• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

UAW Says "Taxpayers" Should Ante Up

Mike

Well-known member
UAW Says It Will Rather Tax Payers Foot The Bill Than Accept Cuts To Keep Detroit Afloat

United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger will tell a Senate panel today that Detroit's Big Three automakers face liquidation if forced into bankruptcy and warned that taxpayers would have to pay at least $3 billion a year if the companies stopped paying for retiree health care. He also rejected new concessions by the union on wages or retiree benefits as some in Congress have demanded.
"GM, Ford and Chrysler are burning through their cash reserves at an unprecedented rate. As the recent earnings reports indicate, this scenario is not sustainable," according to a copy of Gettelfinger's written Senate Banking Committee testimony obtained by The Detroit News. "If the government does not act to provide immediate assistance, GM, Ford and Chrysler could be forced to liquidate."

Gettelfinger rejected new wage cuts for UAW workers or a reduction in payments to a $60 billion UAW-run health care trust that takes over responsibility for retiree health care in 2010.
 

TSR

Well-known member
Mike said:
UAW Says It Will Rather Tax Payers Foot The Bill Than Accept Cuts To Keep Detroit Afloat

United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger will tell a Senate panel today that Detroit's Big Three automakers face liquidation if forced into bankruptcy and warned that taxpayers would have to pay at least $3 billion a year if the companies stopped paying for retiree health care. He also rejected new concessions by the union on wages or retiree benefits as some in Congress have demanded.
"GM, Ford and Chrysler are burning through their cash reserves at an unprecedented rate. As the recent earnings reports indicate, this scenario is not sustainable," according to a copy of Gettelfinger's written Senate Banking Committee testimony obtained by The Detroit News. "If the government does not act to provide immediate assistance, GM, Ford and Chrysler could be forced to liquidate."

Gettelfinger rejected new wage cuts for UAW workers or a reduction in payments to a $60 billion UAW-run health care trust that takes over responsibility for retiree health care in 2010.

They must have been talking to the Ceo's. Both will have to make concessions if Congress keeps its courage. And then there is also the common sense issue of would a $25B LOAN be cost effective in both the short and long run??? If I was a bank I woudn't mind loaning money to someone who could show me how they would pay it back and make me money.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The bailout/loan will go thru in some form- bound to...Jay Leno has it figured out perfectly:

Executives from General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler are trying to get a $25 billion loan. President Bush was against the loan until Cheney whispered in his ear, “Cars use oil.” ~ Jay Leno

:wink: :lol: :lol: :p
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
TSR said:
Mike said:
UAW Says It Will Rather Tax Payers Foot The Bill Than Accept Cuts To Keep Detroit Afloat

United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger will tell a Senate panel today that Detroit's Big Three automakers face liquidation if forced into bankruptcy and warned that taxpayers would have to pay at least $3 billion a year if the companies stopped paying for retiree health care. He also rejected new concessions by the union on wages or retiree benefits as some in Congress have demanded.
"GM, Ford and Chrysler are burning through their cash reserves at an unprecedented rate. As the recent earnings reports indicate, this scenario is not sustainable," according to a copy of Gettelfinger's written Senate Banking Committee testimony obtained by The Detroit News. "If the government does not act to provide immediate assistance, GM, Ford and Chrysler could be forced to liquidate."

Gettelfinger rejected new wage cuts for UAW workers or a reduction in payments to a $60 billion UAW-run health care trust that takes over responsibility for retiree health care in 2010.

They must have been talking to the Ceo's. Both will have to make concessions if Congress keeps its courage. And then there is also the common sense issue of would a $25B LOAN be cost effective in both the short and long run??? If I was a bank I woudn't mind loaning money to someone who could show me how they would pay it back and make me money.

TSR those were the good old days. :wink: I have no problem at all with a loan for the "big 3". Just make them secure it like I would have to and then perform.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
The government shouldn't be making loans unless it is the absolute last resort. Virtually the whole world is feeling the effects of credit decisions made by loan officers Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
 

nonothing

Well-known member
What if the goverment guarnteed the loan and had these companies borrow money from other areas and have the chance to pay it back without no goverment money.....If the goverment just offered to cover costs that do not get paid.would that work or is that a whole new problem ?
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
The bailout/loan will go thru in some form- bound to...Jay Leno has it figured out perfectly:

Executives from General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler are trying to get a $25 billion loan. President Bush was against the loan until Cheney whispered in his ear, “Cars use oil.” ~ Jay Leno

:wink: :lol: :lol: :p

Can't find anything real to say so you use a comedians joke> wHAT A PIECE OF CRAP!!!!!!!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
nonothing said:
What if the goverment guarnteed the loan and had these companies borrow money from other areas and have the chance to pay it back without no goverment money.....If the goverment just offered to cover costs that do not get paid.would that work or is that a whole new problem ?

I would say MAYBE if everything else had failed, and everything else would include Chapter 7. I would also have a whole list of covenents that stated this, this, and this must happen and that, that, and that can't happen or the guarantee is off. I'd also charge a 5% fee for the guarantee.
 

nonothing

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
nonothing said:
What if the goverment guarnteed the loan and had these companies borrow money from other areas and have the chance to pay it back without no goverment money.....If the goverment just offered to cover costs that do not get paid.would that work or is that a whole new problem ?

I would say MAYBE if everything else had failed, and everything else would include Chapter 7. I would also have a whole list of covenents that stated this, this, and this must happen and that, that, and that can't happen or the guarantee is off. I'd also charge a 5% fee for the guarantee.

Sounds fair.....I to do not feel the government should just hand out with no return ..but rather give banks garantees on loans with protection provisions as well....Would that not be more prudent then just giving money away?..Also maybe it would restart the economy with other companies borrowing....Just an idea ...I am no economist but why give without some kind of pay back ...
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
In this case, we're giving because the Democrats owe the UAW. This is the kind of crap that happens when all of those "donations" are allowed to happen. People expect something in return for their money and efforts - imagine that.
 

Steve

Well-known member
nonothing said:
Sandhusker said:
nonothing said:
What if the goverment guarnteed the loan and had these companies borrow money from other areas and have the chance to pay it back without no goverment money.....If the goverment just offered to cover costs that do not get paid.would that work or is that a whole new problem ?

I would say MAYBE if everything else had failed, and everything else would include Chapter 7. I would also have a whole list of covenents that stated this, this, and this must happen and that, that, and that can't happen or the guarantee is off. I'd also charge a 5% fee for the guarantee.

Sounds fair.....I to do not feel the government should just hand out with no return ..but rather give banks garantees on loans with protection provisions as well....Would that not be more prudent then just giving money away?..Also maybe it would restart the economy with other companies borrowing....Just an idea ...I am no economist but why give without some kind of pay back ...

isn't that just welfare? a hand out with no return?

better watch out NoNothing,.. your becoming conservative..

last year the Detriot Big 3 bailout would have been called corporate welfare.. and been blamed on the republicans.. today under democratic leadership it's saving jobs..

call it whatever you want.. but a bail out to a corporation is corporate welfare.. and will end up as bad as the Democrats' Financial sector corporate welfare,.. ,oops,.. I mean bailout,..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Looks like Sandhusker will be buying his next vehicle from Japan, or China, due to the fact that the US big 3 were counting on the US buyer to continue to buy an over priced US made vehicle. How that happen?
 
Top