http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,7928858.story

 

Better than giving it to bankers or the hedge funds at least

Big 3 must really be hurting if they were able to lobby for this and get it done that quick.

 

First it was $50B, now it's down to $25B.

 

1 out of 7 jobs in the US is tied to automobile business. MAJOR implications if the US big three were to fend for themselves.

 

I thought the $50 billion was just a loan?

 

Why don't they level the playing field and make it harder for import brands with their lower wage structure to sell their cars in the US (tarrifs) and let the market take care of itself?

 

If you listen to comments by officials from GM and Ford, it's clear that the term "bailout" is verbotten. They haven't yet gotten back to us on the preferred terminology

If this bailout doesn't happen, I suspect that both GM and Chrysler are in huge trouble within one year. With the bailout, we'll just shift the timeframe back by a few years.

 

The deal went from a 3 year $50 billion low cost loan to a 1 year $25 billion low cost loan. With the current credit ratings (junk) of the US big three, loans from the private sector would exceed 10% interest. The automakers need low cost loans now to retool for smaller vehicles, just to give them a fair chance of survival.

 

What if they include relaxing the gas guzzler tax on vehicles currently in inventory so the dealers can sell what they already have in stock easier? (Of course this would only apply to vehicles manufactured in North America.)

 

1) Give them the 50B in LOANS.
2) Tax all imported vehicles/parts 25% over the current tax.
3) Tax "Non-Union" American assembled vehicles 15%.

Might help?

I'm not a Union supporter; but it is a big time disadvantage for sure. They either need to eliminate the Union; or make it an even playing field.

 

Curious, why would you tax the "non-union" vehicles?

Second, why so high on the imported stuff? 25% is a whallop.

And before you answer, know that I too have long supported stronger tarriffs and conditions on importing goods. Just looking for your reasonong and justifications, that's all.

 

Who and what are you trying to tax?

The big 3 have several vehicles that are imported from Mexico and Canada. Toyota and Honda have several plants built in the US. Kia/Hyundai are doing the same thing. There are already import tariffs, which is one reason why the cars are being built here. Parts are also sourced from the US as well.


What this would do is actually just make the price of cars higher. Several computer components that are made overseas would get much pricier. The consumer would pick up the cost, which would slow sales.

 

I just threw it out there.

1) Tax "non-union" auto assembly plants would keep the imports from avoiding the UAW. Only reasoning there. Either join the UAW, or get taxed (until someday when the UAW becomes extinct.

2) I know the Big 3 also import parts/vehicles and should be taxed for doing it as well. I don't agree with NAFTA, CAFTA, or any of the above. Probably explains my stance on that.

 

I see your point.
Only thing I would throw out is that it also takes away incentive for big-3 plants to go non-union to try to reduce their costs as well.

 

True, but I just don't know if they'll ever be able to get away from the UAW. Maybe someday...