GM chief Wagoner ousted by Obama

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 20:57
VIEWED: 6367
PAGE 1 of 1

GEEZER

Monday, March 30, 2009 12:18 PM

Quote:
The chief executive of struggling US car company General Motors has been ordered to step down by US President Barack Obama.

Rick Wagoner will leave immediately, a government official confirmed.

Mr Obama is preparing to outline terms for offering more help to GM and fellow car giant Chrysler.

The two firms have already received $17.4bn (£14.4bn) in bail-outs. Chrysler has requested a further $5bn while GM says it needs $16.7bn more.

Plans rejected

Reports have suggested that a frustrated Mr Obama will reject GM and Chrysler's turnaround plans as unrealistic, raising the risk of the carmakers' bankruptcy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7971202.stm

Not that Mr. Waggoner has been doing a stellar job, but I find the concept that the PRESIDENT can fire an employee of a private business, coupled with the Administration's demonstrated will to punish anyone they think is making too much money, troubling. It seems a violation of the basic American principle that you should be able to work where you can and earn what you can. At this point no one will mind, because it's just "rich" folk having their rights tampered with, but is this just the camel's nose under the tent?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SERGEANTX

Monday, March 30, 2009 1:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
It seems a violation of the basic American principle that you should be able to work where you can and earn what you can.

I don't think basic American principles are part of the plan. "Independence" and "freedom" don't play well with corporate bailouts.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

KWICKO

Monday, March 30, 2009 1:31 PM

I view it more along the lines of "if you want to borrow money from us, you're going to abide by the restrictions we impose upon you". Kind of like banks and finance companies do to us mere mortals every day.

Of course, GM doesn't *have* to take the gubmint's money, ya know... And it's going to be hard to convince anybody that losing $100 billion over the last few months is the kind of "performance" that should allow you to keep your job.

Just offering a view from a different vantage point. Your mileage may vary.

Mike

\m/

I'm something of a ne'er-do-well
even though that's something I could never do well...

The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

SERGEANTX

Monday, March 30, 2009 1:34 PM

And here's what scary about that. Thinking people are able to maintain the distinction between companies that throw away their right to self-determination by asking for government handouts, and those that do not. But "thinking people" are a minority. For the rest, this will establish precedent for the government as the final "decider" in business.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

KWICKO

Monday, March 30, 2009 1:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
And here's what scary about that. Thinking people are able to maintain the distinction between companies that throw away their right to self-determination by asking for government handouts, and those that do not. But "thinking people" are a minority. For the rest, this will establish precedent for the government as the final "decider" in business.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

I'm not sure I follow ya, Sarge.

Are you saying that if you go begging the government for money, they shouldn't have ANY say in how you spend it or what you do after that?

Try that with a loan officer at your local bank sometime, and see how that works for ya.

Ford doesn't want the White House setting any terms for them, so they didn't take the money.

SERGEANTX

Monday, March 30, 2009 1:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Are you saying that if you go begging the government for money, they shouldn't have ANY say in how you spend it or what you do after that?

Not at all. The opposite.

My concern is that the distinction between those taking the handouts and those who don't will get lost going forward - that this will establish precedent (in the minds of the public if not legally) for government as the finally arbiter of business decisions. A fair number of us would like to see that line blurred as it is.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

WULFENSTAR

Monday, March 30, 2009 1:57 PM

Does this gall anyone else? That while "we the people" will be footing the bill for these companies, GM and all the others who asked for a handout, will still be charging the same price to the American consumer?

So, on top of being forced to pay for it through your taxes, if you wanted to buy one of their shitty cars...you'd still have to pay full price.

How is that right?

SERGEANTX

Monday, March 30, 2009 1:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
How is that right?

Right???

Where have you been?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

KWICKO

Monday, March 30, 2009 1:59 PM

Ah, I gotcha. Wasn't sure what you were trying to say, but not I get it.

And while I can see your concern, I don't necessarily share it. As it is, if you're getting money from "the gubmint", you have to meet their terms to do so. It's true for welfare, it's true for farm subsidies, and it's true for military contractors as well. I don't really see any cause for alarm when it's applied to the auto industry.

I think AuRaptor brought it up in another thread, when someone was complaining about the usurious fees charged by banks on borrowed money: If you don't like the terms, don't take the money. Not sure why it should be different for very large businesses.

Also, as I understand it, it's pretty common for a company to be placed into receivership when it goes bankrupt, and a court or a bank will typically oust the chairman and the board of directors and install their own picks, in order to gain better custodianship of their money and their investment. To me, this just seems like that kind of deal, only a bit larger in scope because it's GM.

KWICKO

Monday, March 30, 2009 2:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Does this gall anyone else? That while "we the people" will be footing the bill for these companies, GM and all the others who asked for a handout, will still be charging the same price to the American consumer?

So, on top of being forced to pay for it through your taxes, if you wanted to buy one of their shitty cars...you'd still have to pay full price.

How is that right?

If I didn't know better, I'd say you were arguing FOR socialism or communism right there. If "we" own the means of production, should "we" just get to stand in line for free cars?

WULFENSTAR

Monday, March 30, 2009 2:19 PM

Absolutly not.

But since we are stuck with it, we should "get" something from it.

I have NEVER been for these bailout/handouts.

If it had been me...I would have just let them fail.

SERGEANTX

Monday, March 30, 2009 2:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Also, as I understand it, it's pretty common for a company to be placed into receivership when it goes bankrupt, and a court or a bank will typically oust the chairman and the board of directors and install their own picks, in order to gain better custodianship of their money and their investment.

Well, that's what SHOULD be happening. But it's not. Real bankruptcy draws crystal clear lines. In such a case the business has failed. Game over. All that's left is cleaning up the mess.

The current trend is different and establishes the government as part owner of business. We free market kooks recognize this as a fundamental change of US domestic policy. It's a move toward socialism.

Now I don't mean to use that term as a boogeyman here, but I don't like to see major changes in government policy whisked in through the back door during emergences. That was essentially the modus operandi of the Bush admin as they gutted our constitution in the name of the "War on Terror". Now we're playing the same game with the "financial crisis".

If we want to become a socialist state, let's talk about it. We should propose it openly and let an honest debate take place.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

WASHNWEAR

Monday, March 30, 2009 2:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Does this gall anyone else? That while "we the people" will be footing the bill for these companies, GM and all the others who asked for a handout, will still be charging the same price to the American consumer?

So, on top of being forced to pay for it through your taxes, if you wanted to buy one of their shitty cars...you'd still have to pay full price.

How is that right?

If I didn't know better, I'd say you were arguing FOR socialism or communism right there. If "we" own the means of production, should "we" just get to stand in line for free cars?

Yeah, but we shold at least get a mug...or a crappy 50-50 t-shirt that says "I helped bail out the Big 3 and all I got was this crappy 50-50 t-shirt!"

Ya know - somethin'...

W W R D ?
What would Rorschach do?

GEEZER

Monday, March 30, 2009 2:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Does this gall anyone else? That while "we the people" will be footing the bill for these companies, GM and all the others who asked for a handout, will still be charging the same price to the American consumer?

So, on top of being forced to pay for it through your taxes, if you wanted to buy one of their shitty cars...you'd still have to pay full price.

How is that right?

Given that the 2009 Federal budget is expected to be $3.1 trillion, and the bailouts so far are about $30 billion, appx. 1% of your tax bill went for loans to the auto companies. So if you paid $10,000 in taxes, you deserve a $100 discount. If you look at what both American and foreign cars are selling for right now, you'll see that most everything is discounted way more than $100. It's actually a pretty good time to buy a car.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Monday, March 30, 2009 3:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by WASHnwear:
Yeah, but we shold at least get a mug...or a crappy 50-50 t-shirt that says "I helped bail out the Big 3 and all I got was this crappy 50-50 t-shirt!"

Ya know - somethin'...

How 'bout?

"I kept a million auto workers, engineering and design techs, parts company employees, and auto dealer mechanics out of the unemployment lines...and all I got was this crappy t-shirt"

"Keep the Shiny side up"

WULFENSTAR

Monday, March 30, 2009 3:08 PM

How about..."I don't give a fuck about employees who work for a company that can't produce a viable product." -T-shirt

PHOENIXROSE

Monday, March 30, 2009 3:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I find the concept that the PRESIDENT can fire an employee of a private business, coupled with the Administration's demonstrated will to punish anyone they think is making too much money, troubling.

See, I know more than one other person has made this point, but I just have to reiterate...
When you've taken billions of dollars in aide from the federal government, and made such fantastic(!) use of it that you can claim to need sixteen billion more... Yeah, I think you can be 'fired' for poor performance. Me, I think you can be imprisoned for such irresponsibility with federal funds; taxpayer money, no matter what percentage of the overall budget it may be.
Punish anyone making too much money? Are you serious? Have they started stringing up the guys at Microsoft? Google? Coca-cola? NO! They're going after the bastards who gave themselves massive paychecks out of federal bailout money. The people who seemed to think that they should remain in the upper percentage of earnings, even while their company collapsed around their ears. The people who, in short, consider themselves and their pocketbooks more important than anything or anyone else. Even though they were likely 'bailed out' because they're such a massive employer, they don't consider that it's about the employees, and not them. They never have, because most big corporations are too stupid to realize their employees are their greatest asset, they just want to wring as much work as possible out of them, for what amounts to barely a living wage. They're just out to screw anyone they can. Screw the taxpayers, screw the consumers, screw the whole federal government, they need a new solid-marble bidet to wash away their non-stinking shit!
Well SCREW THEM!!!

[/sig]

KWICKO

Monday, March 30, 2009 4:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by WASHnwear:
Yeah, but we shold at least get a mug...or a crappy 50-50 t-shirt that says "I helped bail out the Big 3 and all I got was this crappy 50-50 t-shirt!"

Ya know - somethin'...

How 'bout?

"I kept a million auto workers, engineering and design techs, parts company employees, and auto dealer mechanics out of the unemployment lines...and all I got was this crappy t-shirt"

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Well, a t-shirt like that for everyone that contributed to the bailouts, would also keep a lot of t-shirt printers busy!

As for discounts - Well, I saw a while back where the local Nissan dealer had a special going: $18,000 off the price of a Nissan Titan pickup! That's like saying, "Buy the pickup, we'll throw in a Versa for free!"

And still, Nissan sales are down some 43%...

GEEZER

Monday, March 30, 2009 4:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Punish anyone making too much money? Are you serious? Have they started stringing up the guys at Microsoft? Google? Coca-cola?

Not yet, but now they have precedent - the foot in the door, as it were.

In another thread, an article about the Tesla Motor Company's new car mentioned that Tesla is getting a grant from the Dept. of Energy. So is it now all right for the government to step in and remove Tesla management and control company salary?

If Microsoft or Google (or even Coke) sell to the government, does that give the government a say in their businesses?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

ANTHONYT

Monday, March 30, 2009 4:17 PM

"I'll make him an offer he can't refuse..."

Hello,

What we are watching here is the government taking control of private enterprise. It is rather much akin to going up to a vagrant on the street, putting twenty dollars in his hand, and saying, "All right, bum. Now you're going to do what I say."

Between this, and punitive taxes created for the purpose of invalidating employment contracts, it can hardly be argued that the big auto companies and the big banks continue to function as private industry.

Private citizens take government money too, in the form of tax credits. The only difference between dictating the lives of these private citizens and dictating the lives of 'fat cat' corporate honchos is one of scale.

Now, of course we all think, "This will never happen" but I honestly never thought the government would interfere with legal employment contracts either.

There may be valid reasons to think that the government should tell you where you can work and how much you are allowed to earn. It may be a viable form of government.

But it makes me uncomfortable. I don't think it's a form of government I want our nation to adopt.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Monday, March 30, 2009 4:24 PM

Wulf, I understand you're upset, but you really need to ask yourself what the alternatives are.

1) GM gets bought by another carmaker. Or another country. Like China. Are you happy now? Hey, no bailouts needed, so that's good, right? And who cares what they do with the company and the workers - after all, it's not like they were building anything worth a shit anyway, right?

2) GM fails. GM's workers go on the dole - and they'll be on unemployment for qutie a while, since there are going to be an awful lot of OTHER jobs that also won't be around for them to fill. Automotive parts manufacturers, stamping plants, steel plants, glass and plastics companies, electronics, textiles (who makes all that seat fabric and all those carpet sets?). Kiss those jobs goodbye, probably for good. Not ALL of those companies will fail, but a good number of them will. Allison Diesel, for instance, who supply a large number of GM's diesel engines, will likely cease to exist without those orders.

It's not JUST GM that's running on fumes - it's everyone who supplies them, and everyone who supplies THOSE companies. As was said more than a generation ago, "As GM goes, so goes the nation." It's still true, to a large extent.

So if you're fine with watching it all fall apart, then that's okay. Also, if you're fine with watching your neighbor's house burn to the ground and not lifting a finger to help, then that's your right as well. After all, what are the odds that YOUR house could catch fire, right?

Just a few things to ponder...

\m/

I'm something of a ne'er-do-well
even though that's something I could never do well...

The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

KWICKO

Monday, March 30, 2009 4:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Punish anyone making too much money? Are you serious? Have they started stringing up the guys at Microsoft? Google? Coca-cola?

Not yet, but now they have precedent - the foot in the door, as it were.

In another thread, an article about the Tesla Motor Company's new car mentioned that Tesla is getting a grant from the Dept. of Energy. So is it now all right for the government to step in and remove Tesla management and control company salary?

If Microsoft or Google (or even Coke) sell to the government, does that give the government a say in their businesses?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

In short, YES.

Or, to put another example out there, Lockheed sells to the military. Does the Pentagon now get to tell Lockheed what to build?

When you do ANY work for the government, you have to abide by the terms of their contract, or you don't get paid. That applies if you're Coke, Microsoft, Lockheed, or GM.

\m/

I'm something of a ne'er-do-well
even though that's something I could never do well...

The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

KWICKO

Monday, March 30, 2009 4:30 PM

Quote:

What we are watching here is the government taking control of private enterprise. It is rather much akin to going up to a vagrant on the street, putting twenty dollars in his hand, and saying, "All right, bum. Now you're going to do what I say."

