"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...


I'm kinda on the fence about this...

Don't worry, the Democrat talking points will be out soon and then you can
be certain of where you are told to stand on this issue.

"Charles Momsen" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...


I'm kinda on the fence about this...

Don't worry, the Democrat talking points will be out soon and then you can
be certain of where you are told to stand on this issue.



You know, Mr. Momsen, at first I was really depressed that Obama won. But,
as time passes, I'm starting to think it's the best thing that could have
happened. Why? Because now the idiot liberals who voted for the Marxist
Mulatto will have reality pounded into their thick, Neanderthal skulls as
their entire, comfy economic world, heretofore based on the hard work of the
productive, crumbles around their feet as the productive flee the excessive
regulation and taxation. They will soon know how stupid they were voting for
change and hyped image when they haven't the smallest clue the image is a
travesty or what kind of change they voted for.

One would like to think it's all gonna wake these idiots up but I certainly
won't hold my breath.

Wilbur Hubbard

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
anews.com...

"Charles Momsen" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...


I'm kinda on the fence about this...

Don't worry, the Democrat talking points will be out soon and then you
can be certain of where you are told to stand on this issue.



You know, Mr. Momsen, at first I was really depressed that Obama won. But,
as time passes, I'm starting to think it's the best thing that could have
happened. Why? Because now the idiot liberals who voted for the Marxist
Mulatto will have reality pounded into their thick, Neanderthal skulls as
their entire, comfy economic world, heretofore based on the hard work of
the productive, crumbles around their feet as the productive flee the
excessive regulation and taxation. They will soon know how stupid they
were voting for change and hyped image when they haven't the smallest clue
the image is a travesty or what kind of change they voted for.

One would like to think it's all gonna wake these idiots up but I
certainly won't hold my breath.


I think Obama getting elected is a blessing too, for slightly different
reasons. If he operates as a Democrat, he will kill the economy, most likely
the world economy and everyone will blame the Democrats which is the proper
thing to do. If he realizes the gravity of the entire world situation and
wants to be successful, he can only adopt true conservative principles and
policies. So then he'll have to carry the Bush doctrine forward, with
obvious improvements, and be called a hypocrite by his base and a liberal by
his opponents. As you say, no matter what, reality will be pounded in - the
question is: Can they learn anything from it this time around?

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards
withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:10:45 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
troll sh*t removed

And now Harry and Nancy want to use it to bail out the UAW.


Do you believe that we should allow the Big Three to fail? I'm kinda on
the
fence about this... on the one hand, I think we should, because they got
themselves into this mess. On the other hand, this would displace millions
of people.... not exactly the best thing to do in the current economy.

Absolutely. The big three will never be competitive with the built in
costs
of what they've given away in the past, including bloated wages,
unsustainable pensions, ongoing payments to former workers not to work,
capital costs of non-operating plants...you name it. Throwing more money
at
them just postpones the reckoning and increases its ultimate cost. When
the
Japanese have a $30 an hour advantage in the amount they pay their U.S.
workers, the big 3 are never going to compete.

Yes, the stockholders would get wiped out, or more likely squeezed down to
a
very small percentage of ownership, with creditors becoming the equity
owners. And management would likely be tossed our. But companies in
Chapter
11 don't generally go out of business (though some do). They continue in
business under new owners. If the car companies could shed nonproductive
assets, get rid of legacy costs and costs of paying people not to work,
reduce their debt service costs and costs of capital, and relocate
operations to right to work states there's no reason they couldn't become
competitive, and without a taxpayer bailout.


Well, I agree that companies don't necessarily go completely under, but my
main concern, which was voiced by both conservative and liberal economists,
is that people would likely not want to buy such a big-ticket item from
companies with uncertain futures. For example, I was considering a
big-screen tv... couple of grand, from Circuit City. But, they're in Chap.
11, so the question is should I be concerned, even though the warranty is
thru the manufacturer. Probably not. But, with autos it's a bit different.
If consumers decided not to risk it, then the sales would go to zero or
close to zero (not that they're going gangbusters now). Then, we would have
massive layoffs, not just the UAW, but throughout the stream of suppliers,
dealers, etc. It run into the millions. If this were to happen in good
economic times, then I would be less concerned. But, this isn't the
situation.

I think the Big Three could be competitive, which is what they're trying to
do, for example, by removing the benefits part to a separate trust (I
believe that's what they're calling it). The UAW and other unions would
clearly need to be willing (and they seem willing) to recognize the problems
and renegotiate their packages.

Do you think that this is the time to throw an even greater number into the
unemployment lines?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:38:38 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

I think the Big Three could be competitive, which is what they're trying
to
do, for example, by removing the benefits part to a separate trust (I
believe that's what they're calling it). The UAW and other unions would
clearly need to be willing (and they seem willing) to recognize the
problems
and renegotiate their packages.

I haven't heard anything about a willingness to give up having the big
three
pay wages to people who aren't working. Have you? Do you really think the
UAW is going to agree to something that would close that $30 an hour wage
gap? I don't think so.

I have a very hard time believing that any company would pay someone not to
work. It certainly can't be significant, given the other huge benefit costs,
which is the major contributor to the cost of their autos/trucks. What's the
percentage? I'd be interested to know. As far as giving up part of their
wages, it seems to me that if one has a choice between a job that pays a bit
less vs. not having a job, it's a no-brainer.

Do you think that this is the time to throw an even greater number into
the
unemployment lines?

We can do it now at a cost, or later at much greater cost. I opt for the
former.

Do you really believe that dumping 3-5 million jobs is a cost we can stand
right now... not to mention an estimated the tax base loss of $200B or more?
You might be right that the cost later will be higher, perhaps even quite a
bit higher, but it seems to me we would be better able to afford it later.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:54:13 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:38:38 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

I think the Big Three could be competitive, which is what they're trying
to
do, for example, by removing the benefits part to a separate trust (I
believe that's what they're calling it). The UAW and other unions would
clearly need to be willing (and they seem willing) to recognize the
problems
and renegotiate their packages.

I haven't heard anything about a willingness to give up having the big
three
pay wages to people who aren't working. Have you? Do you really think the
UAW is going to agree to something that would close that $30 an hour wage
gap? I don't think so.

I have a very hard time believing that any company would pay someone not to
work. It certainly can't be significant, given the other huge benefit costs,
which is the major contributor to the cost of their autos/trucks. What's the
percentage? I'd be interested to know. As far as giving up part of their
wages, it seems to me that if one has a choice between a job that pays a bit
less vs. not having a job, it's a no-brainer.

Do you think that this is the time to throw an even greater number into
the
unemployment lines?

We can do it now at a cost, or later at much greater cost. I opt for the
former.

Do you really believe that dumping 3-5 million jobs is a cost we can stand
right now... not to mention an estimated the tax base loss of $200B or more?
You might be right that the cost later will be higher, perhaps even quite a
bit higher, but it seems to me we would be better able to afford it later.

Jon, Dave's obsession with the people on the bottom of the pile making
any money is a red herring and nothing more. Labor is not even
remotely at the core of GM's problems.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:54:13 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:38:38 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

I think the Big Three could be competitive, which is what they're trying
to
do, for example, by removing the benefits part to a separate trust (I
believe that's what they're calling it). The UAW and other unions would
clearly need to be willing (and they seem willing) to recognize the
problems
and renegotiate their packages.

I haven't heard anything about a willingness to give up having the big
three
pay wages to people who aren't working. Have you? Do you really think
the
UAW is going to agree to something that would close that $30 an hour
wage
gap? I don't think so.

I have a very hard time believing that any company would pay someone not
to
work. It certainly can't be significant, given the other huge benefit
costs,
which is the major contributor to the cost of their autos/trucks. What's
the
percentage? I'd be interested to know. As far as giving up part of their
wages, it seems to me that if one has a choice between a job that pays a
bit
less vs. not having a job, it's a no-brainer.

Do you think that this is the time to throw an even greater number into
the
unemployment lines?

We can do it now at a cost, or later at much greater cost. I opt for the
former.

Do you really believe that dumping 3-5 million jobs is a cost we can stand
right now... not to mention an estimated the tax base loss of $200B or
more?
You might be right that the cost later will be higher, perhaps even quite
a
bit higher, but it seems to me we would be better able to afford it later.

Jon, Dave's obsession with the people on the bottom of the pile making
any money is a red herring and nothing more. Labor is not even
remotely at the core of GM's problems.


Neither is labor at the core of the solution.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:22:38 -0500, said:

Labor is not even
remotely at the core of GM's problems.

Perhaps you could take you suggestions for how to make money when you're
paying your workers $30 an hour more than the competition to management's
attention. I'm sure they'd be all ears.


Sell better cars.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:30:39 -0500, said:

I'm just fatigued from all your evasive running
around the truth,

So what is your version of THE TRUTH, Not at All? What should be done about
the Big Three? Throw taxpayer money at them so the UAW bosses can keep their
jobs?

Dave, you do realize that unions *negotiate* with companies? Both sides
*agree* to a contract and sign it. If the company negotiates a
contract that kills the company who's fault is that?

Cheers
Martin

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:30:39 -0500, said:

I'm just fatigued from all your evasive running
around the truth,

So what is your version of THE TRUTH, Not at All? What should be done
about
the Big Three? Throw taxpayer money at them so the UAW bosses can keep
their
jobs?


It's always the workers' fault, isn't it. Management had no responsibility
to the shareholders and didn't negotiate any of the contracts. The UAW said
jump, and management jumped. Except that this is your fantasy, which has
been severely undermined by the recent two elections... oops.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com