Posted on 09/07/2008 8:54:28 PM PDT by Lorianne
WASHINGTON - Auto industry allies hope to secure up to $50 billion in government loans this month that would pay to modernize plants and help struggling car makers build more fuel-efficient vehicles.
With Congress returning this coming week from its summer break, the industry plans an aggressive lobbying campaign for the low-interest loans. The situation is growing dire after months of tumbling sales, high gasoline prices and consumers' abandoning profitable trucks and sport utility vehicles.
Lawmakers authorized $25 billion in loans in last year's energy bill to help the companies build fuel-efficient vehicles such as hybrids and electric vehicles. With credit tight, automakers and suppliers now want lawmakers to come up with the money for the program — and expand the pool of money available to $50 billion over three years.
Industry leaders have argued that the loan guarantees are not a government bailout because it would hasten production of fuel-efficient vehicles and reduce dependence on imported oil.
"This is not about benefiting Wall Street," said Ford Motor Co.'s President of the Americas Mark Fields, referencing recent federal support for the investment firm Bear Stearns and troubled mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. "This is benefiting Main Street, the working men and women. The auto industry is part of the backbone of the U.S. economy."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I suppose they want the loans to built these new Cadillac 2009 Escalade Hybrids.
http://www.cadillac.com/escaladehybrid/
Oh yeah, that'll benifit 'working men and women' How about 'working men and women' buying a non-government subsized car?
This is getting ridiculous.
These loans don't have much to do with hybrid tech, with the possible exception of GM, who I think is really trying.
whatta laugh!
taxpayer monies for unions.
taxpayer monies for bad investments.
cerberus capital mgt bought chrysler from mercedes after they couldn’t make chrysler work. what’s that tell you?
taxpayers bailed chrysler and their unions out once before.
I’d have more sympathy and more interest in offering loan *guarantees* (which is what Chrysler got) to GM and Ford if they had coherent business and recovery plans. Chrysler had one before they ever went to the government. GM and Ford do not.
Hey GM, Ford & Chrysler: 1. Go bankrupt; 2. “Re-negotiate” your labour contracts to half what they are now; 3. Kill your Job Bank where you pay executives to, literally, do nothing; quit paying 100% of 1st dollar health costs. Call us in a couple of years. Sincere, the Taxpayers.
The Job Bank isn’t for execs, it’s for UAW members.
Is it because of the cars they are building, or because of their financing units getting back vehicles that are worth far less than what they calculated as a residual value?
If they can’t compete they shouldn’t be in business. They put themselves in this spot and were I in charge i’d tell ‘em that they can get themselves out of it or go out of business. We don’t need to throw money at every big company that goes under. Sadly I think the Rats in congress will give them a huge bailout and reward failure at our expense.
Its GM and Fords fault that they made bad products for decades that drove people into the arms of the Japanese. Those people are now loyal to Honda, Toyota, etc. GM and Ford build better cars now but they aren’t good enough to win enough of those folks back. Its also their fault that they put too many of their eggs in the big SUV and truck basket. I blame Ford especially for not adapting to higher fuel prices quicker. They have very well regarded small cars they sell in Europe. Those haven’t made it here while Honda, Nissan, and Toyota were very quick to start selling some of their smaller overseas models (Fit, Versa, etc) when gas prices went up. Add in poor management and a union problem and its easy to see why they are going under and hard to see why my money should bail them out.
Mostly they're just going to blow it on pensions for long retired workers and subsidizing their finance units like GMAC, which is in the tank because of subprime mortgages. I doubt any of this will go towards actual cars.
"Free tradin'" away the ranch.
"Yo! Taxpayers, more money please! The corporations need it."
US$33.9 billion of FDI settle in China in first half year
General Motors executives announce earlier last month that their company would invest more than US$3 billion by 2007
Dump the Unions and we will think about it.
The doors to the Treasury are wide open.
And the reason they can’t raise the money on wall street is??
yes, the question is rhetorical.
Between the airlines, car manf. and the loan mortgage companies it’s no surprise the country is $10 TRILLION IN DEBT. Holy Crap.
$50B is peanuts. They should ask for at least $100 Billion. At least!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Gubmint isn’t saying no to anyone. BAILOUTS FOR ALL!
(Except the honest taxpayer, of course)
“I’d have more sympathy and more interest in offering loan *guarantees*”
Actually, that is what the automakers are pressing for, and what is at question here - guarantees, not loans. The reporting is just incredibly sloppy (surprised?).
I’d agree, though - I don’t see any coherent plan from GM. Ford, on the other hand, at least is trying, and the plan they’ve unveiled focusing on small cars and bringing over European models is what we’ve been asking for....
Maybe the auto industry to lobby to get rid of CAFE standards. That’s worth more than 50B dollars.
Ford’s trying somewhat, but I’m not seeing coherency there. They bring us the Transit Connect, which nobody wants, instead of the Transit; they bring us the Fiesta instead of the Mondeo. They bring us the Focus Mk I with a facelift, but not the Mk II.
Ford’s got part of the idea, they’re bringing us some of their well regarded Euro cars... but they’re bringing us the WRONG ones again! (See: Merkur.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.