survive in the current economic climate. Under those conditions, I can see offering auto manufacturers some government assistance to weather these trying times, since there are millions of jobs at stake, and the ripple effect through the economy if any of them were to collapse would be unprecedented.
  51. Ed Long from Canada writes: crazy .... When Detroit was still having workers on an assembly line, going on strike, demanding more concessions mainly because they worked in a crap environment .... the Euros had team assembly, innovation with input from all corporate members, job security and benefits right down to company vacation resorts.

    We stuck with the adversarial system and we are now paying the price.
  52. Dick Garneau from Canada writes: The USA can do what they want in the auto industry. That's their business.

    Canada should not try to prop up a dying business.

    Rather help a Canadian company to develop a Canadian car.

    Chrysler said they are going to give senior management performance bonus, reward failure, what a great lesson to teach our kids.
    .
  53. Jim Chapman from Canada writes: I see both sides of this argument.

    The jobs in Oshawa, Oakville and Detroit along with many other locations can't be overlooked. We are talking about a huge number of people who by little fault of their own will be looking for jobs in areas where none would be available. This will tear down the local economies that have been built on the back of these giants. Stores, restaurants, and other businesses will fail for lack of business. Real estate values in these areas will fall costing many others their life savings.

    I am not in favor of the governments on either side of the border giving the money with no ties.

    Every dollar instead should be backed by shares of a new company. The existing company would disappear along with the union contracts. All existing share holders could convert their shares at rock bottom prices. The new company(ies) would have to present new plans for fuel efficient models and sales projections to the new board of directors which would include new representation from the new major shareholders. These would be in Canada Crown corporations. The long term goal would be for them to be sold off when the share value would return fare dollars to the shareholders.

    Not sure if this is feasible but I think it is a much better option than putting whole regions in poverty because some execs failed to have foresight.
  54. Red-necked and persecuted from Canada writes: They could fix this in a minute. Dissolve the unions and pay these guys commensurate with the rest of the working world. Voila, instant competitiveness!
  55. K P from Canada writes: Well done Republicans
    Its the first good idea they have had since their stupid nomination of McCain and Palin. Maybe the penny has finally dropped as to their redneck agenda.
    Our system rewards the succesful, if the Banks and the Automakers mess up then its their problem just as if my little company fails it is my fault and I pay the penalty.

    On another topic WHY does the G&M obliterate comments with ads for the Canadian Purchasing Officers Association.
  56. Matt Stiles from Vancouver, Canada writes: Capitalism on the way up, socialism on the way down.

    The entire process is known as coporatism. Although many leftists like to say it is evidence that 'capitalism doesn't work.'

    We never had free-markets in the first place. So I don't know how this could be evidence that free-markets don't work.
  57. Libertarian Capitalist from Calgary, Canada writes: Scrappy T from Canada writes: I think we need to see how much management and unions are willing to sacrifice before we talk about bailing out anyone.

    ========

    Sacrifice?? It's like talking chines, pan intended, to these auto folks of both management and labor.

    They can consider it sacrifice but the least they must do, just like most industry and business, is to work hard mentally and physically.

    If they can absorb that kind of basic capitalist work ethic, it then will be a moral obligation for them to reject the shameful bail out offerings.

    Expecting change and sacrifice once they get the plum is sheer naivety.
  58. J Albert from Toronto, Canada writes: Why don't the CAW/UAW belly up to the bar with billions from their pension plan? I believe the assets in the GM plan alone are around $100 billion.
  59. Knuckles Muldoon from Moscow, Canada writes: GM still pays Tiger Woods millions to carry a Buick logo around on his golf bag. GM still pays lots of money to have its logo on the hockey arena in Vancouver.

    Maybe these sorts of things should be cut before asking for hand outs.

    I doubt GM has cut out any winter boondoggles in the sunny south - AIG sure hasn't.
  60. Winston Smith from Canada writes: Let them reorganize in Chapter 11. It will be the best thing for them in the long run. Status quo hasn't worked for some time. Mgmt, worker contracts all need to be restructured.
  61. TEXAS RENEGADE from Dallas, United States writes: I am all for Bailing out the BIG 3 auto companies with US taxpayers money - on the condition they close the canadian plants and move the work back to the USA ---- no sense in US taxpayers bailing out a company that provides work to other country ----- if they don't agree - let them go Bankrupt
  62. Crusty Curmudgeon from Ottawa, Canada writes:

    Stop blaming unions -- they are made up of ordinary people trying to make a living.

    Why is it that you can't see that 20-100 million dollar a year 'bonus' for being incompetent is not fair to the anybody -- least of all the shareholder.

    At a $100 mil a year -- I expect them to be able to tell me where Jimmy Hoffa is buried (of course, that is probably easy because they probably ordered his 'disappearance').

    It is time for these 'experienced' and 'brilliant' leaders to finally risk something for their enormous pay cheques.

    If the executives believe that this bailout will work -- then why can't they collectively 'invest' their bonuses into the companies that they run?

    The answer is obvious of course -- they don't believe that it will work and they don't want their own money to go down the drain.

    They would rather that the tax payer's money goes down the drain.
  63. Fake Name from Canada writes: I agree with James Ainsworth; let them fail and the Japanese manufacturers buy up the factories to produce fuel-efficient cars that will actually sell.
  64. Angry West Coast Canuck from Canada writes: GOOD! These behemoths of bad design and icons of bad management decisions need to reap the consequences of what they have sown. If this means them finally going bankrupt, so much the better. I just hope they lift the corporate veil and go after the directors of these companies for all the millions in bonuses they've been paid in the past few years. Because that's no less than fraud. Let better managed corporations rise from their ashes. Maybe then we'll start seeing better designs that people actually want to buy? Maybe then we'll not have companies like GM killing off their electric vehicles then sitting on the patents and refusing anyone to use them? Maybe then we'll see some innovation from the North American car makers - because right now they're crap. Oh, and to those blaming the unions: get your heads out of your arse. It ain't the unions making decisions to build fuel inefficient cars in a decade of rising fuel prices. It ain't unions deciding to move production to non-unionised facilities in countries where worker rights mean nothing. It ain't union members getting paid millions in bonuses for making decisions that have driven the companies to the brink of bankruptcy. Let's put the blame where it really belongs, shall we? Bad management that doesn't have the foresight God gave a newt.
  65. Fake Name from Canada writes: Texas Renegade ... what was supposedly being discussed was a collaborative bailout, where the canadian government would contribute something to support the canadian plants operated by the big three.

    Sounded to me like a way to waste even more people's taxes.

    And Crusty Curmudgeon ... union greed and executive greed have bot played roles in the auto industry's downfall. Most of the assembly workers have no more than a high-school education, and they're making $40 an hour plus some exceptionally lucrative benefits, for doing repetitive mechanical labour that's not exactly complicated. Obviously the executive pay packages are way out of line to what their decision-making performance has been worth, but the unions have done their part to kill the golden goose as well.
  66. Paul Dieter from Canada writes:
    Detroit is symptomatic of capitalism. If it isn't highly regulated and controlled it self destructs. Detroit killed itself, by lobbying to have fuel economy standards lowered, and by building gas guzzling SUV and PUs to evade the standards that were in place, and so they invested their money in projects that seemed profitable, but were doomed to fail...

    The industry does need to be re-organized but it cannot be allowed to fail as this would trigger a continent and probably worldwide global depression of massive proportions - make no mistake about that - it must be rescued, as the banks were rescued and then set to work building highly fuel efficient, low carbon emission vehicles in conjunction with tight North American standards for fuel economy. The SUV and V-8 engine must die, and we must then launch an incentive program to get older gas guzzlers off the streets, to be replaced with the new fuel efficient vehicles. We can turn this into a win-win situation and get the economy moving again at the same time.

