OT GM bailout

"Larry L" wrote in
:

One of the great things about ROFF is that I can spout off about
things I don't know much about .... and fit right in G


I, personally, don't want to see GM 'bailed out' via my money. Let
'em go BK and restructure. Their business model is dead ... bury the
damn corpse, don't keep it on a heart lung machine pretending it's
still alive


YOMV



If you think a tax increase on those making more than $250K will damper
the economy, wait until 10% more of American jobs start getting squishy.

This is probably the wrong time to be letting them go. Even if we can
keep them viable for 18 more months, it might well be worth it.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Larry L wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote
However, the moment the government puts one penny of my tax dollar
into that mess I want a clean sweep. That means fire every damn
executive in the company, tear up the union contracts, void all
deals with suppliers, tell the shareholders "tough ****, you got
nothin'",

Well, I don't really know much about bankruptcy ( and don't understand what
I know ;-) but I've been given the impression that it would, indeed, force
such changes .... whereas just handing them money wouldn't

My point was that Congress shouldn't just hand them the money but
mandate an actual government takeover. With Chapter 11 bankruptcy
the same old nitwits would be in charge of the reorganization and
it'll take an act of Congress to tear up the union contracts.

The only argument against bankruptcy ( like many airlines have ) seems to be
that buyers would be afraid to buy because of uncertainty about future
service/ parts/ and such. To my mind, I'd far prefer to buy from a
trimmed, re-structured, company than one that will use the bailout up in a
couple months and be looking for more, instead of really changing. A
healthy company is far more likely to be there in 15years to supply parts
than a temporarily bailed out one ... IMO


I'm NOT saying "let 'em fail" .... I am saying "let 'em take the routes
available in the system to fix their problems"

That's a good argument, but I don't think the system is capable
of handling such an enormous problem.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
Larry L wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote
However, the moment the government puts one penny of my tax dollar
into that mess I want a clean sweep. That means fire every damn
executive in the company, tear up the union contracts, void all
deals with suppliers, tell the shareholders "tough ****, you got
nothin'",

Well, I don't really know much about bankruptcy ( and don't understand
what I know ;-) but I've been given the impression that it would, indeed,
force such changes .... whereas just handing them money wouldn't

My point was that Congress shouldn't just hand them the money but
mandate an actual government takeover. With Chapter 11 bankruptcy
the same old nitwits would be in charge of the reorganization and
it'll take an act of Congress to tear up the union contracts.

The only argument against bankruptcy ( like many airlines have ) seems to
be that buyers would be afraid to buy because of uncertainty about future
service/ parts/ and such. To my mind, I'd far prefer to buy from a
trimmed, re-structured, company than one that will use the bailout up in
a couple months and be looking for more, instead of really changing. A
healthy company is far more likely to be there in 15years to supply parts
than a temporarily bailed out one ... IMO


I'm NOT saying "let 'em fail" .... I am saying "let 'em take the routes
available in the system to fix their problems"

That's a good argument, but I don't think the system is capable
of handling such an enormous problem.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Chapter 11 would put the judge in charge. He can tear up the union
contracts, he can toss management. We are not going to lose 10% of the
country's jobs. Either they will survive leaner and functional with a
better business model, or something else will fill their niche.

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"Larry L" wrote in
:

One of the great things about ROFF is that I can spout off about
things I don't know much about .... and fit right in G


I, personally, don't want to see GM 'bailed out' via my money. Let
'em go BK and restructure. Their business model is dead ... bury the
damn corpse, don't keep it on a heart lung machine pretending it's
still alive


YOMV



If you think a tax increase on those making more than $250K will damper
the economy, wait until 10% more of American jobs start getting squishy.

This is probably the wrong time to be letting them go. Even if we can
keep them viable for 18 more months, it might well be worth it.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Unemployment insurance will cost less and why should the chosen few (UAW)
workers get a free ride. Been lots of layoff's over the years. Pension
plans have gone bust. The govenment picks up some of the pension
liabilities, but those UAW workers have been pulling down top $$$ for years.
Maybe they should have saved some of them.

"DaveS" wrote in message
...
On Nov 18, 12:45 pm, "~^ beancounter ~^"
wrote:
SNIP
So your bet is billions for the bankers and zip for American workers?
So maybe you have some suggestions on where the US companies that sell
the largest share of of their plastics, chemicals, electronics,
rubber, and steel to the US auto manufacturers should sell their
production, when they go into the ground BECAUSE foreign autos are
subsidised by a $1000 or more a vehicle, and BECAUSE foreign owned
plants do not have retiree pensions to pay, or health care costs at
their off shore plants?

Sure, lets hollow out even more of our industrial capacity. Thats the
failed Wingnut Republican economic plan. Maybe we can say **** you to
all American workers, issue each family an illegal worker, and pretend
our stock portfolios represent actual wealth.

No thanx. I'll keep my bet on America, its people, it's land, its
enterprise, my kids and my grand kids.

Dave
Ideology still sucks

One of the big things is that the pension and health care system was paid
for by the cost of the new cars...What Union in their right mind would not
want a pension system funded by investments rather than the word of the
boss?

Couple that with a failure to foresee the future and....what a
minute...didn't some Nobel prize guy write a paper called 'The Looting of
America?"

On Nov 18, 5:22*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message

...



Larry L wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote
However, the moment the government puts one penny of my tax dollar
into that mess I want a clean sweep. That means fire every damn
executive in the company, tear up the union contracts, void all
deals with suppliers, tell the shareholders "tough ****, you got
nothin'",

Well, I don't really know much about bankruptcy ( and don't understand
what I know ;-) but I've been given the impression that it would, indeed,
force such changes .... whereas just handing them money wouldn't

My point was that Congress shouldn't just hand them the money but
mandate an actual government takeover. With Chapter 11 bankruptcy
the same old nitwits would be in charge of the reorganization and
it'll take an act of Congress to tear up the union contracts.

The only argument against bankruptcy ( like many airlines have ) seems to
be that buyers would be afraid to buy because of uncertainty about future
service/ parts/ and such. * *To my mind, I'd far prefer to buy from a
trimmed, re-structured, company than one that will use the bailout up in
a couple months and be looking for more, instead of really changing. * *A
healthy company is far more likely to be there in 15years to supply parts
than a temporarily bailed out one ... IMO

I'm NOT saying "let 'em fail" .... I am saying "let 'em take the routes
available in the system to fix their problems"

That's a good argument, but I don't think the system is capable
of handling such an enormous problem.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Chapter 11 would put the judge in charge. *He can tear up the union
contracts, he can toss management. * We are not going to lose 10% of the
country's jobs. *Either they will survive leaner and functional with a
better business model, or something else will fill their niche.

10% seems high. I've been reading "2 million jobs directly and
indirectly
affected". Given that the "indirectly" people are likely people like
mechanics,
it seems unlikely all those jobs would instantly vanish. I don't know
for certain,
but I assume we have more than 20 million jobs in this country
regardless.

Silly question: Why is it that foreign companies with local (US)
manufacturing
seem to be doing alright while domestic companies are bleeding money?
- Ken

On Nov 18, 11:30*pm, " wrote:
On Nov 18, 5:22*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:



"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message

.. .

Larry L wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote
However, the moment the government puts one penny of my tax dollar
into that mess I want a clean sweep. That means fire every damn
executive in the company, tear up the union contracts, void all
deals with suppliers, tell the shareholders "tough ****, you got
nothin'",

Well, I don't really know much about bankruptcy ( and don't understand
what I know ;-) but I've been given the impression that it would, indeed,
force such changes .... whereas just handing them money wouldn't

My point was that Congress shouldn't just hand them the money but
mandate an actual government takeover. With Chapter 11 bankruptcy
the same old nitwits would be in charge of the reorganization and
it'll take an act of Congress to tear up the union contracts.

The only argument against bankruptcy ( like many airlines have ) seems to
be that buyers would be afraid to buy because of uncertainty about future
service/ parts/ and such. * *To my mind, I'd far prefer to buy from a
trimmed, re-structured, company than one that will use the bailout up in
a couple months and be looking for more, instead of really changing. * *A
healthy company is far more likely to be there in 15years to supply parts
than a temporarily bailed out one ... IMO

I'm NOT saying "let 'em fail" .... I am saying "let 'em take the routes
available in the system to fix their problems"

That's a good argument, but I don't think the system is capable
of handling such an enormous problem.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Chapter 11 would put the judge in charge. *He can tear up the union
contracts, he can toss management. * We are not going to lose 10% of the
country's jobs. *Either they will survive leaner and functional with a
better business model, or something else will fill their niche.

10% seems high. *I've been reading "2 million jobs directly and
indirectly
affected". *Given that the "indirectly" people are likely people like
mechanics,
it seems unlikely all those jobs would instantly vanish. *I don't know
for certain,
but I assume we have more than 20 million jobs in this country
regardless.

Silly question: *Why is it that foreign companies with local (US)
manufacturing
seem to be doing alright while domestic companies are bleeding money?
* * - Ken

The "indirect" jobs, and there are a lot of them, are suppliers of
parts and tooling. I was involved in exactly that industry for 23
years, and it involves a number of medium sized to very small
businesses all across the country. The company I worked for supplied
tooling to Ford, Chrysler and Saturn directly, and to subcontractors.
We also worked for Japanese companies who supplied to Nissan and
Honda. The automotive end was close to 50% of our business, the
balance being tooling for the personal care industry, basically
Proctor & Gamble and Cheeseborough Ponds. A total collapse of
domestic auto manufacturers would deal a death blow to many suppliers
of parts and tooling across the country, and when you add the support
industries, 10% job loss might be a bit low. I fear we are very near a
tipping point with the economy, and a collapse of the domestic auto
industry could push it over the edge.

Before anyone asks, the Japanese owned outfits were much leaner and
more demanding, with a lot less B.S. involved than their American
counterparts.

"george9219" wrote in message
...
On Nov 18, 11:30 pm, " wrote:
On Nov 18, 5:22 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:



"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message

.. .

Larry L wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote
However, the moment the government puts one penny of my tax dollar
into that mess I want a clean sweep. That means fire every damn
executive in the company, tear up the union contracts, void all
deals with suppliers, tell the shareholders "tough ****, you got
nothin'",

Well, I don't really know much about bankruptcy ( and don't
understand
what I know ;-) but I've been given the impression that it would,
indeed,
force such changes .... whereas just handing them money wouldn't

My point was that Congress shouldn't just hand them the money but
mandate an actual government takeover. With Chapter 11 bankruptcy
the same old nitwits would be in charge of the reorganization and
it'll take an act of Congress to tear up the union contracts.

The only argument against bankruptcy ( like many airlines have )
seems to
be that buyers would be afraid to buy because of uncertainty about
future
service/ parts/ and such. To my mind, I'd far prefer to buy from a
trimmed, re-structured, company than one that will use the bailout up
in
a couple months and be looking for more, instead of really changing.
A
healthy company is far more likely to be there in 15years to supply
parts
than a temporarily bailed out one ... IMO

I'm NOT saying "let 'em fail" .... I am saying "let 'em take the
routes
available in the system to fix their problems"

That's a good argument, but I don't think the system is capable
of handling such an enormous problem.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Chapter 11 would put the judge in charge. He can tear up the union
contracts, he can toss management. We are not going to lose 10% of the
country's jobs. Either they will survive leaner and functional with a
better business model, or something else will fill their niche.

10% seems high. I've been reading "2 million jobs directly and
indirectly
affected". Given that the "indirectly" people are likely people like
mechanics,
it seems unlikely all those jobs would instantly vanish. I don't know
for certain,
but I assume we have more than 20 million jobs in this country
regardless.

Silly question: Why is it that foreign companies with local (US)
manufacturing
seem to be doing alright while domestic companies are bleeding money?
- Ken

The "indirect" jobs, and there are a lot of them, are suppliers of
parts and tooling. I was involved in exactly that industry for 23
years, and it involves a number of medium sized to very small
businesses all across the country. The company I worked for supplied
tooling to Ford, Chrysler and Saturn directly, and to subcontractors.
We also worked for Japanese companies who supplied to Nissan and
Honda. The automotive end was close to 50% of our business, the
balance being tooling for the personal care industry, basically
Proctor & Gamble and Cheeseborough Ponds. A total collapse of
domestic auto manufacturers would deal a death blow to many suppliers
of parts and tooling across the country, and when you add the support
industries, 10% job loss might be a bit low. I fear we are very near a
tipping point with the economy, and a collapse of the domestic auto
industry could push it over the edge.

Before anyone asks, the Japanese owned outfits were much leaner and
more demanding, with a lot less B.S. involved than their American
counterparts.

The major difference is the GM has about 2 retirees for every worker. Those
payments about double the labor costs. If we do not give a bailout to the
Big 3, and GM is just first in line, they will go chapter 11 bankruptcy.
They will not shutdown, just like the United Airline did not shut go out of
business with Ch 11 filing. But they can toss a lot of the contracts with
the UAW. Some really onerous ones, that the incompetent management signed.
Fact they can toss a lot of the incompetent management. Contract items like
the "Job Bank" where GM has to pay 12,000 former workers full pay for 10
years and the "workers" do nothing. I understand the Big 3 contracts define
every job and a worker can not do another job that is not in his area.
Contract is 1000's of pages. The Toyota, Honda, etc contract is about 1"
thick and the guy installing hoods can be sweeping the floor when he is not
needed installing hoods or any other job they want him to do. Sure it is
going to hurt the autoworkers income. But at least he should still have an
income. Maybe not the $31 an hour that a journeyman plumber gets, but more
in line with an assembly line worker with maybe a GED required. Listening
to the head of GM saying they need a loan that they will pay back with
interest, is hard to believe they could pay it back at all. They have been
losing market share and money for 25 years, why would they change that if
they still have the same contracts and management? I was an engineer in the
Silicon Valley. 7 layoffs. Some were startup companies and some were just
bad management that did not keep up with the times. Did we or me get a
bailout? We looked for another job, and got unemployment for up to months
max.

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:25:30 -0800, Calif Bill wrote:


Unemployment insurance will cost less and why should the chosen few
(UAW) workers get a free ride. Been lots of layoff's over the years.
Pension plans have gone bust. The govenment picks up some of the
pension liabilities, but those UAW workers have been pulling down top
$$$ for years. Maybe they should have saved some of them.

Just to add, there are @500,000 UAW retirees. That's enough to break the
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. You can bail them out now, or you can
bail them out later.

"Calif Bill" wrote in
m:

The major difference is the GM has about 2 retirees for every worker.
Those payments about double the labor costs.

One would think that a responsible company would properly endow pension
plans as they went along. Isn't that the only tenable way to do this??


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply