I never stated that those benefits are not necessary (as you implied), but that the equivalency of benefits in comparison to other similar industries and companies is what should be called into question.

 

An individual working at Toyota's assembly line can retire comfortably, and have great health benefits. Why should someone at GM, doing the same work, make twice as much in comparison ("make" including benefits)?

I'm not certain they're making twice as much.  I don't know the methodology involved in producing that graph, and I'm fairly sure that even if that was once true it hasn't been for years, with regard to new hires. 

 

At the time those old contracts were made, the money was there to cover them-- and then some.  But things went downhill.  Unions have since made major concessions.  During that same period, executive pay has skyrocketed.  The unions seem a lot more in tune with market realities than the people sitting across the table from them.         

I guess it takes facts --

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/gmvstoyota/

 

Average Hourly Salary for Non-Skilled, Assembly Line Worker

Source: Center for Automotive Research

GM: $31.35/hour

NOTE: Includes idle workers still on payroll and those on protected status.

Toyota: $27/hour

NOTE: Includes year-end bonus.

 

Health Care Costs per Vehicle in 2004

Source: 2005 Harbour Report & A.T. Kearny Inc.

GM: $1,525

Toyota: $201

 

Average Labor Cost per U.S. Hourly Worker

Source: GM & Toyota

GM: $73.73

Toyota: $48

 

--

 

2005 article... funny how things didn't change from 2005 to 2008. UAW holding them up!

 

Taking a cue from Toyota - on health care

By Doron Levin, International Herald-Tribune, January 25, 2005

 

General Motors once may have viewed competition from Toyota Motor mainly in terms of vehicle style, cost and quality. GM would be well advised to keep an eye on the falling cost of Toyota pharmaceuticals.

 

Toyota has just opened pharmacies in four of its U.S. manufacturing sites to stem rising health care costs. The move follows a successful 18-month pilot program in Toyota's biggest U.S. manufacturing complex in Georgetown, Kentucky.

 

"About two years ago, as health care was getting more expensive by about 15 percent to 20 percent, we decided to look at the two top components, pharmaceuticals and hospitalization," said Ford Brewer, Toyota's medical director....

 

http://www.nytimes.com/marketing/iht/search/?iht

 

 

Even more. Note the red ink.

 

A Tale of Two Auto Plants:

Pair of Texas Factories Shows How Starting Fresh Gives Toyota an Edge Over GM

By Lee Hawkins Jr. and Norihiko Shirouzu, Wall Street Journal, May 24, 2006

 

ARLINGTON, Texas -- For more than 50 years, General Motors Corp. has built cars and trucks here at Texas' only auto assembly plant, pumping billions of dollars a year into the state economy through taxes, purchases and paychecks.

 

The sprawling factory, one of GM's best, employs 3,000 people and buys myriad parts and services from local suppliers to build the big sport utility vehicles that have been among the company's most profitable -- including

 

Now, though, a rival has come deep into the heart of Texas to battle GM. At a 2,000-acre site in San Antonio, Toyota Motor Corp. is getting ready to start production later this year of the newest generation of Tundra pickup trucks in a plant that will use the Japanese car maker's most advanced machinery and methods...

 

 

[snipped.]

So the actual wage rates are pretty close. 

 

This is the part of the article that jumped out at me:

 

"One big advantage for Toyota is that it hasn't been around long enough in the United States to generate a large population of retirees, who consume medical services in greater quantity than younger, healthier workers.

 

Toyota's U.S. manufacturing operations have fewer than 100 retirees. GM, by contrast, has 422,000 retirees and surviving spouses, compared with 170,000 active employees."

 

The foreign makes came into this market with foreign-made vehicles, for which health and retiree costs were subsidized by their entire nations.  While GM was forced to pass on those costs to US consumers, Toyota wasn't.  Nothing there describes any actual strategy of Toyota's in dealing with health care, other than simply not paying it because their government does.  My storyline there would be socialized medicine proving itself, rather than an indictment of unions.

 

Edit:  Same story in the second article, a vast majority of Toyota's cost advantage results from their having operated under a different governmental system over the past few decades.  Meanwhile, GM's additional costs have little to do with its existing employees.  I still say we're blaming the wrong people for all this.

 

 

I continue to remain skeptical about the claims of wildly-large pay for employees of domestic automakers.  I am sure that no Chrysler employee gets a $6000 paycheck every two weeks, despite the bar chart above. :humor:

 

You must not have read the article or any statements to that effect. It's not a "paycheck", but once you include in the equivalency of benefits that include retirement and health, you are essentially tacking on many fringe goodies that simply are not necessary.

 

Yes, of course I didn't read the Forbes article.  I even noted that in my 8:29 AM post that the Forbes article link was busted.

 

 

The Forbes magazine citation you put up does not execute. http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/06/13/ap3818877.html  Hence, I remain skeptical about the hearsay claims of huge compensation for autoworkers.  ...

 

Ok.  Thanks from putting up the NPR and WSJ articles that show that union autoworkers have pay that averages about $4.00 hour more than the Japanese autoworkers at the US plants.  And thanks for noting that the US companies have to support >$80 of medical costs--and most of that to support retirees.

 

Toyota and the other foreign automakers are just beneficiaries of a demographic cycle that puts the US manufacturers at a huge disadvantage--at this time. 

 

Once again, I will restate it for those of you who want to play the gambit of anticipating GM and then Chrysler fail.  Many thousands of those retirees who will lose medical benefits are your neighbors in Ohio.  The impact of a collapse will be devastating.

 

Can you imagine what is going to happen to the Ohio real estate market if these employers of tens of thousands of Ohioans collapse?  For that matter, they employ tens of thousands of people at the suppliers in Ohio.  That would affect everybody in Ohio, not just people in manufacturing or automaking.

 

Consider this:

...Still, there would be one irreplaceable loss, Mr. McAlinden argued. “Right now, we do $18.5 billion of automotive research and development in a year,” he said, referring to innovative projects like the development of new types of batteries.

 

G.M. in particular is involved in the development of lithium ion batteries to power the next generation of cars. If G.M. disappeared, “the foreign companies would develop the batteries, but not here,” Mr. McAlinden predicted. “We would lose all the additional development connected to that technology. It would be a technology opportunity lost.”...

There are some great articles on this issue in the NY Times right now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/business/economy/17impact.html?pagewanted=2&fta=y

^

yeah I caught that health care line item too, as that's the big difference between the two as the articles note.  I think the Toyota pharmacy concept is interesting, since this would be a "non-profit" operation as far as they are concerned (unless they are collecting some sort of mark-up on the drugs).

 

 

 

 

but even the pharmacy at the plant ties directly into the fact that GM has 4 to 1 retires to current employees. That would work where GM has current plants and employees but I am guessing that the medication needs dwarf the medication needs of the current workforce.

 

Edit: What truth is there to the claim that the UAW has historically one of the fiercest opponents to socialized medicine?

I think Walter Reuther supported the early attempts at this back when Truman was president?

 

Reuther was himself a socialist, or at least a social-democrat, so I'd be suprised if he...and his union...would have opposed it. 

 

On edit, it looked like Reuther supported this into the 1960s:

 

Wayne State collections

 

The Committee for National Health Insurance was organized in 1969 through the efforts of UAW President Walter P. Reuther.  After the passage of Medicare in 1965, enthusiasm for further health insurance changes waned.  Escalating costs and competing health care made it increasingly difficult for the UAW leadership to improve health care benefits for their members through collective bargaining.  The CNHI, a lobbying organization independent of, but closely affiliated with the UAW, conducts research and prepares legislation in support of national health insurance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can't believe how strongly you people support unions. I think the Great Lakes region would be much better off without them.

 

You have to look at how capitalism is changing. We're increasingly a consumer driven society. The company that is more chamillion-like, able to adapt and change to meet those demands most efficiently, is the one that wins. To win, you need flexibility. Unions undermine flexibility.

 

The healthcare and pension argument makes sense - I can't deny that.

It does give companies like Toyota the upper hand. But we have foreign plants too. A lot of that burden should be offset by opening our foreign plants with a younger workforce and even socialized healthcare in some countries.

 

......The company that is more chamillion-like, able to adapt and change to meet those demands most efficiently, is the one that wins. To win, you need flexibility. .....

 

This might be the smartest thing you've written, that I've read.

......The company that is more chamillion-like, able to adapt and change to meet those demands most efficiently, is the one that wins. To win, you need flexibility. .....

 

This might be the smartest thing you've written, that I've read.

 

Except for misspelling chameleon :)

lol!

 

I wasn't sure how to spell it but I typed it in google  - how it sounds - and it didn't give an alternative spelling like it usually does when you misspell something so I figured it was right.

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/autos/0811/gallery.autos_crisis_causes/index.html

 

The above link is to an interesting article at CNN.com entitled "What's really killing Detroit".

David, I completely agree that unions undermine flexibility.  Also that it's a bad thing for competitiveness.  My opinion on unions is complex and has evolved many times over.  As I look around today, I see signs that the chameleonic (I like the word) economy has tremendous downsides.  I'm sure it gets us our new blackberrys a year sooner every time.  Whoop de da, standards of living are tanking.  All this economic agility is wonderful but the fact remains that most financial obligations are not similarly flexible.  Workers can't just bounce around when they lose points for every missed bill.  It didn't use to be like that, in either direction.  Some of this can be blamed on the decline of the labor movement.  What unions typically fight for now is commitment and stability.  We can't really have those things slip any further, look what's happening.           

 

This came up in class tonight, in looking at the labor relations act:  Overtime was not created to enrich the existing workforce or to provide additional leisure time.  It's an incentive to hire more people instead of squeezing the ones you have.  As the workforce becomes more white collar, and in turn more salary-based, this pressure against unemployent eases.  Less leisure time is also a consequence, plus someone else is getting enriched.  It's a whole bad package.     

Come on, the idea of widespread steady and stable industries has always been a myth.  It's a myth that people love to believe but it only exists in very specific types of business.  Even before Industrialization there were tremendous changes from generation to generation caused by diseases, famines, wars, climate, etc.     

 

>Workers can't just bounce around when they lose points for every missed bill.

 

Anyone with ambition to have a great job doing what they want to do has always had to pay their dues and pick up and move to move up or at times just stay alive.

Who moved my friggin cheese  :-P

David, I completely agree that unions undermine flexibility. Also that it's a bad thing for competitiveness. My opinion on unions is complex and has evolved many times over. As I look around today, I see signs that the chameleonic (I like the word) economy has tremendous downsides. I'm sure it gets us our new blackberrys a year sooner every time. Whoop de da, standards of living are tanking. All this economic agility is wonderful but the fact remains that most financial obligations are not similarly flexible. Workers can't just bounce around when they lose points for every missed bill. It didn't use to be like that, in either direction. Some of this can be blamed on the decline of the labor movement. What unions typically fight for now is commitment and stability. We can't really have those things slip any further, look what's happening.

 

This came up in class tonight, in looking at the labor relations act: Overtime was not created to enrich the existing workforce or to provide additional leisure time. It's an incentive to hire more people instead of squeezing the ones you have. As the workforce becomes more white collar, and in turn more salary-based, this pressure against unemployent eases. Less leisure time is also a consequence, plus someone else is getting enriched. It's a whole bad package.  

 

I know what you're saying. My opinion is evolving too, but I'm still torn on the issue. Like I said, I don't blame people for wanting job security and high wages, but at the same time, you have to realize you're in a company that is in some heavy competition.

 

I really wonder what the future holds for unions. From a global perspective, they really need to even the playing field. Other countries and companies have them, but they operate differently. The idea of unions in this industry seems cultural universal. I think eventually they will move towards contract stipulations that apply to union workers in the auto industry worldwide. That alone would provide unions more stability.

Senator John Kyl, R-Arizona, was on PBS' Newshour last night.  He does not want to help the automakers.  He spoke in these grand terms about "reorganizing" and "getting rid of costs".  When asked for details, he said that the automakers have to get rid of some "franchises" (what we call "auto dealerships").  Eliminating dealerships is trivial on the grand scale of automobile companies' expenses and he knows it.

 

Kyl managed to avoid the real discussion, which was that he would be happy with deleting the health benefits for 800,000 retirees of the domestic automakers. 

Senator John Kyl, R-Arizona, was on PBS' Newshour last night. He does not want to help the automakers. He spoke in these grand terms about "reorganizing" and "getting rid of costs". When asked for details, he said that the automakers have to get rid of some "franchises" (what we call "auto dealerships"). Eliminating dealerships is trivial on the grand scale of automobile companies' expenses and he knows it.

 

Kyl managed to avoid the real discussion, which was that he would be happy with deleting the health benefits for 800,000 retirees of the domestic automakers.

 

I watched the same discussion, and as much as my hearing may be great and all, I failed to hear the part about Kyl stating that he wanted to "delete health benefits for 800,000 retirees."

Why is no other long-standing company facing these huge problems of retiree's health benefits?  Surely there have to be some other large institutions that have been around long enough to have more retirees than current employees.  Why don't we hear about any other types of companies facing this problem?  Are the benefits the union workers get so much more expensive/better than what typical retirees get at different types of companies?  I don't understand why this is a problem unique to the auto industry.

Yes. Armco Steel (now AK Steel) and other steel companies have thousands upon thousands of workers, and even more retirees, yet they do not continually cycle every few decades with these major issues of health and retirement benefits.

Part of the problem with the auto makers is that in order to appease to unions during negotiations and not affect the bottom line in the near term is they made a lot of longterm promises in the healthcare and retirement arenas, who's bill is now due. There is also the combined problems of a shrinking workforce, due to increased efficiency and modularization in which suppliers build sub assembly, and the unique situation of a union having a relationship with only 3 or 4 companies that controlled the whole auto industry up until the 80's. There is no other industry that I can think of that has nearly a 1 to 1 relationship of employer to union. Everyother industry (other than steel in the 50s, maybe?)had the influence of the unions spread out over a much larger pool of companies.

 

The combined result of all of these results in astronomical cost per current employee today.

^ LTV bought Republic Steel, Youngstown Sheet & Tube, J&L, and other steel companies.  LTV management schemed a "bankruptcy" where they forced the pension obligations onto the  PBGC.  The pensions were not 100% funded.  The federal PBGC had to use legal process to force the obligations back onto LTV.

 

Eventually, LTV went into bankruptcy and liquidation.  LTV's assets were purchased by Mittal.  Mittal di not assume the obligations to retirees.  I know *a lot* of neighbors and coworkers whose parents lost all of their retiree health benefits. 

Good examples with the steel mills.

 

I watched the same discussion, and as much as my hearing may be great and all, I failed to hear the part about Kyl stating that he wanted to "delete health benefits for 800,000 retirees."

 

And if GM goes into bankruptcy how does that not happen?

There are two types of bankruptcies: Chapter 11 and Chapter 7. Even under Chapter 7, GM cannot legally "delete health benefits for 800,000 retirees" on the spot. I've had the opportunity to study the various bankruptcy laws (part of labor economics)...

Well, that is good news, thank you.  But then how does Senator Kyle, R-Arizona, think that the domestic automakers are going to get "their costs inline" with the competition at the foreign automakers?

 

The huge number of dealerships that the domestic automakers have is not dragging them down significantly.  It is deferred benefits as described by CBC in 175.

Where do the benefits come in priority of being paid out in bankruptcy liquidization in Chapter 7. it just seems to me that there isn't any real chance of there being enough value in GM to pay their debtors and benefits obligation.

 

It seems to me that these costs are going to be borne by the taxpayers one way or another. Do I want to see the same bloated structure of GM come out on the otherside of this debacle? No. But I would like to see a streamlined competitive smaller GM or baby-GMs not a complete blow up ofthe company leaving no trace behind.

 

Also throw in a public tar and feathering of any past surviving GM executives or UAW leaders for good measure. :-D

 

Disclosure: I grew up 5 miles from GM Lordstown, but no direct family  members worked there, lots of friends parents though.

 

 

One of these company's has to fail so that the others can survive.  I know its not what people want to hear, but that the only way the industry can reinvent itself.

One of these company's has to fail so that the others can survive. I know its not what people want to hear, but that the only way the industry can reinvent itself.

 

I know that is probably true but I can't figure out how that would happen if Ford or GM went bankrupt, without killing the entire industry.

 

It's like saying we can save you by amputating your torso, but your head, arms and legs will be fine. It just doesn't work. I can see a merger working but even that is going to require a huge flow of cash from somebody, be it the feds or private investors.

 

If one of these companies goes down, including through a merger, at least one smaller metro area will be severely damaged.  GM and Chrysler build their compact cars at Lordstown and Rockford, respectively.  I hear that new Cruze is pretty decent... Chrysler's cash cow minivans might be the only thing of theirs (other than jeep) to survive a merger, and they're made in Canada.  Body panels for them are made in Twinsburg though.

If one of these companies goes down, including through a merger, at least one smaller metro area will be severely damaged.  GM and Chrysler build their compact cars at Lordstown and Rockford, respectively.  I hear that new Cruze is pretty decent... Chrysler's cash cow minivans might be the only thing of theirs (other than jeep) to survive a merger, and they're made in Canada.  Body panels for them are made in Twinsburg though.

 

that work or car type line could be absorbed by one of the remaining company's.  One going down doesn't indicate that all lines would stop.

Chapter 7:

1. Company closes shop immediately.

2. Trustee liquidates all of the assets, and the money is used to pay off debt.

 

Chapter 11:

1. Company runs as normal, but all major decisions must go through the bankruptcy court.

2. Reorganize, reorganize, reorganize!

3. Creditors/vultures are held off.

 

The laws were essentially rewritten 30 years ago, which had previously been based off of 1898 laws. In 1978, when the new laws were penned, the big selling point was retiree benefits being preserved. Unfortunately, there were a lot of loopholes, and what has happened is that a handful of companies lock up the assets, pay off a few of the creditors, then dies. The fat cats walk out with the money, and the employees and pensioners leave with nothing.

 

LTV was a good example of that.

 

Sometimes, a company will offer concessions and offer a "little bit" to the retirees, but the employees often get sh!tbaged. As with United when they went into Chapter 11, they were able to force the unions to accept vastly lower pay wages and benefits for current employees, while preserving some of the benefits for the retirees -- who were making out much like GM was. That was satisfactory to the banks and to the courts.

If one of these companies goes down, including through a merger, at least one smaller metro area will be severely damaged. GM and Chrysler build their compact cars at Lordstown and Rockford, respectively. I hear that new Cruze is pretty decent... Chrysler's cash cow minivans might be the only thing of theirs (other than jeep) to survive a merger, and they're made in Canada. Body panels for them are made in Twinsburg though.

 

that work or car type line could be absorbed by one of the remaining company's. One going down doesn't indicate that all lines would stop.

 

I don't know... why would one company make want to build both Neons and Cavalier/Cobalt/Cruze's?  And making the same model at two different plants simultaneously is almost unheard of.  The whole idea of merging would be to eliminate redundancy, and those models directly compete.  One would have to go.  I'm lookin at you, neon.  The combined entity would only need one product in each market segment (like a Japanese company)-- one compact, one small SUV, one luxury sedan, etc.  Another part of GM's problem is too many brands, leading to too many near-identical models.  The extra models don't keep extra plants open because they're all made together anyway.  But it costs a lot more to market them.

Let's back up...a company is in business to make money for its owners and/or investors.  It's not in business to provide health care for its retired employees or provide them with pensions so grand they can take 5 overseas trips a year.  Pensions are suicidal for companies as life spans continue to grow thanks to increasingly sophisticated health care, just as social security and Medicare, along with the other entitlement programs, will be America's economic downfall without raising the benefits age to something like 75.  Just like how the US government raided the social security piggy bank for the general fund, big companies have raided their pension funds and now want taxpayers to bail them out. 

The bottom line is that retirement needs to be paid for somehow.  Comparing our model with overseas examples, it seems that directly burdening employers with it may not be the way to go.  It also isn't fair that those in the auto industry get so much while others may work just as hard for just as long and get nothing.  This brings me back to the need for government to consolidate the pension system and make it a benefit of citizenship.  That would bring us in line with our competitors and give our larger industries a fighting chance.   

They were pressed yesterday, and it was abundantly clear that Ford was there for solidarity reasons rather than actually need. Watching Nardelli *Chrysler* beg for help and claim that they had made all these changes, well it was just embarrassing. GM is the hardest nut to crack. Chrysler can go the way of the dodo bird - though obviously Jeep and maybe the minivans should have value to someone. GM clearly needs help and its failure would probably take out the entire auto manufacturing industry in America.

One thing that would help after cash to make into next year - allow the domestics to sell their foreign cars here easily - GM's Opels are fine cars and so are the Euro Fords.

A couple of articles/op-ed pieces out there today for anybody who wants to read them.

 

The first is from cnn.com and it puts numbers to what would happen to the auto industry and the economy too if GM was to collapse. Not a pretty picture. GM still has 22% of the US market and is the single largest seller. The havoc on the supplier chain has huge ripple effects and the supply vacuum would hit the other remaining companies quite hard driving consumer prices up 10-15%.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/19/news/companies/gm_failure_consumers/index.htm

 

Mitt Romney  weighs in on the situation in this NY Times op-ed. He says to let them go bankrupt, but a highly controlled bankrupt with backing from fed guaranteed loans. And he toots his family's horn just for kicks.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?ref=opinion

 

At this point the sane options are basically the same, bailout money with huge restructuring/management change clauses attached or controlled bankruptcy with huge restructuring/management changes. I am for the first one because it would give the suppliers a better chance to reorg with out the banks freezing what ever credit they have left.

In our polls 48-52% (there is a margin of error) of those polled, say "do nothing" and let them fall.

 

 

There is no bias against car companies here right?  8-) :lol:

 

I would like to see GM suffer for killing the street car companies in order to drive bus sales and fueling growth in exurbs and SUVs (although Ford really is to blame for that with the Explorer) and blocking public trans and the list is endless...

 

However..

 

If it wouldn't have huge ripples across the already weak economy, I agree and would say let them die.

 

But it will and it will be ugly, ugly and ugly. Plus the taxpayer will end up picking up the tab anyway in unemployment, Medicaid, loss taxes,etc...Save the drama and try and control the effects.

My mother-in-law lost her GM retiree health care a few months ago, so it has already happened.  They did increase her pension benefits by $400 per month to make up for the difference, but she can't buy the same coverage for $400 per month.

 

We have a profit sharing plan at P&G, all paid in stock, so when we retire, we get the entire proceeds in a lump sum.  At the 20 year point, you can start to divest up to 60% of your P&G stock into company controlled alternative investments.  Since that has been allowed, I think the conventional wisdom is that it has been a wash. 

 

The health care costs are split between P&G and the retiree, and the retiree cost is ~$500/month.  P&G has had a profit sharing plan since the 1890's, and it escalates based on years of service.  The cap has recently been lowered for new employees to 15% of annual pay after ~20 years.  For everyone hired before this change, the cap is 23%.

To me, the hostility and derision faced by this economic sector at this time is just amazing.  We are not better off without them, long or short term.  If executives need to be punished for bad decisions then so be it.  But that is where the blame for executive decisions must stop.

 

For the record, American cars have been doing better than European cars in quality surveys for some time now, though Asian manufacturers have been better than both by large margins.  Many European cars are absolute rubbish, but as always it's quite unfashionable to say so.  There is just so much nigh-hateful prejudice against US manufacturers from their own home market (unprededented in world history, no?) that they may indeed have no chance.

hostility?  Make that reality.  Those companys and unions havent changed the way they do business in years.  Now all must suffer.

F + GM = $3.87

 

 

Now all must suffer.

 

Cue thunder and lightning... if hostility is the reality then I guess we don't disagree.  Actually the workers/unions have changed their approach a great deal, making unprecedented concessions, and it is the upper management and design departments who have refused to change.

For the record, American cars have been doing better than European cars in quality surveys for some time now, though Asian manufacturers have been better than both by large margins.  Many European cars are absolute rubbish, but as always it's quite unfashionable to say so.  There is just so much nigh-hateful prejudice against US manufacturers from their own home market (unprededented in world history, no?) that they may indeed have no chance.

 

Volkswagen's dreadful reliability as of late is mostly to blame for that; most of the other European cars sold here are very well made. Well, Jaguars still have lots of gremlins.

 

Don't forget that the Neon (further up) was replaced by the Dodge Nitro mini-SUV.

Mini SUV? lol. It has a 4 litre engine. That speaks volumes. Dodge replaced their Neon with an SUV in 2009.

They were pressed yesterday, and it was abundantly clear that Ford was there for solidarity reasons rather than actually need. Watching Nardelli *Chrysler* beg for help and claim that they had made all these changes, well it was just embarrassing. GM is the hardest nut to crack.

 

I'm watching it live on CNN.com, and they are literally begging for money. Any money. Loans, bailouts, you name it.

 

"Why should we give you money after we had to bail out the auto industry not all that long ago?"

 

(Silence)

 

--

 

"Unprecedented concessions"? Can you elaborate?

Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin consumes $55 Billion in taxpayers' money to deliver the F-22 air superiority fighter that was conceived during the Cold War and finally delivered in 2005.  Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Congress "the F-22 still has not performed a single mission in Iraq or Afghanistan".

 

http://spectrum.ieee.org/nov08/acquire

Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin consumes $55 Billion in taxpayers' money to deliver the F-22 air superiority fighter that was conceived during the Cold War and finally delivered in 2005. Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Congress "the F-22 still has not performed a single mission in Iraq or Afghanistan".

 

we have already achieved air superiority in Iraq and Afghanistan.  why let other countries take a look at it.  It is a stealth[ish] fighter, no reason to let it spend any time on Iran's radars that it doesn't have to.