Still Don't Think Obama Should Have Saved GM? (1 Viewer)

[jonessed]

I understand that, but it was still not the primary driver for bailing out GM...I think we can all agree on that.

Apparently, we can't. That's fine though. I think the political ramifications were the primary driver of the bailout, but I think most poltiical decisions are driven by political motivations. I'm consistent like that.

 

[ericttspikes]

We didn't just bailout GM. We turned the bankruptcy process on its head by bribing banks with government money to turn the other way and let the government pick winners and losers in the process. It was a sham bankruptcy.

IF GM ever comes back and offers to pay the loan money it was forgiven then I might consider it successful. I doubt that happens though.

You and the right are on the wrong side of history on this. This was great for the country despite the vitriol against it. The ripple effects of the collapse of the US auto industry wouldn't of just put autoworkers on the street but taken down a huge chunk of supply chain manufacturers with it. What little manufacturing the US has left would of gone poof. I don't understand those who complain loudest about jobs also don't seem to like any policy that is enacted by Obama to save them. Doing nothing and letting GM collapse would of been a colossal mistake for our country.

 

[gollum]

i don;t care about obama's thoughts on GM, i just wish the mods would leave his thread alone

 

[oso diablo]

i am typically skeptical when a company that has been so unsuccessful for so many years, somehow starts posting profits just ahead of an IPO.

 

[Fennis]

Lehman Brothers is asking a similar, but not quite the same, question.

Lehman wasn't nearly as vital to the U.S.

So who gets to decide? I do not support the bailouts. At what point is it "vital" enough to bail out. Its subjective.

absolutely. I think the crisis we were in dictated the need for a response. If GM were to go fold up shop not during the financial crisis, they would have been allowed to go. However, in the middle of the crisis action was required.

Why did Ford survive so well? We're just rewarding non-performance.

Agreed, Ford was better positioned. We did reward non-perfomance. However, it was needed to restore faith to the markets and to stop a down I look at it as a once in a lifetime time type of event.

 

[ichris]

How big is GM's tax loss carry forward? When do they start paying corporate income taxes again?

My guess is they did their best to move stuff around on the balance sheet to improve the IPO sale.

 

[ericttspikes]

Lehman Brothers is asking a similar, but not quite the same, question.

US manufacturing is more important to long-term US economic health than dudes pushing paper around in the financial service sector.

 

[ichris]

Lehman Brothers is asking a similar, but not quite the same, question.

US manufacturing is more important to long-term US economic health than dudes pushing paper around in the financial service sector.

How much GM stock are you gonna buy?

 

[jonessed]

We didn't just bailout GM. We turned the bankruptcy process on its head by bribing banks with government money to turn the other way and let the government pick winners and losers in the process. It was a sham bankruptcy.

IF GM ever comes back and offers to pay the loan money it was forgiven then I might consider it successful. I doubt that happens though.

You and the right are on the wrong side of history on this. This was great for the country despite the vitriol against it. The ripple effects of the collapse of the US auto industry wouldn't of just put autoworkers on the street but taken down a huge chunk of supply chain manufacturers with it. What little manufacturing the US has left would of gone poof. I don't understand those who complain loudest about jobs also don't seem to like any policy that is enacted by Obama to save them. Doing nothing and letting GM collapse would of been a colossal mistake for our country.

Right. Let's judge the ramifications of recession driven political decisions from a historical perspective before the recession is even over. Can't we just admit that our judgements are based on opinion and have not been vetted by robust historical analysis? I think that should be easy since it's one of the few obvious facts.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Why did Ford survive so well? We're just rewarding non-performance.

Agreed, Ford was better positioned. We did reward non-perfomance. However, it was needed to restore faith to the markets and to stop a down I look at it as a once in a lifetime time type of event.

I know this is about GM, but: Or maybe twice a lifetime, for Chrysler, so far?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

You and the right are on the wrong side of history on this. This was great for the country despite the vitriol against it. The ripple effects of the collapse of the US auto industry wouldn't of just put autoworkers on the street but taken down a huge chunk of supply chain manufacturers with it. What little manufacturing the US has left would of gone poof. I don't understand those who complain loudest about jobs also don't seem to like any policy that is enacted by Obama to save them. Doing nothing and letting GM collapse would of been a colossal mistake for our country.

The collapse of GM would not have meant the collapse of the entire US auto industry.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

If the government hadn't bailed out GM what would have happened? They would have filed a traditional bankruptcy. They wouldn't have gone away overnight. People act like 200,000 jobs would have just disappeared. Hate to tell you but they'd still be here right now just like people are still working at Blockbuster.

If by "traditional bankruptcy" you mean a drawn out chapter 11 reorganization, rather than a section 363 sale, the argument was that an automaker could never survive that process due to customer concerns and uncertainty. There was substantial evidence on this point and the judge had to make a call. In the end, he had to decide whether to approve the only plan on the table (which faced very little opposition), or take the risk that the cries for urgency were false. Obviously it is extraordinary to sell a big automaker in under 60 days, so it was not an easy decision. For what it is worth, section 363 sales are now commonplace in chapter 11, have been for almost 20 years, and this case as well as Chrysler clearly followed the rule of law established in that long precedent of cases.

 

[Dr. Bronner]

So you let GM fail, a company with 204,000 employees. How much tax revenue do we lose by doing this? How many foreclosures occur? How much is the cost of unemployment insurance for all these people? Surely all these layoffs cause people to drink more, use drugs more, maybe even turn to some criminal enterprises to bring money in, how much does that cost the criminal justice system? How long would it take another auto company to come in and take up the void left by GM? Months? Years? Would existing companies do it? Would they employ some of the out-of-work GM employees?I don't know all of these answers, obviously, but I wonder if any of us are looking at the entire equation here. And if anyone who knows more about American economics than either of us can paint a picture of what it'd look like had GM failed, I'd appreciate it. But I can't imagine it would've been better than what ended up happening. That neither Bush nor McCain opposed TARP leads me to assume that it would've been very, very ugly.Giving money to corporations is undesirable under any circumstances, but better to do it to save a company and jobs than the old-fashioned method of just giving your buddies some extra dough because you can.

All of your questions in paragraph 1 are can be summed up in the words "Too Big To Fail". I don't believe that to be true. No, I have not "crunched the numbers". But I think zombie companies are a drag on the creative destruction process inherent in the free enterprise system.TARP had nothing to do with the auto bailouts.Again, I believe (and it's only my belief) that we'd have been worse off in the short term but better off in the long.

I'm not for saving every company, no matter what. And that fatally flawed companies with poor management who don't innovate and price aggressively die is part of capitalism, and for the best. But was GM fatally flawed? It doesn't seem that way now."Too Big To Fail" is just an empty slogan. That doesn't mean anything in terms of what's the best way to govern the country. You don't know any of the numbers, but you cling to your ideology. Is that reason? Can you point to any educated analysis that shows that the Detroit bailout was a mistake?What about companies that supplied parts to GM? You're putting some of those people out on the street as well. The White House has estimated that the entire Detroit bailout saved one million jobs. Do you think the economy could've regained all of those jobs? How long would it have taken?

 

[Abraham]

Link to celebrities and some companies that filed for bankruptcy:

http://www.angelfire.com/stars4/lists/bankruptcies.html

Toni Braxton filed twice....the second time in 2010.

I like how Heidi Fleiss is listed as an AUthore and Clothing designer.

 

[ericttspikes]

"See? We told you so!"

Right, but they didn't fail, so it was the right call...assuming the money is paid back over time.

The $15+ billion that was forgiven will never be paid back.

The US was spending $700 million each day in Iraq helping build their economy and we have US citizens #####ing about spending money to help keep the US economy from falling off a cliff? Priceless.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Lehman Brothers is asking a similar, but not quite the same, question.

US manufacturing is more important to long-term US economic health than dudes pushing paper around in the financial service sector.

I normally agree with you on mot issues, but on this one I think you are wrong.The US auto industry is not critical to the US economy, letting them fail would cause a ripple effect in the auto industry BUT there are enough companies to take up the slack; both domestic and international.

 

[Abraham]

But was GM fatally flawed? It doesn't seem that way now

.Of COURSE it was (and remains) fatally flawed. The company would not exist if not for the government's money, and would not continue existing if not for the forgiveness of 15 BILLION dollars in loans. I would venture to say that every company on earth could find a profit model if someone gave them 15 billion to play with, particularly if that money was never to be paid back. We'll be in the same boat again with the automakers before my kid is my age. Count on it.

