This pretty much sums it up!!

Nitro Owners Forum

Help Support Nitro Owners Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Bill McElroy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2000
Messages
10,830
Reaction score
4
Location
Michigan
This sums it up nicely......these Senators do NOT care about this country OR it's worker's....and Mitch Albom explains it nicely!!









December 13, 2008

Hey, you senators: Thanks for nothing

A few parting words for the senators who squashed the auto rescue



By MITCH ALBOM

FREE PRESS COLUMNIST

Do you want to watch us drown? Is that it? Do want to see the last gurgle of economic air spit from our lips? If so, senators, know this: You
 
FYI . . . (from today's Washington Post)

__________________________________________

Majority of Public Opposes Auto Rescue

Poll Finds Most Blame Industry for Problems, Believe Failure Won't Hurt Economy



By Jon Cohen and Jennifer Agiesta

Washington Post Staff Writers

Tuesday, December 16, 2008; D08



Most Americans continue to oppose a government-backed rescue plan for Detroit's Big Three automakers as majorities blame the industry for its own problems and are unconvinced failure would hurt the economy, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.



Overall, 55 percent of those polled oppose the latest plan that Chrysler, Ford and General Motors executives pitched to Congress last week, on par with public opposition to earlier, pricier efforts. But with 42 percent support, the new request for up to $14 billion in emergency loans has more backers than previous proposals to secure up to $34 billion in loan guarantees.



But as with the earlier bids, those who strongly oppose the measure greatly outnumber those who are strongly supportive.



Opposition to the automaker bailout is fueled by the widespread perception that the companies themselves are responsible for their predicament, not the faltering economy. In the new poll, three-quarters of Americans said Detroit's woes are mainly the fault of its own management decisions, and a sizable majority of those who blame the front office object to government help.



Nor have Detroit's Big Three made significant progress persuading the public that bankruptcy proceedings would deepen the broader economic slowdown. Sixty percent said it would make no difference or would be good for the economy if one or more of the companies were forced to restructure under the protection of bankruptcy laws.



Democrats are among the most wary of the economic impact of failure, with 42 percent saying it would hurt the economy. They are more apt to advocate federal aid -- 52 percent support it, up from 42 percent support for previous versions of the rescue bill. But they, too, are deeply critical of company managers -- 72 percent fault Detroit's strategies, not the overall economy.



Republican opposition has grown stronger, with 69 percent now against the bailout, an increase of 12 points since chief executives from General Motors, Chrysler and Ford last appeared on Capitol Hill to plead their case. Half of all Republicans polled now strongly oppose the plan.



Overall, independents continue to lean against the plan, with 57 percent opposing it and 41 percent supporting it.



Regional differences remain sharp.



About six in 10 of those in the South and West are opposed to the bailout, while those in the Northeast and Midwest, home to much of the affected manufacturing base, are split evenly on the idea.



In many cases regional divisions appear to trump partisan sentiment. Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, a 51 percent majority in the South oppose the plan, as do 49 percent of those in the West, while broad majorities of those in the Midwest (56 percent) and the Northeast (61 percent) support the loans.



Union households are no more apt than those without a union member to favor the plan, 44 percent compared with 42 percent. However, the union householders who support the plan are more likely to be strongly behind the bailout.



The poll was conducted by landline and cellphone from Dec. 11 to 14 among a random national sample of 1,003 adults. The results from the full poll have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Error margins for subgroups are larger.
 
I don't pretend to know all the answers. And like most I probably don't know enough to have an opinion. But who really knows what the right answer is. Bailing out may help now, but does it shake things up enough to keep GM or Chrysler going long term? Bankruptcy would be bad in the short term for sure, but could a new leaner and tougher GM or Chrysler rise out of bankruptcy, and have a better future. The best road to take is not always the easiest road to take. But again I don't know, I am sitting back pretending that others know what they are doing.
 
I believe that the US government should absolutely provide assistance for many reasons. The foreign car companies also receive assistance from their governments in addition to ours :eek:. I wonder if there is this much resentment in their native countries when they are given assistance. Voting down the bill was the correct next step if I understand all this correctly. This will lead to the correct solution where the TARP money is used for the auto bail out. There is no need to secure additional money when there is over 700 billion already available and would otherwise be thrown into a black hole in the financial industry. Hopefully the timing for getting the TARP money will work out.
 
WHY is the public so opposed to the Big 3 asking for LOANS totalling 1/28th of what the Gov't GAVE to Wall ST?......I don't get it!!!! NOBODY was complaining or hollering for the collapse of the Banks and Insurance companies which produce NOTHING but paper,nobody was asking for the termination/resignation of the Banks and AIG's CEO's (hell,..they threw PARTIES and gave out BONUSES after their bailout) and nobody had to go to DC for "hearings, reveal recovery plans, etc..etc"..yet the potential "unemployment" of MILLIONS of people is all the sudden an issue!!



Would somebody PLEASE explain that to me,..Why is it okay to give HUNDREDS of BILLIONS in FREE money to Banks and Insurance Co's......but LOANs to Auto Co's is not??? A little help here please!!!!:angry: I can get along just fine w/out a few banks or insurance companies,..but I need my vehicle!! Oh...and the Banks and Insurance companies didn't create their situations??? (Well no...not really..as a mattor of fact....CONGRESS caused it through their own lack of insight, mismanagement, piss poor policies and NO oversite whatsoever,...so WHO has to pay the price now because of that??....It's a mystery to me...clue me in..PLEASE!!
 
Not "yet".....they sold off and/or borrowed against virtually every asset they had a year or so ago (just before the credit crunch)....they still have some cash left.....but it won't last long....especially since NOBODY can seem to get credit with all the FREE money the banks are sitting on!! Wasn't the bank bailout to loosen up credit and stimulate the economy?? Why are they sittin on the cash??? Some banks won't even lend $$$ to dealers or car buyers....WTF is up w/THAT??:angry:
 
Mac



I hope it was not my reply that inspired your subsequent response. As far as I'm concerned if they are not willing to use TARP money for some reason then I support securing more money to Loan. It just seems that the financial money would be better spent if redirected to the auto industry. As a matter of fact I have argued that if they gave (not loaned) the auto industry the money they wanted out of the TARP money, it would be much better spent than anything they could on the finance side.
 
Hey ... how about using some of the TARP money to offer a tax incentive for Americans to buy an American car. Maybe like a $2000 rebate or something.
 
There was a 'major credit problem', that required an infusion of money to correct. It had to do with the guarantee of loans, for the most part, as I understand it.



I think (please note the word 'think'), that the biggest objection that many people have, is that it is believed that the short term loans that GM and Chrysler want (and possibly Ford down the road), don't seem to address the real problems that they have. To many, it appears to simply be a band aid on a compound fracture.



While I certainly do not understand the complexity of the overall problems, I do understand that the cost basis that many of the US Auto Plants (operated by Honda, BMW, Mercedes, etc) have, is considerably lower than the cost basis that the Big Three have. Hence, the 'perceived problem'.



I believe that the other problem that bothers people is this:



'If the auto mfg's can now drop prices by the amount's they are dropping them, and also offer very low cost to 'free' loans - why have they been charging so much for the same vehicles earlier?



For me, I'm one of those folks that stopped buying new cars in 1987 (21 years ago). I'm simply not going to pay those kinds of prices. I buy good quality used cars, and have not owned a 'foreign built' car (IE: regardless of where it was built) since the early 90's. Only have owned two of them my entire lifetime (1 new VW Rabbit Diesel and one used BMW).



And not to be hammering on the UAW (although it's going to seem I'm doing it) - the deal that was proposed last week that had the Senate ready to sign off, only needed the agreement of the UAW to adjust their costs to meet the level that is used in the 'other plants' - and the UAW wouldn't go for it.



After all this, it appears that the President will provide some type of relief, in the next day or two as he returns from his trip to Iraq.



Tex
 
I have to agree with both sides on this.



First Wall street screwed the whole damn country and it was pure fruad no matter how you look at it. One of the big three networks, I can't remember which one, did a excellant report of laying out what Wall street did. The swaps are nothing but insurance to get people/firms/banks to buy up very risky mortagages bundled together. They could not call them insurance or insurance rules kick in and they have to have cash enough to cover the debt. Calling it swaps they got around that problem. The fraud part came in when the firms selling the swaps brought in world class mathematician
 
Paul.....no problem...your reply didn't light me up at all........what ticks me off is the double standards of our Senator's and the genuine ignornace to the problems facing us...by BOTH congress and the general public. I think the real problem is most people just don't give a damn anymore,..and the Senator's know it...so they are free to do as they please and we're stuck with the bill.



Tex,....the prices are dropping now to unload 2008 inventory...it has nothing to do with making a profit on those vehicles...that's not gonna happen. Dealers want those vehicles off their floor plans because they're paying interest on them! Our pension fund is totally funded now too (THANK GOD for that!!), so there's no need to make any extra profit on 2008's to go into that fund. BUT...it's not going to stay fully funded for long with the massive number of retirees we have now and will have in the near future. We've already announced we're shutting down 100% of our plants in January for 4-5 weeks...so there will be ZERO 2009's built in Jan and into Feb, until the dealers can unload the remaining 2008's. The dealers aren't making squat on those '08's either...they just want to move'em and get'em off their books.



I agree w/you that Gettlefinger screwed up by not agreeing to reduce their costs until 2012, but I've heard that he was just "politicking" along with the Senator's because he KNEW that Bush wouldn't let the co's go down. If that's true...then I retract EVERYTHING good I've ever said about him!! Man...playing roulette with our economy is total BS!!!
 
In the past 29 years I have ordered new cars and trucks through the Fleet enitity of a large local dealer. This is done by piggy backing on large orders and beat any deal a lot leach could have given me by at least 20%. Then I keep them for 10 years with proper home mait. and sell it myself. With this process the upfront cost for buying new was a wash and I had a dependable set of rides. Now following my same Fleet purchasing process and what would appear to be the most opportune time to purchase a new vehicle, I find that even this method is not what I would consider a cost savings. I can CARMAX buy a 1 year old/22,000 mile King Ranch F-250 SD 4X4 diesel longbed with a shell, class V hitch, brake controller, and spray in liner for 23% off a new 2009 Fleet price. I can't justify that difference even with a 10 year hold time. Of course I will not be getting what I am accustomed to for my current Super Duty based on the market.:unsure:



Opinion time:

Lets say your elected officials kill the bailout.

What happens if GM and Chrysler go tits up, and Ford hangs on for a little while? What do you think the automobile marketplace will look like in 2010?

 
Mike,..I think you'll see very few new cars on lots,.....and used car prices will go thru the roof!!! Interest rates will climb drastically and there will be massive unemployment. Obama will be the "Jimmy Carter" of the new millenium!
 
Spot on Mac; thanks for sharing. Most Americans don't support the bail out action because they are ignorant. others don't support it because they don't see an immediate impact.



It is amzing the screaming that goes on when one of the Big Three wants to close a plant for legitimate and proper business reasons, but we seem more than willing to let the whole ball of wax go down the freaking drain.



I don't understand it.
 
I think the larger, sadder reason for the ridiculous amount of scrutiny over a LOAN and the blank check bounced to Wall Street/AIG and the lot is lobbying. Insurance is the largest greaser to the Washington wheel. Follow the money that went in and it will explain the portioning of the money dealt out. It's pretty shameful of a public servant, but I guess it's been the norm for so long. :( :wacko: :angry:
 
we are kidding ourselves if we think there was anything to this debate other than who Wall street lobbysists contributed to vs who UAW/Big three lobbyists contributed too. Obviously, Wall street lobbyists had the winning checkbook. Greedy sneaky bastages.
 
Pond.....I think you're right.....it's about who funnels the most $$$ to the power players,..the only winners in the end are the power players 'cuz they end up with ALL the cash!! Plus it's about trying to break the UAW this time too...and if you're among the "collateral damage", salaried OR union......oh well...it sucks to be us!!
 
Here is one of my favorite ever movie scenes: Warning.. content is easily PG, but not anywhere near "R" as sensitive words have been modified without changing the intended meaning.. Hope none are offended but the message is clear and pertinent:

it is exactly how I feel lately. screwed.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EO4nYqAOfM
 
More from the press (from today's USAToday):

________________________________________________________________________

Bankruptcy wouldn't stop shoppers from buying U.S. cars

By Sharon Silke Carty, USA TODAY



DETROIT
 
Jim,..I agree wholeheartedly with the last sentence!! ;) Based on those stats,....if they all bought a Detroit Brand from the get-go...we wouldn't even be in this mess!!
 
The gooberment does have a payback built into the insurance/financial bailout. My big problem is that if we do give the big 3 "loans", do you really think they can pay them back? Is it not more of the same? If you look at their balance sheets right now there's not a banker on this planet that would loan them $$. My point is this....."loans" are not the answer because the "loans" are not gonna get paid back. The big 3 can't put that train back on the track that fast. We need to think outside the box and not just throw $$ at the problem. We HAD to throw $$ at the financial mess because without that, the economy would have crumbled....guaranteed!! AIG had a vice lock on the economy's grapes. The auto industry needs a fix but the loans won't do it.



TOXIC
 
I personally don't think the original bailout package should have been approved. Public and private enterprise should never combine in a free market environment. Every business has the right to succeed or fail. Capitalism can flip to socialism real quick when those boundries merge. Since that cat is already out of the bag with the bailout approval, I see no reason why the big three shouldn't be able to borrow the necessary, verifiable portion of the already approved bailout funding. No Car Czar needed. Chrysler didn't need one in the '80's and that turned out pretty well. The Czar and obligatory new govt. department organized would just be another beauracracy of expenditure for the ever-expanding waste of taxes to increase the size and control of Uncle Sam.
 
The focus should be on manufacturing real goods and not just generating more credit. Credit is a large contributor to the fix we are in.
 
There is no easy solution to this problem.



Qite frankley, I think we should nave not bailed out the morgage companies nor should we bail out the big 3 auto companies. I know we are not getting the whole pitchure from both sides. I find it hard that GM and Chrysler has ran tis year knowing they will zero out of cash by end of year. Big companies don't run that way.



I'm not sure why these companies need bailing out. Take my house budget. I get my check, pay my bills from it, by food, gas and a few fun things. Bank 20%. As prices of things change I change my budget and cut out things if needed to make it. My wife and I are the shareholders. Yes we have a small cash pot incase something happens. Now two years ago I was let go in my job, we managed by the cash pot to survive and reduced out living costs, did with out things. We also acted right away.



So my point to GM and Chrysler and question, why wait till the last minute and create panic to ask for money and put some great saving the company plan togeather. The problems these companies are facing is something that just did not happen. They let there labor cost's go out of control, managers salaries go out of control, spending out of control, and managed the forcast's bad. That's why a new car cost's so much.



An example,Prices of new cars have inflated over the past ten years more than any other product on the market. They (car companies) used finiance practices to get people in these cars when just like the morgage companies did. They came up with leasing so people can get a new car and pay little, They were the ones who placed the end value on the cars, bad idea auto industry, the cars do come back and adds to you running balance. This is a big part of the reason why the big 3 are in such problems and an example of poor money managing.



Now as far as the Tax payers bailing them out. OK, I think if any money is given out it should be a load and paided back with interest. Just like when we borrow money. This sould be std terms on any bail out from the gov. to any company. The company should be audited by the coverment to make sure they are on track and spending wisely but not managed buy the gov.. The term of the load should be short and then if the loan holder still makes bad choices or cant just make it then the gov. call on the loan the it's over. That is business.



I agree if there were no loans to the big 3 the impact would be bad but I think we will survive as a country.



All this talk and complanining from the banks and the big 3 make me a bit mad.



Were is the bailout for all the americans who work hard, live within their means, spend money wisely and within the past six months saw there 401K's and IRA's drop by half.



I say we give the loan to the auto industry, banks and other businesses with conditions and terms like anyother loan and if they still can not survive then so be it.



Dan
 
This oughta frost your pebbles!!:angry:







Auto Industry Loans





Tax Fairness for U.S. Auto Makers
 
I am not a financial guru but there are some things that should be considered.



1. Unions should now be taxed. They bring in 10's of Billions a year in income and are not taxed on it. That tax money could go back into the auto industry or other areas that are in need.

2. Just like the current war, once something bad first happens everyone is on the band wagon and joins in. The government had no problem sending us to war in Iraq but now that it wasn't a quick fix the nay sayers jump out and they question everything. So once the financial problems began to really mount they said yes to the financial institutions (first up) and are now questioning the auto industry.

3. Yes money does talk in the US government. These guys/gals draw a salary but they really get paid in some way by the special interest groups. Financial companies, unions, NRA, tobacco etc... has a hand in government. The auto industry will be alright once the new regime rings in. After all, theu unions did spend over one billion on democratic elections this year to get the majority. The Dems won't let the auto industry go down as they would lose out also.



It just gets to me that people can't do the right thing and are so dependent upon the almighty dollar. So whoever pays wins. For you that don't live week to week and can afford to stay put with your morals I salute you.



Randy!
 
Been gone for a while - good to be back. I hate to see all this going down fer sure. My brothers in the auto industry are taking a powerful hit. I don't agree with the incentives we have used for years to entice foreign auto makers to states and cities. But...I don't agree that it should be done with domestic entities either. I would even things up a bit on the tariff side if I were king. I don't know that I would use marty's broad brush tactic in stating that "most Americans don't support the bailout because they are ignorant". For those that understand the facts, and don't support it, ignorant is not the right adjective, as they are not unlearned people.



I would be interested in learning how the folks directly affected (Mac and others) by this situation and the subsequent decisions feel about their company's piece of the puzzle. What do you feel they should do differently in the automotive industry to ensure this situation doesn't happen again-and to get out of the current situation? I hear a lot about what should be done by the gov't, but what do you feel should be done by the big three?

 
Want to save money and lean out the auto (and almost every other US Industry)... Clean house at the management level... I'm not being mean spirited here, just realistic. I do IT consulting work for a few small and medium manufacturing firms. In that service to my customers I have had contact with the "BIG THREE"... It reminds me of the Pentagon. One floor of the Pentagon has more General Officers on it than we had serving at the height of WWII. The other Staff ranks are even more bloated! And, the auto industry made the same impression on me. More "Directors", "Co-Ordinators"; Managers of this or that, in general ... 10-20 people in a meeting to discuss "streamliniing" the parts acquisition system. I wanted to scream "knock off the meetings and get these people real jobs and you'll streamline the system!"



Recently, I handled a very small job for GM, replacing a battery backup at one of our local dealers. They paid us $125 to walk in the door, meet up with the part that was shipped directly to the dealer, have everyone logoff the server and then turn it off, unplug it from the old battery and plug in the new one. Five to ten minutes of work. An empployee of the dealership could have easily done the job. And, it took over 45 minutes. Because, I had to speak to three internal support people at GM before I could log the job as finished! There is waste in almost every big organization that has a culture of CYA, etc...



Done with my rant.
 
Let them all file chapter 11 and let obamma sort it out. The american public elected him, it's his problem now.



BF



We can all live off the system, that's what he said?



 
Greg,..(and Mike Taft),..you guys are spot on!! GM's biggest problem (IMHO) is we are waaayy too top heavy!! We have more management and VP's and "Directors" and "Managers" with NO direct reports than I've ever seen!!! It's ridiculous. I could do my job faster, and just as accurately without my boss.......I don't need a micro-manager,..infact I loathe that kind of person anyway...a 51 year old "professional" doesn't need a babysitter making 6 figs a year w/free car and gas!!..But he NEEDS me and 10 other people under him in order to keep his job!! HELLO!! Now multiply that by 5 more people just like him in MY dept. alone and you've got over a million dollars alone just in salaries and free company cars and their "other perks" yet they deliver NO tangible products or info to the assembly plants that actually HELP anyone. All they do is "create" new spreadsheets, non-value added tracking metrics and issues, for US to track and record, that will eventually be used against us when "headcount reduction and cost savings measure" time rolls around!! HEY,..Here's an idea,.....how about reducing THAT kind of crap that adds NOTHING but intangible and highly inflated COSTs to our product and leave the people who actually WORK alone!! It would have no affect whatsoever on the quality of our documents (accept make us FASTER and leaner, and it would save MILLIONS,..immediately too!!) BTW,..that scenerio is the norm all over the place too....I can't imagine the $$$ we spend on salaries for all these other "managers and directors" who manage and direct nothing!!! If we had a 50% across the board "management reduction" it wouldn't affect us negatively in the least!!! If I can do my job better faster, better and cheaper WITHOUT a micro-manager.....there's no reason to have 6 of them in one department!!:angry::blink:



But we all know what will happen when the reaper shows up in OUR dept. (again)....a dozen more "workers" will be hit and not a single manager!! ZERO accountability is Corporate America's cancer!!:angry:
 
This is exactly why they don't want to make concessions!

Seems that my Bro in Law that's worked for Honda for 23 years has never needed the union and is damn happy to be working at all and for about $4 less an hour.

And what a facility it is....I can see why the quality is there:cool:
 
TEE,...until they address the last sentence in my post...not a lot will change except the headcount.....I will lose MY job before my boss would get cut,...the sad part is,...without my "daily output" assembly plants could literally shut down........if my boss were to be cut, the assembly plants wouldn't even know who he was much less CARE!!



THAT's where the REAL problem is!!!
 
WOW...it seems as though the guberment is gonna' let em go bankrupt!:wacko:
 
I heard that the $$$ was going to be released Friday....accd'g to the White House press sectry this afternoon!...:blink:
 
That's all I can do Bro..........it's totally out of my control from now on. My fate has already been determined...I just don't know what it is yet!! LOL



 
Thanks Unc!! I'll be okay I think.....I would just like some stability in my life for awhile, y'know!!....First I had my Mom's sudden and unexpected heart problems (She's doing DREAT by the way!!!) and all this economic crap and not knowing if I'll have a job.....GEEZ...all I want for Xmas is some job security and smooth sailing for a while!! Is that asking for to much?? LOL



Ya'll have a GREAT Holiday.....we're gettin' dumped on today w/snow...supposed to get 6-10" by the time it's over and "maybe" we'll get sent home early today!! THAT would be a nice way to start the 2 week vacation!!;):rolleyes:



Mac
 
Breaking news from CNN.com (as of 9:20am, Friday, December 19, 2008):

_________________________________________

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The federal government will provide $13.4 billion in loans to Detroit automakers, the White House said Friday.



President Bush said Friday morning automakers must show they can be profitable businesses by March 31.



President Bush said Friday morning automakers must show they can be profitable businesses by March 31.



"Allowing the U.S. auto industry to collapse is not a responsible course of action," President Bush said Friday morning.



"The terms and conditions of the financing provided by the Treasury Department will facilitate restructuring of our domestic auto industry, prevent disorderly bankruptcies during a time of economic difficulty, and protect the taxpayer by ensuring that only financially viable firms receive financing," according to a statement released by the White House.



An additional $4 billion may be available in February, the Bush administration said.



The loans are designed to stabilize U.S. automakers through March 2009, at which time the automakers must show they are financially viable.



"If the firms have not attained viability by March 31, 2009, the loan will be called and all funds returned to the Treasury," the statement says.



Financing will be drawn from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, it says.



The president said Friday the plan will give the automakers a chance to show they can be viable outside a "disorderly bankruptcy" which he said would drive American into a deeper depression with effects "far beyond the auto industry."



The government will put other conditions on the loans, Bush said Friday, including making pay competitive with foreign automakers with large U.S. operations such as Toyota and Honda. Employees of foreign automakers generally make less than those in U.S.-owned plants.



The plan also puts limits on executive compensation and perks such as corporate jets, requires the automakers to adhere to fuel efficiency and emission standards and open books to government scrutiny.



Chrysler Chairman and CEO Bob Nardelli thanked the administration for the loan.



"A letter of intent was signed which outlines the specific requirements that must be achieved," Nardelli said in a statement. "These requirements will require consideration from all constituents, requiring commitment first in principal, leading to implementation this coming year. Chrysler is committed to meeting these requirements."
 
Anybody have any beer???:rolleyes::p (OOOOps.....sorry...that was the AIG folks that partied when they got bailed out....I'll have to work all day and pay for my own!) :angry::(



Ohwell.....beat's livin' under a bridge and drinkin' rain water out of a tin can!!:wacko:
 
Congrats Mac! Mr. Bush did the right thing.



Paul
 
Unreal...of all years....Mac and I have been travelling alot in recent years (sans this one) for Bass Pro. Nice stuff, kinda like a paid vacation that you work your butt of on...lol



Well this year, of ALL years, we are spending two days of teh Spring Classic in Alabama of all places......Prattsville then Leeds (Macon, GA before that)
 
Most americans dont support this because there is no one to bail us out in a time of need so how am I supposed to care if the ceos of these companies recieve salaries in the millions I do realize they employ alot of people and going under would be devastating to those people but I own a small company that has a contract with a couple phone companies in the kansas city area I had to borrow tens of thousands of dollars to cover my losses thanks mainly to fuel prices because just like every other company you must meet your contract obligations or get sued so who in the hell is going to bail me out and the answer is no one because nobody cares if my family or the guys that work for me live in the street or not and I would like to hear a response that would sway the rest of america to help out the big 3 and it not be about how the fall of the 3 would lead to an economic collapse because incase you didnt notice we arrived there a while back



 
I didn't read the whole post but here's what really chaps my nads!

We give 400 something BILLION to companies that made bad loans and followed bad buisness practices etc. Lets take a look at just one shall we?



AIG gets 100's of millions in a bailout, the NEXT week they spend $400k for an executive excursion in the tropics with spas and the like......hmmmmmm:blink: The week after that, they BUY the stinkin resort!!!!!:eek: THEN they give out over 12 million in executive bonuses that they say was part of a seperate "stash or kitty" (did I spell that right?) :angry::angry::angry:



THAT is where we are putting our money? Now the big 3 come for their share and get turned away. Now granted, at first they had no plan, and came in private jets. But a short time later, came in hybrids with plans. Many of the big boys are working for $1 a year. Now what has AIG done?????? See above!



:huh::wacko::blink::eek::angry::( ALL APPLY
 
Back
Top