On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:20:45 -0800, John R. Carroll wrote:


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:35:14 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:53:33 -0600, "RogerN"
wrote:

I kind of like the Chrysler plan myself. Let the auto makers reduce
production to the demand level. If the unions can pay their members far
above what the average taxpayer makes, that's fine, but don't ask the
taxpayer to foot the bill.

RogerN
==============
Which sounds good, but does not explain how Ford is able to get
by with no taxpayer loans to this point, but GM and Chrysler
aren't.

When Ford got into trouble Bill Ford stepped down and they brought in a
turn
around expert.
Mullaly knows how to do this and he has. He came from Boeing you know.

GM ought to do the same. They aren't in trouble because of their unions
contracts or retiree benefit obligations.
They are introuble because they are managed and run by assholes.

JC
============
Indeed, but I seem to have missed the part in the President's
announcement about the TARP funded 17+ billion Detroit "rescue"
package where the Boards and senior management of GM and Chrysler
were to be replaced.

Does anyone have a URL for that segment?

I doubt it. The money was an effort to save Bush's reputation not GM or
Chrysler.
He's provided his party with political cover, nothing more, and it's pretty
thin cover at that.
There isn't any reason GM couldn't have a special meeting and fire the lot.

JC

================
Wow! Imagine Wall Street operating under the same management. Getting the
BIG BUCKS.

I guess it's not that hard to imagine. Perhaps a second look *is* in order.