    In any event the Big 3 are asking for assistance which amounts to a tiny fraction of the aid already doled out to the big banks - so why not?
  67. kevin o'connor from Canada writes: 1) Ob servor writes: No kevin, the world will not fall apart if they fail. In fact, it may be a better place because new industries will arrive and those that exist will be incented to grow appropriately rather than have a governmant backstop to support inept, idiotic and unaccountable management. Hope you're right, but you offer nothing but firey ideological rhetoric to support your argument. We need more than that to solve these problems. I believe that these companies failure would be worse than bailing them out due to a) the massive direct and indirect job losses they would cause and all that those losses would mean for our economy and b) the recession would continue to snowball and there is little prospect that anything of their size and impact could fill in the void, certainly in the short or medium term, and perhaps never. -------------- 2)Rick Jolly from Ladysmith, writes: kevin o'connor from Canada writes: "...but the real reason they now face death is the financial crisis..." Rick, don't know why would bother to take a partial quote from a sentence I wrote that says these companies are weaker than their counterparts and a post that calls the idea of bailing them out odious, but hey, whatever.... The fact is there are two bad choices here. Failure or bailout. I think failure is by far the more costly to our economy, especially at the beginning of a world wide recession. History shows us that laissez-faire let 'em fail policies worsened the great depression and we should learn from history. My point about the crisis is that these weak companies (weak of their own making) have hit the point of insolvency suddenly because the sudden meltdown in the financial system. We should save them only because letting them fail will worsen our already terrible situation and we will all feel the impact if this recession keeps snowballing. The rise in unemployment, loss in consumer spending, house forclosures etc will be huge and infectious.
  68. Uncle Fester from Canada writes:
    Union bashing doesn't do any good. You can't blame a guy for wanting to make a decent living, regardless of what he does.

    At the same time if the big 3's labour cost is $78 per hour and Toyota and Honda's are $44. You can see that cost of labor is one of the contributing factors toward the big 3's problems.
  69. kevin o'connor from Canada writes: 1) Ob servor writes:"No kevin, the world will not fall apart if they fail. In fact, it may be a better place because new industries will arrive and those that exist will be incented to grow appropriately rather than have a governmant backstop to support inept, idiotic and unaccountable management." -----Hope you're right, but you offer nothing but firey ideological rhetoric to support your argument. We need more than that to solve these problems. I believe that these companies failure would be worse than bailing them out due to a) the massive direct and indirect job losses they would cause and all that those losses would mean for our economy and b) the recession would continue to snowball and there is little prospect that anything of their size and impact could fill in the void, certainly in the short or medium term, and perhaps never. -------------- 2)Rick Jolly from Ladysmith, writes: "kevin o'connor from Canada writes: "...but the real reason they now face death is the financial crisis..." ------Rick, don't know why would bother to take a partial quote from a sentence I wrote that says these companies are weaker than their counterparts and a post that calls the idea of bailing them out odious, but hey, whatever.... The fact is there are two bad choices here. Failure or bailout. I think failure is by far the more costly to our economy, especially at the beginning of a world wide recession. History shows us that laissez-faire let 'em fail policies worsened the great depression and we should learn from history. My point about the crisis is that these weak companies (weak of their own making) have hit the point of insolvency suddenly because the sudden meltdown in the financial system. We should save them only because letting them fail will worsen our already terrible situation and we will all feel the impact if this recession keeps snowballing. The rise in unemployment, loss in consumer spending, house forclosures etc will be huge and infectious.
  70. Al Baker from Bowmanville, Canada writes: All you folks who don't make over $43,000 a year in Canada (ie. poverty pay) have been living off my back (as an auto worker) for the last 25 years with your health care benefits, education, welfare, etc. Perhaps you just don't realise that you have actually been subsidized by anybody making over that break-even point while you've been flipping burgers and dishing out coffee for minimum wage. So now you think you've found some other people to letch off...Asian and Indian people who work for a bowl of rice and dog meat every day. Nice standards, eh? Why don't you wake up from your TV-induced stuper and face reality instead of reality shows. If you don't like the idea of manufacturing products in this country I guess you'll have to get used to the fact that the only good paying jobs will be in the mines or logging camps. Welcome to the new land of the under-achievers - CANADA. Enjoy your imports.
  71. Keiffer N Calgary from Calgary, Canada writes: Let them go bankrupt. They will sooner than later anyway, even after getting public money. Overpaid and inept management is the reason they're failing. Everyone else saw the gas price crunch coming, except the million-dollar boobheads running the American Auto Manufacturers who kept building gas-guzzling garbage.
    Let them die. They're only trying to get the money to pay millions to their bonehead management who are under contract to get "bonuses"!!! Go broke. Someone else can build vehicles over here that knows what they're doing.
  72. Dean the machine from Canada writes: Any money for the auto sector should go to Zenn Motor company.