 

[jonessed]

"See? We told you so!"

Right, but they didn't fail, so it was the right call...assuming the money is paid back over time.

The $15+ billion that was forgiven will never be paid back.

The US was spending $700 million each day in Iraq helping build their economy and we have US citizens #####ing about spending money to help keep the US economy from falling off a cliff? Priceless.

I don't believe one wasteful policy should be used to justify another wasteful policy. I'm consistent like that.

 

[Parrothead]

Stop building cars and people will be forced to use public transportation..

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I'm not for saving every company, no matter what. And that fatally flawed companies with poor management who don't innovate and price aggressively die is part of capitalism, and for the best. But was GM fatally flawed? It doesn't seem that way now.

I don't know that we can say that.

"Too Big To Fail" is just an empty slogan. That doesn't mean anything in terms of what's the best way to govern the country. You don't know any of the numbers, but you cling to your ideology. Is that reason? Can you point to any educated analysis that shows that the Detroit bailout was a mistake?

In this case, the term means we can't let a company fail because it employs too many people. That's bad policy. And it's not about ideology, it's about economics.And no, I can't go back in time and prove a negative.

What about companies that supplied parts to GM? You're putting some of those people out on the street as well. The White House has estimated that the entire Detroit bailout saved one million jobs. Do you think the economy could've regained all of those jobs? How long would it have taken?

As the demand for autos shifted to fulfillment by other companies, those companies would have engaged those suppliers. Yes, people would have lost their jobs - but many of them only temporarily.And like has already been pointed out, it's not like if GM hadn't been bailed out that there would have been an immediate cessation of activity. I think there could have been actions taken to guide GM to a soft landing death rather than being propped up.

 

[EasyMorningRebel]

You and the right are on the wrong side of history on this. This was great for the country despite the vitriol against it. The ripple effects of the collapse of the US auto industry wouldn't of just put autoworkers on the street but taken down a huge chunk of supply chain manufacturers with it. What little manufacturing the US has left would of gone poof. I don't understand those who complain loudest about jobs also don't seem to like any policy that is enacted by Obama to save them. Doing nothing and letting GM collapse would of been a colossal mistake for our country.

The collapse of GM would not have meant the collapse of the entire US auto industry.

I don't think anyone's saying that at all. But I do believe a GM collapse would have reached much further into an industry with a lot more invested in GM than you realize. I just spent 3 days at the largest automotive trade show in the world - GM is a huge part of so much that's going on right now just as they've always been. However, Ford's presentation absolutely blew GM away. It wasn't even close. I will say this: there would be a few aftermarket companies that would have the capacity to supplant GM in the marketplace (from a parts perspective*), I believe. That doesn't do anything to address the 200K jobs, however.EAT: Engines, for example.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I don't think anyone's saying that at all.

It's precisely what ericttspikes said.

But I do believe a GM collapse would have reached much further into an industry with a lot more invested in GM than you realize. I just spent 3 days at the largest automotive trade show in the world - GM is a huge part of so much that's going on right now just as they've always been. However, Ford's presentation absolutely blew GM away. It wasn't even close.

How does the second part of your argument support the argument posited in the first? Ford blowing away GM shows that GM reached further into the industry than I realize?

I will say this: there would be a few aftermarket companies that would have the capacity to supplant GM in the marketplace (from a parts perspective*), I believe. That doesn't do anything to address the 200K jobs, however.

EAT: Engines, for example.

Again, it's just a shifting of demand, not an evaporation of it. That demand has to be fulfilled by labor.

 

[ericttspikes]

Lehman Brothers is asking a similar, but not quite the same, question.

US manufacturing is more important to long-term US economic health than dudes pushing paper around in the financial service sector.

I normally agree with you on mot issues, but on this one I think you are wrong.The US auto industry is not critical to the US economy, letting them fail would cause a ripple effect in the auto industry BUT there are enough companies to take up the slack; both domestic and international.

It isn't just about cars; it's plastics, metal, glass, components, rubber, electronics, etc. all intertwined. There are plenty of international companies to pick up the slack, that's the problem for the US. The list of things once produced in the US is already too long; Mattel toys, Gerber baby food, light bulbs, cell phones, TVs, even Levi Jeans...not one made in the US. People wonder why there are no jobs, industry after industry is closing shop and moving away.

 

[EasyMorningRebel]

I don't think anyone's saying that at all.

It's precisely what ericttspikes said.

But I do believe a GM collapse would have reached much further into an industry with a lot more invested in GM than you realize. I just spent 3 days at the largest automotive trade show in the world - GM is a huge part of so much that's going on right now just as they've always been. However, Ford's presentation absolutely blew GM away. It wasn't even close.

How does the second part of your argument support the argument posited in the first? Ford blowing away GM shows that GM reached further into the industry than I realize?

I will say this: there would be a few aftermarket companies that would have the capacity to supplant GM in the marketplace (from a parts perspective*), I believe. That doesn't do anything to address the 200K jobs, however.

EAT: Engines, for example.

Again, it's just a shifting of demand, not an evaporation of it. That demand has to be fulfilled by labor.

Just that GM has been a huge part of the industry for so long that it would be near impossible to completely remove it. Most of the most innovative custom car manufacturers (which would vie to supplant GM) all use GM platforms. You could tell that Ford has spent and is spending loads more on their product. Ford's new stuff is setting the industry standard from what I saw.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Stop building cars and people will be forced to use public transportation..

Economy probably comes to a screeching halt.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

It isn't just about cars; it's plastics, metal, glass, components, rubber, electronics, etc. all intertwined. There are plenty of international companies to pick up the slack, that's the problem for the US. The list of things once produced in the US is already too long; Mattel toys, Gerber baby food, light bulbs, cell phones, TVs, even Levi Jeans...not one made in the US. People wonder why there are no jobs, industry after industry is closing shop and moving away.

Something like 6 of the top 10 "most made in the USA" cars are from foreign companies.Edit: Here's a link.

 

[Parrothead]

Stop building cars and people will be forced to use public transportation..

Economy probably comes to a screeching halt.

high speed rail would become a necessity.. cars are so 90's anyway..

 

[videoguy505]

i am typically skeptical when a company that has been so unsuccessful for so many years, somehow starts posting profits just ahead of an IPO.

1 quarter of profit in 6 years obviously means GM is out of the woods. They're practically printing money.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Lehman Brothers is asking a similar, but not quite the same, question.

US manufacturing is more important to long-term US economic health than dudes pushing paper around in the financial service sector.

I normally agree with you on mot issues, but on this one I think you are wrong.The US auto industry is not critical to the US economy, letting them fail would cause a ripple effect in the auto industry BUT there are enough companies to take up the slack; both domestic and international.

It isn't just about cars; it's plastics, metal, glass, components, rubber, electronics, etc. all intertwined. There are plenty of international companies to pick up the slack, that's the problem for the US. The list of things once produced in the US is already too long; Mattel toys, Gerber baby food, light bulbs, cell phones, TVs, even Levi Jeans...not one made in the US. People wonder why there are no jobs, industry after industry is closing shop and moving away.

We are not a manufacturing economy anymore; moreover we are throwing money at a problem and not realizing that the problems is not going to go away.We can not compete with overseas companies anymore simply because their quality and cost are just too good to ignore.

We need to move into a more service related economy because that is what is growing.

 

[ericttspikes]

I don't think anyone's saying that at all.

It's precisely what ericttspikes said.

But I do believe a GM collapse would have reached much further into an industry with a lot more invested in GM than you realize. I just spent 3 days at the largest automotive trade show in the world - GM is a huge part of so much that's going on right now just as they've always been. However, Ford's presentation absolutely blew GM away. It wasn't even close.

How does the second part of your argument support the argument posited in the first? Ford blowing away GM shows that GM reached further into the industry than I realize?

I will say this: there would be a few aftermarket companies that would have the capacity to supplant GM in the marketplace (from a parts perspective*), I believe. That doesn't do anything to address the 200K jobs, however.

EAT: Engines, for example.

Again, it's just a shifting of demand, not an evaporation of it. That demand has to be fulfilled by labor.

What does the fact that the labor demand is being fulfilled by foreign workers mean for US employment and the economy in general? Again, if the big uproar is "jobs, jobs, jobs", I don't get the argument to stand idle while any US industry collapses. How does that help the US job market?

