Margaret Thatcher Nails It

[Guest]

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."



Margaret Thatcher

[Guest]

“The substance of the eminent Socialist gentleman's speech is that making a profit is a sin, but it is my belief that the real sin is taking a loss”
Winston Churchill

[Guest]

Geez...I think Wall Street already did that! Cause most of my 401K is gone.

[Guest]

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."



Margaret Thatcher


I agree.....another quote I like is a few years old from Mike Rosen....

"Greed is a word leftists use to describe what conservatives call ambition. Ambition and reward are what fuel prosperity in a market economy. When you impose penalties and restrict rewards on economic activity - such as by excessive taxation - however noble your motives, there are consequences. You get less work, savings, investment and output. If that weren't the case, we could tax ourselves rich. The fatal shortcoming of socialist economies is that they don't sufficiently reward excellence, so, predictably, they get less of it. It's that fundamental conflict with human nature that seals socialism's ultimate doom."

[Guest]

An excellent quote, from Mike Rosen, Bucco, but the "entitlement minded" will never get the message that knowledge and hard work creates the reward.

[Guest]

An excellent quote, from Mike Rosen, Bucco, but the "entitlement minded" will never get the message that knowledge and hard work creates the reward.

My question would be who are the "entitlement minded" now a days. It would seem that would include the Investment Banks, several US cites, at least one state and the US Auto Industry. :yuck:

Have I missed any?

[Guest]

The one entitlement class that comes to mind are called politicians.

[Guest]

My question would be who are the "entitlement minded" now a days. It would seem that would include the Investment Banks, several US cites, at least one state and the US Auto Industry. :yuck:

Have I missed any?
Those who believe it is "the government's" responsibility to solve one's problems with money provided by everyone else....

These days it seems to cover a large demographic.

[Guest]

My question would be who are the "entitlement minded" now a days. It would seem that would include the Investment Banks, several US cites, at least one state and the US Auto Industry. :yuck:

Have I missed any?

Seems they are only in that catagory because our government is making it so. You were for the bail out, I THINK, but now criticize those getting it ??

I think the bail out was a mistake...I think what is being considered for GM is bad.

The only thing that would make it at all palatable to me would be the firing of those who drove it to this point and some oversight.

Who is going to make sure this works...who is watching the store ? The same guys that sat on a committee (we all saw the videos) a few years ago and defended those who were lining their pockets. Charlie Rangel rips us all off and we tolerate it....this entire mess is just disgusting to me. Barney Frank can do what he wants and it is no problem.

These men are driving this country straight into the ground. I find fault with so much of the last adminstration but the "leaders" of this incoming group are just plain scary to me. NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING is said about the oversight of this money of ours...NOTHING is said about those who should have and WERE warned about it ! Sorry...ranting again but I think your "arrows" are a bit misdirected !

[Guest]

Seems they are only in that catagory because our government is making it so. You were for the bail out, I THINK, but now criticize those getting it ??

I think the bail out was a mistake...I think what is being considered for GM is bad.

The only thing that would make it at all palatable to me would be the firing of those who drove it to this point and some oversight.

Who is going to make sure this works...who is watching the store ? The same guys that sat on a committee (we all saw the videos) a few years ago and defended those who were lining their pockets. Charlie Rangel rips us all off and we tolerate it....this entire mess is just disgusting to me. Barney Frank can do what he wants and it is no problem.

These men are driving this country straight into the ground. I find fault with so much of the last adminstration but the "leaders" of this incoming group are just plain scary to me. NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING is said about the oversight of this money of ours...NOTHING is said about those who should have and WERE warned about it ! Sorry...ranting again but I think your "arrows" are a bit misdirected !

WOW!!!! Well said, Bucco, and why aren't the powers-that-be looking at this real picture, the obvious solution.... by dumping all of the "golden fleece" EVERYWHERE!!??!! Tragic that our country has turned so "top heavy" with money-mongers eating us alive!! Get rid of the excessive chiefs and save the real producers, the indians!!! ......barb

[Guest]

WOW!!!! Well said, Bucco, and why aren't the powers-that-be looking at this real picture, the obvious solution.... by dumping all of the "golden fleece" EVERYWHERE!!??!! Tragic that our country has turned so "top heavy" with money-mongers eating us alive!! Get rid of the excessive chiefs and save the real producers, the indians!!! ......barb



I know this is being sarcastic, but I think congress is giving out this money with NO strings attached or NO firings so those who get it can give it back to THEM...the politicians as they have been doing !!!!!

[Guest]

My question would be who are the "entitlement minded" now a days. It would seem that would include the Investment Banks, several US cites, at least one state and the US Auto Industry. :yuck:

Have I missed any?


Pretty much covers all angels, I am sure there a few that have slipped by, but your there. Funny how people still find ways to crack on something, isnt it..

[Guest]

Pretty much covers all angels, I am sure there a few that have slipped by, but your there. Funny how people still find ways to crack on something, isnt it..


Everyone is entitled to their opinion for sure, but not sure how to interpet your remark "Funny how people still find ways to crack on something, isnt it."


Not sure if you are talking about the Democrat plan to give GM, etc money with no strings or defending Barney Frank and Charlie Rangel, or bail outs in general !!!!

[Guest]

I'll confine my response to the auto industry debate. If all that's being considered is giving the auto companies the "bridge loan" that they're requesting, that would be like peeing down the rat hole. Back when I was a commercial banker we would occasionally see requests like this. We were never so blunt with the customer, but when we discussed the request we'd almost always conclude that the loan would be a "bridge to eventual insolvency". That's all lending money with no strings to the auto companies would be. Look at what's happening to the banks to whom we've given tens of billions of dollars. They're still not making loans. That's because the Treasury Department attached no particular requirements to their "investments".

In the case of the auto companies, I'd give them money. But only if some combination of--or all of the following conditions were attached. Some of these might be things that the managements and the UAW would have to agree to jointly, if they really wanted and needed the money. They'd have to decide which was worse, the following conditions or the result if they received no money...

• A dramatic cut in employee and retiree pension and healthcare benefits.

• A substantial cut in hourly wages.

• A substantial cut in management salaries--at least as much in percentage terms as the union workers.

• A prohibition in any management incentive compensation until certain conditions were met. Like a couple of years of profitabliity; higher fleet CAFE averages; progress towards more non-gas cars, etc.

• Agreement that any future union contracts obtain not only management and union approval, but also the approval of the government.

• A requirement that the management be required to make quarterly reports to the government and that the government would have final approval of capital spending plans, future product planning, and overall expense budgets.

If they want the money, then everyone involved should be required to pay a hefty price--just like the price the taxpayers would pay in order to make the loans.

Like I said, a bridge loan without conditions would be like peeing down a rat hole.

[Guest]

I'll confine my response to the auto industry debate. If all that's being considered is giving the auto companies the "bridge loan" that they're requesting, that would be like peeing down the rat hole. Back when I was a commercial banker we would occasionally see requests like this. We were never so blunt with the customer, but when we discussed the request we'd almost always conclude that the loan would be a "bridge to eventual insolvency". That's all lending money with no strings to the auto companies would be. Look at what's happening to the banks to whom we've given tens of billions of dollars. They're still not making loans. That's because the Treasury Department attached no particular requirements to their "investments".

In the case of the auto companies, I'd give them money. But only if some combination of--or all of the following conditions were attached. Some of these might be things that the managements and the UAW would have to agree to jointly, if they really wanted and needed the money. They'd have to decide which was worse, the following conditions or the result if they received no money...

• A dramatic cut in employee and retiree pension and healthcare benefits.

• A substantial cut in hourly wages.

• A substantial cut in management salaries--at least as much in percentage terms as the union workers.

• A prohibition in any management incentive compensation until certain conditions were met. Like a couple of years of profitabliity; higher fleet CAFE averages; progress towards more non-gas cars, etc.

• Agreement that any future union contracts obtain not only management and union approval, but also the approval of the government.

• A requirement that the management be required to make quarterly reports to the government and that the government would have final approval of capital spending plans, future product planning, and overall expense budgets.

If they want the money, then everyone involved should be required to pay a hefty price--just like the price the taxpayers would pay in order to make the loans.

Like I said, a bridge loan without conditions would be like peeing down a rat hole.

Kahuna, I have to disagree with your proposal to fix the automotive industry. Lets see... give me a mediocre wage that will barely or won't make ends meet so my children won't see college, etc., give me a miserly pension and make me figure out how to get decent healthcare in this woefully lacking affordable healthcare country. Sign me up, I need a job like that!

I have a different proposal, let the worker's buy the stock and own GM, Chrysler and Ford companies. Therefore, profits earned would be distributed to those who earned it, not the white collar workers living off the labor and sweat of the blue collars because they feel "they are more important and deserve more of the financial pie". Automotive workers would reap their wages and benefits and the remaining funds would be applied to the health of their respective companies. There is a whole different earnings/profit mentality within a company with workers whom own the business.

I am beginning to believe many of the problems of this country are all the "public companies" where profit for the owner and workers is not sufficient, there must now be enough money to feed all the people owning stock and feeding at the trough. (This has a huge implication in medical costs that no one will mention, the providers of service and supplies are reimbursed as they should be. But any medical service or treatment one seeks, handsomely rewards the massive number of stockholders standing around the edges.) Am I the only one with this perception? :shrug:

[Guest]

the objective is to produce the most "energy" efficient, customer satisfied, highest quality at the lowest cost.....the bail out is only bridging the same same industry to do the same as they have been.
The big difference between American and "other" manufacturers is the amount of automation and per vehicle cost to produce. American manufacturing has been allowed to REMAIN labor intense at an ever increasing cost per hour.
Pay the workers more....pay the executives more....pay the stock holders more (used to be!!) and what's left? A mediocre cost reduced, product with later than sooner technology improvements.
The automotive industry needs a make over.....not a loan.....nothing new....no surprises....just takes a crisis to get the attention....the new American way....plan for nothing...react to the one that erupts TODAY!!!

I hesitate to use the very over worked, very expectation imbeded terminology that uses the word CHANGE.

BTK

[Guest]

The problem with a "loan with conditions" is that when the government is the banker, no one ever lives up to the conditions. There is little to no REAL oversight, and it's always a give me the money first, and we'll llive up to the conditions later (maybe).

Let's not kid ourselves. There is no federal agency which can provide such oversight over the auto industry. Congress will never do it via a special committee. As "K" said, its....down the rat hole.

Once the money is transferred, everyone's memory seems to get fuzzy, especially Congress and definitely the controller for the outfit with the freebie.

Neither the executives for the auto companies nor the unions want a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, because the court will provide oversight and will make both sides chew a little of the bitter pill. Since both sides in the auto industry labor-management "team" have mutually inclusive blame to share, they should share the stomach ache that goes with it. A bailout leaves them still eating cake while the taxpayer will require gallons of Maalox for quite a while.

[Guest]

Lets all have hope that we can make it to the New Year! For the majority of the last eight years, the Republicans were trying to turn us in to a Fascist Empire. Failing out that, they are attempting to turn us into a Socialist society. Can't wait for the New Year! Bring back democracy and an America we can be proud of again!

[Guest]

Peachie,

GM stock closed today at $3.09 per share. Based on the number of shares outstanding and the number of employees, the active employees could buy the entire company for only about $6,000 each. That's less than 10% of the average annual wages for GM's hourly workers. If you made the deal avaialble to the retirees as well, the whole lot of them could probably buy the company for only $3,000-4,000 each. That's less than the cost of a well-used car. Heck, with sales of $200 billion, all it would take is a profit margin of 1/2% and they all could be paid back within one year.

Why do you think none of them has figured this out? Or why hasn't any other company or private equity firm figured out that they could buy one of the U.S. top ten biggest companies for an absolute song?

Because GM as it's currently structured, and with the pay and benefits they pay their workers is a bow-wow! It's an accident thats getting ready to happen in only a few weeks.

For GM to come to the government and ask for a "bridge loan" so that the hourly employees can continue to make an average of $82 per hour (hourly wages plus benefits) is as ridiculaous a proposal as I've ever heard. Think about it. Forty million people who don't have any healthcare insurance at all would collectively borrow billions of dollars so the GM workers can keep making $82 an hour and have gold-plated, no cost health insurance?

Like I said...RIDICULOUS!

I'd say that GM can either borrow the money with some very stiff conditions that impact on the hourly workers and the mamagment, or take a pass on our loan and go belly up. Then let's see how many of the 2-3 million people who are put out of work feel about maybe having given up on some of their pay and health insurance. When that happens, I think they'll be saying, "Geez, less pay and less insurance would have been a lot better than nothing.

[Guest]

...
For GM to come to the government and ask for a "bridge loan" so that the hourly employees can continue to make an average of $82 per hour (hourly wages plus benefits) is as ridiculaous a proposal as I've ever heard. Think about it. Forty million people who don't have any healthcare insurance at all would collectively borrow billions of dollars so the GM workers can keep making $82 an hour and have gold-plated, no cost health insurance?

Like I said...RIDICULOUS!
...

