Bailout mania...
 

On Dec 16, 10:21*am, BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
John wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:34:29 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Dec 16, 12:16 am, "Canuck57" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:06:30 -0500, BAR wrote:
Chrysler should have been left to go bankrupt back in 1980. If
it wasn't
for the M1 Abrams the government never would have stepped in.
Maybe, but then the government would have missed out on the $335
million
profit they made on the $1.5 billion loan guarantee.
Today has 2 major differences.

First, $1.5 billion is about the burn rate for GM, Chrysler and
Ford in 1
week! *It is estimated for GM alone, $75 to 125 billion is needed
for
solvency and sustainability. *Assuming Chrysler needs about the
same and say
$50 billion for Ford, further assuming their numbers are accurate
and not
cooked they collectively need $250 billion. *And that is if they
instantly
fix the problems, which historically, it is like investing in
NorTel. *By
the way they too need a bailout. *That is about $1250 out of each
middle
class workers pocket. *2-3 car payments for cars they don't own.. *
Oh, and
parts suppliers like JCI and Magna, extra.

Second, what do you do with the other 98% of the people and
businesses out
there? *Screw them with $1250 more taxes? *The last points bill
must be paid
or the next loaf of bread might as well cost $1000. *You can't
print out of
debt on this scale without at least a working generation of
recession. *Keep
in mind, government revenue is going down at an alarming pace. *
The war in
the middle east will not end with peace, it will end in
bankruptcy of the
government and currency itself.

North America can no long afford these dogs. *Will make some good
case study
for Harvard and Yale is the only redeeming value GM and Chrysler
has left..

This is going to come down to American bankruptcy into the currency.
Said it before, so did several others. Give us middle class folks a
voucher to help pay for a new car. We get a bailout, GM gets to sell
cars, then put folks to work building new ones.... But the Union
doesn't want that, it would mean they would have to go back to
work to
get the money...
If I received a voucher I wouldn't buy a GM or Chrysler. I would
buy a Ford, Toyota, Honda or Nissan.

Depends on the size of the voucher. I'd buy another GM pickup if the
voucher were big enough to overcome my doubts about future warranty
service.

A voucher might be worthwhile if its use were restricted to
high-mileage *vehicles with a certified "manufactured in the USA or
Canada" content of at least 90%. Not assembled...manufactured.

I see no reason to subsidize purchases of products produced overseas.

I wouldn't use the voucher if I was forced to purchase a vehicle I
would not normally purchase. A cheap headache is still a headache.

I wouldn't argue that point, but...the purpose of such a voucher is to
help the U.S. auto industry. You don't help the industry by buying goods
whose most expensive pieces and parts are made overseas.

GM and Chrysler need to go bankrupt. Their management needs to change
and their union contracts need to be voided. The skill in putting pieces
of a car together does not warrant the money that the union workers
receive. And, getting paid 95% for sitting around reading a newspaper
all day long is ridiculous. Whomever agreed to that on both sides of the
table should be take out back and shot.


Not to mention 250,000 union workers are paying for 750,000 retirees
and their dependents... They just can't so we will be forced to.

I rent different cars on business trips. Since I am usually traveling on
some union's business, I rent "American cars" built by the Big Three. I
try to alternate, but I've sort of kicked GM off the list entirely. I've
been disappointed by something substantial on each GM car I've rented
over the years. The Fords have been fine, and so have the few Chrysler
products that have been readily available at my destination.

When I travel on business I always rent a Chevy Impala. The reason is
that I fit in the car. I have a long torso and I know that I will fit.
There is no other reason that I choose this vehicle.

I rented a nice Ford Exploder on my last trip to Boston a month or so
ago. There was nothing about the car I didn't like, and it only cost me
$38 a night (holy schitt!) to park it in the hotel's garage.

You should have checked with the hotel before renting. It would have
been cheaper to catch a cab from the airport and to and from your
appointments.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bailout mania...
 

Bailout mania...
 

BAR wrote:


The perfect example of why Social Security is going to fail and why we
need to abandon it now. For some people it will be unfair and it will
hurt but that is too bad. Everyone younger than 35 gets no Social
Security but, they still fund it.


Corporations with defined pension programs should not be allowed to
"unfund" their pension liabilities.

Bailout mania...
 

Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:


The perfect example of why Social Security is going to fail and why we
need to abandon it now. For some people it will be unfair and it will
hurt but that is too bad. Everyone younger than 35 gets no Social
Security but, they still fund it.


Corporations with defined pension programs should not be allowed to
"unfund" their pension liabilities.

That's why the unions should be the clearing house for their members.
Provide 100 workers at a rate of $50 per hour to meet a quota of 500
cars a day. What the union does with the money is between the union and
the workers.

First rule: Get the money up front.

Bailout mania...
 

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:21:29 -0500, BAR wrote:


GM and Chrysler need to go bankrupt. Their management needs to change
and their union contracts need to be voided. The skill in putting pieces
of a car together does not warrant the money that the union workers
receive. And, getting paid 95% for sitting around reading a newspaper
all day long is ridiculous. Whomever agreed to that on both sides of the
table should be take out back and shot.

Help me out here, you're a good Conservative. How do you justify
*giving* $3.6 billion to foreign auto makers, but aren't willing to
*loan* money to keep American manufacturers alive. Seems a little
unfair, and perhaps, un-American, doesn't it?

http://www.wbay.com/global/story.asp...Type=Printable

Bailout mania...
 

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:


The perfect example of why Social Security is going to fail and why
we need to abandon it now. For some people it will be unfair and it
will hurt but that is too bad. Everyone younger than 35 gets no
Social Security but, they still fund it.


Corporations with defined pension programs should not be allowed to
"unfund" their pension liabilities.

That's why the unions should be the clearing house for their members.
Provide 100 workers at a rate of $50 per hour to meet a quota of 500
cars a day. What the union does with the money is between the union and
the workers.

First rule: Get the money up front.


Well, that's similar to what the construction worker unions do. sort of.

The construction unions negotiate a rate with the contractors...the
contractors pay the workers their hourly paycheck rate and deduct and
forward the required taxes to the feds. The deductions for health and
welfare go directly to the jointly administered union-contractor health
and welfare pension and benefit fund offices. Anyone who has access to
any of the funds at the benefit is bonded. Typically, the trustees
retain a reputable trust funder "advisor" who helps the trustees invest
the funds in "safe" investments that pay a return higher than the
anticipated payout for pensions and other benefits. There are no
unfunded liabilities. The employer for whom the union workers work has
no access to the pension funds.

These are defined pensions, not 401k's. The employer may offer a 401k,
but it isn't typically administered by the joint trustees.

Bailout mania...
 

wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:21:29 -0500, BAR wrote:


GM and Chrysler need to go bankrupt. Their management needs to change
and their union contracts need to be voided. The skill in putting pieces
of a car together does not warrant the money that the union workers
receive. And, getting paid 95% for sitting around reading a newspaper
all day long is ridiculous. Whomever agreed to that on both sides of the
table should be take out back and shot.

Help me out here, you're a good Conservative. How do you justify
*giving* $3.6 billion to foreign auto makers, but aren't willing to
*loan* money to keep American manufacturers alive. Seems a little
unfair, and perhaps, un-American, doesn't it?

http://www.wbay.com/global/story.asp...Type=Printable



The consistent theme in all the rightie "Cures" for the Big Three is to
bust the unions. There's nothing more to it.

Bailout mania...
 

wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:21:29 -0500, BAR wrote:


GM and Chrysler need to go bankrupt. Their management needs to change
and their union contracts need to be voided. The skill in putting pieces
of a car together does not warrant the money that the union workers
receive. And, getting paid 95% for sitting around reading a newspaper
all day long is ridiculous. Whomever agreed to that on both sides of the
table should be take out back and shot.

Help me out here, you're a good Conservative. How do you justify
*giving* $3.6 billion to foreign auto makers, but aren't willing to
*loan* money to keep American manufacturers alive. Seems a little
unfair, and perhaps, un-American, doesn't it?

http://www.wbay.com/global/story.asp...Type=Printable


I'm sure that if GM, Ford and Chrysler wanted to build plants in
southern states and bring jobs to those state the state governments
would be happy to build infrastructure and give tax breaks to obtain
those jobs.

Even my county will give tax breaks to companies to keep white collar
jobs in the county and the state will give tax breaks to keep the jobs
in the state. All you have to do is engage a commercial real estate
agent in another county or state and you will get a call form your
county and states business development office.

Bailout mania...
 

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:49:43 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:21:29 -0500, BAR wrote:


GM and Chrysler need to go bankrupt. Their management needs to change
and their union contracts need to be voided. The skill in putting
pieces of a car together does not warrant the money that the union
workers receive. And, getting paid 95% for sitting around reading a
newspaper all day long is ridiculous. Whomever agreed to that on both
sides of the table should be take out back and shot.

Help me out here, you're a good Conservative. How do you justify
*giving* $3.6 billion to foreign auto makers, but aren't willing to
*loan* money to keep American manufacturers alive. Seems a little
unfair, and perhaps, un-American, doesn't it?

http://www.wbay.com/global/story.asp...Type=Printable


I'm sure that if GM, Ford and Chrysler wanted to build plants in
southern states and bring jobs to those state the state governments
would be happy to build infrastructure and give tax breaks to obtain
those jobs.

Even my county will give tax breaks to companies to keep white collar
jobs in the county and the state will give tax breaks to keep the jobs
in the state. All you have to do is engage a commercial real estate
agent in another county or state and you will get a call form your
county and states business development office.

Oh, so it's about helping yours, not ours, is that it? So, for Shelby,
Corker, Mitchell, et.al, it wasn't about keeping government out of the
marketplace, was it? It was about protecting foreign companies at the
expense of American companies.

Then, perhaps, you can explain how we managed to sign a "free trade"
agreement, that limits American manufacturers to selling 5,000 cars in
South Korea, but allows them to sell 600,000 cars here. Our government
played a role in getting Detroit into this mess, perhaps small, but still
a role. It should play a role in getting it out of this mess.

Bailout mania...
 

"BAR" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Dec 16, 10:21 am, BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
John wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:34:29 -0500, BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 16, 12:16 am, "Canuck57" wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:06:30 -0500, BAR wrote:
Chrysler should have been left to go bankrupt back in 1980. If
it wasn't
for the M1 Abrams the government never would have stepped in.
Maybe, but then the government would have missed out on the $335
million
profit they made on the $1.5 billion loan guarantee.
Today has 2 major differences.
First, $1.5 billion is about the burn rate for GM, Chrysler and
Ford in 1
week! It is estimated for GM alone, $75 to 125 billion is needed
for
solvency and sustainability. Assuming Chrysler needs about the
same and say
$50 billion for Ford, further assuming their numbers are accurate
and not
cooked they collectively need $250 billion. And that is if they
instantly
fix the problems, which historically, it is like investing in
NorTel. By
the way they too need a bailout. That is about $1250 out of each
middle
class workers pocket. 2-3 car payments for cars they don't own..
Oh, and
parts suppliers like JCI and Magna, extra.
Second, what do you do with the other 98% of the people and
businesses out
there? Screw them with $1250 more taxes? The last points bill
must be paid
or the next loaf of bread might as well cost $1000. You can't
print out of
debt on this scale without at least a working generation of
recession. Keep
in mind, government revenue is going down at an alarming pace.
The war in
the middle east will not end with peace, it will end in
bankruptcy of the
government and currency itself.
North America can no long afford these dogs. Will make some good
case study
for Harvard and Yale is the only redeeming value GM and Chrysler
has left..
This is going to come down to American bankruptcy into the
currency.
Said it before, so did several others. Give us middle class folks
a
voucher to help pay for a new car. We get a bailout, GM gets to
sell
cars, then put folks to work building new ones.... But the Union
doesn't want that, it would mean they would have to go back to
work to
get the money...
If I received a voucher I wouldn't buy a GM or Chrysler. I would
buy a Ford, Toyota, Honda or Nissan.
Depends on the size of the voucher. I'd buy another GM pickup if the
voucher were big enough to overcome my doubts about future warranty
service.
A voucher might be worthwhile if its use were restricted to
high-mileage vehicles with a certified "manufactured in the USA or
Canada" content of at least 90%. Not assembled...manufactured.
I see no reason to subsidize purchases of products produced overseas.
I wouldn't use the voucher if I was forced to purchase a vehicle I
would not normally purchase. A cheap headache is still a headache.
I wouldn't argue that point, but...the purpose of such a voucher is to
help the U.S. auto industry. You don't help the industry by buying
goods
whose most expensive pieces and parts are made overseas.
GM and Chrysler need to go bankrupt. Their management needs to change
and their union contracts need to be voided. The skill in putting pieces
of a car together does not warrant the money that the union workers
receive. And, getting paid 95% for sitting around reading a newspaper
all day long is ridiculous. Whomever agreed to that on both sides of the
table should be take out back and shot.


Not to mention 250,000 union workers are paying for 750,000 retirees
and their dependents... They just can't so we will be forced to.

The perfect example of why Social Security is going to fail and why we
need to abandon it now. For some people it will be unfair and it will hurt
but that is too bad. Everyone younger than 35 gets no Social Security but,
they still fund it.

Good idea but...

Too many are far too undiciplined to save. How about keep it but with a
twist.

401KL - 401K locked in. Your SSN taxes are the same but go into an account
exclusively in your name. Forced savings if you will.

For company pensions, obviously mismanaged the same. They contribute to the
401KL directly and pay as it goes without the "shortfall" promises made to
GM and hundreds of millions of others.

You can't loan on it, you can't withdraw on it until 60 and officially
retired. Withdrawls are taxed like any other pension income once eligible
and rates of qualified withdrawl have limittions as well.

Fair too. Gets companies and governments honest.