Merry Christmas, Detroit, from your already-broke Uncle Sammy; Update: Bush video added
posted at 9:45 am on December 19, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
Bailout mania continues. George Bush will give the Big Three automakers a whopping $17.4 billion loan package from TARP funds in order to keep them limping along until March 31:
The government will offer up to $17.4 billion in loans to the ailing U.S. automakers and expects General Motors and Chrysler LLC to access the money immediately, a senior administration official said on Friday.
Some $13.4 billion will be made available in December and January from the $700 billion fund that was originally designed to rescue struggling financial institutions, but the loans would be called back if the automakers cannot prove they are viable by March 31, the official said.
Viability would be mean that the companies must have a positive net present value, which doesn’t necessarily mean immediate profitability but would require them to reach that point relatively soon, the official said.
So the government, already in debt over 10 trillion dollars, will use its line of credit to give a loan to companies going bankrupt from their own debt load — and demand viability in 100 days. Who wouldn’t love that deal?
Supporters of a government bailout of the auto industry managed to hoodwink the administration in part through some very misleading statistics. They claim that 10% of all American jobs get direct or indirect support from the Big Three automakers, a claim repeated by Senator Carl Levin on NBC’s Meet the Press. ABC News says that they’re off by a factor of almost seven:
In an effort to convince Congress to bail out the U.S. automakers, company executives, union leaders and politicians have made the compelling argument that the industry directly and indirectly supports one in every 10 jobs in the country. The only trouble is nobody wants to take ownership of that statistic, which is almost certainly false.
The figure is routinely attributed to the Center for Automotive Research, but officials at the nonprofit organization, which has ties to labor and government, claim they never said it and have no idea where it came from.
“It’s such an exaggeration. I kind of grit my teeth every time I hear it,” said Debbie Maranger Menk, a project manager at the center who researches the industry.
The Center, she said, estimates some 350,000 people in the United States are directly employed by automakers, both foreign and domestic, and that 2.1 million jobs are indirectly connected to the industry including suppliers.
That 2.1 million jobs figure is in line with what most economists estimate to be the number of people supported by vehicle manufacturing, according to economist Richard Block a professor at Michigan State University’s School of Labor and Industrial Relations.
We have over 135 million jobs in the US. Anyone claiming 10% of American jobs is related to the auto industry would have to show almost 14 million people working directly or indirectly for the auto industry in general. The auto industry as a whole in the US affects a seventh of that, and GM, Ford, and Chrysler would only affect a portion of those 2.1 million jobs.
Well, now the auto industry affects all of our jobs. We’re all coughing up enough money for a down payment on a new car from every family in America, only without actually getting the car. And even if we’d used that money to buy a new GM, Ford, or Chrysler instead of it being a loan, none of the three would have shown a profit from the sales anyway. They’re losing money on every car they sell, and neither management nor labor shows much interest in changing those calculations. They just want a Governmentus ex machina to rescue them from their own folly without having to sacrifice anything … and George Bush just gave it to them.
Update (AP): Here’s the announcement.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
Tax revolt, anyone?
Vashta.Nerada on December 19, 2008 at 9:46 AM
I so regret owning a Ford.
Last one. Ever.
jeff_from_mpls on December 19, 2008 at 9:48 AM
Thanks Boosh, you are true to you failures.
Wade on December 19, 2008 at 9:49 AM
Quite apposite.
MadisonConservative on December 19, 2008 at 9:50 AM
We will probably get to 10% unemployment, but it won’t be auto related jobs that get us there.
Vashta.Nerada on December 19, 2008 at 9:51 AM
We are in for many “revolts” these next four years…
TAX, CONSTITUTIONAL, RELIGIOUS and others…
Americans will be called…
Few, I fear, will answer the call to arms…
Mark Garnett on December 19, 2008 at 9:51 AM
If we hadn’t spent the last 40 years propping up Detroit’s automakers with protectionism and the last 70 years propping up coercive unions with anti-capitalist legislation, then these companies either would not be too big to fail by this time, or they would not be failing. This bailout is necessary not because of Detroit’s failings, but because of Washington’s.
hicsuget on December 19, 2008 at 9:52 AM
The more days that pass, the angrier I get.
MBuck on December 19, 2008 at 9:53 AM
Bush didn’t want this one on the resume.
At our cost.
Stupid Stupid Stupid
drjohn on December 19, 2008 at 9:53 AM
I don’t think Ford is involved in this bailout deal.
darwin on December 19, 2008 at 9:55 AM
Oh my God, they are giving out a loan that has to be paid back, that BASTARD, Bush!
wise_man on December 19, 2008 at 9:55 AM
Those are the current terms.
Unfortunately, Bush won’t be president in March. Guess who gets to decide viability and restructure the deal then?
Slublog on December 19, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Achieving ‘viability’, according to my local Congresscritter, is:
Which means the Democrat Party blames the 100 or so high paid executives for the entire Detroit Meltdown. Thus, Congress neatly tapdances around the real problem while successfully blaming Auto Execs.
SeniorD on December 19, 2008 at 10:00 AM
As if this isn’t bad enough, you just KNOW that there will be no concessions by the UAW. They’ll just wait until the new regime takes power and collect the favors said regime owes them. Since when do you give money to a business before the plan is submitted, BTW… and if the reorganization and what not fails, how the hell will they pay the money back per Bushinka’s words? I know…. dumb questions to ask of a socialist leadership…. We are so screwed!
MNDavenotPC on December 19, 2008 at 10:01 AM
This “loan” will NEVER be paid back. Come to grips with that. They can call it a loan. Hell, they can call it an orange for all it matters. It’s a gift from taxpayers to failing dinosaurs.
The unions, again, extort. That’s what they do.
I hope they factored into their “plans” that guys like me will NEVER buy a GM or Chrysler again. And if Ford takes the money, they are dead to me as well.
Screw em.
Sugar Land on December 19, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Part of the money will help the UAW fund card check, so they can unionize Toyota, Honda, et al in southern states.
Vashta.Nerada on December 19, 2008 at 10:03 AM
I’ll never buy another car built by these three
companiesleeches.sdun1 on December 19, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Our President is such a disappointment.
tgillian on December 19, 2008 at 10:03 AM
3 months factories closed…
workers get 95% pay…
COME ON! Just give em the whole 100%. Sh@#t, that 5% is a freakin insult…this is what the UAW considers concessions…
max1 on December 19, 2008 at 10:04 AM
I liked Andrew Wilkow’s idea from a couple of days ago. Let all Americans buy a vehicle from Ford, GM, Chrysler and then be able to write it off on their taxes.
Oh well…….
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on December 19, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Screw it, let’s give IBM $100 billion to build typewriters.
And hey, is the auto bailout fair to the horse-and-buggy industry? Hell no.
jeff_from_mpls on December 19, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Maybe the gubmint should start playing the lottery to pay off this debt.
/sarc
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on December 19, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Jesus wouldn’t approve. But He is 100% behind scaling back your taxable income to the bare necessities, which would have the wonderful side-effect of placing you in an untaxable bracket, thus punishing the businesses and organizations that are subsidized with tax money.
TMK on December 19, 2008 at 10:05 AM
In what universe will this “loan” ever be repaid? If the automakers don’t make drastic changes (which they won’t), this money will hemorrhage out with all the rest they’ve lost.
This is like giving a blood transfusion to a dying guy without stitching up his gaping stab wound first. It’s just gonna gush right out the hole and the patient will die anyway.
aero on December 19, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Sugar Land on December 19, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Excellent sentiments.
Its really too bad that GWB was actually a RINO, it explains a lot more of why the Republican Party is in the shambles that they are in. It will be a very long time before there is going to be an opposition to single party rule in Washington.
Hey George, thanks for listening to the people and serving the DemCong.
belad on December 19, 2008 at 10:07 AM
chock another coup for the UNIONS….this is simply RETARDED…..damn, I have clients not paying me where is my millions….I don’t even need Billions….
Oh that’s right, I am not Union and have bought and paid for a Congress……
SDarchitect on December 19, 2008 at 10:08 AM
This is the President that eliminated all sensitivity to fiscal responsibility, and has paved the way for a leftist deficit spending juggernaut. At some point in our near future, the fed is going to hold a bond auction, and no one will come; a reverse Field of Dreams horror flick is coming to an economy near you.
Mark30339 on December 19, 2008 at 10:08 AM
And you got the blood for the transfusion by slashing a healthy man in the neck.
TMK on December 19, 2008 at 10:09 AM
Personally, and this goes for anyone who I can get to listen, I WILL NEVER BUY A CAR FROM THESE 3 NO MATTER WHAT….PLEASE GOD LET THEM GO UNDER FOR MY BELATED CHRISTMAS PRESENT……
SDarchitect on December 19, 2008 at 10:09 AM
Hit the “Enter” key too soon. The Congresscritter quote is taken from “Representative” Ron Kind’s e-mail response to me received late yesterday (08Dec18).
First, where in the world does Congress get to determine what is or is not a ‘lavish salary for corporate executives’? I thought, in a capitalist society the Board of Directors (which in GM’s case INCLUDES Union Representatives) determines the compensation package for executives.
Second, where does the Imperial Congress get off complaining about executive salaries? Sounds like jealousy to me, especially since the Lords and Barons just received another AUTOMATIC pay raise.
SeniorD on December 19, 2008 at 10:09 AM
Bingo. How about you give a 5,000 dollar loan to the junkie in the apartment building down the street? Hey, I mean sure, he’s on hard times, and he’s gotten himself into a bad situation already, and he relies on someone else for what he needs(his dealer, named Ulysses A. Warner), but all he needs is a little more money to sort himself out. He knows he squandered all the money he had before, but cut him a break, right?
MadisonConservative on December 19, 2008 at 10:09 AM
Please, by all means, aero, prove your point with facts.
Unless this is just your opinion that is based on your opinion. When Chrysler was ‘bailed out’ a few decades ago, did they repay their loan? Or did they get to keep all the money. Pleas, answer this question, honestly. I’d like to see you try.
wise_man on December 19, 2008 at 10:10 AM
Same one where Chrysler repaid the loan it got back in 1980.
Bush did the right thing by at least providing enough assistance through the remainder of his term so that when Congress is back in session and Obama is President, they can at least have the problem to deal with.
starfleet_dude on December 19, 2008 at 10:10 AM
Why not just let China have them rather than the US government borrow the cash from them to bail these dumb companies?
It would save US MORE MONEY YOU FREAKING MORONS!
benrand on December 19, 2008 at 10:10 AM
There’s so much idiocy on this page it makes me sick.
wise_man on December 19, 2008 at 10:10 AM
and at least there are some people here who get it.
wise_man on December 19, 2008 at 10:11 AM
I called this one a week ago….
no way Mr. George Softy Bush would let those poor poor UAW kids not have gifts under the Xmas tree…..
another nail in your metaphorical coffin Mr. President….
parting will be such sweet, sweet well just sweet.
Let the GOP get back to work being the GOP and not donk lite.
sven10077 on December 19, 2008 at 10:11 AM
Since Ford declined, I got rid of my last GM vehicle, and purchased a Ford. It’s an SUV, too, so I can spew the most possible carbon all over the global warming monks.
Vashta.Nerada on December 19, 2008 at 10:11 AM
Still obsessed? You should stop.
MadisonConservative on December 19, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Conservatives don’t forget your main argument about Bush/Cheney and national security/torture et al. It’s possible that, similar to the threat of terrorism, there is a real danger to allowing these companies to go through a messy bankruptcy that you’re not acknowledging because ideologically you feel so strongly against it (like how I feel about the morality of torture interrogation techniques). Frankly, if the auto suppliers go under that doesn’t just screw Detroit it screws foreign auto manufacturers as well because they rely upon U.S. suppliers. This is more than being anti-union folks.
DeathToMediaHacks on December 19, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Lastly, has anyone even LOOKED at the salaries made by Union Executives?
SeniorD on December 19, 2008 at 10:13 AM
you people are basing your meritless opinions on the fact that after they get this loan, that they will go back to business as usual. Again, prove it. If it’s just your opinion, which you are entitled to, at least point to some fact to back it up.
wise_man on December 19, 2008 at 10:13 AM
DeathToMediaHacks, thanks for also getting it, rather than letting ideology blinker you.
starfleet_dude on December 19, 2008 at 10:13 AM
Right. And Lee Iacocca is…where? One of the idiots flying on their private jet to Washington?
Iacocca was competent enough not to.
MadisonConservative on December 19, 2008 at 10:13 AM
f*k you. get over your freaking obsession with me and get professional help to remove your persecution complex you worthless troll.
wise_man on December 19, 2008 at 10:14 AM
How, HOW is this legal?
Who is going to step forward and file the first lawsuit?
Thanks, UAW and Democrats.
Merry ChristmasHappy F*ckin’ Holidays.Dr.Cwac.Cwac on December 19, 2008 at 10:14 AM
If the economic situation is so bad, how come the members of congress don’t cut their salary to a dollar? It would be a good gesture, and save more money than the auto execs doing it.
Vashta.Nerada on December 19, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Easy, tiger. You responded to me. I did so in kind. Just suggesting you should stop. When you do, I will.
MadisonConservative on December 19, 2008 at 10:15 AM
F*K off
wise_man on December 19, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Tru dat, playa. Look at the Sarracuda.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on December 19, 2008 at 10:17 AM
wiseman:
Chrysler paid off the loans because the board put the company under the most brilliant auto executive in my life time Lee Iacocca. This bail out will end up putting Robert “Edsel” McNamara in charge. Don’t expend any money back
Starfleet: What kind of car do you drive? really, be honest.
jerryofva on December 19, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Iacocca was proud to have repaid the loan in full, plus interest after Chrysler pulled itself back together. It saved Chrysler for a generation’s worth of decent-paying blue collar jobs, which is a damn good thing IMNSHO.
starfleet_dude on December 19, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Prediction: Mitt Romney will be Teh One’s last choice for Car Czar
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on December 19, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Looking at the big picture it becomes obvious that we are in completely uncharted territory.
Even the most outrageous alarmists of our time are understating the dire undercurrents that are steadily dragging our country into the great abyss.
Personally, I’m glad that I don’t have any children.
Our arrogance that somehow the basic principles of economics & governance are suspended at our borders will prove to be the undoing of the greatest country this planet has ever known.
Dorvillian on December 19, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Lee Iacocca was BORN to run Chrysler:
I
Am
Chairman
Of
Chrysler
Corporation
Of
America
SeniorD on December 19, 2008 at 10:19 AM
See you, and raise you:
If Mitt were the last choice, he would tell him to GTH.
Vashta.Nerada on December 19, 2008 at 10:21 AM
I’ve never been so ashamed and embarrassed of our government as I have been in the past few months. President Bush and the congressmen elected to SERVE us have yet again failed and will continue to do so until we as a nation decide we’ve had enough. The next 4 years going to be hell for anyone who dares to hold a job and pay their bills and taxes.
whtabtbill on December 19, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Is it true that when Chrysler closes it’s plants for a month that the employees get 95% of their pay?
tgillian on December 19, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Tru dat. If Mitt turned the whole thing around, Teh One would look Teh Stupid.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on December 19, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Yep. And the balance will be made up from unemployment.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on December 19, 2008 at 10:23 AM
And Iacocca displayed an entirely different attitude towards the business and the unions than the current execs of GM and Chrysler do. We heard about Iacocca because he skillfully used the media to his advantage. So far, that cleverness has yet to re-emerge. He was also working on the fact that the American auto industry at the time was still refusing to move to efficient engines to counter the 70s oil crisis. Today they’ve already worked with that technology, and it’s not going to be a competitive advantage. The comparison is weak, at best.
MadisonConservative on December 19, 2008 at 10:23 AM
The belief that this “loan” will be repaid because Chrysler repaid the loan in 1980 is based on the assumption that the auto makers will substantially re-make themselves and be able to compete with foreign auto makers…something Chrysler did not have to do in 1980. They are in the situation they are in now because they cannot economically compete in the modern auto market. The loan will not be paid if the the auto-makers go out of business and it will not be paid if they only way they can stay in business is to continue taking “loans” from the taxpayers.
It’s kind of like the n’er do well brother in law that asks to borrow $500 til next payday. “I’ll pay you back as soon as I get paid.” Yah…right!
sdd on December 19, 2008 at 10:24 AM
I need to get you a box of fiber tablets for Christmas. Might help.
MadisonConservative on December 19, 2008 at 10:24 AM
2000 Dodge Grand Caravan Sport, dude. Got a great deal on it because minivan’s have such a reputation as a mommy van that you can get them used cheap and in great condition. I’ll gladly take a -3 hit on my car’s charisma for that when I can haul my dogs, plus all our stuff, to shows with ease.
starfleet_dude on December 19, 2008 at 10:24 AM
My last car was a Honda (the first foreign car I ever purchased), my next car might be a Ford. It certainly will NOT be a Chrysler or GM.
FuriousAmerican on December 19, 2008 at 10:25 AM
So this is like me going to the bank, asking for a business loan of say 10 million, and saying to the banker, “don’t worry, I will have a business plan for you in 4 or 5 months” But give me the money now!
conservnut on December 19, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Lets celebrate with a free round of golf at the UAW golf course.
ctmom on December 19, 2008 at 10:26 AM
I love how out of the blue you call MadisonConservative an idiot, simply because he posted, and when he responds you come back with:
Good to see you in here crapping up another thread with your psychotic transference issues
Sugarbuzz on December 19, 2008 at 10:27 AM
The easiest solution to this is to dump the CAFE standards. The big 3 can be truck and large car manufacturers, and the Japanese manufacturers can make small cars. It tends to fit with Adam Smith’s theory.
Vashta.Nerada on December 19, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Did I hear wrong? He said they have to change their work rules and bring their pay in line with their competitors by the end of 2009.
This sounds like the right thing to do.
MayBee on December 19, 2008 at 10:31 AM
I need to get you a box of fiber tablets for Christmas. Might help.
wise_man on December 19, 2008 at 10:32 AM
I went to a discussion by my then-Congressman Jim Leach back in 1980 and I heard from many who were similarly skeptical about how anything could save Chrysler, which given how horribly crappy their 1970s cars were was based on reality. What sold me on the loan back then wasn’t Iacocca’s media skills (which were important, but that alone wasn’t enough) but his reputation as an innovator. Which he then proceeded to do by introducing the line of K-cars that were an improvement and then the smashing success of the minivan in 1984. So there is a precedent for a Detroit automaker to remake itself when its life was on the line.
The challenge now of course is even greater for GM and Chrysler, but as they say a crisis can bring about a change in thinking and doing that overcomes the inertia of how things used to be done. I’m not willing to just give up and allow a high-tech, high-value manufacturing sector to die in America.
starfleet_dude on December 19, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Silly notion. That would just make it less costly to produce cars. What we really need to do is keep production costs up, but throw money at them to make up for it. You know, like the economic stimulus checks. Look how well they worked.
MadisonConservative on December 19, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Congratulations.
I gave my 2000 Dodge Intrepid to my son and it has 100K on it and he just drove it home from Minneapolis to DC. Ever since Daimler took over the Chrysler and raped the company other then a truck there is no Chrysler product that I would buy.
My other cars are:
2002 Mitsubishi Eclipse Convertible made in Normal Illinois,
2007 Subaru Outback Wagon made in Lafayette, Indiana and a 2005 Jetta TDI made in Mexico.
If Iacocca were brought back to run the company he would do something like license the engine/drive train for the new Jetta TDI from VW and try to salvage the exorable Dodge Caliber. Instead we will get the government telling them to build some stupid tiny hybrid that nobody wants.
jerryofva on December 19, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Why are we furious at the car companies. They are playing the hand that the government dealt them. Right now everybody in the picture is willing to cut a new deal except the unions and the government, which supports the unions.
This is like saying “sorry that our regulators shot you … but you’re too badly hurt to go to the hospital.”
If the “bailout” could establish a new labor/management balance, or even get enough of Congress angry enough at the UAW to do something, it would be worth the price.
njcommuter on December 19, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Now you’re playing repeat? Your obsession needs to stop.
MadisonConservative on December 19, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Now can we bring in the transplant manufacturers and have them explain themselves for trying to force Detroit’s hand? Then ask which of them is willing to make the larger cars at prices that are on par with Detroit. Then ask Toyota about some documents of theirs stating their removal of benefits and the use of union busting firms after Detroit dies. For all of these questions, accept no “non-answers”, just as Detroit has.
This establishes their willingness to buy some government interference from Sanford and the like of the South. It also establishes their willingness to serve the market that still buys non-compact/non-I4 non-luxury cars – and has counted on Detroit to deliver.
Government interference, for the North and the South. The North wants to see Detroit bailed out, at all costs. The South seems fixated on busting unions, not solutions to problems.
sethstorm on December 19, 2008 at 10:35 AM
The US is so screwed.
pussum207 on December 19, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Why, though, were the K-cars so successful? Because they focused on a necessary development refocus that was critical given the then-horrible oil situation. Right now, though, oil is down like crazy. There is no new situation to seize upon, unless you are suggesting producing affordable hybrids. If that’s the next step, the foreign automakers would have done it already.
MadisonConservative on December 19, 2008 at 10:36 AM
I keep wondering if Bush or Carter is going down as the worst president in my lifetime. About all that I can say good about Bush is that he did invade Iraq over the objection of the moonbats and that he supported Social Security reform. Otherwise his presidency has been a total waste by a utterly mentally vacant man.
thuja on December 19, 2008 at 10:37 AM
I add my voice to other posters- when my 1990 Chevrolet van gets replaced, it will NOT BE with a vehicle from the “Big Three”.
oldleprechaun on December 19, 2008 at 10:37 AM
Based on what I forsee, you might hold your judgement until Barry gets some mileage on him.
Vashta.Nerada on December 19, 2008 at 10:40 AM
The Banks.
The auto industry.
You know the airlines are watching this very closely.
As are the failing newspapers.
And now I hear rumblings that the hospitals and other health care institutions are in dire condition and are seeking federal help, as well.
Where is this ending? If we say yes to the big three, who in DC has the sack to say no to the airlines? Or if hospitals start threatening to cut back services?
Does no one in Washington have any testicles? Where’s Hank Reardon when you need him?
12thMonkey on December 19, 2008 at 10:42 AM
How can a company (Big 3) which is essentially bankrupt now repay a loan in case the loan is “called back” after just 100 days?
And if they don’t become “viable” the government forecloses in 100 days, the companies go bust anyway and this industry then becomes officially nationalized?
Or: The Big 3 comes out and says (close to the deadline), “We are almost viable, just give us a few more weeks. Oh, and we need the rest of the money too…”
catmman on December 19, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Just another in a long list of very bad White House decisions! I seriously believe that lawyers should be banned from seeking political office, and the Congress should have term limits. Is GWB circumventing Congress on this? If so the constitution again gets trashed again! Civil war a comin’?
GFW on December 19, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Ripoff of the German made ones.
That is the path I’ve wanted to see as well. Environmentalists can buy their over-priced hybrids of the European flavor, Detroit fans get affordable muscle. That and it’d be telling of why some people would still hate Detroit’s style of cars.
sethstorm on December 19, 2008 at 10:45 AM
K-Cars?!
K-Cars were POS’s! They helped Chrysler get back on track because they were a bare bones, crap car thrown together as cheap as possible – which just happned to get decent gas mileage for the time.
catmman on December 19, 2008 at 10:46 AM
JiangxiDad on December 19, 2008 at 10:47 AM
GM broke even Q4 2007 with costs of about 180 billion. Sales are off 40% or more since then.
Just keeping GM afloat this year, without a major re-structuring, will cost about 70 billion.
The total “bailout” for the Big 3 is likely to cost between 100 and 300 billion, and that assumes the economy rebounds in 2010.
So much for “17 billion”.
If your government says something, you know it’s a lie. Why? People don’t want to hear the truth. This country lives in a fantasy world, enabled by the media and politicians.
All media and politicians should be fired immediately. A high percentage should go to jail.
notagool on December 19, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Yes, they get 95% of their pay during a shut down.
I will continue to buy AMERICAN cars.
Bullhead on December 19, 2008 at 10:47 AM
The part about this latest round of government spending money it doesn’t have is Bush out there saying that there will be consequences if the auto industry doesn’t turn itself around by March. First, there is no teeth to that stupid statement because GWB won’t be around to be the enforcer- even if he meant it (which he didn’t). The incoming administration isn’t going to force the UAW to come to the table with reasonable concessions. It’s all a sham and I am very angry at the administration this snowy morning.
highhopes on December 19, 2008 at 10:49 AM
You know The Black Caesar listened to Bush talk about the automakers having to repay loans, took a long drag on his cig and smirked, “Not on my watch, motherf^%*er.”
I was hoping Bush could sneak out of town before I would have to answer ‘disapprove’ to a polster’s question on his job performance. I supported him after 9/11 and supported him through all the bungles his people made in Iraq but this shows that economically, he is nothing more than a Rockerfeller Republican.
grdred944 on December 19, 2008 at 10:52 AM
My guess/worry is that Obama will in fact restructure all or part of the US auto industry so that it revives. I think he will do this by taking the health and pension obligations (legacy costs) of the automakers onto the govt’s books.
JiangxiDad on December 19, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Some things are getting lost in all this, i think. I’m not spewing ideological venom here, (though I certainly feel like it.)
1. “High-tech, high-value manufacturing sector” != the big three.
2. The Big Three != the entirety of the American automotive industry. The vast majority of the American-owned automotive industry, certainly. But not all of it.
3. Say the Big Three go under, messily, catastrophically. Certainly a possibility. But the assets, i.e., the factories, etc., that they possess will still exist, though the keys to the plants will change hands.
Is it impossible to see the possibility of a NEW american car company being founded, one more in line with the japanese/other more efficient automakers?
Now, obviously that couldn’t happen overnight. But there are extremely powerful incentives for it to happen in this scenario, to balance out the huge costs and risks.
To look at it from the aggregate demand side, if the B3 stop making cars all of a sudden, what happens? Price of cars goes through the roof. Currently, about 52% of cars sold in the U.S. are B3 products. Evaporating that production would provide an incentive to enter the automaking biz like the world has probably never seen before.
Of course, there’s not a scenario where it would stop cold. Entire sectors don’t “die,” at least not all at once. Assume that Chrysler bites the dust first. Car supply falls. Car prices rise. Toyota, Ford, and GM (mainly) take up the slack by increasing production. Hopefully, at that point, they can say to the UAW, “hey guys, see what happened to Chrysler? Time to rework those contracts, huh? GM fails to renegotiate. Goes under. Rinse. Lather. Repeat.
The point of a free market is to let inefficient businesses die so that more efficient ones can be started to take their place.
And people start those new businesses because of the power of the financial incentives obtaining from the sudden lack of production.
So I think that it’s entirely possible that letting one or all of the B3 fail could, actually, re-energize the sector.
Talk about “letting it die” is no less “ideological venom” than, say, hyperbole about those UAW thugs.
jdub on December 19, 2008 at 10:52 AM
the republicans will be in office very soon
tomas on December 19, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Isn’t this along the lines of what happened in Iran-Contra? The executive branch cannot re-appropriate that money without the permission of
our parliament of whorescongress.The President is pretty good at finding ways to ruin how history will view him when you already think he’s done the most he possibly can.
krl on December 19, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »