Dream Spa

Another round of auto bailouts - Auto bailout tab could top $130 billion

kupall

Member
Nov 4, 2005
380
0
16
who ever thought that the initial money lent was gonna save them.... we all knew they'd be back for more.... i guess everybody should fall in line now....
i say let them fail..... this has gone toooo far already... or they should give a free car to each taxpayer to save their sorry asses

http://http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/18/news/companies/auto_bailout/?postversion=2009021818

Auto bailout tab could top $130 billion
GM and Chrysler say they need $21.6 billion more in loans. But that won't be enough to save Detroit. Here's a rundown of all the auto bailout proposals.


See all CNNMoney.com RSS FEEDS (close) By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: February 18, 2009: 9:24 PM ET

GM needs billions more


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- General Motors and Chrysler LLC asked the government Tuesday for $21.6 billion in additional loans, but the final cost of a bailout of the auto industry could be significantly higher.

The two struggling auto giants have already received a total of $17.4 billion in loans. If they get the new loans they want, the price tag of the bailout would climb to $39 billion.

What's more, $7.5 billion in loans have already been approved for the financing arms of GM and Chrysler. Congress also approved funding last year for $25 billion in loans to help automakers convert their plants to produce more fuel efficient cars.

But dealers and suppliers are also asking for federal aid. And consumers may eventually get further incentives from the government to buy new cars.

All told, it could take up to $130 billion to save Detroit. Here's a breakdown of the rest of the money that might be needed.

Loan guarantees requested by auto parts suppliers: $18.5 billion. The trade groups for parts suppliers are asking loan guarantees for the amount they're owed by domestic automakers. They are also seeking guarantees on other types of commercial loans and help so General Motors (GM, Fortune 500) and Chrysler pay their suppliers more quickly.

Loan guarantees being requested by auto dealers: $5 billion to $20 billion. This is still in the works. But the National Automobile Dealers Association is working on a request for federal loan guarantees to make sure they can get the cash they need to finance their inventories. NADA vice president and general counsel Andrew Koblenz said the range is likely to be in the $5 billion to $20 billion range.

Line of credit being requested by Ford: $9 billion. Ford Motor (F, Fortune 500) continues to insist that it shouldn't need federal help, primarily because it locked up financing years before the credit markets dried up.

But in December, the automaker asked Congress to approve a $9 billion line of credit for the company in case sales were worse than expected or a rival's bankruptcy caused widespread failures in its own supplier or dealership base. Since that request, car sales have plunged further and forecasts for 2009 have grown increasingly bleak.

Tax credit for "Cash for Clunkers" program: $16 billion. There are a couple of different proposals floating around Capitol Hill to have the federal government give buyers of new, fuel-efficient vehicles a tax credit of up to $10,000 if they turn in an old, fuel-inefficient vehicle to be scrapped.

One version of the proposal, which would have been available for 1.6 million buyers, was briefly included in the economic stimulus package before it was stripped out. But stand-alone versions of the bill are still alive in Congress, and they have support of both the auto industry and environmentalists.

Allowing car buyers to deduct interest on auto loans: $9 billion. This proposal from Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., easily passed the Senate during debate on the stimulus bill. But it was stripped out of the final version, leaving a far more modest tax credit that allows buyers to deduct only the sales and excise tax they pay on a new car purchase.

Auto dealers and automakers were strong supporters of making interest deductible as a way to spur demand.

How to pay for it
If the Obama administration decides to move ahead with additional loans for GM and Chrysler, some think it may wrap all the various proposals into one auto bailout bill.

Still, there are questions about where future funding will come from. Much of the money for Detroit so far has come from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the $700 bailout of the nation's financial system approved last fall.

But much, if not all, of the additional money will probably have to be approved by Congress, rather than just Treasury. That could prove to be an easier sell in this Congress though.

The House passed a $34 billion bailout for GM, Chrysler and Ford last December but it failed to win approval from enough Republicans in the Senate.

But the Democratic majority of both houses has grown significantly since then. So it is likely that a similar bailout measure would find the 60 votes needed to advance in the Senate, assuming all Democrats support it as they did the recently passed stimulus bill.

The automakers' strongest argument for getting the help to get the industry back on its feet is that it could cost the government far more if they fail.

GM and Chrysler both included estimates in viability plans submitted to the Treasury Tuesday about how much they would need to fund their operations if they went through a bankruptcy reorganization. GM said it could cost up to $100 billion in loans over two years, while Chrysler estimated it would cost between $20 billion and $25 billion.

Both companies said that if they went bankrupt, they would be forced to halt operations and liquidate if they did not receive the loans. And if they were to go out of business, lost federal tax revenue would reach into the hundreds of billions of dollars, according to company estimates.

Experts agreed that a bankruptcy at either company would be far more expensive for taxpayers than the amount of money they are asking for.

"There would be nothing standard about a bankruptcy filing at GM," said Michigan bankruptcy attorney Douglas Bernstein. "You don't normally have the government as your lender. And I don't think anybody has been through a bankruptcy of this magnitude."
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,530
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
Bolstering the auto industry will just keep the vehicle prices from falling to a rational level.
 

Malibook

New member
Nov 16, 2001
4,613
2
0
Paradise
www.yourtraveltickets.com
They need to go bankrupt, fire all of the executives, drastically cut pensions, benefits, and salaries, and start to live within their means.

People with no pension are supposed to bail out GM pensions?
Give me a fucking break!!:mad:
 

train

New member
Jul 29, 2002
6,991
0
0
Above 7

patton

Member
Feb 9, 2009
946
3
18
i dont understand all this bailout BS. The domestic auto industry is not the big three anymore. If you buy a Honda or Toyota it is more then likely being made in North America. So if all these people lose their jobs and we still buy 10 million to 14 million cars a year why cant the majority go work at the other auto manufactuers as somebody has to make up the slack? if a proportion of the big three sales go to foreign manufactuers then those will be the jobs lost which willl be a lot less exoensive then these bailouts.
it is all politics , unions and votes.
BTW i just bought Cadillac Escalade and love it.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
46,949
5,769
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
train said:
SAAB has lost money for 19 out of the last 20 years which begs the questions - Why did GM buy them ? Why have they been kept alive for so long ?
GM bought them when they were awash in $$$$$$$$$
GM wanted to expand and bought out a few other businesses also so they wouldn't have any money left over, to share with their hourly workers like Ford and Chrysler were doing. After blowing big bucks on Saab, EDS, etc, the only money left over went to executive bonuses......hourly were told to wait for next year when things may be better....:rolleyes:
 

KBear

Supporting Member
Aug 17, 2001
4,167
1
38
west end
www.gtagirls.com
Went out looking at cars the other weekend, and did not see anything that looked interesting and practical at the GM or Chrysler dealerships. Think they are finished.

Chrysler was offering what seemed to be employee pricing in there Sun ads, what a scam, have to be a Chrysler employee to get the deal. wtf.

I have always bought domestic cars, but liked the quality and styling of the Nissan, Infinity, Accura, lexus much better when comparing prices.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
18,788
4,239
113
WoodPeckr said:
GM bought them when they were awash in $$$$$$$$$
GM wanted to expand and bought out a few other businesses also so they wouldn't have any money left over, to share with their hourly workers like Ford and Chrysler were doing. After blowing big bucks on Saab, EDS, etc, the only money left over went to executive bonuses......hourly were told to wait for next year when things may be better....:rolleyes:
So they spent billions to spite the UAW?
What a pile of horse-shit

The notion that a company has to share any cash with it union is deranged.
You really do not understand business at all do you?
The hourlies compensation is well in excess of the national average and they always want more
Just how much of the pie do the hourlies deserve?
As much as they can get their hands on?
Enough to bankrupt the company?
What about the share owners who risk their capital?
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
46,949
5,769
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
JohnLarue said:
So they spent billions to spite the UAW?
What a pile of horse-shit

The notion that a company has to share any cash with it union is deranged.
Nope Johnny, that's just the facts!

The Big 3 Had 'Profit Sharing'. It worked very well for both Ford & Chrsler.
Not so well at GM.

Ford & Chrsler paid their workers $5K-$9K/ yr EVERY YEAR, in the good years back in the 80s & 90s. GM farked their workers EVERY YEAR during those good years throwing their workers only a few hundred bucks, because they were busy buying Saab, EDS, etc, so they COULD 'SPITE' their workers!

Look it up Johnny, it's all there!.....;)
 

good to go

Active member
Aug 17, 2001
2,398
4
38
toronto
Malibook said:
They need to go bankrupt, fire all of the executives, drastically cut pensions, benefits, and salaries, and start to live within their means.

People with no pension are supposed to bail out GM pensions?
Give me a fucking break!!:mad:
I agree, if you ran a company into the ground would you geta loan or handout to let you do it again.I believe that the top executives should be fired first, with no big salary giveaway or bonus. Then help the company to become profitable and give tax cuts to buyers of new vehicles.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
46,949
5,769
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Lousy CEOs aren't fired anymore. In both Auto and Banks they keep these morons that should of been fired. Hell the Banks still give these crappy CEOs BONUSES!....:rolleyes:
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
18,788
4,239
113
WoodPeckr said:
Nope Johnny, that's just the facts!

The Big 3 Had 'Profit Sharing'. It worked very well for both Ford & Chrsler.
Not so well at GM.

Ford & Chrsler paid their workers $5K-$9K/ yr EVERY YEAR, in the good years back in the 80s & 90s. GM farked their workers EVERY YEAR during those good years throwing their workers only a few hundred bucks, because they were busy buying Saab, EDS, etc, so they COULD 'SPITE' their workers!

Look it up Johnny, it's all there!.....;)
You should wake up.
Noone makes an acquisition to spite their employees.
They enter into a deal to grow the company.
Did it work out?
No

Paying bonuses to militant union employees costing $72 / hour?
As you say it worked well for Chrysler.
Did it?
Of the three they are the company with the highest probability of bankruptcy.
Twenty years of bonuses for a large workforce would be pretty handy cash to have right now would it not.

There in lies the basic problem the hourlies have. Not foresight and no re guard for the long term viability of the company or future generations of hourlies.
"Give my $ now and lots of it or I will strike"
 
Last edited:

Meister

Well-known member
Apr 17, 2003
4,362
628
113
I think America is fucked either way. Letting the big 3 go bankrupt will not have them emerge as stronger leaner companies. People will stop buying cars from a bankrupt company altogether.
The foreign companies will be able to meet demand through additional local capacity and imports, but mostly imports in the beginning.

So the taxpayer will be stuck with either funding the big 3 or severe unemployment and warranty costs.

I think what they should have done is to demand a stake in the company ownership.
Kickstart sales of domestically produced vehicles by giving a rebate for trashing older cars (like they do in Europe right now).
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts