AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

[srercrcr]

If the bankers are gonna screw me, then, yes, we will regulate the hell out of them. They did, we will.

My motto for all business is "regulate yourself, or we will".

How can anybody defend the actions of the greedy lenders, investment bankers, brokerages, and mortgage brokers? They knew they were going way beyond their usual risk profile, but opted to go for more. And we pay. When did you stop being a consumer with rights? Man up, and demand better.

 

[rick48195]

Corporate greed is what got us here, as an example in the auto industry: they have parts made overseas and in Mexico because there are no pollution standards to deal with and very cheap labor which means very high profits. People can work all day for a bowl of rice because everything else is paid for by their government, housing, health care, etc etc. But what has happened is, they have done this, have been encouraged to do this, get tax breaks for doing this and now are in a situation where the very same people building their vehicles here are either out of work or cannot afford their vehicles, The CEOs and major stockholders are robbing these companies blind, and the right wing wants to point fingers at the unionns and the autoworkers. The autoworkers have always made good wages, and the auto industry has survived for 100 plus years. What's so different now? Well for one take just like 30 years ago a CEO would make like maybe five to ten times the amount of the average autoworker but now they make hundreds of times more. In another arena, the banking industry, the same CEO that was in charge of AIG's demise left that company with a 57 million dollar golden parachute, which came out of taxpayer money given to them by "W" Go figure.

I keep hearing talk of all these scary things our new President is going to do, been hearing them since the election campaign started, Is there someone out there that really believes that because someone voted Democratic that they know nothing and will sit and stand for all these scary things that are going to happen? I think there are a few listening to Rush Limbaugh's scare tactics. He's been blowing that same hot air for years and has never been right yet. That's right, all of his predictions have been wrong.

 

[CaStylin]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~The break down - TexasT~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

While your chivy might run good, it won't pull my trailer or haul my family in comfort. My Chevy does what I need it to. They chose not to build new ones with a bbc so, yes, I doubt I'll buy a new vehicle. I was driving it with $4/gal and will continue to drive it. I don't see the new ones as improved, and I surely don't see a new fascist remake of the company as a good thing. The only one left is Ford and they quit building the Excursion so new is out for me.

My 2003 4 door Chevy Impala can haul in comfort but likely won’t haul your trailer… But for the sake of argument you don’t need a BBC (by bbc I take it you mean big block Chevy) to do these things either. You can get the same HP & TQ into a full size truck (i.e. Silverado, GMC 1500) with a smaller engine such as a SBC or a V6 with a supercharger or turbo installed on it from factory. GM’s LS7 engine produces 303hp and 385TQ but still got 30+ MPG because of its cylinder cycle technology. The big block, as well the engine as a whole has constantly improved over the years in MPG, TQ, & HP. You compare a 1980 BB to a 2000+ BB and you find a world of difference in all aspects. The in reality the need for a BBC is gone, and the want for it has died as well which has caused the failure of GM. I’m not mistaken GM bankrupted its self, with out those you call “fascist” you wouldn’t have the option to buy a Chevy truck at all, BBC or not. Ford is left because it moved to more fuel effect cars and cut down its production of extra large trucks as well as started to improve its MPG as well as its HP & TQ of its best selling F150. If GM had done this there would have been no need for any interference.

I remember some pretty bad times during the Kilinton admin. Again, you might be too young to remember. The economy was poor. Not a high point if you ask me. and if he was doing such a great job why was the party voted out? If you remember the congress was controlled by a republican majority.

The economy was poor? On his departure, welfare was at an all time low and the Dow was at its high point. His term was and still is considered on of the largest expansions of the us economy in current history, republicans say that Bush I laid most of the ground work or this and I agree to a point but none the less the economic numbers don’t lie. I don’t know why you belie he was voted out… a president and only spend 8 years in the office, as 42nd president he served his two consecutive terms from 1993 to 2001… you may have been thinking of Bush I, who was voted out after his first term in a loss to Clinton

I am not afraid of the president. I am afraid of his supporters. The ones that got him there and the ones he owes for getting him there. They are calling the shots. You should be afraid too if you value your personal freedoms. Freedom and security are opposites.

Then your are afraid of 68+% of American who voted, and many more who chose not to vote but support. Obama was to be depicted as the president for the minorities… in reality the minorities didn’t get off there buts to vote… minority voting was only up 2-3% this election meaning only 12% of the minority population that has the power and right to vote actually did so. The rich and middle class normly choose who wins elections... this was the case in the past and this was the case in the last election.

Banking has already been ground under. The largest car mfg is next. If you don't see socialism/fascism on the horizon, you aren't paying attention.

I don’t believe that socialism is on the horizon since it didn’t happen in the last recession but I guess you are not paying attention to U.S. history. Again, as you mentioned the banks and car companies are going under but can not give any other suggestions to help the American economy or its people… we need a solution, letting it all fall apart as a unregulated capitalistic economy has failed more then once now, but you suggest that we continue on the same path towards another failure in the future

~~~~~~~~~~~The break down - Zjchevy~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well put. I drive a truck not because I want to, but because I need to. I don't like being pressured by the G into driving a smaller, less safer vehicle. I also don't like there ideas of taxing those who drive trucks-trucks make this country go round and round, from pickups to semi's. I don't see the new trucks being built better than the one I have now, I see them built cheaper. I used to get new trucks every two years, but with the new body style of GM trucks and my love of my '06, I have decided to keep the one I got and run it until the wheels fall off. I had to fuel up at $4 a gallon, and $85 a week sucked *ss-but I didn't have a choice. Comfort is also an issue for me. I too am not happy with the Bamster pulling the reigns at GM, but I am a GM/Mopar guy and I've had GM trucks my entire life... or at least the last 12 years that I've had a DL.

There is not a need for a smaller truck, as stated above you can get the same HP & TQ out of a smaller engine. I don’t know why people think the only solution to get more MPG is to cut size… Yes weight is a factor but unless you are dropping a lot of weight it is not making much difference on the MPG, it is more of a band aid then a true fix… Lets again look at the Prius (I hate how they look and I cant fit in one comfortably but they are a good example)… this year the Prius picked up 1-2 MPG, but at the same time added a couple more HP and some TQ and a good percentage in overall size. This is an example of what research and improving technologies can and will do, by growing larger it is again cutting into the market shares of GM and Chrysler who chose not to research and instead stick to 30+ year old engine designs (i.e. the 3800 series engine that was first used in the early 1980's.) This can be done with truck too, leaving size argument out in the wind. The last gov (bush II) sent the CAFE to 32 MPG for the fleet so i don’t see why there is a continued blame of Obama for CAFE standards... its not only illogical but historically wrong

No one discusses the economy under Clinton because he was such a 'great' president. Since 1/2 the country despised GWB, he will always be remembered for being president during tough times. Clinton had two agenda's, shrink our military and get his rocks off without getting out of his desk chair.

I take it you also believe he was voted out? Everyone discussed the economy under Clinton; it was commonly talked about as the age of reform, many financial plans (good and bad) where set in place during his administration, getting his rocks off or not, US financial expansion was there

Again I agree. The idiots that put him in office want to tell you what’s best for you as opposed to letting you make your own decisions. I refuse to lose my 2nd amendment right to carry, and will do whatever it takes to protect my family and myself. Then you have the EnviroNazi's like Al Gore telling us we need to drive prius' while he rides around in a bulletproof Suburban that gets 10 mpg. How many hands can be shoved up the President's *ss to make him talk? He is nothing more than a puppet for chaos.

there is no conspiracy for an amendment to the constitution, no presidential bills in play… This, like many are scare tactics given by the GOP to attempt to sway public opinion. Also I believe Gores Suburban now has a bio diesel engine, it’s bigger, stronger and get much more MPG then the normal suburban… How’s that for being an enviornazi

if things keep going the way they are, most of the Americans who voted Obama in will realize the words on the teleprompter are nothing more than lies.

Don't even get me started on the "Cash for Clunkers" bill that was passed.

I think you meant to say that “most of American who voted for Obama”. This wasn’t even a close election… your teleprompter argument is superficial as a way to dismiss his speech patterns, I’d said it before and will say it again, since the expansion of the teleprompter there has not been a president that did not use one in public speech, there have been many president (including both bushes) that refused to answer questions after speeches because of the lack of the teleprompter or pre screening of the questions. If the teleprompter was the key to great speeches then all past presidents would have been giving good or better speeches and this is just not the case

 

[rick48195]

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me

.

Okay why?

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

Does anyone really know any newly elected President?

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

Grants my man, you didn't have to ask George W how he paid for his did you? George had a PHD + PaPa Had Dough

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

Seems pretty down to earth and well adjusted as an American to me.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

Have all the other Presidents ran companies prior to being elected President?

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.

Not having military experience at his age is a normal thing, The draft ended in about 1972 he was too young for being drafted and chose to get educated instead of joining the military. Plus the job market has been pretty good up till now.

You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.

This guy has more class in his middle finger that W had in his whole body

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

I thought he did publicly denounce them and also stopped affiliating with them.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You must have heard a different speech than I did, He sounds like a cheerleader for America instead of one blaming America

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

Well the last guy let big business dominate everything and look at what mess that has caused

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

The American worker is constantly made to compete one on one with workers in other countries where they have National health care, ever wonder why so many companies have moved to Canada, companies there don't have to pay for their workers health care costs or their retirees health care costs, the government pays that and health care is a huge cost to a company.

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

Wow, did McCain say this one? We were told that "the only way gas prices would come down is if we drilled right now, remember drill baby drill? As soon as Bush left gas went to 2 bucks a gallon on not one hole was drilled.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

American capitalism became too greedy and only made the rich get richer, and now the poor are getting poorer.

You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.

The banks and corporations you speak of came to the government for money, bailouts. This is taxpayer money, don't you think that a responsible person, before loaning anyone taxpayer money would ensure that these companies, corporations and banks could pay it back eventually? W gave the banks 700 billion with no conditions and well never see that money again

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals

.

Spending proposals? You mean "trying to fix this country's economy" proposals?

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

So is he a real Maverick?

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

why would that scare you?

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

Media like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity?

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

These people offer NOTHING except to keep the pot stirred up. They use scare tactics to try and scare people like you who believe in what they say. NOT ONE OF LIMBAUGHS PREDICTIONS HAVE COME TO PASS, you should keep paying him 37 million a year just to badmouth the Democrats for 15 hours a week.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

His is controlling already after 4 months? Its about time someone took the wheel, besides Cheney

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years

.

Don't worry this is America Limbaugh will still be badmouthing our President 8 years from now, (if it's still a Democrat) we as American's have that right

Lou Pritchett

Note: Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.

This guy was part of the problem not the solution, what's he afraid of? He's already retired drawing his huge golden parachute.

Mr. Pritchett confirmed that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated "open letter." “I did write the 'you scare me' letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the internet and according to the ‘experts’ has had over 500,000 hits.

 

[TexasT]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~The break down - TexasT~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

While your chivy might run good, it won't pull my trailer or haul my family in comfort. My Chevy does what I need it to. They chose not to build new ones with a bbc so, yes, I doubt I'll buy a new vehicle. I was driving it with $4/gal and will continue to drive it. I don't see the new ones as improved, and I surely don't see a new fascist remake of the company as a good thing. The only one left is Ford and they quit building the Excursion so new is out for me.

My 2003 4 door Chevy Impala can haul in comfort but likely won’t haul your trailer… But for the sake of argument you don’t need a BBC (by bbc I take it you mean big block Chevy) to do these things either. You can get the same HP & TQ into a full size truck (i.e. Silverado, GMC 1500) with a smaller engine such as a SBC or a V6 with a supercharger or turbo installed on it from factory. GM’s LS7 engine produces 303hp and 385TQ but still got 30+ MPG because of its cylinder cycle technology. The big block, as well the engine as a whole has constantly improved over the years in MPG, TQ, & HP. You compare a 1980 BB to a 2000+ BB and you find a world of difference in all aspects. The in reality the need for a BBC is gone, and the want for it has died as well which has caused the failure of GM. I’m not mistaken GM bankrupted its self, with out those you call “fascist” you wouldn’t have the option to buy a Chevy truck at all, BBC or not. Ford is left because it moved to more fuel effect cars and cut down its production of extra large trucks as well as started to improve its MPG as well as its HP & TQ of its best selling F150. If GM had done this there would have been no need for any interference.

I remember some pretty bad times during the Kilinton admin. Again, you might be too young to remember. The economy was poor. Not a high point if you ask me. and if he was doing such a great job why was the party voted out? If you remember the congress was controlled by a republican majority.

The economy was poor? On his departure, welfare was at an all time low and the Dow was at its high point. His term was and still is considered on of the largest expansions of the us economy in current history, republicans say that Bush I laid most of the ground work or this and I agree to a point but none the less the economic numbers don’t lie. I don’t know why you belie he was voted out… a president and only spend 8 years in the office, as 42nd president he served his two consecutive terms from 1993 to 2001… you may have been thinking of Bush I, who was voted out after his first term in a loss to Clinton

I am not afraid of the president. I am afraid of his supporters. The ones that got him there and the ones he owes for getting him there. They are calling the shots. You should be afraid too if you value your personal freedoms. Freedom and security are opposites.

Then your are afraid of 68+% of American who voted, and many more who chose not to vote but support. Obama was to be depicted as the president for the minorities… in reality the minorities didn’t get off there buts to vote… minority voting was only up 2-3% this election meaning only 12% of the minority population that has the power and right to vote actually did so. The rich and middle class normly choose who wins elections... this was the case in the past and this was the case in the last election.

Banking has already been ground under. The largest car mfg is next. If you don't see socialism/fascism on the horizon, you aren't paying attention.

I don’t believe that socialism is on the horizon since it didn’t happen in the last recession but I guess you are not paying attention to U.S. history. Again, as you mentioned the banks and car companies are going under but can not give any other suggestions to help the American economy or its people… we need a solution, letting it all fall apart as a unregulated capitalistic economy has failed more then once now, but you suggest that we continue on the same path towards another failure in the future

~~~~~~~~~~~The break down - Zjchevy~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well put. I drive a truck not because I want to, but because I need to. I don't like being pressured by the G into driving a smaller, less safer vehicle. I also don't like there ideas of taxing those who drive trucks-trucks make this country go round and round, from pickups to semi's. I don't see the new trucks being built better than the one I have now, I see them built cheaper. I used to get new trucks every two years, but with the new body style of GM trucks and my love of my '06, I have decided to keep the one I got and run it until the wheels fall off. I had to fuel up at $4 a gallon, and $85 a week sucked *ss-but I didn't have a choice. Comfort is also an issue for me. I too am not happy with the Bamster pulling the reigns at GM, but I am a GM/Mopar guy and I've had GM trucks my entire life... or at least the last 12 years that I've had a DL.

There is not a need for a smaller truck, as stated above you can get the same HP & TQ out of a smaller engine. I don’t know why people think the only solution to get more MPG is to cut size… Yes weight is a factor but unless you are dropping a lot of weight it is not making much difference on the MPG, it is more of a band aid then a true fix… Lets again look at the Prius (I hate how they look and I cant fit in one comfortably but they are a good example)… this year the Prius picked up 1-2 MPG, but at the same time added a couple more HP and some TQ and a good percentage in overall size. This is an example of what research and improving technologies can and will do, by growing larger it is again cutting into the market shares of GM and Chrysler who chose not to research and instead stick to 30+ year old engine designs (i.e. the 3800 series engine that was first used in the early 1980's.) This can be done with truck too, leaving size argument out in the wind. The last gov (bush II) sent the CAFE to 32 MPG for the fleet so i don’t see why there is a continued blame of Obama for CAFE standards... its not only illogical but historically wrong

No one discusses the economy under Clinton because he was such a 'great' president. Since 1/2 the country despised GWB, he will always be remembered for being president during tough times. Clinton had two agenda's, shrink our military and get his rocks off without getting out of his desk chair.

I take it you also believe he was voted out? Everyone discussed the economy under Clinton; it was commonly talked about as the age of reform, many financial plans (good and bad) where set in place during his administration, getting his rocks off or not, US financial expansion was there

Again I agree. The idiots that put him in office want to tell you what’s best for you as opposed to letting you make your own decisions. I refuse to lose my 2nd amendment right to carry, and will do whatever it takes to protect my family and myself. Then you have the EnviroNazi's like Al Gore telling us we need to drive prius' while he rides around in a bulletproof Suburban that gets 10 mpg. How many hands can be shoved up the President's *ss to make him talk? He is nothing more than a puppet for chaos.

there is no conspiracy for an amendment to the constitution, no presidential bills in play… This, like many are scare tactics given by the GOP to attempt to sway public opinion. Also I believe Gores Suburban now has a bio diesel engine, it’s bigger, stronger and get much more MPG then the normal suburban… How’s that for being an enviornazi

if things keep going the way they are, most of the Americans who voted Obama in will realize the words on the teleprompter are nothing more than lies.

Don't even get me started on the "Cash for Clunkers" bill that was passed.

I think you meant to say that “most of American who voted for Obama”. This wasn’t even a close election… your teleprompter argument is superficial as a way to dismiss his speech patterns, I’d said it before and will say it again, since the expansion of the teleprompter there has not been a president that did not use one in public speech, there have been many president (including both bushes) that refused to answer questions after speeches because of the lack of the teleprompter or pre screening of the questions. If the teleprompter was the key to great speeches then all past presidents would have been giving good or better speeches and this is just not the case

Oh, for you or anybody else to decide what I or anybody else "needs" crosses the line in my opinion. It should in your opinion too. This is about personal freedom. If you want personal freedom, you should rethink your ideals.

Whether I need a BBC or not is for me to decide. You don't include purchase price, insurance, maintenance or other costs. The other options would include increased cost to me. The one I have works fine and no I doubt what you have would pull any of my trailers. Also a personal decision of mine to own. It makes hauling what I want to where I want. As a side I doubt any 1/2 ton size would either, for any length of time. You need to look up what fascism is and the government butting into GM is just that. And as far as that goes, as I see it I don't have that choice any longer as I won't support fascism or socialism.

Yes, I am afraid that the ability to belly up to the government trough has been realized. Socialism only works until the money runs out. Taking from the haves to give to the have nots will crush the government. The money is leaving to invest in the "world economy" or haven't you noticed. Less regulation as Reagan did. Less taxes to foster a pro business climate. Driving the business away through higher taxes doesn't exactly help the job market flourish. Funny, when Klinton was in office I paid income tax every year. The years of republican leadership got a tax refund. Care to explain. The withholding was the same. Sounds like higher taxes to me.

 

[TexasT]

If the bankers are gonna screw me, then, yes, we will regulate the hell out of them. They did, we will.

My motto for all business is "regulate yourself, or we will".

How can anybody defend the actions of the greedy lenders, investment bankers, brokerages, and mortgage brokers? They knew they were going way beyond their usual risk profile, but opted to go for more. And we pay. When did you stop being a consumer with rights? Man up, and demand better.

While I won't defend the bankers, I will say that if the consumer was better educated they might not have gotten into such problems. Why would anyone borrow more than they could repay? They didn't know any better? I would say that we need to educate the consumer and this includes your children and mine on money. I make every effort to educate mine. I want them to succeed.

Who took the consumer's rights? These lenders were just offering a service. The uneducated took the bait. Less is more. Let the lenders fail. This is capitalism at its finest. More lenders would come. The money doesn't just disappear. Somebody pocketed it. They have to make a living too. Selling money(banking) is as good a game as selling fear(Insurance).

rick48195, it wasn't just corporate greed but consumer greed that produced the bad loans. Borrowing more than you can repay is greedy. Again a better educated individual might have been able to make a more educated decision. No guarantee but better than just hoping.

 

[rick48195]

rick48195, it wasn't just corporate greed but consumer greed that produced the bad loans. Borrowing more than you can repay is greedy. Again a better educated individual might have been able to make a more educated decision. No guarantee but better than just hoping.

I agree in part with you about the loans but many of the people who got home mortgages were working couples, both working good jobs, and qualified for these loans based on that (now many of them are laid off) There were many others who say borrowed 200K for a home costing say 220K with an adjustable rate mortgage in 2001, these ARM mortgages usually have a span of 7 years, at that time the buyer must get a new mortgage or pay 200K (this is just an example) so this buyer has been paying on the home for seven years ARM now he must either come up with the 200K or get a new mortgage. He doesn't have the 200K so he applies for a mortgage. The mortgage company comes out and appraises the home, and low and behold after 7 years, now it's 2008, his home is only worth 150K so then the buyer must come up with 50K or lose the home are you catching my drift? This is what happened to I would say most of the bad mortgages. Home values have dropped at least 25 to 30 percent in the last 7 years. I have never seen real estate go down in value that much in my time, who would have known? I guess what I'm saying it really wasn't the buyers fault in many cases, this all goes hand in hand with this depression.

 

[TexasT]

rick48195, it wasn't just corporate greed but consumer greed that produced the bad loans. Borrowing more than you can repay is greedy. Again a better educated individual might have been able to make a more educated decision. No guarantee but better than just hoping.

I agree in part with you about the loans but many of the people who got home mortgages were working couples, both working good jobs, and qualified for these loans based on that (now many of them are laid off) There were many others who say borrowed 200K for a home costing say 220K with an adjustable rate mortgage in 2001, these ARM mortgages usually have a span of 7 years, at that time the buyer must get a new mortgage or pay 200K (this is just an example) so this buyer has been paying on the home for seven years ARM now he must either come up with the 200K or get a new mortgage. He doesn't have the 200K so he applies for a mortgage. The mortgage company comes out and appraises the home, and low and behold after 7 years, now it's 2008, his home is only worth 150K so then the buyer must come up with 50K or lose the home are you catching my drift? This is what happened to I would say most of the bad mortgages. Home values have dropped at least 25 to 30 percent in the last 7 years. I have never seen real estate go down in value that much in my time, who would have known? I guess what I'm saying it really wasn't the buyers fault in many cases, this all goes hand in hand with this depression.

When you make an investment there is no guarantee of value retention. Never has been. The value can be eroded by many different scenarios. Again there is no guarantee of keeping a job or earning a living. Sad as it is, real estate has lost value along with much of the market. There are products that insure against loss. I understand they lost but no one said it couldn't happen, just that it hasn't before. My investments lost value just like everyone else. I was also able to buy some at levels not seen since the eighties. They are out there, and are on sale.

The market should rebound. Always has before but this time might be different. With the babyboom generation withdrawing, is there enough going back in to keep up the demand. Supply and demand in a free market with control the pricing. Unfortunately, there is more supply than demand and the markets seem to be falling.

I understand the problem and don't have a solution but do think that greed of the buyer to have a bigger, better keep up with the jones place might have been better left alone.

 

[srercrcr]

The investment brokerages that stole the money from well-to-do clients practiced illegal activities. Why would anybody want to turn a blind eye to this and blame the consumer. It is greedy besinessmen plain and simple. And Obama will address it today.

And what about the Mortgage Brokers Assoc? They knew what was happening and didn't self-regulate their members.....Sooooo, we will regulate them.

 

[CaStylin]

Oh, for you or anybody else to decide what I or anybody else "needs" crosses the line in my opinion. It should in your opinion too. This is about personal freedom. If you want personal freedom, you should rethink your ideals.

No one is cutting in on your personal freedom, if you want to blame some one for the end of BBC you should blame technology, GM and a capitalistic society, Technology because it has produced smaller engines that out perform the BB, GM because it has not corrected or improved the BB to be competitive in the current market and a capitalistic society because the buyer has chosen to pass over the BBC for other trucks/ automakers that used technology to control the light duty market. Blaming the Government who is investing in the aftermath is illogical by all means, In the true capitalistic society that you desire if a company has failed because it has not adapted (like GM has done) then it should fall to the wind and its competitors to take its place, well right now its competitors have taken its place with trucks of the same size but with more power and better efficient, GM has to loss the BB in its light weight trucks for the company to even be competitive regardless if the government helps in the restructure or not

Whether I need a BBC or not is for me to decide. You don't include purchase price, insurance, maintenance or other costs. The other options would include increased cost to me. The one I have works fine and no I doubt what you have would pull any of my trailers. Also a personal decision of mine to own. It makes hauling what I want to where I want. As a side I doubt any 1/2 ton size would either, for any length of time.

There is a difference between need and want. You want a BBC, you need the space and power that is associated with the current BBC models. Solution; keep the BBC body styles and drop in a better performing engine. Now GM has a truck that is marketable to the masses and hopefully it gains back some of its lost market share.

It’s understandable that you don’t what to trade in your current truck for a new truck; no one is asking or telling you to do that. Your original argument as quoted
~~~~~~~

I guess the bottom line is I'll never buy another wrong wheel drive. I will never buy a four cylinder car. I can't pull my trailers with a prius or any of the other vehicles the foreign mfgs offer. It is beginning to look like I will never buy a new vehicle again.

~~~~~~
The fact is that it does not require (AKA "need") the big block to pull your trailers unless you drive a dully and are hauling cars or cattle on a constant bases … and even then a supercharged V6 can produce the same or better response with more MPG. The BBC is dead not because of the Government but because of the people of the US and the changes in technology which makes the BB unefficent. also when refering to cost, as a hypitical suituation; Say our new trucks are the same size and have the same power...if my turbo V6 truck get 30% more MPG then your new BBC truck but mine cost 2k more, gas is $4.00 a gallon, and we both drive 20k miles a year how long will it take before my truck is a better investment.. not long right, so cost realy isnt a factor when comparing new buys... which again is a reason the BB is dead

You need to look up what fascism is and the government butting into GM is just that. And as far as that goes, as I see it I don't have that choice any longer as I won't support fascism or socialism.

So what would you do with GM, the jobs it holds, the suppliers of GM, the jobs those companies hold… if you really want to be truly capitalistic then you would let the company fail and leave a good portion of the American working class jobless & likely on government assistance programs costing as much money as the GM investment with 0 return, at the same time the strength in the us dollar will drop and the importation of overseas autos will increase 100 fold, investment markets will continue to slump since the middle class no longer shops of anything but necessities.. This is what you would do… if not what would you do?

Yes, I am afraid that the ability to belly up to the government trough has been realized. Socialism only works until the money runs out. Taking from the haves to give to the have nots will crush the government. The money is leaving to invest in the "world economy" or haven't you noticed. Less regulation as Reagan did.

you are afraid of “investment in world economy” but would let one of the biggest US job markets chains die? Is that logical? The US auto indestry would be an open investment in to the world economy since it would have no return to the people of the US in earned wages

Less taxes to foster a pro business climate. Driving the business away through higher taxes doesn't exactly help the job market flourish. Funny, when Klinton was in office I paid income tax every year. The years of republican leadership got a tax refund. Care to explain. The withholding was the same. Sounds like higher taxes to me.

? I don’t know our wage or deductions but I will guess it was because of differing wages and deductions, there where very few changes in tax credits to the middle lower class between the Clinton administration and Bush jr’s admonition

Who took the consumer's rights? These lenders were just offering a service. The uneducated took the bait. Less is more. Let the lenders fail. This is capitalism at its finest. More lenders would come. The money doesn't just disappear. Somebody pocketed it. They have to make a living too. Selling money(banking) is as good a game as selling fear (Insurance).

rick48195, it wasn't just corporate greed but consumer greed that produced the bad loans. Borrowing more than you can repay is greedy. Again a better educated individual might have been able to make a more educated decision. No guarantee but better than just hoping.

The issues is education, most that have home mortgages don’t know that in’s and outs of the different types of rates unless they are of higer wage 50k+. They look to the professional with trust to provide the full picture; the banks did not do this but provided a “sunny outlook” and forgot the rest so they can turn a profit. In personal experience, when I bought my house when I was 21 I had multiple banks try to sugarcoat the adjustable rate mortgage, pushing it because it was lower payments but never given the dark side if the market. Luckily for me I liked economics at the time knew a little about the “biz” and went with the at the time higher fixed rate (6.25). They likely did this because I was young and not a high wage owner. By loaning to those who don’t have the funds to repay (which are normally those that lack an education) and then convincing them with all the good aspects the banks have created this mess. But on the same side I do agree that it is the consumers responsibly to do research before they make finance or legal decisions even if you have a banker or lawyer representing you