And in other news, water is still wet.

The headline is akin to: Homeless man starving, still wasting his energy begging for food.

Businesses run on money. Sometimes it takes money to get money.

Of course, if these businesses had been paying more attention to the customers, they could have been as profitable as their foreign counterparts, and could stop the lobbying and begging.

If the government gives them the money. In less than a week I can see them buying themselves a nice "retreat" in a California Resort.

There is a vicious double standard in regard to the automotive business and the financial sector; not once were the recipients of the financial bailouts required to come before congress, yet, the automotives' are being dragged over the coals and forced to just through hoops.

This is ridiculous.

The overall costs to all Americans will be greatly increased if they fail, the costs of lost health care being transferred to medicare/medicaid, and the lost wages and pensions being transferred to welfare and food stamps would be astronomical. And those are the immediate job losses, additional job losses from suppliers and tertiary support businesses would be crippling.

If they are allowed to fall into bankruptcy and they ditch their pension costs and legacy health costs, that would still be devastating to the national economy for the reasons I outlined above.

Lobbying is required in our current political system. It would be irresponsible of them to stop it. The anti-auto industry would still be lobbying and so they would be crushed.

Seems a little like children in the stop smoking ads upset that tobacco companies advertise. OMG!!

@kc2idf: Actually, it could be argued the foreign counterparts are profitable because they do not have the health care costs associated with operating in America. Health care costs are crippling big three, both current & legacy costs.

Did anybody happen to report if AIG still had lobbyists when they received billions in a bailout?

Wait just a cotton pickin' minute here all of you folks that are saying "Ho Hum, nothing new here"...

This is precisely the kind of apathy that helped us arrive at this crisis point in America. Our congress has a "For Sale " sign out front 24/7 and leeches like Dingell and Levin are playing us for suckers when they warn that the whole country will come crashing down if we don't hand these companies big $$$.If they don't get the bailout bucks , will there be pain ? You betcha. But if they get 34 Billion or 40 Billion or whatever the number is today,they will just piss it away on cars that nobody wants built by spoiled union members for thieves to sell to the very people paying the bills.All of this ignores the fact that this will cause a trade war that will bankrupt these companies anyway. (Whatever gets handed to them will be an illegal subsidy and you can bet that the Germans, Japanese and Koreans will retaliate).

I hate it if you are one of the people that will be affected,but the entire car industry will not collapse (Lots of cars are built in the non union southern U.S.)But,rewarding the idiots that wrecked these companies just ensures that the next bailout will make this one look like spare change lost in couch cushions...

@DaleM: "The overall costs to all Americans will be greatly increased if they fail"

In all of your reasons you are assuming that those people won't be able to find other jobs. There's jobs out there, it may not be what people want but they are there. Until illegals take them that is.

I don't get it. If they want to save the value of their stock would it not be better to get the government to buy up the common stock to save the stock holders, nationalize it, and put it through some kind of bankruptcy or bankruptcy like process to shed off GM's crazy amounts of debt?
Without shedding GM's past debt GM cannot survive. Say we bail them out for 10 years straight and spend 30 billion on GM. It would probably take 30 years for GM to pay the government back. Then another 30 for GM to pay the UAW it's billions. And probably another 100 years to pay off it's other debts. A company that would take a minimum of 2 centuries to pay off it's current debt is definitely not worth keeping alive.

@Stonecutter: It's a sad comment on our governmental system that revelations like this are treated with "ho-hum, all politicians/lobbyists do this."

I'm guilty as any, but political apathy is what got us entrenched in a system that doesn't represent the best interests of 95% of the country.

@joeblevins: All lobbying should be banned. Then again if it were, they'd probably just do it behind our backs anyways. There is a lot of "corruption" in government now it's just out in the open so isn't considered corruption by some.

@DaleM: The big 3 doesn't have the normal health care costs of most businesses. They offered their employees something no other company offers. Free health care in retirement until you die. You cannot blame the US health care system when GM went and agreed to do something no one else is stupid enough to agree to. GM is in a situation where they have more people in retirement receiving health care than they have active workers. Of course such a system would fail.

@Snarkysnake: "Whatever gets handed to them will be an illegal subsidy and you can bet that the Germans, Japanese and Koreans will retaliate"

I've been against bailouts from the beginning, but never really thought about that. Good point. How are these bailouts being "fair" when the competing companies now have to compete against the US Treasury?

Lobbyists are there to make changes in the system- not to benefit everybody, but to benefit a single group.
Essentially, to win by cheating.
You know who don't have lobbyists? The american public. You know who always get screwed? The american public.
Actually, the people used to have lobbyists- we called them senators and representatives.

I'm sure the Financial sector had lobbyists, but moreso that they were more intwined with the banks and the economy than anyone else.

You want to know when the economy is bad? When the bank turns down your car loan because it doesn't have enough money to cover it.

I think another poster had it right when they said any company big enough to hurt the economy when they fail should be broken up into seperate pieces if we have to bail them out.

@Corporate_guy: Well GM also had it's back against the wall when it agreed to those terms from the UAW.

Let's be realistic here, GM didn't provide that out of the goodness of it's corporate heart, someone had to really turn the screws for them to provide that.

Unfortunately for the UAW it now looks like it killed the goose the laid the golden egg and the concessions that GM and the other auto makers were finally able to pry out of them may end up being too little too late.

@kc2idf: Yeah, might that money have gone to better research in R&D, so maybe they could compete with imports? Lobbying, when there is any kind of incentive thrown in, should be illegal.

@DaleM: There is not a double standard. The financial companies are making profits. The big 3 are not. The financial companies will be able to pay back the loans because of their profits. They only needed gap financing to keep them solvent while they write down all their bad debts. This is not the case with the big 3. The big 3's problems are entirely different. They are only losing money. They aren't going broke because of a buildup of bad debt hitting them all at once. They are going broke because their operating costs are much higher than any money they can bring in. Even if GM fires half their workforce and closes half their factories, they still owe so much money to the UAW and have other debt that they cannot stay afloat. GM needs to file bankruptcy to shed it's debt. They need to layoff a lot of workers. And if they do that, guess what, they won't need a loan from the government. They are actually still selling cars, so if they get rid of debts and downsize they can be solvent without the government getting involved. Now after GM does that. The government can then contract with GM to make electric cars. These new contracts can fund new plants and the rehiring of previous workers. In the end GM needs bankruptcy before they can be saved. There is no way around it.

so some government officials take money from lobbyists? big tobacco spends more in a week than the bailout thats on the table amounts to, nothing will ever change so long as lobbyists are aloud to polute the system.

and why wouldn't you expect some goverment officials to have investments in the american auto industry? sure it's a conflict of interest to an extent, but they wouldn't be getting very good p.r. if they invested in chinese products, now would they?

also, i heard on npr that gm spends about 8 billion in 3 months just to keep status quo, half a mil to line the pockets of a senator to ensure they have a status quo to maintain sounds like a reasonable investment from their perspective...that being said, something needs to change in the status quo

@usul356:

I'm not in support of a full automotive bail-out, but that doensn't make you right either:

Not quite so easy to get a job right now, especially if you work in Michigan:
Job Losses Hit 533,000 Last Month, Worst in 34 Years
[www.cnbc.com]

"Until illegals take them that is"
I really hope there is some subtle humor in there, because last time I checked, there weren't too many migrant farmers working for sub-minimum wage in Detroit.

The best case scenario is let them file bankruptcy like the airlines. This will force a restructuring. Some of the people will loose their jobs, not all. The vendors will loose some receivables, which they can write off the losses, but keep the long term business. Everyone down the line will have to downsize a little.

This is why we have bankruptcy laws. Believe it or not Enron is still in business in some aspect and all of the ex-employees found jobs.

All the automakers also sell internationally. Any other country going to chip in? Of course not. When you make ugly unreliable products that the majority doesn't want anymore, you go out of business.

In 1994, General Motors acquired a controlling interest in Ovonics's battery development and manufacturing. On October 10, 2001, Texaco purchased GM's share in GM Ovonics, and Chevron completed its acquisition of Texaco six days later. In 2003, Texaco Ovonics Battery Systems was restructured into Cobasys, a 50/50 joint venture between Chevron and Energy Conversion Devices (ECD) Ovonics. Chevron's influence over Cobasys extends beyond a strict 50/50 joint venture. Chevron holds a 19.99% interest in ECD Ovonics. In addition, Chevron maintains the right to seize all of Cobasys' intellectual property rights in the event that ECD Ovonics does not fulfill its contractual obligations. On September 10, 2007, Chevron filed a legal claim that ECD Ovonics has not fulfilled its obligations. ECD Ovonics disputes this claim. Since that time, the arbitration hearing was repeatedly suspended while the parties negotiate with an unknown prospective buyer. No agreement has been reached with the potential buyer. Cobasys's patents relating to NiMH batteries expire in 2015.

$50 million dollars on lobbyists and $15 million in campaign contributions is basically nothing when it comes to buying politicians. If you have numbers on how it compares to previous years that would make things interesting.

@ThinkerTDM: You can lobby your representatives all you want. Write them letters, send emails, and make phone calls. The point of lobbying is to make the people making decisions aware you exist and aware of what you want. What really needs to be done is the limiting of donations by a corporation to 2.3k. Just like any single person. And ban all gifts or meals. A single company or person should not be able to contribute a million dollars to a candidate. If GM only gave you 2.3k you aren't going to be in their pocket because everyone else lobbying you gave the same amount. If they give you a million, of course you are going to favor them big time.

@Secret Agent Man: My point was that although it's very inconvenient and I wouldn't want to do it myself, but there are jobs in other parts of the country. Like I said I wouldn't want to move either, but if there were no opportunities where I lived, I would.

Let them go bankrupt.

What shocks me more, is that the plants are still running. Your cars aren't selling, STOP MAKING THEM. Send the workers home and stop the paychecks until you start selling the inventory you already have.

@Stonecutter: Exactly, who wouldn't expect businesses to act like this. If you can buy 400 congressmen and senators for 1 million bucks a piece, and that gets you 35 billion bucks in return, that's what we in the business industry call, "a good deal."

@dtrots: Amen. If they can't restrucute I'm sure there are plenty of other auto manufactures that would love to swoop in and buy a turn key manufacturing plant for pennies on the dollar. I doubt they would have much trouble finding workers to opperate the plant too.

@DaleM: Yeah, I watched The Daily Show last night, too.

Here's a thought: the government ROYALLY screwed up the banking bailout. They didn't ask questions, they didn't track what was given, and they're stuck with a goofy grin on their faces saying, "Wha' happen'?"

Maybe... just MAYBE... they don't want to do it again? Maybe they realize that they can't handle this kind of finacial transaction? Maybe they see that there are far too many conflicts of interest to be seen as objective?

Or am I just being an naive Canadian?

just give them the money. The middle class is here to fund their lives, just send the tax money.

@usul356: But it's a vicious cycle. It costs money to move, and the cost of living in many parts of the country is a lot higher than it is in Michigan. People who are unemployed may not have a way to relocate to greener pastures.

I feel for these people--I really do. But in reality, there is a lot of room for them to cut labor costs without cutting their workforce in half. I mean, how many of us work for companies that still offer a pension plan?

@HIV 2 Elway Resurrected: You do realize that's part of the problem, right? If they layoff the workers, the workers still take home 90% of their paycheck, much of which is paid for by the company. A Chapter 11 bankruptcy would allow them to ditch UAW and all of the legacy benefits, and, perhaps, become competitive again.

@Triborough:

For the record, the companies didn't make ANY campaign contributions - those $ came from the pockets of people who work for the automakers.

@joeblevins: What "anti-auto industry" lobbying is there?

more importantly: what's with the formatting of this post? I feel like I'm looking through bi-focals...

@HIV 2 Elway Resurrected: What the hell are you talking about? No one's going to buy a frigging auto plant and start pumping out cars in the middle of a massive economic slowdown / depression.

@CRNewsom: I agree that bankruptcy is the best thing that can happen. In the mean time they can at least stop material and overhead costs.

@Erwos: Honda or whatever firm that is actually competative is not going to let assets like that sit idle. If it comes to physical assets being auctioned off, they will sell and will be used.

@HIV 2 Elway Resurrected: Are not
/damn shitty public school grammar

I love the hypocrites on here. Do any of you (that are working, and not living in your mamma's basement, surrounded by Star Wars figures) think that your employer, no matter what kind of shape they are in, ain't greasin the wheels of government? That's why you are working now, slacking on these sites and getting the crappy email joke from the guy in the next cubicle. Look at your job (if ya got one), look at your employer....It happens. Get over it.

@DaleM: That's what happens when they still think it's the 1950's. That, and they makes cars like the Pontiac Aztek.

This is why I feel that lobbying in general should be outlawed. The only people who should be able to lobby are people who can vote. Companies can't vote therefor they shouldn't be able to lobby. Oh, and you should only be allowed to lobby people that you yourself can vote for.

Then again, I also think you should only be allowed to accept campaign contributions from those who can vote for you as well.

lobbying is really cheaper than designing and crafting cars that people want. Put this way it takes 4 years from conception, design to having a running prototype that you are not sure if people will buy this costs lots of money. on an ROI based measurement, giving some Congressman grease money brings the best bang for the buck

@DaleM: And that highlights yet another of the many issues with which our new government will have to deal.

Healthcare should be affordable for EVERYONE! Especially any corporations that have to shoulder it for their employees.

It would also help if the Unions would negotiate a reasonable wage for their workers.

@DaleM: Who says that 100% of them would remain unemployed, and thus on the taxpayers' shoulders? If our government uses the money they'd otherwise spend on the big 3 to invest in construction and infrastructure projects across the nation many of our currently unemployed and even more of the possibly-unemployed-from-big3-implosion would have immediate jobs.

@Corporate_guy: Offered because, in the '50s, the trend was for the US to adopt single-payor health care, as all the other industrialized nations have, to their benefit. The Big Three, to forestall that Communistic impulse, lobbyed heavily (there's that word again - hmm, guess it's okay if lobbying shafts working people so: a-OK!) to adopt employer-based health care instead. Part of that was to offer health care for their retired workers, which: duh. How else would workers agree to it?
So the Big Three won! Hoorah!

Until now, when other nation's car makers, not facing the same costs, triumph.

Yet again, the Big Three pursue short-term, ideologically conservative policies that end up screwing them in the end.

...So, can't really blame the WORKERS for agreeing what MANAGEMENT pushed. Rationally, at least.

@Corporate_guy: I take it that executives, who also commonly get lifetime health care for themselves and their families, are also suspect, grasping individuals? Or is that double-standard okay?