Congress wants business plan from automakers

[Guest guest]

The Big 3 did fight fuel economy standards and other improvements. They could have gone with the more economical gasoline engines that are found in Europe and Canada but didn't. They could have gone with clean diesel but didn't, though to be fair there were government regulations that stood in the way there too. Hybrids could have been developed much earlier. Many things could have been done.

The Big 3 are probably also worried because the HUMMV line has been canceled by the US military. That was a huge contract and its gone. The Hummer never was much of a vehicle in the first place. None of my friends in the military liked it because it was hard to drive, got crappy mileage and other things. Its complete lack of armor was the greatest problem. For the money spent on the un armored Hummer, the military could have bought fleet model SUV's and had military mechanics upgrade the suspension on them, and had more vehicles at the same cost. After all, they were meant to be rear area transports, not combat vehicles.

Now they are buying armored vehicles for patrolling and such like they should have had all along. Typical though of how our system works: keep the military on the cheap with the wrong kit and then blame the army when troops die because Congress wouldn't fund proper equipment. The funniest thing about this is that the preferred designs are South African and those were developed under combat conditions, not budgetary and political concerns.

The Big 3 should be concerned. When I got my car in 1998, I looked at American cars and wasn't impressed. The finishing touches weren't there and the models I tested didn't handle well. So I tried a Toyota Camry. It was really nice, well finished and reliable. I've still got it and plan to keep it as long as it runs. The biggest joke of it all is that the "American" cars I looked at were made in Canada and Mexico while the "Japanese" car was made in Kentucky.

In a message dated 11/20/2008 2:50:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

"If there's a Chapter 11 (for) one of the companies, it will drag at least one other with them, if not all of them. And I do not believe Chapter 11 is where it will end. It will go to liquidation," he said ominously.

Automakers ran into more resistance from House lawmakers, who chastised the executives for fighting tougher fuel-efficiency standards in the past and questioned their use of private jets while at the same time seeking government handouts.

"My fear is that you're going to take this money and continue the same stupid decisions you've made for 25 years," said Rep. Capuano, D-Mass. One site has it all. Your email accounts, your social networks, and the things you love. Try the new AOL.com today!

[Guest guest]

Read the parts in RED please.

Just think: 2.5 to 3 million people, according to this article, would not have their gainful employment threatened had the automakers got their butts in gear 25 years ago. As far as I can gather from listening to the execs in various radio soundbytes and reading what they say in various news articles, they admit their companies are behind the times innovatively speaking. Well, if they could not catch up in decades, I don't see why they think money in their pockets this very second is going to solve their problem. If they can afford 25 years of time to dig this hole, maybe they can afford 25 more years of time devising their own bailout plan that does not involve risking tax money that they will probably never be able to pay back.

Administrator

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/congress_autos;_ylt=AjTTNda7iA4Q42YaMBEpxP5v24cA

Congress wants business plan from automakers

By KEN THOMAS and JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writers Ken And Hirschfeld , Associated Press Writers – 3 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Democratic leaders in Congress decided Thursday to delay a vote to bail out automakers until December, according to officials, and will first demand the Big 3 companies show how the funds would transform their beleaguered industry.

An announcement was expected later in the day, these officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to pre-empt a form announcement.

The big auto companies — General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC — have been seeking government loans totaling $25 billion to stay in business until spring. Critics want to make sure the companies will use the money to transform their industry into one that is more competitive.

Until Democratic leaders reached their agreement, the bailout had appeared headed for defeat in Congress, with the fate of hundreds of thousands of workers and Detroit's once-venerable car companies in the balance.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., canceled plans for a vote on a bill to carve $25 billion in new loans out of the $700 billion Wall Street rescue fund. The Bush administration and congressional Republicans oppose that plan. They prefer tapping a different source of funds that is earmakred to help the industry manufacture more environmentally friendly products. But using those funds drew opposition from Speaker Pelosi, D-Calif., as well as environmentalists.

