-
Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/
What if the big 3 collapse?
- Thread starter Dargo
- Start date
Kind of reeks of blackmail to me.
We are screwed though. GM's worst case scenario is that they have to wait until Obama gets control. There is no way the Democrats will let the UAW get hurt.
We are screwed though. GM's worst case scenario is that they have to wait until Obama gets control. There is no way the Democrats will let the UAW get hurt.
thcri
Gone But Not Forgotten
On Meet the Press yesterday this was the major topic. This bail out is bad as far as I am concerned because even GM admits it will go to pay for the pensions/health care for the employees. It will not produce new cars nor will it get the economy going again. Give them money now and they will be asking again in 5 months. Obama has a tough decision to make whether the Bush Administration takes care of this or not. It will land on Obama's desk.
Good Article Here From Cal Thomas.
Good Article Here From Cal Thomas.
According to Andrea Mitchell on Meet the Press the UAW has already said they will not take anymore cuts as they already have in the past.
100,000 per year is dam good money. I don't even make that as a business owner anymore. If Toyota is paying 100K per year at a cost of $48.00 per hour what is the Big 3 Employees making at their cost of $81.18 per hour??
Here's my Monday morning guess on what's going to happen.
The new administration will try to nationalize healthcare and maybe even the pension commitments of the country. They will offer this as a way to "help" private industry and the citizenry. In cases like the UAW the AutoMakers will have to pay the difference between their contracted benefits and what the government provides. That's how it is done with healthcare in Canada.
The new administration will try to nationalize healthcare and maybe even the pension commitments of the country. They will offer this as a way to "help" private industry and the citizenry. In cases like the UAW the AutoMakers will have to pay the difference between their contracted benefits and what the government provides. That's how it is done with healthcare in Canada.
For the record, the auto industry would not collapse. It would breifly disappear then it would be quickly reborn in the vacuum left by the big 3. Based, I'd bet, on the more profitable and business savvy Japanese model of their American operations. (E.G. no choking unions.) Maybe even under their management/ownership.
I had heard over the weekend that there is $2000 cost per car from "Detroit" in legacy union benefits to retirees, on top of almost $2000 to the current workforce. How could any company survive this?
Bankruptcy would allow the auto companies renegotiate these issues or better yet (for them not us taxpayers), walk away from them.
The illiberals would never let this happen to thier precious unions though.
I had heard over the weekend that there is $2000 cost per car from "Detroit" in legacy union benefits to retirees, on top of almost $2000 to the current workforce. How could any company survive this?
Bankruptcy would allow the auto companies renegotiate these issues or better yet (for them not us taxpayers), walk away from them.
The illiberals would never let this happen to thier precious unions though.
The Tourist
Banned
Collapse? We have to learn why 'needs' and 'wants' are different, and the fact that 'excess' is not 'improvement.'
As you know, I watch football on Sunday. There are numerous commercials that show us rednecks all of the new trucks for the upcoming year. Many of them depict why working cowboys need a full leather interior and a GPS. And therein lies the overall problem.
We have come to expect that a 'new' model must be dramatically different from the older style. Oh, we'll complain when bolts from a 2007 F-150 don't fit a 2008 F-150, but you'd better provide a lot more new toys.
Yes, it keeps people working, then junking, and building cars we don't need, but in reality it's the biggest Ponzi scam we have going.
For example, my 1997 F-150 still looks new, and runs just fine. It should, after all. The fender liners were advertised as "galvanized" and the engine was expected to run for 200,000 miles.
During those 11 years I drove 80,000 miles. However, now it seems I need a new F-150 that has a towing control so my boat doesn't hit me when I do something foolish. The issue is that I don't own a boat and my engine easily passes a leak-down test.
However, since trucks amass about 50% of all new vehicle sales, there must be scads of folks who buy new trucks simply because the radiator caps were re-designed. The 'work-horse' that they show pounding through a forest somehow needs replacing when the new models come out.
So who's fault is this? Detroit's? Greenspan's? Wall Street's?
Of course not. It's our own.
When I was eight years old, my Dad took me to Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry by way of the old Northshore railroad. As I looked out the window, I saw miles of rusty cars lining a dump next to the tracks. Since my Dad was an engineer, I asked him why those tons of cars weren't melted down to make new ones.
He answered, "It's easier to buy raw materials than to utilize scrap."
Of course it was. Energy was cheap, what we know as "the rust belt" employed tens of thousands of workers, and Alcoa was so dominant in the market they even advertised on TV.
Off the assembly line, into the hands of greedy customers for nine months and then into a landfill.
And we still do it. We used to have folks we called 'repairmen.' We repaired things instead of replacing them. Technically, I'm a repairman.
When do these types of technicians now prosper? Why, it's only when people cannot afford to replace a functional item with a new one.
During the half-time of the Packer game yesterday I sharpened a knife for a young neighbor. He was going deer hunting soon. The knife had been ruined by some fool, and his dad drove him to my house.
Between the two of them, they didn't have the forty bucks for a new fixed blade Buck, and they weren't going to buy a Chinese cheapie to use and throw away. They decided to fix the old.
Strangely, they were new clients. When times were better last year, they just bought new replacements...
As you know, I watch football on Sunday. There are numerous commercials that show us rednecks all of the new trucks for the upcoming year. Many of them depict why working cowboys need a full leather interior and a GPS. And therein lies the overall problem.
We have come to expect that a 'new' model must be dramatically different from the older style. Oh, we'll complain when bolts from a 2007 F-150 don't fit a 2008 F-150, but you'd better provide a lot more new toys.
Yes, it keeps people working, then junking, and building cars we don't need, but in reality it's the biggest Ponzi scam we have going.
For example, my 1997 F-150 still looks new, and runs just fine. It should, after all. The fender liners were advertised as "galvanized" and the engine was expected to run for 200,000 miles.
During those 11 years I drove 80,000 miles. However, now it seems I need a new F-150 that has a towing control so my boat doesn't hit me when I do something foolish. The issue is that I don't own a boat and my engine easily passes a leak-down test.
However, since trucks amass about 50% of all new vehicle sales, there must be scads of folks who buy new trucks simply because the radiator caps were re-designed. The 'work-horse' that they show pounding through a forest somehow needs replacing when the new models come out.
So who's fault is this? Detroit's? Greenspan's? Wall Street's?
Of course not. It's our own.
When I was eight years old, my Dad took me to Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry by way of the old Northshore railroad. As I looked out the window, I saw miles of rusty cars lining a dump next to the tracks. Since my Dad was an engineer, I asked him why those tons of cars weren't melted down to make new ones.
He answered, "It's easier to buy raw materials than to utilize scrap."
Of course it was. Energy was cheap, what we know as "the rust belt" employed tens of thousands of workers, and Alcoa was so dominant in the market they even advertised on TV.
Off the assembly line, into the hands of greedy customers for nine months and then into a landfill.
And we still do it. We used to have folks we called 'repairmen.' We repaired things instead of replacing them. Technically, I'm a repairman.
When do these types of technicians now prosper? Why, it's only when people cannot afford to replace a functional item with a new one.
During the half-time of the Packer game yesterday I sharpened a knife for a young neighbor. He was going deer hunting soon. The knife had been ruined by some fool, and his dad drove him to my house.
Between the two of them, they didn't have the forty bucks for a new fixed blade Buck, and they weren't going to buy a Chinese cheapie to use and throw away. They decided to fix the old.
Strangely, they were new clients. When times were better last year, they just bought new replacements...
AndyM
Charter Member
I've heard about the hundreds of thousands of automotive supplier jobs that will be lost if the big 3 cease to exist...
However, it seems regardless of which companies are selling automobiles in this country, ROUGHLY the same number of vehicles will be sold. The same number of tires will be needed, as will the same number of cupholders and dashboards, whether they are going into American made Chevrolets or American made Hondas.
It's the way capitalism works-- a better company will replace one that is inferior. Someday, another company will replace Honda and Toyota as the automotive leaders. It works the same way in other businesses-- Montgomery Ward may be no more, but some day another company will be bigger and better than Walmart.
Unless...
The federal government is buying stakes in the banks and talking about doing the same for the automakers. If the government is going to pump money into these businesses whether they turn a profit or not, there would be no reason for them to be new and innovative.
As a side note, I don't see these automakers announcing that they have any sort of a plan to become profitable again once they receive the government money. Hmmmm...
Trakternut
Active member
The American automobile industry is a victim of its own arrogance. I don't believe that they took the Toyotas or Datsuns of 30-plus years ago seriously. They were nothing more than a soup can with wheels, which is almost true. However what the foreign cars did have was longevity and economy. The Toyotas got 20-30 mpg when a domestic car was struggling to get above 15.
The Japanese began making their cars more luxurious, more attractive. Again, I don't believe the Big 3 even noticed until the numbers started coming in. We were buying Toyots, Hondas, and Nissans and we loved them! Suddenly, Chevy, Ford, et. al. started tossing doo-dads and geegaws on their stuff to make 'em more attractive. It ain't working.
If we let 'em die their natural death, something will rise in their places, something better and more attune to the consumers' needs.
I don't need GPS, I have road maps. I don't need leather seats, my butt has skin on it. I do like AC and tilt wheel, and a heater that works. That's all I need.
Now, you gotta special order a 1/2 ton pickup without electric windows and locks!
The Japanese began making their cars more luxurious, more attractive. Again, I don't believe the Big 3 even noticed until the numbers started coming in. We were buying Toyots, Hondas, and Nissans and we loved them! Suddenly, Chevy, Ford, et. al. started tossing doo-dads and geegaws on their stuff to make 'em more attractive. It ain't working.
If we let 'em die their natural death, something will rise in their places, something better and more attune to the consumers' needs.
I don't need GPS, I have road maps. I don't need leather seats, my butt has skin on it. I do like AC and tilt wheel, and a heater that works. That's all I need.
Now, you gotta special order a 1/2 ton pickup without electric windows and locks!
thcri
Gone But Not Forgotten
Some of the talk here has been we don't need the extra's. And your right, it does help save on your pocket book. The big 3 took them extras and pretty much told you to bend over when they priced them. But the extras do help the economy. The car itself does but so does the extras as far as putting people to work. I think the manufactures just have to price some of them right.
Again my belief is the bailout will not work. We are talking about a 3 month band aid is all we talking. If the big 3 were smart they would not wait but start right now making some drastic changes. My first thing if I was top dog in the big 3, would be to restructure the pay scale and get back in line with Toyota's wages. If you don't want to work for the lesser wages you can move on. Others are willing and can do the same job.
Again my belief is the bailout will not work. We are talking about a 3 month band aid is all we talking. If the big 3 were smart they would not wait but start right now making some drastic changes. My first thing if I was top dog in the big 3, would be to restructure the pay scale and get back in line with Toyota's wages. If you don't want to work for the lesser wages you can move on. Others are willing and can do the same job.
Trakternut
Active member
Yup!
I wonder how many of those bailout dollars will go to maintain former execs fat pensions, besides those of retired workers.
OhioTC18
Gone But Not Forgotten
Don't forget Union contracts. You know they exist there.
And no I'm not for them especially after seeing what Honda can do with their workforce here in Ohio.
Trakternut
Active member
Ronald Reagan had it right when he went after the air traffic controllers. I'm surprised more haven't followed his lead.
Dargo
Like a bad penny...
Okay, here's my take on the subject and I have a big time vested interest in this matter. First, if the UAW is not disbanded or removed from these three automakers, let them die because no matter what happens the union will kill them. There's a good saying about throwing good money after bad that applies here.
I don't have enough time, and the post would be way too long, to go into all the reasons the UAW has to go. Suffice it to say my opinion of this particular nuance of the equation is most certainly not based on any knee jerk reaction or hearsay but rather on reams and reams of documentation, testamony, written case examples and undisputable past history of the UAW. At one point in time the union was formed for the protection of the workers and to ensure a safe and mutually beneficial working atmosphere. Unfortunately, the UAW completely lost sight of it's original charter reason for existance and fell victim to their own stupidity and greed believing that they could never kill the domestic auto makers. Needless to say, the UAW succeeded in doing exactly what they professed to protect against. Further, I don't believe it is any secret that the UAW is only one slight step above organized crime. So, a non-negotiable provision of offering a "bridge loan" to the automakers would have to be the complete and total dissolution of the UAW.
Next, the "bridge loan" would have to include very specific provisions of precisely how and on what time table the government (actual taxpayers) will be repaid and with a specific, but reasonable, amount of interest. Non-compliance to any agreed upon stipulation would have to result in a defacto termination of that particular manufacturer. As they say, sometimes tough love is the hardest to dispense but often is the most valuable. Needless to say some of the provisions would have to include the immediate recision of any and all unreasonable bonuses paid to upper management. Part one of this response would ensure that these unreasonable bonuses, kickbacks, spiffs, whatever you wish to call them, would not be paid to any union bosses.
If the manufacturers can hash out very specific (and much more detailed) plans of how they can turn their businesses around and include what I've mentioned, I feel it is in the best interest for our country and world economy to work with our domestic automakers. Unfortunately, I am afraid that the UAW will be the the reason no reasonable aid and loan package can be made and agreed upon. If you look at the picture of where our top politicians are meeting with them (I can't find that pic now, but it's available all over the net) you will see the head of Ford, the head of GM, the head of Chrysler and the head of the UAW sitting at the table. As long as the UAW is in on the negotiations and don't realize they need to go, this will never work and I'm ready to face a future where Ford, General Motors and Chrysler are nothing but notes in history as to how organized labor can kill even the largest industries in the world.
I hope for the best. I really do, but as long as the UAW have their greedy corrupt paws in the mix this deal is destined to fail. I don't know what the future will look like. We will have domestic automakers, but it is very likely there will be no Ford, GM or Chrysler if they cannot break the shackles of the UAW. The new companies that fill the void will all be non-union companies and will prove that the American worker can compete with any worker in the world and can build a superior product at a price that is competitive. Any way you slice it, 2009 will be a interesting and history making year.
I don't have enough time, and the post would be way too long, to go into all the reasons the UAW has to go. Suffice it to say my opinion of this particular nuance of the equation is most certainly not based on any knee jerk reaction or hearsay but rather on reams and reams of documentation, testamony, written case examples and undisputable past history of the UAW. At one point in time the union was formed for the protection of the workers and to ensure a safe and mutually beneficial working atmosphere. Unfortunately, the UAW completely lost sight of it's original charter reason for existance and fell victim to their own stupidity and greed believing that they could never kill the domestic auto makers. Needless to say, the UAW succeeded in doing exactly what they professed to protect against. Further, I don't believe it is any secret that the UAW is only one slight step above organized crime. So, a non-negotiable provision of offering a "bridge loan" to the automakers would have to be the complete and total dissolution of the UAW.
Next, the "bridge loan" would have to include very specific provisions of precisely how and on what time table the government (actual taxpayers) will be repaid and with a specific, but reasonable, amount of interest. Non-compliance to any agreed upon stipulation would have to result in a defacto termination of that particular manufacturer. As they say, sometimes tough love is the hardest to dispense but often is the most valuable. Needless to say some of the provisions would have to include the immediate recision of any and all unreasonable bonuses paid to upper management. Part one of this response would ensure that these unreasonable bonuses, kickbacks, spiffs, whatever you wish to call them, would not be paid to any union bosses.
If the manufacturers can hash out very specific (and much more detailed) plans of how they can turn their businesses around and include what I've mentioned, I feel it is in the best interest for our country and world economy to work with our domestic automakers. Unfortunately, I am afraid that the UAW will be the the reason no reasonable aid and loan package can be made and agreed upon. If you look at the picture of where our top politicians are meeting with them (I can't find that pic now, but it's available all over the net) you will see the head of Ford, the head of GM, the head of Chrysler and the head of the UAW sitting at the table. As long as the UAW is in on the negotiations and don't realize they need to go, this will never work and I'm ready to face a future where Ford, General Motors and Chrysler are nothing but notes in history as to how organized labor can kill even the largest industries in the world.
I hope for the best. I really do, but as long as the UAW have their greedy corrupt paws in the mix this deal is destined to fail. I don't know what the future will look like. We will have domestic automakers, but it is very likely there will be no Ford, GM or Chrysler if they cannot break the shackles of the UAW. The new companies that fill the void will all be non-union companies and will prove that the American worker can compete with any worker in the world and can build a superior product at a price that is competitive. Any way you slice it, 2009 will be a interesting and history making year.
Trakternut
Active member
Dargo: 
Democrats - Hopelessly, blindly in bed with all things Union (Socialist). They know who butters their bread.
Dargo, I'm afraid that as long as organized labor has money the democrats will pander to them. Therefore our tax money will continue to prop up the status-quo until the democrats cease to exist.
E.G. - Nothing is going to change any time soon, regardless of what Barry Husein's bumper stickers say.
Dargo, I'm afraid that as long as organized labor has money the democrats will pander to them. Therefore our tax money will continue to prop up the status-quo until the democrats cease to exist.
E.G. - Nothing is going to change any time soon, regardless of what Barry Husein's bumper stickers say.
Can anyone make a good case for bankruptcy reorganization of these companies?
Seems to me if they go into bankruptcy they may be about to get out from under their pension obligations and some of their bloated contracts that have them hobbled. They may be able to renegotiate all of those, at competitive levels so that the cost of the cars can come down and, simultaneously, the profits per car can go up. Will bankruptcy hurt a lot of people? Yes. However for the overall good, will it end up hurting less and saving the industry and the jobs? I think so. Even if at lower wages and benefits.
Seems to me if they go into bankruptcy they may be about to get out from under their pension obligations and some of their bloated contracts that have them hobbled. They may be able to renegotiate all of those, at competitive levels so that the cost of the cars can come down and, simultaneously, the profits per car can go up. Will bankruptcy hurt a lot of people? Yes. However for the overall good, will it end up hurting less and saving the industry and the jobs? I think so. Even if at lower wages and benefits.
Good post Dargo! Well said. 
The writing has been on the wall with the UAW's stranglehold on the auto industry.
What I have not seen mentioned here, and does play into the bottom line for all these manufacturers is the government mandates that each manufacturers fleet has to have a certain mpg rating, emission rating, crash rating etc. So GM makes the Escalade because there is a demand for 90,000 luxury suv's but they then have to offset it with some econobox to average out the mpg. Do we need these mandates? If (big IF I know) uncle sam would get out of the way and let them make the cars they want, what they think they can sell that would also help the big 3. Uncle Sam has caused part of the problems for these automakers.
I do believe if the UAW survives the Big 3 are done and the UAW along with it. UAW will never go willingly, so I see any bailout as putting off the inevitable, but isn't that the Washington way?
The writing has been on the wall with the UAW's stranglehold on the auto industry. What I have not seen mentioned here, and does play into the bottom line for all these manufacturers is the government mandates that each manufacturers fleet has to have a certain mpg rating, emission rating, crash rating etc. So GM makes the Escalade because there is a demand for 90,000 luxury suv's but they then have to offset it with some econobox to average out the mpg. Do we need these mandates? If (big IF I know) uncle sam would get out of the way and let them make the cars they want, what they think they can sell that would also help the big 3. Uncle Sam has caused part of the problems for these automakers.
I do believe if the UAW survives the Big 3 are done and the UAW along with it. UAW will never go willingly, so I see any bailout as putting off the inevitable, but isn't that the Washington way?
thcri
Gone But Not Forgotten
Good post Dargo! Well said.
You have not seen anything yet. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMNVIQqatyU"]Employers Free Choice Act.[/ame] The EFCA is a pile of garbage. It does not give the employees a free choice because as an employee votes you will have a Union Member standing over you and watching how you vote or they will know who voted and how. This is a scare tactic to the employees. Unions after the EFCA will have a much stronger position in the United States.
The Tourist
Banned
Why is it called "pension" or a retirement when the unions are involved, but it's a "golden parachute" when their opposition in management is on the receiving end?
The guy hasn't even been sworn in as of yet, and he's already talking out of both sides of his mouth.
The guy hasn't even been sworn in as of yet, and he's already talking out of both sides of his mouth.
fogtender
Now a Published Author
The fact that they should let the big three go into Chapter 11 and kill the unions is something that makes a lot of sense for a business model by putting a stake though the UAW's heart. The Democrats aren't going to let that happen though until it gets so bad they have no choice from public opinion, which isn't there yet....
The other factor that many seem to ignore is that they also are the source supplier for much of the military equipment for transportation, which is why they bailed out Chrysler some years back. Having Toyota or BMW filling our military needs seems a bit off base if you step back and think about History. None of our Military equipment should be supplied by countries outside of the U.S., but they are and have been since Carter (or even sooner).
They will get bailed out this time around, but by spring, it will be a very different story if they have their hats in hand again....
The other factor that many seem to ignore is that they also are the source supplier for much of the military equipment for transportation, which is why they bailed out Chrysler some years back. Having Toyota or BMW filling our military needs seems a bit off base if you step back and think about History. None of our Military equipment should be supplied by countries outside of the U.S., but they are and have been since Carter (or even sooner).
They will get bailed out this time around, but by spring, it will be a very different story if they have their hats in hand again....
I'm not trying to sound like a smartass, really, but what does the "big 3" supply the military?
Most of the trucks come from Oshkosh Truck, and HMMV's from AM General (which is what is left of AMC) which is not GM, to the best of my knowledge.
The Tourist
Banned
This is the idea or opinion most people have at this moment. My question is, just what are the Dems going to do to prevent it?
You're talking about a multi-level problem.
First is the debt and daily expense that that companies incur. They freely admit that the loss is tens of millions of dollars per day. My guess is that's the rosy picture.
Second, these "golden parachutes" that offend everyone are actually contractual retirement plans. That is, by a signed contract or a condition of employment, an executive is guaranteed a bloc of stock or a lump sum severance package. No matter what the bubba vote might crow about, the money is owed, and former execs will sue--and win.
Three, how long must the government pay the assembly line retirees? This is a major, daily drain that will not cease until the workers (and sometimes their dependents) die. And everyday there will be a new crop of retiring baby boomers. Will the tax paying population sustain a continuing, never ending group which fails to produce taxable amounts but then sucks up revenue--and COLAs?
Finally, even if there's enough money which is immediately available in a down-turn when the very tax revenue producing citizens are themselves being laid off, how are you going to get people back into the showrooms to buy something they do not want, do not need and cannot afford?
If a magic desirable "green" vehicle was immediately available, what would Detroit do with acres of unsold trucks and SUVs? BTW, judging from the commercials I saw this Sunday, those trucks are still being built.
In reality, there isn't enough money, resolve or customers to actually make this cockeyed plan work. Frankly, I think one of the car companies is going to go under, and the market share will be enveloped by one or both of the survivors. As for the continiung pension plan, there simply isn't going to be enough new revenue produced to sustain that plan and socialized medicine.
Like it or not, the photo-op of BHO signing a healthcare bill in the Rose Garden is more important than dying old automobile workers.
My money is on offloading the healthcare obligations. That's why you are seeing healthcare being mentioned in all these articles. I recently posted the one about the $17 million that GM spends on Viagra.
This will be the stepping stone to nationalized healthcare. It will be sold to us as a way to keep businesses competitive with the aging work force. In the face of the alternatives, corporate America will jump at the opportunity to dump their healthcare obligations and you will hear nothing but praise for the plan from the MSM.
Mark my words (but I may be wrong).
This will be the stepping stone to nationalized healthcare. It will be sold to us as a way to keep businesses competitive with the aging work force. In the face of the alternatives, corporate America will jump at the opportunity to dump their healthcare obligations and you will hear nothing but praise for the plan from the MSM.
Mark my words (but I may be wrong).
The Tourist
Banned
In total, I believe they lose that much per day.
I don't think we have seen the real figures of loss we are expected to offset, nor do I think there's an 'end' to the hemorrhaging. There are tens of millions of present and former employees, fleets of unsold inventory, overblown campaign promises and dwindling 'boomers who previously paid in large amounts of tax revenues from their "adult jobs."
Another aspect we have not touched upon is just exactly where on the business model of the life of your average corporation does our debate take place?
Are we proactive of an oncoming problem with time to respond? Are we all ready feeling the early results of a crisis with enough trend-data to proffer a sane and successful plan of action?
Or are we watching the keel of The Titanic sink below the waves as we fight for lifejackets?
And speaking about the 'boomers I've talked to in various debates, we have kind of a "who cares" attitude on this issue.
We played fair in our lifetimes. We had good jobs, we paid a remarkably large amount of taxes in the national effort to build the "entitlement society." We had to stomach every lunatic fringe group who at the same time insulted us for the condition of America while they re-directed our society from behind a cell-phone. And to be sure, our working span in the job force is over, like it or not.
We will not be around to work another thirty or forty years to fuel the Kumbaya architecture of buffoons. We're retired. We voted for McCain.
In a slate of diverse opinions, this isn't our fight.
thcri
Gone But Not Forgotten
Makes a lot of sense to have them negotiate together. If I was Ford GM and Chrysler there would be one guy missing there in my book.
Dargo
Like a bad penny...
Yup, as an American citizen and taxpayer, I feel that I have an obligation to inform my Congressional Representative that Mr. Nastyfinger must be removed from the negotiations (actually, removed completely) before I'd be willing to even listen to any 'bridge loan' plan. Any Representative who insists Mr. Nastyfinger be present may as well hold up a sign that says that "I'm completely bought and paid for via the UAW" in big bold letters. And, if they do so, they may as well have "and I'm not planning on having my job after the next election" stamped on their forehead!