backtop

Print 162 comment(s) - last by BansheeX.. on Apr 27 at 1:51 PM

Chevy Volt

Dodge Circuit EV
Government backslides, hands out more bailout funds

When the government rejected GM and Chrysler's bailout proposals, it appeared that it was preparing to get tough and force the pair to restructure within controlled bankruptcies.  This was further evidenced by tough talk from the feds, ordering GM to prepare a bankruptcy filing.  Meanwhile, the auto companies floundered, with Chrysler having difficulty reaching a deal with the United Auto Workers union and prospective merger partner, Fiat.

However, the government now appears geared to put its tough talk in reverse and hand out the latest in a growing number of cash payouts to the struggling domestic automakers.  The Detroit News obtained a leaked 250-page government report from the Obama administration, which details plans for $500M USD in aid for Chrysler and $5B USD in similar aid for GM.  The funds would come from the $700B Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), used to bail-out the banking and financial system.

Chrysler would likely receive more money, but Chrysler Financial has rejected the TARP funds as they come with stipulations about executive pay cuts according to CNN Money.  Chrysler Financial reportedly rejected $750M USD, insisting that it was doing just fine and didn't need the extra help.

The report also looks at the current bailout distribution.  Thus far, $24.8B USD in loans have been handed out, with $13.4B USD to GM, $6B to GMAC, $4B USD to Chrysler, and $1.5B USD to Chrysler Financial.  The proposed new funding would balloon this total to over $30B USD.

The extra funding comes despite it appearing that at least Chrysler won't meet its deadline on government-imposed actions.  Chrysler was ordered by the government to merge with Italian automaker Fiat SpA, but these talks are stalled due to union difficulties.  The Canadian Auto Workers union (CAW) initially walked out of talks, and is now back at the bargaining table, but the prospects look bleak.

The union is especially incensed over proposed pay cuts.  States CAW President Ken Lewenza, "You can't come out and say C$19 an hour is it. That's not bargaining.  That's just not feasible. We are not dealing with a unilateral number."

Chrysler employs 9,400 people in Canada, 8,000 of which are CAW members.  Chrysler has threatened to leave Canada if a deal is not reached, and additionally if the Canadian government does not provide it with more bailout aid.

Canadian Industry Minister Tony Clement criticized the union for holding up the negotiations, stating, "People are not interested in a union protecting its entitlements that have been garnered over a period of time.  I feel badly for workers who are put in these situations of course, but at the same time, the alternative is no job at all."

Meanwhile, GM has stated that while it wishes to avoid bankruptcy, a filing may be inevitable.  GM is frantically trying to restructure, but may not meet the government deadlines.  Among its latest moves is to consider cutting Pontiac and GMC, two former top sellers.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Was there any doubt
By FITCamaro on 4/21/2009 12:26:13 PM , Rating: 5
Obama is going to protect the unions. He'll keep them going until the unions have a strong enough leg to stand on that they don't have to make heavy concessions.

$19/hr for unskilled labor is plenty.




RE: Was there any doubt
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/21/2009 12:37:19 PM , Rating: 2
I think wherever you stand on the unions/bailout issue, you have to agree what Chrysler Financial did there, though takes the cake.

I mean -- your company is about to fail, everybody -- the plant-workers, the engineers, the IT, are taking cuts -- and you refuse 750 MILLION dollars in aid? Because you (the executive) have to take a paycut? Talk about an a-hole move.

Sadly, though this is what has come to be expected from Chrysler, which has by far been the most mismanaged/exploited by management in recent years. Fiat should serious consider before getting too involved with a company like that, unless it can wipe the executive slate clean.


RE: Was there any doubt
By Doormat on 4/21/2009 1:25:33 PM , Rating: 5
But does Chrysler Financial = Chrysler? If you give the financing arm aid, will it help the rest of the company? Or are you just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic at this point?

I'm of the opinion to save GM and let Chrysler die if it cant merge with Fiat.


RE: Was there any doubt
By jcbond on 4/21/2009 1:55:08 PM , Rating: 5
They are not the same. Chrysler Financial was sold to Cerberus - Which now is the majority owner in Chrylser, but that's another story. As a separate entity, I believe Chrysler Financial is eligible for TARP funds because it is a bank. But, this won't fund automotive operations - which Chrysler needs.


RE: Was there any doubt
By Reclaimer77 on 4/21/2009 6:08:06 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I mean -- your company is about to fail, everybody -- the plant-workers, the engineers, the IT, are taking cuts -- and you refuse 750 MILLION dollars in aid? Because you (the executive) have to take a paycut? Talk about an a-hole move.


Oversimplifying much ? It's not about pay cuts, it's about allowing the Government to take over businesses. If Obama and the Dems insist on attaching strings to the bailouts that amount to complete control over the operation of large corperations, do you really think the country will be better off.

Honestly, do you actually want to live in a country where the president decides who your CEO is ?

Give me a break Mick. That 750 million doesn't grow on trees. I'm supposed to be upset that Chrysler DIDN'T take more of our money in exchange for them being federalized which would lead to them needing a constant blank check courtesy of the taxpayers ? I'm actually supposed to be upset about this ?

Man you are backwards on this one.


RE: Was there any doubt
By TomZ on 4/21/2009 9:19:16 PM , Rating: 3
^- Bingo! We have a winner!

I can't believe the number of people who believe that this is about bonuses. After what happened with GM (forced resignation of CEO), Chrysler (forced merger), AIG (bonus debacle), I think companies are going to try real hard to avoid federal loans and bailouts in the future.


RE: Was there any doubt
By Hare on 4/22/2009 11:37:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think companies are going to try real hard to avoid federal loans and bailouts in the future.


Win Win situation...


RE: Was there any doubt
By dxf2891 on 4/22/2009 10:46:22 AM , Rating: 3
It's funny, I don't recall any of this fervor when Halliburton was awarded almost a trillion dollars in contracts to rebuild Iraq and then subcontracted all of the work out. Here was a company, with obvious ties to the people who created the circumstance for this contract to begin with and yet no public out cry. I can say that there was an upside. There are thousands of U.S. citizens making hundreds of thousands in salary over there and do you know what? It's all freakin' tax free. My point is this, at least in this instance, those salaries that the bail out monies are being used for will be taxed income. It will spur the economy. When Reagan had his Republican Congress and was able to spend trillions on defense (I benefitted from some of that by the way) there was no outcry. We now have a similar situation on the Democrat side, but this president is more socially conscious and is still spending the money on THIS country (are we buying drugs from the Iran Contras today?) there is this huge public outcry to stop. WTF?!?!


RE: Was there any doubt
By BMFPitt on 4/23/2009 7:36:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If Obama and the Dems insist on attaching strings to the bailouts that amount to complete control over the operation of large corperations, do you really think the country will be better off.
Anything that makes bailouts less likely makes the country better off. I would like them to add in public beheadings of executives of any company that takes TARP money or any other bailouts. Since that about as realistic as expecting Congress to stop writing blank checks to zombies.
quote:
Honestly, do you actually want to live in a country where the president decides who your CEO is ?
I want the largest investor in a cmapany who is being asked to pony up more cash to be able to fire the CEO, yes. I don't want that investor to be the government.


