On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:03:48 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Boater" wrote in message
...

Ahhh 401k's.... Too bad about those.



That's one of the reasons why many people are having trouble being forced to
ante up tax dollars to
save GM and it's union in their current form and contractual relationships.
The "majority" are watching their own retirement investments tank, and are
concerned about their jobs, their families, their financial stability.

I think the biggest PR problem is how the "bailout" is presented.
If done as a loan, the Chrysler precedent - where the gov actually
made money - would be more palatable.
Of course what requirements the gov puts on the loan, and how they are
enforced, is the tricky part.
Forget about anti-union/anti-management stuff for a bit - all 3
domestics have those issues.
Here's something to think about, and why I posted the
"Sales Facts" link to the WSJ article.
People are car bigots.
What motivates the Cannuck guy and Tom more than anything to say GM
business will be taken over by Ford and Chrysler has nothing to do
with the facts of the automotive industry, but more to do with their
brand preference.
They are Ford/Chrysler guys.
Believe me, I've seen this again and again over many years of
discussions on car groups.
That polls show @40% approve of the "bailout" is actually pretty good.
The domestics have about 45% of U.S. market share.
Probably dissatisfied Chrysler owners dropped out (-:
You perhaps noticed that Mika is a Honda/Toyota head?
Joe is probably a GM guy.
I'm a GM guy.
But only because I get them real cheap used and I know them.
You would not believe how little I've spent on cars.
But hey, I'm flexible.
If GM goes under I might look at Fords, because they will be the new
American whipping boy and have poor resale.
But if I were buying new, I'd go over to the Japs.
I think most GM buyers will do the same.

--Vic