The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

General Motors:
http://www.hoovers.com/company/General_Motors_Company/rfjcif-1-1njea5.html
2010 Employees 202,000

Bank of America:
http://www.hoovers.com/company/Bank_of_America_Corporation/hxccci-1-1njea5.html
2010 Employees 288,000
boa.jpg


[quote name='mykevermin']and yet, when government money is spent in a way that retains jobs, keeps industry in the United States, *and* returns a profit to the federal government, you still loathe it.[/QUOTE]

Guess this means the loans to BoA were a great thing! Jobs, industry and profit!
 
[quote name='Msut77']I am not shocked knoell ignores all the dependent jobs the auto industry creates (they have massive supply chains etc. QED).

Something I have asked before is why the 'bagger contingent will get their panties knotted over a cash infusion to a troubled company that allows them to keep the lights on. While at the same time they will defend "industries" that add no value and we subsidize their profits year in and year out.

I don't expect an answer now.[/QUOTE]

not sure why you are going on a rant about tea partiers when all I was doing was addressing mykevermins blatently incorrect post and the absolutely disregard for the correction,

Here is a question, if you give me a thousand dollars and I pay you back the $100 you loaned to me plus 10% interest. How does that work out for you?

You got a great deal there huh?

You can argue all day about the merits and necessities of bailing these companies out but I don't want to hear how good they were because they "turned a profit". That is BS and dishonest.
 
knoell cannot tell the difference between a person and a government.

Also, before I bother to go further; do you concede the fact that businesses have supply chains?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']Here is a question, if you give me a thousand dollars and I pay you back the $100 you loaned to me plus 10% interest. How does that work out for you?[/QUOTE]

One thousand dollars is $1000, not $100. Jesus fucking Christ.
 
[quote name='camoor']No idea what you and Knoell are talking about anymore[/QUOTE]

Myke said the bailouts for the auto companies were a good business deal because they paid back the government - in full - and that the government made a profit off the deal.

I provided figures that showed Myke's echoing of GM's commercials to be false - that the auto companies have paid back part of the bailouts (not all), although we have made some "profits".

I think this is what Knoell is getting at. Basically, we gave the auto companies $1,000, they paid back $100 + 10% and Myke is trying to spin this as a good business deal.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Myke said the bailouts for the auto companies were a good business deal because they paid back the government - in full - and that the government made a profit off the deal.

I provided figures that showed Myke's echoing of GM's commercials to be false - that the auto companies have paid back part of the bailouts (not all), although we have made some "profits".

I think this is what Knoell is getting at. Basically, we gave the auto companies $1,000, they paid back $100 + 10% and Myke is trying to spin this as a good business deal.[/QUOTE]

It's quite funny that some people on this board are arguing that the bailouts were a good deal... Sure, GM did pay back all of the loan that it received, but that was only a minor portion of the bailout (about 6-7 billion USD). The government also bought a >40 billion stake in the company (that's the dangerous part... if GM goes under, the taxpayers get shafted as we are now the major owners of GM and undertake all the risk!).

Were some jobs saved in the short term? Probably, quite a few people with GM and in the supply chain did have their jobs saved. However, none of the fundamentals of GM's business practices nor their union obligations have changed for the better. This is just setting them (and us) up for a bigger fall when the US loses it's means to bail out a taco stand, much less a huge company.
 
On top of that, you've got the government keeping a failing "big guy" company afloat - ruling out any chance a "little guy" company may have had at using their own, potentially successful, business plans against the failing company. Then, they'll go on and on about how the "little guy" can't catch a break.
 
[quote name='BigT']Were some jobs saved in the short term? Probably, quite a few people with GM and in the supply chain did have their jobs saved.[/quote]

Are you just being silly? You can pretend to be so blase about but it means a lot to people who needed those jobs to survive.

However, none of the fundamentals of GM's business practices nor their union obligations have changed for the better.
Click to expand...

Apparently they made enough good changes, it is now doing pretty well in the middle of a still shitty economy QED.

This is just setting them (and us) up for a bigger fall when the US loses it's means to bail out a taco stand, much less a huge company.
Click to expand...

