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 22:37:58 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .


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.


To whom are you speaking? I don't own a Japanese car.

No, you're the Californian who called Salty's lame "analysis" nice.
It was merely a shallow diatribe.
How he thought up this fantasy of "start-ups" replacing GM, Ford and
Chrysler is especially wacky. Drugs, I assume.

If GM is so
successful, then how come it's got it's hand out?

Reminiscent of someone else here. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I never called them "so successful."

I'm betting GM will not
survive, at least not as it is now.

Of course they will be different companies, bailout or not.
In fact, should Congress refuse them money, which would be fine with
me, GM could squeeze the unions and close/sell off their Cadillac,
Pontiac, and various SUV plants and remain profitable selling pickup
trucks and their best selling passenger cars. Ford could make an
equivalent move.
This is assuming their management has the balls.
The UAW workers are on the ropes, and they don't have exec jets,
caviar, resorts, and "high class" hookers paid for with expense
accounts to give up. But they do need their jobs, not having salted
away millions as the execs have.
I don't understand Chrysler - at all, so have no suggestions.


Ford is in better shape, but who knows.
This would be the second bailout for Chrysler.

Here's something below to read. It's very basic stuff.
It's plain silly to talk of putting a fork in the U.S./Canadian Big 3
and "start-ups" will just pick up the pieces.
It ain't gonna happen. None of that.
Like I said, it takes the clueless to propose the ridiculous, and a
Californian to stamp it as a "nice analysis."
I'm surprised that I'm beginning to appreciate Neal's analytical
skills as the best thing on this group.
Even when he's obviously drunk.
Ok, I'm done with this.
Plenty more of this on the auto groups.
I don't endorse all the facts below, but having had long interest in
the subject, they ring fairly true.
My apologies if I seem rude. If you prefer, imagine it's only because
my Chevy broke down.

--Vic

************************************************** ***********************
http://www.freep.com/article/20081117/COL14/811170379

The debate over aid to the Detroit-based automakers is awash with
half-truths and misrepresentations that are endlessly repeated by
everyone from members of Congress to journalists. Here are six myths
about the companies and their vehicles, and the reality in each case.

Myth No. 1
Nobody buys their vehicles.

Reality
General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC sold 8.5 million
vehicles in the United States last year and millions more around the
world.
GM outsold Toyota by about 1.2 million vehicles in the United States
last year and holds a U.S. lead over Toyota of about 560,000 so far
this year.
Globally, GM in 2007 remained the world's largest automaker, selling
9,369,524 vehicles worldwide -- about 3,000 more than Toyota.
Ford outsold Honda by about 850,000 and Nissan by more than 1.3
million vehicles in the United States last year.
Chrysler sold more vehicles here than Nissan and Hyundai combined in
2007 and so far this year.

Myth No. 2
They build unreliable junk.

Reality
The creaky, leaky vehicles of the 1980s and '90s are long gone.
Consumer Reports recently found that "Ford's reliability is now on par
with good Japanese automakers."
The independent J.D. Power Initial Quality Study scored Buick,
Cadillac, Chevrolet, Ford, GMC, Mercury, Pontiac and Lincoln
brands' overall quality as high or higher than that of Acura, Audi,
BMW, Honda, Nissan, Scion, Volkswagen and Volvo.
Power rated the Chevrolet Malibu the highest-quality midsize sedan.
Both the Malibu and Ford Fusion scored better than the Honda Accord
and Toyota Camry.

Myth No. 3
They build gas-guzzlers.

Reality
All of the Detroit Three build midsize sedans the Environmental
Protection Agency rates at 29-33 miles per gallon on the highway.
The most fuel-efficient Chevrolet Malibu gets 33 m.p.g. on the
highway, 2 m.p.g. better than the best Honda Accord. The most
fuel-efficient Ford Focus has the same highway fuel economy ratings as
the most efficient Toyota Corolla.
The most fuel-efficient Chevrolet Cobalt has the same city fuel
economy and better highway fuel economy than the most efficient
non-hybrid Honda Civic.
A recent study by Edmunds.com found that the Chevrolet Aveo subcompact
is the least expensive car to buy and operate.

Myth No. 4
They already got a $25-billion bailout.

Reality
None of that money has been lent out and may not be for more than a
year. In addition, it can, by law, be used only to invest in future
vehicles and technology, so it has no effect on the shortage of
operating cash the companies face because of the economic slowdown
that's killing them now.

Myth No. 5
GM, Ford and Chrysler are idiots for investing in pickups and SUVs.

Reality
The domestic companies' lineup has been truck-heavy, but Toyota,
Nissan, Mercedes-Benz and BMW have all spent billions of dollars on
pickups and SUVs because trucks are a large and historically
profitable part of the auto industry. The most fuel-efficient
full-size pickups from GM, Ford and Chrysler all have higher EPA fuel
economy ratings than Toyota and Nissan's full-size pickups.

Myth No. 6
They don't build hybrids.

Reality
The Detroit Three got into the hybrid business late, but Ford and GM
each now offers more hybrid models than Honda or Nissan, with several
more due to hit the road in early 2009.

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!

wrote in message
...
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!



I'm waiting for the plug-in Prius.

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

"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?