Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

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.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

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.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

JohnH wrote:

There is, undoubtedly, someone out there in Never-Never Land who gives a
schitt (your word) about what you think.


*That's* the Herring known and loved everywhere.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

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.

There is, undoubtedly, someone out there in Never-Never Land who gives a
schitt (your word) about what you think.
--
John H.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 09:14:07 -0600, 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.

If the demand for the autos is there, the supply will be furnished by the
companies remaining in business. If those companies must gear up to meet
the new demand, they will do so. If doing so means hiring people, then
people will be hired.

Let GM go.

Infrastructure spending makes much more sense than bailing out a failing
auto company. And, it solves one of the problems - gets people working.
--
John H.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

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

Someone out there in Never-Never Land probably gives a schitt (your word)
about your opposition.
--
John H.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

JohnH wrote:

Someone out there in Never-Never Land probably gives a schitt (your word)
about your opposition.


That's our boy Herring, reinforcing his position among the turdmongers.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

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.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

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

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.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

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.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

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.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

"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

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

"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

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

"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

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

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

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

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

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

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

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

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.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 09:14:07 -0600, wrote:

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.

No - it was not caused by Wall Street - it was caused by two outsized
factors - the first was the speculative oil bubble which placed an
absurd tax the average American who suddenly had limited funds due to
the increased costs of fuel and fuel oil. The second factor was the
refusal of the FED and Treasury Department to back up Bear Stearns -
which was a solvent company with plenty of assets that had run into
liquidity because of ourside pressure on it's stock.

GM had been in trouble for years prior to the collapse.

With respect to Obamessiah's New New Deal, the original New Deal was a
joke and strictly make work. This isn't going to work either because
it's a SOP to the construction unions to keep their members busy -
screw everybody else.

Tell me - what's an average factory worker make building solar panels.
Have any idea? How about a truck driver - non Union? How about a
flag waver for traffic control. The guy who runs the paver, the
roller, the bridge steel worker. Is Obama going to give all these
people the same rate of pay regardless of what they do? How is he
giong to control the cost? Is it going to be privately contracted or
government contracted? How about the engineers, the surveyors, the
cost managers, accountants and lawyers - they all going to be paid at
the same rate as professionals?

It's a joke - you know it, I know it.

--

"Every normal man must be tempted at times
to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag,
and begin to slit throats."

H. L. Mencken

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

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

Think about it.

You are asking a lot of the Obamatrons.

--

"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

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:21:14 -0500, Boater
wrote:

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.

Tell me just out of curiosity - what model car do you drive? How
about your wife?

--

"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

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 08:51:23 -0700, "RG" wrote:


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.

Perfect.

Well said.

--

"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

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:21:14 -0500, Boater
wrote:

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.

Tell me just out of curiosity - what model car do you drive? How
about your wife?


Why do you ask? I don't fault the UAW or organized workers for the
crappiness of some of the cars US producers turn out.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 14:20:58 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:21:14 -0500, Boater
wrote:

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.

Tell me just out of curiosity - what model car do you drive? How
about your wife?

Why do you ask? I don't fault the UAW or organized workers for the
crappiness of some of the cars US producers turn out.

Just curious.
--

Happy Holidays and Merry Whatever It Is
That ****es Liberals Off.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 14:20:58 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:21:14 -0500, Boater
wrote:

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.

Tell me just out of curiosity - what model car do you drive? How
about your wife?

Why do you ask? I don't fault the UAW or organized workers for the
crappiness of some of the cars US producers turn out.

Just curious.
--

It's a Toyota. Really.

~Snerk~

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 12:46:42 -0700, "RG" wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 14:20:58 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:21:14 -0500, Boater
wrote:

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.

Tell me just out of curiosity - what model car do you drive? How
about your wife?

Why do you ask? I don't fault the UAW or organized workers for the
crappiness of some of the cars US producers turn out.

Just curious.

It's a Toyota. Really.

~Snerk~

That's what I thought.

Made down South with non-Union labor.

Do as I say - not as I do.

Typical. He wants to save a company from which he won't buy a car
because of quality issues which is built by the very same Union
members he says are so important to the US. Instead he buys a car
from a foreign company built in the US by non-Union labor.

Now is that tortured thinking or what?
--

Happy Holidays and Merry Whatever It Is
That ****es Liberals Off.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 12:46:42 -0700, "RG" wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 14:20:58 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:21:14 -0500, Boater
wrote:

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.

Tell me just out of curiosity - what model car do you drive? How
about your wife?

Why do you ask? I don't fault the UAW or organized workers for the
crappiness of some of the cars US producers turn out.

Just curious.

It's a Toyota. Really.

~Snerk~

That's what I thought.

Made down South with non-Union labor.

Do as I say - not as I do.

Typical. He wants to save a company from which he won't buy a car
because of quality issues which is built by the very same Union
members he says are so important to the US. Instead he buys a car
from a foreign company built in the US by non-Union labor.

Now is that tortured thinking or what?
--


Twisted. So much so that he couldn't even bring himself to directly an
honestly answer your simple question. Please pay no attention to the man
behind the curtain.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 12:46:42 -0700, "RG" wrote:

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 14:20:58 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:21:14 -0500, Boater
wrote:

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.
Tell me just out of curiosity - what model car do you drive? How
about your wife?
Why do you ask? I don't fault the UAW or organized workers for the
crappiness of some of the cars US producers turn out.
Just curious.
It's a Toyota. Really.

~Snerk~

That's what I thought.

Made down South with non-Union labor.

Do as I say - not as I do.

Typical. He wants to save a company from which he won't buy a car
because of quality issues which is built by the very same Union
members he says are so important to the US. Instead he buys a car
from a foreign company built in the US by non-Union labor.

Now is that tortured thinking or what?
--

The quality issues have nothing to do with the workers who build the
car, and everything to do with corporate management. Besides, you are
assuming there is but one vehicle. There are others. The Toyota has
100,000+ miles and is only used to tow the boat. At least *one* of the
others is built with UAW labor.