DescentBB

no not all men tc. only those who want to control what you do with your life by trying to embarrass you with outdated ideals.

except for that part where the Constitution says the government has the power to do whatever for the 'common good', you might have been correct. But alas........

Again, instead of substance from Slick, we get rhetoric. Let's see how stupid this can get. What about the part that says no Federal Reserve System? Try not to turn this into a presidential debate .

Slicks idea

EDIT:If you wanted to be very generous you could use figures other than the publicly traded values for GM and AIG -- the Obama administration certainly thinks GM is worth more than what it's trading for. If you wanted to be even more generous you could add a couple of the big banks that the government is implicitly guaranteeing. I don't think that will substantially change the picture above, but email me or post a comment with any methodological suggestions.)

The U.S. government hasn't exactly boosted confidence in GM's future by saying it hopes to dump the rest of its stake as soon as this summer, even if that means selling at a big loss to taxpayers.

Source

So, take over a long time established corporation, run it into the ground and then dump it later, at a profit i'm sure They are smart like that.

no flip.

they made terrible cars for years, and are still making terrible cars. I don't need an article on the web telling me anything; I work with GM cars. And compared to even ford, their quality is still garbage. the fit is off, the finish is terrible, the assembly is lacking. even the materials they use are cheap on the cheap. A bumper that I worked on, cracked during mid assembly and had to be replaced. again.

The only thing that's good on the GM cars that come through, is the paint we use on them.

True, but say the government did this, since they took dominant control. Say they really wanted to build GM as a company. Is threatening to dump their shares at a loss do anything to build confidence on the corporate side of GM, or private shareholders? They could pump money into and design a car that got the Prius's mileage(damn car pays for itself) without the awful design and mass produce them. All they have done is strangle GM and cause a fight between 2 masters.

flip wrote:

except for that part where the Constitution says the government has the power to do whatever for the 'common good', you might have been correct. But alas........

Again, instead of substance from Slick, we get rhetoric. Let's see how stupid this can get. What about the part that says no Federal Reserve System? Try not to turn this into a presidential debate .

good example, there is NOTHING in the Constitution about a Federal Reserve Bank, because it hadn't been created when the document was written. I said nothing that could be even mildly construed as rhetoric, merely citing the words of the Constitution.

The Fed is no more than a national bank. Just because you call it something different doesn't change it's nature.

flip wrote:The Fed is no more than a national bank. Just because you call it something different doesn't change it's nature.

take some of that money you no doubt had the sense to save when you were making $1500 per day, and please, sign up for a class in economics. Another class in US History or Government wouldn't hurt, either. Neither will help you with employment, but they WOULD prevent you from making grossly ignorant statements such as the one quoted.


(hint: we had National Banks for over 120 years before we had a Federal Reserve bank. The Constitution said nothing about
either, but as Obama rightly noted, our Constitution cleverly spells out what CAN'T be done, and leaves open a world of
possibilities about what CAN be done.)

flip wrote:True, but say the government did this, since they took dominant control. Say they really wanted to build GM as a company. Is threatening to dump their shares at a loss do anything to build confidence on the corporate side of GM, or private shareholders? They could pump money into and design a car that got the Prius's mileage(damn car pays for itself) without the awful design and mass produce them. All they have done is strangle GM and cause a fight between 2 masters.

question for you. if you knew a company you invested in kept making bad returns.. would you keep them?

probably not.


and priuses don't make much of their money back. Diesels do better.

/thread.

But they were too big to fail just a few years ago Wakeup dude.<---sarcasm

EDIT:On top of that, if you take majority control you share the majority of the liability.

flip wrote:But they were too big to fail just a few years ago Wakeup dude.

EDIT:On top of that, if you take majority control you share the majority of the liability.

they just made 7.8 billion bucks last year. The stock dropped because it got overheated after the IPO. No big deal, no one is suggesting bankruptcy again, and the employees are not only working, but they increased the number of employees. Futher, they just gave out big bonuses to those employees. Imagine, a company that gives the factory floor staff the big bonuses as opposed to giving 99% of the profit to the management!

Lol, Piss off I'm going to bed.

too big to fail..

hehe that nugget again?

People kept buying GM's shitboxes because of easy credit. and that's how they were able to survive. If it weren't for that, GM would have died a horrible death years ago.

they just made 7.8 billion bucks last year. The stock dropped because it got overheated after the IPO. No big deal, no one is suggesting bankruptcy again, and the employees are not only working, but they increased the number of employees. Futher, they just gave out big bonuses to those employees. Imagine, a company that gives the factory floor staff the big bonuses as opposed to giving 99% of the profit to the management!

