Bush: "I can't make your automakers profitable"
In a speech addressing the future of alternate energy sources in the heart of the Motor City, President George W. Bush took a shot at the Big Three in their own backyard: "I can't make your automakers profitable, but I can show them a better way." The words build on Bush's call for America's auto manufacturers to build more "relevant" products-- a slam the President leveled against the domestics during a recent Wall Street Journal interview.
For their part, representatives of Ford, General Motors and DaimlerChrysler all chided Bush for what they consider a simplistic view of Detroit's plight-- arguing that what U.S. carmakers need is a 'level playing field,' with accommodations made for currency fluctuations and stultifying legacy costs.
Pete DeLorenzo over at AutoExtremist.com has already weighted-in... have your say on 'Bush versus Detroit' by leaving a comment.
[Source: Detroit Free Press]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Steve S 5:07PM (2/22/2006)
I thought simplistic approach and Bush were synonymous. So did you expect anything else...
Reply
retsel 5:11PM (2/22/2006)
'Bush versus Detroit' i thought they were on the same side...
Reply
Jaimie B 5:11PM (2/22/2006)
I agree with Bush 100%. What on earth does the government have to do with GM/Fords ineptness.
Reply
Clyde 5:11PM (2/22/2006)
Dear Mr. President:
We live in the greatest and most powerful nation in the world. However, Japan kicks our butts on quality in the automotive arena.
Please recommend to Ford and GM to learn from the Japanese and build a better quality automobile, show the public that they can build the cars we really want and need, eliminate the ridiculous rebate programs that devalue their cars, and we -- the American people -- will come back to them to purchase their cars and trucks in the future.
If they fail to grasp these simple ideals, our 'Big Three' automakers will be Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai within a few years.
Thank you. And may God Bless America.
Reply
Ryan 5:13PM (2/22/2006)
America doesn't build quality/good looking vechicles that are gas friendly. Everyone else does. Build better gas mileage vehicles and they will come.
Reply
Dave in MI 5:15PM (2/22/2006)
In the picture, he seems to be enjoying a Coke and a Ford truck. Silly hat not mandatory.
Reply
Screw Bush... 5:19PM (2/22/2006)
I'm not actually for subsidizing the auto companies, it was protecting them in the 70s that convinced them they could get away with making crap in the 80s and drove their customers to superior imports.
But I just have a huge problem with Bush's comments here.
We gave $7B to the oil companies this year for oil expiration in a year when Exxon reported $9B worth of profits in a single quarter. If we can throw them a bone they don't even need, it wouldn't be odd to throw GM a couple billion. The reason it's beyond the pale for Bush is likely because all his buddies are oilmen and not car execs.
When Bush's buddies at Enron and other companies were raping Californians over energy prices in 2001, Bush said "it's not our place to get involved". Cheney said price caps wouldn't work to reduce prices, although they did when finally effected.
To paraphrase Kanye West: "Bush doesn't care about non-Texans." Although he cares a little bit about Floridians since his brother is in office there.
Rant over.
Back to the topic. I think if the car companies need some help, not it is not unreasonable to do a Chrysler-style bailout. And additionally, Bush will do it. The Repubs can't afford to put too many people out of work (esp. in Ohio), so they'll do something about it.
I don't think it'll be necessary though, for Ford or GM. But they won't have a great time of it, I just think they can weather the storm.
Reply
glacia00 5:20PM (2/22/2006)
The blind leading the blind.
Detroit! Here it is. The plan for success.
1. Find out what people want.
2. Build it.
I'm in my mid forties and your designs are old and boring to me. Most of what you're doing is dredging up and rehashing designs that were popular before I was born. Fine, give the guys mired in a midlife crisis their viagra, toupees and Corvettes but geez throw the rest of us something.
Reply
B 5:22PM (2/22/2006)
Considering Bush's string of managerial failures before he reinvented himself as politican, this has to be a case of the blind leading the blind.
Reply
naugahyde 5:26PM (2/22/2006)
I read the Auto Extremist article - more whining for subsidies in the form of tariffs.
"Why continue to give nations a free pass to the U.S. market just for showing up?", he asks. Well, what we are actually doing is giving the U.S. consumer a free pass to all the automotive expertise in the world. Why punish the consumer by adding tariffs to the vehicles they want?
Reply
Edsel 5:28PM (2/22/2006)
Bush was castigated by the auto industry in 2001 for placing tariffs on foreign steel. It's apparent the U.S. auto industry wants a domestic monopoly buy using foreign content to achieve that monopoly. Sorry, we see right through that charade.
Reply
iQuack 5:29PM (2/22/2006)
All that blather about unfair trade has a hollow ring when the real issue seems to be that the Japanese and Europeans don't want to buy the crap GM and Ford produce in the U.S.
Truth is, we want what they make and they don't want what GM and Ford make here.
We are happy to buy what their companies manufacture on U.S. soil and that should tell you something. Do you hear any complaints from the Americans who work for Toyota or Honda in the U.S.?
It's a product problem, not a trade problem and Bush is correct.
Reply
Mike from Scarborough 5:37PM (2/22/2006)
I can't believe they let that morron speak in public.He's clueless on everything..
Reply
Tad 5:39PM (2/22/2006)
Well I must say I disagree with both parties. I blame the press and the public for thier ignorance of American vehicles. Everybody claims Toyota is so great, yet it had more recalls per vehicle last year then any of the big 3. People thinks Honda's are so great, yet they've been cutting production on thier trucks, and the fatality rate in thier small cars is rediculous (they are made of tin cans!). Yes the Big 3 may of had some problems (as does every manufacturer but frankly the press favor ANY imported vehicle and rant and rave about it, and a majority of the population believes everything they hear. How ignorant can people be? My last 3 cars have been a Ford Ranger, Chevy Tahoe and now a Chevy 1500...my first 2 went well over 180k with out any major problem and I dont doubt my Silverado will match that. I think the public needs to stop listening to the press so much and actually support thier American heritage.
Reply
Greg Murphy 5:39PM (2/22/2006)
GM, Ford and the UAW are going to have to solve this problem. If the UAW strangles Ford and GM there will be nothing left for anyone. Toyota is pouring money into useful things like being able to make their new engines for half the price they made their old engines. That is going to be real tough for Ford and GM to deal with. It is to bad, but some UAW are going to have to give up wages and extra goodies, GM and Ford are going to have to build quality small cars. Remember the Pinto? If Ford had continued to work on enhancements for the last 30 years you might have the Honda Accord. The first generation of the Honda Accord had some issues also. As always the little guy suffers because of some poor senior management mistakes.
Reply
SOhp101 5:45PM (2/22/2006)
Wow! Bush actually said something that makes sense! Okay, maybe he won't really be able to show them a better way, but kudos for Bush in telling the auto comapnies that they need to help themselves.
Reply
Paul 5:46PM (2/22/2006)
sure... what does a politicial know about making a profit. They spend and tax. When they cannot tax more they borrow or print up more of the green stuff.
Reply
ghughes 5:51PM (2/22/2006)
buying a foreign car(non ford, gm) is unforgivable - period - Unless you work for japan in some way, which is what a lot of these posters, do. Car salesman? Honda execs?
Reply
Jay 6:04PM (2/22/2006)
I think it's a mixture of all of the main arguments. The domestics need to build better cars, that's not in debate. I won't beat that dead horse any more than it already has. But the foreign automakers do undeniably have much better government backing in terms of health care and trade imbalances that help them get even more of an edge. I don't think subsidizing a particular industry is the answer, but a major overhaul of the American healthcare system is needed to put it on a more equal footing to their foreign competition, not just as it applies to the auto industry, but to all of America's manufacturing industries. USA Today reported that $1,500 of every car GM builds is used to cover labor costs versus $57 for Hyundai. That cannot continue. Each individual thing on its own is not going to fix Detroit...better cars need to be built, trade imbalances and currency fixing need to be kept in check, and the health care system in this country needs to be revitalized.
As far as Bush showing them the better way, given his track record for failed businesses, I don't think I'd be too open to hear what he has to say if I were Detroit :D
Reply
Chris 6:08PM (2/22/2006)
The government bailed Chrysler out of a jam during the 80s. It was the help that Chrysler recieved that allowed them to be successful years later with the minivan. Why did the government help them? Because back then, people actually cared about the Big 3.
Saying "Build better cars!" is a rather simplistic answer to a complicated problem that not only involves unwanted vehicles, but Medicare issues that isn't a problem in any other country and unfair currency manipulation from importers.
It is important to research keep an open mind. Automakers can't "help themselves" when laws and policies are restricting them from doing so. Unless you want automakers to become lawmakers, be my guest.
Reply