Obama supporter

[Rod38um]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxE-lGK_OZU&feature=g-vrec

[magley64]

Now for the important point...

McCain/Palin would have done a better job?

I seriously doubt it. In fact, I think we would be in a serious depression right now.

unemployment would be well into double digits, my student loans would be through the roof, and I'd definitely not be in a position to purchase my first home.

I voted for McCain, but I am glad he lost.

[Rod38um]

I subscribe to the idea that anyone or anything...... even a chicken would have made a better president than obama. At least a chicken wouldnt be maliciously destroying our economy and our constitution. No action is better than malicious action.

[magley64]

well, if NO action was taken, we would still be in a world where Osama bin laden was alive, libya would still have a supressive dictator, wall street would have collapsed, as well as the american auto industry, our currency would be worth nothing, and we'd be worse off than greece...

this president turned the economy around, now some people think he did it unjustly, but unjustly or not, we are growing again, not crashing.

[Rod38um]

If nothing was done:

Osama may still be dead because the system that killed him was already in place but honestly, he was kind of irrelevant at that point. I'm glad he's dead though so +1.

Libya would still be run by a dictator who was a crazy ally. Now its run by the muslim brotherhood who's credo is "death to america" -1.

Same deal with Egypt so -1.

GM and Chrysler have been rewarded for failure with our tax dollars. At their current rate of losses they will require another bail out shortly or be back on the chopping block again. Had they gone bankrupt the parts that still had value would have been bought and run profitably by a company that is competent at doing business and we would be recovering instead of still looking FORWARD to more job losses and debt. -1

With all the quantitative easing going on, Obama is the primary reason the dollar has devalued of late and a leading cause of the higher gas prices. -1

it also artificially put devalued money into the market which has falsly inflated stocks. it looks good on your 401K statement right now but it wont last. The jobs are not following and they wont follow till we encourage manufacturing to come back or start again with lower corporate tax rates and streamlined regs. -1

So woo hoo, he gets credit for the seals taking out Osama. Glad its done but anyone with the sense God gave a chicken would have made the same decision. Its time for a change unless we want 4 more years of higher taxes, oppressively skirting congress like with his 900 plus executive orders and job losses as he taxes corporations to death while the rest of the world is lowering taxes and luring business to their shores.

[magley64]

Its time for a change unless we want 4 more years of higher taxes, oppressively skirting congress like with his 900 plus executive orders and job losses as he taxes corporations to death while the rest of the world is lowering taxes and luring business to their shores.

My taxes aren't higher, and I'm willing to bet yours aren't either...

you've exaggerated the number of executive orders by well over 700, great job staying informed.

You know why jobs move to mexico, china, and the middle east? I'll give you a clue, but it's not based primarily on taxes, it's based primarily on direct labor costs.

ask Apple

[Rod38um]

You know why jobs move to mexico, china, and the middle east? I'll give you a clue, but it's not based primarily on taxes, it's based primarily on direct labor costs.

That was true back in the 70's But today, modern manufacturing employs tech and that has made labor a smaller factor and taxes and regulation a major factor.

Thats why we have people doing things like this:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/11/private-city-in-honduras-will-have-minimal-taxes-government/?intcmp=trending

Oh.... and if congress doesn't stop it, the Bush tax cuts are about to expire. Obamacare has 20 some new taxes that will start coming into effect after the election. (slick, huh?) And the company that manages my 401K just sent me an email tonight, they are offering a course on how to better deal with the new taxes of 2013........

[fox_racing_guy]

I like this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

[magley64]

if congress doesn't stop it, the Bush tax cuts are about to expire.

Wait wait wait, you mean if this administration doesn't stop it, right?

How come anything you disagree with is obama's fault and anything you DO agree with is congress saving us?

[OsuMj]

well, if NO action was taken,.... wall street would have collapsed, as well as the american auto industry

Do you really think the entire american auto industry would have collapsed, or maybe just the mismanaged ones and maybe the free market would have done what it is known to do and allowed the ones that were more practical business models to succeed (ford!). just sayin.... if GM had gone out of business, someone would have had to pick up their portion of the market... its not like everyone is going to be like, OK, well GM is gone, I'm not buying american cars anymore.

Honestly, i don't keep up on politics very much, so correct me if i'm wrong, but from what I know, I don't think you can credit obama with saving the entire auto industry.

[magley64]

Do you really think the entire american auto industry would have collapsed, or maybe just the mismanaged ones and maybe the free market would have done what it is known to do and allowed the ones that were more practical business models to succeed (ford!). just sayin.... if GM had gone out of business, someone would have had to pick up their portion of the market... its not like everyone is going to be like, OK, well GM is gone, I'm not buying american cars anymore.

