Closer to two. And we don't even know where it went.

Wonder how he and the rest would have voted on the actual vote, had it come to the floor....

Thnx for this breakdown! Seems McCaskill did vote for it afterall.

But, what's with Biden and Kerry and Wyden? Maybe the failure was a foregone conclusion and if it had been close they might have been there? Even Kennedy?

items such as autos is not a good thing. People tend to not buy from a mfr who so obviously might not make it. It's one thing to buy a plane ticket to be used within days, weeks, possibly months, and at price points usually well below $1K. It's another thing to buy something priced as cars are, with long lives and a need for continual maintenance and replacement parts. A long warranty doesn't mean much if the company is gonzo.

So, psychologically, buyers tend to avoid the mfr if big ticket items in Chap 11. It's bad enough right now--unless the prices drop to fiire sale levels, who wouldn't go with a company which will be around in 8 years to provide replacement parts? Even after-market mfrs might not make as many parts for cars no longer manufactured. Many parts are used from one year to the next in the newer models, for economy of scale, etc.

At least that's my reasoning!

I've noted that Honda is now including wording in its ads to the effect that they'll be around for many more years. They're working on the psychology. "We've been building quality vehicles for years and will continue to do so for many more years." Or something like that.

So many of the Big Banksters are exposed to a failure in that area and then would require even more infusions of cash from the government.

Ah, what tangled webs....

it was bound to happen

You can't forget to mention that. Give credit where due.

So, destroyers of countries, cities, economies, major US businesses....: have I left anything out?

You can't forget to mention that. Give credit where due.

So, destroyers of countries, cities, economies, major US businesses....: have I left anything out?

BushCo can try to accomplish what the Repub senators could not: Screw the UAW.

Interesting that now they've announced they're going to take their time. And already GM has announced lower production and facility closings (200 plus) for the first quarter of '09, which will mean layoffs. If not worse. Some will have to close down, probably--unless the automakers can do what they did in WWII and retool for things which are very needed to fight global warming.

But it is clear that the Repub senators (and some Dems as well?) really do feel that the little people do not deserve to get middle class wages and benefits. That's for people who shower before they go to work. And most of all for those who have their own showers in their own private bathrooms off their own big private offices.

Bill Clinton may not have done everything he could and should have done, but he would never, ever have been caught leaving the impression he believed the little people should accpet lower wages, lesser benefts, and lower standards of living. He made it clear with his tax increases on the wealthy that he wanted to try to even things out a bit more. The old play by rules and get the rewards for doing so line of his.

And, then, wham bam, he gets the Newt Attack and the Repub Congress. Oooof! Game not quite over, but the quarterback was sacked several times and didn't get as many points made as he could have. Then, again, had the Dems of the day in Congress helped him get healthcare through, they probably would not have lost in '94. Alas. Woulda, coulda, shoulda. And the big Shoulda Not for Bill.

BTW, most national corporations have regional cost of living built in to wage/salary bands--for example, the NYC metro area was considered to cost more to live in than, say, Tennesee, and the transferee's income was adjusted accordingly. Would go up when moving to higher cost of living area and down for the reverse. Given that the foreign auto companies chose mostly Southern states, is there not a cost of living differential which would make the small difference between MI/OH auoworkers' average hourly wages almost negligible?

signed up for a Prius, but refused to pay over the list price. Found a dealer here in NJ who said they didn't charge a premium, so I signed up, paid my smallish downpayment, and waited...and waited,,,and waited,,,and waited.

(Turns out the dealer had two lists, one for those who paid premiums and those people got the cars. Those of us who said no way to premiums got the, well, no way you get car. Heh. I will never do business with that dealer. And I'm old enough to feel confident I won't. Now, it would be different--no waiting lists for Priuses right now.)

While waiting, my beloved Mazdz 626 GT (great hatchback, terrific cargo space! And, oh, that turbo....) died dead--while I was in Wisconsin visiting my brother. His Honda Civic hybrid had just come in and he was going to get rid of his Intrepid--which he sold to me, so I had a way to get me and my stuff home. Still have it. The money for my Prius went away with stock market declines....

So, not covered Union Made glory, but I do, right now, drive a union made vehicle....

-- you can support labor and unions with or without only buying union goods -- and what is there now besides cars that are still union-made here?

what happened to "look for the union label"? many of us know what happened--and don't want it to happen with one of our only remaining manufacturing bases. I don't drive, but i want unions to be around and to be strong -- should i buy a car even if i don't need one?

and all Americans look at both the big3 cars and others when looking to buy -- if they don't end up buying from the big3, there are usually very good reasons why not (and the explosion of suvs/hybrids/whatever is a testament to the fact that people do buy from them when they want to--it depends of the product and people's needs at the time, like with all products)

the vast majority of Americans can only buy things based on need, and price.