I always forget, it is about your crackpot ideology rather than facts with you.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Are you just being silly? You can pretend to be so blase about but it means a lot to people who needed those jobs to survive.


Apparently they made enough good changes, it is now doing pretty well in the middle of a still shitty economy QED.
[/QUOTE]
Most companies would do well (at least for a while) if they if they got an infusion of money that roughly matches their actual net value...

Workers should have reasonable access to jobs... but I fear that these will be transient... who is to say that if GM failed, another company would not have come in to fill the void? Sometimes our economy needs to swallow a bitter pill and then rebuild in a stronger fashion... printing money and then giving it to one's buddies running companies with unsustainable business plans is not a great solution; plus it keeps potential smaller competitors at bay.

We will see who is right in a few years.

I always forget, it is about your crackpot ideology rather than facts with you.
Click to expand...
Just like your positions have absolutely no ideology behind them :D
 
[quote name='UncleBob']On top of that, you've got the government keeping a failing "big guy" company afloat - ruling out any chance a "little guy" company may have had at using their own, potentially successful, business plans against the failing company. Then, they'll go on and on about how the "little guy" can't catch a break.[/QUOTE]

Very true. The more time I've spent in the working world, the more I realize that all these government regulations and bailouts are meant to keep the little guy down rather than to protect consumers and/or jobs.

I'm most familiar with the medical field. Here, outside of a few niches, it is very difficult, to be independent and to run one's own business. A lot of this has to do with endless regulations coupled with reimbursement that is essentially dictated by the government. We say that we don't have socialized medicine, but really, we do as Medicare is essentially socialized medicine for those over 65 y/o or on dialysis... guess what people go to the doctor most often ;-)

Having one's own clinic is hard because of all the hoops one has to go through for licensing... then there are concerns about liability... not too mention billing, which is quite complex and usually requires one to hire a person just to deal with that! Plus margins are pretty razor thin unless you are doing procedures that are reimbursed at a high rate (a lot of times for no particular good reason)...

Same goes for dialysis centers... for a little guy it is quite tough as you have to "comply" with a litany of regulations, then reimbursement is now only $230 per dialysis session (including labs, meds, etc. which are all bundled)... the profit margin is quite low on that and you really need very high volume to make ends meat... that's why big guys like Fresenius have essentially taken over...
 
[quote name='BigT']Most companies would do well (at least for a while) if they if they got an infusion of money that roughly matches their actual net value.[/quote]

Way to move the goalposts chief. Is this you conceding reality?

Workers should have reasonable access to jobs
Click to expand...

I kind of want to see how you define "reasonable".

but I fear that these will be transient.
Click to expand...

All jobs should be permanent correct comrade?

who is to say that if GM failed, another company would not have come in to fill the void?
Click to expand...

If GM failed all of its machine tools etc. would probably be sold to Chinese companies. That is basically how these things work.

Sometimes our economy needs to swallow a bitter pill and then rebuild in a stronger fashion.printing money and then giving it to one's buddies running companies with unsustainable business plans is not a great solution; plus it keeps potential smaller competitors at bay.
Click to expand...

I see you are resorting to Plan B, repeat your half baked obsessions again.

We will see who is right in a few years.
Click to expand...

Yes, because cons have such an excellent track record of honest and admitting to their mistakes.

Just like your positions have absolutely no ideology behind them
Click to expand...

I only care about what works more or less.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Way to move the goalposts chief. Is this you conceding reality?
[/quote]
You have misrepresented truth. How difficult is it to understand that if someone gets a sweetheart deal (an infusion of ~50 billion as well as additional tax breaks), it is rather easy to show a profit on paper. Of note, a lot of GMs recent profits have also come from sales of stakes in subsidiaries and from divisions outside of their automotive division.

However, the fact remains that the fundamentals behind this company are poor. Last year people were praising its IPO, but now the stock is down nearly 50% YTD!

So, instead of strengthening the economy, we have created a dog and pony show outside of a Potemkin village... with mystical paper profits pilfered from taxpayer coffers... this will not last... you will see (but of course then you will blame the conservative businessmen for screwing up the wonderful gov't bailout).

I kind of want to see how you define "reasonable".

All jobs should be permanent correct comrade?
Click to expand...
The economy should be strong enough to support the work force, such that unemployment numbers are in the low single digit percents. Obviously, it is silly to think that we can guarantee jobs...

If GM failed all of its machine tools etc. would probably be sold to Chinese companies. That is basically how these things work.
Click to expand...
Well, ironically it is easier to set up a profitable company in China than in the US.

I see you are resorting to Plan B, repeat your half baked obsessions again.
Click to expand...
I'm obviously not going to convince you of anything... so the only thing half baked about me is the fact that I continue to try...

Yes, because cons have such an excellent track record of honest and admitting to their mistakes.
Click to expand...
I really doubt that "cons" would agree with me on many issues...

I only care about what works more or less.
Click to expand...
You keep telling yourself that... ;)
 
[quote name='BigT']However, the fact remains that the fundamentals behind this company are poor. Last year people were praising its IPO, but now the stock is down nearly 50% YTD![/quote]

You keep mentioning "the fundamentals", not sure what you think you are saying. What would you have done other than outlaw unions and pay employees in company scrip?

So, instead of strengthening the economy, we have created a dog and pony show outside of a Potemkin village... with mystical paper profits pilfered from taxpayer coffers... this will not last... you will see (but of course then you will blame the conservative businessmen for screwing up the wonderful gov't bailout).
Click to expand...

It is still a shitty economy out there, no one is saying there is no conceivable way GM could go out of business in the future. Correct me if I am wrong, but you do keep making allusions to the gold standard correct?

The economy should be strong enough to support the work force, such that unemployment numbers are in the low single digit percents. Obviously, it is silly to think that we can guarantee jobs.
Click to expand...

I actually don't think it is *that* silly, I am just pointing out how you and other cons pivot from "gubberment cannot create jobs" to "those jobs aren't permanent" (as if any job is permanent nowadays) without even the appearance of a rational thought.

Well, ironically it is easier to set up a profitable company in China than in the US.
Click to expand...

Aside from the poison food and slave labor, China is one of those countries (South Korea is a better example) that actually has an industrial policy.

I'm obviously not going to convince you of anything... so the only thing half baked about me is the fact that I continue to try...

I really doubt that "cons" would agree with me on many issues...

You keep telling yourself that... ;)
Click to expand...

I was watching an Elizabeth Warren video the other day and I sometimes forget that there are people who utilize tons of data and don't resort to doublespeak or gibberish like what passes for the right wing intelligentsia.
 
I'm curious if anyone can come up with a justifiable reason as to why we should have bailed out the auto companies, but not the banks.

These banks employ as many (or more) people than the auto companies. Banks have their tentacles in all parts of our economy - a failing bank could have numerous repercussions for other jobs all over the scale of the workforce. Some of these banks have actually paid everything back - and then some.

Personally, I disagree with both sets of bailouts, but I'd like to see if anyone has a reason why one was okay, but the other was bad...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm curious if anyone can come up with a justifiable reason as to why we should have bailed out the auto companies, but not the banks.[/QUOTE]

At the time bailing out the banks was the right thing to do. Would have been nice to avoid it altogether but we have modern American conservatives to thank for being put in that position.

I'm curious if you can come up with a justifiable explaination as to why we should not have bailed out bail out the banks. Just how would we have avoided financial meltdown in batshit crazy old uncle bob's world?
 
[quote name='camoor']Just how would we have avoided financial meltdown in batshit crazy old uncle bob's world?[/QUOTE]

Never said we wouldn't have.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm curious if anyone can come up with a justifiable reason as to why we should have bailed out the auto companies, but not the banks.[/QUOTE]
I have one! We should've broken up the banks like Bell and given them the funding to become sustainable while limiting the industry's ability to re-coalese into a corporation like the new At&t, which is practically the same old Bell.

Banks have a very limited supply chain and don't require the same type of material support as the auto industry, not to say that the US auto industry doesn't require structural change; it does, but unions aren't really the problem when they've been giving up benefits for the last 30 years as the demand for domestic vehicles crashed.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I have one! We should've broken up the banks like Bell and given them the funding to become sustainable while limiting the industry's ability to re-coalese into a corporation like the new At&t, which is practically the same old Bell.[/QUOTE]

That would have been cool.
 
Another reason is there are ways that we could have kept the banking industry afloat without a bailout. I still think that instead of giving that money to the banks we should have created state/fed run banks throughout the nation. I know conservatives go nuts at the idea of states running industries, but there are several state run banks already that have been very successful. The banks get another big and well run competitor and the American small businesses would have gotten the loans they needed vs big banks just taking the money and buying out other banks/buying cheap bonds. I mean for fucks sake if the banks just bought out those small banks with our money anways, why not let the goverment do it and then be able to get money where it needs to go.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Another reason is there are ways that we could have kept the banking industry afloat without a bailout. I still think that instead of giving that money to the banks we should have created state/fed run banks throughout the nation. I know conservatives go nuts at the idea of states running industries, but there are several state run banks already that have been very successful. The banks get another big and well run competitor and the American small businesses would have gotten the loans they needed vs big banks just taking the money and buying out other banks/buying cheap bonds. I mean for fucks sake if the banks just bought out those small banks with our money anways, why not let the goverment do it and then be able to get money where it needs to go.[/QUOTE]
Nationalize the banks? I KNEW you were a dirty red COMMIE!!11!!!:lol:
 
So, the options are either to break up the banks or create a government-sponsored competitor to the banks.

Why not break up GM or create a government-sponsored competitor to GM?
 
@Doh Doh - Nah we dont nationalize all banks, we just create a competitor. Much like how in health care we need a public option, but it does not mean that private options should just die off.

@Bob - First off nationalizing our banking system is not necessarily what I would want to do. Id want to just have the banking industry properly regulated. However, since we failed to do that and the whole system collapsed in on itself at that point yes if we were spending that kind of money anyways id have nationalized it.

As for the difference between them and GM. There are two. 1. Automotive does not effect every last industry we have. 2. You can get by without a US car, we still need the banks.

Basically if the banking industry went under it causes panic in the markets, business cant get loans, existing loans become complicated. There are just all sorts of headaches. Banks need to exist and they need solid competition and better regulation. Meanwhile with Automotives we have the big foreign companies who compete here and no can we argue that the US automotive industry is vital to national interests. It was an important employer yes, but hardly vital to our long term success.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, the options are either to break up the banks or create a government-sponsored competitor to the banks.

Why not break up GM or create a government-sponsored competitor to GM?[/QUOTE]
There are MANY problems to this idea.

Unless you break up ALL the car companies and enforce very strict protectionism all the way up the supply chain, from mining to end product, the miniaturized GMs would not be able to exist and priced out of the market like other niche car manufacturers.

As for nationalization, unless you're trying to troll me with Nazi's and Volkswagon or the political attenability, it's so far outside reality, that it's useless to debate.

edit: In regards to banking, I'd be happy with a combination of those two ideas.
 
[quote name='UncleBob'] So, the options are either to break up the banks or create a government-sponsored competitor to the banks.

Why not break up GM or create a government-sponsored competitor to GM?[/QUOTE]

What do you think the administration's rationale was for bailing out GM? Do you think they're such red commies they love taking over private enterprise, or they just didn't want a fuckton of jobs to be lost and get accused of not doing anything about it?

Theres obviously a reason, a bad reason, why some companies are bailed out and some aren't.
 
Real fast - to those who think GM is doing just peachy now... Well, I have some good news and some bad news for you.

First, the good news. In 2011, GM announced that they had, for the first time in six years, made a profit in the previous year (2010). Pretty awesome - that's gotta be a sign of a company doing great - or, at least, improving, right?

Now, the bad news. The profit reported? $4.7 Billion. Sounds pretty decent at first... but let's go back to a previous post...

gm.jpg


$4.7 Billion, but $27.2 Billion in the red to the Federal Government (not including any other creditors).

Raise your hand if you still think GM is doing better. It's like when your kid cleans his room, but just shovels everything into the closet or under the bed. His room looks clean, but the mess is still there.

