Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the president saved the auto industry and a million jobs with $80 billion.
The "auto industry" wasn't "saved." The only thing that was "saved" was union coffers.
BTW, Ford wasn't "saved" by Obama. They're part of the "auto industry," aren't they?
If they had been allowed to fail, like any other business, they would have reorganized under bankruptcy laws, like any other business. Hell, K-Mart seems to do it every few years. Cars would still be made, people would still have the jobs, and GM stockholders (many of which were GM employees) wouldn't have been left in the wind.
The shareholders got raped, including a large swath of non-auto-industry people, whose 401(k)s were affected. All for the benefit of the union. And now, instead of having a company that has just gone through a tough time, and has incentive to innovate and create a better product, we have a company that can just "get by" with the same old, boring crap, and who cares if they fail because of it? There's nothing to worry about when the government will just come in and save your ass again.
The "auto industry" wasn't "saved." The only thing that was "saved" was union coffers.
BTW, Ford wasn't "saved" by Obama. They're part of the "auto industry," aren't they?
If they had been allowed to fail, like any other business, they would have reorganized under bankruptcy laws, like any other business. Hell, K-Mart seems to do it every few years. Cars would still be made, people would still have the jobs, and GM stockholders (many of which were GM employees) wouldn't have been left in the wind.
The shareholders got raped, including a large swath of non-auto-industry people, whose 401(k)s were affected. All for the benefit of the union. And now, instead of having a company that has just gone through a tough time, and has incentive to innovate and create a better product, we have a company that can just "get by" with the same old, boring crap, and who cares if they fail because of it? There's nothing to worry about when the government will just come in and save your ass again.
What about companies like honda and toyota? They have factories here don't they?
If GM and Chrysler were to fail, the demand for cars wouldn't disappear. The workers would join Ford or any of the other car companies that make cars in the united states.
The crazy greedy bastards who were drawing bonuses for selling mortgages to the less intelligent and figuring on an algorhythm which showed home values increasing at 6% a year forever is what caused the home mortgage industry to collapse.
I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for people that thought that the two bedroom shack they were buying in Reseda for a half million dollars that sits on 1/16 of an acre of land would ever actually increase in value.
And if they're too stupid to understand the contract they're committing to, they should bring in an unbiased expert to ensure that it's all on the up and up. You don't sign something you don't fully understand and agree to. It's not rocket science.
(I also found it amusing that you mentioned "the less intelligent" and in the same sentence, misspelled the word "algorithm").
What about companies like honda and toyota? They have factories here don't they?
And? Did I miss something? Did Honda and Toyota get bailout money?
If you're going to respond to someone, at least make an effort to understand the context of the conversation, first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid
If GM and Chrysler were to fail, the demand for cars wouldn't disappear. The workers would join Ford or any of the other car companies that make cars in the united states.
Ahh, now I see. You didn't actually READ my post. Now it makes sense.
Given bad enough conditions, people will do anything to survive.
Again, you're not determining the context of what you're responding to before replying.
Greg was saying that he wanted to tax CEOs at 95%. Nobody is going to put in the effort to fulfill that job for nothing. NOBODY. Those people will simply work in other positions, with less responsibility, for less money. It's not hard to understand, you know.
Greg didn't even take into consideration the other tax burdens. Let's say this particular CEO is a Silicon Valley type. So 95% of his income goes to federal income tax, 10% goes to state income tax and another 8% of whatever he spends goes to the state as sales tax. That's 113% of his income. He's not just working a difficult job for free - he would end up actually paying the government to do it.
Do you understand now? Let me frame it more simply for you. Would you rather take a job where your salary was $1,000,000 per year, but instead of receiving $1,000,000 per year, you had to pay $130,000 per year to have that job, or would you opt for the job that had shorter hours, less responsibility and paid $50,000, of which you were able to actually keep $38,000?
In the 1950's an average corporate executive earned 20 times what a line worker earned.
Ron Johnson, JC Penney CEO earns 1800 times what his typical employee earns. The average CEO makes 600 times what an ordinary worker earns.
Unbridled greed exists in this country and only someone with zero compassion and a cruel heart can attempt to justify a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour with little or no benefits.
GUESS WHAT...The Republicans want more tax cuts for the wealthy. Grover Norquist of the T Party has even got a majority list of Republicans who have signed a pledge to never vote for another tax increase.....not a dollar.
[MOD CUT/hotlinking]
Today, most large corporations are governed to stock price. Nothing else matters to vocal majority shareholders. Rewards are huge for those who can do.
Teacher compensation is a regional thing. Most teachers in my area make > $80K a year and benefits are substantially greater than anything, and I mean anything, that can be found in the private sector.
I do not begrudge the teachers. The politicians agreed to terms and then did not bother to fund the pensions.
Teacher compensation is a regional thing. Most teachers in my area make > $80K a year and benefits are substantially greater than anything, and I mean anything, that can be found in the private sector.
I do not begrudge the teachers. The politicians agreed to terms and then did not bother to fund the pensions.
The public education system mirrors the corporate world in many cases. Classroom teachers make a small percentage of what the superintendent makes, but no one makes a lot of noise about that fact. It seems that no other group is in the gunsights of the left EXCEPT the evil corporation CEOs.
I find that hypocritical.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
