Bush to GM, Ford: Make more appealing cars

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush said General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. should develop more appealing products rather than look to Washington for help with their heavy pension burdens, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

In an interview Wednesday, Bush said he had not talked to the struggling companies about their finances but hinted that he would take a dim view of a government bailout of the top two U.S. automakers, the newspaper reported.

"I have been very reluctant -- I'm mindful of the past where at one point in time, a predecessor of mine was faced with that same dilemma," Bush was quoted as saying. "I would hope I wouldn't be asked to make that decision."

Asked if he had spoken to GM Chief Executive Rick Wagoner or Ford Chief Executive Bill Ford Jr., Bush told the newspaper, "Not about their balance sheets."

"And I haven't been asked by any automobile manufacturer about a bailout," he said.

Asked if the government should take any pre-emptive action, Bush was quoted as saying, "I think it's very important for the market to function." Bush suggested that he felt optimistic about the companies' prospects, according to the newspaper.

Ford (Research) and GM (Research) have said they would close plants and cut tens of thousands of jobs. Competition, particularly from companies based in Asia, soaring health care and pension expenses and production costs have increased financial pressures on the unionized companies.

The newspaper said while neither GM nor Ford has sought a bailout, they have dropped hints they would welcome government help in areas such as coping with rising health care and pension burdens and the high costs of developing fuel-efficient vehicles.

According to the newspaper, Bush suggested that one way automakers could make more appealing products was to promote cars using alternative fuels, a topic he plans to mention in his State of the Union address next week.

Bush said in the interview that U.S. automakers could find new market share in the competition to sell vehicles that run on alternative fuels.

"As these automobile manufacturers compete for market share and use technology to try to get consumers to buy their product, they also will be helping America become less dependent on foreign sources of oil," Bush told the newspaper.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/26/news/companies/bush_autos.reut/index.htm

Yeah, dammit, make better cars. :rolleyes:

To expect a guy that ran 2 businesses into bankruptcy (and made money from having them bought out of his control) to have any sympathy for a struggling business is goofy at best.

I could care less what the goober said. He knows nothing about running a business, his record is 0-2, and he should not be commenting on such items as a government representative. He obviously has no clue what kind of employment and economic jeopardy the big 2 automakers yield in our US economy. If they go down, so do HUNDREDS of independent businesses with 100,000's of workers too.

The simple history lesson behind Chrysler in the 1980's should be enough to prove that good things can come from helping those in need when justified.

King Bush has spoken.
GM and Ford must make cars of better design, or they will be wire-tapped, and the US will declare war on their design departments for having "designs of mass destruction".:rolleyes:

Bah!:irk:

So neither GM nor Ford have suggested that they should be bought out, and yet some stupid reporter looking for a story asks the president if he would do it for them and it is bad news for GM and Ford? Sounds rediculous. I think that some form of Governmental control or restraint needs to happen with healthcare within the next few years before the problem get worse. Do it now and Help 2 of the largest employers in the nation, certainly in number of retirees, or do it later and basically screw them over some more. Either way SOMETHING needs to be done. BTW I work in healthcare and will for the rest of my life I see how things happen and understand why INS companies do what they do I just don't see the justification of this unforseen profit mongering by them.

Something is going to break and just recently something did in Louisville, KY Norton Healthcare a regional hospital and immediate care center provider decided to end its contract for both healthcare AND in network status with Humana, a very large healthcare provider (and local job provider). So that means that over 1,000 Norton employees won't use Humana INS and several hospitals in the region won't accept Humana's in network benefits, instead patients will have larger deductibles AND higher copays. This puts a huge dent in the Humana "provider network."

Anyways I am rambling. Something needs to be done and I think in the next elections it will be a hot point for debate.

I wonder what his position will be when those HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of workers from GM & Ford, outside suppliers, outside electronics people, etc... begin lining up for unemployment checks, government assistance programs, pensions, medical coverage, etc...

Even the government of Quebec was smart enough to do the math when GM planned to close their Ste Therese plant. Giving a couple of billion in no intrest loans or even simply backing a company's efforts to just get private loans (like Chrysler recieved) which will be paid back is far cheaper than losing hundreds of billions in social spending because you sent a company belly up.

GM has more assets than cash. Ditto Ford. Backing loans or granting no intrest loans for these guys while holding their assets as collateral is like me getting a $1000 loan while the bank holds a $8,000 car as collateral. It's a no brainer any business person would jump at. Especially if the alternative is my costing them $20,000 otherwise.

Even simply enacting the exact same import laws countries enact on us or charging a tax surcharge or tax break based on automotive legacy costs would go a long ways, methinks.


BTW, proudpony, I'd say it's going to be 0-3. ;)

Accually... it'll probably be a lot more... look at the airliners...

GM needs to get rid of retires... USA do a bail out? and GM would be back in it...

a terriff on imported products would do tremendous works...

All insurance rates need to decline, do we have income reports from the company signing the UAW's health care?

What about workmans comp?

Insurance needs to be governed just like intrest rates are...

Accually... it'll probably be a lot more... look at the airliners...

GM needs to get rid of retires... USA do a bail out? and GM would be back in it...

a terriff on imported products would do tremendous works...

All insurance rates need to decline, do we have income reports from the company signing the UAW's health care?

What about workmans comp?

Insurance needs to be governed just like intrest rates are...
Kill the retirees!

Kill the retirees!

lol i was going to put in a line about assasins but accually a lot of the members on here have parents who used to work on the line up or whatever...

gotta respect the friends and F the rest ;) just kidding though... yea a federal buy one time buy out would be like the sweetest thing since sliced bread

Bush is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

If he didn't bail out FORD or GM then he looks like he anti-worker and if he does bail them out it makes him look like he saving his big corporate buddies from the consequences of making gas guzzeling and earth-killing trucks/SUVs that aren't selling like they used to.

Ford made $2 Billion last year, I made $40K+ something, I need that bail out more than Ford :D

Seriously, Ford is making money and GM is getting back on track, I don't think either will need a bail out. But if in 2-3 years is still bleeding Billions by the quarter then I think Uncle Sam will step in and help. Maybe not GM directly, but at least do something about the retires and health care costs.

lol i was going to put in a line about assasins but accually a lot of the members on here have parents who used to work on the line up or whatever...

gotta respect the friends and F the rest ;) just kidding though... yea a federal buy one time buy out would be like the sweetest thing since sliced bread
I am kidding, I have the utmost respect for folks that have worked hard most of their lives.

......Even simply enacting the exact same import laws countries enact on us or charging a tax surcharge or tax break based on automotive legacy costs would go a long ways, me thinks.


Exactly! Why do we allow free access without the same in trade?:confused: :mad:

I'll not engage in the Bush bashing.....because I know the alternatives we were given the choice of in the last two elections would have been MUCH worse.......our system is truly broken when these were our only real choices.....:death:

Exactly! Why do we allow free access without the same in trade?:confused: :mad:

I'll not engage in the Bush bashing.....because I know the alternatives we were given the choice of in the last two elections would have been MUCH worse.......our system is truly broken when these were our only real choices.....:death:
this is what i wish AMerica would do for every business...

if its better for american companys to go to other countrys for work, or other countrys to sell to us...

Why is it that all Japanese companys prosper? do they create the best products... nope... are they inovative? nope... we do all that, they just make it cheaper then us because their governement aids the companys... Toyota gets anywhere from 2k-10k on their vehicles produced in Japan, from Japan... let alone the manipulation of the currency?

Surcharges and/or import taxes will just make cars more expensive which will only contribute to inflation which will make people have less disposable income.

While this might be a good short term solution but in the long term GM and Ford must correct their money-bleeding business model and make cars that people will pay a premium for. When the government gets into the business of proping up industries that can no longer make a profit with their current business model, it will unfortunately drain money, energy and resources away from those industries and entrepreneurs who can. You either have to finance the future or pay the price of proping-up the past and in then end you have to put your money where you will actually get the best return on your investment.

Historically speaking, government (by design) is an inherently a slow, inefficient, non-innovative monopoly and I wouldn't trust any business decision they came up with or any advice how to cut cost since they are the worst offenders of all time. I personally view the government more of a “leach’ then a “life-raft” .

For those who doubt the free-market or dont understand how it really works I 'really' suggest that you visit http://jonathangullible.com/ and click on the short Flash-animated cartoon in the bottom right-hand corner titled "Philosophy of Liberty".

Or if you think we are all going to hell in a handbasket anyway, checkout the comical 'End of the World' cartoon @ http://www.jokaroo.com/ecards/funny/end-of-the-world.html

BTW, proudpony, I'd say it's going to be 0-3. ;)

0-3? :think:

As for the retirement issue:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/44679

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.....

To expect a guy that ran 2 businesses into bankruptcy (and made money from having them bought out of his control) to have any sympathy for a struggling business is goofy at best.

I could care less what the goober said. He knows nothing about running a business, his record is 0-2, and he should not be commenting on such items as a government representative. He obviously has no clue what kind of employment and economic jeopardy the big 2 automakers yield in our US economy. If they go down, so do HUNDREDS of independent businesses with 100,000's of workers too.

The simple history lesson behind Chrysler in the 1980's should be enough to prove that good things can come from helping those in need when justified.

King Bush has spoken.
GM and Ford must make cars of better design, or they will be wire-tapped, and the US will declare war on their design departments for having "designs of mass destruction".:rolleyes:

Bah!:irk:

*High five* :thumb:

Surcharges and/or import taxes will just make cars more expensive which will only contribute to inflation which will make people have less disposable income.

