Automakers need to make case for government aid

advertisement

Democratic leaders ordered Detroit's Big Three automakers Friday to submit what amounts to a detailed loan application to Congress so lawmakers can decide whether to give the beleaguered industry an emergency $25 billion lifeline.

In a letter to the auto executives released Friday afternoon, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid demanded a detailed accounting by Dec. 2 of the companies' financial condition and short-term cash needs, as well as how they would achieve long-term viability.

"The auto companies' shareholders, business partners and prospective benefactors — the American people — deserve to see a plan that is accountable to taxpayers and that is viable for the long-term," Pelosi, D-Calif., and Reid, D-Nev., wrote.

The Democrats also called on the automakers to show how they would ensure that the government would be reimbursed and share in future profits, eliminate dividends and lavish executive pay packages, meet fuel-efficiency standards, and address their health care and pension obligations to workers if they got the federal help.

The Bush administration sharply criticized the Democrats for departing Washington for a congressional recess without acting on a rescue for the car makers.

"How could they leave town when the auto companies were just here (this) week saying some of them were on the verge of running out of cash?" Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said in an interview. "I think it's a very irresponsible attitude toward a very serious matter."

White House press secretary Dana Perino said it was "appalling that Congress decided to leave town without addressing a problem that they themselves said needed to be addressed."

And President George W. Bush himself went on the offensive — although with more reserved language — to press the point that leaders failed to grab onto a bipartisan proposal.

"Unfortunately, the leadership in Congress adjourned without even allowing this measure to come up for a vote," Bush said in his Saturday radio address, taped Friday and released early by the White House. "My position is clear: If the automakers are willing to make the hard decisions needed to become viable, they should be able to receive the funds Congress already allotted to them for other purposes."

After making an auto bailout a top priority of this week's brief postelection session, Democrats scrapped planned votes on a rescue plan they said lacked support — or a clear justification. They said their request for a plan from the Big Three was designed to give General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co., and Chrysler LLC another chance — after a disastrous pair of hearings this week on Capitol Hill — to make their case to lawmakers and the public, Pelosi said.

"It's another opportunity for them to say to the American people, 'Give us your money, because we will put it to good use,'" Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters.

Hearings are expected the week of Dec. 1 and lawmakers could consider legislation the following week, but only if the industry shows that taxpayers and auto workers would be protected, congressional leaders said.

Automakers have promised to submit the blueprint Democrats have demanded.

GM spokesman Greg Martin said they would meet Congress' deadline and were "ready to work through their concerns and to deliver the accountability the taxpayers deserve before committing support to the domestic auto industry."

U.S. automakers are struggling to stay afloat heading into 2009 amid an economic meltdown, a precipitous drop in sales and a tight credit market. The three companies burned through nearly $18 billion in cash reserves during the last quarter and GM and Chrysler have said they could collapse in weeks.

Detroit's car makers employ nearly a quarter-million workers, and more than 730,000 other workers produce materials and parts that go into cars. If just one of the automakers declared bankruptcy, some estimates put U.S. job losses next year as high as 2.5 million.

Congress is weighing a tricky political question: Should it spend billions more on unpopular government bailouts or run the risk of bearing the blame of a U.S. auto industry meltdown?

Bush and congressional Republicans said lawmakers should have considered a bipartisan plan to let the automakers tap a separate $25 billion loan program for fuel-efficient cars for their short-term cash needs.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky described Democrats' stop-and-start attempts to push through the auto bailout as a "bizarre and confusing" spectacle. He said the White House-backed plan "would be a way to get a law," but he wouldn't say whether he believes Congress should return next month to address auto industry's predicament.

"I think we all accept that they're in serious trouble. No one is happy about that. But what to do about it remains to be seen," McConnell said.

Supporters of the bipartisan measure to temporarily divert the fuel-efficiency funds to cover the auto companies' operations are hopeful of winning support in December.

But Pelosi reiterated her opposition to that approach, which is vehemently opposed by environmentalists jealously guarding that money for the development of cars that use less gasoline.

"It's like taking your kids' college education fund and spending it on your credit card bills," Pelosi said.

Gutierrez said it's more like dipping into a terminally ill child's college fund to pay for lifesaving surgery.

"There will be time to replenish the fund, but what really matters is to save the life of the child," the Commerce secretary said.

