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.
And yet as you seem to always do - you started this whole back-and-forth we're on, not with a comment about Congress, but with an implied claim that somehow it was OBAMA that was to blame. Remember this back in past #15?:
Do you understand the difference between the market, and GM? Do you not understand how the market, can go down due to governmental policies? Do you not understand that owners of companies do hold blame when their companies go down? Now that "Obama" is the owner you seem to want to give him a pass, which does not discredit the fact that the MARKET crashed since Democrats have taken over. You seem to want to pick and choose facts and completely ignore the 372% climb which took place under Republican Congress and the fact that the market tanked the minute Democrats took over..why would you want to ignore that? mm, let me think...
Do you not understand that shutting down sales channels = less sales = less company value = less stock holder value = lower stock price?
There is a HUGE difference between looking at the market, and focusing on ONE particular stock and then trying to figure out why the stock is tanking, and why the insurance for that stock is 20 times higher than the competitors stock..
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
Once again, trying to lay the blame on Obama for something he INHERITED - while ignoring all the damage done by GW - then when THAT'S pointed out, suddenly shifting the focus to Congress. You make the point that Obama's actions have led to GM's loss of stock value - so tell me: What EXACTLY did Obama do After he was elected but before he was President that cause so much problem for GM (and how was that Obama's doing as opposed to GW's). And don't go on about what he has done since he's been PRESIDENT. I want to know what it is he did while President-elect. After all, you SPECIFICALLY mention in post #15 how much GM stock has gone down since Obama was ELECTED - not once he was actually PRESIDENT.
Wrong, Obama inherited a recession, he inherited accounts receivables due to the TARP spending under Bush, he inherited a market that was recovering, albeit slowly, he did not inherit CONTROL of any of these companies..
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
So tell me, what was it exactly that Obama did in that time that caused so much damage - and how is that not GW's responsibility? After all, GW was President then - NOT Obama.
AGAIN, Obama and Obama ALONE, converted a loan into ownership and control. The minute he takes control he becomes responsible for that companies actions. I'm surprised your willing to give the owner of a company a pass for its failures since your so anti business / CEOs...
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
OK, you want to talk pure percentages -
Over the last 10 years GM has been reduced by roughly 98%
Of that 98%, 90% of it happened under GW
What percentage did GM fall while Bush had "ownership" or control over it? Hint, the answer is ZERO, he NEVER had control over it, that isnt a presidents job funct. You move the responsibility for a company from the CEO to the President when the President becomes the owner of the company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
You mention percentage and say it's the ONLY thing that matters. That's BS. The fact is, NOBODY pulls percentages out of the market. You can't spend percentages to buy groceries, or to pay your rent, or to put gas in your car, or to fund your retirement. You use MONEY to do that - REAL MONEY - NOT PERCENTAGES - and the fact is, in terms of REAL MONEY, GM had been reduced to nearly nothing ALREADY by the time Obama came into office (or even was elected). When your stock has been reduced to nearly nothing it's pretty easy to make or lose huge PERCENTAGES on relatively minor changes in price. So what?
Your completely wrong.. totally wrong, 100% absolutely positive WRONG. ANY investor lookst at ONLY percentage gains and losses and compares this gain/loss to the risk when determining if they should be investing in stocks, bonds, cds, mortgage backed securities, NNN properties, etc. Yes, the final outcome = cash for the gas tank, but the ONLY way to determine what makes the best investment is to look at the rate of return. Using your argument, one could claim that buying a home for $100,000 and selling it 20 years later for $150,000 is someone who did better than buying a home for $100,000 and selling it six months later for $140,000. Your completely wrong.
The investor who held for 20 years made $50,000 and the investor that held for 6 months made $40,000, giving them another 19.5 years to reinvest. There isnt a mathmatical equation on investing that is based upon a dollar figure, they ALL are based upon percentages. Hell, didnt you just justify a 5% ROI on Social Security the other day and now your claiming percentages mean nothing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
That's all well and good for the day traders who've just gotten into GM - but there are 10 of millions of Americans with money invested LONG TERM in their 401K's - and for those people - they've lost a ton of money on GM. For every $53,000 they had invested in GM they had $3,500 left when Obama came into office. If it ends up that GM's price somehow goes to $7/share they will have made an ROI of 100% compared to what they had when Obama came in. Ask them how excited they'd be to have made that 100%. Ask them how much better it makes them feel that their $53,000 has surged to a WHOLE $7,000.
The fact is - their percentages stink!
What a false argument. If they end up at $7 a share.. If they end up at $.02 a share. We can all play IF games out of butt but if games dont pay the bills and NONE of it ever gives a president power or authorization to take over PRIVATELY owned businesses. Wasnt the argument against allowing people to invest their own SS money because IF the market falls, now you want to argue that IF the market recovers. It will recover, but not because of Obama, but because thats what markets do, but none of that means that Obama EVER should have been authorized or empowered to take control over businesses.
I dont invest in stocks on "what if" games.. thats gambling, not investing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
The truth of the matter is, viewing it as PURE PERCENTAGE is bullsh*t - because the numbers can be easily manipulated depending on where you set your starting and stopping points.
Gees, didnt you jut do the same with a $ figure? Picked a start and stopping point to try to make a point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
In the final analysis it's the REAL DOLLARS that actually matter. It's the REAL DOLLARS that people will depend upon for their retirements. It's the REAL DOLLARS that they will spend or save - NOT percentages.
Find me ONE investment based upon REAL dollars and not percentages. Find me ONE..
People keep forgetting that the bail outs began during the last administration and the auto manufacturers have been in trouble for a very long time! Major corporations don't go under in less than 4 months! As others just wrote, closing dealerships is to cut costs. Do the people who dislike Obama have amnesia? I guess so.
Bailout: Bush Approves Auto Industry Bailout (http://consumerist.com/5114362/ - broken link)
Hmmm, Obama as an innocent bystander just "inherited" this mess? I think not.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
As President-elect Barack Obama moved to announce his economic team and to outline his stimulus plan, some media reports last night and this morning examined the apparent coordination between his message and that of outgoing President Bush. ABC World News said in its lead story, "Obama has said we have only one president at a time. But today, it seemed as if he and President Bush were working like a tag team wrestling match with an economic crisis." In a later report, ABC World News' Charlie Gibson said, "I don't think I have ever seen a President-elect getting so involved in policy so early. It does seem like we've got at the moment two presidents." George Stephanopoulos added, ""It's never happened before."
Under the headline "Obama And Bush Working To Calm Volatile Market," the New York Times reports on its front page that the President-elect "and his new economic team worked closely with...Bush to inject confidence into the trembling financial markets, which rallied and erased most of last week's losses." McClatchy reports, "America has never seen anything quite like this: The president and president-elect acting like co-presidents, consulting and cooperating on the day's biggest crises."
People keep forgetting that the bail outs began during the last administration and the auto manufacturers have been in trouble for a very long time! Major corporations don't go under in less than 4 months! As others just wrote, closing dealerships is to cut costs. Do the people who dislike Obama have amnesia? I guess so.
Bailout: Bush Approves Auto Industry Bailout (http://consumerist.com/5114362/ - broken link)
Who is forgetting that? Bush -- both of them, Clinton and now Obama are just globalists working for the multinational corporations.
What some people are forgetting is that there is no change. Obama isn't going to do a damn thing about American jobs, he's not going to through out NAFTA or change the direction the jobs have been going.
The government SEIZED fannie and freddie in 2008. Their day to day operations are ran by government bureaucrats and the government owns79.9% of their stock
Government Seizes Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac - FOXBusiness.com (http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/government-seied-fannie-mae-freddie-mac/ - broken link)
I dont see why you have a smiling face with sunglasses next the title.
2m600 GM dealerships + 800 ones is not a good thing. Think of all the people who lost their jobs and will end up on welfare and others that you will end up paying for.
Plus they have kids too. They will lose their benefits and such. It is never a good thing.
Unfortunately, our government set interest rates too low that encouraged lending by the banks and mortgage companies and borrowing by the consumer. This created a demand not supported by people's actual abilities to earn and repay. What we are experiencing now is a natural contraction from overbuilding. It is painful, but necessary to return our economy to a sound footing.
I dont see why you have a smiling face with sunglasses next the title.
2m600 GM dealerships + 800 ones is not a good thing. Think of all the people who lost their jobs and will end up on welfare and others that you will end up paying for.
