Serious Question about bailing out the Auto Comps. - Page 3 - Truckers' Trucking Forum

RickG · **^ Top** #21 11.21.2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by latanea

I think it is more about saving an INDUSTRY and not just bailing out a "company"

there are so many secondary industries that supply and feed on the American automakers... - man it is far reaching and wide...

If it was one company - who was failing - then let them sink (as long as the others are doing fairly well) but it is our entire auto industry

let them go under and it will cost a lot A LOT more than a trillion to help all those out of work at the plastics / oil / textile / rubber / steel / chemical and logistic companies...

(not to mention the hundreds of thousands that work at dealerships and supply houses.)

I hear ya Ziggy on the idea of letting the weak die - but when everyone is hurting - it is hard to watch the attrition.

While the Big 3 are much of the industry they are not the "entire" industry . Many "foreign " vehicles have more domestic parts content than "American " cars . Note 4 of the top 10 are Japanese brands made in the U.S. .[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link.
As I stated in another post , a bailout will not make the Big 3's vehicles more attractive to buyers or make loans more obtainable .
What about Cerebus trying desperately to sell Chrysler ? GM was the only potential U.S. buyer and that deal fell through. Should Cerebus be given billions of dollars to make Chrysler more attractive to an Asian buyer ?

latanea · **^ Top** #22 11.21.2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by otherhalftw

I grew up in East Central Nevada, the county for the most part was employed by Kennecott Copper Corporation, when the EPA came in and forced KCC to clean the smoke emitted from the smelter stacks, the cost was too high so close down the mine, the mill, and the smelter. 6200 jobs were lost, nothing to go after but ranching. There was no bailout, not even an offer of job training.

6200 jobs in a specific single operation.

or

2.4 million jobs in 143 specific operations.

Mooney · **^ Top** #23 11.21.2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by latanea

6200 jobs in a specific single operation.

or

2.4 million jobs in 143 specific operations.

Job loss numbers are pure conjecture. Bankruptcy filings do not close the doors permanently.

knighton5 · **^ Top** #24 11.23.2008

I think A LOT of Americans dont want to bail out or help Union workers (who make more then most) to get out of this mess. Ive been hearing both sides on XM radio (talk shows) and honestly, I think a bailout or help from the government will just prolong the destiny of American companies - push out of the country, thanks to costs ( UNION DEMANDS ). Maybe its time to ask the workers to take a pay cut ( economic hard times ) and help pay more for there benefits, the other side of this could be even worse! Out of a job, its time to collect unemployment. Reality? I know I'm gonna get a spanking response, but the truth hurts when your acustomed to a great wage and benefits for so long, while the rest of us are happy making half that. Ok, lets hear it !!
be gentle:

bangngears · **^ Top** #25 11.23.2008

well if we bail them out, lets open the books and chop all the high dollar ceo pay and the private jets for 300 mile trips and bring them down to earth....this should also go for the big bail out with banks too!

Lonesome · **^ Top** #26 11.23.2008

Quote:

Job loss numbers are pure conjecture. Bankruptcy filings do not close the doors permanently.

You can't say that, either. If a company files Chapter 11 reorganization, there is NO GUARANTEE that they will recover. If GM files Chapter 11, are you going to shell out 40 large for a new Cadillac, and HOPE they stay around, and cover the warranty, replacement parts, etc?

I'm undecided on a bailout. I'm leaning towards one, mostly because when the Wall Street leaders approached Congress and the White House about a bailout, they couldn't get the money fast enough. 700 BILLION dollar$, in about 2 weeks. Without much oversight. Most people will tell you the bankers brought most of their problems on themselves, with risky borrowers, loaning 125% of a homes value, etc. The Big 3 brought on a lot of their problems, too. But now Congress is dragging their feet.

Doesn't make sense to me anyway, to help out one business segment, and ignore another.

RickG · **^ Top** #27 11.23.2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonesome

You can't say that, either. If a company files Chapter 11 reorganization, there is NO GUARANTEE that they will recover. If GM files Chapter 11, are you going to shell out 40 large for a new Cadillac, and HOPE they stay around, and cover the warranty, replacement parts, etc?

I'm undecided on a bailout. I'm leaning towards one, mostly because when the Wall Street leaders approached Congress and the White House about a bailout, they couldn't get the money fast enough. 700 BILLION dollar$, in about 2 weeks. Without much oversight. Most people will tell you the bankers brought most of their problems on themselves, with risky borrowers, loaning 125% of a homes value, etc. The Big 3 brought on a lot of their problems, too. But now Congress is dragging their feet.

Doesn't make sense to me anyway, to help out one business segment, and ignore another.

So you're saying one bad decision to help out one segment justifies another bad decision to help out another ?

Lil Blue Pony · **^ Top** #28 11.23.2008

Did I hear right that after the Big 3's trip to Washington they all went back to the airpoort and got on their coprerate jets??????? I heard that didn't set too well with the public.........

notarps4me · **^ Top** #29 11.23.2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lil Blue Pony

Did I hear right that after the Big 3's trip to Washington they all went back to the airpoort and got on their coprerate jets??????? I heard that didn't set too well with the public.........

I heard on XM radio that they all left from chicago to washington and didn't jetpool................

Lil Blue Pony · **^ Top** #30 11.23.2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by lobshot

I dont remember if it was Ford or GM but I heard the other day that since the price of gas has gone down they are increasing production of FULL SIZE SUV'S.
THESE GUYS JUST DONT LEARN..........AND NOW THEY WANT US TO BAIL THEM OUT?

I want to bring up a thought /question whatever..........we all have heard the stories over the years of the capapbility of producing cars that get 50/mpg or more on good ol' gasoline.......even heard of test vehicles sold to people that got great mileage then after bringing the vehilce back to the dealer after the test period the fuel consumption fell back down to average range.........IF there is the capapbility for this (again I said IF) you would think that an auto manufacturer out there would have captured the market ..............not trying to argue any point it is just something I have always wondered why not?????

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Trucker Forum	Replies	Last Post
Newbie question -manual vs auto at school?	spider333	Questions From New Drivers	10	07.31.2009 05.52 PM
Serious question & advice needed.......	shandera	A Discussion About EVERYTHING	14	09.18.2008 10.40 PM
The anatomy of a staged (Clinton) question	Ronnocomot	Politics	7	11.14.2007 09.41 PM

Truckers' Trucking Forum/Message Board - The Premiere Truck Driver Forum

The Following User Says Thank You to Mooney For This Useful Post:
goin2fast10 (12.06.2008)

The Following User Says Thank You to knighton5 For This Useful Post:
AfterShock (11.24.2008)

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)