GM is on their own till at least February.
11-13-2008, 06:34 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
GM is on their own till at least February.
Well... it's crunch time:
Since Obama doesn't get into office till January 21st, I wouldn't expect anything out of congress until February at the earliest.
I wish GM luck.
Hopes for auto bailout stall
by Stephen Collinson Stephen Collinson
WASHINGTON (AFP) – Hopes for a swift bailout of the US auto industry appeared to stall Thursday after a top Democratic senator said Republicans looked set to scupper the proposal until Barack Obama is president.
Top Democrats including president-elect Obama urged an accelerated bailout of the once-mighty US industry amid warnings from bosses that the sector, hammered by mounting losses and plunging sales, could collapse.
But Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, said he did not believe a plan could pass before Obama takes office in January.
"I don't know of a single Republican willing to support (it)," Dodd told reporters.
"I want to be careful (not) to bring up a proposition that might fail ... under an Obama administration, there is a greater willingness to deal with the issue."
Obama urged President George W. Bush to support immediate aid for the ailing automobile industry during their private meeting in Washington on Monday, but the White House is still cool towards the idea.
Any auto bailout bill would require 60 votes in the Senate to overcome Republican obstruction tactics. The current chamber has 49 Republicans, 49 Democrats and two independents who usually caucus with the Democrats.
Next year, Democrats will have a larger majority after making gains in last week's election.
Dodd's remarks came as the top Republican in the House of Representatives John Boehner rejected calls for a new financial bailout of the car industry.
"Spending billions of additional federal tax dollars with no promises to reform the root causes crippling automakers' competitiveness around the world is neither fair to taxpayers nor sound fiscal policy," Boehner said.
Earlier this year, Congress approved a 25 billion dollar loan guarantee program to help ailing automakers retool to produce fuel-efficient vehicles, but the Big Three automakers -- General Motors, Ford and Chrysler -- asked lawmakers last week for an additional 25 billion dollars to survive the steep US downturn amid the global financial crisis.
Auto industry executives were due on Capitol Hill on Tuesday to press the case for quick government help.
House speaker Nancy Pelosi had raised the prospect of calling a lame duck House session next week to pass a bailout plan, but that is now in doubt.
Boehner is not the only Republican casting doubt on the Democratic Party's calls to rescue the auto industry, which accounts for millions of jobs in states like Michigan and Ohio, already hit by the reeling economy.
"The financial situation facing the Big Three is not a national problem, but their problem," veteran Republican Senator Richard Shelby was quoted as saying in the Financial Times.
In a House hearing on Wednesday, another senior Republican, Spencer Bachus, expressed fears of a rash of federal government bailouts.
"Where does this stop? We started with financial services, we went from banks to insurance companies ... now we're talking about manufacturing companies, automobiles ... Does it end there?"
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on Thursday also spoke out against extending the financial industry bailout plan to automakers.
The White House refused to say Wednesday whether or not it considered troubled US auto giants seeking US government help to be too important to the US economy to be allowed to fail.
But it has said it will listen to plans being formulated in Congress to help the sector.
Automakers however said it was too soon to call the bailout plan dead in the water.
"There's plenty of time between now and Tuesday," said Ford spokesman Mike Moran.
GM spokesman Greg Martin said that while some members of Congress "may not have kept pace with everything we've done to reshape our business and get more competitive, we believe we have a strong case to make next week, and all parties will recognize the pressing need to preserve our industry."
"We need the support to bridge this extraordinary economic time and one that's not of our making," Martin said.
by Stephen Collinson Stephen Collinson
WASHINGTON (AFP) – Hopes for a swift bailout of the US auto industry appeared to stall Thursday after a top Democratic senator said Republicans looked set to scupper the proposal until Barack Obama is president.
Top Democrats including president-elect Obama urged an accelerated bailout of the once-mighty US industry amid warnings from bosses that the sector, hammered by mounting losses and plunging sales, could collapse.
But Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, said he did not believe a plan could pass before Obama takes office in January.
"I don't know of a single Republican willing to support (it)," Dodd told reporters.
"I want to be careful (not) to bring up a proposition that might fail ... under an Obama administration, there is a greater willingness to deal with the issue."
Obama urged President George W. Bush to support immediate aid for the ailing automobile industry during their private meeting in Washington on Monday, but the White House is still cool towards the idea.
Any auto bailout bill would require 60 votes in the Senate to overcome Republican obstruction tactics. The current chamber has 49 Republicans, 49 Democrats and two independents who usually caucus with the Democrats.
Next year, Democrats will have a larger majority after making gains in last week's election.
Dodd's remarks came as the top Republican in the House of Representatives John Boehner rejected calls for a new financial bailout of the car industry.
"Spending billions of additional federal tax dollars with no promises to reform the root causes crippling automakers' competitiveness around the world is neither fair to taxpayers nor sound fiscal policy," Boehner said.
Earlier this year, Congress approved a 25 billion dollar loan guarantee program to help ailing automakers retool to produce fuel-efficient vehicles, but the Big Three automakers -- General Motors, Ford and Chrysler -- asked lawmakers last week for an additional 25 billion dollars to survive the steep US downturn amid the global financial crisis.
Auto industry executives were due on Capitol Hill on Tuesday to press the case for quick government help.
House speaker Nancy Pelosi had raised the prospect of calling a lame duck House session next week to pass a bailout plan, but that is now in doubt.
Boehner is not the only Republican casting doubt on the Democratic Party's calls to rescue the auto industry, which accounts for millions of jobs in states like Michigan and Ohio, already hit by the reeling economy.
"The financial situation facing the Big Three is not a national problem, but their problem," veteran Republican Senator Richard Shelby was quoted as saying in the Financial Times.
In a House hearing on Wednesday, another senior Republican, Spencer Bachus, expressed fears of a rash of federal government bailouts.
"Where does this stop? We started with financial services, we went from banks to insurance companies ... now we're talking about manufacturing companies, automobiles ... Does it end there?"
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on Thursday also spoke out against extending the financial industry bailout plan to automakers.
The White House refused to say Wednesday whether or not it considered troubled US auto giants seeking US government help to be too important to the US economy to be allowed to fail.
But it has said it will listen to plans being formulated in Congress to help the sector.
Automakers however said it was too soon to call the bailout plan dead in the water.
"There's plenty of time between now and Tuesday," said Ford spokesman Mike Moran.
GM spokesman Greg Martin said that while some members of Congress "may not have kept pace with everything we've done to reshape our business and get more competitive, we believe we have a strong case to make next week, and all parties will recognize the pressing need to preserve our industry."
"We need the support to bridge this extraordinary economic time and one that's not of our making," Martin said.
I wish GM luck.
Last edited by guionM; 11-14-2008 at 03:08 AM.
11-13-2008, 07:44 PM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: All around
Posts: 2,154
GM has till Feb to figure out their plan and get it in order.
They should be able to survive till then - and we know when Obama comes in that relief money is going to come ASAFP.
I want GM to survive very badly - but they had better get strings on that loan to make sure that they get fixed and on track.
They should be able to survive till then - and we know when Obama comes in that relief money is going to come ASAFP.
I want GM to survive very badly - but they had better get strings on that loan to make sure that they get fixed and on track.
11-13-2008, 07:51 PM
#4
Prominent Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 2,282
Automakers however said it was too soon to call the bailout plan dead in the water.
"There's plenty of time between now and Tuesday," said Ford spokesman Mike Moran.
GM spokesman Greg Martin said that while some members of Congress "may not have kept pace with everything we've done to reshape our business and get more competitive, we believe we have a strong case to make next week, and all parties will recognize the pressing need to preserve our industry."
"We need the support to bridge this extraordinary economic time and one that's not of our making," Martin said.
"There's plenty of time between now and Tuesday," said Ford spokesman Mike Moran.
GM spokesman Greg Martin said that while some members of Congress "may not have kept pace with everything we've done to reshape our business and get more competitive, we believe we have a strong case to make next week, and all parties will recognize the pressing need to preserve our industry."
"We need the support to bridge this extraordinary economic time and one that's not of our making," Martin said.
11-13-2008, 09:05 PM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Panhandle of West Virginia
Posts: 1,548
Yep, the Republican leadership is willing to let G.M. go down with no help whatsoever. Another article:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee said Thursday there is not enough support among Republicans to pass a proposed bailout package for the auto industry.
Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., suggested that Democrats should reconsider plans to push legislation during next week's congressional session if it's likely to fail.
"Right now I don't think [we have] the votes," he told reporters. "I don't know of a single Republican willing to support" it.
Dodd's assessment is significant because Democratic leaders in the House and Senate want to vote on a bill giving the Treasury Department authority to spend funds from the Troubled Asset Recovery Program, or TARP, on the auto industry.
It's unclear how much Republican opposition there is to the bill. One moderate GOP senator, George Voinovich of Ohio, announced Thursday he supports the proposal. But other Republicans strongly oppose it. Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican on the banking committee, said the bailout would "reward mismanagement" in Detroit.
And even one Democrat, Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, told CNN he was reluctant to allow the bailout funds to be used for the auto industry when the money has yet to be used to help homeowners facing foreclosure.
A GOP leadership aide disputed the notion that Republicans don't want to assist the auto industry and pointed to recent legislation, approved with GOP support, to provide $25 billion in loans to help the manufacturers retool their factories to make more fuel-efficient cars. That money is currently held up by red tape at the Department of Energy and Republicans say they support writing legislation to force its quick release.
Dodd also told reporters that the Treasury department "confirmed" to him that it already has authority to use the TARP funds for the auto industry. For that reason, Dodd said, Democrats should consider waiting for President-elect Obama to take office so Treasury can act without legislation.
Despite Dodd's assessment, Democratic leadership aides in the House and Senate said they were moving forward with plans for votes on the bill next week.
Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., suggested that Democrats should reconsider plans to push legislation during next week's congressional session if it's likely to fail.
"Right now I don't think [we have] the votes," he told reporters. "I don't know of a single Republican willing to support" it.
Dodd's assessment is significant because Democratic leaders in the House and Senate want to vote on a bill giving the Treasury Department authority to spend funds from the Troubled Asset Recovery Program, or TARP, on the auto industry.
It's unclear how much Republican opposition there is to the bill. One moderate GOP senator, George Voinovich of Ohio, announced Thursday he supports the proposal. But other Republicans strongly oppose it. Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican on the banking committee, said the bailout would "reward mismanagement" in Detroit.
And even one Democrat, Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, told CNN he was reluctant to allow the bailout funds to be used for the auto industry when the money has yet to be used to help homeowners facing foreclosure.
A GOP leadership aide disputed the notion that Republicans don't want to assist the auto industry and pointed to recent legislation, approved with GOP support, to provide $25 billion in loans to help the manufacturers retool their factories to make more fuel-efficient cars. That money is currently held up by red tape at the Department of Energy and Republicans say they support writing legislation to force its quick release.
Dodd also told reporters that the Treasury department "confirmed" to him that it already has authority to use the TARP funds for the auto industry. For that reason, Dodd said, Democrats should consider waiting for President-elect Obama to take office so Treasury can act without legislation.
Despite Dodd's assessment, Democratic leadership aides in the House and Senate said they were moving forward with plans for votes on the bill next week.
11-13-2008, 09:08 PM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Ontario
Posts: 2,712
GM spokesman Greg Martin said that while some members of Congress "may not have kept pace with everything we've done to reshape our business and get more competitive, we believe we have a strong case to make next week, and all parties will recognize the pressing need to preserve our industry."
Last edited by R377; 11-13-2008 at 09:11 PM.
11-13-2008, 10:30 PM
#8
ALMIGHTY MEMBER
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Detroit, MI USA
Posts: 2,301
A simple question:
Why isn't the title of this thread "GM, Ford, and Chrysler are on their own....." rather than just GM.
It seems there is an awful lot of venom on this site toward GM -- even though all three of the manufacturers are in trouble.
Why isn't the title of this thread "GM, Ford, and Chrysler are on their own....." rather than just GM.
It seems there is an awful lot of venom on this site toward GM -- even though all three of the manufacturers are in trouble.
11-13-2008, 10:41 PM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,024
Because GM is the only one saying they might not make it to February.
11-13-2008, 11:01 PM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: From Akron, OH to Raleigh, NC
Posts: 245
...or because more people on this site care about GM than either of the other two.
I understand the impact of losing any of the big three, but if I had my choice GM would be the first to be saved...
but that's a completely biased opinion based on nothing except for the fact that I have always liked GM vehicles.
I understand the impact of losing any of the big three, but if I had my choice GM would be the first to be saved...
but that's a completely biased opinion based on nothing except for the fact that I have always liked GM vehicles.
11-13-2008, 11:19 PM
#11
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,943
When Congress wants to hand out money, it apparently wants to include everybody. Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, is likely to propose a measure that lets automakers tap into the $700 billion vein of rescue dollars that's ostensibly intended for financial institutions, yet is being hungrily eyed by everyone.
CEOs from Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler will make the trek to Washington, DC, as will UAW chief Ron Gettelfinger. All will be pleading their collective case for an estimated $100 billion-plus vitamin pill. Many, not the least of whom is Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, think that automakers should not be allowed to snag some of the cash that's intended for financial institutions.
Things look bleak for all three of the brands, but can Congress be moved to offer up some money and prolong the jobs of so many Americans? Even if the automakers get the $100 billion they're seeking, when nobody's buying, it will merely turn into taxpayers funding an increasing glut of product nobody can afford to buy. Even those consumers with money and good credit are holding back as the economy delves into recession, emotional purchases are way down, and most vehicle purchases are driven by wants versus needs. Things will undoubtedly sort themselves out, but not before more pain for Detroit.
