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

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:24:11 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

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.

The new startups are going to need those people, and they already knew
enough to start on building those cars you think are a good idea. Once
they have some backing to get going, they'll be hiring. They may even
need some of those idle factories, and even additional workers in
other fields to update them for better production methods. People have
been telling the Big Three for years that they needed to change
direction. They didn't. They can't. Too late - and now is not the
climate in which there is any chance of turning them around. It's over
and time to look ahead. You can't make a living manufacturing buggy
whips any longer, either. The big Three have outlived their viability.
There is nothing left to bail out, really. All you could do at this
point is give them obscene amounts of money to help them limp along
until that runs out, and then they fail anyway.

Bail out the auto industry itself, and forget the big three. Stick
them with a fork. They've been done for a very long time.

Don't overlook that this whole mess is actually going to make it much
easier to get universal health care passed. It will be on the fast
track now out of neccessity. Otherwise the Hospitals and Insurance
industry will be the next in line for a bailout.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:24:11 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

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.

The new startups are going to need those people, and they already knew
enough to start on building those cars you think are a good idea. Once
they have some backing to get going, they'll be hiring. They may even
need some of those idle factories, and even additional workers in
other fields to update them for better production methods. People have
been telling the Big Three for years that they needed to change
direction. They didn't. They can't. Too late - and now is not the
climate in which there is any chance of turning them around. It's over
and time to look ahead. You can't make a living manufacturing buggy
whips any longer, either. The big Three have outlived their viability.
There is nothing left to bail out, really. All you could do at this
point is give them obscene amounts of money to help them limp along
until that runs out, and then they fail anyway.

Bail out the auto industry itself, and forget the big three. Stick
them with a fork. They've been done for a very long time.

Don't overlook that this whole mess is actually going to make it much
easier to get universal health care passed. It will be on the fast
track now out of neccessity. Otherwise the Hospitals and Insurance
industry will be the next in line for a bailout.

Nice analysis. Actually, the "limping along" would only last 1Q, according
to the GM guy.

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

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:20:16 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:24:11 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

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.

The new startups are going to need those people, and they already knew
enough to start on building those cars you think are a good idea. Once
they have some backing to get going, they'll be hiring. They may even
need some of those idle factories, and even additional workers in
other fields to update them for better production methods. People have
been telling the Big Three for years that they needed to change
direction. They didn't. They can't. Too late - and now is not the
climate in which there is any chance of turning them around. It's over
and time to look ahead. You can't make a living manufacturing buggy
whips any longer, either. The big Three have outlived their viability.
There is nothing left to bail out, really. All you could do at this
point is give them obscene amounts of money to help them limp along
until that runs out, and then they fail anyway.

Bail out the auto industry itself, and forget the big three. Stick
them with a fork. They've been done for a very long time.

Don't overlook that this whole mess is actually going to make it much
easier to get universal health care passed. It will be on the fast
track now out of neccessity. Otherwise the Hospitals and Insurance
industry will be the next in line for a bailout.

Nice analysis. Actually, the "limping along" would only last 1Q, according
to the GM guy.

Typical analysis by a Jap car owner who has his head up his ass.
GM outsold Toyota worldwide last year.
Toyota-heads and Honda-heads and most Californians don't have a clue
about the real automotive world.
GM will survive as GM. Chevrolet won't go away.
Same for Ford.
Don't know about Chrysler.
Come back next year when you're sober.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:20:16 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:24:11 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
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.

The new startups are going to need those people, and they already knew
enough to start on building those cars you think are a good idea. Once
they have some backing to get going, they'll be hiring. They may even
need some of those idle factories, and even additional workers in
other fields to update them for better production methods. People have
been telling the Big Three for years that they needed to change
direction. They didn't. They can't. Too late - and now is not the
climate in which there is any chance of turning them around. It's over
and time to look ahead. You can't make a living manufacturing buggy
whips any longer, either. The big Three have outlived their viability.
There is nothing left to bail out, really. All you could do at this
point is give them obscene amounts of money to help them limp along
until that runs out, and then they fail anyway.

Bail out the auto industry itself, and forget the big three. Stick
them with a fork. They've been done for a very long time.

Don't overlook that this whole mess is actually going to make it much
easier to get universal health care passed. It will be on the fast
track now out of neccessity. Otherwise the Hospitals and Insurance
industry will be the next in line for a bailout.

Nice analysis. Actually, the "limping along" would only last 1Q, according
to the GM guy.

Typical analysis by a Jap car owner who has his head up his ass.
GM outsold Toyota worldwide last year.
Toyota-heads and Honda-heads and most Californians don't have a clue
about the real automotive world.
GM will survive as GM. Chevrolet won't go away.
Same for Ford.
Don't know about Chrysler.
Come back next year when you're sober.

--Vic


To whom are you speaking? I don't own a Japanese car. If GM is so
successful, then how come it's got it's hand out? I'm betting GM will not
survive, at least not as it is now. Ford is in better shape, but who knows.
This would be the second bailout for Chrysler.


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

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:34:53 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:20:16 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:


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


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.

The new startups are going to need those people, and they already knew
enough to start on building those cars you think are a good idea. Once
they have some backing to get going, they'll be hiring. They may even
need some of those idle factories, and even additional workers in
other fields to update them for better production methods. People have
been telling the Big Three for years that they needed to change
direction. They didn't. They can't. Too late - and now is not the
climate in which there is any chance of turning them around. It's over
and time to look ahead. You can't make a living manufacturing buggy
whips any longer, either. The big Three have outlived their viability.
There is nothing left to bail out, really. All you could do at this
point is give them obscene amounts of money to help them limp along
until that runs out, and then they fail anyway.

Bail out the auto industry itself, and forget the big three. Stick
them with a fork. They've been done for a very long time.

Don't overlook that this whole mess is actually going to make it much
easier to get universal health care passed. It will be on the fast
track now out of neccessity. Otherwise the Hospitals and Insurance
industry will be the next in line for a bailout.

Nice analysis. Actually, the "limping along" would only last 1Q, according
to the GM guy.


Typical analysis by a Jap car owner who has his head up his ass.
GM outsold Toyota worldwide last year.

Sounds like they are doing great, then. I guess all this talk about a
bailout is foolishness.If they are doing better than Toyota worldwide,
then maybe we should be giving the money to poor Toyota!

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...

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.


So when is it the right moment?

"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