wrote in message
...
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...
---------
Really, you hit the nail on the head. The middle class has slowly become
debt ladden and can no longer afford more. Worse yet, the defaults are
crushing the very system itself.

By some estimates we are only about 1/3rd through the unwinding with ARMs
and others coming up soon. Some say the worst has yet to come because it is
as least as big as what we have seen and the economy is already weak. There
is no question this is a long lasting recession at best and is in reality a
depression. Historically, this will be as bad as 1929. Forget 1982.

You are 100% correct though, it is the middle class that needs a bailout.
It is also the only way out. You can bailout others but there is no point
so long as the middle class is in trouble. Case in point, so what if GM,
Cerberus Chrysler is bailed out? Families are not just dumping homes but
autos to reduce costs. Without credit they must live inside their means.
Used to have 2 or 3 cars? Now 1 or 2 cars. It will take at least 5 years
for demand to rise. At GM's burn rate of 2 billion a month that is $125
billion just to keep them going! Add another $125 billion you have 1/4
trillion just for GM.

All of this bailout BS has to be paid in time, and guess what, the middle
class pays it. Further reducing their ability to spend to drive the
economy.

This guarantees a long recession or depression as in fact like the middle
class, the government too is broke. They are printing the money as they too
can't borrow. This is going to at some point cause a large inflationary
wave that will further put the middle class at a disadvantage. Why is
government doing this? Simply put, survival of government.

Government should be scaling back, exiting a war they can no longer afford
or win, and reducing it's size and spending in a huge way. Targets like 50%
reduction in size and spending. Returning more to the middle class in
income tax reductions to they can pay their bills.

I don't know if it is just plain stupidity and massive denial, or a
conspiracy, but the finacial system as we know it is bankrupt. And the
government seems less worried about the country and more worried about the
rich that will not have a musical chair when the music ends at our expense.
Many today, even newborns will not see the end of this event sad to say.

"BAR" wrote in message
...
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.

Same here. Already owned GM and Chrysler. I am not a repeat customer any
more. The last two were Fords. Had a Nissan 1995 Pathfinder once, better
than GM and Chrysler but not the best. They too had troubles back then.
Don't know about now. Since then, burn me once and I don't come back.

Now that they have their hands in my pocket, well, it is a given. I don't
patrionise pocket pickers.

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Dec 16, 5:34 am, 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.

I'd buy a Dodge/Cummins
--------
Cummins is a good drive train, something Chrysler needed. Have a friend
that owns one and loves it.

But I don't patronize pocket pickers and what Cerberus/Chrysler is doing is
aristocratic theft of tax payer dollars. They bought Chrysler taking out
the good parts at quick nice profits a few years back. Chrysler now missing
it's good assets and cash, Cerberus is now looking to dumb this turkey into
the governments lap.

If I don't buy them, then they do chapter 11 then they will be out of my
pocket.

"John" wrote in message
...
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.
--
John

Actually I would too. 75% off minimum. Boat pulling Duramax.

"Don White" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
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...

************************************************** *****

You are freekin' unbelievable!
In one breath you whine about getting a free handout so you can buy a new
vehicle and in the next, badmouth the hard working uniom man for expecting
to get money without working. What makes you so special?

Socialism does decay into a scenario of 50 hungry rates in a cage and 1
small piece of cheese. Subsidize on and the other 49 become vicious.

BAR wrote:
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.
Ah Ha! So this isn't about the automakers at all. It's about propping up
the unions. I see no reason to do that. Do You?

Boater wrote:
BAR 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.

I wouldn't use the voucher if I was forced to purchase a vehicle I
would not normally purchase. A cheap headache is still a headache.

I wouldn't argue that point, but...the purpose of such a voucher is to
help the U.S. auto industry. You don't help the industry by buying goods
whose most expensive pieces and parts are made overseas.

GM and Chrysler need to go bankrupt. Their management needs to change
and their union contracts need to be voided. The skill in putting pieces
of a car together does not warrant the money that the union workers
receive. And, getting paid 95% for sitting around reading a newspaper
all day long is ridiculous. Whomever agreed to that on both sides of the
table should be take out back and shot.

I rent different cars on business trips. Since I am usually traveling on
some union's business, I rent "American cars" built by the Big Three. I
try to alternate, but I've sort of kicked GM off the list entirely. I've
been disappointed by something substantial on each GM car I've rented
over the years. The Fords have been fine, and so have the few Chrysler
products that have been readily available at my destination.

When I travel on business I always rent a Chevy Impala. The reason is
that I fit in the car. I have a long torso and I know that I will fit.
There is no other reason that I choose this vehicle.

I rented a nice Ford Exploder on my last trip to Boston a month or so
ago. There was nothing about the car I didn't like, and it only cost me
$38 a night (holy schitt!) to park it in the hotel's garage.


You should have checked with the hotel before renting. It would have
been cheaper to catch a cab from the airport and to and from your
appointments.

Jim wrote:
BAR wrote:
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.
Ah Ha! So this isn't about the automakers at all. It's about propping up
the unions. I see no reason to do that. Do You?

No.

"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.

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR 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.

I wouldn't use the voucher if I was forced to purchase a vehicle I
would not normally purchase. A cheap headache is still a headache.

I wouldn't argue that point, but...the purpose of such a voucher is to
help the U.S. auto industry. You don't help the industry by buying
goods whose most expensive pieces and parts are made overseas.

GM and Chrysler need to go bankrupt. Their management needs to change
and their union contracts need to be voided. The skill in putting pieces
of a car together does not warrant the money that the union workers
receive. And, getting paid 95% for sitting around reading a newspaper
all day long is ridiculous. Whomever agreed to that on both sides of the
table should be take out back and shot.

I rent different cars on business trips. Since I am usually traveling
on some union's business, I rent "American cars" built by the Big
Three. I try to alternate, but I've sort of kicked GM off the list
entirely. I've been disappointed by something substantial on each GM
car I've rented over the years. The Fords have been fine, and so have
the few Chrysler products that have been readily available at my
destination.

When I travel on business I always rent a Chevy Impala. The reason is
that I fit in the car. I have a long torso and I know that I will fit.
There is no other reason that I choose this vehicle.

I rented a nice Ford Exploder on my last trip to Boston a month or so
ago. There was nothing about the car I didn't like, and it only cost
me $38 a night (holy schitt!) to park it in the hotel's garage.


You should have checked with the hotel before renting. It would have
been cheaper to catch a cab from the airport and to and from your
appointments.


I went to seven different construction sites and another hotel over two
days. No time to wait for cabs, and I had a movie cameraman and soundman
and their gear to lug around, too. But had I been going to meetings at
offices around the downtown hotel, I wouldn't have rented a car. It
certainly is cheap to cab in from Logan to downtown.