RE: Was there any doubt
By Kahnivorous on 4/24/2009 1:01:12 PM , Rating: 2
Reclaimer77, calling the kettle black. Let's coat check the neurosis for a minute.

Mick's sentiment is right on with what the public sees. And in the absence of genuine government leadership, everyone is trying to do the best they can to understand what's not being done right. We should be questioning everything they're doing or not doing at this point.

Automakers are in this situation because they failed to plan properly. I would rather see every "board of directors" "CEO" "VP" responsible for large auto makers fired if they accept money. And for those who don't, go ahead and fail. While don't want or need a large government controlling our choices, we definitely don't need auto companies so big that they affect our quality of life. If they fail, it should be like any other failed business venture quietly fading away. Chrysler is no exception here...

That said, Unions are no longer needed. They served a noble purpose once upon a time. Now, they just bloat themselves feeding off whatever cash they get their hands on, bail out money or otherwise. It's time for auto workers to have the option of NO UNION.

At this point, Chrysler has two choices. Accept bail out money which gives government a big corporate vote (expect Unions to disappear or downsize), or cut all extra costs and dues (sorry, Union still gets the shaft) anywhere possible to increase their profit line. Oh, it wouldn't hurt for them to produce some genuinely great autos.


RE: Was there any doubt
By Hiawa23 on 4/22/2009 9:06:40 AM , Rating: 3
I have a college degree in Business Management & I don't make $19/hr, & have a home 2 cars paid for a 12 year old, so for him to say that's not good enough is ridiculous, & I live in central Florida. I don't know how to feel about this. Why keep propping them up? I understand the unions voted Obama in, but when is enough enough? Another few months, they will again need more money..


RE: Was there any doubt
By Yawgm0th on 4/22/2009 6:43:53 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I don't make $19/hr
I call shenanigans. You have a college degree, two cars, a house, and a kid -- and you make less than $19/hr? Unless you are saying you make more than $19/hr (in which case your post is kind of silly), I find that a little ridiculous. Unless the spouse I'm assuming you have makes substantially more than you do, you ought to be having trouble making ends meet. At less than $19/hr, your degree would be worthless (actually, worth less than nothing).

Please clarify, because at face value, I'm left with no choice but to declare shenanigans.


RE: Was there any doubt
By TOAOCyrus on 4/23/2009 11:34:53 AM , Rating: 2
Not everyone lives in Calfornia...


RE: Was there any doubt
By Hiawa23 on 4/23/2009 1:55:29 PM , Rating: 2
I call shenanigans. You have a college degree, two cars, a house, and a kid -- and you make less than $19/hr? Unless you are saying you make more than $19/hr (in which case your post is kind of silly), I find that a little ridiculous. Unless the spouse I'm assuming you have makes substantially more than you do, you ought to be having trouble making ends meet. At less than $19/hr, your degree would be worthless (actually, worth less than nothing).

Please clarify, because at face value, I'm left with no choice but to declare shenanigans.

Really nothing to clarify. Of course my home isn't paid off but I made sure not to get a house to big, so my mortgage is $475/month, & one of my cars is paid off, the other is newer & I owe alittle bit on that, but other than my education loan I took out to get the wothless degree as you put it, everything else I put into 401k & savings, so I don't live beyond my means. I do have a girlfriend but she is about to get put out of my home as she has debt beyond belief & don't believe in saving. I make $18/hr work average of 50 hours/week & considering all the turmoil going on, I am doing okay for being out of college 12years this May, so I feel good, not that I need to clarify anything to you, but that's pretty much my story.

Problem with the economy was it was propped up for years, same with businesses & people alike. Companies were also highly leveraged as individuals, borrowing like there was no tomorrow. The bubble had to come crashing down eventually & add to the fact, all the greed going on, this is where we are at.


RE: Was there any doubt
By dxf2891 on 4/22/2009 10:29:43 AM , Rating: 3
I live in the great city of Detroit and this new round of cuts at GM caught the mother of one of my co-workers. It's funny how the thought processes of some people work. Let's say I have a business and I employ three employees and I have five competitors that do the same. In this current economy, let's face it, purchases are down across the board with very few exceptions. If my salary is disproportionate to my employees and my company is losing money, I am now faced with a difficult choice. I can keep my disproportionate salary (because I am used to it) and lay off my employees, there by hurting the economy further or I and my ilk (owners and upper management) can sacrifice their millions for a temporary reasonable salary for my company to survive. But no, these companies are getting rid of the work forces, as is their competitors and that is causing the economy to diminish even further. I'm sorry you can not lay off your way out of a recession (depression). Those employees you lay off were also customers and so were their family members. For every employee lost there is the potential to lose 3 to 4 customers. Not to mention the ancillaratory damage created by businesses closing in that immediate area do to the local recession (depression). To fix this issue, everyone should take a pay cut, yet keep their job. Benefits need to be renegotiated based on the current economic structure and not on those of the 90's. I do believe that the unions are taking deep cuts that are needed, but they are disproportionate to their white collar counter parts. The cuts should be consistant, but should not be at the expense of someones job and livelihood. Besides, what sense does it make to keep the management structure as is if you get rid of all of those that actually produce the products that you sell?


RE: Was there any doubt
By Hiawa23 on 4/22/2009 11:44:02 AM , Rating: 2
I can keep my disproportionate salary (because I am used to it) and lay off my employees, there by hurting the economy further or I and my ilk (owners and upper management) can sacrifice their millions for a temporary reasonable salary for my company to survive. But no, these companies are getting rid of the work forces, as is their competitors and that is causing the economy to diminish even further.

You say you can't lay off your way out of a recession. well, most companies must not agree, as the first to go are the work force & we see company after company stating they are laying off, & it's usually not the people at the top.


RE: Was there any doubt
By sgw2n5 on 4/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: Was there any doubt
By CrimsonFrost on 4/21/2009 12:44:17 PM , Rating: 5
Wow! Why do you post here again? Seriously, I know this is only DT, but GTFO! We don't have enough room for that kind of idiocy here.


RE: Was there any doubt
By MrBungle123 on 4/21/2009 12:45:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why would a secret muslin care about unions?


The UAW gave $1.9 million to Democrats in the 2008 election cycle. ($11,500 to Republicans)

thats why.


RE: Was there any doubt
By omnicronx on 4/21/2009 1:55:32 PM , Rating: 2
And this is pocket change compared to the other donations the Dems received during their campaign (1.9 million out of 300 million = 0.6% of all his donations). To try and say that Obama and his administration are pulling for the UAW for a mere 1.9 million dollars in donations is laughable at best.


RE: Was there any doubt
By omnicronx on 4/21/2009 2:02:04 PM , Rating: 3
PS.. around 90% of Obamas donations were for less than $250.

Obama need not repay anyone except the citizens of the United States. He could have won that election with or without the support of the UAW.


RE: Was there any doubt
By xKeGSx on 4/21/2009 2:37:55 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah, but what percentage are the <$250 donations of the dollar value of the whole? If anything,having a high percentage of low value donations, as far as the total donations go not the total value of the donations, will serve to make the few huge donations stand out more.
For example, a total of 100 donations are made for 1,000 dollars. 90 of those donations are for $1 with the rest for $91 each. Those few relatively huge donations will be considered greatly. However, if it was 10 donations for $1 and 90 for $11. The "big" donations carry very little influence as there are so many.
So if anything by your facts Obama is looking to repay a select group of supporters.
P.S. it's not the American people.
P.P.S. This has nothing to due with my political stance, just couldn't resist making the point.


RE: Was there any doubt
By xKeGSx on 4/21/2009 2:58:41 PM , Rating: 3
Among Obama's top supporters:
Goldman Sachs
Citigroup
JPMorgan Chase
Morgan Stanley

Hmmm..
He's going to do what any normal person would do. Help out those who helped them. Anyone have parents pay for college and feel indebted to them? Do you pay for dinner as much as you can and think about paying them back if you could ever afford to? Ever have a friend loan you that huge amount of money you needed when you wouldn't even loan you the money. Two of your friends come and need money from you, one being the one who had once loaned you money. Who would you choose if you just had enough for one? Feeling the desire to repay those who've helped you the most and acted on it is a normal thing.


RE: Was there any doubt
By TimberJon on 4/22/2009 11:09:57 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah man but politically? NEVER ever ever burn bridges if you can help it. In fact! Never ever ever ever sway the bridge your buddies are on either. Golden Rule* applies. The *Caveat is that if you give more than you need to, others will be more open to help you out with favors later on, as they will again expect it to be reciprocated. Nobody wants the short straw.


RE: Was there any doubt
By omnicronx on 4/21/2009 3:32:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, but what percentage are the <$250 donations of the dollar value of the whole?
Well last time I checked, if 90% of his donations are under $250, then 10% must be over (or 30 million dollars).
quote:
If anything,having a high percentage of low value donations, as far as the total donations go not the total value of the donations, will serve to make the few huge donations stand out more.
I don't think you see my point, sure the UAW number stands out, (at around 6% of the donations over $250), but assuming that Obama will curtail to their every need is completely unfounded. Obama is a political genious (His campaign was near perfect afterall), so what makes you think his administration is going to ruffle the feathers of the everyone else, just to payback 1.9m dollars and a very small percentage of the voting population? If the American people supported the auto industry right now, then what you are saying makes sense, but the fact of the matter is most Americans do not.
quote:
So if anything by your facts Obama is looking to repay a select group of supporters.
90% is far more than 0.6%, nobody forced the UAW to support Obama, to say with 100% certainty that he is repaying the UAW is ludicrous, he has far more to lose by supporting them.


RE: Was there any doubt
By xKeGSx on 4/21/2009 3:38:40 PM , Rating: 2
Well that's why I replied to your 2nd "P.S." post. I agree with your first point completely. Just thought I'd point out that the higher percentage of lower donations only serves to highlight the fewer relatively huge ones.


RE: Was there any doubt
By xKeGSx on 4/21/2009 3:44:11 PM , Rating: 2
You also kind of just proved my point, although I do think it's a stretch. You say that Americans, who provided 90% of donations that were under $250, disapprove the auto industry right now. Yet Obama is again sending the industry money, who's Union donated 7600 times that $250 amount. So he's supporting the minority who gave fewer larger donations instead of the American people who accounted for 90% of the donations made.

Furthermore, your 2nd post is making a very different point from the first one.


RE: Was there any doubt
By omnicronx on 4/21/2009 3:55:34 PM , Rating: 2
I can't say I disagree with what you are saying either ;)

All I was trying to get across that just because someone donates a big chunk of money, does not mean they will ever be repaid. If by supporting the UAW, Obama loses many those votes of the people that donated less than $250, then what is the point?

In the end its all about numbers, and right now with the response the UAW has been getting from the public, protecting them unconditionally does not seem like the best idea.


RE: Was there any doubt
By xKeGSx on 4/21/2009 3:58:50 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, and that's why I didn't comment on your UAW post. I don't think it has anything to do with them at all. I think they're, Obama administration, just very aware of what would happen if at least GM collapsed. I think his "60 days and your done" was a bluff on his part that was just supposed to light a fire under the companies to actually start making serious changes. I don't think he has any interest in just letting the companies die off. To say the influence boils down to the UAW and their stranglehold over Obama is simply dumb.


RE: Was there any doubt
By MrBungle123 on 4/21/2009 4:21:35 PM , Rating: 5
The UAW alone has 1.5 million members. More than enough to throw many elections in recent memory.


RE: Was there any doubt
By KCjoker on 4/21/2009 5:56:49 PM , Rating: 4
Yea but Obama has to protect the UAW because the Dems count on them for votes in all elections.


RE: Was there any doubt
By dxf2891 on 4/22/2009 10:37:06 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe the unions preferred the ideology of the dems over that of the GOP. I always thought that this country was founded on the principal of freedom of choice. It seems that those who want "smaller government, freedom and liberty" are also those who want to remove freedom of choice when it suits their needs. "Vote the way I vote and believe the way I believe?!?!" The last time I checked (and I checked when I wore the uniform of a United States Marine) this was America. The land of the free and the home of the brave. Why shouldn't I, or any other person (union or not) be free to donate to whomever I want (democrat or republican)? Would it be okay if the numbers were reversed and the republicans were the recipients of the bulk of the donated dollars?


RE: Was there any doubt
By 306maxi on 4/21/2009 12:49:16 PM , Rating: 5
Obama is secretly a type of fabric?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslin


RE: Was there any doubt
By matt0401 on 4/21/2009 2:19:08 PM , Rating: 5
Well some people do say he is a little soft on certain issues.


RE: Was there any doubt
By Yawgm0th on 4/21/2009 5:00:29 PM , Rating: 2
+6


RE: Was there any doubt
By adiposity on 4/22/2009 12:54:02 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, not quite as bad as what a "john" is.

-Dan


RE: Was there any doubt
By HaB1971 on 4/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: Was there any doubt
By sgw2n5 on 4/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: Was there any doubt
By bribud on 4/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: Was there any doubt
By HaB1971 on 4/21/2009 1:27:08 PM , Rating: 2
I think your aluminum foil hat is just a fraction too tight for you.


RE: Was there any doubt
By MrDiSante on 4/21/2009 2:50:47 PM , Rating: 2
I cannot believe you guys are all taking him seriously; please open your books to the number one rule of the internet: do not feed the trolls.


RE: Was there any doubt
By sgw2n5 on 4/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: Was there any doubt
By bodar on 4/21/2009 2:26:57 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps some education would be good for you actually. It might keep keep you from looking like a total retard.


RE: Was there any doubt
By jthistle on 4/21/2009 2:41:54 PM , Rating: 4
That comparison is insulting to mentally challenged people.


RE: Was there any doubt
By Ratinator on 4/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: Was there any doubt
By sgw2n5 on 4/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: Was there any doubt
By ClownPuncher on 4/21/2009 2:10:05 PM , Rating: 5
You are a looney :)


RE: Was there any doubt
By Ratinator on 4/21/2009 2:28:22 PM , Rating: 1
Your opinion has no truth to it and is a mere spewing of words from your mouth..

Free speach is something you should respect....not abuse. you my friend are abusing it.


