Without Union Concessions, Bankruptcy Better Than A Bailout, Republicans Say

[Revmitchell]

Congressional Republicans blocked consideration of a $14-billion federal loan for the auto industry Thursday night.

Republicans leaders said they want the U.S. auto industry to survive and thrive, but they also insist that a multi-billion-dollar taxpayer loan is not the only option. There’s also federal bankruptcy protection


More Here

 

[billwald]

No bailout for people who come home from work and take showers. Only for people who take showers and go to work.

 

[Jim1999]

GM, Ford, an Chrysler in Canada hav already decided to shut down for a month..I think they said for January.

The union is very arrogant considering their pay scale against all those without work. They would rather have nothing than less.



Cheers,

Jim

 

[KenH]

Who would buy a vehicle from a company in bankruptcy? I know I wouldn't risk it.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Who would buy a vehicle from a company in bankruptcy? I know I wouldn't risk it.

I bet you would for the right price.

 

[KenH]

You would lose that bet.

 

[carpro]

Who would buy a vehicle from a company in bankruptcy? I know I wouldn't risk it.

Everyone that wants to.

If they make good cars for a good price, people will buy them.

End of story.

“The primary driver behind this is the unions, because bankruptcy allows the auto companies to basically restructure all their contracts in a way that a bankruptcy judge says will make them sustainable,” DeMint said.

“And if they do that, then essentially the unions lose all their leverage. It’s the unions that have brought them to the brink. So definitely, I think the reason they want a political solution and a car czar is because a car czar can protect the unions through this whole process at the expense of the taxpayer.”

Sen. Jim DeMint

 

[Pastor Larry]

You would lose that bet.

You wouldn't buy one for $1?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

The UAW got so tied up in becoming part of the labor wing of the Demodcratic Party, it forgot to copper its bets with the Republicans. Why should the GOP do anything for the UAW?

As for buying from a bankrupt auto maker, the situation has changed from the days of Studebaker and Packard.

 

[Jim1999]

At least Studebaker was a decent car. Just had trouble knowing if it was coming or going.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Revmitchell]

Why should the GOP do anything for the UAW?

Good question.

 

[Carolina Baptist]

Who would buy a vehicle from a company in bankruptcy? I know I wouldn't risk it.

From the article:
"According to the Associated Press, the deal stalled over the United Auto Workers’ refusal to agree to wage cuts before their current contract expires in 2011."


I would have problems buying from a company who demanded MY tax money to bail out their sinking ship, unless they are willing to pay some of the price: Lower wages, No bonuses, etc. You can't save a sinking ship without repairing the leaks.

I would rather buy from an American comapny but the companies need to show that they care about quality and fairness. I have seen very little of either quality or fairness from them.

They are threatening grave dammange to the economy if we don't pay the ransom.

 

[billwald]

>Originally Posted by Squire Robertsson
>Why should the GOP do anything for the UAW?

Yes, we know that GOP only does things for bankers and rich people.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

>Originally Posted by Squire Robertsson
>Why should the GOP do anything for the UAW?

Yes, we know that GOP only does things for bankers and rich people.

Actually, I'm putting the blame on the UAW for being so nearsighted it allowed itself to become a subsidiary of the Democratic Party. Even the "bankers and rich people" know it pays to contribute to both parties. Though, they do tend to give more to one than the other. But, then take a look at the last election. It seemed that "b's and rp's" saw the outcome coming and switched their contributions accordingly.

My point is why should the GOP do the UAW any favors when the UAW will not only organizationally supports the Dems but actively discourages its membership from voting GOP.

On the other hand, there are plenty of folks other than the UAW and the Big Three who are endangered here. It's these folks (the supply chain, the dealers, and the other supporting members of the auto industry) the GOP needs to take into consideration.

 

[rbell]

>Originally Posted by Squire Robertsson
>Why should the GOP do anything for the UAW?

Yes, we know that GOP only does things for bankers and rich people.

You need to check your facts.

In the $700B giveaway, only 7 democrats voted against it. 15 Republicans voted against it.

The dems hold the majority, and they pushed the bill through, with presidential and his flunkies supporting it. This is a bi-partisan disaster...but the numbers slightly favor the democrats.

Your charge against the GOP doesn't wash.

 

[carpro]

From the article:
"According to the Associated Press, the deal stalled over the United Auto Workers’ refusal to agree to wage cuts before their current contract expires in 2011."


I would have problems buying from a company who demanded MY tax money to bail out their sinking ship, unless they are willing to pay some of the price: Lower wages, No bonuses, etc. You can't save a sinking ship without repairing the leaks.

I would rather buy from an American comapny but the companies need to show that they care about quality and fairness. I have seen very little of either quality or fairness from them.

They are threatening grave dammange to the economy if we don't pay the ransom.

Since the UAW is dead set on raping taxpayers, why should we.

I may never buy another foreign built big 3 auto.

I'll buy American built Hondas or Toyotas or VWs instead.

 

[LeBuick]

Congressional Republicans blocked consideration of a $14-billion federal loan for the auto industry Thursday night.

Republicans leaders said they want the U.S. auto industry to survive and thrive, but they also insist that a multi-billion-dollar taxpayer loan is not the only option. There’s also federal bankruptcy protection

1. You normally advocate less government in the market, why do you agree with politicians negotiating labor agreements? Since when is it ok for the Senate to tell any company what to pay it's workers?

2. Why are the Republican's only demanding the union workers make concessions and have placed no demands on management? Are they saying it's ok for the middle class worker to make less but the Republican management should be immune?

3. Why are the Republican's being so tough on the UAW after so freely giving 10x this amount of money to the banks with no business plan or pay cut demands. These same banks that gave executives bonuses, went on retreats, bought other banks and are still not making loans.

The voices of the middle class spoke these past two elections and have said loudly that we're tired of having to bear the burden while the executives make unquestioned millions. The Republican's fell drastically in the last election when they voted down the original bailout plan. Now they turn around and do this.

I think this is a down payment for tombstones to go in the GOP cemetery. They really don't seem to get it, there is not enough ultra-conservatives in this country to win them an election and they are alienating any moderates that might lean their way. If they keep this up, 2010 will be another good year for the Democrats.

 

[Revmitchell]

1. You normally advocate less government in the market, why do you agree with politicians negotiating labor agreements? Since when is it ok for the Senate to tell any company what to pay it's workers?

First, do not assume that every time I post an article I agree with all of it or any of it. Second, I do not agree with any bailout regardless of the agreement. Third, this is not about telling the company what to pay its workers. You have incorrectly characterized the scenario. The Senate is wanting the Union to concede its benefits just as the execs have already made its own concessions.

2. Why are the Republican's only demanding the union workers make concessions and have placed no demands on management? Are they saying it's ok for the middle class worker to make less but the Republican management should be immune?

Where do you get this info from?

3. Why are the Republican's being so tough on the UAW after so freely giving 10x this amount of money to the banks with no business plan or pay cut demands. These same banks that gave executives bonuses, went on retreats, bought other banks and are still not making loans.

I believe your mistake here is using this broad brush. Just who are these Republicans?

The voices of the middle class spoke these past two elections and have said loudly that we're tired of having to bear the burden while the executives make unquestioned millions. The Republican's fell drastically in the last election when they voted down the original bailout plan. Now they turn around and do this.

You continue to make a lot of assumptions about the reasons for the votes of others you do not personally know. In question 3 you accused the Repubs of giving freely to the banks and now you accuse them of voting down the bailout. Can't have it both ways. Now if you want to look to what the American people want then you should look here and see that you are in opposition to the general puublic. Americans do not want to bailout the car manufacturers.

I think this is a down payment for tombstones to go in the GOP cemetery. They really don't seem to get it, there is not enough ultra-conservatives in this country to win them an election and they are alienating any moderates that might lean their way. If they keep this up, 2010 will be another good year for the Democrats.

The reason the Repubs lost so badly is not from not being liberal enough. It was from not being conservative enough.

 

[Pastor Larry]

1. You normally advocate less government in the market, why do you agree with politicians negotiating labor agreements? Since when is it ok for the Senate to tell any company what to pay it's workers?

I don't think they are telling them what to pay their workers. They are telling them under what conditions they will get money.

2. Why are the Republican's only demanding the union workers make concessions and have placed no demands on management? Are they saying it's ok for the middle class worker to make less but the Republican management should be immune?

The plan by Corker did address management and bondholders. Before the Union would take any cuts, the bond holders would have to take a 70% cut. No one was asking such a huge cut from labor.

3. Why are the Republican's being so tough on the UAW after so freely giving 10x this amount of money to the banks with no business plan or pay cut demands. These same banks that gave executives bonuses, went on retreats, bought other banks and are still not making loans.

We probably shouldn't fault them for not making loans. After all, bad loans is what got us in this mess. The answer is not to run out and make more bad loans. But having said that, the Dems were in favor of the previous bailout, and nobody should have been.

he Republican's fell drastically in the last election when they voted down the original bailout plan. Now they turn around and do this.

Perhaps it is finally a return to principle.

 

[LeBuick]

I don't think they are telling them what to pay their workers. They are telling them under what conditions they will get money.

That's the way I see this requirement. They are saying the workers should be paid like the workers in the south. That is telling them what to pay their workers. Yes, the Big three could always turn down the money but my point was you didn't see this type requirement placed on the banks.

Second, to make the companies more competitive with foreign automakers in the U.S., Corker's legislation would require "all-in" labor costs and work rules of the Detroit 3 be immediately brought on par with companies like Nissan, Toyota and Honda.

The plan by Corker did address management and bondholders..

Bondholders, yes. You would have to point out management in his agreement cuz I sure don't see them listed.

We probably shouldn't fault them for not making loans. After all, bad loans is what got us in this mess. The answer is not to run out and make more bad loans. But having said that, the Dems were in favor of the previous bailout, and nobody should have been.

Fair statement...