Jim Bunning Voted Against Auto Bailout

Back to the bailout....

Ford is not asking for money at this time. GM and Chrysler are both accepting government handouts. That really pisses me off - if Ford thinks it can due without the money then fuck the other two companies.

Why does that make sense? If those 2 companies are in worse condition than Ford, than why shouldn't they get a bailout.

Thats like...... There are three guys. Brad doesn't need a loan, however Steve and Jack do. Say they all have jobs, however Steve and Jack still need help. So why would you not give Steve and Jack, who are totally different people than Brad, based on what Brad is doing. They are three seperate people, and therefore need to be treated three different ways.

Three different companies. Three different guys. It's the same thing.

catbox_9 wrote:

Back to the bailout....

Ford is not asking for money at this time. GM and Chrysler are both accepting government handouts. That really pisses me off - if Ford thinks it can due without the money then fuck the other two companies.

TG wrote:

Why does that make sense? If those 2 companies are in worse condition than Ford, than why shouldn't they get a bailout.

How does that make sense? In the town I live we used to have a K-mart. They built a Wal-Mart, people shopped there and the K-mart went out of business. Why? People liked Wal-Mart better - their stuff was cheaper, etc. That's how things work. If a company does something better than you do, you're out of luck. That's how business works. You need to do something to even out the playing field, not ask for government money.

TG wrote:

Thats like...... There are three guys. Brad doesn't need a loan, however Steve and Jack do. Say they all have jobs, however Steve and Jack still need help. So why would you not give Steve and Jack, who are totally different people than Brad, based on what Brad is doing. They are three seperate people, and therefore need to be treated three different ways.

Three different companies. Three different guys. It's the same thing.

No, it's like this.

Brad (Ford) is an idiot running a business. He makes tons of mistakes and pays his employees three times what they're worth. Times get tough but he is able to get by.

Steve and Jack (GM/Chrysler) are also idiots running a business. They makes tons of mistakes and pay their employees four times what they're worth. Times get tough and since they're such morons they have no money. Too bad.

----------

Don't think that's fair? Go and try and run your own department store. Pay all your employees $25.00 an hour to be cashiers. Sell inferior products for more than what the superior version costs. When you go bankrupt the government won't care. GM and Chrysler are the same thing only large companies.

For all these people complaining about losing their jobs and GM/Chrysler/Ford think honestly to yourselves and answer the following set of questions:

1. How much money were you making?
2. How much education do you have?
3. How much experience do you have?
4. How much money are people with similar education and experience making in other lines of work (in areas where the cost of living is about the same)?

If your answers to questions 1 and 4 are vastly different (which of course they are) that's why you have no job.

You can live in Michigan for very cheap compared to places on the East/West coasts. People with nothing more than a high school diploma shouldn't be making tons of money - that's bad business practice.

catbox_9 wrote:

No, it's like this.

Brad (Ford) is an idiot running a business. He makes tons of mistakes and pays his employees three times what they're worth. Times get tough but he is able to get by.

Steve and Jack (GM/Chrysler) are also idiots running a business. They makes tons of mistakes and pay their employees four times what they're worth. Times get tough and since they're such morons they have no money. Too bad.

----------

But if they were going to give them all loans, why would they decide to not give the 2 unable to get by loans just because the other said they didn't need it. Just because Ford doesn't require a loan, that doesn't mean the other two shouldn't recieve it. They are different companies.

TG wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

No, it's like this.

Brad (Ford) is an idiot running a business. He makes tons of mistakes and pays his employees three times what they're worth. Times get tough but he is able to get by.

Steve and Jack (GM/Chrysler) are also idiots running a business. They makes tons of mistakes and pay their employees four times what they're worth. Times get tough and since they're such morons they have no money. Too bad.

----------

But if they were going to give them all loans, why would they decide to not give the 2 unable to get by loans just because the other said they didn't need it. Just because Ford doesn't require a loan, that doesn't mean the other two shouldn't recieve it. They are different companies.

1. The government shouldn't be giving any of the companies handouts to begin with. Business 101 says that in capitalism your business is as successful as you make it. If you succeed, you are free to get as rich as you want. If you screw up, too bad.

2. If the government incorrectly decides it wants to give out money to all the companies because they need it, that's their prerogative - they have deemed the auto industry is a necessity. If; however, one of the companies has decided it will wait and see if it can get by without a handout, the government should force the others to follow suit. None of them deserve any handouts and if even one of them can get by without them, the others should be forced to try as well. If they fail that's too damn bad - it's not the government's fault they can't run their company.

catbox_9 wrote:

TG wrote:

Why does that make sense? If those 2 companies are in worse condition than Ford, than why shouldn't they get a bailout.

How does that make sense? In the town I live we used to have a K-mart. They built a Wal-Mart, people shopped there and the K-mart went out of business. Why? People liked Wal-Mart better - their stuff was cheaper, etc. That's how things work. If a company does something better than you do, you're out of luck. That's how business works. You need to do something to even out the playing field, not ask for government money.

TG wrote:

Thats like...... There are three guys. Brad doesn't need a loan, however Steve and Jack do. Say they all have jobs, however Steve and Jack still need help. So why would you not give Steve and Jack, who are totally different people than Brad, based on what Brad is doing. They are three seperate people, and therefore need to be treated three different ways.

Three different companies. Three different guys. It's the same thing.

No, it's like this.

Brad (Ford) is an idiot running a business. He makes tons of mistakes and pays his employees three times what they're worth. Times get tough but he is able to get by.

Steve and Jack (GM/Chrysler) are also idiots running a business. They makes tons of mistakes and pay their employees four times what they're worth. Times get tough and since they're such morons they have no money. Too bad.

----------

Don't think that's fair? Go and try and run your own department store. Pay all your employees $25.00 an hour to be cashiers. Sell inferior products for more than what the superior version costs. When you go bankrupt the government won't care. GM and Chrysler are the same thing only large companies.

For all these people complaining about losing their jobs and GM/Chrysler/Ford think honestly to yourselves and answer the following set of questions:

1. How much money were you making?
2. How much education do you have?
3. How much experience do you have?
4. How much money are people with similar education and experience making in other lines of work (in areas where the cost of living is about the same)?

If your answers to questions 1 and 4 are vastly different (which of course they are) that's why you have no job.

You can live in Michigan for very cheap compared to places on the East/West coasts. People with nothing more than a high school diploma shouldn't be making tons of money - that's bad business practice.

I agree with you


But Walmart is evil


People supporting China and costing people here their jobs by shopping there

catbox_9 wrote:

TG wrote:

Why does that make sense? If those 2 companies are in worse condition than Ford, than why shouldn't they get a bailout.

How does that make sense? In the town I live we used to have a K-mart. They built a Wal-Mart, people shopped there and the K-mart went out of business. Why? People liked Wal-Mart better - their stuff was cheaper, etc. That's how things work. If a company does something better than you do, you're out of luck. That's how business works. You need to do something to even out the playing field, not ask for government money.

TG wrote:

Thats like...... There are three guys. Brad doesn't need a loan, however Steve and Jack do. Say they all have jobs, however Steve and Jack still need help. So why would you not give Steve and Jack, who are totally different people than Brad, based on what Brad is doing. They are three seperate people, and therefore need to be treated three different ways.

Three different companies. Three different guys. It's the same thing.

No, it's like this.

Brad (Ford) is an idiot running a business. He makes tons of mistakes and pays his employees three times what they're worth. Times get tough but he is able to get by.

Steve and Jack (GM/Chrysler) are also idiots running a business. They makes tons of mistakes and pay their employees four times what they're worth. Times get tough and since they're such morons they have no money. Too bad.

----------

Don't think that's fair? Go and try and run your own department store. Pay all your employees $25.00 an hour to be cashiers. Sell inferior products for more than what the superior version costs. When you go bankrupt the government won't care. GM and Chrysler are the same thing only large companies.

For all these people complaining about losing their jobs and GM/Chrysler/Ford think honestly to yourselves and answer the following set of questions:

1. How much money were you making?
2. How much education do you have?
3. How much experience do you have?
4. How much money are people with similar education and experience making in other lines of work (in areas where the cost of living is about the same)?

If your answers to questions 1 and 4 are vastly different (which of course they are) that's why you have no job.

You can live in Michigan for very cheap compared to places on the East/West coasts. People with nothing more than a high school diploma shouldn't be making tons of money - that's bad business practice.

Nor will GM and Chrysler change their habits after they recieve the money


The status quo continues


We spending tax money on an industry whose mindset is stuck in the 1950s in regards to how they run things

gs78 wrote:

Nor will GM and Chrysler change their habits after they recieve the money


The status quo continues


We spending tax money on an industry whose mindset is stuck in the 1950s in regards to how they run things

Why would they change? With the government's free money they can get back to work and have the capital to do it. When things get screwed up again, they can just ask for more free money and call it another loan.

Fine, I'll just say, for the moment, that the government doesn't give loans to GM and Chrysler.

Ford is still suffering, GM and Chrysler fail. Everyone who worked for GM and Chrysler, and MANY who worked for ford, are now unemployed.... Or are getting a lot less money anyway.

All the restaurants begin to fail because nobody can afford to go out. All the airports and specific companies decline because the car workers as well as the food people can't afford to go on vacation, meaning vacation areas also suffer because nobody is going there. All the non-necesities (computers, iPods, boats, tv's, etc.) aren't bought by this large group of people.

Also, other companies also decline because we aren't buying from them either.

Ford and even foreign car companies are glad that the government gave loans to GM and Chrysler. If they didn't, GM and Chrysler file bankruptcy. Suppliers go out of business also, meaning Ford and other car companies suffer. The suppliers that manage to stay in business will charge Ford more money to make up the difference which would make Ford charge more money for it's cars. Ford then will have to file for bankruptcy. Meanwhile GM and Chrysler or liquidating and going out of business.

Foreign car companies will now have total control of the automotive market in the USA and will raise their prices. So if you want to pay more for cars in the future, pray that GM and Chrysler go bankrupt.

If I didn't live in Michigan, I would be saying let them go out of business. But since my financial well-being is directly effected by keeping the big 3 out of bankruptcy, I can't. It's easy when you are living in California and aren't directly effected one way or the other. If one of the big 3 go bankrupt, all hell will break lose in Michigan. I'm scared to death if that happens.

TG wrote:

Fine, I'll just say, for the moment, that the government doesn't give loans to GM and Chrysler.

Ford is still suffering, GM and Chrysler fail. Everyone who worked for GM and Chrysler, and MANY who worked for ford, are now unemployed.... Or are getting a lot less money anyway.

All the restaurants begin to fail because nobody can afford to go out. All the airports and specific companies decline because the car workers as well as the food people can't afford to go on vacation, meaning vacation areas also suffer because nobody is going there. All the non-necesities (computers, iPods, boats, tv's, etc.) aren't bought by this large group of people.

Also, other companies also decline because we aren't buying from them either.

Where does the government get this money they're giving out? There isn't exactly a surplus of funds in Washington. Times are tough everywhere but not everyone needs a bailout. How is it that some businesses can get by while others can't?

bobrob2004 wrote:

If I didn't live in Michigan, I would be saying let them go out of business.

That furthers my cause. The vast majority of Americans (96.71%) do not live in Michigan. You agree that the bailout isn't really necessary for the states other than Michigan - why should the federal government be concerned?

gs78 lives in Michigan and agrees with me. My uncle is a retired GM employee living in Michigan and is very much opposed to the bailout.

Since the bailout is going to happen, here's a few rules I hope they follow:

1. Pay your employees significantly less. The assembly workers with nothing more than high school diplomas should not make more than college-educated teachers, etc.
1a. If that is not acceptable, pay your employees significantly less but grandfather in the employees with their current salaries and have a freeze on any pay increases.
2. Stop making SUVs. Nobody buys them and for good reason.

catbox_9 wrote:

bobrob2004 wrote:

If I didn't live in Michigan, I would be saying let them go out of business.

That furthers my cause. The vast majority of Americans (96.71%) do not live in Michigan. You agree that the bailout isn't really necessary for the states other than Michigan - why should the federal government be concerned?

gs78 lives in Michigan and agrees with me. My uncle is a retired GM employee living in Michigan and is very much opposed to the bailout.

Since the bailout is going to happen, here's a few rules I hope they follow:

1. Pay your employees significantly less. The assembly workers with nothing more than high school diplomas should not make more than college-educated teachers, etc.
1a. If that is not acceptable, pay your employees significantly less but grandfather in the employees with their current salaries and have a freeze on any pay increases.
2. Stop making SUVs. Nobody buys them and for good reason.

I totally agree. I just hate being in the middle of it. It's easy to say that the country as a whole is doing good, but when you are living in the worst part, it's frustrating. I'm lucky that I'm still young enough to move as soon as I graduate. I wasn't intending on moving, but it makes the most sense. Why live in a depression-like economy when I can go somewhere else that's booming? Screw Michigan.

I feel bad for my dad. Just 10 more years until he retires. If the auto industry can survive just 10 more years. After that, I don't care what happens. The same job that my dad is doing now, requires 4 years of college. My dad has less than 1 year. If he loses his job, he's screwed.

Why anyone would want to live in Michigan now is beyond me.

There was a time I wanted to move Michigan. I like their sports teams but that just doesn't seem like a good enough reason to live there. Plus I've come to realize that snow isn't cool. It's okay for a few days on vacation, but not permanently.

California is full of problems, too. It's been hit harder than almost every state with the real estate problems and foreclosures. Something like 3 of the 5 cities with the most foreclosures per capita are in California right now.

And CA is one of the states that wants a state bailout, so it is not so well ran either. Ohio is not much better. The present Govnr. is an idiot!

GoGetEmTigers wrote:

And CA is one of the states that wants a state bailout, so it is not so well ran either. Ohio is not much better. The present Govnr. is an idiot!

CA is run very poorly. That's what happens when you elect a movie star to run the state.

bobrob2004 wrote:

Ford and even foreign car companies are glad that the government gave loans to GM and Chrysler. If they didn't, GM and Chrysler file bankruptcy. Suppliers go out of business also, meaning Ford and other car companies suffer. The suppliers that manage to stay in business will charge Ford more money to make up the difference which would make Ford charge more money for it's cars. Ford then will have to file for bankruptcy. Meanwhile GM and Chrysler or liquidating and going out of business.

Foreign car companies will now have total control of the automotive market in the USA and will raise their prices. So if you want to pay more for cars in the future, pray that GM and Chrysler go bankrupt.

If I didn't live in Michigan, I would be saying let them go out of business. But since my financial well-being is directly effected by keeping the big 3 out of bankruptcy, I can't. It's easy when you are living in California and aren't directly effected one way or the other. If one of the big 3 go bankrupt, all hell will break lose in Michigan. I'm scared to death if that happens.

But my living isn't Bobrob


Tired of my tax dollars being wasted

Bank executives got 1.6 billion according to an article I read today


How much will the auto executives get?


Fuck them


They are the ones that are responsible for the mess in the first place

catbox_9 wrote:

GoGetEmTigers wrote:

And CA is one of the states that wants a state bailout, so it is not so well ran either. Ohio is not much better. The present Govnr. is an idiot!

CA is run very poorly. That's what happens when you elect a movie star to run the state.

catbox_9 wrote:

gs78 wrote:

Nor will GM and Chrysler change their habits after they recieve the money


The status quo continues


We spending tax money on an industry whose mindset is stuck in the 1950s in regards to how they run things

Why would they change? With the government's free money they can get back to work and have the capital to do it. When things get screwed up again, they can just ask for more free money and call it another loan.

Exactly

catbox_9 wrote:

TG wrote:

Fine, I'll just say, for the moment, that the government doesn't give loans to GM and Chrysler.

Ford is still suffering, GM and Chrysler fail. Everyone who worked for GM and Chrysler, and MANY who worked for ford, are now unemployed.... Or are getting a lot less money anyway.

All the restaurants begin to fail because nobody can afford to go out. All the airports and specific companies decline because the car workers as well as the food people can't afford to go on vacation, meaning vacation areas also suffer because nobody is going there. All the non-necesities (computers, iPods, boats, tv's, etc.) aren't bought by this large group of people.

Also, other companies also decline because we aren't buying from them either.

Where does the government get this money they're giving out? There isn't exactly a surplus of funds in Washington. Times are tough everywhere but not everyone needs a bailout. How is it that some businesses can get by while others can't?

First the Banks

Now the Auto Industry


Lord Obama set to take over

Let the bailouts continue

TG wrote:

Fine, I'll just say, for the moment, that the government doesn't give loans to GM and Chrysler.

Ford is still suffering, GM and Chrysler fail. Everyone who worked for GM and Chrysler, and MANY who worked for ford, are now unemployed.... Or are getting a lot less money anyway.

All the restaurants begin to fail because nobody can afford to go out. All the airports and specific companies decline because the car workers as well as the food people can't afford to go on vacation, meaning vacation areas also suffer because nobody is going there. All the non-necesities (computers, iPods, boats, tv's, etc.) aren't bought by this large group of people.

Also, other companies also decline because we aren't buying from them either.

You have a point


On the other hand; if workers saved more of their money [ back in the 1990s] instead of buying boats, vacations and houses they can't afford; they wouldn't be in such bind

Again, blame tv for that! All people see are ads for stuff they don't need, but are made to think that something is wrong with them if they don't buy the item ON CREDIT!

At present, people are holding back now and only buying what they really need or are buying with cash. This has messed the government up this Christmas... since the Govt uses credit card records to judge how stores did for the holiday spending... problem is, they say stores are doing bad, but if you check the stores themselves, they say they did ok, just lots of people spent cash instead of credit! People got smart!!!

GoGetEmTigers wrote:

Again, blame tv for that! All people see are ads for stuff they don't need, but are made to think that something is wrong with them if they don't buy the item ON CREDIT!

At present, people are holding back now and only buying what they really need or are buying with cash. This has messed the government up this Christmas... since the Govt uses credit card records to judge how stores did for the holiday spending... problem is, they say stores are doing bad, but if you check the stores themselves, they say they did ok, just lots of people spent cash instead of credit! People got smart!!!

While I agree with your post in spirit, I have to disagree. Sure, ads and TV and what not is somewhat responsible, but using it as a scapegoat is an even bigger problem. The problem people seem to have these days is taking blame for something. If something goes wrong it's never their fault.

This is especially true with the real estate crisis. My dad's half-brother is now complaining about his house payment being too much - it's not his fault though...the banks shouldn't have approved him for such a high loan in the first place. I say that's crap - I don't care if the bank approves a guy at McDonalds for a $10,000,000 loan - the borrower should have enough sense to know what they can afford. Of course a bank is going to give you as big a loan as they think they can get away with - that's how they make money.

catbox_9 wrote:

GoGetEmTigers wrote:

Again, blame tv for that! All people see are ads for stuff they don't need, but are made to think that something is wrong with them if they don't buy the item ON CREDIT!

At present, people are holding back now and only buying what they really need or are buying with cash. This has messed the government up this Christmas... since the Govt uses credit card records to judge how stores did for the holiday spending... problem is, they say stores are doing bad, but if you check the stores themselves, they say they did ok, just lots of people spent cash instead of credit! People got smart!!!

While I agree with your post in spirit, I have to disagree. Sure, ads and TV and what not is somewhat responsible, but using it as a scapegoat is an even bigger problem. The problem people seem to have these days is taking blame for something. If something goes wrong it's never their fault.

This is especially true with the real estate crisis. My dad's half-brother is now complaining about his house payment being too much - it's not his fault though...the banks shouldn't have approved him for such a high loan in the first place. I say that's crap - I don't care if the bank approves a guy at McDonalds for a $10,000,000 loan - the borrower should have enough sense to know what they can afford. Of course a bank is going to give you as big a loan as they think they can get away with - that's how they make money.

I agree to some extent


However; I also agree with GoGetEm too


Two examples


At Madonna University when I bought books; I always got ads for credit cards from the cashier with my books

You got the credit card companies promising easy credit for 18 and 19 year olds that don't have a lot of experience paying bills



Another example; Tigerfest

When it was at Joe Louis Arena; You could but tickets at the office


Now

You have to charge by phone or the internet


I don't have a credit card no more


So I can't buy tickets

Which sucks because as a season ticket holder I get to arrive an hour before the general public does