OT: I want my vote back

[mickey]

Greetings,

There has been much talk about Hillary Clinton being Secretary of State. I thought this incoming administration was about change.


I WANT MY VOTE BACK STAT!!!!!


mickey

[uki]

your vote didn't matter anyway...

[Scott R. Brown]

How old are you mickey?

You must not be too old or you haven't paid much attention to politics. Politicians always lie, or stretch the truth, to get your vote! They will promise you the sun in the sky, if necessary, to get elected. This is common knowledge.

It is a rare politician who keeps his promises! Sometimes it is because they are liars, other times it is because once they are in office they find they cannot do it.

Obama is a liar! It was obvious from the start, but then so is McCain so we would have been screwed either way!

When faced with two evils, choose the lesser evil!

When you can distinguish the lesser from the greater, that is!

[YouKnowWho]

As long as he doesn't follow GWB's footsteps, it's "CHANG" by definition. After the last 8 years that we had, no matter what the new policy will be, it will always be better for people in US.

[mickey]

Greetings,

How old am I? I **** dust.

I can see it now.

Hillary Clinton coming back from Japan: I was standing amongst a throng of Japanese children fully expecting to be taken down by enemy fire at any given moment.

Hillary Clinton coming back from Great Britain: I was standing amongst a throng of British children fully expecting to be taken down by enemy fire at any given moment.

Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office: I was standing in my thong fully expecting to be taken down by enema fire at any given moment. Oops, did I say thong? I, uhh, misspoke.

mickey

[golgo]

Greetings,

There has been much talk about Hillary Clinton being Secretary of State. I thought this incoming administration was about change.


I WANT MY VOTE BACK STAT!!!!!


mickey

overreact much?

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

As long as he doesn't follow GWB's footsteps, it's "CHANG" by definition. After the last 8 years that we had, no matter what the new policy will be, it will always be better for people in US.

Reply]
Not if he starts taxing all the wealthy people who provide us all with JOBS!!!!!

If he makes THEM poor, then who is going to be around to give us work?

[CLFLPstudent]

Reply]
Not if he starts taxing all the wealthy people who provide us all with JOBS!!!!!

If he makes THEM poor, then who is going to be around to give us work?

Yeah, the wealthy like Mulally, Nardelli, and Wagoner, who do so well with their companies and provide jobs for so many people. Oops, they need a bailout and go to congress in their G4's with their hand's cupped. Then they say they'll have to lay off thousands while the roundtrip flights cost $20,000.

Those guys?

-David

[SimonM]

And I'm so sure that the centerist Obama is going to just tax those people into the poor house! :rolleyes:

[CLFLPstudent]

We keep hearing how raising Corporate Taxes will kill the economy, the only thing to do is to cut Corporate Taxes so the effects 'trickle down' to the regular folk.

Guess what? The economy is dead right now, and it is even though Bush had already cut Corporate Taxes (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6307293/) 4 years ago! Where the hell are the trickle down effect's of this?


“I signed a bill that’s going to help our manufacturers — that will save $77 billion over the next 10 years for the manufacturing sector of America,” Bush said. “That will help keep jobs here.”


Great job Dubya!

-David

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

And I'm so sure that the centerist Obama is going to just tax those people into the poor house! :rolleyes:

Reply]
I don't care about them, what about the bodyshop owner who is going to have to let someone go because he can't afford the taxes he's got to pay. It's bad enough tat insurance companies rape them.

The new administration is talking about adding a gas tax so significant that it will make gas $3.50 a gallon when it's $2.36 now.

What about the small construction company that goes under, because Obama wants to tax the crap out of the owner for making too much money? Where are all his roofers, carpenters, concrete guys and laborers supposed to work then?

What about all the little trucking companies who who have been pushed to the edge from all the extreme fuel prices and cannot afford to stay in business if they have to pay anymore taxes? Where are all those truck drivers going to go then?


I will tell you, they will be UNEMPLOYED!!

Why, because idiots have jealous grudges against people who are successful in life?

What we need right now, is massive deregulation, get the government OFF everyone's back, and we need to get the tax code under controll. It has been excessive to the point that companies cannot afford to do business in the US, and must leave for China, India and other places if they are to survive. We need to drastically lower taxes for EVERYONE, not just the rich, or the middle class (the poor already only pay sales tax).

The government are a bunch of rich, greedy power hungry controll freaks that will and are oppressing us in every way they can. They DON'T care about you, and they don't think twice about F'n you when it pleases them. Big corporations at least provide good paying jobs, vacations, health benefits, 401Ks and other things for MILLIONS of people.

Everyone calls the corporations evil, but they are the ONLY ones feeding the people on a massive, massive scale. The GOVERNMENT on the other hand 9outside of the small fraction of government workers) does little more than TAKE what we earn and give it to lazy slouches, many of which are well off from working the black market (drug dealing) anyway.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Guess what? The economy is dead right now, and it is even though Bush had already cut Corporate Taxes 4 years ago! Where the hell are the trickle down effect's of this?

Reply]
That is because of several factors.

1. The Clinton admin forcing banks to give loans to people who can't afford it under threat of penallty if they didn't. These Democrat forced loans were then sold to Fanni mae, and Freddi mac who fradulantly sold them as securities too investors without disclosing the fact that the loans were infact bad and the paper was actually worthless. THIS is what most directly caused this problem in the first place.

2. Any tax cuts we have seen so far were just superficial in order to buy support, and votes. They have only been a scratch in the surface of what really needs to be done to get this country back to where it was when we were prosperous.

Corporations pay THIRTY TWO PERCENT!!!! Even with tax breaks and loop holes they don't get down anywhere near what we pay (and we pay twice + of what we should), AND they must also pay HALF the taxes that thier employees owe tooo!!

Taxes have been way too high since Bush I, and have bee steadily going up ever since. We are *Supposed* to be the freest country in the word, but we have the SECOND highest tax rate of any nation on earth. The Government forced social Security pays at best a few hundred bucks a MONTH when you retire, yet they forcible STEAL money out of our checks our whole lives. You NEVER GET more than a small fraction of it back.

Our government is F'n us up the ass so much that cumm is coming out our ears...and people like you think the corporations that give us all jobs, and bennifts and retirement plans(many match our contributions, btw) are the evil ones?

How on earth can your mind possibly think like that?

[CLFLPstudent]

Reply]
2. Any tax cuts we have seen so far were just superficial in order to buy support, and votes. They have only been a scratch in the surface of what really needs to be done to get this country back to where it was when we were prosperous.

Corporations pay THIRTY TWO PERCENT!!!! Even with tax breaks and loop holes they don't get down anywhere near what we pay (and we pay twice + of what we should), AND they must also pay HALF the taxes that thier employees owe tooo!!



I agree we pay too much in taxes now, the whole government should be on a pay freeze until it gets sorted out.

However, I would hardly call this superficial:

WASHINGTON - With no fanfare, President Bush Friday signed the most sweeping rewrite of corporate tax law in nearly two decades, showering $136 billion in new tax breaks on businesses, farmers and other groups.

Intended to end a bitter trade war with Europe, the election-year measure was described by supporters as critically necessary to aid beleaguered manufacturers who have suffered 2.7 million lost jobs over the past four years.

So, back in '04 we gave Big Corporations $136 billion in tax cuts. This was supposed to inspire trickle-down effects. How long do we have to wait for these effects if they do in fact work?

And now, in '08, we have the largest unemployment rate in 14 years (http://www.freep.com/article/20081108/BUSINESS07/811080340?imw=Y).

Instead of a partisan thing, we should 'fire' everyone in office and start all over. There has to be a better way than what we have now.

-David

[CLFLPstudent]

Our government is F'n us up the ass so much that cumm is coming out our ears...and people like you think the corporations that give us all jobs, and bennifts and retirement plans(many match our contributions, btw) are the evil ones?

How on earth can your mind possibly think like that?

I don't think all corporations are evil. I think the head's of the big 3 auto makers are complete idiots for flying private jets to a meeting where they ask for $25 billion. And being idiots, I don't think we should give them that money.

Thinking that Corporations should pay their fair share is not too crazy....

Making $40 billion IN PROFIT and then asking not to pay taxes is, in my opinion, evil.

-David

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

I don't think all corporations are evil. I think the head's of the big 3 auto makers are complete idiots for flying private jets to a meeting where they ask for $25 billion. And being idiots, I don't think we should give them that money.

Thinking that Corporations should pay their fair share is not too crazy....

Making $40 billion IN PROFIT and then asking not to pay taxes is, in my opinion, evil.

-David

Reply]
I don't think they should not pay taxes at all, but they shouldn't be paying more than us, especially since there are the ones who provide us with work, and pay checks. There should be greater incentive to do that, not punishment.

You know who I WOULD tax greatly though? International corporations based OUTSIDE of the US. If they have branches operating here, then those branches should see high taxes. That way AMERICAN companies, would have the opportunities that should be ours by birth right.

[SimonM]

Reply]
The new administration is talking about adding a gas tax so significant that it will make gas $3.50 a gallon when it's $2.36 now.


Good for them! Hell get gas up to $10 a gallon. Maybe then people will re-evaluate the inappropriate and suicidal transportation model of the last half of the 20th century!

[Becca]

Guess what? The economy is dead right now, and it is even though Bush had already cut Corporate Taxes (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6307293/) 4 years ago! Where the hell are the trickle down effect's of this?

It trickled down so much we gotta give the heavy hitters money to the tune os hundreds of billions.;)

[1bad65]

Considering all I had to say before the election, even I'm surprised at how fast I get to say "See, I told you so". He hasn't even taken office yet!

So far he has promised to bail out the Big 3 automakers, going AGAINST his 'no corporate welfare' promise. He has brought in numerous lobbyists, going AGAINST his 'no loobyists in my administration' promise, and filled his Cabinet with a bunch of ex-Clinton people when he promised 'Change'.

I figure it won't be long until shirts, bumper stickers, etc saying 'Don't blame me, I voted for McCain' become a hot commodity. Whatever company produces those will most certainly create alot of jobs! ;)

[Becca]

You know who I WOULD tax greatly though? International corporations based OUTSIDE of the US. If they have branches operating here, then those branches should see high taxes. That way AMERICAN companies, would have the opportunities that should be ours by birth right.

Great Idea....... except that type of policy has been tried in the modern global market and backfired horribly. Tarriffs worked in the first 150 years of American history, but then, we used to be a selfsaficient contry. We can't regain those golden days of isolationism and trying to will cause more problems than it could ever solve. The great depression hit for more than 10 years, and it actually hit pretty much the whole world. it took a major war to reverse it. Now we are on the cusp of a new depression, but rather than turning our backs on each other, the world is pulling together. We'll still see a depression, but it won't be decades long nor 50% jopbless rate bad.

US tariffs on imported steel, imposed by the Bush administration, have been found illegal by the WTO. Mark Tran explains their history. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/11/qanda.usa)


US industries that use steel, such as those manufacturing appliances and cars, have been pressing for a repeal of the tariffs, complaining that higher steel prices are eroding their profits in a generally tough environment for US manufacturing. Last but not least, the tariffs make US claims to free trade sound hollow.

[Mr Punch]

Raise everybody's taxes.

Quadruple car tax on city drivers.

Stricter regulation on the markets (free market is a myth: deregulation is a major contributing factor to this financial meltdown). This trickle-down BS has been on since Reaganomics.

Don't hire Clinton: she's like Thatcher, more macho and with a bigger chip on her shoulder than most of the Boys.

Need any more advice?! :D

[uki]

Good for them! Hell get gas up to $10 a gallon. Maybe then people will re-evaluate the inappropriate and suicidal transportation model of the last half of the 20th century!ha! our first agreement.

[Mr Punch]

So far he has promised to bail out the Big 3 automakers, going AGAINST his 'no corporate welfare' promise.I don't agree with this bailout, but then I don't agree with the other one either. But here's a question: what would you do?


He has brought in numerous lobbyists, going AGAINST his 'no loobyists in my administration' promise, and filled his Cabinet with a bunch of ex-Clinton people when he promised 'Change'.Are you so naive? Anyone in politics is a lobbyist. His 'no lobbyist' spiel was in opposition to continuing the corporate lobbyists that have had Bush's ear and then McCain's campaign's GOP handlers.

And as for the cabinet: we don't know who's in it yet. Do you? You could clean up at the bookies! LOL.

But:

Rahm Emmanuel (the ONLY confirmed): no position in Clinton's admin.
Robert Gates (very likely): not a Clintonite, worked closely with both Bushes.
Tom Daschle (very likely): no position in Clinton's admin.
Janet Napolitano (likely): ditto.
Eric Holder (likely): the top Democratic legal bod, yes, an ex-Clintonite, but anyway, the top man for the job.
Hilary Clinton (likely): ironically, not a member of the Clinton admin! :p Don't get me wrong, I despise her almost as much as Palin and don't see her being any good in Sec of State post... but still.
So who else is your crystal ball seeing?



I figure it won't be long until shirts, bumper stickers, etc saying 'Don't blame me, I voted for McCain' become a hot commodity. Whatever company produces those will most certainly create alot of jobs! ;)LOL, you might be right on that, and good luck to Joe the Plumber for his book too! :D

[SimonM]

ha! our first agreement.

No, we also agree that pot should be decriminalized.

[1bad65]

I don't agree with this bailout, but then I don't agree with the other one either. But here's a question: what would you do?

Get rid of stupid laws like CAFE standards. Let the Big 3 FREELY make cars that the market demands, not what government demands. FYI, the biggest selling model of vehicle over the last 35 years is the Ford F-150 truck. The American car companies know how to make cars we want, but the government getting involved has hurt them badly though through these environmental laws.


Are you so naive? Anyone in politics is a lobbyist. His 'no lobbyist' spiel was in opposition to continuing the corporate lobbyists that have had Bush's ear and then McCain's campaign's GOP handlers.

I admit it was gonna be a nearly impossible promise to keep. So it begs the question... Why make a promise you will have to break?


And as for the cabinet: we don't know who's in it yet. Do you? You could clean up at the bookies! LOL.

Rahm Emmanuel (the ONLY confirmed): no position in Clinton's admin.

Incorrect. He served as a senior advisor to Clinton at the White House from 1993 to 1998. Emanuel was initially Assistant to the President for Political Affairs and then Senior Advisor to the President for Policy and Strategy. He was a leading strategist in the unsuccessful White House efforts to institute universal healthcare and many other Clinton initiatives.

Don't forget Greg Craig. As assistant to the President and special counsel in the White House of President Bill Clinton, Craig directed the team defending Clinton against impeachment. Craig will be appointed as White House Counsel to Obama.

Eric Holder was also instrumental in the Marc Rich pardon. Don't leave out that part about him.

It also appears Jamie Gorelick will be in the Cabinet as well. You may remember her as the rocket scientist who erected the 'Wall of Silence' betweent the CIA and FBI which was the main reason we failed to stop 9/11.

[SimonM]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D94HJVVO2.html

[sanjuro_ronin]

It amazes me why the Japanese auto makers are not asking for money...
One wonder why they haven't suffer as much and why their sales have not dropped AS MUCH as the Big 3...

[1bad65]

Raise everybody's taxes.

Stricter regulation on the markets (free market is a myth: deregulation is a major contributing factor to this financial meltdown). This trickle-down BS has been on since Reaganomics.

Raising taxes worked so well for Carter. :rolleyes:

Thank God Reaganomics pulled out out of that mess. Having double-digit inflation, prime interest rates over 20%, and unemployment just under 10% at the same time is something no one but Carter has ever managed to pull off.

[SimonM]

It amazes me why the Japanese auto makers are not asking for money...
One wonder why they haven't suffer as much and why their sales have not dropped AS MUCH as the Big 3...

:D

This is because Japanese auto makers have been making smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles their bread and butter. When money is tight you are more likely to buy a little Yaris than a big Chrysler 300 (pig-ugly heaps of tank-like rolling metal that they are).

[sanjuro_ronin]

Get rid of stupid laws like CAFE standards. Let the Big 3 FREELY make cars that the market demands, not what government demands. FYI, the biggest selling model of vehicle over the last 35 years is the Ford F-150 truck. The American car companies know how to make cars we want, but the government getting involved has hurt them badly though through these environmental laws.






Where did you get that info ?

[SimonM]

Well getting of motor vehicle environmental standards would certainly create a growth industry in canned air... like the spaceballs!

[sanjuro_ronin]

Most of the stats I am reading show that truck and SUV sales dropped much more than car sales.

From 2006:

GM, the world’s largest automaker, said its sales fell 22.2 percent, with trucks falling 31.2 percent and cars inching down 2.7 percent.

At Ford, sales of Ford, Lincoln and Mercury vehicles fell 35.2 percent. Truck sales plummeted 44.8 percent, while cars slipped 6.7 percent. Sales of F-Series pickup trucks, long the country’s best-selling vehicle and the company’s most important vehicle, shot down 45.6 percent.

DaimlerChrysler’s Chrysler Group said its sales fell 37.4 percent, with truck sales off 40 percent and car sales off 23.5 percent. That change happened despite the fact that Chrysler, alone among automakers, has revived the employee price promotion that fueled sales last year.

[1bad65]

Where did you get that info ?

It [The F-150] was the best-selling vehicle in the United States for 23 years and has been the best-selling truck for 31 years

http://www.trucktrend.com/features/news/2007/163_news070524_2008_ford_trucks_features/index.html

Also, analysts estimate that the F-Series alone makes up half of the Ford Motor Company's profits in recent years.

[1bad65]

The Japanese auto makers do recieve government subsidies in the form of health care.

I'm looking for a link (as I don't provide unsourced data, unlike others), but I'm about certain some have been bailed out in the past. Mitsubishi was not even a vehicle company in the past, they produced weaponry for the Japanese military (most notable the 'Zero' fighter plane). Also, they did use slave labor during WWII.

[CLFLPstudent]

Mitsubishi was not even a vehicle company in the past, they produced weaponry for the Japanese military (most notable the 'Zero' fighter plane). Also, they did use slave labor during WWII.

So, what's the point? Ford was a huge Nazi sympathizer and backed Hitler...GM was run by the same family that had an 80% share in Opel ....

Dig deep enough and you'll find everyone has skeletons in their closets...

The problem is what do we do about it now?

No one seems to be able to answer my question about trickle-down theory - GW had given Corporate Tax breaks to the tune of $136 billion back in 2004. Why are there no trickle down effects of this now- in fact we have the highest unemployment figures in 16 years today ( people receiving unemployment benefits - even more people out of work who don't get benefits).

Since you are so inclined to give us your thoughts 1bad, what would you do?

-David

[SimonM]

He'll blame Clinton or Carter...

Betcha!

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Actually, Clinton is at fault. It was his programs that set up todays banking crisis by forcing banks to give loans to poor people who could not afford to repay them.

No matter how much you cut taxes, it won't over come something that overwhelming.

Although, I do feel the Bush tax cuts were not anywhere near enough.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The Japanese auto makers do recieve government subsidies in the form of health care.

I'm looking for a link (as I don't provide unsourced data, unlike others), but I'm about certain some have been bailed out in the past. Mitsubishi was not even a vehicle company in the past, they produced weaponry for the Japanese military (most notable the 'Zero' fighter plane). Also, they did use slave labor during WWII.

Dude, grasping at straws much?
We are talking about TODAY, right NOW and how to fix things NOW.
Who cares what happened decades ago, seriously.

[sanjuro_ronin]

It [The F-150] was the best-selling vehicle in the United States for 23 years and has been the best-selling truck for 31 years

http://www.trucktrend.com/features/news/2007/163_news070524_2008_ford_trucks_features/index.html

Also, analysts estimate that the F-Series alone makes up half of the Ford Motor Company's profits in recent years.

And yet, now...twat.

[Becca]

It [The F-150] was the best-selling vehicle in the United States for 23 years and has been the best-selling truck for 31 years

http://www.trucktrend.com/features/news/2007/163_news070524_2008_ford_trucks_features/index.html

Also, analysts estimate that the F-Series alone makes up half of the Ford Motor Company's profits in recent years.
You do realize that article was dated May 2007, right? What was tru 18 months ago is not nessisarily true now.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Actually, Clinton is at fault. It was his programs that set up todays banking crisis by forcing banks to give loans to poor people who could not afford to repay them.

No matter how much you cut taxes, it won't over come something that overwhelming.

Although, I do feel the Bush tax cuts were not anywhere near enough.

So, if Clinton was to blame for all that is bad right now and he certainly can't be blamed fro all that was good during his 8 YEARS, I guess that GWB did nothing other than go to War with Iraq for...what was that again???
Oh that;s right, those reason keep changing.
Never mind that then.

What ever happenrd to to ol "buck stops here" view?

[MasterKiller]

Actually, Clinton is at fault. It was his programs that set up todays banking crisis by forcing banks to give loans to poor people who could not afford to repay them.. hmmmmm.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW9viaJatpo&feature=related

[Becca]

Although, I do feel the Bush tax cuts were not anywhere near enough.

So if we can't impose sweeping tarriffs and you want to drastically decrease taxes, where do we get the money to pay down national debt? Or are you still ignoring my comments on page 2?

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

When Taxes are low, commerce runs free. With more and more businesses prospering, there are a significant increase in the number of sources providing tax money to the gubernment. because of this, they actually have an increase in tax revenues.

It sort of like selling something cheap, and ending up making vastly more money on the volume.

As for the comment on Bush, he's a liberal republican, and he sux too. also, the programs of the Clinton admin SHOULD have been taken apart during the Bush admin, but were not. The Pres, and congress of the last 8 years are at fault for doing nothing.

That still does not change the fact that the Clinton Admin CAUSED the problem in the first place.

I said Clinton would ruin the country when he ran for Prez the first time. Looks like I was right.

[SimonM]

Sorry Becca, no answer 4u! :p

[CLFLPstudent]

Although, I do feel the Bush tax cuts were not anywhere near enough.

OK, so then how much should it have been?

Are you not against the bailouts? How is a multi-hundred billion dollar bailout different from a multi-hundred billion dollar tax break?

-Davi

[WinterPalm]

I think trickle down effect was dismissed sometime in the 90s as utterly fraudulent and unfeasible.
There is a trickle up effect though: workers, who produce everything on the planet, are severely underpaid and thus, through this system of underpayment, buy CEOs nice jets and islands.
I'll agree that this trickle up effect works...but I don't think it's the best way to do things.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Taxs should be cut to no more than 10-12% across the board for anyone making a living wage, or any business making similar level profits.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

It trickled down so much we gotta give the heavy hitters money to the tune os hundreds of billions.;)

reply]
How much tax money has the government taken from them over the years?

Figure how much 10-12% would be, and give them back everything they have paid above that for the last 16 years (Clinton & Bush).

Personally, I am not for a bail out, but in the end, the government has raped corporations, and regular people for decades. Since they cause the problems by thier interventions, they should do something to fix it.

However, the problem I see is that the government is not capable of doing anything but cause more damage, so the other part of me thinks we should just keep them out of it all all together and let the free markets fix things themselves.

In addition, cut thier over all tax rate significantly so they will be in a better position to compete with the rest of the world.

[CLFLPstudent]

reply]
How much tax money has the government taken from them over the years?

Figure how much 10-12% would be, and give them back everything they have paid above that for the last 16 years (Clinton & Bush).

In addition, cut thier over all tax rate significantly so they will be in a better position to compete with the rest of the world.


'Cause you konw they'll re-invest in their companies, see how many new refineries have been built since Big Oil started raking in the billions/quarter? :rolleyes:

C'mon... it will be eaten up by executives and their 'perks'.

-David

[Becca]

When Taxes are low, commerce runs free. With more and more businesses prospering, there are a significant increase in the number of sources providing tax money to the gubernment. because of this, they actually have an increase in tax revenues.

It sort of like selling something cheap, and ending up making vastly more money on the volume...Ha! I get it now. So why hasn't it started working yet? That is the basis for the tax reductions back in the eighties right? Oh, wait, they didn't actually lower the taxes; they just redistributed them in a way that caused the national debt to sky rocket through the roof......

History of the Income Tax in the United States
(http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html)

On Oct. 22, 1986, President Reagan signed into law the Tax Reform Act of 1986, one of the most far-reaching reforms of the United States tax system since the adoption of the income tax. The top tax rate on individual income was lowered from 50% to 28%, the lowest it had been since 1916. Tax preferences were eliminated to make up most of the revenue. In an attempt to remain revenue neutral, the act called for a $120 billion increase in business taxation and a corresponding decrease in individual taxation over a five-year period.

[Becca]

reply]
How much tax money has the government taken from them over the years?
Oooo! I can answer that!!!!! In 2007, the top 5% richest Americans paid about 50 of all revenue from sales taxes. And through out U.S. history, revenue from taxes, either income or other, has always qualled about 19.5% of the Gross National Product. And 40% of the bottom earners don't make enough to have to be paying taxes. So.........

5% of our wealthiest pay half the tab, wich is equal to no more, and usually much less than 35% of thier income.

And 45% of our working families pick up the other half of the tab at about the same rate a Daddy Warbucks.

The other 40% are too poor to even pay thier power bills let alone taxes. Of course, they still have to physically pay the taxes, but uncle Sam gives it back at the end of the year, for the most part.

So say the GNP is 10 Billion. (it's catually higher, but it'll make the math work.)

Taxes are about 20% of that. (yea, I know 19.5% but one again for the math....)

Total revenue is then 2 billion. 5% pay 1 billion and 45% pay 1 billion.

On paper, it does, indeed look like the wealthy are being "raped". But it still avarages out to 35% for all tax paying citisens. And 35% of the $40,000 I rais my two kids on is much harder to compensate for than the 35% of 1.2 million most pro athletes make...

If being asked to pay a propotional amount as everyone else, even though that amount doesn't cause the hardship that it causes Mainstreet Americans is unfair.... No I'm sorry, it is fair. Saying it isn't is plain old selfish and childish.

[1bad65]

When Taxes are low, commerce runs free. With more and more businesses prospering, there are a significant increase in the number of sources providing tax money to the gubernment. because of this, they actually have an increase in tax revenues.

It sort of like selling something cheap, and ending up making vastly more money on the volume.

Personally, I am not for a bail out, but in the end, the government has raped corporations, and regular people for decades. Since they cause the problems by thier interventions, they should do something to fix it.

WOW!!!

RD has hit the nail on the head. I couldn't have said it better myself.

A question to all you Obama supporters....How is this sub-prime crisis Bush's fault?

[1bad65]

When talking about the Japanese automakers, you guys ONCE AGAIN fall back on the old 'It's the past and does not count' bs again.

They are all receiving government subsidies NOW.

[sanjuro_ronin]

When talking about the Japanese automakers, you guys ONCE AGAIN fall back on the old 'It's the past and does not count' bs again.

They are all receiving government subsidies NOW.

Which ones? How much are they getting?
They don't get them here in Canada, that I know of, they don't have to.
And the past comment was referring to You bringing up WW2.
And it doesn't change the fact that they are selling more, or at least, their sales haven't dropped as much.
We don't see them asking Congress for billions either.
And I doubt that any subsidies they get are in the billions.

[CLFLPstudent]

When talking about the Japanese automakers, you guys ONCE AGAIN fall back on the old 'It's the past and does not count' bs again.

Shouldn't your stance against Mitsubishi also hold true for GM and Ford? Or do they get a pass because they are "American" companies?

-David

[Becca]

A question to all you Obama supporters....How is this sub-prime crisis Bush's fault?Because it was Bush that signed the bill allowing Freddie and Fanny to back the sub-prime loans. It was Freddie and Fanny that got foriegn investors to buy these loans as a way to come up with the money to back even more sub-prime loans. And when the foreign investors started to loose thier shirts, they tried to back out of it. This caused the bubble to pop.


That being the actual case, had Dubya not allowed Freddie and Fanny the freedom to back sub-prime loans with the single minded effort to get more minority families into thier own homes, with vertually no oversight, they would not have been able to back the sub-prime loans, thus no bubble.

Clinton made a fuss about "how unfair it was" that minorities couldn't afford to own homes. Dubya was the moron who tried to just give them the homes rather than giving them the means to buy homes through conventional meens.

[SimonM]

The big 3 are angling for subsidies from Canada as of today through the Canadian Dealer association. But there is nothing to suggest that anyone other than GM, Ford and Chrysler are in line for subsidies up here.

I think it's almost funny... I went to look at the list of vehicles sold by Chrysler and I had trouble finding any vehicles that WEREN'T SUVs. In fact the numbers seem almost reversed compared to Japanese and Korean companies... This article has more details about the subsidy requests. Hopefully it'll be a wake-up call for the auto makers that the day of the giant personal-use truck are over! (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/21/autodealers.html)

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

'Cause you konw they'll re-invest in their companies, see how many new refineries have been built since Big Oil started raking in the billions/quarter? :rolleyes:

C'mon... it will be eaten up by executives and their 'perks'.

-David

Reply]
The government won't let them build refineries. again, GET the government off the backs of the corporations, the wealth, the middle class, and everyone else, and things will turn around.

[MasterKiller]

Reply]
The government won't let them build refineries. again, GET the government off the backs of the corporations, the wealth, the middle class, and everyone else, and things will turn around.

The government doesn't prevent them from building new refineries. The government does it job and enforces environmental laws and new refineries refuse to comply, so they don't build.

[1bad65]

Because it was Bush that signed the bill allowing Freddie and Fanny to back the sub-prime loans. It was Freddie and Fanny that got foriegn investors to buy these loans as a way to come up with the money to back even more sub-prime loans. And when the foreign investors started to loose thier shirts, they tried to back out of it. This caused the bubble to pop.

I have a feeling I'm wasting my time, but I'm gonna have to ask you for name of that bill.

[1bad65]

The government doesn't prevent them from building new refineries. The government does it job and enforces environmental laws and new refineries refuse to comply, so they don't build.

If they cannot (as opposed to will not) comply with restrictions placed on them by the Government, then they are indeed prevented from builing new refineries.

[MasterKiller]

If they cannot (as opposed to will not) comply with restrictions placed on them by the Government, then they are indeed prevented from builing new refineries.

It's against the law to pollute. If you can't do business within the confines of legal regulations, don't blame the government, blame your business model.

[1bad65]

It's against the law to pollute. If you can't do business within the confines of legal regulations, don't blame the government, blame your business model.

You do realize what you just posted, right?

If the government passes laws making it impossible for a business to run and make a profit, that's terrible. Do not see how horrible that scenario is? Do you truly believe that is Government's role? Do you really think The Constitution was written to allow that?

Now Obama has said he will do that to the coal industry btw. :eek:

[1bad65]

Look at it this way:

When liberals want to try and cut smoking, they raise taxes on tobacco. They repeatedly justify those tax increases by saying it does indeed reduce the number of smokers. Yet in the same breath they will swear that raising income taxes on employers will increase jobs. And they say increasing capitol gains taxes will actually increase investments. Do you guys not see the huge contradiction here? :confused:

[1bad65]

At least one of them has gotten a government bailout themselves! Quite recently too, around 2004-2005.

"The Japanese government and creditors, including the Japanese corporate parent, have stepped in to prevent a complete collapse of the Mitsubishi automotive entity."

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:ovWj_WuuK4gJ:ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/05apr/RL32883.pdf+%22bail+out+mitsubishi%22+%22japanese+ government%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us

Yup, those guys are really running circles around the US companies. :rolleyes:

[WinterPalm]

If there were no regulations we'd be getting closer to China. We don't want to be a polluted wasteland. Ban coal outright...it's outdated and terrible for the environment.

[KC Elbows]

You do realize what you just posted, right?

If the government passes laws making it impossible for a business to run and make a profit, that's terrible. Do not see how horrible that scenario is? Do you truly believe that is Government's role? Do you really think The Constitution was written to allow that?

Dude, there was a creek near where I grew up that you could light on fire with a match due to chemicals released by nearby plants some years before. Yes, if a company wants to do that, they shouldn't be allowed to, for obvious reasons.

I can't run a profitable and legal cocaine business, and in most states can't open a brothel. Nor can I release certain chemicals into the air as part of a business model. The constitution was a framework that allowed for a legislature to make laws, those laws were, from the beginning, going to determine some conduct to be legal, and some illegal, not the constitution, which merely gives the bounds those laws must respect.

Mostly, business owners aren't philanthropists giving people jobs out of the kindness of their hearts, they are giving people jobs in order to make a profit off of their labor, and that profit should be taxed, and not the same dollar amount as some low wage earner, but a reasonable amount that any American should be proud to contribute. Hell, J.P. Morgan was a son of a *****, but at least he fronted a lot of cash to solve problems, not like most of these CEOs today, who do everything to make sure that the government pays every dime.

Honestly, big business has the most access to congress, and more ability to get their interests met than pretty much anyone else; no one, under the current system, is going to be able to enact taxes that undo them, because no one else has their influence.

Additionally, the comparison to taxes on smoking are false. Smokers don't make a profit off of smoking, businesses do make a profit off of their business, so the motivation to quit is nonexistent unless the profit margins are too small. Additionally, businesses the last ten years have been getting ridiculous write offs, house painters getting tax breaks for Hummers they don't need that exacerbate the fuel problem, if such business owners were not shrewd enough to know that taxes go up and down, if they failed to plan for the future, I feel for them. The problem with many free market supporters is that they forget that the free market exists as a competition, and some must, by definition, lose that competition, and go belly up. If people didn't reinvest all the money they got in tax breaks in order to improve their business model for the future, then they reap the rewards, unless they're doing home loans or manufacturing cars.;)

If a business cannot pay employees, pay a fair share of taxes based off of the benefit they gain from living in a semi-free market, and make a decent profit, it is not the constitution that should protect them, but the free market that should force them to improve or step out of that field, or there is no competition, no motivation to improve business models, and stagnation.

It is always odd to me how so-called free market supporters fail to appreciate that the free market ideally is there to kill most businesses at their inception, in their old age, and sometimes just because times changed. Times have changed, businesses will have to pay SOME more taxes, for quite some time they had to pay SOME less, if they can't exist within the margin between by planning ahead, maybe they should move overseas and let China bail them out, fine opportunity for retooling and modernizing. The ones that remain probably know that it's a two party system that goes back and forth, and planned accordingly.

IF our free market were a little better at killing the old and infirm companies, instead of protecting industries that are behind the curve, we at least wouldn't be bailing out the US auto industry.

/rant:D

[1bad65]

KC,

But the difference between say a power plant or a gus-guzzling car and brothels or cocaine is that the first 2 examples are LEGAL. I don't think it's Congress' job to try and regulate/fine/tax LEGAL businesses into bankruptcy. I don't see anywhere where The Constitution would allow such a travesty.

Remember, The Constitution is full of the term 'shall not'. It ALWAYS refers to what the Government cannot do, but it NEVER refers to constraints on the American citizen.

[1bad65]

And my smoking comparison was right on. My point is that higher taxes ALWAYS mean less of what is being taxed, and NEVER more. Yet liberals want it both ways.

[CLFLPstudent]

And my smoking comparison was right on. My point is that higher taxes ALWAYS mean less of what is being taxed, and NEVER more. Yet liberals want it both ways.

So you agree with RD and think that $136 billion in tax cuts is not enough? How much is enough? How are tax breaks different from bailouts? How come there has been no trickle-down effects from Bush's Corporate Tax breaks of 2004?

Why the anger towards Mitsubishi, but it was OK for Ford and GM to back Hitler and the Nazis?

-David

[Drake]

I was going to post about a very interesting and smartly conducted discussion I heard about the economy, and how it really made me think about things. But then I read the preceding posts, and realized it'd be like feeding fine cuisine to a three-toed tree sloth.

[rogue]

I think trickle down effect was dismissed sometime in the 90s as utterly fraudulent and unfeasible.
There is a trickle up effect though: workers, who produce everything on the planet, are severely underpaid and thus, through this system of underpayment, buy CEOs nice jets and islands.
I'll agree that this trickle up effect works...but I don't think it's the best way to do things.

No trickle down? I just bought a nice expensive washer and dryer(got a deal) and was talking with the delivery guys about how busy they were. Turns out that the month before they were doing between 0 and 3 deliveries a day which meant their jobs were on the line and they had to take vacation time to stay employed. The salesman also said things were slow.

Then there is the sporty little two seater Mrs. Rogue was going to buy, but we've put it off much to the salesman and dealerships dismay as they are doing close to zero business. The salesman had told us of his upcoming wedding which considering the lack of sales could be effected which would effect the caterer, etc.

And how could I forget the local YMCA which had a spike in memberships being canceled, and those memberships are what helps fund their outreach programs for the poor.

Trickle down is just a fact of life.

[Mas Judt]

Greetings,

There has been much talk about Hillary Clinton being Secretary of State. I thought this incoming administration was about change.


I WANT MY VOTE BACK STAT!!!!!


mickey

So Mr, 'no more Washington insiders' is the total WAshington insider - HAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!

Oh goody, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Pelosi - Clinton Insiders - The people that BROUGHT you the economic meltdown are here to 'Save us'. Bwahahahahaaa!!!

Just because Bush was too dumb to stop it, doesn't mean they can't make it worse...

Let the a$$-covering begin...

THis is so-o-o-o funny as the kool-aid drinkers discover artificial flavor ain't so good...

[mickey]

I was watching this thread meander and, at times, was going to delete it. But I saw some healthy discussion about things.

I really did not want to participate in the election process because I saw the GAME and the Democratic Party's gimmicky use of race and gender to push their way into the White House. I voted only because of a moment's doubt, or should I say hope-- that I could be wrong about what I was seeing.

I had the opportunity to see Mr Obama's speech after he won. That was when I had regret. It was fully planned and orchestrated to perfection, with close ups of whipped glassey eyed individuals. It was mind control at full throttle and I was glad I was awake enough to see it.

The Clintons (and I am not talking about Chelsea) have long been associated with murder. I did not pay it much mind until Hillary made that slip about Bobby Kennedy assasination before the primary last June. My jaw hit the floor. They don't belong in politics; they belong in cages with starving lions.

mickey

[WinterPalm]

No trickle down? I just bought a nice expensive washer and dryer(got a deal) and was talking with the delivery guys about how busy they were. Turns out that the month before they were doing between 0 and 3 deliveries a day which meant their jobs were on the line and they had to take vacation time to stay employed. The salesman also said things were slow.

Then there is the sporty little two seater Mrs. Rogue was going to buy, but we've put it off much to the salesman and dealerships dismay as they are doing close to zero business. The salesman had told us of his upcoming wedding which considering the lack of sales could be effected which would effect the caterer, etc.

And how could I forget the local YMCA which had a spike in memberships being canceled, and those memberships are what helps fund their outreach programs for the poor.

Trickle down is just a fact of life.

I don't understand. It seems like those examples just show that trickle down isn't occurring. Do you think the top CEOs are really taking pay cuts? Someone made huge money off the high price of oil. What about the giant tax cuts to the uber-wealthy?

Trickle down is kind of like the crumbs being flicked to the peasants. It's a rubbish way of running things and doesn't work.

[Mas Judt]

I was watching this thread meander and, at times, was going to delete it. But I saw some healthy discussion about things.

I really did not want to participate in the election process because I saw the GAME and the Democratic Party's gimmicky use of race and gender to push their way into the White House. I voted only because of a moment's doubt, or should I say hope-- that I could be wrong about what I was seeing.

I had the opportunity to see Mr Obama's speech after he won. That was when I had regret. It was fully planned and orchestrated to perfection, with close ups of whipped glassey eyed individuals. It was mind control at full throttle and I was glad I was awake enough to see it.

The Clintons (and I am not talking about Chelsea) have long been associated with murder. I did not pay it much mind until Hillary made that slip about Bobby Kennedy assasination before the primary last June. My jaw hit the floor. They don't belong in politics; they belong in cages with starving lions.

mickey

Mickey, I saw it coming a million miles away - I'm fairly certain it was fait accompli - first the neocons wipe out any remnant of libertarian or republican thought - relpace it with a conservative values socialist progresiveism - but play it above the belt. Let the left call it fascist and evil so much people believe it. Then when it fails BECAUSE it is 'progressive' usher in the real evil fascists complete with adoring crowds, greek columns and more power to oppress than ever (courtesy of subtle changes in various financial rules moreso than the patriot act.)

Ta-da! The average man gets f@cked. Frankly, I am very, very worried for our country.

Of course, I'll hope for the best, but I think the cries of aborted late-term babies being strangled by the abortionist after being burned alive in the womb for 16 hours will drown out the cheers of the zombie-like worshippers of the ONE... (I wonder what those poor women think when the baby is thrashing so wildly, then just stops... do think they suddenly realize they have been fed a bunch of sh!t?)

[MasterKiller]

KC,

But the difference between say a power plant or a gus-guzzling car and brothels or cocaine is that the first 2 examples are LEGAL. I don't think it's Congress' job to try and regulate/fine/tax LEGAL businesses into bankruptcy. I don't see anywhere where The Constitution would allow such a travesty.

Polluting the environment and presenting unacceptable health risks to the public is illegal, too.

Why don't you have lead paint in your house? Or asbestos in your attic?

Refineries are not banned in America, they are strictly regulated to help prevent health risks to the general public. Refineries that can operate within the law are perfectly acceptable, but no new refineries have been built because they do not want to comply with federal law to build new refineries within recently adopted standards.

You know, so all those UNBORN BABIES you worry about don't get mutated in the womb, and sh1t like that.

[MasterKiller]

Remember, The Constitution is full of the term 'shall not'. It ALWAYS refers to what the Government cannot do, but it NEVER refers to constraints on the American citizen.
So it never says women can't get abortions and it never says h0m0sexuals can't marry. Right on.

[Mas Judt]

I find it fascinating that caring for unborn babies is a source of derision for the left...

[MasterKiller]

I find it fascinating that caring for unborn babies is a source of derision for the left...

The right apparently does not care if babies are poisoned in the womb from excess pollution as long as they can make a buck off of it.

[WinterPalm]

So it never says women can't get abortions and it never says h0m0sexuals can't marry. Right on.

The next round of ****sexual marriages and abortions is on MK!:D

[BoulderDawg]

Views on Abortion:

Forget it Neos......It's not gonna happen anytime soon.

Anyway, I haven't read where anybody was forced to get an abortion. As far as I know a woman can chose not to. Any man simply has no say so in the matter.

[BoulderDawg]

Greetings,

There has been much talk about Hillary Clinton being Secretary of State. I thought this incoming administration was about change.


I WANT MY VOTE BACK STAT!!!!!


mickey

All the reason I simply don't vote. It's like being in a cafeteria and told you can have chicken or beef......I'll simply chose to take neither and go out and get my own.

[Yum Cha]

Trickle down, tax cuts, expenditures. It seems as if spending, taxing and saving are all the same commodity in these discussions. I think you need to look deeper.

Spending you tax cut on a new Chinese big screen is different than spending it on your child's education.

Likewise, taxing a gas guzzling 18th century technology SUV is different to taxing a hybrid family car.

Pointing the finger at government and business and expecting them to solve all your problems, and I say YOUR problems, is perhaps only a partial solution?

The economy generates commodities based upon demand. People buy lots of stuff to to 'enrich' their lives. Its as much about what you buy as it is about the regulations and taxation.

For example:
The DEE-troit automakers have failed to have the foresight to build a decent automobile for the future, and have spent their ample resources convincing the kunckel dragging crowd that the SUV is a MAN's vehicle, or the only way to keep your babies safe on our deadly highways.

The government has failed to invest in the infrastructure needed for the economy to keep pace with the changing demands of the world environment just as short sightedly.

The business of short term gain for the sake of captured profits as opposed to the long term consistency and viability is the reason for this current 'adjustment' to the economy.

You get what you pay for, and likewise, the opposite is true.

China and Japan own your a$$es now, just like a dealer owns his junkies.

Time to kick the habit yet? It starts with you. Obama seems to be the best choice on offer, but he ain't your daddy, don't expect him to wave a magic want to fix 20 years of shortsight overnight.

[Mas Judt]

The right apparently does not care if babies are poisoned in the womb from excess pollution as long as they can make a buck off of it.

The difference is, there are plenty of people on the right who disagree with destroying the environment - although they tend to demand actual science and not just scare tactics. Whereas the left merrily believes in killing babies (go late term!) and doesn't see a problem with it 'because the women aren't forced.' But don't give a sh!t about the dead baby.

[mawali]

Why would anyone want to take their vote back at this time. Maybe I just do not understand that we are in a representative democracy. Accent on the representative portion!

1. No doubt some industries got away with fooling the American people
2. No doubt up to now Bush has been in charge for 8 years
3. No doubt lax, inefficient, or useless incentives to power bank and mortgage
4. Global economy accelerated economic malaise affecting ancillary industries and unemployment.
5. No doubt Bush still in charge
6. No doubt Bush administration passed this 'socialist' baleout and trying to pretend otherwise.
7. The Preseident elect NEVER passed any such legislation but he is called 'socialist', 'Marxist', "Communist' but the one who passed it is called the one for freedom! What the z2#%%?

Strangely enough, the run on guns was the highest increase of all the sectors keeping in mind 'unemployment' 'recession' etc people would rather spend mony on guns than on more necessary items. But guns are necessary in the good ole USA!

[Becca]

Remember, The Constitution is full of the term 'shall not'. It ALWAYS refers to what the Government cannot do, but it NEVER refers to constraints on the American citizen.
I'll beg to differ on this moronic statement. The individual has the right to life, liberty and the pusute of happyness, so long as it does not impinge on the rights of others. Now granted, it says 'does not" rather than "shall not", but you'd have to be pretty moronic to try to split that hair.


As to the name Of the bill? I'll google it up for you. But the televised broadcast of Bush signing the bill was linked back on page 3.

[Becca]

I really did not want to participate in the election process because I saw the GAME and the Democratic Party's gimmicky use of race and gender to push their way into the White House. I voted only because of a moment's doubt, or should I say hope-- that I could be wrong about what I was seeing.


If you still want your vote back; think everyone involed with the government back when Clinton was in the Whitehouse, you might want to read this; 'Cause most of the world trusts the people Obama is appointing.

Oil rallies on Obama picks (http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/24/markets/oil.ap/index.htm)

[MasterKiller]

The difference is, there are plenty of people on the right who disagree with destroying the environment - although they tend to demand actual science and not just scare tactics. Whereas the left merrily believes in killing babies (go late term!) and doesn't see a problem with it 'because the women aren't forced.' But don't give a sh!t about the dead baby.

Of course, there are plenty of people on the left who disagree with abortion (especially late term) - although they tend to demand actual science about conception and not just religious scare tactics. Whereas the right merrily believes that the state should be allowed to enforce medical decisions on it's citizens and doesn't see the hypocricy of killing doctors and blowing up clinics and arguing 'all life is precious' at the same time.

[Becca]

I find it fascinating that caring for unborn babies is a source of derision for the left...

I have no derision for pro-lifers. I'd never personally get an abortion, either. But I firmy beleive that I have NO RIGHT to tell the vicom of a brutal assault she can't have one because of my religious and personal beleifs. I can't look a dying pregnant woman in the face and teller she's going to burn in hell if she tries to save her own life. Most of the country may be christian, but this country was founded on religious fredom from persecution. Shoving my christianity down the througts of others is flat-out not right!

[sanjuro_ronin]

At least one of them has gotten a government bailout themselves! Quite recently too, around 2004-2005.

"The Japanese government and creditors, including the Japanese corporate parent, have stepped in to prevent a complete collapse of the Mitsubishi automotive entity."

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:ovWj_WuuK4gJ:ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/05apr/RL32883.pdf+%22bail+out+mitsubishi%22+%22japanese+ government%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us

Yup, those guys are really running circles around the US companies. :rolleyes:

That's it?
Mitsubishi has always been in "difficulties" when it came to their automotive division.
Heck, how many times has Chrysler been on the "chopping block" ???

[SimonM]

Mitsubishi is the fourth largest automotive manufacturer in Japan. So all their troubles proves is that the #4 Japanese company is doing nearly as poorly as the numbers 1,2,3 american companies.

[1bad65]

Now it looks like Bill Richardson is in too. :rolleyes: He's the guy who gave us the Los Alamos labs thefts which helped North Korea acquire nukes. The hits just keep on coming.

So really guys, the question remains. When you voted for 'change', did you take that to mean a bunch of Clinton retreads?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Mitsubishi is the fourth largest automotive manufacturer in Japan. So all their troubles proves is that the #4 Japanese company is doing nearly as poorly as the numbers 1,2,3 american companies.

Really?
Well, see I didn't know it was that high up there, but looking at it, it makes sense.
I assume that:
Toyota- 1
Honda- 2
Nissan-3
Mitsubishi-4
Yes?
Though I see more Mazdas than Mitsubishis...

[1bad65]

Mitsubishi is the fourth largest automotive manufacturer in Japan. So all their troubles proves is that the #4 Japanese company is doing nearly as poorly as the numbers 1,2,3 american companies.

Nissan was bailed out in 1998-1999 by Renault as well.

That's 2 Japanese automakers who already received bailouts so far. Do I need to keep going? ;)

[1bad65]

Though I see more Mazdas than Mitsubishis...

Speaking of Mazda, they got a bailout too. You may surprised to find out that Ford was who bailed them out! ;)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Nissan was bailed out in 1998-1999 by Renault as well.

That's 2 Japanese automakers who already received bailouts so far. Do I need to keep going? ;)

Renault is a government?
LOL !

[sanjuro_ronin]

Speaking of Mazda, they got a bailout too. You may surprised to find out that Ford was who bailed them out! ;)

Again, not a government bailout.

[1bad65]

A bailout is a bailout. It shows you did not run your business successfully. FYI, my examples were in response to those saying the Big 3 need to follow the Japanese automakers way of doing things. I was correctly pointing out that they have had their own money problems as well. And worse problems too, as they already received bailouts.

[SimonM]

Really?
Well, see I didn't know it was that high up there, but looking at it, it makes sense.
I assume that:
Toyota- 1
Honda- 2
Nissan-3
Mitsubishi-4
Yes?
Though I see more Mazdas than Mitsubishis...

I found references to Mitsubishi as #4. I know Toyota to be #1 (they are actually currently #1 in the world). The #2,3 and 5 spot I don't know. I would have assumed Mazda had a larger market share than Mitsubishi but it could be that European and Asian markets have an impact on the numbers.

[sanjuro_ronin]

A bailout is a bailout. It shows you did not run your business successfully. FYI, my examples were in response to those saying the Big 3 need to follow the Japanese automakers way of doing things. I was correctly pointing out that they have had their own money problems as well. And worse problems too, as they already received bailouts.

Fact, they are selling more cars now so they must have learned "something".
Fact, the Big 3 are selling less and are in dire need of PUBLIC funds.
Fact, Chrysler has been on the verge of bankruptcy how many times? been bought up how many times and still...
While ALL car companies are going through a rough time, only the Big 3 are on "the verge".
Fact, the upper management is so out of touch that they flew in their private jets to ask congress for money, regardless or right or wrong on anyone's view, the fact they they didn't see anything "wrong with it", shows the need for a massive overhaul of the upper management at the Big 3.

[1bad65]

Fact, they are selling more cars now so they must have learned "something".

Incorrect. Even the Japanese automakers are seeing lower sales. Toyota's sales are down 32%; Honda is down 34%; and Nissan is down 37%

http://clarkhoward.com/liveweb/shownotes/2008/10/02/14157/


While ALL car companies are going through a rough time, only the Big 3 are on "the verge".

What part of 'The Japanese automakers have already received bailouts' do you not understand?


Fact, the upper management is so out of touch that they flew in their private jets to ask congress for money, regardless or right or wrong on anyone's view, the fact they they didn't see anything "wrong with it", shows the need for a massive overhaul of the upper management at the Big 3.

That's only half the story. The half told by the mainstream press btw. The other half is that it's in those guys contracts that they fly private jets for safety reasons.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Incorrect. Even the Japanese automakers are seeing lower sales. Toyota's sales are down 32%; Honda is down 34%; and Nissan is down 37%

http://clarkhoward.com/liveweb/shown...8/10/02/14157/

And the Big 3 were in a slump LONG before that.
Dude, I used to be a sub-contractor for GM, the truck plant here in Oshawa and even back in 1998 some of the guys there were already talking about the "collapse" that was coming, it actaully took longer than they expect ( 10 years instead of the 5-8 they were predictating).
They saw it coming.


What part of 'The Japanese automakers have already received bailouts' do you not understand?

What part of NON-governmental did you not understand?


That's only half the story. The half told by the mainstream press btw. The other half is that it's in those guys contracts that they fly private jets for safety reasons.

Not even close to being the point Bro, and you know it.
Public perception when you are asking for PUBLIC FUNDS.

[sanjuro_ronin]

FYI:

British engine maker Rolls-Royce plans up to 2,000 job cuts in 2009
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: 20 11 2008

LONDON - Rolls-Royce Group PLC said Thursday it plans to cut up to 2,000 jobs next year as demand for its products slumps amid the global economic downturn.

The world's second largest maker of aircraft engines said it plans to slash 140 jobs at its aerospace assembly and test facility in Derby, England.

The cuts represent the first part of a larger plan to cut between 1,500 to 2,000 jobs across Rolls-Royce's businesses worldwide in 2009, the engineering company said in a statement.

The plan will help it trim costs and reduce output as demand drops because of an uncertain economic outlook and delays on some of the company's most high-profile projects, like the Airbus A380 and Boeing 787.

"We are determined to maintain our focus on cost reduction and competitiveness as the world economy enters a challenging period," said chief executive John Rose.

The reduction in head count comes on top of 2,300 job losses the company announced in January.

Rolls-Royce currently employs around 39,000 people globally, including around 22,100 in Britain.

The union Unite said the announcement was disappointing. "Rolls-Royce must take a measured approach to this temporary downturn in the airline industry. In the past the company has cut too many jobs and Rolls-Royce struggled to meet the upturn in the market," said Unite's national officer, Bernie Hamilton.

Shares fell 1.4 per cent to 264 pence (US$3.93) on the London Stock Exchange.

Rolls-Royce no longer owns the eponymous luxury car brand, which is now owned by German carmaker BMW.

[1bad65]

Sanjuro,

Again, the point is that they needed a bailout, not who bailed them out. My point is that they can't be these masters of business some on the thread are making them out to be because they have ALREADY been bailed out themselves.

But yes, I agree tax money should not bail them out. Unlike Obama.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Sanjuro,

Again, the point is that they needed a bailout, not who bailed them out. My point is that they can't be these masters of business some on the thread are making them out to be because they have ALREADY been bailed out themselves.

But yes, I agree tax money should not bail them out. Unlike Obama.

Actually, the issue is WHO bailed them out.
Why?
Because no other company "bails out" another for charitiable reasons.
Ford investment in Mazda
GM's in Suzuki
Renault's in Nissan
Gm with Saab
And many more happened because those companies saw something that would make them money, and, for the most part, except for Daimler and Chrysler, they were right.
Notice how very few companies are interested in the Big 3?
That is why they need public funds.

I have no issue with them getting public funds, IF those funds go to long term, productive changes and perhaps even into "shareholder ownership".
I mean, afterall, if a private company or individual gives a firm money, they usually get somehting in return, right?

[1bad65]

Look, we both agree on the point that using government (read tax dollars) money is wrong. Ok.

But my other point was that no one should be taking advice or following the business model of companies who have already failed and required bailouts to survive. Do you agree with that part as well?

[1bad65]

I have no issue with them getting public funds, IF those funds go to long term, productive changes and perhaps even into "shareholder ownership".
I mean, afterall, if a private company or individual gives a firm money, they usually get somehting in return, right?

That's a VERY dangerous road to go down. It is basically a government ownership of private businesses. You don't have to know much about history to see that is rarely, if ever, good.

[MasterKiller]

I have no issue with them getting public funds, IF those funds go to long term, productive changes and perhaps even into "shareholder ownership".
I mean, afterall, if a private company or individual gives a firm money, they usually get somehting in return, right?

Make a better product, make more money for your private investors. Make a sh1tty product, lose profits for your private investors. That's how the system works.

No one is "too big to fail." The market will compensate when there is a need for a product that someone else was unable to supply.

No bail out.

[1bad65]

Really, the Big 3 are in trouble for 2 main reasons.

1. And most important, the unions. Their labor cost as way too high. They are like the goose who layed the golden eggs and the unions are the greedy farmer. Foreign carmakers who make cars in the US do it mostly in the South. In the 'right to work' states to avoid dealing with the unions.

2. Govenment interference. CAFE standards, etc. They have been FORCED by the government to have to sell a certain amount of fuel-efficient cars wether the marketplace wants them or not. They have to invest millions in R&D in making more fuel-efficient cars to comply with tighter MPG standards due to occur. If they were allowed to make what sells without any government interference, they would have alot alot better chance of riding out hard times like we see today.

[SimonM]

Gas guzzling over-sized consumer trucks need to be ousted from the market for the good of the earth. Furthermore providing corporate welfare when the state won't even provide health care to it's citizenry is corrupt.

No bailout.

And that goes double for Canada.

[golgo]

Well, I am not sure about whether or not I agree with unions. But when I hear that the average severence package for the big three is $108,000 dollars (and is union negotiated) that seems to make it a bit difficult to get leaner and cut costs. I know this isn't the whole story, but I don't think its as simple as "Detroit Automakers are dumb" etc.

It seems to me that in a way unions are acting as cartels. I feel like workers need to be protected, but you can't argue that we should let market forces take effect (and lead to the downfall of several automakers) and at the same time argue that unions should be legal.

I am not saying that I think unions should be illegal, I just think its not the black and white issue that it is sometimes made out to be.

[SimonM]

That's why my refusal of the bailout proposal has nothing to do with much-touted market forces.

[MasterKiller]

2. Govenment interference. CAFE standards, etc. They have been FORCED by the government to have to sell a certain amount of fuel-efficient cars wether the marketplace wants them or not. They have to invest millions in R&D in making more fuel-efficient cars to comply with tighter MPG standards due to occur. If they were allowed to make what sells without any government interference, they would have alot alot better chance of riding out hard times like we see today. Breaking the law is not an acceptable business practice.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Look, we both agree on the point that using government (read tax dollars) money is wrong. Ok.

But my other point was that no one should be taking advice or following the business model of companies who have already failed and required bailouts to survive. Do you agree with that part as well?

If they learned from it and are NOW more successful, why not?

[sanjuro_ronin]

That's a VERY dangerous road to go down. It is basically a government ownership of private businesses. You don't have to know much about history to see that is rarely, if ever, good.

Yes, very dangerous road and considering how horrible government is at manegement, not desirable.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Really, the Big 3 are in trouble for 2 main reasons.

1. And most important, the unions. Their labor cost as way too high. They are like the goose who layed the golden eggs and the unions are the greedy farmer. Foreign carmakers who make cars in the US do it mostly in the South. In the 'right to work' states to avoid dealing with the unions.

2. Govenment interference. CAFE standards, etc. They have been FORCED by the government to have to sell a certain amount of fuel-efficient cars wether the marketplace wants them or not. They have to invest millions in R&D in making more fuel-efficient cars to comply with tighter MPG standards due to occur. If they were allowed to make what sells without any government interference, they would have alot alot better chance of riding out hard times like we see today.

I agree with the high labour costs, though here the workers for Honda and Toyota get paid the same, relatively, and they are not part of the auto workers union ( I think) and here Honda and Toyota are doing better than the Big 3.

The issue is lack of sales, the Big 3 are not selling, period.
And the imports are selling, at least enough they they are NOT in as dire straits as the Big 3.

[CLFLPstudent]

Well, I am not sure about whether or not I agree with unions. But when I hear that the average severence package for the big three is $108,000 dollars (and is union negotiated) that seems to make it a bit difficult to get leaner and cut costs. I know this isn't the whole story, but I don't think its as simple as "Detroit Automakers are dumb" etc.

When the 3 bigwig's ( Mulally, Nardelli, and Wagoner) show up at congress with their hands out, and do so after flying in on their private company jets ( separately, I might add), they are dumb. With a capitol "DUMB".

-David

[golgo]

Well, you do have a point.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I wish I could see it as simple them being "dumb", but its not, its their sense of entitlement.
They don't get it, truly, they just don't get it.

[1bad65]

Breaking the law is not an acceptable business practice.

Again MK, I am against laws that make it hard (or even worse, impossible) for companies providing a legal product to be profitable.

Take this example:

Say the Republicans passed news laws saying that every year there had to be 10% less abortions or there would be fines big enough to bankrupt the hospitals and doctors who are providing that LEGAL product. You guys would be up in arms about that.

[1bad65]

When the 3 bigwig's ( Mulally, Nardelli, and Wagoner) show up at congress with their hands out, and do so after flying in on their private company jets ( separately, I might add), they are dumb. With a capitol "DUMB".


I wish I could see it as simple them being "dumb", but its not, its their sense of entitlement.
They don't get it, truly, they just don't get it.

Do you guys not know how to read or do you just not read opposing viewpoints? I said earlier that it's in their contracts that they have to fly private jets for their safety. It wasn't a choice.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Again MK, I am against laws that make it hard (or even worse, impossible) for companies providing a legal product to be profitable.

Take this example:

Say the Republicans passed news laws saying that every year there had to be 10% less abortions or there would be fines big enough to bankrupt the hospitals and doctors who are providing that LEGAL product. You guys would be up in arms about that.

But if the law was directed at OBSOLETE and DANGEROUS types of abortions when safer and better alternatives existed...

[sanjuro_ronin]

Do you guys not know how to read or do you just not read opposing viewpoints? I said earlier that it's in their contracts that they have to fly private jets for their safety. It wasn't a choice.

No Bro, you don't get it and neither do they, they had a choice.
That's the problem.
You don't show up at a soup kitchen asking for a handout, by being driven in a limo.

[SimonM]

Exactly. They COULD have decided that the security risk in flying merely first class was low enough that it would counter-balance the image of arriving to pan-handle on a mass scale in a private jet! The most expensive form of transport short of a space shuttle!

[MasterKiller]

Again MK, I am against laws that make it hard (or even worse, impossible) for companies providing a legal product to be profitable.

You honestly believe businesses should be allowed to operate at the expense of the public health?

Do you feel the crackdown, on say, the Meat Packing industry at the turn of the last century prevented them from doing business and turning a profit?

How about if I want to paint some houses with lead-based paint? Should that be allowed?

[Becca]

they have ALREADY been bailed out themselves.And, since these other bail-outs happened 2-5 years ago with private funds, mind telling me how may US automakers were also bailed out by private funding durring that same 2-5 year period? Or better yet, who bought out Daimler Chrysler again????? (not a trick question; I work with Daimler every day buying parts, so I know who owns them. ;) )


But yes, I agree tax money should not bail them out. Unlike Obama.
Obama said he didn't want to use tax funds, but would if the Big three could provide proof that they were going to "re-tool" thier industry into a viable, sustainable, long term system.

[Becca]

, except for Daimler and Chrysler, they were right.
Notice how very few companies are interested in the Big 3?
Pssst. Not Daimler and Chrysler. Daimler Chrysler, which now owns a big chunk of the bus and rail industry in the U.S. as well. Try finding a major mass transit agency in North America, all of North America, that isn't running Orion buses in thier fleet.....

[Yum Cha]

Do you guys not know how to read or do you just not read opposing viewpoints? I said earlier that it's in their contracts that they have to fly private jets for their safety. It wasn't a choice.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a DUCK. For their safety? Yea, believe that for sure - it just reinforces Rohan's point about an overwhelming sense of entitlement.

And concerning the Government's regulation to produce fuel efficient cars, if they hadn't continued such heavy marketing of the higher margin SUV's, stimulating the demand for a doomed comodity, they'd be in a better position now. The old chestnut "But that's what the consumer wants" has been proved incorrect. Its what they told the consumer they wanted with the use of multiple appeals to reinforce the battle for demand, but eventually market forces have won the war. i.e. The government had it right, the automakers didn't.

Flush the auto industry and let a new one grow. And yes, the unions are part of the industry too. You might even include oil in the same bowel movement.

[1bad65]

But if the law was directed at OBSOLETE and DANGEROUS types of abortions when safer and better alternatives existed...

Actually they don't exist. That's why they have to pony up millions in R&D dollars to create those cars. When the market was tickled pink to be buying SUVs.

And you know my example was a good one. Admit if it happened you guys wouldn't be throwing fits about how the government is trying to dictate your personal choices. Right now they are trying to dictate what we drive. In NYC they are dictatiing what you can and can't eat with these ridiculous trans-fat laws. Where will it stop?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Pssst. Not Daimler and Chrysler. Daimler Chrysler, which now owns a big chunk of the bus and rail industry in the U.S. as well. Try finding a major mass transit agency in North America, all of North America, that isn't running Orion buses in thier fleet.....

Daimler doesn't own Chrysler anymore.

[Lucas]

Where will it stop?

It will never stop.

[1bad65]

How about if I want to paint some houses with lead-based paint? Should that be allowed?

You just don't get it do you?

If the consumers demand lead based paint for THEIR house, so be it. It's called personal choice and personal responsibility. You may despise someone's life choices, but it's their choice.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Actually they don't exist. That's why they have to pony up millions in R&D dollars to create those cars. When the market was tickled pink to be buying SUVs.

And you know my example was a good one. Admit if it happened you guys wouldn't be throwing fits about how the government is trying to dictate your personal choices. Right now they are trying to dictate what we drive. In NYC they are dictatiing what you can and can't eat with these ridiculous trans-fat laws. Where will it stop?

Ah bro, I agree with you in regards to government regs and crap like that.
But the import companies make those cars and make $$$ on them, why not the Big 3?
sounds like a cop out.

[sanjuro_ronin]

You just don't get it do you?

If the consumers demand lead based paint for THEIR house, so be it. It's called personal choice and personal responsibility. You may despise someone's life choices, but it's their choice.

Not if it endangers the life of others, you know that.

[MasterKiller]

Actually they don't exist. That's why they have to pony up millions in R&D dollars to create those cars. When the market was tickled pink to be buying SUVs.

And you know my example was a good one. Admit if it happened you guys wouldn't be throwing fits about how the government is trying to dictate your personal choices. Right now they are trying to dictate what we drive. In NYC they are dictatiing what you can and can't eat with these ridiculous trans-fat laws. Where will it stop?

No kidding! I miss the days of finding rat feet in my hamburger! And whatever happened to just letting a man work in asbestos-filled attics if he wanted to! Man, I'd sure love to eat some fish loaded with DDT, but those darn hippy, eco-terrorist, bald-eagle-loving Democrats won't let me!

[1bad65]

Daimler doesn't own Chrysler anymore.

Yeah, it's tough to argue about 'Big Business' with people who are uninformed on the facts.

Look, the CEOs do not run companies like the President runs the Executive Branch. They serve at the will of the Board of Directors. Their contracts state they MUST fly private jets. If they choose not to without authorization from the Board, they can be fired.

Is this really news to some of you???? :confused:

[1bad65]

Not if it endangers the life of others, you know that.

Abortion anyone????

[KC Elbows]

KC,

But the difference between say a power plant or a gus-guzzling car and brothels or cocaine is that the first 2 examples are LEGAL.

Not that no one hadn't pointed this out already, but we're talking about laws about what one can release into the environment, etc., and everyone, including corporate entities, must obey the law. So, brothels are illegal in some places, purposefully dumping toxic chemicals are illegal in some places, and we all are obliged to obey the laws we live under.


I don't think it's Congress' job to try and regulate/fine/tax LEGAL businesses into bankruptcy. I don't see anywhere where The Constitution would allow such a travesty.

How can the government fine a company into bankruptcy if the company follows the laws that lead to such fines? Your argument is the same as saying "I don't think it's the legislature's job to fine me into bankruptcy because I drive 100 mph in residential areas. I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that would allow such a travesty." Again, the Constitution allows for a legislature, since the role of a legislature is to enact laws, perhaps the Constitution is not the place to look for specific laws, but it certainly makes the case that laws should be made, as long as they are within the bounds of the constitution. Where in the Constitution does it suggest that laws cannot apply to businesses, but do apply to individuals?


Remember, The Constitution is full of the term 'shall not'. It ALWAYS refers to what the Government cannot do, but it NEVER refers to constraints on the American citizen.

It allows for a legislature, AND the Declaration of Independence certainly sets the tone that places a very specific moral constraint on everyone who can call themselves an American: nothing any of us does is to impinge on the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of other Americans. Releasing dangerous chemicals into residential areas, or that eventually seep into other people's property/homes, would constitute a violation of at least two of those, so it is a given that those limitations apply to businesses, and, again, constitutions don't encapsulate the laws of a country, but provide a framework for those laws.

Additionally, again, your smoking tax statement does not compare well with taxes on businesses until one reaches the point where those taxes automatically mean no profit can be made, not less, but none. Until there is no profit, profit is still a motivation, whereas profit is never a motivation for buying a pack of cigs. Knee jerk opposition to taxing businesses presumes that all taxes destroy business, and, considering the history of business in the US, this is not true, some taxes can be harmful, but some are simply the cost of doing business, and leave plenty of room for profit by viable businesses.

Constitution=framework for laws, establishment of branches of government that make laws, execute laws, and interpret them. NOT a body of laws.

some salient points in the Constitution:

promote the general welfare: harmful dumping, taking advantage of slave labor or unfair labor practices, conducting business overseas in a manner that harms the image of the US or creates negative consequences for the people of the US, using economic leverage to undermine fair elections for the people, all not protected by the constitution.

legislative powers vested in the senate and the house: who will make the laws, which won't be conveniently listed in the constitution, since it isn't a registry of the laws of the US.

Secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity: ourselves being citizens, not corporate entities.

Taxes: yep, listed right there, taxes, we will be paying them, and so will businesses. Mentioned in more than one article, with congress (not the constitution) working out the details.

AMENDMENT XVI

Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Yeah, it's tough to argue about 'Big Business' with people who are uninformed on the facts.

Look, the CEOs do not run companies like the President runs the Executive Branch. They serve at the will of the Board of Directors. Their contracts state they MUST fly private jets. If they choose not to without authorization from the Board, they can be fired.

Is this really news to some of you???? :confused:

Under the circumstances, it cost them, BIG Time !
They could have easily even showed up all in 1 jet.
All they had to do was make the effort,
Besides, they didn't HAVE TO, the CHOSE to.
While it may be advisable to fly in private jets for security reasons, under the circumstance, they should have exercises GOOD JUDGMENT.

[1bad65]

Ah bro, I agree with you in regards to government regs and crap like that.
But the import companies make those cars and make $$$ on them, why not the Big 3?
sounds like a cop out.

Good. Honest, those regs are a HUGE part of the problem.

Look, the American and Japanese car makers have totally different business plans and target consumers (for the most part). The Japanese made smaller cars for the Japanese. It made business sense. They then exported them here for that segment of the US population who wanted those cars. The American companies are different. They target Americans. They supply the trucks that those who need them in business need. And their cars target American drivers. And they chose to devote smaller resources to the smaller cars. We have different tastes than Japanese consumers. Yet OUR own government has passed laws that adversely affect OUR own auto makers business model. It's crazy.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Good. Honest, those regs are a HUGE part of the problem.

Look, the American and Japanese car makers have totally different business plans and target consumers (for the most part). The Japanese made smaller cars for the Japanese. It made business sense. They then exported them here for that segment of the US population who wanted those cars. The American companies are different. They target Americans. They supply the trucks that those who need them in business need. And their cars target American drivers. And they chose to devote smaller resources to the smaller cars. We have different tastes than Japanese consumers. Yet OUR own government has passed laws that adversely affect OUR own auto makers business model. It's crazy.

That fact that those BIG CARS are NOT selling means what?

[1bad65]

No kidding! I miss the days of finding rat feet in my hamburger! And whatever happened to just letting a man work in asbestos-filled attics if he wanted to! Man, I'd sure love to eat some fish loaded with DDT, but those darn hippy, eco-terrorist, bald-eagle-loving Democrats won't let me!

Read up on all those laws that Bill Clinton gave Tyson Foods a pass on. I get incensed at how people like you and I suffer under these laws, but those who can pay off the very guys who passed these **** laws in the first place get a pass.

[sanjuro_ronin]

AMENDMENT XVI

Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Wasn't the "income tax act" a provisonary one? and was it ever passed into a Law or is it still an "act" ?

[1bad65]

That fact that those BIG CARS are NOT selling means what?

I pointed out earlier the Japanese are taking a huge hit on sales as well.

Between people tightening up and the credit crunch, new cars of ANY make are not exactly flying off the lots.

[1bad65]

While it may be advisable to fly in private jets for security reasons, under the circumstance, they should have exercises GOOD JUDGMENT.

Would you take that risk knowing you could get fired from a multi-million dollar a year job?

[sanjuro_ronin]

I pointed out earlier the Japanese are taking a huge hit on sales as well.

Between people tightening up and the credit crunch, new cars of ANY make are not exactly flying off the lots.

The big 3 had been taken a hit, longer and more deeper.



Would you take that risk knowing you could get fired from a multi-million dollar a year job?

I doubt that the board would fire them under the circumstanses, heck after all this they still have their jobs !!
LOL !

[1bad65]

Speaking of the Japanese:

If trucks and SUVs are such a horrible business decision, why are the Japanese entering those markets?

Watch football any weekend and you will see a ton of Toyota Tundra commercials.

[KC Elbows]

Would you take that risk knowing you could get fired from a multi-million dollar a year job?

He stated they should have flown together, which would be an end run around the issue. They chose not to do any such thing, and it was poor judgment.

[1bad65]

I doubt that the board would fire them under the circumstanses, heck after all this they still have their jobs !!
LOL !

I'll admit you're likely right. But you can't blame them for not risking it. That's alot of money.

Hell, I signed an employment contract. Mainly about proprietary info, not working for any competitor, vendor, etc. It's not all that uncommon.

[1bad65]

He stated they should have flown together, which would be an end run around the issue. They chose not to do any such thing, and it was poor judgment.

That would have been worse for them!

Can you imagine them explaining to their Boards how they chose to fly in a jet with the CEOs of their business rivals without approval from the Board!

FYI, Obama tends to fly in a separate plane from his own wife!!!!

[Yum Cha]

Yeah, it's tough to argue about 'Big Business' with people who are uninformed on the facts.

Look, the CEOs do not run companies like the President runs the Executive Branch. They serve at the will of the Board of Directors. Their contracts state they MUST fly private jets. If they choose not to without authorization from the Board, they can be fired.

Is this really news to some of you???? :confused:

LOL @ 1bad if you think Management works at the will of the board.

Yes, throretically, but this is one of the systemic failures in the system. The boards are not toothless, but suffer from severe dental problems, and management has the upper hand in our modern economy.

Who do you think negotiated those contracts where they must fly in private jets?

Where is the shortage - good management, or companies looking for the top men to run the company into Forbes top ten?

Once again, theoretical dogma is no match for reality.

[KC Elbows]

Wasn't the "income tax act" a provisonary one? and was it ever passed into a Law or is it still an "act" ?

Regardless, the amendment to the Constitution still gives them that power. I'm mainly trying to point out that taxes are part of the constitution, including taxes on businesses, and that the assumption is that the legislature the constitution sets up is there to make laws that support the spirit and intent of the constitution, its amendments, and the declaration of independence itself, even if they often fail miserably to do so.

I'm responding to the incorrect claim that making laws and taxes that businesses have to follow is unconstitutional, and that such things, by default, destroy business.

[KC Elbows]

FYI, Obama tends to fly in a separate plane from his own wife!!!!

FYI, every racist in the country wants him dead!

I recognize the need for security, but you said their contract states that they had to fly in a private jet, you didn't state this new stipulation. Could you post the contract, or are you making this up as you go along?:p

[KC Elbows]

Clearly, if any CEO took less money than their contract stipulates, the board would also fire them. The board are like a pack of Armani wearing wild dogs.

[Becca]

Daimler doesn't own Chrysler anymore.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_LLC)

On May 14, 2007 DaimlerChrysler AG announced the sale of 80.1% of Chrysler Group to American private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., although Daimler continues to hold a 19.9% stake.



According to the April 2007 issue of Der Spiegel, CEO Dieter Zetsche expressed a desire to dismantle Chrysler and sell off the majority stake and at the same time keep Chrysler "dependent" upon Mercedes-Benz after the sale.



Not the majority stock holder of the Chrysler Group, no, but the majority holder of it's supply line? Yes.

[Becca]

You just don't get it do you?

If the consumers demand lead based paint for THEIR house, so be it. It's called personal choice and personal responsibility. You may despise someone's life choices, but it's their choice.So long as it isn't an abortion that saves the life of the mother or ends the suffering of a child who wouldn't be viable. then we can add the right to die to that and throw doctors in jail for assisting termanally ill in dieing and force parents and spouses to keep brain-dead people and non-viable children alive artacifially........ And now you don't have a president willing to personnally block a spouse from pulling the plug after 10 years; what will you do!?!?!?

[Becca]

Yeah, it's tough to argue about 'Big Business' with people who are uninformed on the facts.

Look, the CEOs do not run companies like the President runs the Executive Branch. They serve at the will of the Board of Directors. Their contracts state they MUST fly private jets. If they choose not to without authorization from the Board, they can be fired.

Is this really news to some of you???? :confused:LOL!!!!! I'm informed. Just because the name "Daimler" isn't pared with "Chrysler" don't meen they don't have'm by the balls.

[Pork Chop]

Speaking of the Japanese:

If trucks and SUVs are such a horrible business decision, why are the Japanese entering those markets?

Watch football any weekend and you will see a ton of Toyota Tundra commercials.

Just thought you'd appreciate this:



Toyota said to plan US manufacturing changes
Thursday July 10, 8:20 am ET
By Dee-Ann Durbin, AP Auto Writer Toyota Motor said to plan US manufacturing changes to meet new customer demands

DETROIT (AP) -- Toyota Motor Corp. is planning significant changes to its U.S. manufacturing plants because of the rapid market shift away from trucks and sport utility vehicles.

A Toyota official speaking Thursday to The Associated Press says the company plans to shut down a San Antonio plant that makes the Toyota Tundra pickup for three months to reduce inventory and stop making pickups in Princeton, Ind. The Indiana plant will start producing the Highlander SUV.

The official asked not to be identified because a formal announcement from the Japanese automaker wasn't expected until later in the day. Toyota also plans to start producing the Prius hybrid in the U.S. for the first time at a plant it's building in Mississippi.

oops there's more


Toyota Plans Changes
To U.S. Manufacturing Operations

By NORIHIKO SHIROUZU
July 10, 2008 6:36 a.m.

DETROIT -- Toyota Motor Corp. will revamp its U.S. manufacturing operations as rising gasoline prices lead to a sudden shift toward fuel-efficient models -- a big change from just a few years ago when gas-guzzling sport-utility vehicles ruled the marketplace.

Toyota officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Japanese company will likely soon announce a series of moves in the U.S. Among key moves, they said, Toyota will scrap plans to produce the Highlander car-SUV crossover vehicles in a plant it is building near Tupelo, Mississippi, starting in mid-2010. Instead, sometime in 2010, the company will produce there the Prius, a fuel-sipping, gasoline-electric hybrid that can easily go 40 miles on a gallon of gas.

Associated Press Toyota plans to revamp its U.S. manufacturing operations as rising gasoline prices lead to a sudden shift toward fuel-efficient models, like the Prius, above.

Previously, Toyota was planning to produce about 120,000 Highlanders a year in Mississippi. It wasn't immediately clear, however, how many Prius cars Toyota plans to produce in Mississippi a year, or whether it plans to assemble Prius variants.

As part of the planned move, Toyota also is expected to consolidate production of the big Tundra pickup truck to a single site in San Antonio, Texas, these executives said. Currently, Toyota produces the Tundra at two plants in the U.S.: one in San Antonio and the other in Princeton, Ind.

In Indiana, Toyota currently produces the Tundra and the Sequoia SUV on one assembly line. Toyota plans to start producing the Highlander after it moves production of the Tundra.
The planed move comes at a time when Toyota is struggling for the first time with the problem that plagued its U.S. rivals for years: too much North American manufacturing capacity. With the U.S. credit-crunch and soaring gas prices, Toyota officials have admitted the amount of idle capacity in the U.S. exceeds capacity in a whole assembly plant.

Because of slumping demand for gas-guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks, it had already been making moves to improve manufacturing capacity utilization in the U.S. Toyota is seen likely to struggle to make money at its two truck plants in the U.S. this year, a prospect that underscores the toll slumping sales of trucks and sport-utility vehicles are taking on all auto makers.

Toyota is still likely to generate substantial profits in North America, thanks to booming sales of cars such as the Camry sedan and the Prius hybrid. But Toyota earlier this year had slowed production significantly at two of its truck plants in North America, in Texas and Indiana. It also had delayed the launch of the Mississippi plant by half a year until mid-2010.

According to a study conducted before the latest move by CSM Worldwide, a market-research firm in Michigan, the San Antonio plant was projected to operate at 72% of its capacity this year, and the Princeton assembly line that currently produces the Tundra and the Sequoia at 45%. Both expected capacity-utilization levels marked big drops from the near-100% utilization rates Toyota usually has maintained.

At those rates, Toyota most likely no longer can expect to make a profit producing trucks in the U.S. "Typically you need to be at 75% to 80% of the capacity to be profitable," Mike Jackson, a senior analyst at CSM, had said.

The Toyota officials couldn't say immediately whether the planned moves in Mississippi, Indiana and Texas would help those plants make money. But their hope, they said, is to improve the profit picture of the facilities.
Write to Norihiko Shirouzu at norihiko.shirouzu@wsj.com

and one last one



July 10, 2008


Toyota Announces Changes in North American Production
—Prius to Be Built at Mississippi Plant—

Tokyo — TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION (TMC), with a long-term aim toward enhancing its ability to flexibly respond to rapid fluctuations in North American market demand and toward facilitating a stable supply of North American-made vehicles—announces the following changes to its North American production structure:


1) The currently under-construction Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Mississippi, Inc. (TMMMS), which was originally scheduled to produce the "Highlander" SUV, is to instead begin production of the "Prius" hybrid in the latter half of 2010.
2) Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc. (TMMI) is to begin production of the Highlander in the fall of 2009.
3) Production of the "Tundra" full-size pickup truck, currently built at TMMI and Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Texas, Inc. (TMMTX), is to be consolidated at TMMTX in the spring of 2009.


The production of the Prius at TMMMS is to represent the second Toyota hybrid vehicle produced in North America, where Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. (TMMK) already produces the "Camry Hybrid". In North America, strong demand for hybrid vehicles is expected to continue. Therefore, TMC, as a step toward a more stable North American production structure, intends to respond to customer needs by localizing hybrid vehicle production.

The introduction of the Highlander at TMMI and the consolidation of Tundra production at TMMTX are intended to increase efficiencies at both plants and to achieve steady plant-utilization rates.

Furthermore, as a response to a rapid fluctuation in truck-market demand, TMC announces that operation of the Tundra and Sequoia production line at TMMI, the Tundra production line at TMMTX and the Tundra and Sequoia engine production lines at Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Alabama, Inc. (TMMAL) is to be suspended for approximately three months from early August through to November. During this non-production period, employees are to mainly be assigned to participate in "continuous improvement"activities and training. TMC intends to use the opportunity presented by this period to cultivate its employees, with a long-term aim to further increase the productivity of its vehicle production plants in North America.

TMC, based on its philosophy of "making where sold", and from a long-term perspective, intends to—by solidifying its R&D, procurement, production and sales functions—further strengthen the ability of its production structures to flexibly respond to fluctuations in market demand and achieve a stable supply structure on a global scale

[KC Elbows]

Those Japanese manufacturers have it all backwards. You're supposed to tell the consumer what they want, and then they are free to buy it, since it's all you're going to make, anyway. That's why we fought communism.

The Japanese are clearly unamerican. Like Obama. He's said that we need to tighten our belts. Real Americans don't tighten their belt. They expand to fit their belt, then buy a bigger belt.

[golgo]

Wow!!! You mean the Japanese had the foresight to see this and change their strategy all the way back in July??!?! What amazing foresight!!!!:rolleyes:

[Mr Punch]

Really, the Big 3 are in trouble for 2 main reasons.

1. And most important, the unions. Their labor cost as way too high. They are like the goose who layed the golden eggs and the unions are the greedy farmer. Foreign carmakers who make cars in the US do it mostly in the South. In the 'right to work' states to avoid dealing with the unions.

2. Govenment interference. CAFE standards, etc. They have been FORCED by the government to have to sell a certain amount of fuel-efficient cars wether the marketplace wants them or not. They have to invest millions in R&D in making more fuel-efficient cars to comply with tighter MPG standards due to occur. If they were allowed to make what sells without any government interference, they would have alot alot better chance of riding out hard times like we see today.LOL, and

3) The Big Three have been ignoring their customers and pushing cars that presumably support their own vested business interests for years.

Years ago customers were saying they'd buy hybrids over trad gas-guzzlers if the hybrids weren't so expensive (here) (http://www.livescience.com/technology/060410_hybrid_poll.html). There's nothing intrinsically in the hybrids' construction that makes them more costly to produce so we can only assume the industry didn't want to invest in research or converting plants when they have a largely captive market, they have deals with oil companies or they are too lazy to change.

As for your charge that govts are trying to force the industry to evolve, that's hooey too. Not everybody likes to drive your kind of 'bad' car, 1bad! Two years ago 78% of Americans wanted the 40 mpg (http://www.leftlanenews.com/78-percent-of-americans-want-40-mpg-legislation.html) legislation. Read on in that article: they also wanted the products from the Big 3 that they were selling to Europe - ie high mileage versions of the **** they were selling you guys.

Summary: the market wants them. The companies missed the boat, and the government and industry ignored the people.

[sanjuro_ronin]

FYI:

http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html#autosalesD

[Baqualin]

More FYI
http://info.detnews.com/video/index.cfm?id=1189
BQ

[1bad65]

LOL @ 1bad if you think Management works at the will of the board.

Yes, throretically, but this is one of the systemic failures in the system.

So in theory they work at the will of the Board of Directors, but they really don't??? :confused:

You know nothing about how business works, and you're making that fact more clear with every post.


Who do you think negotiated those contracts where they must fly in private jets?

Where is the shortage - good management, or companies looking for the top men to run the company into Forbes top ten?

You tell me who negotiated it. You're supposedly this expert on 'Big Business'. :rolleyes:

FYI, Ford's sales figures have increased under their current CEO.

[1bad65]

So long as it isn't an abortion that saves the life of the mother or ends the suffering of a child who wouldn't be viable. then we can add the right to die to that and throw doctors in jail for assisting termanally ill in dieing and force parents and spouses to keep brain-dead people and non-viable children alive artacifially........ And now you don't have a president willing to personnally block a spouse from pulling the plug after 10 years; what will you do!?!?!?

I've never said I'm against abortion when the mother's life is in danger. Nor have I in the cases of rape and incest. I am 100% against it as a form of birth control, however.

I've never even discussed the topic of assisted suicide here, so I'm a bit confused as to how you claim to know my position on it. Maybe it's the same way you figured out that Daimler owns Chrysler. :D

[1bad65]

The Big Three have been ignoring their customers and pushing cars that presumably support their own vested business interests for years.

Yeah, no one really wants those F150s, but Ford just keeps making them so they can sit on lots and gather dust. :rolleyes:

[1bad65]

FYI:

http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html#autosalesD

Interesting charts. Sales are down in almost every category.

Of course the best selling vehicle in the US was the Ford F-series truck, followed by the Chevrolet Silverado truck. And the cars that increased their sales the most were the Chevrolet Malibu and the Ford Focus. Oddly enough, Toyota Prius sales were down.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Interesting charts. Sales are down in almost every category.

Of course the best selling vehicle in the US was the Ford F-series truck, followed by the Chevrolet Silverado truck. And the cars that increased their sales the most were the Chevrolet Malibu and the Ford Focus. Oddly enough, Toyota Prius sales were down.

Thought you'd like that, LOL

[Becca]

I've never said I'm against abortion when the mother's life is in danger. Nor have I in the cases of rape and incest. I am 100% against it as a form of birth control, however.

I've never even discussed the topic of assisted suicide here, so I'm a bit confused as to how you claim to know my position on it. Maybe it's the same way you figured out that Daimler owns Chrysler. :DI posted links and quotes pertaining to who actually owns Chrysler and their supply chain. Daimler, Chrysler, Mercedes: they all make parts that I buy daily. And those parts all come out of plants owned by the Daimler group. I guess owning only 19% of Chrysler and 100% of thier supply chain doesn't count in your book, but in all reality, that "U.S." company is still controlled by the german auto industry......

You are correct about the assisted death thing. Most who don't support abotion don't suprt that either. I based my asumsion off you passed firm republican stand point.

[1bad65]

I posted links and quotes pertaining to who actually owns Chrysler and their supply chain. Daimler, Chrysler, Mercedes: they all make parts that I buy daily. And those parts all come out of plants owned by the Daimler group. I guess owning only 19% of Chrysler and 100% of thier supply chain doesn't count in your book, but in all reality, that "U.S." company is still controlled by the german auto industry......

You are correct about the assisted death thing. Most who don't support abotion don't suprt that either. I based my asumsion off you passed firm republican stand point.

They most definately have a vested interest in Chrysler, but they have limited say (19%) on their Bord or CEO for example.

I don't think a doctor who swears to uphold life should be killing people or unborn children. Any person is free to make a living will stating they are not be kept alive by machines and that request will be honored.

It is scary to think that Nazi Germany had assisted suicide well before they had concentration camps. Once you start taking away some of the value of human life, it can be a very slippery slope.

[golgo]

Thought you'd like that, LOL

Yeah, I have a hard time believing that all those Escalades, Navigators, and Expeditions being driven all over town were being "forced" on us.

When I was shopping for a car a year ago, the parking lots were full of Prius' and Camry hybrids. I didn't have much of a problem buying the Ford Escape hybrid. As soon as gas prices jumped, waiting lists started forming for hybrids again.

So basically the car market is extremely sensitive to gas prices (I guess because people stretch themselves too thin). So one month they have a surplus of a type of vehical one month, and then next month there's a shortage. If gas prices stay low, the demand for hybrids will probably decrease again. So the car manufactures have to try and time a fickel market. Its no easy task.

Personally, I would love to buy the new Dodge Challenger SRT8. I just can't afford the price. Does my Hybrid Escape balance the 450+ hp gas guzzling Challenger?:D

[Baqualin]

[B]http://info.detnews.com/video/index.cfm?id=1189

[sanjuro_ronin]

Allow me to explain why I will never buy a Chrysler, I use myself as an example:

Early this year I emailed the local Chrysler dealership wanting prices on the lease of 3 Chargers and 2 Dakotas, for the company I work for.
We would be interested in the Chargers within a 3 week time frame and the Dakotas in a 2 month one.
I have YET to hear back from them.
As it was, we went with 2 GMC Canyons and 2 Nissan Altimas and 1 Nissan Maxima.
Again, as of TODAY I have yet to hear back from ANYONE in their Sales department.

[1bad65]

When I was shopping for a car a year ago, the parking lots were full of Prius' and Camry hybrids. I didn't have much of a problem buying the Ford Escape hybrid. As soon as gas prices jumped, waiting lists started forming for hybrids again.

Buying me and my wife's Mustang GTs showed how popular 'gas guzzlers' really are. I had to wait to get mine brought in from another city, as the dealer did not have the color I wanted. My wife's came straight off the truck, as they had none in her color on the lot. The guys at the dealership said the GTs sell faster than the V6 models.


Personally, I would love to buy the new Dodge Challenger SRT8. I just can't afford the price. Does my Hybrid Escape balance the 450+ hp gas guzzling Challenger?:D

The Challenger SRT8 has 425HP. It's a mean car. I haven't ran up against one yet, but I'm dying too.

Have you considered an R/T model? They are V8 powered as well, it's just a smaller V8 than the SRT8. It's performance is almost equal to a Mustang GTs.

[1bad65]

Wow Sanjuro, that's ridiculous. Dealers are dying to move cars right now. I wonder if you just went into a crappy dealership, and it's not all Chrysler's fault. But that was not any way to treat someone, I'll admit that.

Hell, I'm the type of guy that would drive the new cars up there and tell the manager (or owner) that I bought them at a place that actually called me back. ;)

[Becca]

Allow me to explain why I will never buy a Chrysler, I use myself as an example:

Early this year I emailed the local Chrysler dealership wanting prices on the lease of 3 Chargers and 2 Dakotas, for the company I work for.
We would be interested in the Chargers within a 3 week time frame and the Dakotas in a 2 month one.
I have YET to hear back from them.
As it was, we went with 2 GMC Canyons and 2 Nissan Altimas and 1 Nissan Maxima.
Again, as of TODAY I have yet to hear back from ANYONE in their Sales department.LOL! I have my share of vendors I play that game with. I just go somewere else if the item is available somewere else. I have to say, though, had you asked for the quote at distributor level rather than the franchise level, you'd have gotten your quote and probably a better price.

I don't ask the local Napa store for quotes, though they are the one's who deliver the product. And I make it a point to know who owns whom, where thier supply chain is and what thie financial standing is. I'll buy a higher price item from a more solid supplier. Chrysler is rock solid. Just not truely American any more.

[Becca]

They most definately have a vested interest in Chrysler, but they have limited say (19%) on their Bord or CEO for example.
.The only reason they aren't breaking monopoly laws is there are after market supply routes. You want O.E.M. you buy the Daimler made stuff. You know how people make jokes about GMC and Chevy being one and the same? While Dailmer doesn't own the majority of Chrysler's stock, they own the supply route for o.e.m. So they, for all intents and purposes, own Chrysler in a back channel way.

[1bad65]

Becca,

Do you work at Brenspeed by chance? ;)

[Becca]

No. But if'n you want to soup up a bus, train, or snow plow........ :D

[sanjuro_ronin]

Wow Sanjuro, that's ridiculous. Dealers are dying to move cars right now. I wonder if you just went into a crappy dealership, and it's not all Chrysler's fault. But that was not any way to treat someone, I'll admit that.

Hell, I'm the type of guy that would drive the new cars up there and tell the manager (or owner) that I bought them at a place that actually called me back. ;)

Dude, it blew me away !
On the flip side, the GM sales person came to MY workplace to work out the deal and then delivered the trucks to US.
Now that is service baby !

[1bad65]

Dude, it blew me away !
On the flip side, the GM sales person came to MY workplace to work out the deal and then delivered the trucks to US.
Now that is service baby !

The guys at the dealership we bought ours at were great. We take both of the cars there for service as well.

[Yum Cha]

So in theory they work at the will of the Board of Directors, but they really don't??? :confused:

You know nothing about how business works, and you're making that fact more clear with every post.



From the turn of this thread, I think its painfully apparent that you're the one that hasn't got a clue as to how businesses are really run.

Don't let your dogma get run over by your karma.....

[1bad65]

From the turn of this thread, I think its painfully apparent that you're the one that hasn't got a clue as to how businesses are really run.

Don't let your dogma get run over by your karma.....

Yeah, because I'm the one who can't figure out if the CEO serves at the descretion of the Board of Directors. :rolleyes:

[1bad65]

I'm really wondering if you Obama supporters wanted this 'change' he has conducted so far.

Speaking of Clinton retreads, Robert Rubin is in line for a possible Cabinet post. Right now he is an economic advisor to Obama. Rubin is currently Director and Senior Counselor of Citigroup. He has collected $17,000,000 in compensation from CitiGroup and a further $33,000,000 in stock options as of 2008 ! :eek: That's alot of money to earn running a company into the ground and requiring a government bailout.

I can't wait to see what brilliant ideas he comes up with for the US economy. :rolleyes:


EDIT: Rubin was paid more than the CEOs of Ford, GM, and Chrysler combined.

[Yum Cha]

Yeah, because I'm the one who can't figure out if the CEO serves at the descretion of the Board of Directors. :rolleyes:

Not that I really expect you to read anything other than Limbaugh or Coulter, but to explain my point, from a real world perspective:

http://books.google.com/books?id=W7ALFPiK0C0C&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=management+versus+the+board&source=web&ots=YIKcoxG_GE&sig=BjvvJr-aRhJWdVkbWI2qdDrUqWU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA70,M1

The Corporate Board, Confronting the Paradoxes
Ada Demb and F.- Friedrich Neubauer

Pages 70 and 71 directly address the issues of the theory and reality of Corporate Governance.

"... Legally the answer is clear: in the final analysis the board has the responsibility of the company and is, therefore, the ultimate fountain of power. It is in practice, not in law, that the problems arise. Management has the expertise, infrastructure and time to run and control the company. Given this degree of management domination, how can a board still exercise its responsibility? Can an entrepreneurial, energetic management run the company and at the same time reserve the ultimate control for the board? ..."

There's plenty of exploration of the details contained further therein.

The key to the issue is the difference between governance and management, and the fact that there is no clear border where one ends and the other begins.

Likewise, the cost and efficiency penalties involved when the board enforces its will on management. These include of course the perception that good management is scarce, difficult and expensive to replace, the fact that shareholders are all to often interested in short term gains, such as quarterly dividends and share price increases, and they likewise can replace the board, or worse, sell down the value of the company.

A little real world experience goes a long way...

Out of curiosity, how many boards do you sit on? How often to your work with boards of directors and top level management? How many companies do you own?

None, never and none? What a surprise.

[1bad65]

Out of curiosity, how many boards do you sit on? How often to your work with boards of directors and top level management? How many companies do you own?

None, never and none? What a surprise.

I'm not on any board. I've worked personally with the former and current CEO of my company. My last direct boss was a director. I own no companies myself.

So STFU on matters you have no idea about, such as my work history.


Oh, one more thing. My company will not be needing any bailout, unlike the people who work personally with and advise Obama. ;)

[Yum Cha]

so, I take it you cede my point then...

And can you perhaps explain what you meant:

"Oh, one more thing. My company will not be needing any bailout, unlike the people who work personally with and advise Obama."

Do you mean the people that will work for him will need a bail out? Gee, I thought it was only companies that were eligible for the corporate welfare.

You're not making sense, oh wait, nevermind, no sense in restating the obvious.

[1bad65]

I'll repeat it then. My company will not be needing a bailout. Our CEO actually knows how to make money. He has not been offered a job in the Obama Cabinet.

Robert Rubin's company just got a government bailout. His company was losing money. He does not know how to make money. He will be in the Obama Cabinet. See the problem there?

Oh, did you see the Mark Cuban column on the Huffington post? Cuban was a huge Obama backer during the election. He also has a serious case of buyer's remorse right now. ;) He figured it out when he noticed none of Obama's Cabinet or advisors have ANY entrepreneurial experience. Although one of them has experience running a company into the ground while making $30 million though. :rolleyes:

[1bad65]

Gee, I thought it was only companies that were eligible for the corporate welfare.

I thought Obama was against corporate welfare? :confused:

My bad, that was just what he said before the election.

[sanjuro_ronin]

RE: the Big 3's mistakes:

http://www.autonet.ca/autos/news/2008/07/23/6243391.html

The Big Three's biggest mistakes
Steve Kichen, Forbes.com
Published: 23 07 2008
More from Forbes.com


Detroit has made several amazing comebacks in the past 25 years. The original Ford Taurus, the Chrysler minivans and LH sedans, and a slew of new models from General Motors' Cadillac division revitalized their respective companies.

U.S. carmakers are still pumping out winners (GM's Chevrolet Malibu, for one), and yet the Big Three are in worse shape now than in the dark days of the early 1980s. In mid-July, General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ) announced a new round of cutbacks. Surely more bad news is on the way in an industry burning through cash at an alarming rate.
In Pictures: The U.S. Auto Industry's Biggest Mistakes

The problems go beyond exchange rates, closed foreign markets and legacy labor costs. Nor are they solely the fault of rising gasoline prices--$4 gas hurts all automakers.

Today's difficulties stem from complacency, arrogance, endless executive upheavals, numerous reorganizations and unwise investments. Of course, the home team wasn't entirely at fault: "Voluntary" Japanese import quotas, introduced in the U.S. in 1981, only encouraged Japanese automakers to move up-market (where margins were fatter) and prompted them to build assembly plants in the U.S. Today, foreign manufacturers--Japanese, German and Korean--have the capacity to build 4 million vehicles a year in the U.S., roughly a third of domestic capacity.

During its good years (the late 1980s and the 1990s), domestic automakers profited handsomely from selling pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles and minivans, but they were stingy and tardy in reinvesting profits in modern multi-speed automatic transmissions, sophisticated overhead-cam motors, fuel-saving technologies and quality small cars. Detroit neglected all of its passenger-car business in favor of cranking out more trucks.

U.S. producers have narrowed the engineering gap, but foreign nameplates continue to move ahead with sophisticated powertrains, advanced suspensions and elegant interiors. While Detroit shutters assembly plants and reduces shifts, foreign manufacturers keep adding production capacity in America. Volkswagen (other-otc: VLKAF.PK - news - people ), for example, just announced that it would invest $1 billion and build a factory in Chattanooga, Tenn., in which it will build a new mid-sized sedan.

Of the domestics, Chrysler--heavily dependent on trucks and weak on fuel-efficient vehicles and contemporary sedans--is the most threatened by the current downturn. Ford Motor (nyse: F - news - people ) is in slightly better shape and is scrambling to improve and expand its small-car lineup in the U.S. And despite all its troubles and shrinking market share, General Motors has a decent roster of competitive vehicles, including trucks.

Yes, trucks. The U.S. truck market is not going to die. The industry will sell far fewer light trucks to individuals buying them strictly as "image" vehicles, but millions of Americans need big pickups and vans to do their jobs. The shakeout taking place in the truck market--where not only Detroit, but also Toyota (nyse: TM - news - people ) and Nissan (nasdaq: NSANY - news - people ) are cutting back U.S. capacity--could restore some sanity to this side of the business.

If it survives the latest downturn, perhaps Detroit will - finally - learn from its mistakes.

[1bad65]

Good article.

It only mentioned that one plant in Tennessee, but the plants that the foreign car makers have over here are all in 'right to work' states so they don't have to deal with unions. Thus the cost to manufacture vehicles is alot lower for them compared to the Big 3.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Good article.

It only mentioned that one plant in Tennessee, but the plants that the foreign car makers have over here are all in 'right to work' states so they don't have to deal with unions. Thus the cost to manufacture vehicles is alot lower for them compared to the Big 3.

I don't know how it works there, but here the Japanese Auto companies pay their workers the same as the Unionized workers of the Big 3, they also have some benefits that the Unionized workers don't, supposedly.
My cousin worked for Chrysler for years and then went over to Toyota and that is what he told me.

[1bad65]

I don't know how it works there, but here the Japanese Auto companies pay their workers the same as the Unionized workers of the Big 3, they also have some benefits that the Unionized workers don't, supposedly.
My cousin worked for Chrysler for years and then went over to Toyota and that is what he told me.

That's likely true when you actually work there. The unions force the Big 3 to pay for crap like 'job banks' where they actually pay workers who aren't working! That's a huge part of the labor cost.

[sanjuro_ronin]

That's likely true when you actually work there. The unions force the Big 3 to pay for crap like 'job banks' where they actually pay workers who aren't working! That's a huge part of the labor cost.

I am not a big fan of unions, I believe their times has past.
Unions are responsible for the creation of High paid UNSKILLED workers and that I will never understand.

[1bad65]

I am not a big fan of unions, I believe their times has past.
Unions are responsible for the creation of High paid UNSKILLED workers and that I will never understand.

We had a new sprinkler system put in our building a few years ago by union pipe fitters. It was nightmare. They finished the job well behind schedule (while taking dozens of smoke breaks a day) and actually got into a screaming match with my boss.

[sanjuro_ronin]

We had a new sprinkler system put in our building a few years ago by union pipe fitters. It was nightmare. They finished the job well behind schedule (while taking dozens of smoke breaks a day) and actually got into a screaming match with my boss.

Sometimes people confuse Equal opportunity with standardized mediocrity.

[CLFLPstudent]

If Dubya had tossed McCain one of these (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/26/al.qaeda.transit.plot/index.html?eref=rss_topstories) before the election, maybe McCain would have won...

I am truly shocked that there wasn't any "terror alert's" posted in the weeks before the election - ya know, raise the threat level a notch or two, scare the jeebus out of people like they did in '04.....

Anyway - today's Doonesbury was really funny. I usually don't read it, but the Sarah Palin doll caught my eye.... here (http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/)


-David

[Becca]

I'm really wondering if you Obama supporters wanted this 'change' he has conducted so far.
[/U][/B].Got your fortune telling hat on again? He hasn't conducted any change so far - he won't be swarn in untill January. If you are making pot shots at his cabinet choices, i'd say wait and see how they actually perform before claiming they are more of the same.....:rolleyes:

[Becca]

Robert Rubin's company just got a government bailout. His company was losing money. He does not know how to make money. He will be in the Obama Cabinet. See the problem there?
Weren't you just a few posts ago claiming the Board is in control, not the CEO? So shouldn't a company failing be the board's fault, too?

Also, Bush and the Republicans deregulated even more than Rubin did. Greenspan played a role, too, pushing the deregulation of derivatives. Their response has been indecisive at best and ineffective at worst. Pointing a finger at one camp over the other isn't very productive. I can see your concern with Rubin in that position, but I would have thought it would be because of his past performance in public office, not a merky complaint over a private industry bail-out.......

[1bad65]

Got your fortune telling hat on again? He hasn't conducted any change so far - he won't be swarn in untill January. If you are making pot shots at his cabinet choices, i'd say wait and see how they actually perform before claiming they are more of the same.....:rolleyes:

2 points:

1. I was referring to 'change' in that these faces in the Cabinet look quite familiar. And yes, that is a change. While he won't be sworn in until January, the picks made will be in his Cabinet.

2. We've already seen how some HAVE performed. Richardson ran the Dept of Energy when the Los Alamos labs security breaches occured. Rubin helped run Citi into the ground while taking $30 million in salary and stock options. Holder was involved in the Marc Rich pardon, and Geithner arranged the rescue of Bear Stearns and the AIG bailout. Of cource Obama is against corporate welfare, so this pick should be interesting. :rolleyes:

[1bad65]

Weren't you just a few posts ago claiming the Board is in control, not the CEO? So shouldn't a company failing be the board's fault, too?

Never said that. I said the CEO serves at the descretion of the Board. But they both play a very important part in the running of a company. Rubin must have had alot of say, as you don't typically pay a guy $30 million to be a seat warmer.


Also, Bush and the Republicans deregulated even more than Rubin did.

So Citi had a fairly free reign to conduct buiness how they saw fit, yet still only managed an epic fail. And just think, he will get a failrly free reign on the country's policies now. :eek:


I can see your concern with Rubin in that position, but I would have thought it would be because of his past performance in public office, not a merky complaint over a private industry bail-out.......

'merky complaint'? :rolleyes: He helped run a business into the ground so bad they needed a bailout! And he collected $30 million for his efforts.

[BoulderDawg]

Weren't you just a few posts ago claiming the Board is in control, not the CEO? So shouldn't a company failing be the board's fault, too?


That's when the facts suited him.:D Never mind though. All this guy does is just take the talking points off of Neo blogs and parrots them. Truth is you can find something negative about everybody. I think these people are as good as any he could chose. After all I'm not even sure that God himself could repair this mess that Bush has gotten us in.

[1bad65]

That's when the facts suited him.:D

I admit I do produce facts. After all, someone has to do it.


All this guy does is just take the talking points off of Neo blogs and parrots them.

Yeah, those blogs are filled with stories of how 1bad65 bought his cars, his dealings with unions, and his work history.


Truth is you can find something negative about everybody. I think these people are as good as any he could chose. After all I'm not even sure that God himself could repair this mess that Bush has gotten us in.

It's especially easy to find negatives about those Obama surrounds himself with. Look at Bush's people; none campaigned to issue a pardon to a child sex offender or a millionaire fugitive, we didn't have security leaks in our nuclear facilities, and none of Bush's people ran their companies into the ground and got government bailouts.

I thought you didn't believe in God. :rolleyes:

[Reverend Tap]

I am not a big fan of unions, I believe their times has past.
Unions are responsible for the creation of High paid UNSKILLED workers and that I will never understand.

If unions' time is passed, they need to be replaced with something else that performs the same function. I say this as a union worker in a heavily anti-union state where NO employer provides benefits or even decent pay unless made to in some way.

Every person supporting themselves with a job deserves, at the least, a living wage and (since the morons in Washington haven't stepped up about socialized medicine yet) access to employer-based health insurance, even if it's just a group-rate buy-in plan.

Unions certainly have their problems, particularly when they function on a craft-based and not industrial-based organizing structure, but the mediating force they provide against the whims of employers and "the market" is a necessary one.

[Yum Cha]

Here's the difference, and why the Conservatives are bleeting about the Obama choices so far.

They expect a visionless executive to surround himself with ideologs who he can chop and change at his whim as he follows the polls.

They are going to get a man with vision who surrounds himself with experienced executives who he will lead, and the polls will follow.

[1bad65]

They expect a visionless executive to surround himself with ideologs who he can chop and change at his whim as he follows the polls.

Just like we got with Bill Clinton.


They are going to get a man with vision who surrounds himself with experienced executives who he will lead, and the polls will follow.

Oh please, stop the gushing. The people he has chosen so far only have experience in fail.

[1bad65]

Didn't Obama attack Hillary on NAFTA? Even Hillary tried to distance herself from NAFTA. They both said it was bad for Amercan workers.

Yet Obama has chosen the exact same people who gave us NAFTA. :confused:

[BoulderDawg]

I guess we'll see...won't we?

What makes you think that since these people are not "perfect" in your eyes that they are not qualified for the job?

If you went with people who were absolutely clean with no record at all you would have someone who was not experienced enough to do the job......Kinda like Cunnilingus Rice!:D

[1bad65]

What makes you think that since these people are not "perfect" in your eyes that they are not qualified for the job?

Get real.

Running a billion dollar business into the ground and needing a government bailout, losing top-secret nuclear secrets from Los Alamos, and being almost completely wrong on NAFTA are not small mishaps made people who are not 'perfect'.

As I said, those are examples of epic fail.

[1bad65]

......Kinda like Cunnilingus Rice!:D

You guys remember this low, personal attack next time you whine about me calling people stupid and idiots.

[Reverend Tap]

Get real.

Running a billion dollar business into the ground and needing a government bailout, losing top-secret nuclear secrets from Los Alamos, and being almost completely wrong on NAFTA are not small mishaps made people who are not 'perfect'.

As I said, those are examples of epic fail.

Show me a politician who doesn't have major scandals and skeletons associated with them, and I'll show you a politician who's better than most at hiding their secrets.

Politicians are, after all, little more than professional liars.

That said, I'm still glad we're not looking forward to President McCain and/or Palin.

[BoulderDawg]

Get real.

Running a billion dollar business into the ground and needing a government bailout, losing top-secret nuclear secrets from Los Alamos, and being almost completely wrong on NAFTA are not small mishaps made people who are not 'perfect'.

As I said, those are examples of epic fail.

Don't complain about it on this board. Do what every American has the right to do. Contact your Congressman and tell him/her your concerns and ask him/her not to vote for confirmation.

Surely Congress eyes will be open to all of these bad unqualified people if enough voters complain to their congressman!:D

[BoulderDawg]

Show me a politician who doesn't have major scandals and skeletons associated with them, and I'll show you a politician who's better than most at hiding their secrets.

Politicians are, after all, little more than professional liars.

That said, I'm still glad we're not looking forward to President McCain and/or Palin.

Isn't it funny! This country has dam near self destructed under Bush and this guy is complaining about changes that are being made....par for the course!

[BoulderDawg]

You guys remember this low, personal attack

Yes I would say it would be a "low" attack and very personal!:D:eek::D:D

[1bad65]

Show me a politician who doesn't have major scandals and skeletons associated with them, and I'll show you a politician who's better than most at hiding their secrets.

Politicians are, after all, little more than professional liars.

You can't be this dense.

Losing nuclear secrets and running a billion-dollar company into the ground are not 'skeletons' or 'scandals' or lies. They are examples of incompetence.

[1bad65]

Isn't it funny! This country has dam near self destructed under Bush and this guy is complaining about changes that are being made....par for the course!

Yeah, you keep believing the Chicken Littles in the press. It was so funny when they had to admit that the shopping on 'Black Friday' was alot higher than they had anticipated.

Again, it's not that bad. You try having double digit inflation and prime interest rates at 22.5%. That's bad. And that's what I'm scared will be happening pretty soon.

[Matrix]

Yeah, you keep believing the Chicken Littles in the press. It was so funny when they had to admit that the shopping on 'Black Friday' was alot higher than they had anticipated.While there are real problems out there, the press creates this fear mentality that is to some degree self-fulfilling. People who have some cash are afraid to spend - even a reasonable levels- which in turnn amplifies the recessionary forces in the economy. You have to find the balance between chicken-little and pollyanna. IMO.


Again, it's not that bad. You try having double digit inflation and prime interest rates at 22.5%. That's bad. And that's what I'm scared will be happening pretty soon.I don't know how bad it is right now, but you're right, the fact that Trillions of dollars are being printed will probably end up with hyper-inflation at some point. Maybe there's another rabbit that someone can pull out of a hat. Who know's.

[Reverend Tap]

You can't be this dense.

Losing nuclear secrets and running a billion-dollar company into the ground are not 'skeletons' or 'scandals' or lies. They are examples of incompetence.

I'm not personally of the opinion that any individual is competent to govern others, so the distinction really doesn't matter to me.

[1bad65]

I'm not personally of the opinion that any individual is competent to govern others, so the distinction really doesn't matter to me.

First off, Rubin was not an elected Government official when he failed. He was working in the private sector, not governing.

And I can't fathom how anyone cannot see the differences in a scandal, skeletons in the closet, and incompetance. So I'll give you an example: Bill Clinton tried to hide his skeletons, like Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones. He was also involved in a scandal concerning Whitewater. Bill Richardson had nuclear secrets lost at Los Alamos labs during his tenure because he was incompetant.

[Reverend Tap]

First off, Rubin was not an elected Government official when he failed. He was working in the private sector, not governing.

And I can't fathom how anyone cannot see the differences in a scandal, skeletons in the closet, and incompetance. So I'll give you an example: Bill Clinton tried to hide his skeletons, like Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones. He was also involved in a scandal concerning Whitewater. Bill Richardson had nuclear secrets lost at Los Alamos labs during his tenure because he was incompetant.

First off, I'm not a fan of big business run in a top-down hierarchical structure either. One person, or even a small group of individuals, is so rarely actually competent to run things for other people on such a large scale that it's a structure that should be avoided in all cases. It's precarious and subject to the whims of potentially dangerously incompetent, and often enough literally psychopathic, individuals who are generally shielded from any consequence of their actions due to the system of corporate socialism and routinely screw over the people who work for them to line their own pockets. Not the sort of thing any of us should be encouraging, in politics or business.

Secondly, I never said I "can't see the difference" between those things. I said I don't care about the difference. None of these people should be running the show for the rest of us anyway since the default position for politicians and appointees is "screw the public," so the real difference between a liar, a cheat, and a failure getting the position is effectively negligible.

[1bad65]

so the real difference between a liar, a cheat, and a failure getting the position is effectively negligible.

I agreed with most of it except that part.

See a liar and/or a cheat can still run a company/government at a profit and just not be a great person, while an incompetant can be a swell guy but he will bankrupt the company/government he is running. I prefer the first type of person to be honest.

[Mas Judt]

First off, I'm not a fan of big business run in a top-down hierarchical structure either. One person, or even a small group of individuals, is so rarely actually competent to run things for other people on such a large scale that it's a structure that should be avoided in all cases. It's precarious and subject to the whims of potentially dangerously incompetent, and often enough literally psychopathic, individuals who are generally shielded from any consequence of their actions due to the system of corporate socialism and routinely screw over the people who work for them to line their own pockets. Not the sort of thing any of us should be encouraging, in politics or business.



This is also true in most of the alternatives supplied - except in totalitarian or socialist solutions there is zero recourse and no market to force corrections. Just ineptitude over all.

True merit is often difficult to measure. Is it education (there are more millionaire drop outs than the other way. Schools teach you to be an employee, not an owner.) Is it results? (How do you know it was because they were so smart Vs. right place/right time.) I could go on, but I'm busy...

[Becca]

I admit I do produce facts. After all, someone has to do it.
Unsubstaniated "quotes" linked to 3 or more year old articles about current situations is not providing facts. It's scrounging for "vidence" to support oppinion. I'd be more worried about someone who doesn't have ties to either the Bush administration or the Clinton administration... They'd have to be at least 90 years old and out-of-touch or completely inexperienced. Rubin concerns me, but so long as we the people keep an eye on him and call any BS he tries, he should be fine.

[Becca]

I guess we'll see...won't we?

What makes you think that since these people are not "perfect" in your eyes that they are not qualified for the job?

If you went with people who were absolutely clean with no record at all you would have someone who was not experienced enough to do the job......Kinda like Cunnilingus Rice!:DHe aslo seems to be missing one major point: None of "those ones" carried out NAFTA or any other "failed plan" on thier own. Every one of those bad plans were approved by someone higher up on the political food chain. Doing the job they were told to do makes them partially to blame, but what about the guy who ok'd the plan and didn't supervise it adiquaitly????

[1bad65]

Unsubstaniated "quotes" linked to 3 or more year old articles about current situations is not providing facts.

First off, it's more than 90% of the people arguing provide. Second of all, the older data I provide usually always pertains to 2 things; 1. data from that specific time period, or 2. links showing where someone predicted a problem ahead of time and was ignored.

[1bad65]

He aslo seems to be missing one major point: None of "those ones" carried out NAFTA or any other "failed plan" on thier own. Every one of those bad plans were approved by someone higher up on the political food chain. Doing the job they were told to do makes them partially to blame, but what about the guy who ok'd the plan and didn't supervise it adiquaitly????

The Cabinet is there to advise the President. They are also free to resign for any reason, including if the President supports policies they are opposed to.

FYI, Cabinet officials report directly to the President, there is no 'political food chain' for them to have to go through.

No matter how you slice it, NAFTA is a failed policy and alot of Hussein Obama's Cabinet was there for the passage of NAFTA.

[Drake]

The Cabinet is there to advise the President. They are also free to resign for any reason, including if the President supports policies they are opposed to.

FYI, Cabinet officials report directly to the President, there is no 'political food chain' for them to have to go through.

No matter how you slice it, NAFTA is a failed policy and alot of Hussein Obama's Cabinet was there for the passage of NAFTA.

It's pretty bad disrespecting the President-Elect as such. No matter how I felt about my current CiC, I never disrespected him. You lose a lot of credibility that way.

[Reverend Tap]

This is also true in most of the alternatives supplied - except in totalitarian or socialist solutions there is zero recourse and no market to force corrections. Just ineptitude over all.

True merit is often difficult to measure. Is it education (there are more millionaire drop outs than the other way. Schools teach you to be an employee, not an owner.) Is it results? (How do you know it was because they were so smart Vs. right place/right time.) I could go on, but I'm busy...

Not quite sure what you mean there, since it's more true in totalitarian situations than otherwise. Nevertheless, there are other organizing models that can be applied that do not subject the structure to the whims of an unqualified minority; worker-owned businesses and other co-ops spring to mind (there's a reason that, while banks are foundering, most credit unions are doing just fine). Horizontal organization is more stable, more egalitarian, and overall better for all involved than hierarchical structures, as well as totally removing the problem of trying to determine if the people at the top are truly competent to be there.

[1bad65]

It's pretty bad disrespecting the President-Elect as such. No matter how I felt about my current CiC, I never disrespected him. You lose a lot of credibility that way.

Do what?! :confused:

[BoulderDawg]

It's pretty bad disrespecting the President-Elect as such. No matter how I felt about my current CiC, I never disrespected him. You lose a lot of credibility that way.


That's a laugh!:D You can't lose what you you never had.

Example: Bad has come out and said that Bill Richardson in incompetent to be in the cabinet.....:D

Bill Richardson has one of the sharpest minds in the country. He also hold very high moral and ethical standards and is well respected on both sides of the aisle.....I fact his confirmation may be very close to unanimous.

Sorry Bad but you've should back away from those Neo blogs.

[1bad65]

Example: Bad has come out and said that Bill Richardson in incompetent to be in the cabinet.....:D

Bill Richardson has one of the sharpest minds in the country. He also hold very high moral and ethical standards and is well respected on both sides of the aisle.....I fact his confirmation may be very close to unanimous.

Sorry Bad but you've should back away from those Neo blogs.

Then there are alot of stupid people.

The guy was the Secretary of Energy during the time there were massive thefts of our nuclear secrets at Los Alamos and during the famous 'Grayouts' in California caused by energy shortages!

It's alot like saying Charlie Weis is one of the best college football coaches.

[Becca]

The Cabinet is there to advise the President. They are also free to resign for any reason, including if the President supports policies they are opposed to.

FYI, Cabinet officials report directly to the President, there is no 'political food chain' for them to have to go through.

No matter how you slice it, NAFTA is a failed policy and alot of Hussein Obama's Cabinet was there for the passage of NAFTA.I gues The house of Representatives and Congress are just figures heads? That's what they call a check-and-balance system. And I am not going to crusify someone for making a choice I would not have made. Nor am I going to crusify a person for doing his or her best in a bad situation. Would I have resiged if asked to make a bad plan work? No, I'd have done my utmost best to carry out the order. You personnaly may not be that kind of person. And freedom of speach gives you the right to believe what you will. Just don't be so angry when no one else sees things your way.

[Becca]

Then there are alot of stupid people.

The guy was the Secretary of Energy during the time there were massive thefts of our nuclear secrets at Los Alamos and during the famous 'Grayouts' in California caused by energy shortages!

It's alot like saying Charlie Weis is one of the best college football coaches.He was responsable in that he was the top dog, so to speak. But that doesn't make him inept at anything but not realizing the securuty wasn't tight enough. As to the grey outs, have you bothered to read up on the cause of them? It was an infrastructure failing. It failed because no one realized it was inadiquat. Should he have known? Not really; no one in the United States had experience with that type of thing then. Looking back and judging is usually easier than antying up yourself.

[1bad65]

It failed because no one realized it was inadiquat. Should he have known? Not really; no one in the United States had experience with that type of thing then. Looking back and judging is usually easier than antying up yourself.

Should he have known!? He was the **** Energy Secretary! That's his job!

Actually the power companies saw it coming DECADES ahead of time. They were begging the Government to let them build power plants out there, but they were ignored.

[1bad65]

I gues The house of Representatives and Congress are just figures heads? That's what they call a check-and-balance system.

Just don't be so angry when no one else sees things your way.

Actually they usually rubber-stamp Cabinet officials. How do you think we got blithering idiots like Madeline Albright and Jocelyn Elders confirmed? It's the Supreme Court judges where the fights usually occur.

I get angry when elected officials screw stuff up so bad that innocent people suffer. Then I get frustrated when those same fools manage to shift blame and get re-elected. It is maddening. NAFTA cost alot of American jobs. Even Ross Perot saw that one coming!

[1bad65]

So Hillary voted for the Iraq war and said in 2003 that Al-Quaida had training camps in Iraq. Now Hussein Obama has chosen her for Secretary of State.

Wow, that's such a drastic change from the current Administration. ;)

[Becca]

Actually they usually rubber-stamp Cabinet officials. How do you think we got blithering idiots like Madeline Albright and Jocelyn Elders confirmed? It's the Supreme Court judges where the fights usually occur.

I get angry when elected officials screw stuff up so bad that innocent people suffer. Then I get frustrated when those same fools manage to shift blame and get re-elected. It is maddening. NAFTA cost alot of American jobs. Even Ross Perot saw that one coming!Nice of you to cut out most of my post. I take it you are still ignoring the bits you can't attack? I was refering to appointed officials who have to make the tough desissions and try to carry out impossible tasks and mouth boxers who grumble in obscurity, not about "rubber stamping" cabinet appointments.

[Becca]

So Hillary voted for the Iraq war and said in 2003 that Al-Quaida had training camps in Iraq. Now Hussein Obama has chosen her for Secretary of State.

Wow, that's such a drastic change from the current Administration. ;)We get it. After years of a republican president who can't be bothered to appoint the best of the best then direct them to keep them headed in the right direction, you think everyone is that usless.

Some of use beleive that Obama will bother to keep an eye on his cabnet, not just let them run wild and fire them if the public opinion turns against them/him/her/it.:rolleyes:

[1bad65]

Nice of you to cut out most of my post. I take it you are still ignoring the bits you can't attack? I was refering to appointed officials who have to make the tough desissions and try to carry out impossible tasks and mouth boxers who grumble in obscurity, not about "rubber stamping" cabinet appointments.

I actually cut out the parts that I was not replying to in order to not clutter things up. I'll reply now to that then, since you want me to.

If a Cabinet member, who is a top-level advisor to The President, is ignored and their advice not taken, I feel they should just resign. What's the point of sticking around so The President just does the opposite of what you suggest? It's pointless. I myself would do that.

The part that includes the term 'mouth boxers' I do not understand what you mean. But I myself am not anonymous and just complain, I vote and I was on here discussing issues BEFORE the election and before Hussein Obama's Cabinet was chosen.

[1bad65]

We get it. After years of a republican president who can't be bothered to appoint the best of the best then direct them to keep them headed in the right direction, you think everyone is that usless.

Some of use beleive that Obama will bother to keep an eye on his cabnet, not just let them run wild and fire them if the public opinion turns against them/him/her/it.:rolleyes:

I think Bush did a good job with his appointments. Terrorism in the US went WAY down from the last Administration. The Energy Secretary did not manage to lose nulear secrets or have Grayouts. The Secretary of State did not get made a fool of by the North Koreans. His Surgeons General did not embarrass themselves and have to resign. His Attorney General did not oversee the incineration of innocent American citizens or ruin the life of an innocent man like Richard Jewell.

As to who hired and fired according to polls, look no further than Bill Clinton. While she was a buffoon, Elders was forced out simply due to public perception.

Who did Bush fire over public opinion? :confused:

[AJM]

We get the point. This blowhard tripe has been going on for quite long enough. Quit beating a dead horse. It is not helping your argument. And Richard Jewell was more than an innocent man. RICHARD JEWELL WAS A HERO!

[CLFLPstudent]

So Hillary voted for the Iraq war and said in 2003 that Al-Quaida had training camps in Iraq. Now Hussein Obama has chosen her for Secretary of State.

Wow, that's such a drastic change from the current Administration. ;)

1bad - I asked this back in the Obama/Biden vs McCain/Palin thread but it was never answered as far as I know. Would you consider it flip-flopping if a congress member switched their stance once the fact that our 'Intelligence' was faulty was realised? Or is it better to keep on keeping on and switch the reasons of the invasion from WMD to 'Regime Change'?

I can just imagine the tension in your jaw every time you type "Hussein Obama"....:rolleyes:

Do you hope for a failed Obama administration so you can say 'I told you so' or would you like to see him succeed because it would benefit the US?

-David

[1bad65]

Quit beating a dead horse. It is not helping your argument.

Since things like past history, sources, and facts don't seem to do the trick, I've decided on a new style of debate. ;)

[1bad65]

1bad - I asked this back in the Obama/Biden vs McCain/Palin thread but it was never answered as far as I know. Would you consider it flip-flopping if a congress member switched their stance once the fact that our 'Intelligence' was faulty was realised? Or is it better to keep on keeping on and switch the reasons of the invasion from WMD to 'Regime Change'?

No, I wouldn't. If the facts change, people's stances sure can. I myself went from pro-death penalty to anti-death penalty after seeing 2 innocent men from Austin sent to Death Row.

However, I do think from Day 1 Bush said one of the ultimate goals was to create a stable democratic government over there.


I can just imagine the tension in your jaw every time you type "Hussein Obama"....:rolleyes:

I actually do it with a smile.


Do you hope for a failed Obama administration so you can say 'I told you so' or would you like to see him succeed because it would benefit the US?

No. I hope the country rebounds from these problems. However, I do hope we LEARN from it. Otherwise it will repeat itself.

FYI, some media outlets are saying Hussein Obama may well enact his promised middle-class tax cuts in his first 120 days. If so, I'll give him credit for that. That article did however say that he will increase spending on 'green' projects and infrastructure by billions. I disagree with that part.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/02/news/economy/obama_stimulus_taxcut/index.htm?postversion=2008120208

[Mr Punch]

The amount of time some of you geniuses spend posting political **** you should do something useful and run for office instead of whingeing.

[David Jamieson]

Ha!

Be happy you're not in Canada where the 3 stooges are apparently in the midst of planning a coup!

[sanjuro_ronin]

Ha!

Be happy you're not in Canada where the 3 stooges are apparently in the midst of planning a coup!

Ah dude, don't even go there.
What a horrid display.
So much for democracy.
**** multi party system !

[SimonM]

Ha!

Be happy you're not in Canada where the 3 stooges are apparently in the midst of planning a coup!

Bollocks. The opposition parties have all declared that they have lost confidence in the government and are calling for a vote of non-confidence. If that vote is successful they have declared than rather than enter into a second costly election just two months after the last they have agreed in principle to a coalition government between the NDP and the Liberals; one which will last 30 months and which will enjoy Bloc support for 18 months.

Let me make two things clear David:

1) Coalition governments are THE NORM in most other democratic countries other than the UK and the USA.

2) There is NOTHING UNCONSTITUTIONAL about the proposed plan which REQUIRES the approval of the governor general to proceed.

THIS IS NOT A COUP!! THIS IS THE WILL OF PARLIAMENT!!!!! THE ARROGANT B@STARD TORRIES SCREWED UP!!!!!!!!!

[sanjuro_ronin]

Bollocks. The opposition parties have all declared that they have lost confidence in the government and are calling for a vote of non-confidence. If that vote is successful they have declared than rather than enter into a second costly election just two months after the last they have agreed in principle to a coalition government between the NDP and the Liberals; one which will last 30 months and which will enjoy Bloc support for 18 months.

Let me make two things clear David:

1) Coalition governments are THE NORM in most other democratic countries other than the UK and the USA.

2) There is NOTHING UNCONSTITUTIONAL about the proposed plan which REQUIRES the approval of the governor general to proceed.

THIS IS NOT A COUP!! THIS IS THE WILL OF PARLIAMENT!!!!! THE ARROGANT B@STARD TORRIES SCREWED UP!!!!!!!!!

It will come back to bite them on the ass.