Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Bindare_Dundat on March 29, 2009, 11:07:34 PM
-
General Motors chief executive Rick Wagoner is stepping down immediately at the behest of the White House, government sources said Sunday evening.
The news came a day before U.S. President Barack Obama announced plans to further help the struggling Detroit automakers restructure their finances.
It's expected that Obama's plans to reshape the companies will go much deeper than previously thought, and will increase Washington's role in what will likely be a painful process.
Just before the news broke that Wagoner was stepping down, Obama chided the Detroit Three automakers, saying they needed to do more in terms of restructuring in order to receive financial aid.
"They're not there yet," Obama told CBS News Sunday.
GM and Chrysler are now surviving on US$17 billion in loans from the U.S. government, and GM was expected to ask for another US$16.6 billion. The Canadian units of both companies are also seeking billions of dollars in loans from Ottawa.
Late Sunday, the White House handed both companies billions more so they can stay afloat.
It's unclear who will replace the 56-year-old Wagoner, who has been leading the company through the toughest financial crisis GM has ever faced.
He also leaves just before the company was expected to hand its finalized restructuring plans to the White House on Tuesday.
-
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Obama administration gave General Motors and Chrysler LLC failing grades Monday for their turnaround efforts and promised a sweeping overhaul of the troubled companies. The government plans to give the automakers more money, but it is also holding out the threat of a "structured bankruptcy."
The federal government will provide operating funds for both automakers for several weeks, during which time the companies will have to undergo significant restructuring, administration officials said late Sunday night.
President Obama is expected later Monday morning to make a formal announcement about his plans for the companies, which have already been given $17.4 billion.
GM (GM, Fortune 500) will get 60 days and Chrysler 30 days in which to make a final push toward proving they can run viable businesses. If Chrysler succeeds, it will receive a $6 billion loan. In GM's case, the officials would not specify how much money the carmaker might receive.
-
Cue the neocuunts to chime in with socialism claims.
Hey, the guy did take billions of dollars of YOUR money, and 3-4 months later, he's in the same spot as before. Worse actually.
I think it's fair. If you receive six billion dollars of yours and my tax dollars, and you squander it, I don't give a shit if you live in a cardboard box. This guy will retire a deca-millionaire. He just doesn't get to keep his job, squandering of our $1.5 billion tax dollars a month.
Still, ppl will defend his performance because they hate obama. Go figure.
-
If you accept gov (taxpayor) money, the gov now becomes the board of directors.
GM and Crystler should be been assisted in structured bankrupcy last fall. We'll end of giving GM alone at least 50 billion of our money to stay afloat.
-
If you accept gov (taxpayor) money, the gov now becomes the board of directors.
100% correct.
If GM had went to Bill gates for money, and he had give them billions of dollars...
Nobody here would be crying if he demanded the CEO take a hike, if the guy wasn't able to improve things.
GM lost $20 billion last year.
Their stock is down 25% in the first 3 minutes of trading today.
-
Cue the neocuunts to chime in with socialism claims.
Hey, the guy did take billions of dollars of YOUR money, and 3-4 months later, he's in the same spot as before. Worse actually.
I think it's fair. If you receive six billion dollars of yours and my tax dollars, and you squander it, I don't give a shit if you live in a cardboard box. This guy will retire a deca-millionaire. He just doesn't get to keep his job, squandering of our $1.5 billion tax dollars a month.
Still, ppl will defend his performance because they hate obama. Go figure.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=272802.msg3837075#msg3837075
-
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=272802.msg3837075#msg3837075
Are you a neo-con Coach?
-
The government couldn't even sell whiskey and whores at a profit when they took over the Mustang ranch. They can't run the postaal service at a profit . They lost billons of dollars into a blackhole with these bailouts. What makes anyone think they'll do better with this?
-
Dow down -264. I guess this news and increasing foreclosures didn't impress very many people.
-
The government couldn't even sell whiskey and whores at a profit when they took over the Mustang ranch. They can't run the postaal service at a profit . They lost billons of dollars into a blackhole with these bailouts. What makes anyone think they'll do better with this?
^this^
-
Cue the neocuunts to chime in with socialism claims.
Hey, the guy did take billions of dollars of YOUR money, and 3-4 months later, he's in the same spot as before. Worse actually.
I think it's fair. If you receive six billion dollars of yours and my tax dollars, and you squander it, I don't give a shit if you live in a cardboard box. This guy will retire a deca-millionaire. He just doesn't get to keep his job, squandering of our $1.5 billion tax dollars a month.
Still, ppl will defend his performance because they hate obama. Go figure.
More like dictator and fascist.
Why doesnt ZERO askf rot he CEO's of the banks who took TARP money to resign??????
-
More like dictator and fascist.
So every corporate board who fires a guy is now fascist.
Amazing how these words get thrown around. Then again, I remember coach calling Kerry a 'traitor'. I mean, the guy's a decorated war vet.
-
So every corporate board who fires a guy is now fascist.
Amazing how these words get thrown around. Then again, I remember coach calling Kerry a 'traitor'. I mean, the guy's a decorated war vet.
No. Zero demanded that the CEO resign.
Why did he do this for GM and not the banks??????
-
No. Zero demanded that the CEO resign.
Why did he do this for GM and not the banks??????
Great question to which we all know the answer to...the banks own the government.
-
No. Zero demanded that the CEO resign.
Why did he do this for GM and not the banks??????
Did you expect him to announce every intended firing on the same day, and just sink the entire DOW?
LOL...
Or, maybe he's either sending a signal to the other firms that their guys can be fired too. Or, maybe he'll wait a week and fire some AIG and CITi guys too.
I mean, you're shitting on the guy because he only fired some of the CEOs.
-
Did you expect him to announce every intended firing on the same day, and just sink the entire DOW?
LOL...
Or, maybe he's either sending a signal to the other firms that their guys can be fired too. Or, maybe he'll wait a week and fire some AIG and CITi guys too.
I mean, you're shitting on the guy because he only fired some of the CEOs.
No, because he is a dictator wannabe.
-
according to an administration document, "Their best chance at success may well require utilizing the bankruptcy code in a quick and surgical way."
the government is also setting aside funds to back up warranties on vehicles GM and Chrysler sell.
Um, I remember many people suggesting this before they were given billons of dollars. Look at all the money, time and effort spent at a soultion that failed. Should seem obvious by now.
-
Damage control:
Obama: Automakers must come up with stronger restructuring plans to stay viable, says U.S. doesn't plan to run GM
riiiight..
-
Damage control:
Obama: Automakers must come up with stronger restructuring plans to stay viable, says U.S. doesn't plan to run GM
riiiight..
This is all about his garbage energy plan. The fact of the matter is that GM makes very good truck sand SUVS and crappy cars other than the corvette. If they would follow the Pickens plan and convert to natural gas, it would be easier to sell trucks since the cost of fuel would not fluctuate as high.
Obama wants them change from trucks to cars and other fantasy ideas in his head. He has no clue WTF he is doing and is obviously doing blow again. There is simply no other explanation for this nonsense.
He is trying to run these companies and mold them in a way he wants, as opposed to what the customer and market wants.
-
Obama, the socialist, finally told the companies today that the money train is over.
He told them they could fail, or that they could survive, but the assholes who lost all the $ in the last year, gotta go.
haha I'm laughing 333386 - I thought you would say this was the first GOOD move obama's made... instead you only bitch that he hasn't done it to AIG or CITI yet.
Are you at least a *little* happy that obama is finally firing the worthless bitches that keep losing the $?
-
Obama, the socialist, finally told the companies today that the money train is over.
He told them they could fail, or that they could survive, but the assholes who lost all the $ in the last year, gotta go.
haha I'm laughing 333386 - I thought you would say this was the first GOOD move obama's made... instead you only bitch that he hasn't done it to AIG or CITI yet.
Are you at least a *little* happy that obama is finally firing the worthless bitches that keep losing the $?
I dont like the govr running private companies and telling them what they can and cant make.
GM makes good Trucks and SUVS that people like. Let them do what they are good at and tell the union to fuck off or just let them go.
-
So every corporate board who fires a guy is now fascist.
Amazing how these words get thrown around. Then again, I remember coach calling Kerry a 'traitor'. I mean, the guy's a decorated war vet.
And I stand by that along with Carter and a few others. Also from what I remember him being a decorated war vet wasn't exactly legit.
-
Its a tough call on this one. I certainly don't want the gov deciding which companies are viable and which aren't and having the power to remove heads of companies...but if they are asking for bailout money, the gov must look at the viability of the company. A structured, gov assisted, bankrupcy was the best option last fall. Thats what an organized bankrupcy is for, to re-organize with better potential for viability. You can see the problems with bailouts now. Both with AIG and the auto industry.
The power we give the gov to intervene here must be temporary. In general, the gov should be a regulatory body only. The gov will not be able to efficiently run companies, nor do we want them to. I worry, as well, that Obama will try to force alternative energy car production as part of the bailout. Until the technology is solid and reproducable for the masses, we should not mandate anything but viability.
-
Kerry was wounded 3 times in the field, wasn't he? What wasn't accurate about that, Joe? I can see disagreeing with his policies and post-war beliefs, but he was actually there - your point of view is based on what you saw on TV. Please tell us why John Kerry is a traitor, joe. I disagree with a lot of politicians, but 'traitor' is the worst charge you can levy against a person.
And I stand by that along with Carter and a few others. Also from what I remember him being a decorated war vet wasn't exactly legit.
-
I dont like the govr running private companies and telling them what they can and cant make.
They can decline the billions of dollars.
or they can accept the $, and the terms that come with it.
Really, you're defending one guy who just took billions of YOUR money, and wasted it. That millionaire CEO who said 5 months ago that he just need a few bil, and now he's back for more.
-
Kerry was wounded 3 times in the field, wasn't he? What wasn't accurate about that, Joe? I can see disagreeing with his policies and post-war beliefs, but he was actually there - your point of view is based on what you saw on TV. Please tell us why John Kerry is a traitor, joe. I disagree with a lot of politicians, but 'traitor' is the worst charge you can levy against a person.
John Kerry in I think 1971 shit on our military in a public interview. I'll find it.
-
John Kerry's service in Vietnam lasted 4 months and 12 days, beginning in November 1968 when he reported to Cam Ranh Bay for a month of training. His abbreviated combat tour ended shortly after he requested a transfer out of Vietnam on March 17, 1969, citing Navy instruction 1300.39 permitting personnel with three Purple Hearts to request reassignment. So far as we are able to determine, Kerry was the only Swift sailor ever to leave Vietnam without completing the standard one-year tour of duty, other than those who were seriously wounded or killed.
It is clear that at least one of Kerry's Purple Heart awards was the result of his own negligence, not enemy fire, and that Kerry went to unusual lengths to obtain the award after being turned down by his own commanding officer.
John Kerry has long insisted that using the three-injury loophole to leave combat early was his own idea, but Kerry's fellow Swift officer Thomas Wright, who served on occasion as the OIC (Officer in Charge) of Kerry's boat group, contradicts that claim. Wright reports that he "had a lot of trouble getting Kerry to follow orders," and that those who worked with Kerry found him "oriented towards his personal, rather than unit goals and objectives." He therefore requested that Kerry be removed from his boat group. After John Kerry qualified for his third Purple Heart, Thomas Wright and two fellow officers informed him of the obscure regulation, and told him to go home. Wright concluded, "We knew how the system worked and we didn’t want him in Coastal Division 11."
Constructing a complete picture of Kerry's service is difficult due to gaps in the Naval records provided by the Kerry campaign. These gaps include missing and incomplete fitness reports, missing medical records and missing records related to his medal awards.
For this reason we call upon Senator Kerry to authorize complete access to all his military records by filing a standard Form 180, a simple two-page release form.
Swift Vets and POWs for Truth is in the process of researching John Kerry's time in Vietnam by conducting interviews with eyewitnesses to his activities, and we plan to add material to this section over the next several weeks as it becomes available. We will report the true circumstances of Kerry's medal awards and injuries, describe other controversial missions, and provide in-depth analysis of his fitness reports.
.
http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=KerryinVietnam
-
John Kerry's service in Vietnam lasted 4 months and 12 days, beginning in November 1968 when he reported to Cam Ranh Bay for a month of training. His abbreviated combat tour ended shortly after he requested a transfer out of Vietnam on March 17, 1969, citing Navy instruction 1300.39 permitting personnel with three Purple Hearts to request reassignment. So far as we are able to determine, Kerry was the only Swift sailor ever to leave Vietnam without completing the standard one-year tour of duty, other than those who were seriously wounded or killed.
It is clear that at least one of Kerry's Purple Heart awards was the result of his own negligence, not enemy fire, and that Kerry went to unusual lengths to obtain the award after being turned down by his own commanding officer.
John Kerry has long insisted that using the three-injury loophole to leave combat early was his own idea, but Kerry's fellow Swift officer Thomas Wright, who served on occasion as the OIC (Officer in Charge) of Kerry's boat group, contradicts that claim. Wright reports that he "had a lot of trouble getting Kerry to follow orders," and that those who worked with Kerry found him "oriented towards his personal, rather than unit goals and objectives." He therefore requested that Kerry be removed from his boat group. After John Kerry qualified for his third Purple Heart, Thomas Wright and two fellow officers informed him of the obscure regulation, and told him to go home. Wright concluded, "We knew how the system worked and we didn’t want him in Coastal Division 11."
Constructing a complete picture of Kerry's service is difficult due to gaps in the Naval records provided by the Kerry campaign. These gaps include missing and incomplete fitness reports, missing medical records and missing records related to his medal awards.
For this reason we call upon Senator Kerry to authorize complete access to all his military records by filing a standard Form 180, a simple two-page release form.
Swift Vets and POWs for Truth is in the process of researching John Kerry's time in Vietnam by conducting interviews with eyewitnesses to his activities, and we plan to add material to this section over the next several weeks as it becomes available. We will report the true circumstances of Kerry's medal awards and injuries, describe other controversial missions, and provide in-depth analysis of his fitness reports.
.
http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=KerryinVietnam
The Swiftboat Veterans were debunked as crackpot rightwing nuts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth
The people that were on the same missions as Kerry characterize those Swiftboater allegations as: Garbage, totally false and a pack of lies.
Of those who served in Kerry's boat crew, only Stephen Gardner joined SBVT.[18] He was not present on any of the occasions when Kerry won his medals, including his Purple Hearts. Gardner appeared in two of the group's television advertisements.
All other living members of Kerry's crew supported his presidential bid, and some frequently campaigned with him as his self-described "band of brothers". Kerry crew members have disputed some of SBVT's various allegations: "totally false" (Drew Whitlow), "garbage" (Gene Thorson), and "a pack of lies" (Del Sandusky).[19][20][21]
No members of SBVT were aboard Kerry's boat during any of the incidents for which he was decorated. The only member of SBVT who was present at the Silver Star incident, Rood's crew member Larry Clayton Lee, praised Kerry's tactics and stated that he earned his Silver Star. However, he stated that based on discussions with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth
Coach, it would seem that you believe these scoundrels b/c you want to believe them. It makes you feel good that you can call your political opponent a cowardly traitor.
It's a hell of alot easier to call someone a coward and a traitor to his country than to go over the merits of his ideas.
-
Yes, wikipedia.....a great source where anyone can go in and edit. Much better than taking the word of the people who served beside him.
-
Yes, wikipedia.....a great source where anyone can go in and edit. Much better than taking the word of the people who served beside him.
It is more factual than a band of bushite zombies telling lies just to keep Dubya in the White house.
-
Yes siree.. Obama kicking ass and handing out pink slips.
-
Yes, wikipedia.....a great source where anyone can go in and edit. Much better than taking the word of the people who served beside him.
hahahaha. You're right. I'll take the SwiftBoaters words at face value...the way you do.
Here's the supporting players in this tragicomedy:
*The first SBVT ad was contradicted by the statements of several other veterans who observed the incidents, by the Navy's official records, and, in some instances, by the contemporaneous statements of SBVT members themselves.
*New York TImes, Washington Post and LA Times debunked their claims. I know, those are tools of the domineering Left...the weak, flipflopping wishy washy left...who rules all media with an iron hand.
* Nightline traveled to Vietnam and interviewed Vietnamese who were involved in the battle for which Kerry was awarded the Silver Star. These witnesses disputed O'Neill's charge that there "was little or no fire" that day; they said that the fighting was fierce.
More debunking by the left wing NIghtline.
*ABC News's The Note opined, "the Swift Boat ad and their primary charges about Kerry's medals are personal, negative, extremely suspect, or false
But we'll use your standard for truth - the words of the SwiftBoaters themselves:
More recently, an early member of the group, Steve Hayes, stated that he came to believe that the group was twisting Kerry's record, and broke with the group and voted for Kerry. Hayes told the New York Times:
The mantra was just 'We want to set the record straight,' Mr. Hayes said this month. It became clear to me that it was morphing from an organization to set the record straight into a highly political vendetta. They knew it was not the truth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth#Truth_of_allegations
-
Yes siree.. Obama kicking ass and handing out pink slips.
Just like the dictator you hoped him to be all along.
-
Just like the dictator you hoped him to be all along.
Obama is a dictator b/c he asked someone to step down from a job in a failing company that's highly subsidized with tax dollars?
I don't get it. Why the 'dictator' talk?
Just b/c you didn't vote for him doesn't make his efforts as president dictatorial.
-
Obama is a dictator b/c he asked someone to step down from a job in a failing company that's highly subsidized with tax dollars?
I don't get it. Why the 'dictator' talk?
Just b/c you didn't vote for him doesn't make his efforts as president dictatorial.
Why didnt he do the same for the banks who took TARP money??????
-
Obama is a dictator b/c he asked someone to step down from a job in a failing company that's highly subsidized with tax dollars?
I don't get it. Why the 'dictator' talk?
Just b/c you didn't vote for him doesn't make his efforts as president dictatorial.
Because he has nothing else to fall back on with his constant whining.
-
Just like the dictator you hoped him to be all along.
Yes siree... Obama letting the riff raff know who is in charge around here.
He's got a whole lot more rules to throw down on everyone too.
-
Because he has nothing else to fall back on with his constant whining.
Again, why didnt ZERO demand the CEO's of the Banks resign???
-
John Kerry in I think 1971 shit on our military in a public interview. I'll find it.
So you believe John kerry is a traitor, joe?
Do you have the guts to come out and say it, as you did before?
-
Again, why didnt ZERO demand the CEO's of the Banks resign???
So you believe he was correct in ousting the GM CEO?
(and you'd like to see more of this?)
-
So you believe he was correct in ousting the GM CEO?
(and you'd like to see more of this?)
No, I think ZERO, who never had a real job in his life, should not be telling companies how to run their businesses.
If these companies are not viable, let them go out of business.
ZERO, again who never held a job or changed a tire in his life, has no idea how to run a car company.
-
No, I think ZERO, who never had a real job in his life, should not be telling companies how to run their businesses.
If these companies are not viable, let them go out of business.
ZERO, again who never held a job or changed a tire in his life, has no idea how to run a car company.
So you advocate destroying the US Economy by letting GM fail on it's own?
This will, of course, put millions out of work, and will shatter confidence in US domestic car market.
Obama telling us he is personally guaranteeing we'll still be able to get parts for GM cars and that our warranties will be good is helping the economy.
Remember, a LOT of other industries fail if GM does. All he is saying is - I'm going to save this firm to save the US economy - but the dipshit running it into the ground for 4 years - you gotta go.
-
So you advocate destroying the US Economy by letting GM fail on it's own?
This will, of course, put millions out of work, and will shatter confidence in US domestic car market.
Obama telling us he is personally guaranteeing we'll still be able to get parts for GM cars and that our warranties will be good is helping the economy.
Remember, a LOT of other industries fail if GM does. All he is saying is - I'm going to save this firm to save the US economy - but the dipshit running it into the ground for 4 years - you gotta go.
The only thing he is "guarenteeing: in bankrupcy for the USA.
Where does this nonsense end?
-
The only thing he is "guarenteeing: in bankrupcy for the USA.
Where does this nonsense end?
So yes, or no, 333386?
Should President Obama let GM fail? Yes or no?
-
So yes, or no, 333386?
Should President Obama let GM fail? Yes or no?
Yes.
-
Yes.
If GM fails, then the suppliers will also fail - which in turn will cause Chrysler and Ford (who use the same domestic suppliers) to also fail.
So, even if it means the suppliers, several cities, and the other Big Two faile - we should still allow GM to fail?
yes or no, 333386?
-
If GM fails, then the suppliers will also fail - which in turn will cause Chrysler and Ford (who use the same domestic suppliers) to also fail.
So, even if it means the suppliers, several cities, and the other Big Two faile - we should still allow GM to fail?
yes or no, 333386?
Yes.
I will tell you why, the way things are going, this will be just another govt agency.
They need to scrap all the union work rules, get rid of the UAW, get rid of the EPA MPG regs etc and produce products that people will buy at a price they can pay.
-
The market is tanking again...315 points. Is this in responce to GM? Usually when the market reacts this much, it is an acute responce.
-
240, an organized, gov assisted bankrupcy is not a complete failure as you suggest. The gov should be involved but GM should not receive more of our $ without a restructuring. These bailouts cannot go on forever. This is why we shouldn't have started in the first place.
-
The market is tanking again...315 points. Is this in responce to GM? Usually when the market reacts this much, it is an acute responce.
This is such garbage. GM makes good trucks and there are two things I would buy with confidence from GM
1. Corvette
2. Tahoe/Denali/Escalade
We need to get the company to able to sell more of these vehicles since those are perceived as quality vehicles people wants.
The rest is just garbage from politicians.
-
If GM fails, then the suppliers will also fail - which in turn will cause Chrysler and Ford (who use the same domestic suppliers) to also fail.So, even if it means the suppliers, several cities, and the other Big Two faile - we should still allow GM to fail?
yes or no, 333386?
Just because you keep shoveling in money doesn't mean it will be better. Filing for BK reorganization would have been much better than taking billions of dollars of our money. Of course Obama want's the government to tak over, it's another open faucet for raising taxes. By filing BK it will force manangment to re-organize instead of falling back on $$. Obama isn't doing anything different than what BK would have done with the exeption of the government being in control.
-
This is such garbage. GM makes good trucks and there are two things I would buy with confidence from GM
1. Corvette
2. Tahoe/Denali/Escalade
We need to get the company to able to sell more of these vehicles since those are perceived as quality vehicles people wants.
The rest is just garbage from politicians.
Don't forget they even make a hybrid escalade.
-
Yes.
okay. You're okay with 3 million jobs in America - from the Big Three alone - disappearing.
We currently have 5 to 6 million unemployed Americans, and a 7% unemployment rate. Do you want to bump it up by 50% by adding 3 million more unemployed folks to the list?
Do you want a nationwide 12% unemployement rate overnight?
(This doesn't even include the suppliers, waitresses, renters, and everyone else who has a job only to support the auto industry).
So what happens to state unemployment budgets (many of them already on pace to run out late this year) when they have 50% more people applying?
These state budgets fail, many of them almost immediately.
Federal govt has to print more $ to keep paying this unemployment - a helluva lot moer than the $billions that GM wants.
I don't think you are thinking that far ahead - to failed state budgets- as a result of bumping national unemployment by 50%.
-
So you believe John kerry is a traitor, joe?
Do you have the guts to come out and say it, as you did before?
I already said it in a previous post on here.......but if you would like me to clarify again then I will........YES, I think he's a traitor as well as Carter.
-
Just because you keep shoveling in money doesn't mean it will be better. Filing for BK reorganization would have been much better than taking billions of dollars of our money. Of course Obama want's the government to tak over, it's another open faucet for raising taxes. By filing BK it will force manangment to re-organize instead of falling back on $$. Obama isn't doing anything different than what BK would have done with the exeption of the government being in control.
Giving GM $50 billion is a LOT less that the hundreds of billions they'll have to give to failed STATE budgets as a result of the unemployment and welfare claims that occur when you introduce 3-4 million new unemployed to the mix almost overnight.
You either pay a little, or you pay a lot. I dont think ppl here regiuster the strain that these 3 million (plus support and supplier jobs) that will go *poof* will mean they all get on unemployment, welfare, or other state benefits.
You're gonna pay either way, as a taxpayer.
-
I already said it in a previous post on here.......but if you would like me to clarify again then I will........YES, I think he's a traitor as well as Carter.
Wow. you're a brave man.
-
Wow. you're a brave man.
If I ever had the chance I'd tell him that to his (their) faces.
-
okay. You're okay with 3 million jobs in America - from the Big Three alone - disappearing.
We currently have 5 to 6 million unemployed Americans, and a 7% unemployment rate. Do you want to bump it up by 50% by adding 3 million more unemployed folks to the list?
Do you want a nationwide 12% unemployement rate overnight?
(This doesn't even include the suppliers, waitresses, renters, and everyone else who has a job only to support the auto industry).
So what happens to state unemployment budgets (many of them already on pace to run out late this year) when they have 50% more people applying?
These state budgets fail, many of them almost immediately.
Federal govt has to print more $ to keep paying this unemployment - a helluva lot moer than the $billions that GM wants.
I don't think you are thinking that far ahead - to failed state budgets- as a result of bumping national unemployment by 50%.
So where is your end to this?????
I agree with Schiff - the depression and recession is the cure.
The government and the state govt are out of control and need to be reigned in and get out of the way.
The government created this disaster and needs to back off.
No more unions.
No more more EPA mpg regs.
No more union work rules for factories.
These things drive the price of the vechicles to insane prices that people cannot afford without taking crazy loans out.
Why doesnt Apple need a bailout? Dell or microsoft? Etc.?????
-
(http://image.blingee.com/images16/content/output/000/000/000/533/417558534_1721621.gif)
-
So where is your end to this?????
bail out the firms, renegotiate contracts, end union involvement, freeze salaries, and yes, kick out the CEOs until you find a guy that can turn a profit, or at least not lose $30 billion a year.
name any other firm or industry where a guy can lose $30 billion a year and be guaranteed his job?
-
bail out the firms, renegotiate contracts, end union involvement, freeze salaries, and yes, kick out the CEOs until you find a guy that can turn a profit, or at least not lose $30 billion a year.
name any other firm or industry where a guy can lose $30 billion a year and be guaranteed his job?
Those firms are in bankrupcty, just where GM should be.
The bankrupcty judge will end the chaos imposed by the UAW work rules.
-
Those firms are in bankrupcty, just where GM should be.
The bankrupcty judge will end the chaos imposed by the UAW work rules.
How do you spose the state budgets should handle 3-4 million new unemployment cases?
how should welfare, police, and the healthcare system handle them?
You're not seeing this. The bigger mistake was ever letting a company become too big to fail. if they had been the Big Fourteen or the Big 27 instead of the Big 3, you could let a few bad ones fail, and not impact the nation as a whole.
I'm saying the dollar could lose a big % of its value if GM fails, and takes 15 state budgets with it. Ya see?
-
How do you spose the state budgets should handle 3-4 million new unemployment cases?
how should welfare, police, and the healthcare system handle them?
You're not seeing this. The bigger mistake was ever letting a company become too big to fail. if they had been the Big Fourteen or the Big 27 instead of the Big 3, you could let a few bad ones fail, and not impact the nation as a whole.
I'm saying the dollar could lose a big % of its value if GM fails, and takes 15 state budgets with it. Ya see?
Its just all shuffling the chairs on the deck of the titanic. Its going to happen either way.
I know you want to believe in Hope & Change and all the garbage from your boy wonder, but it is obvious where this is going regardless.
-
You notice that Obama and the administration is saying the same thing today about the auto industry as they did when they gave their final warning with the deadline a couple months ago. They said to receive more taxpayor $ they had to have a solid plan. If the plan and actions taken didn't have viability, they must go through bankrupcy. Well, the administration said their plans and action weren't enough....and yet is proceeding to give them another 60 days of public money to do it again....?? This administration gives empty threats unless its something that is part of their agenda.
240, under an organzied bankrupcy, the majority of people would be re-hired so it wouldn't be millions of people laid off. Now, it may not be all of them and they may not have the same contracts, but the the company would need the workers again fairly quickly. The point of an organized bankrupcy is to re-negotiate and re-organize under more viable terms but to also disturb the work as little as possible.
-
Like I keep saying, GM makes great trucks, SUV's, and vette's.
However, none of them fit into Obama's master plan to put us all in go carts.
-
Its just all shuffling the chairs on the deck of the titanic. Its going to happen either way.
No, it's not. it's like how much water the titanic is taking on.
Should the boat take on 50 bill gallons (by funding another year of GM's follies), or 2 trillion gallons (or more) to bail out the number of states who will declare bankruptcy because of unemployment?
You know the boat is going to take on some water because the last guy was more focused on the gannon cannon than he was on steering the ship. Now, you're taking on water. Do you make the GM move and take on a little water, or just say 'let her sink!' and take on the 2 trillion gallons??
-
should i buy GM stock now?
-
should i buy GM stock now?
(http://www.americanhockeyfan.com/uploaded_images/1charmin-bear-717426.jpg)
-
No, it's not. it's like how much water the titanic is taking on.
Should the boat take on 50 bill gallons (by funding another year of GM's follies), or 2 trillion gallons (or more) to bail out the number of states who will declare bankruptcy because of unemployment?
You know the boat is going to take on some water because the last guy was more focused on the gannon cannon than he was on steering the ship. Now, you're taking on water. Do you make the GM move and take on a little water, or just say 'let her sink!' and take on the 2 trillion gallons??
That's fine, and of course I prefer these people working than on UE, but what they are doing now is only going to make sure that happens either way.
The govt and unions are the problem here. They need to back off and let GM sell products people can afford and want to buy like the vette, denali. tahoe, etc.
GM is never going to compete with Honda in the little compact car market.
-
This is disturbing. (I'm running out of adjectives for this administration.) No way should the president dictate who runs a private company. The bailout issue is no excuse. Recall that the salary cap started with bailout companies and is now expanding to non-bailout companies. The power grab by these folks is downright scary.
-
Another point...how can we have capitalism if we allow small companies to fail but bailout larger companies? Is that fair? If GM did go under, there's huge opportunity for another company to arise. Americans will always need cars. I'll bet if GM and Crystler go through organized bankrupcy, they will be in a better position in 12 months.
-
This is disturbing. (I'm running out of adjectives for this administration.) No way should the president dictate who runs a private company. The bailout issue is no excuse. Recall that the salary cap started with bailout companies and is now expanding to non-bailout companies. The power grab by these folks is downright scary.
GM could say "Thanks, but no thanks" and keep their guy. The fact is, if the company fails, he's out of a job anyway, right?
-
Because he has nothing else to fall back on with his constant whining.
He's the president. The company in question owes its ongoing existence to the president and the US taxpayer.
Seems to me, as president, he make as many suggestions as he wishes under the circumstances.
And until the president does something at odds with our constitution, laws or the like, you must bow before his power.
-
He's the president. The company in question owes its ongoing existence to the president and the US taxpayer.
Seems to me, as president, he make as many suggestions as he wishes under the circumstances.
And until the president does something at odds with our constitution, laws or the like, you must bow before his power.
Where in the constitution does it say the federal government can take over private industry?WHERE DOES IT SAY THEY CAN DICTATE HOW MUCH PEOPLE CAN MAKE?The government has done MANY things that are at odds with the constitution.
By the way,why isnt the head of the UAW out of a job?THEY are the reason for the dissaster.
-
Where in the constitution does it say the federal government can take over private industry?WHERE DOES IT SAY THEY CAN DICTATE HOW MUCH PEOPLE CAN MAKE?The government has done MANY things that are at odds with the constitution.
By the way,why isnt the head of the UAW out of a job?THEY are the reason for the dissaster.
hahahaha. Where does it say that the captains of private industry can fly to Washington in private jets begging for bail outs? See, washington can condition these soup kitchen handouts as it sees fit.
If the elitest executives don't like it, they can decline the bail out.
-
hahahaha. Where does it say that the captains of private industry can fly to Washington in private jets begging for bail outs? See, washington can condition these soup kitchen handouts as it sees fit.
If the elitest executives don't like it, they can decline the bail out.
I agree, which is why i think the bailouts were a terrible idea in the first place.
-
GM could say "Thanks, but no thanks" and keep their guy. The fact is, if the company fails, he's out of a job anyway, right?
If by "fail" you mean that they are out of business, then they all lose their jobs. If you're talking about bankruptcy, then no he doesn't necessarily lose his job.
In any event, this is a decision that should be made by shareholders through their board of directors, not the federal government.
-
I agree with you guys but if the company gets repeated bailouts of taxpayor money then gov has some control here.
The whole bailout thing is messy. Thats why many of us argued for gov assisted organized bankrupcy in the fall. There's no definite end here and certainly favortism towards some companies over others, which in itself is unfair.
I think this administration is at least straining the limits set by the constitution. I am far from a constitutional lawyer but I know the founding fathers did not intend to give the federal gov the kind of power Obama and Geithner are now wielding.
-
I agree with you guys but if the company gets repeated bailouts of taxpayor money then gov has some control here.
The whole bailout thing is messy. Thats why many of us argued for gov assisted organized bankrupcy in the fall. There's no definite end here and certainly favortism towards some companies over others, which in itself is unfair.
I think this administration is at least straining the limits set by the constitution. I am far from a constitutional lawyer but I know the founding fathers did not intend to give the federal gov the kind of power Obama and Geithner are now wielding.
That's really the heart of the problem: where does it end? Dangerous precedent being set here.
-
hahahaha. Where does it say that the captains of private industry can fly to Washington in private jets begging for bail outs? See, washington can condition these soup kitchen handouts as it sees fit.
If the elitest executives don't like it, they can decline the bail out.
Geitner has said he wants to dictate how much ALL CEos can make in the financial industry even if they took no bailout money.Now,congress just voted themselves a permanent 8% increse EVERY year.Any plans to eliminate that?
-
I agree with you guys but if the company gets repeated bailouts of taxpayor money then gov has some control here.
The whole bailout thing is messy. Thats why many of us argued for gov assisted organized bankrupcy in the fall. There's no definite end here and certainly favortism towards some companies over others, which in itself is unfair.
I think this administration is at least straining the limits set by the constitution. I am far from a constitutional lawyer but I know the founding fathers did not intend to give the federal gov the kind of power Obama and Geithner are now wielding.
I'd like to see some 'just desserts' doled out. But we cannot, as a nation, afford to fall behind in our national recovery.
I believe the bail outs are necessary. I believe they should be done and done robustly.
I also believe that the US gov. should thoroughly investigate all of the wall street players in this debacle and hand out charges accordingly.
I also believe that once these bailed out businesses are on firmer ground, they should be broken up so that they will never be too big to fail again.
-
President Obama said Monday his administration has "no intention" of running General Motors, even as the White House demanded the resignation of the automaker's CEO and called for a "better business plan" before considering lending more government money to bail out the company. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/30/obama-auto/
::)
-
I'd like to see some 'just desserts' doled out. But we cannot, as a nation, afford to fall behind in our national recovery.
I believe the bail outs are necessary. I believe they should be done and done robustly.
I also believe that the US gov. should thoroughly investigate all of the wall street players in this debacle and hand out charges accordingly.
I also believe that once these bailed out businesses are on firmer ground, they should be broken up so that they will never be too big to fail again.
Where and when does it end?
How can a company get a "firmer ground" if it becomes reliant upon GOVT money like welfare receipients do on welfare??
Why should only those at the top get bailouts?
-
President Obama said Monday his administration has "no intention" of running General Motors, even as the White House demanded the resignation of the automaker's CEO and called for a "better business plan" before considering lending more government money to bail out the company. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/30/obama-auto/
::)
there's a difference between *running* an institution and just approving the business plan and who is running the place.
99.9% of the employees are still there, but now Obama, in exchange for billlions of dollars, wants to approve the plan. I don't get why any firm receiving its lifeblood from an outside source would bitch about any stipulation.
methinks if Lord Cheney had attached 2 or 3 provisions to the 150 bil that AIG got, you guys would have been defending it. "Zero" does it and you criticize it no matter what. heck, 333386 was at first mad obama didn't do it for the banks too, then upon realizing that meant he agreed with Obama, he quickly had to change his position.
-
Rubbish. I and others opposed the Bush bailout. There goes that theory.
-
Rubbish. I and others opposed the Bush bailout. There goes that theory.
Both presidents and the majority of congress approved it. Democracy sucks sometimes. Without the bailouts, however, there's a good chance most of our retirements would be wiped out at the moment. AIG fails and the ripples are beyond what we can imagine. I'm very anti-welfare, but when it's the backbone of our economy, you gotta do it.
Ron Paul and Schiff and others are right in theory... but wow, I'd hate to be the generation that loses 15 years of saving, ya know?
-
AIG, GM et al. should file bankruptcy and attempt to reorganize. If they cannot reorganize, they don't need to be in business.
If they cant reorganize, another business will step in and take their places. Happens all the time. We had a local insurance company go through liquidation here and every single one of the policyholders was placed with another insurance company. Failure by one company is opportunity for many others.
Success and failure is part of the system. These people are creating a quagmire.
-
AIG, GM et al. should file bankruptcy and attempt to reorganize. If they cannot reorganize, they don't need to be in business.
If they cant reorganize, another business will step in and take their places. Happens all the time. We had a local insurance company go through liquidation here and every single one of the policyholders was placed with another insurance company. Failure by one company is opportunity for many others.
Success and failure is part of the system. These people are creating a quagmire.
the pro is that a-holes in BOTH parties took the campaign donations, and let these firms become monopolies that were too big to fail.
AIG should be ten small AIGs. Some could fail, some would not.
GM and Chrysler and Ford should be 15 car companies. Cadillac could succeed and the F100 might not. Stop letting one dog suck down 3 winners.
-
You notice that Obama and the administration is saying the same thing today about the auto industry as they did when they gave their final warning with the deadline a couple months ago. They said to receive more taxpayor $ they had to have a solid plan. If the plan and actions taken didn't have viability, they must go through bankrupcy. Well, the administration said their plans and action weren't enough....and yet is proceeding to give them another 60 days of public money to do it again....?? This administration gives empty threats unless its something that is part of their agenda.
That's because there is NO PLAN B for these guys.
-
The market is tanking again...315 points. Is this in responce to GM? Usually when the market reacts this much, it is an acute responce.
It was the GM news and Geitner said banks may need more money.
-
After Obamas speech saying "the government will back GM and Chrysler warranties, it only confirms and reassures that I won't be buying American anytime soon. I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop with Ford, so far they seem to be the only intelligent Company that hasn't taken government money. But since I don't trust Obama, I will be buying foreign from here on out. We already have a Dodge Durando (05) and an 08' MB C350, the Durango will be payed off in 2 months. But the next will be foreign!
-
Where and when does it end?
How can a company get a "firmer ground" if it becomes reliant upon GOVT money like welfare receipients do on welfare??
Why should only those at the top get bailouts?
It ends when the companies receiving aid are no longer on the precipice of folding.
What gives you any indication that these bailouts are on-going into perpetuity or the like?
Those at the top are getting bailouts, no doubt. The money should have been conditioned on surrendering some of the elite's income. There are justifications and counterarguments to that but I don't want to get into that right now.
That's why I propose an exhaustive investigation of Wall Street. Then we'll know if Obama is a man of change...not spare change.
Money can be recouped from the guilty parties.
Then those culpable will be removed from the system.
Then the companies will be broken up.
-
It ends when the companies receiving aid are no longer on the precipice of folding.
What gives you any indication that these bailouts are on-going into perpetuity or the like?
Those at the top are getting bailouts, no doubt. The money should have been conditioned on surrendering some of the elite's income. There are justifications and counterarguments to that but I don't want to get into that right now.
That's why I propose an exhaustive investigation of Wall Street. Then we'll know if Obama is a man of change...not spare change.
Money can be recouped from the guilty parties.
Then those culpable will be removed from the system.
Then the companies will be broken up.
They are doing the opposite of what you say.
Geithner was Paulson's buddy at Treasury and carrying out the same agenda that got started last year.
-
The outgoing CEO is apparently eligible for $20 mil. I would have resigned too. lol.
How long till Obama and/or the liberals in Congress advocate/pass a bill to take this guy's money?
-
The outgoing CEO is apparently eligible for $20 mil. I would have resigned too. lol.
How long till Obama and/or the liberals in Congress advocate/pass a bill to take this guy's money?
Never. The govt is getting 50% of that in income and state taxes anyway.
-
Never. The govt is getting 50% of that in income and state taxes anyway.
Yeah. I wasn't being serious.