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

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
Don't kid yourself...all those trillions that Bush is printing have to
be repaid...by you..and your children...and your grandchildren.

How will they do it when manufacturing is gone?

Is this a look at our future golden years?

Is Detroit the canary in the American future?

TMT

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.

All three have about the same vendor base, all three have the
same UAW to deal with, all three operate under the same
legal/regulatory framework (e.g. emissions & safety), and all
three have a similar dealer structures.

As part of what I hope is an intensive/extensive "viability"
assessment in the run up to "April Fools Day 2009," such a
comparison seems to be a basic and necessary requirement.

Indeed, this 100+ day window offers a unique opportunity to
compile a massive "case study" of what went wrong, what went
right, and what made no difference, to guide future governmental
oversight/regulation and corporate governance.

The American people have paid (and will pay) a steep price (far
above the latest 17+ billion), both in their taxes and other
losses, for this knowledge. If it can't be learned what to do,
at least there should be considerable knowledge gained about what
not to do.

As several posters have observed "one definition of insanity is
repeating the same actions and expecting a different outcome."
The American people including the taxpayers, investors, and
employees all deserve better than this.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

"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

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?


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

"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

On Dec 21, 2:20*pm, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
"F. George McDuffee" wrote in messagenews:cp7tk411legdcekace00gv61b9qeh0od1s@4ax .com...





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.

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Dec 21, 2:20 pm, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
"F. George McDuffee" wrote in
messagenews:cp7tk411legdcekace00gv61b9qeh0od1s@4ax .com...





On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:35:14 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:


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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Correct...Bush doesn't want to be remembered for being the President
who destroyed the car companies."

Bush has stated that failure to keep the Big Three open with a bit of cash
would mean that the Republican Party will end up being remembered a the
party of Herbert Hoover forever. He also said that if the Congress wouldn't
act, he would, and in so doing would provide the Senators from Toyota the
cover they needed to coddle their principal contributors without having to
suck it up and do the right thing by those that voted for them. It really is
that simple.
100 percent political posturing.

JC

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.

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...
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


Would you prefer it if we let the companies go bankrupt and throw a million
people out of work? Then when they all apply for unemployment compensation,
which the taxpayers pay for anyway, the cost will be ten times higher. Don't
you understand that the cost of the bailout is a lot less than it'll cost if
those companies go under? Sorry, that was a dumb question. If you understood
it would cost far more to let them go bankrupt than to bail them out you
would never have posted what you did. Never mind.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...
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


Would you prefer it if we let the companies go bankrupt and throw a
million
people out of work? Then when they all apply for unemployment
compensation,
which the taxpayers pay for anyway, the cost will be ten times higher.
Don't
you understand that the cost of the bailout is a lot less than it'll cost
if
those companies go under? Sorry, that was a dumb question. If you
understood
it would cost far more to let them go bankrupt than to bail them out you
would never have posted what you did. Never mind.

Hawke



A bailout just gives them license to keep doing what they want, perfect
blackmail.

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:35:14 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:


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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Correct...Bush doesn't want to be remembered for being the President
who destroyed the car companies."

Bush has stated that failure to keep the Big Three open with a bit of cash
would mean that the Republican Party will end up being remembered a the
party of Herbert Hoover forever. He also said that if the Congress
wouldn't
act, he would, and in so doing would provide the Senators from Toyota the
cover they needed to coddle their principal contributors without having to
suck it up and do the right thing by those that voted for them. It really
is
that simple.
100 percent political posturing.

JC


Yes, there is some political posturing, that's true but that's not all there
is to it as you are saying. The fact still remains there is a good reason
why Bush is coming up with the money to keep the "Big 3" afloat.
Unemployment is going through the roof right now. In California it's over
8.4%. If a million people lose their jobs all at once because the auto
makers and lots of related businesses all fail that is going to send
unemployment through the roof. That is a scenario no one wants to see
happen. If it did happen the cost would be gigantic. So, while there may be
some reasons for doing this bailout that are political the main reason is
that not doing it is just plain unacceptable to any administration. The
irony of the situation is that for once Bush is making the right decision.
Of course he didn't want to, but the circumstances are forcing to do what's
right. Now that's funny. Too bad it couldn't have happened before.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

Would you prefer it if we let the companies go bankrupt and throw a
million
people out of work? Then when they all apply for unemployment
compensation,
which the taxpayers pay for anyway, the cost will be ten times higher.
Don't
you understand that the cost of the bailout is a lot less than it'll cost
if
those companies go under? Sorry, that was a dumb question. If you
understood
it would cost far more to let them go bankrupt than to bail them out you
would never have posted what you did. Never mind.

Hawke

Why does it have to be all or nothing? Chrysler is suspending production
for a month. The law of supply and demand. They are making more vehicles
(or the wrong type) than their is a demand for, they need to reduce the
supply, not be bailed out with taxpayer money. The plant I work at,
Continental Tire, is cutting back on production. It hurts my income but
it's better than having taxpayers bail us out.

I feel like if the big 3 wanted to, they should be able to make cars as good
as any Japanese or German auto manufacturers. I need reliable and
economical transportation so I don't have much of a choice from the big 3.
It isn't like they made cars run on water before putting too many eggs in
the basket of the gas guzzling SUV's and the like. The point is that they
got themselves in the mess and want taxpayer money to bail them out. If
they had put their efforts into making reliable fuel efficient autos I
wouldn't have to buy foreign cars.

An alternative to the bail out or bankruptcy could be to shut down one week
per month or something like that. Or maybe it would just be to cut out the
overtime, reduce production and don't cover people on vacations. Personally
I'd like to see the big 3 get some compacts and sub-compacts in the top 10
of reliable and economical transportation.

To answer your question, I think the bail out is better than bankruptcy but
maybe that isn't the only choices.

RogerN

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

Would you prefer it if we let the companies go bankrupt and throw a
million
people out of work? Then when they all apply for unemployment
compensation,
which the taxpayers pay for anyway, the cost will be ten times higher.
Don't
you understand that the cost of the bailout is a lot less than it'll cost
if
those companies go under? Sorry, that was a dumb question. If you
understood
it would cost far more to let them go bankrupt than to bail them out you
would never have posted what you did. Never mind.

Hawke

Can you spot any flaws in your logic here? If the big 3 would shut down,
where would their business go? Other automakers would have an increase in
demand, therefore they would have job openings. I don't want Chrysler,
Ford, or GM to go under but I would like to see them make automobiles that
there is a demand for. So what would the bottom line be? How many people
would be on unemployment after the business went to other automakers?
Around here the maximum unemployment I can get is $511 per week for a
maximum of 26 weeks. If one million people got the maximum unemployment for
6 months, that's a little over 13 billion dollars (worst case, all losing
jobs, no one getting jobs). So how is the cost of the bailout a lot less?

RogerN