government bailout of auto industry

Well, I was in the auto industry for years and if you lift the hood on your Chevy you will find lots of imported parts, they also exist on the Harley with Japanese carbs and front forks.So is it ok for them to buy import if it saves them money while we are supposed to be loyal and buy American.I also have a Dodge 2500 pickup with 65k on it that burns oil and has a trans that slips as opposed to the Toyota I used to have that had no problems and 250k miles on it.So there may be many sides as to bail out the American car industry or not but the fault is all theirs for not staying current and increasing quality control.You would have thought they would have learned a lesson from the 70's gas crunch when they opened the door to the import market. The other point is that GM and Ford have a large share in manufacturing overseas so is there any guarantee that the money will be spent to save the American plants as opposed to the ones they are building in say Russia?
-D

This discussion is very interesting. My two cents: I own one GM that is purely out of love for the car. The workhorse is a 120K mile four cylinder Camry that is very reliable. Hell, the brakes on the Camry were changed for the first time at 110K miles.

Edit: here is an interesting article on the subject by the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122488710556068177.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

I think it will affect the islands as well. There are several dealerships on STX and STT that could suffer.
Plus everyone will have to buy parts for their cars someday.

I would agree, $75hr is a lot. However, it is nothing compared to what the executives are making. On the other hand, sometimes the auto manufacturing can be somewhat cyclical - they have layoffs just like Boeing. I think, the big picture here is, as I said before, trying to do away with unions altogether. Walmart is one such business, that is non-union.

I think, if they file for bankruptcy, they can wipe out pension benefits- Enron did it.

I really think they need to put a cap on CEO pay like Clinton did, and bring in new management. For 8 years they had a cap on their salaries, Bush came into office, and they all went buckwild.

We as the American people should demand more, there are a lot of companies that have closed their corporate offices here in the U.S. and move them to Dubai, and they Cayman Islands.

I believe that Enron filed chapter 7, which is "out of business". The Big three would file chapter 11, which is reorganization.

As long as the companies are making money, why shouldn't they pay their execs. whatever they want. Why cap it, that is socialism.
If they are begging for a bailout, that is different.

Look at the money they pay pro sports figures. They just play a game, not make decisions that effect peoples lives and jobs.
Look at the great jobs execs are doing at the companies such as Coke, Pepsi, Microsoft, and many others. These people are worth every million they get.
Yes, many execs make way too much for the lousy job they did and have recieved way too much money in "Golden Parchutes".
When you open the door to say how much someone should be paid, it isn't too far off that it will reach your level, whatever that level is.

Terry, I agree with you. However, I feel that in this environment ( the shareholders/board members actually the ones who approve the pay) they should not be paid these obscene pay packages to run the companies in the ground. It was supposed to be pay for performance-including bonuses.

I volunteered for a board position about ten years ago, and when you have an inactive board, and audit committee, things like this can happen. Besides the audit committee, they hire outside firms to audit the accounts and books.

But, then it goes back to the SEC-where has Chris Cox been, there's still no word from him. Oh, well, I guess, that old military quote, "lead, follow, or get out of the way," is not happening with this entire administration.

I guess I am just really suspicious of this whole thing with the economy! No one is protecting the shareholders/investors of these companies, and for sure they're not looking out for the employees.

But, all day on the news, I notice all the newscasters kept saying, "Why won't Obama come in and do something about the economy, or the bailout." This is unfair, because, for one, he is no longer in the senate, and he doesn't officially take office until 1-2009. Yet, no one is pressuring congress to push articles of impeachment, and W won't step down, I don't think censure would work at the point. I say this because, he took oath of office, swearing to protect the nation's security and it's interest, then maybe you could say direlection of duty meaning he's just sitting there waiting for his time to be up when the country is on the brink of who knows what.:-)

Let me stop it here, I guess I get a bit much too passionate about what's happening.