RE: Was there any doubt
By MrSmurf on 4/22/2009 7:55:37 PM , Rating: 1
What the hell is freedom of speach?


RE: Was there any doubt
By omnicronx on 4/21/2009 2:31:39 PM , Rating: 1
First of all, yes you have your freedom of speech, but just because you can say something, does not mean you are not incriminating yourself. You are still accountable for the words you say, and in many places, racist comments like yours are illegal.

Furthermore you ask if you are allowed to have an opinion, but mix in talk about sharing the truth.. You have the right to an opinion, but that does not make your opinion truth.


RE: Was there any doubt
By sgw2n5 on 4/21/2009 4:25:55 PM , Rating: 3
How could anything I have said in this entire thread be construed as "racist"?


RE: Was there any doubt
By xti on 4/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: Was there any doubt
By rdeegvainl on 4/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: Was there any doubt
By MrPoletski on 4/22/09, Rating: 0
RE: Was there any doubt
By brooke on 4/22/09, Rating: 0
RE: Was there any doubt
By invidious on 4/21/2009 12:46:40 PM , Rating: 2
Is too much. If you cant afford to live in the city near the plant then commute. Cost of living disparities are load of croc.


RE: Was there any doubt
By bldckstark on 4/21/2009 12:50:55 PM , Rating: 4
The union members are welcome to make as much as the market can bear. If they get a contract at $1,000 per hour then more power to them. Of course, they better sock away their earnings, because that job isn't going to last very long.

Pay goes up AND DOWN over time. They just haven't realized this yet. I received a pay and benefits cut this year. I now make less than when I started.

Every pay period I kiss my check and thank God that I have a check to cash, even if it is less than it was last year. My family made a few adjustments (sorry Netflix, Gamefly, Verizon, AT&T, Dish Network, Expedia, OnStar, XM, and others) and then we soldier on. All in all it took maybe a week to adjust and get over it.

If these workers feel that they are worth the kind of pay they are demanding, then they should be able to go somewhere else and make the same rate. Go on, hit the streets and let me know what you find.

I support unions, but unions don't support me.


RE: Was there any doubt
By GaryJohnson on 4/21/2009 12:56:09 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I support unions, but unions don't support me.


The only reason to support the union is if the union supports you.


RE: Was there any doubt
By FITCamaro on 4/21/2009 2:31:04 PM , Rating: 3
I agree with you. But the fact is, the labor isn't worth that and hopefully the time will have come for the auto industry to tell them that they aren't willing to pay any more than that.

If the union members don't like it, as you say, they are free to hit the streets and look for a job elsewhere. There are well over a million people right now who'd probably love to be doing that easy of work for $19/hour.


RE: Was there any doubt
By omnicronx on 4/21/2009 2:34:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the union members don't like it, as you say, they are free to hit the streets and look for a job elsewhere. There are well over a million people right now who'd probably love to be doing that easy of work for $19/hour.
This is a $19/hour paycut, not changing pay to 19$/h across the board. Most workers will still be making 40-60 dollars an hour including benefits.


RE: Was there any doubt
By FITCamaro on 4/21/2009 2:37:52 PM , Rating: 2
$40/hr including benefits is probably around $20-25/hr of actual pay. Which is in line with what workers at other auto companies that aren't unionized are making.


RE: Was there any doubt
By ClownPuncher on 4/21/2009 2:53:12 PM , Rating: 2
Seems reasonable to me. I do not know how "unskilled" the labor is though, I wonder how much the car companies are getting from their employees for the kind of money they are paying them. $20 an hour isn't exactly good money IMO, but it may be that it is a good wage for the work they do.


RE: Was there any doubt
By omnicronx on 4/21/2009 3:08:22 PM , Rating: 2
Average base pay (not including benefits) for a CAW worker at Ford (not sure about chrystler but I'm sure its close, and is probably a bit higher) is 35$ US, (or around 3 dollars more than their US counterparts) Meaning even the average worker is going to be paid $30+ base an hour if these cuts go through. Its more like you will be starting at $19/h instead of $27/h.Hardly any workers are going to be getting paid $19, which as you said, is more than enough for an unskilled worker.

I don't want this to come out as though I have something against the auto workers for getting paid more for unskilled work, than I do for skilled work. They work their ***'s off everyday, but when your company is going belly up, and you are obviously getting paid more than you are worth (otherwise if you think you are worth 30-40$ an hour for unskilled work, you should have no problem finding a job elsewhere), concessions have to be made.


RE: Was there any doubt
By FITCamaro on 4/22/2009 12:07:14 AM , Rating: 2
Getting paid $30-35 an hour BEFORE benefits to drive a fork lift, push a button, etc. is absurd. And they get all kinds of breaks throughout the day, far more vacation than any other workers, and more.


RE: Was there any doubt
By SublimeSimplicity on 4/21/2009 2:47:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The union members are welcome to make as much as the market can bear. If they get a contract at $1,000 per hour then more power to them.


I'm fine with that, I'm not fine with them making as much as the political climate will bear.


RE: Was there any doubt
By Verran on 4/21/2009 4:31:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If these workers feel that they are worth the kind of pay they are demanding, then they should be able to go somewhere else and make the same rate. Go on, hit the streets and let me know what you find.

This is one of the best arguments against what the unions are doing that I have ever heard. It's phrased perfectly.

The fact of the matter is that if they quit the UAW they'd probably never, ever make that kind of money again in their whole lives. If they were truly worth what they were asking, they could find roughly that pay anywhere else they went, but we all know they wouldn't. It's perfect proof that they're extorting their employer.

Furthermore, it's pure insanity that they can sit there and fight for these high wages when people would line up around the block to do their job for far less in any economy (especially this one). If you want to demand high wages, you have to offer a service that isn't readily available. I don't think most of these UAW workers do that.


RE: Was there any doubt
By cparka23 on 4/21/2009 1:00:41 PM , Rating: 3
Somehow, I wanted to believe that the auto unions and corporate brass would see the writing on the wall before turning things around. Seems that was all talk, since the gov't will give out money even as the industry tries to sink itself deeper into financial ruin.

All incentive to make progress just went out the window. Now the auto industry can kick back and wait 'til things look bleak again. No way the government is considering bankruptcy as an option when it gives our money away like this.


RE: Was there any doubt
By Bainne on 4/21/2009 1:04:24 PM , Rating: 4
Keep in mind that $19 CANADIAN amounts to only about $15/H USD.
Also at that amount, they would be paying roughly 21%-24% in income tax - So it winds up at about $15/H CAD
However the benefits that auto workers get is ludicrous. The extensive pensions, health benefits and extras more than makes up for a few lost bucks.

Its not a lot, but at you said, for unskilled labour and in this economy that is pretty good. The minimum wage for a McDonalds worker is $8.50 an hour - In Alberta most earn $12+

That said, the spokesperson is pulling that number as the LOWEST amount a worker gets paid. Probably a trainee mop boy's salary. Most of the public information puts the AVERAGE wage at just under $40/H plus paid time off and all the other benefits. That's more than most teachers, paramedics, nurses and police officers make - just for building vehicles....


