[Closed] Help GM -- It's NOT a bail out:

They are not nuts - but I highly suspect you are.

You would sit by and plunge this country into another depression - perhaps rivaling the great depression.

In the auto industry alone, we would loose 3 million American jobs.

I guess you are happy the republicans want to turn their back on America while they pour billions of dollars down a rat hole called Iraq.

And how much better would it be

If Hamms brewery was still there, paying taxes and employing people?

Robert,

You are entitled to your opinion.

I agree with you, I never understood how you can sit home and collect 95% of your wages for not working. Go on strike for months a never make that money back and you know the rest. I learned a trade and had to work for every dollar I earned. In the mean time it used to piss me off coming home seeing a couple neighbors laughing because they get 95% for doing nothing. But I was concerned over my future and thought a skilled trade would be secure, that's why I didn't go automotive. They also needed to look up skilled labor, putting a door panel on and putting stickers in trunks wasn't skilled in my book. I just watched highlights of yesterdays Big 3 hearing, GM and Ford 8 private jets each, CEO's flew in and the dollar amount $20,000.00 round trip for GM. Eight Hundred if they flew first class, I think they said AIG had 16 jets. Also Ford's CEO made 28 million last year. Whatever>

Go buy yourself a dictionary

Or if you can't afford one, go to the library.

Look up the terms: "Bail out" and "Loan"

Of course for you, it won't matter. You don't care about 3 milion Amreicans losing their jobs, nor do you care about nearly a million retirees losing their health care.

I hope when you get to be 75 years, you have to go back to work in order to survive.

I'd have to say I'm in favor of some form of loan package if needed. No one really understands the impact a bankruptcy would have on the economy of this country. You think your 401K is ugly now? If a bankruptcy were declared get ready for another MASSIVE plunge in the market. I don't know about the rest of you but I'd like to retire some day.
These loans worked for Chrylser way back in the 80's. The car companies have a lot of baggage and really need to clean up their acts but the downside of not finding a way to help them is almost unimaginable, in my way of thinking.

Mark...you've got it.

What do you really know about the JOBs program?

I can speak first hand since I was there. The intent of the Union in negotiating the JOBs program was to force the company to keep workers employed by making it too costly for GM to lay them off. The rational behind this? Since the early 80's GM has taken work from it's factory and either sourced it in other manufactures, or (worse) sent it overseas.

Stop and think about it a minute. What is cheaper - paying another supplier 50% of what it was costing you to make a part - plus 100% of the wages of the workers you laid off, or keeping the work in house?

Of course the answer is simple, but GM decided it would be cheaper in the long run to ship the work out and let the JOBs bank depopulate as natural attrition eroded its numbers.

So blaming the UAW for the JOBs program is in essence blaming them for trying to keep its members employed. Isn't that what a Union is supposed to do?

Apples and Oranges

If you are seriously comparing the auto companies with individuals, you are showing how little you know about banking and the world of finance.

How many times in the 100+ year history has GM asked the government for a loan? Let me help you out - NONE.

Chrysler on the other did - one time - over 25 years ago. What did the government get for that loan? Well, they got it paid back early and kept thousands of Americans working.

Can you provide one piece of evidence that the autos won't repay a loan? I'm not interested in your personal feeling, I want facts. As a banker, you should appreciate that.

What the heck does Enron have to do with it?

It is obvious that know you almost nothing about GM from your previous posts, other than the fact that they make vehicles and are in trouble.

GM has been cutting head count - both hourly and salary since it's heyday's of the 1980's. During the past ten years, their prime focus has been on large vehicles. Why? It's not because they are stupid as you would claim. It's because that is what the public wanted and if GM didn't provide them, some else would. Why do you think Honda and Toyota started making them? Add to the equation that GM makes far more money of these vehicles than they do small ones, and it was a sound business practice.

So enlighten me, tell me what GM management did wrong as you claim. Give me specifics.