Nothing "in the mysterious way Toyota has been slandered in recent weeks." It is logical. The auto unions contributed large amounts of money for the election of Obama. He won. Payback time. A large refund for those buying cars- the American public used the refund to buy foreign cars.(Toyota and Honda among the leaders.) So to get even, find anything wrong with Toyota and Honda. I drive a Prius- for financial reasons never for the green effect. Nothing wrong with my car. How many accidents with Chevys Ford, Dodge, etc. that are not reported in the media? My opinion? An unAmerican way for the government to get even for a failed auto stimulus attempt.Now the cry is : Buy American cars, which after 100K miles become a "fix it" problem.

I too didn't really buy the woman's story. She seemed entirely too helpless. And I'm not aware of any interlocks that prevent a car from being shut off above 35 mph. It's possible, but it would be something rather new. And interlocks or no, nothing prevented her from shifting the car into neutral and coasting to an uneventful stop on the shoulder.

Nothing except she panicked. I don't see how her panicking is Toyota's fault.

And now she's preparing to milk the incident for millions, except nobody was hurt.

Gee, if we're going to start awarding people large sums of "damages" money because they overreacted and failed to do basic things that would have prevented a crash that didn't happen anyway, then we might as well shut down our factories and go back to the bow and arrow.

And all this suborned by Congress who is willing to play this media circus for all its worth because they believe it will help the car companies they own. Oh that's right. Obama and Congress currently own two American car companies and this little manufactured hysteria undeniably helps them. Methinks their self-interest is showing.

I'm sure Honda will be the next target of the leftists who are accidentally in charge of our country at the moment.

I missed the sob story, but I cannot imagine trying to use a cell phone to call someone while trying to keep my vehicle under control at 100 mph. Sounds like b.s. to me.

Rhonda's story was definitely a put on. I watched the proceedings for only a couple of minutes, but, what I really saw was 3 democrats doing all the questioning. How unusual, you say. I think not.

Where in the Constitution is it the Federal government's business to be holding hearings against a "foreign car manufacturer"?????? If American people decide to buy "foreign cars" that is a choice known as freedom.

I, particularly, do not like "foreign cars". It is a "offense" to my Veteran Brother and many other, especially, WWII Pacific Veterans. I don't want to "offend them". So I have chosen to go "Ford".

But, if you don't hold my "convictions", and you want to buy a "foreign car" and I realize most are manufactured here, ( by the way, were are the Politicians and the "JOB Screams" that may result in "displacing these "foreign car manufacturers" back to "country of Origin") Much that is going on is highly insulting. These "foreign manufacturers" may decide to go HOME!!!! (and that's fine with me)

Which brings me back to my Constitutional point, the Constitution maintains that "foreigners wanting to do business with US, pay to get in." That means American businesses are "Favored" because they are American, the "import duties and taxes were to be on the "foreign imports". That means if after they pay the "fees to get into America", you as an American have a choice, it is not my choice, but it might be yours.

I might add this - is that the thinking of the foreigners??? - if they are "here", if we get back to our Constitution, and they are "here", they won't have to pay the "import duties"????? Sorry, if you are a foreign company, you pay the "import duties" even if you are manufacturing here.

MichaelSSEC, what do you think???????

For God & Country

Ruth Ann Wilson

The problem of jobs versus imports is a thorny one, but I think in the immediate future the real problem is that government at the state and federal levels imposes regulations, taxes, fees and other expenses that make it much more attractive for American companies to move their operations elsewhere. That's the reason we keep seeing jobs bleeding over the border.

I've never heard of a single business owner who wanted to move his company to Mexico because he hated America or he thought the water down there tasted better. He moved because he believed it was the only way he could stay in business. Or he moved because he believed his competitors were planning to do so and he wanted to stay competitive (which I suppose amounts to the same thing).

Microsoft registers all its licenses in Ireland, where the corporate tax rate is lower. By doing so, they avoid paying the US rate (which is something like 39% and will be going up) and instead pay the much lower Irish rate (I don't remember what that is, probably something like 12%). But America doesn't lose the difference (27%) between 39% and 12%. America loses 100% of the tax money it would have gotten if the rate wasn't so high that it compelled Microsoft to move. So the high rate doesn't bring in greater revenue, it brings in LESS.

The solution, according to the committed Marxists in the Obama administration, is to pass laws FORCING American companies to pay taxes here regardless of where they register their products. It's as though they're incredibly myopic, and simply cannot grasp that Microsoft will simply pack up its whole plant and move everything to Ireland, and then not only will we not have the corporate tax Ireland is getting in our stead, but America won't have the JOBS Microsoft used to provide before anti-business policies forced it to move.

Obviously the solution is to make our corporate tax rate competitive with those of other countries, so American companies (virtually all of which WANT to stay here and pay reasonable taxes here) won't need to move away in order to survive. It's self-evident.

That's not even addressing hidden taxes like the fraudulent "value-added" tax structure implemented in the 90s. Under that system, if your widget company carries inventory of partially-manufactured widgets, each step in the manufacturing process is taxed at a different rate according to some abstruse value-added formula, under the theory that each step adds value to the raw material by performing work on it. But that's complete nonsense.

Let's say you buy refined metal in barrels or ingots. You heat it and forge it in a multi-step hot forging process that eventually shapes the metal into your widget. When the first step of the forging is complete you don't have raw material anymore, you have a misshapen lump of scrap metal whose only value is AS SCRAP METAL. It's virtually worthless, but the government considers that "value added" and you pay a tax on that imaginary value. That's completely dishonest. And it's done in every factory in America. It's part of the reason manufactories switched to "just in time" inventory supplies, which is a much riskier but much cheaper way of doing business. That saves money, but if any link in the chain of supply breaks down the entire factory can be shut down.

I don't believe any of this foolishness is accidental. I've heard speeches by Leftists who advocate these types of destructive policies as part of a plan to literally destroy the United States. They're crackpots, but they've found sympathetic ears among the radicals who infested much of the Clinton administration -- and who comprise virtually all of the Obama administration.

You're right, Ruth Ann, foreign companies must pay to play here (unless we work out some kind of deal where our companies enjoy duty-free status in their country too, but that's never happened). But what I see is the opposite problem: we've abused the tariff system, abused the regulatory system and abuse the tax system to such an extent that it's extremely difficult for companies to operate in America today.

And in this climate, workers blame corporate greed for the fact that jobs are flooding across the border? That's propaganda for you.