I wrote back to Congress...

[Fandango]

I hope everyone will join me in this or at least respond to their congress representatives.

This is how I feel and I want other to know whether I'm correct or incorrect in my assumptions.

Dear Mrs. Brown-Waite:

I am an MBA student, business owner, husband, father and concerned American. I am writing to you because I am concerned about the "Auto Bailout" bill that will go before congress. First off, I want to say that I was weary about such a huge $700 billion bill. People have to understand this is an unprecedented amount of money that will be set aside to aid the financial industry, a market that comes with a relative amount of risk as it is. I consider myself to be conservative and see that any heavy expenditure on behalf of our government is risky. I agree on almost all the points you made in your e-mail. Wall Street would benefit the most from this, not Main Street. However, I have to support our "Big Three" relief plan. I do believe that it is survival of the fittest when it comes to business. I say that this applies for all industries and markets. Our American Auto industry has been the backbone of out work force and it faces a very real danger of being no more. But all is not lost. I'm part of a few forums that discuss how there have been many strides in making better and more fuel efficient cars and still appeal to Americans. Of the $700 billion that will be set aside, $25 billion of it will help a majority of people directly and indirectly. I understand that the $25 will basically alleviate the union contracts or fulfill them all together, then easily fulfill retirement and pension costs for the years to come while the companies transition their plants and eliminate inventory, and retool their industry to fit the new needs of the American driver, which is fuel efficiency and quality. By supporting this bill for the auto makers, I think the American people will show that there is a sense of confidence bestowed upon out great auto companies by out leaders that they can pull out of this, that they can weather the storm. Above all, Main Street will reap the rewards. They need your support. Therefore, I'm showing mine. I want to see our Automotive industry make a comeback. Either way, help or no help, All three companies will pull through. The Aid will give the auto industry a boost. Bankruptcy will hurt more people than help, i.e. Main Street, there are a lot of folks' lives at stake if only one of those three go bankrupt. Imagine if all three go.

I am a gear head. I love cars. Particularly the muscle cars. Gas runs through my veins and I love to hear a throaty V8 engine. I know that these cars won't get us to from point A to point B as much any more. There will be a lot less of these on the road and I've come to grips with this. The Camaro, Corvette, Challenger, Charger, Mustang and Viper are what I think America stands for: Power, uniqueness, speed, resiliency and beauty. They are icons of our past present and future. Like I said earlier, these aren't getting us from point A to point B any more, however, to see these icons disappear is like taking hot dogs out of a baseball game and replacing them with rice cakes. If the $25 billion in aid for the Auto Industry is passed, they would call it a "Legacy Cost" making it sound very negative. I see it as duty to "preserve" that legacy. I hope I'm making sense. This would not only preserve our legacy, but help strengthen and redefine that legacy and make "made in America" mean more than just words again.

I hope this helps clarify what I truly believe to be the hopes of many Americans.

Sincerely,

Alejandro Garcia

Manager of Operations

Pediatric Care Center of Pasco, PA

Urgi-Kids of Florida, PA

[Inspector 17]

Nicely put. But there is one major item I am confused about. The Big 3 are asking for low-interest loans that will be repaid in a specified amount of time. They are not asking for a "bail out" and I hate that it keeps getting referred to as such. Also, I didn't think the money they are asking for is part of the $700b. Perhaps others can confirm these two points.

[bob2the2nd]

Originally Posted by camaropete

Nicely put. But there is one major item I am confused about. The Big 3 are asking for low-interest loans that will be repaid in a specified amount of time. They are not asking for a "bail out" and I hate that it keeps getting referred to as such. Also, I didn't think the money they are asking for is part of the $700b. Perhaps others can confirm these two points.

yes they are specifically asking for part of the 700 billion, or at least thats how leading democrats are phrasing it.

Personally I have to believe two things: 1 if push comes to shove there are more than a couple of different ways Department of energy to name one that can just give up to 7 billion dollars without approval from the house or senate. If GM is really hurting come January 1 I think they will get something

2 GM knows that if it can last till Jan 20th it WILL get help. are you telling me GM isnt putting together a plan that will get it to that point? They just need to get to the finish line it doesnt matter how fast.

[The_Blur]

A continuing argument from those politically active members of the board is that we should not complain if we don't vote. I completely agree that voting is an important way of expressing preference in an election.

However, the US system preferences only 2 successful political parties by design, and that makes it impossible for citizens to express their interests by merely voting for the candidate or party of choice. In all democracies, the role of a party is to build an election-winning coalition in order to fulfill what it perceives is most important to its citizens and its country. Foreign democracies sometimes have many parties that vie for power, and they attain power by building coalitions, negotiating issues, and making clear what their intentions are. It is easier for them because they don't have to cover every issue the way that 2-party systems do. In a 2-party system, like the United States, parties build coalitions of voters instead of coalitions with other parties. It is more important to appeal to certain demographics, and those demographics tend to vote based on what policies affect them. Both systems are equally good as far as policy and governance. The problem, however, with representing the populace in a 2-party system is that it is unclear what mandate a party has upon taking office. It could be one issue or another, and public officials are extremely uncertain of what policies are most important to those who voted for them. All elected officials have this problem, but it is worse in 2-party systems because most candidates address a wider range of issues since their party addresses more issues than parties in countries that have to build political coalitions.

In order to make clear what you want your elected official to do, you have to contact your elected official. It is their job to represent you, and they will do it if you tell them what values you want them to represent. You are your official's boss, and you should pull rank whenever they question you. As the constituent, you have the power to vote for or against the official come election day. In between, you have the power to pick up your phone and call the office of the man or woman representing your district, state, and country anytime you please.

:flag1: This is the most compelling thing about American democracy. You have the power to influence policy simply by calling. Very few people contact their legislators, so they act on their beliefs rather than yours. Idiots like Florida's Senator Nelson pop up and sway those who believe CAFE regulations are good, and we end up not getting what we want. Had a bunch of people in Florida called his office, he would never have co-sponsored legislation raising CAFE standards.

It might not feel like you're making a difference when you call. Sometimes, they just won't do what you ask, but it is important that you express dissent anyway because it makes them uneasy about neglecting opinions in the future. As more people call with perspectives different than theirs, they will be compelled to change their policy preferences from how they feel to how their constituents feel or they will lose their office. The problem in the previous sentence is that it assumes that people care how their elected officials vote. If you care, then you will act. All you have to do is sit at the computer for a few minutes to figure out the phone number. You can call any publicly elected official. Their office number is public record. Don't expect to talk to the President or even your local officials. Expect some secretary to take a message for you, but ask to be called back or to speak to the elected official anyway because it shows that the issue is important. In any case, the elected official will get the message. It will make them think about the way that they vote, and your call may change their mind.

Can you imagine the pride of changing policy? Not many people call to thank an elected official for their service and ask them to serve their constituency by changing their political opinion on 1 piece of legislation. Your call could very well turn an unattainable majority into a signed bill—a law, public policy. Your call could be the difference between never happening and the standard policy of the United States or whichever country you reside.

Voting isn't enough. Express yourself. At the end of a 5-minute phone call, you'll feel empowered that you expressed your opinions and values to the person who represents you. It is their job to represent your values, and they can only do that so long as you express what you want.

I appreciate your time reading this long post. Do all of us a favor. Contact your elected officials and ask them to save the American auto industry. :flag2:

[kanys]

haha I loved the hotdog rice cake analogy. It's a great letter than I 100% agree with, would you mind if I sent pretty much a copy of that to my rep? (of course with personal details changed to fit me)

[Vash]

I think they have it all wrong with bank loans etc.

Giving banks money to put us more in debit. It's like a suppository up the exit. Instead of a steak down the entry.

People need more income before they are gonna want to buy new rides.

In the internet age people found out about waiting 1-2 years, not leasing, building FICO etc.

But how are people supposed to go get loans when incomes shrink? It does not make sense to me. They are bankers thinking like bankers. Not buyers thinking like buyers.

[Fandango]

Originally Posted by camaropete

Nicely put. But there is one major item I am confused about. The Big 3 are asking for low-interest loans that will be repaid in a specified amount of time. They are not asking for a "bail out" and I hate that it keeps getting referred to as such. Also, I didn't think the money they are asking for is part of the $700b. Perhaps others can confirm these two points.

Yes, I'm aware of that but's why I used quotes and then refered to it as aid. So, yeah, not a bail out. Only used it in quotes to mock what it is not.

Please pass it on if anyone likes. GM could use all the help we can give them.

[Fandango]

Originally Posted by kanys

haha I loved the hotdog rice cake analogy. It's a great letter than I 100% agree with, would you mind if I sent pretty much a copy of that to my rep? (of course with personal details changed to fit me)

Yes, pass it along! It would be my pleasure!

[shank0668]

bump beecause im being forced to and for america

[The_Blur]

It's been an hour and all I got is the post from the guy who I referred to the thread. This is very disappointing.

[shank0668]

the world is not enough

[Mr. Wyndham]

Good job doing this! We don't take nearly as much part in this government as we should.
I did the same (my own letter a few hours ago...). Who knows what might come of this.

[Mr. Wyndham]

+1...though if this turns "nasty" political...you know what happens, Blur.

[Congoman775]

I didnt vote. i didnt deam either canidate to be qualified, ********.