wrote:

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.

Where is the money coming from to pay for those infrastructure projects?
In this recession the government doesn't have the revenue to pay for
these extra projects. With the cost of oil dropping like a rock The
Obama cannot raid the oil companies for "wind-fall-profits" and the
worst thing The Obama can do is raise taxes on anyone.

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.


Right. It's not about saving jobs in the short run, it's about saving the
domestic auto industry in the long run. Trying to save jobs without
radically dealing with the employer's viability as a global competitor is a
fool's errand. That only results in the scenario of "The surgery was a huge
success. Unfortunately, the patient died". For the first time in history,
there is an opportunity for GM to definitively address the baggage that they
have refused to deal with for so many years. Unfortunately, senior
management appears even still to be reluctant to do so. Enter the bk judge,
stage right.

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:41:47 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:

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.

Where is the money coming from to pay for those infrastructure projects?

Same place Bush got his. Money trees.

"Boater" wrote in message
...
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.


I understand what you are implying, but I also understand it's nothing but a
frustrated vent.
There's a big difference between the federal government and GM.
The federal government is not a "for profit" corporation *and* can create
money by simply printing it.

GM, like any business, has to at least break even to exist and has to make a
profit to grow or expand it's business areas.

Eisboch

"BAR" wrote in message
...
wrote:

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.

Where is the money coming from to pay for those infrastructure projects?
In this recession the government doesn't have the revenue to pay for these
extra projects. With the cost of oil dropping like a rock The Obama cannot
raid the oil companies for "wind-fall-profits" and the worst thing The
Obama can do is raise taxes on anyone.


Nope, and this has been something I've learned as I watch and listen to and
about this mess.

The government can write checks forever. They print the money.
Eventually, hyper-inflation will come along and bite us in the ass, but
right now
most of the left leaning economic experts are saying, "We'll deal with that
when the time comes".

Eisboch

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:41:47 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:

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.

Where is the money coming from to pay for those infrastructure projects?

Same place Bush got his. Money trees.


LOL. I always wondered where it came from.

"Fire up the presses, Fred. They need another couple hund'rd billion".

Eisboch

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 10:12:02 -0500, 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.

Yeah - the UAW and that's a good thing.

Delphi has been operating under Chapter 11 rules for a long tmie -
it's still around.

Nobody else is going to be seriously hurt if GM goes down. Whoever is
left over, namely Ford, will be stronger, leaner and more able to
compete with Honda, Toyota, BMW, yada, yada, yada. Ford's cost to
build a car or truck is now down to around $60/hr from $85/hr which is
GM's cost. Honda, et.al., are around $43/hr on average.

Simple fact. GM is a dinosaur, Wagoner is an idiot, the UAW was
greedy and GM's board was derelict in it's fudiciary duty.

Let them die and the UAW with them.

--

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that
a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes
that it will also make better soup."

H.L. Mencken

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:38:58 -0500, BAR wrote:

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.

And the heavy machinery market and the machine tool business, etc.

--

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that
a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes
that it will also make better soup."

H.L. Mencken

On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 11:57:02 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

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

Exactly. We'll be feeding GM and the UAW for the forseeable future.

Screw 'em - let 'em go down.

Hard if they don't do something positive.

--

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that
a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes
that it will also make better soup."

H.L. Mencken

Vic Smith wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:41:47 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
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.
Where is the money coming from to pay for those infrastructure projects?

Same place Bush got his. Money trees.


Indeed. It is perfectly OK for the Republicans to spend us into the
toilet to support their military-industrial complex buddies, and for the
president to lie us into an expensive war, and to bail out their buddies
on wall street...but ordinary working people? Foch them.