Obama demands (and gets) GM CEO's resignation

[ThaBigP]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20625.html

[TheCount]

WOW, GM had started heading in the right direction too, in terms of product at least. I hope the next guy is qualified rather than just appointed.

But considering where the company is at right now financially, I'm surprised the guy would need to have anyone demand his resignation.

If they had to file for bankruptcy, I doubt he'd have survived that as CEO as well.

[MetalHead]

WOW, GM had started heading in the right direction too, in terms of product at least. I hope the next guy is qualified rather than just appointed.

But considering where the company is at right now financially, I'm surprised the guy would need to have anyone demand his resignation.

If they had to file for bankruptcy, I doubt he'd have survived that as CEO as well.

The left finally took GM down.
Are the UAW happy now?...they voted for their demise.
Stupid.

[sbark]

Holy shades of Hugo Chavez.....
....well i hope the Obamamobile sells...cause when a POTUS makes a move like that.....its his baby from there on out...

next thing we'll hear: Bill Ayers appointed CEO of GM

I think some more 'blue dogs" just shifted in their chairs....

[Cajuncowboy]

OMG! This is absurd.

Obama needs to go!

I cannot believe that people can't see what's happening.

Stupid, stupid people.

[MetalHead]

Holy shades of Hugo Chavez.....
....well i hope the Obamamobile sells...cause when a POTUS makes a move like that.....its his baby from there on out...

next thing we'll hear: Bill Ayers appointed CEO of GM

I think some more 'blue dogs" just shifted in their chairs....

The Obamamobile will have a fatal alignment problem.
Right turns will be extremely hard to make while left turns will be performed flawlessly by the car.

[MetalHead]

OMG! This is absurd.

Obama needs to go!

I cannot believe that people can't see what's happening.

Stupid, stupid people.

YES WE CAN!

[sbark]

Is it just a coincidence.......but CEO Wagoner is a good friend of Rush L's

Obama's enemy list just got 1 shorter?

[theogt]

That's terrible, if true.

[adamc91115]

You've gotta be kiddin me. :banghead:

[Cajuncowboy]

That's terrible, if true.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,511338,00.html

[Hoofbite]

OMG! This is absurd.

Obama needs to go!

I cannot believe that people can't see what's happening.

Stupid, stupid people.

I don't think a president should this authority at all. How the guy wasn't told to get the hell out by those in the company, I don't know but in no way should the president be able to come in and tell someone they are done.

[MetalHead]

That's terrible, if true.

www.drudgereport.com

[MetalHead]

I don't think a president should this authority at all. How the guy wasn't told to get the hell out by those in the company, I don't know but in no way should the president be able to come in and tell someone they are done.

Welcome to the Brave New World.

[Hoofbite]

www.drudgereport.com

That link too me right to the first link.

[Cajuncowboy]

I don't think a president should this authority at all. How the guy wasn't told to get the hell out by those in the company, I don't know but in no way should the president be able to come in and tell someone they are done.

Absolutely. No way this should have happened. But then again, there was no way I thought America would be stupid enough to elect him in the first place. At this point, I am hoping for a major scandal to take him down and take him down and fast. He needs to be removed from office. He has done more damage to this country in the first few months of his presidency than anyone in history. He needs to be GONE.

[MetalHead]

Absolutely. No way this should have happened. But then again, there was no way I thought America would be stupid enough to elect him in the first place. At this point, I am hoping for a major scandal to take him down and take him down and fast. He needs to be removed from office. He has done more damage to this country in the first few months of his presidency than anyone in history. He needs to be GONE.

Boom...outta here.
This character has some nefarious plans for America.
Has to and will be stopped.

[iceberg]

I don't think a president should this authority at all. How the guy wasn't told to get the hell out by those in the company, I don't know but in no way should the president be able to come in and tell someone they are done.

they took the gov money.

it wasn't a bailout, it was a hostile takeover no one really recognized.

[Hoofbite]

Absolutely. No way this should have happened. But then again, there was no way I thought America would be stupid enough to elect him in the first place. At this point, I am hoping for a major scandal to take him down and take him down and fast. He needs to be removed from office. He has done more damage to this country in the first few months of his presidency than anyone in history. He needs to be GONE.

To be fair I don't think anyone can quite make this statement yet. If at the end of his time things have only gotten worse than you could say this but 2-1/2 months in is a little early, IMO.

[DIAF]

I don't know why anyone is upset. The Federal government is about to throw them BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars in loans. If GM doesn't like the conditions, they don't have to accept the money. It's as simple as that. If I'm giving someone a loan, I can attach whatever terms I want to it, and if you don't like it, you can walk away.

If the taxpayer is going to be on the hook for the auto industry now too, we might as well demand we get rid of the clowns that have up to this point screwed the company into the ground.

I hope Bob Nardelli is next. That guy is a snake, and tried his best to destroy Home Depot before running off to Chrysler.

Boom...outta here.
This character has some nefarious plans for America.
Has to and will be stopped.

Boom.....outta here?

Has to and WILL be stopped?

Are you trying to say what I THINK you are trying to say?

[theogt]

they took the gov money.

it wasn't a bailout, it was a hostile takeover no one really recognized.I'm pretty sure they were fully aware that reorganization efforts were required to take the money. It certainly appears that Wagoner needed to go, regardless, but the optics of this are just really bad.

[ConcordCowboy]

Boom...outta here.
This character has some nefarious plans for America.
Has to and will be stopped.

http://i.realone.com/assets/rn/img/1/0/2/1/12131201-12131205-slarge.jpg...I'm with you Artie!

[Cajuncowboy]

To be fair I don't think anyone can quite make this statement yet. If at the end of his time things have only gotten worse than you could say this but 2-1/2 months in is a little early, IMO.

In 70 days he bankrupted our kids and grand kids. That in and of itself is enough for me. Not withstanding his other nonsense. Generation and generations will be dealing with this mess.

Personally I don't think he ever sees the end of his term.

[iceberg]

I don't know why anyone is upset. The Federal government is about to throw them BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars in loans. If GM doesn't like the conditions, they don't have to accept the money. It's as simple as that. If I'm giving someone a loan, I can attach whatever terms I want to it, and if you don't like it, you can walk away.

they can't now. i agree it was stupid of GM to take the money, but what do we NOT know? this is the same administration that setup AIG to look like the bad guys by not honoring contracts made with them.

what did we not see, or choose to not see, behind the scenes? it was said by many that the only reason our government would give the $ to GM then demand bankruptcy would be to get control.

obama LOVES control.

now he's got it. some called it, many went HA! can't happen here.

it's happening.

[MetalHead]

they took the gov money.

it wasn't a bailout, it was a hostile takeover no one really recognized.

I did...but then again I'm a conspiracy cook...:p:

[MetalHead]

http://i.realone.com/assets/rn/img/1/0/2/1/12131201-12131205-slarge.jpg...I'm with you Artie!

Not that way ConcordCommie.

[ninja]

We'll find out what this means tomorrow. I'm guessing he market will go down and GM stock will go down a lot.

Something doesn't seem right.

Anyway, GM and Chrysler don't have a valid plan. No one has one. Bankruptcy or continued government bailouts are the only options.

[iceberg]

I'm pretty sure they were fully aware that reorganization efforts were required to take the money. It certainly appears that Wagoner needed to go, regardless, but the optics of this are just really bad.

oh i think GM should have been allowed to fall myself. end the maddnes of their long time idiocy that built this mess, take the short term hit, and move on.

my question of concern isn't about should they or should they not have, it's obama taking more and more control over private sector decisions whether he intentionally bought his way into them or not.

wonder if any who said no he wasn't socalist still feel as strong about that now.

[Cajuncowboy]

I did...but then again I'm a conspiracy cook...:p:

I think you mean "kook". Unless you are cooking for the conspiracy people. :eek:

[iceberg]

I did...but then again I'm a conspiracy cook...:p:

thabigp has said many things are coming that are now coming.

no hyper inflation? gas is going back up. groceries seem to be costing a little more than they did not too long ago.

KFC 2 piece breast dinner w/a med pepsi was $7.50 or so. is there an official line for when things get to a specific price, it's hyper inflation?

no theo, im not going to start a fight with you and be told how ignorant i am because i dare to ponder this, so just move along.

[iceberg]

I think you mean "kook". Unless you are cooking for the conspiracy people. :eek:

or he's cooking up the theories themselves...

[MetalHead]

In 70 days he bankrupted our kids and grand kids. That in and of itself is enough for me. Not withstanding his other nonsense. Generation and generations will be dealing with this mess.

Personally I don't think he ever sees the end of his term.
Careful there Cajun...Brownshirt Concord may have a direct line to 1600 Pennsylvania.
You are now a person of interest....like me.

[MetalHead]

or he's cooking up the theories themselves...

Oh,c'mon...

[iceberg]

Oh,c'mon...

oh i'm just playing off the words dude - just joking around. : )

sorry man - not trying to get at ya. promise.

[MetalHead]

oh i'm just playing off the words dude - just joking around. : )

sorry man - not trying to get at ya. promise.

No harm no foul,Ice.
It's all good.

[theogt]

oh i think GM should have been allowed to fall myself. end the maddnes of their long time idiocy that built this mess, take the short term hit, and move on.

my question of concern isn't about should they or should they not have, it's obama taking more and more control over private sector decisions whether he intentionally bought his way into them or not.

wonder if any who said no he wasn't socalist still feel as strong about that now.If it only affected the higher ups of GM and not thousands of working families I might agree.

And this is essentially the bankruptcy process without the strictures of bankruptcy. If that's socialism, I guess I just don't understand what socialism is.

[theogt]

thabigp has said many things are coming that are now coming.

no hyper inflation? gas is going back up. groceries seem to be costing a little more than they did not too long ago.

KFC 2 piece breast dinner w/a med pepsi was $7.50 or so. is there an official line for when things get to a specific price, it's hyper inflation?

no theo, im not going to start a fight with you and be told how ignorant i am because i dare to ponder this, so just move along.Gas is going up? It's 50% less than what it was a year ago. Inflation is one thing. We will see it, and we should be happy when we do. But crying daily about hyper-inflation is silly.

Other than that, he hasn't predicted anything.

[Cajuncowboy]

Careful there Cajun...Brownshirt Concord may have a direct line to 1600 Pennsylvania.
You are now a person of interest....like me.

He can think whatever he wants of me. And honestly, I'll just say it. I don't really much care how he leaves office. He just needs to go. No one man is bigger than this country or it's Constitution.

[MetalHead]

Barry's power grab continues....
Is this the Change you all thought you were getting?
:lmao2:

[MetalHead]

He can think whatever he wants of me. And honestly, I'll just say it. I don't really much care how he leaves office. He just needs to go. No one man is bigger than this country or it's Constitution.

word...

[Cajuncowboy]

Gas is going up? It's 50% less than what it was a year ago. Inflation is one thing. We will see it, and we should be happy when we do. But crying daily about hyper-inflation is silly.

Other than that, he hasn't predicted anything.

And it's about 50 cents more per gallon than it was two months ago as well. So yeah, it's going up.

[DIAF]

He can think whatever he wants of me. And honestly, I'll just say it. I don't really much care how he leaves office. He just needs to go. No one man is bigger than this country or it's Constitution.

So, we've got a couple of guys here actually hoping the President dies. Nice.

[theogt]

And it's about 50 cents more per gallon than it was two months ago as well. So yeah, it's going up.Perhaps because of the bounce back off the extreme drop in demand? What does this have to do with inflation? Inflation isn't reflected by short-term fluctuations in prices like this.

[TheCount]

http://i.realone.com/assets/rn/img/1/0/2/1/12131201-12131205-slarge.jpg...I'm with you Artie!

I'd laugh at that if the thought alone wasn't so scary.

[Cajuncowboy]

Perhaps because of the bounce back off the extreme drop in demand? What does this have to do with inflation? Inflation isn't reflected by short-term fluctuations in prices like this.

I understand but you said the price wasn't going back up, but it is. Just making a factual statement is all.

[theogt]

Barry's power grab continues....
Is this the Change you all thought you were getting?
:lmao2:Oh, the irony that the same people that were upset that GM wasn't allowed to fall because of their idiocy are now protesting that the CEO was fired.

[adamc91115]

Perhaps because of the bounce back off the extreme drop in demand? What does this have to do with inflation? Inflation isn't reflected by short-term fluctuations in prices like this.

Well... There really hasn't been any fluctuations in anything is the last 2 months, more like a steady slope up in price.

[DIAF]

Perhaps because of the bounce back off the extreme drop in demand? What does this have to do with inflation? Inflation isn't reflected by short-term fluctuations in prices like this.

Not to mention its been going down, back up, down, back up.

I don't care what he predicted, any idiot could have predicted gas would eventually start going back up. Demand is being killed by current economic malaise, but once we weather that demand will start creeping back up again and so will prices. Anyone that had HS Econ or Econ 101 in college would know that.

[theogt]

I understand but you said the price wasn't going back up, but it is. Just making a factual statement is all.In any given day you can look and see it going up or going down. It fluctuates in the short-term.

[Cajuncowboy]

Oh, the irony that the same people that were upset that GM wasn't allowed to fall because of their idiocy are now protesting that the CEO was fired.

It's a reflection of what Obama has effectively done that we are having the problem with. Big difference.

[theogt]

Well... There really hasn't been any fluctuations in anything is the last 2 months, more like a steady slope up in price.It all depends on the window you're looking at. If you're talking day to day, it goes up and down. If you're talking the last two months, it's generally going up. If you're talking the last 6 months, it's gone way down. I think in 2-4 years, it'll be significantly higher, but that's not due to inflation. That's due to higher demand, obviously.

[MetalHead]

Oh, the irony that the same people that were upset that GM wasn't allowed to fall because of their idiocy are now protesting that the CEO was fired.

All by design Theo.

Multiple retooling demands plus unions=demise.
All done by who?
The left.

[theogt]

It's a reflection of what Obama has effectively done that we are having the problem with. Big difference.Oh, no, I fully understand that if it's Obama's decision, whatever it is, you're going to blast it.

[TheCount]

Oh, the irony that the same people that were upset that GM wasn't allowed to fall because of their idiocy are now protesting that the CEO was fired.

Good point.

I think they're more upset by who "fired him" than the fact he was fired though.

[Cajuncowboy]

In any given day you can look and see it going up or going down. It fluctuates in the short-term.

Not talking about a day here or a day there. Talking about the overall steady increase over the past two months. How many months do you need to see before you call it an increase in price?

If you went to the store and bought a gallon of milk today for 3.00 and then went back tomorrow and it was 3.50, would you call it an increase? Or would you tell the grocer it wasn't really an increase so I'm not paying the extra .50? The point is you are either paying or you don't get the milk. It is indeed an increase.

And that is what I was talking about. You had earlier said that the price wasn't going up.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you on this, again, was just setting the record straight about what was said or implied about the price not going up. It indeed is.

[adamc91115]

It all depends on the window you're looking at. If you're talking day to day, it goes up and down. If you're talking the last two months, it's generally going up. If you're talking the last 6 months, it's gone way down. I think in 2-4 years, it'll be significantly higher, but that's not due to inflation. That's due to higher demand, obviously.

I'm not just talking about gas. Talking about food, gas, any kind luxury item, and all utilities.

Nothing has gone down day to day in the last 2-3 months, only up. I don't call that a fluctuation.

[Cajuncowboy]

Oh, no, I fully understand that if it's Obama's decision, whatever it is, you're going to blast it.

Well since there has not been many I agree with, I am. But I did support his idea of increasing funding on the border. So I am not just bashing him for the sake of bashing him. It's his ideas and the danger they represent. So paint me however you want to, it really makes no difference to me. It doesn't change the facts.

[theogt]

Not talking about a day here or a day there. Talking about the overall steady increase over the past two months. How many months do you need to see before you call it an increase in price?

If you went to the store and bought a gallon of milk today for 3.00 and then went back tomorrow and it was 3.50, would you call it an increase? Or would you tell the grocer it wasn't really an increase so I'm not paying the extra .50? The point is you are either paying or you don't get the milk. It is indeed an increase.

And that is what I was talking about. You had earlier said that the price wasn't going up.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you on this, again, was just setting the record straight about what was said or implied about the price not going up. It indeed is.Are you not reading my posts? Of course it's a bounce back because we've seen a bounce back in the economy and demand.

I've said it before, but people totally underestimate the force of the current monetary policy. And we haven't even begun to see the stimulus work itself into the economy. Demand will be there and prices will rise.

[theogt]

I'm not just talking about gas. Talking about food, gas, any kind luxury item, and all utilities.

Nothing has gone down day to day in the last 2-3 months, only up. I don't call that a fluctuation.I don't really care what you call it. What *YOU* call it has nothing to do with what is causing it.

Prices have not gone up significantly, though, if you're suggesting that. Pricing indicators show prices (overall) are about flat. The economy is in a deflationary mode, but the Fed is preventing that from happening.

[Cajuncowboy]

Are you not reading my posts? Of course it's a bounce back because we've seen a bounce back in the economy and demand.

I've said it before, but people totally underestimate the force of the current monetary policy. And we haven't even begun to see the stimulus work itself into the economy. Demand will be there and prices will rise.

:laugh1:

I was just saying that prices were going up. You said they weren't. I just corrected you, that's all. Wasn't debating the merits of why, how or who.

[theogt]

:laugh1:

I was just saying that prices were going up. You said they weren't. I just corrected you, that's all. Wasn't debating the merits of why, how or who.You really aren't reading my posts are you? You're just skimming them.

Have prices gone down in the last 6 months? Of course. Over the last 2 months? Gas has gone up, prices on other goods have gone down. It all depends on the time frame you're looking at.

You act is if you're trying to educate me on something. Trust me, I'm fully aware already.

[adamc91115]

I don't really care what you call it. What *YOU* call it has nothing to do with what is causing it.

Uhh, never suggested that it did.

Just pointing out that prices are not *FLUCTUATING*.
They are going *UP*.

[DIAF]

I'm not just talking about gas. Talking about food, gas, any kind luxury item, and all utilities.

Nothing has gone down day to day in the last 2-3 months, only up. I don't call that a fluctuation.

Luxury Items?

Luxury items have been going down in price. No one is buying right now. You walk into a jeweler or somesuch now and deep discounts are to be had.

[adamc91115]

Luxury Items?

Luxury items have been going down in price. No one is buying right now. You walk into a jeweler or somesuch now and deep discounts are to be had.

Only items that I have seen go down are vehicles, but not much. Even houses (not a luxury item) around here have gone up, which pisses me off :laugh1:.

[Cajuncowboy]

Gas is going up? It's 50% less than what it was a year ago. Inflation is one thing. We will see it, and we should be happy when we do. But crying daily about hyper-inflation is silly.

Other than that, he hasn't predicted anything.

This is the post I was responding to.

YOu: Gas is going up?

Me: Yes, it's going up.

You: Well it's not really going up because of a bounce back.

Me: We pay more at the pump than several months ago.

You: Are you reading my posts?

Me: :lmao2:

That pretty much sums it up.

[sbark]

Good point.

I think they're more upset by who "fired him" than the fact he was fired though.

Would that not be the GM board of Directors line of responsibilty? Has there been a shareholder outcry that the GM Board has had to react to?

At this point the GM Board might as well resign en masse' also........bunch of spineless lapdogs.......

but i suppose after watching the AIG employees get death threats....any Board that has taken Govt money are now just figureheads....by intimidation...

and some were saying Gov Sanford of S.Carl. was wrong?

Can Obama then call for a State Governor to resign---Arnold S?

[iceberg]

Gas is going up? It's 50% less than what it was a year ago. Inflation is one thing. We will see it, and we should be happy when we do. But crying daily about hyper-inflation is silly.

Other than that, he hasn't predicted anything.

sigh...theo - put the ego down. no one here gives a damn about it.

[ThaBigP]

Oh, the irony that the same people that were upset that GM wasn't allowed to fall because of their idiocy are now protesting that the CEO was fired.

I presume because in the former case, the market would have made the decision. In the latter, government (in the form of the President in this instance) dicated that.

There's no flip-flopping there at all. If we'd had our way, the CEO would have been out a few months ago...because the market would have dicated that (at the very least, GM would have restructured under Chap 11).

It's when government starts picking the winners and losers that many of us have problems.

[ScipioCowboy]

Not to mention its been going down, back up, down, back up.

I don't care what he predicted, any idiot could have predicted gas would eventually start going back up. Demand is being killed by current economic malaise, but once we weather that demand will start creeping back up again and so will prices. Anyone that had HS Econ or Econ 101 in college would know that.

Interesting.

When the price of gas increased under Bush, it was caused by his desire to placate the evil oil companies.

When the price of gas increases under Obama, it's caused by simple supply and demand.

I will say that, in my area, gas has been trending steadily upwards for a few months now.

[MetalHead]

Would that not be the GM board of Directors line of responsibilty? Has there been a shareholder outcry that the GM Board has had to react to?

At this point the GM Board might as well resign en masse' also........bunch of spineless lapdogs.......

but i suppose after watching the AIG employees get death threats....any Board that has taken Govt money are now just figureheads....by intimidation...

and some were saying Gov Sanford of S.Carl. was wrong?

Can Obama then call for a State Governor to resign---Arnold S?

