Eisboch wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
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

Cars are cars and trucks are trucks. I don't have a particular brand
loyalty. I buy what I happen to like, for various reasons. For daily
drivers, I tend to buy American built, only because they serve the purpose
well.

But, I have more sympathy for Ford right now than GM, mainly because Ford
has been far more pro-active in terms of trying to fix themselves than GM
has. I still don't understand the union relationships with each
manufacturer, and I don't blame unions. They negotiated a contract and plan
their lives on it. Fine.

But guess what? The union work-a-bees need non-union work-a-bees (as
consumers) more than the other way around. And non-union work-a-bees plan
for their financial future in other ways. When the rug is pulled out from
everybody, why do non-union work-a-bees need to contribute to the welfare
and job security of union work-a-bees? Hmmmmmmm?

Eisboch




Gee, Eisboch...why do I have to pay taxes to contribute to the welfare,
job security or retirement of military personnel? (Rhetorical
question...I know the answer.)