The People's Car Companies; Europe Wants Some Now

  • Thread starter Joey D
  • 46 comments
  • 2,140 views

Joey D

Premium
47,537
United States
Lakes of the North, MI
GTP_Joey
GTP Joey
So what's $25 Billion more than planned? It's only money right?

Detroit News
Auto industry to press Congress for $50B in loans
WASHINGTON -- Auto industry allies hope to secure up to $50 billion in government loans this month that would pay to modernize plants and help struggling car makers build more fuel-efficient vehicles.

With Congress returning this coming week from its summer break, the industry plans an aggressive lobbying campaign for the low-interest loans. The situation is growing dire after months of tumbling sales, high gasoline prices and consumers' abandoning profitable trucks and sport utility vehicles.

Lawmakers authorized $25 billion in loans in last year's energy bill to help the companies build fuel-efficient vehicles such as hybrids and electric vehicles. With credit tight, automakers and suppliers now want lawmakers to come up with the money for the program -- and expand the pool of money available to $50 billion over three years.

Industry leaders have argued that the loan guarantees are not a government bailout because it would hasten production of fuel-efficient vehicles and reduce dependence on imported oil.

"This is not about benefiting Wall Street," said Ford Motor Co.'s President of the Americas Mark Fields, referencing recent federal support for the investment firm Bear Stearns and troubled mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. "This is benefiting Main Street, the working men and women. The auto industry is part of the backbone of the U.S. economy."

The low-interest loans, at rates of about 4 percent to 5 percent, would pay for up to 30 percent of the cost of retooling plants to build hybrids, plug-in hybrids, electric cars and other alternatives.

Ford and General Motors Corp.'s credit ratings have fallen below investment grade, making it difficult for the companies to borrow money at affordable rates. Chrysler LLC, which has been heavily dependent upon truck sales, has been privately held since last year and faces similar problems getting access to capital.

"This industry could fall down, literally, or be absorbed if they don't get something in place very soon. I think it's that severe," said Rep. Joe Knollenberg, R-Mich. "Something has to happen pretty quickly because they can't compete paying 15 to 20 percent (interest)."

Industry lobbyists pressed the issue at the recent presidential conventions in Denver and St. Paul, Minn., and members of Michigan's congressional delegation have talked to legislative leaders and the Bush administration about the program. Discussions surround a three-year plan that would make $25 billion in loans available in the first year, followed by $15 billion the second year and $10 billion in the third.

To provide $50 billion in loans, Congress would need to set aside about $7.5 billion to guard against a loan default.

Automakers want to secure the money for the loans before November's election because a new president and Congress could delay the companies' ability to access the loans.

The White House said last week it was talking to members of Congress and the industry about the financing. The issue, meanwhile, has gained a foothold in the presidential campaign in states with many auto workers such as Michigan and Ohio.

Democrat Barack Obama has criticized Republican rival John McCain for not supporting the full $50 billion loan program. McCain said last week he supported fully covering the $25 billion loan program in the energy law.

Congressional leaders have said they are open to an expanded program. But the industry will face a compressed schedule in an election year when many lawmakers will push to leave Washington so they can campaign for re-election this fall.

"We're hopeful that we're making an effective case to get this done between now and the end of this session," said John Bozzella, Chrysler's vice president for external affairs and public policy.

The loans would be available to foreign automakers, but those companies are not expected to seek the money because they are in a better financial situation and priority would be given to companies with plants 20 years or older.

I understand why the Big Three need the money, they are clearly failing and if they do file for chapter 11 then the economy in Michigan will get even low then it is already which will in turn have a ripple effect on the US. But at the same time I don't think I like the idea of the government helping out businesses that can't make it. The Big Three got themselves in this position by building sub-standard vehicles, putting a good chunk of R&D into trucks and SUV's, letting the UAW get away with murder, and not planning for the future. Why should government funds, which I assume means tax dollars, help these companies out? If I want to support the Big Three I'll buy one of their vehicles.
 
