Maybe all is well that ends well, but no thanks to Reid. I'm rising to the level of hate for that wuss.

Can we cut to the chase here.

Detroit is NOT in trouble because they are not producing enough "low-emissions vehicles" and, with gas prices down again, they are not in trouble because they produced too many low MPG vehicles.

They are in trouble because they don't design cars as good as the Japanese, they don't build them as cheaply as the Japanese and management is not as good as the Japanese.

When Toyota and GM built identical cars on the same assembly line, the GM cars were sold at a lower price than the EXACT same Toyota car. The perception of buyers is costing the US car companies a fortune.

I am not sure how you solve the problem. I am pretty sure that Chapter 11 ain't the answer.

But the Republicans in forcing Bush to use the Tarp to loan the money, also gave up the auto czar, and set up a precedent whereby the Dems could use the remaining TARP money for other industries, if needed. Let's hope the Dems don't release the remaining 350B while Paulson is still Sec Treas.

"Quite right. Republicans had a chance to make this bill as appealing as possible, but they wouldn't take yes for an answer when Democrats said autoworkers would see their wages cut in 2011 instead of 2009."

Right, and just how hard would the One and Democrats be willing to push the UAW to accept wages cuts in a year just after the midterms and just before seeking a second term?

Care to make any guesses at that Steve? Do you think maybe that's why the GOP refusal to "take yes for an answer"? lol

I am past caring about how all this might affect the Republicans and the Democrats. All I care about is how it affects ME.

BTW: The only logical explanation for Reid's behavior is that he is in tacit cahoots with the Republicans.

Except, they haven't really won anything.

They have a new bogeman -- the unions -- for the 2010 elections. And they'll run with it for all it's worth, trying to play what's left of the unionized, high wage-with-benefits workforce off against the less well-paid, more contingent parts of the workforce.

The GOP is a machine-to-fight-elections, not a party in the usual sense that, say, the SPD or the UK. Conservatives are a party.

Let's face it--they're still unbelievably rattled that Obama won, and if that's not enough, he's putting together a stellar team that surprises all of us on both left and right.

Many don't quite know what to make of Obama or his genuine thrist for competence and getting the job done. They don't know what to make of his vision for moving beyond ideology and toward something that looks like competency, like a unified vision and values for all of America that recognizes and appreciates just how intricately we are all in this together.

This was IMO an expression of their imagined version of holding onto to a semblance of control--when it's really resentment and confusion and fear in disguise.

I'm as willing as anybody to dismiss these guys as just nuts. But I think there's something more going on here. The GOP is going to have to lie low for awhile - maybe years, maybe even decades - and keep themselves alive as a viable party in spite of that. And that means regardless of their position in our various branches of government, they need to be able to effectively raise funds. A kamikaze attack on unions is a signal to the most rabid elements of their base that they are not going to let reality or facts get in the way of the crusade. (The choice of Palin for the ticket was another such signal.)

So no matter how impractical their positions may seem, look for their behavior to get worse rather than better.

It seems as though the problem for the GOP at this point is their desire to seem powerful even though they are not.

It's not long before the curtain gets pulled back.

In the process their anti-union, anti-tax, anti-minority, anti-reason extremism gets revealed.

They're winning battle but losing the fight for hearts and minds. It's Rove / Limbaugh / O'Reilly politics. The politics of bullies.

Once enough people begin to realize that the bullies tactic of claiming they're being abused is a sham we prevail.

"They have a new bogeman -- the unions"
Ah, if only the assholes on wall street were unionized. Then we could have beat on them with their own absurd salaries when they came begging for taxpayer cash.
Seriously, did anyone notice that on the same day that the Senate was trying to decide whether to fork out $15B to the auto industry, the first round of TARP was down to its last $15B -- OUT OF $350B!!
I mean, seriously, these guys just handed out a third of a trillion dollars to wall street crooks, and they're having trouble coming up with pocket change for actual laborers? Get real.

I wonder if this is just the first salvo in the 2010 election. It is part of their strategy to hang ALL bailouts around the necks of Democrats.

"Well, we voted against Washington spending YOUR money on . But the tax and spend libruls just couldn't help themselves. Oh, and look at the deficit that evil Democrat party has created...."

This is the GOP play for the low information voter. And our imbecilic press will play along.

What I do not understand is where are the people from all those dealerships that will close if the big 3 go down? Everyone of those GOP senators have hundreds of dealerships in their home states...thousands of jobs.

I get that the GOPers who were most out in front on killing the auto bailout are from states where foreign car companies have plants where they pay their workers less, and have fewer work rules. But how does it HELP those companies to aid the US automakers in bringing costs down? How does equalizing wages not remove a competitive advantage from the foreign automakers? Equalizing wages or destroying the suppliers just don't seem to me to be in the foreign companies' interest. It can't be what they really want.