Democratic leaders acknowledged Thursday that their favored approach — carving the $25 billion in loans from the $700 billion Wall Street bailout fund — lacked enough support in Congress, particularly after the auto executives' poor performance in high-profile appearances on Capitol Hill.

The chief executives of the Big Three urged lawmakers to sign off on the loans this week, saying the economic meltdown had staggered their industry after they had taken steps to restructure and produce more fuel-efficient cars.

But they were roundly criticized for traveling aboard corporate jets to seek billions in government aid and failing to assure lawmakers they wouldn't need more money.

___

Associated Press writers Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Jim Abrams and Jennifer Loven contributed to this report.

  • 11 Votes
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top

Published to:

What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
22
3.0
{"commentId":4126860,"authorDomain":"sgreenway"}

Don't punish them for past mistakes? Are you @!$%#ing kidding me?  So what then, are we going to reward them for future mistakes? Please.  Let them fail. 

{"commentId":4126860,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"sgreenway"}
  • 1 vote
Reply#1 - Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:23 PM EST
{"commentId":4129956,"authorDomain":"icyn22ro"}

bailout of banks wouldn't have made much of an impact on us.............apparent now, with change in direction..........but, will jobs losses be as widespread as reported?  Will this further the foreclosures?  Will this press a great many americans into the abyss?

Now where is the hysteronics?  when it counts?

Just thinking outloud.

{"commentId":4129956,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"icyn22ro"}
  • 1 vote
#1.1 - Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:40 PM EST
Reply
{"commentId":4127686,"authorDomain":"jwcarew"}

These companies are nothing more than a bunch of Albatrosses. 

These companies have allowed the inmates to run the asylum and have had poor vision.  Chrysler is not a success story, it is a warning.    They have not learned anything and it is time for market forces to make all of the needed corrections and move on.

The void created by their failure will be filled by leaner, more creative, more responsive manufacturing that is not hampered by the stubborn good old boy network or the corruption of unions. 

Let them fail, give the money to smart new companies that will take us through the 21st century.

{"commentId":4127686,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"jwcarew"}
    Reply#2 - Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:13 PM EST
    {"commentId":4127866,"authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}

    If these companies fail the potential damage to the jobs sector will be unimaginable. We can not, in this already weak and dropping economy, let the big three fail.

    {"commentId":4127866,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}
    • 4 votes
    Reply#3 - Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:24 PM EST
    {"commentId":4131100,"authorDomain":"jms2qc"}

    These companies hold such a big portion of the job sector.  And if there are less companies producing autos, the prices will just inevitably increase.  But if the money were used to start new companies to counter the losses suffered by the big three, it could possibly balance out.  Perhaps economically sustainable car companies could become the new norm.

    {"commentId":4131100,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"jms2qc"}
      #3.1 - Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:08 PM EST
      {"commentId":4131157,"authorDomain":"icyn22ro"}
      {"commentId":4131157,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"icyn22ro"}
        #3.2 - Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:12 PM EST
        {"commentId":4161091,"authorDomain":"briancarmody57"}

        Silicone valley among others are hiring auto makers for their electric car.

        {"commentId":4161091,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"briancarmody57"}
        • 1 vote
        #3.3 - Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:19 PM EST
        {"commentId":4201525,"authorDomain":"jms2qc"}

        That's great! Silicone valley is of course always way ahead of the curve.  Hopefully this will add some jobs and encourage others to start similar projects in different locations.

        {"commentId":4201525,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"jms2qc"}
          #3.4 - Tue Nov 25, 2008 3:37 PM EST
          Reply
          {"commentId":4128051,"authorDomain":"devil1"}

          I thought chapter 11 is for restructuring.If any industry needed it it's the auto business.Plus,while they're getting their collective @!$%# together they can still make and sell cars,yes?

          {"commentId":4128051,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"devil1"}
            Reply#4 - Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:34 PM EST
            {"commentId":4128156,"authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}

            The problem is that, unlike say the airlines, the big three get their parts from hundreds of small suppliers around the country. If they file for bankruptcy then the first thing that happens is that they freeze payments to those suppliers and they'll start dropping like flies as they shut down. The big three certainly would survive it, but 100,000's of other jobs probably would not. Unemployment would skyrocket and many of those people would not get ever get their jobs back. The cost to the government would be huge in lost income tax, increased food stamps, welfare, retraining, etc.

