Should conditions be attached to the governmental bailouts of the auto and banking industries ?
Two opposite ends of the spectrum concerning thoughts on this are becoming evident. Those that think the industries that accept loans should be left to their own vices and those that believe the packages should be monitored and stipulations applied such as caps on CEO wages and bonuses or using dollars for naming rights to sports facilities.
Bailouts
Bailouts
Cap bonus and wages for starters anyway
Bailouts
Based on what we've seen done with the first bailout, we'd be stupid to not monitor it.
"Out, damned spot! out, I say!"
- William Shakespeare, Macbeth, 5.1
Bailouts
If we take out a loan from the bank there are all types of measures in place to ensure responsibility and accountability. Whats the difference ?
I AM AWESOME MAN
Bailouts
Nomad;1128808 wrote: If we take out a loan from the bank there are all types of measures in place to ensure responsibility and accountability. Whats the difference ?
The difference is us and them. Obviously it didn't work the last time as they are back now for more money. Money they would have if they didn't give themselves such large bonuses for doing an exceedingly bad job and for purchasing high priced items like toilets and planes.
If we cap what they can earn until the money is paid back, this would give them an incentive to do a good job. What's their motivation now?
The difference is us and them. Obviously it didn't work the last time as they are back now for more money. Money they would have if they didn't give themselves such large bonuses for doing an exceedingly bad job and for purchasing high priced items like toilets and planes.
If we cap what they can earn until the money is paid back, this would give them an incentive to do a good job. What's their motivation now?
"Out, damned spot! out, I say!"
- William Shakespeare, Macbeth, 5.1
Bailouts
If a board of directors has run a company into the ground then that's what they've done. The company declares itself insolvent, incompetent and dead in the water, valueless. At that stage, if the government thinks it's a national necessity that the company stays in business and continues to operate, the government to my mind can simply confiscate it and dispense with the entire incompetent board, move in as much of a new management team as it needs to and inject as much cash as it takes. The government has nationalized a company with no share value and paid nothing for it, just accepting liability for the debts it has. it can run the company for as long as it deems necessary and eventually refloat it as a new share issue.
That, I think, it a competent use of taxation in a time of emergency like this.
To hand the money wholesale to the existing directors shows a disgraceful lack of accountability.
To then allow these already disgraced directors to give away the money as share dividends and bonuses is outrageous, of course there ought to be constraints.
It makes no difference whether these are banks or car giants. In either case the employee base, the branch base, the existing accounts, the existing dealerships, are all protected by the government intervention. Those who lose are the gamblers who own the worthless shares and the board and selected management responsible for the lack of planning and poor judgement.
That, I think, it a competent use of taxation in a time of emergency like this.
To hand the money wholesale to the existing directors shows a disgraceful lack of accountability.
To then allow these already disgraced directors to give away the money as share dividends and bonuses is outrageous, of course there ought to be constraints.
It makes no difference whether these are banks or car giants. In either case the employee base, the branch base, the existing accounts, the existing dealerships, are all protected by the government intervention. Those who lose are the gamblers who own the worthless shares and the board and selected management responsible for the lack of planning and poor judgement.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Bailouts
spot;1128906 wrote: If a board of directors has run a company into the ground then that's what they've done. The company declares itself insolvent, incompetent and dead in the water, valueless. At that stage, if the government thinks it's a national necessity that the company stays in business and continues to operate, the government to my mind can simply confiscate it and dispense with the entire incompetent board, move in as much of a new management team as it needs to and inject as much cash as it takes. The government has nationalized a company with no share value and paid nothing for it, just accepting liability for the debts it has. it can run the company for as long as it deems necessary and eventually refloat it as a new share issue.
That, I think, it a competent use of taxation in a time of emergency like this.
To hand the money wholesale to the existing directors shows a disgraceful lack of accountability.
To then allow these already disgraced directors to give away the money as share dividends and bonuses is outrageous, of course there ought to be constraints.
It makes no difference whether these are banks or car giants. In either case the employee base, the branch base, the existing accounts, the existing dealerships, are all protected by the government intervention. Those who lose are the gamblers who own the worthless shares and the board and selected management responsible for the lack of planning and poor judgement.
It sounds good, but I don't think the US government can confiscate companies here. I'm trying to check in on the Net, but haven't been successful yet.
That, I think, it a competent use of taxation in a time of emergency like this.
To hand the money wholesale to the existing directors shows a disgraceful lack of accountability.
To then allow these already disgraced directors to give away the money as share dividends and bonuses is outrageous, of course there ought to be constraints.
It makes no difference whether these are banks or car giants. In either case the employee base, the branch base, the existing accounts, the existing dealerships, are all protected by the government intervention. Those who lose are the gamblers who own the worthless shares and the board and selected management responsible for the lack of planning and poor judgement.
It sounds good, but I don't think the US government can confiscate companies here. I'm trying to check in on the Net, but haven't been successful yet.
"Out, damned spot! out, I say!"
- William Shakespeare, Macbeth, 5.1
Bailouts
Kindle;1128912 wrote: It sounds good, but I don't think the US government can confiscate companies here. I'm trying to check in on the Net, but haven't been successful yet.
If a company's gone bust and the government decides it's in the national interest for it to continue to trade, of course it can order the continued operation. It's a forced buy-out of a worthless asset and it's done to keep the branch and dealer networks intact, the suppliers from collapsing and the economy from depression. It's what governments are for.
I'm not, especially I'm not, suggesting such an action if the company were still in a position to trade or had anything but debts it couldn't pay.
You don't think the US government can confiscate companies? You'd have thought last year that the US government couldn't just hand out a thousand billion dollars of taxation and borrowing to megarich shysters who promptly gave it to themselves as bonuses.
If a company's gone bust and the government decides it's in the national interest for it to continue to trade, of course it can order the continued operation. It's a forced buy-out of a worthless asset and it's done to keep the branch and dealer networks intact, the suppliers from collapsing and the economy from depression. It's what governments are for.
I'm not, especially I'm not, suggesting such an action if the company were still in a position to trade or had anything but debts it couldn't pay.
You don't think the US government can confiscate companies? You'd have thought last year that the US government couldn't just hand out a thousand billion dollars of taxation and borrowing to megarich shysters who promptly gave it to themselves as bonuses.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Bailouts
Kindle;1128912 wrote: It sounds good, but I don't think the US government can confiscate companies here. I'm trying to check in on the Net, but haven't been successful yet.
spot;1128921 wrote: If a company's gone bust and the government decides it's in the national interest for it to continue to trade, of course it can order the continued operation. It's a forced buy-out of a worthless asset and it's done to keep the branch and dealer networks intact, the suppliers from collapsing and the economy from depression. It's what governments are for.
I'm not, especially I'm not, suggesting such an action if the company were still in a position to trade or had anything but debts it couldn't pay.
You don't think the US government can confiscate companies? You'd have thought last year that the US government couldn't just hand out a thousand billion dollars of taxation and borrowing to megarich shysters who promptly gave it to themselves as bonuses.
I would think they might be able to invoke the Eminent Domain law in some way.
The power to take private property for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character, following the payment of just compensation to the owner of that property.
Federal, state, and local governments may take private property through their power of eminent domain or may regulate it by exercising their Police Power. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the government to provide just compensation to the owner of the private property to be taken. A variety of property rights are subject to eminent domain, such as air, water, and land rights. The government takes private property through condemnation proceedings. Throughout these proceedings, the property owner has the right of due process.
Eminent domain is a challenging area for the courts, which have struggled with the question of whether the regulation of property, rather than its acquisition, is a taking requiring just compensation. In addition, private property owners have begun to initiate actions against the government in a kind of proceeding called inverse condemnation.
spot;1128921 wrote: If a company's gone bust and the government decides it's in the national interest for it to continue to trade, of course it can order the continued operation. It's a forced buy-out of a worthless asset and it's done to keep the branch and dealer networks intact, the suppliers from collapsing and the economy from depression. It's what governments are for.
I'm not, especially I'm not, suggesting such an action if the company were still in a position to trade or had anything but debts it couldn't pay.
You don't think the US government can confiscate companies? You'd have thought last year that the US government couldn't just hand out a thousand billion dollars of taxation and borrowing to megarich shysters who promptly gave it to themselves as bonuses.
I would think they might be able to invoke the Eminent Domain law in some way.
The power to take private property for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character, following the payment of just compensation to the owner of that property.
Federal, state, and local governments may take private property through their power of eminent domain or may regulate it by exercising their Police Power. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the government to provide just compensation to the owner of the private property to be taken. A variety of property rights are subject to eminent domain, such as air, water, and land rights. The government takes private property through condemnation proceedings. Throughout these proceedings, the property owner has the right of due process.
Eminent domain is a challenging area for the courts, which have struggled with the question of whether the regulation of property, rather than its acquisition, is a taking requiring just compensation. In addition, private property owners have begun to initiate actions against the government in a kind of proceeding called inverse condemnation.
Bailouts
The route the US has taken, this stimulus thing with no obligation to retain profits for growth instead of shareholder dividend support, is a death throe. It's fine by me, I want to see the place incapable of military interference abroad ever again and if insolvency is the answer then that's what needs to happen.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Bailouts
YZGI;1128931 wrote: I would think they might be able to invoke the Eminent Domain law in some way.
The power to take private property for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character, following the payment of just compensation to the owner of that property.
Federal, state, and local governments may take private property through their power of eminent domain or may regulate it by exercising their Police Power. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the government to provide just compensation to the owner of the private property to be taken. A variety of property rights are subject to eminent domain, such as air, water, and land rights. The government takes private property through condemnation proceedings. Throughout these proceedings, the property owner has the right of due process.
Eminent domain is a challenging area for the courts, which have struggled with the question of whether the regulation of property, rather than its acquisition, is a taking requiring just compensation. In addition, private property owners have begun to initiate actions against the government in a kind of proceeding called inverse condemnation.
I think that is just for property that they want to either save (such as wetlands) or property they need for airports, highways and other such things.
The power to take private property for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character, following the payment of just compensation to the owner of that property.
Federal, state, and local governments may take private property through their power of eminent domain or may regulate it by exercising their Police Power. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the government to provide just compensation to the owner of the private property to be taken. A variety of property rights are subject to eminent domain, such as air, water, and land rights. The government takes private property through condemnation proceedings. Throughout these proceedings, the property owner has the right of due process.
Eminent domain is a challenging area for the courts, which have struggled with the question of whether the regulation of property, rather than its acquisition, is a taking requiring just compensation. In addition, private property owners have begun to initiate actions against the government in a kind of proceeding called inverse condemnation.
I think that is just for property that they want to either save (such as wetlands) or property they need for airports, highways and other such things.
"Out, damned spot! out, I say!"
- William Shakespeare, Macbeth, 5.1
Bailouts
Kindle;1128972 wrote: I think that is just for property that they want to either save (such as wetlands) or property they need for airports, highways and other such things.
I know that is what it is for, but it does state private corporation in the first sentence.
The power to take private property for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character, following the payment of just compensation to the owner of that property.
Federal, state, and local governments may take private property through their power of eminent domain or may regulate it by exercising their Police Power. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the government to provide just compensation to the owner of the private property to be taken. A variety of property rights are subject to eminent domain, such as air, water, and land rights. The government takes private property through condemnation proceedings. Throughout these proceedings, the property owner has the right of due process.
Eminent domain is a challenging area for the courts, which have struggled with the question of whether the regulation of property, rather than its acquisition, is a taking requiring just compensation. In addition, private property owners have begun to initiate actions against the government in a kind of proceeding called inverse condemnation.
I know that is what it is for, but it does state private corporation in the first sentence.
The power to take private property for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character, following the payment of just compensation to the owner of that property.
Federal, state, and local governments may take private property through their power of eminent domain or may regulate it by exercising their Police Power. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the government to provide just compensation to the owner of the private property to be taken. A variety of property rights are subject to eminent domain, such as air, water, and land rights. The government takes private property through condemnation proceedings. Throughout these proceedings, the property owner has the right of due process.
Eminent domain is a challenging area for the courts, which have struggled with the question of whether the regulation of property, rather than its acquisition, is a taking requiring just compensation. In addition, private property owners have begun to initiate actions against the government in a kind of proceeding called inverse condemnation.
Bailouts
YZGI;1128980 wrote: I know that is what it is for, but it does state private corporation in the first sentence.
The power to take private property for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character, following the payment of just compensation to the owner of that property.
Federal, state, and local governments may take private property through their power of eminent domain or may regulate it by exercising their Police Power. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the government to provide just compensation to the owner of the private property to be taken. A variety of property rights are subject to eminent domain, such as air, water, and land rights. The government takes private property through condemnation proceedings. Throughout these proceedings, the property owner has the right of due process.
Eminent domain is a challenging area for the courts, which have struggled with the question of whether the regulation of property, rather than its acquisition, is a taking requiring just compensation. In addition, private property owners have begun to initiate actions against the government in a kind of proceeding called inverse condemnation.
I wonder if it has been done before?????
It seems if they are bust, we just let them file banruptcy or they close up shop and move away. Then if it is something needed by the public, someone else comes in and start up their enterprise.
The power to take private property for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character, following the payment of just compensation to the owner of that property.
Federal, state, and local governments may take private property through their power of eminent domain or may regulate it by exercising their Police Power. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the government to provide just compensation to the owner of the private property to be taken. A variety of property rights are subject to eminent domain, such as air, water, and land rights. The government takes private property through condemnation proceedings. Throughout these proceedings, the property owner has the right of due process.
Eminent domain is a challenging area for the courts, which have struggled with the question of whether the regulation of property, rather than its acquisition, is a taking requiring just compensation. In addition, private property owners have begun to initiate actions against the government in a kind of proceeding called inverse condemnation.
I wonder if it has been done before?????
It seems if they are bust, we just let them file banruptcy or they close up shop and move away. Then if it is something needed by the public, someone else comes in and start up their enterprise.
"Out, damned spot! out, I say!"
- William Shakespeare, Macbeth, 5.1
Bailouts
Kindle;1128988 wrote: I wonder if it has been done before?????
It seems if they are bust, we just let them file banruptcy or they close up shop and move away. Then if it is something needed by the public, someone else comes in and start up their enterprise.
I expect they think, when the entire banking industry had collapsed under impossible debts propped up by overvalued mortgages with no repayments coming in, that the disruption would be too great and the time to build replacement banks from scratch would be too long.
They probably also think that having so many citizens' savings written off beyond the small guaranteed balance would destroy the solvency of too many of the population.
They could even think that putting the entire industry's clerks and tellers and managers into unemployment rather than providing continuity would be a crisis too far.
It seems if they are bust, we just let them file banruptcy or they close up shop and move away. Then if it is something needed by the public, someone else comes in and start up their enterprise.
I expect they think, when the entire banking industry had collapsed under impossible debts propped up by overvalued mortgages with no repayments coming in, that the disruption would be too great and the time to build replacement banks from scratch would be too long.
They probably also think that having so many citizens' savings written off beyond the small guaranteed balance would destroy the solvency of too many of the population.
They could even think that putting the entire industry's clerks and tellers and managers into unemployment rather than providing continuity would be a crisis too far.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Bailouts
spot;1128957 wrote: The route the US has taken, this stimulus thing with no obligation to retain profits for growth instead of shareholder dividend support, is a death throe. It's fine by me, I want to see the place incapable of military interference abroad ever again and if insolvency is the answer then that's what needs to happen.
I assume youre lumping the little giant, our brothers in arms the UK in with that declaration.
I assume youre lumping the little giant, our brothers in arms the UK in with that declaration.
I AM AWESOME MAN
Bailouts
Jester;1129270 wrote: There should be no bailouts, the failed companies should declare bankruptcy and the market would react to the niches that open and other companiies that didnt screw themsleves into the groudn would have great new opportunities to fill those market niches, new blood in the market, thats change I could get into.
Id love to buy a division of one of the failed big auto companies, fire all the unions and rehire non union and start building real cars that people could afford.
Thats change I could get behind.
Bailouts! Thats something that should NEVER be in America, you either survive a market or you quit. I'd be shamed forever if the government came in and had to bail out any of my compnaies.
I understand your thinking but its based on principle not practicality.
No bail outs means thousands more on food stamps and welfare. Its saving jobs.
Either or....
Id love to buy a division of one of the failed big auto companies, fire all the unions and rehire non union and start building real cars that people could afford.
Thats change I could get behind.
Bailouts! Thats something that should NEVER be in America, you either survive a market or you quit. I'd be shamed forever if the government came in and had to bail out any of my compnaies.
I understand your thinking but its based on principle not practicality.
No bail outs means thousands more on food stamps and welfare. Its saving jobs.
Either or....
I AM AWESOME MAN
Bailouts
[quote=Jester;1129320]NO, thats crazy thinking, those companies already ran everything into the ground, keeping those compnaies in charge of the same jobs is a loosing deal for the employees, your just going to have to keep bailing them out, while the management and stock holders get a share of government money... This is STUPID!
NEW companies who dont do business as usual should get their shot
Right !
Thats why we voted Obama in.
Anyway its all connected. The country wont collapse if Ford goes out of business. But the economy is a spider web and when several industries fail other corporations having absolutely nothing to do with the bail out recipients suffer. Layoffs and bankruptcies, long time established companies are closing their doors not because of mismanagement but because the economy is drying up.
Its not about GM its about the whole workforce.
NEW companies who dont do business as usual should get their shot
Right !
Thats why we voted Obama in.
Anyway its all connected. The country wont collapse if Ford goes out of business. But the economy is a spider web and when several industries fail other corporations having absolutely nothing to do with the bail out recipients suffer. Layoffs and bankruptcies, long time established companies are closing their doors not because of mismanagement but because the economy is drying up.
Its not about GM its about the whole workforce.
I AM AWESOME MAN
Bailouts
1.Circuity City which employed thousands who will shortly be standing in unemployment lines.
2. I have it on good authority Office Max is inches away from collapsing. Again they employ thousands.
Ill find more for you.
2. I have it on good authority Office Max is inches away from collapsing. Again they employ thousands.
Ill find more for you.
I AM AWESOME MAN
Bailouts
Heres a few unrelated to the current bailouts. That search took me 5 seconds. If you want Im sure I can find hundreds more just like it.
Famous names that have shuttered locations include Sears, Office Depot, Circuit City, Steve & Barry's, Mervyn's, and Linens 'n Things.
KB Toys, the venerable 86-year-old retailer, just filed for bankruptcy this month. Not since 2001 has a retailer called it quits in December, a sign of desperation that foreshadows another string of bankruptcies and closures come January.
To put the closures in perspective, it is estimated that the 70 largest chain retailers in the United States operate 3.1 billion square feet of store space. During the last recession, an average of 80 million share feet of retail space was closed annually.
Famous names that have shuttered locations include Sears, Office Depot, Circuit City, Steve & Barry's, Mervyn's, and Linens 'n Things.
KB Toys, the venerable 86-year-old retailer, just filed for bankruptcy this month. Not since 2001 has a retailer called it quits in December, a sign of desperation that foreshadows another string of bankruptcies and closures come January.
To put the closures in perspective, it is estimated that the 70 largest chain retailers in the United States operate 3.1 billion square feet of store space. During the last recession, an average of 80 million share feet of retail space was closed annually.
I AM AWESOME MAN
Bailouts
Jester;1129348 wrote: Thise are major companies to you?
Office Max bought out Boise, and three to four other operations to be a large company, they wanted distribusion, all thats going to happens that smaller more local companies will supply the office supplies then, most of those guys will take local jobs for smaller companies. Office max borrowed heavily to buy out those companies for the distribution system, they gambled and lost.
I dont care of I have an office max to deliver my supplies, I can go to three other smaller compaies and get what I need. And I'll probably run itnto the same folks that used ot deliver my supplies.
Office Max unwiselty over extended themselves.
Ive been to Curcuit City a few times, thier service is lousy, the stores are crowded dark and hot. I did not go back... Hows Best Buy doin? they have huge stores, lots of help, good service, their stores are bright oen and friendly, its no wonder Best Buy is making it and Circuit City is going under... but Circuit City has been declining for a lot longer than the economy has been going sour.
I glad you picked two companies that I know about.
No you are wrong. I worked for Boise in Florida and Minneapolis for 8 yrs..
You have it backwards. Boise a relatively small paper and distribution co. was flush with cash and they bought up Office Max. They just kept the name because it had larger recognition.
I have an e mail from my friend in my box telling me about the 5th wave of layoffs in less than a year. The pensions are gone, employer 401 contributions have been eliminated.
If you dont call distribution centers and retail outlets in almost every city in the country a substantial employer then I dont know how to reason with you.
Combine all of the the casualties in all of the indudtries and we have a bona fide crisis.
Office Max bought out Boise, and three to four other operations to be a large company, they wanted distribusion, all thats going to happens that smaller more local companies will supply the office supplies then, most of those guys will take local jobs for smaller companies. Office max borrowed heavily to buy out those companies for the distribution system, they gambled and lost.
I dont care of I have an office max to deliver my supplies, I can go to three other smaller compaies and get what I need. And I'll probably run itnto the same folks that used ot deliver my supplies.
Office Max unwiselty over extended themselves.
Ive been to Curcuit City a few times, thier service is lousy, the stores are crowded dark and hot. I did not go back... Hows Best Buy doin? they have huge stores, lots of help, good service, their stores are bright oen and friendly, its no wonder Best Buy is making it and Circuit City is going under... but Circuit City has been declining for a lot longer than the economy has been going sour.
I glad you picked two companies that I know about.
No you are wrong. I worked for Boise in Florida and Minneapolis for 8 yrs..
You have it backwards. Boise a relatively small paper and distribution co. was flush with cash and they bought up Office Max. They just kept the name because it had larger recognition.
I have an e mail from my friend in my box telling me about the 5th wave of layoffs in less than a year. The pensions are gone, employer 401 contributions have been eliminated.
If you dont call distribution centers and retail outlets in almost every city in the country a substantial employer then I dont know how to reason with you.
Combine all of the the casualties in all of the indudtries and we have a bona fide crisis.
I AM AWESOME MAN
-
wildhorses
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm
Bailouts
I wanted them to let all those banks go out of business. Instead of giving bailout money to the banks, they could use it to start some kind of government loaning institution. That could keep small and medium businesses alive. Also they could refi some homes at their current value so the owners could stay in them. Let the banks take the hit for the rest.
Bailouts
wildhorses;1129367 wrote: I wanted them to let all those banks go out of business. You're aware of the fact that all the depositors' cash is forfeit once a bank folds? What they get back is the minimum guaranteed cover and then they're just creditors waiting in line for a small share of the firesale.
Jester's entirely right about the long-term benefit to the economy in letting inefficient or madly-directed companies die. All of the bailout is short-term relief that will spin out the long-term suffering. The media scream for a fix this year, they're given a fix this year and a five-year crisis turns into a twenty year crisis.
The answer which reduces the degree of suffering to the greatest number is socialism. When the US workforce finally realizes the government doesn't even do bodycounts at home and that the Baghdad Syndrome of refusing to acknowledge consequences has become a domestic issue maybe they'll vote in a socialist administration and refuse to ever vote it out afterwards.
Power to the People!
Jester's entirely right about the long-term benefit to the economy in letting inefficient or madly-directed companies die. All of the bailout is short-term relief that will spin out the long-term suffering. The media scream for a fix this year, they're given a fix this year and a five-year crisis turns into a twenty year crisis.
The answer which reduces the degree of suffering to the greatest number is socialism. When the US workforce finally realizes the government doesn't even do bodycounts at home and that the Baghdad Syndrome of refusing to acknowledge consequences has become a domestic issue maybe they'll vote in a socialist administration and refuse to ever vote it out afterwards.
Power to the People!
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Bailouts
[QUOTE=spot;1129372]...The answer which reduces the degree of suffering to the greatest number is socialism. ....QUOTE]
Socialism is exactly what many Americans fear will come about with our new President's agenda.
Socialism is exactly what many Americans fear will come about with our new President's agenda.
"Out, damned spot! out, I say!"
- William Shakespeare, Macbeth, 5.1
Bailouts
Kindle;1129481 wrote: [QUOTE=spot;1129372]...The answer which reduces the degree of suffering to the greatest number is socialism. ....
Socialism is exactly what many Americans fear will come about with our new President's agenda.
I have the gravest doubt whether any American outside of a Political Science course has the foggiest idea what Socialism is but I agree, they have a universal fear of it.
Socialism is Ralph Nader on Steroids. Do you really think a Democrat's capable of it?
Socialism is exactly what many Americans fear will come about with our new President's agenda.
I have the gravest doubt whether any American outside of a Political Science course has the foggiest idea what Socialism is but I agree, they have a universal fear of it.
Socialism is Ralph Nader on Steroids. Do you really think a Democrat's capable of it?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Bailouts
[QUOTE=spot;1129488]I have the gravest doubt whether any American outside of a Political Science course has the foggiest idea what Socialism is but I agree, they have a universal fear of it.
Socialism is Ralph Nader on Steroids. Do you really think a Democrat's capable of it?[/QUOTE]
Well, judging by the eratic way they are throwing together this stimulus package, I don't know what to think about their abilities any more. Their current ineptness is litterly making me nauseous. I may have to turn ostrish for a while just to regain my balance.
Socialism is Ralph Nader on Steroids. Do you really think a Democrat's capable of it?[/QUOTE]
Well, judging by the eratic way they are throwing together this stimulus package, I don't know what to think about their abilities any more. Their current ineptness is litterly making me nauseous. I may have to turn ostrish for a while just to regain my balance.
"Out, damned spot! out, I say!"
- William Shakespeare, Macbeth, 5.1
Bailouts
Kindle;1129500 wrote: [QUOTE=spot;1129488]I have the gravest doubt whether any American outside of a Political Science course has the foggiest idea what Socialism is but I agree, they have a universal fear of it.
Socialism is Ralph Nader on Steroids. Do you really think a Democrat's capable of it?
Well, judging by the eratic way they are throwing together this stimulus package, I don't know what to think about their abilities any more. Their current ineptness is litterly making me nauseous. I may have to turn ostrish for a while just to regain my balance.
Has the US forgotten that this stimulus package policy was entirely brought into being by the Republican Bush Administration, that it was they who raised and distributed the first $700 billion of it to keep the banks flooded with cash for a renewed credit binge? And the Obama Administration's already carrying the can? And people aren't party-biased and prejudiced?
Socialism is Ralph Nader on Steroids. Do you really think a Democrat's capable of it?
Well, judging by the eratic way they are throwing together this stimulus package, I don't know what to think about their abilities any more. Their current ineptness is litterly making me nauseous. I may have to turn ostrish for a while just to regain my balance.
Has the US forgotten that this stimulus package policy was entirely brought into being by the Republican Bush Administration, that it was they who raised and distributed the first $700 billion of it to keep the banks flooded with cash for a renewed credit binge? And the Obama Administration's already carrying the can? And people aren't party-biased and prejudiced?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Bailouts
Jester;1129362 wrote: Sorry i got the names backwards- but it doesnt make any difference, they still over extended themselves in a tough business.
I liked Boise service actually, they were good before the office max merger. And it was a smaller company before it went nationwide. They should have stayed small patatas.
I didnt say we dont have a crisis, I just dont believe its as bad as what the dems and obamaliar lay on us- too much politikin towards socialism... thats their goal, it isnt to 'save' the economy, its to usher in socialism. Thats my major objection.
The economy would recover if we cut taxes for the stim (that makes for slow inflation) and made laws to prevent things like the greed that should have been ilegal in the houseing speculation market, make laws to prevent that from happening again and we'll come out of this just fine.
We don't need the massive spending bill, we cant pay t back and inflation in 5-10 years will kill us, this is a Jimmy Carter repeat.
George Bush has overdrawn us. He didnt manage the Fed and he put us in a very deep hole with Iraq $.
Am I safe to assume its ok with you if we keep over extending the military ?
Is that your priority ?
I liked Boise service actually, they were good before the office max merger. And it was a smaller company before it went nationwide. They should have stayed small patatas.
I didnt say we dont have a crisis, I just dont believe its as bad as what the dems and obamaliar lay on us- too much politikin towards socialism... thats their goal, it isnt to 'save' the economy, its to usher in socialism. Thats my major objection.
The economy would recover if we cut taxes for the stim (that makes for slow inflation) and made laws to prevent things like the greed that should have been ilegal in the houseing speculation market, make laws to prevent that from happening again and we'll come out of this just fine.
We don't need the massive spending bill, we cant pay t back and inflation in 5-10 years will kill us, this is a Jimmy Carter repeat.
George Bush has overdrawn us. He didnt manage the Fed and he put us in a very deep hole with Iraq $.
Am I safe to assume its ok with you if we keep over extending the military ?
Is that your priority ?
I AM AWESOME MAN
Bailouts
spot;1129504 wrote: Has the US forgotten that this stimulus package policy was entirely brought into being by the Republican Bush Administration, that it was they who raised and distributed the first $700 billion of it to keep the banks flooded with cash for a renewed credit binge? And the Obama Administration's already carrying the can? And people aren't party-biased and prejudiced?
Hallefrickinula
Hallefrickinula
I AM AWESOME MAN
Bailouts
spot;1129504 wrote: Has the US forgotten that this stimulus package policy was entirely brought into being by the Republican Bush Administration, that it was they who raised and distributed the first $700 billion of it to keep the banks flooded with cash for a renewed credit binge? And the Obama Administration's already carrying the can? And people aren't party-biased and prejudiced?
No, I don't think they've forgotten. They are very much outraged at the lack of responsibility shown by both the bankers and the government in this deal.
No, I don't think they've forgotten. They are very much outraged at the lack of responsibility shown by both the bankers and the government in this deal.
"Out, damned spot! out, I say!"
- William Shakespeare, Macbeth, 5.1
Bailouts
Kindle;1129561 wrote: No, I don't think they've forgotten. They are very much outraged at the lack of responsibility shown by both the bankers and the government in this deal.
"Their current ineptness is litterly making me nauseous" is slightly unforgiving, then, if you're applying it to an Administration that's been in office for less than three weeks.
"Their current ineptness is litterly making me nauseous" is slightly unforgiving, then, if you're applying it to an Administration that's been in office for less than three weeks.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Bailouts
Jester;1129582 wrote: We have to fight them. We have no choice. If we fought them with less care for civilian casualties we could reduce the cost greatly but we kind of have this policy that keeps us from doing that, war is expensive, the altrnative is being attacked continually or giving them our necks.
You've killed more Americans with this foreign adventure than every terrorist attack on US interests everywhere in the world added together has done. You were only successfully attacked on 9/11 because of either total incompetence or deliberate cooperation. Tighten your borders, police your Homeland. "If we don't attack them there they'll attack here" is a lie pure and simple. You have armed forces, take them home and use them.
The truth, as opposed to the lie, is that no country on earth is ever going to attack the US Homeland and your armed forces have only one possible purpose: foreign domination. If you stopped fighting and posturing abroad they'd have no function at all. They're a total waste of resources. The US is completely invulnerable to conventional attack by reason of its nuclear deterrent. What you need but won't deploy is adequate policing at home.
You've killed more Americans with this foreign adventure than every terrorist attack on US interests everywhere in the world added together has done. You were only successfully attacked on 9/11 because of either total incompetence or deliberate cooperation. Tighten your borders, police your Homeland. "If we don't attack them there they'll attack here" is a lie pure and simple. You have armed forces, take them home and use them.
The truth, as opposed to the lie, is that no country on earth is ever going to attack the US Homeland and your armed forces have only one possible purpose: foreign domination. If you stopped fighting and posturing abroad they'd have no function at all. They're a total waste of resources. The US is completely invulnerable to conventional attack by reason of its nuclear deterrent. What you need but won't deploy is adequate policing at home.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Bailouts
Jester;1129602 wrote: Just so You know spot, my policy towards you is not to reply to your provocations. All you want to do is get airtime for the garbage socialist communist anti-american agenda you spew.
If you had any valid points to make you'd persuade those reading the thread. I simply take it you have no acceptable answer which would sway any reasonable reader in your direction. My position frequently supports the current American Administration. For some reason you think they're anti-American garbage socialist communist spewers too. I think that says more about the extremism of your position than it does about mine.
If you had any valid points to make you'd persuade those reading the thread. I simply take it you have no acceptable answer which would sway any reasonable reader in your direction. My position frequently supports the current American Administration. For some reason you think they're anti-American garbage socialist communist spewers too. I think that says more about the extremism of your position than it does about mine.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Bailouts
spot;1129566 wrote: "Their current ineptness is litterly making me nauseous" is slightly unforgiving, then, if you're applying it to an Administration that's been in office for less than three weeks.
No. The President's request has been ingnored by Congressmen who have been in the House and Senate, many of them through numerous administrations. It is Congress that is crafting this bill. President Obama made a request for a certain dollar amount and wanted a specific split in the items. His only fault is his inexperience. He should have taken a stronger leadership role and not allowed Nancy and Neil to run with this all important bill. He will learn. The question is, will his learning curve put us behind the 8 ball?
No. The President's request has been ingnored by Congressmen who have been in the House and Senate, many of them through numerous administrations. It is Congress that is crafting this bill. President Obama made a request for a certain dollar amount and wanted a specific split in the items. His only fault is his inexperience. He should have taken a stronger leadership role and not allowed Nancy and Neil to run with this all important bill. He will learn. The question is, will his learning curve put us behind the 8 ball?
"Out, damned spot! out, I say!"
- William Shakespeare, Macbeth, 5.1
Bailouts
spot;1129598 wrote: ... no country on earth is ever going to attack the US Homeland...
From your mouth to God's ear.
From your mouth to God's ear.
"Out, damned spot! out, I say!"
- William Shakespeare, Macbeth, 5.1
Bailouts
Kindle;1129608 wrote: The question is, will his learning curve put us behind the 8 ball?You were speaking English up until this point.
I tend to simplistically interpret the acts of government within the lifetime of a given Administration as being the acts of that Administration. Obviously the staff interact with Congress and sometimes get blocked. It's still that Administration's time and responsibility. "He" as President Obama is meaningless, "He" is a large team with the President stopping the buck in the long term. He sets up processes and they either work or they don't, he can't be a micro-manipulator whether he wants to or not, there's too much happening.
I tend to simplistically interpret the acts of government within the lifetime of a given Administration as being the acts of that Administration. Obviously the staff interact with Congress and sometimes get blocked. It's still that Administration's time and responsibility. "He" as President Obama is meaningless, "He" is a large team with the President stopping the buck in the long term. He sets up processes and they either work or they don't, he can't be a micro-manipulator whether he wants to or not, there's too much happening.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Bailouts
spot;1129619 wrote: You were speaking English up until this point.
I tend to simplistically interpret the acts of government within the lifetime of a given Administration as being the acts of that Administration. Obviously the staff interact with Congress and sometimes get blocked. It's still that Administration's time and responsibility. "He" as President Obama is meaningless, "He" is a large team with the President stopping the buck in the long term. He sets up processes and they either work or they don't, he can't be a micro-manipulator whether he wants to or not, there's too much happening.
President Obama is the leader of the US. He crafts policy. Congress executes this. The House and the Senate will have either an official count of more of one party than the other, but within that count, these people will be either left, right or moderate. Thus a Dem who leans right could be more in line with a Republican that leans left. It gets very complicated, if you want to pin a person down as to what he/she really is, but it should make for ease in working together in a bi-partisan manner.
President Obama did not get to pick the members of Congress, they were voted in by the people of their state. He works with Congress.
President Obama's 'administration' team are those people he nominated to serve in cabinet posts and his staff.
I tend to simplistically interpret the acts of government within the lifetime of a given Administration as being the acts of that Administration. Obviously the staff interact with Congress and sometimes get blocked. It's still that Administration's time and responsibility. "He" as President Obama is meaningless, "He" is a large team with the President stopping the buck in the long term. He sets up processes and they either work or they don't, he can't be a micro-manipulator whether he wants to or not, there's too much happening.
President Obama is the leader of the US. He crafts policy. Congress executes this. The House and the Senate will have either an official count of more of one party than the other, but within that count, these people will be either left, right or moderate. Thus a Dem who leans right could be more in line with a Republican that leans left. It gets very complicated, if you want to pin a person down as to what he/she really is, but it should make for ease in working together in a bi-partisan manner.
President Obama did not get to pick the members of Congress, they were voted in by the people of their state. He works with Congress.
President Obama's 'administration' team are those people he nominated to serve in cabinet posts and his staff.
"Out, damned spot! out, I say!"
- William Shakespeare, Macbeth, 5.1
Bailouts
Kindle;1129628 wrote: President Obama is the leader of the US. He crafts policy. Congress executes this.I was, oddly enough, just reading The White House - Press Office - Amendments to Executive Order 13199 and Establishment of the President's Advisory Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and the White House Administration does quite a bit of executing all on its own without any Congressional interference. I'm sure the Executive Orders will be quite significant over the next few years. He's used them to force the closure of the Guantanamo Bay oubliette, he's immediately banned torture, he's immediately banned the CIA's entire worldwide extraordinary rendition process, I think he's tackled the vital outrages of the Bush years rather promptly and effectively without any input from Congress at all.
Look - "The CIA shall close as expeditiously as possible any detention facilities that it currently operates and shall not operate any such detention facility in the future". Just like that. We've had years of European enquiries and protests falling on deaf Washington ears and the new Administration cleans it up in a single sentence.
Look - "The CIA shall close as expeditiously as possible any detention facilities that it currently operates and shall not operate any such detention facility in the future". Just like that. We've had years of European enquiries and protests falling on deaf Washington ears and the new Administration cleans it up in a single sentence.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.