|
Can I pull this boat?
"Don White" wrote in message ... Heard on the news yesterday that GM wasn't leasing vehicles anymore due to poor sales after vehicles turned back in. Is that the same south of the border? Chrysler was the first to announce this. No more leases after this month. GM and Ford were expected to do the same. Eisboch |
Can I pull this boat?
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "hk" wrote in message . .. Eisboch wrote: It has always been interesting to me that those who complain the most about fat compensation packages are those not earning them. You would expect an exec being paid multiple millions to bitch about it? At that level, his/her compensation was most likely a negotiated package, approved and authorized by the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors work for the stockholders. Fun to watch you get fired up so early. Eisboch Actually, the rules are set up by the SEC, where the BoD does not seem to represent all the stockholders. Home Depot is a prime example. |
Can I pull this boat?
HK wrote:
Tim wrote: On Jul 30, 12:43 am, "Eisboch" wrote: "JR North" wrote in message ... The tow vehicle brake system must be able to stop the rig in a reasonable distance in the event of trailer brake failure. An F150 brake system is NOT-REPEAT NOT adequate for this setup. Whether or not it can pull the boat out of the hole (also doubtful) is irrelevant.. Get a real truck. F250 minimum., F350 better. JR On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:22:27 -0500, SSmokin wrote: I have a 2002 Ford F-150. 5.4, 4x4 Extended Cab. I'm looking at a 29' Cheetah offshore (CX-29). I know that the truck can pull the boat from point A to point B, but what about "out of the water, on a steep ramp"? Any thoughts? :o HOME PAGE: http://www.seanet.com/~jasonrnorth -------------------------------------------------- Here's the boat this guy wants to tow ..... http://www.cheetahboats.net/cheetah_...icture_211.jpg If the question is serious .... I still say the F-150 is too light of a duty truck. Eisboch Yep. They need a bigger truck! You gotta be outa your mind these days to even consider buying one of those "penis boats," let alone be thinking of trailering it. I can remember when you said the same thing about guns. |
Can I pull this boat?
JR North wrote:
If so, not nearly as bad as the 'Tow my Bayliner with my Yugo' thread of yore. JR wrote: On Jul 29, 10:28 pm, JR North wrote: The tow vehicle brake system must be able to stop the rig in a reasonable distance in the event of trailer brake failure. An F150 brake system is NOT-REPEAT NOT adequate for this setup. Whether or not it can pull the boat out of the hole (also doubtful) is irrelevant.. Get a real truck. F250 minimum., F350 better. JR On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:22:27 -0500, SSmokin wrote: I have a 2002 Ford F-150. 5.4, 4x4 Extended Cab. I’m looking at a 29’ Cheetah offshore (CX-29). I know that the truck can pull the boat from point A to point B, but what about "out of the water, on a steep ramp"? Any thoughts? :o HOME PAGE:http://www.seanet.com/~jasonrnorth -------------------------------------------------- This is a troll of some sort.. If you go over the posts from this guys history, he says he owns just about everything on wheels, and everything needs something fixed. There is something really fishy about it though, Either way, the whole thread is most likely a sham... Just about anything from JustWait is either a troll or off topic. He reminds me of John McCain, a bitter little man with a nasty temper. And what's wrong with towing a Bayliner with a Yugo? |
Can I pull this boat?
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message ... What *I* stated was that the U.S. car makers were poorly managed, with overpaid white collar mid and upper management. Many large U.S. corporations grossly overcompensate "management." There have been plenty of news stories about the tens of millions of dollars paid to top execs at the same time the companies they run are failing. Why were they poorly managed if, in the case of GM, they had record corporate profits and paid regular, consistent dividends to the shareholders for most of the past ten years? Plus met all the contractual obligations to current and retired employees? Take care of the business ..... the business will take care of you. It's how it works, and there's nothing wrong with big paychecks for those with the most responsibility. Eisboch He'll never get it. He fails to understand the difference between an educated manager with true accountability and a guy on the line with a GED. IF WAFA had it his way, no large corporation could survive. |
Can I pull this boat?
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message . .. Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... What *I* stated was that the U.S. car makers were poorly managed, with overpaid white collar mid and upper management. Many large U.S. corporations grossly overcompensate "management." There have been plenty of news stories about the tens of millions of dollars paid to top execs at the same time the companies they run are failing. Why were they poorly managed if, in the case of GM, they had record corporate profits and paid regular, consistent dividends to the shareholders for most of the past ten years? Plus met all the contractual obligations to current and retired employees? Take care of the business ..... the business will take care of you. It's how it works, and there's nothing wrong with big paychecks for those with the most responsibility. Eisboch Now *that* is funny. Take care of business and business will take care of you. I'm sure that song plays well to the millions of American workers who have lost their jobs because of crappy management, and the millions who have also lost health care benefits, pension benefits, and much more, despite giving all they had to "the business," and of course, let's not forget the millions of American workers who have lost long-held jobs because corporate management determined it would be "cheaper" to build or service their product in China, India, or wherever. Take care of the business for which you work, and, if it gets the chance, the business for which you work will eliminate your job, your health care, your pension. Or it will simply underfund its pension liabilities. Sorry, but I don't believe that "shareholder equity" is any more valuable than "worker equity." What many corporations in this country seem to do best is to discard workers like used paper towels. Note I said many...I did not say all. Oh...and there is something wrong, very wrong, with the huge disparity at many corporations between average pay and "executive" compensation. "Take care of the business" implies doing a competent job whereby the focus is on the success of the business. If the business is successful, so will be the employees. There's a huge change factor going on here .... the emergence of a global economy. To remain competitive in it, the cost of doing business has to be carefully analyzed and optimized. Otherwise, the business will ultimately fail and everyone's out of a job and benefits. It has always been interesting to me that those who complain the most about fat compensation packages are those not earning them. I never had one, BTW. My reward was the success of the business, and all of those who participated in whatever capacity benefited proportionally. Eisboch He also forgets that business owners have *their* money on the line. If a business fails, the employees won't share that loss - they will simply move to another job. These "entitlements" like free health care and pensions make me sick. What's wrong with supplemented health care and a 401K plan with matching funds? It works for me and my employees are doing fine. |
Can I pull this boat?
|
Can I pull this boat?
Nothing at all. Just so many fewer Bayliners as a result.
JR On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:00:28 -0400, hk wrote: JR North wrote: If so, not nearly as bad as the 'Tow my Bayliner with my Yugo' thread of yore. JR And what's wrong with towing a Bayliner with a Yugo? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:49 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com