For openers, I am not a Michael Moore fan. In fact, I can't stand the
opportunistic self-promoter.
BUT.. fair is fair and he does make a point here that kinda makes sense.
The topic is close to me as I have contact with a lot of people from the
automotive industry. Small tool & die guys and one big upholstery shop.
When the big 3 go down, the ****-storm will roll across the border into
Canuckistan as there really is no border because AutoPact and NAFTA.

A big part of me thinks they should just collapse just like any other
****-poorly managed company. In this case the consequences would be just
too ginormous to even contemplate.

The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a lesson,
but so does the UAW. Let the blames begin!

No free lunch.

r

Amen,

cm


"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
For openers, I am not a Michael Moore fan. In fact, I can't stand the
opportunistic self-promoter.
BUT.. fair is fair and he does make a point here that kinda makes sense.
The topic is close to me as I have contact with a lot of people from the
automotive industry. Small tool & die guys and one big upholstery shop.
When the big 3 go down, the ****-storm will roll across the border into
Canuckistan as there really is no border because AutoPact and NAFTA.

A big part of me thinks they should just collapse just like any other
****-poorly managed company. In this case the consequences would be just
too ginormous to even contemplate.

The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a lesson,
but so does the UAW. Let the blames begin!

No free lunch.

r

cm wrote:
Amen,

cm


"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
For openers, I am not a Michael Moore fan. In fact, I can't stand
the
opportunistic self-promoter.
BUT.. fair is fair and he does make a point here that kinda makes
sense. The topic is close to me as I have contact with a lot of
people from the automotive industry. Small tool & die guys and one
big upholstery shop. When the big 3 go down, the ****-storm will
roll across the border into Canuckistan as there really is no
border
because AutoPact and NAFTA.

A big part of me thinks they should just collapse just like any
other
****-poorly managed company. In this case the consequences would be
just too ginormous to even contemplate.

The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a
lesson, but so does the UAW. Let the blames begin!

No free lunch.

r

Typical liberalism--unions demand contracts that make the company
noncompetitive, and the goverment passes laws that force them to make
products that they have to sell below cost, and then when it all goes
sour, the company's mismanaged.

Would serve us all right if the people who had to try to keep a
company afloat with all this crap being forced on them took their ball
and went home.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Robatoy" wrote in message
The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a lesson,

Absolutely. Included in that lesson should be a sizable contingent of CEO's
and every other person in the companies with golden parachutes and ludicrous
$$$ plus salaries.

but so does the UAW. Let the blames begin!

Yeah, I've got a problem with unions too. I was reading a number of comments
by the general public, many of them university grads making less than these
auto workers. The vast majority commented on how auto workers with basically
minimal education and essentially qualified to do one job only were making
$30 an hour and were not willing to take any part of a pay cut to save their
jobs. That's greed. There's been times in my life where I'd have happily
given up 10% of my wages to save my job. Not these people.

The only downside to letting the auto makers take a big hit is what it will
cost all the other small businesses and people down the road who thrive on
the money that the auto workers spend.

Upscale wrote:

There's been times in my life where I'd have happily given up 10% of
my wages to save my job.

On the local news this past weekend: About 80% of Iowans surveyed said
they'd be willing to take a pay cut in order to save the job of the
person sitting /next/ to them...

....and Iowa wages are already sub-par.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
Upscale wrote:

There's been times in my life where I'd have happily given up 10% of
my wages to save my job.

On the local news this past weekend: About 80% of Iowans surveyed said
they'd be willing to take a pay cut in order to save the job of the person
sitting /next/ to them...


That's my problem with the (modern) unions. It's no longer about supporting
the workers, it's about maintaining the union... sometimes at the expense
of the workers!

Ed

On Dec 15, 10:35*am, "Ed Edelenbos" wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message

...

Upscale wrote:

There's been times in my life where I'd have happily given up 10% of
my wages to save my job.

On the local news this past weekend: About 80% of Iowans surveyed said
they'd be willing to take a pay cut in order to save the job of the person
sitting /next/ to them...

That's my problem with the (modern) unions. *It's no longer about supporting
the workers, it's about maintaining the union... *sometimes at the expense
of the workers!

Ed

When it comes to unions, there is no doubt that they were needed at
one time to put a stop to sending mine-workers into unsafe mines and
also to stop railroad barons from working their labourers to death
without adequate pay..... then again, the argument exists that those
barons would do that again if given the chance. And yet, the plants
operated by Toyota and Honda seem to be doing just fine...here in
Ontario at least. They're talking a few lay-offs even there

Robatoy wrote:

On Dec 15, 10:35Â*am, "Ed Edelenbos" wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message

...

Upscale wrote:

There's been times in my life where I'd have happily given up 10% of
my wages to save my job.

On the local news this past weekend: About 80% of Iowans surveyed said
they'd be willing to take a pay cut in order to save the job of the
person sitting /next/ to them...

That's my problem with the (modern) unions. Â*It's no longer about
supporting the workers, it's about maintaining the union... Â*sometimes at
the expense of the workers!

Ed

When it comes to unions, there is no doubt that they were needed at
one time to put a stop to sending mine-workers into unsafe mines and
also to stop railroad barons from working their labourers to death
without adequate pay..... then again, the argument exists that those
barons would do that again if given the chance. And yet, the plants
operated by Toyota and Honda seem to be doing just fine...here in
Ontario at least. They're talking a few lay-offs even there

I live and work within a few miles of a Mercedes Benz plant, the UAW has for
years tried to unionize the plant, he UAW maintains an office in the area,
so far they have not been successful most of the workers realize that they
would be no better off.
It's sad but everyone that I have talked to that works there, will only say
that the money is good, not that they like there jobs, very little praise
for their jobs or lifestyle.

Basilisk

Ed Edelenbos wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
Upscale wrote:

There's been times in my life where I'd have happily given up 10% of
my wages to save my job.

On the local news this past weekend: About 80% of Iowans surveyed said
they'd be willing to take a pay cut in order to save the job of the
person sitting /next/ to them...

That's my problem with the (modern) unions. It's no longer about
supporting the workers, it's about maintaining the union... sometimes
at the expense of the workers!

Too often true. One possible remedy in this case might be to also
require reorganization of the UAW chapters into independent
(unaffiliated) plant unions, so that workers could retain the
protections and benefits of collective bargaining without a single union
having a strangle hold on such a large portion of the economy...

....just a thought.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Excellent, Dude.

It should never smell like bait.





tom




On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:56:02 -0600, Morris Dovey
wrote:

Ed Edelenbos wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
Upscale wrote:

There's been times in my life where I'd have happily given up 10% of
my wages to save my job.

On the local news this past weekend: About 80% of Iowans surveyed said
they'd be willing to take a pay cut in order to save the job of the
person sitting /next/ to them...

That's my problem with the (modern) unions. It's no longer about
supporting the workers, it's about maintaining the union... sometimes
at the expense of the workers!

Too often true. One possible remedy in this case might be to also
require reorganization of the UAW chapters into independent
(unaffiliated) plant unions, so that workers could retain the
protections and benefits of collective bargaining without a single union
having a strangle hold on such a large portion of the economy...

...just a thought.
Regards,

Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

On Dec 15, 9:56*am, Morris Dovey wrote:
Ed Edelenbos wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
.. .
Upscale wrote:

There's been times in my life where I'd have happily given up 10% of
my wages to save my job.

On the local news this past weekend: About 80% of Iowans surveyed said
they'd be willing to take a pay cut in order to save the job of the
person sitting /next/ to them...

That's my problem with the (modern) unions. *It's no longer about
supporting the workers, it's about maintaining the union... *sometimes
at the expense of the workers!

Too often true. One possible remedy in this case might be to also
require reorganization of the UAW chapters into independent
(unaffiliated) plant unions, so that workers could retain the
protections and benefits of collective bargaining without a single union
having a strangle hold on such a large portion of the economy...

...just a thought.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris, etal,
Don't get me started on unions, but: Time: late '60s-early '70s,
Jamestown, NY. Anyone remember an outfit called Art Metal? They were a
good sized, well known manufacturer of metal office furniture(desks,
filing cab's, etc) Sunk everything they could beg or borrow into a new
plant to replace the outmoded brick factory dating back to very early
1900's. New plant all on one floor, designed for better work flow,
etc. etc. When the plant was built and ready for them to move in, the
"union" decided that if the company had the money to build this new
facility, they should share it with the union. So, they went on
strike, and the company didn't have the cash flow to survive the
almost year long strike, they folded. I don't know how many jobs went
down the tubes, or how long the building sat empty before the Chamber
of Commerce, etc. finally enticed Cummins Engine to make it a new
production facility. Dam fools couldn't see past the end of their
noses far enough to realize they could be in a new higher production
facility that could return more profits that the union could then
profit from.
Nahmie

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:04:33 -0600, Morris Dovey wrote:

Upscale wrote:

There's been times in my life where I'd have happily given up 10% of
my wages to save my job.

On the local news this past weekend: About 80% of Iowans surveyed said
they'd be willing to take a pay cut in order to save the job of the
person sitting /next/ to them...

...and Iowa wages are already sub-par.

Morris.. Hate to bring a rain cloud over your sunny thought, but in my
experience, saying you'll take a pay cut and actually doing it are 2 different
things..
Sort of like saying that you'd die for someone and then rethinking it if the
choice is presented..


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

mac davis wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:04:33 -0600, Morris Dovey wrote:

Upscale wrote:

There's been times in my life where I'd have happily given up 10% of
my wages to save my job.
On the local news this past weekend: About 80% of Iowans surveyed said
they'd be willing to take a pay cut in order to save the job of the
person sitting /next/ to them...

...and Iowa wages are already sub-par.

Morris.. Hate to bring a rain cloud over your sunny thought, but in my
experience, saying you'll take a pay cut and actually doing it are 2 different
things..

Very true - but who's to say how many actually meant what they said?

Sort of like saying that you'd die for someone and then rethinking it if the
choice is presented...

Same deal - and of the people I knew who said they'd put their life on
the line, many did - and died honoring that commitment.

I don't think you make a convincing argument.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On Dec 15, 11:16*am, Morris Dovey wrote:
mac davis wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:04:33 -0600, Morris Dovey wrote:

Upscale wrote:

There's been times in my life where I'd have happily given up 10% of
my wages to save my job.
On the local news this past weekend: About 80% of Iowans surveyed said
they'd be willing to take a pay cut in order to save the job of the
person sitting /next/ to them...

...and Iowa wages are already sub-par.

Morris.. Hate to bring a rain cloud over your sunny thought, but in my
experience, saying you'll take a pay cut and actually doing it are 2 different
things..

Very true - but who's to say how many actually meant what they said?

Sort of like saying that you'd die for someone and then rethinking it if the
choice is presented...

Same deal - and of the people I knew who said they'd put their life on
the line, many did - and died honoring that commitment.

I don't think you make a convincing argument.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Many have died for people not even knowing who they were/are.
Those kind of people fit my definition of the word hero. Then again,
in my world there are no sports 'heroes'.
Even astronauts and people like them don't really fit the hero bill.
Mind you, standing beside a Mercury Redstone (a bit bigger than a
telephone pole) and trying to imagine what that must have been like.
To sit in a can, on top of a controlled explosion...and telling the
boys on the ground to go ahead and light the wick... that takes balls,
faith and a bit of crazy. I will have to think about that some more.

Upscale wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message
The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a lesson,

Absolutely. Included in that lesson should be a sizable contingent of CEO's
and every other person in the companies with golden parachutes and ludicrous
$$$ plus salaries.

If those executives worked for absolutely nothing - no base, no bonus,
no stock options - it would make NO difference in the earnings of the
companies in question. The P&L of manufacturing companies is
dominated by the cost of labor. But it's fun to hate people with
more money than you, eh?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
Upscale wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message
The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a lesson,

Absolutely. Included in that lesson should be a sizable contingent of
CEO's
and every other person in the companies with golden parachutes and
ludicrous
$$$ plus salaries.

If those executives worked for absolutely nothing - no base, no bonus,
no stock options - it would make NO difference in the earnings of the
companies in question. The P&L of manufacturing companies is
dominated by the cost of labor. But it's fun to hate people with
more money than you, eh?


You can look at that way but the fact that most CEO's have a golden
parachute there is no incentive to make a company perform better.

Leon wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
Upscale wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message
The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a lesson,
Absolutely. Included in that lesson should be a sizable contingent of
CEO's
and every other person in the companies with golden parachutes and
ludicrous
$$$ plus salaries.
If those executives worked for absolutely nothing - no base, no bonus,
no stock options - it would make NO difference in the earnings of the
companies in question. The P&L of manufacturing companies is
dominated by the cost of labor. But it's fun to hate people with
more money than you, eh?


You can look at that way but the fact that most CEO's have a golden
parachute there is no incentive to make a company perform better.


I am not "looking at it" in any particular way. Businesses exist
solely to make money for their owners. When they fail to make money,
we who own a piece of them (as most of us with retirement funds and/or
multual funds and/or ETF postions ... i.e., Most of the working
class), should be asking *why* they are not profitable, not flogging
the anti-Capitalist Marxism so popular with the new administration,
not to mention many of th the voices here on the Wreck.

The reason the Big 3 are in trouble financially has *nothing* to do
with executive compensation. It also has very little to do with the
quality of their cars or whether people like their products. In actual
fact, Detroit has never built better, more reliable cars that today
are easily on par with the best of Japan or Europe. (Despite what the
half wits in the media and those who believe them on their face say to
the contrary.) No, Detroit is in trouble because their labor costs are
out of control, and the structure of their bargaining unit labor deals
is flatly insane. If you want to blame the executives for something,
blame them for not standing down the sleazy, greedy union leadership
and membership and forcing them to live in the real world.

Your or my lack of wealth is not caused by someone else having wealth.
This is a lie to its foundations, but it is subtly peddled as fact
by misbegotten threads like this. I do not begrudge anyone any amount
of wealth so long as they did not steal or defraud to get it. The
reason the corporate CEOs get these big exit packages isn't that
hard to figure out:

1) There are few people in the world with the experience and brains
to run a $100+ Billion company. Constrained supply creates high
salaries and packages.

2) It used to be that execs made most of their money on stock options.
Then the 1990s came along and people saw these options vault into
the stratosphere in value - mostly in the IT sector. The usual
class warrior crybabies started whining about "execessive CEO pay"
and many companies stopped handing out options and paid higher
salaries instead. This is tragic, as stock options and grants
are the best way I know to incent a leader to make the company grow.

3) It is the Board Of Directors that sets executive compensation. The
BOD answers to the stockholders. Guess what? Most of the stockholders
are actually fine with the current executive comp. If they were not,
they'd stage a stockholder revolt and throw out the incumbent board
and executives. The stockholders, BTW, are mostly folks like us -
individuals who own a piece of these big companies via some kind
of fund or aggregate investment vehicle. If everyone is so upset
about executive comp, why do they not rise up and do something
about it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:

You can look at that way but the fact that most CEO's have a golden
parachute there is no incentive to make a company perform better.


I am not "looking at it" in any particular way. Businesses exist
solely to make money for their owners. When they fail to make money,
we who own a piece of them (as most of us with retirement funds and/or
multual funds and/or ETF postions ... i.e., Most of the working
class), should be asking *why* they are not profitable, not flogging
the anti-Capitalist Marxism so popular with the new administration,
not to mention many of th the voices here on the Wreck.

Not profitable because of **** poor management and decision making.



The reason the Big 3 are in trouble financially has *nothing* to do
with executive compensation.

Yeah, it kinda does. Had they had to balls to run a business like a
business should be run there would be fewer problems.



It also has very little to do with the
quality of their cars or whether people like their products.

And that is BS also. Having made my living selling GM products and retired
at 40 I can assure you that the quality of the competition blows away the
Big 3 quality.

In actual
fact, Detroit has never built better, more reliable cars that today
are easily on par with the best of Japan or Europe.

Partially true, they have never built better, a few of their vehicles are on
par but as a whole, still way behind.


(Despite what the
half wits in the media and those who believe them on their face say to
the contrary.) No, Detroit is in trouble because their labor costs are
out of control, and the structure of their bargaining unit labor deals
is flatly insane. If you want to blame the executives for something,
blame them for not standing down the sleazy, greedy union leadership
and membership and forcing them to live in the real world.

Well that "is" what I am blaming the executives for, **** poor management
and no balls.



Your or my lack of wealth is not caused by someone else having wealth.
This is a lie to its foundations, but it is subtly peddled as fact
by misbegotten threads like this. I do not begrudge anyone any amount
of wealth so long as they did not steal or defraud to get it. The
reason the corporate CEOs get these big exit packages isn't that
hard to figure out:

1) There are few people in the world with the experience and brains
to run a $100+ Billion company. Constrained supply creates high
salaries and packages.

Correct and beggs the question why we are paying these inept CEO's these
large salaries and give them golden parachures. They absolutely do not
qualify to run these companies or draw that kind of salary.


2) It used to be that execs made most of their money on stock options.
Then the 1990s came along and people saw these options vault into
the stratosphere in value - mostly in the IT sector. The usual
class warrior crybabies started whining about "execessive CEO pay"
and many companies stopped handing out options and paid higher
salaries instead. This is tragic, as stock options and grants
are the best way I know to incent a leader to make the company grow.

And back then we had decent execs, pay plans these days attract the rif
raff.


3) It is the Board Of Directors that sets executive compensation. The
BOD answers to the stockholders. Guess what? Most of the stockholders
are actually fine with the current executive comp. If they were not,
they'd stage a stockholder revolt and throw out the incumbent board
and executives.

Apparently this is not true, there has been no revolt. Having a sizeable of
money in the market for the last 15 years, my little proportion has little
influnce on their decision making.


The stockholders, BTW, are mostly folks like us -
individuals who own a piece of these big companies via some kind
of fund or aggregate investment vehicle. If everyone is so upset
about executive comp, why do they not rise up and do something
about it?

Because we each probably own less than .00001% of the total shares and that
does not have much pull with the decision makers.

On Dec 15, 2:40*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

The reason the Big 3 are in trouble financially has *nothing* to do
with executive compensation. It also has very little to do with the
quality of their cars or whether people like their products. In actual
fact, Detroit has never built better, more reliable cars that today
are easily on par with the best of Japan or Europe. (Despite what the
half wits in the media and those who believe them on their face say to
the contrary.)

Do you include the folks at Consumer Reports in with those half-wits?
Oh - I'm cutting the best hand-cut dovetails I've ever cut, so I
should be able to command respect (and prices) like Garrett Hack?

In most things I agree with you, but this jumped out at me as a little
bit ludicrous.

JP

On Dec 15, 2:05*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Upscale wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message
The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a lesson,

Absolutely. Included in that lesson should be a sizable contingent of CEO's
and every other person in the companies with golden parachutes and ludicrous
$$$ plus salaries.

If those executives worked for absolutely nothing - no base, no bonus,
no stock options - it would make NO difference in the earnings of the
companies in question. *The P&L of manufacturing companies is
dominated by the cost of labor. *But it's fun to hate people with
more money than you, eh?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
Tim Daneliuk * *
PGP Key: * * * *http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Are you EVER going to say something constructive without ****ting on
somebody?
Will you EVER stop hiding behind those well-practised and well-honed
insults of yours?

You can't be nice, can you...?!

Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 15, 2:05 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Upscale wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message
The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a lesson,
Absolutely. Included in that lesson should be a sizable contingent of CEO's
and every other person in the companies with golden parachutes and ludicrous
$$$ plus salaries.
If those executives worked for absolutely nothing - no base, no bonus,
no stock options - it would make NO difference in the earnings of the
companies in question. The P&L of manufacturing companies is
dominated by the cost of labor. But it's fun to hate people with
more money than you, eh?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Are you EVER going to say something constructive without ****ting on
somebody?
Will you EVER stop hiding behind those well-practised and well-honed
insults of yours?

You can't be nice, can you...?!

I cited a fact - That CEO compensation is trivial in the calculation
of manufacturing companies' P&L.

Then I cited an opinion - That statements like:

The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a lesson,

Are a sign of class envy. This is based on Upscale's consistent pattern
of ideation here, not drawn out of thin air. (A consistent pattern, BTW,
that he is unwilling to be held accountable for insofar as he hides
behind an anonymous email identity.)

Which of these are an insult? Is it insulting to call someone out for
envying other people?

I also apologize that you find "well-practised and well-honed" language
offensive. When I grew up, mastery of language was considered a
virtue not a vice or a debating tactic. I'm sorry it was apparently
not so for you.

I am consistently "nice". I have strong opinions, and some explication
of fact. What I do not do is curse at people and use vulgar invective
when I disagree with folks. This is not a claim you can make. Methinks
we have a beam/mote problem between you and me (respectively).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
Are a sign of class envy. This is based on Upscale's consistent pattern
of ideation here, not drawn out of thin air. (A consistent pattern, BTW,
that he is unwilling to be held accountable for insofar as he hides
behind an anonymous email identity.)

My email address is a working and easily verifiable one. If you were nearly
as smart as you think you are, then you'd have done a search on it and come
up with my name a long time ago. Why don't I reveal it to you? Because it
irritates you that I don't. Ok with that Asshole? A siginificant number of
people here use an alias. So what? You're still and asshole.

Which of these are an insult?

Every paragraph you write has an insult or a criticism of some sort.

I also apologize that you find "well-practised and well-honed" language
offensive. When I grew up, mastery of language was considered a
virtue not a vice or a debating tactic. I'm sorry it was apparently
not so for you.

There's another insult. You don't have any virtue. You're a selfish, greedy,
consistent liar who has no conscious regard for anyone else except yourself.
There's absolutely no virtue in that.

I am consistently "nice". I have strong opinions, and some explication
of fact. What I do not do is curse at people and use vulgar invective

Maybe not you dumb ****, but you insult people just the same. Just because
you trot out a few chosen phrases and criticise someone without swearing
puts you up on a pedestal as far as you're concerned.

You are an asshole of the first degree. Every time someone calls you on
something, you bring out some UNVERIFIABLE answer. Care for some examples?

You were accused of prejudice at one point. You trotted out the fact that
you not only had a black relative, but a black relative that was darker than
most. - UNVERIFIABLE

When accused of not contributing to charity, you claimed that you not only
donated to charity, but you donated anonymously, the ultimate in
unselfishness. - UNVERIFIABLE

You've just claimed to have been involved and also run several companies.
How about the name of those companies? If you did as good a job as you're
about to claim, then there's no harm in letting people know those company
names so at least once someone can verify some of your claims. You won't
though, because you can't. You're a veteran liar with Doug Miller as your
cowardly running mate.

That fact is that ALL YOU DO is talk without ever offering ANY type of
substance. You're an asshole of the first degree and I'm perfectly happy to
swear at you whenever I feel like it.

GOT THAT **** FACE?

I have always felt Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell would make a great
couple. But I have heard two wrongs don't make a right!

cm


"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
For openers, I am not a Michael Moore fan. In fact, I can't stand the
opportunistic self-promoter.
BUT.. fair is fair and he does make a point here that kinda makes sense.
The topic is close to me as I have contact with a lot of people from the
automotive industry. Small tool & die guys and one big upholstery shop.
When the big 3 go down, the ****-storm will roll across the border into
Canuckistan as there really is no border because AutoPact and NAFTA.

A big part of me thinks they should just collapse just like any other
****-poorly managed company. In this case the consequences would be just
too ginormous to even contemplate.

The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a lesson,
but so does the UAW. Let the blames begin!

No free lunch.

r

On Dec 15, 10:45*am, "cm" wrote:
I have always felt Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell would make a great
couple. But I have heard two wrongs don't make a right!



WHOA, dude.... can you even imagine what their kids would be like?

*shudder*

"cm" wrote in message
...
I have always felt Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell would make a great
couple. But I have heard two wrongs don't make a right!


I wonder which one would be on top!

Leon wrote:


"cm" wrote in message
...
I have always felt Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell would make a great
couple. But I have heard two wrongs don't make a right!


I wonder which one would be on top!

You are a sick man.

/me applies brain scrub
--
Froz...

"Leon" suggests a horrendous picture!

"cm" wrote in message
...
I have always felt Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell would make a great
couple. But I have heard two wrongs don't make a right!


I wonder which one would be on top!
Stop that Leon! I just ate.

Trying hard to keep it down.

My wife, who is usually pretty level headed, just hates Rosie. She gets very
irate if she appears on the TV screen.

"Lee Michaels" wrote in message
...

"Leon" suggests a horrendous picture!

"cm" wrote in message
...
I have always felt Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell would make a great
couple. But I have heard two wrongs don't make a right!


I wonder which one would be on top!
Stop that Leon! I just ate.

Trying hard to keep it down.

My wife, who is usually pretty level headed, just hates Rosie. She gets
very irate if she appears on the TV screen.

With very few exceptions I don't want to hear or care what a celebrity has
to say about anything that requires any thought. Most did good to get out
of high school and probably less than 10% started college. I'd say maybe 2%
that started college got a degree.

cm wrote:

I have always felt Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell would make a great
couple. But I have heard two wrongs don't make a right!

cm


Please, there are some mental images that are too horrible to contemplate.



"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
For openers, I am not a Michael Moore fan. In fact, I can't stand the
opportunistic self-promoter.
BUT.. fair is fair and he does make a point here that kinda makes sense.
The topic is close to me as I have contact with a lot of people from the
automotive industry. Small tool & die guys and one big upholstery shop.
When the big 3 go down, the ****-storm will roll across the border into
Canuckistan as there really is no border because AutoPact and NAFTA.

A big part of me thinks they should just collapse just like any other
****-poorly managed company. In this case the consequences would be just
too ginormous to even contemplate.

The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a lesson,
but so does the UAW. Let the blames begin!

No free lunch.

r

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
For openers, I am not a Michael Moore fan. In fact, I can't stand the
opportunistic self-promoter.
BUT.. fair is fair and he does make a point here that kinda makes sense.
The topic is close to me as I have contact with a lot of people from the
automotive industry. Small tool & die guys and one big upholstery shop.
When the big 3 go down, the ****-storm will roll across the border into
Canuckistan as there really is no border because AutoPact and NAFTA.

A big part of me thinks they should just collapse just like any other
****-poorly managed company. In this case the consequences would be just
too ginormous to even contemplate.

The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a lesson,
but so does the UAW. Let the blames begin!

No free lunch.

r

For the most part, the Big 3 have already fallen, they have not exactly been
in the game for the last 4 or 5 years. They all talk like there will be a
huge problem if they go down. Suppliers will simply have to find new
customers as they probably already have or should have. The writing has
been on the wall for several now.

On Dec 15, 11:10 am, "Leon" wrote:

They all talk like there will be a
huge problem if they go down. Suppliers will simply have to find new
customers as they probably already have or should have. The writing has
been on the wall for several now.

As a kid, I used to study and read about American businesses and how
they were formed starting with the late 1890s.

Shakespeare couldn't write better stories of greed, deception,
generosity, back stabbing, immense wealth, altruism, and outright
immoral activities. Many things that were done in business 100+ years
weren't illegal here simply because no one thought they needed a law
for people to behave.

Set aside outright thievery (mostly by management!!), business has
been running its course in a very steady way here in the USA. But
due to its age, there are some old business practices that have hung
around as traditions, probably because of the age of the company. Two
of these traditions carried over with the Big Three today are arrogant
management, and immutable labor demands.

As you say Leon, the writing has been on the wall for many years now,
probably about 25 or so. I remember reading many serious
dissertations concerning the demise of the Big Three as early as the
80s. Poor quality cars, silly labor costs, bad management, etc.,
etc., created a monster cancer that has slowly killed the industry.

Even protectionist taxes couldn't kill the foreign cars or their
makers. They invested billions here in our own country to build
better cars here with our own labor forces at a better price. They
beat us at our own game with quality, design, pricing, reliability,
and most importantly a long term business model.

Compare that the first meeting of the Big Three with the Senators to
beg for money a month or so ago (when they flew up to meet in their
private jets to be greeted by private limos) revealed they literally
had no written, no verbal, or even an objective for a plan that would
save them. They simply wanted the money to pay bills, base on "or
else the public would all pay for this".

I remember sitting in my office reading The WSM in the late 80s when
the housing market was crashing, as well as the commercial
construction market. My friends were going out of business because
the economy had slowed so much and they had built companies they
couldn't sustain. Some lost everything. I kept this in mind while I
was reading that the UAW wouldn't budge on the issue of "cross
training".

GM wanted the bumper guy to be able to put on fenders, for which he
would be trained. The fender guy would be cross trained as well. The
cross training gave an automatic raise to each. At no time were the
cross trained folks to be working cross platforms on the same day. If
you started with bumpers, you stayed with bumpers for your shift.

The union said "no". If we need more workers, you must hire more
workers. They would not budge. GM caved. It resulted in double
digit growth of the unionized labor force.

The biggest sticking point in this last round of negotiations seems to
be something that is incredulous to me. The union will not come off
their wage plan, nor will they accept layoffs. The union rep said
that if either of those happen, they will strike. No matter how much
money we throw at the car makers, without reduction of costs, they
won't make it. And if they strike.... game over.

How could you give any of them money that has management that has no
hard, written plan to reverse their current woes, and a labor force
that feels like they shouldn't put anything in the pot for the company
to survive?

Remember, they are begging for money FROM US. Would anyone here let
your city government bail out a construction company that used archaic
equipment, had no cash reserves (just enough for management bonuses,
though) an overpaid labor force for the market and no guaranteed
projects on the books? Worse, no plan for recovery?

Together with management the unions are just as guilty in having bled
the domestic care industry dry.

The recent conduct of all sides, management, union and the Congress
show they have learned nothing.

In each case, they deserve nothing. Certainly none of my tax money.
I would rather see the money spent on ALL the people, not just car
industry people.

Let 'em all sink. They won't go away. Some of the business
economists are settling on the number of 30%. That number represents
the percentage of the cost to do business if they go through
bankruptcy reorganization.

Sounds good to me!

Robert

wrote in message
...
On Dec 15, 11:10 am, "Leon" wrote:
Snip



As you say Leon, the writing has been on the wall for many years now,
probably about 25 or so. I remember reading many serious
dissertations concerning the demise of the Big Three as early as the
80s. Poor quality cars, silly labor costs, bad management, etc.,
etc., created a monster cancer that has slowly killed the industry.


I still remember like it was yesterday working for the Oldsmobile dealer. I
was the Service Sales Manager at the time when Oldsmobile was probably the
most arrogant. Our dealership had won the Oldsmobile Service Supremacy
award. This was based mostly on customer satisfaction with the service
performed. Oldsmobile steered many customers our way because the other 4
dealers could not fix reoccurring warranty problems. Because we did more
warranty work "proportionally" in service than the other dealerships we
automatically had 10-15% of our warranty claims kick back to us. The
reason, we had more warranty claims than was our share. Never mind the fact
that the cars did have problems and we were the only ones that could do a
repair that lasted.





Even protectionist taxes couldn't kill the foreign cars or their
makers. They invested billions here in our own country to build
better cars here with our own labor forces at a better price. They
beat us at our own game with quality, design, pricing, reliability,
and most importantly a long term business model.

And the foreigh auto makers are making more money with the added taxes. If
the Big 3 workers are worth a damn they should not have a problem finding
jobs elsewhere but they are probably going to be paid a wage more in line
with what they are actually worth. Right now if they are layed off they get
up to 95% continued salary for 2 years.



Compare that the first meeting of the Big Three with the Senators to
beg for money a month or so ago (when they flew up to meet in their
private jets to be greeted by private limos) revealed they literally
had no written, no verbal, or even an objective for a plan that would
save them. They simply wanted the money to pay bills, base on "or
else the public would all pay for this".

The fools showed their hand right off the bat. You know if the leader of a
company is wasteful and ignorant the rest of the company is probably in the
same shape.

On Dec 15, 1:09*pm, "Leon" wrote:


The fools showed their hand right off the bat. *You know if the leader of a
company is wasteful and ignorant the rest of the company is probably in the
same shape.

Well said.

And on another note, FINALLY someone put p3en to paper to figure
out the real cost of the bailout of GM alone. The other two were left
out.

Our "throw money at it" Congress didn't come up the numbers. GM
didn't come up with the numbers. But one of GM's biggest creditor
did, and it is twice the number asked for by all the BT combined. And
most of it is simply for debt service.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081215/bs_nm/
us_generalmotors_loan_bankofamerica

So if Congress gives them all just 14 B, how will that fix anything?
BOA actually stepped in only as a means to protect their own interest
or we would never really know the real cost for GM.

I am wondering what it will cost to bail out all of them... I don't
believe there is a bottom to this this, especially if we wind up with
all three on deck with their hands out.

And now that the additional (on top of the TARP 700 B) stimulus/
bailout money is approaching an additional TRILLION before stewardship
of the country has even changed hands, I am wondering myself when all
of this will stop.

Robert







Robert

On Dec 15, 2:08*pm, "
wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081215/bs_nm/
us_generalmotors_loan_bankofamerica

Munged. Goin' back to tinyurl.

If you are suspicious of the link, don't click it.

http://tinyurl.com/6q6rka

Robert

wrote in message
...
On Dec 15, 1:09 pm, "Leon" wrote:




http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081215/bs_nm/
us_generalmotors_loan_bankofamerica

So if Congress gives them all just 14 B, how will that fix anything?
BOA actually stepped in only as a means to protect their own interest
or we would never really know the real cost for GM.

I am wondering what it will cost to bail out all of them... I don't
believe there is a bottom to this this, especially if we wind up with
all three on deck with their hands out.

And now that the additional (on top of the TARP 700 B) stimulus/
bailout money is approaching an additional TRILLION before stewardship
of the country has even changed hands, I am wondering myself when all
of this will stop.

U

I'm afraid to say that a majority of the Big 3 workers are not totally
unlike the majority of the people that bought houses that were way beyond
their pay grade. It all catches up with you sooner or later. Later has
arrived.

wrote:

I remember reading many serious dissertations concerning the demise
of the Big Three as early as the 80s.

It wasn't news even then. In the early 70's the UAW managed a 30%
across-the-board increase for its members and the auto-makers made the
decision to just pass the cost increase on to purchasers.

[ Hmm - anyone else remember how GM tried to offset part of the
increased costs by using cheaper steel? And how a few years later it was
hard to find a Chevy pickup without rusted-out fenders?

And I can remember that earlier Ford had been proud of how the unibody
construction of the Falcon allowed selling sedans for less than $2000,
and I rember hearing how the UAW hadn't liked the unibody approach
because it reduced labor content of the vehicle... ]

Briefly, the auto workers benefited - but by the time everyone else's
income had adjusted to the inflated cost of living (and purchase of
automobiles was a significant component of that inflation), the auto
workers were right back where they'd started.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

wrote

Shakespeare couldn't write better stories of greed, deception,
generosity, back stabbing, immense wealth, altruism, and outright
immoral activities. Many things that were done in business 100+ years
weren't illegal here simply because no one thought they needed a law
for people to behave.

Hell, Bubba ... just last Friday morning, probably the "most well known",
"most respected", "most revered" member of the Wall Street financial
community, a man held in the highest regard and esteem by hundreds of
thousands of the smartest, savviest, richest folks in the world, a founder
of NASDAQ and one its past Chairman ...

..... turned out to be nothing but, a THIEF!

Now, just what does that say about those not so "well respected", "revered",
etc, eh? About the only thing good about it, on the surface, is that it is
the elite who got taken.

Problem is, it will more than likely end up doing a superb job finally
proving the "domino theory".

Damn, damn! ... I can't believe I did that!! I replied to a thread with
the words "Michael Moore" in the header ... now I'm going to go take a ****
just to get the stink off ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Dec 15, 3:52*pm, "Swingman" wrote:


Damn, damn! ... I can't believe I did that!! *I replied to a thread with
the words "Michael Moore" in the header ... now I'm going to go take a ****
just to get the stink off ...

Monofilament, my friend.

--www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Dec 15, 2:52*pm, "Swingman" wrote:

Hell, Bubba ... just last Friday morning, probably the "most well known",
"most respected", "most revered" member of the Wall Street financial
community, a man held in the highest regard and esteem by hundreds of
thousands of the smartest, savviest, richest folks in the world, a founder
of NASDAQ and one its past Chairman ...

.... turned out to be nothing but, a THIEF!

They need to bring him down here to Texas for the trial. After the
Enron and other scandals, we might get the death penalty for his sorry
ass.

He sure deserves it. How does one man even control 50 billion dollars
by himself? I read a lot about this, and apparently he has had this
under his hat as his own little project for almost 40 years.

I'll bet if the market had held, he would still be going strong.

Sounds to me like it's time to fire up old Sparky.

Robert

wrote:

Sounds to me like it's time to fire up old Sparky.

Having been in an execution chamber, standing within 5 ft of the
electric chair used by the State of Ohio, listening to a description
of the process being given by a penitentiary employee, had a profound
effect on me as a 13 year old.

To this day, I could not vote for the death penalty.

Having said that, I am convinced that life in prison without the
possibility of parole, is not only less expensive, but extracts a
greater penalty than execution.

Given the choice of living the rest of your life in solitary
confinement or perhaps sharing a jail cell having less that 70 sq ft
with another human being or being executed, which would you choose?

Think about it.

Lew