• Jun 29th 2008 at 6:15PM
  • 63
Back in the late seventies and into early eighties, Chrysler had gotten itself into such horrid financial shape that the U.S. government decided to step in and fix the situation itself. Considering the sorry state of affairs that all three of the Detroit automakers find themselves in today, some may wonder if a government-funded bailout is in the cards. Not so much... at least according to John McCain. "Frankly I just don't see a scenario where the federal government would come in and bail out any industry in America today," says the Republican.

So, what plan does McCain have in store for the Detroit 3? More Chevrolet Cobalts and Pontiac G5s for one, as the Arizona Senator said the above words after touring the plant in Lordstown, Ohio where the GM compact cars are made and a where third shift has just been added. "I am convinced that what is being done at the Lordstown assembly plant is the future of the American auto industry," added McCain.

In more related good news for the U.S. automakers, McCain says he supports nationwide CO2 standards and would oppose any state's individual plans -- California, we're looking at you. The Presidential hopeful also wants to see more fair-trade standards implemented with the other various auto-building nations and quicker violations for unfair practices. We await a response from the Democratic side.

[Sources: The Detroit News, Automotive News - sub. req'd]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 63 Comments
      • 7 Years Ago
      "The Presidential hopeful also wants to see more fair-trade standards implemented with the other various auto-building nations and quicker violations for unfair practices".

      Unfair trade practices? Foreign companies have doing it to the us for the last 50 years. Click on the link below and see how Japan has been sticking us for decades.
      • 7 Years Ago
      The government shouldn't have bailed out the airlines either. GM is showing it can become competitive on its own. Government just interferes with unconstitutional union laws, mileage and safety regulations, and other interference.

      What you want could be the responsibility of the state government. The federal government exists only to protect the freedoms of individuals, not to fund special interests. That you, like most others, see things otherwise is exactly the problem in America today.
      • 7 Years Ago
      No kidding it's going to hurt us if any of the Detroit 3 goes under, but thats life. If they built better cars they wouldn't be in this situation. The government already made a bad decision by bailing them out before, to no avail. Why in the heck would they want to bail them out again?

      This seems eerily similar to the mortgage crisis, and how the government wants to bail those people out as well.

      When I go to a casino and loose, I don't expect anyone to bail me out.
      • 7 Years Ago
      Anybody who thinks Obama would help assumes that Socialism would help.

      If you're a taxpayer, Obama's help would come from YOUR wallet.
        • 7 Years Ago
        Man that statement is just dumb,everything comes from our wallet.
        where is that 300 million MC-sameasbush propose for battery teck will come from ?.i pay $270.00 in taxes every week and have no idea where it goes so it wont make a differents to me.
        i find it kinda odd that if you dont buy American vehicles you are un-patriotic ,but its ok to let an American auto manufacturer go under.
        • 7 Years Ago
        MR. QUACK. He who wants services without funding believes in what kind of government? I believe you should think about the word Socialism before throwing it around like a cheap Wally World made in China towel. Perverting and shoe horning dime store talking points to fit anyones own view is a fact of life...but corporate welfare is just as bad as food stamps.
        • 7 Years Ago
        Obama is pushing a 39.6% top income bracket plus a 12% social security tax. 52% rate.

        When you go buy something, like a car, you're paying the seller's taxes, corporate and payroll both. And the manufacturer's taxes. And the manufacturer's supplier's taxes. Paying taxes for everyone else involved in a transaction between getting the iron ore out of the ground and the guy handing you the keys.

        And at the same time, paying all of those taxes leaves a business less money to actually pay their employees.

        There's a reason economic activity always goes up when taxes go down.
        • 7 Years Ago
        None of those taxes you mention are applied at multiple stages in the process.

        And 50% tax raise? Obama is pushing a 39.6% top income tax rate, when the current top is 35%. That's an 11% raise. 39.6% is also the same as the top used to be 8 years ago, it's not nearly as shocking as the 52% you list.

