President Bush Shoots America the Finger

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Right you are. The way I see it now, the America's car industry's main customers are americans. And that's the problem. Take BMW or Audi for example, they are very popular all over the world. There's huge market for European and Japanese cars, while the US cars get only a little share of it. They should start to build less "american dream" cars and instead build cars that sell well worldwide.

Which they have failed to do since the first bailout in 1979. We are not a manufacturing nation anymore. We ARE a service economy. Giving companies that have proved themselves unable to compete in the market for the past couple of decades billions of dollars of its citizens' money AFTER it failed to move through the legislature is simply irresponsible.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

Which they have failed to do since the first bailout in 1979. We are not a manufacturing nation anymore. We ARE a service economy. Giving companies that have proved themselves unable to compete in the market for the past couple of decades billions of dollars of its citizens' money AFTER it failed to move through the legislature is simply irresponsible.

PD

I think you better go look at how much this economy does manufacture - you are wrong.

However, Bush is ticking me off with this bailout. The bankruptcy courts are designed to deal with this sort of crap, not my tax dollar! The airlines went bankrupt, and guess what? They are still there too.

The auto industry just made up for its slumping sales alright. They just got the biggest sale in history.

-S

[GoldenRivet]

im personally opposed to the bailout.

We simply cannot socialize big business in America. The government shouldnt have the power to pick which companies fail and which succeed.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

im personally opposed to the bailout.

We simply cannot socialize big business in America. The government shouldnt have the power to pick which companies fail and which succeed.

huzzah to that GR

They were saying on the radio that Toyota? and GMC? had sold the same amout of cars, one made a profit, one for a loss! Guess which is which . I think people are voting with their wallets. Personally, I'd blame the UAW.

[Zachstar]

I partially Blame UAW.

Mainly because they outright supported the move to big and expensive SUVs instead of cheap and effective electric cars. And now they are willingly being used as a shield by heartless greedy and technology destroying bastards at GM.

But to outright blame them means nothing. They will have power period. Thus you must go back to the source.

It is fine to keep paying them a ton of money if they are willing to retrain to build the next gen electric cars.

[Iceman]

I find it intresting that Ford elected after all not to partake of the "apple". I think if they can stay afloat maybe they're strategy is to buy up the other two failing companies somehow...monopoly....or if not maybe they are hoping they outright fail...which I think would end up being good for them as the last remaining big guy on the American block that may after all help them...I think some should fail as painful as that is, is'nt that what America is all about...opportunity...one mans failure will create opportunity for others here if they are smart....personally the UAW needs to dissapear as it has become a death weight about the neck of that industry....they must be able to compete with the foreign makers that have moved right on in the backyard.

[August]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

It is fine to keep paying them a ton of money if they are willing to retrain to build the next gen electric cars.

Bah, fire them all I say and train a new generation of auto workers. There are plenty of unemployed people who would jump at the chance to earn half the wages of an overpaid UAW dinosaur.

[Aramike]

I wonder if Obama's supporters know just how happy Obama is that Bush did this?

Obama wanted nothing to do with something so controversial early in his term.

[TheSatyr]

The auto makers needed the bailout for national security reasons more than anything else I think. Who do you think builds the tanks,apcs,humvees,trucks etc. that the military uses?

I for one don't want to see our military have to go begging to Germany or Japan to get new military vehicles built. Good way for our tank and apc specs to end up on a desk in Beijing or Moscow.(They probably have them already but why make it easier for them?).

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by TheSatyr

The auto makers needed the bailout for national security reasons more than anything else I think. Who do you think builds the tanks,apcs,humvees,trucks etc. that the military uses?

I for one don't want to see our military have to go begging to Germany or Japan to get new military vehicles built. Good way for our tank and apc specs to end up on a desk in Beijing or Moscow.(They probably have them already but why make it easier for them?).

The automakers don't product any of that stuff. Am General builds the HMMWV, General Dynamics manufactures the M1A1, the Bradley is produced by BAE Systems Land and Armaments, etc.

The automakers' products are more mass-produced assembly-line vehicles, doesn't work well for military hardware.

[August]

I thought the Abrams was made by Chrysler?

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by August

I thought the Abrams was made by Chrysler?

It was designed by Chrysler Defense, which General Dynamics purchase in the early 80s, I believe.