I "say what I believe as well...we’re all free to believe what we want. I don’t see, however, why you feel disagreeing with me is a license to insult me or the company I work for.

 

We'll thank everyone for making sure they aren't letting their personal feelings toward each other get in the way of stating facts and respectful opinions as part of the discussion.

 

BigDarknFast,
We are not going to get thru to Nashville.
Even though he denies it or downplays it, he is getting satisfaction on seeing the Big 3 squirm and possibly fail. He has nothing but disdain for the American auto industry, even though he says otherwise.
Why else would he say this in post #80 of this thread:


Robert,
I ask you: Why do you insist on seeing so many of your fellow Americans in such pain?
Please don't say that you don't want to see that. You've proven in post #80 of this thread that you do want to see it (see above quote).
Do you not have any compassion for a fellow human being?
What would an 80 year old GM retiree do for GOOD health care if this restructuring you hold in such high reverence, happened?
What did these people EVER do to you?

I just don't get it. How can so many people here on this board be so cold and callous?

 

They'd probably enroll in what most other 80 year-old Americans use.

http://www.medicare.gov/

The nerve of us asking GM to cut it's $17 million a year so that employees/retirees can get better boners. How completely insensitive!

 

Why should I reply to someone who denigrates my character and makes assumptions/accusations about my intentions and feelings and then asks me a question?

 

Find the real people to blame for GMs list of failures and you have found the real callous ones. Interestingly the people to blame for a lot of GMs shortcomings will be the ones that lose their jobs when GM files for bankruptcy.

I know I am not to blame. I bought 3 brand new cars form GM (and I am only 29). What they did with the money I gave them is their problem, not mine.

How dare them ask, no make that demand/expect me, a tax payer, to foot the bill for their horrible business decisions.

If I made bad financial decisions in my life and could not pay the note on my new GM car, do you think for one second GM would pitch in for the "good" of the customer and help me out. I think we all know the answer to that scenario.

The cold hard fact is GM deserves every bit of pain they are about to feel if they don't get free cash from our rear ends. I certainly to not deserve the treatment of being robbed of my property in the name of "good". And don't ever compare GMs incompetence and tax payer resistance to a lack of patriotism.

How dare anyone ask me to be robbed under the guise of good and patriotism, then insult me or anyone else for not giving our consent.

 

I'm going to respect Jason's guidance, and bow out of this thread. I've made the points I intended to.

 

Cuz Medicare works so well, right?

And who do you think pays for that.
The TAXPAYER!! Huh, imagine that.

You're suggesting that all of the Big 3 retirees and their medical needs should be offloaded to the taxpayers.
How much would that cost? $25 billion dollars?

You're going to pay one way or the other.

 

Well, as long as you and others like you keep spewing your anti-union rhetoric, I will continue to battle.

You see, I am an American auto industry employee. I'm also a proud member of the UAW. While I don't work in a production capacity, my job requires American vehicles being produced. What you & others are suggesting would put me out of a job. And all I hear from folks like you is anger and disdain. Why I have no idea. I don't know what I ever did to you people to have you hate me and people like me.

With that said, I like my job and need to keep it and will fight like hell to keep it.

 

The decisions and performance of your company and its employees put you out of a job; not the US tax payer. Now you demand that we "fix" your problem with our property. Property that was created through good performance and successful business and financial decisions.

Why you have no idea why the American tax payer is upset with your company's employees demanding a handout is beyond my reasoning. It is up to you to link the reasoning when you are the one demanding our money.

To those that understand liberty and private property, no explanation is needed. For those who do not have an idea what it means to live in a country founded on liberty, no explanation is possible.

 

Well hello truth, nice of you to come out.

I can't say I understand your frustration, because I've never been in a position to be potentially unemployed. I can say this. I don't think anyone here wakes up in the morning and says, "Hey, let's put "HuJass" out of a job, that should be fun."
IMHO, your frustration seems to be a bit misguided though. Why don't you seem to be frustrated by the likes of your employer's (mis)management? You know, like the ones who managed to basically set fire to over $70 BILLION in 4 years. How can they get to this point without thinking, "Uh-oh, Detroit, we have a problem."? It's like you're on a ship that's run aground and you're blaming the ocean instead of the captain and navigators of the ship. Don't even get me started on the UAW; I can't believe you're not the least bit upset with them either.
All I know is if I worked for an insolvent company like that, I'd already be looking for work elsewhere.

 

If the American taxpayer is going to have to foot the bill "one way or the other", then the bill should be as small as possible...yes???

No one has a right to say anything about what GM provides its employees/retirees so long as GM/UAW is paying for it from their own pockets/profits. But, when GM/UAW starts asking for the American taxpayer to foot the bill then the taxpayer has a right to say you get it no better than anyone else taking government largess.

If the taxpayer is going to foot the bill one way or the other then medicaid/medicare is good enough.

 

RN,
I almost don't even know why I bother posting, because we're thinking along almost the exact same lines, but people like you and Ponykillr seem to articulate those thoughts so much better.
The bottom line is if American automakers REALLY wanted/intended to survive, they would - without taxpayer aid. It's painfully obvious that they haven't done enough, or again, they wouldn't be in this quandary.
It's like this. If a person started to get gangrene in their foot, normally that person wouldn't ignore it, right? The person might not know what it is right off the bat, but they'd know enough to figure out something is wrong that needs fixed. But let's say the person does ignore it. The gangrene gets so bad, it's almost crippling and the person can barely walk. Finally he goes to the doctor, and they tell him that the gangrene has gotten to the point that he has to have his leg amputated or he will die. The person is distraught and seeks 2nd, 3rd, Nth opinions and they're all the same. At this point, what does the person do? (A) Have his leg amputated to save his life, or (B) Wait it out for some possible "divine intervention" to save him.
If you couldn't tell, I really like analogies.
I used this one because I actually knew an older guy who did this exact same thing, and he did have his leg amputated because of it. The story also parallels the recent history of our auto industry. They could've made smaller sacrifices sooner, when they knew something was wrong (going to the doctor sooner), but now they're faced with either losing a leg, or dying altogether. So the question remains, will the automakers choose option A or option B? Right now, it seems like they're waiting on option B to save them. Good luck with that.

 

My opinions about the unions in general and the UAW in particular are based on experience and observation - you can call it "rhetoric" if you wish but calling my opinions (or me) names doesn't invalidate those opinions.

I don't really care what the UAW does until they want to take money form my wallet - once they start demanding money from me then you are quite right that I'm going to examine them with a microscope and voice my opinions.


No one here hates you or is trying to put you out of a job. That does not mean that the American taxpayer should just blindly "take one for the team".

I don't think it's right or good for the country to bail out GM but that aside, ff GM wants money, the American taxpayer (and that includes me) has a right to ask why and to demand to know how the money is going to be used and when it will be paid back.

 

You know, I've every bit as curious as to how the American automakers are going to pull off this magic trick of paying back the "loan" if/when they get it?
How does a company pay down a loan when they're losing money? I mean, it seems pretty simple to me. Either (A) Generate more revenue, (B) Cut costs (C) Both A and B.

So let's address this.
(A) Generate more revenue.
Lots of luck with that, unless you pull all the employee's teeth and sell them to the tooth fairy for 10 bucks a pop. All joking aside, counting on an increase in revenue anytime in the near future would be completely stupid.

(B) Cut costs.
OK, these UAW concessions are great and wonderful, and will probably help substantially, but that doesn't kick in until January 1, 2010. So I'd really like to know what can/will be done in the meantime to reduce costs (besides the aformentioned toothless employees who will no longer need dental coverage, saving $1000/employee)?

As I see it, the best case scenario for the upcoming year is maybe the automakers are able to slow the rate at which they're losing money. That's the problem, they'll still be losing money - except it will be the taxpayer's money instead of their money. It would be just as productive if every taxpayer in the country took out $1000 and set it on fire.
That is, unless somehow the automakers figure out how to actually make A greater than B, and suddenly start to operate in the black instead of the red like the past 4 years.