"Boater" wrote in message
...

Ahhh 401k's.... Too bad about those.



That's one of the reasons why many people are having trouble being forced to
ante up tax dollars to
save GM and it's union in their current form and contractual relationships.
The "majority" are watching their own retirement investments tank, and are
concerned about their jobs, their families, their financial stability.

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...

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

Agreed. To give you an idea how nasty the GM-UAW-CAW thing is follow
this.

Canada is having a crisis right now with interferance of its democracy.
GM has asked Canada for $6.8 billion. The economic impact to Canada would
be equivelent of about $70 billion US to the US taxpayer.

It is believed GM-CAW calls up a socialist party and askes to get this
money at any cost ASAP. The NDP makes a bribe to a separatist party known
as the Bloc for their unmitigated support to over throw the current
government. They agree.

They then approach a minority opposition party called the Liberals that
has a leader even Liberals don't like. He is in heat to become the Prime
Minister of Canada with a junta coalition. Fortunately our PM and Govenor
General narrowly avoid this coup d'etat. But they are about to try again
after replacing the Liberal leader as 68% of the Canadians oppose the
junta. That kind of majority hasn't been seen in over 100 years!

There are many that would not accept a GM product for free, unless it was
to burn it. Separation polls indicate if this hhappens, 64% of Albertans
favor leaving confederation, which will inevitablly result in Canada as
you know it breaking up.

GM is screwing with your neighboors democracy, along the worlds most
longest unprotected border to the north of you. I know the US is in
crisis, but you don't want a natural resource source like Canada doing
some leftist socialist Venzuela type nationalisation, you might want to
consider the impact of this and slap GM hard into unitigated chapter 11
before they do more damage than you know.

Fire the board and management while you are at it. There is no otehrs
more deserving of being fired with cause than that lot.

You've been reading too many of Carolina Larrys' posts.
People here just don't like Harper. In the recent election that he called
early, he only won the support of just over a third of the Canadian
voters..... that means that almost 2/3rds voted for someone...anyone else.

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Ahhh 401k's.... Too bad about those.



That's one of the reasons why many people are having trouble being forced to
ante up tax dollars to
save GM and it's union in their current form and contractual relationships.
The "majority" are watching their own retirement investments tank, and are
concerned about their jobs, their families, their financial stability.




If you are still employed where your 401k is located and operating, is
there a mechanism to withdraw those funds without withholding or tax
penalty, and put them into another sort of tax deferred account, some
sort of IRA, where you have some say over where the funds are invested?
I wouldn't trust "the market" with my retirement funds, but I might
trust a federally insurance bank or banks.

Jim wrote:
Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 04:32:22 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"Boater" wrote in message
...
My understanding is that the Toyota we have was not built by
non-union
workers in the USA.

Why did I choose it? Because at the time I purchased it, the
corresponding
Ford and GM vehicles were too large.

I assume you bought a used Tundra.

Eisboch

I believe he said he had a 4Runner.
--
John H.


Oh. I was wrong. I thought he mentioned a Tundra.
I assume it is an older, used model.

Eisboch


4Runner with 100,000 miles. Still in good shape, but only used as a
boat ramp tow vehicle these days. When we got it, Ford and GM didn't
make a mid-sized SUV with similar tow capacity, as I recall, and, of
course, I wouldn't take a Chrysler product on a bet, not with those
old-tech pushrod engines.

That was almost six years ago, though. I haven't stayed "current" with
what is being offered by Ford or GM these days. In fact, I'm not
really that interested in cars these days.

I do think Ford and GM would be better off, as would their workers, if
good foreign management took over there, management from Japan or
Korea. with buyouts for the current organized employees, and a new
unionized deal for new hires, with a quality "national" health care
plan so the employers aren't burdened with that.

I have no faith in U.S. corporate management and its B-school mentality.

Your lack of faith is apparent. GM is Better off in chapter 11 with no
bailout money. Pay the union members off with 10 cents per benefit
dollar and lock out the unions permanently. Executive bonus should be
tied to profit. Worker bonus and pay should be tied to individual
productivity. Simply put. "Earn your pay"

Amen...
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:03:48 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Boater" wrote in message
...

Ahhh 401k's.... Too bad about those.



That's one of the reasons why many people are having trouble being forced to
ante up tax dollars to
save GM and it's union in their current form and contractual relationships.
The "majority" are watching their own retirement investments tank, and are
concerned about their jobs, their families, their financial stability.

I think the biggest PR problem is how the "bailout" is presented.
If done as a loan, the Chrysler precedent - where the gov actually
made money - would be more palatable.
Of course what requirements the gov puts on the loan, and how they are
enforced, is the tricky part.
Forget about anti-union/anti-management stuff for a bit - all 3
domestics have those issues.
Here's something to think about, and why I posted the
"Sales Facts" link to the WSJ article.
People are car bigots.
What motivates the Cannuck guy and Tom more than anything to say GM
business will be taken over by Ford and Chrysler has nothing to do
with the facts of the automotive industry, but more to do with their
brand preference.
They are Ford/Chrysler guys.
Believe me, I've seen this again and again over many years of
discussions on car groups.
That polls show @40% approve of the "bailout" is actually pretty good.
The domestics have about 45% of U.S. market share.
Probably dissatisfied Chrysler owners dropped out (-:
You perhaps noticed that Mika is a Honda/Toyota head?
Joe is probably a GM guy.
I'm a GM guy.
But only because I get them real cheap used and I know them.
You would not believe how little I've spent on cars.
But hey, I'm flexible.
If GM goes under I might look at Fords, because they will be the new
American whipping boy and have poor resale.
But if I were buying new, I'd go over to the Japs.
I think most GM buyers will do the same.

--Vic

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Ahhh 401k's.... Too bad about those.



That's one of the reasons why many people are having trouble being forced
to ante up tax dollars to
save GM and it's union in their current form and contractual
relationships. The "majority" are watching their own retirement
investments tank, and are concerned about their jobs, their families,
their financial stability.


If you are still employed where your 401k is located and operating, is
there a mechanism to withdraw those funds without withholding or tax
penalty, and put them into another sort of tax deferred account, some sort
of IRA, where you have some say over where the funds are invested?
I wouldn't trust "the market" with my retirement funds, but I might trust
a federally insurance bank or banks.


I don't know. I don't have a 401K. I know that they may be "rolled over"
when you change employment, but I don't know how it all works. But that's
not the current problem. The problem is that those *with* 401K type plans
who have been faithfully contributing for their retirement nest egg have
seen the values of their portfolios drop by 20,30 or even 40 percent in the
past few months. Many can no longer afford to retire, let alone help bail
out GM and a union member's generous employment benefits. Again, this
represents the vast *majority* of people, typically working for small
businesses.

Eisboch

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...

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

Agreed. To give you an idea how nasty the GM-UAW-CAW thing is follow
this.

Canada is having a crisis right now with interferance of its democracy.
GM has asked Canada for $6.8 billion. The economic impact to Canada
would be equivelent of about $70 billion US to the US taxpayer.

It is believed GM-CAW calls up a socialist party and askes to get this
money at any cost ASAP. The NDP makes a bribe to a separatist party
known as the Bloc for their unmitigated support to over throw the current
government. They agree.

They then approach a minority opposition party called the Liberals that
has a leader even Liberals don't like. He is in heat to become the Prime
Minister of Canada with a junta coalition. Fortunately our PM and
Govenor General narrowly avoid this coup d'etat. But they are about to
try again after replacing the Liberal leader as 68% of the Canadians
oppose the junta. That kind of majority hasn't been seen in over 100
years!

There are many that would not accept a GM product for free, unless it was
to burn it. Separation polls indicate if this hhappens, 64% of Albertans
favor leaving confederation, which will inevitablly result in Canada as
you know it breaking up.

GM is screwing with your neighboors democracy, along the worlds most
longest unprotected border to the north of you. I know the US is in
crisis, but you don't want a natural resource source like Canada doing
some leftist socialist Venzuela type nationalisation, you might want to
consider the impact of this and slap GM hard into unitigated chapter 11
before they do more damage than you know.

Fire the board and management while you are at it. There is no otehrs
more deserving of being fired with cause than that lot.

You've been reading too many of Carolina Larrys' posts.
People here just don't like Harper. In the recent election that he called
early, he only won the support of just over a third of the Canadian
voters..... that means that almost 2/3rds voted for someone...anyone else.

Recent polls show 68% for Harper. Get over it.

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:03:48 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Boater" wrote in message
...

Ahhh 401k's.... Too bad about those.



That's one of the reasons why many people are having trouble being forced
to
ante up tax dollars to
save GM and it's union in their current form and contractual
relationships.
The "majority" are watching their own retirement investments tank, and are
concerned about their jobs, their families, their financial stability.

I think the biggest PR problem is how the "bailout" is presented.
If done as a loan, the Chrysler precedent - where the gov actually
made money - would be more palatable.
Of course what requirements the gov puts on the loan, and how they are
enforced, is the tricky part.
Forget about anti-union/anti-management stuff for a bit - all 3
domestics have those issues.
Here's something to think about, and why I posted the
"Sales Facts" link to the WSJ article.
People are car bigots.
What motivates the Cannuck guy and Tom more than anything to say GM
business will be taken over by Ford and Chrysler has nothing to do
with the facts of the automotive industry, but more to do with their
brand preference.
They are Ford/Chrysler guys.
Believe me, I've seen this again and again over many years of
discussions on car groups.
That polls show @40% approve of the "bailout" is actually pretty good.
The domestics have about 45% of U.S. market share.
Probably dissatisfied Chrysler owners dropped out (-:
You perhaps noticed that Mika is a Honda/Toyota head?
Joe is probably a GM guy.
I'm a GM guy.
But only because I get them real cheap used and I know them.
You would not believe how little I've spent on cars.
But hey, I'm flexible.
If GM goes under I might look at Fords, because they will be the new
American whipping boy and have poor resale.
But if I were buying new, I'd go over to the Japs.
I think most GM buyers will do the same.

--Vic

Cars are cars and trucks are trucks. I don't have a particular brand
loyalty. I buy what I happen to like, for various reasons. For daily
drivers, I tend to buy American built, only because they serve the purpose
well.

But, I have more sympathy for Ford right now than GM, mainly because Ford
has been far more pro-active in terms of trying to fix themselves than GM
has. I still don't understand the union relationships with each
manufacturer, and I don't blame unions. They negotiated a contract and plan
their lives on it. Fine.

But guess what? The union work-a-bees need non-union work-a-bees (as
consumers) more than the other way around. And non-union work-a-bees plan
for their financial future in other ways. When the rug is pulled out from
everybody, why do non-union work-a-bees need to contribute to the welfare
and job security of union work-a-bees? Hmmmmmmm?

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Ahhh 401k's.... Too bad about those.


That's one of the reasons why many people are having trouble being forced
to ante up tax dollars to
save GM and it's union in their current form and contractual
relationships. The "majority" are watching their own retirement
investments tank, and are concerned about their jobs, their families,
their financial stability.

If you are still employed where your 401k is located and operating, is
there a mechanism to withdraw those funds without withholding or tax
penalty, and put them into another sort of tax deferred account, some sort
of IRA, where you have some say over where the funds are invested?
I wouldn't trust "the market" with my retirement funds, but I might trust
a federally insurance bank or banks.


I don't know. I don't have a 401K. I know that they may be "rolled over"
when you change employment, but I don't know how it all works. But that's
not the current problem. The problem is that those *with* 401K type plans
who have been faithfully contributing for their retirement nest egg have
seen the values of their portfolios drop by 20,30 or even 40 percent in the
past few months. Many can no longer afford to retire, let alone help bail
out GM and a union member's generous employment benefits. Again, this
represents the vast *majority* of people, typically working for small
businesses.

Eisboch



I understand *that* problem...I'm wondering what *those people* who no
longer believe in "the market" can do to prevent further losses in their
401k portfolios. I would want to withdraw the funds and put them into
something with more integrity than the stock market.

Eisboch wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:03:48 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Ahhh 401k's.... Too bad about those.


That's one of the reasons why many people are having trouble being forced
to
ante up tax dollars to
save GM and it's union in their current form and contractual
relationships.
The "majority" are watching their own retirement investments tank, and are
concerned about their jobs, their families, their financial stability.

I think the biggest PR problem is how the "bailout" is presented.
If done as a loan, the Chrysler precedent - where the gov actually
made money - would be more palatable.
Of course what requirements the gov puts on the loan, and how they are
enforced, is the tricky part.
Forget about anti-union/anti-management stuff for a bit - all 3
domestics have those issues.
Here's something to think about, and why I posted the
"Sales Facts" link to the WSJ article.
People are car bigots.
What motivates the Cannuck guy and Tom more than anything to say GM
business will be taken over by Ford and Chrysler has nothing to do
with the facts of the automotive industry, but more to do with their
brand preference.
They are Ford/Chrysler guys.
Believe me, I've seen this again and again over many years of
discussions on car groups.
That polls show @40% approve of the "bailout" is actually pretty good.
The domestics have about 45% of U.S. market share.
Probably dissatisfied Chrysler owners dropped out (-:
You perhaps noticed that Mika is a Honda/Toyota head?
Joe is probably a GM guy.
I'm a GM guy.
But only because I get them real cheap used and I know them.
You would not believe how little I've spent on cars.
But hey, I'm flexible.
If GM goes under I might look at Fords, because they will be the new
American whipping boy and have poor resale.
But if I were buying new, I'd go over to the Japs.
I think most GM buyers will do the same.

--Vic

Cars are cars and trucks are trucks. I don't have a particular brand
loyalty. I buy what I happen to like, for various reasons. For daily
drivers, I tend to buy American built, only because they serve the purpose
well.

But, I have more sympathy for Ford right now than GM, mainly because Ford
has been far more pro-active in terms of trying to fix themselves than GM
has. I still don't understand the union relationships with each
manufacturer, and I don't blame unions. They negotiated a contract and plan
their lives on it. Fine.

But guess what? The union work-a-bees need non-union work-a-bees (as
consumers) more than the other way around. And non-union work-a-bees plan
for their financial future in other ways. When the rug is pulled out from
everybody, why do non-union work-a-bees need to contribute to the welfare
and job security of union work-a-bees? Hmmmmmmm?

Eisboch




Gee, Eisboch...why do I have to pay taxes to contribute to the welfare,
job security or retirement of military personnel? (Rhetorical
question...I know the answer.)