| Next: Study: Illegal immigrants' care costs state $677 .. |
| Author |
Message |
tony7914
Joined: Dec 24, 2004
Posts: 4965
Location: Peru Indiana
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 3:15 pm Post subject: Big donations to GOP don't help auto companies |
|
|
| Quote: |
By standing in the way of an auto industry bailout, GOP senators appear to have bitten the hand that fed them.
Over the last decade, General Motors has given $1.50 to Republican candidates for every $1 it has given to Democrats. That same pattern has been followed by Chrysler and Ford, which year after year have favored the right side of the aisle, sometimes by more than a 3-to-1 ratio in dollar terms.
Since 1990, the auto industry as a whole -- including suppliers, dealers and manufacturers -- has cut $100 million in checks to Republicans, compared with just $34 million to Democrats.
On Thursday night, the carmakers discovered just how little loyalty that investment strategy had bought them.
Efforts to get through even a watered-down version of the $14 billion aid package were stymied by Republican senators, many of whom contend that GM and Chrysler -- the most troubled U.S. automakers -- should simply go bankrupt............ |
| Quote: |
| A study released Thursday by the Center for Responsive Politics suggested that in the House of Representatives, where the bailout passed this week, there was a direct correlation between votes and campaign cash: Those who voted in favor of the plan received, on average, 8 percent more money from the auto industry than those who did not..... |
Source.
Interesting read if you want to know a little about who's greasing who's hand.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5427
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| This year, for the first time on record, Detroit's spending slightly favored Democrats. |
Maybe that had something to do with it?
Actually, I think this is why Democrats in general voted for a bill that demanded nothing of the unions, while Republicans didn't:
| Quote: |
| Democrats, meanwhile, have looked to the United Auto Workers for support. Since 2000, the union has given $12.5 million to Democrats compared with only $94,540 to Republicans. |
I was listening a little on the way home from NJ yesterday about costs. They said that last year, GM and Toyota both sold the same number of cars (9.3 million); Toyota made $15 billion on those sales, but GM lost $40 billion! They also said that the average salary of auto workers for both companies was $30/hour, but when you add benefits, Toyota pays ~$48/hour, and GM pays ~$75/hour! I can't help but to think that is a major factor in the difference between the companies, and any plan that doesn't address that fact (either by justifying it, or explaining how to change it) should be rejected, as this one was.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CowpokeBob
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Posts: 1501
Location: South Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 10:24 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| xavierx wrote: |
| Quote: |
| This year, for the first time on record, Detroit's spending slightly favored Democrats. |
Maybe that had something to do with it?
Actually, I think this is why Democrats in general voted for a bill that demanded nothing of the unions, while Republicans didn't:
| Quote: |
| Democrats, meanwhile, have looked to the United Auto Workers for support. Since 2000, the union has given $12.5 million to Democrats compared with only $94,540 to Republicans. |
I was listening a little on the way home from NJ yesterday about costs. They said that last year, GM and Toyota both sold the same number of cars (9.3 million); Toyota made $15 billion on those sales, but GM lost $40 billion! They also said that the average salary of auto workers for both companies was $30/hour, but when you add benefits, Toyota pays ~$48/hour, and GM pays ~$75/hour! I can't help but to think that is a major factor in the difference between the companies, and any plan that doesn't address that fact (either by justifying it, or explaining how to change it) should be rejected, as this one was. |
I read an article in CNN last week that detailed a comparison between the big three auto makers and thier european and asian competitors. While the ratios of hourly workers per vehicle were about even between them, The ratio of management and no-production workers such as engineers per unit were nearly double for the US automakers vs thier competitors. Considering these jobs are also some of the highest paying jobs in the industry its not surprising there is a price differential in the cost of a vehicle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ejward
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Posts: 7054
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 9:30 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| Ya' know what kills me? We gave billions to Wall Street with really no strings attached. They were supposed to use it to make loans and free up the tight credit market yet, they won't loan it to the auto industry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tony7914
Joined: Dec 24, 2004
Posts: 4965
Location: Peru Indiana
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 9:59 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| ejward wrote: |
| Ya' know what kills me? We gave billions to Wall Street with really no strings attached. They were supposed to use it to make loans and free up the tight credit market yet, they won't loan it to the auto industry. |
Last I heard that's what GW was going to do when the senate didn't pass the legislation, did something change? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ejward
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Posts: 7054
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 10:10 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| tony7914 wrote: |
| ejward wrote: |
| Ya' know what kills me? We gave billions to Wall Street with really no strings attached. They were supposed to use it to make loans and free up the tight credit market yet, they won't loan it to the auto industry. |
Last I heard that's what GW was going to do when the senate didn't pass the legislation, did something change? |
I heard he backed away on that. I'm not sure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tony7914
Joined: Dec 24, 2004
Posts: 4965
Location: Peru Indiana
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 10:20 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| ejward wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| ejward wrote: |
| Ya' know what kills me? We gave billions to Wall Street with really no strings attached. They were supposed to use it to make loans and free up the tight credit market yet, they won't loan it to the auto industry. |
Last I heard that's what GW was going to do when the senate didn't pass the legislation, did something change? |
I heard he backed away on that. I'm not sure. |
This. is the latest, posted about 20 hours ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ejward
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Posts: 7054
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 11:05 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| That's what I thought. It's not quite a done deal. I hope it goes through. It seems that some of the people that lobbied against it have a vested interest in seeing the big 3 go under. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tony7914
Joined: Dec 24, 2004
Posts: 4965
Location: Peru Indiana
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 1:03 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| ejward wrote: |
| That's what I thought. It's not quite a done deal. I hope it goes through. It seems that some of the people that lobbied against it have a vested interest in seeing the big 3 go under. |
When I heard about GW planning to use bank bailout money for the Detroit 3 I had to wonder if he could do that without it going back to congress and the senate for a vote, I could be wrong but I'm not really sure he can do it on his own though.
I think that a lot of people who voted against it wanted much tighter controls than what they did with the bank blunder but that's just my opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ejward
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Posts: 7054
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 1:16 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| tony7914 wrote: |
| ejward wrote: |
| That's what I thought. It's not quite a done deal. I hope it goes through. It seems that some of the people that lobbied against it have a vested interest in seeing the big 3 go under. |
When I heard about GW planning to use bank bailout money for the Detroit 3 I had to wonder if he could do that without it going back to congress and the senate for a vote, I could be wrong but I'm not really sure he can do it on his own though.
I think that a lot of people who voted against it wanted much tighter controls than what they did with the bank blunder but that's just my opinion. |
I'm sure that's the real reason they voted against it.
I thought they pretty much had unlimited control on what they did with the money? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tony7914
Joined: Dec 24, 2004
Posts: 4965
Location: Peru Indiana
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 1:19 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| ejward wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| ejward wrote: |
| That's what I thought. It's not quite a done deal. I hope it goes through. It seems that some of the people that lobbied against it have a vested interest in seeing the big 3 go under. |
When I heard about GW planning to use bank bailout money for the Detroit 3 I had to wonder if he could do that without it going back to congress and the senate for a vote, I could be wrong but I'm not really sure he can do it on his own though.
I think that a lot of people who voted against it wanted much tighter controls than what they did with the bank blunder but that's just my opinion. |
I'm sure that's the real reason they voted against it.
I thought they pretty much had unlimited control on what they did with the money? |
I'm not sure. I thought it had to be spent the way it was writen into the law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CowpokeBob
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Posts: 1501
Location: South Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 6:52 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| tony7914 wrote: |
| ejward wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| ejward wrote: |
| That's what I thought. It's not quite a done deal. I hope it goes through. It seems that some of the people that lobbied against it have a vested interest in seeing the big 3 go under. |
When I heard about GW planning to use bank bailout money for the Detroit 3 I had to wonder if he could do that without it going back to congress and the senate for a vote, I could be wrong but I'm not really sure he can do it on his own though.
I think that a lot of people who voted against it wanted much tighter controls than what they did with the bank blunder but that's just my opinion. |
I'm sure that's the real reason they voted against it.
I thought they pretty much had unlimited control on what they did with the money? |
I'm not sure. I thought it had to be spent the way it was writen into the law. |
Nope. The Treasury Secretary has the authority to spend it just about any way he sees fit with no obligation to seek congressional approval and no oversight. Small wonder some in congress didn't want to go with the loan. You can bet the auto companies will get it in the end though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tony7914
Joined: Dec 24, 2004
Posts: 4965
Location: Peru Indiana
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 8:27 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| CowpokeBob wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| ejward wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| ejward wrote: |
| That's what I thought. It's not quite a done deal. I hope it goes through. It seems that some of the people that lobbied against it have a vested interest in seeing the big 3 go under. |
When I heard about GW planning to use bank bailout money for the Detroit 3 I had to wonder if he could do that without it going back to congress and the senate for a vote, I could be wrong but I'm not really sure he can do it on his own though.
I think that a lot of people who voted against it wanted much tighter controls than what they did with the bank blunder but that's just my opinion. |
I'm sure that's the real reason they voted against it.
I thought they pretty much had unlimited control on what they did with the money? |
I'm not sure. I thought it had to be spent the way it was writen into the law. |
Nope. The Treasury Secretary has the authority to spend it just about any way he sees fit with no obligation to seek congressional approval and no oversight. Small wonder some in congress didn't want to go with the loan. You can bet the auto companies will get it in the end though. |
Of that I have no doubts to many politicians owe the Union. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
General