Naw, I'm not napping, just amazed. Before the election, I watched yourself and others like bloomzie sing Obama's praises because he talked about healthcare, tax reform and other liberal ideas.
Now I watch the same Liberals talk about how healthcare costs that the auto companies have shouldn't be paid for with taxpayer money.
Is taxpayer funding for healthcare for those who can't afford it NOW any different then funding healthcare for UAW workers who lose it LATER? I don't understand the idea of paying for those who don't have and let those who can't afford it go away. Healthcare, by the way, is one of those large costs that hampers the American car companies from building the kinds of cars the liberals talk about.
Another cost for the American car companies is pensions for it's retirees. If GM gets rid of that obligation, it becomes very competitive with the foreign car makers. But the people that get hurt are the "middle class" that the liberals and Obama talk about saving. Are there different levels of "middle class" that he and the liberals were talking about? Or were the autoworker middle class not being included?
And the bigger question I have is, if we say we shouldn't save this industry, is there any industry we should save? Point, the American public got all up in arms over the Arab's buying up control of some of our ports. Why is this any different? How about Iran buying Los Almos? Or maybe the Chinese buying Exon Mobil?
I'm not for giving the American auto companies any money without strings. But I don't see any better use of taxpayer money then reorganizing a key manufacturing component of our economy.
I can't help myself, I am with the fox on this one. Lots of fault in the auto industry, lots of blame all around, but who is helped by letting this industry go down?
The truth is American consumers
wanted the suvs and the cars and trucks that we are driving. No one forced us into buying them, and they delivered a product we like.
Another truth is that we don't want clean deisel, the product used in many of the cars in Europe, that provides such high fuel mileage, and we don't want the fuel effeicient cars that we claim, or we would we doing it. Our oil/gas issues and dependency in this country have precluded this technology from being brought here, and being widely sold here. Our dallying with ethanol is another poor proposition, which is not going to come to fruition, and is propping up the farming industry.
Lots of American industries get supported by our government, including oil and farming, and it just depends on which way the political winds are blowing as to wether or not we think it is just and fair. Or whose family members and local economies are the most affected.
It saddens me to repeatedly hear about the UAW and the legacy costs, when there are so many more important issues tied to all of this. Cutting on the guys who helped build the industry and the country may seem like a fine idea now, but it won't be so fun when they are not spending money on retail, holidays, or dining out. I have heard so much about the UAW and the "wage", PLEASE someone tell me what the guys at AIG are making? Because they are not out on the street justifiying their paychecks.
The three separate planes was stupid, selfish, a complete misjudgement, and horrible PR for the companies. However, those thousands of dollars are nothing compared to the money that is being talked about. It is, unfortunately a way to pander to the public, evoke false outrage, look good infront of constituents, keep "news" people in jobs, sell commercial air time, and make much ado about nothing. And do nothing.
Those hearings did nothing for our country, our consumers, our industry, or our economy. And that's the real cost to our legacy, and maybe our future.
