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



Margaret Thatcher

“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

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

Originally Posted by cabo35

"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."

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

Originally Posted by Peachie

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.

Have I missed any?

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

Originally Posted by cologal

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.

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.

Originally Posted by cologal

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.

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 !

Originally Posted by Bucco

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

Originally Posted by barb1191

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 !!!!!

Originally Posted by cologal

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.

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..

Originally Posted by GMONEY

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 !!!!

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.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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?