Axis… OF FAIL!
Axis… OF FAIL!
(Rick Wagoner, Robert Nardelli, Alan Mulally)
picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption: Nate
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous SLEEPING ON THE JOB | INDEPENDENTS Next »
» 186 Comments
-
Recent Comments
Catholic and proud o… on Invisible 10 year old boy Catholic and proud o… on Invisible 10 year old boy Catholic and proud o… on Invisible 10 year old boy meglet on CURIOUS GEORGE Catholic and proud o… on Invisible 10 year old boy Default User on Gay or straight… Eddie the Floydist on Gay or straight… KissAdonis on Comixed Extra: The … Eddie the Floydist on TIANANMEN SQUARE Solitaire on Gay or straight… 
Cheezburger Network Blog
They has a sad
HAHAHA!!! Holy crap….though they will get a bail out after they come up with a plan (doubt they will follow the proposed plan).
If that turns out to be the case, I think we would see them in jail Obama’s new Attorney General doesn’t look like the kind of guy who’s impressed with the privileges of rich white guys.
…more of douchebags
We took a vote in your absence. The correct word here is “Wankstains.”
YAY! Proper use of the word FTW!
Hats off to the all-mighty author of “wankstain.” (Somehow, that doesn’t sound right…)
Wow. Read that too fast and thought you said Wankistan, which sounds like a fine place to send these guys.
LOL! I’m not sure I would rise for the National Anthem there, tho.
…or stay seated, come to think of it. :S
They’re gonna ask for another bailout after they get a bailout.
Maybe we should all just set up a direct deposit into their bank accounts so they don’t have to go to too much trouble.
Oh, no. That would seem like charity. They have their pride…
*cough*
They already are. they got $25 BILLION dollars just a quarter ago.
Er, no they didn’t. They’ve *lost* more than that in a quarter, but no one has given these guys anything.
They have not gotten the 25 B yet…but they have in fact over the past 25 years gotten PLENTY- they deserve to go down, if only they would not take so many hard workers with them I would say let them burn- as it is, one of them MUST die off- Capitolism is only for poor children who need healthcare- for the big guys they get bonuses for f*ing up, and we get to pay for them- yeah trickle down economics- trickle my rear- that urine is POURING down on me and mine.
Capitolism? I guess that typo has more than a ring of truth to it lately…
At any rate, without capitalism, from where comes the money to start those businesses that employ all of those people? You’ve got one guess, and it’s failed every time it’s been tried in history.
I can has hamborghini?
I can haz executive weekend retreat?
I can haz big fatass CEO paycheck? I almost forgot, I can haz bonus check too?
I can haz corporate jet? Ooop, I had to give that one back. I has a sad, now…
You can haz corporate jet, but you just can’t fly.
.
Oh great–Now I’m channeling Howard Jones!
more like Axle of Fail.
badumbump
Their axle has broken, lose 5 days while they repair it an come up with a better begging scheme.
Hey that’s a jeep shot.
You auto sedan and get some rust.
This is the first time I’ve ever been car sick sitting at my computer. Ouch.
My autonomic nervous system is affected…
So funny you guys, I’ve had vertigo all day and it’s the *worst*
car sick kind of feeling …
Didn’t mean to impose it on anyone!
that is the best werst ever!win at both ends!
And then inevitably, someone dies of dysentery.
Or we all drown crossing the river. : (
or ninjas…
…1/4 mile away from the bridge. : (
Seconded. When you’re going to the Capitol to beg for money, don’t use a company jet. Go Greyhound.
Word.
True, this was bad form, but mostly the attention on this is a distraction tactic from the issues at hand. It’s not as if they went and bought these jets special for this occasion.
The fact that they spend money on owning a corporate jet while their company is hemorrhaging money shows they have no fiscal sense. They have no grasp on reality, and no idea what the value of a dollar is. I want to support a strong union industry, but until management shows some sense, no way.
Do you not know the value of a private jet to a world manufacturer?
Heck, even within the US, each of the “Big three” have multiple manufacturing plants in several states. Sure, it could work to either drive there or fly business class on an airline, but that’s like telling you to either take the bus or walk to work instead of owning a car.
^^
Don’t you think someone who can’t afford to own a car should walk or take the bus to work?
If my financial situation was as bad as thiers is, I wouldn’t be driving my own car to work.
I second this as someone who cannot in fact afford a car and does take a bus. I get up two+ hours early and get home two hours after shift, which is annoying sometimes but better than driving myself deeper in debt for a car I can’t afford.
Even if you were correct, they could still have plane-pooled.
They’re talking about doing this for their next visit to Congress I heard today! LOL
I wonder if any bankers will try to thumb a ride.
If they can afford the expense of a private jet, their company isn’t in trouble. I’m a manager at a restaurant, and we would never dream of wasting money when the revenue stream slows down. We respond to what the market’s doing quickly, and I don’t respect these multimillion dollar earning white collar types if they can’t do the same. They all need to be fired and replaced with people from my industry maybe; we’ll work for 1% of what they get paid, and we seem to be smarter to boot!! (JK. Mostly.)
Actually, by many accounts, Ford has some good new top management who just need a chance to recover from the f*ckups of the past management. The other Ford irony is their small cars sell really well in Europe. Chrystler and GM, not so much. If even the Germans cannot make a go of a company, it is 100% screwed. As for GM, well, I work for a supplier to the auto industry. An associate at a non-US auto company jokes “What is GM doing? Let’s do the opposite.”
I’m from Croatia, Europe and drive a Ford Focus (European version). I love that car! Ford’s sale in Croatia and Europe is growing, mainly because of good prices (I payed mine about 24.000 USD) and quality. Focus is best selling model, followed by Fiesta and Mondeo (one that Bond drove). Chrysler sells only their 300 model and GM is only represented by Hummer.
Pretty sad for GM, since a Hummer is too wide to fit through some of those old Eurpean streets!
It’s usually bought by show-offs. Even the parking spaces are too narrow for Hummer.
I hope the Europeans had better luck with the Focus. Here, they rolled it out too fast and as a result it has the most recalls in the history of automobiles.
European versions work like a charm!
GM do own Saab, Daewoo & Opel/Vauxhall though
The same Ford Motors that will not sell the new cleaner diesels in the US since “no one would buy them”? Ask VW and Mercedes if diesel powered cars will not sell in America. What management jack-offs!
Considering that diesel fuel is almost $2 more expensive than gas is where I live, then yeah, I won’t be buying a diesel anytime soon. Someone who can afford a Mercedes can afford the extra $2, and the Bug and other gas powered VW’s are really cheap.
In the main though the MPG for diesel is a shitload better than Petrol. So aren’t you looking at false economy in your thinking there?
I just switched and for every 2 gallons I now get a third one free in comparison to what I used before…
That’s fuel for thought…
Are you going to float me the loan to get a new diesel car? Ok then. I’m stuck with gas at this point.
Am I just paranoid? I’m thinking OPEC is dropping the oil price to keep us from building windmills, solar panels, etc. Gas here is down to $1.75/gal.
OPEC just cut production. That will cause prices to go back up. Yes, gas is down to $1.74 here, but I don’t expect it to stay there for long. Part of the reason gas went so low is because the stock market tanked, and also because the Congressional moratorium against offshore drilling ran out in September. If you’ll go back and look prices started dropping basically the day after it ran out and have been falling since. If they get something signed back into law anytime soon, look for prices to go back up around $4. In fact, Obama himself has said that he feels $4 is ‘about right’, and there is talk of taking the cheap gas we have and taxing it to make it $3.50 to $4 again and keeping it there regardless. Screw the working man.
I’d like to see sources on that item. I did a search for that quote a couple of different ways and found nothing.
LOL, which item? I mentioned about four different things.
about obama and the fuel prices. The only thing I found on the subject recently was from 60 minutes interview, and it says nothing of the sort. I’ll agree that teh expiration of the offshore thing might be related, but I’m pretty sure obam hasn’t said anything like that. At least not in the context you are using it.
Here’s one, going to get another!
Yep, rhorho has the full context below. This is twisted to mean something it was never intended to. Not to mention, being severely out of date.
You’re not going to like these, but for some odd reason, there are no mainstream media reports of this *quirked eyebrow*
Possibly because the MSM shied away from distortion and removal from context, for a change. (Naaah, that can’t be it. Must be a conspiracy.)
As for the drop in prices following expiration of the moratorium, not one new well has been drilled so much as an inch in the affected areas. The effect has been purely psychological, which ought to be a pretty clear reinforcement of the perils of an unregulated speculators’ market. Speculation is driven almost purely on emotion rather than hard-nosed practicality and that’s why we’ve seen wild swings. Drilling isn’t likely to help, but a crackdown on market manipulation will.
LOL–So, we have another conspiracy theorist on our hands…
I agree that speculation has to be controlled. If for no other reason, the hills and valleys are too spikey, and people don’t know what to expect from one day to the next. How can a family make a budget if they don’t know whether to save for next month’s gas prices? Is there a way to control speculation?
I had heard that Iran requested that the Saudis cut production, but hadn’t heard what the Saudi response was. Thank you for the information about the moratorium. I’m going to look up the Obama thing–sounds like you’re spinning out on that one, so I’ll have to study up, then talk your panicky arse back down–*again!* ; )
I think I found the source for froo’s concern. It comes from the dirty campaign ad days. I have the answer to the McCain allegation linked.
…that is, if PK doesn’t eat it. *insert /Theme from Jaws/*
thanks Rho!
The problems is, both the article you cite and the one I cite are INFERRING what Obama is saying. They’re not taking what he’s ACTUALLY saying. He’s not saying that higher prices are bad, just that they rose too quickly.
The difference is, he was ALSO saying that people would need a means to cope with the higher prices. Long term, other reasonably priced modes of transportation. Short term, put more money in the people’s pockets so tey can pay the prices.
The price has since fluctuated much. This quote really isn’t even relevant to today either way you look at it. In any case, the campaign blogoshere took it all out of context. It’s why you should try to listen to both sides. Right-wingers are notorious for spin. not that there aren’t any liberals that do it, but it’s pretty well established that neo-cons have perfected the art of spin. (notice I am putting it on the neo-cons, not the republican party as a whole. You just have to get your party back from these crazies)
Considering the taxes that are coming from all angles, I won’t have the money to pay for it anyway ; )
-
There is no reason we should be paying that much for gas, ever. We have plenty in the world right now, and if we continue in our search for renewables, then gas shouldn’t get to that point. The deal is not how fast that it gets to $4, but that it gets there at all. Nuclear power has a bad rap, and people are unfairly scared of it, keeping it out of the mainstream. Wind power only works in certain parts of the country, and isn’t viable for most small places (like houses) because the initial cost is prohibitive, solar panels, while getting better, still aren’t perfect. And there is no way that people like me can get into in cheaper, more fuel effencient car any time in the near future. I make too much to qualify for government help (not that I would ask for it for something like that), but I don’t make enough to get mine paid off.
-
So I take issue with gas going up at all, and bigger issues with the fact that our president-elect doesn’t seem to mind. I guess I would take him a little bit more seriously (along with all of the rich neo-libs who voted for him from Hollywood) if they would take their vast fortunes and put it toward the national debt. THAT’S change I could TOTALLY get behind, and the best way to inspire confidence. Hell, I’d be happy if Obama would forego the presidential salary and say it needs to be put toward balancing the budget. He’s got enough coming in from his book sales to sustain him and his family quite nicely. If you’re going to say it, live it. And I’m directing that at everyone on both sides of the aisle. If you want your constituants to really respect you, DO SOMETHING THAT SHOWS YOU GIVE A DAMN.
