Should the US bailout the big three automakers?

[What'saCobra?]

As you contact the NYTimes public editor, read this article about the refusal of the Times executive editor and the publisher to explain their timing for exposing Bush's warrantless evesdropping on Americans in the US calling or receiving calls from "certain" foreign persons, entities or countries.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/op...liceditor.html

Of course, Byron Calame, the public editor at the time is no longer there. Nor is Bill Keller, the executive editor at the time. Keller left under very uncomfortable circumstances after covering for the liar Jason Blair, who was given wide publication freedoms at the NYTimes, as a favored black reporter. Perhaps Clark Hoyt, the newish public editor, will be more effective in getting the paper to answer questions about their editorial positions.

Why is this example important? It indicates the inherent weakness in an objectve public editor resisting an entrenched, biased and anti-truth publisher's opinion mouthed by his executive editor. Did i mention that Calame is gone from the paper?

Very specifically
Where were the New York TImes concerns about the mortgage quality failures that were described in various Congressional and Senate hearings? (Of course, you know the GSE's are not managed by the Administration (example, Postal Services), but operate independently, under the authority of the Congress. Internal audits were ignored and given no support or teeth and outside audits were scarce.) This is the real source of the credit crunch that has screwed the big 3 to the floor of our falling economy. If we want to understand the nature of the credit failures, we need to understand the party-favoritism of the so-called "paper of record". If the mortgage credit scams created the environment that has put our auto companies and their unions at risk, isn't it important to ask why the paper that establishes the daily agenda of 1/2 of the American newspapers never reported on the obvious growing risks?

Many pubbie politicos (Bush, McCain, etc) warned publicly about the extent of the risks to be assumed by the full faith and credit of the USA as a result of inadequate audits and controls over credit policies in GSE's, Government Sponsored Enterprises, FNMA, Indy Mac and Freddie Mac. They were ridiculed and ignored by dem committee chairmen Dodd and Fwank and their dem underlings in the committee hearings. Why didn't the NYTimes ever follow-up on the impending risks and give it significant coverage? Or would that story be anti-dem party and verbotten then punished by "pinch"? Why don't they make it clear that Bawney Fwank and Chris Dodd assured the Committee(s) that the enterprises were in "fine shape" and the US government would NOT be responsible for any failures of the entities (June 2008)? Wouldn't that be an important variance to the current position? Isn't it important to report and recognize that Senator Schumer (NY-D) started a run on the IndyMac bank that triggered the first poor-mortgage-portfolio-sourced bank failure with the publication of his private letter to the bank's regulator in June 2008?

http://www.openmarket.org/2008/07/15...risis-not-ots/
http://www.openmarket.org/2008/07/18...tection-money/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1216...g2:r1:c0.34622

Where is the outrage? Isn't it grossly unfair to withhold help to our former truck, tank, airplane, AA guns, submarine/aircraft engines and bomb builders of WWII, when it isn't actually their fault that the country's premiere media refused to sound the alarm on the credit failures and the underlying failure of the current dem party leadership to accept the internal auditors opinions and allow corrections? Was the continued flow of dem party and personal financial support to these very individuals part of their reluctance to "interfere" with the poor credit practices and increased public risks? Why does the NYTImes refuse to adequately report on the sequence of events surrounding Senator Dodd's sweetheart VIP mortgage terms from Countrywide Bank, perhaps in return for Dodd's investigative reluctance regarding corruption at the now failed Countrywide, Bank of America and beyond?

http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/...uption-at.html

In my opinion, the failure of America's old time media to adequately report on both the existence and now the real causes of our financial disaster is a massive indictment of the old media and their biased in-the-tank support for both the re-establishment of dem liberal party and union power. The NYTimes must continue to play party politics and run interference for the dem leadership to protect their investment in Barry's presidency and re-cement dem party control over Congressional spending committees for another 50 years, if they can.

Isn't the real reason for the failure of the NYTimes to exercise normal standards of investigative journalism and objectively publish the findings, the pro-union & pro-racial-reparation bias at the nytimes? Ask the public editor that question while you're writing and watch the squirming and flat avoidance.

Why should we and the big 3 have to pay for those Congressional and Journalistic failures?

Are both Congress and the media laws unto themselves with no liability?

[Don]

What'saCobra:

A concern regarding the NY Times and others is when the reporters interject their, or an Editor's opinion , into the news article, rather than just the factual reporting. Included are the headlines, which can be mis-leading with the intent to influence the readers thoughts prior to reading the article.


November 30, 2008
THE PUBLIC EDITOR
Expert Opinions, From Neutral Observers

By CLARK HOYT
THE debate about bailing out Detroit has been impassioned in The Times. On the Op-Ed page, Mitt Romney argued that if Detroit gets what it wants, “you can kiss the American automobile industry goodbye.” Spencer Abraham, a former senator from Michigan, wrote that Romney’s preferred course, a “managed bankruptcy,” would doom the automakers.

The newspaper took its own stand in an editorial, declaring that a failure to provide an infusion of taxpayer money “would be a truly irresponsible act.”

Those were robust opinions, on the pages meant for them. But the reporters and columnists covering the economic crisis for The Times’s business news department have their own opinions, and they have not been shy about declaring them in columns on the news pages, raising again the question of how much people who report the news should also tell you what they think about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30pubed.html

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinio...tor/index.html

From prior NY Times Public Editor's comments, seems the NY Times Editors support including reporters opinions in news articles

[Ron61]

Don,

Sort of off topic but since you mentioned the New York Times, the news said that China has blocked all Internet access to their web site. I believe they said it was something about their opinion on human rights but am not sure if that was it or all of it as I just caught the end of the report.

Ron

[What'saCobra?]

Don
Perhaps we mostly agree about the NYT. But, it is not possible to over-state their failures to report responsibly about the credit crunch (my very shorthand way of describing the root causes of our current economic and financial malaise). These failures doom most citizens from gaining any coherent comprehension about the sequence of events, political behaviors committed and omitted, special interests, special deals, preferred access and pre-conceived biases of supposedly "objective" newsfolk. Everyone wants to "make a difference". Well, here it is. Thank you very much you bunch of lying media-whore hypocrites.

If we do not understand what happened either in the depression of 1928 - 1938 or today, we cannot learn enough to avoid it again in the future. But, of course, that is the NYTimes' objective, isn't it? The NYTImes did a masterful job during the FDR days to obfuscate the truth. Don't raise enough awareness of exactly who willfully ignored the specific problems while they were occurring, so as not to cut off the re-election funding and home district political support bot with citizens bail-outs.

Don't you think our mortal enemies would like to see the big 3 fail to continue in some fashion? Wouldn't they plan to take advantage of a perceived weakness, even if they might be wrong (just as Nikita Khruschev misunderstood the political forces that would force JFK to act in the Cuba affair, even if not altogether effectively)?

But, the NYTImes has no apparent responsibility for subsequent events that are encouraged by their cover-ups, not unlike their famous love-affair with that darling of the Hollywood progressive crowd, Comrade Fidel Castro. Their romanticizing of his destructive protocols and murderous commie bias, kept the truth from the American people long enough to prevent timely action regarding the failures of JFK to keep his word and support the counter-revolution.

Not unlike the famous Pulitzer Prize given to the NYTimes "reporter" Walter Duranty for covering-up the Soviet-engineered starvation progroms in Ukraine in 1932-33 (the Holodomor), world opinion was shaped to support the NYTimes' preferred dictator-in-charge, Joseph Stalin. Even today, the NYTimes refuses to remove the PPrize from Walter Duranty's cold dead hands.

http://www.artukraine.com/famineart/duranty55.htm

The depth of the NYTimes insult to American values, culture and history are far too deep to describe here. Yet, more than 1/2 of America's small newspapers, TV and radio stations depend on the Times selection of subjects to discuss and their particular slant on the news for their common beliefs.

