This pisses me off. Maybe GM should have thought about more fuel efficient vehicles 5 years ago. Now we have to bailout their stupidity and incompetence. I say let em go under.

This pisses me off. Maybe GM should have thought about more fuel efficient vehicles 5 years ago. Now we have to bailout their stupidity and incompetence. I say let em go under.

:congrats:

Corporate Welfare.

Apparently the GM CEO is really bad at math. Or at least he thinks we are. By his own admission GM will go through $16 billion in the next 6 months. That means an additional $15 billion tax payer money will last until the end of '09. What difference does it make if GM goes under in June '09 or December '09. Maybe they should ask the UAW for a loan.

The government needs to drastically cut taxes to increase spending, savings, and debt payment. Cutting taxes today would put more money in your pocket and back into the economy on your next paycheck. They need to put the consumer back in the loop. What help is it to GM if we still can't afford to buy a car in 12 months? Are we going to bail them out again? We are only digging the hole deeper.

Yeah, I'm with you guys...all of this bailout stuff doesn't make much sense and is actually the better side of what our slick politicians are up to! If we are going to move to a socialist mode, then I want my $150 government-produced car, but as long as we are still in capitalist mode with privately-owned companies, they can fend for themselves. HA! Think you'll see any one of those CEOs give up their "compensation package" or arctic-cold luxurious suites? Nope, they will never stoop to the level of the guy building the actual cars on the assembly line.

If the banks won't loan 'em more money, I think that pretty much means they have no way out! dee-dee-dee!!!


BURN BABY BURN!!! ha ha just playin.

I'm looking for a video... hold on...

That pretty much sums it up Luke. Thanks for posting. Take a good look around because this might be what the end of the Republic looks like. One thing is for sure - we are going to shatter the deficit record this year.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/e11-_cE63Us&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/e11-_cE63Us&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

That one will work.

I think I agree with the let it burst part...I dont think the extra $ are gonna fix anything and I dont see the money getting paid back. Complete waste in my eyes.

It is so clear, the bigger problem...people living way beyond their means, no matter how it happened. You know, in late '05 I noticed a HUGE CHANGE at my credit union here locally...yes, here locally not in NYC...I went in to look at something on my account and they were seriously trying to put me into a new car that was four times what I could afford...they pushed and pushed and pushed and I finally had to get pissed at them to shut them up. Then they went on to the credit card bit...offering me this insanely huge credit line that I could never afford or even have a use for. But I said no... it took me getting in their face to shut them up and just help me with what I wanted, but I did it. I've had my account at that bank since I was a little kid. They were never like that in the past.

I never saw folks with thousands of dollars a month in mortgage payment or new cars evey six months when I was growing up! This has got out of hand and I agree that the bubble needs to burst...get it over with and learn to live within our means.

Long rant... yadda yadda yadda.

My favorite is Target. They offer you 10% off your purchase if you sign up for their 18% credit card. Unless you pay off the purchase in full on your first bill your purchase actually cost you 8% more. You would be stunned at how many people signed up for the price increase.

THIS was the one I was looking for... Awesome stuff...
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rTI9r4pUYh4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rTI9r4pUYh4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

The last 30 seconds are scary.

Sheila Jackson Lee - that is priceless. Here is a quote form a story back in 1997.


The Congressional bonehead award goes to Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) who, on a visit to JPL, asked if Mars Pathfinder had taken an image of the flag planted there in 1969 by Neil Armstrong! Quipped Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) to the Washington Times: "We just don't teach enough science." Worse, Jackson Lee, who represents Houston, is a member of the House Science Committee's space subcommittee.

Her home district includes the Johnson Space Center and she thinks Neil Armstrong planted the US flag on Mars. Now we are taking financial direction from her.

I wanted to post this video in the post earlier, but had to go find it...it was on the top of youtube a while back.

t_LWQQrpSc4

I wanted to post this video in the post earlier, but had to go find it...it was on the top of youtube a while back.

...

Brilliant!

This pisses me off. Maybe GM should have thought about more fuel efficient vehicles 5 years ago. Now we have to bailout their stupidity and incompetence. I say let em go under.

But the businesses that supply GM, who may be well run businesses, will likely go under, too.

It is survival of the fittest, business style.

THIS was the one I was looking for... Awesome stuff...
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rTI9r4pUYh4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rTI9r4pUYh4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

The last 30 seconds are scary.

Yeah, I like John Stossel. He frequently reports and talks good sense.

Update - Ford, GM, and UAW just met with the Democrat Leadership. The Auto Industry is now asking for $50 billion. Obama promised $150 billion to them during the campaign. Get ready to be raked over the coals yet again.

Just imagine how fast this economy would recover if the $800 billion bailout came in the form of tax cuts. We need to stimulate consumption.

So sending people checks for $600 wasn't enough. The government ought to next time and soon send out checks of at least $2000? And maybe rich people need to be sent out checks of at least $10,000 or more?

Here is the thing Bunty. If GM goes under then their 22% market share will go to the other car companies which in turn will help them survive. Yes demand for new cars is down but with one less car company competing it will be better for the survivors. Parts suppliers will still be in business because people still own cars. They are also holding on to these cars longer so more repairs will be needed which will support auto part manufacturing jobs. Don't buy the GM doom and gloom hype. What is bad for GM will be good for America in this case.

So sending people checks for $600 wasn't enough. The government ought to next time and soon send out checks of at least $2000? And maybe rich people need to be sent out checks of at least $10,000 or more?

You are correct, $600 wasn't enough. As for your "rich" comment. I didn't get an income tax rebate so yes I would like a portion of my federal income tax refunded also.

But the businesses that supply GM, who may be well run businesses, will likely go under, too.

The suppliers will be hurt, but I don't think they'll all go under. Someone will swoop in and get all of the GM infastructure. Whether it's another company or a new group someone will get it running again.

Agreed though... many jobs will be lost. But we can't help everyone.

Here is the thing Bunty. If GM goes under then their 22% market share will go to the other car companies which in turn will help them survive. Yes demand for new cars is down but with one less car company competing it will be better for the survivors. Parts suppliers will still be in business because people still own cars. They are also holding on to these cars longer so more repairs will be needed which will support auto part manufacturing jobs. Don't buy the GM doom and gloom hype. What is bad for GM will be good for America in this case.

Yeah, but the remaining major car companies left will probably be only Toyota and Honda, meaning less competition for them to worry about and no car companies based in the USA. I doubt that would be all that good, though you could argue there are no TV makers based in the USA any more, yet all seems OK with the TV market.

Last I checked Ford and Chrysler were still based in the USA. If Ford gets just a small portion of the GM market share then Ford will be much better off than if they take federal funds and have to compete with GM in the domestic manufacturing arena. Toyota, Nissan, Hyundai, Honda, BMW, Mercedes, and Saturn all make cars in the USA. However, a bankrupt GM will still be around, just as a much smaller company. For crying out load, they have 56 models right now. That might be 50 too many.


Crap - I was going to try and list all of the GM models just sold in the US and there were so many I couldn't even begin to start. Cadillac alone has 16 unique models. The solution to GMs problems should be very easy. Close Buick, Hummer, Cadillac, Pontiac, Chevrolet, Saab, and GMC. Pick 7 cars/trucks and sell them under the GM badge. That would save billion per year. My guess is the United Auto Workers won't let them. But what does that tell you about who really is at fault for GMs problems.

My guess is the United Auto Workers won't let them. But what does that tell you about who really is at fault for GMs problems.

Had to throw that in there huh? I think there is plenty of blame to spread around.

Last I checked Ford and Chrysler were still based in the USA. If Ford gets just a small portion of the GM market share then Ford will be much better off than if they take federal funds and have to compete with GM in the domestic manufacturing arena. Toyota, Nissan, Hyundai, Honda, BMW, Mercedes, and Saturn all make cars in the USA. However, a bankrupt GM will still be around, just as a much smaller company. For crying out load, they have 56 models right now. That might be 50 too many.



I was assuming that if GM declares bankrupcy maybe Ford and Chrysler would, too.

Had to throw that in there huh? I think there is plenty of blame to spread around.

Yeah, it's not a union's job to tell a company how to market its products.

Had to throw that in there huh? I think there is plenty of blame to spread around.

I don't think you guys understand the power the UAW has. Yes there is a lot of blame to go around for the troubles at GM and the UAW needs to accept its share of it. Do you think if it wasn't for UAW the Dems would even be considering giving the Auto Industry $50 billion.

The sucking sound has started:
Lobbyists swarm the U.S. Treasury for a helping of bailout pie - International Herald Tribune (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/12/business/12lobbying.php)


The Treasury Department is under siege by an army of hired guns for banks, savings and loan associations and insurers — as well as for improbable candidates like a Hispanic business group representing plumbing and home-heating specialists. That last group wants the Treasury to hire its members as contractors to take care of houses that the government may end up owning through buying distressed mortgages.


On Monday, the Treasury announced it would inject an additional $40 billion into AIG, amid signs that the government's original bailout plan was putting too much strain on the company. American Express won approval Monday to transform itself into a bank holding company, making the giant marketer of credit cards eligible for an infusion.


Then there is the National Marine Manufacturers Association, which is asking whether boat financing companies might be eligible for aid to ensure that dealers have access to credit to stock their showrooms with boats — costs have gone up as the credit markets have calcified. Using much the same rationale, the National Automobile Dealers Association is pleading that car dealers get consideration, too.


