At first, I was ok with the Treasury buying up mortgage securities and
stabilizing the mortgage industry.

Then I got a little itchy when that changed into a bank bailout, but I
rationalised that as necessary to keep the country's economics stable.

I became concerned that after the money was dispersed, there didn't
seem to be a lot of money coming back out in the form of loans to
small business and/or stabilizing a rational approach to mortgage
lending for private and commercial development.

I became annoyed when the Little Three wanted money to bail out their
ridiculous UAW health care system and keep them afloat with failed
business plans and no plans forthcoming for the future.

Now I'm ****ed off.

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_11047116

On Dec 15, 7:25*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
At first, I was ok with the Treasury buying up mortgage securities and
stabilizing the mortgage industry.

Then I got a little itchy when that changed into a bank bailout, but I
rationalised that as necessary to keep the country's economics stable.

I became concerned that after the money was dispersed, there didn't
seem to be a lot of money coming back out in the form of loans to
small business and/or stabilizing a rational approach to mortgage
lending for private and commercial development.

I became annoyed when the Little Three wanted money to bail out their
ridiculous UAW health care system and keep them afloat with failed
business plans and no plans forthcoming for the future.

Now I'm ****ed off.

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_11047116

Don't eat any yellow snow!

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:25:11 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

At first, I was ok with the Treasury buying up mortgage securities and
stabilizing the mortgage industry.

Then I got a little itchy when that changed into a bank bailout, but I
rationalised that as necessary to keep the country's economics stable.

I became concerned that after the money was dispersed, there didn't
seem to be a lot of money coming back out in the form of loans to
small business and/or stabilizing a rational approach to mortgage
lending for private and commercial development.

I became annoyed when the Little Three wanted money to bail out their
ridiculous UAW health care system and keep them afloat with failed
business plans and no plans forthcoming for the future.

Now I'm ****ed off.

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_11047116

Enough stupiditiy to make me give up skiing:

"In that vein, 70 ski resorts across the nation are lobbying Congress for
mandatory caps on carbon-dioxide emissions, hoping to decrease the amount
of greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming."


--
John

"John" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:25:11 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

At first, I was ok with the Treasury buying up mortgage securities and
stabilizing the mortgage industry.

Then I got a little itchy when that changed into a bank bailout, but I
rationalised that as necessary to keep the country's economics stable.

I became concerned that after the money was dispersed, there didn't
seem to be a lot of money coming back out in the form of loans to
small business and/or stabilizing a rational approach to mortgage
lending for private and commercial development.

I became annoyed when the Little Three wanted money to bail out their
ridiculous UAW health care system and keep them afloat with failed
business plans and no plans forthcoming for the future.

Now I'm ****ed off.

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_11047116

Enough stupiditiy to make me give up skiing:

"In that vein, 70 ski resorts across the nation are lobbying Congress for
mandatory caps on carbon-dioxide emissions, hoping to decrease the amount
of greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming."

A point to ponder. Why should UAW be any more preferential than the other
98 to 99% of the population losing their jobs and livelyhood that have
nothing to do with autos?

Could it be Cerberus management after taking the cash and profitable bits
out of Chrysler and repackaging the dog now want to dump it on the
government? Only a few years ago their ponzi scheme mad billions!

Or could it be Congress person has a lot of GM bonds in their private
accounts? Maybe a little payolla for re-election?

Or could it be the super rich want some money out of GM and
Cerberus-Chrysler and will syphon the bailout money?

Why do they want to avoid chapter 11 that could fix a lot of problems?
Could it be the books are cooked? Money gone missing? Maybe the same
ex-CEO is getting an obscene pension that was never properly funded is
calling is Harvard buddies?

GM and Chrysler need to do chapter 11 on principle if the system is 1/2
baked honest. Trying to bail out every business and industry can and will
bankrupt the USA. By allowing chapter 11, the GM and Chrysler books can be
examined for waste and corruption. It allows a real cleanup and back to
basic tried and true business practices. GM management and board need to be
fired with cause, they have been losing money so long managment has
forgotted about how to run a sucessful business.

GM & Cerberus-Chrysler are dogs.

Canuck57 wrote:
"John" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:25:11 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

At first, I was ok with the Treasury buying up mortgage securities and
stabilizing the mortgage industry.

Then I got a little itchy when that changed into a bank bailout, but I
rationalised that as necessary to keep the country's economics stable.

I became concerned that after the money was dispersed, there didn't
seem to be a lot of money coming back out in the form of loans to
small business and/or stabilizing a rational approach to mortgage
lending for private and commercial development.

I became annoyed when the Little Three wanted money to bail out their
ridiculous UAW health care system and keep them afloat with failed
business plans and no plans forthcoming for the future.

Now I'm ****ed off.

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_11047116
Enough stupiditiy to make me give up skiing:

"In that vein, 70 ski resorts across the nation are lobbying Congress for
mandatory caps on carbon-dioxide emissions, hoping to decrease the amount
of greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming."

A point to ponder. Why should UAW be any more preferential than the other
98 to 99% of the population losing their jobs and livelyhood that have
nothing to do with autos?

The UAW's jobs are no more important than they guy down the street who
lost his job last week.

Could it be Cerberus management after taking the cash and profitable bits
out of Chrysler and repackaging the dog now want to dump it on the
government? Only a few years ago their ponzi scheme mad billions!

The management at Cerberus deserves the losses they incur. If Daimler
Benz found out that Chrysler was a dog why did Cerberus think they could
do anything with it?

Or could it be Congress person has a lot of GM bonds in their private
accounts? Maybe a little payolla for re-election?

Lot's of payola to the numerous Democrat campaign funds.

Or could it be the super rich want some money out of GM and
Cerberus-Chrysler and will syphon the bailout money?

Everyone is trying to figure out how to get their hands on some bailout
money.

Why do they want to avoid chapter 11 that could fix a lot of problems?
Could it be the books are cooked? Money gone missing? Maybe the same
ex-CEO is getting an obscene pension that was never properly funded is
calling is Harvard buddies?

Nobody wants their books examined. The accounting firms and the CEO and
CFO of GM and Chrysler may be looking at some time in a federal pen.

GM and Chrysler need to do chapter 11 on principle if the system is 1/2
baked honest. Trying to bail out every business and industry can and will
bankrupt the USA. By allowing chapter 11, the GM and Chrysler books can be
examined for waste and corruption. It allows a real cleanup and back to
basic tried and true business practices. GM management and board need to be
fired with cause, they have been losing money so long managment has
forgotted about how to run a sucessful business.

AIG should been left to go thru Chapter 11. Congress is full of idiots
for giving Sec of Treas unlimited freedom to spend $700 billion without
any controlls.

GM & Cerberus-Chrysler are dogs.

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.

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.

wrote in message
news
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.

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

news
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...

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

news
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.

On Dec 16, 5:34*am, BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 16, 12:16 am, "Canuck57" wrote:
wrote in message

news

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.

I'd buy a Dodge/Cummins