Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-10-2010, 02:29 PM
 
17,401 posts, read 11,978,162 times
Reputation: 16155

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckhorn View Post
You are stating your opinion that leveraged hiring is wrong therefore it does not happen.

Leveraged hiring is a fact of business life. It happens all the time.

You can rationalize all you wish but that won't change the cold hard fact that leveraged hiring happens all the time.
So does buying a house with a subprime loan, when your income can't cover the max payments. That happens all the time, too, but we've seen where that gets us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-10-2010, 02:43 PM
 
Location: OB
2,404 posts, read 3,948,874 times
Reputation: 879
Quote:
Confirmation that obama is Absolutely Clueless on How Business runs
We have a nice case study to look at. Take our three domestic automobile manufacturers. The only one to make a profit this year is the one still privately owned. That pretty much should sum it up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2010, 02:50 PM
 
5,715 posts, read 15,046,738 times
Reputation: 2949
Default 140,000 jobs lost...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mossomo View Post
We have a nice case study to look at. Take our three domestic automobile manufacturers. The only one to make a profit this year is the one still privately owned. That pretty much should sum it up.
It's really unfortunate that even with all of the money given to GM, they've continued to run their business into the ground.

That is not the government's fault. The government did not cause GM's problems.

Guess they should have just let them fail, huh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2010, 02:57 PM
 
6,084 posts, read 6,046,032 times
Reputation: 1916
According to this team of highly prestigious economists, President Obama's team were instrumental in saving this nation's and helped the globe's financial systems. A member of the team who the OP in another thread thought highly enough to use in another thread.

"President Obama’s team has successfully halted what could have been a major financial meltdown, primarily through a combination of sensible fiscal stimulus and a huge amount of unconditional support for the banking system. "
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2010, 03:01 PM
 
Location: Right where I want to be.
4,507 posts, read 9,064,272 times
Reputation: 3361
Quote:
Originally Posted by World Citizen View Post
It's really unfortunate that even with all of the money given to GM, they've continued to run their business into the ground.

That is not the government's fault. The government did not cause GM's problems.

Guess they should have just let them fail, huh?
They've already failed. That's why they needed billions of dollars of tax payer money. The fact that the government is busy putting make-up on the corpse doesn't mean they will come back from the dead. They're building a Frankenstein.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2010, 03:03 PM
 
Location: OB
2,404 posts, read 3,948,874 times
Reputation: 879
Quote:
Originally Posted by World Citizen View Post
Guess they should have just let them fail, huh?
Sir - When you say fail, you mean bankruptcy and bankruptcy is not a bad thing. Obama did not let GM/Chysler emerge from the process but instead nationalized them to promote his progressive (green) agenda.

Quote:
That is not the government's fault. The government did not cause GM's problems.
As a result, it (United States Gov't) is taking a more direct role in their management. In March, the White House summarily dismissed G.M.’s chief executive, Rick Wagoner, and signaled its intention to help replace most of the company’s directors. The Treasury is reported to have directed G.M. to appoint a search firm to identify new board members. It has also actively encouraged the replacement of corporate directors for Citigroup and Bank of America, the two biggest banks. And government-appointed trustees for A.I.G. recently nominated six new directors.

But do Treasury officials know how to choose candidates for the boards of banks and other big companies? Lacking a tradition of direct investment in private companies, our government has no experience in selecting corporate directors.


Kraakman in NYT: What does the government know about choosing corporate directors?

Quote:
Originally Posted by World Citizen View Post
b-a-n-k-r-u-p-t-c-y
Got it!

Last edited by mossomo; 02-10-2010 at 03:40 PM.. Reason: b-a-n-k-r-u-p-t-c-y
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2010, 03:04 PM
 
5,715 posts, read 15,046,738 times
Reputation: 2949
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCyank View Post
They've already failed. That's why they needed billions of dollars of tax payer money. The fact that the government is busy putting make-up on the corpse doesn't mean they will come back from the dead. They're building a Frankenstein.
No argument.

What is the answer here?

Last edited by World Citizen; 02-10-2010 at 03:21 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2010, 03:06 PM
 
621 posts, read 1,054,244 times
Reputation: 399
The answer is tax incentives - NOT bailouts.

My opinion....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2010, 03:09 PM
 
5,715 posts, read 15,046,738 times
Reputation: 2949
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossomo View Post
Sir - When you say fail, you mean bancruptcy and bancruptcy is not a bad thing.
b-a-n-k-r-u-p-t-c-y
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2010, 03:24 PM
 
5,715 posts, read 15,046,738 times
Reputation: 2949
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossomo View Post

As a result, it (United States Gov't) is taking a more direct role in their management. In March, the White House summarily dismissed G.M.’s chief executive, Rick Wagoner, and signaled its intention to help replace most of the company’s directors. The Treasury is reported to have directed G.M. to appoint a search firm to identify new board members. It has also actively encouraged the replacement of corporate directors for Citigroup and Bank of America, the two biggest banks. And government-appointed trustees for A.I.G. recently nominated six new directors.

But do Treasury officials know how to choose candidates for the boards of banks and other big companies? Lacking a tradition of direct investment in private companies, our government has no experience in selecting corporate directors.

Kraakman in NYT: What does the government know about choosing corporate directors?
Among the $29 billion of existing loans that have been given to GM are $20 billion in funds that were authorized by the Bush administration.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:40 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top