No froo, I’m not defending that gas should go up, gradually or not. I am saying that you are taking a quote from a source that used it completely out of context to mean something it never was meant to say. I know I can’t afford $4 gas!
As for presidential compensation. The constitution says this: The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
In layman’s terms, it means “To preserve the president’s independence, Congress can neither raise nor lower the president’s salary during his term. Nor can a president accept any other pay.”
I don’t think he CAN refuse the compensation. He just can’t receive any other pay from the United States. It’s not as simple as you want to make it. I’m not saying he’s a saint or that he or congress couldn’t do more, just that we the people are going to have to tell our representatives, over and over again if need be, that they need to look out for the middle class if we are going to bounce back from this decline. We elected them to figure it out, but that doesn’t mean we can’t give them our input!!
I think that could be worded better, but I’m up past my bedtime. At any rate. I linked my constitution source.
Can he take the salary and immediatly pay it back? That wouldn’t be violating the Constitution. And like I said, from that point on, I think everyone on both sides of the aisle who is paying attention would then hail him as the greatest president ever, even before he takes office, simply because he would be doing something about the problem. I want someone I can get behind, dammit! Is that too much to ask???? I thought I had it with Bush, and he totally screwed the pooch. I was too young for Reagan, Clinton was a wash, and Bush Sr was constrained by a weak nature and Congress. I want a man (or woman) in office that I can throw everything I have behind, and it scares me to think that we STILL don’t have that.
-
*sigh*
-
I’m not asking for much here.
Well, seeing as he hasn’t even taken office, we haven’t seen how any of his policies will affect us as yet. I’m expecting no miracles, but I’m willing to be a little patient to see how it plays out. I’m hopeful, but keeping my expectations realistic. In six months or a year, we may know better. Lets give him a chance before we assume any doom and gloom, k ; )
I’ve said before that I will : )
-
I’m worried about it because this is the first time in my short life that we’ve ever had such an unknown quantity coming in. I don’t have a lot of life experience to tell me that it’s ok, so I will defer to you and rhorho about the fact that it will work ; )
LOL. I’m not THAT old! (I am, however, off to bed as I have a long day tomorrow of chasing the kids off my &$%^@ lawn!!)
LOL, I’m not implying old, I’m implying ‘older than I’ ; )
-
I’ve only lived through 4 presidents, and was born the year Reagan was elected. So I’ve seen more Republican presidents overall. I’m willing to see if a Democrat can do better, but you’ll forgive my healthy skepticism : )
Skepticism is always healthy. : ) I skimmed your convo w/Minerva, and noticed a cry for Obama to relinquish his salary–??? I’ve never heard anyone ask any president for such. You are well aware that I could shout to the rafters about Bush returning his pay (for not having earned it), but what good would it do? You remind me so much about how I felt in 2000 and 2004. It was scary, because I had predicted the war and its effect on the Powder Keg region. It was saddening to see how accurate those predictions were. (Not saying I’m psychic–unless Amy Winehouse dies March 16, 2009.) Minerva was right to try to talk you down. Looking at it from a political science standpoint, if nothing else, our country is off kilter, and needs to swing back into balance, okay? *offers Lifesaver*
The Republican presidents you grew up with were drug dealers and arms sellers. The last one has crapped on nearly every aspect of our society. From an illegal war to crippling our education system to seeding corruption in our Department of Justice and will be leaving the office in the worst economic state in almost a century.
You’re skeptical that a Democrat can do better?
I’m skeptical that Skeletor could have done worse.
@rhorho: as far as giving up the presidential salary, I think if any of them want any credibility, they should ALL have done it. If you thought the same things Im’ thinking back in 2000 and 2004, then I’m right to be worried. I’m seeing some scary double-speak from the Obama camp, but I’ve said I’ll give him a chance and I will. Just remember that I’ll be giving him that chance with my hand on the ‘whammy’ button : )
-
@ Char: The Democrat president we have (or will have) now is a drug user and admits it in his book. Whether he was a drug dealer or not I guess we’ll never know. Illegal war is up for speculation, since Congress allowed Bush to wage said war. They are culpable along with him. And ‘worst economic state in a century’ is a bit naive. Apparently you haven’t read (or seen) the chaos in America when Carter left office. IIRC, unemployment was at something like 23%, and we’re still nowhere near that. You also have to look at the Acts of God (natural disasters) and Acts of Terrorism that have happened during this administration, the likes of which we have never seen on American soil before. Bush screwed up. But don’t lump him in with the worst in history. At worst, he’s mediocre. Jimmy Carter is up there for worst in a while.
Nobody wants to pay the high prices of the past summer indefinitely, but there’s a problem with them coming down as well – dreadfully short institutional memory.
We had a gas crisis in the ’70s with an OPEC embargo. Prices shot up, lines at gas stations went around the block. Carter proposed some serious initiatives to wean us off the teat of the dead dinosaur economy. But then OPEC broke the embargo, prices came back down and everyone just *forgot* about it. Nobody did a damn thing. Electric cars continued to be the realm of geeks who didn’t care that their rides completely sucked. Solar and wind turbines languished, etc. ad nauseam.
Two summers of out-of-control price spirals in a row seem to have gotten some collective thumbs out of collective arses, but if prices go further down and stay down, will everyone lose interest again? I hope not, but I hoped not in the ’70s too. It takes a certain amount of pain to get people moving, and the pain’s got to continue long enough for the movement to build self-sustaining momentum. We’ll see whether we’ve gotten there yet.
I agree entirely. For the same reason, water conservation lectures are poorly attended in rainstorms. I’m concerned that our collective amoeba-like simplicity will be our undoing. By the time Mother Necessity presents herself permanently, we won’t have systems in place to sustain ourselves.
@Froo: I agree with you that wind and solar energy technology is not altogether feasible on a small scale, but Boone Pickens’ plan is workable, as a major contributor to the power grid. That said, we don’t currently have the infrastructure to get the power from the sun and wind belts to the high-consumption areas.
Seriously froofrou, you gotta get over this offshore drilling obsession, and please pass the word:
1) Oil companies have millions of acres of leases that are cleared for drilling and not exploited.
2) They do not currently have building facilities to maintain and repair the drilling sites they lose every year to hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, much less expand new facilities.
3) We export about 9% of our domestic production; why not require that to be sold in the USA? That would *instantly* increase our supply with no capital investment!
4) New drilling will take massive capital investment, and will require ten years or more to start producing. So, since conversion to an alternative energy based economy will also require massive capital investment and years to produce, why not just make the investment now? It will have as side benefits immense job creation, and stimulation of our economy through exports of our new technology.
Nothing personal foofrou. This just happens to be one of the right wing memes that is so nonsensical to me that I can’t let it pass unchallenged.
/rantmodeoff
With family in the oil business, I would like to correct a few of your statements : )
-
1. You can’t drill where there’s no oil. The current oil leases aren’t where most of the oil is, and the government has gotten involved in not letting the oil companies lease more to look for more oil. It’s the same thing as telling someone to go get bread at the grocery store, but only letting them use the aisle with soft drinks on it to find the bread. And you can’t break the lease because it’s a lease. THere is a contract involved, and if we leave the oil company holding the bag on land they can’t use just because we want the lease to run out, then we’ll never get more oil.
-
2. Cant argue with you there. But there have been governmental mandates against building new refineries to get the oil out there since the 79’s.
-
3. 9% is a drop in the bucket. I agree that it should be sold domestically, but would you honestly deny a company the chance to make an actual profit? The ‘evil oil companies’ that have been making so much money the last few years are only turning about an 8% profit, which isn’t abnormal for a company that is doing well. As much money as they make, it takes a LOT of money to get a drilling operation going.
-
4. The ten year figure is an outdated figure. It takes less than a year now to get a producing onshore rig, and offshore is pretty close behind. You’d be amazed what technology can do. Horizontal drilling can keep onshore rigs from damaging lands while still getting the oil out, and offshore rigs can go down in 2 miles of water and still hit a hole less than 5 inches in diameter to drill. As far as getting it into production, if they were allowed to build a few more refineries, it would be into production a lot faster. As it stands now, they can’t do anything with the oil that they get because of govermental controls in place.
-
(And just so you know, it’s not immediate family, so I see nothing from the oil business profiting, lol. My sister’s stupid husband has been in oil for years. I hate him, but I do have to defend what he does because it really gets a bad rap.)
Thanks for conceding point two, I’ll take your word for it on point four, and I think I still disagree with you on point one.
On point two, though, I strongly disagree with you. Using that 9% domestically is about 500,000 barrels a day. That would have a huge impact on prices.
BTW, it wouldn’t be disgraceful if you *were* profiting from the oil business, though I grant you I probably would judge your arguments differently if you were.
I’m from the exploration side. The geophysical company I worked for in Houston shut down North American operations because of the Enron collapse, compounded by U.S. landowner greed. It has gotten too expensive to explore on U.S. land because of permit costs, and every class-action lawyer worth his salt has tried to sue over the use of data collected (then eliminated) from no-permit areas within data sets. If congress could put some reasonable protections in place, we could figure out where the stuff is and be done with it.
.
A key point on Item 1 hasn’t been made: What is the motivation to pull oil out of the ground in the $60 barrel range? It’s better to retain the lease and buy foreign oil when the price is low, then take domestic production seriously when the price is sustainably high. It has to be *sustainably* high, because, as froo said, it takes about a year to crank up from scratch on land. It then takes another six months to a year to recover initial costs, and fine-tune for optimum production.
OPEC can cut it to nothing, and so long as people are using less (which they are) and China’s economy is completely stalled (which it is) the price isn’t going back up anytime soon.
Obama simply will not be able to get that tax shoved through, so I wouldn’t worry about that too much. Yeah, those people who lost their jobs, let’s go ahead and make it even less possible to drive to those few-and-far-between interviews. Not gonna happen.
Actually today I heard that they economists are now expecting a barrel of oul to go back up between 60 and 90 and that gasoline will likely float around the $3.00 mark for the foreseeable future.
America has shown that it’ll put up with $2.50-$3.00 without much grumbling. It’s the $4.00 and above that people really start bitching about.
Personally, I’m all for it staying below $2.00….
You know, of course, that once alternate-power autos hit critical mass, that gas is going to drop back down below $1.00…because once we have that technology here, they’ll have it in China, so that oil demand will dry up too.
People seem to be fine with $2-$3. It $4 that gets them pissed off enough to change their habits. I prefer $2 and under, myself.
Once we get to that point of critical mass regarding alternate energy vehicles, gas will drop to $1 or less, because China will be right there with us, and TBH they are the ones driving the oil markets these days. It’s only because China is in their own financial meltdown that oil is as low as it is.
You simply cannot go through your industrial revolution in 15 years, when it took everyone else 150.
*sigh* PK strikes again…I even waited for quite a while to see the first ones come up before reposting…
You’re remarkably consistent. ; )
That probably could still be attributed to the old management. I would have to do more research to see if the current ones are actually any better.
I know I won’t be getting one any time soon, not with diesel so much more expensive than gas. At least a dollar more in Connecticut.
It’s $2 more in Texas, so froo and rho are gassin, hoofin’ or thumbin’.
Gee, put all those three together for a meeting and you best wear protection if you enter the room (like say, lead). The brainwaves emanating off of them three must be somethin’ else. (Memo to auto execs: that’s not a compliment.)
The executives may be f*ckups, but America has a vested interest to bailout (this is a smaller bailout besides) the auto companies because they represent so many domestic manufacturing jobs. Not only the auto makers themselves, but the communities that house them will be affected, like where employees eat lunch, etc, as well as suppliers, etc. etc. It has a more widespread effect on the middle class than did the bank bailout. That debacle just gave rich people more money to screw us some more with. Especially with no oversight.
Plus, this one is a loan, not a bailout per se.
A loan I can deal with. A bailout, not so much.
Agreed. I think most people don’t know what it actually entails. Someone ought to hang Paulson up by the toenails for his giant bank heist. The guy even admits that $700 billion was an arbitrary number he pulled out of thin air. Congress and Bush both were stupid on that one.
This one needs to be looked at more closely so it doesn’t go through with no oversight, like the last (much larger) rescue package, but a loan to keep jobs here I can get behind.
I still think it’s pandering to the greedy types (won’t go into my actual reasons because I might get killed while I sleep), and I think that the car companies SHOULD NOT be bailed out (or loaned to) unless they can completely revamp the way they do things. It should not cost 40% more per car to manufacture here than it does to manufacture at the Toyota plant down the road.
(And I think the 40% figure is right. I’ll admit to getting that from a radio talk show and I haven’t looked it up myself yet)
I agree. I think that that’s what they’re holding out for and why they are requiring a plan. Obviously they need to retool to compete better and make more efficient cars on their way to producing alternative fuel cars. However, allowing the industry to fail would have much farther reaching repercussions that even the banks would because it affects sooooo many American jobs in the industry and in the communities that support them and their suppliers. Who’s going to buy coffee from the little diner near the plant if the plant closes…etc…
“Trickle down economics”?
OF course not! Those don’t work!
What if we just cut their taxes? Wouldn’t that do the same thing?
Not if you’re trying to get out of a deficit at the government level at the same time. As Seth has pointed out before, there has to be a balance between taxing too much and taxing too little. The problem is, we have such a deficit right now that we can’t tax our way out of it without turning America into a Third-world country.
Ok, so how are these bailouts not turning us into a Third-world country? Kind of the same thing…
*taps nose* But you see, ema, it’s funded by the DEMOCRATS. That makes it ok. *winks*
I’m sorry, that was a total troll statement : )
-
Let me elaborate a little bit: The bailouts of any kind are a bad idea. They use up tax dollars, increase the deficit, and bring hardship to other industries and people by opening the door for others to start screaming for their share of the pie.
-
What should happen is that the auto industries (or any other industry that has run itself into the ground) should be allowed to fail in order to bring about an industry that works better. Sure, the benefits and union-demanded perks that go with the job are great, but like someone pointed out, the Toyota plant down the street does the same job for a lot less. It sucks majorly, but that’s the way the free market works. When you bail people out for doing a poor management job, you don’t allow innovatins to happen. You bring everyone down to the same level instead of allowing great business models to shine. There is a story by Kurt Vonnegut (blanked on the name…..I’ll have to find it) that deals with everyone being chained down in order to make it even….basically everyone was artificially handicapped in order to make the playing field fair for the lowest common denominator. That’s what’s happening here.
-
IIRC, Michigan is under extreme liberal control. What those in power have done is try to tax the state out of a depression, which has just made the situation worse. At this point, a bailout (or loan) is the only way these industries in the state will survive, which is horrible. If those in power would realize that you can’t ‘tax your way out of a problem’ (sound familiar? Replace ‘tax’ with ‘drill for oil’), then we might have more options with the Big Three.
It’s like magic!!
As long as they’re spending the money and not the people who earned it we will all be ok. *runs and hides*
You know I agree with you!!
But very nicely stated.
My posts are being eaten!!! HALP!!
If you put in an emoticon it eats them for some reason. That’s why my posts have these weird little : ) ’s and *winks*, hehe. It’ll show up, I guess.
-
*hands ema a handful of popcorn and waits*
Oh, that must have been what happened then cause I had a smilee. Anyway, you know I agree with you completely!!
Not Kurt Vonnegut- it’s “Atlas Shrugged” (see name)
*Looks* Oh, yes–There it is!
@froofrou: I’ve heard that “we the people” are buying into the banks, and “we” are the first ones paid back (before shareholders, etc.). Have you heard something to the contrary?
@AtlasShrugged: it’s a short story, not a novel
@froo
-
I will agree that a bailout uses tax dollars. But a loan, is a decent investment. If the banks had not gotten a bailout, then I would agree with the sentiment that the auto companies shouldn’t either. But, the blank check that the banks got hasn’t actually done anything. It was going to buy all the bad mortgages, but they haven’t even done that.
-
Your indirect blame on unions for indirectly making the Toyota plant be able to do the same job for less is not a fair assessment. The fair market went about its business at the turn of the century, and we ended up with child labor and health problems galore. I do see what you are saying about allowing innovation, but in this economy, no one would be able to start up a new company and innovate. I don’t think that this is pandering to the lowest common denominator.
-
Michigan is not under extreme liberal control. It may seem extreme to you because of the views you hold, but it is far from that. And a lot of the problems that the state faces can be traced back to the last governor, Engler, a Republican. In fact, when you look at a county map of the state, the only areas that tend toward the Dem end of the spectrum are the UP and the area surrounding Detroit. There are a number of conservatives in the state legislature. And the state actually hasn’t done as much taxing, as cutting the budget. Earlier this year, the state shut down because the legislature did not want to raise taxes and were unwilling to make more cuts.