I will add that we totally need to revive "buy American" -- it used to be a matter of pride that older generations did so always. But it's not really possible anymore for most products, tragically.

I don't get to choose a car. I'm poor. I just bought my 3rd car in less than 5 months. So, out of 4 cars in a year, 2 have been Saturns, one Chevy, and one Toyota. The first Saturn I was financing at a 30% interest rate, but it got totalled in an accident. It was a 99. The rest of the cars I have bought because they were the right price at the right time. One was a badly damaged 1998, one was a 1990, and one was a 1994. I don't get to be picky choosy when it comes to buying cars.

Yet, being poor doesn't stop me one whit from giving a shit about my fellow man. Also, considering one of Ford's largest manufacturing plants, forms a big chunk of my hometown's economy, probably means I'm a tad bit more invested than others.

isn't that a valid and important question too? "what does that make you?"

why is this framed as a personal consumer choice question?

shouldn't our official govt policies -- which harm union and labor and our livelihoods by intention and have far more impact and do the real damage -- matter more?

when my 12 year old Ford Explorer finally died (transmission went) I bought a Hyundai Tucson - it was thousands cheaper and the dealership was decent. I would have loved to buy an American-made car a) if I could have afforded it; b) if I thought it would be reliable, and; c) if I didn't know that a large part of an "American" car is no longer made in the USA.

I've worked for auto suppliers, I've been a union member for 8 years of my working life, and worked as an engineer in union plants for another 8. But my answer to this is the same as my answer as to why I don't donate to the United Way, Jerry's kids or all of the starving children in Africa.

A small part of it is that most of the money I would throw in the directions of automakers or charities goes to upper management and financiers and doesn't trickle down to the union workers or the intended recipients. A larger part of it is that we organize a government to help those in trouble and to manage our economy and keep our industrial base functioning and maintain our standard of living. I, like most people, try to make my contribution to society by being a productive, self-supporting individual, which for many of us is much more than a full time job.

Which goes back to the first small part - the current (and likely future) owners and managers of the government (which is not you and me) and much of the industrial base don't give a shit about actually fulfilling their responsibilities. At the same time, I'm trying to make it the next 3 years or so to Social Security (I'm an optimist) where my income derives from a business whose sales have fallen 80% during the Bush years, much of that due to offshoring US jobs. I was touring factories emptied by offshoring in 1980 looking to buy surplus equipment. It's not like this is anything new - just bigger, and now it effects other people besides just me.

So while I still give a shit, and would still support union workers if I could afford it, I seem to be in the minority, which is to say "a sucker" when it comes to the economics of all that.

... Johnson tells us the consequences of America's economic policy favoring the exploitation of the middle class for the benefit of the super rich has very negative long-term economic consequences. For example, Johnson writes about how the Chinese got neodymium magnet research and manufacture moved out of the United States. These magnets are used in precision guided missiles. Johnson says that in the coming years, Americans could see 40 million jobs move overseas, because of the availability of low cost labor overseas and government policies designed to protect corporations, not American workers, nor even America's national security. Johnson says this could lead to an American economic plight that rivals the Great Depression. He asks us to contemplate a future where the great majority of Americans are reduced to "servant-level wages and jobs." ...

(Sorry I haven't been diretcing posts back to you directly. You and badger always ask such good questions and make such good points I combinate them in my responses. So now an apology to you if I've led you to believe I'm ignoring you. Never. Never never never. Unless it's convenient or I'll look bad. Heh.)

Heck, every podunk place with an economic development committee (often made up of one guy, his dog, and the squirrel that keeps getting in the courthouse attic) develops pitches to industry that adds incentives: Tax breaks, picking up infrastructure costs, keeping the region a right-to-work state (no unions)---happens all the time. And this record will be broken by an incentive package from someone else, and that one will be broken, and so on and so on.

What doesn't change is the consumer's power to buy or not to buy. Industry can go wherever but if no one buys, then what's the point?

(I have a kinda funny story about something that happened with me and the Seattle Film Commission a few years ago about incentives, but my comments are getting crazy long, so I'll wait to whip out that one for another day.)

Edited to add:

P.S. I told the fab GF about your trip to Spain. She would like to know if you kinda liked the music.

Sorry. But I'm gay married and I hafta ask such questions.