Auto Bailout Rejected After Senate Vote

Detroit three bailout rejected

Only Bush can save them now

By Thami Masemola
December 12, 2008 12:15 PM
Filed Under: American, Chrysler, Corporate/Financial, Ford, General Motors, Industry

The US Senate has rejected a compromise deal that would see Detroit's Big Three get $14 billion in bailout money.

GM and Chrysler desperately need bailout funds to make it past the New Year, or at least until President-elect Barack Obama comes into office under the hopes his administration would save them. GM and Chrysler's survival, and to a certain extent Ford's, doesn't just affect the US but the whole world where these companies trade, have factories, dealers, workers and other peripheral suppliers.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said of the collapse in talks: "I dread looking at Wall Street tomorrow. It's not going to be a pleasant sight. This is going to be a very bad Christmas for many people."

The key issue for the bailout failure was the United Auto Workers (UAW) to meet Republican senators demands of benefit rollbacks on par with those of foreign manufacturers' factories by 2009. The UAW said it was willing to do this when the current contracts expire in the late summer of 2011 but not sooner. Another idea, touted by Democrats but rejected by Republicans, involved UAW to agree to accepting company stock in exchange for US$10 billion owed in retiree health care.

Now it looks as though only President George Bush can save the deal by accessing what's left of the $700 billion financial bailout fund, half of which is being made available. Previously Bush did not consider this option, but a White House aide says he is now looking at all the available options.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell commented: "We simply cannot ask the American taxpayer to subsidize failure... Even if we grant that these companies would fail without taxpayer help, we would still have to ask ourselves whether the proposal before us achieves the goal that everyone claims to embrace -- namely, the long-term viability of ailing car companies -- and, in my view, it does not."

 

Source: detnews.com and www.freep.com

Comments

phobos
December 12, 2008 12:28 PM
and the only option is merging GM and chrysler ?..

Michael
December 12, 2008 1:31 PM
... and downsize considerably.

mmr66
December 12, 2008 1:36 PM
they will file bankrupcy and then for sure they will have to get a pice of the bailout.

1gr8designer
December 12, 2008 2:31 PM
GOOD – Let them fail! I hope this serves as an example to all the other companies waiting in line for their handout.

eddie
December 12, 2008 2:51 PM
Even with bankruptcy the production lines will still run and there will be jobs but lean and mean. This is all about the UAW more so than the Big 3. The Big 3 needs to think small and look at the next auto show product lines to give them an idea about the future.

joelynn
December 12, 2008 3:15 PM
If these companies could have immense sales across a whole continent and still fail to make a profit in an era when there was huge amounts of cash floating around then how on earth can they survive a recession that will last several years? The government would just have to bail them out more and more every year like ours did with Rover.

dmanero
December 12, 2008 3:23 PM
I feel for these workers at the plants, but until they see that the unions are doing worse than good, and force the unions out. i say serves you right if the GM goes bankrupt. Here you ahve a chance to rebuild and all you have to do on your part is get a pay cut. hell you get paid more than enough as it is. You'd think with everything going on, you'd think the unoins would compromise. I say take the more or lose you job and get nothing.

foose1397
December 12, 2008 4:06 PM
Bankruptcy needs to happen for these companies especially to get rid of the weight of UAW. But im afraid of the perception of bankruptcy. These items aren't cheap and unfortunately the perception of GM and Chrysler vehicles are not good already (thats another argument, people talking about these cars who have never driven them). So, whats the incentive for the general public to buy from a bankrupt company?

AG4
December 12, 2008 4:35 PM
...and just the news that the US auto bailout failed sent global stocks crashing. Thats how serious this is.

Nurchus
December 12, 2008 4:32 PM
I said it once and I will say it again: if the Yank auto makers make more beautiful designs like the Camaro, Corvette, and the Challenger they would not be in this position in the first place. This is their own fault and listening to those worthless 60 yr old shareholders who dislike new and spiffy designs. THERE lies the problem. All they need to do is attract shareholders who LOVE cars and have a passion for cars. That passion alone will lead to great and wonderful designs in Yank automobiles. Not the aging and dying 60 yr olds who understand that a box is the most beautiful design versus an oval or rounded rhombus.

It is a simple fix. And the Yanks are capable of making wonderful designs as their history has proven, alongside the Challenger, Corvette, and Camaro. That "new" Mustang is just more of the bloody same and boring design. And that effort alone just proves that Ford is not ready to make changes. They love having more of the same. And that is exactly why I believe not one of these Yank automakers deserve a single penny of tax dollars. If they were making beautiful cars or had a future lineup of new and revolutionary, yet beautiful and functional cars, then I would reconsider. But that "new" Mustang proved otherwise from Ford's standpoint.

Let them suffer. Better yet, let the UAW suffer alongside them. Greed is the biggest killer for any company. And Greed is the main enemy here again. If they can bolster their passion for creating wonderful cars, that alone will be a step in the right direction.

Agree with me or disagree. No one can deny the fact that if the Yanks can't get their automakers to produce better products, then they deserve the fate coming to them.

AG4
December 12, 2008 4:44 PM
"That "new" Mustang is just more of the bloody same and boring design. And that effort alone just proves that Ford is not ready to make changes."

Thats because its a mid-cycle refresh/facelift. Did you know the Mustang and the C6 Corvette were both launched in 2004 for the 2005MY? At least Ford updated the Mustang styling, the C6 Corvette still looks the same as it did 4 years ago.

Nurchus
December 12, 2008 5:05 PM
Yes, but if you compare Mustang to the Corvette, I am willing to bet every schilling that people would choose the Corvette in terms of small facelifts or unchanged design.

Similarly, look at Porsche. Still the same design philosophy for over 40 years. They add wonderful cars like the Cayman to their model lineup and do that much better since it still has the same overall design philosophy.

Wickedated
December 12, 2008 6:05 PM
You're obviously not American and don't live here, so your views are biased and lack backbone. First of all, Corvettes, Camaros and Challengers are enthusiast cars and make up like 5% of the total sales for these companies. American carmakers don't make money with them, they're called "halo products." The real meat lies with the every day joes' cars- Impala, Malibu, Tahoe, Silverado, Cobalt, etc. And since you don't live here, you probably haven't witnessed the dramatic design change implemented by GM across the board. ALL of their products have been improved, design in and out, as well as mechanically. The new Malibu is way better looking than its competitor, Toyota Camry. The problem with the company is not their design. It's the huge burden of the Union. GM has to pay benefits to employees who've been retired for 15 years. It's like this- you work for GM, GM is forced to pay you benefits and salary for life. No company can survive with that burden, no matter how much sales you have.

car-o-bar
December 12, 2008 6:19 PM
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. The eal' problem with the Big 3 was not lack of 'Beautiful' designs, but more business economics, employee benefits costs, development and R&D costs, causing them to constantly make loss making cars. Detroit was loosing $2000 per car for many years, but some brands kept making money in foreign markets that kept them afloat. Now all of a sudden when the WORLD economy took a U-Turn, all their profit centers turned into cost (read loss making) centers and US market became even worse, resulting in a very quick depletion of their pockets. Now, the cars they made until about 5 years ago were no doubt hideous and of poor quality, but they have come a long way since then, but then again it was too little too late. BTW DODGE Challenger is an ugly car, way too retro.

car-o-bar
December 12, 2008 4:57 PM
the congress gave 700 Billion to Banks and they still could not save jobs or economy. What is the big deal in giving 14 Billion to Detroit when we know they will save 1 in 5 jobs in America. Penny wise Pound Foolish. I think it is all about votes, now that the elections are over and Republicans lost, they want to make sure they leave the economy is worst of conditions to later blame Democrats for it. POLITICS is as always BAD.

ck314
December 12, 2008 6:01 PM
banks own congress, wall street and the big three, can't you get the picture yet?

eddie
December 12, 2008 5:21 PM
Bankruptcy is the fastest way for for the big 3 to become small. Forget about chysler as they ou Owned privately

car-o-bar
December 12, 2008 6:09 PM
Privately held or a public company, does not matter... the bail out is not to save the stock market situation due to these three (that is a a secondary objective), the real motive is to save jobs... and 1 in 5 jobs in America depends on the big 3 in Detroit.

Wickedated
December 12, 2008 6:08 PM
Blame the UAW. Greedy bastards wont even cut back on wages and benefits to save their own workers from getting laid off. You know what, for the first time, I agree with the Republicans? You wanna play this game? Sure, we'll decline the bailout, your company goes under, a few hundred thousand people lose their jobs and then UAW can come back to the Senate with their tail between their legs and negotiate again.

ck314
December 12, 2008 6:17 PM
Precisely buyers in that segment don't care that much about "design", copntrary to "halo" cars, and those dramatic changes you talk about came in too late, in despair, after selling poorly finished and unreliable, unefficient sh*tboxes for 30 years, so you can't deny that's part of the problem.

hata0101
December 12, 2008 6:49 PM
seize the UAW, save the auto world. look at below news quote: Gettelfinger, at a news conference Friday in Detroit, said he doesn’t think the union will have to negotiate wage cuts or other terms with the White House for the industry to get federal loans. damn Gettelfinger, YOU are the one to BLAME for the bailout rejected! if i were in senate, i rejected it too!

ck314
December 12, 2008 7:29 PM
must be a nazi mole infiltrated to sabotage lol

Viking79
December 12, 2008 10:10 PM
This all comes down to the UAW. The sensible thing to do is to take a pay cut/loose some benefits it order to keep your job and the industry alive in general. The greed and idiocy displayed here is astonishing. The CEO's will work for $1 per year and a grade 10 drop out who has worked on an assembly line their entire life won't give up $1 per hour. Let 'em fail. They deserve it!

rx8
December 12, 2008 11:36 PM
GM has not made a profit, not one cent, since 2004!, so how far will this money go until they want more. It is their OVERHEADS, COSTS of employment that is the issue, get rid of the UAW, bring wages in line with other makers. Then they may have a chance of survival. There was no financial crisis in 2004,05,06,07.

eddie
December 12, 2008 11:42 PM
I guess if we think the Big 3 could be a Big WPA like during the depression, then we might bail them out. How many business will we decide to form into WPA's

View Comment Rules

Add Comment

You are modifying your comment

Exisiting User

Username
Password
remember me

New Users

Username
Email
Password
Comment

Your account

username
password

Other links