Efforts on a compromise unfolded earlier in the day, and a small group of legislators circulated a proposal to give the industry the funds it needs while guaranteeing that the separate account would not be depleted.

With all sides sensing doom for a Big Three automaker rescue, the finger-pointing proceeded.

White House press secretary Dana Perino on Thursday blamed Reid for not allowing the Republicans' separate auto-aid plan to come up for a vote.

"Unfortunately it looks like Sen. Reid just wants to pick up his ball and go home for the next two weeks — two months — for vacation," she said.

Pressed on what the White House would do if Congress can't agree on a plan to rescue the automakers this week, Perino said she thought lawmakers would return after the Thanksgiving holiday for an emergency legislative session if an auto company was in imminent danger of collapsing.

"I can't imagine a scenario where they wouldn't come back, unless the answer is that they just don't care. And if that's the case, then the American people ought to know that."

Congressional Democrats countered that the Treasury Department already had the power to grant emergency funds to the automakers, but the Bush administration opposed the approach.

The leaders of General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC painted a grim picture of their financial position during two days of congressional hearings, warning that the collapse of the auto industry could lead to the loss of 3 million jobs. Detroit's automakers, hurt by a sharp drop in sales and a nearly frozen credit market, burned through nearly $18 billion in cash reserves during the last quarter — about $7 billion at GM, almost $8 billion at Ford and $3 billion at Chrysler. Both GM and Chrysler said they could collapse in weeks.

"I don't believe we have the luxury of a lot of time," GM CEO Rick Wagoner told a House hearing.

Alan Mulally, the CEO of Ford Motor Co., said the company had enough cash reserves to make it through 2009. But United Auto Workers union president Ron Gettelfinger said a bankruptcy could spawn others.

"If there's a Chapter 11 (for) one of the companies, it will drag at least one other with them, if not all of them. And I do not believe Chapter 11 is where it will end. It will go to liquidation," he said ominously.

Automakers ran into more resistance from House lawmakers, who chastised the executives for fighting tougher fuel-efficiency standards in the past and questioned their use of private jets while at the same time seeking government handouts.

"My fear is that you're going to take this money and continue the same stupid decisions you've made for 25 years," said Rep. Capuano, D-Mass. The stakes are high. The Detroit automakers employ nearly a quarter-million workers, and more than 730,000 other workers produce materials and parts that go into cars. About 1 million more people work in dealerships nationwide. If just one of the automakers declared bankruptcy, some estimates put U.S. job losses next year as high as 2.5 million. ___ Associated Press writers Espo and Sam Hananel in Washington

[Guest guest]

" The Big 3 should be concerned. When I got my car in 1998, I looked

at American cars and wasn't impressed. The finishing touches weren't

there and the models I tested didn't handle well. So I tried a Toyota

Camry. It was really nice, well finished and reliable. I've still got

it and plan to keep it as long as it runs. The biggest joke of it all

is that the " American " cars I looked at were made in Canada and

Mexico while the " Japanese " car was made in Kentucky. "

I must admit that my current Ford Taurus (one of three which I have

owned) runs smoother and well -and with fewer problems- that my other

two Tauruses or any other cars I ever drove, but I still get

disappointed in it when you compare its number of problems and

recalls with the Toyotas that my neighbor across the street drives.

My Taurus was made in the Chicago assembly plant as was one of the

two before it.

By comparison, my dad's Buicks have run worse than the Fords, having

had more problems, but the same number of recalls. The irony is that

I put less care into my vehicle than my dad does with his, so one

would think his vehicles would run better.

Our family no longer buys Chryslers because, except for the 1971

Fury, they all have been lemons.

Why do we buy American? Because mom comes from a family of union

workers and you become and instant pariah if you don't buy American.

Plus, we've all held such jobs that we can afford to pay for the

upkeep on the crappily built American models.

If I had a choice, I'd probably buy some kind of Toyota. Ideally, I'd

like a sport utility vehicle that gets low mileage, but no one

produces anything decent. Not even the Ford Escape is really that

great.

Administrator