Who here is worried...

[camaro5]

Smart business people would give them whatever they want. Sell the planes, buy 'em back later if you must.

Corporate arrogance is no longer acceptable after this mess we're in.

[Supermans]

Originally Posted by camaro5

Smart business people would give them whatever they want. Sell the planes, buy 'em back later if you must.

Corporate arrogance is no longer acceptable after this mess we're in.

Selling the plane and giving the money back to the company and then fly first class for the rest of their tenure as CEO would have been something that the people working for you can admire and look up to..

The $65 million dollar Gulfstream 650 will be the private jet to own if you are a CEO of any major company once its released in 2012. I don't know how much their current Gulfstreams are worh however I think all three of the CEO's should consider selling their current one to set an example as it would save millions in air-fair travel that could be used to pay the companies deserving employee's....

[detroitboy]

The top management of the big three is on a pretty tight schedule...they don't need to be sitting in waiting rooms of the airport for hours and then finding out their flight to Washington was cancelled because some moron in Chicago left a threatening note on a plane on his way out the door.

And lets see...how many of those same senators are flying home on a private jet provided by someone who wants to influence them? And by the way...that private jet is probably taking them right to a free rental at a luxury condo. Thats how they start their TWO month long vacation that begins this week.

And they want to rag on a CEO loading up the corporate jet with their staff to go defend themselves in Washington?????

[VICTORY RED 1SS]

nope

[bob2the2nd]

this plane thing is being blown WAY out of proportion. At the bottom of one of the articles about it on CNN (i think), there was was a paragraph that stated each one of these guys had lines in their contract that said for safety reasons they were required by the company to fly in chartered company jets. Now im sure there are ways around this, but to blame the CEO's in this situation is dumb.

[Evotion]

Originally Posted by detroitboy

The top management of the big three is on a pretty tight schedule...they don't need to be sitting in waiting rooms of the airport for hours and then finding out their flight to Washington was cancelled because some moron in Chicago left a threatening note on a plane on his way out the door.

And lets see...how many of those same senators are flying home on a private jet provided by someone who wants to influence them? And by the way...that private jet is probably taking them right to a free rental at a luxury condo. Thats how they start their TWO month long vacation that begins this week.

And they want to rag on a CEO loading up the corporate jet with their staff to go defend themselves in Washington?????

While I do agree that the majority of government employees completely waste our tax dollars, they are not the ones asking for money.

Originally Posted by bob2the2nd

this plane thing is being blown WAY out of proportion. At the bottom of one of the articles about it on CNN (i think), there was was a paragraph that stated each one of these guys had lines in their contract that said for safety reasons they were required by the company to fly in chartered company jets. Now im sure there are ways around this, but to blame the CEO's in this situation is dumb.

I also believe that too much has been made of it but... it is an issue now. Considering the situation I'm also sure different arrangements could have been made without a breach of contract.

That being said, it seems to me that these three companies NEED to work together on this, set aside whatever differences may be there. This is not just about GM, they will all eventually suffer if this is not taken care of.

As I type this... you know as well as I do the are sweating it out, working around the clock to figure something out. They have one more shot at this.

Good luck.

[wayneworld]

I just watched CNN and now i'm worried I put a deposit down on 10/15 of 2500.00 and I want to know is If GM goes under or just says we will not make this car will it be easy to get my money back? I want this car real bad but don't want to get screwed out of my money because of GM.. Can anyone help me with a answer???

[Pushing_Tin]

Originally Posted by Supermans

Selling the plane and giving the money back to the company and then fly first class for the rest of their tenure as CEO would have been something that the people working for you can admire and look up to..

The $65 million dollar Gulfstream 650 will be the private jet to own if you are a CEO of any major company once its released in 2012. I don't know how much their current Gulfstreams are worh however I think all three of the CEO's should consider selling their current one to set an example as it would save millions in air-fair travel that could be used to pay the companies deserving employee's....

Damn good posting! I agree with everything you just said. Perception is reality and flying around in a G5 while begging for taxpayer money is insulting and disgusting. Why is is unreasonable to ask them to fly coach like the rest of us blue collar slobs? Giving up a G5 would save millions over a year.

[diddiyo]

Originally Posted by rolnslo

Aw, c'mon. They all run car companies, at least let them drive. ZR1 vs. GT500KR vs. Viper ACR. First one to DC gets the biggest part of the loan package.

now THAT would be something!

[teamlynn1]

Here is the latest info from thr hill guys. hang tough we will make it through this. The feds will give us some $$ as long as the CEO's can write down a plan that makes sense, it will be from the first $25 billion already ok'd for retooling for more fuel eficient cars and after Obama gets in in 2 months he will shit some more $$$ for the domestic automakers. GM cant go away period she is way to big and the effects would cripple the entire country. Read below and everyone just chill and go out and buy a damn Chevy!



THE AUTO INDUSTRY BAILOUT


Bailout compromise blocked, but hope remains

Pelosi: 'Until they show us a plan, we can't show them the money'


Harry Stoffer
Automotive News
November 20, 2008 - 12:48 pm ET
UPDATED: 11/20/08 4:30 p.m. EST



WASHINGTON -- Democratic leaders of Congress today blocked action on legislation that would provide $25 billion in emergency federal loans to the Detroit 3.

Instead, the leaders directed General Motors, Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC to submit plans showing how they would use the aid. They scheduled hearings on the plans for the week of Dec. 2, and said Congress would return Dec. 8 to consider aid measures.

The announcement upstaged moves by a bipartisan group of senators to get action this week on a compromise that would redirect $25 billion in funds already approved to help automakers build more fuel-efficient vehicles. Instead, they would let the Detroit 3 use the money to bridge their cash crises, but with extensive conditions.

Sens. Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, both Michigan Democrats, scheduled an afternoon news conference with Republicans from automaking states to discuss the compromise.

But before they arrived at a Capitol studio, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and seven other Democratic leaders entered the room and announced their decision to demand viability plans from the Detroit 3 and hold more hearings.

"It's their agreement," Reid said of the compromise's supporters.

Added House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.: "Until they show us a plan, we can't show them the money."

Pleased by bipartisan effort

But during their news conference, Levin and other lawmakers said they were pleased with the compromise and hoped it could form the basis of a deal in December. They said they were disappointed by the decision by the Democratic leaders to postpone action for at least two weeks.

"There's risks in this delay" for the teetering companies, Levin said.

Under his bill, the Commerce Department would consider the Detroit 3 viability plans. Under the leaders' plan, the review would be Congress' job.

"That's taking on a huge responsibility," Levin said.

Stabenow said she is encouraged that the leaders acknowledged the critical importance of the auto industry and "are not shutting the door" to aid.

Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, said millions of Americans who depend on the industry are worried about their livelihoods. A vote on the compromise "would have been a wonderful Thanksgiving present" for them, he said.

Voinovich complained that the Democratic leaders have established no criteria for the plans automakers are to submit to Congress.

Automakers react

In a statement, Ford Motor Co. said it would forward a plan to lawmakers.

"Ford welcomes the opportunity to provide our plan to Congress," the statement said. "We have a great plan that will continue Ford's transformation into a lean, profitable company that delivers the safe, fuel-efficient, high-quality new products that our customers want and value."

In a separate statement, GM said it would "deliver a plan to Congress that shows them a viable General Motors. We agree completely that there must be accountability to U.S. taxpayers for government support that enables automakers to continue their restructuring and to ensure a stronger, more competitive auto industry.

"We will continue to work vigorously with the Congress and the administration during the next few weeks to address their concerns and to arrive at a solution that provides immediate aid to the auto industry," GM said.

Congress vs. White House

Democratic leaders support carving out $25 billion in loans to the Detroit 3 from the $700 billion federal bailout fund for financial institutions. President George W. Bush and GOP lawmakers have rejected that approach.

Reid said the CEOs of the Detroit 3, who testified before House and Senate committees this week, did not convince Congress that their companies could be made viable with more aid. He said he would look for accountability in the companies' plans.

Pelosi also expressed doubt that federal aid would make the Detroit 3 viable, But she rejected suggestions that the companies should file for bankruptcy protection.

[lakestar]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

They should have WALKED!

They should have driven their new Camaro!!!

(or at least the Caddy or ZR1 or Traverse)

[ZombieEatsYou]

I think the fix is in. The Republican sponsors of the plan wanted the big 3 financial plans to be vetted by the accountants at the commerce department. But Pelosi and Ried said that Frank and Dodd will review the plan and make the determination of the adequacy of the plan. Since the Dems are owned by the UAW, Frank and Dodd will approve whatever is submitted; thus giving the appearance that they're "looking after the taxpayer's money and the plan submitted is a good one."
All this is IMHO, of course.

[TomServo]

So the boys flew out in their corporate jets while Rome burns:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122695946424834869.html

They are not going to pay dealers what's owned, yet do this. I'm starting to think failure is an option.

[bigralph]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/20/news...ion=2008112017

The Big Three Depression risk
Some fear a loss of GM, Ford and Chrysler would take U.S. into another depression. Even if that doesn't happen, a major auto failure would clearly hurt.