    Where is their share???

    Unfortunately, they don't have an army of lobbyists.
  73. Saint-face d'Orignal from Kitigan, Canada writes: If the big 3 need a bailout they should ask their workforce to tap their personal RRSP and 401K savings.

    I didn't think so.
  74. Uncle Fester from Canada writes:
    People seem to think that if the big 3 go belly up all those jobs will be permanently lost.

    That would only happen if north americans decided to stop purchasing cars. Our governments already have trade agreements with the worlds better run car companies that if they want to sell us their cars they have to make them here.

    So long as we drive cars in north america and manufacturers are required to make them here, there will be assembly line jobs.
  75. Grey Griffin from Ottawa, Canada writes: Idiot managers and overpaid workers making overpriced, poor quality cars that nobody wants to buy. You would have to crazy to bail that out.
  76. garlick toast from Canada writes: Let Big Oil bail out the Big Three. After all, it was Exxon which lobbied to kill the California law which led to the electric car.
  77. Just In from Canada writes: I can't understand why Obama talks about energy independence while act on bailing out Detroit-3 making gas guzzlers.

    I can't understand why Harper supports bail out and wearing the hat of a Conservative.

    The Left and the Right are joining hands to rob the middle class who keep drinking the koolaid.
  78. nick pr from brighton, United Kingdom writes: you know... i thinkit's quite outrageous of these no-name senators to say that this timeless car manufacturers should resign themselves to failure.. and this is exactly what they do not do, they do not fail, they have always found a way out of their troubles and this time is no exception. I think they need help, maybe not 25billion! but they need help, and they will come back, they will strike back, inovate, and lead the world into the next century's mobility machines, just as they did for most of the last century.
    That's yet another thing obama got right -tho there's more!
    http://www.spinwhip.com/obama :-)
  79. John Smith from Support Ontario Bill 93-Ottawa, Canada writes: Here's what really is happening. The USA will bail out the Big 3, but the GOP doesn't want it done on their watch. They want to wait until BHO and the new Congress takes over, If the bail out goes bad, then it will be on BHO and the Dem's. The Dem's forced the GHWB to pass an unpopular economic package just before the end of his 1st term and then Clinton used it against him to win the WH. The Dem's are pushing so hard now because if the bail-out goes bad, they can blame it on Bush, not BHO.
  80. Beyazet Ilderim from Canada writes: Vern McPherson from Canada writes:
    Republicans are dinosaurs. The current US economic and world economic situation is ample evidence of that.
    ____________________________

    So you did re-surface....
    Who's the dino remains to be seen an judged. Agreed on the fact that Bush presidency was bad all the way. Aside from this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX7dszkjBeU&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAuOEdttjZQ&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=    MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related

    Hey Vern, if Reps are dinos, the Dems are complete imbeciles. And so are you by siding with them.
  81. garlick toast from Canada writes: In answer to the " bail out" question, Harper has delivered a resounding "MAYBE". What kind of answer is that?
  82. C R from Canada writes: Grey Griffin from Ottawa, Canada writes: Idiot managers and overpaid workers making overpriced, poor quality cars that nobody wants to buy. You would have to crazy to bail that out.

    I am pretty sure that worker wages make up a very small piece of the pie. Puffed up managers, unions, and greedy shareholders are the cause of all of this. The market is doing what it should and the Big3 have yet to come to terms with the fact that they are no longer the big three.
    They must be forced to change or die. If the gov wants to sponsor a new company to make homemade cars, lets see them sink their billions into that! Now that would be something!
  83. j berniquer from ontario, Canada writes: The Big 3 have been restructuring for the past 10 years. As far as I'm concerned, greedy investors have created this credit mess. The idea of throwing a life line to auto is not a tangible one due to the mounting failures of other companies over this past week. But, in this case the negatives outweigh the positives. A bitter pill to swallow. Workers and management have nothing to do with this situa