On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:38:58 +0000, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:12:16 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"D.Duck" wrote in message
om...


My hope is that the GM/Ford/Chrysler problems are resolved (if
resolvable) in bankruptcy, not throwing more tax payer dollars at
them.


Duck, I couldn't agree with you more. Chapter 11 isn't permanent. It
allows for "reorganization" which is exactly what the auto industry
needs to do right now. Revise business plans, products and
re-negotiate the union contracts under the watchful eye of a bankruptcy
judge.

Handing them a pile of taxpayer money, calling it a government
"investment" just to keep them in business under their current
organizational structures won't do a damn thing.

I agree.

Tough call. I don't like these bailouts, but can we afford not to? In
this country, 1 in 10 jobs are connected to the auto industry. If the
auto companies fail, we're talking depression, not recession. All of
this, could get real scary, real quick.

Boater wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 06:41:51 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:51:05 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

His "package" (including benefits) was in excess of $85k/year and
upon retirement could look forward to full, GM financed health
coverage along with his pension.
And, this is really a ****er, now GM wants the US Taxpayer to dig them
out of the health care hole by paying for the ridiculous health care
packages for their retireees.

So now we have GM begging some working stiff who works, pays taxes and
either doesn't have a health package or only Major Medical at an
exhorbitant rate to sponsor some moron who put four screws in a
dashboard for most of his life and was paid $34/hr plus benefits for
doing so and now has a $4 co-pay for everything health care related.

Here's what I think GM should do - pre-pack a Chapter 11 bankruptcy,
get rid of the ridiculous union contracts and start over again with
government backing (not loans) with reasonable labor costs and
competitive products.

That will do more for the American economy than any TARP.
And perhaps like Japan, put the burden of paying for health care on
society as a whole, and not on the manufacturers, eh? Would you go
for that, too?

Not at all, but let's face it - the health care provisions of the
retirement package are onerous to the health of the corporation.

I'll give you an example. My back operation cost $14,356 in total
which was cheap considering that the main surgeon and assistant were
freebies. That includes room, operating room, drugs, anesthesia,
yada, yada, yada.

My copay for that was $2,300. A UAW retiree, the guy who put four
screws in the afore mentioned dashboard for his career, for that same
operation, which would have included surgeon and assistant fees
totaling about $21,000, would have been $4.

A pre-packaged Chapter1 bankruptcy would allow for restructuring the
health care provisions to something a little more reasonable.


"Restructurings" usually are much harder on the working stiffs than the
management pukes. And why should a retiree on a fixed income have to
fork over $2300 for necessary surgery?

I agree that the burden of paying for necessary health care should be
lifted from US corporations, and handled the way it is in other modern
countries.

I'm also a bit wearing of hearing about Joe the Auto Assembly Line
Worker, whose career consisted of putting four screws in a dashboard.
If that is all Joe does, and it is unlikely, then that is the job
management wants done. It isn't his fault. I haven't been in an auto
plant in many years, but when I was last in one, I didn't see any jobs
like that, and all the jobs I saw were certainly more valuable than
being, oh, a stock broker or plumbing supply dealer or software pussy.

Or a writer pansy pussy

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 07:48:55 -0500, Boater wrote:


"Restructurings" usually are much harder on the working stiffs than the
management pukes.

Yup, sure is a lot of gnashing of teeth over working stiffs. Funny, I
don't recall near as much about the billions in bonuses given to managers
that actually ran their companies into the ground. Damn unions are
ruining this country. So Harry, when did Lehman Brothers go union?

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:51:05 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 22:40:09 -0500, tin cup wrote:

The average wage was around 58,000.00 a year.

That's misleading, benefits add at least another 20,000. That is
pretty good pay for unskiled labor, about 2 or 3 times what most
factory workers get.


I saw a news clip recently of a GM "worker" standing beside a console on
the assembly line, supervising a bunch of robotic arms assembling a car. His
primary job was to hit the red "Emergency Off" button, if something went
screwy or was called to do so.

His "package" (including benefits) was in excess of $85k/year and upon
retirement could look forward to full, GM financed health coverage along
with his pension.

I don't deny anybody the right to hold a good job with decent pay and
benefits, but it really should be in concert with the person's initiative to
prepare him/her self for that career. I am sorry, but standing around
watching an automated assembly line put cars together for that kind of pay
and benefits just doesn't do it for me, especially when I see others who
have worked hard to educate and qualify themselves for a trade making far
less.

Oh, please. "Educated geniuses" like Paulson of Goldman-Sachs, who
pulled down +50 million his last year as CEO there, and sold his stock
for $500 million to work for the guv, have managed to totally **** up
this country.
I just love it when auto workers are portrayed like you just did, and
the cars and trucks just get produced by magic.
While worthless ****s like those running this country, and who
supposedly "create" magic wealth but who actually create debt are
heros on the covers of news magazines.
I want to puke whenever I see that idiot Jack Welch.
Listening to anti-American morons like him is a primary reason this
country is going down the tubes.
Not that I disagree that Detroit management has screwed the pooch in
giving the UAW stuff like sub-pay. That's their problem, and I don't
care if they go bankrupt.
Simple inattention to the ledger book is the primary problem of most
businesses, and Detroit's sins are even more venal.
BTW, U.S. Toyota and Honda plants offer similar non-union wages, but
smarter management. And they have little legacy costs.
If Detroit goes bust, the Honda/Toyota workers will likely vote in the
UAW to represent them.
National health care will eliminate most of that legacy cost.
A big chunk of Toyota/Honda sales here are still being imported
from Japanese plants, where they don't suffer health care costs.
Don't know how much that figures in profitability, but the Japs also
engineer in more quality too.
Sorry to be disagreeable, but having spent years as both a production
worker and in an "educated" field making much more money but producing
nothing tangible, I have strong views of their relative values.
There's a reason this country is going downhill, and it sure as hell
isn't being caused by workers who actually produce goods.
Too many chiefs and not enough working Indians is the problem.
But that concept is too complex for the "educated" morons who
are "creating" all that magic money.
Well, here we are, and it's just going to get worse. Trust me.
We need Pat Buchanan running the show. He knows what's up.
If Obama is a real "free-trader globalist" we'll continue the decline.
Bottom line is you can't consume more than you produce.
The peasant Chinamen doing the work for us will own us if we continue
down this path.

--Vic

Disclaimer: My opinions are worth exactly what you paid for them.

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message
...

I am going to keep my F150 thank you. Nice ride and pulls a boat and
has 4x4 for the winter. Try that with a pint sized electric car up a
long hill.


Harry had a F-150 not too long ago and often reported in this NG what a
great truck it was.

That's before he sharpened his political correctness.

Now a US made truck is crap because he owns a Japanese model.


Eisboch

I haven't owned an F150 for nearly 10 years. It was a good truck. The
Toyota truck that replaced it was better. I doubt I ever stated the
US-made truck was "crap." I have heard those sorts of allegations,
however, from SW Tom and I believe from you.

I think I only called one US truck I have owned as "crap" or a similar word
and it really wasn't the truck .... it was the engine. The '05 F-350 with
the Ford/Navstar 6.0 L diesel was failure prone. I was left stranded 3
times with it within the first 11k miles. "That" was crap.

Boy, time flies when you're having fun, huh? Seems like only yesterday you
were full of compliments for Ford regarding your F-150.

Eisboch

Eisboch

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message news
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:51:05 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

His "package" (including benefits) was in excess of $85k/year and upon
retirement could look forward to full, GM financed health coverage along
with his pension.

And, this is really a ****er, now GM wants the US Taxpayer to dig them
out of the health care hole by paying for the ridiculous health care
packages for their retireees.

So now we have GM begging some working stiff who works, pays taxes and
either doesn't have a health package or only Major Medical at an
exhorbitant rate to sponsor some moron who put four screws in a
dashboard for most of his life and was paid $34/hr plus benefits for
doing so and now has a $4 co-pay for everything health care related.

Here's what I think GM should do - pre-pack a Chapter 11 bankruptcy,
get rid of the ridiculous union contracts and start over again with
government backing (not loans) with reasonable labor costs and
competitive products.

That will do more for the American economy than any TARP.


Not to mention control the salary & bonuses the top layer of management.
Why should the CEOs of GM or Ford make many times more than the president of
the US when they can't even keep their companies profitable.

wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:38:58 +0000, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:12:16 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

My hope is that the GM/Ford/Chrysler problems are resolved (if
resolvable) in bankruptcy, not throwing more tax payer dollars at
them.


Duck, I couldn't agree with you more. Chapter 11 isn't permanent. It
allows for "reorganization" which is exactly what the auto industry
needs to do right now. Revise business plans, products and
re-negotiate the union contracts under the watchful eye of a bankruptcy
judge.

Handing them a pile of taxpayer money, calling it a government
"investment" just to keep them in business under their current
organizational structures won't do a damn thing.
I agree.

Tough call. I don't like these bailouts, but can we afford not to? In
this country, 1 in 10 jobs are connected to the auto industry. If the
auto companies fail, we're talking depression, not recession. All of
this, could get real scary, real quick.

Busting the unions should be a requisite part of any bailout plan.
Otherwise they will be back again in a few years looking for another
handout. It's time we earn from our mistakes and stop repeating them.

wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 07:48:55 -0500, Boater wrote:


"Restructurings" usually are much harder on the working stiffs than the
management pukes.

Yup, sure is a lot of gnashing of teeth over working stiffs. Funny, I
don't recall near as much about the billions in bonuses given to managers
that actually ran their companies into the ground. Damn unions are
ruining this country. So Harry, when did Lehman Brothers go union?


You can be sure no one in the Bush Administration gives a damn about
worker bees. Oh...and I just read somewhere that several of the
financial institutions, banks mostly, getting taxpayer bailout money
have reserved some of it for future bonuses for executives.

We're not there yet, and we may not get there in my lifetime, but what
we need in this country is a total restructuring of society that adds
fairness. I'm not talking communism, but I wouldn't mind a bit more
European socialism. More and more this country seems to exist only to
help the wealthy attain more wealth. If that is the direction it is
heading, then it deserves to fail.

Jim wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:38:58 +0000, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:12:16 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

My hope is that the GM/Ford/Chrysler problems are resolved (if
resolvable) in bankruptcy, not throwing more tax payer dollars at
them.


Duck, I couldn't agree with you more. Chapter 11 isn't permanent. It
allows for "reorganization" which is exactly what the auto industry
needs to do right now. Revise business plans, products and
re-negotiate the union contracts under the watchful eye of a bankruptcy
judge.

Handing them a pile of taxpayer money, calling it a government
"investment" just to keep them in business under their current
organizational structures won't do a damn thing.
I agree.

Tough call. I don't like these bailouts, but can we afford not to? In
this country, 1 in 10 jobs are connected to the auto industry. If the
auto companies fail, we're talking depression, not recession. All of
this, could get real scary, real quick.

Busting the unions should be a requisite part of any bailout plan.
Otherwise they will be back again in a few years looking for another
handout. It's time we earn from our mistakes and stop repeating them.


This from a guy whose career highlight was cleaning the heads aboard a
navy ship?

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 06:50:27 -0600, wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:38:58 +0000, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:12:16 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"D.Duck" wrote in message
news:G_Odnc2FKtknEYbUnZ2dnUVZ_tfinZ2d@giganews. com...


My hope is that the GM/Ford/Chrysler problems are resolved (if
resolvable) in bankruptcy, not throwing more tax payer dollars at
them.


Duck, I couldn't agree with you more. Chapter 11 isn't permanent. It
allows for "reorganization" which is exactly what the auto industry
needs to do right now. Revise business plans, products and
re-negotiate the union contracts under the watchful eye of a bankruptcy
judge.

Handing them a pile of taxpayer money, calling it a government
"investment" just to keep them in business under their current
organizational structures won't do a damn thing.

I agree.

Tough call. I don't like these bailouts, but can we afford not to? In
this country, 1 in 10 jobs are connected to the auto industry. If the
auto companies fail, we're talking depression, not recession. All of
this, could get real scary, real quick.

I don't disagree with that - in fact, I'm with you.

The advantage of a pre-pack (and I'll admit, I had never heard of a
pre-arranged and negotiated Chapter 11 bankruptcy before just the
other day on CNBC) is that most of the major debtors/creditors agree
on a time frame and general framework for negotiations.

The whole point of backruptcy under Chapter 11 is to allow for
reorganization - it gives protection to creditors and the company
allowing for reasoned renegotiations of existing contracts and
conditions in addition to capital access during the bankruptcy period.

Seriously, airlines have been doing this for years - I've flown United
in the middle of a bankruptcy - didn't seem to make a freakin'
difference - why can't the auto industry.

I agree with supporting the banking system - that's a plus and a must.
What I don't agree with is supporting a manufacturing corporation who,
through it's own stupidity, got itself into a mess and now wants the
average taxpayer to bail it out.

I ain't buying it.

Personally, I think Sheila Bair has the right idea - buy up all the
fluky mortgages, take a small haircut, renegotiate the terms to keep
people in their homes and gradually sell the new assets back into the
system. It's cost neutral to the taxpayer and actually has the
potential to make the taxpayer money.