By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: November 20, 2008: 5:57 PM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The U.S. auto industry weathered the Great Depression. But there are some fears that its current crisis could cause another one.

During a hearing on a proposed $25 billion federal bailout of the industry Wednesday, GM CEO Rick Wagoner used the D word to describe what might happen if Congress didn't approve some sort of rescue package.

"At this point without injections of liquidity, I think it's reasonably probable that some portion if not all of the domestic industry will not survive," Wagoner said. "The way I would explain it to your constituents is it's going to prevent the United States from entering into an economic depression in my view."

Of course, Wagoner and the other automaker executives have an interest in painting a worst-case scenario when asking for a federal bailout.

But the threat of a recession turning into a depression was echoed by Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs, who also testified at Wednesday's hearing.

Sachs said that those who argue that a bankruptcy of GM or Chrysler would be better for the economy in the long term should look no further than the damage from the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in September.

"Lehman Brothers triggered the biggest worldwide crisis in generations," Sachs said. "Don't do it again with this industry. Two in a row, we're really into [a] depression."

Are Wagoner and Sachs justified in their depression warning? That's tough to say. But the failure of GM and one or more of its Big Three rivals would be an unwelcome blow to an already staggering U.S. economy.

Unemployment at 8%
There is no clear definition of what separates a recession from a depression but even if all three large U.S. automakers go out of business, it's unlikely that economic conditions would immediately look like the early 1930s.

Back then, unemployment hit 25% in 1933 and gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic activity, plunged 13% in 1932.

By way of comparison, the unemployment rate is currently 6.5%. And according to the Federal Reserve's latest economic forecasts, while the central bank believes that GDP could decline in 2009, it is predicting a drop of no worse than 0.2%.

Still, other economists say that there would be a sudden loss of a million jobs or more, which could take place if GM and Chrysler were forced out of business.(Ford Motor (F, Fortune 500) CEO Alan Mulally has maintained that his firm doesn't face an immediate threat of running out of cash.)

GM has about 120,000 U.S. employees, while Chrysler has about 66,000. Those two have more than 10,000 U.S. dealerships between them, employing about 500,000.

In addition, more than 300,000 jobs at auto parts suppliers are directly tied to the purchases by those two companies alone. So the direct job losses of having those two companies halt operations would top a million rather quickly.

Throw in a closure at Ford Motor, and the direct job losses reach about 1.6 million.

Lakshman Achuthan, managing director of the Economic Cycle Research Institute, estimates that if 2 million jobs are lost in the next six months, it would represent a loss of almost 1.5% of the job base. That's a big bite to take out of the economy in such a short period. The last time it lost such a large percentage of its jobs that quickly was during the painful recession of 1982.

But Achuthan points out that the the economy has lost more than 1.5% of its jobs base over a six month period four times since the end of World War II, and none of those increases in joblessness caused a depression.

Still, Achuthan is in favor of a bailout for the Big Three and said it would help save jobs.

"Forget about the semantics of depression, it makes no sense to accept that size of job losses when the economy is falling off the cliff," he said.

Other economists argue that an automaker would be able to function in bankruptcy, which would limit the impact to the overall economy somewhat. Yet, there is little doubt that deep job cuts are ahead in the next year, regardless of what happens in Congress.

"You're going to lose jobs in the auto sector, it's just a question of how many," said David Wyss, chief economist with Standard & Poor's, one of those who thinks that the automakers might be able to stay in business using Chapter 11.

Beware the unintended consequences
Wyss thinks the impact of a liquidation of GM and Chrysler could be limited if the auto plants operated in the United States by Ford pick up some of the slack.

"Americans will buy about the same number of cars, no matter who sells them," he said. "It could even be the best thing for Ford if GM is out of business."

But Wyss added that if GM and Chrysler disappear, there could also be an increase of about 1 million imported cars every year, which would remove about $25 billion from the U.S. economy. That would be enough to shave 0.2 percentage points off the nation's GDP. And that's not even counting the impact of lost jobs and wages.

"That's not trivial," he said.

For this reason, he also thinks that a bailout might make sense, even if it doesn't solve Detroit's long-term problems.

"I have a hard time seeing how a bailout fixes GM. As an economist, I hate it," he said. "But it may be a case where paying to delay the inevitable may be worthwhile."

Finally, the biggest threat to the economy from widespread auto failures is the unanticipated consequences, things that can not be forecast with any certainty such as how many more people would lose their homes, how much more home prices would fall and how many more bank failures could occur as a result.

"I don't see unemployment getting to 10% just because of the failure of automakers," Wyss said. "But it's hard to say we won't get to that level because other things will happen."

First Published: November 20, 2008: 3:45 PM ET