It's all about power grab and control.
Class envy turned into class warfare.
That's the change he spoke of....I heard it loud and clear,so did many here.
Barry is a socialist,spread the wealth kind of guy.
This is not the America the founding fathers wanted us to have.

[WoodysGirl]

Only items that I have seen go down are vehicles, but not much. Even houses (not a luxury item) around here have gone up, which pisses me off :laugh1:.
Really? My friend is closing on her house next week, but prior to then she'd noted that prices were down.

The biggest problem she and others are running into are the foreclosed homes. Banks aren't just taking any deal, so they sit on the contracts instead of deciding immediately whether to take the deal.

She ended up getting a foreclosed home, but then ran into other problems. So many people are refinancing and shopping their loans that Underwriters are behind in the paperwork.

[MetalHead]

Interesting.

When the price of gas increased under Bush, it was caused by his desire to placate the evil oil companies.

When the price of gas increases under Obama, it's caused by simple supply and demand.

I will say that, in my area, gas has been trending steadily upwards for a few months now.

Funny isn't it?

[DIAF]

Interesting.

When the price of gas increased under Bush, it was caused by his desire to placate the evil oil companies.

When the price of gas increases under Obama, it's caused by simple supply and demand.

I will say that, in my area, gas has been trending steadily upwards for a few months now.

Only idiots and the very far lefties actually thought that it was any of Bush's doing. Most people who were pissed off about gas prices just assumed the oil companies were gouging us.

[ScipioCowboy]

they took the gov money.

it wasn't a bailout, it was a hostile takeover no one really recognized.

As I recall, you, BigP, and a number of others warned us about this very possibility weeks ago, and you were derided with the pictures of the funny guy in a tin foil hat.

Yet, current events seem to be lending some credence to your theory.

[ScipioCowboy]

Only idiots and the very far lefties actually thought that it was any of Bush's doing. Most people who were pissed off about gas prices just assumed the oil companies were gouging us.

Are they merely gouging us now? And why did they stop gouging us?

[DIAF]

Are they merely gouging us now? And why did they stop gouging us?

Of course they weren't gouging us. It IS supply and demand. It was then, it is now. Nothing changed (well, except for the demand, of course.)

[ScipioCowboy]

Good point.

I think they're more upset by who "fired him" than the fact he was fired though.

And rightfully so.

The President should have no such authority, regardless of his political affiliation.

[ScipioCowboy]

Of course they weren't gouging us. It IS supply and demand. It was then, it is now. Nothing changed (well, except for the demand, of course.)

Fair enough.

[WoodysGirl]

Are they merely gouging us now? And why did they stop gouging us?
I'd say it's a combination of the oil companies and the financial sector that caused the gouging.

And yeah, i do think there's still some gouging going on. We may never see it again, but I think oil should be in the $30/barrel range.

[Cajuncowboy]

I'd say it's a combination of the oil companies and the financial sector that caused the gouging.

And yeah, i do think there's still some gouging going on. We may never see it again, but I think oil should be in the $30/barrel range.

I'm curious, why do you think that about oil and 30.00 a barrel?

[ScipioCowboy]

I'd say it's a combination of the oil companies and the financial sector that caused the gouging.

And yeah, i do think there's still some gouging going on. We may never see it again, but I think oil should be in the $30/barrel range.

Your theory is reasonable as well. I don't want to veer too far off topic. It's a very important one, and I'm somewhat concerned about the mechanics of what's transpired.

[MetalHead]

As I recall, you, BigP, and a number of others warned us about this very possibility weeks ago, and you were derided with the pictures of the funny guy in a tin foil hat.

Yet, current events seem to be lending some credence to your theory.

I know a thing or two about the tinfoil hat too...

[utrunner07]

I think they're more upset by who "fired him" than the fact he was fired though.

Clearly. I have no problem with the man being fired, but when the president of the United States decides to meddle in corporate America to the extent of firing (and soon to come hiring, mark my words, employees) we are getting ourselves into a dangerous situation. That being said, to those of you who supported the government bailout and to the businesses that took it remember this: When you sleep with dogs, you wake up with fleas. Its a tough situation, on one hand its hard to argue that the company is now NOT owned by the FEDs, at the same time the idea that an American President or administration would even do this is sad and such a loss of principles, principles which apparently have gone out the window long ago.

[WoodysGirl]

I'm curious, why do you think that about oil and 30.00 a barrel?No particular knowledge of the industry. I just remember reading oil prices first started rising how OPEC came out and stated that prices for oil should be around $30 in order to sustain production.

Fast forward to now, and now you have OPEC saying prices should be around $50 in order for them to sustain production.

There's something wrong with this picture to me. I have no solutions, but it perplexes me why they would need to be at $50 when $30 was acceptable BEFORE they'd started getting record level prices.

Your theory is reasonable as well. I don't want to veer too far off topic. It's a very important one, and I'm somewhat concerned about the mechanics of what's transpired.
You're absolutely correct and this GM move should definitely be the hot topic of this thread.

[ScipioCowboy]

I know a thing or two about the tinfoil hat too...

I remember it, and it seemed very out of place when it was used against you. But then, just consider the source.:p:

[MetalHead]

I remember it, and it seemed very out of place when it was used against you. But then, just consider the source.:p:

How do they like me now...

[ScipioCowboy]

How do they like me now...

You should change your name to Phoenix...because you emerged from the ashes of temporary banning.:)

[MetalHead]

You should change your name to Phoenix...because you emerged from the ashes of temporary banning.:)


Nah,I'll stay Artie,more hostile than ever,but thanks for the observation of the events.
Lots of work to do to wake America up over the impending socialist takeover.

[theogt]

This is the post I was responding to.

YOu: Gas is going up?

Me: Yes, it's going up.

You: Well it's not really going up because of a bounce back.

Me: We pay more at the pump than several months ago.

You: Are you reading my posts?

Me: :lmao2:

That pretty much sums it up.This is where you got off in the conversation. I never said that.

[theogt]

I presume because in the former case, the market would have made the decision. In the latter, government (in the form of the President in this instance) dicated that.

There's no flip-flopping there at all. If we'd had our way, the CEO would have been out a few months ago...because the market would have dicated that (at the very least, GM would have restructured under Chap 11).

It's when government starts picking the winners and losers that many of us have problems.Oh yes, the wonderful markets. Those bubble creating markets that exaggerate the highs and exacerbate the lows, causing millions to lose their jobs unnecessarily. All hail the markets.

I'd say it's a combination of the oil companies and the financial sector that caused the gouging.

And yeah, i do think there's still some gouging going on. We may never see it again, but I think oil should be in the $30/barrel range.No, the oil companies aren't gouging anything. Refineries pay spot market prices from oil companies (which are not determined by the oil companies) and refineries are under heavily competitive market forces to keep costs as low as possible. Now, as for the price of oil, it was inflated due to lack of regulation and an unhealthy adherence to "free market" ideology.

[ninja]

I'm guessing this is what happened. It was a done deal that Obama and the Dems would give GM the money to keep them going. The problem was they needed a scapegoat, someone's head to roll. Obama and the Dems needed to show the public some change at GM. Business as usual wasn't going to cut it with the public.

So, tomorrow the big story will be change at GM. And Obama will then say that since GM has changed GM now gets more money. And Obama will hope that the public focuses on the CEO and not the billions being thrown down the drain.

[iceberg]

Oh yes, the wonderful markets. Those bubble creating markets that exaggerate the highs and exacerbate the lows, causing millions to lose their jobs unnecessarily. All hail the markets.

maybe gov regulation created the bubbles in the 1st place, theo.

[theogt]

maybe gov regulation created the bubbles in the 1st place, theo.No, it was most certainly the lack of government regulation that caused this one. I think you remember the threads discussing this. And you remember when I said it was about to pop. Maybe that was my only good prediction. :)

[sbark]

No, it was most certainly the lack of government regulation that caused this one. I think you remember the threads discussing this. And you remember when I said it was about to pop. Maybe that was my only good prediction. :)

agreed..........the lack of govt Regulations on the likes of B.Frank, F.Raines, M.Waters, C.Dodd.......

and this GM move shows the need to reign them in via action more than ever

[utrunner07]

No, it was most certainly the lack of government regulation that caused this one. I think you remember the threads discussing this. And you remember when I said it was about to pop. Maybe that was my only good prediction. :)

Go back and look ogt. This all started with democrats forcing banks to lend to those who they knew could not pay their loans back. That is called over regulation.

[sbark]

Go back and look ogt. This all started with democrats forcing banks to lend to those who they knew could not pay their loans back. That is called over regulation.

Right on track......http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/11/who_killed_detroit.html



How did Big Government do in the U.S. auto industry?
Washington imposed a minimum wage higher than the average wage in war-devastated Germany and Japan. The Feds ordered that U.S. plants be made the healthiest and safest worksites in the world, creating OSHA to see to it. It enacted civil rights laws to ensure the labor force reflected our diversity. Environmental laws came next, to ensure U.S. factories became the most pollution-free on earth.
It then clamped fuel efficiency standards on the entire U.S. car fleet.
Next, Washington imposed a corporate tax rate of 35 percent, raking off another 15 percent of autoworkers' wages in Social Security payroll taxes
State governments imposed income and sales taxes, and local governments property taxes to subsidize services and schools.
The United Auto Workers struck repeatedly to win the highest wages and most generous benefits on earth -- vacations, holidays, work breaks, health care, pensions -- for workers and their families, and retirees.
Now there is nothing wrong with making U.S. plants the cleanest and safest on earth or having U.S. autoworkers the highest-paid wage earners.
That is the dream, what we all wanted for America.
And under the 14th Amendment, GM, Ford and Chrysler had to obey the same U.S. laws and pay at the same tax rates. Outside the United States, however, there was and is no equality of standards or taxes.
Thus when America was thrust into the Global Economy, GM and Ford had to compete with cars made overseas in factories in postwar Japan and Germany, then Korea, where health and safety standards were much lower, wages were a fraction of those paid U.S. workers, and taxes were and are often forgiven on exports to the United States.
All three nations built "export-driven" economies.
The Beetle and early Japanese imports were made in factories where wages were far beneath U.S. wages and working conditions would have gotten U.S. auto executives sent to prison.
The competition was manifestly unfair, like forcing Secretariat to carry 100 pounds in his saddlebags in the Derby.

[theogt]

Go back and look ogt. This all started with democrats forcing banks to lend to those who they knew could not pay their loans back. That is called over regulation.Are you talking about GM? Or what? We were talking about the oil market.

[Cajuncowboy]

Perhaps because of the bounce back off the extreme drop in demand? What does this have to do with inflation? Inflation isn't reflected by short-term fluctuations in prices like this.

BOUNCE BACK!

[iceberg]

No, it was most certainly the lack of government regulation that caused this one. I think you remember the threads discussing this. And you remember when I said it was about to pop. Maybe that was my only good prediction. :)

so we totally disagree.

gonna have to pick people up off the floor now.

as far as your predictions, i don't bother trying to figure it out. with you it's like:

theo: here is my bold prediction - everything will be just fine!
life: massive problems
theo: well i didn't know there were going to be massive problems - not my fault!!!

part of trying to predict things is seeing points of failure, not exusing them cause they get in the way of you being right.

[iceberg]

Go back and look ogt. This all started with democrats forcing banks to lend to those who they knew could not pay their loans back. That is called over regulation.

he'll call it necessary.

part of being socialist is never admitting it.

[theogt]

so we totally disagree.

gonna have to pick people up off the floor now.

as far as your predictions, i don't bother trying to figure it out. with you it's like:

theo: here is my bold prediction - everything will be just fine!
life: massive problems
theo: well i didn't know there were going to be massive problems - not my fault!!!

part of trying to predict things is seeing points of failure, not exusing them cause they get in the way of you being right.Actually, my prediction was "everything will be just fine AS LONG AS THE FINANCIAL CRISES IS PREVENTED FROM SPREADING TO THE REAL ECONOMY." It's all there in the posts in those threads. I said that the financial crises was real and severe and needed drastic measures to fix. But up until Lehman it was pretty much contained. Unfortunately, the powers that be didn't keep it that way.

Sorry if you missed that part.

[trickblue]

So, we've got a couple of guys here actually hoping the President dies. Nice.

In fairness... he never said that...

[theogt]

he'll call it necessary.

part of being socialist is never admitting it.I believe he's talking about banks being forced to lend to minorities. I don't think that's "necessary" at all. But it is just a bogeyman. The "forced" lending was in the millions. But what we're talking about -- the housing bubble -- is trillions of dollars. Trillions of dollars of CDOs and synthetic CDOs, etc., etc., etc. That small amount of "forced" lending was just a pimple on the *** of the mortgage market. It was small potatoes; had nothing to do with the bubble at all.

[iceberg]

Actually, my prediction was "everything will be just fine AS LONG AS THE FINANCIAL CRISES IS PREVENTED FROM SPREADING TO THE REAL ECONOMY." It's all there in the posts in those threads. I said that the financial crises was real and severe and needed drastic measures to fix. But up until Lehman it was pretty much contained. Unfortunately, the powers that be didn't keep it that way.

Sorry if you missed that part.

like i said -

nevermind.

[iceberg]

I believe he's talking about banks being forced to lend to minorities. I don't think that's "necessary" at all. But it is just a bogeyman. The "forced" lending was in the millions. But what we're talking about -- the housing bubble -- is trillions of dollars. Trillions of dollars of CDOs and synthetic CDOs, etc., etc., etc. That small amount of "forced" lending was just a pimple on the *** of the mortgage market. It was small potatoes; had nothing to do with the bubble at all.

subprime mortgages had nothing to do with the housing bubble.

at all?

[theogt]

subprime mortgages had nothing to do with the housing bubble.

at all?That's not what I said at all. The banks weren't forced by the government to engage in all subprime lending. The vast, vast, vast majority was absolutely voluntary. And was the result of a lack of regulation.

[theogt]

like i said -

nevermind.It's simple logic:

If X, then Y.

If not X, then Z.

You just missed everything I said but the Y. And I'm sure you didn't miss it, you just have some sort of obsessive vendetta against me and chose to ignore it.

[iceberg]

That small amount of "forced" lending was just a pimple on the *** of the mortgage market. It was small potatoes; had nothing to do with the bubble at all.

subprime mortgages had nothing to do with the housing bubble.

at all?

That's not what I said at all. The banks weren't forced by the government to engage in all subprime lending. The vast, vast, vast majority was absolutely voluntary. And was the result of a lack of regulation.

and you wonder why the normal person can't follow you.

at all.

[iceberg]

It's simple logic:

well at least we explained why it confuses you.

[DIAF]

subprime mortgages had nothing to do with the housing bubble.

at all?

Not all of it was "forced" lending. Most of the crap lending came from banks not wanting to be left out of the subprime market their competitors were diving into...which gave us totally AWESOME things like the no-doc loans (NINA and NINJA). Then you had stupid moron banks with few assets taking out HUGE loans (in many cases, banks with..say, for example, 4 million in cash could get loans for 80 million bucks) from larger banks like WaMu, Citi, etc. to go buy mortgages to repackage and sell to Wall Street. When Wall Street wasn't buying, you had gobs of small banks with huge loans they couldnt pay back to the big banks and defaulted on. And we all know now about CDS/CDOs.

[MetalHead]

In fairness... he never said that...

That is what he understood.
That kid is not exactly all there.

[theogt]

and you wonder why the normal person can't follow you.

at all.What exactly is confusing you? Did you conflate "forced" lending with subprime lending?

I'm not trying to be a . I want to know what is confusing you in this discussion.

[DIAF]

Yeah, the comment about BOOM...he's gone certainly didn't imply anything of the sort.

Cajun's comment of "I don't care how he's gone.....I just want him gone" implies a death in office would be certainly acceptable.

I'm not all there? That's rich coming from someone who thinks Soros is responsible for the downfall of the US Economy, thinks China is a 3rd world country, and posts links to Alex Jones productions.

[ScipioCowboy]

In all the incessant debating over the housing collapse, one important point is always overlooked: The entire debacle would not have been possible if the FED had not kept interest rates artificially low for so long.

If we really want increased oversight, let's make certain we're overseeing the correct thing--the Federal Reserve Board.

[theogt]

In all the incessant debating over the housing collapse, one important point is always overlooked: The entire debacle would not have been possible if the FED had not kept interest rates artificially low for so long.

If we really want increased oversight, let's make certain we're overseeing the correct thing--the Federal Reserve Board.Actually, it continued pretty strongly (and perhaps at its worst) even after the Fed ramped up rates.

[ScipioCowboy]

Actually, it continued pretty strongly (and perhaps at its worst) even after the Fed ramped up rates.

The damage was already done by that point, in my opinion. Lending institutions had already made a glut of questionable loans, and no amount of interest rate increases was going to remove them.

[theogt]

The damage was already done by that point, in my opinion. Lending institutions has already made a glut of questionable loans, and no amount of interest rate increases was going to remove them.But the idea that higher interest rates would have stopped or even slowed them seems to be wrong to me, since it didn't stop or slow them.

[ScipioCowboy]

But the idea that higher interest rates would have stopped or even slowed them seems to be wrong to me, since it didn't stop or slow them.

Admittedly, my knowledge of the situation is hardly comprehensive, but it seems this analogy might be appropriate:

A small village is protected against flooding by a dam. I remove the dam, and the village floods.

After the village has been flooded, does it really matter if I replace the dam? The damage is already done.

Similarly, raising interest rates was not going to remove the bad loans that had already been made or the glut of building that had occurred within the housing market.

Fact Check.org seems to support my assessment:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/who_caused_the_economic_crisis.html

[theogt]

Admittedly, my knowledge of the situation is hardly comprehensive, but it seems this analogy might be appropriate:

A small village is protected against flooding by a dam. I remove the dam, and the village floods.

After the village has been flooded, does it really matter if I replace the dam? The damage is already done.

Similarly, raising interest rates was not going to remove the bad loans that had already been made or the glut of building that had occurred within the housing market.If you replace the dam, *more* flooding is prevented. They raised interest rates and still more imprudent lending occurred, so interest rates alone are not the dam.

[theogt]

Fact Check.org seems to support my assessment:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/who_caused_the_economic_crisis.htmlIt was certainly a contributing factor. I'm not denying that. If you see, they have it among a list of many other factors.

[ThaBigP]

Oh yes, the wonderful markets. Those bubble creating markets that exaggerate the highs and exacerbate the lows, causing millions to lose their jobs unnecessarily. All hail the markets.

Fine, we get it. You're a statist and a quasi-marxist who believes in the myth that the government creates wealth.

The fact of the matter is, neither the market nor a central-planning agency will be perfect. Because mankind, which would constitute both, is imperfect. The reason free markets work much much better is the simple concept of distributed processing.

[theogt]

Fine, we get it. You're a statist and a quasi-marxist who believes in the myth that the government creates wealth.

The fact of the matter is, neither the market nor a central-planning agency will be perfect. Because mankind, which would constitute both, is imperfect. The reason free markets work much much better is the simple concept of distributed processing.Actually, I've been a free-marketeer libertarian type most of my life. The recent crises drove me toward the center.

[burmafrd]

You have politicians demanding that qualifiers used for decades be dropped and the implication clearly from those politicians is that you better loan a lot of money to those that could not qualify before. Those qualifiers would have prevented most of the bad loans.
Then you have the adjustable rate mortgage that should NEVER have been allowed. Talk about your pyramid schemes.
Then you have tthe SEC under the last 4 administrations basically out to lunch.
Then you have Greenspan decide that cheap money is the way to go=no matter what. And a Fed Board that was so fixated on inflation it ignored everything else.
Then add greed on both sides: the banks to loan to anyone and greedy and stupid borrowers taking out loans that common sense should have told them they would have to be very lucky indeed to be able to pay off.

[theogt]

You have politicians demanding that qualifiers used for decades be dropped and the implication clearly from those politicians is that you better loan a lot of money to those that could not qualify before. Those qualifiers would have prevented most of the bad loans.
Then you have the adjustable rate mortgage that should NEVER have been allowed. Talk about your pyramid schemes.
Then you have tthe SEC under the last 4 administrations basically out to lunch.
Then you have Greenspan decide that cheap money is the way to go=no matter what. And a Fed Board that was so fixated on inflation it ignored everything else.So basically, you're saying there were regulations in place that prevented subprime mortgages and once those regulations were removed, it caused the housing bubble.

Gotcha. Deregulation caused the housing bubble.

[sbark]

Clinton, Republicans agree to deregulation of US financial system

By Martin McLaughlin
1 November 1999

An agreement between the Clinton administration and congressional Republicans, reached during all-night negotiations which concluded in the early hours of October 22, sets the stage for passage of the most sweeping banking deregulation bill in American history, lifting virtually all restraints on the operation of the giant monopolies which dominate the financial system.
The proposed Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 would do away with restrictions on the integration of banking, insurance and stock trading imposed by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, one of the central pillars of Roosevelt's New Deal. Under the old law, banks, brokerages and insurance companies were effectively barred from entering each others' industries, and investment banking and commercial banking were separated.

[WoodysGirl]

GM CEO Wagoner to step down at White House request

By TOM KRISHER and KEN THOMAS, Associated Press Writers Tom Krisher And Ken Thomas, Associated Press Writers – 15 mins ago
DETROIT – General Motors Corp. Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner will step down immediately at the request of the White House, administration officials said Sunday. The news comes as President Barack Obama prepares to unveil additional restructuring efforts designed to save the domestic auto industry.