What about the fact of selling the shares at a taxpayer loss? Where's the love there stockholder?

flip wrote:What about the fact of selling the shares at a taxpayer loss? Where's the love there stockholder?

first off, I am not a stockholder any more. What few shares I had at bankruptcy are worthless paper. I have the certificates around someplace and could dig them up and send them to you as souvenirs, if you wish.

secondly, one has to remember back to when this all went down. The GOP railed and fumed about 'government' taking over private industry, so Obama made sure to declare that the government would not hold onto the shares for any length of time.
He is being good to his word. I have seen calculations that the money in taxes gained by keeping the workers employed, plus the savings in NOT having to pay unemployment benefits(govt picks up tab if company goes bust) comes out to a savings of more than 3 times the money spent on the bailout, without counting the money recouped by selling the stock on the open market.

That sounds like the kind of math that got us into this mess. Genius!!

EDIT:If the government let's go of GM AND AIG, I'll relax my stance.

flip wrote:That sounds like the kind of math that got us into this mess. Genius!!

Since when did sound math and legitimate forward thinking bring on the recession?

You know what I've noticed around here. The opposite sides of a debate contiinually respond to the insult and ignore the substance. That allows some ★■◆● to make his case, fill it with a snide remark here and there, and then build his whole case while you get mad. Try to stay on point, I have a socialist by the throat .

If the government let's go of GM AND AIG, I'll relax my stance.

flip wrote:You know what I've noticed around here. The opposite sides of a debate contiinually respond to the insult and ignore the substance. That allows some ★■◆● to make his case, fill it with a snide remark here and there, and then build his whole case while you get mad. Try to stay on point, I have a socialist by the throat .

Human nature. It's more fun to actually fight than have a rational discussion.

what's funny is that Flip hasn't got a hold on anything other than hisownself, and I think it may be a bit south of his neck......


(best to hold onto it, before he steps on it yet again)

Lol, yep, Slick's a liberal. Tuck tail boyee, you lack substance

flip wrote:Lol, yep, Slick's a liberal. Tuck tail boyee, you lack substance

get a grip.

What were we talking about again?

Last subject was the Federal Reserve. Feel free to take it from there.

Federal Reserve=national bank. That was at best a diversion though from this topic.

Should the government take over majority control of faltering corporations or let them fail as they would normally?

In reality, of course not flip. But the situation is tricky when a corporation's failure might lead to massive financial consequences. These banks should never have been allowed to act the way they did...another problem with deregulation or regulation without any teeth.

True, but under the premise of "to big to fail", it's more of "we did this for the good of America". In that spirit, should they have taken majority control, or just helped prop it up until it could regain strength again? I understand that we had to do something, but the government actually becoming majority stockholder was a step that will not be untaken. It's the first step to a socialist-government run economy, especially if the economy fails. If this happens again, they will just make a bigger grab.

Well, considering what a terrible job the old ownership/management was doing, at least you will know what to expect now that the government is in charge.

Government: If you think our problems are bad, just wait till you see our solutions.

flip wrote:I understand that we had to do something, but the government actually becoming majority stockholder was a step that will not be untaken. It's the first step to a socialist-government run economy, especially if the economy fails. If this happens again, they will just make a bigger grab.

Let's recalibrate your perspective.

A number of corporations made some unethical moves that threatened the financial well-being of a couple hundred million Americans, and countless more persons abroad. Think about those numbers for a second. Really think about it. That level of irresponsibility is unmatched. Those companies don't deserve to be "propped up for a short period of time," they deserve to be dissolved completely and replaced. Even if the government retains it's majority stockholder status they are getting off lightly. Remember, millions of people were affected. Imagine you did something to negatively affect millions of people. You would probably be in jail right now.

This isn't the beginning of socialism (socialism, gasp!). This is our government doing what they should have been doing all along -- getting involved. Just like our government is designed to stop any branch from getting too much power, regulations need to be in place to stop rampant greed. It's not the government being "evil," it's the government being "responsible" (albeit a little late).

In 2008 AIG faced liquidity issues related to its exposure to debt from credit default swaps. Starr says the government could have ended its AIG involvement with liquidity support it provided to other institutions, but instead it took majority control of AIG.

After numerous steps it took restructure debt, AIG says it is independent of government support.

AIG posted a $2.5 billion net loss during 2011's third quarter. The third-quarter loss was the company’s worst since 2009.

From the above article.

EDIT: I know, I know. I'm an ★■◆● or something .