At 11:53 PM 12/2/97 -0500, Teacher122@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 97-12-02 13:48:13 EST, gkirk@empirenet.com writes:
>
><<
> Well, that is theLee Iaccoca version, what his little story omits is
> that while the loan was paid off early, no attempt was ever made to
> repay the outright grants that were also made at the same time. Go back
> and check the newspapers at the time, as I recall that the aid package
> for Chrysler involved more that just a loan for the government, it
> involved some substatial grant monies as well.
>
> Greg
>
> >>
>That could be! One must also look at all of the grants that various states
>currently use to lure assembly plants. Is it any more incorrect for an
>existing piece of American history(Chrysler) to accept grants to keep jobs
>than it is for a foreign company(Mercedes being the most recent) to accept
>grants to create jobs?
>Tom Green
>
Tom, I have no problem with them accepting grant monies, but I do have a
problem with the image that Mr Iaccoca presents that Chrysler lifted itself
by it's bootstraps after the bailout and that it cost the taxpayers
nothing. It's great PR for Chrysler, and self promotion for Lee Iacocca,
but it's not the truth.
I beleive that the Gov't did the right thing by bailing them out, I think
if they'd let Chysler fall, they might well have lost the remainder of the
big 3 as well, but that's a long story.
Greg
"But I, being poor, have only my dreams;
I have spread my dreams under your feet;
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams."
Yeats
|