PDA

View Full Version : Chrysler pays execs 30 million in bonuses!



Nicholas Scheuer
11-17-2008, 01:33 PM
And they want a Bailout, too?

Executives of companies that aren't doing well don't get it, do they? Bonuses are only for PROFITABLE results!.

john l
11-17-2008, 01:43 PM
"ENTITLEMENT"

a problem on all ends!

Shang
11-17-2008, 02:52 PM
I'm changing my name to Chrysler.

Paul Pless
11-17-2008, 03:06 PM
I think I'll change mine to AIG!

Robert L E
11-17-2008, 03:19 PM
Whereas corporations get special consideration when they incorporate, I think the government should be able to protect its citizens from excess.

Here is how I would do it.

If you are incorporated I would require that ALL employees have the same benefits of employees above them in the hierarchy. (prorated for wage level).

If the CEO gets a three years pay golden parachute upon being hired, then so should the lowest paid clerk. If the CEO gets 10% of his pay for home security, then so should the janitor.

In return for the protection afforded by incorporation compensation above a certain level should be taxed to the extreme.(the level could be really high and adjusted for yearly for inflation and perhaps also adjusted for the size of the company)

I also think that high ranking corporate officials should NOT be eligible for bonuses, stock options, and the like. All employees should work for their salary or wage. Options and bonuses encourage working to the goal of obtaining the most personal gain and not what is best for the customers, employees, or shareholders. I think that they encourage corruption through the cooking of books.

I think that a janitor can affect the bottom line, with respect to his yearly wage, more easily than the CEO can. If a benefit makes no sense for the janitor, then it makes no sense for the CEO.

Bob

John of Phoenix
11-17-2008, 03:30 PM
The last guy who ran the company I work for got a 50something million dollar parachute. I told the board, "I'll run this company straight into a smokin' hole for half that."

How could any responsible board refuse an offer like that?

Nicholas Scheuer
11-17-2008, 03:31 PM
I agree, Bob. O'course I don't have a "Business Degree", so the MBA's out ther will say I don't know what I'm talking about.

I do know that European Executives work just as hard as Americans, yet receive compensation proportionately much more in-line with what the rank-and-file get.

The USA has bred a very greedy class who actually seem to believe having less than one percent of the population making 90% of the available income is a "good thing".

Moby Nick

JimD
11-17-2008, 03:53 PM
On the other hand, the big money deals for top execs is the only way to keep a steady influx of middle managers willing to work themselves to death in the one in a million chance they might make it to the top and get those golden parachutes for themselves. Without such a faint hope clause many big corporations would run out of lower managers willing to kill themselves for a dream.

Nicholas Scheuer
11-17-2008, 04:12 PM
Better top managent would figure out ways to keep the midling range happier.

Like I said, those clowns deserve bonuses? Maybe closing up all three shops would be best. Then the bastards at the top would be walking the street, for sure!

Moby Nick

Nicholas Scheuer
11-17-2008, 04:13 PM
Next they can close up the Harvard Business School, untill they design a curriculum that is actually good for the USA.

Moby Nick

Phillip Allen
11-17-2008, 04:38 PM
speakin of not gettin it...the recipients of those bonuses KNOW which laws were borken and where the bodies are...and that is why they get the big bucks...

Milo Christensen
11-17-2008, 08:44 PM
These aren't profit sharing bonuses. They're retention bonuses (http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1441466620081114). But then when your goal is the destruction of corporate America, you don't want companies to retain their top talent.

This is the kind of profit sharing Chrysler used to do (http://www.autocentral.com/article.mvc/Chrysler-Hands-Out-8100-Profit-Sharing-Bonus-0001?VNETCOOKIE=NO), back in the day when there were still enough full-blooded Americans that Chrysler could actually make (cover the children's eyes) a profit.

Scheuer just can't wait for the redistribution retribution.

ishmael
11-17-2008, 09:14 PM
Does make me a bit ill. There needs to be some cognance between the people running things and the people who really run things.

Pop, at the height of his powers as a mid-upper level executive at BF Goodrich, earned 27 big ones a year. That was fair compensation. He worked hard, did a good job, had his eye on the presidency of the company but never made it there. Whatever else may be going on, these outlandish corporate salaries, golden parachutes and such, create a sense of unfair. I mean, I'm all for compensating people fairly, but these salaries aren't fair. Especially if the company is damn well failing.

riptide
11-17-2008, 09:25 PM
These aren't profit sharing bonuses. They're retention bonuses (http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1441466620081114). But then when your goal is the destruction of corporate America, you don't want companies to retain their top talent.

This is the kind of profit sharing Chrysler used to do (http://www.autocentral.com/article.mvc/Chrysler-Hands-Out-8100-Profit-Sharing-Bonus-0001?VNETCOOKIE=NO), back in the day when there were still enough full-blooded Americans that Chrysler could actually make (cover the children's eyes) a profit.

Scheuer just can't wait for the redistribution retribution.

I don't get your point, Milo. There are no profit-sharing bonuses for the rank and file because the idiots at the top don't know how to run a profitable company. So why on earth would you want to RETAIN them?

As for the "destruction" of corporate America ... top management at GM, Ford, and Chrysler seem to be making good progress on that front without any help from Mr. Scheuer.

Saltiguy
11-17-2008, 10:50 PM
You gotta wonder if they teach any common sense at the business schools. I'm a Buick man. Buick has been building a hell of a good car for years and folks would start with the Century or Regal, move up to the LeSabre and finally up to the Park ave. The loyalty was solid. I drove one trouble-free LeSabre after another for years and my last two Buicks were Park Aves. The Park ave is a real winner - 3.8, runs like a top, dead quiet, smooth, loaded, full size, 26mpg overall . , 31 mpg on the highway. Will roll all day at an easy 80mph like you're in your mommas' arms. So what did Buick do? They discontinued the LeSabre AND the Park ave. Dumbest damn marketing plan I ever saw. They just dumped their loyal buyers over the side. Go figure.

Shang
11-17-2008, 10:58 PM
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f93/shangboat/mob_pitchforks_small.jpg

pila
11-18-2008, 01:52 AM
My brother retired from Chrysler in Toledo last August. I think he was the plant trouble-shooter so to speak. He said they have a bunch of new college types , who know everything and assembly lines get screwed up. He's glad to be out. If they go under, I wondered if his retirement is at risk.

Nicholas Scheuer
11-18-2008, 07:54 AM
Tell'ya what Saltguy.

The WORST automobile I ever bought new was a 1975 BUICVK CENTURY. It was the WORST GOD DAMMED PILE OF JUNK I EVER DROVE!

I WILL NOT ever own another BUICK. Hell could freeze over solid, and my best friend's job could hang in the balance, and I would just as soon drive a bulldozer through the Buick Assembly Plant.

My 1975 Centuy had so many design and assembly problems that I once parked it in front of the dealer before dawn with a big yellow lemon painted on each front door(latex paint over wax), then hid the key so they wouldn't find it beore I phoned to tell them where the key was.

Buick can KMA

Moby Nick

Milo Christensen
11-18-2008, 07:57 AM
I don't get your point, Milo. There are no profit-sharing bonuses for the rank and file because the idiots at the top don't know how to run a profitable company. . . .

Obviously you don't get the point. The use of the word idiots demonstrates that very clearly. The points are:

When profitable, the car companies have been very generous to their workers.
The current environment vis a vis the imports stacks the decks against the car companies, rendering profitability impossible until 2010, when the legacy costs have been offset onto the UAW and the new wage and benefit scale is half what it was at the peak, which will make the former big three competitive against the imports again.
The 40 executives getting the retention bonus are the folks Chrysler decided they needed to keep at almost any cost. These are the executives who are keeping things from being even worse. But feel free to call them idiots, it clearly absolves you from understanding the real problems.

Milo Christensen
11-18-2008, 07:59 AM
Ahhh, Mr. Scheuer has revealed the depth and breadth and length of his hatred.

Tylerdurden
11-18-2008, 07:59 AM
Like Shang I only have violence in my heart so I will refrain from much more. These people should not feel safe anywhere they go.

LeeG
11-18-2008, 08:11 AM
what if the auto industry in the US has very low growth as a consequence of higher gas prices, everything I've read points to 2010-2012 as a likely time oil prices tick back up and the economy is going to be in the crapper for awhile as we pay off debt.
Why not take advantage of this moment and encourage a transfer of labor from the auto industry to industries related to development of renewable power and increasing efficiency?
Does it really make sense to try and bail out a few companies in an industry that will be tapering off? One of the long term consequences of peak oil is a change in how people commute to work. If gas gets to the point that having three cars for a family of four is too expensive and people keep cars longer and buy fewer cars it pretty much slows down the industry anyway.

The auto customer has many manufacturers to chose from, if a Buick didn't exist it wouldn't keep one from finding a similar sized car.

Maybe this is the beginning of the paradigm shift that growth and consumption,,as evidenced by buying a new car on loan every five years,,is unsustainable as a country given other competing priorities.

LeeG
11-18-2008, 08:38 AM
old news from 2 1/2yrs ago

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10642724/

He also blames Detroit’s inability to come up with exciting products that consumers want to buy. GM, for its part, hopes to counter some of those charges and raise sales and revenue in 2006 with a new line of full-size SUVs and pickups with greater fuel-efficiency. But the introduction of the vehicles comes as consumers shift toward car-based “crossover” vehicles, or CUVs. And GM no longer enjoys an image of distinction and quality.

JimD
11-18-2008, 08:51 AM
... I only have violence in my heart...

That's a keeper.

Tylerdurden
11-18-2008, 08:55 AM
That's a keeper.

As long as you keep it in context. Nasty habit here of beating one over the head with misquotes and out of context flashes.

LeeG
11-18-2008, 08:56 AM
Ahhh, Mr. Scheuer has revealed the depth and breadth and length of his hatred.

You mean American cars in the 70's weren't crap?

Phillip Allen
11-18-2008, 09:06 AM
Tell'ya what Saltguy.

The WORST automobile I ever bought new was a 1975 BUICVK CENTURY. It was the WORST GOD DAMMED PILE OF JUNK I EVER DROVE!

I WILL NOT ever own another BUICK. Hell could freeze over solid, and my best friend's job could hang in the balance, and I would just as soon drive a bulldozer through the Buick Assembly Plant.

My 1975 Centuy had so many design and assembly problems that I once parked it in front of the dealer before dawn with a big yellow lemon painted on each front door(latex paint over wax), then hid the key so they wouldn't find it beore I phoned to tell them where the key was.

Buick can KMA

Moby Nick

More power to ya...I've had to deal with "dealerships" and it's hard to find a more arrogant bunch (hidden under a thin veil of plastic smiles)

Milo Christensen
11-18-2008, 09:21 AM
You mean American cars in the 70's weren't crap?

Yes, and so were the Japanese imports of that era.

LeeG
11-18-2008, 09:44 AM
so "hate" isn't the issue, he's talking from experience of the product. BTW I had a '72 Datsun pickup and didn't think it was crap.

JimD
11-18-2008, 09:55 AM
Don't drive. Revolt.

pila
11-18-2008, 10:02 AM
I had a '71 Datsun pickup, and it was a tough little truck, and reliable too.

LeeG
11-18-2008, 10:09 AM
bring back the minipickup....

http://www.mercurynews.com/cars/ci_10985146?nclick_check=1

The news didn't surprise one analyst who noted the falling market for small pickups.

"Trucks like the Tacoma have gotten too large over the last decade," said Mike Levine, editor of PickupTrucks.com. "Buyers can't find the fuel economy or footprint they want. They're too close to full-size pickups."

JimD
11-18-2008, 10:11 AM
Seriously, I'm surprised there hasn't been more talk about Ronald Raygun's Chrysler bailout in 1980. How many times does this loser company get to be resurrected with taxpayer money and federal intervention? At least twice, it appears. Free enterprise? What a joke.

Milo Christensen
11-18-2008, 10:21 AM
The difference is this time they don't have Lee Iacocca taking a $1 a year and leading the company to repay the "bailout" early.

But then, the top hedge fund manager, a supporter of Obama, making more than $1 billion a year fleecing folks gets a free pass. As do the other billion-bucks-a-year guys. But it's O.K. because it's George Soros, without whom we'd all be saying remember that black guy with the funny name who tried to run for President.

But give some absolutely critical executive a million and a half and folks post pictures of lynch mobs.

LeeG
11-18-2008, 10:28 AM
Milo, wtf are you talking about?

Captain Blight
11-18-2008, 10:34 AM
Little early in the day to be drinking so much, isn't it Milo? You know, help is available if you can just admit you have a problem.

riptide
11-18-2008, 10:43 AM
The current environment vis a vis the imports stacks the decks against the car companies, rendering profitability impossible until 2010, when the legacy costs have been offset onto the UAW and the new wage and benefit scale is half what it was at the peak, which will make the former big three competitive against the imports again.

Right. Blame it on the union. I'm not surprised.

It's been 25 years since I bought a car that wasn't from a Japanese company... mostly Toyotas. They're better engineered and more reliable. They're also more suited to what I want from a car, in lots of little ways. They THINK about what they're doing and pay attention. Detroit doesn't -- the Big 3 just keep cranking out stuff and hope people buy it. What's the plan for changing that by 2010?

Milo Christensen
11-18-2008, 10:44 AM
I wouldn't expect you two kool-aid drinkers to understand. It's weird, though, the Obama supporters lining up on the same side as the Republican Senators and a conservative like myself lining up on the side of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. It's not about Free trade anymore, it's about Country First and Fair Trade.

Milo Christensen
11-18-2008, 10:48 AM
Right. Blame it on the union. I'm not surprised.

It's been 25 years since I bought a car that wasn't from a Japanese company... mostly Toyotas. They're better engineered and more reliable. What's the plan for changing that by 2010?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Someone who buys Toyotas yet thinks I'm blaming anything on the UAW. Your economic ignorance verges on the imbecilic.

That giant sucking sound you hear . . .

Dan McCosh
11-18-2008, 10:55 AM
My brother retired from Chrysler in Toledo last August. I think he was the plant trouble-shooter so to speak. He said they have a bunch of new college types , who know everything and assembly lines get screwed up. He's glad to be out. If they go under, I wondered if his retirement is at risk.

At risk? It will mostly be non-existent. What do you think bankruptcy means?

John of Phoenix
11-18-2008, 10:57 AM
Milo, why would you want to give several billion of our tax dollars to people haven't turned a profit in ages and haven't put forth plan to do so?

I know the Michigan thing may have an influence, but if GM goes chapter 11 it negates all those onerous union contracts you've criticized.

riptide
11-18-2008, 11:08 AM
My economic ignorance, Milo? It's basic capitalist economics. You wanna be successful and make a profit? Figure out what people want and make it available to them for a fair price. If I'm buying Japanese, it's because Detroit doesn't know how to do that, and that's not the union's fault. They build what management tells 'em to build.

The fundamental disagreement here is over whether management is to blame for the problems the companies face. Lots of folks think they shoulder a substantial part of the blame, including folks who know way more about economics than either of us ever will. You seem to think they're blameless.

LeeG
11-18-2008, 11:09 AM
Milo, back off the insults por favor. The big three aren't doing as well as other domestic manufacturers like Honda and Toyota. Whatever the reasons those are the facts, I'm not exactly sure of the trendlines in auto sales but if it's an industry that isn't expected to experience the growth it did in the 90's why should it be "saved"? Why can't one of the big three fold and the remaining auto companies buy up what's for sale?

riptide
11-18-2008, 11:16 AM
Milo, why would you want to give several billion of our tax dollars to people haven't turned a profit in ages and haven't put forth plan to do so?

Exactly. I'm not opposed to a bailout in principal, but I want to see an intelligent plan for turning things around. Building more of the same stuff they've been building isn't it. And if current management doesn't have a clue what to do -- which seems to be the case -- they should not be retained.

Telling us that Detroit will be competitive again in 2010 when the legacy costs have been offset and there's a new wage and benefit scale doesn't count as a plan.

Hybrids are a lovely example of the ass-backwards thinking atop the Big 3. They started off way behind Toyota and Honda. And once they realized they had to do something, what did they do? Hybrid SUVs and Hybrid Trucks!

Take GM's lineup: you can get a hybrid Tahoe, Silverado, Yukon or Sierra. Oh ... and a Malibu. I've driven a non-hybrid Malibu as a rental, just last year in fact. I've also driven a hybrid Civic and a Prius, along with an older Accord and Camry (both of which are now available as hybrids). If I were in the market for a hybrid car, I'd pass on that Malibu, thank you. It's not a bad car, but the Hondas and Toyotas are better.

John of Phoenix
11-18-2008, 11:19 AM
Originally Posted by pila
My brother retired from Chrysler in Toledo last August. I think he was the plant trouble-shooter so to speak. He said they have a bunch of new college types , who know everything and assembly lines get screwed up. He's glad to be out. If they go under, I wondered if his retirement is at risk.


At risk? It will mostly be non-existent. What do you think bankruptcy means?
Actually he may be in pretty decent shape.

Employee Retirement Income Security Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Retirement_Income_Security_Act) is an American federal statute that establishes minimum standards for pension plans in private industry and provides for extensive rules on the federal income tax effects of transactions associated with employee benefit plans. ERISA was enacted to protect the interests of employee benefit plan participants and their beneficiaries by requiring the disclosure to them of financial and other information concerning the plan; by establishing standards of conduct for plan fiduciaries; and by providing for appropriate remedies and access to the federal courts.


Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension_Benefit_Guaranty_Corporation) is an independent agency of the United States government that was created by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to encourage the continuation and maintenance of voluntary private defined benefit pension plans, provide timely and uninterrupted payment of pension benefits, and keep pension insurance premiums at the lowest level necessary to carry out its operations. The PBGC insurance pays 100% of promised pension benefits up to the maximum of $51,750 a year (as of 2008). The benefits payable to insured retirees who start their benefits at ages other than 65, or who elect survivor coverage, are adjusted to be equivalent in value.

I'm not aware of any of dubya's signing statements that have ursurped these. But he's not gone yet.

riptide
11-18-2008, 11:44 AM
Why can't one of the big three fold and the remaining auto companies buy up what's for sale?

In lieu of a "bailout," that's exactly what I'd like to see happen. Instead of spending tax dollars propping up three companies that can't turn a profit, let one of the three go under, and use the tax money to make sure that the workers are taken care of through the transition.

The problem, of course, is that none of the companies would "volunteer" to be the one to fold. The only way to pick one is to let all three spiral downhill until someone declares bankruptcy ... but that would leave the two survivors battered and bruised.

On further thought, here's an idea. Let the Big 3, in effect, BID on the bailout. Congress should pass a bill offering a bailout to the TWO -- and only TWO -- that come up with the best plan for turning things around. An unbiased team of experts should be assembled to evaluate the plans. The two companies who put up the best plans get the bailout money, and the other company gets nothing.

Paul Pless
11-18-2008, 11:54 AM
Why can't one of the big three fold and the remaining auto companies buy up what's for sale?Another reason is that neither of the other two will be in any position to be able to buy what's left.

riptide
11-18-2008, 12:01 PM
Another reason is that neither of the other two will be in any position to be able to buy what's left.

They would if we agree to bail out two of them but not all three.

LeeG
11-18-2008, 12:04 PM
Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc.

Paul, if there aren't enough customers to support a business that's dying why save it?

The country is in the beginning stages of a shift from consumption as a measure of success. I'm not sure what the shift is to but we're at a place where we are vulnerable as the largest consumers of oil on the planet when cheap oil that made the sale of 100'millions of cars possible. The gas price volatility of the last year follows a declining trend for the big three, it's a harbinger of what we're going to have into the next decade.

Does it make ANY sense to reward a segment of the industry that cannot think long term?

Does it make ANY sense to save a segment of the auto industry that thought hybrid SUVs made sense two years ago as a way to combat declining light truck sales?

riptide
11-18-2008, 12:07 PM
Take GM's lineup: you can get a hybrid Tahoe, Silverado, Yukon or Sierra. Oh ... and a Malibu.

Oops. I forgot one. You can also buy a Hybrid Cadillac Escalade. 20 mpg city, 21 mpg highway. And about $75 grand. Should be a really big market for those.

Captain Blight
11-18-2008, 12:20 PM
What's happening to Detroit--and what has been happening for 35 years now--is simply supply-side economics and raw capitalism in action. Let's not forget that caveat emptor can apply to really expensive things like gas-hog Hummers; and that freedom to succeed also means freedom to fail. If the Big 3 were intent on rescuing themselves, they would have small, fuel-efficient coupes, sedans and wagons in the pipeline ready to go.

Let's take Ford as an example. Big ol' dinosaur Ford. Now, the F-series of trucks has consistently been the best-selling vehicle in North America for some time now, but that's about to change--and what's ford doing about it? Not a GD thing. They won't even bring their excellent European-spec Focus stateside to replace the crappy US-spec Focus.
What's wrong with these guys? So what if a few people have to admit they're wrong? Is their job security worth bankrupting a huge segment of the economy?

Michael Moore might have got something right in Downsize This! when he suggested that GM should just sell crack cocaine. It'd be more profitable and probably less damaging to the economy in the short term, which is all these a-holes seem to be interested in.

Captain Blight
11-18-2008, 12:21 PM
What's happening to Detroit--and what has been happening for 35 years now--is simply supply-side economics and raw capitalism in action. Let's not forget that caveat emptor can apply to really expensive things like gas-hog Hummers; and that freedom to succeed also means freedom to fail. If the Big 3 were intent on rescuing themselves, they would have small, fuel-efficient coupes, sedans and wagons in the pipeline ready to go.

Let's take Ford as an example. Big ol' dinosaur Ford. Now, the F-series of trucks has consistently been the best-selling vehicle in North America for some time now, but that's about to change--and what's ford doing about it? Not a GD thing. They won't even bring their excellent European-spec Focus stateside to replace the crappy US-spec Focus.
What's wrong with these guys? So what if a few people have to admit they're wrong? Is their job security worth bankrupting a huge segment of the economy?

Michael Moore might have got something right in Downsize This! when he suggested that GM should just sell crack cocaine. It'd be more profitable and probably less damaging to the economy in the short term, which is all these a-holes seem to be interested in.

Milo Christensen
11-18-2008, 12:26 PM
They would if we agree to bail out two of them but not all three.

You should just stop, you're embarassing yourself.

LeeG
11-18-2008, 12:30 PM
Milo, if you aren't embarassed why should he ?

LeeG
11-18-2008, 12:36 PM
op/ed

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/general-motors-death-watch-215-man-u/

Bailout - Stop whining. Stop blaming everyone and anything but yourselves for your current predicament. You look stupid as a company. GM should stand up and tell the truth we’ve all known for years: their problems are entirely of their own making. Man up!

There’s an old adage told by aviators all over the world. When your airplane is in trouble, do something, anything, to change the outcome. Doing nothing and you’re sure to hit the dirt. Right now, GM’s doing nothing besides begging– and not getting much sympathy. Maybe it is time to roll the crash trucks?

Memphis Mike
11-18-2008, 12:36 PM
Like Shang I only have violence in my heart so I will refrain from much more. These people should not feel safe anywhere they go.

Yep. Me too.

Milo Christensen
11-18-2008, 12:50 PM
Last post on this thread. I can understand the opposition if it was the Republicans pushing for the auto companies' bailout. But for the life of me I can't figure out how, before Obama even takes office, so many of his ardent supporters are acting like the Republicans they railed against for 8 years. I just don't get it. Why aren't you supporting the position being taken by Pelosi and Reid? This is America for the next two to four years.

riptide
11-18-2008, 03:12 PM
Let's take Ford as an example. Big ol' dinosaur Ford. Now, the F-series of trucks has consistently been the best-selling vehicle in North America for some time now, but that's about to change--and what's ford doing about it? Not a GD thing.

Speaking of dinosaurs ... I'm glad you mentioned the F-series. Have you ever taken a good look at the current version of the F150? It's HUGE -- a new F150 is as big or bigger than an older F250! And if you want a smaller truck, all they offer is the crappy Ranger, which can't hold a candle to a Toyota Tacoma.
.

riptide
11-18-2008, 03:16 PM
But for the life of me I can't figure out how, before Obama even takes office, so many of his ardent supporters are acting like the Republicans they railed against for 8 years.

Because we like to think for ourselves? And because this issue has NOTHING to do with the problems the Republicans have been dumping on us and the rest of the world for the last 8 years?

John of Phoenix
11-18-2008, 03:21 PM
Last post on this thread. I can understand the opposition if it was the Republicans pushing for the auto companies' bailout. But for the life of me I can't figure out how, before Obama even takes office, so many of his ardent supporters are acting like the Republicans they railed against for 8 years. I just don't get it. Why aren't you supporting the position being taken by Pelosi and Reid? This is America for the next two to four years.
Independent thinking really throws you that much?

Tylerdurden
11-18-2008, 03:50 PM
Yep. Me too.

Three to five would be worth it beating one of those clowns to a pulp.
One would be a hero inside and I would think lots of people would send checks to ones commissary. A person would live pretty comfortable if one likes to read. :D

ishmael
11-18-2008, 05:24 PM
"Yes, and so were the Japanese imports of that era."

Um, Milo, I don't know where you were during the seventies, but the Japanese goods were far more reliable than Detroit iron. That's one reason the Japanese took the market by storm.

My first car was a '72 Corolla I paid six hundred bucks for, drove for three years and forty thousand miles without a single snag, and then sold for six hundred bucks. People were buying Toyotas precisely because you could count on them to go when you turned the key. Were there lemons? Sure, but by percentage they were much less common.

Since then I've owned and driven both American and Japanese. The quality discrepancies have largely disappeared, but people tend to become faithful to what they know works, even when that faith is outdated. And, of course, cars are now usually assembled in various places other than the location of the corporate headquarters.

That said, given the choice between a Corolla and a Chevette, which would you pick?;)

Dan McCosh
11-18-2008, 05:30 PM
"Yes, and so were the Japanese imports of that era."

Um, Milo, I don't know where you were during the seventies, but the Japanese goods were far more reliable than Detroit iron. That's one reason the Japanese took the market by storm.

My first car was a '72 Corolla I paid six hundred bucks for, drove for three years and forty thousand miles without a single snag, and then sold for six hundred bucks. People were buying Toyotas precisely because you could count on them to go when you turned the key. Were there lemons? Sure, but by percentage they were much less common.

Since then I've owned and driven both American and Japanese. The quality discrepancies have largely disappeared, but people tend to become faithful to what they know works, even when that faith is outdated. And, of course, cars are now usually assembled in various places other than the location of the corporate headquarters.

That said, given the choice between a Corolla and a Chevette, which would you pick?;)

The early '70s Corollas did have one minor flaw. The suspension and engine mounts were spot-welded to the inner fender liners, and had a habit of rusting through in a couple of years. That dropped either the engine or the wheels. Otherwise, they ran quite well.

JimD
11-18-2008, 05:38 PM
...the Japanese goods were far more reliable than Detroit iron. That's one reason the Japanese took the market by storm...

The other reason was that until then about the only low cost, small car you could buy in America was the Volkswagen Beetle which had hardly changed since Hitler commissioned it. There was a huge market for small cars and Detroit did nothing. So the Japs filled the void. This is now going to be the second time around for Chrysler. How many times can they not learn the same lesson?

JimD
11-18-2008, 05:41 PM
Three to five would be worth it beating one of those clowns to a pulp.

Don't vote. Beat the pulp out of somebody.

Shang
11-18-2008, 05:46 PM
Like Shang I only have violence in my heart so I will refrain from much more. These people should not feel safe anywhere they go.

Naugh... I wish only happiness and prosperity to the Chrysler execs.
It is heart warming to think of them returning to their homes tonight,
and their mothers running out from under the porch and biting their ankles...

TimH
11-18-2008, 05:58 PM
I think they should just give them the whole company. They deserve it for all their hard work....



pffft...

ishmael
11-18-2008, 06:12 PM
"The early '70s Corollas did have one minor flaw. The suspension and engine mounts were spot-welded to the inner fender liners, and had a habit of rusting through in a couple of years. That dropped either the engine or the wheels. Otherwise, they ran quite well."

I'm not sure I'd call that a "minor flaw." LOL.

I lived most the time I had the car in places without a lot of snow and ice, so not a lot of road salt. It's been awhile, but I remember the unit body as a weak spot. This was before fender liners came to be common practice, and the wheel wells at the back of the the front tires did rot. Nothing to threaten the structural integrity, but annoying. The mechanical structure was first rate. I remember marveling at how fine the aluminum castings were.

Tylerdurden
11-19-2008, 03:31 AM
Don't vote. Beat the pulp out of somebody.
Now your getting it. Us slaves need to grow a pair.

I get sick of all the civilized trying to maintain in an uncivilized world.
Its more like a masked ball.

http://www.cisi.unito.it/progetti/shining/music/IMMAGINI/Eyes%20Wide%20Shut%20-%20ews-bill-fidelio.jpg

ishmael
11-19-2008, 05:47 AM
"I get sick of all the civilized trying to maintain in an uncivilized world.
Its more like a masked ball."

Mark, do you really want things to fall apart? The masks we wear keep things running. It's imperfect, but it's better than the alternative, methinks.

That said, playing with persona can be great fun, in small groups. We all play rolls, and get tired of them from time to time. So let it out in a small community of trust. Kubrick had other things in mind with "Eyes Wide Shut."

One of the most vibrant speakers I've ever heard in person was a woman called Marion Woodman. A Canuck, oh my. A Jungian. After she spoke, it was a weekend conference, she had everyone stand up with who they came with and played a fun game. Pose this person as you see them. No resistance allowed, you had to just be posed as your compatriot saw you.

JimD
11-19-2008, 05:58 AM
Don't vote. The sooner the world decends into the ultimate orgy of chaos and carnage the better. Free at last.

Tylerdurden
11-19-2008, 06:05 AM
You should read the background on the making of that movie unfiltered.

I understand you constant need to let things pass Jack. Its easier to sit on the couch and speculate endlessly than to deal with the fear of real change and the chaos that comes with it. Most of us here will be on the ropes soon with retirements going south and no jobs or future for old men. The sooner us old fat asses understand its our job to make sure the next generation lives free the better off we will be.
With a collapsed economy most simple folk will have nothing to lean back on in the years ahead and do you think our children will want to look out for us knowing how we sacrificed nothing for their sake in our time?
We will learn this lesson sooner or later. Take you pick at the outcome.

JimD
11-19-2008, 06:22 AM
...With a collapsed economy most simple folk will have nothing to lean back on in the years ahead and do you think our children will want to look out for us knowing how we sacrificed nothing for their sake in our time?
We will learn this lesson sooner or later. Take you pick at the outcome.

Try not to think of it as a collapsed economy. Try thinking of it more as a levelled playing field.

Tylerdurden
11-19-2008, 06:35 AM
Try not to think of it as a collapsed economy. Try thinking of it more as a levelled playing field.

Are you nuts? What is level about it? The small individual has buckets full of rules, regulation and taxation to deal with while the elite class changes them on a whim to suit them. Are you ready to pay you share of the 4.8 trillion levied upon us by our masters? Not where your sitting as everyone can plainly see here.
The issue is the many trying to hold on desperately to whatever they have left while not knowing that at the same time our leaders plan to seize whatever is left in their nest egg. These things are coming to be visited upon us and when will we get a clue. When we are starving while the G-20 meets and dines on caviar?
What will possibly make you change your do nothing attitude?

JimD
11-19-2008, 06:46 AM
Tylerdurden you go on and on and on and never articulate a remedial action plan. The playing field is being leveled globally in the sense that the US is losing its ability to control or influence world events. American elites have crushed rebellion around the world where ever they could and will crush it at home, too, when it comes to that because that will be the only place left for them to control. And your plan is???

Tylerdurden
11-19-2008, 06:58 AM
Tylerdurden you go on and on and on and never articulate a remedial action plan. The playing field is being leveled globally in the sense that the US is losing its ability to control or influence world events. American elites have crushed rebellion around the world where ever they could and will crush it at home, too, when it comes to that because that will be the only place left for them to control. And your plan is???


Resistance en masse. Not hard to understand really.

You can always just lay on your stomach and let the "bad" things happen. Just try to smile through the pain.:rolleyes:

JimD
11-19-2008, 07:06 AM
Resistance? I just can't resist asking 'What kind of resistance? Armed resistance? If you're afraid of the consequences of actually saying it, just wink. Otherwise your answer is vague to the point of being no answer at all.

Tylerdurden
11-19-2008, 07:09 AM
Resistance? I just can't resist asking 'What kind of resistance? Armed resistance? If you're afraid of the consequences of actually saying it, just wink. Otherwise your answer is vague to the point of being no answer at all.

Its not vague, There are so many forms of resistance to be applied.
Everybody can have a part in it beyond the narrow definition you seek. Refusal to comply at the smallest level is resistance and one can go up the ladder from there to "armed" resistance.

Haven't you ever heard "Just say No":rolleyes:

JimD
11-19-2008, 07:15 AM
...Haven't you ever heard "Just say No":rolleyes:

A lot of us practice resistance. Your assumption to the contrary gets tedious.

Tylerdurden
11-19-2008, 07:23 AM
A lot of us practice resistance. Your assumption to the contrary gets tedious.

Well give me some examples of what is practiced?

Here's some Veterans doing their part at the National archives.
Did you see this on the news? Nope. No one did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LZsh2fBMwo&eurl=http://www.opednews.com/articles/Breaking-Homeland-Securit-by-Cheryl-Biren-Wrigh-081116-294.html

Tylerdurden
11-19-2008, 07:25 AM
A lot of us practice resistance. Your assumption to the contrary gets tedious.

When you TV show gets tedious do you keep watching?

JimD
11-19-2008, 07:32 AM
When you TV show gets tedious do you keep watching?

No. That's one reason I often don't pay much attention to your posts. I laud your good intentions but frankly you frequently don't give the viewing audience much reason to stay tuned.

Tylerdurden
11-19-2008, 07:51 AM
No. That's one reason I often don't pay much attention to your posts. I laud your good intentions but frankly you frequently don't give the viewing audience much reason to stay tuned.

Opinions are like a-holes Jim:D

JimD
11-19-2008, 07:52 AM
Opinions are like a-holes Jim:D

You seem to have more than most.:p

Tylerdurden
11-19-2008, 07:54 AM
You seem to have more than most.:p

I don't know about that. You have posted to almost everyone of mine this morning. Almost parasitic.:rolleyes:

JimD
11-19-2008, 08:04 AM
I don't know about that. You have posted to almost everyone of mine this morning. Almost parasitic.:rolleyes:

Its 0500 hours here. I've been up all night with insomnia. I could have read a book, I suppose.

Tylerdurden
11-19-2008, 08:07 AM
Its 0500 hours here. I've been up all night with insomnia. I could have read a book, I suppose.

I have a thread about interesting reading. I will have to find it.;)

riptide
11-20-2008, 12:51 AM
"The early '70s Corollas did have one minor flaw. The suspension and engine mounts were spot-welded to the inner fender liners, and had a habit of rusting through in a couple of years. That dropped either the engine or the wheels. Otherwise, they ran quite well."

I'm not sure I'd call that a "minor flaw." LOL.

It's all relative! A Ford Pinto of comparable vintage had a gas tank that was prone to explode if hit from behind, thereby incinerating the occupants.

Lee Iacocca knew it, too, before the first Pinto hit the showroom, but he decided it would be more "profitable" to hire lawyers and fight the lawsuits than it would be to fix the damn car. That's Detroit for you.

JimD
11-20-2008, 01:13 AM
... A Ford Pinto of comparable vintage had a gas tank that was prone to explode if hit from behind.

I totalled a '72 Pinto. I crossed the centreline doing maybe 50 or 60 mph and plowed into one car almost head on, then spun around so that the rear end of it collided with the next car driving behind the first. So the Pinto was crushed at both ends to about half its regular length. Some friends of mine saw the wreck and thought for sure nobody could live through such a mess and that I must be dead. But three of us just crawled out of it with minor injuries. No fire. Lucky son of a gun, aren't I?:D

Tylerdurden
11-20-2008, 05:20 AM
I drove a freinds V8 pinto. One scary SOB.:eek:

ishmael
11-20-2008, 09:27 AM
Pop's last car was a Pinto with a four banger and an auto transmission. One of the worst cars I've ever driven. U had to get out and push to get it up much of a hill. And there is that issue of the gas tank!

Who designed that car? They should be taken out at dawn and shot!;)

ccmanuals
11-20-2008, 11:10 AM
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Someone who buys Toyotas yet thinks I'm blaming anything on the UAW. Your economic ignorance verges on the imbecilic.

That giant sucking sound you hear . . .

Milo, so I guess you are saying that the barnacles on the boat caused it to go aground and that the captain had nothing to do with it?

Milo Christensen
11-20-2008, 11:26 AM
Milo, so I guess you are saying that the barnacles on the boat caused it to go aground and that the captain had nothing to do with it?

The barnacles and the captain and the passengers were all trying to reach a safe harbor after years of fleeing rapacious pirates that had an unfair advantage when the reefs of Four Dollar Gas and No Credit kind of sprung up in an unprecedented cataclysmic uplift and the boat needed just a little more time to change course before hitting the reefs, but alas.

CK 17
11-20-2008, 11:30 AM
The 40 executives getting the retention bonus are the folks Chrysler decided they needed to keep at almost any cost. These are the executives who are keeping things from being even worse. But feel free to call them idiots, it clearly absolves you from understanding the real problems.


Where the hell is personal pride. I'll stay and fix it only if you make me wealthy, or more wealthy. Why do we have to take the risk out of it for thee executives.

Why not stay and fix it for a couple of hundred grand a year because it's the right thing to do. How much friggen money does one person need!!

It's absoulutely mind boggling.

TimH
11-20-2008, 02:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milo Christensen http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2013026#post2013026)
The 40 executives getting the retention bonus are the folks Chrysler decided they needed to keep at almost any cost. These are the executives who are keeping things from being even worse. But feel free to call them idiots, it clearly absolves you from understanding the real problems.



these are the guys who screwed things up in the first place no? How is giving them more money going to enable them to fix it?