Obama warns auto companies.

[PLC1]

You remember the big deal that was made about how AIG needed to come up with a sustainable business plan for profitability before they got taxpayer money? No? Oh that's right... no such plan was required...

How about the banks... Surely with $700 billion dollars on the line, they were required to submit a plan for... oh that's right... they weren't required to do so either.

In both of those industries, no such plan was required because the government was nationalizing the industry, with taxpayer money, and taking over. Government created the "Plan" for sustainability and profitability for those industries leaving them no choice in the matter. Government asking for the auto industry to submit a "Plan" is nothing but smoke and mirrors... the "Car Czar" position will ensure that the industry is properly nationalized and under the complete control of bureaucrats in Washington.

Oh but this isn't socialism...

I remember that, and now no one even seems to remember where those 700 billion have gone.

Will they actually require the auto industry to have a plan in place for solvency, or will they impose a bunch of regulations on them that will ensure that they don't be come solvent? The latter seems to me morel likely, but maybe not. Maybe Obama's warning is real.

No, the government shouldn't bail out unprofitable industries without some assurance that the money is coming back to the treasury. When Chrysler got a big government loan, the money was paid back. I wouldn't bet on the same thing happening this time around.

Government bail outs will, of course, be blamed on Obama, since he is a Democrat, and everyone knows that the Democrats are the big spenders, so therefore it has to be his fault. Wait and see: The Obama bailouts will be a phrase used by the self described conservatives, ignoring the fact that the $700 billion was spent before he even took office.

Heaven help this nation. I'm seriously considering putting my money into gold as a hedge against the inflation that is sure to come out the current policy of throwing money at problems, then printing more to make up the difference.

 

[GenSeneca]

Will they actually require the auto industry to have a plan in place for solvency, or will they impose a bunch of regulations on them that will ensure that they don't be come solvent?

In what universe has our federal government ever been able to ensure solvency? If they had any such power, our government itself would be solvent. The path they are taking these industries is the same one Washington has taken our federal government - straight into the crapper.

They don't care about "solvency"... they care about forcing auto industries to build "green" cars that can't compete on the open market. By eliminating the cars people do want to buy from the market, and making sure only the "green" cars are available, government will take away the competition.

They don't care about the banks being solvent.. they care about making sure people with no business owning a house, and no ability to pay a mortgage, get loans.

They don't care about the insurance industry being solvent... they care about being able to force insurance industries to take on high risk ventures, like securing bad mortgage loans.

No, the government shouldn't bail out unprofitable industries without some assurance that the money is coming back to the treasury. When Chrysler got a big government loan, the money was paid back. I wouldn't bet on the same thing happening this time around.

The government shouldn't bail out unprofitable companies PERIOD. Socialism takes total control of industry, Fascism leaves part of the industries in private hands but controls the aspects of operation. Capitalism is where government stays the hell out of business altogether, so they can succeed or fail on their own merits and not by fiat of bureaucratic meddling.

Government bail outs will, of course, be blamed on Obama, since he is a Democrat, and everyone knows that the Democrats are the big spenders, so therefore it has to be his fault. Wait and see: The Obama bailouts will be a phrase used by the self described conservatives, ignoring the fact that the $700 billion was spent before he even took office.

Once Obama starts handing out the dole, they will be his bailouts. Until then, its ALL Bush.

Heaven help this nation. I'm seriously considering putting my money into gold as a hedge against the inflation that is sure to come out the current policy of throwing money at problems, then printing more to make up the difference.

Use the $700 billion Obama is going to send out as a "stimulus" package to buy that gold... If the dynamics of his stimulus remain the same as the Bush stimulus package... We are looking at getting nearly 10 times as much money. Bush stimulus gave us $600 per single taxpayer, Obama's could be as much as $6,000 (SIX THOUSAND) dollars per recipient.

Inflation wont take off until that money hits the economy, so you have till then to prepare yourself for a worthless dollar.

 

[Pidgey]

Inflation wont take off until that money hits the economy, so you have till then to prepare yourself for a worthless dollar.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BASENS

 

[GenSeneca]

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BASENS

Sorry Pidgey... I'm no economist. Please explain what I'm looking at here:

Is this graph supporting the statement I made or what?

 

[PLC1]

In what universe has our federal government ever been able to ensure solvency? If they had any such power, our government itself would be solvent. The path they are taking these industries is the same one Washington has taken our federal government - straight into the crapper.

So, I'm guessing you're betting on the latter, that they will impose regultions making them even less likely to be solvent. I'd really like to dispute that, but I'm afraid that you're right.

Even though I'd really, really, like to believe that you're wrong.

They don't care about "solvency"... they care about forcing auto industries to build "green" cars that can't compete on the open market. By eliminating the cars people do want to buy from the market, and making sure only the "green" cars are available, government will take away the competition.

I'm afraid you're probably right about that one as well.

They don't care about the banks being solvent.. they care about making sure people with no business owning a house, and no ability to pay a mortgage, get loans.

They don't care about the insurance industry being solvent... they care about being able to force insurance industries to take on high risk ventures, like securing bad mortgage loans.

And, of course, they care about those things because it keeps them in power for the short term.

The government shouldn't bail out unprofitable companies PERIOD. Socialism takes total control of industry, Fascism leaves part of the industries in private hands but controls the aspects of operation. Capitalism is where government stays the hell out of business altogether, so they can succeed or fail on their own merits and not by fiat of bureaucratic meddling.

Are you seriously saying that throwing money at a problem won't make it go away? What, then is the purpose of the federal government? When have they ever tried another tactic?

Once Obama starts handing out the dole, they will be his bailouts. Until then, its ALL Bush.

Yes, but the partisan Republicans will never admit that Bush is a bigger spender than his predecessors ever were.

Use the $700 billion Obama is going to send out as a "stimulus" package to buy that gold... If the dynamics of his stimulus remain the same as the Bush stimulus package... We are looking at getting nearly 10 times as much money. Bush stimulus gave us $600 per single taxpayer, Obama's could be as much as $6,000 (SIX THOUSAND) dollars per recipient. Inflation wont take off until that money hits the economy, so you have till then to prepare yourself for a worthless dollar.

Holy ****, six grand per recipient? If that happens, mine is definitely going into precious metals, along with a big chunk of savings. What country has been successful at fixing the economy by printing more money? Argentina? Nope, hyper inflation. Germany? same. Zimbabwe? even worse. I'm afraid we're in for a ruinous inflationary spiral unless there are some voices of reason to be heard.

As it is, fiscal conservatives are quickly going the way of the dodo.

 

[Pidgey]

It's the monetary base--what you're talking about, yes. Huge injection of liquidity (that mega-uptick on the right) trying to get the economy working again. Pure desperation. Looks like it's about the amount that Paulson was begging for back in late summer.

 

[Pidgey]

Yes, but the partisan Republicans will never admit that Bush is a bigger spender than his predecessors ever were.

"All roads lead to Congress." Congressional members want to get re-elected so they promise their voting constituents goodies. The fact that the voting constituents are the ones paying for any such goodies gets a bit overlooked--it all comes from the "gummint"! Well, it's like giving a green-as-grass college kid a credit card...

 

[Andy]

Yes, absolutely, that's a better idea.

Here's a worse idea: Let them have the bailout money with no strings attached, so that they can carry on business as usual for a while until they need another government hand... I mean bailout.

Well honestly, what exactly do you think "strings attached" would do? The problem is with the concept, not the implementation.

Do you really think CEOs would take a pay cut? Of course not. They are the CEO. Let us pretend that the bailout money required the CEO to only earn $250K a year. Either, they wouldn't take the bailout, or they would take it, and get the rest of their earnings some other way. Like company perks, company paid for homes, cars, aircraft rides, vacations, yachts, whatever.

One of the more interesting one's I've heard, was a CEO that had his pay cut, but then put himself on the board of directors of a subsidiary company, and thus collected a salary from that position, which made up for the cut in pay.

