| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Politically Right
Junior Member
281 Posts Likes0 |
 Posted - 05/01/2012 : 08:40:44 AM
| Report Abuse |
|
By Henry J. Reske
Some 59 percent of Americans consider the government bailouts of GM and Chrysler a failure, a new Rasmussen Reports poll showed.
“Voters have consistently opposed the bailouts in regular surveys since February 2009, although they have been more critical of the bailouts of the financial sector,” Rasmussen wrote. “Earlier this month, though, 44 percent of voters said the auto bailouts were good for America. By contrast, just 26 percent thought they were a good idea in April 2009.
“Undoubtedly, these numbers have been moved in part by the growing belief that the money is being repaid. In January 2010, only 36 percent of voters thought it was at least somewhat likely that the government would get its money back. By February of last year, 52 percent of Americans shared that belief. But by June, a GM payback was considered much more likely than one from Chrysler.”
The federal government, according to official estimates, is expected to lose tens of billions of dollars on the auto bailouts.
Rasmussen surveyed 1,000 Americans April 23 to 24, 2012. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Rasmussen: 59% View Auto Bailouts As a Failure
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
http://www.newsmax.com/US/rasmussen-auto-bailouts-failure/2012/04/30/id/437513?s=al&promo_code=EC8D-1 |
Visit my friends at: Media Absurdity and Critical Politics |
|
|
Poff
Junior Member
94 Posts Likes0 |
|
Posted - 05/01/2012 : 09:22:38 AM
| Report Abuse |
|
When a company fails and goes bankrupt who can purchase it?
bdnyoay
Which automaker posed a national security risk if it failed?
rotmgeonrales
Why was the above automaker a risk if it became insolvent?
raonts
When dealing with government reasoning, look at what is not said. |
 |
|
|
blueblood
Senior Member
USA
5167 Posts Likes3 |
|
Posted - 05/01/2012 : 09:57:16 AM
| Report Abuse |
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Poff[/i]
[br]When a company fails and goes bankrupt who can purchase it?
bdnyoay
Which automaker posed a national security risk if it failed?
rotmgeonrales
Why was the above automaker a risk if it became insolvent?
raonts
When dealing with government reasoning, look at what is not said.
I'll try JMO with back-up 
A. Anybody can purchase it, however, only Bill Gates or Obama can restore it with free money.
B. None posed a security risk.
C. It was a risk because it threatened the unions which in turn threatened Obama if the status quo wasn't maintained.
My turn. Why was rule of law ignored and the car maker's bondholder's completely cut out giving all the money they were due to the unions?
The bailout just kicked the can down the road. We will be here again at some point. Except, who besides the government will be willing to buy bonds, based on the last go around? |
Let no man pull you low enough to hate him.
-- Martin Luther King Jr. |
|
|
|
Poff
Junior Member
94 Posts Likes0 |
|
Posted - 05/01/2012 : 10:28:49 AM
| Report Abuse |
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by blueblood[/i]
[br]quote:
[i]Originally posted by Poff[/i]
[br]When a company fails and goes bankrupt who can purchase it?
bdnyoay
Which automaker posed a national security risk if it failed?
rotmgeonrales
Why was the above automaker a risk if it became insolvent?
raonts
When dealing with government reasoning, look at what is not said.
I'll try JMO with back-up
A. Anybody can purchase it, however, only Bill Gates or Obama can restore it with free money.
B. None posed a security risk.
C. It was a risk because it threatened the unions which in turn threatened Obama if the status quo wasn't maintained.
My turn. Why was rule of law ignored and the car maker's bondholder's completely cut out giving all the money they were due to the unions?
The bailout just kicked the can down the road. We will be here again at some point. Except, who besides the government will be willing to buy bonds, based on the last go around?
Yes, there were many reasons and yes you can provide backup. I cannot provide the necessary backup to prove the point I make.
Although food for thought....Who designed and implemented the proprietary components for our missile systems , onstar and vehicle tracking systems used by our military here and abroad .
"With few exceptions, the principle suppliers of search and navigation equipment are the same contractors who comprise the larger U.S. aerospace and defense industry, to which search and navigation equipment contribute significantly. Although not necessarily the most prolific producers of search and navigation instruments, many of the largest and most recognizable corporations in the United States have been involved in the business, including AT&T, Boeing, General Electric, General Motors, and IBM."
"For years, the plant played a key role in research, development and production of electro-mechanical devices for military use and space exploration. Its history began in the northeast Milwaukee site with 25 people manufacturing bomb sights, fire control equipment and other avionics products for the U.S. Air Force. In 1957, operations moved to the new Oak Creek facility beginning with the guidance system for the Thor missile, the first operational ballistic missile in the arsenal of the United States. In 1965, the Milwaukee Operations were separated from General Motors’ AC Spark Plug organization and became known as AC Electronics Division of GM. In 1970, the division merged with Delco Radio, headquartered in Kokomo, Indiana, and became known as Delco Electronics Division, a forerunner of today’s Delphi Electronics & Safety."
If GM become insolvent and was purchased by the highest bidder....Who would own the technology?
|
|
|
|
John Beagle
Advanced Member
USA
16025 Posts Likes0 |
Posted - 05/01/2012 : 3:17:14 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
If GM become insolvent and was purchased by the highest bidder....Who would own the technology?
Is this a trick question? |
"I don’t know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody" #BillCosby |
|
|
|
blueblood
Senior Member
USA
5167 Posts Likes1 |
|
Posted - 05/01/2012 : 3:43:25 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
I thought all those divisions were spun off into wholly owned subsidiaries, but I know those things are complicated and complex.
I guess, the fact that they were bailed out, yet still went bankrupt, and all the stockholders lost everything, along with the other shenanigans, leaves a bad taste for everyone. I have nothing against GM products, own 2 now and would purchase in the future.
I think they would still be GM today, even without a bailout. |
Let no man pull you low enough to hate him.
-- Martin Luther King Jr. |
|
|
|
lrisner
Junior Member
USA
186 Posts Likes3 |
|
Posted - 05/01/2012 : 5:09:57 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
Saving GM was the right thing to do. It amazes me that those most against the GM bailout had very little to say about the 1T dollars given to the Banks and the charity to the Banks is STILL going on today by allowing the Banks to borrow at 0% and then turn around and use that borrowed money to buy T-bills from the Fed(the entity that LOANED them the money at 0%) that pay 3% interest. Effectively GIVING 3% of Taxpayers' money to the borrowing Bank.
At least GM's bailout was a one time thing. It is amazing how WHO benefits determines how critical the neo cons are of the offense. If a bunch of blue collars have their jobs saved it is evil and it is going to destroy the Country, if is saves a bunch of 1%ers a lot of Financial Institute Stock value, it is a good thing!
Geezz....we have become a very dumb people |
|
|
|
Matt_Steele
Senior Member
2019 Posts Likes0 |
Posted - 05/01/2012 : 10:51:06 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
| Besides, when was the last time anyone took a poll from Rasmussen with any type of credibility? Take a look at their poll results right before an election and then what the actual results were... they're not too strong. |
|
|
|
Dannyboy
Junior Member
608 Posts Likes0 |
|
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 10:41:27 AM
| Report Abuse |
|
The bailout didn't save GM. Traditional bankruptcy would have done that. But the only way to get a sweet deal for the unions was the bailout. So that's why it was done.
There shouldn't have been any bailouts for anyone. If you fail, you fail. |
|
|
|
vegasmayor
Junior Member
665 Posts Likes0 |
|
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 11:37:28 AM
| Report Abuse |
|
"There shouldn't have been any bailouts for anyone. If you fail, you fail."
Define bailout. Because if we're talking about including selling bonds and treasury bills, China bailed out the U.S. big time. Should they have just let us "fail"? |
|
|
|
blueblood
Senior Member
USA
5167 Posts Likes4 |
|
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 11:46:05 AM
| Report Abuse |
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Dannyboy[/i]
[br]The bailout didn't save GM. Traditional bankruptcy would have done that. But the only way to get a sweet deal for the unions was the bailout. So that's why it was done.
There shouldn't have been any bailouts for anyone. If you fail, you fail.
Correct. The unions were the only one bailed out. GM did go bankrupt and all stockholders, including GM employees lost everything. The only thing that might have been saved was the supply chain, and maybe that, in the long run was worth it. Now, Obama has instituted the salary cap for the CEO. That works with government workers, but not someone to effectively manage! |
Let no man pull you low enough to hate him.
-- Martin Luther King Jr. |
|
|
|
MoneyBags
Junior Member
490 Posts Likes1 |
|
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 1:45:50 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
| Belt tightening should be reserved for public school teachers, or superintendent Lolli IMO. |
|
|
|
Bretland
Senior Member
2880 Posts Likes0 |
|
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 2:35:14 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
it's easy to "make the call" after the fact.
The politicos did what they thought was best (economically AND politically) |
"There are 10 types of people in this world. Those who understand binary, and those that don't." |
|
|
|
lrisner
Junior Member
USA
186 Posts Likes2 |
|
Posted - 05/04/2012 : 10:45:35 AM
| Report Abuse |
|
quote:
Correct. The unions were the only one bailed out.
The damage to GM would have made it a much different AND less substantial Company. The last thing we need in this new era is less good paying jobs.
quote:
Now, Obama has instituted the salary cap for the CEO. That works with government workers, but not someone to effectively manage!
You have to be kidding me! The current situation with CEOs is not about letting the Market set Wages, it is about CEOs being allowed to RAPE Companies LEGALLY. Yea... i know, the Board WOULDN'T allow that! They are there to protect the Stockholders and would intervene should some corrupt CEO that too much.
HOGWASH!!! The Boards are usually made up of CEOs from other Companies....You let me rape my Company and I'll vote to let you, or some other CEO, rape the Company that I set on the board of.
CEOs should NOT be allowed to set on ANY Board of Directors. We are just letting the Fox into the Henhouse.
Again...how dumb have Americans become?
|
|
|
|
dad0f3
Junior Member
590 Posts Likes1 |
|
Posted - 05/04/2012 : 11:26:38 AM
| Report Abuse |
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by lrisner[/i]
The damage to GM would have made it a much different AND less substantial Company. The last thing we need in this new era is less good paying jobs.
Sorry, but going through bankruptcy would've been no more damaging than receiving a bailout from a bankrupt federal government. I guarantee you this: had there been no union stake in the situation, Obama would've had no interest in GM whatsoever.
quote:
[i]Originally posted by lrisner[/i]
You have to be kidding me! The current situation with CEOs is not about letting the Market set Wages, it is about CEOs being allowed to RAPE Companies LEGALLY. Yea... i know, the Board WOULDN'T allow that! They are there to protect the Stockholders and would intervene should some corrupt CEO that too much.
HOGWASH!!! The Boards are usually made up of CEOs from other Companies....You let me rape my Company and I'll vote to let you, or some other CEO, rape the Company that I set on the board of.
CEOs should NOT be allowed to set on ANY Board of Directors. We are just letting the Fox into the Henhouse.
Again...how dumb have Americans become?
Nonsense. Just nonsense. Board members aren't just CEOs. Many are large shareholders who I seriously doubt are OK with a CEO "raping" the company their own fortunes are tied to. Boards have a vested interest in a company's profitibility for many reasons. This just sounds like class warfare rhetoric to me. |
|
|
|
Bill
Junior Member
84 Posts Likes2 |
|
Posted - 05/04/2012 : 12:07:15 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
Executive compensation is out of control. The excuse is "we want the best and brightest". You don't think there a dozen or more smart, talented leaders for every one CEO position? Heck, most of these guys are figureheads anyway who are good at selling and giving speeches. Not that those aren't vital skills, they are. A
And it's not just CEOs, the 10-15 people below the CEO who are normally setting policy, implementing, etc. are usually paid an overly generous share with stock options, etc. We see it all the time with companies -- the comp plans including bonuses that are designed to "reward performance" yet when you look at the details it's all a way of funneling more money to the leadership and very little to those actually doing the work. |
|
|
|
Dannyboy
Junior Member
608 Posts Likes2 |
|
Posted - 05/04/2012 : 3:25:08 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by vegasmayor[/i]
[br]"There shouldn't have been any bailouts for anyone. If you fail, you fail."
Define bailout. Because if we're talking about including selling bonds and treasury bills, China bailed out the U.S. big time. Should they have just let us "fail"?
We should balance our budget. This year. |
|
|
|
dad0f3
Junior Member
590 Posts Likes2 |
|
Posted - 05/04/2012 : 4:23:07 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Bill[/i]
[br]Executive compensation is out of control. The excuse is "we want the best and brightest". You don't think there a dozen or more smart, talented leaders for every one CEO position? Heck, most of these guys are figureheads anyway who are good at selling and giving speeches. Not that those aren't vital skills, they are. A
And it's not just CEOs, the 10-15 people below the CEO who are normally setting policy, implementing, etc. are usually paid an overly generous share with stock options, etc. We see it all the time with companies -- the comp plans including bonuses that are designed to "reward performance" yet when you look at the details it's all a way of funneling more money to the leadership and very little to those actually doing the work.
The real question is why do you care? What business is it of yours what a board of directors of a publicly traded company decides to pay their CEO or CFO or whomever? I work for a publicly traded company and let me tell you, they are beholden to the shareholders. It's not as "good ol' boy" as you all seem to think it is. And I would really love to see it demonstrated how this impacts your life negatively.
Again, these kinds of things are all silly distractions. Obama is *thrilled* that you want to have this discussion because it means he can continue using public money as his private slush fund to buy more votes while the peasants are all distracted with how much money the evil CEOs are being paid... |
|
|
|
MoneyBags
Junior Member
490 Posts Likes0 |
|
Posted - 05/04/2012 : 8:09:13 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
quote:
while the peasants are all distracted with how much money the evil CEOs are being paid...
The growing income gap is something worth discussing. How much compensation someone receives for their work is also something that interests a lot of people.
Certaintly I think it might be a little unfair to suggest that those who support a social safety net for vulnerable citizens are only in it to buy votes of poor people (I'm pretty sure they don't vote in large numbers anyway).
|
|
|
|
Bill
Junior Member
84 Posts Likes0 |
|
Posted - 05/04/2012 : 9:02:22 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
Why should I care? For one, I work for a publicly traded company and have seen first hand the changes that result in more to the execs and less to the rest. It affects me because the entire structure of the company, the revenue projections, the sales goals, are all to meet targets (crazy at times) that result in bloated bonuses for those highest on the food chain. So the sweat of all results in a feast for the few. Let me guess, your next comment will be that we employees should just be glad we're employed.
Second, many would say that the entire pattern of steroidal corporate greed over the last 20-30 years has contributed to the bubbles that nearly took down our economy and sent us into a global depression. In this time, have most of these execs really contributed such brilliance, such ground-breaking inventions and products, that would justify the banquet of riches on which they have feasted? Is any given exec's practical value to a company really hundreds of times greate than the lower end employees of that same company? Or perhaps could any one of a hundred middle to upper managers come in and do a similar job for half or 2/3 the pay? Or is the whole game one in which profits are sought, at any cost (usually by firing people or increasing "efficiencies"), and those responsible feast on filet mignon while throwing all others a PB&J sandwich.
I'm not voting for Obama. So my sentiment isn't Dem vs GOP. My point is that boards should be looking to run their companies with reasonable exec comp in mind. They owe this to the shareholders.
quote:
[i]Originally posted by dad0f3[/i]
[br]quote:
[i]Originally posted by Bill[/i]
[br]Executive compensation is out of control. The excuse is "we want the best and brightest". You don't think there a dozen or more smart, talented leaders for every one CEO position? Heck, most of these guys are figureheads anyway who are good at selling and giving speeches. Not that those aren't vital skills, they are. A
And it's not just CEOs, the 10-15 people below the CEO who are normally setting policy, implementing, etc. are usually paid an overly generous share with stock options, etc. We see it all the time with companies -- the comp plans including bonuses that are designed to "reward performance" yet when you look at the details it's all a way of funneling more money to the leadership and very little to those actually doing the work.
The real question is why do you care? What business is it of yours what a board of directors of a publicly traded company decides to pay their CEO or CFO or whomever? I work for a publicly traded company and let me tell you, they are beholden to the shareholders. It's not as "good ol' boy" as you all seem to think it is. And I would really love to see it demonstrated how this impacts your life negatively.
Again, these kinds of things are all silly distractions. Obama is *thrilled* that you want to have this discussion because it means he can continue using public money as his private slush fund to buy more votes while the peasants are all distracted with how much money the evil CEOs are being paid...
|
|
|
|
lrisner
Junior Member
USA
186 Posts Likes2 |
|
Posted - 05/04/2012 : 10:49:20 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by dad0f3[/i]
[br]quote:
[i]Originally posted by Bill[/i]
[br]Executive compensation is out of control. The excuse is "we want the best and brightest". You don't think there a dozen or more smart, talented leaders for every one CEO position? Heck, most of these guys are figureheads anyway who are good at selling and giving speeches. Not that those aren't vital skills, they are. A
And it's not just CEOs, the 10-15 people below the CEO who are normally setting policy, implementing, etc. are usually paid an overly generous share with stock options, etc. We see it all the time with companies -- the comp plans including bonuses that are designed to "reward performance" yet when you look at the details it's all a way of funneling more money to the leadership and very little to those actually doing the work.
The real question is why do you care? What business is it of yours what a board of directors of a publicly traded company decides to pay their CEO or CFO or whomever? I work for a publicly traded company and let me tell you, they are beholden to the shareholders. It's not as "good ol' boy" as you all seem to think it is. And I would really love to see it demonstrated how this impacts your life negatively.
Again, these kinds of things are all silly distractions. Obama is *thrilled* that you want to have this discussion because it means he can continue using public money as his private slush fund to buy more votes while the peasants are all distracted with how much money the evil CEOs are being paid...
To be blunt, you are the one distracted. Sorry, but you are a brainwashed fool. You are in good company as most Americans are in the same boat. |
|
|
|
hornetparentof2
Junior Member
66 Posts Likes0 |
|
Posted - 05/05/2012 : 02:26:58 AM
| Report Abuse |
|
To learn all you need to know about CEO's and how they bonus themselves watch "Inside Job"
It's quite disgusting what goes on in these companies. If you don't like that connotation then stop doing business the ways in which it's currently done.
These same companies jump through every loop hole in the book to pay less and less taxes on more and more earnings. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Nearly 60% Call Auto Bailouts FAILURE