It's a risky proposition... the Big Three should show a solid business turnaround and restructuring plan before Congress approves the loan...
 
I'll allow it, as long as my Corvette purchase is a 100% dollar-for-dollar tax-deduction over the course of the next 5 years.

It's only fair.
 
I'll allow it, as long as my Corvette purchase is a 100% dollar-for-dollar tax-deduction over the course of the next 5 years.

It's only fair.

Yeah, seriously. We'll take a $30k tax return on the G8.
 
Thats what I'm not understanding here... GM and Ford have otherwise "been in the clear" for the past few years, so as to why they need the money NOW, I'm actually rather confused. Sure, there isn't a single person that wants to see any of The Big Three fail outright, as to whether or not it is the best option to dump money on their laps... I'm undecided.

Michigan is already falling apart as it is, losing any of the companies is going to destroy whats left of the Ohio economy as well, not to mention the MASSIVE ripple effect it would have across not only our country, but Canada, Mexico... Most of the developed world. What the government needs to decide first is if they can even get around to doing it. We're already busy bailing-out homeowners and banks (bad-news economists are thinking that most of the loans will be federalized within two years), and I'm completely uncertain if we have the capacity to bail out a critical piece of American industry as well. We've gotta do what we've gotta do, but I'd wait it out a bit. GM and Ford can likely survive on their European and Asian operations on the short-term, but once again, its Chrysler that we have to worry about.
 
Nader opposes the Big Three loan.

Detroit News
Nader opposes fed help for Big 3
DETROIT -- Independent presidential contender Ralph Nader lambasted Detroit automakers Sunday for what he called decades of poor decision-making and said they do not deserve a federal bailout to save their hemorrhaging industry.

"The taxpayer should not be played for a sucker," Nader said outside a Detroit church to a small group of supporters, referring to a $50 billion loan package sought by the Big Three.

Nader, 74, who made a campaign stop in East Lansing earlier Sunday, said a public takeover of the corporations or an approach similar to the one taken by Chrysler in the 1970s, were the only options for Washington.

Ford's and General Motors' credit ratings are below investment grade, making it difficult for them to borrow money at affordable rates. Chrysler LLC is privately held and faces similar problems.

Some lawmakers are worried. "This industry could fall down, literally, or be absorbed if they don't get something in place very soon. I think it's that severe," said U.S. Rep. Joe Knollenberg, R-Bloomfield Hills. "Something has to happen pretty quickly because they can't compete paying 15 to 20 percent" interest.

Greg Martin, a GM spokesman, said: "There are many more relevant voices in this discussion that see the existing provision for what it is: a sound, smart policy to inject capital into the industry to get advanced technology vehicles on the road quickly."

Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, has endorsed the $50 billion package; his Republican rival John McCain supported fully covering a $25 billion package in last year's energy bill.

Nader, who advocates a national Medicare program for all Americans and a six-month negotiated withdrawal in Iraq, has run for president five times. An attorney, author and consumer advocate, he has been named by Time Magazine one of the "100 Most Influential Americans in the 20th Century."

I have to agree with him on the "the taxpayer should not be played for a sucker".
 
If this were truly a loan, and it would be paid back in a timely manner, no matter what (can't bankruptcy your way out of it), I would consider it.

But as it is, they will either still go bankrupt, or when I die they will still owe the money back.

Nader opposes the Big Three loan.
Well, that's just because he's opposed to cars in general. He thinks they are just one giant death trap worse than cigarettes, drugs, and alcohol all combined.

If the Big 3 went under he would probably do a happy dance on the front steps of the Capital.
 
What I want to know is this: Why does Chrysler (who, if Congress is sane at all, will be the only one who gets the majority of the money) need 20 times as much money this time as they did in 1979? Is Nardelli that much of a screw up?
 
RobertNardelli.jpg


...Thats not your problem...

daimler_chrysler.png


There's your problem!
 
Oh, I know why they need the money. What I can't wrap my mind around (other than the fact that Ford and GM say they need money at all) is Chrysler seems to think they need so much money.
 
I'm like with most of you guys, I think. I need to see little more from the Big 3 to justify such a huge increase in loan.

I'm no expert, but from what I've read & heard about the Big 3's future game plan, I'm thinking that they are still gonna get their behinds kicked by the imports, just by a lot less. If that was my money being loaned to them, I must see a winning game plan, not the "lose by less" game plan. If they are going to just lose by less, they can lose by less with the initial loan amount.

I'd need little more from them than "retooling", "fuel efficiency", or "hybrid". :dopey:
 
What gets me is that Toyota and Honda didn't need a ton of extra money to develop hybrids and alternative energy vehicles.
 
Quite right. Toyota is still losing a lot of money on their HSD systems, a small part of the costs there were erased by their awkward partnership with Ford, and for the short time when Nissan was buying their systems to install in the Altima (BTW: I've yet to see a Hybrid Altima on the road). Selling the Prius for so little, despite a small price increase, it can't bode well for the pocket books. My guess is that the next Prius will be a bit better, but with them now having to develop a whole-new PHV system for the car, that can't be cheap either.

Honda on the other hand never really went full-steam into the Hybrid game, so consequently, their IMA systems didn't cost quite as much to develop, build, and install in their cars. I'm uncertain how their new system will perform, but if it is at all based on the IMA system before it, I'm willing to bet that far-less cash went into the program than what Toyota did with the HSD development.

As for GM, keep in mind that they first had an IMA-type program for a short time, and now have gone full into the HSD-like "Two Mode" program. The "Two Mode" system was co-developed with Chrysler, DaimlerBenz and BMW, which pretty much eliminated the expected high cost of the system. They've now been working on their PHV program for what, three or four years? They're going to have an easier time getting that right than Toyota, who is trying to force out the technology as soon as possible... Only differences will likely be what kind of price they charge for their respective PHV models. GM can't afford to go "cheap" on the Volt, Toyota can with the PHV Prius.

===

At least in my opinion...

Both Ford and GM need to hit "Code Red" before we start throwing money at them. Ford seems to have the right idea with their "One Ford Policy," streamlining and fully integrating the American and European Ford model lineups to create one global company. It will lower costs, increase quality, and hopefully increase sales. GM continues to swing at the idea, and while they've had some small connections, they need to cut brands and models before anything will happen close to "right."

They're not in that bad of shape. Chrysler, well, they're always in bad shape. I think someone forgot to tell them that they have to build nice cars if anyone is going to buy them...
 
Hooray for socialism! Guess we should change the name of the being three to Volkswagen: The People's Car

Detroit News
House passes $25B in auto loans
Late this afternoon, the U.S. House overwhelming passed a budget bill that approves up to $25 billion in low-interest loans for the auto industry by a 370-58 vote. The Senate is set to follow suit on Friday, and the White House is expected to sign the bill that funds through March 6 the continuing operation of government.

Automakers scored a big victory, when congressional leaders agreed to help speed up the timetable for the low-interest government loans to help the auto industry retool to build advanced more fuel-efficient vehicles. In language inserted late Tuesday night, the U.S. Energy Department must issue its final rules for the loan program within 60 days of becoming law.

The program was authorized by the energy bill approved in December, but not funded. Because Detroit's Big Three automakers have sub-investment grade credit, they face 20 percent interest rates to borrow money without these loans. Automakers will be able to save more than $100 million in borrwing costs per $1 billion borrowed.

Automakers will be able to repay loans over as much as 25 years and the Energy Department will be able to defer repayment for up to five years.

Michigan members of Congress hailed the news, saying it would help retain thousands of auto jobs.

Rep. Fred Upton, R-St. Joseph, said the vote "culminates a Herculean effort to boost the industry and protect Michigan jobs and create new ones."

"This loan program helps protect those jobs and plants the seeds to create new ones. Make no mistake, these loans are an investment in Michigan's automakers and suppliers, and an investment in Michigan's workers -- these loans will not be a burden to American taxpayers, they will be paid back in full with interest," he said.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Lansing, said the bill was essential to Michigan's future.

"This is about jobs. This is about getting us off of foreign oil," she said, adding that it would "give our auto industry the capital they need to retool for the next generation of automobiles.... This is a great day for Michigan, a great victory."

But Michigan members weren't successful in convincing other members to rewrite the program to allow automarkes to use it for other things beyond retooling plants. Under the program, automakers must build vehicles that are at least 25 percent more efficent than required by federal rules to qualify for retooling money.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Detroit, said "in the midst of all the economic dark clouds in the sky it's nice to report a bright spot."

"We've got the best deal for the industry that we can," said Rep. John Dingell, D-Dearborn, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "I think we got that which they need to go forward."

But he and Stabenow both they would seek approval of another $25 billion in loans next year when Congress returns. "We will be starting on the second $25 billion, which we're going to have to get because the costs to the industry are going to be larger," Dingell said.

I will never in my life, ever buy an American car ever again because of this. The Big Three have failed themselves, the taxpayers, and the nation...and I hate them for it.
 
Agreed. One more reason not to buy American.

Chrysler needs to die... period.

GM and Ford need to suck it up and adapt. $25B... with a B!!! That's more than twice the NASA budget! And NASA's not even getting money from sales. Maybe they ought to start charging people. $5 everytime you want to look at this:

dione.jpg
 
Last edited:
So you'd rather see millions of people who's only job is to make cars be totally out of work? The Michigan economy and many others small towns and counties where there are Big Three plants would be devastated. Sure they made bad choices but everyone does and we don't say you deserved to be killed off for going bankrupt.

Also if these companies do go under say goodbye to any warranty, any new OEM parts. I don't understand why frauds like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG should get bailouts while the companies that have provided jobs for 100+ years don't? That's really unAmerican.
 
In a free market economic system if you screw up, you should suffer for it. As far as I'm concerned us Americans have bought Big Three vehicles, therefore we should either all get a free car (it is how socialism works!) or we should be able to write the purchase of a new vehicle from the Big Three 100% off our taxes as long as the government (i.e. taxpayers) is giving them money. Although all GM, Ford and Chrysler is going to do with the money is go invest it in Canada, Mexico, Asia, and anywhere else they feel the need to screw "American" cars together. I'm willing to bet a majority of that money won't see an American entity of the companies.

I'm from Michigan, I live in Lake Orion about a mile from the Orion plant and about 5 miles from the Chrysler Tech Centre in Auburn Hills. I live amongst the people it would affect and I honestly don't care. They were part of such a poorly managed group of companies for so long they almost deserve it. The UAW especially so, as they are one of the main reasons for the Big Three losing insane amounts of money.

The Big Three has built such sub-par products for so long people got sick of it, not to mention they put all their eggs in the SUV and truck basket. Guess what? Those baskets fell and those eggs broke and it really sucks to be them. Honestly, Honda and Toyota saw the oil prices rising, why didn't the Big Three? Are they that short sighted?

All I know is as a taxpayer I'm pretty pissed off about the whole thing since I had made up my mind after the Blazer that I would never give another dime of my money to a Big Three company as long as I could help it. Now part of every pay cheque with be going to them...and I don't even get a car out of it.
 
The Big Three has built such sub-par products for so long people got sick of it, not to mention they put all their eggs in the SUV and truck basket. Guess what? Those baskets fell and those eggs broke and it really sucks to be them.
Only Ford and GM did that. Daimler had the genius plan of coming out with a half dozen SUVs only after sales started failing, bizarrely enough.

Honestly, Honda and Toyota saw the oil prices rising, why didn't the Big Three? Are they that short sighted?
Toyota and Honda came out with their first full size trucks and SUVs only a couple of years ago.
 
Last edited:
So you'd rather see millions of people who's only job is to make cars be totally out of work?

So you'd rather force people to loan billions of their hard earned dollars to mismanaged and shortsighted companies at an obscenely low interest rate?

Sure they made bad choices but everyone does and we don't say you deserved to be killed off for going bankrupt.

Nobody's talking about shooting these people. But bankruptcy is the logical conclusion of a long chain of bad financial choices - they shouldn't be immune from that.

Also if these companies do go under say goodbye to any warranty, any new OEM parts.

Your own fault for buying Ford.

I don't understand why frauds like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG should get bailouts while the companies that have provided jobs for 100+ years don't? That's really unAmerican.

Yes, it is unAmerican to offer bailouts.
 
Meh and meh. Its a loan, with interest, and they will pay it back. I'm still perplexed as to why GM and Ford needed the cash (IMO, they were furthest from needing it), but Chrysler certainly did. With Daimler already looking to sell their remaining 20% share, yes, you know they're in trouble.

Like it or not Joey, you and I would be in a far-worse position if any of the major companies were to collapse. At the very least, have some positive light that people will be able to buy food and clothes with the money that they receive out of the wide network of things that the automobile industry provides for. Lets be honest, if Chrysler disappeared, you wouldn't have your high-paying job. If GM disappeared, there would be thousands of people without jobs in Grand Rapids, which means I can't sell things in my store. Then you get the reverberating effects of the third-party manufacturers like BOSH, Eaton, etc, then its going across the country. Keep in mind that it wouldn't be just Detroit that would fall, but all the rest of lower Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Kansas, etc.

Yep, its another case where our companies are "too big to fail." Lets just be thankful that they cranked the number down from the suggested $50 Billion loan, and for that matter, isn't anywhere close to the $180 Billion that we handed AIG, or for that matter, the extra $700 Billion that will go everywhere else.

Better news: Its bringing more jobs to Flint already. GM announced today that they're opening a new engine plant there.
 
That's more than twice the NASA budget! And NASA's not even getting money from sales. Maybe they ought to start charging people. $5 everytime you want to look at this:

dione.jpg
No, because I pay/paid for it already, and NASA images are supposedly public domain.

Of course, you can go to the Kennedy Space Center, and really get your wallet squeezed.
 
No, because I pay/paid for it already, and NASA images are supposedly public domain.

Of course, you can go to the Kennedy Space Center, and really get your wallet squeezed.

I found Dixie Crossroads to be a better experience. :lol:
 
Meh and meh. Its a loan, with interest, and they will pay it back.

There in lies the problem, I have serious, serious, serious doubts a dime of it will ever get paid back in my lifetime...or ever. IF (yes that's a big if) they ever pay it back the taxpayers better get a cut of the interest because after all they did use our money. I have to pay the bank interest when I use their money so it's only fair.

Like it or not Joey, you and I would be in a far-worse position if any of the major companies were to collapse. At the very least, have some positive light that people will be able to buy food and clothes with the money that they receive out of the wide network of things that the automobile industry provides for.

Shouldn't people have tried harder at their jobs? I mean especially the UAW workers. When robots do the work for you most of the time there really isn't an excuse to screw up the basics of snapping things together. And engineers should have actually put forth the effort to design products that didn't suck in the eyes of the buying public. Honestly, if they don't have food to eat, it's because they messed up the company.

Lets be honest, if Chrysler disappeared, you wouldn't have your high-paying job.

I'd be fine, a majority of the stuff I sell is bought by Europeans and Asians in their respective countries. I sold almost $60,000 last month with about $58,000 of it overseas. Anyone looking for antiques in America typically already comes from money.

Yep, its another case where our companies are "too big to fail." Lets just be thankful that they cranked the number down from the suggested $50 Billion loan, and for that matter, isn't anywhere close to the $180 Billion that we handed AIG, or for that matter, the extra $700 Billion that will go everywhere else.

The loaning isn't over yet, this is a classic example of "if you give a mouse a cookie, he's damn well going to want a glass of milk to wash that cookie down with". We give them $25B now, what's to stop them from getting $50B next time? It was really easy for them to squeak this one by.
 
Back