On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:54:09 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:59:56 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Here's an idea for the bailout versus bankruptcy debate as options for GM
(and possibly Ford and Chrysler)


Do both.

Agree to a government (taxpayer) financed cash infusion as part of the
reorganization plan in Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

On the other hand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/bu...hp&oref=slogin

That's an option and it does away with unions for the most part.

I'd like to see the American auto industry survive, even if it still
includes union contracts and workers.
But, the whole structure including products, management and union
relationships/contracts needs to be rewritten, using a blank sheet. The
bailout plus Chapter 11 concept takes those decisions out of the hands of
existing management and BOD's and puts them in the hands of the bankrupcy
court.

Here's a couple of things I can't get my admittedly slow and aging
brain to accept.

1 - What the auto makers are asking for is more than their current net
worth. The current market cap as of 11 AM today for General Motors is
about $1.9 billion, Ford about 4.3 billion, Chrysler is less than $2
billion - being privately held, it's difficult to tell. For a lousy
$7 billion the government could simply BUY the entire U.S. auto
“industry”.

2 - The companies, as they stand now, can't pay their creditors - what
makes anybody think they will repay the US taxpayer? As of 11 AM today
Ford has $160 billion in debt (with negative book value equity) and
GM has about $60 billion in debt (with a negative book value equity
of$56 billion). How is $50 billion more from the taxpayer going to
help?

Now - tell me where I'm wrong. Tell me why the taxpayer should dump
what could reach 120 Billion into two companies that have, combined, a
negative net worth of 220 Billion dollars.

Come on - tell me - I'm waiting to hear. Harry? Anybody?

I didn't think so.

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:54:09 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:59:56 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Here's an idea for the bailout versus bankruptcy debate as options for
GM
(and possibly Ford and Chrysler)


Do both.

Agree to a government (taxpayer) financed cash infusion as part of the
reorganization plan in Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

On the other hand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/bu...hp&oref=slogin

That's an option and it does away with unions for the most part.

I'd like to see the American auto industry survive, even if it still
includes union contracts and workers.
But, the whole structure including products, management and union
relationships/contracts needs to be rewritten, using a blank sheet. The
bailout plus Chapter 11 concept takes those decisions out of the hands of
existing management and BOD's and puts them in the hands of the bankrupcy
court.

Here's a couple of things I can't get my admittedly slow and aging
brain to accept.

1 - What the auto makers are asking for is more than their current net
worth. The current market cap as of 11 AM today for General Motors is
about $1.9 billion, Ford about 4.3 billion, Chrysler is less than $2
billion - being privately held, it's difficult to tell. For a lousy
$7 billion the government could simply BUY the entire U.S. auto
"industry".

2 - The companies, as they stand now, can't pay their creditors - what
makes anybody think they will repay the US taxpayer? As of 11 AM today
Ford has $160 billion in debt (with negative book value equity) and
GM has about $60 billion in debt (with a negative book value equity
of$56 billion). How is $50 billion more from the taxpayer going to
help?

Now - tell me where I'm wrong. Tell me why the taxpayer should dump
what could reach 120 Billion into two companies that have, combined, a
negative net worth of 220 Billion dollars.

Come on - tell me - I'm waiting to hear. Harry? Anybody?

I didn't think so.


It will work. New Math at work makes it work. Work for you? :)

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:54:09 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:59:56 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Here's an idea for the bailout versus bankruptcy debate as options for
GM
(and possibly Ford and Chrysler)


Do both.

Agree to a government (taxpayer) financed cash infusion as part of the
reorganization plan in Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
On the other hand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/bu...hp&oref=slogin
That's an option and it does away with unions for the most part.

I'd like to see the American auto industry survive, even if it still
includes union contracts and workers.
But, the whole structure including products, management and union
relationships/contracts needs to be rewritten, using a blank sheet. The
bailout plus Chapter 11 concept takes those decisions out of the hands of
existing management and BOD's and puts them in the hands of the bankrupcy
court.
Here's a couple of things I can't get my admittedly slow and aging
brain to accept.

1 - What the auto makers are asking for is more than their current net
worth. The current market cap as of 11 AM today for General Motors is
about $1.9 billion, Ford about 4.3 billion, Chrysler is less than $2
billion - being privately held, it's difficult to tell. For a lousy
$7 billion the government could simply BUY the entire U.S. auto
"industry".

2 - The companies, as they stand now, can't pay their creditors - what
makes anybody think they will repay the US taxpayer? As of 11 AM today
Ford has $160 billion in debt (with negative book value equity) and
GM has about $60 billion in debt (with a negative book value equity
of$56 billion). How is $50 billion more from the taxpayer going to
help?

Now - tell me where I'm wrong. Tell me why the taxpayer should dump
what could reach 120 Billion into two companies that have, combined, a
negative net worth of 220 Billion dollars.

Come on - tell me - I'm waiting to hear. Harry? Anybody?

I didn't think so.



Maybe it has something to do with the 3 million manufacturing and
ancillary jobs that will be lost if the Big Three fail, and of course
the almost total collapse of U.S. manufacturing capability.

There's no guarantee that if the Big Three go under or declare
bankruptcy anyone will move in to fill the vacuum.

I know massive unemployment and the resulting tragedies mean nothing to
you Big Time Republicans, but those of us who actually care about
families and family values think otherwise. And so does the incoming
president.

Besides, we are blowing $10-$12 billion a month on a masturbatory
fantasy in Iraq, and we'll get nothing for it, ever.

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...

2 - The companies, as they stand now, can't pay their creditors - what
makes anybody think they will repay the US taxpayer? As of 11 AM today
Ford has $160 billion in debt (with negative book value equity) and
GM has about $60 billion in debt (with a negative book value equity
of$56 billion). How is $50 billion more from the taxpayer going to
help?

Inciteful.

They will be back for more, and more, and more, and more... until forced to
change.

Seen this happen in Canada. Once on the dole, no motivation exists to fix
it.

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:59:56 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

Here's an idea for the bailout versus bankruptcy debate as options for GM
(and possibly Ford and Chrysler)


Do both.

Agree to a government (taxpayer) financed cash infusion as part of the
reorganization plan in Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

GM apparently has multiple, costly contractual obligations to suppliers, for
unused facilities, pension plans, etc. that can only be restructured in a
bankruptcy situation, under the watch of a bankruptcy judge.

To pour money into GM without addressing these issues is, in the words of
the famous chant, "More of the same". GM will still be obligated to these
contracts, including retired pension and existing labor unions contracts.

Under Chapter 11 reorganization, GM can end contributions for existing
retired pensions. The cost of these pensions will be absorbed into an
existing federal pension insurance program (forget the name of it).

This arrangement will also afford GM to be completely restructured, lean and
mean, and costly contractual obligations that are no longer of benefit can
be terminated by the bankruptcy judge.
The judge can also require labor union contracts to be renegotiated,
management replaced and/or restructured, including salary and perk caps.

Then, with the "new" GM structure in place, a taxpayer financed investment
makes sense to kick start the reorganized company with the money spent to
develop and market modern, fuel efficient vehicles at a cost that can be
competitive with the likes of Toyota and Honda.

It makes sense to me. I also think that Toyota and Honda are walking down
the same path as the US auto industry and eventually will become bloated and
inefficient. We should restructure the US industry now, and stay ahead of
the curve.

Eisboch


Bottom line...will the plan buy more votes than giving GM a few billion
every week to pay the union members?
--
A Harry Krause truism:

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:59:56 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

Here's an idea for the bailout versus bankruptcy debate as options for GM
(and possibly Ford and Chrysler)


Do both.

Agree to a government (taxpayer) financed cash infusion as part of the
reorganization plan in Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

GM apparently has multiple, costly contractual obligations to suppliers,
for
unused facilities, pension plans, etc. that can only be restructured in a
bankruptcy situation, under the watch of a bankruptcy judge.

To pour money into GM without addressing these issues is, in the words of
the famous chant, "More of the same". GM will still be obligated to
these
contracts, including retired pension and existing labor unions contracts.

Under Chapter 11 reorganization, GM can end contributions for existing
retired pensions. The cost of these pensions will be absorbed into an
existing federal pension insurance program (forget the name of it).

This arrangement will also afford GM to be completely restructured, lean
and
mean, and costly contractual obligations that are no longer of benefit can
be terminated by the bankruptcy judge.
The judge can also require labor union contracts to be renegotiated,
management replaced and/or restructured, including salary and perk caps.

Then, with the "new" GM structure in place, a taxpayer financed investment
makes sense to kick start the reorganized company with the money spent to
develop and market modern, fuel efficient vehicles at a cost that can be
competitive with the likes of Toyota and Honda.

It makes sense to me. I also think that Toyota and Honda are walking
down
the same path as the US auto industry and eventually will become bloated
and
inefficient. We should restructure the US industry now, and stay ahead
of
the curve.

Eisboch


Bottom line...will the plan buy more votes than giving GM a few billion
every week to pay the union members?

I think there is more to it. Beyond bailing out UAW/CAW unions, who was the
billionaire who bought a bunch to control the board some 2-3 year ago? Then
lets examine how many shares of GM each senator and congress person owns.

This is a pork barrel bailout with lipstick on it.

Let Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Ford, Chrysler pick up the slack. This industry
is not a one horse show. Pretty good chance if a new car buyer goes to the
market they will not even use GM anyways.

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
Here's an idea for the bailout versus bankruptcy debate as options for GM
(and possibly Ford and Chrysler)


Do both.

Agree to a government (taxpayer) financed cash infusion as part of the
reorganization plan in Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

GM apparently has multiple, costly contractual obligations to suppliers,
for unused facilities, pension plans, etc. that can only be restructured
in a bankruptcy situation, under the watch of a bankruptcy judge.

To pour money into GM without addressing these issues is, in the words of
the famous chant, "More of the same". GM will still be obligated to
these contracts, including retired pension and existing labor unions
contracts.

Under Chapter 11 reorganization, GM can end contributions for existing
retired pensions. The cost of these pensions will be absorbed into an
existing federal pension insurance program (forget the name of it).

This arrangement will also afford GM to be completely restructured, lean
and mean, and costly contractual obligations that are no longer of benefit
can be terminated by the bankruptcy judge.
The judge can also require labor union contracts to be renegotiated,
management replaced and/or restructured, including salary and perk caps.

Then, with the "new" GM structure in place, a taxpayer financed investment
makes sense to kick start the reorganized company with the money spent to
develop and market modern, fuel efficient vehicles at a cost that can be
competitive with the likes of Toyota and Honda.

It makes sense to me. I also think that Toyota and Honda are walking
down the same path as the US auto industry and eventually will become
bloated and inefficient. We should restructure the US industry now, and
stay ahead of the curve.

Eisboch

Makes sense to me. But I would say best to wait until in chapter 11 before
giving them money. Any agreements or caveats with money at this point at no
longer valid in chapter 11.

Chapter 11 must come first as once in chapter 11 they are talking their
first real step in fixing the real problems. More good cash after bad, not
a good idea. They must do chapter 11 first.

On Nov 17, 6:59*am, "Eisboch" wrote:
Here's an idea for the bailout versus bankruptcy debate as options for GM
(and possibly Ford and Chrysler)

Do both.

Agree to a government (taxpayer) financed cash infusion as part of the
reorganization plan in Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

GM apparently has multiple, costly contractual obligations to suppliers, for
unused facilities, pension plans, etc. that can only be restructured in a
bankruptcy situation, under the watch of a bankruptcy judge.

To pour money into GM without addressing these issues is, *in the words of
the famous chant, "More of the same". * GM will still be obligated to these
contracts, including retired pension and existing labor unions contracts.

Under Chapter 11 reorganization, GM can end contributions for existing
retired pensions. *The cost of these pensions will be absorbed into an
existing federal pension insurance program (forget the name of it).

This arrangement will also afford GM to be completely restructured, lean and
mean, and costly contractual obligations that are no longer of benefit can
be terminated by the bankruptcy judge.
The judge can also require labor union contracts to be renegotiated,
management replaced and/or restructured, including salary and perk caps.

Then, with the "new" GM structure in place, a taxpayer financed investment
makes sense to kick start the reorganized company with the money spent to
develop and market modern, fuel efficient vehicles at a cost that can be
competitive with the likes of Toyota and Honda.

It makes sense to me. * I also think that Toyota and Honda are walking down
the same path as the US auto industry and eventually will become bloated and
inefficient. * We should restructure the US industry now, and stay ahead of
the curve.

Eisboch

Well, GM has already ripped the Canadian Govt. for millions in a loan.
**** your idea. As a taxpayer, I'm not giving them anything. Gee,
silver-spooner, why not give them some of your money.
The fat-payed CEO, and other over-payed leeches down the line , should
be held responsible.

wrote in message
...

On Nov 17, 6:59 am, "Eisboch" wrote:

Well, GM has already ripped the Canadian Govt. for millions in a loan.
**** your idea. As a taxpayer, I'm not giving them anything. Gee,
silver-spooner, why not give them some of your money.
The fat-payed CEO, and other over-payed leeches down the line , should
be held responsible.

-----------------------------

"silver-spooner"? LOL. That's a new one.

You sound a bit more frustrated today than usual. Cut back on your
overtime? Union dues go up? Or did your shop steward inform you that your
latest grievance was denied?

Eisboch

On Nov 17, 11:10*am, "Eisboch" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Nov 17, 6:59 am, "Eisboch" wrote:

Well, GM has already ripped the Canadian Govt. for millions in a loan.
**** your idea. As a taxpayer, I'm not giving them anything. Gee,
silver-spooner, why not give them some of your money.
The fat-payed CEO, and other over-payed leeches down the line , should
be held responsible.

-----------------------------

"silver-spooner"? * LOL. * That's a new one.

You sound a bit more frustrated today than usual. *Cut back on your
overtime? *Union dues go up? *Or did your shop steward inform you that your
latest grievance was denied?

Eisboch

The company just got the union to up the manhours worked to two, for a
days pay...

Rowdy Mouse Racing, Don't need no stinkin' union...