Auto chiefs on hotseat in Congress

[Nukeman]

Auto chiefs on hotseat in Congress, where the hell are the Union boss's that put the big 3 in this position. Why are they suddenly silent on the whole thing since after all a VAST MAJORITY of the automotive industries problems can be laid solely at their feet. I find this a terrible lack of understanding on our politicians part. But what do you expect the UAW has a VERY powerful lobby...


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081118140418.pei9p116&show_article=1


The chiefs of the "Big Three" US automakers travel to Congress Tuesday to plead with lawmakers to save their talismanic American industry, despite fading hopes for a quick congressional bailout.
The chairmen and CEOs of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler will testify to the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee as Democrats mount a long-odds bid to pass a 25-billion-dollar rescue package.

Their testimony, to be followed by an appearance before a House of Representatives panel Wednesday, comes with millions of jobs threatened as the industry's crippling losses are exacerbated by the deepening economic crisis .


Ford CEO Alan Mulally, Chrysler boss Robert Nardelli and Richard Wagoner of General Motors will testify to the committee, under the chairmanship of Democrat Chris Dodd who has already cast doubt a bailout can pass this week.

[Hull]

Let them go bankrupt. File chapter 11. Maybe then they can reorginize without the unions and actually compete with the foreign auto industry.

[Trigg]

Those CEO's are really feeling the pinch these days.


Big Three CEOs Flew Private Jets to Plead for Public Funds



The CEOs of GM, Ford and Chrysler may have told Congress that they will likely go out of business without a bailout yet that has not stopped them from traveling in style, not even First Class is good enough.


All three CEOs - Rick Wagoner of GM, Alan Mulally of Ford, and Robert Nardelli of Chrysler - exercised their perks Tuesday by flying in corporate jets to DC. Wagoner flew in GM's $36 million luxury aircraft

Ford CEO Mulally's corporate jet is a perk included for both he and his wife as part of his employment contract along with a $28 million salary last year. Mulally actually lives in Seattle, not Detroit. The company jet takes him home and back on weekends.


The best thing that could happen to the US auto industry is for them to declare bankruptcy and restructure. They'll become more competitive, a bailout will simply delay the inevitable.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/WallStreet/story?id=6285739&page=1

[manu1959]

is it just me that finds it odd that the congress that has presided over this "failed" economy for the past 2 years....are calling for the jobs of these "failed" ceos.....


someone should call congress before them.....these folks are delusional.....

they create the laws that cause this mess then want to tar and feather the casualties of thier flawed economic policies.....

[Mr. P]

is it just me that finds it odd that the congress that has presided over this "failed" economy for the past 2 years....are calling for the jobs of these "failed" ceos.....


someone should call congress before them.....these folks are delusional.....

they create the laws that cause this mess then want to tar and feather the casualties of thier flawed economic policies.....

Politics 101

Lesson one: Finger Pointing.

[namvet]

I might support it. but under 1 condition. upper mgmt and their boards resign.

Big Three CEOs Flew Private Jets to Plead for Public Funds

The CEOs of the big three automakers flew to the nation's capital yesterday in private luxurious jets to make their case to Washington that the auto industry is running out of cash and needs $25 billion in taxpayer money to avoid bankruptcy.


story (story)


"its Osama's fault"

[Classact]

I can't make heads or tails of the words spoken in the hearings before congress right now, the big 3 and the unions have stated they have taken the cuts and made the changes required to produce autos in a competitive manner had the economy not faltered. They claim they only need a bridge loan to see them through the downturn in the economy and that if that it were approved "and" the economy improves all will be just fine. But what if the economy continues to suck for a year or more, then what come back for another loan?

It seems to me the best stimulus would be to offer DOD contracts to the big 3 to produce a new fleet of military vehicles that would replace the fleet worn and torn by two wars and fill in the gaps country wide in the National Guard and Army Reserve. These contracts should demand all parts be produced in the US that would cause many empty machine shops to open in the auto belt that are now empty due to the big 3 outsourcing to Mexico. By awarding DOD contracts the tax payers should expect an actual finished product for the gamble while at the same time making our armed forces ready for current and future challenges. Much of the current depleted military fleet could be sold/given to Iraq or Afghanistan and then they would become a customer for American made replacement parts. These sales/grants would make their militaries closer to being able to carry the load of national defense.

[Nukeman]

I can't make heads or tails of the words spoken in the hearings before congress right now, the big 3 and the unions have stated they have taken the cuts and made the changes required to produce autos in a competitive manner had the economy not faltered. They claim they only need a bridge loan to see them through the downturn in the economy and that if that it were approved "and" the economy improves all will be just fine. But what if the economy continues to suck for a year or more, then what come back for another loan?

It seems to me the best stimulus would be to offer DOD contracts to the big 3 to produce a new fleet of military vehicles that would replace the fleet worn and torn by two wars and fill in the gaps country wide in the National Guard and Army Reserve. These contracts should demand all parts be produced in the US that would cause many empty machine shops to open in the auto belt that are now empty due to the big 3 outsourcing to Mexico. By awarding DOD contracts the tax payers should expect an actual finished product for the gamble while at the same time making our armed forces ready for current and future challenges. Much of the current depleted military fleet could be sold/given to Iraq or Afghanistan and then they would become a customer for American made replacement parts. These sales/grants would make their militaries closer to being able to carry the load of national defense.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::salute:


Hell yaa!!!!

[Trigg]

This is what they should have been doing from the beginning. Cutting unnecessary spending.......instead of asking for handouts from the American taxpayer.


GM cut its golf ad spending by almost 54 percent to $10.8 million in the first six months of 2008

ya it's great that they cut spending on this, but think about it, 10.8 MILLION and that's down 54% from last years spending


Its spending on sponsorships, mostly focused on sports, also is likely to be down from last year's $235 million to $240 million range,

240 million on sponsorships. Makes you wonder why on earth these people are having cash flow problems. Oh, and those sponsorships are only "likely" to go down.


General Motors Corp and popular professional golfer Tiger Woods said on Monday that they would end their endorsement deal at the end of the year.

GM, which has warned it will soon run short of cash and is asking the U.S. government for financial support amid the economic slowdown, called the arrangement "mutual and amicable."

Poor Tiger Woods is also being cut early, the article doesn't say how much his endorsement cost the company, wonder how many millions they were giving him???????


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081124/sp_nm/us_gm_tigerwoods

[Yurt]

i read an article that said TW was getting approx. 9 million a year and that the contract expired in 09'

[Trigg]

i read an article that said TW was getting approx. 9 million a year and that the contract expired in 09'

9 million a year to make a friggin commercial, good god, no wonder they're hemorrhaging money.

I hope they don't get a bailout. They need to declare chapter 11, restructure the management, get rid of all unnecessary spending and put a clamp on the union.



I was curious what my mother in law thought about this bailout. She's a lifelong dem and pro-union, so she has a different view from me obviously :laugh2:. Anyway she brought up a few points and seems to be, for now, against a bailout.

[The ClayTaurus]

CEO's in private planes no doubt looks bad, but it's standard operating procedure. Many corporate boards actually require it of their top executives for security reasons. Private flights also allow you to be much more productive, as you don't have to comply to all the rules and regs of flying publically.

Would it be better for him to fly first class or coach, and lose 2 hours of his day going through security and boarding and takeoff and landing and all of the other dead times where nothing gets done?

This, like much of the news, is easy to blow out to look very bad. In reality, it's not nearly as greedy as we all want to believe it is.

[Trigg]

CEO's in private planes no doubt looks bad, but it's standard operating procedure. Many corporate boards actually require it of their top executives for security reasons. Private flights also allow you to be much more productive, as you don't have to comply to all the rules and regs of flying publically.

Would it be better for him to fly first class or coach, and lose 2 hours of his day going through security and boarding and takeoff and landing and all of the other dead times where nothing gets done?

This, like much of the news, is easy to blow out to look very bad. In reality, it's not nearly as greedy as we all want to believe it is.

That argument become very lame when you consider that the Ford CEO gets flown home EVERY WEEKEND at a huge cost.

There are also that new fangled video conferencing thingy that they could use instead of flying to a meeting. That would not only same time and money, but the guy wouldn't even need to leave work. WOW those inventions are amazing.


What about the millions spent on endorsements and sponsorships. A company that is worried about going under and begging for my tax dollars needs to cut out all unnecessary spending or they can lump it IMHO.

[The ClayTaurus]

That argument become very lame when you consider that the Ford CEO gets flown home EVERY WEEKEND at a huge cost.

There are also that new fangled video conferencing thingy that they could use instead of flying to a meeting. That would not only same time and money, but the guy wouldn't even need to leave work. WOW those inventions are amazing.


What about the millions spent on endorsements and sponsorships. A company that is worried about going under and begging for my tax dollars needs to cut out all unnecessary spending or they can lump it IMHO.First, that condition was agreed upon hiring Mulaly, a stipulation of employment, so that falls on the board - be mad at them if you want to be mad at someone, they didn't have to agree to that demand. Second, video conferencing does not substitute being somewhere in-person. Name me one major company where the CEO sits in an office and video conferences all day. It just doesn't happen. You can't lead via a tv screen.

I agree with you on the vast amount of money spent on endorsements. Fact is, though, it's become a cost of doing business today. Without seeing the forecasting for endorsing and not endorsing, I have no idea as to whether it's frivolous spending. For all either of us know, if GM were to nix all of that spending, their sales might fall by more than the money saved. So does it still make sense to make the cut then?

[Mr. P]

I can and will defend the use of private aircraft for corporate use.

But not the abuse of such a resource. These guys used a bit of bad judgment IMO but that doesn't mean corp aircraft are a luxury...In fact, these aircraft are very important business assets.

[Nukeman]

First, that condition was agreed upon hiring Mulaly, a stipulation of employment, so that falls on the board - be mad at them if you want to be mad at someone, they didn't have to agree to that demand. Second, video conferencing does not substitute being somewhere in-person. Name me one major company where the CEO sits in an office and video conferences all day. It just doesn't happen. You can't lead via a tv screen.

Your right the burden falls on the board and their perceived leadership. If your company is tanking you don't do business as usual. You look for ways to CUT COST. One of those may be LIMITING your use of corporate property. As for video conferencing , with todays technology it is more than an acceptable level of communication. these companies got along fine before there was unlimited aircraft available. Yes a corporate president COULD sit in his office and video conference all day if that was the way he wanted to do business. It shows me that HE is being FISCALLY responsible. Imagine that a leader actually thinking of the company he was hired to lead and not just receive a paycheck or perk...


I agree with you on the vast amount of money spent on endorsements. Fact is, though, it's become a cost of doing business today. Without seeing the forecasting for endorsing and not endorsing, I have no idea as to whether it's frivolous spending. For all either of us know, if GM were to nix all of that spending, their sales might fall by more than the money saved. So does it still make sense to make the cut then? Once again if YOUR company is IN TROUBLE you make cuts where you can save the most money. I think the big three need to take a lesson from the Japanese when they have issues they start with the higher payed executives and work their way down. but God forbid any of these morons actually take responsibility for running their respective companies into the ground.....

[The ClayTaurus]

Your right the burden falls on the board and their perceived leadership. If your company is tanking you don't do business as usual. You look for ways to CUT COST. One of those may be LIMITING your use of corporate property. As for video conferencing , with todays technology it is more than an acceptable level of communication. these companies got along fine before there was unlimited aircraft available. Yes a corporate president COULD sit in his office and video conference all day if that was the way he wanted to do business. It shows me that HE is being FISCALLY responsible. Imagine that a leader actually thinking of the company he was hired to lead and not just receive a paycheck or perk...So you think it is possible to lead via a tv screen?
Once again if YOUR company is IN TROUBLE you make cuts where you can save the most money. I think the big three need to take a lesson from the Japanese when they have issues they start with the higher payed executives and work their way down. but God forbid any of these morons actually take responsibility for running their respective companies into the ground.....First, the salaries paid to top executives are really just a drop in the bucket. Cutting their salaries is a nice gesture and all, but goes very little towards actually making any tangible bottom-line difference. Second, just taking wild hatchet swings at your spending can be very dangerous. Companies don't sponsor Tiger Woods because it's fun - it drives real business results for them. Now, it's entirely possible GM has sponsorships that do nothing for them, and they should be cut. But Tiger could be selling them a ton of cars, I don't have their numbers so I don't know. I just hope that these companies aren't pressured into cutting spending on things that are actually driving positive results for them. There's a difference between cutting the fat off and just cutting for the sake of cutting.

[Yurt]

So you think it is possible to lead via a tv screen?First, the salaries paid to top executives are really just a drop in the bucket. Cutting their salaries is a nice gesture and all, but goes very little towards actually making any tangible bottom-line difference. Second, just taking wild hatchet swings at your spending can be very dangerous. Companies don't sponsor Tiger Woods because it's fun - it drives real business results for them. Now, it's entirely possible GM has sponsorships that do nothing for them, and they should be cut. But Tiger could be selling them a ton of cars, I don't have their numbers so I don't know. I just hope that these companies aren't pressured into cutting spending on things that are actually driving positive results for them. There's a difference between cutting the fat off and just cutting for the sake of cutting.

execs salaries at 100 million+....

does it make a difference if that is in stocks? what about pay?

their compensation has been listed, is there a problem with that?

[The ClayTaurus]

execs salaries at 100 million+....

does it make a difference if that is in stocks? what about pay?

their compensation has been listed, is there a problem with that?The number that matters is the amount of CASH that comes out of the budget annually. In a lot of cases, that number is not nearly as big as the salaries that get reported. FWIW, I think execs in general are way over paid, but so goes capitalism. I have no issues with compensation being listed for public companies; not sure if I insinuated otherwise?

My point was mainly that everyone gets all up in arms about how much a CEO is making, but when you back out the percentage of actual costs on a given year that that salary accounts for, even completely eliminating it will do nothing to significantly affect the health of the company. It's just a publicity stunt.

[Sitarro]

I find it a bit disingenuous of the pointy headed asswipes in Congress to criticize these CEOs for flying on private jets when there were over 200 in Denver for the Demwit Convention, who knows how many attended the Repubs Convention, King Osama and his new Secretary of State both flew huge 757s during their year long primary while John McCain flew a 737 and drove around in a bus. The King continued his ridiculously hypocritical 20th century style campaign for a year flying everywhere, pretending to be a rock star(why didn't he decide that the speeches repeated every day was stupid and just do one new speech each week on the internet?). Between these three, the carbon footprint was enormous, the fuel used was well over a 100,000 gallons of heavily polluting jet fuel(Osama used at least 50,000 gallons on his Mid East basketball photo-op).

Besides, those jerks in Congress that vote themselves pay raises in the cover of night for the pathetic jobs they do, the clowns in the House that have their cars, insurance and gas payed for by us the taxpayer are just a bit hypocritical........ they jump on private jets whenever possible( my Dad flew Senators, Governors, Representatives when he was a corporate pilot, Gary Hart was one of them, picked he and Donna Rice up), we all know that. Buick sponsors 2 golf tournaments each year, those golf tournaments in turn give a great deal of money(millions) to charity and provide a lot of folks entertainment along with jobs. The television networks pay a great deal to televise them and are payed a great deal to have advertisers during their program. Having Tiger show at these tournaments, which his sponsor was sponsoring, was worth a lot of money to the tournament and exposure to Buick that no single spot on Desperate Housewives could achieve. Why anyone would buy a Buick just because an athlete claims he like them is amazing to me but it sounds like this is the first year that they have declined in sales since Tiger started.

The questions these representatives of "the people" should of asked was, why has Toyota Camry and Honda Accord been the two most popular cars sold in America every year and you three haven't come up with an American version of each of them? American cars have improved in quality but style and performance wise, except for a few......... :puke3:

[Yurt]

I find it a bit disingenuous of the pointy headed asswipes in Congress to criticize these CEOs for flying on private jets when there were over 200 in Denver for the Demwit Convention, who knows how many attended the Repubs Convention, King Osama and his new Secretary of State both flew huge 757s during their year long primary while John McCain flew a 737 and drove around in a bus. The King continued his ridiculously hypocritical 20th century style campaign for a year flying everywhere, pretending to be a rock star(why didn't he decide that the speeches repeated every day was stupid and just do one new speech each week on the internet?). Between these three, the carbon footprint was enormous, the fuel used was well over a 100,000 gallons of heavily polluting jet fuel(Osama used at least 50,000 gallons on his Mid East basketball photo-op).

Besides, those jerks in Congress that vote themselves pay raises in the cover of night for the pathetic jobs they do, the clowns in the House that have their cars, insurance and gas payed for by us the taxpayer are just a bit hypocritical........ they jump on private jets whenever possible( my Dad flew Senators, Governors, Representatives when he was a corporate pilot, Gary Hart was one of them, picked he and Donna Rice up), we all know that. Buick sponsors 2 golf tournaments each year, those golf tournaments in turn give a great deal of money(millions) to charity and provide a lot of folks entertainment along with jobs. The television networks pay a great deal to televise them and are payed a great deal to have advertisers during their program. Having Tiger show at these tournaments, which his sponsor was sponsoring, was worth a lot of money to the tournament and exposure to Buick that no single spot on Desperate Housewives could achieve. Why anyone would buy a Buick just because an athlete claims he like them is amazing to me but it sounds like this is the first year that they have declined in sales since Tiger started.

The questions these representatives of "the people" should of asked was, why has Toyota Camry and Honda Accord been the two most popular cars sold in America every year and you three haven't come up with an American version of each of them? American cars have improved in quality but style and performance wise, except for a few......... :puke3:

:clap:

nice