CEOs are going to collect. Especially if they can land a multi-billion dollar hand out by the government.

Or perhaps you would put restrictions on what the money was used for. How would that help?

Say a company wished to use the money to buy a competitor. They would simply use the money that would be for making loans, to buy the competitor, and use the money from the bailout, to make the loans.

So what good would strings do exactly? What's worse is, this money isn't even going to banks that need bailed out anyway. Here's the dirty little secret. This isn't a Bail-out. This is socialism. The government is getting stock in these companies in return for the cash. Just like any investor wouldn't want stock in a failing company, the government doesn't want stock in a failing company either.

That's why it's "bailing out" Chase (which bought WaMu), Wells Fargo (which is buying Wachovia), PNC Bank (which bought National City), Morgan Stanley, Capital One, Goldman Sachs, and the list goes on. Are any of these, Banks that are in trouble? Nope.

You can take Obama and the Congressional Democrats to task for handing out tax money, you know, kind of like the Bush administration is doing,

Hey, I'm not partisan at all. I've bashed Bush over this from the start. I would challenge anyone to show me one post where I supported Bush on this bailout crap.

That said, the reason I am focusing on Obama and the democrats is because Bush is out in a few weeks. Obama and Democrats are going to be running everything, and unlike the claims of "Hope and Change", his plan is a Failure and the Same as what we got.

but I really don't understand why you would object to requiring the industry to have a plan to become profitable or forfeit further government money.

Where did I object to this? Show me one post anywhere that I said that? I'll never understand why people have to read into things what isn't there, instead of reading exactly what was said.

I have no objection to requiring a plan. I object to the entire bailout completely. I object to giving them money to do what they would do if no money were given.

I object to a failed concept that has never worked, and rewards bad choices. I object to socialism. I object to now having a massive list of other companies and industries that all think they need a bailout as well.

What is amazing to me is that we are complaining about government not helping things 'correctly' as if, yet it was government that caused the whole problem to begin with.

Just yesterday I stumbled on the testimony of AIGs CEO on what caused his company to fail. All through it was government did this, government did that, it caused this problem. Yet at the very end, he thanks government from all the help it gave. How pathetic, yet I see that all over this forum. Government screws it all up, and now we start whining about how the bailout was administered, instead of demanding that government stay the heck out of the market.

 

[PLC1]

Where did I object to this? Show me one post anywhere that I said that? I'll never understand why people have to read into things what isn't there, instead of reading exactly what was said.

Well, here is what was said:

But Obama is warning auto companies that "the American people's patience is running out." He says the automakers should "seize on this opportunity" to come up with a plan to make their companies sustainable.

I had to laugh at this. People have asked why I think Obama is an idiot. My favorite answer is the whole national energy policy of "inflate your tires". But there are dozens of other ones, and here's just yet another example of idiocy that is Obama.

Here we have three major auto manufactures which are facing bankruptcy, and Obama's action is to... basically... threaten them! Why yes! Why didn't I come up with this before! We should just THREATEN them into profitability! It's oh so clear now! We can just intimidate them back into the budgetary black!

""Well... um... or else you'll go bankrupt... yeah..."

From that I read that you think obama is an idiot for asking the auto companies to come up with a plan to make their companies sustainable.

Now, silly me, where on earth did I get that idea? Oh, yes, now I know. It was from the words you pasted and posted.

Perhaps I misinterpreted your intent.

Now, I realize your first choice would be to not bail out failing companies at all, and I agree.

Is it your second choice to go ahead and give them the money, and not expect them to come up with a plan to become sustainable?

Or, just what is your point?

 

[Fallschirmjager]

But Obama is warning auto companies that "the American people's patience is running out." He says the automakers should "seize on this opportunity" to come up with a plan to make their companies sustainable.

I've got the answer for that one, file Chapter 11, tell the Unions to take a hike, and start over again. That'll make 'em "sustainable".

 

[Andy]

From that I read that you think obama is an idiot for asking the auto companies to come up with a plan to make their companies sustainable.

Now, silly me, where on earth did I get that idea? Oh, yes, now I know. It was from the words you pasted and posted.

Perhaps I misinterpreted your intent.

Now, I realize your first choice would be to not bail out failing companies at all, and I agree.

Is it your second choice to go ahead and give them the money, and not expect them to come up with a plan to become sustainable?

Or, just what is your point?

Ok, I see where your coming from and how you got that. No the problem isn't with wanting them to come up with a plan. Maybe this is yet another example of my screwy humor....

Let us pretend that you are the CEO of GM. The largest, most successful, world wide, multinational car company. As far as being CEO, you are pretty much in charge of one of the largest companies the planet has ever seen. There really isn't much you could do to "improve" your job at this point. Not much in the way of a "step up".

Now I'm going to take a wild stab, and guess you probably do not want to be known as the CEO that bankrupted GM. Even if you do get a nice severance packages, I would wager having your children grow up hearing "oh! I know you! It was your father that bankrupted GM!".

So for the past year or two years of financial difficulty, what have you been likely doing? Dude, you have been spending all day, every week, every month, spending hundreds of hours in the office, trying to figure out how to not go into bankruptcy!

In that testimony of AIGs CEO that I mentioned in the prior post, that guy spent 10 to 16 hours a day, for weeks on end, up to the very last minute to try and prevent AIGs failure!

So... here comes Obama... and what's he going to do? Why... he's going to... THREATEN THEM! Our patients is wearing out! You better get a plan! You better be profitable! Better seizes the opportunity!

... do you think they have not been trying to come up with plans? Hmm? You think maybe GM was over there playing Donky Kong or Solitaire... when suddenly... Obama *threatened* them... and "Oh my goodness! We best be gittin ourselves a dag gone plan now!"

And what exactly happens if "the American people's patience" runs out? What exactly are we going to do to them, that they wouldn't face if we did nothing? What... Bankrupt them *more*?

The point is, Obama said something useless, and at the same time stupid yet funny.

It was funny because he tried to threaten a company that is already facing bankruptcy. It was useless because he can't do anything to them, at least not anything that won't happen if he does nothing. It was stupid because it comes across as if they haven't been trying to avoid the whole mess up to this point.

In short, to me this is idiocy.
It would be like being in a boat that has a hole and is sinking, and having the Coast Guard pull up and say they won't tow my boat back to shore if I don't fix the hole.

Then having one guy on the Coast Guard ship say "Hey buddy! Our patients is wearing out here. You better seize the opportunity to get a plan to fix that hole or else!"

 

[top gun]

​

I had to laugh at this. People have asked why I think Obama is an idiot. My favorite answer is the whole national energy policy of "inflate your tires". But there are dozens of other ones, and here's just yet another example of idiocy that is Obama.

Here we have three major auto manufactures which are facing bankruptcy, and Obama's action is to... basically... threaten them! Why yes! Why didn't I come up with this before! We should just THREATEN them into profitability! It's oh so clear now! We can just intimidate them back into the budgetary black!

"Oh, so you are going broke are you? So you're running out cash huh? Well I'm warning you, darn it!! You had better seize the opportunity... or else!!!"

or else... what?

"Well... um... or else you'll go bankrupt... yeah..."

Oh yes, I can see it will be a fun 4 years of unending stupidity. He's not even in office, and I already have a list of Bailout-Barack Overspend-Obama quotes.

Well let's face it George Bush and the Republicans pretty much destroyed our whole country on about every front so I'm thinking a President Obama that actually does have a brain will do much better. Though it will take some time to straighten things back out.

As far as the auto industry situation. First of all it was just Bush who gave them a HUGE chunk of cash and secondly President-elect Obama reassuring the the country that while he does want to help, the industry itself must reform... which they are now willing to do it seems. These loans are a get it together or goodbye type offering. Thank God we have will have a strong leader come January 20th.

All the best to President Obama!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvPY0dfOf9c

 

[primerib]

​

I had to laugh at this. People have asked why I think Obama is an idiot. My favorite answer is the whole national energy policy of "inflate your tires". But there are dozens of other ones, and here's just yet another example of idiocy that is Obama.

Here we have three major auto manufactures which are facing bankruptcy, and Obama's action is to... basically... threaten them! Why yes! Why didn't I come up with this before! We should just THREATEN them into profitability! It's oh so clear now! We can just intimidate them back into the budgetary black!

"Oh, so you are going broke are you? So you're running out cash huh? Well I'm warning you, darn it!! You had better seize the opportunity... or else!!!"

or else... what?

"Well... um... or else you'll go bankrupt... yeah..."

Oh yes, I can see it will be a fun 4 years of unending stupidity. He's not even in office, and I already have a list of Bailout-Barack Overspend-Obama quotes.

Was he umming, ahhing and whistling between sentences as he was gittin tough and takin a threatening posture? I'm impressed. This is the same guy that IS part of the do nothing democrats that brought down the housing market and our economy.

Housing market meltdown, $4 gas, economic crisis, auto makers failing and this all happened in 2 months during a presidential campaign. What a coincidence. Idiots and Obots can't use the house as an ATM anymore to buy a SUV. The house is now gone, job will probably be gone soon and they're living on a credit card. Perfect storm! And I'm supposed to feel sorry for them. It makes me mad, I saw it coming, the greed and ignorance. Now I have to suffer because of the jerk-offs getting easy money they couldn't afford.

Same story with auto makers. Auto makers need to go into bankruptcy. Unions are killing them. Compare the balance sheets of GM to Toyota. No one has the political backbone or will to make the change. Next will be bailing out the airlines and state governments. Heck I might as well git some of that bailout money too. Keep on printing it. Soon we'll be a third world country.

 

[Fallschirmjager]

What I find absolutely amazing is that despite all of the evidence, nobody seems to be talking about the 800lb Gorilla in the room. The DNC took control of Congress almost 2 years ago, and in that time they have done absolutely nothing to get this mess under control, despite all of their promises, which goes a long way toward explaining why Congress has the lowest approval ratings...ever. They've known this was coming for years, and conservatives have been telling Barney Frank and the rest of the House Financial Services Committee, since the Clinton Administration, what was going to happen if they didn't get control of the mess, and their answer has always been "there's nothing wrong". OOPS!

 

[top gun]

What I find absolutely amazing is that despite all of the evidence, nobody seems to be talking about the 800lb Gorilla in the room. The DNC took control of Congress almost 2 years ago, and in that time they have done absolutely nothing to get this mess under control, despite all of their promises, which goes a long way toward explaining why Congress has the lowest approval ratings...ever. They've known this was coming for years, and conservatives have been telling Barney Frank and the rest of the House Financial Services Committee, since the Clinton Administration, what was going to happen if they didn't get control of the mess, and their answer has always been "there's nothing wrong". OOPS!

TOTAL SLIGHT OF HAND TO TRY AN FOOL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE (not working... we're hip to it now).

The statement Democrats took control of Congress almost 2 years ago is one of the intentionally misleading arguments Republicans often try to float to an all to often uninformed/under informed public.

The fact is the Republicans in Congress have perfected their Party into the OBSTRUCTIONIST PARTY. They've actually done it so well I recommend for clarity sake they just go ahead and actually change their name.

TRUTH: A mere majority means almost nothing... especially with a President on the side of the minority.

TRUTH: It takes not 51 votes but 60 votes to break a Republican (The Obstructionist Party) filibuster and vote... so legislation can be sent up.

TRUTH: Even after that (if some in the Obstructionist Party did break off and allow a vote) then the Republican (Obstructionist) President vetoes (rejects) it and sends it back to Congress where they then would need 66 votes to override that Obstruction.

Things will move better than before now with a Democratic President and both Houses of Congress being even more Democratic. While the Democratic Party still does not have a filibuster proof majority it is very close and has a President in it's camp with a brain.

Add to that the public pressure on the Republicans that are now seen in the light of creating much if not all of this mess and I'm hopeful progress can now be made to benefit the regular American working hard to try and get ahead.