Chrysler Showboats

[Clove]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=atg8GqwizQGo&refer=canada

Dec. 18 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC will shutter about 59 factories over the next month as they struggle to adapt to the worst sales in 26 years and await a verdict on a U.S. rescue of the industry.

The closings show how far automakers are going to conserve cash and prune output under the pressures of a shrinking U.S. market, dwindling access to credit for dealers and demands for advance payments by some GM and Chrysler parts suppliers.

“No one is immune,” said Ed Kim, director of industry analysis for consulting firm AutoPacific Inc. in Tustin, California. The industry is “imploding to a degree I’ve never imagined could happen, and at a speed I’d never expected.”

GM, the biggest U.S. automaker, and No. 3 Chrysler are counting on President George W. Bush to approve emergency loans to help them stave off a collapse that would threaten millions of jobs. Without $14 billion in federal aid, the manufacturers will be out of money by early 2009, they say.

Bush told Fox News Channel yesterday he was still “thinking through” details of any government assistance. Congress deadlocked on a bailout last week, spurring the White House to reverse its stance and consider tapping money from the $700 billion bank-bailout fund.

Closing Plants

GM, Ford and Chrysler began another round of pullbacks yesterday, burdened by U.S. sales declines this year of 22 percent, 19 percent and 28 percent, respectively, compared with the 16 percent industrywide average.

Chrysler will shut all 30 of its plants for at least a month starting Dec. 19, and Ford plans to idle nine of 15 North American assembly plants in the first week of January.

Ford said its move was part of a previously announced plan to reduce first-quarter North American production by 38 percent. The second-biggest U.S. automaker acted after Detroit-based GM’s Dec. 12 decision to cut 250,000 units of production from its first-quarter North American plans, affecting 20 plants. That was equal to almost 30 percent of GM’s 2008 first-quarter sales.

GM said yesterday that a new $370 million factory making engines for the Chevrolet Volt electric car is being delayed to conserve cash.

‘Bad Times’

“You need to have a hoard of cash built up from the good times to get you through the bad times,” said Dennis Virag, president of Automotive Consulting Group in Ann Arbor, Michigan. “The bad times are here, the bad sales are here and GM and Chrysler just don’t have the cash.”

GM, which reported having $16.2 billion as of Sept. 30, needs at least $11 billion to pay monthly bills. Chrysler ended last quarter with $6.1 billion and needs at least $3 billion to operate, Chief Executive Officer Robert Nardelli told Congress on Nov. 18. Ford has said it doesn’t need emergency aid.

The Wall Street Journal said yesterday that Chrysler owner Cerberus Capital Management LP reopened talks on a GM merger. GM spokesman Tony Cervone said the company isn’t in negotiations and hadn’t altered its Nov. 7 position to end discussions on a “strategic acquisition” while it seeks government loans.

GM fell 10 cents to $4.27 at 9:41 a.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading, while Ford slid 5 cents to $3.09. GM’s 82 percent plunge this year through yesterday is the most among the 30 stocks in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Dearborn, Michigan-based Ford was down 53 percent.

Lending Shutoff

Chrysler Financial, the automaker’s credit arm, said it may temporarily halt the loans used by dealers to buy vehicles as the retailers drain $60 million a day from the account that helps finance their borrowing.

GM is awaiting the results of lender GMAC LLC’s bid to convert to a bank through a debt swap in order to tap the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the bailout fund that Bush may now use for the automakers. Detroit-based GMAC provides financing for about 75 percent of GM’s inventory.

GM and Auburn Hills, Michigan-based Chrysler both have been pressed by a small number of suppliers for cash payments for parts on concern that the automakers might file for bankruptcy, people familiar with the matter said last week.

The Pontiac division at GM may be pared to a single model from six following a drop in sales every year since 1999, Mark LaNeve, North American sales chief, said in an interview.

North American output for Toyota Motor Corp., Honda Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Co., Japan’s three biggest automakers, is being reduced, too, down more than 300,000 units from a year earlier. All three have announced cuts to scheduled production.

Toyota stopped assembly work at its San Antonio pickup truck plant for 15 weeks this year because of rising inventory and this week, it indefinitely halted construction of a Mississippi plant that was to produce Prius hybrids by 2010.

“When you’ve got the economy in the situation that it is now, it’s not just the Big 3’s customers that are affected,” said AutoPacific’s Kim. “It’s everyone’s customers. It is all interconnected.” That's gonna be a kickass FUTA/SUTA entry.

Don't they have a Union agreement to pay 95% percent of salaries for the first 90 days of layoffs?

[Sean of the Thread]

That's gonna be a kickass FUTA/SUTA entry.

Don't they have a Union agreement to pay 95% percent of salaries for the first 90 days of layoffs?


That's what I read in the Times. Unions got that system by the balls.

[Clove]

That's what I read in the Times. Unions got that system by the balls.So how is this going to conserve cash?

[Sean of the Thread]

So how is this going to conserve cash?


I believe it said as part of their begging they were axing those benefits.

[Parkbandit]

BUT THEY ARE TOO BIG TO FAIL!!!

It still amazes me that people believe this.. that a company is simply too big to fail.

My other favorite idea is how we simply have to spend more and more money in order to stop an economical crisis. Does that work in any other model besides government?

[Parkbandit]

I believe it said as part of their begging they were axing those benefits.


I see you renamed your druid. It's funny, I saw someone named Ghonoria (sp?) and thought of you having to change the name of Lactating.

[Kembal]

BUT THEY ARE TOO BIG TO FAIL!!!

It still amazes me that people believe this.. that a company is simply too big to fail.

My other favorite idea is how we simply have to spend more and more money in order to stop an economical crisis. Does that work in any other model besides government?

So exactly, how would you restart GDP growth?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Chrysler ALWAYS idles it's plants for 2 weeks each year anyway. They are just extending it to 4 weeks now. Ford has something like 20 billion in cash reserves, they are not going under nor do they need a bailout. Their CEO saw this coming and put everything in hock awhile ago - even the blue oval.

I say fuck them all. They are for profit, not my FDIC insured bank. None of the trademarks will go away, just someone else will own them is all.

[g++]

They should give all the money to ford to buy out the others.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Also... I may have misheard, but I saw a special with the Ford CEO and he was explaining how 70% of the companies revenue comes from the lending branch of the company. If that's the case, is the 30% piece production? If the concern is folks defaulting on loans, that's one thing, if it's because you make too much product, GTFO.

If you make a product that no one wants, stop making it. If the bailout is to support the economy where no one wants to buy a new car, how does giving money to new car companies help the economy? I'm sure I'm oversimplifying, but bailing out companies that ran themselves into the ground doesn't seem a reasonable solution to me.

[Jorddyn]

So how is this going to conserve cash?

GM had $12 Billion in finished goods inventory at the end of Q3 2008 and had sales of $38 Billion. This means the have roughly one month's worth of sales in their inventory. By cutting this in half, they free up $6 Billion in cash, even if they have to pay full salaries during that time. Plus, they won't have the expenses related to running the facilities, which I'd wager would amount to at least another $2-3 Billion.

[Clove]

Contract GM to build wind generators. :)

[Parkbandit]

So exactly, how would you restart GDP growth?

If a business is failing.. then figure out what is making it fail and correct it. If you can't correct it, let it fail.

I believe GM and Chrysler are failing and without significant concessions from ALL sides of the business, it should fail. I am pleased that the White House is actually considering letting them fail (with conditions).

We can't simply keep printing up imaginary money and throwing it at the economic problem. I have friends that live their lives like that.. and they are financially fucked.

[Clove]

Can Kierphe sum up Ashliana's position? I can't read Its posts.

[Parkbandit]

Contract GM to build wind generators. :)


And what about the poor, innocent birds they kill every day? You insensitive bastard!!!111 YOU HATE MOTHER EARTH!

[Tsa`ah]

That's gonna be a kickass FUTA/SUTA entry.

Why? While all three are poorly managed .... I doubt they're that poorly managed.

Both are figured into costs and often calculated as a benefit. I imagine all three pay at the SUTA cap per state as it is. As for FUTA .... 7K x .008 per employee per year (generally) will be the same be it for 12 weeks or 6. The entry will be no larger than it would have been with the traditional two week shut down.


Don't they have a Union agreement to pay 95% percent of salaries for the first 90 days of layoffs?

I don't see how any contract, union or not, can continue to pay salaries while under the umbrella of unemployment benefits ... it's one or the other.


So how is this going to conserve cash?

What Jorddyn said ... except I'd say the operating costs are probably a bit higher.

This also forces/options the use of vacation pay company wide.

[Parkbandit]

While it seems like a terrible idea to keep bailing out industry after industry, even if they're not bailed out, you know the congress is going to support Obama's proposed trillion+ "stimulus package," further ramping up the deficit, which further contributes to the dollar's imment decline. People need to stop turning to the government to magically solve this mess when their involvement simply makes it worse.

