Good Old Neon Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 I disagree. I don't disagree that corporate america has much more influenece in the government than you or I do, I disagree with the premise that the change is a fiction. On one hand yes it was a marketing campaign. Aren't all elections marketing campaigns? On the other hand not everything can change immediately, or even will be changed. We all have our pet issues that we hate how they are handled or like how they are handled. In Obama's case the change is coming through his reaching out, how often over the last eight years did the other party reach out? None that I can think of. How congress handles the reaching out is another issue, but he is definitely trying to change the tone of the debate. Whether you like him or not you have to admit that he has opened a dialogue with the republicans that president Bush never attempted to start with democrats. Another change has been through competence they are attempting to put competent people in positions, not just campaign flacks. Now we won Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Nationalize the banks today and the bailouts would stop. Ask yourself whose benefit it really is that they are not nationalized? Is it the people or the banks? They have no right to expect tax money and offer no benefits for that except business as usual. We are being ripped off and Obama will not stand up to it period. These guys should be in jail not getting manicures on our dime. If the banks are nationalized, then take every bank and their share price is a big fat doughnut. Zero. Zilch. By definition, the S&P 500 (made up of, among other things, financial stocks) will go to 600. Let's ignore for a minute whether banks going to zero has an impact on anything else in the market and whether there's any collateral damage. When the banks get nationalized, everyone's retirement account invested in an index fund, which was down 50% last year, and is already down 25% this year, will go down another 10% overnight. Overnight. Let's also ignore for a minute how the hell the government is even going to begin to nationalize and run the banking system of the largest economy in the world. This ain't Sweden. You continue to suggest that this issue is black and white. It IS NOT. Obama is not doing this so that bank CEO's get manicures. There are no simple answers here, no matter what you think. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 New roads and bridges dont make us money, we cant afford it to build it. We are spending money building this when we are dead broke. When all is said and done and built, we will have nice roads and rails, but completely up to our eyes in debt. How does that help? How does this make money? Its a short term solution. The only thing about the govt taking over the banks is that they arent bankers. Why not let real bankers who will be totally responsible for their own business run the banks.Dude, everybody knows to grow the economy you have to grow infrastructure so the goods that a growing economy needs and produces can be moved to where they need to be. Geez. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Obama is not doing this so that bank CEO's get manicures. There are no simple answers here, no matter what you think. I agree with those two statements. The last one, more than anything posted on here. For this reason, I inherently disagree with any 'conclusive' attitude toward the situation. I have a preference, and it is the Swedish model. That doesn't for a moment keep me from taking your cautionary attitude to heart. Any measure- even the best, is risky. We are living in volatile times. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Well it's only getting worse out there. So F Obama and the horse he rode in on. I'm tired of reading this drivel. I'll stick to the Wilco, music, and football threads.What? It took Bush eight years to F this country and you expect Obama to un-F it in eight weeks? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 I respect your opinion, but on the whole, these changes are largely shallow and cosmetic. Obama understood and understands that folks had/have had it up to just about here with all the suffocating negativity that hung like a cloud around the Bush White House, and he also understands that in a crisis such as the one we Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Like I said not everything can be changed instantaneously. Things have to be done incrementally. No doubt that Washington is a mess, he can not force either side of the aisle to change the way they act/operate, we are no longer a dictatorship so he can't force his way on congress, nor will he choose to ignore congress. All he can do is set the table and work to make the dialog more productive. Heck it does nto even have to be civil as far as I am concerned, but it does have to be productive. Has it been productive thus far? Not by a long shot, but that gets me back to my point that change can not occur instantaneously. Gee after 6 weeks I'm still going to give the guy a chance and not declare his whole presidency a failure as Rush and the right have already done. BTW coudl someone explain to me in detail how Obama has caused the economic crisis to become what it is? If you talk about fear and uncertainty please be spcific about how he caused this fear and how it caused the wealth to disappear? While you are at it explain how he is the cause of the shitty employment figures and bad earnings for all these banks and the car companies (though I Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moe_Syzlak Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 What? It took Bush eight years to F this country and you expect Obama to un-F it in eight weeks?In fairness, Bush was able to F things up a lot faster than 8 years. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 What? It took Bush eight years to F this country and you expect Obama to un-F it in eight weeks? Werd. All bitching aside, the Sisyphusian boulder now baring down on Obama, this country, is propelled by 8 or more years of violently mismanaged momentum. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
futureage1 Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 If the banks are nationalized, then take every bank and their share price is a big fat doughnut. Zero. Zilch. By definition, the S&P 500 (made up of, among other things, financial stocks) will go to 600. Let's ignore for a minute whether banks going to zero has an impact on anything else in the market and whether there's any collateral damage. When the banks get nationalized, everyone's retirement account invested in an index fund, which was down 50% last year, and is already down 25% this year, will go down another 10% overnight. Overnight. Let's also ignore for a minute how the hell the government is even going to begin to nationalize and run the banking system of the largest economy in the world. This ain't Sweden. You continue to suggest that this issue is black and white. It IS NOT. Obama is not doing this so that bank CEO's get manicures. There are no simple answers here, no matter what you think. Right the shareholders are wiped out. That is a FAIR and FREE market. The shareholders deserve to pay the consequences for bad business decisions, not the tax payer. It really is black and white and that simple, but for some reason you seem to put your trust in the same people who got us here. Believe whatever you have to but these guys should be in jail and Sweden is the exact model we should be following for recovery. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
