Watch the Stimulus Package Carefully


Friday’s O details the transportation ask from Portland and other local electeds for the stimulus package that everyone expects Congress to take up shortly.

One thing to be careful of – under current rules at the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration it’s probably much easier to get road projects up and running than transit projects. Let’s hope the new administration figures out how to fix that!


44 responses to “Watch the Stimulus Package Carefully”

  1. Absolutely – I worked hard to get Portland’s $400M+ package to maintain its arterials passed (and hope it will be included in some form in the stimulus package). But I would not like to see the current state of the bureaucracy turn the stimulus package into something that makes our transportation system LESS sustainable.

  2. “But I would not like to see the current state of the bureaucracy turn the stimulus package into something that makes our transportation system LESS sustainable.”

    Precisely why we should quit building light rail – it is not sustainable. It requires massive subsidies from day one to its eventual closure due to being just too much a financial burden.

  3. billy Says:

    Precisely why we should quit building light rail – it is not sustainable. It requires massive subsidies from day one to its eventual closure due to being just too much a financial burden.

    All those rail closures in Western Europe were frightening, weren’t they? Oh wait . . .

  4. Billy,

    Your a funny, funny person….

    Please, for the class, tell us what light-rail lines have closed due to financial issues?

  5. “But I would not like to see the current state of the bureaucracy turn the stimulus package into something that makes our transportation system LESS sustainable.”

    Sustainability starts with financial self-sustainability. Until transit users completely finance transit services instead of farebox revenues covering only 21 percent of the operational costs, and until bicyclists are directly taxed to pay for bicycle infrastructure; neither are sustainable. Any transportation infrastructure stimulus package must be one that does NOT increase reoccurring taxpayer financed debt for future generations. That must include NOT adding to continual non-user taxpayer funded subsidies for transit operations.

  6. And, Terry, how much does gasoline really cost? Do you seriously believe that the price at the pump reflects how much Americans are actually paying for it?

    When you start talking about subsidies, perhaps you should look a little closer to home.

    http://tinyurl.com/66vhsr

  7. Chris asked: “where does the requested bailout of the auto industry fit in your model of financial self-sustainability?”

    First off, the gas taxes and other fees drivers pay (at least in Oregon) pay the majority of the infrastructure costs for roads in addition to subsidizing transit and bicycle infrastructure. If this were not the case, the Governor would not be proposing increasing driving fees for more transportation projects. Therefore, unlike using stimulus dollars for transit projects that will undoubtedly require additional taxpayer subsidies from non-users and increase reoccurring public debt, using the stimulus dollars for road projects is an investment whereby the government will receive dollars directly back from the users.

    Furthermore, Barack Obama in his news conference last week called the auto industry “the backbone of American Manufacturing”. As the auto industry goes, so does the US economy. While transit operations have been heavily subsidized by the non-user taxpayers since the early 1970’s, this is the first time during that same period of time the “entire” domestic auto industry needs some taxpayer assistance. The closing of the Freightliner plant with the trickle down right here in Portland will create an estimated loss 2700 family wage jobs. If one of the big three domestic auto manufacturers were to fail, we would be talking 1.5m jobs nationwide. Therefore, a far better stimulus package to get the economy moving again, instead of increasing subsidies for transit, and thereby increasing the ongoing debt, would be to spend the stimulus dollars on roads and bridges, and provide a significant income tax credit for the purchase of ANY new American made (domestic only) car or truck.

    As for what we pay for gas and the profits of the big oil companies; the oil companies actually make approximately three cents less per dollar of doing business than do the electric utilities – yet we continue to subsidize the electric utilities with tax breaks and subsidies for wind farms, solar energy installations, conservation efforts, etc. So maybe we should all be complaining about the high cost of electricity or reduce the subsidies to that industry.

  8. Furthermore, Barack Obama in his news conference last week called the auto industry “the backbone of American Manufacturing”. As the auto industry goes, so does the US economy. While transit operations have been heavily subsidized by the non-user taxpayers since the early 1970’s, this is the first time during that same period of time the “entire” domestic auto industry needs some taxpayer assistance.

    Cute. The “entire” auto industry needs assistance. Unlike 1979 when it was only Chrysler.

    So much for the much-vaunted free market. Perhaps if the Big Three had spent some time developing vehicles Americans wanted to buy, they wouldn’t be in this predicament. And perhaps if they streamlined their development process so that entirely new vehicles didn’t take eight years, as opposed to 30 months in Japan, they’d be flexible enough to respond to the market.

    Subsidizing Americans to buy American vehicles sounds like socialism, Terry!

  9. I’m not sure ‘sustainability’ should be at the top of the list of issue priorities. I’d rather hear ‘multi-modal equity’ issues addressed, hear how economies have less to do with financing than with fundamental structuring.

    Even if our car fleet could be completely zero-emission, there would still be too many cars for other modes of travel (walking, bicycling, mass transit) to function optimally and affect future development most sustainably, equitably, in short most desirably.

    I believe GM should NOT be awarded any subsidy for further fuel cell technology research. Hydrogen has far better application in a hybrid drivetrain. I’m frickin sick of hearing supposedly knowledgeable ‘progressives’ going all gaga over hydrogen fuel cell. Hydrogen fuel cell is GM’s wet dream fraud.

  10. Chris Smith wrote: One thing to be careful of – under current rules at the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration it’s probably much easier to get road projects up and running than transit projects. Let’s hope the new administration figures out how to fix that!

    I’m not sure I want to fix that.

    Our leaders here in Portland have shown a repeated willingness to let our existing transit infrastructure suffer at the hands of photo ops in front of new rail lines.

    Let’s hope that our leaders will act according to their Democratic principles and ensure that any new transit funding is used to ensure that ALL Portlanders have equal access to quality transportation and that we maintain what we have – which means, gulp, fixing our obsolete bus system.

    Only then can we talk about upgrading bus lines to BRT or Streetcar lines, or consider light rail lines to the urban sprawl (including to Vancouver).

    Since November 4th, I’ve feared that we have taken another step towards segregating the population between the transit-haves (namely those who are politically connected or are rich developers) and the transit-have-nots, and those who don’t even want or care for transit who get their own special category.

  11. Shorter Terry:

    multi-billion dollar subsidy to prop up failed business model = prudent governance and sound economic policy

    paint for a bike lane = Mao, Lenin, and Marx all rolled into one. The only thing missing is the gulag.

    Is that about right?

  12. Really, we shouldn’t be subsidizing anything at all. That includes both short-range rail-based transit that can never break even, as well as the domestic auto industry.

    The automakers here in the US screwed up by focusing so heavily on mondo-sized SUVs and large trucks with poor mileage. They effectively shafted themselves, all their employees, and their entire industry in this country. All for short term profit.

    We need new domestic automakers.

  13. So yesterday on Google was a headline implied that this type of stimulus package may not work too well:

    Asphalt shortage delays road repairs nationwide

    And they called it what it is: “Shortage” not a “Price spike.” The important thing here: if the local governments all get a bunch of money from the federal government, and then bid against each other, driving up the price of asphalt in the next couple years, (i.e. before we can rebuilt refineries to make more,) it will not result in any more asphalt being available, and all these projects will not happen, (and the people that are supposed to work on those projects won’t get hired.) What will happen is a bunch of money will get transferred from our[taxpayers] pockets to the oil companies pockets…

  14. Jeff said: “So much for the much-vaunted free market.”

    Since the inception of TriMet, there has been no free market in transit. Capitol costs are completely subsidized much of it coming from the Federal Highway Trust Fund where the funds come from the federal tax on motor fuels, not from the transit ridership. Some funds also come from the Oregon Lottery. Moreover, only 21 percent of TriMet’s operating costs comes through the farebox from passengers. Most of the other 79 percent is funded by a payroll tax and government taxpayer funded grants. Additionally, most new development along transit lines that is touted as a by-product of streetcars, light rail or bus service is heavily taxpayer subsidized too with tax breaks, cheap land provided by PDC and property tax abatements. Therefore, before complaining about a stimulus package aimed to help out the auto industry, transit needs to become a free marketplace that is also 100 percent financially self-sustainable without taxpayer assistance.

  15. Terry Parker Says:

    From the link I provided above:

    In 2009, Oregon taxpayers will spend $834.1 million on military resources to secure foreign petroleum and reserves while receiving only $305 thousand for renewable energy.

    So I will just fix your comment:

    Therefore, before complaining about a stimulus package aimed to help out transit, the auto and oil industries need to become a free marketplace that is also 100 percent financially self-sustainable without taxpayer assistance.

  16. “As the auto industry goes, so does the US economy.”

    Maybe what’s needed is a hacksaw to unchain us from that sinking anchor.

    It’s like that term tossed around with regards to the financial crisis: “too big to fail.” The problem isn’t with the failing, it’s with the “too big.”

  17. This is too deep for me….Our jobs are going to end up in China and India anyway. So why plan for anything? Just learn to speak Spanish if you want a future.

  18. If my Civic dies soon, at least I got 120,000 miles from her. Most Ford’s don’t last that long.

    If she lasts as long as I expect, then she’s at midlife. I won’t buy into a socialist plan to save our American Automakers for at least 8 more years, unless my Honda blows up.

    Even then, Honda can make a good car. Ford has failed every chance I’ve given them. Without socialistic tax breaks, why would I go with them?

  19. The “free” market has failed, so stop blithering on and on about how wonderful it is.

    I have been having knock down drag out blog combat with the remnants of this failed imaginary system.

    Billions and billions on the military to protect us from phantoms.

    Billions handed to failed bank executives.

    All of that money needs to be used for infrastructure!

    That includes TRANSIT-BRIDGES-ROAD REPAIR!

    Transit needs huge subsidies because those subsidies actually benefit the citizens, the ones who use transit and the people employed in transit.

    THE CAR IS DOOMED, STOP LIVING IN YOUR FANTASY WORLD!

    And you free market worshipers, I suggest you watch this video:

    http://rantingsofatrimetbusdriver.blogspot.com/2008/11/capatalism-saved-by-socialism.html

  20. To Terry and all that think they should “subsidize” mass transit.

    1. Do you want all of the people who ride the bus/rail on the road with you during rush hour? You should be happy to get more people off the road and free up space on the roads.

    2. There is no way to pave our way out of traffic. The minute a new lane is open, it is jammed. Do you want 12 lanes running everywhere? If you want that go live in LA or Atlanta or Dallas.

    3. This is the second time PDX is building this transit system. There used to be rails all over the city. GM paid cities across the nation to remove the rails so that people would be chained to their cars.

    As for subsidies, shove it. Your everyday life is subsidized. The roads you drive on are not just paid with gas tax, it is also paid with federal dollars.

  21. Pete:

    1. The bus and MAX are two different beasts– If the MAX were torn up there would be a net increase in BUS demand, not AUTO demand. No one advocates removing the BUS system; only charging a reasonable fare that covers most operating expenses and removing barriers to private competition.

    2. If a new lane is added and is instantly jammed, it goes to prove that our road system is way behind demand (most of it in the Portland area was designed for 1960’s traffic). Cars do not magically appear out of nothingness. If we cant “build our way out of congestion,” then we shouldn’t be spending billions of dollars to do so with light rail.

    3. A myth. GM did not pay Portland to tear out its streetcar system– the streetcar system was obsolete technology that cost too much money to maintain and expand. Busses were cost effective. People are “chained” to their cars because they want to be.

    4. The roads we drive on are partially funded with federal dollars that come from the federal gas tax. The MAX you ride on is also funded from the same gas tax.

  22. Suppose that Lake Oswego were chosen as the next lucky community to get an expressway thru its heart…from Oak Grove across the Willamette and thru the Hund Club to 217 at Kruse Woods. My guess is they would demurr…as any self respecting community would. Why commit collective suicide. No one wants big roads any more; or if they do only through someone else’s town.
    Better to invest in transportation alternatives that are fast, reliable, clean and fun; that build up rather than diminish our communities…Streetcar, lightrail and commuter rail.

  23. Pete wrote: 3. This is the second time PDX is building this transit system. There used to be rails all over the city. GM paid cities across the nation to remove the rails so that people would be chained to their cars.

    First of all, there were not “rails all over the city” – remember, back in 1930, the City didn’t really exist to the extent it does now (yes, Portland DID sprawl!), and there were significant gaps in the historic streetcar system.

    Secondly, there is absolutely, positively NO connection between the “streetcar conspiracy” and Portland. National City Lines had no involvement in any way, shape or form in Portland. NONE. Further, since I’ve been doing a lot of reading with regards towards this conspiracy theory, it should be noted that many of the streetcar systems – specifically, in Los Angeles – actually SURVIVED ownership of National City Lines, and were removed not by NCL but the subsequent government owned transit agency.

    The only thing that could be even remotely true is that, yes, NCL did convert a lot of trolley lines to bus operations. So did a lot of non-NCL transit companies (i.e. Portland).

  24. Lenny Anderson wrote: Better to invest in transportation alternatives that are fast, reliable, clean and fun; that build up rather than diminish our communities…Streetcar, lightrail and commuter rail.

    You mean, “alternatives” that effectively subsidize developers, and discriminate against those who rely on bus service as well as those who have a transportation need outside of “weekday rush hours only”?

    Speaking of “clean”, I actually had a rare opportunity to ride MAX, and frankly graffiti on the westside is much more prevalent. Further, in therms of “fast” – we had a five minute delay at Kings Hill/SW Salmon for a “fare inspection” which consisted of watching the Fare Inspectors stand on the platform while we all sat in the train waiting for them to check out tickets (they never boarded). And “fun”…I guess severe track hunting is “fun” if it were a Disneyland ride (specifically between Gateway and Hollywood westbound). Fortunately my wife was not with me, else we’d have to redefine “clean” (as in vomit on the floor of the car).

  25. Fortunately my wife was not with me, else we’d have to redefine “clean” (as in vomit on the floor of the car).

    I really have to wonder how often these things happen, since I do happen to hear about them a bit, but I’ve never seen anything that bad.

    The worst three I’ve seen was a guy obviously drunk and drinking wine on the Streetcar, I’ve seen a near fight on MAX, and I saw some very obnoxious teenagers kicked off a bus by the driver after other passengers started talking back.

    No fluids though. At Fred Meyers once, but I’ll save that for a non-transit blog. Portland’s transit system usually impresses me, though I’m not a daily user so maybe I just don’t use it enough.

  26. 1. Anthony is correct, General Motors had nothing to do with the for profit transit company in Portland replacing streetcars with busses. The streetcars system was in deed obsolete technology that was not profitable. Furthermore, the busses that replaced the street cars were gasoline powered built by Mack and some Flexble Twin Coaches, also gasoline powered.

    2. Only a small percentage of the oil imported to the US comes from Iraq. The majority comes from Canada, Mexico and Saudi Arabia.

    3. Has anybody noticed what President Elect Barack Obama in now being chauffeured around in? Yup, it is a big full sized SUV. Any vehicle that gets good enough gas mileage for the President Elect to use ought to be good enough for the rest of us!

    4. Lenny Anderson wrote: “Better to invest in transportation alternatives that are fast, reliable, clean and fun; that build up rather than diminish our communities”

    Fast? Snail rail streetcars are anything but fast and neither is bicycling or most transit options if transfers are necessary.

    Reliable? Nothing is more reliable than a good car or truck.

    Clean? Most of TriMet’s vehicles are anything but clean inside.

    Fun? A subjective term – the assumption here is he must be referring te his own antics on a bicycle that he is getting away with.

    That build up rather than diminish the community? Increasing the ongoing taxpayer funded transit operation subsidies for generations to come is not building up the community. Increasing such a public debt only diminishes consumer spending that would build up the community.

    And Lenny forgot to mention “Safe” – Call 911 – get the cops – there is more trouble on Max – at the Max station – on the bus. Enough said! Too many antics.

  27. Terry Parker Says:

    3. Has anybody noticed what President Elect Barack Obama in now being chauffeured around in? Yup, it is a big full sized SUV. Any vehicle that gets good enough gas mileage for the President Elect to use ought to be good enough for the rest of us!

    You require an armored vehicle?

    I was in DC a couple of years ago and happened to see G W Bush zoom by with all his Secret Service agents, et al. Four SUVs, Terry, all of them certainly heavily armored because that’s what we do these days to protect the lives of our presidents.

  28. Since we’re moving onto discussion of our new President who has called for environmental Change, I wonder if he’ll retire the two VC-25As (a.k.a. Boeing 747-200s) and replace them with a single, more fuel efficient plane. I’d like to suggest a Boeing 717-200 (however now out of production but widely cited for its fuel efficiency) or a Boeing 737-800.

    Of course, even better would be a turboprop, or a railroad car that can be attached to the back of an Amtrak train, or even a motorcoach, but for security reasons an airplane is probably still desirable.

    The VC-25 still screams “we have the biggest airplane, we’re still bigger than you”. Someone still has to pay the gas bill for it.

  29. If you think about it, taxpayers have been constantly bailing out transit operations in Portland since late 1969 when TriMet took over the for-profit companies of Rose City Transit and the three regional blue lines, Intercity Busses, Portland Stages and Tualatin Valley Busses. Since transit fares only cover 21 percent of the operational costs, subsidies to transit from the Federal Highway Trust Fund, the payroll tax, parking meter revenue for streetcar operations, grants from the legislature, etc are in reality an ongoing taxpayer funded bailout – 40 years worth of a bailout.

    Bicyclists too are the recipients of Federal Highway Trust Funding and taxpayer funded bailout dollars since they are not directly taxed with a bicycle fees to pay for the specialized infrastructure they want and use it as freeloaders.

    Now it is time to bailout the taxpaying contributors, the motorists who pay the fuel taxes that go into the Federal Highway Trust Fund, with a stimulus package for roads and bridges, in part to make up for all those highway funds that have been poached and siphoned off for the ongoing transit and bicycle infrastructure bailouts.

    As for the vehicle Obama is driven around in; no reason why the Feds can not armor plate a Ford Escape, possibly a Hybrid or another small domestic American made vehicle that would obtain better mileage than a full-sized Chev Suburban. I don’t drive a vehicle that large even though I need a vehicle that has a significant amount of cargo capacity. Sharing the sacrifice also must mean compromise at the executive level.

  30. “Increasing such a public debt only diminishes consumer spending that would build up the community. ”

    —>What a load of dog feces. God am I sick of hearing this market baloney.

    “If you think about it, taxpayers have been constantly bailing out transit operations in Portland since late 1969 when TriMet took over the for-profit companies of Rose City Transit”

    —>[Moderator: Personally-directed remark removed.]

    “Bicyclists too are the recipients of Federal Highway Trust Funding and taxpayer funded bailout dollars”

    —>Those evil bicyclists, sucking down tax dollars. THE HORROR..THE HORROR..

    Well, I can’t do anymore Portland Transport, I get a headache visiting here lately….

  31. Terry Parker wrote: If you think about it, taxpayers have been constantly bailing out transit operations in Portland since late 1969

    The United States is an economic hybrid of sorts – we claim to be “capitalists” but then we ultimately subsidize a lot of different special interest groups.

    Yes – we do subsidize things, many things for which we as a society have decided it is better for everyone as a whole to pay, and receive a consistent, equitable level of service. Police and fire services come to mind. When you call 9-1-1, you can count on a certain level of service regardless of who you are or where you are.

    When it comes to transit, I think that public transit is one of those utilitarian things that deserves government intervention – decades have proven that the private sector simply does not operate public transit very well. Rose City Transit was near-bankrupt and in danger of shutting down taking away all forms of public transit in Portland.

    However, Portland has moved away from a public service model of transit towards a model in which certain favored groups receive more transit than others. Despite Oregon state law that states that a transit district’s boundary shall exist no further than 2.5 miles from a route or stop, there are areas within TriMet’s service boundary that are unquestionably further away – and 2.5 miles is far greater than what a reasonable person would expect to walk to transit.

    Some areas of Portland get nothing more than a couple of buses during rush hour, while others get multiple buses and light rail and streetcar services – not all of which are warranted for the area. Further, the Streetcar and Light Rail stops are often “gold-plated” while the bus stop is often nothing but a bus stop sign – leading to the phrase “separate but equal” of the 1950s and 1960s civil rights debates.

    Yes – some areas of Portland have a greater population and by extension need more service – but that doesn’t mean “better” service. Unfortunately that is what Portland has come down to – and this so-called “stimulus package” and its supporters appear to continue the pattern of creating transit “haves” and “have-nots” – some folks will get gold-plated Streetcar lines and other folks will get poor quality bus service.

    Ultimately someone has to pay for that stimulus package, and I don’t recall getting a discount on my taxes because I use far less in federal services than others. I pay the same in taxes (actually a little more, since I can’t deduct any of my living expenses) and I pay the same in TriMet fare. Yet there are folks who claim to “represent” me and want to discriminate against a certain group of residents in favor of another. I have no problem with subsidizing a service as long as it’s equal. I do have a problem with giving someone money with nothing in return.

  32. I noted while doing trip plans at adidas the other day that there are over 20 bus trips inbound on the Barbur corridor between 6am and 7:30am or a bus every five minutes or better. Folks out there are hardly short changed for service. Unfortunately, ridership on the 94X and 12 Barbur had been declining prior to the gas crunch, and cost per ride ranged (2007) from over $2.50 per ride (12) to almost $4 per ride (94X).
    Meanwhile on Interstate MAX TriMet serves twice the number of riders, over 13K, at less than $2 per ride with service never more frequent than 6 trains per hour or every 10 minutes.
    Looks to me like the Barbur corrdior service is generous but ineffective. What is the fix? Perhaps transit that serves more people at less cost in its own ROW…what we call MAX.

  33. Lenny Anderson wrote: I noted while doing trip plans at adidas the other day that there are over 20 bus trips inbound on the Barbur corridor between 6am and 7:30am or a bus every five minutes or better.

    Lenny, what good is a bus if IT DOESN’T STOP FOR YOU? What part of that don’t you get? You can’t get on transit if the damn bus won’t stop! Under your logic, I (as a resident in the City of Portland) am served by Wilsonville’s SMART bus (because the 201 drives on Barbur past my stop to reach the Barbur TC.)

    Further, what good is a bus if it starts at Barbur TC and heads inbound and you live SOUTH of Barbur TC? You can’t get on a bus if it doesn’t drive to you! Under your logic, I’m served by the MAX Yellow Line because the Yellow Line uses a part of the historic Highway 99W (which Barbur is still part of).

    Looks to me like the Barbur corrdior service is generous but ineffective. What is the fix? Perhaps transit that serves more people at less cost in its own ROW…what we call MAX.

    OK, if MAX is so cost-effective, then here’s a project for you, Lenny.

    Interstate MAX cost $350 million. You have 30 seconds to find that money and start spending it.

    But wait, there’s a catch. The $350 million was for 5.8 miles of track. The 12-Barbur Line is roughly three times as long, so that means you now have to come up with $1 billion – PLUS the inflation cost.

    I’ve already calculated that investments to the 12 line to make it similar to BRT would cost approximately $30 million…I’ll say even $50 or even $100 million…which includes new buses running at 12 minute headways span-of-service/span-of-service-day, and includes hybrid-electric, articulated buses.

    BRT projects have consistently proven to attract ridership despite your blatant anti-bus rants.

    So, can you come up with $1 billion plus dollars to install MAX – and ensure that NO riders are left behind? Let’s see it happen. I think it’ll certainly be easier to find $100 million as opposed to $1 billion plus.

  34. As was shown in the Milwaukie HCT study comparing LRT and BRT, the key cost factor is due to the need to creat an exclusive right of way. Without that you have to take out the “R”; your route cannot be rapid, nor reliable. No question getting transit of any kind into its own ROW in the Barbur corridor will be expensive regardless of vehicle type.
    The adjustment of bus travel times in that corridor with peak hour trips running about 10 minutes longer than non-peak tell that story. MAX Yellow from Expo to Pioneer Square is 30 minutes…morning, noon, and night.
    Note as well that LRT projects typically include a total rebuild of the entire public right of way, property line to property line, sewers, sidewalks, signals, landscaping.
    It is possible to improve transit without such costy elements, and Barbur with a bus every 5 minutes in the peaks seems like a fine place to start with some re-deployment of resources in the short term to grow ridership. I will leave it to the experts (ie. riders) out there to make this happen.

  35. It is possible to improve transit without such costy elements, and Barbur with a bus every 5 minutes in the peaks seems like a fine place to start with some re-deployment of resources

    BINGO!

    Give that man a ceeeegar!

  36. This country owes plenty to General Motors and the other domestic automobile manufacturers. In the days that followed the 9/11 terrorist attack, consumer spending came to a standstill. Ford and Chrysler announced plant closures. GM came up with the concept of zero percent financing to keep their factories open, workers on the job and to sell their products. Ford and Chrysler soon followed with zero percent financing plans of their own. It worked, after almost ten days of no sales at new car dealerships, sales flourished. Other than new car sales, consumer spending remained stagnated for months. The only bright side in gross national product was the new car sales. The auto industry had saved the economy this time around.

    Should one of the big three auto manufacturers fail today, it would cost this country with trickledown 1.5 to 2.5 million jobs. So here is another thought: Since the concept of the stimulus package is to make credit available, use some of the stimulus package money for zero percent auto loans that could be used for any new car or truck purchased from one of the big three domestic auto manufacturers and thereby stimulating the consumer sales side of the backbone of American Manufacturing. One small step to get the domestic auto industry rolling again would be the starter motor to the giant step of getting the economy moving again.

  37. “GM came up with the concept of zero percent financing to keep their factories open”

    They didn’t come up with it, furniture stores have been doing that for at least as long as I can remember. And in case you haven’t noticed, furniture stores fail every other week.

    The only bright side in gross national product was the new car sales. The auto industry had saved the economy this time around.

    And when they stopped the zero percent financing, the market collapsed. It reminds me of the subprime mortgage bubble, you let a bunch more people buy more house than they can really afford and the prices goes up and more people buy houses, and then when the process unwinds, the only thing that can happen is that the prices have to go back down and wait for the houses to sell…

  38. Terry Parker Says:

    So here is another thought: Since the concept of the stimulus package is to make credit available, use some of the stimulus package money for zero percent auto loans that could be used for any new car or truck purchased from one of the big three domestic auto manufacturers and thereby stimulating the consumer sales side of the backbone of American Manufacturing. One small step to get the domestic auto industry rolling again would be the starter motor to the giant step of getting the economy moving again.

    Here’s another thought: loan the Big Three money contingent on them finally building vehicles Americans want to buy without special financing deals.

    So much for the “free market.”

  39. … the big three domestic auto manufacturers and thereby stimulating the consumer sales side of the backbone of American Manufacturing

    The Big 3 account for an increasingly smaller percentage of vehicles built in the US. What about “foreign” manufacturers who build products in American factories?

  40. If the Big Three are going to get a bail out, it should be tied to improving public transportation. Have them retool to build more buses, locomotives, light and commuter rail vehicles and streetcars. They can’t just be left to continue business as usual.

Leave a Reply to Brian Bundridge Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *