Comments on: Does GM Stand For Government Motors Now?

By: mitsubishi fto

mitsubishi fto — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 04:11:12 +0000

This may be a wonderful blog post, i appreciate revealing partner. Bookmarked!

By: elaine kazinec

elaine kazinec — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:21:30 +0000

I think that may be exactly what needs to happen. My husband took an early retirement from the retail clerks union and over the years we have seen our income and benefits decline. We have accepted this because we understand that the economy can no longer support the promises that were made. Why is it that the auto unions are carrying on as usual with no regard for economic decline? We have always felt it's better to get something rather than nothing. Maybe if the auto unions and employees were willing to make some concessions they wouldn't be in this position. And let's not forget, our government has proven to be irresponsible with our money so who really believes they are going to save GM. And lets also not forget that it was democrats and republicans together creating this fiasco, particularly Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. elaine kazinec´s last blog post..Tray made from picture frame and vintage drawer handles.

By: Mel Kaye

Mel Kaye — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 00:29:45 +0000

Tom, BTW, your comments are displaying perfectly. Now to the subject at hand. For me it is also easy. I agree with you. If the government has to bail out a company, any company, then they absolutely should take some level of control over the operations, upper management, and the future of the company. If an organization does not want the government to come in, then don't accept their money. The equation is really black & white. To use your example, if I loaned my kid money to buy a car, then I would have some say in what he buys. If he does not need my money, then I have to say in what he buys. I don't see an argument here. Mel Kaye´s last blog post..Aprons

By: Tom Sawyer

Tom Sawyer — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:25:49 +0000

Actually, your comments are valid and what I was looking for. Yes, it is the car companies' fault they are in the situation they are in, but the government taking over isn't necessarily the option either. Would it be better if we let them go up in smoke?

By: elaine kazinec

elaine kazinec — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:01:09 +0000

I'll jump in on this one. For me it's really quite simple. If we allow the government to take over car companies, what stops them from coming after other businesses as well? Where do we draw the line? When Uncle Sam takes over banks, car companies and other businesses, as well as healthcare you can bid free enterprise a fond farewell.. If that doesn't bother you then you will be happy and content living in a socialist country. If that does bother you then you just might want to start questioning what's going on in Washington right now. For instance, where is the government going to get the money to cover all those warranties? And how long will it take to get your warranty work done when Uncle Sam is footing the bill and managing the companies? And what reason do we have to believe the government is going to do any better job running these car companies then the present CEO's have? Have you seen our countries checkbook lately? We're printing money in the white house basement and we're still spending like there's no tomorrow. This isn't party politics, this is sheer insanity. I feel badly for all those people who's jobs have been affected by this but my husband has suffered job losses due to poor management of companies he's worked for. We've had to relocate and start over and we got through it. My father was a smart man and I can tell you he never loaned money to anyone who was a poor credit risk. Our government is throwing money at people who will never pay it back and don't seem to understand how stupid that is. God help us all.