Wednesday, November 19, 2008

More on auto bailouts and bailouts in general

THIS is why there should not be a bailout.

Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-New York, told the 3 CEOs:
"It's almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in high hat and tuxedo. It kind of makes you a little bit suspicious."
He added, "couldn't you all have downgraded to first class or jet-pooled or something to get here? It would have at least sent a message that you do get it."


Let me go one step further... if times are this bad, why didn't the each of them drive their own company made cars to get there? This is complete BS.
And I bet the financial industry executives are also still traveling by private jet with the bailout money.
Go ask Pandit how he is getting around while he is delivering news of layoffs (to 50,000 people)?? He travels by private jet whilst 50,000 people are going to have a very, very, very bad Christmas. Bull-f**king-crap!!!
Out of curiosity, would the 3 CEOS own their own (as in BUY) company made cars if it wasn't free??? Probably not, cos they don't really make LUXURY vehicles, well, maybe Cadi, but none of the others make serious luxury vehicles (to keep up with the rest of the foreign automakers). In fact, none of them actually make truly reliable vehicles.

And there was this statement (also in article linked above):
"Making a big to-do about this when issues vital to the jobs of millions of Americans are being discussed in Washington is diverting attention away from a critical debate that will determine the future health of the auto industry and the American economy," GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson said in a statement.

Chrysler spokeswoman Lori McTavish said in a statement, "while always being mindful of company costs, all business travel requires the highest standard of safety for all employees."


Isn't that convenient, Mr Wilkinson? Distracting us from the issue. Maybe "issues vital to the jobs of millions of Americans" are that YOU ARE WASTING MONEY and that's why YOU ARE NO LONGER PROFITABLE. Or could it be that you are just trying to save your job?

But Mr Wilkinson was not as funny as the Chrylser spokesperson. Ms McTavish "highest standard of safety" is the reason. Wow, now I really feel shortchanged. Hell... I feel ripped off!!!
So, Ms McTavish (obviously, like Mr Wilkinson, you are trying to save your job), let me get this right:
To maintain the highest standard of safety for all employees, your CEO flew from Detroit to Washington DC by private jet.
To maintain the highest standard of safety for all employees, your other staff fly business (probably almost rarely since Chrysler will probably have a similar 6 hr or less, fly coach rule) or coach.
WHAT IS THE DAMN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE REST OF YOUR EMPLOYEES AND YOUR CEO?
WHAT IS THE DAMN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SAFETY STANDARDS OF A PRIVATE JET AND A COACH SEAT ON A COMMERCIAL JET?
I don't know.
BUT WHY WOULD THE CEO NEED THE SAFETY OF A PRIVATE JET WHILE ALL OTHER EMPLOYEES NEED ONLY THE SAFETY OF A COMMERCIAL JET???

Using Ms McTavish's logic (or illogic), MY SAFETY was not of real concern in my last job because for the last 5 years, I had to fly by coach and the only reason I ever felt SAFER (got upgraded to business) was through my own doing... or maybe, sometimes the airlines feared for my safety and gave me a complimentary upgrade.

Therefore, there should not be a bailout for the automakers (or for that matter, anyone at all) because:
- they don't use the money wisely
- they waste the money
- they spend the money on luxuries that others in the company do not get to enjoy
- they waste the money
- they (those in position) use it for personal comfort
- they waste the money
- they use it to hire idiots to say idiotic things
- they waste the money

Before Congress even approves a bailout for them, make them sell all the company luxury assets. Otherwise, DO NOT give them a bailout. They don't deserve it.

No comments: