SOUND OFF: Detroit Lobbies For Your Tax Dollars To Bail Them Out!

SOUND OFF: Detroit Lobbies For Your Tax Dollars To Bail Them Out!

First came Bear Stearns, then mortgage lenders and borrowers, followed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: They've all looked to Uncle Sam for a bailout, and now the word around Washington is that Detroit will be next on the taxpayer supplicant list.

Earlier this month, the Detroit Free Press reported that the top dogs at Ford, GM and Chrysler had a meeting of the minds and decided that the way out of their current losing streak would be to ask the feds for a lifeline. They figure they'll need $40 billion or so to ride out their current troubles until they reach the promised land of hybrids, the Chevy Volt, and, who knows, maybe even profits.

We've since heard that lobbyists for the car makers are taking their pitch for direct federal loans around Washington, with a goal of unveiling the plan after Labor Day -- conveniently in the frenzy of the fall election campaign. They've briefed Congressman John Dingell, the dean of Michigan Democrats, as well as officials in the Bush White House.

The plan is for the government to lend some $25 billion to auto makers in the first year at an interest rate of 4.5%, or about one-third what they're currently paying to borrow. What's more, the government would have the option of deferring any payment at all for up to five years. Meanwhile, Barack Obama recently signaled that he's open to federal money to help the auto makers invest in "renewable" technology, and Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow and Mr. Dingell are supporting the $25 billion in loans to the not-so-Big Three as part of a second-round economic "stimulus."


Read Article

HSCenterconsoleHSCenterconsole - 8/25/2008 10:46:41 AM
+8 Boost
No corporation should get a bailout from the federal government. Failure is just as much a part of capitalism as success is.

As a taxpayer, I should not have to pay for the Big Three's mistakes.


EnnNorakEnnNorak - 8/25/2008 2:57:40 PM
+4 Boost
Fully agree with you HSCenterconsole, if the taxpayer bails out a corporation then it should only be on the basis of receiving corporate bonds and significant corporate shares for the taxpayers' benefit. Maybe that would be a good way to beef up the Highway Trust Fund while protecting domestic jobs. I thought such bailouts contravene the terms of existing international trade agreements.


bigmotovbigmotov - 8/25/2008 11:07:00 AM
+5 Boost
"As a taxpayer, I should not have to pay for the Big Three's mistakes."

Exactly!



michal1980michal1980 - 8/25/2008 11:07:10 AM
+2 Boost
Boo. I root for the big three, but come on now. If you for years make crap no one wants. Then wake up after 20 years saying, omg, I need to make good stuff. Then a few years after that, make good stuff.

Its a case of too late. Let them go bankrupt. Dont save the stockholders that allowed this to happen.


neutralneutral - 8/25/2008 2:37:12 PM
+1 Boost
Well aren't we feeling high and mighty about ourselves. Why don't you put on a blindfold and go play in traffic.


audirevolutionaudirevolution - 8/26/2008 12:11:44 AM
+1 Boost
Where do you live again? America right?


E92_M_PowerE92_M_Power - 8/25/2008 11:53:31 AM
+1 Boost
LOL


Sarcastic1Sarcastic1 - 8/25/2008 12:30:35 PM
-2 Boost
I have three promises to myself which I will never abandon. Those are: Never date/marry a girl who doesn't believe in physical fitness, never buy property in the midwest, and never buy an American made car.

As much as I can't stand the big 3, they are a vital asset to our economy. They provide thousands of jobs, billions in revenue, and a source of technological development. Without the big three, our GDP would plummet and we would, almost definitely, be in a recession.

Using tax dollars to bail our these companies may seem to be ethically unsound, but the advantages for the country far out pace the disadvantages of spending on this issue. I agree with the above posts that failure is a vital part of a capitalist economy, but when there are companies with such an influence, an acception needs to be made.


gforcegforce - 8/25/2008 12:36:20 PM
0 Boost
Not all workers are fat and lazy and it's not the fault of the engineers, designers etc... and even some line workers.

Management has failed to plan for the future because they're focused on the short term (this is the problem with any public US company). Be careful what you wish for too; if the domestic automakers go under, you will also feel its effects even though many of you probably flip burgers for a living. BTW, have you really compared the fuel economy and quality from the Detroit 3 to the imports? The answer is probably NO because you're just another dumb ass homer against domestic cars. Now some facts that prove my point below; please also note the very bottom; hopefully you will be the first to lose your job at Mickey D's, you unpatriotic fools.


If you have noticed all the bad news the last 3 years regarding the falling sales of the domestic auto industry, you might be interested in the following questions, possible answers are listed alphabetically.
The correct answers, along with source, are given below.

1. Which country can boast that their brands occupy 2 of the top 3 spots for long-term reliability?
a. Germany
b. Japan
c. Korea
d. United States

2. As of August 2007, which manufacturer had the most recalled vehicles in the U.S. for that year?
a. Chrysler
b. Ford
c. GM
d. Nissan
e. Toyota
f. Volkswagen

3. Pick the brand from each group that has the highest initial quality.
a. Acura, BMW, Cadillac (all luxury makes)
b. Honda, Mercury, Nissan (all non-luxury makes)
c. Acura (lux), Chevrolet (non-lux), BMW (lux), Mazda (non-lux)

4. Which midsize sedan has the highest initial quality?
a. Accord (Honda)
b. Altima (Nissan)
c. Camry (Toyota)
d. Malibu (Chevrolet)

5. Which large sedan has the highest initial quality?
a. Avalon (Toyota)
b. Grand Prix (Pontiac)
c. Sable (Mercury)

6. Which midsize pickup has the highest initial quality?
a. Dakota (Dodge)
b. Ranger (Ford)
c. Tacoma (Toyota)

7. Which car is the most economical overall?
a. Aveo (Chevrolet)
b. Fit (Honda)
c. Prius (Toyota)

8. Which car did the LA Times describe as “a better car than BMW or Mercedes or Lexus or Infiniti”?
a. A6 (Audi)
b. CTS (Cadillac)
c. RL (Acura)

9. Which company makes the winner of the 2008 “Green Car of the Year” award?
a. Chevrolet
b. Honda
c. Toyota

10. Which car was selected by the North American automotive press corps as the “North American Car of the Year” for 2007?
a. Aura (Saturn)
b. Camry (Toyota)
c. Fit (Honda)
11. Which car won the same award for 2008?
a. Accord (Honda)
b. Altima coupe (N


gforcegforce - 8/25/2008 12:38:47 PM
-2 Boost
-Continued-


11. Which car won the same award for 2008?
a. Accord (Honda)
b. Altima coupe (Nissan)
c. Malibu (Chevrolet)

12. Which company had a luxury vehicle, a midsize sedan, and a large truck removed from the Consumer Reports recommended vehicles list in October 2007 because of mounting quality problems?
a. Chrysler
b. Ford
c. General Motors
d. Hyundai
e. Toyota
f. Volkswagen


ANSWERS:
1. Which country can boast that their brands occupy 2 of the top 3 spots for long-term reliability?

Answer: United States.
Per J.D. Power Vehicle Dependability Study, Mercury and Cadillac are in the top 3, along with Lexus. And in 2007, Buick was tied with Lexus for the top spot.
http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2008115

2. As of August 2007, which manufacturer had the most recalled vehicles in the U.S. for that year?

Answer: Volkswagen.
According to Business Week, Volkswagen had the most recalls at this time a year ago. The second worst was Toyota.
http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/aug2007/bw20070810_455098.htm

3. Pick the brand from each group that has the highest initial quality.
a. Answer : Cadillac (better than both Acura and BMW)
b. Answer: Mercury (better than both Honda and Nissan)
c. Answer: Chevrolet (better than Acura, BMW, and Mazda)
This is according to J.D. Power’s Initial Quality Survey.
http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2008063

4. Which midsize sedan has the highest initial quality?

Answer: The Chevrolet Malibu has better initial quality than any competitor, including the Honda Accord, Toyota Camry and Nissan Altima. The Ford Fusion also beat all 3 Japanese competitors.
This too is from the J.D. Power Initial Quality Survey, which also reveals that above average are American brands Mercury, Ford, Cadillac, Chevrolet , Pontiac, Lincoln, and Buick. Below average are import brands Acura, Kia, Nissan, BMW, Mazda, VW, Subaru, and Scion (and several others).
http://www.jdpower.com/autos/articles/2008-Initial-Quality:-Midsize-and-Large-Cars
http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2008063

5. Which large sedan has the highest initial quality?

Answer: Again per J.D. Power, the highest quality large car is the Pontiac Grand Prix, beating the Toyota Avalon. Two other Detroit cars that beat the Avalon are the Mercury Sable and Mercury Grand Marquis.
http://www.jdpower.com/autos/articles/2008-Initial-Quality:-Midsize-and-Large-Cars

6. Which midsize pickup has the highest initial quality?

Answer: The Dodge Dakota has the best quality for midsize pickups, proving that Chrysler too can beat the imports. Both the Dakota and the Ford Ranger beat the Toyota Tacoma.
http://www.jdpower.com/autos/articles/2008-Initial-Quality:-Pickups-and


gforcegforce - 8/25/2008 12:39:57 PM
-2 Boost
-continued-

7. Which car is the most economical overall?

Answer: Per Edmunds.com, the premier automotive analysis site, the most economical car in America, taking into account not only mileage but all costs, is the Chevrolet Aveo. The Honda Fit is #3 and the Toyota Prius is a distant #34.
http://www.edmunds.com/help/about/press/127806/article.html

8. Which car did the Los Angeles Times describe as “a better car than BMW or Mercedes or Lexus or Infiniti”?

Answer: “Cadillac makes a better car than BMW or Mercedes or Lexus or Infiniti, and that car is the 2008 CTS. No other car in the mass market dares so much as this expressive and audacious bit of automotive avant-gardism.” Dan Neil, LA Times.
http://www.latimes.com/classified/automotive/highway1/la-hy-neil12dec12-pg,0,5427133.photogallery

9. Which company makes the winner of the 2008 “Green Car of the Year” award?

Answer: The Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid is the winner of this award. How could a full-size SUV defeat the media darling Toyota Prius? Read the link below and you will discover, “What’s equally eye-opening is that the Tahoe’s 21 mpg city fuel efficiency rating is the same as that of the city EPA rating for the four-cylinder Toyota Camry sedan. ”

Did you catch that? A huge, full-size SUV from Chevrolet that gets the same city mileage as a 4-cylinder Toyota Camry!! Chevy obtained this remarkable achievement through the use of its 2-mode hybrid system, a technology that Toyota does not have.
http://www.greencar.com/features/2008greencar/

10. Which car was selected by the North American automotive press corps as the “North American Car of the Year” for 2007?

Answer: Not only was the Saturn Aura picked by the automotive press corps as better than the Honda Fit and the Toyota Camry, “When a panel of 47 journalists named the Saturn Aura the North American Car of the Year over the Toyota Camry, the vote wasn't even close, 205-89.” Chicago Tribune, 1/15/07
http://www.northamericancaroftheyear.org/news.html

11. Which car won the same award for 2008?

Answer: GM again crushed the Japanese competition in 2008 when the Malibu received 190 votes to the Honda Accord’s 95. The Accord actually came in 3rd since GM’s other finalist, the Cadillac CTS, received 165 votes.
http://www.northamericancaroftheyear.org/news.html

12. Which company had a luxury vehicle, a midsize sedan, and a large truck removed from the Consumer Reports recommended vehicles list in October 2007 because of mounting quality problems?

Answer: Toyota’s much publicized quality problems resulted in Consumer Reports actually removing from their recommended vehicles list the Lexus GS luxury car, Camry V6 sedan, and Tundra pickup. This demotion occurred in October 2007.

This Q&A list was put together by an employee of an American car company who just might lose his job because of public perceptions that do not match reality. If you are one


gforcegforce - 8/25/2008 12:41:09 PM
-1 Boost
- last page- please read interesting statistic below.


This Q&A list was put together by an employee of an American car company who just might lose his job because of public perceptions that do not match reality. If you are one of the many Americans who gave up on Detroit’s cars because of a bad experience many years ago, it’s time to rethink your position. Rethink Detroit.

Detroit automakers: 79 U.S. jobs per 2,500 cars sold in America.
Foreign automakers: 33 U.S. jobs per 2,500 cars sold in America.




steve27tsteve27t - 8/25/2008 12:52:37 PM
+4 Boost
So why do they need $40 BILLION?


LexSucksLexSucks - 8/25/2008 2:01:26 PM
+1 Boost
"So why do they need $40 BILLION? "

- Exactly!

Once I got to the part that said that the "CTS" is a better car than BMW I stopped reading.

It's misleading crap like that that got them into trouble in the first place.


neutralneutral - 8/25/2008 2:26:35 PM
-2 Boost
Rock on Gforce, preach the truth!

Coming from a Benz owner for life whose next purchase will def be a domestic.


silver1silver1 - 8/25/2008 2:58:06 PM
-1 Boost
LMAO!!!


neutralneutral - 8/25/2008 4:36:26 PM
-1 Boost
Silver1,

laugh all you want but it's me that's laughing at you for overpaying for a Toyota with a "L" badge.

**Please everyone, lets not start a flame war about Lexus... I like lexus just like the next guy but this is such an easy cheap shot I had to take it. Seriously, LMAO!!?!?! what are you a 14 year old girl?****


0to600to60 - 8/25/2008 6:06:36 PM
+4 Boost
LexSucks, it took you all the way to reading something not in BMW's favor to stop reading!?! LOL


LexSucksLexSucks - 8/25/2008 8:38:34 PM
0 Boost
No. I usually don't read past the part that is false. What exactly is the CTS better than the BMW at?





steve27tsteve27t - 8/25/2008 12:47:48 PM
0 Boost
Socialized capitalism. The whole system is rigged for the big corporations from offshore tax havens to huge tax breaks, some think we play on an even field, but we don't. As a small business owner I see my state/county/city govt. giving huge incentives and tax breaks to lure corporations here. On a federal level it is worse. We see blatant corruption in other parts of the world but do not realise that our whole system is corrupt. All we need to do to correct the problem is give every muti-millionaire/billionaire another tax cut !!! As Warren Buffet has stated he pays less tax (%) than his secretary, how can that be?


cktoocktoo - 8/25/2008 8:37:15 PM
0 Boost
I'm with you with respect to "socialized capitalism" and it being wrong. To win votes, the Pols are now socializing losses and privatizing profits for the big boys...both Dem and Repub. The system is really corrupt and neither party really cares.

As for Buffett, his little tax example sounds good but it's only partially true. I'm trying to locate the article that pointed out the "stats" behind Buffett's little ploy, but Buffett pretty much makes no "earned income" (taxed at a higer percentage) and almost all "dividend income" (taxed at a lower rate), so he's partially correct. When, however, you take into account deductions, etc. the secretary actually paid less %-wise. Anyway, I guess my point is taxes aren't the problem, the gov't is.


HSCenterconsoleHSCenterconsole - 8/26/2008 8:07:56 AM
+1 Boost
cktoo, Buffet's earning are considered capital gains since it is through his fund. Long term capital gains are taxed at 15%. His secretary receives a salary and thus pays income tax. Depending on her tax bracket, that percentage is probably higher than the 15%.


sold2earlysold2early - 8/25/2008 1:08:29 PM
+1 Boost
Yeah that makes sense...pay for their mistakes...AGAIN.


LexSucksLexSucks - 8/25/2008 2:05:16 PM
+1 Boost
"Or do these retired Americans not deserve to live?? "

- They do but what makes them any different than the Enron Employees? How come no one is demanding that the government help out those Enron folks?





HSCenterconsoleHSCenterconsole - 8/25/2008 2:12:57 PM
+2 Boost
GM, Ford, and Chrysler do have a huge pension and retirement benefits obligations to their employees. However, it is unfair to ask ALL American taxpayers to pay for the mistakes made by both the management and the unions at the Big Three. They have billions of dollars set aside for those obligations.




cdokecdoke - 8/25/2008 3:04:11 PM
-2 Boost
Lexsucks,

"How come no one is demanding that the government help out those Enron folks? "

Hell the government doesn't even pay or admit the damage that THEY have done. The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government overstepped they bounds when they prosecuted Arthur Andersen and they they committed NO behaviors that were outside of the industry standard.

The federal government DESTROYED Arthur Andersen entirely- restitution (which should include the jobs of quite a few members of the Department of Justice) - none. Granted, that is different, the federal government was the cause of that, they are not really the cause of this, and to isolate organizations from the consequences of their poor behavior, is to enable that behavior. I could go on about lowered standard of living etc, but I don't really feel like writing for the next 30 minutes.


Maverick2020Maverick2020 - 8/25/2008 2:12:55 PM
+2 Boost
No Way in Hell Should U.S. Taxpayers Bail out the Big 3.
--------------------------------------------------------

They've had 25 years to retool and rethink themselves and prove that they can compete against Japan and European competitors. Yes, GM and Ford have signs that they finally 'get it' and their products show it, but it's too late.

A $50 Billion bailout could be used to retool and re-educate the displaced workers. I'm for that--because ultimately these old manufacturing jobs are never ever ever coming back again. That's just the way it works.

It's time for one of the Detroit 3 to go--and it will probably be Chrysler. I used to be a big fan, but they have proved that they can't manage their business.


neutralneutral - 8/25/2008 2:32:30 PM
-4 Boost
Firstly, the govt isnt GIVING this money, the gov is loaning this money (if it does do so).

Secondly, look at the massive bailouts for the financial institutions that got caught with their pants down after years of shady loans. Look how quick the government gave them bailouts, without a peep from the people!!

If we have money for Iraq, financial company bailouts, $250million dollar pet project bridges in alaska, etc etc etc, we have money to loan the big3.

I hate taxes just like the next guy, but we have to look to the future. Would America be better off losing industry or having a strong, job-providing, tax-paying industry that equates into untold levels of security...you tell me.




Maverick2020Maverick2020 - 8/25/2008 3:24:12 PM
+2 Boost
Of course, the govt isn't 'giving' the Detroit 3 this money--it would be a loan.

- What would this loan be secured with? From what I understand, GM and Ford have mortgaged everything from plants, to equipment, to the brands themselves . . . so there is nothing left for the taxpayers if an automaker failed.

- How would these automakers behave differently now vs. before? They have pissed away billions of dollars of capital, brand equity, etc. What would be different?

- If we do this, what do we get? When will the bleeding ever stop? Detroit has been in decline for 40 years.

- What would this money exactly be used for?

- Is it better to allow free market forces, specifically 'Creative Destruction' to play out? Sometimes companies need to die because they serve no function anymore and others can thrive in their place.




neutralneutral - 8/25/2008 4:10:20 PM
-3 Boost
Maverick2020,

- How would these automakers behave differently now vs. before? They have pissed away billions of dollars of capital, brand equity, etc. What would be different?

The difference is that the Big3 have made drastic changes in the past few years. From financial to dependability to fuel-economy, the Big3 of today are nothing like the Big3 of old. Problem is that overnight the price of crude skyrocketed. (thanks to Washington Politicians backing oil speculators) Now thanks to the slumping economy (no truck sales) and sky-high oil (no SUV sales) and a poor automotive market in general, the Big3 just got stomped on in a heartbeat.

Its hard to be THAT flexible, to go from pickups and suvs to small cars. Remember, detroit is producing what people buy (its not like the big3 put a gun to people's heads and made them buy big SUVs). Not only that, but the profit margins and smaller eco-cars are tiny compared to SUV's.

Let's get our politicians to reign in oil speculators and we will see the big3 do much much better.


theoptimisticpessimisttheoptimisticpessimist - 8/25/2008 2:14:39 PM
-1 Boost
I am a freemarketeer but I have to be realistic about things, foreign governments are deeply involved in their own countries business. Wither it be self sponsored health care (one less cost to pass on to the customer)or money for research and development. The hybrid technology the drives the Prius was heavily subsidized by the Japanese government. I don't think we should handicap our domestic companies buy playing by outdated rules.

Look I don't like the idea of bailouts, but, In a global economy its most likely wise. In addition, just imagine the economic chaos that would occur if just one of the big three collapsed.

Look we're bailing out banks and financial institutions at the rate of about one a week, why not do it for companies that actually build something.


neutralneutral - 8/25/2008 2:24:59 PM
+2 Boost
Thank You,

People who want to see detroit fail are short-sighted and not very bright. We can stand here and blame unions and quality, blah blah blah but the truth is that the big3 made poor business decisions in the past and they are paying for it now.

If any one of the big3 collapses, the fallout would be massive in many respects. Firstly, the loss of jobs and revenues (taxes, wages, etc) would destroy economies of factory town and many suburban detroit cities. Then suppliers would fall, causing more economic hardship. Then (possibly), other OEM's would fall because of the loss of suppliers, etc etc etc. Even Toyota stated this not more than a week or so ago.

Lets not forget the necessity to keep as much high-end manufacturing capabilities in the USA as possible. We've given the Asians nearly every bit of our manufacturing and one day we might need those capabilities and we are going to be screwed. What happens if we get into another situation like a world war, are you detroit hating blabbermouths going to start building tanks/trucks in your backyards?

Stop and think for a second, if Toyota was hurting, you think the govt of Japan isn't going to help!?!?!


neutralneutral - 8/25/2008 2:40:59 PM
-4 Boost
I like the sissy who de-boosts me for no good reason. Make an argument. I swear... hide behind the anonymity of the internet..... sissy.


cktoocktoo - 8/25/2008 8:57:27 PM
+2 Boost
I don't want to see Detroit fail and I've actually looked at some American cars recently, but still don't feel comfortable long-term with that purchase, especially with no price advantage.

Anyway, we can't continue to bail out failing companies, including banks, etc., so I would vote "no" to this subsidy as well. Considering what's taken place in Congress, recently though, I don't blame them for asking. Nevertheless, we are trillions of dollars in debt when you include SS and Medicare and can't sustain this. Detroit has known for years that they are in trouble and failed multiple times to correct their problems. Unfortunately, a failure might be the only way to get it through to these companies. Yes, it will hurt some people/states/cities, but in the long term if we subsidize it will be even worse.

If other countries are subsidizing their industries to gain a competitive advantage, there are plenty of ways to lobby the gov't to file actions against them. I think some of this "foreign subsidizing" may be true, but I also believe the unions gin some of this up to build anger against the foreign compaines. I'm sure it's somewhere in between.

Eventually, the $$ is going to have to come from somewhere and that will lead to higher taxes, so you will only delay those high-end manufacturers from leaving until their costs (ie taxes) go up. Yeah, you'll save Detroit for a few more years, but at what cost? Again, it's not like they haven't know for years they are in trouble. How come foreign manufacturers figure this out and domestics can't?


AgentOrangeAgentOrange - 8/25/2008 2:47:00 PM
+3 Boost
Where do I send my check?


dlindlin - 8/25/2008 3:28:44 PM
-3 Boost
Everybody knows japanese gvt do what the US gvt told them to do.


skinnyskinny - 8/25/2008 7:14:05 PM
+3 Boost
Yeah, Bailouts suck! I don't want my tax dollars going to bailout poorly run companies either. But if the Gov't didn't bail out Bear Stearns, doesn't bail out Fannie & Freddie, the American economy will be MUCH worse than it already is. Same goes with the Big 3. The gov't is going to HAVE to loan them some $$$ to keep them going. If all THREE American car companies fold, it will again, be much WORSE for the American Economy than it already is! Our Government is partially to blame for this economic debacle to begin with. Much like Europe, we should have had higher gas taxes(gas prices) long ago to keep short sighted Americans driving smaller cars! I for one hope gas doesn't fall back to $2.00 a gallon otherwise short sighted Americans will start buying up SUVs again and we will be in the same mess again.


mp2dtwmp2dtw - 8/25/2008 8:38:46 PM
+1 Boost
First, that's an assinine headline. It's a LOAN not a giveaway. The last time Washington lent money to Detroit, it was paid back early. Every industry in America is subsidized in some, often many, respects.


toolatetoracetoolatetorace - 8/25/2008 9:38:59 PM
+1 Boost
asking this forum about a domestic bailout , loan or doestic auto opinion any other is like asking a chicken to give an opinion about Colenel Sanders


kpaxxkpaxx - 8/26/2008 11:21:43 AM
+2 Boost
I have no problem with giving auto companies our tax dollars. Every other nation in the world has auto companies that are consistently given support from their respective governments. Why should it be any different in the US of A.


AmazonPrinceIS350AmazonPrinceIS350 - 8/26/2008 2:55:55 PM
+1 Boost
They are going to pocket the money like they did with the Katrina fund! LOL!


Copyright 2026 AutoSpies.com, LLC