[Source: Automotive News]
CEOs from Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler will make the trek to Washington, DC, as will UAW chief Ron Gettelfinger. All will be pleading their collective case for an estimated $100 billion-plus vitamin pill. Many, not the least of whom is Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, think that automakers should not be allowed to snag some of the cash that's intended for financial institutions.
Things look bleak for all three of the brands, but can Congress be moved to offer up some money and prolong the jobs of so many Americans? Even if the automakers get the $100 billion they're seeking, when nobody's buying, it will merely turn into taxpayers funding an increasing glut of product nobody can afford to buy. Even those consumers with money and good credit are holding back as the economy delves into recession, emotional purchases are way down, and most vehicle purchases are driven by wants versus needs. Things will undoubtedly sort themselves out, but not before more pain for Detroit.
[Source: Automotive News]
11-13-2008, 11:21 PM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Commerce, mi, USA
Posts: 2,139
Sen Sherrod Brown (D-OH) recently raised the issue of impacts for our national security. Do we really want to depend on the Chinese and Japanese the next time America needs to fight a significant war (not like the limited counterinsurgency one in Iraq)? What if China decides to take Taiwan and Korea in 2009, and Japan in 2010? Without our industrial infrastructure, our only option could be a nuclear exchange.
11-13-2008, 11:41 PM
#13
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,943
Amen. It's not just about GM, regardless of statements they've made about their chances. It's about our domestic auto industry. It's in real trouble, and clearly needs help. The Big Three know they've made some serious mistakes. There's plenty of blame to go around. (That, BTW, is true for our overall economic mess). I just hope Congress and the President can see the way to float some help to our automakers before it's too late. I'm not keen on government interventions. But sometimes they are needed.
Sen Sherrod Brown (D-OH) recently raised the issue of impacts for our national security. Do we really want to depend on the Chinese and Japanese the next time America needs to fight a significant war (not like the limited counterinsurgency one in Iraq)? What if China decides to take Taiwan and Korea in 2009, and Japan in 2010? Without our industrial infrastructure, our only option could be a nuclear exchange.
Sen Sherrod Brown (D-OH) recently raised the issue of impacts for our national security. Do we really want to depend on the Chinese and Japanese the next time America needs to fight a significant war (not like the limited counterinsurgency one in Iraq)? What if China decides to take Taiwan and Korea in 2009, and Japan in 2010? Without our industrial infrastructure, our only option could be a nuclear exchange.
I suspect that the next massive war, if there is one, won't be fought with thousands of tanks or APCs...and even if they were needed, we couldn't match the Chinese in numbers (of equipment or solders) even if we had ten "GMs" here.
China should not be overlooked but might I suggest that we have more immediate threats to our national security than China.
And do I need to point out that every major vehicle manufacturer, including GM, is either already there or banging on the door to get into China? Does it bother anybody besides me that "American" companies are getting in bed with communists who would like nothing better than to drop a nuke on DC?
11-14-2008, 12:19 AM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Shelton, WA
Posts: 954
And do I need to point out that every major vehicle manufacturer, including GM, is either already there or banging on the door to get into China? Does it bother anybody besides me that "American" companies are getting in bed with communists who would like nothing better than to drop a nuke on DC?
I don't like it, but the fact we're "getting in bed" with those communists is probably one of the things keeping them from pushing the red button.
Having a bunch of our crap made there, among other things, helps them a lot by giving them jobs. Unfortunately, in many cases, that's at the expense of American jobs.
11-14-2008, 01:02 AM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: All around
Posts: 2,154
Bad?
GM doesnt bother me because they arent costing american jobs. They are doing there what Toyota is doing to us here - and I'm okay with not getting the bad end of the deal. Till GM makes cars there and sends them here for sale - I'm okay with it.
Walmart bothers me though because it does hurt us to pinch pennies by shopping there and not buying American goods. If Walmart closed for a week and only then sold "made in america" goods at higher prices sure people would complain and their profits would plummet and stock values would drop - but the positive economic impact would be pretty epic (assuming they could still sell things at at least semi-reasonable prices)
The drug issue? That just terrifies me. If they'll poison baby formula, poison toothpaste, dog food, lead paint etc... Having them make drugs that rarely get fully inspected is like giving the Unibomber a $10,000 shopping spree at the Home Depot. Sure he might be responsible with the money, but will he in the end?
On the majority though I agree with you.