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

People have already forgotten how bad the economy was when this decision was made. The biggest effect of bailing GM was preventing the panic that would have happened as a result of it failing.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

What does the fact that the labor demand is being fulfilled by foreign workers mean for US employment and the economy in general? Again, if the big uproar is "jobs, jobs, jobs", I don't get the argument to stand idle while any US industry collapses. How does that help the US job market?

What do you mean by foreign workers? We're still talking about the auto industry right?

 

[bg0546]

What does the fact that the labor demand is being fulfilled by foreign workers mean for US employment and the economy in general? Again, if the big uproar is "jobs, jobs, jobs", I don't get the argument to stand idle while any US industry collapses. How does that help the US job market?

Why would the labor demand be fulfulled by foreign workers?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

People have already forgotten how bad the economy was when this decision was made. The biggest effect of bailing GM was preventing the panic that would have happened as a result of it failing.

Now that's a perfectly legitimate reason in favor of the bailout.

 

[Statorama]

But was GM fatally flawed? It doesn't seem that way now

.Of COURSE it was (and remains) fatally flawed. The company would not exist if not for the government's money, and would not continue existing if not for the forgiveness of 15 BILLION dollars in loans. I would venture to say that every company on earth could find a profit model if someone gave them 15 billion to play with, particularly if that money was never to be paid back. We'll be in the same boat again with the automakers before my kid is my age. Count on it.

 

[LHUCKS]

People have already forgotten how bad the economy was when this decision was made. The biggest effect of bailing GM was preventing the panic that would have happened as a result of it failing.

correct, GM is/was an icon of American prosperity...I'm not saying that justified the bailout, but it was one of the reasons.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

People have already forgotten how bad the economy was when this decision was made. The biggest effect of bailing GM was preventing the panic that would have happened as a result of it failing.

Now that's a perfectly legitimate reason in favor of the bailout.

OK that is reasonable.Christ what is happening to us.

 

[Al Czervik]

i am typically skeptical when a company that has been so unsuccessful for so many years, somehow starts posting profits just ahead of an IPO.

1 quarter of profit in 6 years obviously means GM is out of the woods. They're practically printing money.

This was actually the third quarter of profitability and positive cash flow.

 

[Phil Elliott]

I don't think anyone's saying that at all.

It's precisely what ericttspikes said.

But I do believe a GM collapse would have reached much further into an industry with a lot more invested in GM than you realize. I just spent 3 days at the largest automotive trade show in the world - GM is a huge part of so much that's going on right now just as they've always been. However, Ford's presentation absolutely blew GM away. It wasn't even close.

How does the second part of your argument support the argument posited in the first? Ford blowing away GM shows that GM reached further into the industry than I realize?

I will say this: there would be a few aftermarket companies that would have the capacity to supplant GM in the marketplace (from a parts perspective*), I believe. That doesn't do anything to address the 200K jobs, however.

EAT: Engines, for example.

Again, it's just a shifting of demand, not an evaporation of it. That demand has to be fulfilled by labor.

What does the fact that the labor demand is being fulfilled by foreign workers mean for US employment and the economy in general? Again, if the big uproar is "jobs, jobs, jobs", I don't get the argument to stand idle while any US industry collapses. How does that help the US job market?

I think there are quite a few US plants with US workers working for Toyota, Nissan, etc...

 

[Sinn Fein]

It was a mistake to have bailed out a failing business. Not just GM - some of the banks should have failed also. And the people responsible for making bad business decisions should have been held accountable.

One fo the problems is that we are supposed to have a checks and balances system - rewards are tied directly to the risks involved. If there is no risk of failure, then people will (and did) take unnecessary risks. When they worked, they reaped huge rewards, but had no fear of being wrong.

its good to have a fear of being wrong.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

People have already forgotten how bad the economy was when this decision was made. The biggest effect of bailing GM was preventing the panic that would have happened as a result of it failing.

Now that's a perfectly legitimate reason in favor of the bailout.

I supported the auto bailout for 2 reasons.1) see above.2) We were looking for ways to spend money quickly to create jobs. That money was going to be spent on some sort of stimulus. There aren't that many ways to quickly spend billions of dollars.

 

[Sinn Fein]

People have already forgotten how bad the economy was when this decision was made. The biggest effect of bailing GM was preventing the panic that would have happened as a result of it failing.

correct, GM is/was an icon of American prosperity...I'm not saying that justified the bailout, but it was one of the reasons.

People are are too short-sighted imo.

 

[Sinn Fein]

People have already forgotten how bad the economy was when this decision was made. The biggest effect of bailing GM was preventing the panic that would have happened as a result of it failing.

Now that's a perfectly legitimate reason in favor of the bailout.

I supported the auto bailout for 2 reasons.1) see above.

2) We were looking for ways to spend money quickly to create jobs. That money was going to be spent on some sort of stimulus. There aren't that many ways to quickly spend billions of dollars.

Give every taxpayer $300 and see what they spend it on.

 

[DevilsTrifecta]

"See? We told you so!"

Right, but they didn't fail, so it was the right call...assuming the money is paid back over time.

The $15+ billion that was forgiven will never be paid back.

The US was spending $700 million each day in Iraq helping build their economy and we have US citizens #####ing about spending money to help keep the US economy from falling off a cliff? Priceless.

I #####ed about that too.

 

[DevilsTrifecta]

Lehman Brothers is asking a similar, but not quite the same, question.

US manufacturing is more important to long-term US economic health than dudes pushing paper around in the financial service sector.

I normally agree with you on mot issues, but on this one I think you are wrong.The US auto industry is not critical to the US economy, letting them fail would cause a ripple effect in the auto industry BUT there are enough companies to take up the slack; both domestic and international.

It isn't just about cars; it's plastics, metal, glass, components, rubber, electronics, etc. all intertwined. There are plenty of international companies to pick up the slack, that's the problem for the US. The list of things once produced in the US is already too long; Mattel toys, Gerber baby food, light bulbs, cell phones, TVs, even Levi Jeans...not one made in the US. People wonder why there are no jobs, industry after industry is closing shop and moving away.

Do you think any of that has to do with wage and labor laws?

 

[Jackstraw]

Look people, Obama is bad Ok? He just is. And therefore everything he does is bad. The sooner you figure that out the sooner we can stop these silly arguments.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Windfall profits tax.

 

[ericttspikes]

What does the fact that the labor demand is being fulfilled by foreign workers mean for US employment and the economy in general? Again, if the big uproar is "jobs, jobs, jobs", I don't get the argument to stand idle while any US industry collapses. How does that help the US job market?

What do you mean by foreign workers? We're still talking about the auto industry right?

If everything can be made cheaper overseas because of cheap labor, what does that mean for the US? 9% unemployment will either be a historic low going forward or we all better get used to a quality of life like workers in Asia have.I remember a time when "Buy American" was patriotic. Times have changed I guess.

 

[bg0546]

What does the fact that the labor demand is being fulfilled by foreign workers mean for US employment and the economy in general? Again, if the big uproar is "jobs, jobs, jobs", I don't get the argument to stand idle while any US industry collapses. How does that help the US job market?

What do you mean by foreign workers? We're still talking about the auto industry right?

If everything can be made cheaper overseas because of cheap labor, what does that mean for the US? 9% unemployment will either be a historic low going forward or we all better get used to a quality of life like workers in Asia have.I remember a time when "Buy American" was patriotic. Times have changed I guess.

Who has said that? And it's not just the cost of labor. Clearly the fact that most foreign auto manufacturers have plants here tells us that they've been able to deal with the cost of labor in the U.S. And I know you're aware of that fact. Why do you refuse to participate in an intelligent, honest discussion and waste everyone's time having to respond to such drivel as this post?

 

[DevilsTrifecta]

What does the fact that the labor demand is being fulfilled by foreign workers mean for US employment and the economy in general? Again, if the big uproar is "jobs, jobs, jobs", I don't get the argument to stand idle while any US industry collapses. How does that help the US job market?

What do you mean by foreign workers? We're still talking about the auto industry right?

If everything can be made cheaper overseas because of cheap labor, what does that mean for the US? 9% unemployment will either be a historic low going forward or we all better get used to a quality of life like workers in Asia have.I remember a time when "Buy American" was patriotic. Times have changed I guess.

Who has said that? And it's not just the cost of labor. Clearly the fact that most foreign auto manufacturers have plants here tells us that they've been able to deal with the cost of labor in the U.S. And I know you're aware of that fact. Why do you refuse to participate in an intelligent, honest discussion and waste everyone's time having to respond to such drivel as this post?

I find it humorous that he is complaining about the US not being able to compete when the biggest reason they can't is government regulation which he supports.