|
Bridge loan to nowhere..
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. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 07:57:53 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:30:09 -0600, wrote: From my perspective, eventually, several major car manufacturers are going to fail anyway. There seems to be a glut of manufacturers with very few open markets. You know - you have good points, I think I have good points, Dick has good points - we've all got some really good points. And then there's bull**** like this. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...0_favor07.html I mean seriously - the taxpayer gets f'd over everyday with crap like this -what's 34 billion to keep Union workers from not working at 95% of their base pay. Nothing. I've changed my mind - bail everybody out. I'm going to do something like Eisboch - start a new business and apply for a bail out six months down the road. What the heck - might as well get in on the deal. F 'em all, let's secede from the Union. Yeah!! And then we can apply for the real money - foreign aid... |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 08:07:17 -0500, Boater
wrote: 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. Nothing wrong with a good pushrod engine, especially for a truck. BTW, wheels and levers are old-tech. --Vic |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
"Boater" wrote in message ... 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. Overall, I agree. I am not sure that fresh, innovative management cannot be found here in the US, but I won't argue the need to get away from traditional business and MBA concepts. I also believe in and respect the concept of a contract. The current organized employees need to be considered and fairly treated. However, contracts, by design, can be renegotiated, particularly in troubled times when absolute adherence to them puts the whole operation at risk. I couldn't agree more that businesses should not be the administrators of health plans. Eisboch |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
"Vic Smith" wrote in message ... On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 08:07:17 -0500, Boater wrote: 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. Nothing wrong with a good pushrod engine, especially for a truck. BTW, wheels and levers are old-tech. --Vic At least with a pushrod you typically just lost a cylinder if one broke. If the timing belt goes on some of the overhead cams because you forgot to replace it at 70k miles, the engine can completely self destruct. Eisboch |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... 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. Overall, I agree. I am not sure that fresh, innovative management cannot be found here in the US, but I won't argue the need to get away from traditional business and MBA concepts. I also believe in and respect the concept of a contract. The current organized employees need to be considered and fairly treated. However, contracts, by design, can be renegotiated, particularly in troubled times when absolute adherence to them puts the whole operation at risk. I couldn't agree more that businesses should not be the administrators of health plans. Eisboch I haven't seen the numbers, but I wonder what American corporations would have to do if they were required to fund their pension liabilities. My union's pension fund has *no* unfunded liabilities, and we intend to keep it that way, for moral and legal reasons. The hourly contributions go where they are supposed to go, and, even though we do not invest in stocks, we are still several percentage points ahead in earnings so that we can handle distributions. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
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" |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
"Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... 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. Overall, I agree. I am not sure that fresh, innovative management cannot be found here in the US, but I won't argue the need to get away from traditional business and MBA concepts. I also believe in and respect the concept of a contract. The current organized employees need to be considered and fairly treated. However, contracts, by design, can be renegotiated, particularly in troubled times when absolute adherence to them puts the whole operation at risk. I couldn't agree more that businesses should not be the administrators of health plans. Eisboch I haven't seen the numbers, but I wonder what American corporations would have to do if they were required to fund their pension liabilities. I don't know because I am not very familiar with corporations with pension plans. Most small businesses (that employs the most people) typically don't have pension plans. They may have 401k's and/or similar and may make some form of matching contributions, along with matching contributions to SS benefits. That's about it, and that's how the majority of people plan for retirement. Eisboch |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... 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. Overall, I agree. I am not sure that fresh, innovative management cannot be found here in the US, but I won't argue the need to get away from traditional business and MBA concepts. I also believe in and respect the concept of a contract. The current organized employees need to be considered and fairly treated. However, contracts, by design, can be renegotiated, particularly in troubled times when absolute adherence to them puts the whole operation at risk. I couldn't agree more that businesses should not be the administrators of health plans. Eisboch I haven't seen the numbers, but I wonder what American corporations would have to do if they were required to fund their pension liabilities. I don't know because I am not very familiar with corporations with pension plans. Most small businesses (that employs the most people) typically don't have pension plans. They may have 401k's and/or similar and may make some form of matching contributions, along with matching contributions to SS benefits. That's about it, and that's how the majority of people plan for retirement. Eisboch Ahhh 401k's.... Too bad about those. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... 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. Overall, I agree. I am not sure that fresh, innovative management cannot be found here in the US, but I won't argue the need to get away from traditional business and MBA concepts. I also believe in and respect the concept of a contract. The current organized employees need to be considered and fairly treated. However, contracts, by design, can be renegotiated, particularly in troubled times when absolute adherence to them puts the whole operation at risk. I couldn't agree more that businesses should not be the administrators of health plans. Eisboch I haven't seen the numbers, but I wonder what American corporations would have to do if they were required to fund their pension liabilities. I don't know because I am not very familiar with corporations with pension plans. Most small businesses (that employs the most people) typically don't have pension plans. They may have 401k's and/or similar and may make some form of matching contributions, along with matching contributions to SS benefits. That's about it, and that's how the majority of people plan for retirement. Eisboch Ahhh 401k's.... Too bad about those. And that's about how we feel about bailing out union pensions. Too bad. So sad. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
"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. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
"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. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
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. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
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 ----------------- |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
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 |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
"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 |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
"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. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
"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 |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
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. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
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.) |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
"Boater" wrote in message ... 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. That's a question asked everyday on the various financial planning TV and radio talk shows. Without exception, all the "experts" advise people to leave their investments alone. They sometimes recommend shifting to less risky, lower yield type investments, but they all say *DO NOT* take your money out. I don't know. I keep mine in a hidden mattress. Eisboch |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
"Boater" wrote in message ... 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.) Then you should know. It's simply to **** you off. Eisboch |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 09:10:55 -0500, Boater
wrote: 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. Some 401k plans allow for a portion to be rolled out into a qualified plan - which means no taxes/penalties - after certain age/employment requirements are met. They vary widely, but I'd venture to say most require you leave employment. This is how the stock market got so inflated - you lock in as many of the Ponzi captives as you can. Any equity trading IRA will have no guarantees, but there are FDIC insured IRA CD's. That's what I put my retirement money in when I got a portion out before retirement, then all after retirement. I immediately tripled my returns in the free market. In the captive 401k my only "safe" option was the money market fund which offered littler return. BTW, one of the first financial bailout actions by the feds was to guarantee 401k money market funds at 1.00 par value. Money markets can go negative. If they did there would be no safe haven in 401k's and that would have been a *real* disaster. I think Obama's team - maybe Clinton's - mentioned allowing non-penalized withdrawals from 401k's as an option for those facing mortgage foreclosure, and Wall Street had a **** fit at the suggestion. --Vic |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 08:52:25 -0500, Eisboch wrote:
They may have 401k's and/or similar and may make some form of matching contributions, along with matching contributions to SS benefits. That's about it, and that's how the majority of people plan for retirement. Funny, I haven't heard much talk of "privatizing" Social Security lately. I wonder why that is. ;-( |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:57:08 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
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. Plenty don't have that attitude, hence my mention. 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. They're all UAW. You can google for contract details, but there won't be much difference. 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? They shouldn't have to, but the most onerous part is the sub-pay, and has to be eliminated. It's one thing to do a loan for workers, another for those making full pay and not working. But everything you've just said can be applied to the financial fat cat bailout, which has already cost 10 times as much as the auto companies are asking for, and Paulson is still spending, and I still don't know how that will be paid back. And even beyond that, why should I be taxed to keep 401k's plan stuffed with inflated profits? Every time you hear about how many 401k's are out there, in an attempt to keep Wall Street propped up, you are hearing BS. Investment in Wall Street by actual workers is not as widespread as they would have you think. --Vic |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... 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. That's a question asked everyday on the various financial planning TV and radio talk shows. Without exception, all the "experts" advise people to leave their investments alone. They sometimes recommend shifting to less risky, lower yield type investments, but they all say *DO NOT* take your money out. I don't know. I keep mine in a hidden mattress. Eisboch You do that, too? |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
|
Bridge loan to nowhere..
Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 09:10:55 -0500, Boater wrote: 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. Some 401k plans allow for a portion to be rolled out into a qualified plan - which means no taxes/penalties - after certain age/employment requirements are met. They vary widely, but I'd venture to say most require you leave employment. This is how the stock market got so inflated - you lock in as many of the Ponzi captives as you can. Any equity trading IRA will have no guarantees, but there are FDIC insured IRA CD's. That's what I put my retirement money in when I got a portion out before retirement, then all after retirement. I immediately tripled my returns in the free market. In the captive 401k my only "safe" option was the money market fund which offered littler return. BTW, one of the first financial bailout actions by the feds was to guarantee 401k money market funds at 1.00 par value. Money markets can go negative. If they did there would be no safe haven in 401k's and that would have been a *real* disaster. I think Obama's team - maybe Clinton's - mentioned allowing non-penalized withdrawals from 401k's as an option for those facing mortgage foreclosure, and Wall Street had a **** fit at the suggestion. --Vic I like FDIC insured IRA CD's. I was wondering if there were a way folks could pull their money out of 401k programs while still employed and put them into something not under the control of the wall street crooks. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Boater" wrote in message ... 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. That's a question asked everyday on the various financial planning TV and radio talk shows. Without exception, all the "experts" advise people to leave their investments alone. They sometimes recommend shifting to less risky, lower yield type investments, but they all say *DO NOT* take your money out. I don't know. I keep mine in a hidden mattress. Eisboch Being a somewhat cynical person, I wonder whos' best interests those financial people are looking after...the poor sap who sees his investment shrinking with every monthy report...or the system they've set up with their rich fee structure. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
|
Bridge loan to nowhere..
"Vic Smith" wrote in message ... On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:57:08 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: 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? They shouldn't have to, but the most onerous part is the sub-pay, and has to be eliminated. It's one thing to do a loan for workers, another for those making full pay and not working. Know what? I think that issue ... the (up to) 95% pay to stay home due to lack of work is what ticks off most people more than anything else. Want to see how stupid I am about these things? I always thought that the pay that union members received while not working due to slowdowns was funded by the unions by the dues they collected. That wouldn't bother me at all. But, as I now understand it, it's the company that pays, based on a contract agreement made back in the '80s. I guess when the economy is trucking along and GM is making money, few concern themselves with this kind of thing. It's when things turn to crap and GM wants the rest of us taxpayers to cough up the money, it gets some attention. I know, (for Harry's benefit), the union has conceded to temporarily terminate this practice and may even consider permanently eliminating it in future reorganization contract negotiations. But, when the 3 musketeers first went before congress begging for money, it was in place, to the best of my knowledge. Eisboch |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
Don White wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Boater" wrote in message ... 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. That's a question asked everyday on the various financial planning TV and radio talk shows. Without exception, all the "experts" advise people to leave their investments alone. They sometimes recommend shifting to less risky, lower yield type investments, but they all say *DO NOT* take your money out. I don't know. I keep mine in a hidden mattress. Eisboch Being a somewhat cynical person, I wonder whos' best interests those financial people are looking after...the poor sap who sees his investment shrinking with every monthy report...or the system they've set up with their rich fee structure. Gee, that's a toughie! :) Fee's'R'Us. Same sort of advice you'll get from "financial advisers" who sell product. They're going to sell you the products that generate fees for them. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 10:44:34 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
I know, (for Harry's benefit), the union has conceded to temporarily terminate this practice and may even consider permanently eliminating it in future reorganization contract negotiations. But, when the 3 musketeers first went before congress begging for money, it was in place, to the best of my knowledge. I don't know that they've conceded that yet. The union pres is good at dodging questions. Being a former member, I can tell you that UAW is a tough, old-fashioned union. Militant, and hard as hell to back down on anything. The devil will be in the details. Corker is tough though, and I don't think the Reps in the Senate will let that go. Could even filibuster. --Vic |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 10:44:34 -0500, Eisboch wrote:
I guess when the economy is trucking along and GM is making money, few concern themselves with this kind of thing. It's when things turn to crap and GM wants the rest of us taxpayers to cough up the money, it gets some attention. It's hard to defend the jobs bank, but it has to be put into perspective. It goes back to the 1984 contract, and it wasn't one- sided. The company got productivity and flexibility increases. The time in the jobs bank was supposed to be for retraining and community projects. IMO, clearly it's time to end this, but in the big picture it's small potatoes. http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins...A01-351179.htm |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 10:45:26 -0500, Boater
wrote: Don White wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Boater" wrote in message ... 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. That's a question asked everyday on the various financial planning TV and radio talk shows. Without exception, all the "experts" advise people to leave their investments alone. They sometimes recommend shifting to less risky, lower yield type investments, but they all say *DO NOT* take your money out. I don't know. I keep mine in a hidden mattress. Eisboch Being a somewhat cynical person, I wonder whos' best interests those financial people are looking after...the poor sap who sees his investment shrinking with every monthy report...or the system they've set up with their rich fee structure. Gee, that's a toughie! :) Fee's'R'Us. Same sort of advice you'll get from "financial advisers" who sell product. They're going to sell you the products that generate fees for them. Even the media is part of it. There's a guy on CNN - Ally Vishi or something like that - who does the financial, "Wall Street" pieces. A few weeks ago - I think the DJ was still over 10000, he actually advised buying because stocks were "so low." I couldn't believe it. --Vic |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
"Vic Smith" wrote in message ... Savings and SS were the factors I used in planning retirement. Never bought into the equity craze. Ditto. When lightning struck and we benefited from the sale of my company, we put a sizeable chunk away in long term, relatively low yield CD's in several insured accounts. We also invested in some real estate, which even with the downturn in home prices, is serving us well. We also gifted quite a bit to family members and still occasional do at appropriate times. The rest is in some simple, money market savings accounts, spread out to make sure it's all insured. I got a lot of flack for being dumb when we decided to go this conservative way. Our accountant, who suddenly became a "financial planner" when we sold the company, tried to convince me that shrewd investments would multiply our money and we were being foolish. I told him I was happy with what we had. I didn't need more money. And, the last thing in the world I was going to do after busting 'em for all those years was to let someone else manage it for me. Contrary to rumors spread here, I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth and I know what it's like to be without. Eisboch |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:57:08 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
Cars are cars and trucks are trucks. I don't have a particular brand loyalty. I do - which probably colors my distaste for the GM bailout. :) |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 07:07:36 -0500, BAR wrote: Boater wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 16:51:16 -0600, wrote: Frankly, I don't give a damn about GM. During normal times, I'd say let them go under, but in these times, I think the risk of letting them fail is too big. The bridge *loan* they are talking about is 1/10 what we have already spent on Wall Street, and only a couple of months of the spending we've been doing in Iraq for years. I understand and I don't think it's funny at all - it is very serious. However, I've been through this - I'm, and you, are old enough to remember '56 which was as bad if not worse than now. We all survived, our father's got new jobs and life went on. Too bad we've lost more than a million jobs in the last year. But I am sure there are jobs aplenty for everyone, including the aging GM workforce. It is amazing that as the population increases and more of the youth come onto the rolls of job seekers that we don't have 50, 75 or 100 million people out of work. If we are to believe the naysayers then our percentage of jobless in the USA would increase over time without ever decreasing. The strange thing is that it keeps fluctuating between 4% and 7% regardless of the size of our population? Can you explain any of this Harry? When you add in the 20-40 million illegal immigrants into the equation, who will work for minimum wage, it's easy to see why unemployment of US citizens is so high. Ahh...it's the fault of the illegal immigrants. I knew it! snerk |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 07:07:36 -0500, BAR wrote:
Boater wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 16:51:16 -0600, wrote: Frankly, I don't give a damn about GM. During normal times, I'd say let them go under, but in these times, I think the risk of letting them fail is too big. The bridge *loan* they are talking about is 1/10 what we have already spent on Wall Street, and only a couple of months of the spending we've been doing in Iraq for years. I understand and I don't think it's funny at all - it is very serious. However, I've been through this - I'm, and you, are old enough to remember '56 which was as bad if not worse than now. We all survived, our father's got new jobs and life went on. Too bad we've lost more than a million jobs in the last year. But I am sure there are jobs aplenty for everyone, including the aging GM workforce. It is amazing that as the population increases and more of the youth come onto the rolls of job seekers that we don't have 50, 75 or 100 million people out of work. If we are to believe the naysayers then our percentage of jobless in the USA would increase over time without ever decreasing. The strange thing is that it keeps fluctuating between 4% and 7% regardless of the size of our population? Can you explain any of this Harry? When you add in the 20-40 million illegal immigrants into the equation, who will work for minimum wage, it's easy to see why unemployment of US citizens is so high. -- John H. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 07:49:54 -0500, "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 Well, he's had it about six years, and it is used only to tow boats at Breezy Point. Horse****. -- John H. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:25 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com