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

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 14:08:18 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


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.

Live by leverage, die by leverage. Bear Stearns was only solvent went
times were good. When you leverage yourself 35 to 1, you go bye, bye,
when things get tight.



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

I'm not denying GM has been in trouble, I'm only arguing the present
financial meltdown brought it into crisis.



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.

That's the difference, I don't see this as a joke. We are in recession,
and it looks like a serious one to me. Let GM go down, and we are
talking depression. That's no joke. Many of us will survive
financially, but what about the social upheavals? The last depression
brought us facists, communists, unions, all warring for a piece of the
pie. Hell, we even had a Dupont planning a coup. No thanks.

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.

wrote in message
t...


That's the difference, I don't see this as a joke. We are in recession,
and it looks like a serious one to me. Let GM go down, and we are
talking depression. That's no joke. Many of us will survive
financially, but what about the social upheavals? The last depression
brought us facists, communists, unions, all warring for a piece of the
pie. Hell, we even had a Dupont planning a coup. No thanks.

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 know you were addressing Tom, but I wanted to also respond.

I am not opposed to a bridge loan. I'd just like to see it tied to a
genuine requirement on the part of GM to change their ways.
Otherwise, the money is completely wasted. That's why I still think it
should be done with strong oversight, such as that
in Chapter 11.

I don't point the finger of distrust or blame at management or the labor
union. I just think there are so many years of
adversarial distrust between them that they need an arbitrator to fairly and
efficiently reorganize the company.

One thing I don't get, and maybe one of you guys more familiar with unions
can explain.
As I understand it, the UAW represents workers at all three Detroit
automakers, meaning GM, Ford, and Chrysler.

Why is it that Ford has been more successful in lowering per unit costs,
while actively revamping their product line?
The latest automotive reviews rates the newer Ford products as being equal
or in some cases better than their Toyota and Honda counterparts, quality
wise and Ford is in the least amount of trouble financially. Does each auto
manufacturer negotiate different contracts with the UAW in terms of pay,
benefits and retirement packages?

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
t...

That's the difference, I don't see this as a joke. We are in recession,
and it looks like a serious one to me. Let GM go down, and we are
talking depression. That's no joke. Many of us will survive
financially, but what about the social upheavals? The last depression
brought us facists, communists, unions, all warring for a piece of the
pie. Hell, we even had a Dupont planning a coup. No thanks.

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 know you were addressing Tom, but I wanted to also respond.

I am not opposed to a bridge loan. I'd just like to see it tied to a
genuine requirement on the part of GM to change their ways.
Otherwise, the money is completely wasted. That's why I still think it
should be done with strong oversight, such as that
in Chapter 11.

I don't point the finger of distrust or blame at management or the labor
union. I just think there are so many years of
adversarial distrust between them that they need an arbitrator to fairly and
efficiently reorganize the company.

One thing I don't get, and maybe one of you guys more familiar with unions
can explain.
As I understand it, the UAW represents workers at all three Detroit
automakers, meaning GM, Ford, and Chrysler.

Why is it that Ford has been more successful in lowering per unit costs,
while actively revamping their product line?
The latest automotive reviews rates the newer Ford products as being equal
or in some cases better than their Toyota and Honda counterparts, quality
wise and Ford is in the least amount of trouble financially. Does each auto
manufacturer negotiate different contracts with the UAW in terms of pay,
benefits and retirement packages?

If you focus your efforts on designing out the flaws on the areas that
will cost you the most to fix in warranty repair then you will reduce
your costs the most.

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 18:07:45 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


I know you were addressing Tom, but I wanted to also respond.

I am not opposed to a bridge loan. I'd just like to see it tied to a
genuine requirement on the part of GM to change their ways. Otherwise,
the money is completely wasted. That's why I still think it should be
done with strong oversight, such as that in Chapter 11.

I think we are on the same page. GM clearly needs to get the message.
Hell, the board just gave Wagoner a vote of confidence. As I said, I'm
not concerned with GM near as much as I'm concerned with what GM's
failure could do to the rest of the economy. We need to get some
confidence back in the system. I think there are better ways than
Chapter 11, but I would accept a Chapter 11 solution. I just don't
think, at this moment, this economy could sustain a GM failure.



I don't point the finger of distrust or blame at management or the labor
union. I just think there are so many years of adversarial distrust
between them that they need an arbitrator to fairly and efficiently
reorganize the company.

There is still some of that, but they have come a long way since the
Japanese invasion. In the last contract, the union instituted a two tier
system, where new hires get paid less. If I'm not mistaken, labor costs
per vehicle a getting quite similar, especially since the foreign plants
are starting to have retirees.


One thing I don't get, and maybe one of you guys more familiar with
unions can explain.
As I understand it, the UAW represents workers at all three Detroit
automakers, meaning GM, Ford, and Chrysler.

I think it's more competent management than anything else. I'm not sure,
but I don't believe the UAW contracts with the different companies are
the same, though. They are similar, but not the same. I remember
reading somewhere, that Ford doesn't make any money manufacturing autos,
they make their money financing autos. If that's the case, GM sold 1/2
of GMAC to Cerebrus. That also may account for some of the differences.


Why is it that Ford has been more successful in lowering per unit costs,
while actively revamping their product line? The latest automotive
reviews rates the newer Ford products as being equal or in some cases
better than their Toyota and Honda counterparts, quality wise and Ford
is in the least amount of trouble financially. Does each auto
manufacturer negotiate different contracts with the UAW in terms of pay,
benefits and retirement packages?

See above, but don't take it to the bank. ;-)

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.

Maybe it's because I see it as more black and white than others - it's
not that I don't have empathy and sympathy for laid off workers - I
do, believe me I honestly do.

But you know what - they expected the good times to keep on rolling
and their bosses expected the good times to keep on rolling and guess
what - the good times ain't rolling anymore.

Pain is a great motivator. I've been there - not a dime to my name,
fresh out of rehab, no home, no job, but I swore that would never
happen again. I worked my ass off, obtained more education, Mrs. Wave
worked an after school job for a few years - we scrimped, saved,
invested and only bought one thing on credit - the property we now
own. And that was paid off in ten years.

We owe nothing, are comfortable and it's all because we took nothing
for granted and planned for the future - good times and bad. We took
responsibility for our own future.

And that's what's missing here - we're asking the average taxpayer to
keep GM's and the UAW's future sound while their own is on shaky
ground.

That's not fair.

--

"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

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.

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:38:05 -0500, 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.

Probably are - at Toyota so they can build cars for guys like you who
say one thing and do another.

You now, being a big time Union backer and flack..er..writer/editor,
I'm surprized that you haven't have your tires slashed and your
windows broken when you visit all these auto plants and Union job
sites you keep talking about.

Don't your fellow Unionists support the UAW? Or do they all drive
Toyotas?

--

"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

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:38:05 -0500, 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.

Probably are - at Toyota so they can build cars for guys like you who
say one thing and do another.

You now, being a big time Union backer and flack..er..writer/editor,
I'm surprized that you haven't have your tires slashed and your
windows broken when you visit all these auto plants and Union job
sites you keep talking about.

Don't your fellow Unionists support the UAW? Or do they all drive
Toyotas?


I only drive a Toyota down at the boat ramp.

Boater wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:38:05 -0500, 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.

Probably are - at Toyota so they can build cars for guys like you who
say one thing and do another.

You now, being a big time Union backer and flack..er..writer/editor,
I'm surprized that you haven't have your tires slashed and your
windows broken when you visit all these auto plants and Union job
sites you keep talking about.

Don't your fellow Unionists support the UAW? Or do they all drive
Toyotas?


I only drive a Toyota down at the boat ramp.

Typical hypocrite.