Plus they have kids too. They will lose their benefits and such. It is never a good thing.
Although I have not read all of the post , I must say that having put in 34 yrs in the automobile business there is one good thing that will come of all this and that is that for the dealers that have the funds to manage with service and used car sales , they will in reality be better off ! They will no longer have to pay the huge franchize fee each month to GM, CHRYSLER or FORD ( when they do the same thing ) allowing the business man to make and "Keep" more of the profit from his effort's . There will still be used auto's for sale at the wholesale auctions for them to buy and sell.
I read somewhere that the avg. dealership employees 46 people. 46 x 3400 dealers = 156,400 jobs lost at dealerships during the restructure of GM & ChryCo. Chrysler & GM combined have approximately 180K employees on the payroll. So we paid something like $40B tax dollar to save 180K jobs while flushing 156k jobs down the toilet.
What did we get for our money again?
Not to worry, they will be importing cars from China to save American jobs.
Do you understand the difference between the market, and GM? Do you not understand how the market, can go down due to governmental policies? Do you not understand that owners of companies do hold blame when their companies go down? Now that "Obama" is the owner you seem to want to give him a pass, which does not discredit the fact that the MARKET crashed since Democrats have taken over. You seem to want to pick and choose facts and completely ignore the 372% climb which took place under Republican Congress and the fact that the market tanked the minute Democrats took over..why would you want to ignore that? mm, let me think...
Do you not understand that shutting down sales channels = less sales = less company value = less stock holder value = lower stock price?
There is a HUGE difference between looking at the market, and focusing on ONE particular stock and then trying to figure out why the stock is tanking, and why the insurance for that stock is 20 times higher than the competitors stock..
Wrong, Obama inherited a recession, he inherited accounts receivables due to the TARP spending under Bush, he inherited a market that was recovering, albeit slowly, he did not inherit CONTROL of any of these companies..
AGAIN, Obama and Obama ALONE, converted a loan into ownership and control. The minute he takes control he becomes responsible for that companies actions. I'm surprised your willing to give the owner of a company a pass for its failures since your so anti business / CEOs...
What percentage did GM fall while Bush had "ownership" or control over it? Hint, the answer is ZERO, he NEVER had control over it, that isnt a presidents job funct. You move the responsibility for a company from the CEO to the President when the President becomes the owner of the company.
Your completely wrong.. totally wrong, 100% absolutely positive WRONG. ANY investor lookst at ONLY percentage gains and losses and compares this gain/loss to the risk when determining if they should be investing in stocks, bonds, cds, mortgage backed securities, NNN properties, etc. Yes, the final outcome = cash for the gas tank, but the ONLY way to determine what makes the best investment is to look at the rate of return. Using your argument, one could claim that buying a home for $100,000 and selling it 20 years later for $150,000 is someone who did better than buying a home for $100,000 and selling it six months later for $140,000. Your completely wrong.
The investor who held for 20 years made $50,000 and the investor that held for 6 months made $40,000, giving them another 19.5 years to reinvest. There isnt a mathmatical equation on investing that is based upon a dollar figure, they ALL are based upon percentages. Hell, didnt you just justify a 5% ROI on Social Security the other day and now your claiming percentages mean nothing?
What a false argument. If they end up at $7 a share.. If they end up at $.02 a share. We can all play IF games out of butt but if games dont pay the bills and NONE of it ever gives a president power or authorization to take over PRIVATELY owned businesses. Wasnt the argument against allowing people to invest their own SS money because IF the market falls, now you want to argue that IF the market recovers. It will recover, but not because of Obama, but because thats what markets do, but none of that means that Obama EVER should have been authorized or empowered to take control over businesses.
I dont invest in stocks on "what if" games.. thats gambling, not investing.
Gees, didnt you jut do the same with a $ figure? Picked a start and stopping point to try to make a point?
Find me ONE investment based upon REAL dollars and not percentages. Find me ONE..
In the "END" it really doesn't matter who did or didn't do what ! it happen and we the American citizens will be affected by it and as sure as H*^@ we will be the one's to pay for who ever's mistake it was .
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.
You accuse me of lying about what you said, right after you say what I said you said AGAIN..