        Obama doesn't offer an increase in the estate tax, he just isn't reducing it. He's offering the same estate tax level as will be in effect in 2009 (which is already a lower rate than we have even in 2008) even if he doesn't come into office. The estate tax, BTW, only affects 0.2% of the population. Are you really in that 0.2%?

        http://www.kansascity.com/business/story/683470.html

        I ask again, is an 11% increase in your income tax rate better or worse than a reduction of 40% in your net worth. I don't know about you, but my net worth is a lot higher than my income, so I lost a lot more under Bush's spending plan than I did the year I actually paid the 39.6% tax rate on the top bit of my income instead of the previous top 36%.

        Anyway, given that you're willing to distort the facts to make one candidate look scary, there's no good reason to discuss this with you. Keep voting on fear, it worked so well the last two times out.
        • 7 Years Ago
        What are you afraid of? Obama might raise your taxes 3%?

        The Democrats might tax and spend, but the Repubs have borrowed and spent. This borrowing led to deflating the dollar almost 40%. So instead of losing 3% of your income, you lost 40% of your net worth.

        That's no bargain.
        • 7 Years Ago
        Where is this mythical person who is only losing 3% of his income to these new taxes?

        Obama is pushing 3 trillion dollars (10Y cost) in in new taxes. 52% top income tax. Death tax. Corporate tax hike. Capital gains tax hike. Windfall profit tax hike.

        Not 3% hikes. 20, 30, 50% hikes.

        Taxes don't begin and end with the rich person paying them. They're applied behind the scenes to every transaction between you and the rest of the economy. That money is coming out of your pocket through lower pay and higher prices whether you pay a penny directly or not.
        • 7 Years Ago
        "Anybody who thinks Obama would help assumes that Socialism would help.

        If you're a taxpayer, Obama's help would come from YOUR wallet."

        McCain is no different from the Democrats, namely Obama. Heck, he even considered switching over to the Democratic Party at one point.

        Just check his past voting record...too liberal to be branded a "Republican"....such a poseur. He would say anything to get elected...

        Yep, that's McCain, the next US President...graduated 5th in the Class of '58 Annapolis Naval academy...FROM THE BOTTOM!
        • 7 Years Ago
        Corporate welfare? Not really. Corporations provide jobs and one could make a good case for NO corporate income taxes at all.

        After all, corporations don't pay taxes--people pay taxes: shareholders (you indirectly via shares in your retirement fund, perhaps), employees, and other "stakeholders" in the business which must raise prices to compensate for any loss of return created by taxes.

        I use "Socialism" as "from each according to ability, to each according to need" which is the usual definition. Sounds thoughtful, but against human nature. Who wants to work hard and be taxed excessively so the money can be handed over to someone else?

        Given that the top 50% of taxpayers currently pay over 96% of income taxes, and that Obama wants to increase this progressivity further, I'd say Obama would accelerate our slide toward Socialism.

        The Democrats always have some wonderful ways to spend your money. The Republicans are guilty too, but historically, the Democrats have been worse.

      • 7 Years Ago
      I think people deserve much better cars than the one shown in the picture. If the Cobalt and G5 are the cars the D3 can offer then let them die.
        • 7 Years Ago
        If edmunds.com shows the 2008 Cobalt to have a user average rating of 8.7/10 then one must wonder why people supposedly deserve better than almost 90% goodness? In a day and age of millions of foreclosures, huge credit card debt and the U.S. not being #1 in many things anymore, what are we doing that is so deserving of a vehicle above 8.7/10 rating?

        Just curious.


        Make sure when your son or daughter is degraded in front of everyone by the teacher for getting 8.7/10 on a test and the teacher's favorites are getting 9.0/10 and 9.1/10 and are getting all the praise (i.e. see 2008 Civic and Corolla user rating), you know, for only 0.3 and 0.4 points higher on the test, that you don't get pissed and want the teacher fired. That is just how life should work. Remember that. The teacher should just tell you that he/she deserves students that score higher than that and you shut the hell up and take it.

      • 7 Years Ago
      So, to reward Detroit's great job in running car companies, we should give them more money? Because they've proven that they will do what's best with it?

      They can't even spend the money that they EARN properly, do you think that free (as in extorted from the populace) money will do any better?

      Hey Mr. Crackhead, you seem like you're having some hard times. Here's some money.
      • 7 Years Ago
      They say in the next election the majority of voters will be classed in the "Voter with Little Information" category. Much the same as posters here.

      Don't you just love the idiots who base the political opions on what they read in their EMail received from other idiots?
      • 7 Years Ago
      Why should the American car industry be bailed lout? The American car industry is doing great.

      America is making more and better cars more efficiently and profitably than it has ever done before.

      It's just happening in right to work states with Toyota or Honda or Hyundai signs out front.

      Bail out ideas - import tariffs, guaranteed loans, tax subsidies, etc. - aren't about saving the car industry. They're about temporarily propping up two - and maybe three - terribly managed, short sighted mega corporations. The only saving that's going to take place is saving regular working people from being able to buy the best car at the best price.






      • 7 Years Ago
      Of course Honda and Toyota won't save all of them, the reason Detroit is in the mess it's in is because they are paying too many people to compete with better run companies. If Honda or Toyota took on all of them they'd be in the same failing position Detroit is now.

      But other car companies will save a large fraction of them.

      And the rest can find a job in another field, the way all of the rest of us have as the economy changes around us.
      • 7 Years Ago
      Considering that McCain admits to being completely computer illiterate (even though IT drives our entire economy) it's not surprising that he sees Cobalts and G5s as indicators that Detroit is on the right track. He couldn't be any more clueless if they teleported him in from 1837.
        • 7 Years Ago
        I'm confused with your comments: in your opinion, are the G5 and Cobalt bad cars? If so, then do you agree with the general point that GM doesn't build good enough cars and that they shouldn't be bailed out, as McCain says.

        I just don't get the sense in bailing out businesses that fail. Why should taxpayers pay for the bad decisions of private industry or for prolonging the inevitable for uncompetitive businesses? Seems to me that the only obligation the government should have in that instance is to help people who lose their jobs in these older industries find jobs in newer, vibrant industries. (this is something McCain HAS proposed.)

        I grew up in Flint, and GM showed no compassion towards the workers or the community in the past... I don't see why the business should get any of our compassion today.
      • 7 Years Ago
      The US Government never loaned Chrysler a dime. The offered loan guarantees to certain banks in order to convince them to renew Chrysler’s line of credit and allow Chrysler to borrow about $1.2 billion. Not a bailout, no actual loan.

      Chrysler paid off the loans about 7 years early.

      Consider how much it cost Chrysler:

      $311 million to buy back the stock warrants (options) issued to the Federal Government,

      $404 Million in interest to the banks,

      $33 million in fees to the Federal Government,

      $67 million in legal and other bank fees,

      Chrysler's total cost for this so-called "bailout" was about $815 million.

      Does anyone think that Mitsubishi, Volkswagen or Renault would still be in business if their subsidies from their Governments were structured as Chrysler's so-called "bailout."

      Chrysler from about 1978 onwards to the Daimler takeover was one of the best managed corporations in history. The Germans drained Chrysler’s huge surplus fund, and then ran Chrysler straight into the ground.
        • 7 Years Ago
        "Does anyone think that Mitsubishi, Volkswagen or Renault would still be in business if their subsidies from their Governments were structured as Chrysler's so-called "bailout." "


        So Chrysler had to improve its financial health and operations to get guaranteed loans backed by tax dollars. Oh that's so horrible! Uncle Sam should of just gave them a blank check! Now there's a bright idea! Woo Hoo!!!

        Congress at the time was deeply troubled by the precedent of private corporations receiving tax payer bail-outs, and judging from history and the numerous bailouts after that, well... you do the math.
      • 7 Years Ago
      I am pretty sure GM and Ford can survive without government hand-outs. They are already making the vehicles they should be right in their own back yard. I am referring to the fuel stingy cars of Europe.

      Mulally is already set to import Ford of Europe until they can get the Motor City humming again.

      GM is already on the ball bringing in Astras for Saturn to sell. But it needs to expand Opel sales more by giving more sales to Pontiac and Chevrolet dealers as well. GM also has to do quickly adapt current production facilities in America to manufacture Opel derivatives today.

      GM and Ford must have been blind not to have seen that gas prices were going to go through the roof. They stupidly placed all their bets on high profit gas guzzlers. Well, it's time to pay the piper. Heads are going to roll!
    • Load More Comments
    Share This Photo X