Bailout mania...
 

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.

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.

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.


That doesn't sound Green at all.

Bailout mania...
 

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:54:17 -0700, "Canuck57"
wrote:



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.

Locked into what. Enron?
I basically like the idea, but because it's "Social Security" it has
to be secure.
I don't see how you get past the gov guaranteeing it.

--Vic

Bailout mania...
 

On Dec 16, 1:00*pm, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

That doesn't sound Green at all.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, kind of sounds like someone who doesn't care much about the
environment, huh? Or at least if it was a true story.

Bailout mania...
 

Boater wrote:
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.

If the UAW doesn't do it the same way, why not?

Bailout mania...
 

Boater 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



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

The unions are 1/2 of the problem.

Bailout mania...
 

wrote:
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.

I don't expect my state, Maryland, to send the state income taxes that
they collect to New Mexico.

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.

You are talking apples and oranges. Whine to your US Congressmen about
the lousy agreement with South Korea. Th money you identified above all
came from the states.

Bailout mania...
 

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
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.

If the UAW doesn't do it the same way, why not?



Because it follows the more traditional industrial-white collar model,
where pension funds tend to be controlled by the employers.,

The construction union model evolved differently because its union
members tended to work for several different employers in a given year
or over the course of a career. That still is the case. So rather than
the traditional model, the construction unions and the employers whose
employees they represent devised a model that provided *instant
portability* for union members. It also works for the benefit of
traveling members who might work in Minneapolis in the spring, summer
and fall, and then in Florida in the winter. If they work union in
Florida, the pension contributions they earn go to their home local's
pension fund so they get credit for it.

Keep in mind that construction unions negotiate a gross hourly rate and
then decide what part of that rate goes to pension and other benefits.
That money is already the money of the union members.

Bailout mania...
 

CalifBill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
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.







Yup union pension funds. Like the teamsters, plumbers, Ullico, etc. How
many went to jail for those thefts.




D'oh. If any pension funds were stolen, the bonding insurance companies
made the funds good, and then insisted upon prosecution and aided the
prosecutors.

You don't seem to be able to understand the concept of union
officer/pension fund officer-trustee bonding. Either that or you are
suffering from short-term memory loss, because I have brought this to
your attention at least a half-dozen times.

I don't keep track of the teamsters or plumbers, since neither are my
union. There was no "theft" of pension funds at ULLICO, either.

Here...try reading this and see if you understand it:

Bonding Requirements

Section 502(a) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of
1959, as amended (LMRDA), and provisions of Section 7120 of the Civil
Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) establish bonding requirements for
certain officers and employees of labor organizations. Every union
covered by the LMRDA or the CSRA is subject to the bonding requirements
except for unions whose property and annual receipts do not exceed
$5,000 in value.

The required bonds are a type of insurance agreement which guarantees
reimbursement to the union for any financial losses caused by fraudulent
or dishonest acts by officers or employees, such as theft, embezzlement,
or forgery. The bonding requirements are not based on the idea that
particular individuals or organizations are inherently dishonest.
Rather, bonding is required because experience has shown that when
people are entrusted with the money or property of another, there will
be instances when individuals will cause a loss through fraud or
dishonesty. Bonding is therefore required to insure the union against
such a loss.

The law provides that any person who "handles" union funds or property
must be bonded for at least 10% of the funds handled during the union's
preceding fiscal year up to a maximum of $500,000. An individual is
considered to be "handling" union funds if his/her duties or authority
provide access to union funds resulting in a significant risk of loss of
funds if that person engages in fraudulent or dishonest acts. For
example, a person who receives dues, fees, etc., from members is clearly
"handling" union funds and therefore must be bonded. Also, however, any
officer or employee who has authority to sign checks on the union's
account is "handling" union funds and must be bonded even if he/she has
no physical contact with the funds. Individuals who typically must be
bonded include union officers (both elected and non-elected), employees
such as business agents, trustees, key administrative and professional
staff, and clerical personnel.

On the reverse is a detailed worksheet designed to assist you in
computing the amount of bonding coverage required. A quick formula for
computing the approximate amount of bonding coverage required is:

Liquid Assets + Total Receipts x 10%=Amount of coverage required per person

Liquid assets, for purposes of this formula, are those assets that are
quickly and easily negotiable. Cash on hand, deposits in any type of
financial institution, certificates of deposit, U.S. Treasury
securities, corporate stocks and bonds, and accounts and loans
receivable are common examples of liquid assets. Property of a
relatively permanent nature, such as land, buildings, furniture, and
fixtures is not a liquid asset.

The required bond must be obtained from a company on the U.S. Treasury
Department list of approved bonding companies. The companies know
whether they are approved and your national or international union may
be able to assist you. You can also obtain a copy of the list from the
nearest OLMS office. In addition to the requirement of placing the bond
with a company on the Treasury Department list, the law prohibits
placing the bond through an agent or broker or with a company in which
any union or any officer, agent, shop steward, or other union
representative has any direct or indirect interest.

It is possible for a bond to cover more than one union. For example,
many national or international unions obtain a bond covering both their
organization and their affiliated unions. Contact your national or
international union if you have any questions about whether your union
is covered by such a bond.

The following checklist will help you stay in compliance with the
bonding requirements:

* Refigure the amount of bonding coverage required for each fiscal
year immediately after the close of the last fiscal year. (Figures
required for the bonding computation must be compiled for your union's
annual financial report Form LM-2, LM-3, or LM-4 as well.)
* If your union's bonding requirements have increased from the last
year's coverage, obtain amended coverage immediately.
* Make sure every person who "handles" funds is covered. (The
easiest way is to obtain standard "blanket" coverage for all persons who
handle funds.)
* Make sure the company issuing the bond is on the U.S. Treasury
Department list of approved companies.

If you have any questions about the bonding requirements or their
application to your organization, contact the nearest OLMS office.
Copies of an explanatory pamphlet, "Bonding Requirements Under the LMRDA
and the CSRA," and the LMRDA bonding regulations, 29 CFR Part 453, are
also available from the nearest OLMS office.

Additional Tips for International Unions

National and international unions that purchase bonding coverage for
their affiliates should examine the timetables established for
affiliates to report the funds handled during the fiscal year. The
amount of bonding coverage must be set at the start of each fiscal year.
This can be of particular importance if the amount of bonding coverage
must be increased because of an increase in the amount of funds handled
during the fiscal year. The LMRDA prohibits any person who is
inadequately bonded from receiving, handling, disbursing, or otherwise
exercising custody or control of any of the labor organization's funds
or property. Unless the parent organization requires each affiliate to
report the amount of funds handled immediately after the close of the
fiscal year and then promptly arranges for adequate bonding coverage if
an increase is required, adequate coverage may lapse for several months
or longer, which is a violation of the LMRDA.

Bailout mania...
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...
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.







Yup union pension funds. Like the teamsters, plumbers, Ullico, etc. How
many went to jail for those thefts.

Bailout mania...
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:54:17 -0700, "Canuck57"
wrote:



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.

Locked into what. Enron?
I basically like the idea, but because it's "Social Security" it has
to be secure.
I don't see how you get past the gov guaranteeing it.

--Vic

Locked in to investments. Overall it will make money. You do not put all
the money in Enron etc. And who is going to pay those "guaranteed" Social
Security payouts? The government can only tax so much. They increase
payout age. Happening now. They decrease payout amounts. Happening next.
You and employer pay in say $15k a year for 40 years. You get back $1k a
month for maybe 8 years. starting at age 72. $600k in gives $96K out.
401KL $600K in average growth of 3% a year for 40 years. 3% times 40 times
$300k {would actually be n=more, but just figure average amount of money
invested}= 120% increase of the $300K == $160k Total at retirement $600k +
$160K = $760K you can start drawing on at age 60 if retired, Figure a
couple of the investments did not pan out, so you only get $600k to draw
from at age 60. Seems as if is a better deal than SS.