"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.

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:55:48 -0500, Boater
wrote:


"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.

Well, for one thing, there wouldn't be a three million job loss -
probably less than half that. Bankruptcy under Chapter 11 is a
reorganization procedure - which means they keep operating while
restructuring and reorganizing.

Secondly, as the NYT pointed out in a very well written article, there
is no reason to believe that Toyota, Nissan, BMW, Volkswagen, yada,
yada, yada wouldn't pick up the slack and actually ADD jobs to the
industry.

Third, how is GM going under going to destroy a manufacturing base
that is already mostly overseas anyway. There aren't any heavy
industrial companies still in business in the US - or at least none
that have any sort of world wide presence. GM's success in the
Eurozone is mostly because they build in Europe and not in the US.

Fourth, restructuring GM would, and this is a fact, make them a
leaner, meaner and much more responsive to market conditions than the
bloated corporate machine they are now.

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

No - that's true, but it would be an incredibly rich target for any
number of other businesses to pick up and run with. The opportunities
would be tremendous for other companies to pick up.

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.

Bull****. What I'm against is bloated manufacturing, cars that won't
sell even in good times. I know you've never been in a down cycle
before because of your skill set and Union contacts, but I have - two
of them. And it hurt everytime I had to let people go, but that's
life. There aren't any quarentees - never have been, never will be.

That kind of thinking is what got us into this mess.

On Nov 17, 6:37*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

I know you've never been in a down cycle
before because of your skill set and Union contacts, but I have - two
of them. *And it hurt every time I had to let people go, but that's
life. *There aren't any guarantees - never have been, never will be.

And THAT is why I am gainfully and self employed.

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

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.

Bull****. What I'm against is bloated manufacturing, cars that won't
sell even in good times. I know you've never been in a down cycle
before because of your skill set and Union contacts, but I have - two
of them. And it hurt everytime I had to let people go, but that's
life. There aren't any quarentees - never have been, never will be.

That kind of thinking is what got us into this mess.

Insightful. I remember when GM screwed up their financials in 2005 and
reading about management didn't even know how bad it was bleeding. 2005 was
a good year.

"Boater" wrote in message
...

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.

So let one fail and the other three will get more sales. GM going down will
actually help Ford and Chysler!!!

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

Vacuums will be filled if they can make money. Ford, Chrysler, Toyota,
Honda, Nissan and other north american manufacturing facilities can pick up
the slack.

GM isn't the monolyth it was in 1946 when it's stock was worth more.

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.

What about the other 1,000,000+++ layed off already? Can't afford to bail
everyone out, maybe consider what is fair to all. Don't bail anyone out.
People learn when they eat the heat.

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

And think, that isn't enough to make the Big 3 profitable.

This problem of blood sucking main street taxes via the government bailouts
is far bigger screw up.

In fact, it is governments very actions making it worse!!! Add 15% to the
national debt in 15 days for banks...that is 15% more in taxes needed at 0%
interest rate. More taxes, less capital in circulation. Less circulation
means less jobs which means even less spending. This is a death spiral!!

In the G20 summit the socialists will down play their number one
recommendation. Quit government bailouts, cease out of control spending,
and lower taxes so the middle class can pay their bills!!!

What a novel concept in a day where credit bounces because of repayment
fears. Did a Liberal wake up and smell the coffee?

Canuck57 wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

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.

So let one fail and the other three will get more sales. GM going down will
actually help Ford and Chysler!!!

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

Vacuums will be filled if they can make money. Ford, Chrysler, Toyota,
Honda, Nissan and other north american manufacturing facilities can pick up
the slack.

GM isn't the monolyth it was in 1946 when it's stock was worth more.

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.

What about the other 1,000,000+++ layed off already? Can't afford to bail
everyone out, maybe consider what is fair to all. Don't bail anyone out.
People learn when they eat the heat.


Fortunately, you aren't in charge of anything and never will be.

More and more, I am favoring a super high tax rate against income higher
than a certain amount, amd mechanisms to cap corporate renumeration.

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Canuck57 wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

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.

So let one fail and the other three will get more sales. GM going down
will actually help Ford and Chysler!!!

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

Vacuums will be filled if they can make money. Ford, Chrysler, Toyota,
Honda, Nissan and other north american manufacturing facilities can pick
up the slack.

GM isn't the monolyth it was in 1946 when it's stock was worth more.

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.

What about the other 1,000,000+++ layed off already? Can't afford to
bail everyone out, maybe consider what is fair to all. Don't bail anyone
out. People learn when they eat the heat.


Fortunately, you aren't in charge of anything and never will be.

More and more, I am favoring a super high tax rate against income higher
than a certain amount, amd mechanisms to cap corporate renumeration.

I wish your country would. We are told our best & brightest (including
doctors) head south for lower taxes & higher salaries.
The govt' then adjusts the tax brackets to the advantage of those making
over $80K to appease them.

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Canuck57 wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

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.

So let one fail and the other three will get more sales. GM going down
will actually help Ford and Chysler!!!

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

Vacuums will be filled if they can make money. Ford, Chrysler, Toyota,
Honda, Nissan and other north american manufacturing facilities can pick
up the slack.

GM isn't the monolyth it was in 1946 when it's stock was worth more.

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.

What about the other 1,000,000+++ layed off already? Can't afford to
bail everyone out, maybe consider what is fair to all. Don't bail anyone
out. People learn when they eat the heat.


Fortunately, you aren't in charge of anything and never will be.

More and more, I am favoring a super high tax rate against income higher
than a certain amount, amd mechanisms to cap corporate renumeration.

Don't worry, raise US taxes all you want. Just let me know so I can short a
few choice stocks. Good capitalists don't let emotion and rhetoric rule.
They get right past that at your expense not theirs.

More and more, I am favoring a super high tax rate against income higher
than a certain amount, amd mechanisms to cap corporate renumeration.

You're way off base as usual regarding the tax rate issue, but you're right
on target regarding corporate renumeration. Something has to be done with
these corporations running around and renumbering everything. Renumbering
this, renumbering that, it's got to stop, I tell you. Perhaps if
corporations would recruit talented executives and remunerate them
appropriately, all this rampant renumeration would come to an end.

Moron.

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:53:42 GMT, "RG" wrote:


More and more, I am favoring a super high tax rate against income higher
than a certain amount, amd mechanisms to cap corporate renumeration.

You're way off base as usual regarding the tax rate issue, but you're right
on target regarding corporate renumeration. Something has to be done with
these corporations running around and renumbering everything. Renumbering
this, renumbering that, it's got to stop, I tell you. Perhaps if
corporations would recruit talented executives and remunerate them
appropriately, all this rampant renumeration would come to an end.

Moron.

That was really supernumerarius.

--Vic