Cash for clunkers?

On 2009-08-26, Frank ess > wrote:

>> No, I use precision in my writing to avoid confusion. You reveal in
>> using imprecise terms to avoid responsibility for your statements.
>> Either that you don't really understand the meaning of most of the
>> words you use.
>
> Whether or not he understands the words he uses, he correctly
> evaluates their effect on you, as you are led down the garden path to
> the bridge under which he resides.

It's trolling now to oppose the god-king er president?

'Waste' takes many forms. To narrowly define it as by-products of the
manufacturing process is simply absurd. Waste is also the guy who makes
60 grand a year and doing nothing of value, let alone the exec who makes
many many times that and does harm to the company.

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:22:47 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:

>On 2009-08-26, Frank ess > wrote:
>
>>> No, I use precision in my writing to avoid confusion. You reveal in
>>> using imprecise terms to avoid responsibility for your statements.
>>> Either that you don't really understand the meaning of most of the
>>> words you use.
>>
>> Whether or not he understands the words he uses, he correctly
>> evaluates their effect on you, as you are led down the garden path to
>> the bridge under which he resides.
>
>It's trolling now to oppose the god-king er president?
>
>'Waste' takes many forms. To narrowly define it as by-products of the
>manufacturing process is simply absurd. Waste is also the guy who makes
>60 grand a year and doing nothing of value, let alone the exec who makes
>many many times that and does harm to the company.
>
>

The 60 grand guy I'll accept as waste. The other guy is not waste, he
is doing something. It may be the wrong something but in and of
itself it is not waste.

In any event, I'm still waiting for you to provide some significant
specific examples of waste at GM. Not things done in good faith that
later turned out to not work out so well. Not policy decisions that
you have some personal disagreement with. But true, substantial,
significant things that were actually waste and of a magnitude
sufficient to reasonably be said to have been at least part of the key
reasons for GM going into bankruptcy.

As an example, if GM had owned a major parts supplier that could have
been making parts for their own products at $100 apiece but for
whatever reason decided to contract out the part to some independent
company that charged them $150 each, and it was a part needed on every
single car they made, that might be a suitable example. Showing that
the West Podunk plant spent $3000 a year on donuts for executive
bathroom breaks would not be a suitable example, even if true.