-Not Kierphe.. though I'm sure he would agree.

[Sean of the Thread]

They should give all the money to ford to buy out the others.


That's not a bad idea.

Except for the socialism part.

[Clove]

Why? While all three are poorly managed .... I doubt they're that poorly managed.

Both are figured into costs and often calculated as a benefit. I imagine all three pay at the SUTA cap per state as it is. As for FUTA .... 7K x .008 per employee per year (generally) will be the same be it for 12 weeks or 6. The entry will be no larger than it would have been with the traditional two week shut down.Because SUTA payments are experience-rated and Michigan has one of the highest contribution rates.

It's a tax. Not a cost. Not a fringe.

[Jorddyn]

Because SUTA payments are experience-rated and Michigan has one of the highest contribution rates.

It's a tax. Not a cost. Not a fringe.

It's also rated based on prior years' actuals, which means that this shutdown shouldn't effect rates until 2010. I think this is probably a drop in the bucket when compared to the other costs they're looking at cutting right now.

[Clove]

It's also rated based on prior years' actuals, which means that this shutdown shouldn't effect rates until 2010. I think this is probably a drop in the bucket when compared to the other costs they're looking at cutting right now.No it won't effect this quarter but apparently italics are needed to prevent stupid questions from Tsa'ah.

[Tsa`ah]

Because SUTA payments are experience-rated and Michigan has one of the highest contribution rates.

Thus my comment of all three are likely paying at cap. Also, you're stuck on percentages. MI has one of the lowest min-rate, and the second highest max-rate ... yet taxed wages are cut off at 9k.

Assuming all three pay the capped percentage ... SUTA = 927.00 per employee per year. The duration of a closure/layoff has zilch to do with how much they'll pay.


It's a tax. Not a cost. Not a fringe.

No kidding?

S/FUTA are calculated as costs ... sometimes benefit, but never the less as a cost ... per employee for internal cost analysis. These taxes impact how an employer calculates pay, benefits, and pricing.

Of course they're not turning them into the IRS or to state treasuries.

[Tsa`ah]

No it won't effect this quarter but apparently italics are needed to prevent stupid questions from Tsa'ah.

Why would I ask you about either ... you failed in the first post.

[Clove]

Why would I ask you about either ... you failed in the first post.Oh FFS you fail at humor, and yes tax-payables are on the liability side but it's not a fucking benefit and it would not be included in EBITDA.

Of course payrole expenses are included in cost analysis, thanks captain obvious; it doesn't make it a cost.

[Tsa`ah]

I think you need to go back to your initial post and try to follow along with my responses.

[Clove]

I think you need to go back to your initial post and try to follow along with my responses.I think you need to fold some sheets.

[Tsa`ah]

I think you need to fold some sheets.

Not likely. It's December, slow season, 26% occupancy. If three housekeepers can't handle it in a one shift .... they'll have the next day to do it.

No need for me to cut into their hours during the holiday season. Though since it's apparent you are fucking clueless about the subject you brought up ... it would seem to me that you are infinitely qualified to fold sheets for me.

[Jorddyn]

You're both right, you realize. "Benefit", "Cost", and "Tax" are not mutually exclusive.

[Tsa`ah]

I never claimed they were, nor did I nitpick over the usage.

[Kembal]

If a business is failing.. then figure out what is making it fail and correct it. If you can't correct it, let it fail.

I believe GM and Chrysler are failing and without significant concessions from ALL sides of the business, it should fail. I am pleased that the White House is actually considering letting them fail (with conditions).

We can't simply keep printing up imaginary money and throwing it at the economic problem. I have friends that live their lives like that.. and they are financially fucked.

Considering that the amount of money being talked about is a drop in the bucket compared to the overall stimulus package (850 billion), I don't see a point of letting 1 to 2 million people go out of work, which means making an even bigger stimulus package to make up for the loss of consumption spending that would entail.

This is Keynesian short-run depression economics. Boost GDP. Don't reduce it even further.

BTW, I believe one of the car companies said that roughly 20 to 25% of their potential sales in Oct. and Nov. could not be closed on because the consumers could not get credit to buy. That indicates there is demand for the product, but no financing to make the deals happen. I'd start pointing the finger at the banks rather than the car companies.

[Gan]

Also... I may have misheard, but I saw a special with the Ford CEO and he was explaining how 70% of the companies revenue comes from the lending branch of the company. If that's the case, is the 30% piece production? If the concern is folks defaulting on loans, that's one thing, if it's because you make too much product, GTFO.

If you make a product that no one wants, stop making it. If the bailout is to support the economy where no one wants to buy a new car, how does giving money to new car companies help the economy? I'm sure I'm oversimplifying, but bailing out companies that ran themselves into the ground doesn't seem a reasonable solution to me.

/agreed

[Clove]

BTW, I believe one of the car companies said that roughly 20 to 25% of their potential sales in Oct. and Nov. could not be closed on because the consumers could not get credit to buy. That indicates there is demand for the product, but no financing to make the deals happen. I'd start pointing the finger at the banks rather than the car companies.The software corporation I work for is directly related to car sales and this is precisely what we were seeing. FNI managers at car dealerships were sending out more credit requests per customer and getting less approvals than the same period last year. In some brackets up to 3x the number of requests were going out to get 1/2 the approvals. Make no mistake credit scarcity has hit the consumer level and has had an immediate effect on the economy.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

The software corporation I work for is directly related to car sales and this is precisely what we were seeing. FNI managers at car dealerships were sending out more credit requests per customer and getting less approvals than the same period last year. In some brackets up to 3x the number of requests were going out to get 1/2 the approvals. Make no mistake credit scarcity has hit the consumer level and has had an immediate effect on the economy.

Good? Maybe people will live within their means now?

[Clove]

Good? Maybe people will live within their means now?Yes but you can cut your nose off despite your face, when unemployment rises high enough they don't just lay-off the people who weren't living within their means.

[Stanley Burrell]

My problem is that (like with the dot-com craze) every time something new and innovative is made available to the market, all the money shifts to those stocks and everything I have in set 402b doesn't magically transfer over to the best trend. Like it fucking should.

I mean, that's not fair. I was given the option of a 402b and I should also have the option to make it that my invested money is always growing on a completely predictable upwards blue chip. Only losers go to Vegas to gamble their money away, sheesh.

[Tea & Strumpets]

Yes but you can cut your nose off despite your face, when unemployment rises high enough they don't just lay-off the people who weren't living within their means.

Jane, you ignorant slut. You can cut of your nose "to spite" your face. Also, I don't think I've ever used the word "spite" in any conversation.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Yes but you can cut your nose off despite your face, when unemployment rises high enough they don't just lay-off the people who weren't living within their means.

Isn't it "to spite your face"?

Anyway, I get that. I also think that housing and credit was due for a major correction. Making money hand over fist for a decade and now people and companies are asking for handouts because they were irresponsible.

If we start bailing out both the industry and the consumers, who's going to bail out our government?

[Clove]

Jane, you ignorant slut. You can cut of your nose "to spite" your face. Also, I don't think I've ever used the word "spite" in any conversation.Fine to spite.

[Clove]

Isn't it "to spite your face"?

Anyway, I get that. I also think that housing and credit was due for a major correction. Making money hand over fist for a decade and now people and companies are asking for handouts because they were irresponsible.

If we start bailing out both the industry and the consumers, who's going to bail out our government?Without a doubt, as I've said before when you have a negative population growth in MA and house prices still rise you know there's a price problem.

[g++]

That's not a bad idea.

Except for the socialism part.


Well I think they are going to give billions of dollars to the auto industry, why not give it to the one company that isnt a flaming heap of wreckage and let the other two fail. Its more market oriented then bailing out the two failed companies.

[Jorddyn]

Well I think they are going to give billions of dollars to the auto industry, why not give it to the one company that isnt a flaming heap of wreckage and let the other two fail. Its more market oriented then bailing out the two failed companies.

Because then we only have one home-grown auto industry? While this may not sound to bad, think Haliburton, except this time they're building the machinery necessary for a war.

[g++]

Because then we only have one home-grown auto industry? While this may not sound to bad, think Haliburton, except this time they're building the machinery necessary for a war.


If GM is the only one producing tanks someone should really tell AAI down the street from me to quit cause they keep me up at night rolling them around their factory. I mean we have a professional defense industry in place is the argument that in the event of war we would not be able to retrofit car factories for war manufacturing or something? I think im missing something.

[Jorddyn]

Tanks are hardly the only vehicle used for war. In WWII, GM, Ford, and Chrysler built tanks, parts for aircraft, and military vehicles (like hummers today).

I don't think we want to limit ourselves to one American vendor in such a situation. Let's say we get involved in a war with China, and Japan is neutral. They'll have a disincentive to allow us access to their manufacturing facilities located in the United States. We could nationalize them, but in such a situation, would we really want to give them reason to side with China?

Additionally, though it doesn't create a monopoly, I hardly think one American car manufacturer is ideal. It removes competition in a business that is incredibly capital and technology intensive. Not every Joe Blow can create his own car manufacturer.

As I've said before, I have selfish reasons for wanting this bailout. But I honestly think our economy will suffer if we let one, two, or three fail.

I am not an economist, Secretary of the Treasury, or even anyone important. But I still have a right to that opinion.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

So... where do we stop the bailouts then? The kiosk vendors in the mall?

I think I'll stop paying my bills, charge up my zero balance CCs that I diligently pay so I have no debt, triple mortgage my house for a trip to Europe and snort coke off of hookers asses. Then, when I'm a red cock hair from spending 20x my income, I'm gonna go to the Government and tell them I need me a fucking loan or I'm going to bring down the economy for everyone else.

Or, I could live in reality.

[g++]

Tanks are hardly the only vehicle used for war. In WWII, GM, Ford, and Chrysler built tanks, parts for aircraft, and military vehicles (like hummers today).

I don't think we want to limit ourselves to one American vendor in such a situation. Let's say we get involved in a war with China, and Japan is neutral. They'll have a disincentive to allow us access to their manufacturing facilities located in the United States. We could nationalize them, but in such a situation, would we really want to give them reason to side with China?

Additionally, though it doesn't create a monopoly, I hardly think one American car manufacturer is ideal. It removes competition in a business that is incredibly capital and technology intensive. Not every Joe Blow can create his own car manufacturer.

As I've said before, I have selfish reasons for wanting this bailout. But I honestly think our economy will suffer if we let one, two, or three fail.

I am not an economist, Secretary of the Treasury, or even anyone important. But I still have a right to that opinion.

Not trying to change your opinion. Continually allowing a disfunctional bunch of companies to take government hand outs because your afraid of what would happen during a war is pretty much extortion. Companies are going to bid for government contracts. The day GM went out of business every defense contracter in the country would be putting plans in place to fill the gap.

[Jorddyn]

Or, I could live in reality.

Unfortunately, we're a little beyond the point of "DON'T DO THAT". We've promised trillions of dollars to "shore up" or "back" or "bail out" so far this year, but these are the first firm dollars for the manufacturing sector as opposed to the financial sector. I'd much rather see my money going here than for another AIG Christmas party. Of course, I'd much rather it hadn't happened in the first place. But it has, so here we are, and we have to deal with it. And when the kiosk vendor in the mall shutting down can potentially cause the loss of 2 million jobs in this economy, yes, we should discuss bailing them out, too.


Not trying to change your opinion. Continually allowing a disfunctional bunch of companies to take government hand outs because your afraid of what would happen during a war is pretty much extortion. Companies are going to bid for government contracts. The day GM went out of business every defense contracter in the country would be putting plans in place to fill the gap.

We can't ignore the impact of letting these business fail - economic, political, tactical, and otherwise. I'm not saying it's only because of what could happen in a war, but I believe that should be a valid concern. There's also the loss of manufacturing capacity, the loss of jobs, the additional profits leaving the country and going to other nations - there's a myriad of reasons it would hurt.

[Parkbandit]

Considering that the amount of money being talked about is a drop in the bucket compared to the overall stimulus package (850 billion), I don't see a point of letting 1 to 2 million people go out of work, which means making an even bigger stimulus package to make up for the loss of consumption spending that would entail.

This is Keynesian short-run depression economics. Boost GDP. Don't reduce it even further.

BTW, I believe one of the car companies said that roughly 20 to 25% of their potential sales in Oct. and Nov. could not be closed on because the consumers could not get credit to buy. That indicates there is demand for the product, but no financing to make the deals happen. I'd start pointing the finger at the banks rather than the car companies.

So, you contend that if we simply continue to print up more imaginary money that we don't have and continue to feed it to the problem, the problem will somehow fix itself.

Awesome idea... one that I disagree with though.

[Parkbandit]

Tanks are hardly the only vehicle used for war. In WWII, GM, Ford, and Chrysler built tanks, parts for aircraft, and military vehicles (like hummers today).

So we should bail out a miserably failing company like GM, just in case someday we go to war and we need them to start producing vehicles of war for us?



I don't think we want to limit ourselves to one American vendor in such a situation. Let's say we get involved in a war with China, and Japan is neutral. They'll have a disincentive to allow us access to their manufacturing facilities located in the United States. We could nationalize them, but in such a situation, would we really want to give them reason to side with China?

Additionally, though it doesn't create a monopoly, I hardly think one American car manufacturer is ideal. It removes competition in a business that is incredibly capital and technology intensive. Not every Joe Blow can create his own car manufacturer.

As I've said before, I have selfish reasons for wanting this bailout. But I honestly think our economy will suffer if we let one, two, or three fail.

I am not an economist, Secretary of the Treasury, or even anyone important. But I still have a right to that opinion.

Here's the thing.. there are more vehicle manufacturers that produce cars in the US than the "big 3"... and actually do it profitably. There are multiple reasons why in their current condition, companies like GM will continue to fail. Shitty union contracts, shitty management, shitty state for doing business in... if you don't fix the problems that are obvious to anyone in business.. then GM will continue to do shitty. Giving GM "loans" of billions of dollars won't fix what ails it.. it will only delay the inevitable.

I'm slightly pleased to hear Bush is actually considering allowing the companies to go into some controlled bankruptcy to allow them to correct some things that made them fail.

[Parkbandit]

I'm slightly pleased to hear Bush is actually considering allowing the companies to go into some controlled bankruptcy to allow them to correct some things that made them fail.


So much for that.... but at LEAST there is a stipulation that wages need to be brought to more competitive levels.

[g++]

So much for that.... but at LEAST there is a stipulation that wages need to be brought to more competitive levels.

Eh paper tiger. They did not want to stand up to the UAW now I seriously doubt they will want to4 months from now when everyone has forgotten we gave them a bunch of money in the first place.

[Clove]

Yeah I like controlled bankruptcy better. Though Jorddyn is correct that it makes as much sense to give handouts to manufacturing as it does to finance (if not more), I still think it was a mistake to give out to the financial sector and that two wrongs don't make a right.

I would have rather put 800 billion into infrastructure and if we're going to give money to car manufacturers I'd rather we purchase something from them; wind generators, electric cars for government workers, gay lasers. Something tangible.

[g++]

That would be unfair to our wind generator and gay laser industries, who are among the best producers of wind and gay lasers in the world.

[Jorddyn]

I would have rather put 800 billion into infrastructure and if we're going to give money to car manufacturers I'd rather we purchase something from them; wind generators, electric cars for government workers, gay lasers. Something tangible.

That's something I could buy into. Except for the gay lasers. Only hetero lasers deserve government funding!

[g++]

That's something I could buy into. Except for the gay lasers. Only hetero lasers deserve government funding!

Bigot

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I'd much rather see my money going here than for another AIG Christmas party. Of course, I'd much rather it hadn't happened in the first place. But it has, so here we are, and we have to deal with it. And when the kiosk vendor in the mall shutting down can potentially cause the loss of 2 million jobs in this economy, yes, we should discuss bailing them out, too.



We can't ignore the impact of letting these business fail - economic, political, tactical, and otherwise. I'm not saying it's only because of what could happen in a war, but I believe that should be a valid concern. There's also the loss of manufacturing capacity, the loss of jobs, the additional profits leaving the country and going to other nations - there's a myriad of reasons it would hurt.

I'd rather my money didn't got to three self important CEO's taking private jets to beg for money. Certainly there are far more than 2 million kiosks in the US, so lets start discussing how the economy is hurting them and how we are going to bail them out.

It's fucking ludicrous, lets get to fixing shit instead of printing money and hoping it'll get better. Bottom line, if a for profit business is not making money, it is NOT the responsability of the government to bail them out. How about we run a business like we don't have a currency printing press in the basement? Government is already sliding down the slope of bailing out companies in trouble. What will we bail out next, because I want to get in that line for a handout. Will my parents be eligible for a bailout if their for profit businesses begin to suffer/go under (and not because of the economy, but because they run them into the ground like the Big 3 did)?

Frankly I suspect if you didn't have a personal interest in the Automotive industry bailout, you'd feel the same way.

If I worked in any industry that was needing a bailout, I'd be getting another job, because the bailout is a bandaid that will come back and haunt all of us. Thanks for letting your shittly run company impact MY ability to be successful. Maybe now leadership at those companies will actually be expected to turn a profit.