            {"commentId":4128156,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}
            • 4 votes
            #4.1 - Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:40 PM EST
            {"commentId":4128701,"authorDomain":"Prophet"}

            Not to mention over $100 billion in pensions that they wouldn't have to pay.  Of course those pentions are insured by, you guessed it, us, taxpayers.

            {"commentId":4128701,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"Prophet"}
            • 3 votes
            #4.2 - Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:15 PM EST
            {"commentId":4129775,"authorDomain":"PartysOver"}
            PartysOverDeleted
            {"commentId":4130008,"authorDomain":"icyn22ro"}

            If.........parts are not available?

            If cars that are affordable are not available?

            How does this impact mobility?  Work closer to home?  reducing ?

            those unemployed by this will be forced to collect unemployment.  Maybe be 'trained' in something else? or.............

            what about the manufactor of commercial vehicles? this go overseas?

            UK is doing well with Ford....is this Ford's way of going "home" ?

            for sure will impact and bust the union?

            reducing wages, but how far?

            what other industry has good wages.........and how are they doing?

            {"commentId":4130008,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"icyn22ro"}
            • 1 vote
            #4.4 - Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:45 PM EST
            {"commentId":4131181,"authorDomain":"icyn22ro"}

            and what about the world picture? can we ignore that in this press to dole out billions more when.............http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZiWd0bGAdc

            {"commentId":4131181,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"icyn22ro"}
            • 1 vote
            #4.5 - Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:14 PM EST
            Reply
            {"commentId":4128315,"authorDomain":"devil1"}

            I understand, I happen to be a manufacturer that supplies the auto industy.Do you, in all honesty,see them taking the money,not doing anything different and not showing up 2 yrs from now  singing the same tune?Balony,all the bailout does is prolong the death.

            {"commentId":4128315,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"devil1"}
              Reply#5 - Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:50 PM EST
              {"commentId":4128531,"authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}

              Oh I certainly don't support giving them the money without strings attached, such as massive cuts in executive pay, some restructuring, dumping the head of GM, etc. But to not give them the money somehow would be too big of a hit on our economy in the best of times. Besides if they go belly up then the politicians who didn't support the help will lose their jobs too and I think enough of them will realize it in the end, except for those in the lame duck session that are not coming back in January anyway.

              {"commentId":4128531,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}
              • 2 votes
              #5.1 - Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:04 PM EST
              {"commentId":4128732,"authorDomain":"Prophet"}

              There's no doubt that they have to restructure.  The question is if they'll survive long enough to do so.

              {"commentId":4128732,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"Prophet"}
              • 2 votes
              #5.2 - Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:16 PM EST
              {"commentId":4128890,"authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}

              The big three must accept some government oversight and restructuring as part of the loan package or they'll be the ones to face the wrath of the people they put out of work. The problem I think most people are having is that many of them are looking at the $700 billion dollar bailout that hasn't done any good yet because the Treasury Secretary is handing out the money, but the banks and mortgage companies are sitting on it and hoarding it, rather then using it to help people avoid foreclosure. The current Congress and administration is unwilling to enforce the requirements that would force the banks to restructure loans because the GOP leadership is in bed with Wall Street (and the Democrats don't yet have the votes to get past them), so people wonder will the new Congress and administration slip under the covers with the big three too?

              {"commentId":4128890,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}
              • 2 votes
              #5.3 - Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:27 PM EST
              {"commentId":4128947,"authorDomain":"whosthisguy"}

              Does anyone believe it would be possible to let them go through chapter 11 and use this 25 billion to bail out the suppliers that will suffer because of someone elses failings?  GM/Chrysler/ford can restructure and we can attempt to contain the ripple?

              {"commentId":4128947,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"whosthisguy"}
              • 1 vote
              #5.4 - Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:31 PM EST
              {"commentId":4131135,"authorDomain":"jms2qc"}

              I don't think, in their position, that they could afford to make the terms though.  They will have to accept whatever conditions are given if they are handed monetary aid.

              {"commentId":4131135,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"jms2qc"}
              • 1 vote
              #5.5 - Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:11 PM EST
              Reply
              {"commentId":4128638,"authorDomain":"jwcarew"}

              The restructuring of the big 3 is inevitable. The sooner, the better, the cheaper, the quicker.  Get it done.  

              The big 3 have not provided any plan for turn-around and should not see a penny until a good business plan is provided, as Chrysler did. 

              I am just glad that Barney Frank  and Chris Dodd are there to help us through this. 

              {"commentId":4128638,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"jwcarew"}
              • 1 vote
              Reply#6 - Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:11 PM EST
              {"commentId":4131218,"authorDomain":"devil1"}

              R, for a while I thought you made some sense but you let me down.Cut the pay to the excs.yea that'll do it the industry will be flush in a year.And the administration is in bed with wall street that's why no bailout.Do you really buy that?If you do you got to knock off those mind altering drugs.You are right the gov better get on the banks.I thought they gave them money so they would LEND it for growth.This is way beyond my feeble brain.

              {"commentId":4131218,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"devil1"}
                Reply#7 - Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:17 PM EST
                {"commentId":4131293,"authorDomain":"icyn22ro"}
                {"commentId":4131293,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"icyn22ro"}
                • 1 vote
                #7.1 - Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:23 PM EST
                {"commentId":4131586,"authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}

                The administration is in bed with Wall Street, which is why they were happy to support a bailout of the investment banks and mortgage houses. That's also the reason why they don't want to see any of the bailout money re-directed to the big three. The truth is the Bush GOP doesn't give a damn about saving the jobs of the average workers, but they're more then happy to fatten the bottom line of Wall Street by funneling our money to them. I agreed that this (bank) bailout was necessary, but it's not being enforced and won't be until the new administration takes over in January. The problem with that is that I don't think the big three can wait for Obama to get into office and they need a bridge now, but the outgoing republicans don't care because they're leaving anyway, so why not screw the voters one more time before they go? They're not worried about re-election, so suddenly they can get all ideological.

                {"commentId":4131586,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}
                • 3 votes
                #7.2 - Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:46 PM EST
                {"commentId":4131724,"authorDomain":"icyn22ro"}

                he's going to paraguay..............no one ever asks why, they assume he is fleeing.  He is not fleeing.  He is retiring there after a successful plunder of our resources, and ability to manage ourselves in the face of falling resources.  We won't need cars.

                always with the polly anna:)

                {"commentId":4131724,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"icyn22ro"}
                • 1 vote
                #7.3 - Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:57 PM EST
                {"commentId":4162685,"authorDomain":"mfk"}

                devil1

                 you are about the dumbest one here

                {"commentId":4162685,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"mfk"}
                • 1 vote
                #7.4 - Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:05 PM EST
                Reply
                {"commentId":4135966,"authorDomain":"bobneve1"}

                The only one of them that said he would work for a $1 a year to save the company was Robert Nardelli CEO of Chrysler. The other two wouldn't give up their outrageous salaries to try to save the Company.  Unfortunatly we can let them go down these are "our" Big Three. It's American as apple pie and the only way we can start to get back on our feet after Bush and his friends is to save the pieces.

                {"commentId":4135966,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"bobneve1"}
                • 1 vote
                Reply#8 - Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:32 AM EST
                {"commentId":4162721,"authorDomain":"mfk"}

                again devil1 is full of bull s$^* what did you get out of the iraq war, i lost a brother. you

                {"commentId":4162721,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"mfk"}
                  #8.1 - Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:09 PM EST
                  {"commentId":4201681,"authorDomain":"jms2qc"}

                  I agree Wizeguy.  There is no way we can not help them out.  It would start such a quick downward spiral to let them go under, we would not recover for a long time.  Although, now the big three have to at least spell out what they plan to do with the money in order to receive it. 

                  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/21/AR2008112103680.html?wpisrc=newsletter

                  {"commentId":4201681,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"jms2qc"}
                  • 1 vote
                  #8.2 - Tue Nov 25, 2008 3:48 PM EST
                  Reply
                  {"commentId":4136659,"authorDomain":"devil1"}

                  R,your whole diatribe is about class envy.Bushs'only concern is to help the rich.Screw the worker.I thought you had more substance.Bush started the Iraq war to get rich on the oil and so will all his ousted republicans friends.Bull*%$#.

                  {"commentId":4136659,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"devil1"}
                    Reply#9 - Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:23 AM EST
                    {"commentId":4136913,"authorDomain":"icyn22ro"}

                    He is counting on how unbelievable it is to average americans.

                    {"commentId":4136913,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"icyn22ro"}
                    • 1 vote
                    #9.1 - Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:53 AM EST
                    {"commentId":4140130,"authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}

                    This not class envy, it's class warfare and the average American is losing. Of course Bush didn't invade Iraq to get the oil, he invaded Iraq because war is very profitable to private contractors. This invasion is exactly what it was meant to be, a way to funnel huge amounts of public (taxpayer) money into private bank accounts of the already rich. Same as the prescription drug program. Close your eyes to it if you will, but that doesn't mean it's not happening anyway.

                    Oh and I care about your opinion of me why?

                    {"commentId":4140130,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}
                    • 3 votes
                    #9.2 - Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:56 PM EST
                    {"commentId":4143433,"authorDomain":"icyn22ro"}

                    it's warfare...........you both agree on that, but for different reasons.

                    {"commentId":4143433,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"icyn22ro"}
                    • 2 votes
                    #9.3 - Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:00 PM EST
                    {"commentId":4145084,"authorDomain":"chris7613"}
                    chris7613Deleted
                    {"commentId":4145600,"authorDomain":"icyn22ro"}

                    You absolutely right..........just way to late!  Now the wealth in this nation have proceeded to the point where the masses will not catch up IN TIME!  We are going DOWN........your right about two years ago.  Now is the situation.....NOW is time to try to patch the biggest whole in our bow.  they have a gun to our heads!  a compromise nhow would have at least forestalled millions of unemployed Americans.

                    but its to late.......now we had better get out perverbial heads to getehr or hunker down for the worst possible time in your life. 

                    Cramer is a market guy, but he knows history.  Financially, he says there is no way inaction will make due until Jan........"we don't have time to wait for Jan."

                    now consider the other issues, unemployment (double digit, and that isn't including those who are ineligable!) so we are a breath away from double digit.

                    then consider the loss of rights we have suffered....and if you don't know you NEED to inform yourself.......we are talking about families, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, cousins, grandparents, sons, daughters,..................do what is best for your family and inform yourself.

                    today was the first day of no time left to bicker, look around you.

                    {"commentId":4145600,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"icyn22ro"}
                    • 3 votes
                    #9.5 - Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:25 PM EST
                    {"commentId":4157430,"authorDomain":"Prophet"}

                    When too much wealth is concentrated at the top of the spectrum, like it is now and like it was before the depression, the economy becomes unstable.

                    {"commentId":4157430,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"Prophet"}
                    • 1 vote
                    #9.6 - Fri Nov 21, 2008 2:59 PM EST
                    {"commentId":4157771,"authorDomain":"icyn22ro"}

                    Don't lie Prophet............this is nothing like the predepression environment, or if you have something to link to that says otherwise I am open.  But rest assured that today's announcement makes your simple statement look a bit undressed. I would like nothing better then believe we are going down a familiar road.  Show me we are.

                    {"commentId":4157771,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"icyn22ro"}
                      #9.7 - Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:19 PM EST
                      Reply
                      {"commentId":4143162,"authorDomain":"tominsea"}

                      Since the Oil Industry is making record profits, then maybe the Auto Manufacturers that are in trouble can go to the Oil Companies for a loan.

                      {"commentId":4143162,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"tominsea"}
                        Reply#10 - Thu Nov 20, 2008 3:46 PM EST
                        {"commentId":4143911,"authorDomain":"Prophet"}

                        Maybe the oil companies should buy the auto companies.

                        {"commentId":4143911,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"Prophet"}
                          #10.1 - Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:30 PM EST
                          Reply
                          {"commentId":4157489,"authorDomain":"immaginedigitalimag"}

                          Who do you think killed the electric car?

                          {"commentId":4157489,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"immaginedigitalimag"}
                            Reply#11 - Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:03 PM EST
                            {"commentId":4201737,"authorDomain":"jms2qc"}

                            well said.

                            {"commentId":4201737,"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824","authorDomain":"jms2qc"}
                              #11.1 - Tue Nov 25, 2008 3:52 PM EST
                              Reply
                              {"canLink":false,"threadId":"423396","isPrivate":false}
                              Leave a Comment:
                              You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                              As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                              {"threadId":"423396","contentId":"2128824"}
                              Start TrackingStart Tracking
                              Stop TrackingStop Tracking