So I agree it is all about GOPers hating the unions, but it seems to me that the cost of sticking it to the Midwest (after they already lost the Northeast and West) is going to be pretty high.

Richard Shelby wants the domestic car industry to go under. Mercedes, Hyundai, Toyota, and Honda all have big operations in Alabama.

There's a reason why Republicanmoron" is one word.

The Republicans have made clear that for the next 2-4 they will be as obstructionist as possible. Fair enough, part of politics is stopping your opponents from accomplishing what they want. What I don't understand is how they think this will help them in the long-term. We all know what the Republicans are against (namely anything Democrats propose) but next to nothing about what they are for. If Republicans were magically back in power tomorrow how would they fix the economy? What would a Republican administration be doing about Health care? Is there a Republican strategy on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan? The rallying cry seems to be 'stick to our principles' but how would those principles actually be applied in the real world?

Republicans may have some success with vaguely 'conservative' notions (stand up to our enemies, unleash the power of markets) but their specific policies (attack Iran, tax health benefits) remain wildly unpopular and that gulf suggests they won't be back in power for some time.

The foreign auto companies showed up here just a few years ago so they don't have the burdens of providing pensions and medical coverage for decades' worth of retirees. I'd bet that they know to the day when they'll face similar burdens and they'll be long gone to Vietnam, or China, or India, or some other place, well in advance.

I suspect it was all coordinated with the Bush white house so that Bush/Paulson could get what they wanted for TARP.

The foreign auto companies showed up here just a few years ago so they don't have the burdens of providing pensions and medical coverage for decades' worth of retirees. I'd bet that they know to the day when they'll face similar burdens and they'll be long gone to Vietnam, or China, or India, or some other place, well in advance.

They don't even have to go that far -- Toyota built its new plant in Canada, where they will never be on the hook for health care. And they explicitly stated that as their reason for choosing Canada over the US.

But socialized healthcare is bad for business, right?

"Richard Shelby wants the domestic car industry to go under. Mercedes, Hyundai, Toyota, and Honda all have big operations in Alabama."

Sigh. These are just assembly plants. The dirty secret here is that most auto-related jobs in the South are *not* in assembly plants. There are 80,000 auto-related jobs in Tennessee; only a fraction of those people are employed by Nissan. Most of them are either employed by GM [which has plants in Tennessee and Kentucky] or in suppliers scattered through numerous small towns. A GM bankruptcy would screw a lot of firms and a lot of communities *in the South.* And the politicians know this; one Blue Dog Democrat here in TN justified his "yes" vote explicitly on the ground that his constituents [many of whom work for GM at Spring Hill] need it. All accounts I've seen of the "transplants'" role here is that they're lying low, but are in fact really concerned that a GM/Chrysler bankruptcy could screw up the whole industry. Either these Senators are idiots [and I don't think Corker, at least, is] or they're just right-wing Republicans who've drunk the Kool-Aid and aren't even aware that their dogmatism could damage their own constituents.

Shorter Chicounsel: I'm outraged that autoworkers can potentially make as much as $60,000 in the course of a year, but the Wall Street guys at ING getting $4,000,000 bonuses financed by the taxpayers earned that money!

CNN just reported how the fall of the big three actually does indeed affect the success of the likes of Honda and Toyota--i.e, they make parts that are found in these cars....

Why wasn't this brought out a week or so ago????

The Republicans have made clear that for the next 2-4 they will be as obstructionist as possible.

That's their strategy, but I wouldn't give them credit for seeing into the future that far. Even Bill Schneider (CNN) pointed out the Republicans represent a lot of states with foreign auto makers. Schneider is the guy who used to give "Political play of the day/week" kudos, but only if he could find a Republican he felt deserved it. If this becomes CW, Republicans are up a creek.

I think the unions are going to be very strong over the next couple of years. The middle class has reach a point where they are tired of getting mud kicked in their faces. I think we are going into a new era of the middle man. Corporate greed will become as shameful as it actually is.

Just like the McCain campaign, McConnell appears unable to look beyond the current news cycle, thus winning the battle (in his mind, at least) while losing the war.

Worth noting, too, that they did this with another of their filibuster headfakes; there was actually a sizeable majority in favor of the House or compromise bills.

Time to do away with the filibuster, Reid, or both.

"There are 80,000 auto-related jobs in Tennessee; only a fraction of those people are employed by Nissan. Most of them are either employed by GM [which has plants in Tennessee and Kentucky] or in suppliers scattered through numerous small towns. A GM bankruptcy would screw a lot of firms and a lot of communities *in the South."

Yep, and GM has just announced extended plant shut downs that include Tennessee and a few other states in the south, including TX and LA. Not to mention the layoffs that will occur at all the dealerships across the south, and the facilities that service the dealerships. And those who voted against this will catch the heat for it, no one else.

neil wilson wrote: "Detroit is NOT in trouble because they are not producing enough 'low-emissions vehicles' ..."

Perhaps not, but the Earth's biosphere is in trouble, in part because Detroit is not producing enough low-emissions vehicles.

And a lot more livelihoods depend on the habitability of the Earth than depend on the profitability of General Motors.

Since we'll never get to the bottom of who is in the pocket of whom this will all just be a frustrating mystery. I'm half an inch away from hating all politicians.

The one unifying theory behind McConnell's version of Senate Republicanism right now seems to be that they well do anything that (1) hurts middle class workers the most, and (2) hurts the environment the most. It's not even a positive political philosophy, with an aim toward desired ends, it's just "how much harm can we inflict?"

Just checked the market, and apparently the Treasury Dept. saved the day by announcing they intend to support the auto industry. I don't have any more details just now, but they are doing what could have been done a few weeks ago.

Don't they want to equalize the wages of Automaker CEO's with their Japanese counterparts?

Didn't think so.

BTW: The only logical explanation for Reid's behavior is that he is in tacit cahoots with the Republicans.
Posted by: Duncan Kinder on December 12, 2008 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

Duh. That's been obvious since. . . well, Clinton's impeachment while senate dems sat on the sidelines waving pom poms.

Here's a solution to the auto industry problem:
Wrap Ford up in christmas wrapping paper, and a bow, and give it to Tesla Motors this holiday season. Guarantee the loan for THAT transaction. Tesla? With Ford's production (and R&D) capacity - not to mention their clout with suppliers. . .

But apparently, nobody's interested in an "outside-of-the-box" solution to our multiple problems in this country.

I think the unions are going to be very strong over the next couple of years.

How long has the meme 'The GOP is the party of fiscal probity' continued to live in the absence of any supporting evidence?

I would expect the idea that unions 'are unnecessary in the age of the enlightened modern employer/unneeded by white collar workers/are the probem, not the solution' to perdure in an evidentiary vacuum for at least as long.

Open your eyes! Everyone! We are not talking about the Big 3 or Democrats or Republicans or Unions...We are talking about the survival of human beings and whole communities that depend on the flow of commerce within and between said communities. If we could, for once, forget about the divisions that separate us and begin to recognize what we have in common...Life...we might be able to start creating solutions to what we have created by our past ignorance and bigotry.

As often as I write about Oneness, I get few responses; either I am not being heard or what I have to say seems irrelevant. Or, my ego wants to be stroked and isn't.

I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation
peace,
st john

"We all know what the Republicans are against (namely anything Democrats propose) but next to nothing about what they are for. If Republicans were magically back in power tomorrow how would they fix the economy?" - Sven

That would be because it was the Republican't policies that broke the economy and sent us into a Recession starting in December of 2007.

I think the Republican'ts are really screwing themselves with this. Someday soon the ads against Shelby or McConnell are going to show an the Stars and Strips slowing morphing into the Sunburst flag of Imperial Japan. It is simply unacceptable to be against the American Auto Industry on the basis of the argument that they brought Foreign Automakers into this country with tax concessions. Let's pass a law that every company has to pay a minimum tax to the states and then see how competitive Toyota, Honda, Hyundia and Mercedes Benz are.

And yes, if we didn't have WWII wage restrictions moving health insurance benefits into the company paid model, we could have a better model for health insurance in this country and it would not be dragging down GM.

On the other hand, what does it say about the Republican'ts that they are trying to undermine the promises of health insurance and pensions the UAW and the American Automobile Industry are keeping? Should we trust them with Social Security and Medicare?

If we can't use this to take every Republican't seat in the Midwest in 2010 we are just not trying.

This post is very stupid and short-sighted. What happens after Obama and Democrats hand over billions in taxpayer money to failing companies, without any concessions from unions? Billions that come with requirements for what kinds of cars these companies have to make? Do you think they will become profitable in 6 months? Do you honestly think producing small, fuel-efficient cars is their ticket to prosperity? Is there just overwhelming demand for econoboxes that isn't being met? Scratch that, you probably do. But how long do taxpayers have to keep these zombie companies on life support? Why is it a national imperative that we keep union auto workers employed at all costs? Without restructuring, they are toast.

Brad wrote: "Do you honestly think producing small, fuel-efficient cars is their ticket to prosperity?"

Small, fuel-efficient (and ideally electric, zero-emission) cars are what we need if we are to have any hope of reducing carbon emissions enough, and fast enough, to avoid the worst consequences of anthropogenic global warming.

If the Big 3 cannot build and sell such cars profitably, then they should go out of business and get out of the way, because others can, and will.

>"They are in trouble because they don't design cars as good as the Japanese"

Long term, well maybe yes... but the Big 3 are in immediate trouble because people have stopped buying cars and they don't have enough cash on hand... they didn't exactly plan on a depression.

Tapped out in debt and with no credit or confidence in the future, Joe Consumer isn't exactly stampeding to buy Toyotas, Hondas and Nissans either.

So don't worry about Detroit. If the US slides into full-on depression this spring the Japanese big 3 will be in serious trouble as soon as their cash reserves run out.

Shorter Chicounsel: I'm outraged that autoworkers can potentially make as much as $60,000 in the course of a year, but the Wall Street guys at ING getting $4,000,000 bonuses financed by the taxpayers earned that money!

Posted by: Mnemosyne on December 12, 2008 at 4:36 PM

Guess you weren't paying that close attention. I was against the Wall Street Bailout and said so repeatedly, damn the consequences. If I remember correctly, it was those evil conservative GOP House members who were most opposed to giving any taxpayer money to Wall Street. It was your heroes, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, as well as, the Democratic Leadership that passed the bailout.

But thanks for playing.

Oh, by the way, GM and Ford could flood the US market with those tiny green-friendly "toycars" that they sell in Europe and Asia, but they are prohibited from doing because of their contract with the UAW.

Do you think that you could persuade those nice union bosses to let those eco-friendly but non-union built cars into the country in order to save the planet instead of their own jobs?

I think the obvious bit that's being overlooked is that Republicans may believe that they can still win significant concessions from the Dems post-Jan. 20th. Given the last 15 years, this is not an entirely irrational belief. Yes, they might be overconfident, but I highly doubt they are looking at this as having thrown away their only opportunity.

Why is it a national imperative that we keep union auto workers employed at all costs? Without restructuring, they are toast.

The bailout is a bad idea, which will cost more jobs than it creates, and cause cuts in the budget for the infrastructure projects that the Democrats favor. Postponing it as long as possible is a good idea. Since most Americans oppose the bailout, what is the President gaining politically by supporting the bailout?

The GOP is going to have to lie low for awhile - maybe years, maybe even decades - and keep themselves alive as a viable party in spite of that.

When the bailouts fail and cause trouble everywhere outside of Michigan, the Republicans will remind voters that they opposed the bailouts. It's quite straightforward once you accept that the Republicans think that the bailout is bad policy.

Somebody needs to create one of those fundraising ribbons for the dying auto industry, perhaps a blue one with a tire logo meant to be worn around the collar. This is one rescue campaign that desperately needs a visual aid.

Chicounsel wrote: "Oh, by the way, GM and Ford could flood the US market with those tiny green-friendly 'toycars' that they sell in Europe and Asia, but they are prohibited from doing because of their contract with the UAW. Do you think that you could persuade those nice union bosses to let those eco-friendly but non-union built cars into the country in order to save the planet instead of their own jobs?"

Oh, by the way, GM and Ford could build compact, durable, fuel-efficient cars in the USA with American workers if they wanted to, but they don't want to.

"toycars" and "union bosses" -- honestly, do you have anything to contribute except "Right Wing Talking Points For Dummies"?

Oh, by the way, GM and Ford could flood the US market with those tiny green-friendly "toycars" that they sell in Europe and Asia, but they are prohibited from doing because of their contract with the UAW.

<wikipedian>
[citation needed]
</wikipedian>

Do you think that you could persuade those nice union bosses to let those eco-friendly but non-union built cars into the country in order to save the planet instead of their own jobs?

Most of the foreign automakers that don't have UAW contracts sell similar cars ("city cars") in Europe and/or Asia, and none of them sell them in the US, with the exception of the Smart (from Daimler). What stops them isn't UAW contracts, its the expected sales vs. the cost of delivering them to the US market (including the one-time compliance costs for testing, etc.) Even if the provisions of UAW contracts you suggest exist do, its unlikely that the US market would be "flooded" with those kind of vehicles by the Big 3 if they were removed.

Hey Benen...did you see this:

"...Democrats scuttle Auto bail out and blame Republicans. The vote failed 52-35 with 8 Democrats (the number needed to pass exactly) voting no or not voting. Lincoln, Biden, Kennedy, Kerry, Baucus, Tester, Reid and Wyden should be the ones y'all are pissed at...not us. Put down your rocks and take a good look at your own glass house!"
Posted by SFCWallace in reply to a comment from acamus at TPM morning election central roundup.

POP (People's Obstructionist Party) is replacing the republican party. This is their agenda and the senate is allowing the filibuster to prevent legislating by the majority. Time to re assess the intent of this procedure. Republicans have no policies or alternatives to merely protecting the business and the holdings of the wealthy and multi-national corporations. They intend to obstruct any and all legislation the dems initiate for purely political reasons...to make sure no change occurs even if it means economic collapse for the nation...the wealthy will survive in comfort. Thanks POP.

Reid, spanked by POP over and over, does nothing but say kick me again POP.

May be just maybe the GOP Senators were doing exactly what their voters wanted them to do. No involved strategies or strange Kamikaze moves. Just representing people who don't like Unions. The UAW has made a bunch of moves to unionize the transplants which have been turned down. But they keep trying. So the best way to stop that is to stop the union. (Is the UAW aim to help the transplant workers who don't want them or to use them to defend the workers up North and the UAW power base??)
If you start with the preconception that all unions are good then your post makes sense. If you believe that some unions are no longer good and use their power to screw the public then you might see things differently.
Hey how about you writing a piece on how much the NYC craft unions with their stranglehold on larger projects raises the rents and prices of our Real Estate.
Too much power corrupts. That includes unions. Look at what some of the muleheaded unions did to the airline industry. Screwed not only themselves but the workers willing to make needed concessions. This is what the UAW is doing.
GM is not a favorite of mine, still a feudal society.
But the series of strikes UAW called to stop the pay cuts of UAW'ed suppliers sapped the company and took funds from modernization. GM can never compete with UAW wages work rules and pensions. Its just a matter of how long we decide to provide life support.

btw..."Who Killed the Electric Car" is a must see when discussing the direction taken by the auto makers and their current situation. It was a turning point for what could have been...but look at who really "killed" it.

Unless I'm missing something, the Republicans didn't actually filibuster the bill, they simply said that they'd filibuster it and Reid decided to cave. That's what annoys me about Reid and the Democrats, he rarely puts the opposition on the line. There's no record of moderate Republicans killing the deal, or better yet, of moderate Republicans breaking with their leadership. Those are the things that helped make filibusters rare in the past.

Reid's current tactics have allowed the Republicans all the benefits of defining the debate, demanding concessions and derailing legislation with none of the downside of having to defend their idiotic philosophy.

Guess you weren't paying that close attention. I was against the Wall Street Bailout and said so repeatedly, damn the consequences. If I remember correctly, it was those evil conservative GOP House members who were most opposed to giving any taxpayer money to Wall Street. It was your heroes, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, as well as, the Democratic Leadership that passed the bailout.

And yet when it was revealed that AIG was giving its executives millions in "retention" payments, you were nowhere to be found. Somehow, it's only the autoworkers making $60,000 a year that make you start demanding cuts in pay.

Where are your demands for an across-the-board pay cut for every employee of the Big Three, from the CEO all the way down to the autoworkers? Why do only the autoworkers have to get a pay cut when times are bad? Why are VPs at Ford and GM still pulling down $300,000 a year? Maybe they should make as much as the union guys do.

What the Senate Republicans are all about is union-busting and the leveling of the middle class, something that began with Reagan and has proceeded apace over the years. They believe this is their window of opportunity to drive the nail into the coffin.

Of course, Harry Reid could have made it a little more difficult by actually making them stay up all night reading phone books or masturbating. But not Harry, the gentlemanly majority leader.

Interesting how even their own president, captive to their insanity for so long, can't take this latest ploy. If these bozos continue playing their cards the way they want to, there's a good chance more of them will be gone in two years.

How many American cars have anyone here bought in the last 10 years? It's so easy to say, "help the little guy.." Put your money where your mouth is.

I mean, seriously, these guys just handed out a third of a trillion dollars to wall street crooks, and they're having trouble coming up with pocket change for actual laborers? Get real.

Given the option, I would rather increase and extend unemployment benefits, give these guys some training, than keep them working for auto companies that make products that no one wants to buy.

Given the option, I would rather increase and extend unemployment benefits, give these guys some training, than keep them working for auto companies that make products that no one wants to buy.

No one wants to buy them. Really?

General Motors Corp., Ford and Chrysler sold 8.5 million vehicles in the United States last year and millions more around the world. Globally, GM in 2007 remained the world's largest automaker, selling 9,369,524 vehicles worldwide -- about 3,000 more than Toyota.

The Ford F150 is the best-selling pickup -- for 31 years.

The Ford Mustang is the best-selling sports car -- for 22 years.

Next.

the only point that republicans made, and they made it loud and clear is that republicans are the enemy of the average American worker. That includes non-union workers in their own non-union states, as well as union workers and non-union white collar workers everywhere.

On the one hand its sickening that elected officials could be as craven as these republicans, and its a shame they've caused so many so much unnecessary concern. But on the other hand, the brazen exposure in broad, non-media manipulated and hidden day light is nothing short of a mortal wound to the republican party.

What opportunity Obama has lost to not be more rid of the republican scum with his ridiculous bipartisanship schtick, republicans seemed hell-bent to reclaim. Good for them. Lets hope republicans continue to listen to their overwhelmingly greedy, craven, callous inner-selves and show the real, foul soulless wicked fetid putrid sorry-ass excuses for human beings that they've mostly successfully hidden since reagan.
.

No one wants to buy them. Really?

Of course I don't mean "not a single soul wants to buy American cars." But look at their overall sales trajectory - it's going down. Every year, they sell less and less cars. I noticed you only mentioned Ford cars - Ford is doing reasonably well, and in fact, Ford doesn't actually need the loan. Why don't you list GM models that are selling well? And if GM cars are selling so well, then why do they need a loan? Explain that.
And what if next year's sales drop another 50%? What are we going to do with millions of unsold cars? Put the workers to work on a massive infrastructure building program - at least that money will be spent on something people need.

There are two sentiments - one is, we need to stand up for the little guy - Joe Sixpack - the guy busting his butt working on the assembly line building cars. The second is, companies like GM make really good products, and I would buy them, and would recommend that my friends and family also buy them, and those companies are worth saving because they're well managed. If you're in the latter camp, you're either smoking something really good, or if not, I want you to provide me a detailed explanation of why. If you're in the first camp, there are better ways to utilize these workers than have them work for mismanaged companies who make products no one wants to buy.

It may very well be that GM does make good products, but that isn't enough IMO. In order to shed their unreliable crappy image, GM and the rest of the big 3 have to make products that are better than the competition. That's the only way they can win back consumers. Yes, gm products are competitive with toyota, honda, etc, but in most cases, the japanese cars are still better. GM needs to make cars that exceed the competition in every category. If they do that, I'll buy a GM car.

Look at this:

GM market share 1990-2004

Now guess what GM's market share is 2007/08?

GM in 2007/2008

The ludicrous position taken by these Southern Senators was clearly motivated by local politics. Shelby and the rest obviously got a phone call from the heads of all those foreign automakers in their state telling them that now was the time to put the screws to the UAW and undercut efforts to unionize workers in the South. That's what this was all about. Toyota and company were worried they'd have to start paying workers more if these Southern reactionaries couldn't bust the union. Who cares if it brought most of the US economy down with it. Since when have Southerners ever cared about the national interest if it conflicted with their own narrow, selfish provincial ones.

Andy:

Thank you for posting data that absolutely refutes your initial claim that "no one is buying American made cars."

Your chart shows that GM had the most market share as of May of this year -- meaning "most people were buying American cars," and making them wildly popular compared to Mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen, Nissan, Honda, et al. In fact, although Toyota might beat them there is still a chance that GM might end up with the most market share in 2008 and that 2009 will be close as well.

And if GM cars are selling so well, then why do they need a loan? Explain that.

Have you read nothing on these threads? Anywhere? Huge legacy costs in the form of health care benefits. Japanese protectionism. Enormous breaks to foreign automakers in southern states.

All of the above.

If you're in the first camp, there are better ways to utilize these workers than have them work for mismanaged companies who make products no one wants to buy.

Again with the "no one wants to buy." Learn to think clearly. GM has been number one in market share IN THE WORLD for decades, will be #1/#2 this year and the next.

trex - I'm thinking more clearly than you. No bailout for GM - they got themselves into this mess themselves wrt legacy costs. Not a single cent. If you want to support them, go ahead and buy GM cars.

I understand business concepts more than you trex. The writing is on the wall - in 2009, GM will be lucky if they're #2. If you look at American television manufacturing in the 60s & 70s, it was the same pattern. Learn to think critically - analysis the data, and see where it's leading.

Here's an article written about GM in 2005:

Why GM's Plan Won't Work

Next.

trex - in 1964, RCA's US share of color television sets was at 46% - a dominant position RCA has held in TV sets since television was introduced. With competition from Zenith, their share was reduced to 19% in 1975. Were people still buying American TV sets? Yes. But Japanese manufacturers sales were slowly increasing - the writing on the wall was obvious. Each year, sales of sets sold by American companies dropped a percent or so.. I remember my family bought a Zenith set in the early 80s. That was the last American TV set we bought. How many American TV sets have you bought recently, trex? Anyone else here buy an American set recently? Actually, anyone know of American TV manufacturers that can compete with the Japanese or European TV manufacturers? I'm listening.

I understand business concepts more than you trex.

Really? Why didn't you say this was all about unsupported appeals to your own authority? I might have known I was debating someone with a mental disorder and saved myself the trouble.

Next time before you cut and paste articles as "proof" why don't you show your own work as a suggestion that maybe you do understand something, you dork. Newsweek is the final word on economics? You must be kidding me. Also: televisions aren't automobiles, the past is not the future, and there are all sorts of variables in play now that weren't in 1964.

GM will be lucky if they're #2

Sure it will. But even if GM is #4 it's worth saving and it's the farthest cry in the world from "no one buys American automobiles.

If your allegiance is to SE Asia over America that's your issue. Mine is focusing on promoting America as an economic power.

If your allegiance is to SE Asia over America that's your issue. Mine is focusing on promoting America as an economic power.

Really? I can barely believe that you really think saving GM is promoting America as an economic power. You are seriously intellectually challenged. That's laughable - by throwing money at a company without the ability to manage itself is a waste of our country's resources. I didn't call you names, and I would appreciate that you don't call me names, but clearly you lack the ability to think critically. Our country suffers because of people like you. I think you're the one who has a mental disorder - apologies to people with mental disorders.

l. But even if GM is #4..blah blah
Which is it? Is GM going to be #1 or #4?

Ok, trex, tell me how exactly is GM going to make cars that traitors like me will buy. What is it that they will do in the next three months that will stop their market share from sliding a few percentage points every year until it hits zero, that they haven't done since that article I "cut and paste" from 2005.

BTW, since when was Toyota/Honda/BMW et al based in SE Asia? I find it laughable that you're completely caught up with my hyperbole of "no one buys American automobiles." Yes, you got me - but I didn't mean that American car sales are 0. You win on that issue. And what variables are in play now that wasn't in 1964? And I'm not talking 1964 - I'm talking 1975, when RCA started losing market share.

Really? I can barely believe that you really think saving GM is promoting America as an economic power.

Yes, given your predilection for bizarro logic I can see why it would be hard for you to believe that in the short term preventing the negative impact of the loss of millions of jobs on the economy and in the long term maintaining a manufacturing base and healthy automotive industry in the U.S. would be promoting America as an economic power.

Your view is pretty clear that we should dump what is currently the largest auto company in the world and hand over the keys to China and Japan instead (who, by the way, subsidize their automakers - funny that).

Which is it? Is GM going to be #1 or #4?

Well, if you have your way they will go from the largest to not existing at all. I have pointed out that, contrary to your repeated assertion that "no one" buys their vehicles that, in fact, more people buy their vehicles than any other company, although Toyota is hot on its heels. But, as I have said, the positive outcomes for the U.S. economy far outweigh the negative whether GM (for instance) remains the industry leader or simply a top manufacturer with more market share than most of the other foreign auto manufacturers in market share.

Your brilliant position as stated here can be summed up as: "GM has lost market share, you don't personally like their vehicles and refuse to acknowledge that anyone buys them, Asians will always win in the end (look at TV's!) and somehow the world would be better anyway if Asian manufacturers dominated the U.S. market - so fuck GM."

That is some rare genius.

As for Newsweek, you should check their record before quoting them uncritically: among any number of ridiculously wrong claims, they printed that Saddam definitely had WMD's and that we "must" bomb him; that Condi Rice was a genius at her job; that oil would reach $100 barrel and stabilize there; that the housing market was a boom that wouldn't deflate but continue in a series of mini-booms; and in 2006 Greenspan's legacy was an amazingly strong economy --

-- all while the people on these boards were arguing the opposite, and actually correct, positions.

As for calling you names, that's what I find useful when the mentally and morally challenged appear and refuse to acknowledge when their factual assertions have been refuted. I'm not going to waste any more time treating you as either sane or an honest debater. Propaganda and unsupported claims don't fly here. The more you work at spreading them, the worse it is going to get. I have been uncharacteristically polite thus far.

Ok, trex, tell me how exactly is GM going to make cars that traitors like me will buy.

??? I don't know, maybe by redesigning vehicles that sell better like auto manufacturers have done time and time again to rehabilitate flagging sales? Like Chrysler did in the '80's? Like any number of industries have done zillions of times?

Ford now has the best overall safety ratings and their quality in the Mercury brand competes European manufacturers. That wasn't the case six years ago. The problem isn't that the auto companies or any other company can't reinvent itself, it's just that in this case you have some ideological constraints that refuse to allow you to believe that it can happen.

GM, Chrysler Bankruptcies Would Cause Turmoil for U.S. Economy

By Michael McKee

Dec. 13 (Bloomberg) -- A bankruptcy filing by General Motors Corp. or Chrysler LLC might send the U.S. economy into chaos within weeks if it led to a shutdown at the companies.

Industry experts and economists say the automakers would close plants, fire tens of thousands of workers and cut production. That would cause many of their suppliers to collapse, triggering more job losses, straining the cities and states where the car and parts companies operate, as well as federal safety-net programs.

It would also deliver another psychological blow to consumers and a major shock to Main Street following the crises on Wall Street.

“The auto industry is a key element in the economy,� said Bob Schnorbus, chief economist at J.D. Power & Associates in Troy, Michigan. “Anything that disrupts it is going to slow the economy down more than we have already seen.�

“It would be unprecedented,� says Stephen Stanley, chief economist at RBS Greenwich Capital in Greenwich, Connecticut. “So it’s hard to say exactly what would happen.�

‘Cascade of Failures’

Still, a GM or Chrysler bankruptcy “would be the start of a cascade of failures,� says Dennis Virag, president of Automotive Consulting Group in Ann Arbor, Michigan. “The economy will be in chaos within weeks.�

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a5SW2DEGhtzU&refer=home

This is the scenario that needs to be avoided and this is why you are insane for having ideological objections to a loan package to keep the Big Three afloat. EVEN IF IT WERE A NO-STRINGS BAILOUT, which it is not, it would still not make the U.S. a command economy (see bailout of the airlines and Chrysler twenty years ago).

No, "innovation" isn't going to magically save us in this our hour of need, there is no Michael Dell sitting in a garage somewhere who can thwart the disaster that would be the failure of this sector in the time needed, and no -- human suffering and economic misery aren't merely empty cyphers in your pet economic theories, they are real and tangible things that need to be avoided when possible.

Infrastructure projects and loans to key economic sectors are not mutually exclusive, and neither turns us into Karl Marx.

trex - so let me summarize your viewpoints, since you summarized mine, conveniently ignoring my valid assertions:

1) GM has been #1 in the world, so they always will be. No doubt. That's why we need to give them billions of dollars.

2) You have been uncharacteristically polite, even though you called me a dork and mentally challenged, and I didn't call you anything.

3) You keep saying I quote Newsweek, and I don't see where exactly I did.

4) You lack the ability to distinguish between hyperbole and statements of facts.

And you made a dig at my patriotism, just because I'm pissing on your beloved GM - that right there shows you inability to think logically. I'm attacking GM the company - where did I ever attack Americans? I think we're very good at doing many things. We dominate in innovation.. iPods dominate mp3 player sales even in Japan. Sony has for years tried to come up with an answer to the iPod - they can't. The Japanese, Chinese, Europeans all use Microsoft. Dell dominates sales in many parts of the world. There are a great many things we're good at - I have complete faith in American innovation, which is why we don't need companies like GM.

And who said anything about Karl Marx? And it seems like your ability to cut and paste exceeds mine - I didn't actually cut and paste anything. I only posted links. And you didn't refute anything in the links I posted - none of which were Newsweek. You don't address the validity of my statements, and you're the honest debater?

First your argument was, GM is a big dominating force that sells wildly popular cars, that's why we should save it. Then it was, well, maybe they won't be so big, but they would still be a positive force in the economy. And just now it's, we need to save GM whether they're good or not, the country will be thrown into chaos if we don't. Your argument keeps changing - which leads me to believe your position is based on the idea that "we need to save GM" first, and then you gather evidence to support it. And you still haven't addressed why my allegiances lie with SE Asia, when SE Asia produce no cars. And you attack me for cutting and pasting, when I did nothing of the sort - and in fact, you're the one who's cutting and pasting. And again, where did I cut and paste Newsweek?

How about spending that $15 bil on research and innovation? Maybe award grants to startups who do work in green tech, biotech, space research - maybe something along the lines of X Prize? You're the one who's unpatriotic here and not acting in the best interests of the USA - by spending billions on GM, we're tying up billions in capital and human labor in an inefficient company. Next year, we'll end up with thousands more GM cars that sit on dealer lots.. and GM will come asking for another $10 bil. Let's stop it here, and put the money to better use. As for those Bloomberg "experts," those experts also said that not saving AIG would be catastrophic - we did, and millions of jobs lost later, those billions haven't done anything to help the economy that I can see.

btw, the same variables are in play now that there were in 1975 wrt TVs.. in fact, the economy was worse then. Why did you conveniently choose 1964 instead of 1975, which was a more appropriate comparison, based on what I wrote?