Jim,
  You say,“The funds are not there for short term loans. Congress approved 25 billion for technology and research and re-tooling. Loans are a different subject”
  The tecnology is already there.Any research would be for enhancing what they already have.Because these companies lacked the foresight to retool and rethink the market for their product we should not have to bear he burden of their poor decision making.
  And I don’t feel sorry for the millions of workers who have priced themselves out of jobs by unreasonable demands from the employers.
According to Forbes:

Labor cost per hour, wages and benefits for hourly workers, 2006.

Ford: $70.51 ($141,020 per year)

GM: $73.26 ($146,520 per year)

Chrysler: $75.86 ($151,720 per year)

Toyota, Honda, Nissan (in U.S.): $48.00 ($96,000 per year)

Kaipo as has been pointed out previously none of these so called bail outs have cost the tax payer money. All the deals have resulted in profit returns for the taxpayer. Now if we can get Bush-Paulson out of the way maybe these new deals will provide returns as well.

Now here is another interesting angle on GM

http://www.greenchipstocks.com/

Absolutely The Funniest Joke Ever !

ON US



Do you have any memory of the reason given for the establishment of the DEPT. OF ENERGY during the Carter Administration? Anybody? Anything? No? Didn’t think so. Bottom line . . . . We’ve spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency the reason for which not one person who reads this can remember.

Ready? It was very simple, and at the time everybody thought it very appropriate.

The Department of Energy was instituted 8-04-1977 TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL. HEY, PRETTY EFFICIENT, HUH?



AND NOW IT’S 2008, 31 YEARS LATER, AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS NECESSARY DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR, THEY HAVE 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, AND APP ROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES AND LOOK AT THE JOB THEY HAVE DONE!

THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY ‘WHAT WAS I THINKING?’

Ah yes, good ole bureaucracy. And And now we are going to turn the Banking system and possibly GM over to them?
Gee I hope we get as good a return on this venture as the last one.

Jim Menzie - 21 November 2008 12:56 PM

Kaipo as has been pointed out previously none of these so called bail outs have cost the tax payer money. All the deals have resulted in profit returns for the taxpayer. Now if we can get Bush-Paulson out of the way maybe these new deals will provide returns as well.

Now here is another interesting angle on GM

http://www.greenchipstocks.com/

Everything the government does, costs the taxpayers money. If you don’t believe that your dumber than your posts.

I thought the Alternative Energy Clock was probably the most useless piece of information found on any web site I’ve seen to date.
Especially since Global CO2 emissions have no bearing on anything of value what-so-ever.

Everything the government does, costs the taxpayers money. If you don’t believe that your dumber than your posts.

  That was pitiful Kaipo - not only did you fail to recognise the simple truth of “bail outs” you change the subject to anything the government does and make a personal attack to boot.

I thought the Alternative Energy Clock was probably the most useless piece of information found on any web site I’ve seen to date.
Especially since Global CO2 emissions have no bearing on anything of value what-so-ever.

Now that’s a real gem. Shows once again your lack of understanding of climate change economics. The economics of managing co2 will probably dominate the economies of the world for the next century.

  That was pitiful Kaipo - not only did you fail to recognise the simple truth of “bail outs” you change the subject to anything the government does and make a personal attack to boot.

It was like one of your posts, wasn’t it.

I thought the Alternative Energy Clock was probably the most useless piece of information found on any web site I’ve seen to date.
Especially since Global CO2 emissions have no bearing on anything of value what-so-ever.

Now that’s a real gem. Shows once again your lack of understanding of climate change economics. The economics of managing co2 will probably dominate the economies of the world for the next century.

Explain why there is a need to manage CO2, especially since we know have proof positive that high CO2 levels have nothing to do with man-made global warming (since man-made global warming doesn’t exist)?

Another vote for bankruptcy with very good arguments.

Obama Scores A’s in Politics, Flunks Leader Test: Kevin Hassett
A politician is a person who says one thing, does the opposite, and fails to acknowledge the contradiction. A leader is a person who does the right thing, no matter the consequences.

Every president must decide, on balance, which he will be.

When you look back at past presidents, the most successful ones, like Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, often led regardless of the political risks.

The less successful ones, like Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, operated without any clear compass and sailed with the political winds. Bush, for example, flip-flopped from tax-cutting conservative to prescription-drug peddler, all with an eye toward building a permanent majority. (He was right about the majority part, but he got the party wrong.)

Let’s assume that most politicians want history to view them as leaders. As Barack Obama is already finding out, it isn’t easy. We are already learning a good deal about his leadership style, and for those hungering for a post-partisan direction, his performance has been disappointing.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=amI2XKsFI0bI&refer=home