The NYT support of the union "solidarity" is legendary and they still will support the UAW down to the destruction of Detroit's capacity to employ, not unlike the PATCO example i referenced previously. The NYT is the leader of the 5th column in this country and influences much of western Europe. Their failure to tell the truth weakens one of our democracy's more important safeguards, a free press.

Economically, they are a basket-case as a result of reader abandonment and dwindling advertiser support. The end cannot come any too soon for me.

Detroit, Michigan, the big 3 and our national truth will benefit thereby, the sooner the better.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by What'saCobra?

If we do not understand what happened either in the depression of 1928 - 1938 or today, we cannot learn enough to avoid it again in the future. But, of course, that is the NYTimes' objective, isn't it? .

It really doesn't matter if we understand or not, as the polititians (lawyers)don;t really care to know the reasons why, as they will do what they will do no matter what. Lie and do whatever is needed to keep support for them and keep them in office. It's their track record then and now.

[Don]

Without regard to style, quality, etc, early versions of the US small and possibly for the time period, fuel efficient cars:

1951 Henry J
1953 Allstate ( sold by Sears, styled like Henry J )
1952 Willys Aero
1953 Hudson Jet
1952 Nash Rambler
1960 Metroploitan

[What'saCobra?]

Chrysler Faces Criticism for Full-Page 'Thank You' Ads

Taxpayers and conservative groups are questioning why Chrysler spent the money to take out a series of full-page newspaper ads thanking Americans for the auto industry bailout.*
By Judson Berger
FOXNews.com

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008...age-thank-ads/

Chrysler is facing a backlash from taxpayers and conservative groups after the ailing auto company took out a series of full-page newspaper ads last week to thank Americans for "investing" in the company through the government's $17.4 billion auto industry bailout plan.*

Critics say the company, which is expected to receive about $4 billion of that bailout money in the near term, should not be spending its already limited resources on pricey advertisements.*

"It's quite ridiculous to be spending that kind of money," said Princella Smith, national spokeswoman for American Solutions, an organization headed by former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich. "Those ads are just a precise example of the fact that they do not get it ... and it's just in our faces."*

The ads ran last week in several major daily newspapers, including USA Today, The Wall Street Journal and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Since USA Today and The Wall Street Journal are two of the highest-circulation newspapers in the country, full-page ad rates are steep. A full-page ad in The Wall Street Journal runs between $206,000 and $264,000, and a full-page ad in USA Today runs between $112,000 and $217,000.*

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, said in a written statement to FOXNews.com that Chrysler should give back the money.*
"Years ago there was a robber who was really polite. He said please and thank you while he was robbing people. At the end of the day, people had their money stolen. Saying thank you doesn't make it OK. They should give the money back," Norquist said.*

Chrysler's ad, which is also posted on the company's Web site, pledges to produce cars and trucks that are attractive to consumers and improve their fuel economy.*

"On behalf of the 1 million people who depend on Chrysler for their livelihoods, thank you for investing in Chrysler, and America," says the statement, signed by CEO Bob Nardelli.*

A representative for Chrysler could not be reached for comment.*

The ad buys have also triggered a wave of criticism on blogs and editorial pages.*

One recent letter to the editor in the Chicago Tribune said the automaker "proved their incompetence" by taking out the ads.*

"How about spending the money on producing cars that work, are fuel efficient, and that people want to buy?" the letter said.
------------------
A few comments from Lucianne.com:
Way to go maroons! Chrysler just showing us how carefully they are going to manage the bailout money. It's going to be a helluva New Year's Eve bash they hold there. Every hooker in town is probably already booked.
I will express my gratitude by staying with Toyotas.

[RedBarchetta]

Back in 1985, working part-time while attending college and in need of a credit card to handle my gasoline purchases, I summoned the two stations closest to my apartment, Shell and Union 76 (now part of ConocoPhillips). Shell flat out turned me down and Union 76 gave me my first true credit card. They came through when I really needed the gas card and I have been a loyal customer ever since then (says it on my card). As for Shell? Haven't bought a drop of juice from them EVER and don't plan to. Have even driven out of my way and passed a Shell station to get fuel somewhere else.