@ AtlasShrugged: I found the story by Vonnegut. It’s “Harrison Bergeron”. I’ve linked the Wiki page about the story.
Every closet elitist needs to read Harrison Bergeron. It really is about you and your life! If The Man wasn’t holding you down, you’d be a millionaire movie start astronaut surgeon. I love me some Phillip K. Dick, but Harrison Bergeron is not his best work. Read Ubik, or Valis.
–
It is interesting to consider the case opposite to that in Harrison Bergeron, because it is closer to reality. People want to believe the real world is like that of Harrison Bergeron, and all attempts to ‘help’ the less fortunate involve tearing down the geniuses and the excellent, rather than helping the unfortunate.
–
But what if we actually had a way of doing the opposite of Harrison Bergeron and making everyone equally excellent? Stop. Look at your feelings. Does this sound like a great idea, or does it sound horrendously unfair? If the idea of making everyone as smart, fast, and beautiful as the most excellent sounds bad to you, congratulations! You’re an elitist. You want a heirarchy, you want to be on top, and you are willing to keep others down to be on top.
No no nono no, you’re misinterpreting why I even mentioned the story. I mentioned it in context of the bailout and now the door is opened for everyone to start screaming for their piece of the pie.
-
One of the things I hate is when young people are told that they can do anything. I’m sorry, no you can’t. I don’t have the math skills to be an astronaut, so I’ll never be one. I have skills in a different area, so I stay within that skill set.
-
I want everyone to top out. If I had my way, there would be no poor, no unemployment, and no ‘man keeping you down’, but unfortunatly this is the real world and I can’t have that. All I can do is try to improve myself and the area around me and leave it at that.
I get why you mentioned the story. I was just picturing
‘AtlasShrugged’ or any other Randroid reading it and the message they’d get from it. Not everyone can be anything they want to, that is a heartbreaking myth. But we so overvalue some jobs, and undervalue others, the options that many people actually have open to them are incredibly disheartening. When the disparity rises above a certain level, people no longer feel good when they see excellence in others rewarded. When there is a fair amount of disparity, truly based on excellence, people can feel okay with themselves even if they aren’t excellent.
–
I think the fact that we overvalue leadership and management positions, and undervalue follower type positions hurts us. It means that people who are not naturally leaders or managers will attempt to become leaders and managers, not because it’s what they like doing, or they are good at it, but because it puts them higher up on the heirarchy. Because non leaders attempt to become leaders, and use underhanded methods to do so, people do not trust leaders, and try to tear them down. But the only leaders they can touch are the natural leaders who are doing it because leading is what they were born to do. Natuiral leaders are the only type who actually care what the followers think about their leadership.
Agreed. Some folks aim for leader roles because they can make more money that way, others for the societal over-valuation. And our current society p***ses on those in roles which are very important, but not considered ‘leadership’. Like public school teachers, and secretaries, and home healthcare workers, and… Grr. Don’t get me started!
I think the national debt figure is about $34K per citizen, with interest accumulating.
It’s not at all the same thing if it’s a loan and if there are strict strings attatched such as retooling, etc. UNLIKE the bank bailout which simply allowed the execs to take a holiday. That blank check was a HUGE mistake. Also this is not about the trickle down of alleged job creation. It’s about SAVING what someone else mentioned is in the tune of 3 million jobs.
“Trickleup Economics”- the opposite and true source of wealth!
“Trickle-Up Economics: Because The Poor Have It To Spread Around!”
This is another troll statement froo. …. :0
Trickle-up economics, because the poor will spend it on necessary consumer goods and services (food? clothes? car repairs?) rather than playing the market and buying fancy paper.
PK nommed my previous comment saying:
Trickle-up economics, because the poor will spend it on necessary consumer goods and services (food? clothes? car repairs?) rather than playing the market and buying fancy paper.
Ahh! So THAT’S where my pink pills have gone!
I know you’re joking, but you’ve just hit the nail on the head. The problem is exactly that we undervalue labor in the US. Right now the very few people who control most of the wealth in the US are successfully able to keep wages low, while labor has a very hard time organizing to represent us. The strongest, happiest nations in the world have very high minimum wages, and, unfortunately, relatively high taxes compared to us. The one thing they don’t have is a large enough military to allow them to go messing about in everyone else’s back yard; personally, I wouldn’t miss that ability at all.
I see a lot of problems with the labor market, but my views on why will probably get me killed : )
-
We should be able to offer better jobs for more money, but we can’t because of an antiquated system that is no longer necessary.
-
Increasing minimum wage over and over and over (way past the cost of inflation or cost of living) can be a slippery slope. At what point do we stop? $20 an hour? $50? We still have to make it profitable to have a business here or the economy won’t just be slow, it will be non-existant. Taxing the crap out of domestic companies is not the way to do it, and taxing the crap out of foreign companies (a la Hawley-Smoot Tarif) just stops trade and will send us into another Depression. There has to be a balance, and we don’t have it. Nor do we have the promise of it.
-
As far as the military is concerned, I’m with Roosevelt on that one. “Speak softly and carry a big stick”. THere is no reason we shouldn’t be ready, at a moment’s notice, to defend ourselves. You’re right, though. We need to stay out of everyone else’s backyards. Personally, the war was handled wrong in that ‘Shock and Awe’ should have been more shocky and awe-y. Turn it into a parking lot and go home. Staying out of Iraq……well, we should have finished that back during Bush Sr, but that’s moot at this point. We need to be smart about pulling out, and stop getting into wars that we aren’t provoked into. I’m aiming that at Bush Sr, Clinton, and Bush Jr.
-
The free market undervalues labor because of a fundamental failure mode. Dudes won the Nobel Prize for figuring this out. It’s called asymmetric information. The original paper on the topic came out in the 70s and caused quite a stir. It’s called ‘The Market for Lemons’ and you can read about it on wikipedia. The same author, working with other economists, won the Nobel in, hmm, 2001? Somewhere around then.
–
He described the problem in terms of the used car market. Sellers have more information about the actual quality of their car than buyers
do. Buyers don’t know whether the car is a lemon or not. So they have to assume that the car is worth less than the seller is asking. Used cars are thus systematically undervalued in a free market.
–
The labor market is the same way. Prospective employees know far more about their true worth than employers do. Therefore, employers must assume that every employee is overstating their value, and labor is systematically undervalued.
–
Add to that the fact that people who have capital are the ones who buy labor. Everyone buying labor thinks their investment of money is worth more than the labor they are buying. So they systematically undervalue most kinds of labor. They only value the kind of labor they actually do, being the CEO of a company.
froofrou:
The least the US could have done was actually increase by the rate of inflation. Instead of well below that over the last 30 years.
Your minimum wage is too low and needs a slow increase until it is at least at 1980 levels, if not even higher than 1968 levels (when it was highest). The Fair Minimum Wage Act goes some way towards this, but not enough.
Seth comes through with the info! Thanks guy!
@Froo: I think a little digging will show that areas in the US with highter minimum wages are actually faring better, economically, than those with lower. I am pretty sure there is a direct connection there, but I don’t have the wherewithal to prove it at this point. (*glances meaningfully back at Seth*)
You just have to make sure that you don’t make the minimum wage prohibitive. Part of the problem during the Great Depression (and one of the reasons it dragged on (drug on?) for so long) is that the minimum wage was raised to the point that it was no longer worth it to hire new employees. Now that was great if you were an existing employee, because you were finally getting paid a good amount. But when you’re in a soup line with your family because unemployment is over 30%, then you don’t care how much the employed guy is making.
-
We just need a balance.
The auto deal is a bridge loan. The bank deal is an equity stake. Neither of them are giveaways — the govt will be repaid, either by loan repayments (auto) or equity sale when the price goes back up (banks).
It’s really not that difficult to figure out.
You sure about that? What if the bailout doesn’t work and the companies go bankrupt, what collateral have they provided? I’m pretty sure the bank deal was meant to be an equity stake, but somehow Paulson ignored that part. It is difficult to figure out, if you are actually thinking about it rather than mouthing happy fantasies about the way it should be.
Economic history is on both mine and Paulson’s side. If you are expecting instant gratification, then you’ll be sorry.
I know that Paulson lives on the other side of the aisle from you, Seth, but he’s not a moron. Neither are the hundreds of representatives that voted to pursue this course of action. Nor are the scores of advisors and economists who support the move.
In fact, this is how we “bailed out” the S&L’s. Like I said, history is on the side of this move.
I agree. Detroit has been kicked and spat on by the rest of the country and federal government. The place already looks like a third world country and if the auto companies are allowed to bankrupt, I fully expect the area to become even more like a third world country, or for there to be riots.
Besides, looking at the history of the auto companies, like the federal loan that Chrysler received, they are a sound investment. But the federal government still cannot decide what to do with our $700b.
Being from the Motor City and holding onto my job as a lineworker by sheer good luck, I can say that Christine has the right of it. The city has been pummeled from all sides, while the execs (and mayors) sit up high, out of the mess. For Detroit, this isn’t a bailout for big business. This is a lifeline for the average Detroiter, because let’s face it, our economy’s backbone is the Big Three. We’re starting to diversify, but without the auto industry to fuel much of the state, funding for things like biomedical research will dry up even more.
I heard on a news program that, all together, the auto industry (manufacture, dealers, parts suppliers, etc.) totals 3 million people, almost 1% of us.
It may only be 1% of “us”, but they directly employ 20% of the population of Michigan. That’s not including the people who work for parts manufacturers, the shipping companies, the Teamsters, etc. The state’s unemployment rate is something like 9.4%, which is one of the highest in the nation.
One percent of the entire nation is huge, and of course, logically, your area would be the hardest hit…But WOW–9.4% is scary! I had no idea how bad it was already!
Actually, I’m kind of a tramper at this point. Born and raised in Michigan and most of my family is still there. Currently in Chicago. Was in LA earlier this year. Probably heading over to NYC or DC next year, then back to Chicago to finish school. And then I’m eying abroad depending on the jobs available for my skill set.
But yeah, it is really bad there. An article in the NYT just came out about how things are just getting worse and worse.
fail. Ford doesn’t need a bailout. they just went to the meetings to explain the downfalls of a auto industry crash and how it would trickle down throughout. but not nice try from someone who just listens to half of the story. along with some of you as well.
*gets chris a keyboard with a working Shift key*
*explains to chris that sentences are supposed to have subject and verb so we might find out what he’s trying to say*
thank you minerva!
Wait! I’ve deciphered part of it: He was in an auto crash, needs to tinkle, and he wants to tell us the other half of the story.
Noes! He thinks ultimately what the bailout does is help those who are
concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up
our economy in our classrooms is.
Okay, so the bailout is the mean old witch, healthcare reform has gone to the shore, and–classrooms? I didn’t get anything about classrooms out of that, but that may have been where they were meeting. I like your version, but it would be better with a pony. I like ponies! : )
(so does sarah palin …)
I hope Barack remembered to write her a thank-you note. ; )
“How many of you came on a charter flight?”
Anyone? …Anyone???
Nice red herring, Congress. You actually got people to follow it.
The only reason the Big 3 need a bailout is because of irresponsible behavior regarding labor laws by congress, allowing Toyota, Honda, and Nissan to sit in the US, and make billions off of non-union labor at the tune of roughly 31-35 bucks an hour, then to turn around and ship the profits back overseas. Meanwhile their America counterparts sit here, having to play the union game with UAW, paying plant employees a minimum of 54 an hour, do the math…When Toyota sells a Camry for 26 thousand, and makes X profit, Ford can only sell a Taurus for Y and make toyota’s profit minus close to 7 grand….where’s the competition there?
As for the chartered flights…you’re talking the sale of another F150/Silverado/Ram…its not like the crap AIG is pulling dropping millions on a “Trust Conference.”
Bottom line is the American automakers are falling victim to the idiots with the 70s/80s mentality that Japanese cars are better, and congress failing to put stops in place to make the market more competitive. But no….you can only make antitrust laws if one of the companies is named Microsoft.
“This LOL has Bi-Patisan approval” and the Big Three idiots have Bi-Partisan disapproval !
Partisan !!!! not Patisan !
My keyboards still sticky from the last time I spewed my drink laughing at an LOL!
I thought you had a cool accent, so the correction is a little disappointy.
Um… axles of evil?
Simpsons did it! (or, in this case “durr,” above)
No wait… you said “evil,” not “fail.” My bad!!
Ladies and germs,
if you’ve got a minute … look up the history of Nissan, which almost went bankrupt a few years back and how it was saved by Ghosn the current CEO of both Japanese Nissan and French Renault, and NOT by the Japanese government!!!
In my oppinion both GM and Chrysler have to go belly up and hopefully resurface later on reorganized.
Except that America CAN NOT afford to lose all those jobs in the interim. We’ve already lost our electronics industries, our plastics, a lot of our furniture industries, even some food production to overseas companies. This is our last bastion of manufacturing. Sure the companies need to be completely retooled and made to compete better with what teh world market is offering. We can’t aford to close them down altogether. If anybody thinks we have a depression NOW, imagine what we’ll have if we lose thousands or millions more jobs.
The “Big” 3 won’t have a chance until they go into bankruptcy. Sounds weird, doesn’t it ? They have SOOOO much debt, they have SOOOO much labor costs. Only bankruptcy will be able to change that quickly. Why give them $25 Billion ? They will just need another $25 Billion next quarter …. and the next.
I agree wif stevie W … there’s just too much to change and restructure for it to work without a bankruptcy. Any money thrown to them will be a pure waste. The whole industr needs a revamp and people should see this as a new beginning rather than it being the end.
I agree they need to restructure/retool. In the meantime, we need a stopgap so they don’t fail utterly. That will make the problem much, much worse. We can’t afford to lose those jobs. Especially when the economy is already as bad as it is.
Who is going to buy a car from a bankrupt company? The need for parts and service down the road (pun) would halt sales instantly and permanently.
You’ve got it wrong! It should be Axles of Fail!
3 of many helping to draw the nation as a whole down with it.
Check my link. This makes me sick. NO questions asked we can help the banks, but not the auto industry? Government in general is again saying it hates the working class. The loan to big auto would at least help the middle class because of all the millions of jobs affected, but more bank parachutes? gag.
It’s a sniper rifle vs. a shotgun. The finance deal is designed to have the widest immediate impact (not that it has, considering the complete and total lack of oversight in the process), whereas yes, the auto deal affects millions of jobs, but even so the impact is not as great as having the credit markets frozen for years.
Since We The People now have a significant equity ownership stake in these banks, I’m not sure why we need to have Congressional hearings about why the credit isn’t flowing again — since we own them now, it *should* just be a matter of “hey, CEO lackey — DO IT BECAUSE I SAID SO”. This business of them playing coy and providing responses like “we’re not required to disclose what we do with that money” is a bit rich coming from corporate officers sucking the public tit.
That would be a valid argument about the finance deal if the banks weren’t hoarding the money they’ve been handed with no oversight (because Paulson’s such a genius according to you) and were actually extending credit. They’re not. I hate that the banks are sort of just getting a free ride, while the last bastion of manufacturing and therefore, American Workers, is just getting boned. Citicorp, Please!
I hate that the Congress is bitching at the banks for not distributing the credit, without owning up to the fact that they have totally FAILED in one of the most important parts of TARP: as you mentioned, the *oversight*.
They were supposed to have this oversight commission set up the day that the bill passed. To this day, AFAIK it *still* does not exist.
Paulson is right to change course on the actual troubled assets, at least until someone can come up with an actual solid value for them. However, Congress needs to keep the checkbook closed until we see some easing of credit first — as you said, sitting on the cash, buying other banks and fattening bonuses isn’t quite what TARP was all about.
Oversight, weer doin it rong.
I didn’t say he’s a genius. I said he’s not a moron.
I hate that there is no oversight. This was supposed to be there on Day One. Congress — you fail!
Oversight…weer doin it rong.
wouldn’t it be a win…as they are getting away with it and basically they get to f-up and get a free pass. I’d say thats a win…I want to win like that.
Isn’t it great how Japan keeps their cars out. Free Trade ROCKS!
Hopefully they will fail and the country goes into a deep deep recession or even a depression~
Umm. It’s not that the Japanese keep US cars out of their market. It’s that US cars tend not to appeal to their market. Ford’s attempt to sell the Taurus in Japan, for instance, failed. Even the Ford Ka failed to attract many buyers because it wasn’t available in automatic at the time. They owned a controlling interest in Mazda, but recently divested down to a non-controlling interest.
GM used to own an interest in Suzuki, and through them imported GM vehicles into Japan, selling under the Suzuki badge. GM sold that operation off though.
Daimler-Chrysler is still active in the Japanese auto industry, but doing most of their production locally, IIRC.
Oh OK~
You guys know that Ford didn’t take a bail-out don’t you? I know where I’m buying my next truck!
GM bailed out——- Billions
Chrysler Bailed out-Billions
Ford did it right no bail out or Chapter 11