Question for Obama Haters

[ponch]

Originally Posted by Dave

Dye your hair?

Eat jelly beans?

[ponch]

Originally Posted by canedriver

Lets not forget Attachment 862

It would be nice and just if there were no income tax. So, either have a just a consumption tax or a flat tax, no deductions either way.

[glwilson]

I know some have posted about Ford not taking a bail-out.

I read a long report by the CEO that was interesting. He was hired to turn Ford around, as they, again, were headed for a brick-wall financially eventually.

Besides changing a lot of things at Ford (basically turned management on its head; and changed protocol on the line); he also began working on financing to help put them beyond their debt problems. Ultimately he was able to completer the final phase of the financing just prior to the beginning of the meltdown in October of 2007.

As he said, if things had not occurred as they did, they too would have been requesting a bail-out; but fortunately when asked by Congress if he wanted money he said he did not need a bail-out (although he did line-up a future line-of-credit with the government in the event everything turned far worse than they thought it would).

Also when asked if he would be willing to work for less money as the CEO; he politely declined to work for less, opting to keep his large salary. Ford workers and stock-holders were overwhelmingly happy to continue to pay him the money.

The CEO did lobby Congress for the bailout for the other automakers based on the fact that if they were to fail, it would directly affect Ford's sub-contractors, parts-suppliers, and so on. Enough that he said he wouldn't be sure Ford could survive without them.

Ford's ads stating they were the only automaker not taking a bailout were quickly removed after a suggestion by the government to do so based on Ford's presentation to Congress about the bailouts and they being in favor of them for GM and Chrysler. Ford quickly responded and removed the ads.

GM's CEO appeared on a brief ad stating GM just paid-off their bail-out money; however that was a half-lie and he got caught. He quickly removed the ads when it was discovered they used other government money to pay-off the original bail-out money. It was true he paid-off the bail-out money... but with other taxpayer money. That was a truly dishonest bunch of crap similar to how our politicians twist the facts to appears as they wish.

Look, there was a huge debate on this site when this was happening at the time. I took the side of favoring some of the bailouts; but was very reluctant regarding a bailout for the automakers -- especially in the manner the government was going to handle it (completely side-stepping the law and screwing the bond-holders in favor of the unions; who in part were a portion of the reason they were failing).

All in all... if the banks and automakers would have failed... it would more than likely have caused a deep depression, from which we likely would still not be close to recovering from. Hell... we are not recovering from the recession as we should yet. (That's of course something I blame the current administration for.)

[ponch]

Originally Posted by glwilson

I know some have posted about Ford not taking a bail-out.

I read a long report by the CEO that was interesting. He was hired to turn Ford around, as they, again, were headed for a brick-wall financially eventually.

Besides changing a lot of things at Ford (basically turned management on its head; and changed protocol on the line); he also began working on financing to help put them beyond their debt problems. Ultimately he was able to completer the final phase of the financing just prior to the beginning of the meltdown in October of 2007.

As he said, if things had not occurred as they did, they too would have been requesting a bail-out; but fortunately when asked by Congress if he wanted money he said he did not need a bail-out (although he did line-up a future line-of-credit with the government in the event everything turned far worse than they thought it would).

Also when asked if he would be willing to work for less money as the CEO; he politely declined to work for less, opting to keep his large salary. Ford workers and stock-holders were overwhelmingly happy to continue to pay him the money.

The CEO did lobby Congress for the bailout for the other automakers based on the fact that if they were to fail, it would directly affect Ford's sub-contractors, parts-suppliers, and so on. Enough that he said he wouldn't be sure Ford could survive without them.

Ford's ads stating they were the only automaker not taking a bailout were quickly removed after a suggestion by the government to do so based on Ford's presentation to Congress about the bailouts and they being in favor of them for GM and Chrysler. Ford quickly responded and removed the ads.

GM's CEO appeared on a brief ad stating GM just paid-off their bail-out money; however that was a half-lie and he got caught. He quickly removed the ads when it was discovered they used other government money to pay-off the original bail-out money. It was true he paid-off the bail-out money... but with other taxpayer money. That was a truly dishonest bunch of crap similar to how our politicians twist the facts to appears as they wish.

Look, there was a huge debate on this site when this was happening at the time. I took the side of favoring some of the bailouts; but was very reluctant regarding a bailout for the automakers -- especially in the manner the government was going to handle it (completely side-stepping the law and screwing the bond-holders in favor of the unions; who in part were a portion of the reason they were failing).

All in all... if the banks and automakers would have failed... it would more than likely have caused a deep depression, from which we likely would still not be close to recovering from. Hell... we are not recovering from the recession as we should yet. (That's of course something I blame the current administration for.)

You don't believe the banks or automakers could have found a different solution than requesting money from the government? There are only two scenarios offered: one where the government bails them out, the other where it doesn't and the businesses fail. You also fail to mention that there were banks that were forced to take loans from the government that did not need them.

[NRiderUSA]

Originally Posted by canedriver

Lets not forget Attachment 862

Wonder why he couldnt change it as he stated he knew it... and definatley didnt like it....would be interesting to figure that one out...

[glwilson]

I am not saying that it wasn't a *ucked-up deal... certainly it was.

Larger banks were forced to take loans (BofA comes to mind first) because, as the government said, if they did not then it could cause a panic-run on those smaller banks needing the bailouts. Don't know if that would have happened or not; but that was their reasoning from what I recall living through it.

Deep in my overall thoughts, I lean toward "let fail where failure occurs".

In this situation, I tended to differ from that thought and still hold to my belief we are in better shape than had we not bailed some of these firms out. I am, of course, not happy at all with the manner in which it was implemented, and the outright crime committed by politicians during the process as they grabbed opportunities for personal profit and profit for their special interests. I knew some of that would be the bitter-part of the pill.

EDIT ADD: I forgot to answer Ponch's question about other alternatives for financing. Not sure where the resources would have come from given the monetary-system was completely frozen (by standards).

There were very few sources of liquidity at the time; however large amounts (as needed to bail-out companies) were simply not available at the time; or those having these resources certainly were not going to loan failing companies money (most of them were worried about where the "crash" was going to go; and were clutching onto their money until the "dust settled" some. They were not foolish capitalist... they later bought distressed assets at or near the bottom for pennies and sold them for quarters. A smart move if I do say).

That left the government/treasury dept. who literally could print money to use for the purpose of coming-up with enough money.

That would be the most simple version of an answer I could give. There obviously were far more complexities to the issue, which would require more room than this site will provide in its memory limit.

The press and the democrats have done a good job of pointing the finger of blame on anyone else but themselves and those that elect them. The truth remains (without a doubt to those who study this) that the U.S. government created the housing-boom and its ultimate crash. What started out to be a simple program (sarcastic comment) steamed-rolled over the years to where it was beyond any politicians control or knowledge grasp. Barney Frank was clearly beyond his intellectual-capital in handling the situation. Several politicians who knew more about the situation could see the impending crash years ahead of it -- however they were either not listened to; or they kept their mouths shut in fear of the economic chaos that would ensue once the public understood what was happening.

The turning-point for me as to when the end was beginning was when the median priced home in the U.S. surpassed the median-income's affordability (2006). Once the median home price remained above that mark and continued to climb, that was the death knoll for the bubble. I sold what I could, and repositioned myself out of assets that I felt would be most affected. It paid off for me and those who listened to me.

For those that think we are out of the clear in this country (and in a few other global regions)... I have news for you. There is more to come. Much more, and I promise it is not going to be pretty and its probability of occurring are extremely high. This "event", for lack of better words, will not "care" which political party is in office. In fact, I would assume a political-party would prefer not to be in office when this occurs; as they will take the initial blame. Having said that, there remains a small chance this "event" will not occur to its worst potential. I am personally not betting on it being a smooth situation...

[ponch]

Originally Posted by NRiderUSA

Wonder why he couldnt change it as he stated he knew it... and definatley didnt like it....would be interesting to figure that one out...

Which party was the majority in the senate and house at the time?

[NRiderUSA]

Originally Posted by canedriver

Lets not forget Attachment 862

Here's a good one too from Reagan.... Makes you think

Ronald Reagan on Capitalism and Socialism

[NRiderUSA]

Originally Posted by glwilson

I am not saying that it wasn't a *ucked-up deal... certainly it was.

Larger banks were forced to take loans (BofA comes to mind first) because, as the government said, if they did not then it could cause a panic-run on those smaller banks needing the bailouts. Don't know if that would have happened or not; but that was their reasoning from what I recall living through it.

Deep in my overall thoughts, I lean toward "let fail where failure occurs".

In this situation, I tended to differ from that thought and still hold to my belief we are in better shape than had we not bailed some of these firms out. I am, of course, not happy at all with the manner in which it was implemented, and the outright crime committed by politicians during the process as they grabbed opportunities for personal profit and profit for their special interests. I knew some of that would be the bitter-part of the pill.

I agree with that 100% and why I still place blame on specific politicans for what happened to the housing market and crash because of it.

[blowndodge]

I blame the American public a lot too. I had some money I wanted to invest and all the wannabe Donald Trumps out there were tying to get me into real estate. I saw this coming in 2006 when Europe investors were getting out of the mortgage market.

I'm not sure about any of you but the line I heard from RE agents was, "if you don't get all in now your going to miss the opportunity of a lifetime as real estate is going to double again!

Well.......... these agents got all these Donald Trumps worked up into a lather and their own stupidity caused them to lose it all. "flipping" became the new investment word of the day. I have no sympathy at all. Unfortunately the "dumbing up of America" has worked.

So what is our beloved government doing about it? pressuring banks and financial institutions to lower principle and/or interest or rewrite the loans... Care to take a guess who's those write offs are going to be passed along too? Taxpayers... some who had the where with all not to get into that mess. So my financial conservative observation not to get into a crashing market will cost me (I am a taxpayer) somehow, someway with increased fees, more Federal debt whatever...

Where was my equal protection under the law??

[waterman]

Originally Posted by pagemastr

Just ask the GM workers, suppliers, banks, auto dealers, their mechanics, sales people, secretaries, GM and Dodge new hires, their families, and the thousands of others connected with the supply / support chain in the Auto industry if the bailout was worth it. Ask Honda, Toyota, and other American car builders what would have likely happened to their suppliers without the big three still in business if it was worth it. I never worked for them but have family and friends who have. Though my job at the time wasn't dependent on GM we did supply equipment to them, rim rollers, stackers, slitters, shears and other equipment, and their business contributed to some semblance of job security as was possible back then.

They are better off for the restructuring than before it. It ain't over but I guess it just isn't happenning fast enough. Given that it kept tens of thousands of people working and keeping a roof over their head and food on their table, keeping them off the welfare roles and food stamps and keeping them from bankruptcy as well (though thousands were not so lucky), I support the GM bailout so much more than the banking industry bailout though neither should have been necessary with better management or less greed.

They bailed out GM and the workers are happy for it. Why didn't they bailout all the small businesses that went under because of the recession? Thousands of people lost their jobs because of that and went on the roll of welfare. Suppliers lost business because of those losses as well. The GM bailout is no different than the bank bailouts. Bad decisions by management put all businesses in jeopardy. However, one of the frustrating issues was that those that made those bad decisions were given large bonuses.

Neither bailout was good in my opinion and more strings should have been attached to the bailouts. However, there are still hundred if not thousands of small businesses that were left out and closed. Are their employee’s any different than that of GM?

One thing I think that we both can agree on is management in all phases of these companies should have been shown the door. That includes upper level CEO as well as the union management which has put burdens on the future of some of these companies.

[NRiderUSA]

Originally Posted by waterman

They bailed out GM and the workers are happy for it. Why didn't they bailout all the small businesses that went under because of the recession? Thousands of people lost their jobs because of that and went on the roll of welfare. Suppliers lost business because of those losses as well. The GM bailout is no different than the bank bailouts. Bad decisions by management put all businesses in jeopardy. However, one of the frustrating issues was that those that made those bad decisions were given large bonuses.

Neither bailout was good in my opinion and more strings should have been attached to the bailouts. However, there are still hundred if not thousands of small businesses that were left out and closed. Are their employee’s any different than that of GM?

One thing I think that we both can agree on is management in all phases of these companies should have been shown the door. That includes upper level CEO as well as the union management which has put burdens on the future of some of these companies.

Guess if one were to check out how many $ Unions donated to someones campaign they might undestand the why's....IMHO

Bad management will never be targeted... after all look at our leaders and the example of failure without responsibility example they keep setting.... it will always be the workers or some imagined/created enemy's fault.....its law now, they have made sure they cant be held responsible.

[Netnorske]

This sounds about right....

[NRiderUSA]

Here's another good one on "distribution of weath" and where it leads......

Appears Breaking and Entering is no longer a crime if you call it homesteading..... AND they have a class paid for by us to teach them proper break in Etiquette's and rules.

Why not a class on some skill that will allow them to provide for themselves one might ask??? Got me...

New York City-funded group teaching homeless how to invade apartments

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/25...#ixzz1q9OwZi8t

[Loafer]

Once they are inside the building, good luck getting them out.