Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

wrote in message
t...
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:59:58 -0500, Eisboch wrote:



A Chapter 11 filing does not, in itself, reorganize a company and
certainly is *not* a means for "getting people to do the same things,
only cheaper". All it does is protects the company from involuntary
bankrupcy by putting the vendor bill collectors, banks and lawsuits at
bay while an effort is made to reorganize and satisfy current finanical
obligations via negotiation. While protected in Chapter 11 a plan is
developed to reorganize, refinance, and re-negotiate existing (and in
GM's case - obsolete) contracts. Overseen by a bankruptcy court, the
plan, agreed to by all concerned parties is generated and when
implimentated, the company emerges from Chapter 11. If a plan cannot be
produced that is approved by all concerned parties, the company usually
goes belly up in Chapter 7.

Sure, but the end result is "getting people to do the same thing, only
cheaper". Let me ask you something, does the bankruptcy court take into
consideration America's interests? Under normal circumstances, I would
readily agree GM should go Chapter 11, but these are not normal
circumstances. We are in recession, and it's looking like it could be a
severe one. Personally, I don't think we can afford to let GM go into
bankruptcy at this time.

Barney Frank's bill limits the ability to truly reorganize the auto
companies. It's simply throwing money into the same sink hole.
Six-eight months from now they'll be back, needing more survival money.

The auto industry's contracts and historical ways of doing business need
a complete overhauling in order to be a viable, competitive entity in
today's global markets. Chapter 11 reorganization, prepackaged with a
government bridge loan to keep the beast breathing during the process,
makes sense to me.

You know, we have already spent $350 billion to bail out the *******s
that caused this mess. We've let them keep their millions in bonuses,
but we're quibbling about spending 1/10 of that to save an industry that
provides 1-3 million jobs. I don't get it. And, I would point out, it
was the incompetence of Wall Street that brought Detroit's troubles into
crisis.

Obama's already talking about major infrastructure spending with the
intent of creating jobs. It seems to me, saving GM's jobs, might in the
long run, be cheaper.


In that case maybe the 28-35 billion should be taken from the $700 B gift to
the financial people and used to generate rebates to anyone buying a
vehicle.
Trouble is...most people, like me, would use my coupon at a Toyota, Honda or
Subaru store.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 23:59:58 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

The auto industry's contracts and historical ways of doing business need
a complete overhauling in order to be a viable, competitive entity in
today's global markets. Chapter 11 reorganization, prepackaged with a
government bridge loan to keep the beast breathing during the process,
makes sense to me.

While I understand the idea, I don't want money going to GM. Ford
doesn't want the money, just a backup which is one hell of a lot less
expensive.

Let GM sink. If they can't get through Chapter 11, tough. Let them
go Chapter 7 and disappear.

Ford, Toyota, Honda and others will take up the slack.

Survival of the fittest.


I think you are grossly minimizing the impact of a GM sinking. It's not
just GM that will sink.


Harry, the fallacy of simple bailout for GM is that it only serves to extend
the inevitable for GM and for those other businesses that rely on it without
major and immediate changes to GM's structure. Bankruptcy or no
bankruptcy, Chapter 11, or Chapter 7, the relationships are going to
change and jobs and benefits are going to be lost. Whatever market share GM
ends up with following a reorganization or the lost market share that will
be picked up by Ford, Toyota or Honda if GM goes belly-up will determine
what level business and therefore employment that the related companies
maintain.

The problem may be exasperated by the economic meltdown, but it existed well
before September 15th.
Collectively, GM, Ford and Chrysler have structures and capacities that are
too big to support their shrinking market share. Ford has recognized this
and has been streamlining their business and cutting back on the number of
different vechicles they produce. GM has not. Chrylser barely exists as it
is.

A bailout simply extends existing relationships and contracts until they run
out of money again.

Eisboch

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

wrote in message
t...
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:59:58 -0500, Eisboch wrote:



A Chapter 11 filing does not, in itself, reorganize a company and
certainly is *not* a means for "getting people to do the same things,
only cheaper". All it does is protects the company from involuntary
bankrupcy by putting the vendor bill collectors, banks and lawsuits at
bay while an effort is made to reorganize and satisfy current finanical
obligations via negotiation. While protected in Chapter 11 a plan is
developed to reorganize, refinance, and re-negotiate existing (and in
GM's case - obsolete) contracts. Overseen by a bankruptcy court, the
plan, agreed to by all concerned parties is generated and when
implimentated, the company emerges from Chapter 11. If a plan cannot be
produced that is approved by all concerned parties, the company usually
goes belly up in Chapter 7.

Sure, but the end result is "getting people to do the same thing, only
cheaper". Let me ask you something, does the bankruptcy court take into
consideration America's interests? Under normal circumstances, I would
readily agree GM should go Chapter 11, but these are not normal
circumstances. We are in recession, and it's looking like it could be a
severe one. Personally, I don't think we can afford to let GM go into
bankruptcy at this time.

Barney Frank's bill limits the ability to truly reorganize the auto
companies. It's simply throwing money into the same sink hole.
Six-eight months from now they'll be back, needing more survival money.

The auto industry's contracts and historical ways of doing business need
a complete overhauling in order to be a viable, competitive entity in
today's global markets. Chapter 11 reorganization, prepackaged with a
government bridge loan to keep the beast breathing during the process,
makes sense to me.

You know, we have already spent $350 billion to bail out the *******s
that caused this mess. We've let them keep their millions in bonuses,
but we're quibbling about spending 1/10 of that to save an industry that
provides 1-3 million jobs. I don't get it. And, I would point out, it
was the incompetence of Wall Street that brought Detroit's troubles into
crisis.

Obama's already talking about major infrastructure spending with the
intent of creating jobs. It seems to me, saving GM's jobs, might in the
long run, be cheaper.


I would respectfully suggest that your last sentence underscores where I
think you (and others) are wrong.
Saving GM's jobs doesn't fix GM's problems. GM does not, and has not for a
long time, (predating the current
economic meltdown), sold enough vehicles to be profitable and justify their
current bloated structure. GM's crisis was coming anyway. The meltdown
accelerated it and presented an opportunity to pick up some TARP money.

It's time to face the music and do what is necessary to save *any* jobs at
GM and related industry businesses.
That cannot be done internally through GM management and the UAW. There's
too much history and tradition of the "good old days".
It will take a Chapter 11 filing (with preconditions and government support)
to fix it.

Eisboch

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:59:58 -0500, Eisboch wrote:



A Chapter 11 filing does not, in itself, reorganize a company and
certainly is *not* a means for "getting people to do the same things,
only cheaper". All it does is protects the company from involuntary
bankrupcy by putting the vendor bill collectors, banks and lawsuits at
bay while an effort is made to reorganize and satisfy current finanical
obligations via negotiation. While protected in Chapter 11 a plan is
developed to reorganize, refinance, and re-negotiate existing (and in
GM's case - obsolete) contracts. Overseen by a bankruptcy court, the
plan, agreed to by all concerned parties is generated and when
implimentated, the company emerges from Chapter 11. If a plan cannot be
produced that is approved by all concerned parties, the company usually
goes belly up in Chapter 7.

Sure, but the end result is "getting people to do the same thing, only
cheaper". Let me ask you something, does the bankruptcy court take into
consideration America's interests? Under normal circumstances, I would
readily agree GM should go Chapter 11, but these are not normal
circumstances. We are in recession, and it's looking like it could be a
severe one. Personally, I don't think we can afford to let GM go into
bankruptcy at this time.

Barney Frank's bill limits the ability to truly reorganize the auto
companies. It's simply throwing money into the same sink hole.
Six-eight months from now they'll be back, needing more survival money.

The auto industry's contracts and historical ways of doing business need
a complete overhauling in order to be a viable, competitive entity in
today's global markets. Chapter 11 reorganization, prepackaged with a
government bridge loan to keep the beast breathing during the process,
makes sense to me.

You know, we have already spent $350 billion to bail out the *******s
that caused this mess. We've let them keep their millions in bonuses,
but we're quibbling about spending 1/10 of that to save an industry that
provides 1-3 million jobs. I don't get it. And, I would point out, it
was the incompetence of Wall Street that brought Detroit's troubles into
crisis. Obama's already talking about major infrastructure spending with
the intent of creating jobs. It seems to me, saving GM's jobs, might in
the long run, be cheaper.


You don't get it? It's easy. The Republicans have great disdain for
working people, especially working people represented by unions. Working
people, after all, are nothing more than property, to be used up and
discarded.

I was opposed to the Wall Street-banker bailout, but not the auto bailout.


You both are missing the point. It has nothing to do with disdain for
working people or unions.
It has to do with the simple reality that regardless of how GM's problems
are resolved,
jobs will be lost, and related businesses will either downsize or fail.
GM's market share and bloated structure simply will not (and has not for
years) continue to support it's size.
All I am arguing is that in the best interests of all ... including the
workers and the unions ...
that the best way to fix the problem is through a Chapter 11 process, with
pre-conditions and bridge financing by an interested government.
Restructuring under a federal court's oversight should be a fairer process
to the unions than restructuring by negotiations only with GM management,
don't you think? Besides, a negotiation process without a courts' oversight
will probably guarantee that time and money will run out and everyone loses
their jobs.

Think about it.

Eisboch

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
t...
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:59:58 -0500, Eisboch wrote:



A Chapter 11 filing does not, in itself, reorganize a company and
certainly is *not* a means for "getting people to do the same things,
only cheaper". All it does is protects the company from involuntary
bankrupcy by putting the vendor bill collectors, banks and lawsuits at
bay while an effort is made to reorganize and satisfy current finanical
obligations via negotiation. While protected in Chapter 11 a plan is
developed to reorganize, refinance, and re-negotiate existing (and in
GM's case - obsolete) contracts. Overseen by a bankruptcy court, the
plan, agreed to by all concerned parties is generated and when
implimentated, the company emerges from Chapter 11. If a plan cannot be
produced that is approved by all concerned parties, the company usually
goes belly up in Chapter 7.
Sure, but the end result is "getting people to do the same thing, only
cheaper". Let me ask you something, does the bankruptcy court take into
consideration America's interests? Under normal circumstances, I would
readily agree GM should go Chapter 11, but these are not normal
circumstances. We are in recession, and it's looking like it could be a
severe one. Personally, I don't think we can afford to let GM go into
bankruptcy at this time.

Barney Frank's bill limits the ability to truly reorganize the auto
companies. It's simply throwing money into the same sink hole.
Six-eight months from now they'll be back, needing more survival money.

The auto industry's contracts and historical ways of doing business need
a complete overhauling in order to be a viable, competitive entity in
today's global markets. Chapter 11 reorganization, prepackaged with a
government bridge loan to keep the beast breathing during the process,
makes sense to me.
You know, we have already spent $350 billion to bail out the *******s
that caused this mess. We've let them keep their millions in bonuses,
but we're quibbling about spending 1/10 of that to save an industry that
provides 1-3 million jobs. I don't get it. And, I would point out, it
was the incompetence of Wall Street that brought Detroit's troubles into
crisis.

Obama's already talking about major infrastructure spending with the
intent of creating jobs. It seems to me, saving GM's jobs, might in the
long run, be cheaper.


I would respectfully suggest that your last sentence underscores where I
think you (and others) are wrong.
Saving GM's jobs doesn't fix GM's problems. GM does not, and has not for a
long time, (predating the current
economic meltdown), sold enough vehicles to be profitable and justify their
current bloated structure. GM's crisis was coming anyway. The meltdown
accelerated it and presented an opportunity to pick up some TARP money.

It's time to face the music and do what is necessary to save *any* jobs at
GM and related industry businesses.
That cannot be done internally through GM management and the UAW. There's
too much history and tradition of the "good old days".
It will take a Chapter 11 filing (with preconditions and government support)
to fix it.

Eisboch




You know, by generally accepted accounting standards, the federal
government is broke, bankrupt, even, though it does have the ability to
borrow and print money.

I say if the auto industry is allowed to back out of paying agreed upon
and contracted pension and health benefits to retirees, then the federal
government should do the same with its civilian and military retirees.

If that were proposed, my suspicion is that those who depend upon
federal civilian and military pensions and benefits would object mightily.

The point is, the retirees planned around the contracted benefits and
depend upon them. Problem is, in the private sector, corporate thieves
were allowed to pile up unfunded liabilities in order to help cook their
books.

We've handed out close to a trillion dollars to the Wall Street and
banking industries, and for what? We'll get nothing out of that. Not
even a lousy car.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

wrote in message
t...
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 10:16:23 -0500, Boater wrote:


You don't get it? It's easy. The Republicans have great disdain for
working people, especially working people represented by unions. Working
people, after all, are nothing more than property, to be used up and
discarded.

I can't remember who said it, but it made sense to me, paraphrased:

We bail out people who take a shower before work, but won't bail out
people who take a shower after work.


Sound like Michael Moore.
Once a voice in the wilderness, he's now into re-runs and canned speaches
while he counts his money.

Eisboch

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

"Don White" wrote in message
...



In that case maybe the 28-35 billion should be taken from the $700 B gift
to the financial people and used to generate rebates to anyone buying a
vehicle.
Trouble is...most people, like me, would use my coupon at a Toyota, Honda
or Subaru store.



Someone in power recently suggested that. At least it would help clear up
some of the lots of unsold
Chevy's.

Eisboch

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

"RG" wrote in message ...

One of the financial experts interviewed on CNN commented on this. He
said that even if GM received the full requested government bailout ...
*plus* an additional 50-75 billion that he figured will be necessary in
the future, GM will still be an insolvent, bankrupt company.


Which is why the debate about whether or not to allow them to fail is so
absurd. The point is that they have already failed, big time. The debate
now should be about how to deconstruct and see if some sort of Phoenix can
rise from the ashes. Under the right circumstances, I believe such a
re-birth is possible and would have a reasonable chance of success.

RG


I agree 100%. At first blush many people think of "saving jobs" which is
nice, but not reality. Those jobs have already been doomed, bailout or no
bailout, economic meltdown or no economic meltdown.

Eisboch

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 12:17:16 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:



You both are missing the point. It has nothing to do with disdain for
working people or unions.
It has to do with the simple reality that regardless of how GM's problems
are resolved,
jobs will be lost, and related businesses will either downsize or fail.
GM's market share and bloated structure simply will not (and has not for
years) continue to support it's size.
All I am arguing is that in the best interests of all ... including the
workers and the unions ...
that the best way to fix the problem is through a Chapter 11 process, with
pre-conditions and bridge financing by an interested government.
Restructuring under a federal court's oversight should be a fairer process
to the unions than restructuring by negotiations only with GM management,
don't you think? Besides, a negotiation process without a courts' oversight
will probably guarantee that time and money will run out and everyone loses
their jobs.

Think about it.

It may work that way in the end. But before any bankruptcy the gov
will do the bridge loan. When Obama is in - or maybe before - a "Car
Czar" will be installed to hammer GM and UAW.
Jack Welch might do - he's a ruthless SOB - but there are others
willing to swing the hammer.
The Car Czar will determine if they the gov goes into the kitty beyond
the bridge loan.
Bankruptcy is to be avoided for all the reasons you've already heard.
But the threat of it will give the car czar all the power he needs to
work out the restructuring.
They don't agree with him, they go bankrupt.
That's my guess.

--Vic

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

Boater wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 23:59:58 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

The auto industry's contracts and historical ways of doing business
need a complete overhauling in order to be a viable, competitive
entity in today's global markets. Chapter 11 reorganization,
prepackaged with a government bridge loan to keep the beast breathing
during the process, makes sense to me.

While I understand the idea, I don't want money going to GM. Ford
doesn't want the money, just a backup which is one hell of a lot less
expensive.

Let GM sink. If they can't get through Chapter 11, tough. Let them
go Chapter 7 and disappear.

Ford, Toyota, Honda and others will take up the slack.

Survival of the fittest.


I think you are grossly minimizing the impact of a GM sinking. It's not
just GM that will sink.

In the end it will be GM executives and management and UAW management
and union members who will suffer the most, but they have had the
biggest gain over the last 40 years. The sale of raw materials will move
from GM to Ford, Toyota, Honda and other manufactures in the US. The
economy will take a hit for a few years but will will survived just like
we did when the steel industry collapsed.