The officials asked not to be identified because details of the restructuring plan have not yet been made public. On Monday, Obama is to announce measures to restructure GM and Chrysler LLC in exchange for additional government loans. The companies have been living on $17.4 billion in government aid and have requested $21.6 billion more.

Two people familiar with the plan said Sunday that the Obama administration would give GM enough government aid to restructure over the next 60 days, while Chrysler will get up to $6 billion and 30 days to complete an alliance with Italian automaker Fiat SpA. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to make details public.

Wagoner's departure indicates that more management changes may be part of the deal, but it is still unclear who will be in charge of GM. The automaker recently promoted Fritz Henderson, its former chief financial officer, to become president and chief operating officer. Many in the company thought he would eventually succeed Wagoner.

Detroit-based GM issued a statement Sunday saying that the company expects the administration to make an announcement about the automaker's restructuring soon but that "it would not be appropriate for us to speculate on the content of any announcement."

A person familiar with Chrysler's management said the company has been given no indication that the government will require any changes at the Auburn Hills, Mich., company, which has been led by former Home Depot CEO Robert Nardelli since August 2007. The person also spoke on condition of anonymity because Obama's plan has not been made public.

Wagoner, 56, has repeatedly said he believed it was better for him to lead GM through its crisis, but he has faced sharp criticism on Capitol Hill for what many lawmakers regard as years of missteps, mistakes and arrogance by the Detroit Three automakers.

Wagoner joined GM in 1977, serving in several capacities in the U.S., Brazil and Europe. He became president and chief executive in 2000 and has served as chairman and CEO since May 2003.

Wagoner, in an interview with The Associated Press in December, declined to speculate on suggestions from some members of Congress that GM's leadership team should step down as part of any rescue package.

"I'm doing what I do because it adds a lot of value to the company," Wagoner said in a Dec. 4 interview as GM sought federal aid from the Bush administration. "It's not clear to me that experience in this industry should be viewed as a negative, but I'm going to do what's right for the company and I'll do it in consultation with the (GM) board (of directors)."

Auto industry analysts credit Wagoner with doing more to restructure the giant automaker than any other executive. But given that he has been at GM's helm for so long, many of his critics say he moved too slowly to take on the United Auto Workers and shrink the company as its market share tumbled.

"Given the history, a change in management could hardly hurt and might do some good," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Sunday.

Among his biggest accomplishments as CEO, Wagoner presided over a landmark contract agreement with the UAW in 2007. In that four-year agreement, the automaker successfully transferred nearly $50 billion in health care liabilities to the union as it sought to reduce labor costs, especially huge liabilities to retirees.

In 2004, Wagoner sought to reduce GM's brands by shutting down the Oldsmobile line of cars — a costly project because it required huge payouts to dealers. He also sought to streamline the company by selling the company's defense unit, General Dynamics Corp., for $1.1 billion in 2003. He has also reduced the company's work force by tens of thousands and closed factories around the country.

But Wagoner's critics say GM relied for too long on sales of pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles for its profits and was unprepared for a drastic market shift when gasoline prices hit $4 per gallon last year.

During the Congressional debate over whether to give GM and Chrysler loans last year, many lawmakers criticized Wagoner, including Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., chairman of the Banking Committee.

Dodd accused automakers' top management of having a "head-in-the-sand" approach to problems and said Wagoner "has to move on" as part of a government-run restructuring that should be a condition of financial life support for the auto industry.

David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich., said Sunday that Wagoner's departure gives the government a rationale to provide additional aid to the automaker. He was not surprised by the move, but said he is disappointed because he considers Wagoner a capable leader.

"I think that as a condition for further government support, this helps give them a little cover with the public," Cole said. "Essentially he's taking one for the team."

Cole noted that other automakers have been shaking up management as well. Toyota Motor Corp.'s president, Katsuaki Watanabe, recently said he would be stepping down as the Japanese automaker weathers financial difficulty. Also, France's biggest carmaker, PSA Peugeot-Citroen, abruptly ousted CEO Christian Streiff on Sunday, saying "exceptional difficulties" confronting the auto industry require new management at the top.

In the financial sector, where the overwhelming majority of government bailout money has been directed, some corporate leaders found their days numbered. The CEOs of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were forced out after the government took over the companies in the fall. Robert Willumstad, the former CEO of American International Group Inc., left the company in September, just a day after the government pumped $85 billion into the insurer to keep it from going under.

The terms of Wagoner's departure are unclear. However, GM disclosed in its annual report last month that it cannot make severance payments to Wagoner or other senior executives under the terms of its governments loans. Wagoner is eligible to retire under GM's salaried employee and executive retirement plans, but the amount he would receive is unclear.

Nardelli's departure is less likely than Wagoner's because Nardelli is "relatively new" to the automaker, with less than two years at the helm, Cole said.

GM and Chrysler were required by the Bush administration to get major concessions from debtholders and the United Auto Workers, with a deadline of March 31 for signed contracts. But very little headway was being made with either party this weekend as they awaited Obama's announcement.

Members of Obama's auto task force have said bankruptcy could still be an option for GM and Chrysler if their management, workers, creditors and shareholders failed to make sacrifices. Both companies are trying to reduce their debt by two-thirds and convince the United Auto Workers union to accept shares of stock in exchange for half of the payments into a union-run trust fund for retiree health care costs. The deals also call for executive pay cuts and labor costs that are competitive with Japanese automakers with U.S. operations

___

Associated Press Writer Ken Thomas reported from Washington, D.C. AP Auto Writer Dan Strumpf contributed from New York.

[burmafrd]

deregulation in the form of idiot politicians interfering where they should have left alone in the chase for votes. Deregulation for conservatives means getting rid of stupid regulations and needless government hassles. As I recall in many cases the qualifiers were NOT mandated by the SEC or federal regulations= they were just part of the way banks had done business for decades and THEY WERE NOT THE ONES pushing for the change. It was Rangel and FRank and other pieces of garbage like them.

The 1999 bill was one big reason things were a lot worse then they shouyld have been.

[theogt]

deregulation in the form of idiot politicians interfering where they should have left alone in the chase for votes. Deregulation for conservatives means getting rid of stupid regulations and needless government hassles. As I recall in many cases the qualifiers were NOT mandated by the SEC or federal regulations= they were just part of the way banks had done business for decades and THEY WERE NOT THE ONES pushing for the change. It was Rangel and FRank and other pieces of garbage like them.

The 1999 bill was one big reason things were a lot worse then they shouyld have been.Do you even know what the SEC regulates?

[Cajuncowboy]

That is what he understood.
That kid is not exactly all there.

Which is why he is on ignore. He made an illogical leap because that's all his brain can process.

[jrumann59]

Well I am glad obama doesn't see it. But doing this is going to push the automakers in re-organization protection which means the UAW will have a lot of unemployed workers to take care of. Once GM hits rock solid bottom say good night to GM for at least a year when they will re-emerge from their hibernation leaner and meaner and not burdened by the UAW cancer.

[DIAF]

Which is why he is on ignore. He made an illogical leap because that's all his brain can process.

:laugh1:

[DIAF]

deregulation in the form of idiot politicians interfering where they should have left alone in the chase for votes. Deregulation for conservatives means getting rid of stupid regulations and needless government hassles. As I recall in many cases the qualifiers were NOT mandated by the SEC or federal regulations= they were just part of the way banks had done business for decades and THEY WERE NOT THE ONES pushing for the change. It was Rangel and FRank and other pieces of garbage like them.

The 1999 bill was one big reason things were a lot worse then they shouyld have been.

Deregulation quite simply means "removal of regulation". There's no definition for Democrats and another for Republicans. It means the same thing.

[ThaBigP]

So basically, you're saying there were regulations in place that prevented subprime mortgages and once those regulations were removed, it caused the housing bubble.

Gotcha. Deregulation caused the housing bubble.

I refuse to believe you are this stupid.

regulate [reg-yuh-leyt]
–verb (used with object), -lated, -lating.
1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.
2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.
3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.
4. to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.

The government ordering lenders to lend to those who otherwise would not qualify for loans IS NOT "DEREGULATION". By definition. It is REGULATION. They are passing REGULATION to REGULATE the lending standards downward. This is no more "deregulation" than price controls installed to dictate that retailers lower their prices. "Deregulation" is the government removing such regulatory instruments and allowing the market to dictate prices, lending standards, and whatnot, whether each goes up or down. It's simply no longer dictated through regulation.

Edit: and I'll also clarify since you seem to not know...there were no regulations dictating high credit standards. That was set by the market to control exposure to risk. That is, however, until the government came along about 30 years ago and began enacting regulations for the purpose of lowering lending standards. You cannot possibly be ignorant of this fact. You are attempting to argue that government regulated high lending standards for these loans, then simply began repealing them causing the credit standards to go down. Again, you know this simply is not true (in fact, 180 degrees out-of-phase with reality).

[DIAF]

I refuse to believe you are this stupid.

regulate [reg-yuh-leyt]
–verb (used with object), -lated, -lating.
1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.
2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.
3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.
4. to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.

The government ordering lenders to lend to those who otherwise would not qualify for loans IS NOT "DEREGULATION". By definition. It is REGULATION. They are passing REGULATION to REGULATE the lending standards downward. This is no more "deregulation" than price controls installed to dictate that retailers lower their prices. "Deregulation" is the government removing such regulatory instruments and allowing the market to dictate prices, lending standards, and whatnot, whether each goes up or down. It's simply no longer dictated through regulation.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deregulation
Main Entry:
de·reg·u·la·tion Listen to the pronunciation of deregulation
Pronunciation:
\(ˌ)dē-ˌre-gyə-ˈlā-shən\
Function:
noun
Date:
1963

: the act or process of removing restrictions and regulations


Passing legislation to loosen requirements previously in place is, by definition, deregulation. "Regulation to regulate the lending standards downward." What a laugh!

By your definition, then, there is no such thing as "Deregulation". Only regulation on top of regulation to remove previous regulations by way of more regulation.

Nice try.

[ThaBigP]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deregulation
Main Entry:
de·reg·u·la·tion Listen to the pronunciation of deregulation
Pronunciation:
\(ˌ)dē-ˌre-gyə-ˈlā-shən\
Function:
noun
Date:
1963

: the act or process of removing restrictions and regulations


Passing legislation to loosen requirements previously in place is, by definition, deregulation. "Regulation to regulate the lending standards downward." What a laugh!

By your definition, then, there is no such thing as "Deregulation". Only regulation on top of regulation to remove previous regulations by way of more regulation.

Nice try.

You have GOT to be kidding me...

Passing laws demanding lenders lower lending standards is not "removing restrictions and regulations".

In fact, it is "2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature. "

Nowhere anywhere (except in your head) is "up" or "down" the distinction between regulation or deregulation. Yes, virginia, you CAN regulate standards (or any other measure) downward. Happens all the time. Speed limits for one. Lowering the BAC required for a DWI hardly constitutes "deregulating" drinking and driving. Turning your thermostat down to maintain a lower temperature is not removing regulation of temperature. Drugs made to regulate blood-sugar for diabetics keep blood sugar (*gasp*) low and keep it from spiking, or bring it down if it gets too high.

You and theo are really just makin' up crap as you go. And are also in serious need of remedial language studies.

[DIAF]

You have GOT to be kidding me...

Passing laws demanding lenders lower lending standards is not "removing restrictions and regulations".

In fact, it is "2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature. "

"lowering lending standards" introduced by law is, in fact, deregulation. You are "removing restrictions". A lending standard is a restriction on the practice of lending.

Seriously, this is not hard.

[ScipioCowboy]

If you replace the dam, *more* flooding is prevented. They raised interest rates and still more imprudent lending occurred, so interest rates alone are not the dam.

"More flooding" is irrelevant if the houses are already submersed.

Furthermore, any positive results brought about by rate increases will not be immediately forthcoming. The existing bad loans must run their course...just like water must be removed before the houses can be repaired.

[burmafrd]

Welol of course you dont get it. You and OGT have this fantasy that only if the federal government is doing the nasty on everyone is things going to be fine. BS. Just in case youo hve not noticed, the federal government is lousy at running most things.
AND this bull crap about deregulation only meaning what YOU want it to mean is just plain stupid.

[ScipioCowboy]

It was certainly a contributing factor. I'm not denying that. If you see, they have it among a list of many other factors.

It's actually the first factor listed.

It was the catalytic agent, as Ron Paul points out: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/paul.bailout/index.html.

[ThaBigP]

"lowering lending standards" introduced by law is, in fact, deregulation. You are "removing restrictions". A lending standard is a restriction on the practice of lending.

Seriously, this is not hard.

Again, making it up as you go.

You are stuck in a mental (and rather silly) rut where you think if government demands something "go up" it's regulation, whereas if government demands something "go down" it's deregulation.

Fact is, both are regulation if government demands it (in the context in which we're speaking...government regulation).

However, in this case government DID NOT mandate or regulate the previous high credit standards for home loans. Those were determined by the market depending on how much risk a lender was willing to take, and then haggling over how much return in exchange for that risk they would accept. It was regulation, mind you, but self-imposed regulation for the porpose of limiting exposure to risk. It was NOT government regulation.

The government came along and said "not good enough, too many folks are falling outside of your lending requirements". So the government replaced the lenders' own idea of regulation they had imposed upon themselves with a new standard the government had decided. Then it became government regulation. It was NOT deregulation. Again, though, you'll argue that it was...because government dictated standards go down. I defy you to find a definition of "deregulation" where it states "to control a measure in a manner that it decreases in quantitative or subjective value".

[theogt]

I refuse to believe you are this stupid.

regulate [reg-yuh-leyt]
–verb (used with object), -lated, -lating.
1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.
2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.
3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.
4. to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.

The government ordering lenders to lend to those who otherwise would not qualify for loans IS NOT "DEREGULATION". By definition. It is REGULATION. They are passing REGULATION to REGULATE the lending standards downward. This is no more "deregulation" than price controls installed to dictate that retailers lower their prices. "Deregulation" is the government removing such regulatory instruments and allowing the market to dictate prices, lending standards, and whatnot, whether each goes up or down. It's simply no longer dictated through regulation.

Edit: and I'll also clarify since you seem to not know...there were no regulations dictating high credit standards. That was set by the market to control exposure to risk. That is, however, until the government came along about 30 years ago and began enacting regulations for the purpose of lowering lending standards. You cannot possibly be ignorant of this fact. You are attempting to argue that government regulated high lending standards for these loans, then simply began repealing them causing the credit standards to go down. Again, you know this simply is not true (in fact, 180 degrees out-of-phase with reality).How much were banks forced to lend?

Answer this single question.

[theogt]

"More flooding" is irrelevant if the houses are already submersed.

Furthermore, any positive results brought about by rate increases will not be immediately forthcoming. The existing bad loans must run their course...just like water must be removed before the houses can be repaired.No, it's not irrelevant. They kept making more and more bad loans even when interest rates were increased. In fact, the worst of the worst were made during that period.

It's actually the first factor listed.

It was the catalytic agent, as Ron Paul points out: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/paul.bailout/index.html.Seriously?

[theogt]

You have GOT to be kidding me...

Passing laws demanding lenders lower lending standards is not "removing restrictions and regulations".

In fact, it is "2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature. "

Nowhere anywhere (except in your head) is "up" or "down" the distinction between regulation or deregulation. Yes, virginia, you CAN regulate standards (or any other measure) downward. Happens all the time. Speed limits for one. Lowering the BAC required for a DWI hardly constitutes "deregulating" drinking and driving. Turning your thermostat down to maintain a lower temperature is not removing regulation of temperature. Drugs made to regulate blood-sugar for diabetics keep blood sugar (*gasp*) low and keep it from spiking, or bring it down if it gets too high.

You and theo are really just makin' up crap as you go. And are also in serious need of remedial language studies.Regulate downwards? LOL! And we're making this up as we go?

Honestly, I laughed out loud when I read this.

You have a regulation in place. It prevents lenders from taking certain actions. You remove the regulation, which allows lenders to said actions.

That. Is. Deregulation.

[ScipioCowboy]

No, it's not irrelevant. They kept making more and more bad loans even when interest rates were increased. In fact, the worst of the worst were made during that period.

Because there was still a glut of real estate on the market. The cheap credit enticed both buyers and builders. The myriad of bad loans and reduced prices were, in part, an attempt to sell off overbuilding, which had been brought about by artificially low interest rates.

Seriously?Seriously.

[theogt]

Because there was still a glut of real estate on the market. The cheap credit enticed both builders and buyers. The myriad of bad loans and reduced prices were, in part, an attempt to sell off overbuilding, which had been brought about by artificially loan interest rates.No, there wasn't a glut of real estate on the market. There was a glut of buyers.

Seriously.In a serious conversation, please don't quote Ron Paul. And I really couldn't care less that some website listed low interest rates first.

[DIAF]

Again, making it up as you go.

You are stuck in a mental (and rather silly) rut where you think if government demands something "go up" it's regulation, whereas if government demands something "go down" it's deregulation.


If this is the case, then there is no such thing as "deregulation"

Again, the definition of "deregulation" (I did NOT make this up).

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deregulation

: the act or process of removing restrictions and regulations

What do you think all this legislation over the years has done? It's done precisely that.


Fact is, both are regulation if government demands it (in the context in which we're speaking...government regulation).

However, in this case government DID NOT mandate or regulate the previous high credit standards for home loans. Those were determined by the market depending on how much risk a lender was willing to take, and then haggling over how much return in exchange for that risk they would accept. It was regulation, mind you, but self-imposed regulation for the porpose of limiting exposure to risk. It was NOT government regulation.

The government came along and said "not good enough, too many folks are falling outside of your lending requirements". So the government replaced the lenders' own idea of regulation they had imposed upon themselves with a new standard the government had decided. Then it became government regulation. It was NOT deregulation. Again, though, you'll argue that it was...because government dictated standards go down. I defy you to find a definition of "deregulation" where it states "to control a measure in a manner that it decreases in quantitative or subjective value".


Uh, hello? Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. Signed into law, required lenders to submit to government regulatory oversight to determine whether or not enough low-income earners were getting a fair shake at borrowing. Amended several times since then. A piece of regulatory legislation. So, what was that about the government not being involved in lending until Dodd, Frank, and their Merry Pals came along and ruined everything? I'm not disputing that they didn't make it worse, but the fact is government has been meddling in mortgage lending for a very long time, and we've been making it easier and easier as the years go by. And now we are paying for it.

[ScipioCowboy]

No, there wasn't a glut of real estate on the market. There was a glut of buyers.

Yes. There was.

In a serious conversation, please don't quote Ron Paul. And I really couldn't care less that some website listed low interest rates first.You're a smart guy, but in regards to economics...

Ron Paul > You

Sorry.

[theogt]

Admittedly, my knowledge of the situation is hardly comprehensive

Yes. There was.

You're a smart guy, but in regards to economics...

Ron Paul > You

Sorry.No offense, but I'll take your previous statement, nod, and move along.

[Beast_from_East]

GM would not exist right now if it was not for the Federal Government. That is a fact that nobody disputes.

So after billions of taxpayer dollars in bailout money, the Government is actually a quasi-owner of GM now.

It actually would have been cheaper for the Government to outright buy GM instead of giving it bailout money since the value of GM's outstanding stock is not worth anywhere near the amounts they are getting in bailout money.


So the Government basically owns GM now (along with owning 80% of AIG now), so the Government has the right to hire and fire whoever they want at their business.


***For the Repubs on here, this is not Socialism at all since the company would no longer exist if not for the Government "buying" them. The Government did not move in and "nationalize" the auto industry by taking over private sector companies. The Government simply conducted a quasi-purchase of a private sector company that was bankrupt. That is not Socialism*****

[MetalHead]

GM would not exist right now if it was not for the Federal Government. That is a fact that nobody disputes.

So after billions of taxpayer dollars in bailout money, the Government is actually a quasi-owner of GM now.

It actually would have been cheaper for the Government to outright buy GM instead of giving it bailout money since the value of GM's outstanding stock is not worth anywhere near the amounts they are getting in bailout money.


So the Government basically owns GM now (along with owning 80% of AIG now), so the Government has the right to hire and fire whoever they want at their business.


***For the Repubs on here, this is not Socialism at all since the company would no longer exist if not for the Government "buying" them. The Government did not move in and "nationalize" the auto industry by taking over private sector companies. The Government simply conducted a quasi-purchase of a private sector company that was bankrupt. That is not Socialism*****

I don't even know where to start here....

[Jordan55]

Even some Democrats see this is nothing more then a power play by the White House, to the American people were looking out for you, now for our budget proposal, it's in your best interest don't worry your kids will pay for it.
Remember Change and Dopes, I meant Hope

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm on Monday called the chairman and CEO of General Motors a "sacrificial lamb," after it was revealed that Rick Wagoner was being forced out of his job by the White House as a precondition for government aid.

Interviewed Monday on NBC's "Today" show, Granholm noted that Wagoner has worked for GM for more than 30 years and was trying to turn the company around.

She said that Wagoner agreed to step aside for the good of the carmaker and its workers.

U.S. Rep. Thad McCotter, R-Mich., also said Wagoner's resignation amounts to a "political offering."

In a written statement released Monday night, McCotter complained that the Obama administration was applying tougher standards to Detroit than Wall Street as both continue to seek government assistance.

"Now Mr. Wagoner has been asked to resign as a political offering despite his having led GM's painful restructuring to date," McCotter said. "Mr. Wagoner has honorably resigned for the sake of his company's working families. When will the Wall Street CEO's receiving TARP funds summon the honor to resign? Will this White House ever bother to raise the issue? I doubt it."

The Obama administration announced late Sunday that neither GM nor Chrysler has come up with acceptable business plans to merit receiving additional federal bailout money. The two automakers were each given a brief deadline to try one last time to persuade Washington they're worth saving.

[Rackat]

When did I wake up in Venezuala with President Chavez Nationalizing Industries?

Overstatement? Perhaps. But if Hugo had done this, most of this board would have been in an uproar. We have a similar situation in America that the Venezualan's are facing, and we need to stop it before it further corrodes our Constitution and way of life.

Post your funny pics of tinfoil hats.

[Joe Rod]

No, there wasn't a glut of real estate on the market. There was a glut of buyers.

Yes. There was.


Wasn't there a glut of both? In my travels between DC and Florida, one thing was always prevelant. Houses were being thrown up as fast as possible because buyers were buying them sometimes a year in advance for ten percent more than the previous batches that they produced. When I lived in DC, we had to bid on both of our houses that we owned the very day that they went on the market because they were sold that very same day.

[ajk23az]

Obama didn't ask Congress about ousting Wagoner

By Ian Swanson
Posted: 03/30/09 01:53 PM [ET]

President Obama didn't want any advice from Congress on the decision to ask Rick Wagoner to resign, according to Carl Levin (D), Michigan's senior senator.

"He didn't ask us about it, he informed us," Levin told reporters in a conference call Monday afternoon. Levin said he and three other lawmakers were informed of the decision Sunday.

Levin said Obama had already decided that GM CEO and Chairman Rick Wagoner had to resign by the time he was on the phone with lawmakers. Obama told the members of Congress that Wagoner needed to resign so that the administration could show the public it was making an effort at a fresh start with helping the auto industry.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/senator-no-consultation-on-asking-wagoner-to-leave-2009-03-30.html

[theogt]

Wasn't there a glut of both? In my travels between DC and Florida, one thing was always prevelant. Houses were being thrown up as fast as possible because buyers were buying them sometimes a year in advance for ten percent more than the previous batches that they produced. When I lived in DC, we had to bid on both of our houses that we owned the very day that they went on the market because they were sold that very same day.You can't have both. If there were more buyers than houses, then there wasn't a glut of houses.

[Joe Rod]

You can't have both. If there were more buyers than houses, then there wasn't a glut of houses.

I should have reread my statement before posting. I actually agree with your assessment, but worded it quite poorly. There was a time when they couldn't build the houses fast enough to meet the demand. Those were some crazy times.

[iceberg]

GM would not exist right now if it was not for the Federal Government. That is a fact that nobody disputes.

So after billions of taxpayer dollars in bailout money, the Government is actually a quasi-owner of GM now.

It actually would have been cheaper for the Government to outright buy GM instead of giving it bailout money since the value of GM's outstanding stock is not worth anywhere near the amounts they are getting in bailout money.


So the Government basically owns GM now (along with owning 80% of AIG now), so the Government has the right to hire and fire whoever they want at their business.


***For the Repubs on here, this is not Socialism at all since the company would no longer exist if not for the Government "buying" them. The Government did not move in and "nationalize" the auto industry by taking over private sector companies. The Government simply conducted a quasi-purchase of a private sector company that was bankrupt. That is not Socialism*****

BULL****.

government doesn't temporarily take power and give it back when the problem is over. their hooks are in and in this case, they paid to put them there.

all this "well this step isn't going where you think it is" on every step, ignoring the fact that almost every step IS pushing us that way is putting your head in the sand and pretending this will correct itself because the good guy wins in the end.

our president SHOULD NEVER EVER EVER demand the ouster of a private sector job. this is not the role of and never should be the role of the government.

some argue that we're here and need to make the best of it. great, but what's the best, let it happen and set the stage for more and more of the same or deeper?

or to say STOP - let GM fall. our auto industry won't end, it will change.

just as obama's entire mantra said to do -CHANGE.

only when it's happening we must suddenly stop change cause it will hurt. even though we were told it would.

at this point i don't care what obama says. i care what he does. making demands on private businesses w/o input from congress or any other place in power is what again?

what's the point of having a multi-part system if the president can suddenly be a King or Dictator?

some also argue that we're already part socialist. i'd not disagree. some would argue in a few ways we *should* be.

agreed on both. but i won't accept further "temporary" actions from our government as temporary.

i also want "few" defined and held to.

we're at a crossroads people. we're headed into something new and maybe it's time we had an enema and let crap come out. maybe it's time we said STOP and created a new way to operate under.

"big money" however controls BOTH sides regardless of how much fun it is to say it only control the OTHER side.

if what obama is doing can be defined as socalist, then it is whether you like to hear it or not and whether you THINK you can excuse it or not.

[Vintage]

thabigp has said many things are coming that are now coming.

no hyper inflation? gas is going back up. groceries seem to be costing a little more than they did not too long ago.

KFC 2 piece breast dinner w/a med pepsi was $7.50 or so. is there an official line for when things get to a specific price, it's hyper inflation?

no theo, im not going to start a fight with you and be told how ignorant i am because i dare to ponder this, so just move along.


Groceries are going up?

Simply Orange costs me the same now as it did during the Bush administration.

Granted, its a small sample.

But a very tasty one.

[WoodysGirl]

Groceries are going up?

Simply Orange costs me the same now as it did during the Bush administration.

Granted, its a small sample.

But a very tasty one.
I just discovered Simply Orange. Pulp-free, heavy on calcium. Love it.

[iceberg]

Groceries are going up?

Simply Orange costs me the same now as it did during the Bush administration.

Granted, its a small sample.

But a very tasty one.

lots of pulp or no pulp? i'm a pulp man myself. : )

i can't say i've done some huge study. but then, given they don't likely exist, when is it official we're in "hyper inflation"?

when it costs $10 to go to mcdonalds?

[iceberg]

I just discovered Simply Orange. Pulp-free, heavy on calcium. Love it.

i knew you weren't perfect.

now i know why. : )

[iceberg]

***For the Repubs on here, this is not Socialism at all since the company would no longer exist if not for the Government "buying" them. The Government did not move in and "nationalize" the auto industry by taking over private sector companies. The Government simply conducted a quasi-purchase of a private sector company that was bankrupt. That is not Socialism*****

so on this point alone - answer me a couple of questions.

please show me on the "idiots guide to socialism" the key points to "properly" have the government own/dictate to private enterprise vs. an unproper way.

then tell me the difference once we're there.

[MetalHead]

I just discovered Simply Orange. Pulp-free, heavy on calcium. Love it.

Is it really that good?
I need to try it then...sure looks tasty,I'm a big orange juice fan.

[ScipioCowboy]

Wasn't there a glut of both? In my travels between DC and Florida, one thing was always prevelant. Houses were being thrown up as fast as possible because buyers were buying them sometimes a year in advance for ten percent more than the previous batches that they produced. When I lived in DC, we had to bid on both of our houses that we owned the very day that they went on the market because they were sold that very same day.

Like everyone else on this board, I'm simply trying to glean information from more knowledgeable sources.

From what I've learned, the foundation of the housing crisis was laid when the FED kept interest rates artificially low for such a long time. It led to a constant influx of cheap credit that coerced both buyers and builders into taking out loans.

Builders were using the cheap credit to build prodigiously. Buyers were using the cheap credit--often acquired through highly specious loans--to purchase real estate rapidly.

Inevitably, once the credit dried up and demand subsided, we were left with a glut of overbuilt property, which had to be sold. Consequently, lending institutions continued making myriads of bad loans to unqualified buyers.

Certainly, there were a number of other contributing factor to the housing crisis, such as the aforementioned lack of proper oversight and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. However, the artificially low interest rates were the impetus. They made the crises far worse than it had to be - this, at least, is the conclusion of Factcheck.org (a non-partisan political fact checking organization) and Ron Paul, who foresaw the housing crisis long before it occurred:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/who_caused_the_economic_crisis.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/paul.bailout/index.html

As I've already conceded, I lack comprehensive knowledge of this issue; however, when respected sources such as Factcheck.org and Ron Paul hold one opinion and a poster on this board holds another, I'm more inclined to believe the former...though I do weigh the individual merits and internal consistency of each argument.

I'm not knocking the posters on this board. Many, such as Theo, are intelligent and informed. However, no one here seems to have a better batting average (in terms of economic predictions) than anyone else.

[Bob Sacamano]

overstepping Presidential boundaries here

[DIAF]

Simply Orange is good stuff. I recently tried tropicana's Valencia orange juice, that stuff is pretty good too. Simply Orange is better, though.

[ThaBigP]

How much were banks forced to lend?

Answer this single question.

This?

THIS?

...is the totality of your defense? The fact that neither I nor anybody else can give you a down-to-the-dollar itemized accounting of all the forced and coerced lending that went on? And that "proves" no forced/coerced lending transpired?

Wow.

It's a good thing this wasn't a thread about crime...I cannot give you a full account of all the crime in this country either. We wouldn't want you to come to the false conclusion that such inability to give a "God's eye" itemized account "proves" there is no crime.

Or the holocaust. My God, I quite clearly remember various holocaust deniers using the very same tactic..."if you can't name every single victom, then it never happened".

I would highly suggest you go back and actually READ the transcript of Janet Reno's speech in front of the Community Reinvestment group from the late 90's. You know, the transcript I got from the Dept of Justice's own website. You know, the speech when the nation's top prosecutor herself bragged in front of mass applause about suing bank after bank after bank. And bragging about how all the lawsuits were causing other lenders to "fall in line" for fear of being sued themselves. She went on to brag that there was much more to come in the area of "community reinvestment". She also bragged about forcing lenders to collect demographic data from potential borrowers so the DoJ could "prove" racism in lending decisions.

You know, the transcript you refused to read and dismissed.

It won't give you the tongue-in-cheek answer you DEMAND! as nobody can do that. How, for instance, does one place a line of demarcation between outright forced lending (the result of litigation), coerced lending (the result of settlements), and Reno's "get in line" lending (the result of the fear of litigation and/or settlements)?

So...I present evidence time and time again...you refuse to read, then post that I've presented no evidence. Then you demand an answer to a "how much wood does a woodchuck chuck?" question.

[theogt]

This?

THIS?

...is the totality of your defense? The fact that neither I nor anybody else can give you a down-to-the-dollar itemized accounting of all the forced and coerced lending that went on? And that "proves" no forced/coerced lending transpired?

Wow.

It's a good thing this wasn't a thread about crime...I cannot give you a full account of all the crime in this country either. We wouldn't want you to come to the false conclusion that such inability to give a "God's eye" itemized account "proves" there is no crime.

Or the holocaust. My God, I quite clearly remember various holocaust deniers using the very same tactic..."if you can't name every single victom, then it never happened".

I would highly suggest you go back and actually READ the transcript of Janet Reno's speech in front of the Community Reinvestment group from the late 90's. You know, the transcript I got from the Dept of Justice's own website. You know, the speech when the nation's top prosecutor herself bragged in front of mass applause about suing bank after bank after bank. And bragging about how all the lawsuits were causing other lenders to "fall in line" for fear of being sued themselves. She went on to brag that there was much more to come in the area of "community reinvestment". She also bragged about forcing lenders to collect demographic data from potential borrowers so the DoJ could "prove" racism in lending decisions.

You know, the transcript you refused to read and dismissed.

It won't give you the tongue-in-cheek answer you DEMAND! as nobody can do that. How, for instance, does one place a line of demarcation between outright forced lending (the result of litigation), coerced lending (the result of settlements), and Reno's "get in line" lending (the result of the fear of litigation and/or settlements)?

So...I present evidence time and time again...you refuse to read, then post that I've presented no evidence. Then you demand an answer to a "how much wood does a woodchuck chuck?" question.Give me a rough estimate.

Was it more than one billion?

Or less than one billion?

It's an easy question to answer, just say "more" or "less."

[ThaBigP]

Give me a rough estimate.

Was it more than one billion?

Or less than one billion?

It's an easy question to answer, just say "more" or "less."

I'll say it was over by a long shot...and how. Keep in mind I'm including the "climate of fear" that was created causing many lenders to get in line without having to be dragged kicking and screaming into court (of which even Reno bragged about). There's probably no way anybody could give anybody an exact figure for such a thing. Then, you did have those who took advantage (on both lending and borrowing side) as things got out of control...taking out multiple mortgages and flipping houses for a quick profit. But the whole snowball started rolling with government regulating lending standards for the benefit of the politicians' constituents.

As for more precise figures (or rather, figures of any precision at all), one could probably get going in the right direction of at least estimating... For example, Fannie and Freddie had mandates to increase the percentage of their portfolio dedicated to sub-prime mortgages. That figure was bumped up again...and again...through various administrations. The last figure I heard was 52% by Bush (yes, Bush). I think the previous figure from Clinton was 48%. Therefore, one could deduce from F/Fs' entire portfolio of mortgages the approximate dollar amount dedicated to sub-prime lending. There would indeed be a certain percentage of that figure tied up in folks taking advantage of the system. But again, this would give you a ballpark estimate, if only for the portfolios of these two GSEs.

Something else is the fact that that F/F were taxpayer-insured, so to speak. Meaning, those in the market would assume more risk than they otherwise might have...after all, these are guaranteed by the government. That's a recipe for a bubble... It was an attempt to create the economic equivalent of a perpetual motion machine. Where everybody insures everybody. Then, nobody can fail! The likes of AIG had nowhere near the capital to insure all the paper they were insuring. The taxbase had nowhere near enough savings to insure the amount of lending that was going on and bought up by F/F and backed by the government, who gets its revenue from the taxbase.

[theogt]

I'll say it was over by a long shot...and how. Keep in mind I'm including the "climate of fear" that was created causing many lenders to get in line without having to be dragged kicking and screaming into court (of which even Reno bragged about).What do you mean by "climate of fear"? Are you just using a vague term so that you can encompass all subprime lending? You can't pinpoint a number because you have no idea whether banks were forced or not. You know that there were some instances of "forced" lending so you assume all lending was forced by some crazy logical extension.

Fact is, it wasn't forced. The vast, vast, vast majority were not. It was all voluntary. The originators, the homeowners, the investment banks, etc., etc., etc., all were in the business on their own volition. Completely voluntary.

There's probably no way anybody could give anybody an exact figure for such a thing.Oh, of course, you couldn't. I didn't expect you to have even a rough estimate.

Then, you did have those who took advantage (on both lending and borrowing side) as things got out of control...taking out multiple mortgages and flipping houses for a quick profit.And were the banks forced to lend to them too?

But the whole snowball started rolling with government regulating lending standards for the benefit of the politicians' constituents.Oh, I see, so the banks were forced to lend at first, then eventually they started over-extending themselves on there own.

LOL!

As for more precise figures (or rather, figures of any precision at all), one could probably get going in the right direction of at least estimating... For example, Fannie and Freddie had mandates to increase the percentage of their portfolio dedicated to sub-prime mortgages. That figure was bumped up again...and again...through various administrations. The last figure I heard was 52% by Bush (yes, Bush). I think the previous figure from Clinton was 48%. Therefore, one could deduce from F/Fs' entire portfolio of mortgages the approximate dollar amount dedicated to sub-prime lending. There would indeed be a certain percentage of that figure tied up in folks taking advantage of the system. But again, this would give you a ballpark estimate, if only for the portfolios of these two GSEs.Fannie and Freddie were investing in subprime mortgages. They weren't creating them. Fannie and Freddie were not the only ones investing in subprime mortgages.

We're talking about the big banks here. What happened to Citi? Lehman? JPMorgan? Were they forced to invest in subprime mortgages too? Of course they weren't.

LOL at the idea that all sub-prime lending was forced by the government.

Something else is the fact that that F/F were taxpayer-insured, so to speak. Meaning, those in the market would assume more risk than they otherwise might have...after all, these are guaranteed by the government. That's a recipe for a bubble... It was an attempt to create the economic equivalent of a perpetual motion machine. Where everybody insures everybody. Then, nobody can fail! The likes of AIG had nowhere near the capital to insure all the paper they were insuring. The taxbase had nowhere near enough savings to insure the amount of lending that was going on and bought up by F/F and backed by the government, who gets its revenue from the taxbase.Wait, so at first you're saying they were FORCED. Now you're saying they were merely induced by government incentives. Keep your argument straight.

[Vintage]

lots of pulp or no pulp? i'm a pulp man myself. : )

i can't say i've done some huge study. but then, given they don't likely exist, when is it official we're in "hyper inflation"?

when it costs $10 to go to mcdonalds?

Country Grove, High Pulp.

McDonalds prices have risen. But that's not surprising. Minimum wage has gone up. When that happens, the cost of labor rises, which means food prices rise.

[Vintage]

Is it really that good?
I need to try it then...sure looks tasty,I'm a big orange juice fan.

Once you go Simply Orange, you'll never go back.





Also.... if anyone likes Simply Orange; their Simply Apple is beyond anything I've ever had. Words fail me, its that good.

[iceberg]

Country Grove, High Pulp.

McDonalds prices have risen. But that's not surprising. Minimum wage has gone up. When that happens, the cost of labor rises, which means food prices rise.

minimum wage has gone up a lot - prices stayed relatively flat. you see, i used to think that same thing and every time minimum wage went up, i did look around and i didn't see much happening to the prices of fast food.

where i live too much it would seem. : )

this time it's different and it *is* going up more than i recall. could be i'm paranoid, could be i'm right. all i can do is keep watching all signs and make my own determinations.

[WoodysGirl]

Once you go Simply Orange, you'll never go back.





Also.... if anyone likes Simply Orange; their Simply Apple is beyond anything I've ever had. Words fail me, its that good.
I've had the Simply Apple. It's good, but I've had better. Tropicana used to have this apple juice that was just ridiculous how good it was.

I'll buy the Simply Apple since Tropicana doesn't make apple juice the way they used to.

[Vintage]

minimum wage has gone up a lot - prices stayed relatively flat. you see, i used to think that same thing and every time minimum wage went up, i did look around and i didn't see much happening to the prices of fast food.

where i live too much it would seem. : )

this time it's different and it *is* going up more than i recall. could be i'm paranoid, could be i'm right. all i can do is keep watching all signs and make my own determinations.


McDonalds uses a lot of minimum wage laborers. When minimum wage went up from 5.15 to 5.50, prices stayed relatively flat at McDonalds. They were able to do that.

But now minimum wage is something like 6.50.

Prices for everything haven't gone up, necessarily. But because McD's relies heavily upon low payed employees... raises in minimum wage affect them. Same thing with rises in price of gas (back when it was 4/gallon; McDonalds uses semis to transport food).

[Vintage]

I've had the Simply Apple. It's good, but I've had better. Tropicana used to have this apple juice that was just ridiculous how good it was.

I'll buy the Simply Apple since Tropicana doesn't make apple juice the way they used to.


I refuse to believe that there was a better apple juice on the market than Simply Apple.

:D

[DIAF]

Prices for everything haven't gone up, necessarily. But because McD's relies heavily upon low payed employees... raises in minimum wage affect them. Same thing with rises in price of gas (back when it was 4/gallon; McDonalds uses semis to transport "food").

there, fixed that for you.

[Vintage]

there, fixed that for you.


Good point.

[ThaBigP]

What do you mean by "climate of fear"? Are you just using a vague term so that you can encompass all subprime lending? You can't pinpoint a number because you have no idea whether banks were forced or not. You know that there were some instances of "forced" lending so you assume all lending was forced by some crazy logical extension.

Fact is, it wasn't forced. The vast, vast, vast majority were not. It was all voluntary. The originators, the homeowners, the investment banks, etc., etc., etc., all were in the business on their own volition. Completely voluntary.

Oh, of course, you couldn't. I didn't expect you to have even a rough estimate.

And were the banks forced to lend to them too?

Oh, I see, so the banks were forced to lend at first, then eventually they started over-extending themselves on there own.

LOL!

Fannie and Freddie were investing in subprime mortgages. They weren't creating them. Fannie and Freddie were not the only ones investing in subprime mortgages.

We're talking about the big banks here. What happened to Citi? Lehman? JPMorgan? Were they forced to invest in subprime mortgages too? Of course they weren't.

LOL at the idea that all sub-prime lending was forced by the government.

Wait, so at first you're saying they were FORCED. Now you're saying they were merely induced by government incentives. Keep your argument straight.

Oh well. It's self evident you are completely invested in ignoring an entire aspect of the equation. For some reason.

So be it. Can't say I didn't try to lead this horse to water.

[Bach]

Holy shades of Hugo Chavez.....
....well i hope the Obamamobile sells...cause when a POTUS makes a move like that.....its his baby from there on out...

next thing we'll hear: Bill Ayers appointed CEO of GM

I think some more 'blue dogs" just shifted in their chairs....

Welcome to the Socialist States of America. What's sad is over 50% of the population probably thinks government should control the private sector and set/limit salaries.

Geez, and we're just in the first 100 days.