Just because it's ridiculous doesn't mean the companies (and unions) won't ask for (and soon demand) the money. Congressfolk scared of alienating that constituency will bend towards spending other-people's-money with the hope that those ticked off will have short memories.

Silly, isn't it?

[Guest]

"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul," GBS said wisely. Today we see our government robbing taxpayers to protect people and institutions that made horrible decisions. Until Peter either cannot or will not pay any longer the situation will continue.

[Guest]

I still do not understand why they think it is the lawmakers lofty, self imposed position to do all this donating....with no accountability. If we the people would get after the lawmakers there might be a difference in behavior in Washington. But since there is NO CHANCE that will EVER happen, the lawmakers continue to plod ahead as if there was an open check book.

Maybe we the people should adopt the bail out mentality and terminology to request funding of those things that matter. How many billions would it take to bail out social security? Medicare? Prescription drugs? Energy independence?

We the people are last in the political scheme of anything...and that IS NOT going to change until we the people demand it...yeah right!

BTK

[Guest]

I still do not understand why they think it is the lawmakers lofty, self imposed position to do all this donating....with no accountability. If we the people would get after the lawmakers there might be a difference in behavior in Washington. But since there is NO CHANCE that will EVER happen, the lawmakers continue to plod ahead as if there was an open check book.

Maybe we the people should adopt the bail out mentality and terminology to request funding of those things that matter. How many billions would it take to bail out social security? Medicare? Prescription drugs? Energy independence?

We the people are last in the political scheme of anything...and that IS NOT going to change until we the people demand it...yeah right!

BTK

Over 90% of all Congressional incumbents - especially those with over 15-20-30-40 years seniority - were re-elected in November. Yet, we get upset when our representatives continue to do dumb things.

We, the People really are We, the Fools if we don't flush out at least 2/3rds of the House and the same percentage of Senators who appear on the 2010 ballot.

[Guest]

the 23 posts that appear as of now, I've seen most interesting answers to the problem of dealing with the auto industry.

A couple of responses to these posts are:

Do not "nationalize" the auto industry by loaning them the money and then say who, what, where and how it should be spent. We the People don't want to own a dieing horse.

Telling the industry to "just go bankrupt" won't work either. Too many people who don't get the lavish pay/benefit package the auto workers receive will be unfairly punished in their demise.

The answer that I've seen that makes the most sense is to have the employees buy out the company. Self interest is always the best motivation to success.

My question is, now how do We the People tell the auto industries and Congress that this is the only acceptable solution that we find on our table?

[Guest]

Peachie,

Because GM as it's currently structured, and with the pay and benefits they pay their workers is a bow-wow! It's an accident thats getting ready to happen in only a few weeks.

For GM to come to the government and ask for a "bridge loan" so that the hourly employees can continue to make an average of $82 per hour (hourly wages plus benefits) is as ridiculaous a proposal as I've ever heard. Think about it. Forty million people who don't have any healthcare insurance at all would collectively borrow billions of dollars so the GM workers can keep making $82 an hour and have gold-plated, no cost health insurance?

Like I said...RIDICULOUS!

I'd say that GM can either borrow the money with some very stiff conditions that impact on the hourly workers and the mamagment, or take a pass on our loan and go belly up. Then let's see how many of the 2-3 million people who are put out of work feel about maybe having given up on some of their pay and health insurance. When that happens, I think they'll be saying, "Geez, less pay and less insurance would have been a lot better than nothing.

Village Kahuna, perhaps you also were listening to the U.S. Automakers CEO's testifying before the Senate Banking Committee today. Robert Casey, (D)PA, while interviewing the CEO's, addressed Ron Gettelfinger, AUW President, and sought to clarify the $73. hourly wage myth out there concerning the autoworkers that is completely false. Casey stated that since 2003, 150,000 autoworkers have been downsized out of the auto industry. Since 2005, the beginning autoworker hourly wage is $14. and retiree benefits were reduced by 50%. The approximate proportion of Labors' cost per automobile is 10%. Gettelfinger, in earlier testimony, advised the SBC that a big part of the problem not being addressed in the success of the auto industry was as an example; Korea's ability to ship vast numbers of cars to the USA and in turn, Korea allows only a small number of cars to be imported to that country. He also advised that the burgeoning cost of health care in this nation is disabling the companies providing this benefit.

I'm sure if we continue to lower the hourly wages and benefits for the automaker industry, we will have many more positions available for the illegal aliens crossing our borders and reaping the benefits of citizenship for their "American born children" and our health care system.

I don't know the solution for the automakers' dire straits but I do know that a staggering amount of money was applied to the banking/investment fiasco and a much smaller amount would be required to stabilize an industry suffering from the same problems as the rest of the economy, a severe recession.

(BTW, VK, I shortened your original response to highlight my point.)

[Guest]

Village Kahuna, perhaps you also were listening to the U.S. Automakers CEO's testifying before the Senate Banking Committee today. Robert Casey, (D)PA, while interviewing the CEO's, addressed Ron Gettelfinger, AUW President, and sought to clarify the $73. hrly wage myth out there concerning the auto-workers that is completely false. Casey stated that since 2003, 150,000 autoworkers have been downsized out of the auto industry. Since 2005, the beginning autoworker hourly wage is $14. and retiree benefits were reduced by 50%. The approximate proportion of Labors' cost per automobile is 10%. Gettelfinger, in earlier testimony, advised the SBC that a big part of the problem not being addressed in the success of the auto industry was as an example; Korea's ability to ship vast numbers of cars to the USA and in turn, Korea allows only a small number of cars to be imported to that country. He also advised that the burgeoning cost of health care in this nation is disabling the companies providing this benefit.

I'm sure if we continue to lower the hourly wages and benefits for the automaker industry, we will have many more positions available for the illegal aliens crossing our borders and reaping the benefits of citizenship for their "American born children" and our health care system.

I don't know the solution for the automakers' dire straits but I do know that a staggering amount of money was applied to the banking/investment fiasco and a much smaller amount would be required to stabilize an industry suffering from the same problems as the rest of the economy, a severe recession.

(BTW, VK, I shortened your original response to simplify the point I wanted to make.)

The question is this - what is "stabilized?" Is it enough short-term cash to cover the bills since sales are slow? If that's what it is, so be it. Nobody has yet to define the term in this context.

The big question is what will it take to get people to buy a sizeable amount of the inventory? No sales = no future.

[Guest]

The question is this - what is "stabilized?" Is it enough short-term cash to cover the bills since sales are slow? If that's what it is, so be it. Nobody has yet to define the term in this context.

The big question is what will it take to get people to buy a sizeable amount of the inventory? No sales = no future.

SteveZ, the discussions today between the CEOS and the SBC indicated more money would probably be required down the line for the automakers until the economy rebounds and confidence returns to the consumer. It is, more or less, the same situation as the huge bailout to the banks and investment firms... the initial financial arrangement won't be enough.

Both situations are a huge burr under the US financial saddle and adding to the economical mess and growing our national indebtedness by leaps and bounds. As indicated in a comment by Nardelli, CEO of Chrysler, the ramifications of the failure of the Big 3 has tentacles thoroughly enmeshed in our economy and the effect will be devastating. I'll continue to watch this debacle unfold but as I stated earlier, I'm not sure of the solution. I am thinking the ten dollar bill in my wallet probably has a real value of 10 cents!

[Guest]

What about more money for the people, not saying to just give. but cut Insurance cost to them. If they people are not putting more money in their pocket and are not able to keep their homes and the essentials they need to keep their family intact, what in the world makes anyone think they will by a car no matter how much you bail the auto industry out???

If you fix the auto industry, but do not fix what is hurting most of the nation, your not really accomplishing the task. YOu could make cars 5000.00, bail out the industy 500%. but if i dont have a job that allows me to make my mortgage, i am not thinking of buying a car.

[Guest]

bail outs is exactly what was mentioned above. How do these rescues affect those who do the buying???

And how about the other largest employer in the United States.....the small businesses...that rely on borrowing to make pay roll....that collectively employ more people than all the others combined! The Small Business Association stopped backing loans over 6 months ago because of the banking/credit crisis.
So now when small business owners are looking for help they are told by the SBA there will be a large infusion of money into the system for SBA backed loans.

These business folks individually don't employ thousands nor are they asking for a hand out of billions of dollars...they need help just making it through the month. And where is their representation in Washington???

Here again is where there could be an immediate impact at the working level, but that is just not going to happen.

The system is geared for the wealthy to take care of the wealthy. For example yesterday's article about GM during their so called cash tight situation still donating over $50,000,000 to individual Congressmen and Senators.

It doesn't matter who is going to be President....there is no individual capable of dismantling the completely incestuous governing organizations and their loyal lobbyists.

The only consistency is they will take care of themselves.....to :cus:
with we the people!! It is so evident every single day!!!

BTK