Or, put another way, it's akin to hiring somebody and telling them, "All right, employee. Now you're going to do what I say, because that's your job and it's what I pay you for."

You can refuse to take the money, and the job, and go out on the street and be that bum if you want. You DO have that choice.

KWICKO

Monday, March 30, 2009 4:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Now, of course we all think, "This will never happen" but I honestly never thought the government would interfere with legal employment contracts either.

There may be valid reasons to think that the government should tell you where you can work and how much you are allowed to earn. It may be a viable form of government.

But it makes me uncomfortable. I don't think it's a form of government I want our nation to adopt.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Obviously you were never an air traffic controller. What did Reagan do when he fired them for asking for more money and better working conditions? He used the government to void their contracts, he used the government to tell them where they could work and how much they could earn.

And he was hailed as a hero for it.

Just something to ponder...

SERGEANTX

Monday, March 30, 2009 4:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Obviously you were never an air traffic controller. What did Reagan do when he fired them for asking for more money and better working conditions? He used the government to void their contracts, he used the government to tell them where they could work and how much they could earn.

Well, sure. They were government employees. I think what Anthony is concerned with is the trend toward all of us becoming defacto government employees. You can make the point that we don't have to play, but as the government encroaches more and more in this fashion, our options will be more limited. This is particularly hard to swallow when such an expansion is funded with taxpayer dollars.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SERGEANTX

Monday, March 30, 2009 4:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So if you're fine with watching it all fall apart, then that's okay. Also, if you're fine with watching your neighbor's house burn to the ground and not lifting a finger to help, then that's your right as well.

I'd like to point out that you're suggesting something of a false dichotomy here. It's not a choice between government bailouts and utter nihilism. Lot's of us are against bailouts and institutional welfare, but very enthusiastic about helping out our neighbors and coming together as a community to solve problems. We just prefer to do it through voluntary efforts rather than government mandate.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

WULFENSTAR

Monday, March 30, 2009 4:58 PM

"I'd like to point out that you're suggesting something of a false dichotomy here. It's not a choice between government bailouts and utter nihilism. Lot's of us are against bailouts and institutional welfare, but very enthusiastic about helping out our neighbors and coming together as a community to solve problems. We just prefer to do it through voluntary efforts rather than government mandate. "

EXACTLY

ANTHONYT

Monday, March 30, 2009 5:00 PM

Hello,

Some points I'd like to make.

First, I never feel that the government should interfere with private contracts that don't include violations of law. Were I politically aware at the time that Reagan invalidated private contracts, I would have spoken out then, as well.

Second, it is a false dilemma to suggest that this is an either/or situation. This is the falsehood that has been presented to us: That we must either aid these companies (and take them over) or watch America fail.

Really? Are those honestly our only options? I can't say I agree with that reasoning.

Before I spend 100 billion dollars to prop up a failing industry, I would rather dole out a thousand $100 million government grants to start up a thousand new auto and/or banking businesses.

I'm sure there are other good ideas not on the table. That frustrates me.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Monday, March 30, 2009 5:11 PM

By the way, I didn't really hear many people complaining about it when the unions were being forced to renogiate THEIR contracts in order for the automakers to get bailout money. Is it only unfair when it's the management that has to give up ground?

By the way, GM does do an awful lot of business with the government. If the administration wanted to nationalize GM and take control of it completely, in the interests of national security, I'm sure they probably could get away with it. Bush made sure to cut a wide swath through the laws when it comes to what you can do in the name of "national security", after all.

\m/

I'm something of a ne'er-do-well
even though that's something I could never do well...

The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

KWICKO

Monday, March 30, 2009 5:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Some points I'd like to make.

First, I never feel that the government should interfere with private contracts that don't include violations of law. Were I politically aware at the time that Reagan invalidated private contracts, I would have spoken out then, as well.

Second, it is a false dilemma to suggest that this is an either/or situation. This is the falsehood that has been presented to us: That we must either aid these companies (and take them over) or watch America fail.

Really? Are those honestly our only options? I can't say I agree with that reasoning.

Do you have other options available, that are ready to implement today?

Unfortunately, these really MAY BE our only options right now. Why? Because we waited 'til right now to address a problem that was years in the making.

Raise your hand if, a few years ago when GM was raking in record profits during the height of the SUV craze, you raised any concerns about the bonuses and dividends they were throwing around, rather than putting money, time, and effort into modernizing plants, designing and engineering better, more fuel-efficient cars, or just banking the cash for a rainy day. Who here knew that it wasn't going to last? Anyone (besides me, I mean)?

Quote:

Before I spend 100 billion dollars to prop up a failing industry, I would rather dole out a thousand $100 million government grants to start up a thousand new auto and/or banking businesses.

I'm sure there are other good ideas not on the table. That frustrates me.

--Anthony

Well, that would be great, but then wouldn't all those people be defacto government employees?

I don't really have a horse in this race, or a side in this fight. What I *DO* have is a desire to not see this devolve into the usual 5-second-sound-bite issue, amid the usual catcalls of "See?! He's a SOCIALIST!"

What I'm doing right now is just playing devil's advocate. I'm trying to show holes in your arguments, as you're trying to show holes in mine. It's probably something that should have been done a long time ago by the U.S. auto industry, but no manufacturer ever seems to want to ask itself, "And then what?"

WASHNWEAR

Monday, March 30, 2009 5:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by WASHnwear:
Yeah, but we shold at least get a mug...or a crappy 50-50 t-shirt that says "I helped bail out the Big 3 and all I got was this crappy 50-50 t-shirt!"

Ya know - somethin'...

How 'bout?

"I kept a million auto workers, engineering and design techs, parts company employees, and auto dealer mechanics out of the unemployment lines...and all I got was this crappy t-shirt"

Well, a t-shirt like that for everyone that contributed to the bailouts, would also keep a lot of t-shirt printers busy!

[georgeCostanza]"Silk Screen-Ready", baby - that's what I'm talkin' about![/georgeCostanza]

Quote:
As for discounts - Well, I saw a while back where the local Nissan dealer had a special going: $18,000 off the price of a Nissan Titan pickup! That's like saying, "Buy the pickup, we'll throw in a Versa for free!"

And still, Nissan sales are down some 43%...

What I'd kinda like is a good deal on a used Frontier, '04 model or so, before they started looking like atrophied Titans...

W W R D ?
What would Rorschach do?

WASHNWEAR

Monday, March 30, 2009 5:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by WASHnwear:
Yeah, but we shold at least get a mug...or a crappy 50-50 t-shirt that says "I helped bail out the Big 3 and all I got was this crappy 50-50 t-shirt!"

Ya know - somethin'...

How 'bout?

"I kept a million auto workers, engineering and design techs, parts company employees, and auto dealer mechanics out of the unemployment lines...and all I got was this crappy t-shirt"

That's kinda wordy for a t-shirt, doncha think?

But seriously - I'm not insensitive to the scope of the crisis and the large number of peeps involved. I was just posting in my default role of Lurker / Serial Irrelevance Injector, and not my less practiced role of Making a Substantive Contribution.

W W R D ?
What would Rorschach do?

KWICKO

Monday, March 30, 2009 5:42 PM

WashNWear:

Let's make a deal - NO 50/50 tees, please! Only 100% cotton, baby. 6.1 or 7-ounce tees. Preferably ring-spun. Beefy-Tees, LofTeez, of Jerzees ZTs, if you please.

WULFENSTAR

Monday, March 30, 2009 5:46 PM

How bout...

"Its my generations fault for turning America into a Socialist State. Please kill me for the benefit of future generations."?

KWICKO

Monday, March 30, 2009 5:59 PM

Wulfie, America has been at least to some degree a "socialist state" ever since we first banded together as a common country with a common purpose of working together to protect each other - the greatest good for the greatest number, in other words.

Sorry, but the old "but... SOCIALISM!" bogeyman just don't scare me any more. We've had socialism here for far longer than you or I have been alive.

Tell me, did you go to private school?

KWICKO

Monday, March 30, 2009 6:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
How bout...

"Please kill me for the benefit of future generations."?

Sounds like a damn good start!

WASHNWEAR

Monday, March 30, 2009 6:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
WashNWear:

Let's make a deal - NO 50/50 tees, please! Only 100% cotton, baby. 6.1 or 7-ounce tees. Preferably ring-spun. Beefy-Tees, LofTeez, of Jerzees ZTs, if you please.

Well, sure - any of those would be my pref, anyway (50-50 Ts are part of the required dress code in the Special Hell). I was just tryin' to keep in the "value-subtracted" spirit of the whole thing.

W W R D ?
What would Rorschach do?

SIGNYM

Monday, March 30, 2009 6:38 PM

Quote:
"I don't give a fuck about employees who work for a company that can't produce a viable product."

Unfortunately, it's not the employees deciding which "line" of cars to pursue, how much money should go into research and re-tooling, whether the company should focus on building cars or providing financing, or what kind of quality control is acceptable. And one thing I can't fault even GM management for (as short-sighted and greedy as I think they are) is the onerous costs that "free-market" health care has placed on them (relative to other countries' health-care costs). So you're punishing the peeps least likely to be the cause of the problem.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

CITIZEN

Monday, March 30, 2009 7:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
What we are watching here is the government taking control of private enterprise. It is rather much akin to going up to a vagrant on the street, putting twenty dollars in his hand, and saying, "All right, bum. Now you're going to do what I say."

Like my boss today, he told me to do something. I told him to stick it, just because he's giving me money, don't mean he gets to tell me what to do.

AURAPTOR

Monday, March 30, 2009 7:23 PM

Gov't control of private enterprise.

Folks, THAT is fascism.

CITIZEN

Monday, March 30, 2009 7:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Gov't control of private enterprise.

Folks, THAT is fascism.

If it were you'd be all for it. There's more to fascism than that, and this is far from "government control of private enterprise".

ANTHONYT

Monday, March 30, 2009 7:30 PM

Hello Citizen,

It seems more to me like your home mortgage provider telling you how many kids to have, what groceries to buy, and where to work.

Perhaps, too, it is the "back-door" control that the government is exercising that bothers me. The stipulations for the money weren't set up front. The government didn't say, "If you take this money, you'll have to do what we say."

They said, "Take this money. Nice, isn't it? Now, you're going to do what we say!"

If the government really wants to tell these companies what to do, the best way might be to buy a voting interest in the company. Then they can vote like all other shareholders. At least that would be straight-up and within the system as designed.

Instituting after-the-fact retroactive punitive taxes? That is not kosher to me.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

ANTHONYT

Monday, March 30, 2009 7:36 PM

"Well, that would be great, but then wouldn't all those people be defacto government employees?"

Hello,

Yes, but like all good welfare programs, it carries the promise of creating long-haul jobs that don't require further government assistance. Rather than pouring cash into the existing proven money pit and complaining that it all seems to go down the drain, take a chance investing in new ideas for a brighter future.

The new businesses could immediately hire the experienced workers from the existing failed businesses. The new businesses could immediately purchase equipment and corporate infrastructure from the existing failed businesses. And if the new businesses innovate (as they would need to do in order to survive) then they will force construction of parts and pieces that don't currently exist, further sparking the economy.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

STORYMARK

Monday, March 30, 2009 7:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Not that Mr. Waggoner has been doing a stellar job, but I find the concept that the PRESIDENT can fire an employee of a private business, coupled with the Administration's demonstrated will to punish anyone they think is making too much money, troubling. It seems a violation of the basic American principle that you should be able to work where you can and earn what you can. At this point no one will mind, because it's just "rich" folk having their rights tampered with, but is this just the camel's nose under the tent?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

This private company ASKED the government to get involved, after all.

It's not just the President firing a guy, it's the President saying "We're not giving this tax money to the same bozo who drove the company into the ground".

I'd be pissed if the guy DID keep his job.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

PHOENIXROSE

Monday, March 30, 2009 8:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Tesla is getting a grant from the Dept. of Energy. So is it now all right for the government to step in and remove Tesla management and control company salary?

If it's found that the grant money that was meant for development has instead gone into a CEO bonus package? YES.
Where are you getting the thing about controlling salary? I just saw an irresponsible cretin being removed from the danger zone, not any statements about what the workers will make hence forth.
This is being done to keep the infrastructure from collapsing. It's being done so thousands of people can keep their jobs. It wasn't done so the guy who really isn't struggling to put food on the table could serve the food on gold plates.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
buy a voting interest in the company.

That might well have been a better use for that 17 billion dollars. However, I have to say, if I asked someone for 17 billion dollars for a repair job on my office building or something, and they actually gave it to me, and four months later I had a new car, new jet, new house, and a private island, but the roof on the company that should have been supplying my income was still leaking and I said "Oh no, I'm out of money, will you help me out again?" I think they'd be justified in being upset with me.

[/sig]

SIGNYM

Monday, March 30, 2009 8:28 PM

Quote:
Gov't control of private enterprise. Folks, THAT is fascism.

I keep telling ya rapo, ya got it bass akwards. Fascism is private enterprise controlling government. And we've been there and done that already, especially under Bush.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

BYTEMITE

Monday, March 30, 2009 8:40 PM

I thought fascism was a single party or strong dictatorship that cannot be removed from power and manipulates a sense of nationalism to convince the public to go along with whatever they have planned.

Not that you're wrong and we haven't already been there a while...

SERGEANTX

Monday, March 30, 2009 9:11 PM

fascism is in the eye of the beholder.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

WASHNWEAR

Monday, March 30, 2009 9:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
fascism is in the eye of the beholder.

SergeantX

Fascism is like a wreath of pretty flowers...that smell bad.

W W R D ?
What would Rorschach do?

AURAPTOR

Monday, March 30, 2009 9:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Gov't control of private enterprise. Folks, THAT is fascism.
I keep telling ya rapo, ya got it bass akwards. Fascism is private enterprise controlling government. And we've been there and done that already, especially under Bush.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

Sig, if I disagree w/ you, it's because you're wrong. Who kicked who out of office just today? Did GM's chief oust Obama ? ( Lord, how I wish ! )

Only the Gov't has the 'lawful' use of force to back up its power. I wish the private sector could run Gov't, but that's simply never going to be the case

There's your answer, and here's your sign.

KWICKO

Monday, March 30, 2009 10:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
fascism is in the eye of the beholder.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

Fascism is in the eye of whoever I damn well say it is!

KWICKO

Monday, March 30, 2009 10:44 PM

Don't waste too many of your tears crying over Rick Wagoner - his retirement buyout is said to be worth $23 million, so I think he's probably going to land on his feet.

The funny part is, he'll get another CEO job with some damn-fool company, and they won't even notice that under his "leadership", GM stock lost over 96% of its value.

That's livin' the American dream, folks!

\m/

I'm something of a ne'er-do-well
even though that's something I could never do well...

The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

WHOZIT

Monday, March 30, 2009 11:33 PM

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Workers-say-Obama-treated-apf-14789941.h
tml

Most of these over paid union douchebags voted for Barry, sorry but they'll get no pitty from me

CITIZEN

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 1:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
They said, "Take this money. Nice, isn't it? Now, you're going to do what we say!"

Yeah, it's just like a share holder in a company, that's just bought a major stake in it, thinking they have a right to a say in it's operation.

Since when do shareholders get a say?

I mean it's not like the car manufactures lobbied for a government bailout is it? Its not like they then took it willingly. Its not like the White House only asked, not forced the guy to step down. Its not like he only stepped down so that the government would give them more money that they were asking for...

They wanted the money. They asked for it. My take is that the Government, not wanting to throw good money after bad, said "if you want more money, there'll have to be some changes". Then GM decided to make those changes, in order to get their hands on lots of lovely free money. They could of just said no, keep your money, we'll carry on as we are. They chose between keeping their CEO, and a big federal bailout they were asking for.

That's where your loan analogy breaks down. Even if there was more merit to it, its chronology and spin are wrong. It's like a lender, who's just given you money for a new house, saying "ok, we'll re-mortgage for you, but there's some extra stipulations you'll have to adhere to if you do". Honestly there's a lot of "anti-socialism" folks getting all upset because some company isn't getting free money right about here. Don't feel sorry for them, they've made their choices with full knowledge of what that entails from day one. In fact this company had more foreknowledge of what their demands for more money would entail, than most of the people looking to lose their homes after being sold bad loans, that so many around here are happy to throw to the wolves. Less "respect for public enterprise", and more deferring to corporatism.

What I find really funny is seeing those that defended torture, extraordinary rendition, and illegal wars (that's not you by the wat AT) to the hilt, shout Fascism when Obama puts some rather minor rules on the purse strings.

GEEZER

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 1:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
If it's found that the grant money that was meant for development has instead gone into a CEO bonus package? YES.
Where are you getting the thing about controlling salary? I just saw an irresponsible cretin being removed from the danger zone, not any statements about what the workers will make hence forth.

You're confusing GM with AIG. No one is accusing GM management of using the bailout money for bonuses. It's AIG which the government is threatening with punative taxes, for paying bonuses equal to around 3% of their annual payroll. GM just isn't doing what the government thinks it needs to to become solvent. Considering how deep in the hole the proposed 2009 U.S. budget puts us, is the government really the best judge of how to make a profit?

Quote:
That might well have been a better use for that 17 billion dollars. However, I have to say, if I asked someone for 17 billion dollars for a repair job on my office building or something, and they actually gave it to me, and four months later I had a new car, new jet, new house, and a private island, but the roof on the company that should have been supplying my income was still leaking and I said "Oh no, I'm out of money, will you help me out again?" I think they'd be justified in being upset with me.

You're the kind of person the current government loves. You don't know who's doing what, don't look beyond the soundbites the media feeds you, and are jealous of folks who make more money than you - who are obviously (in your opinion) ripping everyone off. They can channel your misguided rage to support pretty much anything they want to do.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

KWICKO

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 2:26 AM

Quote:

No one is accusing GM management of using the bailout money for bonuses.

Well, they ARE giving Wagoner some $23,000,000 on his way out the door after being "fired" by the President... Some might see that as an unearned bonus, unless tanking the company's stock was all part of Wagoner's plan from the outset.

Quote:

You're the kind of person the current government loves. You don't know who's doing what, don't look beyond the soundbites the media feeds you, and are jealous of folks who make more money than you - who are obviously (in your opinion) ripping everyone off. They can channel your misguided rage to support pretty much anything they want to do.

And you were the kind of person the previous government loved. You didn't care who was doing what, didn't look beyond the soundbites the White House fed you, and were dismissive of folks who made less money than you - who were obviously (in your opinion) ripping you off. They could channel your misguided rage to support pretty much anything they wanted to do.

As for better uses for $17 billion, why don't you go invade Iraq some more; after all, it's only going to cost us $17 billion, remember?

Kinda sucks to get painted with that same broad brush you just used, huh?

PIZMOBEACH

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 3:08 AM

The value of GM stock dropped 96% under Wagoner. Um, ok?

As if that's not enough, GM basically held a loaded gun to the head of OUR government saying they would have to lay off x-thousand average every day workers if they didn't get a bailout, and that thousands of their suppliers' businesses would also have to shut down if they didn't get a bailout... are you kidding? The guy should be shaved into pieces... very slowly... people complain about bonuses? And then complain this guy getting axed? Which way do you want it?

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 3:51 AM

Hello,

I want us to not interfere with this business and let it burn to the ground.

I wish the rising smoke from this industry to be a signpost for all time that there is no such thing as 'too big to fail.'

I wish the government to foster new competition to these failed businesses, rather than propping up the decaying corpse of the old.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:02 AM

Quote:
people complain about bonuses? And then complain this guy getting axed? Which way do you want it?

Both ways, apparently.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:39 AM

Quote:
fascism is in the eye of the beholder.

Yeah, yeah. Whatever.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

RIVERDANCER

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:02 AM

Hey there, Geezer, could I have a billion dollars, no strings attached? Just a single middling billion, apparently a drop in the bucket, especially in comparison with all else. Whatdya say?

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:58 AM

I thought "free enterprise" was a tenet of American success.

RIPWASH

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 11:01 AM

In my opinion, it's stuff like this

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/28/business/main4760545.shtml

that is part of the problem. This kind of crap should have stopped a long time ago and it's my understanding the "jobs bank" has been around quite a while. Do the math, folks. I looked it up on the UAW site and an average worker gets paid $30/hour. If the people at this jobs bank are getting paid full salary to sit around and do nothing: $30 x 40/hrs x 52 weeks x 1,600 people . . . that comes to over $99 million a year that could have been put to use elsewhere. Feel free to correct my math, but I've done it twice and it came out the same way. And I'm not even certain if that includes standard benefits that these people were apparently provided with also.

If this is true, then think about how much GM could have spent on re-tooling, upgrading, modernizing, research, etc. It just blows my mind that this was allowed to continue.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

GEEZER

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 11:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RiverDancer:
Hey there, Geezer, could I have a billion dollars, no strings attached? Just a single middling billion, apparently a drop in the bucket, especially in comparison with all else. Whatdya say?

The money GM got was a loan, and you can bet there were strings attached, the biggest string being that it should be repaid. Very few folks seem to have figured this out; instead assuming that it's just a gift.

Maybe this explains the financial crisis. So many folk out there who didn't understand a loan was meant to be repaid.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
The guy should be shaved into pieces... very slowly... people complain about bonuses? And then complain this guy getting axed? Which way do you want it?

Well, I'd like to see a bit less of the lynch mob mentality. I'll probably be disappointed.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

KWICKO

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:03 PM

And so many others who apparently don't understand that loans occasionally have conditions that must be met...

KWICKO

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
The guy should be shaved into pieces... very slowly... people complain about bonuses? And then complain this guy getting axed? Which way do you want it?

Well, I'd like to see a bit less of the lynch mob mentality. I'll probably be disappointed.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Yes, the kill-'em-all mentality should ONLY be applied to Muslims...

[/snark]

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:06 PM

Ripwash

I spent half my life working in a union, and while I can't speak for all union workers, nor all unions, my experience was mixed at best. While there were still legitimate labor interests being represented, there was also an embarrassing amount of cruft.

There was a surprising level of the "I got mine" mentality and in many ways the union functioned as an exclusive club more intent on preserving member privileges than defending legitimate labor interests.

That said, the 'jobs bank' isn't as egregious as it might sound. Essentially it's extended unemployment insurance bargained for through legitimate contract negotiations. It's paid for from revenue that would have, in theory, been used to pay higher wages. In one sense it's a ripoff that those who have been 'paying into' the system for years will now have the benefit yanked when they may need it most.

In any case, the benefit was bargained for (relatively) honestly through legal contract negotiations. If there's any imbalance of power it rests in the legislation and regulations that prevent real open bargaining. Throughout the latter half of the twentieth century, labor law in the US became a form of largess from politicians used to buy votes from the unions.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RIPWASH

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:22 PM

Thanks for the insight, Sarge. It does help one understand the situation a little better. Your view on the unions from an inside perspective is pretty much what I've heard for a long time now. The laborers are out for themselves and that's it. Some (I'd say "many" but don't want to overstep my bounds) do as little as possible in order to make their quota or even put the "brakes" on what they're doing so they can come in over the weekends and earn overtime pay to do what they could have done in the span of a regular work week anyway.

I see what you're saying about the jobs bank, but it just doesn't look good to anyone not familiar with the process (and possibly even to those who are). 1,600 people would have been laid off. That's not a good thing, I understand that. But as I see it (again as one standing outside the system) to pay their full wage while they do basically nothing is taking gross advantage of the situation. These people could have possibly been looking for work elsewhere, but why should they? They're still getting paid. Meanwhile the company still has to keep their wages (unproductive pay in any way shape or form) in their books and thus part of the bottom line for which they have to make up for in sales.

All I'm saying is that $99 million a year is a huge chunk of change that could have gone toward lowering the sticker price on the cars and stimulate the economy, along with building their revenue and avoiding the mess they're in now.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

PIZMOBEACH

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
The guy should be shaved into pieces... very slowly... people complain about bonuses? And then complain this guy getting axed? Which way do you want it?

Well, I'd like to see a bit less of the lynch mob mentality. I'll probably be disappointed.

I have less of a problem with the bonuses - while they may be another gut punch they are not the source of the problem and they are legally obligated - we need to swallow hard and move on, one of life's pains to beare.

These guys though... as opposed to Anthony's desire to shred these businesses "watching them burn down" (dude, where'd you go?) this is a quick and surgical and powerful stroke with much less collateral damage. You think other CEOs don't feel like they've been served? "Oh sh*t, I didn't know he could do that!"

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:09 PM

Hello,

I love that America builds things. I hate that America has been building less and less each year since my birth. I'll be the first to shed a tear if/when we lose our automotive manufacturing industry, which I consider to be one of the last major manufacturing industries in the states.

However, it is a false dilemma to suggest that these companies can't be allowed to fail. They can be, and they should be. Because they have failed. They've been failing for years. And who was complaining while they were failing? Who was shouting a decade ago?

Me. I was. You have no idea how excited I was to someday buy my electric car. The best damn thing about Voyager was watching Voyager actors tout the EV-1 in television commercials. A viable electic car in 1990 built by an American car company? It was like watching the Jetsons come to life. And all the other car companies were licensing technology from GM. The Japanese were taking a step back from innovation and were forced to copy again. America was poised to recapture the leading edge of an emerging market.

It looks like I'll still get my chance, but the industry was retarded for a decade while the auto manufacturers tried to kill the idea. So I have a 2002 Kia Sportage in my driveway instead of a next-generation electric SUV. I almost want to shout in angst when I think about how electric car technology could have been nearly perfected in early 2000 if production and R&D had steamed full ahead, instead of sputtered along despite everyone's best intentions.

So, rather than 'bail out' these car companies and try to drag them kicking and screaming in the right direction despite themselves... rather than implement highly questionable retroactive punitive taxes and strong-arm tactics to force behavior... let them die. And as mercenary as it sounds, Piz, the smoke of their charred remains would be a much more effective warning to other businesses than retiring a CEO and filling his bank account with cash.

It's about right and wrong, and we seem to be doing everything in our arsenal to approach things from the absolute wrong angles. (In my opinion.)

--Anthony

edited to add: This is one of the commercials I remember from the Voyager cast.

http://ev1-club.power.net/ads/marvin2.aiff

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:50 PM

Quote:
So I have a 2002 Kia Sportage in my driveway

You poor, poor bastard - hope you paid for the extended warranty, cause workin on a Kia is a nightmare, and a sportage is worse!

There's no Hanes, no Clymer, about all you can do is hack the KGIS database and raid it for what little info there is - and then wrap your mind around such insanities as putting a seperate ignition coil on each spark plug instead of using a distributor cap, and tack welds in places where there should be screws...

Then somehow get it apart despite the fact that it was built without a care or concept that it might ever need repair instead of disposal, figure out what needs be replaced, actually FIND those parts if the dealer don't carry em, which is a quite common problem, and then some how, some way, get that thing put back together despite having to break some of those welds to get it apart in the first place...

Bonus points for doing this when it's raining, and getting dark - double points for needing to get under the hood and try to hook up hoses directly behind the center of the whole damn engine block and six inches above the transmission housing with 2" of room between that and the firewall for sufficient distance that no conventional tool will reach that far, and all surrounded by nasty bits of fairly sharp metal, once piece of which in particular having ZERO function whatever (maybe it was a clamp for a part not present on that model) save to present a serious injury risk to anyone attempting this.

Pro-tip, if your Kia sportage heater core starts leaking - set the goddamn thing on fire and walk away, you'll thank me, I swear.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:53 PM

Man...I cannot wait for Tesla (or someone else) to finally make an electric car I can afford. Simplicity = reliability.

Then, I can install some solar panels, and charge my car for free.

Not to mention upgrading my engine (i.e. battery) every 2 to 3 years.... SWEET!

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:53 PM

Re: Exec Bonuses.

Simple, at least to me.

"Dude, we're BROKE, we hired you to keep us afloat and you ran us into the ground and now we're bankrupt you shithead - we got nothing TO pay you with, thanks to your fucking incompetence, so hows about you whistle for it and be on your merry!"

Even Mal would agree, if you DON'T do the job, ya shouldn't get paid.

Niska would take that a mite bit further, and I find myself a little more sympathetic to that position, honestly.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:08 PM

Hello,

Problem is, Frem, they did all the job a bonus required. The bonus was in their contracts, and the stipulation for receiving it was met.

Bad contracts? Sure. Legal contracts? Absolutely.

Targeted punitive taxes? I thought you didn't like those, Frem. It's like if they raised the tax on cigarettes RETROACTIVELY. It's not kosher, no matter how I slice it.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:29 PM

Quote:
The bonus was in their contracts, and the stipulation for receiving it was met.

Tell it to Cameron-Barkley, or Oracle, or Visteon, or any of the other automotive supply chain management companies and spin offs used to dump 'deadweight' like pension obligations when the parent company folds em up and liquidates em back into capital and those now ex-employees who met the stipulations get told sorry, we're broke and there's no money to pay you.

I didn't see too many folk standing up for the sanctity of the contract then, did I now ?

Anyhow, they made that contract with the COMPANY, not the Govt - if the company cannot pay it, that is between them and the company - cause I DAMN sure didn't see the Gov steppin in when those damn poor souls in the automotive supply chain businesses had to whistle for THEIR bonus money.

Shit man, imma be perfectly blunt here, from a corporate perspective, it'd have been cheaper to hire assassins when it became obvious these goons had ruined the company they were supposed to keep afloat, and I'd likely not have said a word against it.

And yes, that's the companies fault for writing and agreeing to such a dimwitted contract in the first place - but dude, *I* did not fucking sign it, nor should I be in any way financially responsible for it.

And if I *MUST* be, well, professional assassins are the most cost effective alternative from that viewpoint, aren't they ?

No offense and all, but unless I signed on the dotted line, that buck doesn't stop here, it stops with the folk who did.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

KWICKO

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:14 PM

Quote:

All I'm saying is that $99 million a year is a huge chunk of change that could have gone toward lowering the sticker price on the cars and stimulate the economy, along with building their revenue and avoiding the mess they're in now.

Right you are, and it's a valid point. Now I'd like to hear it applied in the same fashion to the execs who are still being paid millions. One guy - "fired" CEO Rick Wagoner - is walking away with a $23,000,000 severance package. How much could THAT money have helped the company right about now? Again, these executive pay packages were negotiated, and they're part of legal contracts, but I'm thinking if the UAW has to give up perks, the execs should give them up as well.

Mike

just lying smiling in the dark
shooting stars around your heart
dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple everytime
now you're crying in your sleep
i wish you'd never learnt to weep
don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple everytime

RIPWASH

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:16 PM

I agree completely. These bonus/severance packages are obscene. But at least those guys are "working" . . . more or less

No . . . but really. Out of line no matter how you look at it.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

KWICKO

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:20 PM

Quote:

Pro-tip, if your Kia sportage heater core starts leaking - set the goddamn thing on fire and walk away, you'll thank me, I swear.

Don't do this. Instead, make sure the insurance is fully paid and up to date. THEN set it on fire, but only after reporting it stolen!

Mike

just lying smiling in the dark
shooting stars around your heart
dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple everytime
now you're crying in your sleep
i wish you'd never learnt to weep
don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple everytime

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:21 PM

Hello,

Frem, please understand that I’m no happier with this business than you are. I didn’t sign any contracts with these companies either, and I certainly can’t recall where I authorized a massive export of funds to float companies that I no longer consider to be viable.

I’m not crying for rich folks. I’m crying for a precedent that I consider very bad. I suppose giving them money was the first bad precedent. Stealing it back is the second.

I try to live very much by the principle of not doing to anyone else anything I’d not want done to me. As for the “who was crying back when” argument... If I’d have known, I’d have cried. I try to cry out at all injustices, not just those against people I like.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Man...I cannot wait for Tesla (or someone else) to finally make an electric car I can afford. Simplicity = reliability.

Then, I can install some solar panels, and charge my car for free.

Not to mention upgrading my engine (i.e. battery) every 2 to 3 years.... SWEET!

Except that so far, it's neither simple nor reliable. Look up the Top Gear (BBC) episode where they ran the Tesla roadster against the Lotus Elise (Lotus did most of the engineering and does a lot of the assembly of the Tesla's chassis). While the Tesla is inarguably fast - it beats the Elise around a twisty road course, and the Lotus is probably THE best-handling car you can legally drive on the street - it definitely wasn't "reliable" - it quit on them at least twice in the middle of testing.

Mike

just lying smiling in the dark
shooting stars around your heart
dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple everytime
now you're crying in your sleep
i wish you'd never learnt to weep
don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple everytime

PIRATENEWS

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:34 PM

Obama knows more about building cars and managing a business.

RU smarter than an dope dealing illegal alien tax-exempt "non-profit" foundation director?

KWICKO

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
Obama knows more about building cars and managing a business.

RU smarter than an dope dealing illegal alien tax-exempt "non-profit" foundation director?

At this point, with losses far in excess of the net worth of the company's entire holdings...

Wouldn't GM qualify as a "non-profit" foundation?

Mike

just lying smiling in the dark
shooting stars around your heart
dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple everytime
now you're crying in your sleep
i wish you'd never learnt to weep
don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple everytime

RUE

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:41 PM

AnthonyT

I don't approve of the AIG and corporate financial bailouts, since the meltdown could have been prevented at much smaller cost, and to better effect, by renegotiating predatory mortgages with the aid of the federal government.

I have no particular thoughts at the moment about these other bailouts. I did want to point out that federal bailouts of private entities and other levels of government go back to 1970.

http://www.propublica.org/special/government-bailouts

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RIVERDANCER

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
The money GM got was a loan, and you can bet there were strings attached, the biggest string being that it should be repaid.

So... you mean... if they weren't making money... were, in fact, still going down the crapper... and hence not able to repay the loan or even make a start at repaying the loan... and wanting still more money... that attached string... might... give the loaning entity a little bit of ground for complaint? Is this what you might be saying? I am wide-eyed with shock and innocence at the very idea.

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 9:59 PM

Quote:
I suppose giving them money was the first bad precedent. Stealing it back is the second.

Hell Anthony, I am right at the point where I almost wanna say just nationalise the bastards.

If we're gonna drop that much money on it, might as well fucking buy it outright and let us OWN it.

Then when we get crummy overpriced cars we can at least wrangle a tax deduction out of it since we're technically buying from a state-owned company, and once they're out of the picture and no longer using massive political largess to raise the barriers to entry like they did to Tucker back in 1948, given they'd be run with the usual government "efficiency" - the rise of actual competition is all but assured.

All that said, I was actually quite serious about my other suggestion too - were I a primary stockholder or board member, and found that the guy I paid an eight digit salary to run the company and keep it profitable just all but broke me, and did so in a way that he was gonna walk away with more money than his actions left me, I most certainly *WOULD* be engaging some less than savory professional services regarding that.

It is a bit ironic though, that the GM shareholders are getting a taste of what every homeowner nationwide is currently feeling, and you don't see THEM gettin a bailout, only the folks who screwed em.

I ain't too fond of lynch mobs, or rioting mobs of any kind cause they tend to be stupid and burn down the grocery store instead of city hall (and yanno, I've NEVER understood the impetuos behind that?) and target all the wrong people...

But specifically engaging retributive strikes against the individuals most responsible when they hide behind laws they more or less bought to protect themselves while thumbing their nose at us ?

Oh hell yes.

Who was it that said cannon are the final argument of kings ?
Well, I think we need to apply a certain level of that to the final argument of the people being someone having "an accident".

It would most certainly reduce much of the more overt corruption in our system.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

KWICKO

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 11:00 PM

If cannon are the final argument of kings, I'd have to say the guillotine is the final argument of the people.

I know Frem knows this already.

Sometimes justice announces its arrival with a hearty Kah-THUNK!

I think that's how he put it.

Or, put another way...

Mike

just lying smiling in the dark
shooting stars around your heart
dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple everytime
now you're crying in your sleep
i wish you'd never learnt to weep
don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple everytime

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 12:58 AM

How's this for a bailout agreement.

You keep the money.

We keep your head.

Sounds fair to me!

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

GEEZER

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 11:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Yes, the kill-'em-all mentality should ONLY be applied to Muslims...

[/snark]

I see you're letting your preconceptions and stereotypes outrun reality again.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 1:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

I see you're letting your preconceptions and stereotypes outrun reality again.

Right back atchya, sporto!

Or did you NOT write this in the opening of this thread?

Quote:
I find the concept that the PRESIDENT can fire an employee of a private business, coupled with the Administration's demonstrated will to punish anyone they think is making too much money, troubling.

So the President is going around "firing" (your word, not mine) people from their jobs for "making too much money"?

Or were you letting your preconceptions and stereotypes outrun reality yet again?

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 2:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
How's this for a bailout agreement.

You keep the money.

We keep your head.

Sounds fair to me!

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

Hello,

I hate being put in the position of the Scarlet Pimpernel. But once the blade starts falling, it is generally indiscriminate.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

PIZMOBEACH

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 3:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Not that Mr. Waggoner has been doing a stellar job, but I find the concept that the PRESIDENT can fire an employee of a private business, coupled with the Administration's demonstrated will to punish anyone they think is making too much money, troubling. It seems a violation of the basic American principle that you should be able to work where you can and earn what you can. At this point no one will mind, because it's just "rich" folk having their rights tampered with...

"the Administration's demonstrated will to punish anyone they think is making too much money..."

For one, it's not "anyone THEY think is making too much money." I think this is more the admin responding to what the American people have been crying out for. The admin's knowledge on the bonuses contradicts that they have it in for the wealthy, rather they are trying to show their understanding of what Joe public is feeling. And that's just good PR.

I find it ironical that Joe Public is outraged since it's their gluttonous behavior that is responsible for some of these excesses. They wish they were getting 23 million dollar pink slips.

"It seems a violation of the basic American principle that you should be able to work where you can and earn what you can."

That's a fundamental tenant of the American dream innit? BUT, it's also a fundamental human behavior that if you make that kinda dough (and it gets out or you flaunt it) people are going to want to see you fail big time.

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 3:24 PM

Hello,

Nobody cries for the witches during a witch hunt, because nobody likes a warty witch. But when someone points at YOU and calls you witch, you might feel differently.

There's more to bonuses and 'fat cat' luxurious business retreats than meets the eye sometimes.

Where I work, the most efficient workers are nominated to attend a yearly retreat in some exotic locale, like a trip to Vegas or a nice Cruise ship to nowhere, or Hawaii.

It's important to recognize that even in a business that is losing money, there are individuals who do their jobs VERY well, and if you don't reward such individuals via incentives, they tend to slow down or disappear.

This is possibly doubly important in a poor economy, because you may not be able to promote a good employee or give substantial raises, but the cost of a business retreat is comparatively small in the long run.

Unfortunately, due to public disapproval, there are amazing employees where I work who are getting zilch for their efforts. People who do the work of 2 or 3 average employees are being thanked with a big "Sorry, it's bad PR to send people on 'fat cat' retreats in this environment. Please keep being a stellar employee anyway, even with no tangible reward."

I've yet to see a witch hunt where only the witches burn. But by all means, enjoy the bonfire.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 4:32 PM

Quote:
But once the blade starts falling, it is generally indiscriminate.

This is very true Anthony, as I am all too painfully aware, but that blade has ALREADY been deliberately aimed at, and hit me, via a tax jump on a product I want totalling not only over 100% in increase, but that increase itself being damn near 150% of the cost of the PRODUCT.

And then I get to watch shit like this after having been deliberately and maliciously singled out ?

Which leads into your next post...

Quote:
Nobody cries for the witches during a witch hunt, because nobody likes a warty witch. But when someone points at YOU and calls you witch, you might feel differently.

When you've been on the receiving end of that for various reasons as long as I have, you just stop caring, and if the mob wants to torch someone else, well, about the only thing YOU feel is relief.

Remember, they fired a warning shot into MY little boat first, so if the fuckin pirahna pack wants to sate their hunger on a fatter, juicier target instead of chewin on me and mine for once, AND a target that's in part responsible for our current economic disaster, whereas ME and my personal life are NOT...

How the bloody hell does anyone expect me to have a goddamn iota of sympathy for them, I ask you ?

Quote:
I've yet to see a witch hunt where only the witches burn. But by all means, enjoy the bonfire.

No shit, but I happen to be a little too damn busy nursing my own scorch marks to give a shit about someone else who has more reason to catch as few themselves.

If they really wanted to burn the responsible parties they'd torch themselves, wouldn't they ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 5:01 PM

Hello,

Frem, I can’t remember ever seeing you contradict yourself. You are about the least hypocritical person I’ve had the pleasure of dealing with on these forums, right up there with the much maligned Rue (who seems to avoid self-contradiction via exhaustive research on the subject matter.)

But I will admit it did bother me to see you complain about the tobacco tax on the other thread, lamenting that no one seemed to care because it didn’t affect them.

And then to see you in another thread advocating doing the same to someone else because it had been done to you.

Now, I’d say the very finest idea you’ve had so far is to purchase patents from ailing businesses and place them in the public domain. I think the world would be a better place if there was no monopoly on the Shipstone.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 8:57 PM

Well Anthony, thing is, it's as obvious to me as it is to you - but my ire is preventing me from being rational about it, and despite KNOWIN that, it still is, which just pisses me off all the more, into a spiral of rage where I just plain don't care, my little rowboat takin on water means I could give a fuck about someone elses battleship under fire.

On top of which is of course the fact that folks in general seem so damned bent on this course there's about jack shit what can be done by those with any sense, so might as well just encourage their own self-destruction to get it over with and done instead of a long, protracted and painful drag.

Call it a mercy kill, if you will.

And yeah, the idea of yankin the patents in the case of a Gov bailout oughta appease the masses since they're gettin something for their dime however indirectly, and from a corporate perspective, is such a grevious hit that it would severely limit the hands grabbing for some largess wouldn't it now ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it