Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Dec 13, 9:54*pm, D K wrote:
Boater wrote:
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.

Why do employees need the added cost of "representation"? *That money
could go into their pockets, not to a litany of people who profit from
other people's work. *"Joe Six Pack" certainly doesn't need Jerry
Maguire to represent them.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The lazy ones who won't work need the representation. If you work too
hard the union gets on your case. It is in their interest to have
lot's of extra hands around to pay the dues.. Usually it's some excuse
like, "we might get busy so we need to have extra hands around". The
town here wanted to hire a couple of more guys for the street crew so
they slowed down to a crawl last year doing the fall leaves. I was
there when they were all sitting around joking about it. They got
their guys over the summer and low and behold, they were able to make
the schedual this year.. Now what to do with those guys the rest of
the year? I used to work for the town years ago, I had between 1.5 to
two hours work a day and was told directly to make it last all day...

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:19:17 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:

The lazy ones who won't work need the representation.

I guess that's why worker productivity has increased by 20% since 2000,
but wages have only increased by 1%. Want to guess where all that money
went?

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...tribution.html

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

"D K" wrote in message
...

The unions are done. * They serve to purpose*.


They "serve to purpose" what, Dummy?

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:19:17 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:

The lazy ones who won't work need the representation.

I guess that's why worker productivity has increased by 20% since 2000,
but wages have only increased by 1%. Want to guess where all that money
went?

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...tribution.html

American workers have been sheared for so long by their corporate
employers, they think being sheep is their lot in life.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Dec 13, 10:49*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:19:17 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:
The lazy ones who won't work need the representation.

I guess that's why worker productivity has increased by 20% since 2000,
but wages have only increased by 1%. *Want to guess where all that money
went? *

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...tribution.html

You mean progress? If you want to keep up with the rest of the world,
you have to take advantage of new technology... It's the technology
that makes them more productive.. Do you really think the American
worker now works 20% harder than our grandparents or have the tools
and facilities supply lines etc, just gotten better?

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 21:49:31 -0600, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:19:17 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:

The lazy ones who won't work need the representation.

I guess that's why worker productivity has increased by 20% since 2000,
but wages have only increased by 1%. Want to guess where all that money
went?

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...tribution.html

Thunder, do you really believe the 'worker' has increased his output by
20%? Does that line make sense to you?

The fact that you read it in an anti-Bush article doesn't make it true.
--
John

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:23:39 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 21:49:31 -0600, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:19:17 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:

The lazy ones who won't work need the representation.

I guess that's why worker productivity has increased by 20% since 2000,
but wages have only increased by 1%. Want to guess where all that money
went?

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...tribution.html

Thunder, do you really believe the 'worker' has increased his output by
20%? Does that line make sense to you?

The fact that you read it in an anti-Bush article doesn't make it true.

This will tell you all you need to know - a fact fudger...

"Prior to his service with the Congress, Lilly served as Director of
Campaign Services for the Democratic National Committee, Central
States Coordinator in the McGovern Presidential Campaign and as a bill
drafter for the Missouri legislature."

http://www.americanprogress.org/experts/LillyScott.html

Check out a few of these names on the FEC sight.

http://www.americanprogress.org/experts

Totally unbiased wouldn't you say?

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:23:39 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 21:49:31 -0600, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:19:17 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:

The lazy ones who won't work need the representation.
I guess that's why worker productivity has increased by 20% since 2000,
but wages have only increased by 1%. Want to guess where all that money
went?

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...tribution.html
Thunder, do you really believe the 'worker' has increased his output by
20%? Does that line make sense to you?

The fact that you read it in an anti-Bush article doesn't make it true.

This will tell you all you need to know - a fact fudger...

"Prior to his service with the Congress, Lilly served as Director of
Campaign Services for the Democratic National Committee, Central
States Coordinator in the McGovern Presidential Campaign and as a bill
drafter for the Missouri legislature."

http://www.americanprogress.org/experts/LillyScott.html

Check out a few of these names on the FEC sight.

http://www.americanprogress.org/experts

Totally unbiased wouldn't you say?


It's going to be a "fun fun fun" four to eight years, watching righties
everywhere choking on their own bile.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:47:00 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:23:39 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 21:49:31 -0600, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:19:17 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:

The lazy ones who won't work need the representation.

I guess that's why worker productivity has increased by 20% since 2000,
but wages have only increased by 1%. Want to guess where all that money
went?

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...tribution.html

Thunder, do you really believe the 'worker' has increased his output by
20%? Does that line make sense to you?

The fact that you read it in an anti-Bush article doesn't make it true.

This will tell you all you need to know - a fact fudger...

"Prior to his service with the Congress, Lilly served as Director of
Campaign Services for the Democratic National Committee, Central
States Coordinator in the McGovern Presidential Campaign and as a bill
drafter for the Missouri legislature."

http://www.americanprogress.org/experts/LillyScott.html

Check out a few of these names on the FEC sight.

http://www.americanprogress.org/experts

Totally unbiased wouldn't you say?

On the surface, it sounds like the premise of the article has some merit,
i.e., productivity has increased, but the profits therefrom have not gone
to the employees as in the past. If the profits from American corporations,
like the auto industry, have gone up so remarkably in the past eight years,
one must wonder why they're all on the verge of bankruptcy.

To lay the whole issue at the feet of Bush simply highlights the stupidity
and bias in the author.

But it provides good quotes for liberals.

And, if the Center for American Progress says Lily is and 'expert', then he
must be... correct?
--
John

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:23:39 -0500, John wrote:


http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...tribution.html

Thunder, do you really believe the 'worker' has increased his output by
20%? Does that line make sense to you?

The fact that you read it in an anti-Bush article doesn't make it true.

As you are clearly too lazy to do your own search:

http://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm

Let's see, 7 * 2.5 = 17.5 You could then extrapolate, considering it is
2008. So, yes, I do believe the 'worker' has increased his output by
20%, even though, I probably shouldn't believe anything that comes out of
the Bush government.