futureage1 Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 I agree government is government and when consigned to the dustbins of history we will see that it operates in much the same way over time. What I am suggesting is that Obama is workign to change the tone of the debate, trying to at least and trying to change the operating method of the White House from his predecessor. In the short term he is makign the effort. Others are suggesting that Obama is a failure not you specifically. The fact is that our country has become totally enamored with and beholden to the short term. In business as well as politics we want results today! In business they follow the stock price and control costs/projects based on the markets. Fortunately I work for a company that has a long term view of things and our investors are well aware of that. So I don Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Right the shareholders are wiped out. That is a FAIR and FREE market. The shareholders deserve to pay the consequences for bad business decisions, not the tax payer. It really is black and white and that simple, but for some reason you seem to put your trust in the same people who got us here. Believe whatever you have to but these guys should be in jail and Sweden is the exact model we should be following for recovery. I for one do not believe in nationalizing banks or any industry. If we get into something it shoudl be with definate exit plans written out with attainable triggers in place to trip the plans into action. My thoughts on the banks and GM and the financial houses is that from day one last year when doling out money to these guys we should have 1) gotten equity stakes (can be stock or convertible bonds anything really) with provisions for the entities to repurchase the equity when they start to hit certain earnings and financial conditions. This allows us the taxpayer to not just give the cash away and it provides the entities with a capital infusion. 2) as shareholders we should then have a major say in operations. i.e. executive pay and bonuses being one area. Hell, the shareholders of these companies should be up in arms about it anyway. Citibank is below $1/share today with almost $30bl in losses? The whole management team should be fired with no parachutes as should anyone in the responsible divisions. It Quote Link to post Share on other sites
futureage1 Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 I for one do not believe in nationalizing banks or any industry. If we get into something it shoudl be with definate exit plans written out with attainable triggers in place to trip the plans into action. My thoughts on the banks and GM and the financial houses is that from day one last year when doling out money to these guys we should have 1) gotten equity stakes (can be stock or convertible bonds anything really) with provisions for the entities to repurchase the equity when they start to hit certain earnings and financial conditions. This allows us the taxpayer to not just give the cash away and it provides the entities with a capital infusion. 2) as shareholders we should then have a major say in operations. i.e. executive pay and bonuses being one area. Hell, the shareholders of these companies should be up in arms about it anyway. Citibank is below $1/share today with almost $30bl in losses? The whole management team should be fired with no parachutes as should anyone in the responsible divisions. It Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 I'm tired of hearing about Bush. I never voted for him and know he fucked the country up. I also know Obama has been President for a short while. I am tired of hearing about Bush's failings and would like solutions and bills not crafted by lobbyists and special interest groups. This is the change he ran on. I'm sorry if you don't like it being pointed out that he is going back on a whole lot of promises in under 2 moths. I don't expect it overnight. I'm looking for solutions, not hearing about Republicans and Rush Limbaugh. When Obama offers meaningful change I will be the loudest cheerleader there is for him. Until then I will call them the way I personally see them. If you think Geithner is competent, God help you sincerely. Sorry but Bush and his policies must be front and center. Why? Because we have to drive it deeply into the national conscious just exactly how we got here (30% of the country believes it is a combo of FDR/LBJ/Carter/Clinton and Obama that got us here.). Otherwise the Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ZenLunatic Posted March 5, 2009 Author Share Posted March 5, 2009 Dude, everybody knows to grow the economy you have to grow infrastructure so the goods that a growing economy needs and produces can be moved to where they need to be. Geez. What about all the roads that exists? Why do we need more? It was different back when we borrowed to build industuries and roads to build America. Our industuries were making money. We are now borrowing to build roads just to create jobs to stabilize a fake economy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 What about all the roads that exists? Why do we need more? It was different back when we borrowed to build industuries and roads to build America. Our industuries were making money. We are now borrowing to build roads just to create jobs to stabilize a fake economy. The infrastructure needs work. There are some shitty roads where I live that can rattle parts off your vehicle. of course that creates work for parts suppliers and maintenance types. But inreality new roads and highways are needed as our population expands. Roads are built for a certain capacity and are usually over that capacity as they get opened. More use of public transportation might ease the loads, but this is America and no one can tell us not to drive. It's just how we are. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ZenLunatic Posted March 5, 2009 Author Share Posted March 5, 2009 Right the shareholders are wiped out. That is a FAIR and FREE market. The shareholders deserve to pay the consequences for bad business decisions, not the tax payer. It really is black and white and that simple, but for some reason you seem to put your trust in the same people who got us here. Believe whatever you have to but these guys should be in jail and Sweden is the exact model we should be following for recovery. I agree with that shares being wiped out is fair and just. So why not let the banks just die. I dont know the details but why do you sugguest the govt run the banks? Why not get private businessmen to run them? The banks will be forced to liquidate, someone will eventually buy them up. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ZenLunatic Posted March 5, 2009 Author Share Posted March 5, 2009 The infrastructure needs work. There are some shitty roads where I live that can rattle parts off your vehicle. of course that creates work for parts suppliers and maintenance types. But inreality new roads and highways are needed as our population expands. Roads are built for a certain capacity and are usually over that capacity as they get opened. More use of public transportation might ease the loads, but this is America and no one can tell us not to drive. It's just how we are. Maybe the problem is our population and we need it to stop expanding. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Maybe the problem is our population and we need it to stop expanding.Dude, if you figure out a way to get people to stop fucking, you will win ALL the Nobel Prizes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Dude, if you figure out a way to get people to stop fucking, you will win ALL the Nobel Prizes. Show them this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
austrya Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Maybe the problem is our population and we need it to stop expanding. So how many kids should a couple be allowed to have? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Dude, if you figure out a way to get people to stop fucking, you will win ALL the Nobel Prizes. Isn't that one of the platforms of the republican party? Show them this. Believe me there are guys i know who would hit that, even without being intoxicated. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 I was gonna say, lots of guys would hit that, they just wouldn't talk about it to their friends. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 I was gonna say, lots of guys would hit that, they just wouldn't talk about it to their friends.You'd have to kill me first. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.