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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

"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

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

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

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.