"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
t...
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:59:58 -0500, Eisboch wrote:



A Chapter 11 filing does not, in itself, reorganize a company and
certainly is *not* a means for "getting people to do the same things,
only cheaper". All it does is protects the company from involuntary
bankrupcy by putting the vendor bill collectors, banks and lawsuits at
bay while an effort is made to reorganize and satisfy current finanical
obligations via negotiation. While protected in Chapter 11 a plan is
developed to reorganize, refinance, and re-negotiate existing (and in
GM's case - obsolete) contracts. Overseen by a bankruptcy court, the
plan, agreed to by all concerned parties is generated and when
implimentated, the company emerges from Chapter 11. If a plan cannot
be
produced that is approved by all concerned parties, the company usually
goes belly up in Chapter 7.
Sure, but the end result is "getting people to do the same thing, only
cheaper". Let me ask you something, does the bankruptcy court take
into
consideration America's interests? Under normal circumstances, I would
readily agree GM should go Chapter 11, but these are not normal
circumstances. We are in recession, and it's looking like it could be a
severe one. Personally, I don't think we can afford to let GM go into
bankruptcy at this time.

Barney Frank's bill limits the ability to truly reorganize the auto
companies. It's simply throwing money into the same sink hole.
Six-eight months from now they'll be back, needing more survival money.

The auto industry's contracts and historical ways of doing business
need
a complete overhauling in order to be a viable, competitive entity in
today's global markets. Chapter 11 reorganization, prepackaged with a
government bridge loan to keep the beast breathing during the process,
makes sense to me.
You know, we have already spent $350 billion to bail out the *******s
that caused this mess. We've let them keep their millions in bonuses,
but we're quibbling about spending 1/10 of that to save an industry that
provides 1-3 million jobs. I don't get it. And, I would point out, it
was the incompetence of Wall Street that brought Detroit's troubles into
crisis.

Obama's already talking about major infrastructure spending with the
intent of creating jobs. It seems to me, saving GM's jobs, might in the
long run, be cheaper.


I would respectfully suggest that your last sentence underscores where I
think you (and others) are wrong.
Saving GM's jobs doesn't fix GM's problems. GM does not, and has not
for a long time, (predating the current
economic meltdown), sold enough vehicles to be profitable and justify
their current bloated structure. GM's crisis was coming anyway. The
meltdown accelerated it and presented an opportunity to pick up some TARP
money.

It's time to face the music and do what is necessary to save *any* jobs
at GM and related industry businesses.
That cannot be done internally through GM management and the UAW. There's
too much history and tradition of the "good old days".
It will take a Chapter 11 filing (with preconditions and government
support) to fix it.

Eisboch




You know, by generally accepted accounting standards, the federal
government is broke, bankrupt, even, though it does have the ability to
borrow and print money.

I say if the auto industry is allowed to back out of paying agreed upon
and contracted pension and health benefits to retirees, then the federal
government should do the same with its civilian and military retirees.

If that were proposed, my suspicion is that those who depend upon federal
civilian and military pensions and benefits would object mightily.

The point is, the retirees planned around the contracted benefits and
depend upon them. Problem is, in the private sector, corporate thieves
were allowed to pile up unfunded liabilities in order to help cook their
books.

We've handed out close to a trillion dollars to the Wall Street and
banking industries, and for what? We'll get nothing out of that. Not even
a lousy car.


I understand what you are implying, but I also understand it's nothing but a
frustrated vent.
There's a big difference between the federal government and GM.
The federal government is not a "for profit" corporation *and* can create
money by simply printing it.

GM, like any business, has to at least break even to exist and has to make a
profit to grow or expand it's business areas.

Eisboch