Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Ford tells Congress it may be able to go it alone

Tue Dec 2, 2008 10:19 AM EST
business, politics, congress, autos, meltdown, ceo-alan-mulally
Ken Thomas , Associated Press
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 2 photos
<p>Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., speaks during a meeting in her office on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, Dec. 1,  2008. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)</p>

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., speaks during a meeting in her office on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, Dec. 1, 2008. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Advertise | AdChoices

DEARBORN — Ford Motor Co. is asking Congress for a $9 billion "stand-by line of credit" to stabilize its business, but says it doesn't expect to tap it.

Unless one of Detroit's other Big Three auto companies goes bust, Ford expects to have enough money to make it through next year without government help, it said in a plan that projected the firm will break even or turn a pretax profit in 2011.

Detroit's automakers, making a second bid for $25 billion in funding, are presenting Congress with plans Tuesday to restructure their ailing companies and provide assurances that the funding will help them survive and thrive.

General Motors Corp., Ford and Chrysler LLC said they would refinance their companies' debt, cut executive pay, seek concessions from workers and find other ways of reviving their staggering companies.

The Big Three executives also are offering a series of mostly symbolic moves to burnish their images, badly tattered after they arrived in Washington D.C. last month on three separate private jets to plead for a federal lifeline for their struggling companies. All three companies offered separate plans for hearings that will be held Thursday and Friday.

That approach the auto executives took last month led Democratic congressional leaders to declare they didn't come prepared to justify their pleas and they told them to go back home and ready a new plan.

This week, the automakers are going out of their way to show deference to lawmakers and a willingness to flog themselves for past mistakes. "I think we learned a lot from that experience," Ford CEO Alan Mulally told The Associated Press in an interview.

Mulally said he'd work for $1 per year if his firm had to take any government loan money. The company's plan also says it will cancel all management employees' 2009 bonuses, scrap merit increases for its North American salaried employees next year, and sell its five corporate aircraft.

And for this week's appearances here, all three company chiefs will skip the lavish travel arrangements. Mulally is coming by car from Detroit for this week's second round of congressional hearings on government help for the Big Three. GM Chief Rick Wagoner will drive a Chevrolet Malibu hybrid sedan for the 520-mile trek from Detroit to Capitol Hill, spokesman Tony Cervone said Tuesday. And Chrysler LLC CEO Robert Nardelli won't travel by corporate jet, but a spokeswoman declined to elaborate on his travel plans, citing security reasons.

The unions were preparing to make sacrifices as well. United Auto Workers leaders summoned local union leaders from across the country to an emergency meeting Wednesday in Detroit to discuss concessions the union could make to help auto companies get government loans.

U.S. automakers are struggling to stay afloat heading into 2009 under the weight of an economic meltdown, the worst auto sales in decades and a tight credit market. General Motors, Ford and Chrysler went through nearly $18 billion in cash reserves during the last quarter, and GM and Chrysler have said they could collapse in weeks.

Meanwhile, the auto companies released new sales numbers that underlined the punishing business environment facing the Big Three. Ford said its November U.S. light vehicle sales tumbled 31 percent amid a continued slump in consumer spending and tight credit markets. Sales at Toyota, Japan's No. 1 automaker, fell 34 percent despite its extension of zero-percent financing on a dozen vehicles.

Ford's blueprint said it would invest $14 billion over the next seven years to boost its vehicles' fuel-efficiency, and improve the overall efficiency of its fleet by an average of 14 percent next year. And Ford is calling for a new partnership among automakers, parts suppliers and the government to develop new battery technologies domestically, so the U.S. doesn't have to rely on foreign batteries — as it now does on foreign oil — to power its cars.

GM will outline efforts to negotiate swapping some of the company's debt for equity stakes in the automaker, either shares or warrants for them, said two people briefed on the company's plan.

With eight separate brands, GM will also discuss efforts to shed brands but it would prefer to sell them instead of shutting down Pontiac, Saturn or Saab, said one of the people briefed on the plan. Killing off brands, like GM did with Oldsmobile in 2004, would require cash the company doesn't have, the person said. The people briefed on GM's preparations didn't want to be identified because the plan hadn't been completed.

Chrysler is expected to outline changes that would include a swap of debt in the company for equity stakes and reductions in some vehicle models, according to a person who was briefed on the plan. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions were private.

GM, according to its quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, owes creditors $45 billion and it must pay more than $7.5 billion early in 2010 to a UAW-administered trust fund that will take over retiree health care payments.

Ford owes more than $26 billion, with $6.3 billion due to its UAW trust fund at the end of 2009. Chrysler, a private company, does not have to open its books, but its CEO, Nardelli, has said it would be difficult for the company to make it without federal aid. All three likely are negotiating with the UAW for delays in payments to the trusts.

The companies are resisting calls for bankruptcy, arguing that no one would buy a car from an automaker that may not survive the life of the vehicle.

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Ken Thomas 's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: United States , Detroit
  • Public Discussion (48)
RNoel-525230

As long as he still gets his $28 million in bonuses, everything will be ok.

  • 2 votes
Reply#1 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 11:24 AM EST
DeathandTaxes

What's his address? I want to send some money and a care package. The poor guy...  

  • 2 votes
#1.1 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 11:30 AM EST
GOZO-unlimited

Why isn't it obvious to congress how we ended up here. We live in a consumer nation and the people (the consumers) have been bankrupted. Our corporate/government has sucked us dry and kicked us to the curb. The plan was to have the rest of the world bail us out while the American people succumbed to genocide...... easily replaced by third world slaves..but then thank god..... we got rid of our terrorist in chief and his cronies. The only question is .....when are they going to be held accountable?

  • 2 votes
#1.2 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 2:40 PM EST
Reply
GoldenGateMami_Susi

how about no more expense accounts, company cars, everyone that travels gets a per diem....no more luxe hotels or restaurants or at least limit them to visits per quarter, implement teleconferencing vs travel unless absolutely necessary.  Coach airfares for all if they want business or first class.......out of pocket.  Executives at the highest tier get base salary and only if profits meet or exceed projections will there be any bonuses, if there's a loss...so sorry better luck next quarter.  If a top level executive gets canned no golden parachute. If a company goes BR or BO.....no bonuses, perks, nada. Base salary only.

  • 6 votes
Reply#2 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 11:39 AM EST
Bebe-2488

You know Ford got rated for top safest cars by an Insurance company,if they could figure out a way to make those cars affordable(like you said cut all their unnecessary needs from top executives),maybe the public will buy them.Of course credit,loans needs a change too so people can afford them.I like Ford cars,I had a 99 Ranger cap that was my favorite vehicle to own because it was built strong.If any problems warranty covered it or I'd did my own work also.

Maybe I'm talking mumbo jumbo my brain feels like it's on Mon instead of Tues,lol..

    #2.1 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 12:32 PM EST
    waynef415

    We've had nothing but good luck with all of our Fords.  My in-laws own a Taurus and Sable, that's all they've driven for the last 20 years.  We have a '98 Sable ourselves and we love it.  My dad has an '89 Ranger with 300k miles on it, still drives it every day.

    Like you said, they know how to make quality products, they just need to make them more affordable.  Henry did it, I know it's not impossible.

      #2.2 - Wed Dec 3, 2008 7:46 AM EST
      Reply
      SH-2000

      And now the homebuilders have their hands out, the very people that caused the housing bubble especially here in Florida:

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122748520112251743.html?mod=djemITP#articleTabs%3Darticle

      These people got rich selling homes and pushed their financing and ARM loans, while the raised the prices on their homes constantly to suggest high demand, they caused this mess. While I'd like to see plumbers and electricians get work, I 'd rather not see thousands of new homes flood the market now.

      It is nothing less than perverse.

      Write your Senator & Representative and demand they say no.

        Reply#3 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 11:48 AM EST
        DragonWoman

        Wow, I must be a push over, I did not see the comments coming.

        I wonder if he will stipulate to no expense account and bonus as well?????

          Reply#4 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 12:07 PM EST
          Littlechica911

          Shameful.  This guy is still running game.  There is a world of difference between "pay" and "compensation."  Anyone with the kind of perks he receives could get by on $1 salary.

          I know the Dems and Detroit have had a longstanding marriage of convenience but things should be different now, right? 

          Times are too hard for business as usual.

          • 1 vote
          #5 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 12:20 PM EST
          RNoel-525230

          I know the Dems and Detroit have had a longstanding marriage of convenience but things should be different now, right?

          Huh?

            #5.1 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 12:33 PM EST
            not over it

            Littlechica  --  Are you trying to ignore the longstanding republican oil moguls and the marriage to the Big 3 that has prevented any kind of advancement toward energy independence?  The republicans are as much to blame as the Big 3 for building cars that Americans don't want.

            How convenient to blame the democrats when Bush and Co. have been making billions of our oil dependence for decades.

            • 1 vote
            #5.2 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 1:07 PM EST
            Littlechica911

             Are you trying to ignore the longstanding republican oil moguls and the marriage to the Big 3 that has prevented any kind of advancement toward energy independence? 

            Not at all.  Read some of my other posts, it's my belief Washington is the problem.  It's really not Dem vs. Repub. --- it's us against them.  I'm less interested in a party than an ideal that someone should be loyal to the American taxpayer.

            All politicians are paid handsomely to compromise positions.  My point is the Democratic controlled congress has a clear mandate to conduct business in a new way.  Old alliances, to oil or industry or labor, etc... do not compare to the new directive. 

            If I had my way, I'd give the new Washington leadership 24 months to demonstrate their effectiveness, then the discussion would be how to plan and execute Tea Party 2.0.

            • 1 vote
            #5.3 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 2:04 PM EST
            RNoel-525230

            All politicians are paid handsomely to compromise positions.  My point is the Democratic controlled congress has a clear mandate to conduct business in a new way.  Old alliances, to oil or industry or labor, etc... do not compare to the new directive.

            I still don't understand how that relates to your assertion that the Dems and Detroit have had a "long-standing marriage of convenience".

              #5.4 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 2:09 PM EST
              Littlechica911

              RN,

              In a two party system every player has chosen a side.  IMHO, automakers chose the Democrats, the oil and gas industry chose the Republicans.  Either way, you and I have been roundly ignored.

              • 1 vote
              #5.5 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 2:22 PM EST
              RNoel-525230

              But how did you come to the conclusion that automakers have chosen Democrats to side with? I understand that it's only your opinion and I'm not trying to berate you for your beliefs. I'm only interested in how you came to them. Did the automakers give more in campaign contributions to Democrats than Republicans? Did they lobby harder for one side than the other? Wasn't it the Democratic leaders who basically told the automakers to come up with a plan to repay the loan, instead of just handing them a blank check with no strings attached?

                #5.6 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 2:41 PM EST
                Socrates1

                The Unions are a given for the Democrats.  It is their jobs at stake.

                  #5.7 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 2:59 PM EST
                  RNoel-525230

                  The Unions are a given for the Democrats.  It is their jobs at stake.

                  Yes, however "The Unions" =/= "The Automakers".

                    #5.8 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 3:03 PM EST
                    not over it

                    Littlechica  -- The marraige between detroit and big oil has been going on for decades not years.  The democratic congress has nothing to do with the troubles the Big 3 face today.

                      #5.9 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 3:03 PM EST
                      Socrates1

                      I fail to understand your response.  You asked why the Automakers are counting on the Democrats. I told you.  You disagree?

                        #5.10 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 3:05 PM EST
                        RNoel-525230

                        I fail to understand your response.  You asked why the Automakers are counting on the Democrats. I told you.  You disagree?

                        Yes, I disagree. We're talking about the automakers having a "marriage of convenience" with the Democrats, not the unions.

                          #5.11 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 3:07 PM EST
                          Socrates1

                          And to make that work it is the constituents of the Democrats that must be at risk.  The Unions.  Nobody want to bailout the CEO's, but labor, that might be another question.  Labor also miscalculated, to a certain extent, as they have received their share of criticism as well.

                            #5.12 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 3:11 PM EST
                            RNoel-525230

                            Socrates, I'm interested in hearing Littlechica911 tell me why she feels that the Detroit automakers are in bed with the Democrats. That is all.

                              #5.13 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 3:18 PM EST
                              Socrates1

                              'scuse me

                                #5.14 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 3:21 PM EST
                                RNoel-525230

                                I'm sorry, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'd be happy to discuss it with you elsewhere, without hijacking her thread with an unrelated discourse into the impact of unions.

                                  #5.15 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 3:27 PM EST
                                  Littlechica911

                                  RN:  I'm not so thin-skinned as think a question equals an attack.  Variety of thought is a wonderful thing.  My conclusion:

                                  Dems and Detroit have had a "long-standing marriage of convenience."

                                  was drawn by tthe following.

                                  1. Unions, a huge part of any discussion on US automakers, have historically been Democratic stalwarts 
                                  2. The following article (2007), showing automakers starting to show a preference to Democratic candidates.

                                  http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-06-14-carmaker-contributions_N.htm

                                  It's true the 2008 election year turned everything on it's ear.  However I contend that two-headed monster of management and labor in Detroit are two sides of the same coin and the advantage has gone to the Democrats.

                                  • 2 votes
                                  #5.16 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 3:59 PM EST
                                  RNoel-525230

                                  RN:  I'm not so thin-skinned as think a question equals an attack.  Variety of thought is a wonderful thing.

                                  Excellent attitude!  However, since this is our first exchange, I thought it was better to err on the side of caution.  It's tough to tell how you're coming across to someone else over the internet without spelling it out, sometimes.  I just wanted to let you know that I meant no disrespect.

                                  1. Unions, a huge part of any discussion on US automakers, have historically been Democratic stalwarts

                                  I absolutely agree that unions are a huge part of the discussion on US automakers, and there can be no arguing that Democrats and labor unions have traditionally been strong allies. However, I do think that it is important to note that the union workers are only the indirect recipients of any bailout plan. The direct recipients are still the automakers themselves - and a good portion of that money will go to simply erasing the companies current debt. For example, GM alone has a levered free cash flow of -10.76 Billion, and total debt of 45.16 Billion. Obviously, some of the money coming in from a bailout will go towards paying the workers, but the vast majority of it needs to go towards paying off their debt.

                                  The following article (2007), showing automakers starting to show a preference to Democratic candidates.

                                  Thank you, that was an interesting article and I hadn't been aware of the automaker contributions favoring Democratic candidates (which is why I asked). I'm still not convinced that an article written in 2007 about how automakers slowly shifted their contributions to Democrats shows a "long-standing marriage of convenience" as opposed to their contributions just reflecting a shift in the political winds (as Democrats gained a majority in Congress over Republicans that year), but I appreciate you helping me to understand where you're coming from.

                                    #5.17 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 4:40 PM EST
                                    Littlechica911

                                    RN:  Thanks for the show of respect.  It will be returned.

                                    You make an excellent point; the switch in support could be just a shift in political winds.  There seems to be a bluing of America and every good gambler will hedge his/her bets.

                                    You are also correct in saying the workers will receive a negligible amount of any bailout.  The lion's share will go to the companies.

                                    However, the greater point for me is that management and labor together will stand to gain much more than you or me.  Last week the unions said they'd make no concessions.  Today, before congress, the plan hinges on concessions by the UAW.  Next week the unions will make a grand showing of fighting it off just enough, then cave just in time for the ink to dry on the gov't check.  It's all a ruse.

                                    The article from USA Today is only one part of the information used to draw my conclusion.  I do know others who are a part of the industry. 

                                    You may choose to distinguish company vs. union.  I'm not that generous.  The hustle is on and we are the mark.  It really doesn't matter who acts as a distraction and who actually picks my pocket, together, in concert, they are both guilty of the crime.

                                    • 1 vote
                                    #5.18 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 6:42 PM EST
                                    RNoel-525230

                                    However, the greater point for me is that management and labor together will stand to gain much more than you or me.

                                    I guess it all depends on how you look at it.  I spent the last few years in the suburbs of Detroit, so I have a little bit of insight into how that particular industry runs.  I personally never worked for an automaker or a parts supplier, but everyone in that area of the country seems to have a family member or friend who is employed in some aspect of the auto industry.  I'm just saying that the impact of losing the US auto industry will be larger than just the GM, Ford, and Chrysler execs and the workers.  Many companies who supply parts to the automakers will either go bankrupt or be forced to severely cut their workforces.  The hundreds of thousands of newly jobless are going to have a hard time finding new employment in our economy's current state, which means that they will likely drain our resources for a long time.  They're not going to go out shopping, out to eat at restaurants, out to see a movie - basically anything that they used to spend their discretionary income on.  That will spur further layoffs from companies who used to rely on their business as consumers.  Which creates even less people spending money and the vicious cycle just continues.  Could this really happen?  It's certainly a possibility.

                                    I'll be honest, I'm not an economist (although I do find economics an interesting subject), nor am I an important business executive or a prophet who can see into the future.  I'm just a graduate student who understands a bit about business.  What I do know, is that it is impossible to say that neither of us stand to gain anything by helping out the auto industry, just as it is impossible to know what either of us may stand to lose if we don't help them.

                                      #5.19 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 7:46 PM EST
                                      Littlechica911

                                      RN:  It is a delicate eco-system of jobs, collateral businesses, discretionary spending, etc...  The system is broken.  Now, they also want to be in charge of a substantial portion of your, my, and our children's inheritance.  I don't think so.  Doling out billions, out of fear,  to the parties who caused the disaster is not a sound course of action.  Fear got us into a war in Iraq.  As it turns out, the fear of WMD was unsubstantiated...and costly. 

                                      Those same execs who are before congress with hat-in-hand are the very ones who thwarted every fuel economy recommendation since the 70's.  They are the same group who ignored or tied up in court every consumer safety concern.  They are the same group who shipped many of the jobs overseas to grow their own bonuse while being indifferent to the worker who'd keep the economy going.  Rather than protecting customer loyalty, they foolishly protected their profits one quarter at a time.  Now, the consumers who would have been buying their cars for a lifetime have choices.  Every car my father ever owned was a Ford, with the exception of the last one --a Toyota.   

                                      And what, for goodness sake, happened to a free market?  If your product sells, you eat.  If it doesn't, well, the Smithsonian may have an opening.  If GM can't cut it, Ford wins.  And vice versa.  Besides, with the whole globalization of the process, the nameplate means nothing.  How many parts on the Taurus or the Malibu are made overseas and shipped here for final assembly.  Am I buying American?  Yes, I know everyone does it, not just the auto industry.  Just because its popular doesn't make it right. 

                                      It's not always and either or proposition; either you rescue us or the nation suffers.  How about calling in a fresh set of eyes, a new perspective to a problem they are either unable or unwilling to fix.  They are out of touch with the mood of the nation and the state of the economy.  If they really are concerned about the health of the industry, they'd step aside, let some efficiency expert, some fresh blook, come in and find the drag on their profits. 

                                      I don't have the answers, I've only got questions.  If it's banking yesterday, automakers today, homebuilders tomorrow, when does this corporate welfare stop.  I don't want to hear another politician talk about welfare moms and deadbeat dads, not when the NYSE is starting to look like the welfare role.

                                      Further, help is one thing.  Handouts is altogether something else.

                                      • 1 vote
                                      #5.20 - Wed Dec 3, 2008 1:19 PM EST
                                      not over it

                                      ......"How many parts on the Taurus or the Malibu are made overseas and shipped here for final assembly."......

                                      Over 85% of the parts are made in the USA and most of the time the final assembly as well. 

                                      At Toyota "built" in America has less than 5% American made parts.

                                      Hmmmm

                                        #5.21 - Wed Dec 3, 2008 1:28 PM EST
                                        Littlechica911

                                        That's all well and good.  I still say, try an efficiency expert to review ALL processes.  Try an executive compensation study.  Try reorganizing.  Try developing something other than the fossil fuel depleting behemoths like Hummers and Excursions.  Try something other than a handout.

                                        No bailout!

                                        • 1 vote
                                        #5.22 - Wed Dec 3, 2008 2:09 PM EST
                                        not over it

                                        I think you meant to say...."No Loan, with interest"! ......right??

                                          #5.23 - Wed Dec 3, 2008 2:36 PM EST
                                          Littlechica911

                                          A handout is a handout is a handout.

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #5.24 - Wed Dec 3, 2008 2:45 PM EST
                                          not over it

                                          And facts are facts.  You should check yours.

                                            #5.25 - Wed Dec 3, 2008 2:51 PM EST
                                            Littlechica911

                                            "T"  Snippy, really isn't a good look. I'm surprised it took this long for someone become discourteous.  

                                            My exchange was actually with RNoel, a bright, articulate, young man who, though we disagree, brought valid, lucid points to discuss. 

                                            There may be a group for those here only to snipe, but I don't respond to them --it guess was inevitable that even The Newsvine dropped it's standards a bit.

                                            If you have something thoughtful to post , or want to show respect (a part of the CoH), then we'll talk.  If you're only here to practice your one-liners, this isn't the thread.

                                            • 1 vote
                                            #5.26 - Wed Dec 3, 2008 3:52 PM EST
                                            Reply
                                            nodomestic4evr

                                            These CEO's are not even worth a dollar. Sure they will work for a dollar but the bonuses and exit compensation will still be there for them.

                                              Reply#6 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 12:27 PM EST
                                              not over it

                                              No doubt about it.  The CEO's will not suffer.  Now what?

                                                #6.1 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 1:08 PM EST
                                                Reply
                                                Reformed Liberal

                                                As it is, Ford is in the best financial situation of the "big 3" and actually puts out good products. I think the survival (or collapse) of the US auto companies will have a big impact on the overall economy, it being that they actually make something.

                                                By the way, as I read it, Mulally only offered to work for $1 if they have to tap into the line of credit (if it is offered). Apparently he would be willing to get paid more if they can avoid using the credit.

                                                Seems like a better use of money than giving some large portion of a trillion dollars to banks that forgot how to make good loans.

                                                • 1 vote
                                                Reply#7 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 12:42 PM EST
                                                MichelleUT

                                                Wow, how noble. Because you know, a million a year is just NOT ENOUGH to feed a family...

                                                Barf. 

                                                He should get NOTHING until they get their act together

                                                  Reply#8 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 1:04 PM EST
                                                  DAN-260821Deleted
                                                  Socrates1

                                                  I'm as cynical as they come, but without any citizen outcry do you think we'd even be close to the types of things they are talking about now?

                                                  • 1 vote
                                                  Reply#10 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 2:33 PM EST
                                                  JoulesBeef

                                                  lol most of us have laryngitis from outcrying all durign the bush years. I'm a bit hoarse now.

                                                    #10.1 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 3:44 PM EST
                                                    Reply
                                                    mojo31979

                                                    Oh, Of course they wouldn't tap the 9 Billion unless the "had" to.  That's like waving a Fillet Mignon and a Boiled Shoe in front of a starving person and telling them they can only eat the steak "if they have to"  This is atrocious!  These @##holes deserve to go down for their poor business decisions.  I'm sick of bailing out these companies on my dollar.

                                                      Reply#11 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 3:17 PM EST
                                                      Socrates1

                                                      My article clearly shows I am against the bailout, but we'll see if there is some real change here.  I also am not as informed as I should be regarding any competitive disadvantage the Big 3 may be laboring under due to various government policies.

                                                        #11.1 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 3:23 PM EST
                                                        Reply
                                                        Warmonger XDeleted
                                                        Andromeda-510639

                                                        What a PR move, and a continued, effective use of smoke and mirrors.  You figure he (Mulally) made $21 million last year, this year is almost over so add another $21 million for 2008, which is probably low considering he must have received some type of raise and/or additional compensation, and next year he gets $1.  Frankly, a $14 million average salary over 3 years is not very difficult to take, and it is certainly not a burden or personal sacrifice.  I may have missed it, but if he (Malally) takes a $1 salary for the next year is he still entitled to bonuses?  If so, how much would the bonus be for?

                                                        And the corporate jets, Ford is going to sell them?  This is very interesting, and actually, it could present a problem; if the jets are sold there will be less opportunity for corporate jet manufacturers to increase sales, so that industry may be knocking on Congress’ door next looking for a bailout.  Well on second thought maybe not, because AIG, Citigroup, a number of financial institutions, American Express, they will all still be able to afford corporate jets using bits of the bailout money already allocated by Congress.

                                                        And the good news, Ford is healthier than the other two and could survive and turn a profit in 3 years, Ford doesn’t really need the money but they would take the $9 billion loan to support itself (“critical backstop or safeguard against worsening conditions”).  Could it be that without the loan there will be great sacrifices and severe spending cuts, including layoffs and with the loan, they can avoid a brutal and cruel restructuring?  Where the $9 billion would be going? 

                                                        In conclusion, there should be no bailout for the auto industry; they caused this situation, they made the wrong decisions, they built the cars that no one wants to buy, so they have to deal with it, on their own.   And yes, the unions wanted more and more, and now they have want they negotiated for (my father was a UAW member by the way). 

                                                          Reply#13 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 3:30 PM EST
                                                          Socrates1

                                                          Perhaps what Ford is saying is that they can be competitive, but if their competition is bailed out that would put them in a less competitive position

                                                            #13.1 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 3:51 PM EST
                                                            Reply
                                                            JoulesBeef

                                                            What he is saying is.. "we really don't plan to use the money but give it to us anyways and since everything is really ok and we don't need the money.. please dont attach any rules like limits to my pay or anything cause liek i said i really don't need the money but give it to me just in case"

                                                            Ford is also promissing to have a plug in hybrid in 5-10 years (despite we gave them a ton of money for this long ago).. this hybrid will get 40 miles per charge.

                                                            tesla on the other hand.. has a plugin car.. that gets 250 miles per charge and is on our streets right now.And it beast everything on the road in drag races.(ok at 200k it is a bit expensive but the plan a sedan model for about 50k next year and thats is without mass production)

                                                            I saw lets give money to all these mini inovaited car companies, heck maybe a few of the big threes factories and employees

                                                            • 1 vote
                                                            Reply#14 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 3:43 PM EST
                                                            Leave a Comment:
                                                            You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                                            You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                                            (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                                            Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                                            As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                                            FUN STUFF:
                                                            • Leaderboard |
                                                            • E-Mail Alerts |
                                                            • Top of the Vine |
                                                            • Newsvine Live |
                                                            • Newsvine Archives |
                                                            • The Greenhouse
                                                            COMPANY STUFF:
                                                            • Code of Honor |
                                                            • Company Info |
                                                            • Contact Us |
                                                            • Jobs |
                                                            • User Agreement |
                                                            • Privacy Policy |
                                                            • About our ads
                                                            LEGAL STUFF:
                                                            • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                            • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                            • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com