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

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 5:08 pm

Think wrote: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.

Let em go bankrupt and it won't just be the U.S.A's economy that takes a huge hit. GM is deep into Canada as well.

JC · Post by JC » Wed Dec 10, 2008 5:31 pm

downhill wrote: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.

Well, get to reading, Mr, pro militant union.

Btw: Don't ever call me "anti pro American", "or anti worker"

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 5:44 pm

brembo wrote:
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.

You are helping to make my point Dan. GM does in fact need to find efficiencies and we as taxpayers need protections in place to prevent this from happening again.

GM is GM. When it goes tits up...it will affect many other sectors....it will even hit the financial sector due to their GMAC branded financial division. that's why it's so important to discover new and innovative ways to protect the entire economy from the failure of ONE company.

Little companies don't wreck the US economy.

Right now everyone has an attitude of "it can't work". Well guess what....this is Apollo 13 and we need to figure out a way to make it work.

My ideas may not be the best or even sound.....but I think we must take some calculated risks in adopting change. We need brainstorming here. Money will not fix this problem. The processes need to be reviewed and the industry itself needs to change.

But with that, American consumers need a huge dose of reality that we need to take a bite of the **** sandwich as well and we all need to evaluate what transportation means to us and at what cost.

We really need to examine our values as Americans.

A can't do or won't work attitude will doom us. If we accept change, I believe that we can come out stronger and actually create more jobs.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 5:52 pm

brembo wrote:Busting them up into smaller units isn't a solution for GM. The production lines are common fodder across the lines.

Would it be possible to make the common production line it's own company?

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 5:52 pm

UOD wrote:A can't do or won't work attitude will doom us. If we accept change, I believe that we can come out stronger and actually create more jobs.

I have nothing against change, just not the way you are saying.

I still think shrinking GM is the best for them. Cut out Buick Saab and Saturn, or morph Saturn into an experimental, solar/flex feul, crazy hybrid branch.

Cut out some lack luster brands that way and some management, and it also eliminates some competition amongst itself.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 6:11 pm

JC wrote:Well, get to reading, Mr, pro militant union.

Btw: Don't ever call me "anti pro American", "or anti worker"

Pro militant union? What planet are you from?

It doen't take much from reading your posts that you either missed some basic stuff in U.S. History class in highschool or didn't even bother with it in collage. Look, I don't care what you hear on Savage Nation, or Limbaugh, or what Hannity or O'Reilly convinces you to believe. You don't have to like unions. Fine by me but at least post like you know what your talking about.

You are anti worker. Or at least one that thinks that unless you own your own business that you shouldn't even make minimum wage. No need to deny that, JC. Your posts on SG speak volumes.

Unions helped make a huge middle class in this country. Having that huge middle class up until pro business, and other interests started making headway into shrinking it.

Having that huge middle class is what helped make this the biggest economy on the face of the earth.

I hate having to keep going at this but hey.........I don't mind if you don't mind.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 6:15 pm

UOD wrote:
But with that, American consumers need a huge dose of reality that we need to take a bite of the **** sandwich as well and we all need to evaluate what transportation means to us and at what cost.

We really need to examine our values as Americans.

A can't do or won't work attitude will doom us. If we accept change, I believe that we can come out stronger and actually create more jobs.

That last paragraph really sums it up. That's my belief as well. Will it be easy? Hell no. Will it cost us in the short term? Yes indeed it will. What it will also do is help provide us with a way to stay on top of a world economy.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 6:24 pm

YARDofSTUF wrote:I have nothing against change, just not the way you are saying.

I still think shrinking GM is the best for them. Cut out Buick Saab and Saturn, or morph Saturn into an experimental, solar/flex feul, crazy hybrid branch.

Cut out some lack luster brands that way and some management, and it also eliminates some competition amongst itself.

Actually I think you do agree with what I'm saying because all I'm am saying is that we need change and we as the American taxpayers need to demand it and have oversight for it.

I agree with your own suggestions and they are actually doable within what I'm suggesting as well.

I don't see us as being worlds apart in our differences. I think spinning off Saturn as you suggested into a strictly hybrid/future tech company is a great idea....and it aligns with what I'm saying. Make GM smaller so it's footprint on the economy is smaller.

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 6:34 pm

A smaller GM yes, but still all under the GM name, Ford is almost a good example, still large, but not as bad, though I don't think Lincoln is really worth keeping anymore.

Think · Post by **Think** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:30 pm

I've heard both sides here and sorry to say that living in a similar situation as yourselves in Ontario and seeing a huge number of job losses and sector slow downs is the nature of a recession and cannot justify helping such a pathetic sector as the auto industry receive a bail out. As far as I am concerned they are overpaid, unskilled union socialist that are seeking a welfare check to bail out there stupidity.

So be it. Shut it down, clean house. I see no reason or any conclusive argument that would sway my belief that they would put due diligence in the proper utilization of the funds.

I've graciously heard your arguments on two posts and made the effort to read two Canadian newspapers on this and don't believe a word of there dooms day dread.

The end for me.

Thanks

Sava700 · Post by **Sava700** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:34 pm

downhill wrote: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.

I've done all mine by email...if they hate it thats their problem and they are living in the past cause I'm not forking out 40some odd cents to put a stamp on the same thing I can send for nothing and mean the same.

I've also said I've done so at least a few times in the other thread. The Big 3 auto makers need to restructure and change how they do things NOW before they should be allowed to get a single cent...not after. Thats like putting the carriage before the horse which doesn't make much sense now does it. If it serves as a good change then if the money is then needed as a safe loan then ok but right now there isn't a banker in their right mind that would load them a single cent the way they operate or have been operating the last 20+ years.

JC · Post by JC » Wed Dec 10, 2008 8:05 pm

downhill wrote:Pro militant union? What planet are you from? It doen't take much from reading your posts that you either missed some basic stuff in U.S. History class in highschool or didn't even bother with it in collage. Look, I don't care what you hear on Savage Nation, or Limbaugh, or what Hannity or O'Reilly convinces you to believe. You don't have to like unions. Fine by me but at least post like you know what your talking about.

You are anti worker. Or at least one that thinks that unless you own your own business that you shouldn't even make minimum wage. No need to deny that, JC. Your posts on SG speak volumes.

Unions helped make a huge middle class in this country. Having that huge middle class up until pro business, and other interests started making headway into shrinking it.

Having that huge middle class is what helped make this the biggest economy on the face of the earth.

I hate having to keep going at this but hey.........I don't mind if you don't mind.

Minimum wage lol. People should get paid what they are worth. Not what the government demands. The guys that work for me, ALL made over 100K this year. Want to know why? Reason 1 is ME!! Reason 2, is they work on 100% commission. That's right, they get paid for what they produce. If they do nothing and sit on their asses they make 0. I'm all about American workers.

BMED · Post by **BMED** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 11:01 pm

The BIG 3 needs to become the BIG ONE! Merge, Merge, Merge...

Restructuring the UAW's concept on wages & benefits is a whole other issue. Should a worker on the line make $65k? Should CIO's get unlimited bonuses? No and No way!

UOD, I somewhat agree with you...and if I didn't live and work in Detroit my whole life I may have had a different opinion. The BIG 3 has had many chances during the 70's & 80's & 90's to clean up their act...unfortunately they have ignored almost every opportunity to change. Now is the time, step up or step out...either way "We the people" will pay!

BTW, I own a FORD product...and will continue to buy US made until I have to pay twice.

BMED

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 2:51 am

BMED wrote:The BIG 3 needs to become the BIG ONE! Merge, Merge, Merge...

Why?

Combining all 3 would have so much overlap its not even funny, and as bad a situation they are in if you look at the numbers they sell, theres enough sales to justify 3 companies.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 4:37 am

YARDofSTUF wrote:Why?

Combining all 3 would have so much overlap its not even funny, and as bad a situation they are in if you look at the numbers they sell, theres enough sales to justify 3 companies.

You are getting too hung up on company naming schemes. Think consolidation/merger of like/similar processes.

Similar processes would not overlap. They would be forced to find efficiencies through innovation to deliver the best product available based on present and future engineering techniques.

Think how much safer vehicles would be if they shared common components.

We need to force them to remove unnecessary redundancy.

It really just comes down to one piece of factual reality....the American people didn't fail GM. GM failed GM and now they are begging for our help. Now that we are involved, tough crap. They have proven that they can't handle their business. The status-quo got them where?

If we just give them money and not demand change and help implement it, then they will just run out of money and we'll be here bent over again and again and again.

We are giving them a lifeline but we need to teach them how to swim.

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:53 am

Look at Ford's Brazil plant, their escape hybrid engine that is now moving to the fusion i believe, and the smaller cars they have in the works, I think Ford has found their answer.

But if 3 companies are in trouble, or say one is poorish and 2 others are in trouble of failing, then how does merging them help?

And as 1 company you wouldn't sell a Charger, Challenger, Mustang, GTO, Camaro, and Corvette, or all the 10s of SUV's in the big 3's brands, or need all the plants they have.

A really smart move on any of the big 3's part would be to adopt Kia/Hyundai's warranty IMO.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 8:00 am

Curious about the impact of a "Car Czar".....
If the person is selected by Bush...will it be smooth sailing under Obama, or not?

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:05 am

YARDofSTUF wrote:Look at Ford's Brazil plant, their escape hybrid engine that is now moving to the fusion i believe, and the smaller cars they have in the works, I think Ford has found their answer.

But if 3 companies are in trouble, or say one is poorish and 2 others are in trouble of failing, then how does merging them help?

And as 1 company you wouldn't sell a Charger, Challenger, Mustang, GTO, Camaro, and Corvette, or all the 10s of SUV's in the big 3's brands, or need all the plants they have.

A really smart move on any of the big 3's part would be to adopt Kia/Hyundai's warranty IMO.

It wouldn't be merging their companies....it would be merging manufacturing processes which would eliminate redundancy. Safety standards dictate that all cars/trucks/etc adhere to certain common standards of manufacturing. So that in itself means that parts could be shared because they have to be made to the same minimum specification.

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:21 am

UOD wrote:It wouldn't be merging their companies....it would be merging manufacturing processes which would eliminate redundancy. Safety standards dictate that all cars/trucks/etc adhere to certain common standards of manufacturing. So that in itself means that parts could be shared because they have to be made to the same minimum specification.

So you are talking about a shared powertrain and chassis among all 3?

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:56 am

YARDofSTUF wrote:So you are talking about a shared powertrain and chassis among all 3?

I'm suggesting sharing any manufacturing process which is a NHTSA requirement.

That could be a start.....maybe the engineers of Ford and Chevy and Chrysler can come up with innovations in reducing redundancy beyond this limited scope I'm speaking of.

Since we are being forced to give them our tax dollars....I'm demanding innovation alongside accountability. I think I have that say and would hope that every single person here would agree with that.

If the Big 3 weren't asking me for money, then I'd have no say unless I was a voting shareholder.

Everyone (producers and consumers) in this chain has grown too comfy with the status quo and that's why we're here.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 12:03 pm

YeOldeStonecat wrote:Curious about the impact of a "Car Czar".....
If the person is selected by Bush...will it be smooth sailing under Obama, or not?

Yeah I have a problem with that as well but on the other hand, I'm not sure how to go about all this and not have someone to oversee them. The way I'm reading it works is that the strings are pulled when a company has paid back all the loans it owes.

That said, it's still better than the 700 bill bail out of the financial institutions. Guess what? Not a thing was done in overseeing sub prime loans. Nobody is checking them out to make sure those who are getting them, can afford them and they are still being broken up into bonds and traded. No accountability whatsoever.

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 12:12 pm

UOD wrote:I'm suggesting sharing any manufacturing process which is a NHTSA requirement.

If that wouldn't include engine, transmission and differentials then I'd be cool with that.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 12:30 pm

YARDofSTUF wrote:If that wouldn't include engine, transmission and differentials then I'd be cool with that.

I'm more than 100% in agreement with you.

The way to look at this is that we aren't giving them money....we're rabid investors that demand innovation and cost savings through efficient manufacturing.

There is no second chance at this because if they fail again....we have enough money to buy them out and sell them to the Japanese or the Koreans, etc. GM stock was only worth $3 billion. It would have been so much easier to just buy them and sell them off but we are taking the high road and are actually trying to help our fellow Americans keep their jobs. The trade off is that we are in charge now. They failed, we are in charge.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 12:54 pm

Yup...a "damned if we do, damned if we don't" situation. IMO it's a sound concept, as, as we've both stated now...look at the wall street bailout money...that was a joke. A small handful of lucky elite managed the line their pockets nicely. I bet 25% of that money never went to a legit purpose. "The 700 mill wallet heist!" plucked right from the taxpayers back pockets.

Accountability is needed if the loan is to go through, it's just, IMO, scarey to have this car czar selected right now..during lameduck if you will, during the turn over of opposing parties.

downhill wrote:Yeah I have a problem with that as well but on the other hand, I'm not sure how to go about all this and not have someone to oversee them. The way I'm reading it works is that the strings are pulled when a company has paid back all the loans it owes.

That said, it's still better than the 700 bill bail out of the financial institutions. Guess what? Not a thing was done in overseeing sub prime loans. Nobody is checking them out to make sure those who are getting them, can afford them and they are still being broken up into bonds and traded. No accountability whatsoever.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 12:56 pm

Sava700 wrote:I've done all mine by email...if they hate it thats their problem and they are living in the past cause I'm not forking out 40some odd cents to put a stamp on the same thing I can send for nothing and mean the same.

Just so you know, I've yet to get anything more than a typical copy/paste for any email I've ever sent to any congressman.

They seem to be overwhelmed with them and the staff of most congressmen don't even bother to read them. They just send out a canned response. Think of it this way. Can you imagine all the crap they get from all directions?

So if you really want your voice heard, fourty cents won't break you. Neither will a phone call to your congressman's office in your home state although imho, a phone call doesn't bear as much weight as a personal letter.

That's just my 40 cents.

Sava700 · Post by **Sava700** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 1:31 pm

downhill wrote:Just so you know, I've yet to get anything more than a typical copy/paste for any email I've ever sent to any congressman.

They seem to be overwhelmed with them and the staff of most congressmen don't even bother to read them. They just send out a canned response. Think of it this way. Can you imagine all the crap they get from all directions?

So if you really want your voice heard, fourty cents won't break you. Neither will a phone call to your congressman's office in your home state although imho, a phone call doesn't bear as much weight as a personal letter.

That's just my 40 cents.

They need to get with the times...cause soon we won't have letters..it will all be digital.

saving 40cents will also add up over time for all Americans also!

Send your 40cents to the automakers to help them out instead of wasting it on a letter too.

Gixxer · Post by **Gixxer** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 4:16 pm

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/ ... big_three/

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:04 pm

Gixxer wrote:http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/ ... big_three/

Ok, so what is your angle? Your opinion is a link?

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:22 pm

Sava700 wrote:They need to get with the times...cause soon we won't have letters..it will all be digital. saving 40cents will also add up over time for all Americans also! Send your 40cents to the automakers to help them out instead of wasting it on a letter too.

I was explaining why a good many of them don't use email. That's all. It's not about the "times" as a good many of them used to use it but again, have shut that way down as a way to get hold of them.

Given all the spam floating around, come on now, can you blame them?

I gotta laugh at anyone trying to get you to spend 40 cents. lol

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:40 pm

UOD wrote:Ok, so what is your angle? Your opinion is a link?

Looks to be a link to an opinion. A Fox news contributor opinion non the less.

Grover G. Norquist????LMAO!

Come on now, Gixxer. Actually read that article.

OMG.....

Fleecing Taxpayers to Socialize the Big Three and Give the UAW Control

Just the headline is a dead giveaway that it's just more campaigning for the 2006 run for the presidency.........

Let's see....how about I comment since Gixxer has a problem with forming an opinion on political matters. Not that I blame him. all this hullabaloo is confusing.

Put simply, the UAW would like the federal government to fleece taxpayers in order to socialize the Big Three automakers and give the UAW effective control.

The rational for is is because of political contributions by the UAW to Democrats and Obama that somehow Dems and Obama are beholding to them. Really? Well now, that would work both ways then, Grover. By your own reasoning, big banks gave more to Reps than to Dems. Reps paid off in spades by doing more deregulating bussiness and banks thus helping to cause the money collaspe. However, I happen to know that Grover is a free Capatiolist. There shouldn't be any regulation on anything. Especially banks. There for there isn't any fear mongering to preach to the good citizens of American when that happens. Just keep painting a rosy picture.

Secondly, hell yes the UAW is going to go for those loans. They represent a hell of a lot of jobs. It's what they should be doing as well as making consessions. Guess what? They ARE making consessions.

The Detroit car companies will become a public utility—a utility which, moreover, is in direct competition with other, solvent, non-unionized companies.

Yes and no but mostly no. What's proposed won't be pure socialism at all. They won't be able to exactly do business as usual and in the end, they'll gain full control of their own destinies. Money will be paid back to the taxpayers with interest, yes, but for hells sake, how else are we to actually loan them anything if there isn't some kind of oversight?

Solvent non union companies? Really? Which one's are those, Grover? Guess what, most major car companys have to deal with unions and even if they don't, most of them are headed to the same place the big three are. Why?

I hate to keep doing this but it's the reason car companies world wide are having problems.

Worldwide, people aren't buying cars..

I hate to break it to Grover but it's because of some of his own loopy ideas about the money markets that got everyone into this mess in the first place.

I could go on but I'll conclude, it's a major spin piece.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 1:02 pm

Here is my new version which I just faxed out a few minutes ago:

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.