"Dave" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:15:44 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Especially since Pelosi just said that if the Big 3 don't have a plan,
they
won't get the cash. I believe the deadline is 12/3.

Clever ploy. When the big 3 come back for another round for twice as much
money after the first round doesn't do the job, she can always say "Not my
fault. I was brainwashed into thinking their plan would work."


So, you now believe they *should* get the bailout, but with no strings.
Seems a bit contradictory, given the noise you've been making in the other
thread!

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:38:10 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Clever ploy. When the big 3 come back for another round for twice as
much
money after the first round doesn't do the job, she can always say "Not
my
fault. I was brainwashed into thinking their plan would work."


So, you now believe they *should* get the bailout, but with no strings.
Seems a bit contradictory, given the noise you've been making in the other
thread!

Nope. I think the automakers shouldn't be handed taxpayer dollars. I also
recognize that a major driver for the handout is a desire on the part of
the
Dems to appease their UAW backers. So when they vote for the handout
they're
gonna need an excuse at some point for why it didn't work. I'm crediting
Pelosi with setting up that excuse well in advance.


God forbid that democrats want to forstall a complete meltdown of the
enconomy! Pelosi asked for a plan, which involves more than flying in on the
Big 3's executive jets.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:20:11 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Pelosi asked for a plan, which involves more than flying in on the
Big 3's executive jets.

As well she should. She'll need everything she can get to cover her ass
when
one or more of those companies goes south after throwing more taxpayer
billions at them.

Dave,

The not so Big Three going under is a worse calamity than global warming!

The entire world will end if the UAW doesn't get to keep their fat pensions
going for 6 more months.

Complete global meltdown!

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:20:11 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Pelosi asked for a plan, which involves more than flying in on the
Big 3's executive jets.

As well she should. She'll need everything she can get to cover her ass
when
one or more of those companies goes south after throwing more taxpayer
billions at them.


You just got done claiming that Pelosi is attempting to justify *not*
bailing them out, and since the democrats are in control of Congress, that's
certainly possible. Now, you're claiming that she's going to authorize the
money to bail them out?? You might want to try and get your arguments in
order before you write them down.

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

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:15:50 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:20:11 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Pelosi asked for a plan, which involves more than flying in on the
Big 3's executive jets.

As well she should. She'll need everything she can get to cover her ass
when
one or more of those companies goes south after throwing more taxpayer
billions at them.


You just got done claiming that Pelosi is attempting to justify *not*
bailing them out, and since the democrats are in control of Congress, that's
certainly possible. Now, you're claiming that she's going to authorize the
money to bail them out?? You might want to try and get your arguments in
order before you write them down.

After you look up "fantastic, you may want to look up "Gordian Knot".
It will help you to understand Dave's problem. Or at least one of his
problems. g

wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:15:50 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:20:11 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Pelosi asked for a plan, which involves more than flying in on the
Big 3's executive jets.
As well she should. She'll need everything she can get to cover her ass
when
one or more of those companies goes south after throwing more taxpayer
billions at them.

You just got done claiming that Pelosi is attempting to justify *not*
bailing them out, and since the democrats are in control of Congress, that's
certainly possible. Now, you're claiming that she's going to authorize the
money to bail them out?? You might want to try and get your arguments in
order before you write them down.

After you look up "fantastic, you may want to look up "Gordian Knot".
It will help you to understand Dave's problem. Or at least one of his
problems. g
I believe that if you look at the news today, that there is a difference
in what pelosi and obama are proposing, which is they are not going to
bailout the auto industry but are going to give them a special
bankruptcy. In layman terms they are going to bail out the auto
industry but call it something else. A rose is a rose.

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:44:23 -0500, Keith nuttle
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:15:50 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:20:11 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Pelosi asked for a plan, which involves more than flying in on the
Big 3's executive jets.
As well she should. She'll need everything she can get to cover her ass
when
one or more of those companies goes south after throwing more taxpayer
billions at them.

You just got done claiming that Pelosi is attempting to justify *not*
bailing them out, and since the democrats are in control of Congress, that's
certainly possible. Now, you're claiming that she's going to authorize the
money to bail them out?? You might want to try and get your arguments in
order before you write them down.

After you look up "fantastic, you may want to look up "Gordian Knot".
It will help you to understand Dave's problem. Or at least one of his
problems. g
I believe that if you look at the news today, that there is a difference
in what pelosi and obama are proposing, which is they are not going to
bailout the auto industry but are going to give them a special
bankruptcy. In layman terms they are going to bail out the auto
industry but call it something else. A rose is a rose.

I'd prefer they let the big three land where they may, and bailout the
auto industry itself by helping some of the many startups who are
trying to develop and bring to market cars that will be the envy of
the world. Bailing out the big three simply stifles innovation, and
rewards failure. I don't really think they can be preserved in their
present form regardless. It would be nearly impossible to save them in
a strong economy.

Lets encourage some completely new blood.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:44:23 -0500, Keith nuttle
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:15:50 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:20:11 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Pelosi asked for a plan, which involves more than flying in on the
Big 3's executive jets.
As well she should. She'll need everything she can get to cover her
ass
when
one or more of those companies goes south after throwing more taxpayer
billions at them.

You just got done claiming that Pelosi is attempting to justify *not*
bailing them out, and since the democrats are in control of Congress,
that's
certainly possible. Now, you're claiming that she's going to authorize
the
money to bail them out?? You might want to try and get your arguments
in
order before you write them down.

After you look up "fantastic, you may want to look up "Gordian Knot".
It will help you to understand Dave's problem. Or at least one of his
problems. g
I believe that if you look at the news today, that there is a difference
in what pelosi and obama are proposing, which is they are not going to
bailout the auto industry but are going to give them a special
bankruptcy. In layman terms they are going to bail out the auto
industry but call it something else. A rose is a rose.

I'd prefer they let the big three land where they may, and bailout the
auto industry itself by helping some of the many startups who are
trying to develop and bring to market cars that will be the envy of
the world. Bailing out the big three simply stifles innovation, and
rewards failure. I don't really think they can be preserved in their
present form regardless. It would be nearly impossible to save them in
a strong economy.

Lets encourage some completely new blood.

I tend to agree, but I think it's possible to bail them out with the proper
controls. Management should be fired with no bonuses, the companies should
put on a clear path to produce better, fuel-efficient cars. All contracts
should be renegotiated. I don't think this is the right moment to push lots
of people onto the unemployment lines and wholesale remove health coverage
and eliminate people's pensions.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:56:24 -0500, said:

I'd prefer they let the big three land where they may, and bailout the
auto industry itself by helping some of the many startups who are
trying to develop and bring to market cars that will be the envy of
the world.

As to the first part, sounds like you're on the right side of the issue.
But
if the big 3 were out of the picture would these other companies not be
able
to raise capital in the private market?

Who are these companies? I haven't seen anything about them.


Well, I have two friends who just bought Teslas. One actually got to drive
it from the factory to the paint shop.

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

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:15:50 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:20:11 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Pelosi asked for a plan, which involves more than flying in on the
Big 3's executive jets.

As well she should. She'll need everything she can get to cover her ass
when
one or more of those companies goes south after throwing more taxpayer
billions at them.


You just got done claiming that Pelosi is attempting to justify *not*
bailing them out, and since the democrats are in control of Congress,
that's
certainly possible. Now, you're claiming that she's going to authorize the
money to bail them out?? You might want to try and get your arguments in
order before you write them down.

After you look up "fantastic, you may want to look up "Gordian Knot".
It will help you to understand Dave's problem. Or at least one of his
problems. g


Yes, Dave is fantastically "difficult."


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