Letter from GM

Blue C5 wrote:
> In Washington, where I live and work, it is different. It is all about
> appearances, facts be damned.
Hopefully you agree with that that is a totally asinine way to look at it.
> The sunk cost of the jet on the runway is moot. The operating costs
> come into play. I believe $20 to fly a bunch of staffers, lawyers, and
> executives on the corporate jets made economic sense. Last minute
> commercial tickets, time lost and all that would have well exceeded
> the $20K they purported to spend. So they were economically astute.
>
> From a PR standpoint, the appearance created by beggars flying into
> Washington in private jets with tin cups in hand, was politically stupid.
So then the whole country should, based on the stupidity of politics as
you've expressed above, ignore facts and reality and instead throw a
hissy fit and shoot the economy and the country in the proverbial foot?
> Congress has several FedEx planes out at Dulles for their private use.
> Does it not seem odd that they can be criticizing the CEOs for doing
> the same thing? No. Congress has the gold and he or she who
> has the gold makes the rules.
The corporate jets and the FedEx plans for Congresscritters exist for
good reason. Throwing a hissy fit for a $20K ticket when you're talking
about $25 billion dollars is a sign that you bought the red herring
argument. I'm not that foolish.
--
Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com>
There are a number of mechanical devices which increase sexual arousal,
particularly in women. Chief among these is the Mercedes-Benz 380SL.

drb wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:17:30 -0700, Andrew DeFaria
> > wrote:
>> drb wrote:
>>>> Loans still happen. They just happen with people and businesses
>>>> that are more of a sure thing.
>>> Agreed but that's not many now.
>> How many do they need?
> Enough to make people / businesses have confidence in our system again
> which many analysts say is needed to bring our financial system more
> normal.
You missed the point, which was that it's irrelevant that there aren't
that many loans happening right now. Loans are happening and GM doesn't
need thousands of loans to survive. They need to show how they are a
good risk.
--
Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com>
I can't see the point in the theater. All that sex and violence. I get
enough of that at home. Apart from the sex, of course. - Baldrick -
Sense and Senility

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:31:20 -0700, Andrew DeFaria
> wrote:

>The Reverend Natural Light wrote:
>
>> On Nov 20, 11:09 pm, Andrew DeFaria > wrote:
>>> Listen they had those private jets long ago and they are for business
>>> use. They probably save the companies lots of money over regular
>>> commercial air travel over the years. But now you complain about
>>> them. A very inconsistent stance my friend.
>> WTF? The head of GM flew to DC in the company Learjet. Cost to GM:
>> $20k. Cost for a seat on a commercial airliner, even first class: Less
>> than $1k.
>Probably scheduled 30 days in advance, etc. Yes, WTF! First off I'm
>highly suspect of the claim that it really cost $20K. They also talk
>about $1K toilet seats in the military but in reality it only looks that
>way because of accounting tricks. Even so, point is 2 weeks ago, 2
>months ago or 2 years ago, whatever the actual cost was it still was
>about that much back then. And back then you didn't give a ****. So why
>is it relevant now. Plus exactly what faction of a fraction of a
>fraction of a percent is even $20k when compared to $700 *BILLION!!!*
>You're focusing on the wrong thing.
>> It may be a drop in the bucket, but if I fail at my job, I don't get
>> rewarded with cushy perks.
>Then take up being a CEO! I mean if it's so ****ing easy then why aren't
>you doing it? Simple: It ain't that easy and you're unqualified. Yet you
>see no problem in criticizing others for doing some thing that you can't
>even manage to do yourself.
>> He was there to beg for money.
>So what!
>> Taxpayer money.
>As every other lobbyist does. As you could to yourself. Again so what!
>> Call it symbolic,
>Yes, focus on the symbolic mysticism of the problem and that's one sure
>fire way of getting reamed up the ass.
>> but I don't want one drop of my taxes going for someone's private jet.
>Yet you probably own a car and thereby have contributed your money
>anyway directly through sales. You're being overly emotional, irrational
>and foolish to complain about 1/1000000000 of one percent of those $2k
>that went for the flight. Indeed if your real contribution come to even
>$0.02 I'd be every surprised.
>> Fly coach like the rest of us.
>Just as soon as the rest of you are CEO's or similar. Truth is they
>ain't you and you ain't them. Again, you're focusing on the minuscule
>symbolism of the situation and showing your irrational emotionalism
>instead of remaining calm, looking at the real money, the big picture
>and thinking with your head.
>>> I agree - you have! Especially since you only see the 1/100 inch hole
>>> and are ignoring the 22 foot one!
>> The executives of these financial firms are known for taking 50%+ of
>> the company profit home in their own pockets.
>So what! We're still talking 1/200 of an inch of a hole compared to a 22
>foot one!
>> We're talking about firms with 100k employees, and half the company
>> earnings go for bonuses of a dozen people.
>Again, so what! Ain't nobody holding a gun to any one of those 100k
>employees and making them work there. Tell ya what wise guy! If you
>think you can do so much better why don't you quit working there and
>start your own car company?
>> The latest to go under (sorry, losing track of which is which) handed
>> out a quarter of a BILLION dollars in executive bonuses last year.
>Yeah again, but so what! Even $250 million dollars is exactly what
>percentage of $700 *BILLION* (with a B)?!? Obviously you failed your
>math courses.
>>> If you truly believe we all do pay for it one way or another then it
>>> doesn't matter how they steal it now does it?
>> Not like I have much choice,
>Great so then it doesn't matter to you. Then why are we continuing to
>have this conversation?
>> but if personal earnings are going to bonuses and UAW contracts, I
>> might as well get a new Corvette out of it.
>That's not how the world works son.


1/1000 of a %, OR 50%. Is the concept. They actually make good cars,
the quality has improved over the years, and they built those big
SUV's because people bought them! Look at the Imports. They also
converted to large SUV's. My daughters Toyota Sequioa is as large as
an bigger American SUV. The problem is the cost to manufacture is
out of whack with reality. Bad management has signed really bad
contracts with the UAW over the years, and that has bit them in the
ass. No reason for me or you as taxpayers to pony up lots of tax
dollars to keep the UAW in salary and the retirees in lush medical
plans. the UAW can renegotiate the contracts and sign ones just like
the import companies have. Where the import companies have a union
contract that is. They can go to Chapter 11 and get a plan together
and then maybe Congress can talk to them about a real loan. Not
pouring money in to companies that have been losing money and market
share for 20 years.

wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:31:20 -0700, Andrew DeFaria
> > wrote:
>
>> The Reverend Natural Light wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 20, 11:09 pm, Andrew DeFaria > wrote:
>>>> Listen they had those private jets long ago and they are for business
>>>> use. They probably save the companies lots of money over regular
>>>> commercial air travel over the years. But now you complain about
>>>> them. A very inconsistent stance my friend.
>>> WTF? The head of GM flew to DC in the company Learjet. Cost to GM:
>>> $20k. Cost for a seat on a commercial airliner, even first class: Less
>>> than $1k.
>> Probably scheduled 30 days in advance, etc. Yes, WTF! First off I'm
>> highly suspect of the claim that it really cost $20K. They also talk
>> about $1K toilet seats in the military but in reality it only looks that
>> way because of accounting tricks. Even so, point is 2 weeks ago, 2
>> months ago or 2 years ago, whatever the actual cost was it still was
>> about that much back then. And back then you didn't give a ****. So why
>> is it relevant now. Plus exactly what faction of a fraction of a
>> fraction of a percent is even $20k when compared to $700 *BILLION!!!*
>> You're focusing on the wrong thing.
>>> It may be a drop in the bucket, but if I fail at my job, I don't get
>>> rewarded with cushy perks.
>> Then take up being a CEO! I mean if it's so ****ing easy then why aren't
>> you doing it? Simple: It ain't that easy and you're unqualified. Yet you
>> see no problem in criticizing others for doing some thing that you can't
>> even manage to do yourself.
>>> He was there to beg for money.
>> So what!
>>> Taxpayer money.
>> As every other lobbyist does. As you could to yourself. Again so what!
>>> Call it symbolic,
>> Yes, focus on the symbolic mysticism of the problem and that's one sure
>> fire way of getting reamed up the ass.
>>> but I don't want one drop of my taxes going for someone's private jet.
>> Yet you probably own a car and thereby have contributed your money
>> anyway directly through sales. You're being overly emotional, irrational
>> and foolish to complain about 1/1000000000 of one percent of those $2k
>> that went for the flight. Indeed if your real contribution come to even
>> $0.02 I'd be every surprised.
>>> Fly coach like the rest of us.
>> Just as soon as the rest of you are CEO's or similar. Truth is they
>> ain't you and you ain't them. Again, you're focusing on the minuscule
>> symbolism of the situation and showing your irrational emotionalism
>> instead of remaining calm, looking at the real money, the big picture
>> and thinking with your head.
>>>> I agree - you have! Especially since you only see the 1/100 inch hole
>>>> and are ignoring the 22 foot one!
>>> The executives of these financial firms are known for taking 50%+ of
>>> the company profit home in their own pockets.
>> So what! We're still talking 1/200 of an inch of a hole compared to a 22
>> foot one!
>>> We're talking about firms with 100k employees, and half the company
>>> earnings go for bonuses of a dozen people.
>> Again, so what! Ain't nobody holding a gun to any one of those 100k
>> employees and making them work there. Tell ya what wise guy! If you
>> think you can do so much better why don't you quit working there and
>> start your own car company?
>>> The latest to go under (sorry, losing track of which is which) handed
>>> out a quarter of a BILLION dollars in executive bonuses last year.
>> Yeah again, but so what! Even $250 million dollars is exactly what
>> percentage of $700 *BILLION* (with a B)?!? Obviously you failed your
>> math courses.
>>>> If you truly believe we all do pay for it one way or another then it
>>>> doesn't matter how they steal it now does it?
>>> Not like I have much choice,
>> Great so then it doesn't matter to you. Then why are we continuing to
>> have this conversation?
>>> but if personal earnings are going to bonuses and UAW contracts, I
>>> might as well get a new Corvette out of it.
>> That's not how the world works son.
>
>
> 1/1000 of a %, OR 50%. Is the concept. They actually make good cars,
> the quality has improved over the years, and they built those big
> SUV's because people bought them! Look at the Imports. They also
> converted to large SUV's. My daughters Toyota Sequioa is as large as
> an bigger American SUV. The problem is the cost to manufacture is
> out of whack with reality. Bad management has signed really bad
> contracts with the UAW over the years, and that has bit them in the
> ass. No reason for me or you as taxpayers to pony up lots of tax
> dollars to keep the UAW in salary and the retirees in lush medical
> plans. the UAW can renegotiate the contracts and sign ones just like
> the import companies have. Where the import companies have a union
> contract that is. They can go to Chapter 11 and get a plan together
> and then maybe Congress can talk to them about a real loan. Not
> pouring money in to companies that have been losing money and market
> share for 20 years.

Me thinks this thread, the media and the
Congress hasn't addressed the correct end of the
dog. GM's an outfit with a negative book value
and a market cap of less than $3B.

Quit screwing with a $12B-$15B bailout loan.
Order the suspension of the SEC and NYSE rules
on tender offers and buy up the stock for about $4B.

Clean out the badge cars and deadwood. Then
apply for a gov't loan.

--
pj

> Clean out the badge cars and deadwood. *Then
> apply for a gov't loan.
>

Lots of problems with the bail out, but first.
UAW workers make a middle class living,
there is nothing un American about that.
Second GM,Ford and Chrysler all make great cars ,as do most all
manufactures today.
But no matter how well a car is made, who is going to buy one if they
have no money ?

If your income and savings are in question, your not sure of your
future,
how can or who will commit to a 3, 4 or 5 year loan
So no matter what Detroit produces and how cheap they sell the autos
for,
who is going to buy one ?
I have a couple of cars, none are worn out , none "need" to be
replaced.

If one was damaged in an accident, or was not worth repairing, then I
will be in the market for a new car.
The percentage of those people that think this way is rising.
The new car impulse buyer market is shrinking.
The overall customer base is smaller, therefore new car sales are
down.
This is supply and demand, capitalism and free enterprise at work.

For several years now it has been cheaper and easier to buy a new car
than a used car if you were financing.
The interest rate was lower, the downpayment was less and financing
terms more liberal.
This drove down the price of used cars.
Trade ins are worth much less resulting in over financing on the new
cars.
The industry/banks postponed their downfall by financing the future.
That note has been called due.

Somebody has to pay up.
I am not smart enough to know who or how.
But I can tell it's time to put down the shovel.

Zombywoof wrote:
> The average UAW worker with a high school degree earns 57.6% more
> compensation than the average university professor with a Ph.D. Gee I
> wonder what is wrong with that equation.
What's wrong with that is that the Ph.D. professor is a frigging idiot!
I mean you can't be all that smart if you go into a profession where
it's clear they pay like crap. Of course they go into such a profession
for other reasons. So then who are you to say that that is wrong? It
isn't! It's exactly how he wanted it!
> One of the major US Big 3 false paradigms is that you do need the
> latest & greatest, that is why they keep bringing out new models
> and/or major facelifts.
How is this different than any major software maker out there? Or
computer maker? iPod maker or whatever? Most businesses do this!
> The Government is "We the People", we just elect really **** poor
> people to represent us.
First I point you to the recent /Battle of the Jay-Walk All Stars/ and
anoint you with the phrase: Think of how smart the average US citizen is
then realize that half of the rest of the population is stupider than them!

American's get the kind of government they deserve because they insist
on it being a democrat or a republican and they insist on picking the
winner of a horse race instead of standing firm, doing some research and
voting for the guy they really want. I can never fathom how they can
tell me that my vote is wasted if I vote for the candidate I want but
somehow magically counts if I vote for their guy. Truth is my vote
always counts for 1 no matter who I cast it for and I will not cast it
for somebody just because you think I should. I will cast it for the
person I want in the office regardless if they have a good or poor
chance of actually getting there.

Yes American's get the government they deserve. The problem is I also
get the government that *they* deserve! :-(
--
Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com>
Why do toasters always have a setting that burns the toast to a horrible
crisp no one would eat?

"Zombywoof" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 05:07:15 -0800 (PST), kickstart
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>> Clean out the badge cars and deadwood. Then
>>> apply for a gov't loan.
>>>
>>
>>Lots of problems with the bail out, but first.
>>UAW workers make a middle class living,
>>there is nothing un American about that.
>>
> There is nothing wrong with earning a "Middle Class" living, but most
> Unions extort their members wage as opposed to the worker "earning"
> it. The average UAW worker with a high school degree earns 57.6% more
> compensation than the average university professor with a Ph.D. Gee
> I wonder what is wrong with that equation.

Could you tell me where you got that statistic? Thanks.

AJM
'93 40th Anniversary coupe, 6 sp (both tops)

"Andrew DeFaria" > wrote in message
...
>Snip

>First I point you to the recent Battle of the Jay-Walk All Stars and
> >anoint you with the phrase: Think of how smart the average US
>citizen >is then realize that half of the rest of the population is
>stupider than >them!

>Snip

>Andrew DeFaria

Interesting statement, somehow Jay was able to pick 3 people out of
the exact middle, average, of the intelligence level in the USA.

You may have proved your point though.......;-)

Dad wrote:
>> First I point you to the recent Battle of the Jay-Walk All Stars and
>> >anoint you with the phrase: Think of how smart the average US
>> citizen >is then realize that half of the rest of the population is
>> stupider than >them!
> Interesting statement, somehow Jay was able to pick 3 people out of
> the exact middle, average, of the intelligence level in the USA.
I never said that. Reread my statement.
--
Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com>
Press CTRL-ALT-DEL to continue ...

"Andrew DeFaria" > wrote in message
...
Dad wrote:

First I point you to the recent Battle of the Jay-Walk All Stars and
>anoint you with the phrase: Think of how smart the average US citizen
>is then realize that half of the rest of the population is stupider
than >them!

Interesting statement, somehow Jay was able to pick 3 people out of
the exact middle, average, of the intelligence level in the USA.

>I never said that. Reread my statement.

>Andrew DeFaria

I didn't say what you think I said either, reread it again.