GM chief Wagoner ousted by Obama by Geezer

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 3:31 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

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".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 3:34 AM

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 3:45 AM

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 3:51 AM

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 3:57 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

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?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 3:59 AM

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 3:59 AM

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 4:01 AM

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?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 4:19 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 4:21 AM

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 4:25 AM

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?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 4:55 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

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"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 5:05 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

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"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 5:08 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 5:32 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

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]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 6:01 AM

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%...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 6:06 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

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"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 6:17 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 6:24 AM

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...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 6:27 AM

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...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 6:30 AM

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 6:33 AM

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...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 6:47 AM

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 6:56 AM

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 6:58 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 7:00 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 7:11 AM

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...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 7:23 AM

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?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 7:26 AM

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?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 7:39 AM

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?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 7:42 AM

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 7:46 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

How bout...

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 7:59 AM

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?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 8:00 AM

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

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

Sounds like a damn good start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 8:27 AM

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?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 8:38 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 9:01 AM

CITIZEN

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 9:23 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Gov't control of private enterprise.

Folks, THAT is fascism.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 9:29 AM

CITIZEN

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".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 9:30 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 9:36 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 9:46 AM

STORYMARK

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."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 10:22 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

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]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 10:28 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 10:40 AM

BYTEMITE

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...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 11:11 AM

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 11:50 AM