Carmakers get caught short when asking for a bailout!
 

I guess they don't even trust there own product will get them there!:roll:

http://business.smh.com.au/business/...1120-6cvm.html

Time for the fat cats to put their perks and money where their mouth is!:smug:

I watched the whole committee meeting on C-Span and it was a joke. While the issue of using or owning private jets provides some entertaining irony, it would take a fleet of private jets to seriously impact their budget. Still, it was fun to see them squirm.

Sadly, the real issues were only briefly touched upon as many Democratic representatvies seemed only to be looking for assurances that the proposed bailout would succeed. Many also seemed interested primarily in securing the futures of dealerships, distributors, and factories in their districts.

The CEO's tried to make the arguments that the jobs they provided as well as the defense manufacturing capabilities they could provide were irreplaceable. They also offered assurances that they could be competitive and that they were simply victims of circumstance.

Personally I have no pity for them or their industry and I am ashamed of many of the representatives who took part in the hearing. I can't recall any constitutional implication that the U.S. taxpayer is responsible for failed businesses, of any type, and I'm apalled that our elected officials would deign even to hear the proposal.
The argument was made that perhaps the companies could pay back the bailout, but none of us will ever see the money back one way or another.

I also think it rather shameless of them to try to force us to give them money when they couldn't convince us to do so by providing a competitive product. :down:

So why can't the politicians use the same mentality against the banks..?

Oh ya I forgot they've been bought off...:nope: My bad...:-?

Kind of a long drive to DC. But yeah, they should have at least flown on a commercial flight (coach even) and should be selling these company aviation assets as a means to show some effort towards financial reality. I think the outrage is a bit much, but still valid. This was definitely in bad taste. But I still have to wonder who the heck paid any attention to how they went there and why.

While it doesn't make the execs any more competent at their jobs, I believe most major companies have rules that require their execs to fly private.

PD

What's wrong with public transport......most of us mere mortals have to make do.

The banks are the government. We just don't see them in action. Remember the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

I'd sure be interested in hearing their reasons for that. I suspect it's probably just so they can justify keeping corporate jets.

So the execs have made a rule that they should always go by private jet? will they sack themselves if they don't do so then?

And where did you hear that gem from PD. ?:-? :D

CNN, why?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/19/aut...ref=newssearch
PD

I'm certainly not defending them, I don't know why everybody seems to think I'm just pulling this out of nowhere/defending them. CNN says safety, perhaps insurance? August may be right on the money, as well.

PD

I was just wondering but from your link PD:

$20K vs a $500 1st class ticket? :o That's a lot of money for some extra safety.

You're shooting the messenger. I just read it on CNN and am passing along.

PD

Sorry. I didn't mean to "shoot" you. Just ruminating aloud...