Versa-Tech Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 Come to think of it nobody could build a robot as bad as Bushie, that would be pretty damm near impossible Why does Laura not feed Bushie Nick? http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=keFIWob8NM4 You are a Moron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted December 19, 2008 Author Share Posted December 19, 2008 You are a Moron Ahhhhhhhhh Nicks Dad, you are an authority on morons it take one to know one Moron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 I'm right there with you on that one. +2....most are angry Camry drivers.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 Ahhhhhhhhh Nicks Dad, you are an authority on morons it take one to know one Moron further reinforcing my point... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 Come to think of it nobody could build a robot as bad as Bushie, that would be pretty damm near impossible Why does Laura not feed Bushie Nick? http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=keFIWob8NM4 Enough with the political BS. You want to rant about "Bushie" go do it in the off-topic section. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted December 19, 2008 Author Share Posted December 19, 2008 Enough with the political BS. You want to rant about "Bushie" go do it in the off-topic section. No l don't Nick, if Cerberus are SOLVENT they should be bailing out Chyrsler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 No l don't Nick, if Cerberus are SOLVENT they should be bailing out Chyrsler. Didn't you already say that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 No l don't Nick, if Cerberus are SOLVENT they should be bailing out Chyrsler. Answer me this: should GM's shareholders be bailing out General Motors? They are solvent also, well, most of them anyway. It's not like Cerberus is one magic entity with gobs of money just laying around collecting dust. That money belongs to the partners who own Cerberus. It is not Cerberus' money to spend however Cerberus' subsidiaries' management sees fit. I'm not going to bother repeating this again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 That's what I love about this forum. I come here to read about the latest Ford news and all I see is a bunch of egotistical fools sniping at each other. My ignore list is about to go bankrupt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 That's what I love about this forum. I come here to read about the latest Ford news and all I see is a bunch of egotistical fools sniping at each other. My ignore list is about to go bankrupt. boys will be boys.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keoni Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 No l don't Nick, if Cerberus are SOLVENT they should be bailing out Chyrsler. I need to do some research but if that is true, I concur with Jelly. The entire Daimler debacle is shocking. Chrysler was passed around like an unwanted child. Plus the Nardelli appointment was a mistake, he ran my favorite home improvement store to the ground (not quite but he ignored Lowes allowing them to permeate the landscape). As an auto enthusiast I can say this is a sad and slightly happy day. If Ford builds a car that I like I will buy it, for crying out loud I bought a new 2000 Focus ZTS (and I loved it, man I miss that car). Now, I am driving a Mazda because the Focus withered on the vine. I have faith in Mullaly and I will not sell my Ford stocks... wow, the most religious experience I've had of late. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkisler Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 I think California is going to be too busy dealing with other issues to worry about stupid CO2 tailpipe regulations for now. Fighting evil CO2 emissions is one thing when you can afford to force citizens to spend money on HOV lane tags for hybrids etc. and it's another when your economy is in a "gold rush" collapse. I personally wish they could just secede. I disagree (except for the secede part!). During the Congressional hearings, California CO2 was a big deal with the Dems, and it trumped being friendly to unions. Many of the Dems were demanding that any aid would have to come with the proviso that the auto companies would stop their lawsuits against state CO2 requirements. Nancy P. is Californian, and Waxman (also California) just unseated Dingell (Michigan) as Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Although California has their own problems with budgets, it doesn't cost them anything to "just tell them" and if the autos have problems meeting the requirements, then they can say "Detroit is whining and dragging their feet again -- as usual." I think this will be another issue that will be tossed into an already difficult mix. If, for instance, GM were to come up with a positive NPV with a supporting forward model line-up that meets the present CAFE standards, but does not meet the California CO2 requirements, will that be considered OK by the Obama administration? Personally, I think they're going to make a big deal of it, but we'll see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Critic Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 Ahhhhhhhhh Nicks Dad, you are an authority on morons it take one to know one Moron Hey Ford-Jelly... I always found most of your posts interesting, While I was away for a while, I was spending some time on Forums out of England and gaining an insight into European thinking, I find you coming here interesting, for that fact alone. Their actually seems to be no brand loyalty in Europe like here in the states. May I ask that you try to hold a stiff upper lip, your capable of it pal,. I need to do some research but if that is true, I concur with Jelly. The entire Daimler debacle is shocking. Chrysler was passed around like an unwanted child. Plus the Nardelli appointment was a mistake, he ran my favorite home improvement store to the ground (not quite but he ignored Lowes allowing them to permeate the landscape). As an auto enthusiast I can say this is a sad and slightly happy day. If Ford builds a car that I like I will buy it, for crying out loud I bought a new 2000 Focus ZTS (and I loved it, man I miss that car). Now, I am driving a Mazda because the Focus withered on the vine. I have faith in Mullaly and I will not sell my Ford stocks... wow, the most religious experience I've had of late. Don't forget his ?? $122MILLION buyout from Home Depot to go. "Yes, Congressman, I will work for $1.00/yr". TOTALLY SAD where Chrysler is now. All in all a complete tie in WITH NISSIAN/RENAULT might not look so bad, if it's sold well. Possible Tie-up of GM and someone else could work. Then that would leave Ford as marketing a 'true' American vehicle? Stranger thing's have happened before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted December 19, 2008 Author Share Posted December 19, 2008 It's not like Cerberus is one magic entity with gobs of money just laying around collecting dust. That money belongs to the partners who own Cerberus. It is not Cerberus' money to spend however Cerberus' subsidiaries' management sees fit. Part of the bailout agreement is a solvent Cerberus must turn Chrysler around within three months, how are they going to do that Nick if all of its 30 production lines have been stopped, they are paying their workforce to build nothing! How will that make a profit and turn them around in the next three months as part of the terms and conditions if they are building/selling nothing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Greene Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 (edited) Cerberus is a company with shareholders and restrictions built into their corporate documents re how much of their assets can go into any one investment. The original investment in Chrysler required a special vote of their board to approve, since it violated those restrictions. Any additional investment in Chrysler would also require some special approval from their board. Since the shareholders are not too happy with the original investment, an additional investment is not likely to get approved. But point is....as shareholders owning Chrysler, how do they differ from shareholders owning GM. are GM shareholders being asked to put up more cash equity? I think that is point. Actually....under this BS non binding loan plan....current GM common shareholders will be subbordinated to new equity for debt shareholders....essentially wiping out current shareholders. Yet the stock still trades today.....stupid. Should GM get back to old self, in form of sales and profits, without any further bailout terms or bankruptcies (wiping out all common stock), common shares could be worth something someday I guess. Edited December 19, 2008 by Ralph Greene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 Lets see if Congress and Paulson have the balls to enforce these requirements on the Banks and AIG before they get another dime: -Firms must accept limits on executive compensation and eliminate perks such as corporate jets. -Debt owed to the government would be senior to other debts, to the extent permitted by law. -Firms must allow the government to examine their books and records. -Firms must report and the government has the power to block any large transactions (> $100 M). -Firms must not issue new dividends while they owe government debt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron W. Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 Lets see if Congress and Paulson have the balls to enforce these requirements on the Banks and AIG before they get another dime: -Firms must accept limits on executive compensation and eliminate perks such as corporate jets. -Debt owed to the government would be senior to other debts, to the extent permitted by law. -Firms must allow the government to examine their books and records. -Firms must report and the government has the power to block any large transactions (> $100 M). -Firms must not issue new dividends while they owe government debt. You left out Firms must not use said funds for freaking partys. :shades: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Greene Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 And the wages and feather bedding work rules must be competitive with other companies in their industry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 Part of the bailout agreement is a solvent Cerberus must turn Chrysler around within three months, how are they going to do that Nick if all of its 30 production lines have been stopped, they are paying their workforce to build nothing! How will that make a profit and turn them around in the next three months as part of the terms and conditions if they are building/selling nothing? The business isn't expected to and certainly won't be turned around in 3 months. What is expected in those 3 months is for GM and Chrysler to have a viable plan moving forward to eventually become turned around. It's not like Bush gave them the money expecting them to magically turn a profit in one quarter. No one seems to have that expectation except you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted December 19, 2008 Author Share Posted December 19, 2008 The business isn't expected to and certainly won't be turned around in 3 months. What is expected in those 3 months is for GM and Chrysler to have a viable plan moving forward to eventually become turned around. It's not like Bush gave them the money expecting them to magically turn a profit in one quarter. LOL my local graveyard is producing more cars than Chyrsler at the moment Wake up Nick, nothing will change in 3 months it will be worse in 3 months time than it is now, apart from a bloodbath of job losses as job banks get destroyed by the terms and condition of the bailout. Gotta say l really like Jeep, but the rest of the line-up is something like British Leyland had in the 70's, making cars nobody wants. Chrysler need to "Make cars the buyer wants" like Obama said, in 3 month time they will still be trying to sell the same cars that don't sell at this moment in time, CLASSIC Apple i-pods i-phones can't keep up with demand why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 LOL my local graveyard is producing more cars than Chyrsler at the moment Wake up Nick, nothing will change in 3 months it will be worse in 3 months time than it is now, apart from a bloodbath of job losses as job banks get destroyed by the terms and condition of the bailout. Gotta say l really like Jeep, but the rest of the line-up is something like British Leyland had in the 70's, making cars nobody wants. Chrysler need to "Make cars the buyer wants" like Obama said, in 3 month time they will still be trying to sell the same cars that don't sell at this moment in time, CLASSIC Apple i-pods i-phones can't keep up with demand why? You really don't get it, do you? It has absolutely nothing to do with where they are NOW and everything to do with where they CAN be. Their current product offerings are pretty much irrelevant to that. So long as the current product can bring in revenue (obviously it still can -- they are still 4th or 5th largest in the U.S. in sales, after all), then there is still hope they can turn it around with future plans. THAT is the point-- looking to the future, not the present. And well, the vast majority of Chrysler's problems are labor and management related, not product related. Yes, their midsize offerings stink and they have nothing in the way of compacts, but they are still well represented in several segments like fullsize trucks, minivans, and SUVs. If after a few months, they are showing absolutely no signs of correcting their labor and management issues or developing a realistic product portfolio if midsize and small cars, then yeah, let them sink -- and that's exactly what the government will probably do. In the meantime though, give them a chance to at least TRY. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 (edited) LOL my local graveyard is producing more cars than Chyrsler at the moment Wake up Nick, nothing will change in 3 months it will be worse in 3 months time than it is now, apart from a bloodbath of job losses as job banks get destroyed by the terms and condition of the bailout. Gotta say l really like Jeep, but the rest of the line-up is something like British Leyland had in the 70's, making cars nobody wants. Chrysler need to "Make cars the buyer wants" like Obama said, in 3 month time they will still be trying to sell the same cars that don't sell at this moment in time, CLASSIC Apple i-pods i-phones can't keep up with demand why? Once again, you are a Moron. But you do bring up one good point. Top gear British-Leyland Challenge Pt.1 Top Gear British-Leyland Challenge Pt. 2 Top Gear British-Leyland Challenge Pt. 3 Top Gear British-Leyland Challenge Pt.4 Top Gear British-Leyland Challenge Pt. 5 Classic! Edited December 19, 2008 by Versa-Tech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
630land Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 "Cars people want to buy". Then how come all the other companies are losing sales too? This isnt about car types, its restructuring to survive a recession. Also, where were all these complainers when Citbank got way more $$$ than GM???? Or AIG? Or all the other banks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GT-Keith Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 Moderators aren't supposed to be robots, and don't expect me to act like one. And keep your beer chugging to yourself. You and the rest of the world will eventually be just as disillusioned with "The One" as you are with Bush. Anyone who includes Hillary Clinton and Tom Daschle in an administration promoting "change" can't be taken seriously. I hope your not defending Bushie with your anti-Obama posts. His administration is a proven failure, lets see what Obama can do before we judge. I don't care for Hilary Cliton either honestly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jafo Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 Not even close, huh? You do realize that back a few years ago they reformulated the way they come up with unemployment figures? They no longer include those who have given up looking for work and those underemployed and working part time because full time is not offered. You also have millions of temps that can be let go in a minute with nothing. Millions of home foreclosures and millions more on way. No one has accurate figures on homelessness. No one knows how many living in their cars, but it is shocking to know number is significant nonetheless. Many families now living with relatives in basement or in small, efficiency apartments barely hanging on. Unemployment is calculated via survey, not the number of people taking benefits. The method that is used to calculate unemployment is available at www.bls.gov. U3 is the number that is typically reported by the media. U6 is the broadest measure of unemployment, it includes those that have stopped looking for work, underemployment and other factors. As far as I know there has been no major change to how these numbers are computed in the last several years. But yes, they stop counting those that are on the unemployment rolls after their benefits run out, but that is a different stat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.