Here is my letter I'm faxing to my Senators and Congressmen about the auto bailout

[JawZ]

The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg
324 Hart Senate Office Building
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510


While I do not fully agree with bailing out the auto industry, I do believe in assisting my fellow Americans.

With that in mind, I do believe that any loans given out to any of the Big 3 automakers should come with one condition that will help protect and prevent “we the people” from ever having to go through this ever again.

Each company should be broken up into smaller companies that are based on the type/class of vehicle that they manufacture/sell. This will prevent any one internal division failure from forcing the rest of the company into bankruptcy.

Stock fund managers do this all the time….it’s called diversification which helps to distribute your risk across multiple financial sectors in order to prevent total investment losses. You are protected from having investments spread across multiple areas so if one area has a big downturn, the other areas of your investment portfolio don’t all suffer at the expense of one.

GM should be broken up into smaller companies that represent the class of vehicles which they make so if GM SUV has a horrible fiscal year, it doesn’t affect GM Hybrid.

This solution protects EVERYONE, from the taxpayer, to the auto worker, and everyone in between.

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter.

xxxx xxxxx
xxx xxxxx xx
xxxxxxx xx xxxxx
xxx-xxx-xxxx
xxxxxxx@comcast.net


I x'd out my personal info for posting reasons.

Just thought I'd share and I encourage all to contact their reps with their own personal thoughts. Senator Lautenberg actually requested that I fax him which says alot to me.



EDIT: I have now included my 2nd version sent out today.

The Honorable Robert Menendez
317 Hart Senate Office Building
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Sir, after many hours of discussion, I would like to amend my earlier letter to you in hopes that it can help provide an innovative and reasonable solution to the auto industry woes that we are currently experiencing.

I maintain that the Big 3 needs to be broken up into smaller companies but after much research, I think that the companies need to be based upon the manufacturing processes rather than the types of vehicles being constructed.

There are two common legislatively enacted elements to all auto manufacturing that Americans demand; safety and emissions/fuel economy standards. If manufacturing efficiencies were to be found in providing for a common power train and chassis assembly that met both NHTSA standards as well as Federal emissions/ fuel economy standards, it would help eliminate redundancy and waste in that process. This could be applied to each stage of the manufacturing process. Companies could retain their unique styles by adapting their body or exoskeleton to a common powertrain/chassis based on market demand.

For example, if Ford were to spin off it’s engine and chassis division and provide a limited set of power train/chassis classes (economy, sedan, truck, etc) that could be made available to the industry as a whole through partnerships, the entire industry would benefit. It would also protect the wealth of the industry because no one single point of failure could drag down the entire industry in the future. Vehicles need to be manufactured based on demand rather than output criteria.

Of course this means adopting a radically new position and it would be a paradigm shift in how the industry functions. But at this point in time, the industry does not innovate and being that we are being asked to provide relief, it is not only our duty to respond, but also to mentor and guide and lead.

We can not allow for another monopolization of failure. The Big 3 must be broken up into smaller companies based on the vehicle manufacturing process stage.

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter.

[brembo]

Busting them up into smaller units isn't a solution for GM. The production lines are common fodder across the lines. Take Cadillac/Chevrolet for instance. The Escalade is a full-sized Suburban(Tahoe?) with fancy pants, as is the EXT Caddy truck thing(Avalanche sans tupperware body kit).

What worries me is the idea of the "car czar", government oversight as to how a PRIVATE corp is going to do business. That's spooky IMO. I'm worried that the bailout is going to setup some ugly precidents that gets the government's foot in the door. I heard a number of 25 million being tossed around as a trigger for government oversight in terms of spending the bailout money, that's a bit easier to swallow than just a dude rubber stamping projects on "behalf of the government".

The whole mess is honestly going to fall under the chicken salad theory in my book, "can't make chicken salad with chicken ****". Damned if we do, damned if we don't. Tho, I do think trying to prevent chapter 11 within Chrysler and GM is the right thing to do, the payoffs for minimal(hah) outllay of capital vs. the swirling fecalstorm that bankruptcy would cause are justified.

[JawZ]

Busting them up into smaller units isn't a solution for GM. The production lines are common fodder across the lines. Take Cadillac/Chevrolet for instance. The Escalade is a full-sized Suburban(Tahoe?) with fancy pants, as is the EXT Caddy truck thing(Avalanche sans tupperware body kit).

What worries me is the idea of the "car czar", government oversight as to how a PRIVATE corp is going to do business. That's spooky IMO. I'm worried that the bailout is going to setup some ugly precidents that gets the government's foot in the door. I heard a number of 25 million being tossed around as a trigger for government oversight in terms of spending the bailout money, that's a bit easier to swallow than just a dude rubber stamping projects on "behalf of the government".

The whole mess is honestly going to fall under the chicken salad theory in my book, "can't make chicken salad with chicken ****". Damned if we do, damned if we don't. Tho, I do think trying to prevent chapter 11 within Chrysler and GM is the right thing to do, the payoffs for minimal(hah) outllay of capital vs. the swirling fecalstorm that bankruptcy would cause are justified.

We don't allow successful monopolies to exist in this country (cough cough). So what you are seeing is GM's own monopolized failure. they own their own failure because of just what you disagree with. The production items that are common to most GM models should be their own company. Let them figure out ways to do business with each other based on the market demands. Vehicles aren't units, they are component pieces.

1. Streamline engine/drivetrain types
2. Provide for a common chasis
3. Streamline interior components
4. Allow for constrained diversification in vehicle type


I don't care how they achieve a breakup...but they need to be broken up imo to avoid company wide failure.

What suggestions do you have to prevent another monopolization of failure?

Give me good stuff and I'll amend my daily faxes lol.

[YARDofSTUF]

Ya its not just GM, all auto makers only have a few platforms to develop their cars at one time.

Splitting them up wouldnt work, but cutting out a few useless brands could help.

[YARDofSTUF]

I don't care how they achieve a breakup...but they need to be broken up imo to avoid company wide failure.

So if we break them up then who gets the platroms? If they are split up does that mean that the company then holding rights to the platform has to support the older models of the brand that split off from them? Or that the Split brand owners can no longer use their warranty?

[JawZ]

Ya its not just GM, all auto makers only have a few platforms to develop their cars at one time.

Splitting them up wouldnt work, but cutting out a few useless brands could help.

If splitting them up wouldn't work, then why are we here? Why don't you see companies like Volkswagen getting bigger and bigger and bigger?

GM keeps putting the same engines and drive trains in vehicles that don't sell....yet they hedge their bets on them because of the profit margins.

You need to study the tech sector really close to see what they do and what they don't do. You need to look really close at how the tech sector has slumped because you will see the same reasons over and over and over.

I learned at a very early age that if you do one thing good...keep doing it. Don't stray into thinking that you can do everything.

Look at Dell and HP...perfect examples of what is going on today.


Getting rid of useless models is a good idea.

[brembo]

What suggestions do you have to prevent another monopolization of failure?

Give me good stuff and I'll amend my daily faxes lol.

Dude, I have NO earthly idea. GM is a sprawling hyper-massive furball of a corporation, so many facets to have to consider when trying to firm up it's bottom line. Well beyond my scope of understanding. I can only snipe and pick at what's being (possibly) required of the car makers to get their bailout funds.

[JawZ]

So if we break them up then who gets the platroms? If they are split up does that mean that the company then holding rights to the platform has to support the older models of the brand that split off from them? Or that the Split brand owners can no longer use their warranty?

dude, I do not have all the answers for every detail although I can tell you that based on today's news....warranties and auto worker retirements are on the chopping block. So even with this bailout, there is gonna be pain for everyone.

I want to prevent that.

I'm hoping that smarter people than me can capitalize on my idea which imo is sound. GM has grown too big for it's own good. Chrysler has tried to keep itself afloat by utilizing these methods. they make the Routan for VW.

[tarpoon75]

I say tell the UAW to go f@#k themselves

[YARDofSTUF]

If splitting them up wouldn't work, then why are we here? Why don't you see companies like Volkswagen getting bigger and bigger and bigger?

GM keeps putting the same engines and drive trains in vehicles that don't sell....yet they hedge their bets on them because of the profit margins.

You need to study the tech sector really close to see what they do and what they don't do. You need to look really close at how the tech sector has slumped because you will see the same reasons over and over and over.

I learned at a very early age that if you do one thing good...keep doing it. Don't stray into thinking that you can do everything.

Look at Dell and HP...perfect examples of what is going on today.


Getting rid of useless models is a good idea.

Getting rid of the useless models is great, but you can't split them up, they don't have enough platforms to divide them.

Why not jsut get rid of useless brands?

GM keeps evolving their engines and drivetrains as well.

[YeOldeStonecat]

An interesting article that PM had....notice the sharing of components between totally different brands even...such as Mazda and Volvo
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automot ... tml?page=1

4 pages of quick reading.

[brembo]

I say tell the UAW to go f@#k themselves

If it were the UAW that was dragging down GM then chapter 11 would be a god send if I understand the nature of chap 11. Not to say that the UAW isn't a bit of a leech and creates hurdles at times. It's the monolithic inflexibility and serpentine nature of a MASSIVE corporation that's knee-capping GM right now. Chrysler has been cicrcling the bowl for awhile, Mercedes didn't do Chrysler any favors in the long run.

[JawZ]

Getting rid of the useless models is great, but you can't split them up, they don't have enough platforms to divide them.

Why not jsut get rid of useless brands?

GM keeps evolving their engines and drivetrains as well.

It's not a matter of enough platforms because we already know that they can make everything.

When you say that they don't have enough platforms to divide them up, I think you are missing my point.

For example....look at the Ford name itself. Study it.

It's Ford MOTOR company. Why can't Ford or GM just spin off their motor and drive train divisions into separate companies and let the body styling guys find a way to market those engines in a common chassis provided by a different Ford/GM branded company?

Look at VW....how many different engines do they have? Very few. It makes it so easy for them to put an engine which they are experts at making into a body style which is in demand...and they never overextend themselves.

when I'm presented with a 6 page options package list for every GM vehicle out there in excel spreadsheet styling....there is something wrong.

Again, it's about efficiencies.

We can't prevent failure as long as they have a death grip on their own monopoly of failure.

We need to have this discussion, the taxpayers. So I would rather debate you than leave it up to them....it's obvious that has failed.

I wish I was a philosophy major in college because I think that' what could help with the end result.

There needs to be a paradigm change in how we produce and utilize vehicles for personal use in this country.

[YARDofSTUF]

UOD, I think that would only help to further weaken their brands.

[Sava700]

[YARDofSTUF]

And sava's post points out another problem, people that think all the domestic vehicles are crap and gas guzzlers.

[Think]

And sava's post points out another problem, people that think all the domestic vehicles are crap and gas guzzlers.

Well, they are actually. Send the letter and I'm sure that if most everyone engaged in voicing there thoughts to congress then they would think ( try to, we don't want them to strane themselves ) twice before making such a rash decision under such corporate pressure.

[downhill]

I say tell the UAW to go f@#k themselves

Educate yourself on the current problems of the big three then come back and post your findings.

Thank you very much.

[downhill]

Sour grapes, Sava? IMHO, you'll be better off in the long run.


UOD, we've touched on this before. GM wanted to drop off several lines in their current lineup a long time ago. Why didn't they do it? Because it would have cost them billions to buy out some of those dealerships.

[Think]

Sour grapes, Sava? IMHO, you'll be better off in the long run.


UOD, we've touched on this before. GM wanted to drop off several lines in their current lineup a long time ago. Why didn't they do it? Because it would have cost them billions to buy out some of those dealerships.

Not if they go bankrupt...which they will eventually.

[brembo]

Not if they go bankrupt...which they will eventually.

?

Which statement are you referencing?

[Think]

?

Which statement are you referencing?

This one:

Why didn't they do it? Because it would have cost them billions to buy out some of those dealerships.

[Sava700]

Sour grapes, Sava? IMHO, you'll be better off in the long run.


.

ohh no not that again..no not sour grapes... I hope it comes back to bite every tax payer in the butt..cause thats exactly what it will do. They shouldn't have done anything with them not a single red cent.

[Think]

ohh no not that again..no not sour grapes... I hope it comes back to bite every tax payer in the butt..cause thats exactly what it will do. They shouldn't have done anything with them not a single red cent.

I agree Sava but what can you do.

[downhill]

Well, UOD has the right idea.

Tell me Sava, how many letters have you written? Have you called any congressmen over this?

Don't bother with email. Congress hates it.

[brembo]

Sava-

What's cheaper? Giving someone 5 bucks worth of ointment and some bandages to patch up a faily deep cut to HOPEFULLY heal a wound, or wait for 3 weeks till the infection is to the bone and requires massive surgery?

20 billion dollars is chump change when placed against the entire federal budget. Attempting to bolster 3 huge companies with what in essence is very little capital compared to what the fallout(bankruptcy) would be is only logical. The cascade effect of GM having to gain shelter under Chapter 11 would be incredible, so many, SO MANY other businesses would get caught in the undertow of that giant sinking.

[downhill]

This one:

They still wanted to do so and who knows?




All this said, the current problems are because and please read carefully.....k

Nobody is buying new cars! It's not just the big three.


What's the difference? Other countries are willing to help their industry.





It has nothing to do with the UAW. It has a lot to do with the current meltdown of the economy and not just here but world wide. That and the recent cost of gas has really hurt the big money makers for the big three. The gas guzzlers. Who wants something that gets 12 miles per gallon when it's apparent that the current prices are going to eventually climb up again.


There was a very interesting story on Saudi Oil this Sunday. I think you all should watch it. It ties in with the current problems.

[Think]

You guys really think that a bailout will rescue this dieing operation? Poor management, czar CEO's, huge pensions, etc etc ?

Wow, all the best.

Nice Caps but Toyota is building another factory in Ontario and even do to the current downturn, they are cash rich, union free and product healthy.

[YARDofSTUF]

Well, they are actually.

Then why do that awards and stats point to them doing very well?

[downhill]

You guys really think that a bailout will rescue this dieing operation? Poor management, czar CEO's, huge pensions, etc etc ?

Wow, all the best.

Nice Caps but Toyota is building another factory in Ontario and even do to the current downturn, they are cash rich, union free and product healthy.

Toyota isn't union free. Maybe in Canada they are but not in Japan.

Here's the clincher, Think....you don't need a union IF the company treats them fairly.


That said, aren't you from Canada? I'm trying to figure out some of your posts.

[brembo]

You guys really think that a bailout will rescue this dieing operation? Poor management, czar CEO's, huge pensions, etc etc ?

Wow, all the best.

Nice Caps but Toyota is building another factory in Ontario and even do to the current downturn, they are cash rich, union free and product healthy.

Check out what Lee Iacoca did with Chrysler back when the K-Cars were rolled out. A government helping hand scraped them off the floor and allowed Chrysler to be a positive force in the market again.

[downhill]

Check out what Lee Iacoca did with Chrysler back when the K-Cars were rolled out. A government helping hand scraped them off the floor and allowed Chrysler to be a positive force in the market again.

Exactly. It took Chrysler three years and they paid the taxpayer back with interest. I believe around 700 million in interest.

[Think]

Check out what Lee Iacoca did with Chrysler back when the K-Cars were rolled out. A government helping hand scraped them off the floor and allowed Chrysler to be a positive force in the market again.

It's a different market and a different set of players. The only solution at that time were big FAT cars or a conservative car. They read the market well but those days are long gone when Domestics had the lions share of the market. Imports have proven there marketability and products for the last few decades and even more contenders are entering the market. The problem is simple, bankrupt and restructure. You will never salvage a company is such dire straits but throwing in good money into bad money. Beyond the ramifications of job losses, it makes no sense for any investor to place there money there unless they can break the union, restructure management and redefine there product line. I'm righting on a whim here but I think the premise is there.

It will hurt initially but keep in mind that in the long run, you'll be stronger, leaner and meaner.

DOWNHILL - Yes I'm from Canada and we are asking the same questions here as well. Whatever the US decides then Canada will most likely follow out with a similar bailout based - relative to our market.

[YeOldeStonecat]

Cars are selling, sales are down, but yes some are selling. What added bigtime to their financial burden....was
*Their moneymakers, the older models, the huge gas guzzlers and mega yacht Utes, sales of those ground to a halt as gas prices rose over the spring/summer.
*Fuel efficient cars actually did sell like hotcakes. Dealers couldn't keep enough of them in the lots. But the big 3 lose money on many of those models...production, esp hybrids, costs too much per model, they have them avail to show they're intentions are good..but those models are not profitable yet.

All this said, the current problems are because and please read carefully.....k

Nobody is buying new cars! It's not just the big three.

[brembo]

Think-

I don't think you have a full grasp of what bankruptcy will do to the manufacturing sector of the US.

Notice that Ford only wants a line of credit for 9 billion IF GM or Chrysler go bankrupt. Read that again. If GM or Chrysler file for bankruptcy, Ford wants 9 billion dollars to be able to stay afloat, no bankruptcy...then Ford says it's gonna be okay.

Now, please tell me why bankruptcy is a good thing in this situation.

[JC]

I was reading the little disclaimer at the bottom, ****** resale value. Anyone know why the resale value is so low?


I believe the main reason resale value of US cars is so low mainly because... They fleet so many cars out. Meaning rental units etc.. These cars flood the market and are pulled out of rental after a few months. ( The cycle then repeats itself ) They are then sent to auction where they just don't bring any money. The value of cars is based on what buyers are paying for them at auction.

[Think]

Think-

I don't think you have a full grasp of what bankruptcy will do to the manufacturing sector of the US.

Notice that Ford only wants a line of credit for 9 billion IF GM or Chrysler go bankrupt. Read that again. If GM or Chrysler file for bankruptcy, Ford wants 9 billion dollars to be able to stay afloat, no bankruptcy...then Ford says it's gonna be okay.

Now, please tell me why bankruptcy is a good thing in this situation.

downhill mentioned that it will cost them billions if they drop lines so it seems to me that the only way to break the deadlock is to start lean and mean. If they maintain status quo then nothing will change other then another failed bailout.

[JC]

Here's the clincher, Think....you don't need a union IF the company treats them fairly.


.

Kind of a broad statement imo. Who determines "fair"?

[brembo]

downhill mentioned that it will cost them billions if they drop lines so it seems to me that the only way to break the deadlock is to start lean and mean. If they maintain status quo then nothing will change other then another failed bailout.

There ARE some decent folks on the hill, and we have got to trust that they are doing some cost/benefit analysis in this case. Just letting a multi-national massive corporation go down the tubes when possible injections of capital COULD help is no solution.

GM in particular buoys many other companies, when/if GM goes tits up, so will many of there other companies, so it's not just a case of making GM "lean and mean". It's a far reaching issue that spans many sectors of industry. Will it work? I have no clue, but I think that trying to soften the blow to the US's weak economy is the right choice.

[downhill]

Kind of a broad statement imo. Who determines "fair"?

No it's not a broad statement at all.

There are lots of companies who do fine without unions. Big companies. Why? Because the workers don't need to unionize. Again, a bit of reading on the subject and I'd never need to respond to your anti worker anti pro America and pro corporate America should own everything, posts.