where is the outrage? tootsie, and all

[humbletx]

the ducttape crowd need to chime on this one ASAPhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB123836090755767077.html

[TennesseeTuxedo]

Der Fuehrer has spoken.

[Blacksheepvol]

I get the print edition of the WSJ, so I'm assuming this is the article on the White House making the GM CEO step down. When the government can make decisions for a private Corporation, it's socialism. This isn't just the gov't acting as a significant shareholder, either. A bad precedent was set here, and I'm concerned about the viability of the capitalist structure. The next 4 years are going to be interesting in the same vein as the Chinese curse.

[Polemicvol]

It's really hard to defend the record of the CEO of GM, as he basically ran the company into the ground. And GM wants more money from the US Taxpayers. So GM is going to have to be responsive to it's new capital contributors, the US taxpayers. And that means jettisoning the losers who were in charge.

Socialism is when the government takes over an industry and runs it. With no intention of ever privitizing that endeavor again. That's not what's happening at present in America. Our current Keystone Kapitalists, fucked everything up and want bailouts. So instead of nationalizing these companies, at present we are just loaning them money. Which pisses me off no end.

Bad capitalism is nationalizing profits, socializing losses, and allowing the bad cronyism managers to remain in charge. Obama seems to be on board for nationalizing profits and socializing losses, but is tossing out the CEOs as window dressing. But he hasn't fired any bank CEOs that I'm aware of.

We should totally nationalize these failed industries, our automakers and our banks. Then once we've cleaned them up, sell them back to private investors at a profit to the taxpayers. I'm against the Bush/Obama bailouts with no consequences policy.

[Blacksheepvol]

So instead of nationalizing these companies, at present we are just loaning them money. Which pisses me off no end.

Bad capitalism is nationalizing profits, socializing losses, and allowing the bad cronyism managers to remain in charge.

And good capitalism is letting the losers FAIL!!! The system cannot work if you don't let it. The free market is the optimal market, rewarding those who can and punishing those who cannot. Bailouts, socializing, etc... are loser policies. Let the economic darwinism run its course.

[LegendofNation]

and wiping their ass with it, while all their radlib worshippers jerk off all over themselves at the thought of the Gov't running their lives.

Mah-velous.

[Polemicvol]

The politics of right wing Republican rule and their reversal of depression era banking and insurance laws, allowed huge mega-banks and mega non-banks (insurance companies) to be created, which are just too huge to allow to fail.

If we allowed Bank of America, Citibank, et al to fail, we would have global financial bank panics that would certainly put us into a new depression. You know, soup lines, 25% plus unemployment, drastic drops in standards of living, all that bad stuff.

So we couldn't let them "fail" like the good capitalist models want. We had to bail them out. But we should nationalize them, and then break them into much much smaller regional banks, or sell their assets to healthy regional banks, state banks, and credit unions, who have avoided their mistakes.

We should kill the mega-banks and mega-insurance companies.

[Blacksheepvol]

Ahhh, you think government can run business better than private industry. I disagree with you at a deep level. The current crisis started with lenders loaning to people who couldn't afford it due to Democratic leadership initiatives and was exacerbated by lazy policy of Republic leadership. Both main parties are culpable, and no amount of finger pointing will change that.

I notice that you can't post without some right wing sling and there are others who can't post without slamming the left. Divisive name calling does nothing positive for debate or the country.

[Polemicvol]

I have made "sub-prime" loans for over 20 years. The government had almost nothing to do with the sub prime lending market, it was almost unregulated. All sub-prime loans were packaged and sold by private investment banks on Wall Street and actually competed with real government loans, like FHA and VA loans for customers.

All the Wall Street sub-prime loans are the ones which failed. FHA loans and VA loans have performed very well and are still available, while the entire Wall Street apparatus for sub prime paper came crashing down, taking with it AIG, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Bear Sterns, et al. I know, I used to sell paper to all those but AIG, cause all AIG did was insure all those worthless sub prime loans with credit default swaps, another unregulated derivitive financial product that blew up.

Why did all this happen? Cause Republicans in 1999 repealed the Glass Steagall banking laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act) from the 1930s and deregulated much of the financial industry.

When I read right wing dribble, I do tend to point it out. That's a service to other posters. I don't believe in government running businesses that can be successfully run by private business. But I also don't believe that private business should run the nation's economy into the ground with greed and avarice. The government must at times step in to protect the public's interest and sort out the failed companies. That's what bankrupcy laws do. In this case, we let some finanicial companies get too large to fail without taking the nation's economy with it. So the government had to step in.

I believe we nationalize, get rid of the bad apples and the bad assets they screwed up and created, then resale the cleaned up assets to new investors. Nothing socialist about that at all. It's just a form of bankrupcy reorganization.

[TennesseeTuxedo]

It's really hard to defend the record of the CEO of GM, as he basically ran the company into the ground. And GM wants more money from the US Taxpayers. So GM is going to have to be responsive to it's new capital contributors, the US taxpayers. And that means jettisoning the losers who were in charge.

Socialism is when the government takes over an industry and runs it. With no intention of ever privitizing that endeavor again. That's not what's happening at present in America. Our current Keystone Kapitalists, fucked everything up and want bailouts. So instead of nationalizing these companies, at present we are just loaning them money. Which pisses me off no end.

Bad capitalism is nationalizing profits, socializing losses, and allowing the bad cronyism managers to remain in charge. Obama seems to be on board for nationalizing profits and socializing losses, but is tossing out the CEOs as window dressing. But he hasn't fired any bank CEOs that I'm aware of.

We should totally nationalize these failed industries, our automakers and our banks. Then once we've cleaned them up, sell them back to private investors at a profit to the taxpayers. I'm against the Bush/Obama bailouts with no consequences policy.

If you look Obama's moves, they all have two things in common: They make the people less free and the government more powerful.

[humbletx]

Ahhh, you think government can run business better than private industry. I disagree with you at a deep level. The current crisis started with lenders loaning to people who couldn't afford it due to Democratic leadership initiatives and was exacerbated by lazy policy of Republic leadership. Both main parties are culpable, and no amount of finger pointing will change that.

I notice that you can't post without some right wing sling and there are others who can't post without slamming the left. Divisive name calling does nothing positive for debate or the country.

GM has been a poorly run (and that, is high praise) company for decades.. Heck I'm sure some of those midwest business schools have looked at GM in the classroom and stated that over and over.

A couple things to drag into this so called conversation "government" has been a huge part of running private businesses for decades.. Manufacturing - "government" has always had a hand in it. To carte blanche state "government could not run a private corp." is full of holes.

The question, rather, could "government" run a private corp. better that it is currently - or historically"?

using GM as a case study - it doesn't take long to draw some interesting conclusions..

[TennesseeTuxedo]

or the use of how the government ran the AIG fiasco provides insight to it's level of incompetence.

[humbletx]

or the use of how the government ran the AIG fiasco provides insight to it's level of incompetence.

Yep - another example of the level of incompetence of the Bush Adminstration tootsie - thanks for pointing out ONCE again how awful the Bushboys ran things..

[Polemicvol]

The issue is the failure of private companies, that forced the government to step in. To point at the rescue effort as an example of how governments run companies is ludicrous.

That's like comparing a Coast Guard rescue swimmer with an Olympic swimming medal winner. Both swim, but are trained to do completely different things. One pulls people out of the water (bailout) and the other attempts to swim as fast as possible (generate maximum profits).

Two different things.

[humbletx]

The issue is the failure of private companies, that forced the government to step in. To point at the rescue effort as an example of how governments run companies is ludicrous.

That's like comparing a Coast Guard rescue swimmer with an Olympic swimming medal winner. Both swim, but are trained to do completely different things. One pulls people out of the water (bailout) and the other attempts to swim as fast as possible (generate maximum profits).

Two different things.

I believe Blackie position is allowing private companies to fail.

The "other" issue is "government" running a failed private corp. A big difference. Could the "government" attract a management team to run a failed "private corp." - Say GM? IMO it wouldn't be that difficult to put together a management team to run a "failed private corp." as, once again IMO it would be a near short term management process.

[gallavol]

The GM CEO lorded over a 97% loss in GM stock vaule, yet he walked away with a tidy $23 million from the deal. If we allow the Big Three to fail, the Japanese (and others) will own that market in a heartbeat. More out of work middle class Americans who will work in the future for a foreign master at much less income. Mexico has proven it can manufacture "American" cars at about one quarter of the labor cost. We have to decide, do we want to be a nation that makes anything, or just middle men.

[Athenian]

When it comes to relieving Rick Wagoner with someone with a different approach, I find it hard to believe that Fritz Henderson is the man for the job.
Both started their careers with GM as analysts at the Treasurer's Office in New York. Seems like the same thinking is going to go on at GM. Fritz worked under Wagoner.

Now here's the kicker. The Feds have plowed the money into GM and Chrysler to starve off bankrupcy, yet we now hearing that this avenue may indeed be an option.

Let the capitalistic system work.

[ZippyVol]

The GM CEO lorded over a 97% loss in GM stock vaule, yet he walked away with a tidy $23 million from the deal. If we allow the Big Three to fail, the Japanese (and others) will own that market in a heartbeat. More out of work middle class Americans who will work in the future for a foreign master at much less income.


More asian auto manufacturers? I'm cool with that. We have their plants all over Alabama, and it's done alot for the economy down here in the last decade.

As for the last sentence: Does it really matter if their 'master' is foreign or domestic? Its a master just the same, at least this way the master is a reasonably sound corporation who is less likely to expect a 50b handout from the fed every year or two.

Secondly: It wont necessarilly mean more unemployed Americans. If 2 of the Big American Three fail, they foreign companies...possibly even new domestic ones...will fill the void. Yes, they will make less money. But, you have to consider that the money the UAW employees make now is horribly inflated; and a big part of the reason why the companies are insolvent. The employees SHOULD, by and large, make less. That part is a feature, not a bug.

[stonersboners]

Comrads,

Our Dear Learder has plans to go much further. It will not belong before a peoples Utopia will be established here in the US. Lets grab hold of the People's shovel and go do what needs to be done!:082502now_prv:

Frank-ly Control Freaks: Congressional Committee Passes Bill Controlling ALL Pay at US-Involved Companies


By Tom Blumer (Bio | Archive)
March 31, 2009 - 12:34 ET

And to think we were "only" worried about was having a known Tax Cheat overseeing everyone's taxes.

With Barney Frank's help, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is trying to expand his power (and by inference that of his Dear Leader boss) well beyond that. The "Pay for Performance Act," which has already gotten out of committee, would give him veto power over salaries at every company into which the government has inserted its intrusive claws.

Besides the utter outrageousness of the news itself, the story leads to the question of how the establishment media will handle it. Whitewash it? Minimize its significance? Ignore it? Given the fact that the news is over a week old, I vote for a continuation of Door Number Three.

Byron York reports the following in the DC Examiner:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

<a href="http://harvest.AdGardener.com/noscript.aspx?s=16&c=fa99ab07-42c2-43e0-abfb-b47f96e4b9b9" target="_blank"><img src="http://harvest.AdGardener.com/noscript.aspx?s=16&w=336&h=280&c=fa99ab07-42c2-43e0-abfb-b47f96e4b9b9" width="336" height="280" border="0" /></a>

Beyond AIG: A Bill to let Big Government Set Your Salary

..... in a little-noticed move, the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill. The new legislation, the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives -- of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.

The purpose of the legislation is to "prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards," according to the bill's language. That includes regular pay, bonuses -- everything -- paid to employees of companies in whom the government has a capital stake, including those that have received funds through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The measure is not limited just to those firms that received the largest sums of money, or just to the top 25 or 50 executives of those companies. It applies to all employees of all companies involved, for as long as the government is invested. And it would not only apply going forward, but also retroactively to existing contracts and pay arrangements of institutions that have already received funds.

In addition, the bill gives Geithner the authority to decide what pay is "unreasonable" or "excessive." And it directs the Treasury Department to come up with a method to evaluate "the performance of the individual executive or employee to whom the payment relates."

The bill passed the Financial Services Committee last week, 38 to 22, on a nearly party-line vote. (All Democrats voted for it, and all Republicans, with the exception of Reps. Ed Royce of California and Walter Jones of North Carolina, voted against it.)

Geez, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to extend Geithner's reach to:

Any company with a Small Business Administration loan.
Any university with students who have borrowed money from the government to attend (i.e., almost every institution of higher learning in the US).
Any company whose employees use government services (i.e., an interstate highway or a subsidized mass-transit ride) to get to work.
That is, it's not a very far trip to controlling everyone's earnings.

Well, at least the self-employed won't be affected .... Don't count on that either. Tax Cheat Tim will probably want to control hourly rates and prices paid to vendors.

[Polemicvol]

That's blasphemy to all things truly capitalist. Only master capitalists can run corporations, everybody else is a lower form of the species.

You must be a damned Marxist.

[Polemicvol]

He who has the gold, makes the rules. Only now, it's the American people who have the gold and will make the rules. Management should have full ability to write the rules of compension of employees. And now these yahoos are working for Uncle Sam. So Uncle Sam will dictate, as he should.

Capitalism failed. And it drives the wingers crazy. It makes them so nuts that they attack capitalism, as in the last post.