What does this story have to do with the Big 3? After Chrysler so stupidly spent MY money (okay, OUR money) on thank you ads, note here for everyone to see that I WILL NEVER EVER BUY ANOTHER CHRYSLER PRODUCT FOR THE REST OF MY DAYS. Nardelli can kiss my ass.

Honey, it's time to place your '05 Pacifica on Craigslist. I don't even want the thing in the garage any longer.

Dang, I feel better already!

-Dean

P.S. For Sale: '05 Chrysler Pacifica, dark metallic blue with dark grey leather, fully loaded (navi, DVD system, heated seats, etc.); 19" chromes with Pirelli's; seats six; 70K girly miles; make offer.

[Tom Kirkham]

Looks like the first bail out was just a warm up.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090218/D96E01HG0.html

[What'saCobra?]

Gosh! That's so surprising that they need more money.

GM plans on paying off their "loan" by 2017? But, that after President Obama's last term! Not a good strategy... rework the numbers pal.

Now, who is their most important customer and how does that affect design, engineering, marketing, advertising, sales, dealer relations, pricing and union negotiations?

Just a rhetorical question, friends...

[Great Asp]

Originally Posted by Tom Kirkham

Looks like the first bail out was just a warm up.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090218/D96E01HG0.html

I'm not surprised. If I was standing on a street corning giving out $10 bucks to each car that passed by, how long would it take until people started driving around the block for another pass by me?

What's funny is, that they got the first loan, and are still laying off people right and left. Stimulus Package = Free Money = FAIL BOAT

[jrjmac1]

I say no to the union worker making $75.00/hr. and no to the bailout.

[sparks]

Here we go , another one sided idiot !

[jrjmac1]

I've read most of your posts. Try to get a better command of the English language before you embarass yourself with more insipient remarks.

[Historybuff]

Although we don't have a Green Party in the US like they have in Germany
the problem facing US car enthusiasts in this time of crisis is that the Senators and representatives who voted for the bailout want to get in there and be able to tell Detroit what they should or should not build. So you can bet if GM says, "we will develop the 2011 ZR1 to have antoehr 30 hp. on top of the 638 it has already" then some politician will take pride in skewering it, saying "Not with our money."

The Greens , you see, want us all in hybrids, pure electrics, fuel cell cars
or maybe just , if none of that is feasible in the short term, waiting in line for the bus the rest of our lives.

Ford , by not taking the bait, might be able to squeeze out a performance car anew in 2011, or at least keep building 500-hp. plus Shelbys for some time to come because , because, by passing on the bailout, Congress can't tell them what to build or what not to build.

Ford could even resurrect the Ford GT, which only needs a little engineering to meet new laws (if Ferrari can keep bringing out new models on a smaller budget than Ford, so can Ford) or come up with a new design for a front engined Cobra two seat roadster.

Those who already own high performance cars can thank their lucky stars they already have one in their garage because we are heading toward a great parched wasteland when it comes to future performance cars from American automakers.

Eventually of course The Greens, feeding on their triumphs as they drive performance cars off the option lists of the Big Three, will try to outlaw older performance cars, but there's still enough little old ladies who own old cars who can still vote, and will vote any politician out of office to defeat a law that will ban their Ramblers and
Novas from the road just because their cars are old.

[tmareina]

The govn't shouldn't bail out any one....all of the money they've been throwing out there will do nothing except grease the politicians and their pet projects. We the people will suffer for a long while. They would have been better off lowering the income tax rates from 10% to 5 %, from 15% to 10%, and 18% to 15% and lower the business tax rate from 35% to 25%. This would have put more money directly into the pockets of the taxpayers who would in turn have more to spend which in turn would provide a stimulous to the economy. BUT hey...I'm not a politician...what do I know?

Tom

[What'saCobra?]

While FORD is more than brave in refusing Washington's "help", when President Obama uses the word "hammer", he does not intend the word as a euphemism. They WILL do as the US Government/dem party demands.

i am quite sure that ALL high HP engines are high CO2 emitters and will no longer be allowed as new sales items. No doubt used vehicles will be allowed, with "compensating" carbon tax payments at least for a while (or until the dems lose the House and/or Senate).

Your neighborhood ACORN/Brownshirt organizers will be monitoring your emissions and noise levels, unless Specter, Collins and Snowe can be removed...

[Great Asp]

Originally Posted by What'saCobra?

While FORD is more than brave in refusing Washington's "help", when President Obama uses the word "hammer", he does not intend the word as a euphemism. They WILL do as the US Government/dem party demands.

i am quite sure that ALL high HP engines are high CO2 emitters and will no longer be allowed as new sales items. No doubt used vehicles will be allowed, with "compensating" carbon tax payments at least for a while (or until the dems lose the House and/or Senate).

Your neighborhood ACORN/Brownshirt organizers will be monitoring your emissions and noise levels, unless Specter, Collins and Snowe can be removed...

So close to the truth it's scarey. Ford is really smart. Even if they go bankrupt, the lack of goverment "oversite" by two-faced politicians will provide Ford with the poise to perform well in the market. Nancy Pelosi can fly a 727 were she wants to go, but don't let the automakers fly their jets...

As a small business owner I have looked at SBA loans before. No thanks, I'll grow my business with my resources, credit, and skill.

E

[JWilly]

A hodge podge list of thoughts: a couple of nights ago I attended a meeting of a local
Mustang club. Members of this club include people who work in Ford plants, Ford
dealerships, independent mechanics, etc. Even though most of the attendees believe Ford to be in better financial shape than either GM or Chrysler, they all were very concerned. A couple of comments; a few of the guys are UAW guys and they said they were surprised at the $75.00/hr average wage reported for Ford workers. They all were long termers with Ford and said they made nowhere near that figure. I asked them if they thought the $75.00 amount included all of the benefits they received? They still did not think the number was accurate at all. The accountants may be adding in and including all of the benefits retired workers are making to come up with that number. Another number that was tossed out in the meeting was that for every worker GM lays off, ultimately 15 more people will lose their jobs. Dunno if that is accurate or not but I am sure there is some element of truth to it.

I have never been a big fan of the Detroit automakers. Several years ago I spent some time working in the Detroit area and I was amazed at how people who screwed door handles onto Pinto’s for a living could be so arrogant. Their salaries were outrageous in relation to the skills required for their jobs. I also remember buying a new Ford sedan in the 1970’s that rattled so badly you could hardly carry on a conversation in the thing. I asked the dealer to try and fix “some” of the rattles and he laughed at me. My next vehicle was a Nissan and it was a much better quality car than the junk I bought from Ford was. I vowed to never purchase another American made car. I am way beyond that now and I truly believe that GM, Ford and Chrysler manufacture cars as good as any now. I don’t think there are many things more complex to build than a car. The US desperately needs this industry and if we lose it, I don’t think it will be back anytime soon. I don’t know all of the answers for this vastly complex problem but I do know that we need to buy American. I don’t think anyone would regret buying an American made car now.

[Wayne Maybury]

I recently read an interesting article on the US auto industry. While GM is looking at trying to find a buyer for the Hummer line (good luck these days), Ford sold Jaguar and Land Rover a couple of years ago and got a reasonable price for them. While GM and Chrysler are in Washington begging for a bailout, Ford raised billions of dollars 2 years ago in anticipation of this present mess. While GM and Chrysler are discussing dropping a model here and a model there, Ford has trimmed their selection of models to the bone. These factors have separated Ford from the other two. Ford has also worked very hard at improving their quality to the point where they are now considered as good, or better than, the competition (Toyota & Honda, not GM & Chrysler).

I am not an economist but I feel that the government should allow GM and/or Chrysler to go bankrupt at which time they would have to really get their business in order including renegotiating their labor contracts, pension plans, etc., and also probably getting rid of a lot of the dead wood at the top. The present shareholders would get hosed as the note holders would have all of their debt converted into equity. Of course this would result in a new board of directors and a new management team.

Wayne