On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:57:08 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:




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.

Plenty don't have that attitude, hence my mention.

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.

They're all UAW. You can google for contract details, but there won't
be much difference.

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?

They shouldn't have to, but the most onerous part is the sub-pay, and
has to be eliminated. It's one thing to do a loan for workers,
another for those making full pay and not working.
But everything you've just said can be applied to the financial fat
cat bailout, which has already cost 10 times as much as the auto
companies are asking for, and Paulson is still spending, and I still
don't know how that will be paid back.
And even beyond that, why should I be taxed to keep 401k's plan
stuffed with inflated profits?
Every time you hear about how many 401k's are out there, in an attempt
to keep Wall Street propped up, you are hearing BS.
Investment in Wall Street by actual workers is not as widespread as
they would have you think.

--Vic