Honestly, i don't keep up on politics very much, so correct me if i'm wrong, but from what I know, I don't think you can credit obama with saving the entire auto industry.

If you don't think that is 1 heavily intertwined system, I fear you don't understand how dependent each company is on each other.

The big 3 use the same vendors, the same tool shops, the same molders, the same manufacturers. if 2 dropped off the map, the 1 left wouldn't have the volume to support those businesses. I happen to work for a company who is a tier 1 automotive supplier. I suppose that gives me a certain bias and perspective on this as well.

[Disclaimer]

Do you really think the entire american auto industry would have collapsed, or maybe just the mismanaged ones and maybe the free market would have done what it is known to do and allowed the ones that were more practical business models to succeed (ford!).

Yes, it would've collapsed for various reasons, but the main driver for it to collapse is because of the supplier-model. I can get into the real nitty gritty if you want to go that far, but I'll stop high-level for now.

Funny you mention Ford and their practical business model... since GM's been outperforming it. And Ford also was extended a line of credit from the Gov't.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2012/09/30/gms-3q-stock-rise/1601293/

I don't think you can credit obama with saving the entire auto industry.

Probably not, but he was a key player in it. I still don't understand why people are so pissed about the auto bailout, when it's 10% of what Wall Street was, and Wall Street doesn't MAKE anything tangible. I've never seen a hedge fund move you and your family safely across the country in comfort in a tiny metal box containing controlled explosions.

I've never seen an IPO that can pull a trailer full of motorcycles to a trackday.

I've never seen an annuity build a tank to defend our country.

[Cheech]

If nothing was done:

I would like you to answer this: What would you have had the President do in the face of the Arab Spring? Please remember that these are autonomous, sovereign nations.

[Uncle Punk]

I still don't understand why people are so pissed about the auto bailout, when it's 10% of what Wall Street was, and Wall Street doesn't MAKE anything tangible. I've never seen a hedge fund move you and your family safely across the country in comfort in a tiny metal box containing controlled explosions.

I can go on and on about why people are so pissed at the auto bailout but you don't seem to understand. The company was taken from one group of people (Shareholders that spent their money for retirement & investments.) and given to another group (Union.) free of dept. (They gave shares back to the government for payoff.) This was nothing but legalized robbery with the government picking its own version of winners. I do know that a small minority of auto companies were in dept and the government tried to manipulate that but the industry would have survived stronger without them. I have worked for suppliers or been a supplier for six auto companies, the industry as a whole would have survived fine without the two companies that were bailed out. I also realize that the shareholders would have never gotten back all of their value but suppliers could have been paid and the companies had enough assets that could have been sold to at least given the investors pennies on their dollar instead of nothing, only to give the company away to the unions and potential new investors. (The government is trying to sell their shares.)

I am just as pissed about the Wall Street bailout as I am the auto bailout. I also know of the hardships it would have placed on the economy by not acting. Pay a little now or pay a lot later, the problem was just kicked down the road by bailing them out.

Making something tangible has nothing to do with the validity of a business nor should it for the government to manipulate the market. There were more auto companies operating fine without our governments help (I know Japan has helped their companies, our government is my concern.) than needed it so the ability to move things by vehicle wasn't going away if that’s what you needed to see to legitimize government intrusion.

[Disclaimer]

I do know that a small minority of auto companies were in dept and the government tried to manipulate that but the industry would have survived stronger without them.

So, a stronger industry would've been made from less competition?

I have worked for suppliers or been a supplier for six auto companies, the industry as a whole would have survived fine without the two companies that were bailed out.

Are you sure? That's not the firsthand information I'm getting from colleagues at the OEs or the information I've observed working in the industry.

I am just as pissed about the Wall Street bailout as I am the auto bailout. I also know of the hardships it would have placed on the economy by not acting. Pay a little now or pay a lot later, the problem was just kicked down the road by bailing them out.

Ok, so we agree there -- there's a line that had to be walked, but your contention is it did more harm than good, and mine is the opposite. I guess we'll never know since your ideology wasn't pursued and what was pursued seems to be working, albeit not as fast as others' would like.

Making something tangible has nothing to do with the validity of a business nor should it for the government to manipulate the market. There were more auto companies operating fine without our governments help (I know Japan has helped their companies, our government is my concern.) than needed it so the ability to move things by vehicle wasn't going away if that’s what you needed to see to legitimize government intrusion.

So, this is like the Chinese currency devaluation issue. You don't want our gov't manipulating the marketspace of a GLOBAL market that other gov'ts are already manipulating in the same manner?

[magley64]

let the westside battle begin!

[magley64]

There were more auto companies operating fine without our governments help.

Could you name a few?

remember you can't name any of the following American car companies because they either were decidedly NOT doing fine, or did require government help to do so: Chevrolet, Pontiac, Buick, GMC, Oldsmobile, Cadillac, Hummer, Geo, Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, Mazda, Dodge, Jeep, Chrysler, Plymouth, Saab.

[Uncle Punk]

So, a stronger industry would've been made from less competition? ?

Yes, the remaining ones that were running effectively would have had a bigger market share and added capacity to meet the needs.

Are you sure? That's not the firsthand information I'm getting from colleagues at the OEs or the information I've observed working in the industry.?

Are you speaking to employees of public company suppliers that were at one time owned by the big three or are you talking to owners of privately held suppliers? My firsthand feedback is much different than yours; I am talking to owners of privately held companies that are also suppliers or management from these companies.

Ok, so we agree there -- there's a line that had to be walked, but your contention is it did more harm than good, and mine is the opposite. I guess we'll never know since your ideology wasn't pursued and what was pursued seems to be working, albeit not as fast as others' would like.?

So, this is like the Chinese currency devaluation issue. You don't want our gov't manipulating the marketspace of a GLOBAL market that other gov'ts are already manipulating in the same manner?

This wasn't manipulation like the currency manipulation it was less government burden to allow survival in the market that changed too rapidly for them to adjust.

What our government did here had little effect on the global market for the businesses involved. They are structured and were doing okay globally by the new economy standards anyway.

Could you name a few?

remember you can't name any of the following American car companies because they either were decidedly NOT doing fine, or did require government help to do so: Chevrolet, Pontiac, Buick, GMC, Oldsmobile, Cadillac, Hummer, Geo, Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, Mazda, Dodge, Jeep, Chrysler, Plymouth, Saab.

I didn't say they were American car companies but you made a very nice list.

[Disclaimer]

Yes, the remaining ones that were running effectively would have had a bigger market share and added capacity to meet the needs.

Oh yea? How rapidly to do think the other automakers could've increased capacity to make up for nearly 30% of the market share that GM and Chrysler left behind (Approx. 3.2 Million vehicles)? And that's using 2012 numbers which means they had even more market share before the collapse.

http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html#autosalesE

Which, put in perspective, means that Toyota would have to double capacity to fill that gap if Toyota were to do it alone. Obviously, Toyota wouldn't be the only one filling that gap, but even increasing the capacity 20% is damn near impossible in any short period of time given the lean manufacturing setups most of the OEs are running, along with getting suppliers onboard for long lead time parts. (Any IEs on here want to chime in?) So I raise the BS flag that it would've been "no big deal" for the rest to fill the gap.

Are you speaking to employees of public company suppliers that were at one time owned by the big three or are you talking to owners of privately held suppliers? My firsthand feedback is much different than yours; I am talking to owners of privately held companies that are also suppliers or management from these companies.

I have a pretty decent network of classmates and colleagues that are in the industry given the college I went to so: TRW, Bosch, Honda, GM, Freightliner, Ford, Lear, and many other Tier 1 and Tier 2 suppliers to the commercial and pass. car markets.

This wasn't manipulation like the currency manipulation it was less government burden to allow survival in the market that changed too rapidly for them to adjust. What our government did here had little effect on the global market for the businesses involved. They are structured and were doing okay globally by the new economy standards anyway.

Why do you feel had little effect on the global market? Chysler and GM are both global companies that happen to be HQ'd in America. Which, may and may not give them distinct advantages or disadvantages to respond to the market at a given pace.

E.g. Is it still a level playing field when BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, and Honda all don't have to worry about healthcare for their employees like the American companies do? That was the big beef for GM earlier was it not? They have to take $1500 right off the top of every car sale to pay for their American workers to have healthcare when the other carmakers don't. That's just one difference that turns out to be a disadvantage, but the point being that the market is already manipulated on a global scale based on other gov't rules and regs outside the US.

[magley64]

Obviously, Toyota wouldn't be the only one filling that gap, but even increasing the capacity 20% is damn near impossible in any short period of time given the lean manufacturing setups most of the OEs are running, along with getting suppliers onboard for long lead time parts. (Any IEs on here want to chime in?) So I raise the BS flag that it would've been "no big deal" for the rest to fill the gap.

We buy tooling based on forecasted sales...

The auto manufacturer says we need 100,000/yr for 5 years, we know how many blow molds we need to buy, and how many secondary machines we need, and how many presses we need to run to support those molds.

The molds themselves have at least 3 months of lead time from final design approval to delivery.

The secondaries vary more depending upon complexity, a month to 6 months. if we need to buy more presses, and have them installed and approved for use, that's going to be a 6 month minimum project, probably closer to a year. Then we have to consider all of the supporting infrastructure (tow motors, packaging, assembly, child parts)

you're looking at a hole for near a year before we could honestly increase capacity. Now in the interim, we could get special orders to run 7 days a week, but that's going to cost the auto manufacturer a premium. Their parts go up in price, their cars go up in price.

[Uncle Punk]

Oh yea? How rapidly to do think the other automakers could've increased capacity to make up for nearly 30% of the market share that GM and Chrysler left behind (Approx. 3.2 Million vehicles)? And that's using 2012 numbers which means they had even more market share before the collapse.

http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html#autosalesE

Which, put in perspective, means that Toyota would have to double capacity to fill that gap if Toyota were to do it alone. Obviously, Toyota wouldn't be the only one filling that gap, but even increasing the capacity 20% is damn near impossible in any short period of time given the lean manufacturing setups most of the OEs are running, along with getting suppliers onboard for long lead time parts. (Any IEs on here want to chime in?) So I raise the BS flag that it would've been "no big deal" for the rest to fill the gap.

I didn't state no big deal; the other companies would have been able to fill the need though. They also would need to hire more qualified people; the suppliers would get back to full capacity. There would be better stability to the market where the supply chain would be paid for their work instead of worrying about getting shafted by a mismanaged company. Currently developed products would be able to put out more capacity, the R&D for upcoming products would be in the waiting already and they would be able to increase capacity on those as well. In the three to five years that the existing products and developed products are put to market they could have hired and created the infrastructure to meet the new market demands.

I have a pretty decent network of classmates and colleagues that are in the industry given the college I went to so: TRW, Bosch, Honda, GM, Freightliner, Ford, Lear, and many other Tier 1 and Tier 2 suppliers to the commercial and pass. car markets.

I assumed you had a network of people to draw from, the people you associate with and the people I do have two very different opinions about their businesses though.

Why do you feel had little effect on the global market? Chysler and GM are both global companies that happen to be HQ'd in America. Which, may and may not give them distinct advantages or disadvantages to respond to the market at a given pace.

E.g. Is it still a level playing field when BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, and Honda all don't have to worry about healthcare for their employees like the American companies do? That was the big beef for GM earlier was it not? They have to take $1500 right off the top of every car sale to pay for their American workers to have healthcare when the other carmakers don't. That's just one difference that turns out to be a disadvantage, but the point being that the market is already manipulated on a global scale based on other gov't rules and regs outside the US.

It's not a level playing field; it's about managing a company so it can be sustained. American auto companies made the mistakes of how they chose to offer benefit packages the other companies didn't, one is able to survive the other isn't. Just because the government doesn't like the outcome of those consequences doesn't mean they should take money from the rest of us to reset the playing field.

We buy tooling based on forecasted sales...

The auto manufacturer says we need 100,000/yr for 5 years, we know how many blow molds we need to buy, and how many secondary machines we need, and how many presses we need to run to support those molds.

The molds themselves have at least 3 months of lead time from final design approval to delivery.

The secondaries vary more depending upon complexity, a month to 6 months. if we need to buy more presses, and have them installed and approved for use, that's going to be a 6 month minimum project, probably closer to a year. Then we have to consider all of the supporting infrastructure (tow motors, packaging, assembly, child parts)

you're looking at a hole for near a year before we could honestly increase capacity. Now in the interim, we could get special orders to run 7 days a week, but that's going to cost the auto manufacturer a premium. Their parts go up in price, their cars go up in price.

See above remarks, new products are already developed before release. Capacities can be increased on existing products and the forecast for developed products would increase. Most projects I've been involved with were for products that were three to five years from release, I have even worked on one particular project that was eight years out.

[Rod38um]

It's not a level playing field; it's about managing a company so it can be sustained. American auto companies made the mistakes of how they chose to offer benefit packages the other companies didn't, one is able to survive the other isn't. Just because the government doesn't like the outcome of those consequences doesn't mean they should take money from the rest of us to reset the playing field.

I have never been able to understand liberals thinking its better to reward failed management with a bail out then have the same people to mis-manage the same way only now with tax payer dollars and then build a product that the government wants to force on consumers who have no interest in buying. Do you think they ever even considered the possibility of repeat failure? Or do you think they were only thinking about union votes and big union contributions?