# GM



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

What's the general consensus on the GM news?https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/business/31wagoner.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig

Granted, any company taking OUR money (even a deeply flawed, clueless and near-sighted company like GM) should expect the bailout to come with a lot of strings. That explains why so many of the healthier banks are returning their TARP funds; better to suck it up, make smarter loan decisions and steer the choppy waters of recession by themselves than to have the Fed at the helm.

Who knows? Maybe Wagoner needed to go, but I don't like the fact the Central Party Officials where the ones who showed him the door. And now they're (pretty much) going to pick his successor? First AIG, now GM...who's next? Citigroup? BOA? When is this not-so-backdoor nationalization of private industry going to stop?

The Obama administration seems to have absolutely no faith in the ability of the market to correct itself (Geither pretty much confirmed that on the weekend news shows). And considering the Dow closed down 255 points today, I don't think the market has much faith in Obama either.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

Fascist governments have a history keeping private enterprise but tightly controlling industries and individual companies. The owners/managers still profit, but they're chosen by the government.

Just saying.


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

norton said:


> Fascist governments have a history keeping private enterprise but tightly controlling industries and individual companies. The owners/managers still profit, but they're chosen by the government.
> 
> Just saying.


Curious, isn't it?

Originally, funds were made available so that GM could avoid bankruptcy. Once GM took the bait and the administration set the hook, Obama speculates that bankruptcy may be necessary. Odd, that.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

smujd said:


> Curious, isn't it?
> 
> Originally, funds were made available so that GM could avoid bankruptcy. Once GM took the bait and the administration set the hook, Obama speculates that bankruptcy may be necessary. Odd, that.


Not odd. Outrageous. They wasted billions of dollars of our money.

Remember when it was supposed to be a "bridge loan" for the Chevy Volt--the $50,000 electric car that was going to save GM? The government should be breaking legs to get our money back.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Not odd. Outrageous. They wasted billions of dollars of our money.
> 
> Remember when it was supposed to be a "bridge loan" for the Chevy Volt--the $50,000 electric car that was going to save GM? *The government should be breaking legs to get our money back.*


Much like taking money from Tony Soprano, one never knows the real cost!

This is why government should not have gotten involved. Now you will hear calls for increased fuel mileage so that Detroit can be "more competitive". Now the government gets to hire/fire executives.

There is already a mechanism in place for distressed company to restructure....it's called bankruptcy. Now the administration is stuck having to run one of the largest companies in the world. A group of people whose real world business experience probably does not extend beyond selling World's Finest chocolates in 4th grade to raise money for band or summer camp.


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Not odd. Outrageous. They wasted billions of dollars of our money.
> 
> Remember when it was supposed to be a "bridge loan" for the Chevy Volt--the $50,000 electric car that was going to save GM? The government should be breaking legs to get our money back.


My point is that the money was never intended to stave off bankruptcy. It was intended as a means for the administration to buy (with our funds) control of GM.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

TMMKC said:


> ... First AIG, now GM...who's next? Citigroup? BOA? _When is this not-so-backdoor nationalization of private industry going to stop_?


This has been steadily going on since Eisenhower warned us all about the pernicious military-industrial complex. What we're seeing now is simply a more overt version of similar policies and practices of what has been going on for years with defense & aerospace. Along the way we've "gained" in this process such diverse things as the postal service, the effing-Mac & Maes of the mortgage world, telecoms, and a whole host of businesses who are major federal contractors and know to what they belong.



> The Obama administration seems to have absolutely no faith in the ability of the market to correct itself....


Considering the mess "private capital" has made recently I think some healthy skepticism is in order. Magical thinking of all kinds has gotten people into a lot of trouble for years. The soporific, starry-eyed view of the "market" (a term of no fixed definition) and its supernatural powers to always be fair, equitable and ultimately rational is one such example. :icon_smile:



> ... And considering the Dow closed down 255 points today, I don't think the market has much faith in Obama either.


By this logic then the market approved heartily last week of the Administration's plans. But both conclusions seem suspect to me.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> What we're seeing now is simply a more overt version of similar policies and practices of what has been going on for years with defense & aerospace.


Defense and aerospace arise from no market because they have no market. They are uniquely governmental expenditures. Cars are not. Or, at least, they _were_ not, until recently.



> Magical thinking of all kinds has gotten people into a lot of trouble for years. The soporific, starry-eyed view of the "market" (a term of no fixed definition) and its supernatural powers to always be fair, equitable and ultimately rational is one such example.


Compared to, say, the magical, all-knowing and endlessly benevolent and rational super-men populating Washington, DC?

If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these governmental organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?



> Considering the mess "private capital" has made recently I think some healthy skepticism is in order.


Private capital made no mess whatsoever.

The entirety of said mess is all to be laid at the feet of the "effing-Mac & Maes of the mortgage world," who are major federal contractors, by the way.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Quay said:


> Considering the mess "private capital" has made recently I think some healthy skepticism is in order. Magical thinking of all kinds has gotten people into a lot of trouble for years. The soporific, starry-eyed view of the "market" (a term of no fixed definition) and its supernatural powers to always be fair, equitable and ultimately rational is one such example. :icon_smile:


"The Market," as I see it, is not necessarily fair and equitable (rationality is up for debate!)...but that's the way it should be. At what point was being a loser no longer acceptable? What ever happened to survival of the fittest? We see it ever day now in schools and youth sports: there are no losers.

GM, AIG, Citigroup, et al are "losers" because they made near-sighted, greedy business decisions, and should be allowed to fail and go into bankruptcy. If we allow "the market" to work, there will always be a smart, nimble, industrious company or individual around to pick up the crumbs and create something of value. The tragedy, of course, is that perfectly innocent people will be dragged down into the mire during the process.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

TMMKC said:


> "The Market," as I see it, is not necessarily fair and equitable (rationality is up for debate!)...but that's the way it should be.


Sir, I'll have to defer as I can't argue with a self-referential assertion. :icon_smile:



> At what point was being a loser no longer acceptable?


That would probably be about the time certain sociological and psychological fads were incorporated into degrees in education.



> What ever happened to survival of the fittest?


A Darwinian phrase that I don't think has never worked well with humans because no one can agree on what "survival" means and who the "fittest" are.



> We see it ever day now in schools and youth sports: there are no losers.


Calling a slow possum a sleek cheetah won't change the possum much but it will probably make the cheetah's mother send her cubs to a private cheetah academy. :icon_smile_big:



> If we allow "the market" to work, there will always be a smart, nimble, industrious company or individual around to pick up the crumbs and create something of value. The tragedy, of course, is that perfectly innocent people will be dragged down into the mire during the process.


And as a society we've decided that this real, evident and obvious tragedy is worth the cost of creating this ephemeral and often intangible value. The problem as I see it is that our Mr. Market has always been a rigged game so no one really knows what might happen without the rigging but are quite willing to let the "tragedy" go on so as not to upset either the creation of this value or those who tell us it's the only way to be and all other approaches contain intrinsic evil.

You know, the older I get the more I like parts of what the Greens and the Libertarians are saying. (That whooshing sound you hear is one of my dearly departed "straight-ticket Democratic" grandmothers starting to whirl!)


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

While you guys try to recover from your severe attack of the vapors (care for some smelling salts? fainting couch, perhaps?), what about the prescription to fix Chrysler's problems?

Two words: Fiat quality.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

I wish Wagoner had refused to quit. He should have made that jug eared ventriloquist dummy send the Army and carry him out of his office like Sewell Avery did to Roosevelt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewell_Avery

The sooner some with sufficient standing stature and standing calls Obama down and shows he has no clothes on, the quicker we can start the salvage operations. This administration must be broken, and broken quickly.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Liberty Ship said:


> I wish Wagoner had refused to quit. He should have made that jug eared ventriloquist dummy send the Army and carry him out of his office like Sewell Avery did to Roosevelt.


Umm, GM didn't have to take the money.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

TMMKC said:


> If we allow "the market" to work, there will always be a smart, nimble, industrious company or individual around to pick up the crumbs and create something of value.


So the fact that "the market" gave us AIG, massive bank failures, Enron, and Bernie Madoff: relevant, or not in the least?


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> So the fact that "the market" gave us AIG, massive bank failures, Enron, and Bernie Madoff: relevant, or not in the least?


Yes, the market gave us those, and the market had a way of correcting those mistakes but the correction mechanism was by-passed. This article is pretty interesting - it highlights the commonality between government and the finance industry: 
https://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> So the fact that "the market" gave us AIG, massive bank failures, Enron, and Bernie Madoff: relevant, or not in the least?


Jack,

I realize you are repeating a previous poster's mistake, but "the market" is a network of prices; nothing more. One of the Warren Buffet quotes that gets a lot of discussion was when he said, the market exists to serve us; not to instruct us. He says this is one of the things that he learned from Benjamin Graham. Regardless, the market doesn't give us anything.

Evil/bad/incompetent people created the AIG, Enron, and Bernie Madoff scandals. Even totalitarian economic systems cannot protect us from bad people decisions. For example, the Russian Communists were giving double-script to ruling party member's families by the 2nd day.

Regulation protects against mistakes made by honest people acting in good faith. The overwhelming majority of corporate fraud is covered up by collusion and is neither caught nor prevented by controls and systems. Rather most are turned in by anonymous tipsters (usually the bitter ex-partner or ex-wife.)

Frankly it bothers me that people with such clearly incorrect positive views on economics are offering normative solutions. Can we not require basic competence of our so-called "masterminds?"

What if we made the same policies for Mothers on welfare or even receiving SCHIPS; then we would be making them shopping lists with approved nutritional diets, deciding what TV shows their children could watch; or even how many hours of TV based on their grades.

I think you would agree these are recepients of taxpayer money and such policies might please some activists.

The argument not to be a lender nor a borrower is a moral one.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Liberty Ship said:


> The sooner some with sufficient standing stature and standing calls Obama down and shows he has no clothes on, the quicker we can start the salvage operations. This administration must be broken, and broken quickly.


For 8 years republicans were asleep at the wheel as the ship that is our economy was sinking to the bottom of the ocean. Now 68 days into the new administration, you want your people in charge of a salvage operation?

This site gets funnier by the day.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> For 8 years republicans were asleep at the wheel as the ship that is our economy was sinking to the bottom of the ocean.


In your opinion, do the Democrats, in charge of the House and the Senate for the last 2 years, not have a real piece of the responsibility for the economic mess?

Maybe you should go and listen to Barney Frank and Maxine Waters and other Democrats argue angrily how there was no danger, no financial issues at Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae.

Obama has done an awful lot of damage in just 68 days, and he and his administration promise to do a lot more damage in the next 68+.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Relayer said:


> In your opinion, do the Democrats, in charge of the House and the Senate for the last 2 years, not have a real piece of the responsibility for the economic mess?
> 
> Maybe you should go and listen to Barney Frank and Maxine Waters and other Democrats argue angrily how there was no danger, no financial issues at Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae.
> 
> Obama has done an awful lot of damage in just 68 days, and he and his administration promise to do a lot more damage in the next 68+.


Yes, the Democrats deserve their share of the blame...all the way back to Bill Clinton who was instrumental in starting this whole deregulation fiasco - as well as instrumental in forcing many banks to give loans to people that everyone knew were not qualified.

But after sitting on their hands for most of the 2920 days of the GW administration, Republicans just have ZERO credibility when they talk about damage done to our ecomony, oversight, free markets or "conservative" principals.

You can use all the dooms day language that you like - but that doesnt change the fact that the Republican party is out of excuses, out of touch and if they dont change their ways soon, will lose miserably again in 2010.


----------



## Kosh Naranek (Apr 24, 2008)

Thwump....thwump....thwump.... Hide the women and kids, the Black Helicopters are coming!


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

This shouldn't be a partisan issue. Politicians, regardless of party, are completely unsuited to run the economy, or any part thereof. Most can't even run their own affairs properly.

Again, the market is a mechanism to communicate the decisions of millions of interested participants. It is the only mechanism capable of doing that. Democrats and Republicans alike are incapable of doing a better job.

I find it inconceivable the almost religious faith some people place in politicians. You'd have to think yourself pretty stupid to think that the politicians in Washington could make better decisions than you do in your everyday life.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

Here's another example of the people who are being called upon to fix the problems:

https://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/...-helped-draft-legislation-deregulating-banks/

It's strange how they all seem to have had a hand in creating the problem in the first place. Why would anybody trust any of them to even be competent?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> For 8 years republicans were asleep at the wheel as the ship that is our economy was sinking to the bottom of the ocean. Now 68 days into the new administration, you want your people in charge of a salvage operation?


I didn't need 68 days, or even 68 minutes, to know the _additional_ harm that Obama would cause. He promised, even before he was elected, that he would be wrecking the US economy, even more than it has already been wrecked.



mrkleen said:


> This site gets funnier by the day.


You won't be laughing, I suspect, when we start seeing the US version of these:

Please stop supporting Obama's pattern of hideous violence. You think you are empowering something that will do good in the world, but it is just an engine of destruction. If all you care about is yourself, then at least try to realize that this monstrous process won't stop when you want it to. This juggernaut you're helping to create will keep going. It is only a matter of time before it is aimed at you.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

"Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives -- of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Yes, the Democrats deserve their share of the blame...all the way back to Bill Clinton who was instrumental in starting this whole deregulation fiasco - as well as instrumental in forcing many banks to give loans to people that everyone knew were not qualified.
> 
> But after sitting on their hands for most of the 2920 days of the GW administration, Republicans just have ZERO credibility when they talk about damage done to our ecomony, oversight, free markets or "conservative" principals.
> 
> You can use all the dooms day language that you like - but that doesnt change the fact that the Republican party is out of excuses, out of touch and if they dont change their ways soon, will lose miserably again in 2010.


I expect you to be dismissive regarding Obama's damage, of course, that also doesn't change that fact, however.

The credibility of the Republicans is definitely at low ebb, right now. Ironically, it will be with the policies of Obama (with the great help of Pelosi/Reid) that will have a most positive change on that.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Relayer said:


> The credibility of the Republicans is definitely at low ebb, right now. Ironically, it will be with the policies of Obama (with the great help of Pelosi/Reid) that will have a most positive change on that.


Hoping things get worse. Now there is a strong, forward thinking strategy if I ever heard one. Good luck with that.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Phinn said:


> Please stop supporting Obama's pattern of hideous violence. You think you are empowering something that will do good in the world, but it is just an engine of destruction. If all you care about is yourself, then at least try to realize that this monstrous process won't stop when you want it to. This juggernaut you're helping to create will keep going. It is only a matter of time before it is aimed at you.


I would have thought living through 8 years of martial law under King George would have toughened you up. Guess not.

Watch out for the Obama Boogie Man - he's out to get us all.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> I would have thought living through 8 years of martial law under King George would have toughened you up. Guess not.
> 
> Watch out for the Obama Boogie Man - he's out to get us all.


You're argument may have carried weight before the election however now it rings hollow.

Obama has launched the greatest expansion of government intervention in free enterprise since FDR and the brain trust. As of yesterday the POTUS became mechanic-in-chief when he promised to back auto warranties. Legislation is working its way through congress that would limit executive compensation. I can't wait to see the grocery list of goodies in next years budget.

All I know is that we're now talking about deficits in the trillions when just last year people were ringing their hands about deficits of $400 billion.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

pt4u67 said:


> You're argument may have carried weight before the election however now it rings hollow.


Or so you try and say.

The same republican leadership in congress today was there when President Bush and the good old boys controlled both houses of Congress and the federal budget rose 45% - not counting war spending, which good old GW saw fit to NOT include in his budgets.

Now that Senator Obama has been elected president and is trying to clean up the mess left for him, suddenly you give a damn about government spending and deficits?

Give me a break.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> Or so you try and say.
> 
> The same republican leadership in congress today was there when President Bush and the good old boys controlled both houses of Congress and the federal budget rose 45% - not counting war spending, which good old GW saw fit to NOT include in his budgets.
> 
> ...


What makes you think I was crazy about spending increases under GW? Personally I think the GOP missed a wonderful opportunity to kill the Departments of Education, HHS and HUD.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> *Hoping things get worse*. Now there is a strong, forward thinking strategy if I ever heard one. Good luck with that.


Please. Assigning words/claims never said or even implied may have been a clever strategy for an argument in junior high school, but it doesn't really carry the water when you're all grown up.

Surely you can do better, can't you?


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Relayer said:


> Please. Assigning words/claims never said or even implied may have been a clever strategy for an argument in junior high school, but it doesn't really carry the water when you're all grown up.
> 
> Surely you can do better, can't you?


Speaking of middle school, thats were I learned the "if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck" line....but ok. Lets not talk about you.

Lets talk about the rest of the doom sayers on the right...with no new plan and no new ideas - hell they put out a budget without any numbers in it....now THAT is funny. All they having going for them is the hope that President Obama falls on his butt, so they can step in with a big "gotcha".

Some like your boy Rush even went so far as to say he "hopes the president fails" Now seriously at a time like this, what kind of an jerk hopes things get worse for all Americans, just so they can gain politically?

Hell even Newt called him an idiot for saying that. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Speaking of middle school, thats were I learned the "if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck" line....but ok. Lets not talk about you.


My God, it just dawned on me... you are still in middle school. At least mentally, if not physically.

Ok, I won't argue with a child. You can carry on with the childish "zingers" without me. I'll spend my time replying to the grown ups on the board. Adios.


----------



## Nicesuit (Apr 5, 2007)

mrkleen said:


> Yes, the Democrats deserve their share of the blame...all the way back to Bill Clinton who was instrumental in starting this whole deregulation fiasco - as well as instrumental in forcing many banks to give loans to people that everyone knew were not qualified.
> 
> But after sitting on their hands for most of the 2920 days of the GW administration, Republicans just have ZERO credibility when they talk about damage done to our ecomony, oversight, free markets or "conservative" principals.
> 
> You can use all the dooms day language that you like - but that doesnt change the fact that the Republican party is out of excuses, out of touch and if they dont change their ways soon, will lose miserably again in 2010.


Newsflash Ace, Bush is gone. Barrry-O is the current dunce in office and he's threatening us with 10 trillion dollars of debt. So you can probably stick your ZERO credibility where the sun doesn't shine because the same knee jerk reaction that put Comrade Obama in office in the first place is the same knee jerk reaction that's going to bring him down after his runaway spending and maddening grab for governmental power puts the economy behind the eight ball even further. This man's hubris is the greatest threat to this country at this juncture. I've already grown bored of his Huggy Bear walk and he's only been in office for 68 days.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Indeed. I always get a good laugh when people ask how we can be mad that Obama wants to raise the debt another $10 Trillion when W raised it $1 Trillion; as if 10 times was not a reasonable magnitude of difference to elicit disagreement. That assumes one agreed with W raising the $1 Trillion. I don't know anyone like that.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives -- of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.


Can we put "Pay for Performance" on our politicians?

If so, there's gonna be a lot of street corner begging in D.C.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

Liberty Ship said:


> I wish Wagoner had refused to quit. He should have made that jug eared ventriloquist dummy send the Army and carry him out of his office like Sewell Avery did to Roosevelt.


I always felt badly for Rick Wagoner. That wasn't a job; that was a curse. Don't know what else he could have done with what he was given. People talk about smaller, more fuel efficent cars but nobody wanted them.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*All politicians are whores*

The global financial crisis has nothing to do with the problems at GM. Don't believe me? Take a look at GM's financials for the last 5 or 6 years. There was no crisis, and GM lost money every time it sold a car. This is where the whores, I mean politicians, come in. Yes, the Democratic party will bend over and spread their collective cheeks for any union rep, and send them a thank you note afterwords, but the dealers associations have a simialr hold on the Republicans. Both of them, dealers and unions, have a helluva lot to lose if GM goes through bankruptcy. So, the whores gave them some tax payer money to prevent that from happening, only it didn't, because it didn't correct the underlying failure of GM's business model. Next step, one group of whores is now in complete control. The new GM bailout will be designed for maximum benefit of unions, and not much care for the dealers.

Long post I know, but look at the details of the proposal. Split GM into two parts. A healthy part, and a toxic part. That sounds familiar. Dealers for the brands that are in trouble get nothing. Admittedly the workers for those brands will not get much either, but the healthy brands are concentrated in union friendly states.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Now that Senator Obama has been elected president and is trying to clean up the mess left for him, suddenly you give a damn about government spending and deficits?


You must have missed the last 8 years of my life spent decrying the absurd spending policies of President Bush. You also seem to be laboring under some misapprehension that I am a Republican.

Your binary thinking is remarkably resistant to logic and reason. You seem to think that I can't oppose both Bush and Obama at the same time. Also, like Obama himself, you seem to be stuck in a perpetual campaign mode, wherein you believe that you must still win some contest with the former president. It's strange.

I prefer to live in real time, in the real world. So far, everything that I despised about Bush (the list was apparently endless), Obama is now doing, and with added gusto and vigor.

Behold:



> Some like your boy Rush even went so far as to say he "hopes the president fails" Now seriously at a time like this, what kind of an jerk hopes things get worse for all Americans, just so they can gain politically?


The Obama-worshiping media flat-out lied about Rush Limbaugh's statement, and now you are either hoping the rest of us don't know what Limbaugh actually said, or you swallow everything the news media feeds you. Which is it?

In any event, if you read the transcript of his statement, you will see that his actual statement was that he hopes Obama fails in enacting his agenda. He said this because be knows that Obama's agenda will cause harm.

And on that point, he is correct. I, too, wish for politicians to fail in their attempts to cause harm to people.

A separate, though related, question is why it is considered to be outside the bounds of polite society to say this, as though it is unacceptable to oppose the wishes of the Great and All-Knowing and Endlessly Benevolent Obama.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

fenway said:


> Can we put "Pay for Performance" on our politicians?
> 
> If so, there's gonna be a lot of street corner begging in D.C.


Ha! Great Question! :icon_smile_big:

I'll trade my Social Security for an Annuity on the Refund we would be due! :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Phinn, you should run for 'Messiah'; errr President. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Nicesuit said:


> Newsflash Ace, Bush is gone. Barrry-O is the current dunce in office and he's threatening us with 10 trillion dollars of debt. So you can probably stick your ZERO credibility where the sun doesn't shine because the same knee jerk reaction that put Comrade Obama in office in the first place is the same knee jerk reaction that's going to bring him down after his runaway spending and maddening grab for governmental power puts the economy behind the eight ball even further. This man's hubris is the greatest threat to this country at this juncture. I've already grown bored of his Huggy Bear walk and he's only been in office for 68 days.


:aportnoy:

Don't be so hard on the General Secretary, he inherited all these problems...and he and the Central Party Committee keeps reminding, and reminding, and reminding us of it all the time.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

To put this in some perspective, the U.S. government already owes a sum equal to 41% of GDP. The Kiplinger Letter (not a partisan source) projects that with the current administration's plans this percentage will double by 2019 as expenses for social security, medicare and other programs pile up with the baby boomers retiring. 

Think about it, national debt equal to 82% of GDP in 10 years even before social security becomes insolvent. Right now interest accounts for $4.2% of federal outlays. By 2013 it will be 11% and still heading higher. How will the country pay for anything other than interest without increases in taxes? How will individuals invest in any worthwhile economic activity if all their earnings go to taxes?

It makes sense that the largest holder of u.s. bonds, the chinese government, would be concerned about the dollar as currency. The traditional way that governments deal with huge debt burdens is to inflate the currency. Does anyone see the u.s. government having the political will not to do the same?

These budgets and bail outs are NOT partisan issues! They are BAD economics and bad for this country, regardless of the party proposing them.

Those who insist on seeing things through a lens that divides the world into democrat and republican are totally missing the point and are recognized as idiots as soon as they open their mouths.

We run a very real danger of turning into a country like Argentina.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Phinn would certainly make a well-dressed president. It would be interesting to see if he would be willing to do what it takes to be elected. 

My guess if that Phinn believes in the integrity of his philosophy too much to compromise.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

https://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979POSG0&show_article=1

"I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." 
He repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." Now in office, Obama, who stopped smoking but has admitted he slips now and then, signed a law raising the tobacco tax nearly 62 cents on a pack of cigarettes, to $1.01. Other tobacco products saw similarly steep increases.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

ksinc said:


> https://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979POSG0&show_article=1
> 
> "I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
> He repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." Now in office, Obama, who stopped smoking but has admitted he slips now and then, signed a law raising the tobacco tax nearly 62 cents on a pack of cigarettes, to $1.01. Other tobacco products saw similarly steep increases.


Look for taxes on gasoline to rise well. By making gas more expensive, it's the only way the government can force its hand and push US auto companies to make a sincere attempt to manufacture smaller, more fuel efficient cars, and abide by ever-tightening emissions standards. For as clueless and poorly run as many of the car companies and financial institutions have been, a compelling argument could be made that they were simply responding to the wants and desires of the consumer (e.g. bigger cars and cheaper home loans).


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

ksinc said:


> https://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979POSG0&show_article=1
> 
> "I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
> He repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." Now in office, Obama, who stopped smoking but has admitted he slips now and then, signed a law raising the tobacco tax nearly 62 cents on a pack of cigarettes, to $1.01. Other tobacco products saw similarly steep increases.


He was telling the truth. Not "our" tax but "his" tax that WE have to pay. Remember, it depends on what the meaning of the word is, is!


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

TMMKC said:


> Don't be so hard on the General Secretary, he inherited all these problems...and he and the Central Party Committee keeps reminding, and reminding, and reminding us of it all the time.


If this hyperbolic use of Communist organizing terminology was even close to being an accurate description of our new Administration you'd be dead already. And so would almost everyone else here. And yet, apparently, you and the rest of us live!

But just to be safe, check under your bed this evening -- could be a Red waiting to leap out!


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Quay said:


> If this hyperbolic use of Communist organizing terminology was even close to being an accurate description of our new Administration you'd be dead already. And so would almost everyone else here. And yet, apparently, you and the rest of us live!
> 
> But just to be safe, check under your bed this evening -- could be a Red waiting to leap out!


...that or I'd be in a gulag in Valentine, Nebraska!:icon_smile_big: Honestly, I'm not nearly as paranoid as I must seem.

Like GWB before him, it's not necessarily Obama who concerns me, it's the people who give him advice. Axelrod and Emmanuel are his Cheney and Rumsfeld....not an entirely accurate comparison, but I hope you get my drift.

I better go finish putting aluminum foil on our windows so the CIA and aliens will stop trying to send signals and control my mind.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

TMMKC said:


> ...that or I'd be in a gulag in Valentine, Nebraska!:icon_smile_big: Honestly, I'm not nearly as paranoid as I must seem.


I believe you. At least I think I do. Should I believe you? I'm not sure! :crazy:



> Like GWB before him, it's not necessarily Obama who concerns me, it's the people who give him advice. Axelrod and Emmanuel are his Cheney and Rumsfeld....not an entirely accurate comparison, but I hope you get my drift.


That ain't no drift, that's quite a few shovel's worth! :icon_smile_big:



> I better go finish putting aluminum foil on our windows so the CIA and aliens will stop trying to send signals and control my mind.


*whispers* Remember, shiny side faces out!


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

I say this as one who owns two 2002 Chevrolet products purchased on the same day over 7 years ago. My Impala will turn 100,000 this weekend and my wife's Venture has logged about 65,000 so far. I have been a loyal GM customer most of my life and until Oldsmobile was shut down owned several Olds 88s that were also very reliable, and relatively cheap to run. 

GM (and the other members of what were the Big Three) allowed themselves to be painted into a corner by the UAW for over 50 years. Every three years the union would announce its "target" for "negotiations", extract what they could and then force the other two companies to follow suit or be struck. Fifty years of allowing the inmates to run the asylum have put us where we are now. It's not just the automotive industry-look at what has happened to our manufacturing base and it's essentially the same story. 

Rick Wagoner is neither the primary villain nor a victim in this kabuki play. While the products offered by some of GM's competitors may be somewhat more reliable and certainly more stylish, what we're seeing now is simply the end stage of a process that has been playing out for most of my life. 

The demise of the U.S. industry has been accelerated by the global economic collapse but it was inevitable. While I will remain a loyal GM devotee, I consider myself lucky that I'm not in a position to buy new cars right now. Any guilt I would impose on myself by going with Honda, Toyota or VW will likely be moot since the products I would buy today if I were working probably won't be available by the time I find a job comparable to the one I was "right-sized" out of at the end of 2008.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Not only was Wagoner not part of the people that created the Union and Health Care problems, but didn't Wagoner actually accomplish quite a bit of renegotiation with the Unions and Pensioners prior to the economic downturn? I have to admit he was unimpressive in his Congressional appearances, but to blame him for GM's long-term contractual issues seems a bit ridiculous.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Brooksfan said:


> ...Rick Wagoner is neither the primary villain nor a victim in this kabuki play....


Indeed he is not. I hope he will be able to retire comfortably on that $23,000,000.00 pension especially as he's getting no severance pay. And even though his net worth is quite high there will probably be the inevitable shareholder and other lawsuits which a bankruptcy-reorganized GM may not be obliged to pay to defend.

A rumor has it that he may be tapped to run the New Citigroup.


----------

