This just in from Michael Moore - About the Auto Loans

[Mira]

Senate to Middle Class: Drop Dead

Friday, December 12th, 2008

Friends,

They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers start building only cars and mass transit that reduce our dependency on oil.

They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers build cars that reduce global warming.

They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers withdraw their many lawsuits against state governments in their attempts to not comply with our environmental laws.

They could have given the loan on the condition that the management team which drove these once-great manufacturers into the ground resign and be replaced with a team who understands the transportation needs of the 21st century.

Yes, they could have given the loan for any of these reasons because, in the end, to lose our manufacturing infrastructure and throw 3 million people out of work would be a catastrophe.

But instead, the Senate said, we'll give you the loan only if the factory workers take a $20 an hour cut in wages, pension and health care. That's right. After giving BILLIONS to Wall Street hucksters and criminal investment bankers -- billions with no strings attached and, as we have since learned, no oversight whatsoever -- the Senate decided it is more important to break a union, more important to throw middle class wage earners into the ranks of the working poor than to prevent the total collapse of industrial America.

We have a little more than a month to go of this madness. As I sit here in Michigan today, tens of thousands of hard working, honest, decent Americans do not believe they can make it to January 20th. The malaise here is astounding. Why must they suffer because of the mistakes of every CEO from Roger Smith to Rick Wagoner? Make management and the boards of directors and the shareholders pay for this.

Of course that is heresy to the 31 Republicans who decided to blame the poor, miserable autoworkers for this mess. And our wonderful media complied with their spin on the morning news shows: "UAW Refuses to Give Concessions Killing Auto Bailout Bill." In fact the UAW has given concession after concession, reduced their benefits, agreed to get rid of the Jobs Bank and agreed to make it harder for their retirees to live from week to week. Yes! That's what we need to do! It's the Jobs Bank and the old people who have led the nation to economic ruin!

But even doing all that wasn't enough to satisfy the bastard Republicans. These Senate vampires wanted blood. Blue collar blood. You see, they weren't opposed to the bailout because they believed in the free market or capitalism. No, they were opposed to the bailout because they're opposed to workers making a decent wage. In their rage, they were driven to destroy the backbone of this country, not because the UAW hadn't given back enough, but because the UAW hadn't given up.

It appears that the sitting President has been looking for a way to end his reign by one magnanimous act, just like a warlord on his feast day. He will put his finger in the dyke, and the fragile mess of an auto industry will eke through the next few months.

That will give the Senate enough time to demand that the bankers and investment sharks who've already swiped nearly half of the $700 billion gift a chance to make the offer of cutting their pay.

Fat chance.

Yours,
Michael Moore
[email protected]

[grantcart]

1. No the Senate didn't say that: A group of hardcore Republican Senators said that

lumping all the Senators into the same cauldron is not helpful.

Identify and crucify the ones that are guilty.

[Joe Fields]

18. They're all fucking guilty! Our dem leaders should keep the session

open and keep submitting the bailout bill for a vote until it passes. What a bunch of sniveling cowards. Don't they know they're the majority? I wouldn't give a nickel for the lot of them.

[polichick]

2. Michael Moore cuts right through the bullshit - WHY didn't we include those conditions?

[LynneSin]

7. But the conditions included were not the ones the democrats fought for

that was the republicans.

[polichick]

8. I meant the conditions Moore listed at the top of his article.

[tomp]

21. because we're democrats, that's why. nt

[polichick]

27. I'm talking about the conditions at the beginning of Michael Moore's article!

[tomp]

29. let's clarify. you're wondering why those conditions weren't included? nt

[polichick]

31. I'm really just commenting on how dumb Congress is NOT to include...

...the conditions Moore mentions at the top of his article in the op.

[tomp]

37. but congress = repubs AND dems...that was MY point. nt

[nichomachus]

3. This is what I've been saying all along

They needed to get concessions in return for the bailout, and almost any concession would have been beneficial, except the one they demanded.

Everyone here who is in favor of the loans has appealed to saving jobs, but there was never any indication the money would have been used to save jobs. The top guns would have stolen the money and still put workers on the street.

What we needed in way of concessions was to (a) limit executive pay (b) put labor in a dominant position on the auto company boards (c) demanded some performance criteria from the companies in terms of producing fuel-efficient vehicles.

If those concessions were granted, I'd be in favor of giving them $100 billion to save jobs.

[truedelphi]

32. Ditto. All this weeping and gnashing of teeth as though this BailOut Bill

Would have meant anything strikes many of us as absurd. I have meant to post what you are saying, but felt that people here want only this blind unswerving "I support the unions, so I support the BailOut"

The Billions we give for the BailOuts only end up in the back pockets of the rich. And with Geithner and Rubin as Obama's choices, I am very nervous as to whether we will see REAL change in our lifetime.

[deaniac21]

4. Economic genius.

[jazzjunkysue]

5. Right again.

[Bozita]

6. Bullseye! ... Recommended.

[screembloodymurder]

9. I'm tired of being held hostage by these mother fuckers.

Let's march on Congress and show these bastards who won the election.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

10. Yeah I blame the Republicans for this

but Michael Moore doesn't mention that there were Democrats that voted against the bailout as well including Jon Tester and Harry Reid (who may have his own motive for the vote but time will tell).

[blue cat]

25. Regarding Reid

It was procedure (initial no vote), but changed it to yes. Something like that.

[blue_onyx]

11. Well, the things Moore talked about could still be included eventually

This loan is to just get the automakers until January when Obama and larger Democratic majorities in Congress can fix the problem.

[robinlynne]

15. eventually, later, right. one condition could have been NO UNION PAY CUTS for example or firings!

the money could have been used ONLY for pensions and health care for workers, nothing else. I would stand behind that kind of bailout. Not a bailout of the corporations and the management!

Guys, this trickle down concept is a SCAM. Bailing out a corporation does NOT necessarily help the workers. Only if the CEOs happen to be benevolent. They are generally not.

[blue_onyx]

19. Well, yes, there will be more job cuts

The companies stated this in the plans they submitted to Congress. Some workers will be hurt. The unions have, indeed, made concessions and I don't think they should sacrifice anymore. Their biggest problem is our trade policies hurt US companies. The free trade/Reaganomics ideas have destroyed our economy.

In regards to the bailout....one thing I do know, not bailing out the automakers will DEFINITELY hurt all their workers.

[robinlynne]

20. Why not bail out the workers directly, NOT the companies. That is my point.

Bailing out the banks did not save the workers! The workers are being laid off while the fat cats enjoy their new billions, and buy up other banks with the moeny. GM wnats to sue the money for it's new Brazilian auto factories. That was published in the press a month ago! in writing.
(I mean factories in Brazil, not a brazilian factories....)

[blue_onyx]

24. We could change our trade policies

to give the US automakers an incentive to keep jobs and to keep them here. People keep saying how the automakers costs are too high. Over the years, they have been sending jobs to Mexico and other countries in order to save money so they could compete with foreign automakers. We want it both ways: we want to keep jobs here (where it's more expensive to employ people) and we also want the US automakers to offer lower prices. Like I said in my previous post, I believe our trade policies are the biggest problem for the car companies.

We also need the companies. In World War 2, the auto companies built the military equipment we needed to win. If there was a war in the future, what do we do...ask the country we are at war with to build our military equipment for us?

How does giving the workers $100,000 (or whatever amount) fix the problem? Yes, they won't lose the homes and can pay their bills for awhile, but what happens when the money is gone?

If the Big 3 go down, so will many of the suppliers. The failure of the supplier network will hurt the foreign auto companies as well. If they can't get parts, then they can't make their vehicles. People that think, "oh..people will just buy Toyotas" are mistaken if think it's that simple. These companies have built the middle class and their downfall has coincided with the shrinking middle class. We need a strong auto manufacturing sector to keep our economy strong.

[robinlynne]

26. NO, I say give them jobs with the new electric car companies!

for example. over simplification, I know. but you understand what I mean, I hope.
there are independent companies building electric cars, but they build so few at a time that they cost thousands of dollars. If we were to seriously build ONE good family electric car by the millions, the price would come way down.

[blue_onyx]

28. Yeah, I see what you're saying...we just disagree

I believe helping the Big 3 so they can develop more fuel efficient vehicles and electric cars is the best option. They already have skilled auto employees, the production capacity, the supplier network, and the dealers necessary to make these types of vehicles in mass numbers. Getting rid of the Big 3, their suppliers, and dealers seems like a needless process, since they would all need to be replace by new companies, suppliers, and dealers anyway. I think we need to help the US automakers to get them to January/February. By then, hopefully Obama and his economic team will have developed a long-term assistance plan that helps the automakers but also requires the production of these types of vehicles.

I assume you're probably from California since you are advocating for "independent companies building electric cars" (I'm guessing you're mainly referring to Tesla?). Tesla is a small company and would take a while to develop these cars on a big enough level to reduce the price for average American (the Big 3 could do this quicker). On a personally level, just letting the Big 3 go down would devastate my state, particularly Detroit (where I'm at). I won't support the idea on letting the Big 3/Michigan/Detroit collapse in favor of new, up-start companies/California.

[BrklynLiberal]

12. 1000% correct.

I had also said that since prez shit-for-brains is so concerned about burnishing his legacy, he should take some of the TARP money and LOAN it to the auto companies. I think that all of the other conditions that MM suggested can still be put into place, especially the resignation of the current management teams.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4640962&mesg_id=4641017

[robinlynne]

13. Damn straight! You better blame the democrats too!

[20score]

14. K&R

[4 t 4]

17. It's all about destroying the Union

if the Union wasn't involved it would have passed and for some reason * doesn't want this to go down on his watch, he could give a fuck about the employee's he just doesn't want this listed on his "great legacy" go figure.

[malaise]

16. Thank you Michael Moore

My thoughts exactly. Fuck all Rethugs. :puke:

[tomp]

22. based on a 400 to 1 ratio between worker and ceo...

...we should demand an $8000/hr cut in ceo compensation.

[2Design]

23. they vote themselves a raise every year - they live off the government

they are on the DOLE - they are vipers - and they don't want anyone else to have it

[Kajsa]

30. And who pays their wages?

The workers, through taxes.

[bluerum]

33. I agree with imposing all the conditions that preface the post. But I will

always question why our leaders did not impose and enforce similar regulation on the financial industry bailouts. And why, we taxpayers, who are funding the financial sector bailouts, are not entitled to know who is getting how much and what we can expect in return.

[Faygo Kid]

34. Excellent. He gets it.

He usually does.

[navarth]

35. too bad it's too late for me to recommend this

but I kick it, enthusiastically.

Like someone above said, Mike gets it.

[Jakes Progress]

36. Also too late to recommend, so

here's a kick.

As a public relations effort, perhaps the Unions could offer to agree to adjust their wages to the foreign-owned car companies wages if it is made across the board...and retroactive. In other words, any company - auto or banking or brokerage - that receives federal help must match the salaries of all it's employees to those of foreign owned companies, janitor to CEO. That would take the average CEO salary from several million to a few hundred thousand. No more millionaire bankers, no more millionaire financial "advisors".

[CRF450]

38. They can atleast cut down production on SUV's and trucks

Not totally ditch them like Moore is suggesting, while ramping up production on cars. Like it or not, they need to provide those vehicles to the public for the people who can actually use them for what there built for.