RE: Was there any doubt
By jcbond on 4/21/2009 2:00:04 PM , Rating: 2
The ironic thing is that the CAW is mad about the unilateral negotiating. That's being dictated by Fiat. Either they knuckle under or Fiat goes away. If Fiat goes away, I think Chrysler will too.
I suggest the CAW membership invest in their respective job search websites.


RE: Was there any doubt
By omnicronx on 4/21/2009 2:16:00 PM , Rating: 3
This article is misleading, the 19$ an hour is the average paycut they will receive (total compensation, not just pay). The average pay is still going to be a whopping 76$ when wages and benefits are lumped together.

CAW workers are the highest paid autoworkers in the World (more than the US, more than Europe, more than anywhere), this is just ridiculous that they are not willing to take these paycuts. Worst part is Chrystler is one of Canada's top selling brands, it will be sad to see them go.

If I see another bailout to the Canadian auto industry without the CAW taking cuts, I am never voting for the government in power again. The CAW has far too much power, perhaps more than their UAW counterparts in terms of having the government wrapped around their finger.


RE: Was there any doubt
By Etsp on 4/21/2009 11:28:45 PM , Rating: 2
Last year when I went to Canada (During the summer) The Canadian dollar had just barely become worth more than the American dollar...


RE: Was there any doubt
By Gio6518 on 4/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: Was there any doubt
By omnicronx on 4/21/2009 2:23:34 PM , Rating: 4
Hey when it comes down to it, that CEO probably paid thousands upon thousands of dollars for his education, and put in the time to be making those millions. I don't necessarily agree with how much they are paid, but I don't think you realize how quickly 76$ an hour wages add up. A mere 50-100 workers get paid around the same together as one CEO, even if the CEO worked for nothing, the company would still be in trouble.

When it comes down to it, these are unskilled workers making over 100k a year. Union workers are always telling me life is unfair, and I could have chosen the same job, well life seems to have a way of balancing itself out, so all I have to say to these auto workers is.. hey .. life's not fair.. did you really think it would last forever?


RE: Was there any doubt
By Gio6518 on 4/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: Was there any doubt
By omnicronx on 4/21/2009 2:41:29 PM , Rating: 2
Nobody is making 76$ an hour, that's after all compensation including medical benefits.

quote:
large corporations dictate that cost of living by the price of the product they sell.
Uh what large corporations do you work for? Cost of living is not dictated by the products you sell, but by inflation and sometimes by the area you live in. Usually its just plain inflation.


RE: Was there any doubt
By Gio6518 on 4/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: Was there any doubt
By omnicronx on 4/21/2009 3:19:11 PM , Rating: 2
Still does not prove your point, (and I know what the term inflation means as it used today). If there was no union, Chrystler workers would not be getting paid these insanely high salaries.

In any non union position it is usually your skill set and the supply and demand of said skill set that influences pay.

It is the unions that can take advantage of the fact these companies were making billions of dollars at the time of their previous contract negotiations, but that does not make it a rule of thumb by any accounts. The Power of Negotiation is always going to raise pay.


RE: Was there any doubt
By Gio6518 on 4/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: Was there any doubt
By omnicronx on 4/21/2009 3:50:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
at least the workers are doing their job that would justify their pay
Obviously I, and many others do not agree with this statement.
quote:
while the CEO's sit on their buts and cant do their jobs
Can't disagree, but I don't think the CEO of my former company was doing his job correctly either, does that mean I should have been receiving more pay to justify the mass amounts of work I put into the company? The two are completely unrelated, and UAW workers are using this as a scapegoat.
quote:
but in your mind the money they invested in their obviously failed education justifies their outrageous saleries to destroy a once profitable company...
Never did I say this, but just as the CEO had the same opportunity to work in the union had he chose to, the UAW worker had the same opportunity to go to university and get the education and skill set needed to become a CEO. Everyone makes their choice, in fact you are pretty much preaching to the choir.

I grew up 2 minutes away from the big ford plant in my area, and now I live within minutes of Canada's biggest GM plant, I had the choice, I decided I did not want to take the chance of being laid off in 20 years, like many of my friends parents.

And while the CEO's are partially to blame, it is far from 'their fault'. Or else I guess you can put the CEO's of Honda and Toyota in the same boat, as they are also losing tons of money right now. Fiat has obviously looked at the numbers, if they thought Chrystler could be profitable without lowering union wages, I am sure they would have bought Chrysler outright without these terms and conditions.


RE: Was there any doubt
By mholler on 4/21/2009 4:41:58 PM , Rating: 5
This is a fairly ridiculous statement. The CEOs of the big 3 were making the vehicles for which there was a demand at the time. U.S. consumers didn't want econoboxes, they wanted big, gas-guzzling SUVs, trucks, and sportscars and thats what was being built. They failed to foresee the run up in oil prices and the economic downturn, but then again so did pretty much everybody else. The inability to see the future does not prove that somebody has invested in "failed education".

This leads me to my larger rant and my point about one of the main problems with America today. When did it become "uncool" to be successful? And, more importantly, when did it become "hip" to demonize those that reach a certain level of success. Instead of using CEOs and other leaders as motivation to strive for personal success people would rather tear them down to their own level. I went to school and I work hard every day because someday I hope to attain the same level of success as the people being dragged through the mud on a daily basis. I envy their success, yes, but I use it as a tool to remind me of what is possible if I apply myself as opposed to letting myself get angry that somebody gets paid more than I do.

America has a problem, and that problem is the "everybody is equal" mentality that seems to be running rampant through the country.


RE: Was there any doubt
By TomZ on 4/21/2009 4:49:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
When did it become "uncool" to be successful? And, more importantly, when did it become "hip" to demonize those that reach a certain level of success


quote:
America has a problem, and that problem is the "everybody is equal" mentality that seems to be running rampant through the country.


QFT. I have to say, that is the best post I've seen on DT for a long time, and I'm glad to hear there is at least one person with a brain still living in America. The rest of America has decayed into some kind of pathetic whine-fest.

Americans need to get off their lazy asses, get some work done, and make this country great again!


RE: Was there any doubt
By omnicronx on 4/21/2009 4:56:46 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, great post.


RE: Was there any doubt
By Reclaimer77 on 4/21/2009 6:12:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When did it become "uncool" to be successful?


I guess when the idea of Liberalism was created. Or in recent times, when Nancy P and the crooks took over Congress.

Amazing how they were going to make things all better and right all the wrongs in the country. Because as you can see, we're in MUCH better shape now....

/sarcasm


RE: Was there any doubt
By Gio6518 on 4/22/2009 12:51:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When did it become "uncool" to be successful


who said that both me and my wife each make over 6 figures, its insane that these CEO's of failing business, are making hundreds of millions of dollars a year, and your blaming the unions.

these are the people who get rich by wanting to pay people minimum wage, and then most of them feel that was too high, so they outsourced that work to foreign countries. so they can add a few more millions to their personal salaries.

this is the mentality that has put america into its current financial status and you envy that, i find that comical.

if the working man isnt making a fairly descent wage he's not spending, if hes laid-off due to outsourcing he's not spending, then you sit back and wonder why all these companies are going bankrupt. SIMPLE NO ONE IS MAKING MONEY ! ! ! !


RE: Was there any doubt
By Gio6518 on 4/22/2009 12:58:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The inability to see the future does not prove that somebody has invested in "failed education


no but the inabilty to properly use your education does


RE: Was there any doubt
By MozeeToby on 4/21/2009 2:57:16 PM , Rating: 2
Can we just be done with this already? If it were a Repuclican in office, they would probably be doing the same thing and all the Dems would be screaming about how the president was in the pocket of Big Oil and Manufacturing. Neither party has a monopoly on curruption. To say otherwise just makes you look like an unreasoning political shill.

Now about the unions, you're right. I don't see why someone deserves more than $38000 a year ($19 per hour * 40 hours a week * 50 weeks a year). Throw in 4 hours a week of OT and they're up to almost $45000. Now, if that number includes all benefits, including retirement, that might be reasonable, but I highly doubt that it does.


RE: Was there any doubt
By Saist on 4/21/2009 3:43:26 PM , Rating: 2
amen to somebody else understanding the link between Obama and the Unions.


RE: Was there any doubt
By tedrodai on 4/21/2009 4:25:55 PM , Rating: 4
The only thing I have to say about the news, expected or not, is: GODDAMMIT


RE: Was there any doubt
By mmntech on 4/21/2009 5:50:02 PM , Rating: 2
When I worked in construction a couple of years ago, skilled labour (carpenters, welders, form setters) got $45/hour. Typical rate for LIUNA members. CAW members working at the GM plant in Oshawa ON make $70 an hour. I'm not sure if that's what it costs GM or if that's their actual net pay. Regardless, it's still considerably high for unskilled labour. Wish I got $120,000/year just to tighten bolts.

No surprises Obama would fold like a deck chair. All he's good at is talking but has no strong leadership qualities what so ever. The union still thinks FIAT is bluffing on the concession point. They're going to get a rude awakening.


RE: Was there any doubt
By Lazarus Dark on 4/21/2009 7:27:45 PM , Rating: 3
19 an hour???
Are you freaking kidding me?!!!

My job requires an IQ test and I don't even make that much!!


What this headline should say..
By MrBungle123 on 4/21/2009 12:36:45 PM , Rating: 2
"Obama adds another $16.50 per man woman and child spent on Chrysler and GM; bringing the total to $90.00."




RE: What this headline should say..
By sgw2n5 on 4/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: What this headline should say..
By MrBungle123 on 4/21/2009 12:49:00 PM , Rating: 3
what the hell are you talking about?


RE: What this headline should say..
By sgw2n5 on 4/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: What this headline should say..
By Ryun on 4/21/2009 1:18:20 PM , Rating: 5
I wanted to but then I had the ending ruined for me.

*SPOILER* Jesus gets crucified.


RE: What this headline should say..
By Boze on 4/21/2009 1:20:45 PM , Rating: 2
You are exactly the kind of emissary Jesus Christ didn't want, and you make our already tarnished Christian faith look even worse. If you want to be a loudmouthed, religious fanatic, racial political pundit, you're at the wrong site. You need to go to Bill O'Reilly's website and apply for an internship.

By the way, I'm sure Jesus is proud of your work - you are doing a great job spreading his doctrine of harmony and peace.


By etherreal on 4/21/2009 1:20:45 PM , Rating: 3
I am sorry, I stopped reading fairy tales when I was a kid.


By IcePickFreak on 4/21/2009 1:58:06 PM , Rating: 2
This is a tech site, we prefer non-fiction reading material.


RE: What this headline should say..
By matt0401 on 4/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: What this headline should say..
By FITCamaro on 4/21/2009 2:35:40 PM , Rating: 5
Please. You're just as big an idiot as those who blindly follow. There's absolutely nothing wrong with religion when its applied in the appropriate level. There are zealots on all sides. They are the minority who make the rest look bad.

Now as far as this country, yes, it was founded as a Christian nation. There are documents from the founders acknowledging this. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you live elsewhere.


RE: What this headline should say..
By smackababy on 4/21/2009 2:57:34 PM , Rating: 2
To be honest, I find that athiests tend to be much more forcful when it comes to shoving beliefs on others than any Christian I've met. Perosnally, I find both side's outspoken followers annoying.


By tedrodai on 4/21/2009 5:17:16 PM , Rating: 2
Who knows, maybe people that are full of themselves are more likely to be atheists, but I doubt it. I live in the southeast US, and I can count the number of outspoken athiests I've met on one hand, vs. hordes of outspoken Christians. Of course, the ratio of Christians to [anything else] here is very high.

It just depends on the society around you...there are opinionated people EVERYWHERE.


By rudolphna on 4/22/2009 9:35:55 PM , Rating: 2
youve obviously never met a southern baptist.


RE: What this headline should say..
By TomZ on 4/21/2009 3:26:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you have a problem with that, I suggest you live elsewhere.
What a crass statement, especially since one of America's strengths is its tolerance of diverse religious views. I guess you missed that...


RE: What this headline should say..
By Reclaimer77 on 4/21/2009 6:19:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What a crass statement, especially since one of America's strengths is its tolerance of diverse religious views. I guess you missed that...


I'm very tolerant and so is Fit I would imagine. Where I draw the line, and I think he does too, is when people call "tolerance" allowing others to change this nation into something it's not and shouldn't be. Frankly for the worst.

I'm not a Christian but it's getting to the point now where people are actually SUING shopping malls and other places because they put a Christmas tree up. I mean come on Tom, is that really tolerance ?

I agree with Fit to a point. If you can't stomach what this country is, what it stands for, and what it was founded on, then fine. But keep it to yourself. If you think it should be changed to fit your self important view on things, then yeah, time to go somewhere else.


By rdeegvainl on 4/21/2009 7:05:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you think it should be changed to fit your self important view on things, then yeah, time to go somewhere else.

Yeah... If you're not happy, don't change things... get out!!!!


RE: What this headline should say..
By TomZ on 4/21/2009 9:37:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, right - you say you are tolerant but you think people with differing views should "keep it to yourself" and "go somewhere else." Nice. Why do you assume that your view of America is the only one that is valid?

Regarding the Christmas tree lawsuits - I don't have a specific view on that topic, however, I am a fan of church-state separation. I don't think it is right that a publicly-funded entity promotes, advocates, or supports one religion above others. That flies in the face of religious freedom, something I am sure the founders of this country thought was important.


RE: What this headline should say..
By FITCamaro on 4/22/2009 12:14:18 AM , Rating: 3
How is a privately owned shopping mall displaying a Christmas tree a violation of the separation of church and state?

quote:
Why do you assume that your view of America is the only one that is valid?


The view of America the founders had was anyone, regardless of religion could come live here. But they were to assimilate into the culture. Not to change it to be the culture of where they came from. This nation has its own culture. We speak English. It is by and large, a nation of Christians. To deny that is to ignore over 90% of its population.

To sue because you don't like the word God in the Pledge of Allegiance? Sorry. You don't like it, don't say it. Don't tell everyone else that's fine with it that they shouldn't be allowed to say it and that it should be changed. The nation was founded under Christian principles, it should remain that way. Again, if you don't like where this country came from, then you shouldn't live here. I hate the ideas of Europe and Canada, so I don't live there. I hate the way California is, so I don't live there. And yes, if things keep going the way they are, I might not want to live here either. Of course the problem is, where does one go?


By stonemetal on 4/22/2009 9:16:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
To sue because you don't like the word God in the Pledge of Allegiance? Sorry. You don't like it, don't say it. Don't tell everyone else that's fine with it that they shouldn't be allowed to say it and that it should be changed. The nation was founded under Christian principles, it should remain that way.
To quote Thomas Jefferson
quote:
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government,"[70] and, "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own
They may have been christian but they certainly didn't want the government to be. Few to none of the founding fathers were christian in the way people are christian today(They were mostly Deists etc.)


By BansheeX on 4/22/2009 3:05:12 PM , Rating: 2
You're right about the mall, but you're wrong about the pledge. Public school teachers are government jobs, paid by forcibly appropriated funds from American citizens, many of them not monotheistic. For that person to sponsor monotheism (a type of religious view) is a clear violation of religion and state.


RE: What this headline should say..
By Reclaimer77 on 4/22/2009 12:21:09 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Yeah, right - you say you are tolerant but you think people with differing views should "keep it to yourself" and "go somewhere else." Nice. Why do you assume that your view of America is the only one that is valid?


Differing views ? No, nice try. You know exactly what I said and what I meant. This isn't about views or opinions. This is about America being turned into something it's not and was never intended to be. Why should I be tolerant of that ? And why does being tolerant mean I have to lay down and die for someone else's beliefs ?

quote:
I am a fan of church-state separation.


Nice. What does this have to do with that again ? A shopping Mall celebrating a world wide holiday has frak all to do with church or state.

By the way seperation of Church and State, in context of the constitution, was to prohibit the government from setting up and running a church. Not sure what that has to do with this...

quote:
That flies in the face of religious freedom, something I am sure the founders of this country thought was important.


LOL. If you think the founders would support the witch hunt taking place today who's goal is the tear the moral fiber out of the country, you have some really messed up beliefs.

We have to be honest with what's going on. There are a lot of people, that for whatever reason, hate the country they live in and want to change it. You will never convince me to go along with that.


RE: What this headline should say..
By TomZ on 4/22/2009 10:48:57 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I could only guess about what the OP was talking about, since he gave a vague description. I assumed there was a local government that was being sued. But feel free to "go off" anyway.

I've already said enough, except I want to challenge you on one of your beliefs. I think you believe that only Christians have morals, based on your statements. You really should think about that, because it really doesn't make sense.

If our country continues in the trend towards being more secular, it doesn't mean that we will lack morals. The Church is not the only source of such guidance, and arguably it is not even the best source. I myself left the Catholic church because of their immoral teachings and actions.


RE: What this headline should say..
By FITCamaro on 4/22/2009 12:29:54 AM , Rating: 3
And if a state is predominantly Christian, shouldn't it be allowed to express the views of its people and constituents?

The First Amendment of the Constitution says that CONGRESS won't make any laws establishing a religion or preventing the worship of any religion. This was interpreted as that there should be a separation of church and state.

Well putting aside the issue of states rights, how does a court house or any other public building displaying a Christmas tree or any other religious icon, or the Pledge of Allegiance/money having the word "God" in/on it violate that Amendment? The short answer is it doesn't. You're not telling people to follow a certain religion and you're not stopping them from worshiping any religion.

The only potential argument you have is that the "God" part makes them acknowledge the existence of such a being if they don't want to. But the number of people who feel that way is so minute, that should we really upset 99.99% of people by removing it so that the other .01% doesn't have to say it or see it?


RE: What this headline should say..
By TomZ on 4/22/2009 10:30:36 AM , Rating: 2
Really, you're being pretty myopic, so I don't see the point of discussing this with you. For example, do you really think that 99.99% of Americans believe in God? LOL.

You're the type of Christian that is particularly dangerous. You think that everyone is either like you or should be like you. That is exactly why separation of church and state are so important, because people like you seek to use the government to stamp out and destroy the rights of others with different views.


By rdeegvainl on 4/22/2009 10:44:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And if a state is predominantly Christian, shouldn't it be allowed to express the views of its people and constituents?

No. The rights of the minority still apply. Change the word christian to muslim. Individuals can express their religion all they want, the government however, no.


RE: What this headline should say..
By sgw2n5 on 4/21/2009 4:06:06 PM , Rating: 2
This country was purposefully founded as a secular nation.

Remember all that rigamaroo about the puritans and the church of english and whatnot???


RE: What this headline should say..
By MrBungle123 on 4/21/2009 4:17:41 PM , Rating: 2
This is a religious country that has a secular government.


RE: What this headline should say..
By sgw2n5 on 4/21/2009 4:27:38 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for backing me up bungy!


By matt0401 on 4/21/2009 11:18:37 PM , Rating: 2
You obviously missed the fact I was copy and pasting a common joke from the internet. I didn't make that up myself. I'd be proud if I did. :)

Oh and...
quote:
I suggest you live elsewhere.

I do. :)

btw I thought the US was founded as a secular nation and that Jefferson himself is quoted with saying that he thought Christianity was the worst thing that could happen to humanity or something along those lines?


RE: What this headline should say..
By aj28 on 4/21/2009 1:14:58 PM , Rating: 3
Making Christians look bad... Not that I am one or anything, but seriously fella, there's no reason for that type of nonsense. Delegitimizing a major world religion because of your political views? Somewhere in doctrine I'm pretty sure they've pegged that as a sin...


RE: What this headline should say..
By sgw2n5 on 4/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: What this headline should say..
By matt0401 on 4/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: What this headline should say..
By sgw2n5 on 4/21/2009 4:08:25 PM , Rating: 1
I'm referring to the ONE TRUE GOD...

fsm


RE: What this headline should say..
By matt0401 on 4/21/2009 11:20:53 PM , Rating: 2
You still haven't answered my question. Which particular god are you claiming is the "one true god"?

Something tells me that if you were to ask a variety of people the answers you get would be different.


By matt0401 on 4/21/2009 11:22:46 PM , Rating: 2
Ahh post retracted. I thought "fsm" was some random internet acronym. I decided to look it up AFTER posting my previous post.

Very amusing. :)


RE: What this headline should say..
By FITCamaro on 4/22/2009 12:19:36 AM , Rating: 2
By matt0401 on 4/22/2009 12:36:42 AM , Rating: 2
I love lolcats. :)

Somebody start a Church of Teh Lolcats. I'll join! ^_^


RE: What this headline should say..
By FITCamaro on 4/21/2009 2:39:21 PM , Rating: 1
Cool so you'll be dead then? Sounds like a win for the rest of us.


RE: What this headline should say..
By sgw2n5 on 4/21/2009 4:02:14 PM , Rating: 2
Harsh dude, harsh.


RE: What this headline should say..
By omnicronx on 4/21/2009 4:09:19 PM , Rating: 2
We were all thinking it.. FT just had the balls to say it.


RE: What this headline should say..
By sgw2n5 on 4/21/2009 4:32:10 PM , Rating: 1
So everyone and anyone who doesn't agree with you guys whilst arguing on the intertubes should be dead?

Jeez.. this place used to be a lot more fun.


By omnicronx on 4/21/2009 4:53:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
So everyone and anyone who doesn't agree with you guys whilst arguing on the intertubes should be dead?
Haha, you mean like your entire argument? Other religions and beliefs disagree with your beliefs and you are making unfounded statements about them. Including telling 'Non-Believers' that they may turn into a grain of salt?

As I said before, you have the right to an opinion, but we also have the right to judge said opinion. Personally I don't believe in any religion, but I am not going to reduce myself to bigotry to defend my beliefs.


By FITCamaro on 4/22/2009 12:16:08 AM , Rating: 2
You're the one who talked about the rapture. That implies that what is in Revelations comes true and we're all dead.


RE: What this headline should say..
By TomZ on 4/21/2009 4:35:23 PM , Rating: 1
I disagree; it doesn't take "balls" to say something stupid.


NO
By rdeegvainl on 4/21/2009 12:40:49 PM , Rating: 5
Businesses that can't support themselves should fail.




RE: NO
By invidious on 4/21/2009 12:48:29 PM , Rating: 1
agreed. too big to fail = communism.


RE: NO
By Suomynona on 4/21/2009 3:25:46 PM , Rating: 2
Or, collective ownership of industry = communism...


RE: NO
By MrBungle123 on 4/21/2009 12:51:45 PM , Rating: 3
Hey now! Thats enough of your common sense! There is no room for that in our "new era of responsibility!"


RE: NO
By reader1 on 4/21/2009 1:20:35 PM , Rating: 1
Wrong.

In a global market, countries are essentially big companies competing with each other. Allowing our auto companies to fail would be like a parent company immediately dissolving a subsidiary for becoming unprofitable. No parent company would ever do that without giving the subsidiary a little help to try and turn things around. Only when things are beyond repair, would they get rid of it. The government believes the big 3 are not beyond repair. Considering how many cars they still sell, I would have to agree with them.


RE: NO
By goku on 4/21/2009 2:05:00 PM , Rating: 2
These american auto companies were beyond repair when they continued to lose money even in the BEST of times.


RE: NO
By rdeegvainl on 4/21/2009 2:37:43 PM , Rating: 2
Governments are not parent companies.


RE: NO
By BansheeX on 4/21/2009 2:51:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The government believes the big 3 are not beyond repair.

Most elected politicians are career politicians that haven't so much as run a lemonade stand, so what the hell would they know? The market needs to operate on voluntary trades. If you can't get voluntary investment/purchases that surpass your costs, you will run out of capital. It's simply an indiscriminate consequence of not producing more than you consume.

No private entity should have the power forcibly subsidize themselves with another company's earnings via the government. It's not the government's job to take money from competent businesses and give it to incompetent ones. And that is indeed what they must do. Government doesn't produce anything, it must take from one in order to give to another or itself. How many productive jobs do we have to destroy to keep the unproductive ones in existence? That's the dynamic here, there is no free lunch.


RE: NO
By BansheeX on 4/21/2009 2:52:49 PM , Rating: 2
Correction: consuming more than you produce.


RE: NO
By BansheeX on 4/27/2009 1:51:04 PM , Rating: 2
Err, wait, I had a "not" in there. False alarm.


RE: NO
By MrBungle123 on 4/21/2009 5:10:42 PM , Rating: 2
I could not agree more.


RE: NO
By Xenoterranos on 4/21/2009 5:21:00 PM , Rating: 2
You make a pretty good point here. I want to say that by helping GM out, the government is doing something good for U.S. business and the economy in general, but it just doesn't look like that's shaping up to be true. At this point in the clusterf*ck, it seems like so much better of an idea to let them go through bankrupcy. They're already closing down dealerships, laying off workers, closing factories, and reducing ordering from parts suppliers, so how many more jobs can they really save?! If some Japanese or European company came in a swept up the pieces, at least they'd know they would have to be profitable to succeed. (Sorry, didn't mean to rant)


What would Ackbar say...
By kiehveli on 4/21/2009 12:44:49 PM , Rating: 6
It's a TARP!!!




RE: What would Ackbar say...
By sgw2n5 on 4/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: What would Ackbar say...
By Bainne on 4/21/2009 1:09:49 PM , Rating: 2
Kudos :)
Here's a cookie


RE: What would Ackbar say...
By Azured on 4/21/2009 2:10:14 PM , Rating: 2
Gratz on the good work ;)

have a cookie:
http://www.explodingdog.com/drawing/haveacookie.gi...


RE: What would Ackbar say...
By FITCamaro on 4/21/2009 2:41:23 PM , Rating: 2
I thought that was his cousin?


and here we are
By FPP on 4/21/2009 7:13:24 PM , Rating: 2
20?...25? billion in the hole with NO prospect of getting it back in any way. This is Liberalista nazi politics plain and simple, nationalization by debt support. Change you cannot believe!




RE: and here we are
By Belard on 4/22/2009 2:52:21 AM , Rating: 1
Forgot you prozac pill today, eh?

Look out, you're drooling.


RE: and here we are
By rudolphna on 4/22/2009 9:40:07 PM , Rating: 2
25 billion really in the grand scheme of things, is no money at all. And by the way, a republican in office would have done the same thing, and dont pretend they wouldnt, you radical conservative a-hole


Sick of hearing about corporate welfare.
By Steve73 on 4/21/2009 9:12:11 PM , Rating: 2
These companies should have gone through bankruptcy court. This is ridicules that we are even talking about this still. The government needs to stay out of the economy, because their track record is horrible when it comes to running a business. Furthermore, I don't want to live in a Mercantile system, where the state plans and controls a large portion of the economy.




By dxf2891 on 4/22/2009 11:48:05 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately sir, this country has been entertwined with its economy since its inception. The shipping, railroad, publication, chemical and now manufacturing industrusties have long held a seat at the table of political and governmental power. Taxation is what causes this country to thrive. The better the individual does, the more he can be taxed. It's not punishing the wealthy, but having them give back for the opportunity that was afforded them.


[Sigh]
By ebakke on 4/21/2009 2:46:42 PM , Rating: 3
Damnit




Dodge Circuit EV
By smackababy on 4/21/2009 3:00:19 PM , Rating: 2
I'd buy it... Looks much better than 90% of electric cars.




Blank Check
By Army1156 on 4/21/2009 5:15:54 PM , Rating: 2
Remember that movie? Mr. Macintosh was the kid's millionaire alias. Seems fitting considering the price of a Mac.




No.
By rburnham on 4/22/2009 9:39:08 AM , Rating: 2
It was then that Willy Wonka pointed to the White House and screamed, "Wrong, sir! Wrong!"




By bubbastrangelove on 4/22/2009 4:14:16 PM , Rating: 2
When I read the unions were all of sudden pro-illegal immigration I was pretty confused as to how in conflicted with their past stance on this issue.

It all makes sense now; the guy paying their bills is big pro-illegal immigration.

Get ready to welcome our newest burdens to the working mans tax dollars comrades. Australia and New Zealand are beginning to look like a pretty good place to live seeing as how our government abandoned us.

Too bad their smart enough to cut back on immigration when their own citizens are being put out of work.




"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki