"BAR" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:
Boater wrote:
John wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:34:29 -0500, BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 16, 12:16 am, "Canuck57" wrote:
wrote in message
news
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:06:30 -0500, BAR wrote:
Chrysler should have been left to go bankrupt back in 1980. If it
wasn't
for the M1 Abrams the government never would have stepped in.
Maybe, but then the government would have missed out on the $335
million
profit they made on the $1.5 billion loan guarantee.
Today has 2 major differences.
First, $1.5 billion is about the burn rate for GM, Chrysler and Ford
in 1
week! It is estimated for GM alone, $75 to 125 billion is needed
for
solvency and sustainability. Assuming Chrysler needs about the same
and say
$50 billion for Ford, further assuming their numbers are accurate
and not
cooked they collectively need $250 billion. And that is if they
instantly
fix the problems, which historically, it is like investing in
NorTel. By
the way they too need a bailout. That is about $1250 out of each
middle
class workers pocket. 2-3 car payments for cars they don't own.
Oh, and
parts suppliers like JCI and Magna, extra.
Second, what do you do with the other 98% of the people and
businesses out
there? Screw them with $1250 more taxes? The last points bill must
be paid
or the next loaf of bread might as well cost $1000. You can't print
out of
debt on this scale without at least a working generation of
recession. Keep
in mind, government revenue is going down at an alarming pace. The
war in
the middle east will not end with peace, it will end in bankruptcy
of the
government and currency itself.
North America can no long afford these dogs. Will make some good
case study
for Harvard and Yale is the only redeeming value GM and Chrysler has
left..
This is going to come down to American bankruptcy into the currency.
Said it before, so did several others. Give us middle class folks a
voucher to help pay for a new car. We get a bailout, GM gets to sell
cars, then put folks to work building new ones.... But the Union
doesn't want that, it would mean they would have to go back to work
to
get the money...
If I received a voucher I wouldn't buy a GM or Chrysler. I would buy a
Ford, Toyota, Honda or Nissan.
Depends on the size of the voucher. I'd buy another GM pickup if the
voucher were big enough to overcome my doubts about future warranty
service.
A voucher might be worthwhile if its use were restricted to high-mileage
vehicles with a certified "manufactured in the USA or Canada" content of
at least 90%. Not assembled...manufactured.
I see no reason to subsidize purchases of products produced overseas.
Then why subsidize the assemblers of products produced overseas?
I notice that you include Canada but exclude Mexico. What's up with that,
Dude?
They aren't UAW members.
Or more importantly, this is
PR to make us think it is UAW or CAW. A rouse.
The real powerful are just using them.
When the real motive is to bail out rich investment houses that put money
into GM bonds and the like and they want to be paid. So they call up their
Harvard buddies in congress for a bailout while they try to unload bad
paper.
In short, dumping a wall street issue on main street. Corrupt capitalism.
Anyone whole knows me at all, knows I am a capitalist, not a sleezy in your
pocket type, I want earned value and less pocket picking for main street so
they can buy products in companies I invest in. Sucking the mddle class dry
via bailout taxation will kill the American dream for a very long time.