Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If a company thinks its necessary to ask for government help, why should the CEO stay?
In the private market, when a restructuring occurs, they usually fire the CEO and hire a new guy. How is this any different? Why should the taxpayer fund a management team that brought the company to the brink of insolvency?
If you want the government to act more like a private business, this is what private business does.
I had to read your post 3 times just to make sure I understood what you typed. Do you really believe this? Do you not see this as a huge power grab by the government? This is a war on Capitalism and the American way of life.
Two scenarios:
I form a corporation. From that corporation I buy and sell goods and services without government intervention. I set my own price for those goods and services and I deal with private consumers and corporations who want to purchase those goods and services.
My business gets big enough that I have an IPO (initial public offering). I put together a board of directors of 10 people who get to vote on policy and decisions of the corporation. I put myself as the Chairman of the Board and I get to break ties.
A bad recession hits and no one will loan me money. So I go to the government for money - and the government says they'll loan my corporation money if I resign as the chairman of the board. I resign and the board elects a new chairman. The government loans the corporation money and the corporation continues to produce goods and services.
Scenario 2: A bad recession hits and a venture capitalist corporation loans me money. The venture capitalist says in order for the loan to go through, I have to resign as the chairman of the board. I resign and the board elects a new chairman. The venture capitalist the corporation money and the corporation continues to produce goods and services.
Tell me what the difference is except for the source of who loans people money? The government isn't setting policy for the corporation, although it should have the right to since it's a majority shareholder of the corporation.
Capitalism states that whoever has the most money in a business gets to make the decisions. Socialism is where everyone owns a percentage of the corporation and its run collectively where the government sets prices for the goods and services based upon the social value of the goods and services. That's not happening here.
You people need to brush up on what socialism is and isn't.
The government should not have bailed anyone out in the first place, but since they did this is not surprising.
The government should not have bailed anyone out in the first place, but since they did this is not surprising.
Kevin, surely even YOU cannot be blind to the market panic that occurred when Lehamn Bros. filed for bankruptcy.
Compare the importance of Lehman Bros to a company like AIG or GM. Not even close. The market would be in negative value right now if the government had not stepped in and unemployment would be in the 20% range. We would be in another depression. Our economy would have collapsed and would have taken the world's economy with it. Thanks largely in part to the government stopping that from happening, we have not hit that point and we will not hit that point.
Your wish for the government to be asleep at the wheel of the economy and let things happen for themselves is a wish for us all to fail. Most if not all of us would be unemployed and poor. The FDIC would be insolvent and banks would fail everywhere.
This is what fiscal conservatives and fiscal libertarians want. Please think about that before associating your ideas with any of theirs.
The government should not have bailed anyone out in the first place, but since they did this is not surprising.
Kevin, surely even YOU cannot be blind to the market panic that occurred when Lehamn Bros. filed for bankruptcy.
Compare the importance of Lehman Bros to a company like AIG or GM. Not even close. The market would be in negative value right now if the government had not stepped in and unemployment would be in the 20% range. We would be in another depression. Our economy would have collapsed and would have taken the world's economy with it. Thanks largely in part to the government stopping that from happening, we have not hit that point and we will not hit that point.
Your wish for the government to be asleep at the wheel of the economy and let things happen for themselves is a wish for us all to fail. Most if not all of us would be unemployed and poor. The FDIC would be insolvent and banks would fail everywhere.
This is what fiscal conservatives and fiscal libertarians want. Please think about that before associating your ideas with any of theirs.
this a scary move. you blind bats on the left can't even see the implications of this....tell me...why doesn't obama ask elected officials who have run their state/local budgets below ground to resign? answer me that.....
Do you know what will happen? Are they going to reopen some plants they closed down, or give back jobs to the people who lost them at the plants that are still open? That would be great news.
This should all be revealed tomorrow, I think. Ragoner ran GM into the ground. He even outright admitted that under his tenure, GM put out cars that didn't even come close to their quality standards. They put out shit for cars and he expected to keep his job?? How come Ford doesn't need a bailout? Because of good management.
Does this mean that as we continue to see piss poor financial management from our federal government and continue to see deficits drive our economy into the ground that we can expect Obama's resignation? I'm thinking that fair is fair and if our economy keeps tumbling then we should yank the leadership at the top.
this a scary move. you blind bats on the left can't even see the implications of this....tell me...why doesn't obama ask elected officials who have run their state/local budgets below ground to resign? answer me that.....
No shit. The President of the United States demanding an employee of a publicly owned corporation to step down?
And this is OKAY?
Hope he likes my electrical work if he ever happens upon it.
This should all be revealed tomorrow, I think. Ragoner ran GM into the ground. He even outright admitted that under his tenure, GM put out cars that didn't even come close to their quality standards. They put out shit for cars and he expected to keep his job?? How come Ford doesn't need a bailout? Because of good management.
Does this mean that as we continue to see piss poor financial management from our federal government and continue to see deficits drive our economy into the ground that we can expect Obama's resignation? I'm thinking that fair is fair and if our economy keeps tumbling then we should yank the leadership at the top.
Please make him take the congresscritters with him when he goes.
this a scary move. you blind bats on the left can't even see the implications of this....tell me...why doesn't obama ask elected officials who have run their state/local budgets below ground to resign? answer me that.....
this a scary move. you blind bats on the left can't even see the implications of this....tell me...why doesn't obama ask elected officials who have run their state/local budgets below ground to resign? answer me that.....
curious....
this a scary move. you blind bats on the left can't even see the implications of this....tell me...why doesn't obama ask elected officials who have run their state/local budgets below ground to resign? answer me that.....
curious....
this a scary move. you blind bats on the left can't even see the implications of this....tell me...why doesn't obama ask elected officials who have run their state/local budgets below ground to resign? answer me that.....
curious....
He has no constitutional authority to do so.
Really, Willow? So you've gone totally against state's rights because Obama is now president? You're the hypocrite.curious....
He has no constitutional authority to do so.
That might be true of a "demand" but he can certainly ask! If he weren't a HYPOCRITE that is.
Really, Willow? So you've gone totally against state's rights because Obama is now president? You're the hypocrite.He has no constitutional authority to do so.
That might be true of a "demand" but he can certainly ask! If he weren't a HYPOCRITE that is.
The difference in your scenarios is that the government used other people's money to bail out a failed business, and in the second scenario a private business used their own money to bail out a failed business knowing the risks. It's not Capitalism if the government gets involved.
this a scary move. you blind bats on the left can't even see the implications of this....tell me...why doesn't obama ask elected officials who have run their state/local budgets below ground to resign? answer me that.....
The difference in your scenarios is that the government used other people's money to bail out a failed business, and in the second scenario a private business used their own money to bail out a failed business knowing the risks. It's not Capitalism if the government gets involved.
Where does a business get money? Through private citizens. Where does the government get money? Through private citizens.
The government IS a corporation. The biggest one in the world. The CEO is Barack Obama and the board of directors is Congress.
There is nothing socialistic about the government loaning people money. We've been doing it since the 1960s when the SBA was founded to help loan money to small businesses.
The government should not have bailed anyone out in the first place, but since they did this is not surprising.
Kevin, surely even YOU cannot be blind to the market panic that occurred when Lehamn Bros. filed for bankruptcy.
Compare the importance of Lehman Bros to a company like AIG or GM. Not even close. The market would be in negative value right now if the government had not stepped in and unemployment would be in the 20% range. We would be in another depression. Our economy would have collapsed and would have taken the world's economy with it. Thanks largely in part to the government stopping that from happening, we have not hit that point and we will not hit that point.
Your wish for the government to be asleep at the wheel of the economy and let things happen for themselves is a wish for us all to fail. Most if not all of us would be unemployed and poor. The FDIC would be insolvent and banks would fail everywhere.
This is what fiscal conservatives and fiscal libertarians want. Please think about that before associating your ideas with any of theirs.
No one is saying it would have been a pleasant experience to let the market correct itself, but propping up a phony economy for a little while longer is only going to bring about a bigger bust in the future. Eventually the government is not going to be able to step in and we'll have no choice but to take our medicine then, and we'll be wishing that we took it now.
The difference in your scenarios is that the government used other people's money to bail out a failed business, and in the second scenario a private business used their own money to bail out a failed business knowing the risks. It's not Capitalism if the government gets involved.
Where does a business get money? Through private citizens. Where does the government get money? Through private citizens.
The government IS a corporation. The biggest one in the world. The CEO is Barack Obama and the board of directors is Congress.
There is nothing socialistic about the government loaning people money. We've been doing it since the 1960s when the SBA was founded to help loan money to small businesses.
Private citizens choose to buy from a private business, whereas the government forces them to pay taxes. There's no threat of being arrested and thrown in jail if you choose not to buy an iPod, or whatever.
