Took the Avalon in...
in [Toyota]
|
From: Obveeus on 15 Mar 2010 16:08 "Conscience" <nobama@g�v.com> wrote: > On 2010-03-15 11:46:45 -0700, "C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)mindspring.com> > said: >> We seem to be in violent agreement. The Government screwed the tax >> payers, GM stock holders, and GM creditors and the only significant >> benficaries were the UAW and a bunch of overpaid GM execs. If there is >> any point we disagree on, it is the fact that you limit your blame to >> the Democrats. There were plenty of Rebublicans on the save GM >> bandwagon as well. > > Sure. But those aren't real conservatives. Sure they are. Real conservatives elected by thousands of other real conservatives in Middle America that were all over-paid and over-benefitted by GM. Eventually those real conservatives drove their company right into the ground by borrowing from its future (same way the government pays its bills) and they had to be bailed out by the government (welfare disguised by another name). In the next election, these real conservatives will head to the polls, angry that the government is wasting so much money (while remaining completely oblivious to the fact that the money was wasted on them), and they will try to 'vote the bums out'. GM (and Chrysler) should have been allowed to fail and the retirement funds of their workers should have simply been written off into the ether the way the stockholder's value was written off. And before any of the Ford folks claim otherwise, it is only by the luck of Ford's borrowing cycle that they didn't end up in the same bankruptcy situation at the same time. That automaker, just like the other two, overpays and overbenefits the workers in an unsusstainable manner.
From: Obveeus on 15 Mar 2010 16:18 "Conscience" <nobama@g�v.com> wrote in message news:hnm4ae$lc$1(a)news.albasani.net... > On 2010-03-15 13:08:17 -0700, "Obveeus" <Obveeus(a)aol.com> said: > >> >> "Conscience" <nobama@g�v.com> wrote: >> >>> On 2010-03-15 11:46:45 -0700, "C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)mindspring.com> >>> said: >>>> We seem to be in violent agreement. The Government screwed the tax >>>> payers, GM stock holders, and GM creditors and the only significant >>>> benficaries were the UAW and a bunch of overpaid GM execs. If there is >>>> any point we disagree on, it is the fact that you limit your blame to >>>> the Democrats. There were plenty of Rebublicans on the save GM >>>> bandwagon as well. >>> >>> Sure. But those aren't real conservatives. >> >> Sure they are. Real conservatives elected by thousands of other real >> conservatives in Middle America that were all over-paid and >> over-benefitted >> by GM. Eventually those real conservatives drove their company right >> into >> the ground by borrowing from its future (same way the government pays its >> bills) and they had to be bailed out by the government (welfare disguised >> by >> another name). In the next election, these real conservatives will head >> to >> the polls, angry that the government is wasting so much money (while >> remaining completely oblivious to the fact that the money was wasted on >> them), and they will try to 'vote the bums out'. >> >> GM (and Chrysler) should have been allowed to fail and the retirement >> funds >> of their workers should have simply been written off into the ether the >> way >> the stockholder's value was written off. And before any of the Ford >> folks >> claim otherwise, it is only by the luck of Ford's borrowing cycle that >> they >> didn't end up in the same bankruptcy situation at the same time. That >> automaker, just like the other two, overpays and overbenefits the workers >> in >> an unsusstainable manner. > > Your dictionary is defective. Real conservates would have done nothing as > described. No 'real conservatives' work in auto manufacturing plants? Really? None work for the airline industry or the rail industry or for companies providing military hardware, either, I suppose? All these entities are huge *welfare* machines supporting their entire workforces. While complaining about government spending, do these 'real conservatives' ever specifically demand that their particular piece of welfare be cut from the government budget?
From: Ed White on 15 Mar 2010 17:52 On Mar 15, 4:08 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...(a)aol.com> wrote: > GM (and Chrysler) should have been allowed to fail and the retirement funds > of their workers should have simply been written off into the ether the way > the stockholder's value was written off. And before any of the Ford folks > claim otherwise, it is only by the luck of Ford's borrowing cycle that they > didn't end up in the same bankruptcy situation at the same time. That > automaker, just like the other two, overpays and overbenefits the workers in > an unsusstainable manner. A few thougts: I think Ford should get a little credit for at least recognizing the situation and taking action before it was too late. Ford never made the big move into mortgages like GM did with GMAC. They unloaedd their profit draining overseas operations (Aston-Martin, Jaguar, and Land Rover) while they were still marketable. They lined up afforable long term loans before the bottom fell out, etc. So while the Ford management might not have acted as soon as they should have, they did act before it was too late. Bill Ford actually knew things were in the dump when he fired Nasser, but I think it took him a few years to realize he was in over his head and finally brought in an outside manager that had a clue. Unfortunately for Ford, they have not been able to get the same sort of labor concessions that the UAW has granted GM. I almost wonder if the UAW doesn't want to force Ford into the same sort of process as GM went through. While we can all point at the UAW contracts as excessive, how would you have avoided them? Suppose GM had decided to play hard ball with the UAW when they were making money? What do you suppose would have happened? I doubt that Ford, Toyota, Nissan, etc. would have stopped selling cars in order to help GM get better terms from the UAW. Whenever someone accuses Toyota / Nissan / whoever of not paying their auto workers fare wages, they are usually baragged with multiple posts saying Toyota is paying their workers just as well as GM. I don't think they are. If they aren't then is that good or bad for Americans? Would you rather have more of a car's price go to workers in the US, or Japanese corporations? I think it not quite fair to trash GM for accepting bailout money while ignoring the significant involvement of the Japanese and Korean goverments in support of their automotive industries. I would have allowed GM to go into "normal" bankrupcy instead of handling the failure as was done. I do agree that the GM failure was handled so as to protect the UAW. I also think it was an illlegal siezure of GM by the Government. I thought the UAW managed a retirement fund, so I am not sure that if GM went bankrupt the retirement funds would have been writen off. But if the failure of GM would have ended in a retirement fund cllaspe, the US government would have ended up picking up at least part of the tab. Ed White
From: dr_jeff on 15 Mar 2010 18:39 Ed White wrote: > On Mar 15, 4:08 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> GM (and Chrysler) should have been allowed to fail and the retirement funds >> of their workers should have simply been written off into the ether the way >> the stockholder's value was written off. And before any of the Ford folks >> claim otherwise, it is only by the luck of Ford's borrowing cycle that they >> didn't end up in the same bankruptcy situation at the same time. That >> automaker, just like the other two, overpays and overbenefits the workers in >> an unsusstainable manner. > > A few thougts: > > I think Ford should get a little credit for at least recognizing the > situation and taking action before it was too late. Ford never made > the big move into mortgages like GM did with GMAC. They unloaedd their > profit draining overseas operations (Aston-Martin, Jaguar, and Land > Rover) while they were still marketable. They lined up afforable long > term loans before the bottom fell out, etc. So while the Ford > management might not have acted as soon as they should have, they did > act before it was too late. Bill Ford actually knew things were in the > dump when he fired Nasser, but I think it took him a few years to > realize he was in over his head and finally brought in an outside > manager that had a clue. Unfortunately for Ford, they have not been > able to get the same sort of labor concessions that the UAW has > granted GM. I almost wonder if the UAW doesn't want to force Ford into > the same sort of process as GM went through. > > While we can all point at the UAW contracts as excessive, how would > you have avoided them? Suppose GM had decided to play hard ball with > the UAW when they were making money? What do you suppose would have > happened? I doubt that Ford, Toyota, Nissan, etc. would have stopped > selling cars in order to help GM get better terms from the UAW. > > Whenever someone accuses Toyota / Nissan / whoever of not paying their > auto workers fare wages, they are usually baragged with multiple posts > saying Toyota is paying their workers just as well as GM. I don't > think they are. If they aren't then is that good or bad for Americans? > Would you rather have more of a car's price go to workers in the US, > or Japanese corporations? > > I think it not quite fair to trash GM for accepting bailout money > while ignoring the significant involvement of the Japanese and Korean > goverments in support of their automotive industries. I would have > allowed GM to go into "normal" bankrupcy instead of handling the > failure as was done. I do agree that the GM failure was handled so as > to protect the UAW. I also think it was an illlegal siezure of GM by > the Government. > > I thought the UAW managed a retirement fund, so I am not sure that if > GM went bankrupt the retirement funds would have been writen off. But > if the failure of GM would have ended in a retirement fund cllaspe, > the US government would have ended up picking up at least part of the > tab. > > Ed White There is a federal agency that guarantees the pensions of failed companies. If any of the former big 3 fail, the pensions will end up here. A problem with the Michigan-3 is that the pensions are underfunded. There is not enough money in the pension plans to cover the projected outlays to pay all the pensions they owe. So, the Michigan-3 are going to have to pony up a bunch of money to the pension plans to pay for pensions, for both retirees and future retirees. A lot of governments, particularly state governments, are in the same creek. Jeff
From: jim beam on 16 Mar 2010 00:11
On 03/15/2010 08:54 AM, C. E. White wrote: > Do you ever actually answer a question? You seem to have adopted the > tactic of most politicians - ignore the actual question and instead go > on a rant on about something only loosely related. > > > > Let me repeat the original questions and add a few more: > > > > 1) What did you mean when you wrote - "the flavor this week [since > the political barrage has started to backfire on mid-term candidates] > is f.u.d. a slow drip drip drip of fear, uncertainty and doubt." > Telling me to ask my non-existent intern is not an answer, it just a > dodge. > > > > 2) Can you cite an example of where I am "driving the g.m. trojan > horse of chinese outsourcing?" This was with regards to your > statement - "do your moral bankruptcy a favor - go get yourself a real > job where you're not driving the g.m. trojan horse of chinese > outsourcing into the american economy." The long statement you posted > in response to the request the first time didn't address my question. > Give me an example of where I am "driving the g.m. trojan horse of > chinese outsourcing." > > > > 3) And how about explaining how I could "do [my] moral bankruptcy a > favor?" Telling me to ask my non-existent intern is not an answer, it > just yet another dodge. Your original statement made no sense. > > > > 4) Why do you think I am supporting GM outsourcing? It is clear that > it is happening, but GM is not unique in out sourcing components. I > certainly have no interest in defending GM management. So why are you > putting me and GM management in the same boat? What do you suggest as > an alternative to outsourcing? GM's competitors (including Toyota) are > purchasing components from China as well. Do you expect GM to do > differently? I don't like it and would support any reasonable plan to > have all companies make more components here in the US. I just don't > have an answer of how to make that happen. > > > > 5) Doesn't GM makes at least a few cars that people want to buy? Last > time I checked the Silverado was the second best selling vehicle in > America. I think the Malibu and Impala were in the top ten as well. I > wouldn't mind owning a Corvette. > > > > 6) What is "astroturfing?" It sounds like the process of installing > artificial grass. > > > > 7) Exactly what "machine" am I part of? You have created a sort of > fantasy where I am being paid to post my diverse opinions and that I > have a "team" of people to help me. If only it were true. > > > Ed > > > "jim beam"<me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message > news:6-6dnRhmTs7E1APWnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d(a)speakeasy.net... >> On 03/15/2010 07:38 AM, C. E. White wrote: >>> "jim beam"<me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message >>> news:ts2dnc8HgrXH3APWnZ2dnUVZ_uMAAAAA(a)speakeasy.net... >>> >>>> that's it - ed the astroturfer is back at work bright and early on >>>> a >>>> monday morning! >>> >>> And apparently, so are you. >> >> i'm at home ed. crunching cornflakes before i go to earn an honest >> crust. >> >> >>> >>>> the flavor this week [since the political barrage has started to >>>> backfire on mid-term candidates] is f.u.d. a slow drip drip drip >>>> of >>>> fear, uncertainty and doubt. >>> >>> Huh? Do you actually read the BS you post? What does this mean? >> >> oh, poor innocent ed. just have one of the interns look it up for >> you. >> >> >>> >>>> ed, do your moral bankruptcy a favor - go get yourself a real job >>>> where you're not driving the g.m. trojan horse of chinese >>>> outsourcing into the american economy. thanks. >>> >>> Again, what does this mean? Maybe you could site some example of >>> where >>> I am "driving the g.m. trojan horse of chinese outsourcing." >> >> ed, g.m. are the largest outsourcer of component manufacture. they >> outsource to china. you and your kind are supporting chinese job >> creation and american job annihilation. >> >> >>> >>> And how about explaing how I could "do [my] moral bankruptcy a >>> favor?" >>> What does this even mean? It is like a string of unrealted words >>> that >>> you just plugged together becasue you want to say something that >>> sounded important. >> >> poor ed. have one of the interns explain it to you. they're >> clearly much better educated than you. >> >> >>> >>> Are you trying to make some sort of point? Do you have anything to >>> add >>> to the discussion? Or do you just like to poke at me because you >>> have >>> nothing better to do? >> >> here's my point ed - you're an astroturfing shill. you're a moral >> bankrupt. you're part of a machine without clue and which is doing >> more to damage america and america's future than your clueless >> retarded asses can contemplate. >> >> STOP astroturfing. STOP supporting the g.m. trojan horse. if you >> want to dissipate your apparently limitless energies, focus them on >> having domestic manufacturers use domestic component supply, make >> vehicles people actually buy, and stop wasting tax dollars propping >> up idiot management that doesn't know what it's doing. it's easy >> enough - just have the guy that runs g.m. in europe brought over >> here - he does all that for opel. >> >> >>> >>> Ed >>> >> >> yeah, ed the astroturfer that's pushing the trojan horse. >> >> >> -- >> nomina rutrum rutrum > > poor ed - playing the injured party. did you like charades at school? -- nomina rutrum rutrum |