Under the terms of the $250 billion capital purchase program announced last month, cash infusions are available to "qualifying U.S. banks, savings associations, and certain bank and savings and loan holding companies, engaged only in financial activities."

That definition has grown to include private banks and insurers like Allstate and MetLife, which own savings and loans. It may also encompass industrial lenders like GE Capital and GMAC, the financing arm of General Motors, provided they win approval to reclassify themselves as a bank or savings and loan holding company.

The story just goes and on and on but you get the idea.

I'm losing track of the industries running to congress with their hands out. Rather than keeping score, does anyone believe that it's really going to happen - that congress and the new president will just start handing it over? No, because that amount of money simply isn't there. It's a recession. Not every company will make it, and not every company should. IMHO, the survivors will be the companies that are taking matters into their own hands and working out a solution right now, not going to Washington, hat in hand.

And can anyone explain why Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm has made her way onto Obama's economic advisor team? It's been on her watch that Michigan's economy has gone into the tank. What's her street cred?

Rather than keeping score, does anyone believe that it's really going to happen - that congress and the new president will just start handing it over? No, because that amount of money simply isn't there ... And can anyone explain why Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm has made her way onto Obama's economic advisor team? It's been on her watch that Michigan's economy has gone into the tank. What's her street cred?

Yes I do think the Democrat Congress will hand the money over. Obama already said he was going to do it and his economic team seems determined to follow through as soon as possible. Heck, they want the Bush administration to start making the payments now. Since when has congress been beholden to the idea of fiscal conservatism? Remember those tax cuts Obama promised to everyone except "the rich". Well don't count on them - it isn't going to happen.

As for the Governor of Michigan being a financial adviser. She has been on the team for awhile. Ask the people who voted for Obama to explain it. Warren Buffet is on his advisory team and he will be the single largest beneficiary of the +$700 billion bailout. Not just because he is an active investor in stock but because he was on the Board of Directors of several of the failed (or nearly failed) companies.

Check out Muckety.com - Exploring the paths of power and influence (http://www.muckety.com) to see who is working for who.

Are these people on Wall Street so detached from reality that they don't understand why people like me are getting pissed off.


According to a report from financial news agency Bloomberg, Goldman Sachs, for example, has set aside $6.8 billion for bonuses, and Morgan Stanley, $6.4 billion.

Eliminate the damn bonuses. Your employees have not earned them! BTW - check out www.muckety.com to see the relationships between Goldman Sachs and Obama's team.

Hard Times, But Big Wall Street Bonuses, The Early Show: Mystery Shrouding How Much Of The Money Will Come From The $700B Gov't. Bailout - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/12/earlyshow/main4595179.shtml)

Rather than keeping score, does anyone believe that it's really going to happen - that congress and the new president will just start handing it over? No, because that amount of money simply isn't there. It's a recession.

Here is your answer:
Democrat proposes federal stake in Big Three - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081112/ap_on_go_co/auto_bailout)

WASHINGTON – A key House Democrat is writing legislation that would send $25 billion in emergency loans to the beleaguered auto industry in exchange for a government ownership stake in the Big Three car companies.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are pressing for quick passage of an auto bailout during a postelection session of Congress that begins Tuesday.

The legislation being drafted by Democratic Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, would dip into the $700 billion Wall Street rescue money approved by Congress last month for the auto aid. President Bush is cool to that idea, although the White House says he is open to helping the troubled industry.

Kerry, I believe every word you are saying...but this is nothing new. If you think this bailout is bad, look at the debt we have endured over the last many years...it outweighs the bailout by far! And the war in Iraq... The BAILOUT of the Airlines after 9/11...although the administration kept them grounded where they couldn't make any money...they still bailed them out more than a WEEK's profit that they lost while grounded. This was also happening while republicans were in control of all branches of government. Heck, some republicans were spending their days in the chambers chasing young pages around saying "here little kid I got some candy for ya..." then chatting online that night. They are ALL ON CRACK and they have no respect for our money because they didn't have to earn it.

Please read my post in another read--while it mainly has to do with oil companies, it also relates to all this bailout stuff that I think is BS!

http://www.okctalk.com/okc-metro-area-talk/14844-thanks-boone-2.html#post183092

Don't get me wrong here, I am not defending Republicans at all. It was this Bush administration that passed the current bailout plan. Alan Greenspan said a few weeks ago that the free market failed. How would he know, he has never seen a free market. If anything, a centralized banking system controlled by the Federal Reserve Chairman appointed by politicians has failed. True we have been sold out by our government for the last 50 years but we have increased the national debt by almost $2 trillion in the last 3 months.

USA Might Lose AAA Credit Rating
http://www.cnbc.com/id/27641538

...look at how the debt started to skyrocket in the early 1980's and then in the mid-90's through 2000 was tapering off and actually got paid down some, then in 2001 till now a skyrocket again!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Deficits_vs._Debt_Increases_-_2008.png

Image:USDebt.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USDebt.png)

Just wait until National Debt numbers come out for this year and next year.

Yeah, that's what I was having trouble finding...clearly gonna be thru the roof.

Yeah, that's what I was having trouble finding...clearly gonna be thru the roof.

Try $5 trillion through the roof.
Washington's $5 Trillion Tab - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/home/2008/11/12/paulson-bernanke-fed-biz-wall-cx_lm_1112bailout.html)

Here is the bottom line - we are never going to be able to pay this off. I think we have reached the end of the line. Except for the Visigoths, we followed down the same path as Rome. Corrupt government, a citizenry focused on combat in large stadiums, an immoral populace, and a large public debt. The end came quickly.

For those interested, the History Channel has a very good two hour show on the Dark Ages. You should probably take a look.

BULLSEYE!!! There's my oklahoma doomsday scenario!

Now Philadelphia, Phoenix and Atlanta want in on the action. Talk about having to admit total failure on the part of some politicians. If Philly can't get a couple of billion they might have to close some swimming pools and libraries. The horror, the horror.

Mayors of Philadelphia, Phoenix seek bailout share (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D94EQHOG0&show_article=1)

Well, um, like...yeah! If there was cash bills in a semi sitting at the capitol in OKC and anyone could go argue your right to a wad of that cash, wouldn't you be down there as well???

I am in total agreement with you that bailouts are ultimately a waste of time for the most part.

Well, um, like...yeah! If there was cash bills in a semi sitting at the capitol in OKC and anyone could go argue your right to a wad of that cash, wouldn't you be down there as well???

I am in total agreement with you that bailouts are ultimately a waste of time for the most part.

Here is the application for the free cash (no joke).
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/applicationguidelines.pdf

That's awesome Kerry...the best post in this thread by far. It is beyond funny how wild that bailout stuff is becoming...each new day, just when I think it couldn't get any better.

:yourock:

The government will do ``whatever it takes'' to revive the economy, Obama said. That means ``we shouldn't worry about the deficit next year or even the year after,'' he said, adding that in the short term, ``the most important thing is that we avoid a deepening recession.''
Bloomberg.com: Worldwide (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aOl_Qn1.A4Dw&refer=worldwide)

Well that is just great. Doesn't Obama understand that this whole problem was casued by people borrowing more than they can repay. Now Obama wants to apply the spend at all cost philosphy to the Federal Government even more than it has been over the last 35 years.

I feel like all my investments are sitting there like a piggy bank for the government to rob. I can't get stuff out without losing a fortune because the value is low as a result of the stock crash. If I leave it there, I feel like somehow the government is going to take it to help out dimwits who have nothing to lose because they already spent their money faster than they earned it. I also worry that the government will take my money and give it to their buddies in big business and fannie mae.

This is probably irrational but that is how I feel when they talk about bailouts. Makes me furious. People like me, who tried to do it right, are so screwed.

These are the times that people get rich. Buy in the market low right now and you won't be complaining in 10 years.

I agree bretthexum,

This will even out over time, regardless of how much crazy sleasy stuff is going on up in Washington. The worst thing people could do is pull out all their investments...as if it wont ever get better? Please...

And Kerry, Obama does understand the situation. The bush administration and the past congress has dug up a deep hole that have no easy outs. Whether we bailout or not, it is going to take some crazy stuff to leap out of this hole. And while you're on the topic of Obama, he is meeting with Lindsey Graham and John McCain and, while this may or may not mean anything, that is way more than the "we're gonna smoke em out--get outta my way" tactics that the Bush administration took 8 years ago, you know?

Why don't we see how things start when he actually becomes president in late January. Bush is still the prez till then...

Why don't we see how things start when he actually becomes president in late January. Bush is still the prez till then...

Just remember this if Obama fails. He can't blame Bush for any of his problems. He ran on the "Change" mantra (giving money to the UAW via GM is change) and he accepted the job knowing the condition of the economy and said he could fix it. We will see how he does but I am not holding out hope. The more the government gets involved with business the more the market goes down. Sure the CEOs love it because the government is bailing them out of the their poor management decisions. Investors don't like it because it is their money that is being diluted everytime the government buys stock.

Look at it this way. What happens over the next 2 years when stock holders start voting for new board memebers and the US government owns a large number of stocks. Who do you think will win board membership elections, directors looking out for the individual investor or directors catering to the desires of the federal government? I can assure you that most investors are at odds, financially speaking, with the desires of a liberal leaning federal government.

...then Obama better do a good job of getting congress on the same page. And they better fix these bailouts that they are insistent on so that the companies are forced to get back on good footing. My point stands that while it doesn't deserve credit yet, the fact that Obama met with McCain and Graham is a good start...and it's certainly a change from what Bush did! I don't think he is going into this looking for a one-term ticket only, but you are correct...bush has left him with a minefield to disarm. He definitely has his work cut out for him. I differ with you on that I am holding out hope. I hope that it turns around and that he is successful, because that is what we need.

I differ with you on that I am holding out hope. I hope that it turns around and that he is successful, because that is what we need.

Now you sound like my wife.:smile:

Yes I want the economy to turn around but I am using the word "hope" in the definition sense.

Hope
transitive verb
1: to desire with expectation of obtainment
2: to expect with confidence

For crying out loud. When are these CEOs going to figure this out.
ABC News: Big Three CEOs Flew Private Jets to Plead for Public Funds (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/WallStreet/story?id=6285739&page=1)

Big Three CEOs Flew Private Jets to Plead for Public Funds
Auto Industry Close to Bankruptcy But They Get Pricey Perk
By BRIAN ROSS and JOSEPH RHEE
November 19, 2008

The CEOs of the big three automakers flew to the nation's capital yesterday in private luxurious jets to make their case to Washington that the auto industry is running out of cash and needs $25 billion in taxpayer money to avoid bankruptcy.

Even as their companies fail, Ford and GM CEOs continue lavish lifestyles.
The CEOs of GM, Ford and Chrysler may have told Congress that they will likely go out of business without a bailout yet that has not stopped them from traveling in style, not even First Class is good enough.

All three CEOs - Rick Wagoner of GM, Alan Mulally of Ford, and Robert Nardelli of Chrysler - exercised their perks Tuesday by flying in corporate jets to DC. Wagoner flew in GM's $36 million luxury aircraft to tell members of Congress that the company is burning through cash, asking for $10-12 billion for GM alone.

"We want to continue the vital role we've played for Americans for the past 100 years, but we can't do it alone," Wagoner told the Senate Banking Committee.

While Wagoner testified, his G4 private jet was parked at Dulles airport. It is one of eight luxury jets in the GM fleet that continues to ferry executives around the world despite the company's dire financial straits.

"This is a slap in the face of taxpayers," said Tom Schatz, President of Citizens Against Government Waste. "To come to Washington on a corporate jet, and asking for a hand out is outrageous."

Wagoner's private jet trip to Washington cost his ailing company an estimated $20,000 roundtrip. In comparison, seats on Northwest Airlines flight 2364 from Detroit to Washington were going online for $288 coach and $837 first class.

After the hearing, Wagoner declined to answer questions about his travel.

Ford CEO Mulally's corporate jet is a perk included for both he and his wife as part of his employment contract along with a $28 million salary last year. Mulally actually lives in Seattle, not Detroit. The company jet takes him home and back on weekends.

Mulally made his case Tuesday before the committee saying he's cut expenses, laid-off workers and closed 17 plants.


"We have also reduced our work force by 51,000 employees in the past three years," Mulally said.


Yet Ford continues to operate a fleet of eight private jets for its executives. Just Tuesday, one jet was taking Ford brass to Los Angeles, another on a trip to Nebraska, and of course Mulally needed to fly to Washington to testify. He did not address questions following the hearing.


"Now's not the time to do that sort of thing," said John McElroy of the television program "Autoline Detroit."

I guess it safe to say that the bailout has been one huge waste of time and money. There are sooooo many stories about how companies that received the money are in worse shape now than when they took the money and entities that though they might get funds (State of California) didn't try to solve their problems because they were waiting on the free money.

What a ******-up situation the federal government has caused. If they had just let Citi, BofA, and others take their medicine 3 or 4 months ago the worst of this might be over. Banks that played by the rules could have picked up those assets on the cheap which would have improved their bottom lines. All we did was subsidize failure so we could have more failure.

Now Obama is promising $trillion deficits for the next 4 years. Well, I guess then Libs can stop calling Reagan's deficits (BW - they were really Congress' deficits) the worst ever. I feel sorry for the Chinese when we default on all of our debt.

So long America - it was nice knowing you.


Citigroup Splits Into Two After Losing $8.3 Billion - Earnings * US * News * Story - CNBC.com (http://www.cnbc.com/id/28688568)
My Way News - Calif. tax refunds to be delayed starting Feb. 1 (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090116/D95OF36O0.html)
Rescue of U.S. banks hints at nationalization - International Herald Tribune (http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/16/business/16banking.php)

It's hard to say. I think there's a case to be made that as bad as things are they could be a lot worse if we had done nothing. Banking is kind of like the internet, there are several 'backbone servers' that hold the whole financial structure up and then there are lots of banks above that level that serve the public. I think if we hadn't intervened we would have seen one or more of those backbones fail. At that level those banks deal with mega-transactions which would have been difficult for any competitor to snap up and buy mostly because there are just few who could, even at discounted levels. I don't like how the bailout was handled, and I don't think it should extend outside of the financial sector, but I still think it was needed.

I guess it safe to say that the bailout has been one huge waste of time and money. There are sooooo many stories about how companies that received the money are in worse shape now than when they took the money and entities that though they might get funds (State of California) didn't try to solve their problems because they were waiting on the free money.

What a ******-up situation the federal government has caused. If they had just let Citi, BofA, and others take their medicine 3 or 4 months ago the worst of this might be over. Banks that played by the rules could have picked up those assets on the cheap which would have improved their bottom lines. All we did was subsidize failure so we could have more failure.

Now Obama is promising $trillion deficits for the next 4 years. Well, I guess then Libs can stop calling Reagan's deficits (BW - they were really Congress' deficits) the worst ever. I feel sorry for the Chinese when we default on all of our debt.

So long America - it was nice knowing you.


Citigroup Splits Into Two After Losing $8.3 Billion - Earnings * US * News * Story - CNBC.com (http://www.cnbc.com/id/28688568)
My Way News - Calif. tax refunds to be delayed starting Feb. 1 (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090116/D95OF36O0.html)
Rescue of U.S. banks hints at nationalization - International Herald Tribune (http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/16/business/16banking.php)


Hey, Kerry,

Need I remind you that the senate did not vote on or approve a bailout for the automakers and the current president Bush and his administration went ahead and used their power to do their own bailout of the automakers regardless of what our elected officials decided to do.

Did you forget about that?

Before you start attacking Obama (who is not even in office yet) and Liberals, you might want to take a close look at what the current president (whom I assume you voted for in '00 and '04 since you are republican) took upon himself to do with our money! Heck, if you want to talk about Obama, bring it on...at least his proposed bailouts include you and I somewhere in the mix!!! As in roads and stuff...and let the cities propose what they want...at least some of his plan comes back to us taxpayers! Bush's latest bailout of the automakers was a waste of time and our money.

Now, I'm not defending the bank situation and those involved, but just as important was the auto bailout that they did not approve and the existing president made it so anyways. It's interesting that that detail was left out of your bailout rant.

I guess it safe to say that the bailout has been one huge waste of time and money. There are sooooo many stories about how companies that received the money are in worse shape now than when they took the money and entities that though they might get funds (State of California) didn't try to solve their problems because they were waiting on the free money.


What a ******-up situation the federal government has caused. If they had just let Citi, BofA, and others take their medicine 3 or 4 months ago the worst of this might be over. Banks that played by the rules could have picked up those assets on the cheap which would have improved their bottom lines. All we did was subsidize failure so we could have more failure.


Don't think I could have said this any better myself.

Historically, when the government tries to spend the economy out of trouble, it fails. And what Obuymeout wants to do now is, quite literally, start printing money as fast as it can possibly be printed, and be darned with the consequences.

Each of the recessions over the last quarter century have, after a period of pain, resulted in a stronger economy with a renewed base from which growth could take place. Not this time. For some reason, we've decided that horrendous business decisions piled on top of *ridiculous* lending practices have created a situation that we think should be *rewarded* instead of *punished* by the market.

The Feds from a quarter century ago started this mess with its Free Money to Anyone Who Can't Possibly Afford to Pay It Back, And Barely Comprehend You're Supposed To program, under the clever names of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Now those of us who do know how to manage our money, our assets, and our credit responsibly are going to get the privilege of bailing everyone else out.

The big problem doesn't hit until China stops buying our debt. That's where the money spigot once and for all runs dry.

But Obama's going to solve all this by spending blindly, so who cares if a year from now $1 isn't worth 50 cents? It's change, Oprah approves it, and we all get tingly at the thought of it, so it must be good, right? **sigh** :sarcasm:

I am not attacking Obama directly. My outrage is at the federal government. Obama, McCain, Bush, Kerry, Biden: when it comes fiscal conservatism what is the difference?

Power corrupts. You only need to look at W. Bush. When he took office he inherited a recession from Clinton. The first thing Bush did was lower taxes across the board. For almost 7 years things went fine. However, Bush got a taste of spending others people money and he liked it. Now he can't spend fast enough all in the name of stimulous.

Expalin this to me. How is raising taxes that pulls money out of the economy only to be spent at a later date by those that didn't earn it going to stimulate the economy?

Now Obama is promising $trillion deficits for the next 4 years.


I am not attacking Obama directly.

Huh.


----

You say your problem is with the federal government, but then you go right back to the subject of presidents!


Obama, McCain, Bush, Kerry, Biden: when it comes fiscal conservatism what is the difference?

Yeah, only one minor problem here. You've only seen how one of these guys performs as president. Now you're drawing conclusions of what is to come before it even happens. You seem to see how bush is mental, which means the sensors are working correctly. But then you go and try to associate everyone else with him. And before you start talking about each of their habits at other times in their lives, don't forget to look at Bush's...you can compare bush to his past and everything adds up. None of these other guys are or have been president...some of them have some history in politics, but Obama is relatively new, so sorry man, but if you want your views to carry any weight, you'll have to comment once you see the actual results of what he actually does once he's there.

Think about this: I'll bet back when bush got the white house in '01--I'll bet your opinion of how things would be when he left the white house was totally different, ya know?


When he took office he inherited a recession from Clinton.

When he (bush) took office, most people familiar with his ways knew things were headed to hell in a handbasket. What the heck did Clinton have to do with the stupid spending tactics of the idiots who formed the dot-com boom and later cried when it went bust. Waaaaa...... Waaaaa...... Most, if not all the big money folks that started all that crap were in favor of Bush's bright, shiny, tax cuts for themselves as well. Folks also knew he was bound and determined to go back to Iraq. Answer me this: how much better would the economy be if bush had allowed the contracts for the war to go out to bid, so we might pay at least double (or less if lucky) the price of any item, instead of ten times or more what it was worth??? Instead of that money now being locked up in big bank vaults, who knows of which are even located in the U.S.


The first thing Bush did was lower taxes across the board. For almost 7 years things went fine.

This is actually pretty darn hilarious. No, my friend, you saw some years of pretending like things were a-okay, (aka "we're gonna smoke 'em out") then the tax changes met the out-of-control spending from dubya's Iraq-O-Matic...POW! DEE3


However, Bush got a taste of spending others people money and he liked it. Now he can't spend fast enough all in the name of stimulous.

getting warmer...


Expalin this to me. How is raising taxes that pulls money out of the economy only to be spent at a later date by those that didn't earn it going to stimulate the economy?

Well, lessee... in simple terms it's like this: you could call it turnin the churn, jump startin the car, givin it a push, etc...

You see, if you spend the money on actual communities (here at home, not other countries) and it doesn't go into some huge piggybank, the filthy rich, or another country...but actually goes into local communities (where it comes from to begin with) to build roads, buildings, pay for school, etc... that money gets spent and it comes right back in tax revenue as well as people getting hired for jobs building things like, em...ROADS, BUILDINGS, etc... and then those workers got money to go buy things at Wal-Mart.

(takes breath)


FYI- just want to add that your posts seem to have the doomsday scenarios as the only remaining option, so if that's what you're after, it is mildy entertaining, I must say. Could use more dramatic content to spice it up though. :elmer3:

Well, lessee... in simple terms it's like this: you could call it turnin the churn, jump startin the car, givin it a push, etc...

You see, if you spend the money on actual communities (here at home, not other countries) and it doesn't go into some huge piggybank, the filthy rich, or another country...but actually goes into local communities (where it comes from to begin with) to build roads, buildings, pay for school, etc... that money gets spent and it comes right back in tax revenue as well as people getting hired for jobs building things like, em...ROADS, BUILDINGS, etc... and then those workers got money to go buy things at Wal-Mart.


Jumpstart what? So people can go throw more money at cars made by (bankrupt) GM? To go throw money into an account at a potentially defunct bank??


The solution isn't to throw money at consumers; the problem is to let the bad businesses pay the price they have ALWAYS paid in the marketplace - they cease to exist. We've created this notion that companies, no matter how badly managed, should continue to exist in perpetuity, as some sort of sophomoric homage to sentimentality. The free market is a wonderfully self-correcting beast if allowed to do so.

You know, since we agree that folks need money to "go buy things at Wal-Mart," doesn't it make sense not to put this mythical "bailout" on the backs of those very people? You seem to live in the same world as the Dems and Obama that wants to create this illusion that the money will come from nowhere (although I must grant the fact that at least part of it going to originate from the ol' mint's printing press). It will eventually come on the backs of those very WalMart shoppers in the form of devalued domestic currency, even less-available credit, and more downward pressure on demand on an economy that hasn't seen this little demand (pro rata) in nearly 70 years.

And why on earth wouldn't it be smarter to let core businesses that produce tangible goods and worthwhile services to create real jobs in a competitive marketplace rather than have "the gummint" manufacture them like bubblegum? Why can't we let stupid, bad businesses die and eliminate themselves from the market (ultimately the least painful and most efficient solution), allowing the market to reorganize itself by its own dynamics of supply and demand, rather than reward the problems and deepen the damage these companies have created? Why now are we running to the gumming to let Bush or OBama write a bunch of hot checks to cover the bad debts of stupid businesspeople??

Whether you realize it or not, you're advocating a situation in which the government is the defacto employer of just about everyone, which is already more true than it should ever be due to the equity stake being taken by the feds in all these companies that are getting piles of $$$ for their lousy business operations.

-SoonerDave

Jumpstart what? So people can go throw more money at cars made by (bankrupt) GM? To go throw money into an account at a potentially defunct bank??

Nope, that is why the new administration is targeting specific things with a plan behind it, so the money is not just "thrown away" like it has been recently with Bush's bailout maneuver to GM. What have you say about your guy Bush sending 15 billion (or however much it was) up to Detroit after the senate refused the vote on it? Good hard money thrown away into a company that has no track record of doing anything useful with it!



The solution isn't to throw money at consumers; the problem is to let the bad businesses pay the price they have ALWAYS paid in the marketplace - they cease to exist. We've created this notion that companies, no matter how badly managed, should continue to exist in perpetuity, as some sort of sophomoric homage to sentimentality.

You're right. That is why they are not just gonna send us or companies checks! They will make specific, targeted investments to start moving the economies on a local level. When companies win contracts, they can afford to hire workers (unlike now when things are almost to a grinding halt).

Remember when Bush sent out all those checks to consumers with the budget surplus left over from Clinton?


The free market is a wonderfully self-correcting beast if allowed to do so.

A "beast" it is and has allowed to be. We have seen how well things work when let run wild. Businesses buy each other out until there's no competition left and they outsource all the parts from China cause it's cheaper, and the call center workers (except management) to India because the labor is cheaper there as well. We have also seen the massive scale on which illegal immigrants will "make a run for it" when there are plently of minimum-wage jobs to go around.


You know, since we agree that folks need money to "go buy things at Wal-Mart," doesn't it make sense not to put this mythical "bailout" on the backs of those very people? You seem to live in the same world as the Dems and Obama that wants to create this illusion that the money will come from nowhere (although I must grant the fact that at least part of it going to originate from the ol' mint's printing press). It will eventually come on the backs of those very WalMart shoppers in the form of devalued domestic currency, even less-available credit, and more downward pressure on demand on an economy that hasn't seen this little demand (pro rata) in nearly 70 years.

Devalued domestic currency... now that sounds familiar, oh yeah. Now who has been president for the last 8 years during this downturn, and who was in control of the house and senate during the first 6 years of this downturn??? Oh yeah, republicans! Only problem is, all the republicans that I know and respect would disagree with you. Most real conservatives see it and believe it or not, the truth of the matter is, Obama's policies offer more to conservatives than Bush's did!


And why on earth wouldn't it be smarter to let core businesses that produce tangible goods and worthwhile services to create real jobs in a competitive marketplace rather than have "the gummint" manufacture them like bubblegum?

Well, darnit, they just don't seem to be able to hire people when no ones got money to spend, ya know? What good are tangible goods when no one's got any money to spend on said goods?


Why can't we let stupid, bad businesses die and eliminate themselves from the market (ultimately the least painful and most efficient solution), allowing the market to reorganize itself by its own dynamics of supply and demand, rather than reward the problems and deepen the damage these companies have created?

Cause all that crap turned out to be...well, just a bunch of crap. Supply and demand? Ha! What reorganizing? When they've merged into one big company, what else is left to die or compete with? We're seeing now how well big businesses, all merged together, are at reorganizing.



Why now are we running to the gumming to let Bush or OBama write a bunch of hot checks to cover the bad debts of stupid businesspeople??

Well, so far Obama has not written any checks to anyone seeing as he is not president yet. And your guy Bush...well yup I do believe he just got finished sending a few of those checks up to Detroit? How much was it again? 15 billion? That was all him baby. Your republican prez!


Whether you realize it or not, you're advocating a situation in which the government is the defacto employer of just about everyone, which is already more true than it should ever be due to the equity stake being taken by the feds in all these companies that are getting piles of $$$ for their lousy business operations.

So how many people is the government employing in Iraq and Afghanistan right now?

Fact is, we have two choices. We can either slip into a modern-day depression and get the government to jump start us (because private business doesn't do that--they pull back in tough times--as we see them doing now). Or we can forgo the depression and make some specific moves to jump start the failed system sooner rather than later.

You can make whatever doomsday predictions you want to make, but the people have voted and this is the route we are gonna take. Our economy will rebound, and these specific investments will play a big role in helping to restart it. Even republican analysts that are more experienced than you or I mostly agree with the move.

DEE3

http://msp216.photobucket.com/albums/cc100/astatepat/EThugs.jpg