While this might be a good short term solution but in the long term GM and Ford must correct their money-bleeding business model and make cars that people will pay a premium for. When the government gets into the business of proping up industries that can no longer make a profit with their current business model, it will unfortunately drain money, energy and resources away from those industries and entrepreneurs who can. You either have to finance the future or pay the price of proping-up the past and in then end you have to put your money where you will actually get the best return on your investment.

Historically speaking, government (by design) is an inherently a slow, inefficient, non-innovative monopoly and I wouldn't trust any business decision they came up with or any advice how to cut cost since they are the worst offenders of all time. I personally view the government more of a “leach’ then a “life-raft” .

For those who doubt the free-market or dont understand how it really works I 'really' suggest that you visit http://jonathangullible.com/ and click on the short Flash-animated cartoon in the bottom right-hand corner titled "Philosphy of Liberty".

Or if you think we are all going to hell in a handbasket anyway, checkout the comical 'End of the World' cartoon @ http://www.jokaroo.com/ecards/funny/end-of-the-world.html

I understand completely what you are saying. But there are some companies that are so big that to let them go under would be disasterous.

I don't for a minute think GM would go under (unless they don't speed up their approval process, which I think they are already fixing). I think Ford's going to also survive, though they will be a much smaller company.

But I think saying under no circumstances would we offer any assistance to a company like GM or Ford is pretty irresponsible. Anyone who's followed my occasional rants over the years know that I pretty much agree with Bush's assesment that both GM and Ford need to market cars that people want.

It was a completely stupid of GM during the Zarella era to think that fuel prices would never shoot up again and investing so much into trucks at the expense of cars. It was also dumb of Ford to choke out costs of their bread & butter cars to finance PAG and some of the other purchases of the Nasser era. Got to always protect your core.

Both GM & Ford have plenty of assets to sell before they get anywhere near going under, so maybe this whole issue is premature. :think:

Bush is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

If he didn't bail out FORD or GM then he looks like he anti-worker and if he does bail them out it makes him look like he saving his big corporate buddies from the consequences of making gas guzzeling and earth-killing trucks/SUVs that aren't selling like they used to.
You are right its a catch-22 for him. I was very disappointed, when I heard his remarks earlier today. I would love to see him put some heavy tarifs on the transplants, and actually help the situation as someone else has mentioned.

To expect a guy that ran 2 businesses into bankruptcy (and made money from having them bought out of his control) to have any sympathy for a struggling business is goofy at best.

I could care less what the goober said. He knows nothing about running a business, his record is 0-2, and he should not be commenting on such items as a government representative. He obviously has no clue what kind of employment and economic jeopardy the big 2 automakers yield in our US economy. If they go down, so do HUNDREDS of independent businesses with 100,000's of workers too.

The simple history lesson behind Chrysler in the 1980's should be enough to prove that good things can come from helping those in need when justified.

King Bush has spoken.
GM and Ford must make cars of better design, or they will be wire-tapped, and the US will declare war on their design departments for having "designs of mass destruction".:rolleyes:

Bah!:irk:
bwahaha

I agree.

GM and Ford must make cars of better design, or they will be wire-tapped, and the US will declare war on their design departments for having "designs of mass destruction".:rolleyes:

Bah!:irk:

I would classify the Aztek as a "Design of Mass Destruction".

Curious as to how "import" competitors building their vehicles in plants located on these shores can escape paying their employees similar benefits as the big 3?

I understand completely what you are saying. But there are some companies Both GM & Ford have plenty of assets to sell before they get anywhere near going under, so maybe this whole issue is premature. :think:

While I think there could be big trouble ahead, I agree that this whole topic about the government bailing them out is 'very' premature.

As a fellow Californian, you should check out that 'End of the Word' animated cartoon if you want a good laugh.

Political allegiances aside, its just another example of a politician being out of touch with the auto industry.

Surely Bush can see that suppliers are also going broke... maybe Bush should also address the US-based suppliers and tell them what they should do to stay afloat.

Curious as to how "import" competitors building their vehicles in plants located on these shores can escape paying their employees similar benefits as the big 3?

Because TRUE unemployment is around 11% right now (much higher in some local areas) and people will work for whatever they can get.

Recongnized unemployment may be reported at about 5%, but that figure ignores those who have been out of work for over 1 year, those enrolled in school because they can't get work, and those who are working part-time retail to pay bills while looking for a "career" job, etc.

People are really desperate right now, and most don't have any bargaining power to negotiate benefits.:(

That's it in a nutshell.

Because TRUE unemployment is around 11% right now and people will work for whatever they can get.

Could you please provide some facts (or at least a link) to back that up, as well as a history of this 'supposed' TRUE employment for the last 10 years to use a benchmark for comparison.

I'll be patiently waiting for your reply.;)

Curious as to how "import" competitors building their vehicles in plants located on these shores can escape paying their employees similar benefits as the big 3?

They don't use the UAW.

It looks like Ford doesn't want a government bailout after all.



Ford says 'no thanks' to govt. bailout

The automaker says it's not interested in any government bailout to help it reverse its financial slide.

January 26, 2006: 6:03 PM EST


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Ford Motor Co. is not interested in any government bailout to help it reverse its financial slide, the company said Thursday.

Ford (Research) said in a statement there were many steps it could take with government to help its business, but a financial bailout was not one of them.

The Bush administration has signaled that it would not support a bailout for distressed U.S. automakers, while congressional lawmakers have suggested help for the industry that does not include a bailout.

It looks like Ford doesn't want a government bailout after all.

I don't think that's what either GM/Ford are looking for when seeking government help. Although, the fact that legacy costs keep getting brought up by the respective CEOs does warrant some discussion, as does balance of trade ...

Because TRUE unemployment is around 11% right now (much higher in some local areas) and people will work for whatever they can get.

I'm still waiting for you provide those facts to backup that statement.

Even in the 1990's we didn't achieve full employment until the later part of the decade and it wasn't until 1999 and 2000 that the dot.com bubble assisted in propelling the US well beyond full employment and people saw huge wage increases in those two short years because of it. Unfortunately most of the dot.com's had poor business models that were not able to produce a profit to justify their 'priced-for-perfection' stock price and it all came crumbling down and took the rest of the economy down with it.

In the interim here's something to read about 'full employment':

http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/19/news/economy/jobless.reut/index.htm

Jobless claims at nearly 6-year low

Federal Reserve officials believe strong U.S. growth has lifted the economy close to full employment -- a theoretical concept indicating the lowest level of unemployment the United States can sustain without triggering wage inflation.

The unemployment rate dropped to 4.9 percent in December despite lackluster job growth of just 108,000 last month.*

If you want a real concern about the future of the US manufacturing sector read the following:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11043983/site/newsweek/

For more than a decade now, if you asked a chief executive why his company was shifting operations to China and other cheap-labor manufacturing centers, the answer would be to cut costs. But lately, there’s been a significant shift. According to the CEO survey, nearly two thirds of these executives now say their principle reason for investing in these countries is less to reduce costs than to guarantee access to China's new and fast-growing consumer markets. “Outsourcing is no longer chiefly about lowering costs,” says PricewaterhouseCoopers CEO Samuel DiPiazza. “Increasingly, multinational companies are investing in countries like Brazil, Russia, India and China because they represent substantial growth opportunities in their own right.”

To expect a guy that ran 2 businesses into bankruptcy (and made money from having them bought out of his control) to have any sympathy for a struggling business is goofy at best.

No. To expect the government to get invovled in the free enterprise system is goofy at best.

Curious as to how "import" competitors building their vehicles in plants located on these shores can escape paying their employees similar benefits as the big 3?

What makes you think they dont (other than hearsay from UAW pundits)? :)

Pay and benefits paid by transplants are on par with the domestic automotive industry and for the COL for where their jobs are located.

And please note for those who want to get in an argument about specific leave policy or whatever I said on par meaning not exactly the same - as an overall package, they stack up quite well with the industry.

No. To expect the government to get invovled in the free enterprise system is goofy at best.

japan does it...:mad:

Yeah, Bush said he wouldn't offer a Bailout which is exactly what he should say. That doesn't mean he wouldn't offer loans, tax incentives, etc should they come into trouble. But he is not going to blindly throw money at them.

I with Bush on this one, The Govt getting in the middle of free enterprise is always a bad thing (ie: USSR)... ;)

japan does it...:mad:

And in the end it will eventually bite them in the ass.:D

japan does it...:mad:

We live in the economic powerhouse of the world (allbeit we have our problems) and I'm always amazed when someone suggests, directly or indirectly, that we need to be more like some other country/use some other coutnry's system.

While there are some legitimate (but very limited) roles for government in business, the last thing the auto industry needs in this country is more government involvement.

There is nothing the government can do for GM or Ford that they can't do better on their own.

I'm still waiting for you provide those facts to backup that statement.
At 1:57 AM, you need to lower your expectations for immediate replies to your posts.
Some of us working stuffs need to sleep.:cool:

Even in the 1990's we didn't achieve full employment until the later part of the decade and it wasn't until 1999 and 2000 that the dot.com bubble assisted in propelling the US well beyond full employment and people saw huge wage increases in those two short years because of it. Unfortunately most of the dot.com's had poor business models that were not able to produce a profit to justify their 'priced-for-perfection' stock price and it all came crumbling down and took the rest of the economy down with it.
You won't find me standing up for dot-com companies. :no:
I stayed away from them like the plague in the 90s, and still don't like companies that have a server and a few desktops as 100% of their operating capital.

But honestly, the dot-com fiasco didn't hurt employment in the US nearly as bad as moving manufacturing offshore has.


In the interim here's something to read about 'full employment':
http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/19/news/economy/jobless.reut/index.htm
This article is a good one. I like CNN pretty good. But they only post the figures given to them from the Labor Department, and as I said in my first post, the government DOES NOT include people whose unemployment benefits have expired, those typically out of work LESS than 2 weeks, those enrolled in school because they can't find work, and those who are working part-time because they can't find a full time job.
Now look at this CNN artricle dated today...http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/26/news/economy/jobless_claims.reut/index.htm
Yours says it went down, mine says it's going up. Hmmm? :confused:
Anyways, WRT your first article...
1) There is a difference between the "unemployment rate" and "jobless claims".
2) They proceed to report the unemployment rate at 4.9% - Did I not say in my original post that the rate was "reported at about 5%"? I thought so. Seems I was dead-on the money there, was I not?

If you want a real concern about the future of the US manufacturing sector read the following:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11043983/site/newsweek/
This second article is more of an editorial than actual news IMO. Asking people what they GUESS is going to happen is not exactly "fact".
At any rate, when I saw this quote in the article, I knew it was hogwash...,
"How well will they do? Based on the accuracy of last year’s (2005) forecasts, not very. Davos attendees got growth right: hot in Asia, healthy in the United States, dismal in Europe. But everybody agreed: bumps lay ahead. The U.S. dollar would fall. (It rose.) Interest rates would rise. (They didn’t.) Global bubbles from real estate to stocks were likely to burst. (They haven’t, at least not yet.) As for oil and energy prices? “We didn’t even talk about it!” " Look in bold text.
Now look at this article from CNN... http://money.cnn.com/2005/12/13/news/economy/fed_rates/
Headline --> "Fed raises rates for 13th straight time - Dec. 13, 2005 "
"The Fed has increased rates by a quarter of a point at its past 13 meetings, dating back to June 2004. The federal funds rate now stands at 4.25 percent, its highest level since March 2001. '
OOPS! I guess the writer of your second article forgot to look at the rates for the last year and a half before he put that little blurb in his text about "rates didn't go up in 2005", eh? Again, It's an editorial loaded with opinions, not facts.

Now back to the good stuff - I took the liberty of going to the source of the data cited in the first article you linked to, the US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. I found the report for December 2005 as reported on Friday January 6, 2006.
Here is a link for you too... LINKY (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm)
I read the report briefly, but astutely, and was able to extract the following figures...
Civilian Labor Force (total) = 150,153,000 people
Unemployed (based on BLS U1 criteria mentioned above) = 7,375,000 people
Now, look at part-time workers from their Appendix, Table A-5 "Employed persons by class of worker and part-time status" (from the same report BTW)... LINKY (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t05.htm)
1) Part-time for economic reasons = 4,138,000
2) Slack work or business conditions = 2,541,000
3) Could only find part-time work = 1,246,000
4) Part-time for non-economic* reasons = 19,582,000
(* = Part time for noneconomic reasons excludes persons who usually work full time but worked only 1 to 34 hours during the reference week for reasons such as holidays, illness, and bad weather.)

So, if we total all of these categories, we get 34,882,000 total unemployed/underemployed people.
Divide 34,882,000 by the total civilian labor force(150,153,000) and you get .2323, or 23%.
So if anything, I was WAY SHORT with my estimate of 11% - shame on me!:o

Again, the BLS does not keep statistics on people enrolled in education due to job loss/placement programs. It also does not track the number of people whose unemployment benefits have expired. These numbers are HUGE.

Even using the BLS's own standards, they offer a separate chart that shows unemployment rate stated 6 different ways!!!
Look at this chart (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm), and you will see their own standards show seasonally-adjusted unemployment jumps up to 8.6% for Dec05, using their U6 method which includes more, but not all, of the unemployed persons that fall under categories other than their basic "unemployed 15 weeks or longer" category - a.k.a. "U1".

As for your MSNBC article...
Here's one right back at you that works my side of the story...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10953632/from/RSS/
""I'm looking for anything. I have computer skills and experience as a manager, receptionist and in sales," Janiak said. "But you have to jump through hula hoops to find a job, and then they only pay $6 an hour.""

"The unemployment numbers can be deceptive, however, because they don't include the chronically unemployed who have dropped out of the job market, and many of the new jobs are low-paying and lack benefits, Florida AFL-CIO spokesman Rich Templin said." (and I am not a fan of the AFL-CIO either, so this reaks on me...)

Look, most experts agree that unemployment figures never have been well-defined, and they are cooked to make the picture brightest for the person who needs it. Based on my every-day life experiences, talking with people, seeing what is happening in the news, and watching plants close around my state daily - I can conclude easily that more than 1 in 20 people on the street are in need of a good job. My wife was let-go from Sara-Lee last year, and is still looking for a "good" job as a production scheduler/analyst today - she has her resume listed on Monster right now. She is getting offers, but they are rediculously low for her education and skill, so we know what the market is offering right now, and frankly, it sux. My mother-in-law works at a local community college (teaches I.T./computer) and she says she has never seen anything like the people enrolling in course now that are using job disposition benefits to go to school. The numbers are huge - in the 1000's at our local tech/comm college, and I doubt ours is the only one around seeing this situation.

I think my point still stands... there are highly-qualified people out looking for jobs because their old plant closed and their jobs went offshore, but the offers they are getting are almost insultingly low because of the glut of workers looking. Fortunately for us, I have a good job and pay all the bills, so the wife is able to stay home and keep looking. But for a single parent that must pay bills, they would have to take anything that comes along to support themselves and their kid(s).
THESE are the kinds of people that are having to take jobs at Import Plants that don't offer the benefits that mr00jimbo was referring to in his post.

We live in the economic powerhouse of the world (allbeit we have our problems) and I'm always amazed when someone suggests, directly or indirectly, that we need to be more like some other country/use some other coutnry's system.


Again, we find common ground! :thumb:

At 1:57 AM, you need to lower your expectations for immediate replies to your posts.
Some of us working stuffs need to sleep.:cool:

Look at the time of your most recent post- the time stamping on this forum is wrong.:rolleyes:


It just appears you are throwing a bunch of mud (random quotes and stats) on the wall (thread) hoping something to stick but you didn't post anything quantifying your 'TRUE 11% 'unemployment figure.

I would be willing admit that TRUE unemployment might be slightly higher then 4.9% but nowhere near the 11% you are throwing out. In reallity home ownership wouldn't have reached a historical high (68.8% own) in the last few years, if things were as bad as you are making them out to be. I do believe there are problems on the horizon, but right now things are pretty good for alot of people.

There's a saying that goes: "Don't judge everyone elses wallet by your own".

Out of respect, I won't quote anyone in this thread.
But all of you who think King Bush is taking the right approach by not offering aid to an ailing company or industry need to do some studying.

Government can, and should, assist business and industry when conditions are right for such aid. It has been done in the past, and should not be abaondoned in the future. Business and commerce are the main contibutors to a nations wealth. People sitting at home do not contribute to GDP or GNP, nor do they generate taxable income. Instead, they become a BURDEN to the government. There are 2 simple benefits right there.

Now before the benchwarmers come out and sream that I am pro-government, put me on record for having NUMEROUS conditions to this act of intervention.
1)Government does NOT need to be more intertwined in business than it is now.
2)Businesses should exhaust every alternative commercial method of aid or reform before even considering governmental intervention.
3)The size of the aid package should be significant enough to warrant government involvement. (that means Billy-Bob's hot dog stand that does $45k total in annual sales and employs 1 person should NOT get seat-time in front of congress to ask for $2500 to get him through the next 3 months.)
4)The industry/business that is applying for aid should be well-established and have a definite future. (No bailouts for a horse buggy company, and no bailouts for a time-machine company to continue their "research" program either.)

I could go on and on, but my point should be made by now. When you are dealing with an indusrty such as the automotive one in the US, there are literally millions of jobs, directly and indirectly related to just 2 or 3 major companys. To let one of them just fold up would be economically devastating to the country. That does not give them the right to RELY on governmental assistance, but if their management is really trying to turn around and they have a sound plan to do so, but can't get commercial lenders to buy-in (or can't afford the commercial lender's rates), then I think our government should give them a chance.

Anybody recall the Chrysler bailout? Whopping success story. The government MADE money from the low-interest loan that Iacocca and Chrysler paid back to the government - $1.2-billion, paid in full, even paying off the note early.

And for those of you who applauded Bush not wanting to bail out the auto industry... why not? He bailed out the airline industry.
Airline Bailout Bill (http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/23/vic.victims.compensation/)
"President Bush signed into law the emergency aid package for the airline industry Saturday."

Airline bailout gains in House
(http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/chi-0109180224sep18,0,6807604.story)
"As President Bush directed his staff to draw up a list of ways to help the airlines cope with massive losses, the House was moving quickly on legislation that would do so."

Despite his "forced generosity" to the airline industry because of public empathy from 9-11, Bush himself is NOT inclined to help any business or industry. His record speaks loudly. And for a guy who ran businesses into the ground and then made money off their liquidation, I doubt he sees any need to keep businesses operational. In his eyes, going out of business is a good thing - it helps you make money.
Bush wary about big airlines bailout (http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/19/rec.airline.woes/)
Bush: No help from Washington for California power crunch (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/01/29/power.woes.02/)
Entergy bailout not in president's hurricane bill (http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=4073175)
There's tons of this stuff out there. :rolleyes:

There's tons of this stuff out there. :rolleyes:

Yet, you can't find anything to prove your TRUE 11% unemployment;)

Bigger government isn't the answer because more-socialist European countries have higher unemployment:

France- 9.6%
Germany- 11.2%
European Avg.- 8.3%

Unemployment (BLS) figures have some value for conducting analysis but arguing aobut a specific percantage/what they should say if only they included this or excluded that is pointless.

How BLS collects its data is antiquated to say the least. Only a very narrow section of "unemployeed" will even show up in the stats...many unemployeed people are not included because they have fallen out of the window of time BLS looks at but by the same token, many are not counted as "employed" because they aren't working for traditional businesses and getting a traditional paycheck but that does not mean they are not making a good living.

I would submit that the only truly unemployed in this country (other than those numbers which are always "in transit" between jobs) are unemployed only because they are unwilling to do what is necessary to find a job...that might mean more/different education, entering a different industry, moving to another city or state, etc.

Unemployment figures are so messed up anyhow. It doesn't take into account People that are too lazy to work, or just refuse to stay on govt aid... If you could try to find the % of people that /really/ want a job and can't find one - I venture to say it is a LOT LOT LOWER then even 5%.

Look at the time of your most recent post- the time stamping on this forum is wrong.:rolleyes:


It just appears you are throwing a bunch of mud (random quotes and stats) on the wall (thread) hoping something to stick but you didn't post anything quantifying your 'TRUE 11% 'unemployment figure.

I would be willing admit that TRUE unemployment might be slightly higher then 4.9% but nowhere near the 11% you are throwing out. In reallity home ownership wouldn't have reached a historical high (68.8% own) in the last few years, if things were as bad as you are making them out to be. I do believe there are problems on the horizon, but right now things are pretty good for alot of people.

There's a saying that goes: "Don't judge everyone elses wallet by your own".

Thanks for your detailed breakdown of my response which included lots of detail, forethought, and effort. I'll reciprocate the next time I respond to your post.

As for your comments...
* by their own accounts, the BLS shows rates as high as alomst 9%, and they explain that the don't account for all cases.
* I don't throw mud :rolleyes: And I showed you figures reaching as high as 23% based on BLS statistics that YOU chose to cite in your post.
*There is nothing wrong with my wallet - I'll wager you that I am doing better than yourself.;)

I just don't forget about other people who are less fortunate than me, because I was fortunate enough to forge my way out of that lifestyle through 8 years of university study and 28 years of hard work. I come from poor people, and I have many friends who break their backs every day earning a wage. I respect them, associate with them, and am proud to acknowledge them as my friends and family. Maybe that's what separates people like me from "others".

Thanks for your concern though! :thumb:

are unemployed only because they are unwilling to do what is necessary to find a job...that might mean more/different education, entering a different industry, moving to another city or state, etc.
That is assuming that there is in fact that opportunity for all of those individuals. That is certainly not the case in this country no matter how much some people want to believe it.

japan does it...:mad:

I believe you risk having policies that are very clearly skewed to protect certain businesses. What if Walmart were in trouble? They are the world's largest company or Exxon? Should the government step in always when companies are in trouble? I don't believe they should.

That is assuming that there is in fact that opportunity for all of those individuals. That is certainly not the case in this country no matter how much some people want to believe it.


Thats jsut wrong no matter how much you want to belive it otherwise.

Most native Americans are simply too damm spoiled - in this country, when you can't find an opportunity, you make one.

Immigrants prove it every day.

I would submit that the only truly unemployed in this country (other than those numbers which are always "in transit" between jobs) are unemployed only because they are unwilling to do what is necessary to find a job...that might mean more/different education, entering a different industry, moving to another city or state, etc.

I pretty-much agree with your other comments, but you lost me here.

Do you not know ANYBODY who is out of work, looking for a good job that is challenging, productive, and well-suited to their special training (whether it is a college degree or techincal skill)? :confused:
I find that almost impossible to believe.

People like that are walking the streets here in North Carolina everywhere.
We've lost furniture plants, textile mills, tobacco plants, and general manufacturing plants around here like crazy in the last 12 months, and only landed ONE new plant from Dell to replace them. These people don't want to start flipping burgers for $6/hr after having skilled jobs making $12-$18/hr, and frankly they can't afford to work for $6/hr and support a family anyways.

Please, give your comment some serious consideration and come back to me if you still see it the same way.

I believe you risk having policies that are very clearly skewed to protect certain businesses. What if Walmart were in trouble? They are the world's largest company or Exxon? Should the government step in always when companies are in trouble? I don't believe they should.

I agree 100%.

That is assuming that there is in fact that opportunity for all of those individuals. That is certainly not the case in this country no matter how much some people want to believe it.

There’s a difference between guaranteeing opportunity versus guaranteeing results.

The day you start guaranteeing people results is the day you are no longer free and usually when people want to use the government to ‘force’ everyone to be equal it usually means that everyone will be forced to be ‘equally’ poor and ‘equally’ dependent on the nation/state. Inequality is unfortunately a part of “freedom’ and as a side note when the Iron curtain fell one former citizen of the USSR sarcastically stated ” For the last 20 years I pretended to work and for 20 years they pretended to pay me.”

To really understand how the market economy works please check out this Flash-Animated cartoon - http://jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english_music.swf

I agree there is most certainly a difference in equality of opportunity versus equality of wealth or whatever you wish to call it. However, it was implied if not outright stated that all unemployed were "lazy" or more softly put not motivated to further educate themselves or move or do whatever it took to find employment. In our reality that is certainly not the case. There are a number of reasons that could prevent them from doing so, and alternatively in this market system there is not room for everyone to be employed at the same time.

I had to turn off the flash animation because the music made me want to kill.

I pretty-much agree with your other comments, but you lost me here.

Do you not know ANYBODY who is out of work, looking for a good job that is challenging, productive, and well-suited to their special training (whether it is a college degree or techincal skill)? :confused:
I find that almost impossible to believe.

People like that are walking the streets here in North Carolina everywhere.
We've lost furniture plants, textile mills, tobacco plants, and general manufacturing plants around here like crazy in the last 12 months, and only landed ONE new plant from Dell to replace them. These people don't want to start flipping burgers for $6/hr after having skilled jobs making $12-$18/hr, and frankly they can't afford to work for $6/hr and support a family anyways.

Please, give your comment some serious consideration and come back to me if you still see it the same way.

Yes I do know some that are out of work…in one case, a very capable guy I worked with at Singer (I helped Singer close down Singer Furniture a few years ago) and we now go to the same church. He’s working temp jobs to get by for now…he could do better elsewhere but he doesn’t want to move because he is recently divorced and in the middle of a custody battle and it would not be wise for his case were he to move so, because of those reasons, his options are more limited than if he were willing/able to move.

In my own case, I was looking for a job a few years ago when I was “right-sized” out of work so I moved two states away and started over at age 41.

I’m not saying it’s easy for anybody to move or go back to school or take less pay than we were accustomed at our last job but we all have to do what’s best for “us” and our particular circumstances.

I well understand the needs of family, roots in a community, etc and I understand why people don’t want to take jobs they don’t like or for less money than they think they are worth or to “go backwards” in terms of salary but the lack of choices we like isn’t the same thing as a lack of choices.

We don’t all have equal abilities but I do very firmly believe that we all equal opportunity to be successful. However, we have to make choices to enjoy that success or be willing to accept the consequences.

I agree there is most certainly a difference in equality of opportunity versus equality of wealth or whatever you wish to call it. However, it was implied if not outright stated that all unemployed were "lazy" or more softly put not motivated to further educate themselves or move or do whatever it took to find employment. In our reality that is certainly not the case. There are a number of reasons that could prevent them from doing so, and alternatively in this market system there is not room for everyone to be employed at the same time.

I do believe that around 2% of the population at any given time can't or won't work regardless of the economy because of physical or mental disabilities, drug or alchohol addiction, or they just don't have the motivation and/or desire to get out and work. With that being said there are good people who are unemployed and they can't be classified as lazy, just that they are in the wrong industry at the wrong time and got dealed a bad hand.

I had to turn off the flash animation because the music made me want to kill.


That whats the volume-control on your computer if for, or if needed, just drown out the sound with Metallica's "Master of Puppets" :cool:

Thanks for your detailed breakdown of my response which included lots of detail, forethought, and effort. I'll reciprocate the next time I respond to your post.

As for your comments...
* by their own accounts, the BLS shows rates as high as alomst 9%, and they explain that the don't account for all cases.
* I don't throw mud :rolleyes: And I showed you figures reaching as high as 23% based on BLS statistics that YOU chose to cite in your post.
*There is nothing wrong with my wallet - I'll wager you that I am doing better than yourself.;)

I just don't forget about other people who are less fortunate than me, because I was fortunate enough to forge my way out of that lifestyle through 8 years of university study and 28 years of hard work. I come from poor people, and I have many friends who break their backs every day earning a wage. I respect them, associate with them, and am proud to acknowledge them as my friends and family. Maybe that's what separates people like me from "others".

Thanks for your concern though! :thumb:


Nice rant, but you're answering questions that I wasn't asking;)

Please provide facts to back-up your 11% figure and/or provide a graph over the last decade(s) to show how this 'supposed' TRUE measurement of unemployment is calculated and please show how 2005 compares with 1995 (or 1975 or 1985 for that matter) as an example.

Please stick to the subject this time:thumb: