General Motors and Chrysler warned they could collapse without federal aid

[spice756]

Do you think they should give money to the car makers ?I would like the car makers to go under and have domino effect like other makers who make parts to car makers:rolleyes: and makers who make parts to makers who supply parts to cars.

This will prove that a market will out government bailout will lead to a economic recession.

I'm sick of all the free-market school of thought in the US.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++

WASHINGTON — General Motors and Chrysler warned Tuesday they could collapse without federal aid before the end of the month, as they joined with Ford to urge lawmakers to grant them $34 billion in loans.
Congressional leaders and the Bush administration withheld judgment on the plans ahead of hearings Thursday and Friday.

All three companies' chief executives agreed to symbolic steps, including salaries of $1 a year and the elimination of corporate jets to make their case more palatable, and they were traveling to the capital in hybrid vehicles to underscore the point. It's 520 miles from Detroit to Washington.

Chrysler warned it needs $7 billion before the end of the month, while GM needs $4 billion, in both cases to avoid running short of cash to pay suppliers and other bills in January.

"Absent such assistance, the company will default in the near term," GM told lawmakers, "very likely precipitating a total collapse of the domestic industry and its extensive supply chain, with a ripple effect that will have severe, long-term consequences to the U.S. economy."

GM's total request now tops $18 billion, with $12 billion in loans and an additional $6 billion as an emergency line of credit should the economy continue to worsen. In return, GM pledged to shed four of its U.S. brands, nine factories, up to 31,500 workers and roughly $30 billion in debt through 2012, all to make a profit excluding taxes by 2011.

Only Ford offered a brighter outlook, requesting a $9 billion government credit line that it said it would tap should the economy weaken further.
"We think we're going to be able to get through this and get back to profitability, and be a very viable company in 2011," said Ford CEO Alan Mulally.

Instead of taking private jets to Washington like they did last time, GM leader Richard Wagoner is driving a Chevrolet Malibu hybrid and Mulally is driving a Ford Escape hybrid. Chrysler would say only that CEO Robert Nardelli is driving a "fuel-efficient hybrid."

Congressional leaders downplayed the question of where the money to aid the industry would come from, vowing unspecified action.

But after a failed attempt to win $25 billion in loans last month, the industry's allies on Capitol Hill say more lobbying will be needed simply to convince enough lawmakers that the automakers are worth saving. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., called on President George W. Bush and President-elect Barack Obama to get more involved in the debate.

Dispute on funding

Democrats contend the Bush administration has the power to use the $700 billion financial industry bailout to help the industry. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., criticized the administration, saying its lack of standards for how the bailout money would be used by financial firms compared poorly to Congress' demands for detailed restrictions on automakers' aid.


The administration has said it wanted any aid to come from the $25 billion set aside in September for retooling plants. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said $20 billion of that already has been requested, and the automakers all said they had counted on such loans as part of their restructuring. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the $25 billion loan was "quite generous."

Ford's recovery blueprint said it would invest $14 billion over the next seven years to boost its vehicles' fuel efficiency, and it said it would improve the overall efficiency of its fleet by an average of 14 percent next year.
And Ford is calling for a partnership among automakers, suppliers and government to develop new battery technologies.

GM would focus on four brands — Chevrolet, GMC, Buick and Cadillac. It would sell Saab, shrink Pontiac to a niche brand and consider selling or closing Saturn, GM President Fritz Henderson said Tuesday.
GM plans to trim U.S. dealerships from 6,450 to 4,700.

Chrysler said it would cut costs by slashing employee benefits and terminating its lease car program. Of the three companies, only Chrysler left open the possibility of a merger.

All three automakers plan to meet with the United Auto Workers union today in Detroit to debate what cost savings could be wrung from the union contracts. Up for discussion was the possibility of scrapping a much-maligned jobs bank in which laid-off workers keep receiving most of their pay.

Reports Tuesday showed U.S. auto sales plunged 37 percent last month to their worst level in more than 26 years. GM's U.S. sales fell 41 percent and Chrysler's dropped 47 percent. Ford dropped 31 percent. Their overseas rivals also posted abysmal result. Toyota's sales tumbled 34 percent, Nissan's dropped 42 percent and Honda's fell 32 percent.


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6144093.html

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


:laugh::laugh::laugh:Down with the US economy :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[GPDP]

In the immortal words of the Bloodhound Gang:

We don't need no water let the motherfucker burn
Burn motherfucker burn

[KurtFF8]

Down with the US economy

Right, that would really help the working class get power...Oh wait, they would be the ones hurt the most.

[Annie K.]

Well, in fact that would, even if the workers suffer the most.

[spice756]

But than we can prove to them the free-market does not work to those conservatives.

It would help if Bush wakes up and say no to the bailout to the banks:)

[ev]

This is great news, let the bastards drown in their greed!
The working class must learn who its oppressors are and they will so through leftist education as well as when they get fucked up the ass by their government who doesn't give a shit about them. Workers must be told how they're getting fucked over and how they can liberate themselves from their oppressors, all they have to lose are their chains..

[Red October]

But than we can prove to them the free-market does not work to those conservatives.

If the economy collapses tons of people will be out of work, which means they and their families will starve. And that is not going to cause a revolution. Capitalism falling apart won't ever lead to revolution unless revolutionaries have their shit together, which isn't a reality at the moment. So let's not advocate the complete collapse of the economy and impoverishing the working class even more just to prove a point.

[ev]

hmm.. who will ever organize the masses for revolution? I believe this is a responsibility of intellectuals, was a vanguard such a bad idea?

[Martin Blank]

But than we can prove to them the free-market does not work to those conservatives.

It would help if Bush wakes up and say no to the bailout to the banks:)

"Yes, we burned the town to the ground and now thousands of people are homeless, but we proved that wood is a poor building material."

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

The real issue here is that, regardless of whether the Big Three are bailed out or go bankrupt, workers will be made to pay the price -- either through massive concessions or massive layoffs.

And with Obama picking Paul Volcker as his "economy czar", we face four more years of unceasing war on the working class.

[Catbus]

So even if there is a bailout there will still be a lot of layoffs?

[Martin Blank]

So even if there is a bailout there will still be a lot of layoffs?

Yes. And those who remain will make less and less.

[ernie]

And with Obama picking Paul Volcker as his "economy czar", we face four more years of unceasing war on the working class.
We face war on the working class until capitalism is abolished. Who the "economy czar" is is irrelevant.

[Martin Blank]

We face war on the working class until capitalism is abolished. Who the "economy czar" is is irrelevant.

You apparently have no idea who Volcker is and the effect he's had over the last 30 years.

[KC]

You apparently have no idea who Volcker is and the effect he's had over the last 30 years.

But...Hope! Change!

Right?:(

[ernie]

You apparently have no idea who Volcker is and the effect he's had over the last 30 years.
My point is exactly that: the current situation of the working class has very little to do with the personal decisions or policies of Volcker or Bush or Reagan or any other person, and a lot to do with the capitalist class as a whole. (I'm sure you know this better than me, which is why I have to admit I have no idea what you meant by your post.)

Furthermore, we don't gain anything by blaming specific personalities; and we actually lose a lot. Your post implies that had Carter or Reagen appointed someone else to Volcker's position, things would have turned out better. I don't think that's the message we want to convey to the working class.

By the way, I do know who Volcker is, although I admittedly don't know the details of his policies as Federal Reserve Chairman.

[Hessian Peel]

If the economy collapses tons of people will be out of work, which means they and their families will starve. And that is not going to cause a revolution.

There will be a famine in the US? :lol:

[fabiansocialist]

But than we can prove to them the free-market does not work to those conservatives.

Do you think they don't know? From the late 19th century onwards, the call for greater state power and state intervention has come from big capital itself. Big capital and the modern state are intertwined, have a symbiotic relationship with each other. The ideology of the "free market" is a complete crock, the fig leaf to disguise what actually happens, the camouflage -- you get the point. What are you going to prove to whom? The tens of millions of brainwashed nincompoops who bought this nonsense of unfettered capitalism, of "free markets?"

Admittedly there are some neanderthal conservative "thinkers" around who subscribe to "free markets," but they're just the unwitting dupes of those who need this ideology as a fig leaf. But who here give's a tinker's cuss what these cavemen think?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The funny thing is that it's not even the "conservative" Republicans who have carried out the most neoliberal "free market" policies, it's the "progressive" Democrats. I think we can expect unbridled growth of free trade agreements and a consequent increase in imperialist political interventionism from Washington under Obama.

[Psy]

There will be a famine in the US? :lol:

Homelessness is skyrocketing now as police kick people out of foreclosed homes (Eviction day in Manassas (http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=2906&updaterx=2008-12-04+09%3A59%3A55) ) it seems the US ruling class is completely arrogant like their feudal ancestors, and I doubt Obama would change the ruling class current tactic of sacrificing the working class to save capitalism.

[spice756]

If the economy collapses tons of people will be out of work, which means they and their families will starve. And that is not going to cause a revolution. Capitalism falling apart won't ever lead to revolution unless revolutionaries have their shit together, which isn't a reality at the moment. So let's not advocate the complete collapse of the economy and impoverishing the working class even more just to prove a point.

The conservative people believe liberals and socialists will destroy the economy and the conservative people are pro-free market and small government.They believe the bailout is not true capitalism. They believe social programs are bad and are not part of true capitalism.The people are more libertarian and from old school of thought.Bad buissnesess should go under and socialism for rich or poor is bad.

They do not understand businesses control the government and do not understand the power of the ruling class.They believe free market and capitalism works and is good .And liberals and socialists will destroy the economy and is very bad .

You cannot go on the street and try to educate them they are set in their way of thinking do to all years of propaganda ,media and red scare so on.

Anyone of the socialists and activist are young high school and collage.You not going change some one in their way of thinking the older person is .The older people are the more propaganda will get in their head.

[Martin Blank]

My point is exactly that: the current situation of the working class has very little to do with the personal decisions or policies of Volcker or Bush or Reagan or any other person, and a lot to do with the capitalist class as a whole. (I'm sure you know this better than me, which is why I have to admit I have no idea what you meant by your post.)

Furthermore, we don't gain anything by blaming specific personalities; and we actually lose a lot. Your post implies that had Carter or Reagen appointed someone else to Volcker's position, things would have turned out better. I don't think that's the message we want to convey to the working class.

By the way, I do know who Volcker is, although I admittedly don't know the details of his policies as Federal Reserve Chairman.

It's almost become a tautology at this point to talk about how it doesn't matter who's in power because capitalism is in power. The problem is that there are moments when the role of the individual in history is decisive and is something that has to be taken into consideration. Volcker's role in the late-1970s was one of those moments, and I suspect it may be again.

I don't know if the absence of Volcker from the scene in that time would have made a fundamental difference, but it is possible. The capitalists can make mistakes, too, and make wrong decisions that end up screwing themselves. From the perspective of the ruling class, he was the right decision, since the capitalists needed someone to spearhead the wholesale attack on working people at that time.

In terms of a message to convey, my response is that the past is the past and we cannot change it. However, the fact that this butcher is being brought back into the halls of power to head Obama's "economic recovery" group conveys a message of its own. As someone who lives in Detroit, I've seen what Volcker, the architect of "shock therapy", has done on behalf of his capitalist masters.

I would suggest you look into Volcker's history before dismissing him as just another lackey of capitalism. The exploiters have their theoreticians, too, and Volcker is one of them. As a start, I would suggest an article from the most recent issue of our weekly newspaper, Working People's Advocate: http://www.ucpa.us/node/246

[Martin Blank]

Anyone of the socialists and activist are young high school and collage.You not going change some one in their way of thinking the older person is .
The older people are the more propaganda will get in their head.

My experience has been the opposite -- at least, when dealing with workers. The older many workers get, the more they see the reality of the system we live in and the more radicalized they get. The problem is that they don't trust most of the left because they hear crap like this from them, so there's no communication.

[Valeofruin]

Option A- Further Complicate the looming debt and Social Security Crisis and inevitable (and extreme) Deflation

Option B- Kill the Economy now, costing 3 million Jobs -> depression

As Ozzy would say:

I'M GOING OFF THE RAILS ON A CRAZY [email protected]

http://www.gifs.net/Animation11/Transportation/Trains/Black_train.gif

[ernie]

It's almost become a tautology at this point to talk about how it doesn't matter who's in power because capitalism is in power. The problem is that there are moments when the role of the individual in history is decisive and is something that has to be taken into consideration. Volcker's role in the late-1970s was one of those moments, and I suspect it may be again.

I don't know if the absence of Volcker from the scene in that time would have made a fundamental difference, but it is possible. The capitalists can make mistakes, too, and make wrong decisions that end up screwing themselves. From the perspective of the ruling class, he was the right decision, since the capitalists needed someone to spearhead the wholesale attack on working people at that time.

In terms of a message to convey, my response is that the past is the past and we cannot change it. However, the fact that this butcher is being brought back into the halls of power to head Obama's "economic recovery" group conveys a message of its own. As someone who lives in Detroit, I've seen what Volcker, the architect of "shock therapy", has done on behalf of his capitalist masters.
It seems to me that what had this decisive effect on the situation of the working class were Volcker's policies, and not the man himself. That is, it doesn't matter if he's in power or not, so long as his policies are implemented. And if Volcker's theories are that beneficial to the ruling class, then they will make sure his policies are implemented no matter who is in office.

I stress this because if we admit that whether or not a particular individual holds some government post is decisive, then it follows that we must actively engage in bourgeois politics to stop them from being there. Is that a strategy we want to advocate?


I would suggest you look into Volcker's history before dismissing him as just another lackey of capitalism. The exploiters have their theoreticians, too, and Volcker is one of them. As a start, I would suggest an article from the most recent issue of our weekly newspaper, Working People's Advocate: http://www.ucpa.us/node/246
Fair enough; I'll give it a read. It's always good to know your enemies, right?

[Red October]

The conservative people believe liberals and socialists will destroy the economy and the conservative people are pro-free market and small government.They believe the bailout is not true capitalism. They believe social programs are bad and are not part of true capitalism.The people are more libertarian and from old school of thought.Bad buissnesess should go under and socialism for rich or poor is bad.

They do not understand businesses control the government and do not understand the power of the ruling class.They believe free market and capitalism works and is good .And liberals and socialists will destroy the economy and is very bad .

You cannot go on the street and try to educate them they are set in their way of thinking do to all years of propaganda ,media and red scare so on.

Anyone of the socialists and activist are young high school and collage.You not going change some one in their way of thinking the older person is .The older people are the more propaganda will get in their head.

So the solution is to hope that thousands of people lose their jobs, slide deeper into poverty, and get fucked over by the state?

[piet11111]

"Yes, we burned the town to the ground and now thousands of people are homeless, but we proved that wood is a poor building material."

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

its better to "burn down the city" while it just has thousands of people before its has grown into a city of millions.

after that the "city" can be rebuild by the survivors of the "fire" only much better because of the lessons learned.

[Valeofruin]

you don't get it.

There is NO solution. The Jobs are already lost, it's already over.