[quote name='IRHari']What do you think the administration's rationale was for bailing out GM?[/QUOTE]

I'd say it was an attempt to save American industry, along with pulling strings for some political allies and an over-all attempt to show that the Federal Government does care about "main street". There was probably a lot of reasons that went into the final decision. Doesn't mean they were right or that I agree with them.

[quote name='dohdough']As for nationalization, unless you're trying to troll me with Nazi's and Volkswagon or the political attenability, it's so far outside reality, that it's useless to debate.[/QUOTE]

Not trying to troll at all - just trying to determine why X is believed to be good for the goose, but a disaster for the gander.

Would you propose chopping up all mega-banks, or just those that received TARP/Bailout funds?
 
Our banking system, note that bank is almost a cute euphemism at this point almost blew up the world. GM did not also the talk about a new competitor rising from the ashes is risible. Competition was not in short supply.
 
[quote name='Clak']I for one do think the government should be run as a business.


Uh huh, I do.[/QUOTE]

Government can beat businesses in many areas such as health care and internet access. Ask cons to justify inefficiencies to subsidize a corporate bottom line.
 
It's just that as I was skimming the last page or so I got to thinking "and cons wonder why they're seen as tools of business". Can any of you think of a solution to any problem which doesn't involve business or the free market?
 
[quote name='Clak']I for one do think the government should be run as a business.[/QUOTE]

The government should not operate strictly as a business. Likewise, the government should not operate strictly as a charity.

It should operate as a government. Happy Medium.
 
[quote name='Clak']I for one do think the government should be run as a business.


Uh huh, I do.[/QUOTE]

Government can't be run as a business as long as there are no consequences for poor decisions and income isn't attached to frugality.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Government can't be run as a business as long as there are no consequences for poor decisions and income isn't attached to frugality.[/QUOTE]

Each election cycle proves that bad decisions have consequences.

The consequence-free payday you're thinking of is the American banking system.
 
[quote name='camoor']Each election cycle proves that bad decisions have consequences.[/QUOTE]

What were the consequences for Bush after his disastrous 8 years in office? He's got a library named after him, receives some pretty awesome post-employment benefits, gets treated like a celebrity virtually everywhere he goes...
 
[quote name='camoor']Each election cycle proves that bad decisions have consequences.

The consequence-free payday you're thinking of is the American banking system.[/QUOTE]

Election cycle isn't enough of a consequence to run gov like a business. Without a real threat of actually losing business (read money), it isn't a business. This is why the bailouts were such a horrible idea as well.

You also would never run an org like a business without the threat of going out of business. Its impossible.

This is why big banks and gov are not businesses, they are more tax payer vending machines.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And it is increasingly clear that the recall drive will focus not only on concerns about the governor's controversial policies and the fact that unemployment in the state is rising at a dramatically faster rate than nationally or in neighboring states.
Click to expand...
I lol'ed hard at that. 7.2% ---> 7.3% in a year is dramatically faster then the neighboring states? Illinois has gone from 9.1% --> 10%. Iowa 5.9% --> 6%. Minnesota 6.6% --> 6.7%. Michigan 10.8% --> 11%. This is all data from 11/2010 to 08/2011, google's handy public data explorer didn't have more recent data.Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not seeing the dramatic trend.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Illinois has gone from 9.1% --> 10%.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure that huge tax increase we just went through had nothing to do with that either.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm sure that huge tax increase we just went through had nothing to do with that either.[/QUOTE]
Let's have some context on what "huge" means:

Personal income: 3% raised to 5%(+2%)
Corporate tax: 4.8% raised to 7%(+2.2)

If a 2.2% hike on taxes based on PROFIT causes a 1% state-wide hike in unemployment(feel free to find the actual numbers), The problems go deeper than taxation within that state.

edit: Not to mention how taxes in general are the lowest they've been in over 30 years. We had higher taxes under Reagan.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']The actual numbers are .9%, I figured I'd help you with the math.[/QUOTE]
The reported number also doesn't include people that ran out of benefits, so what's your point?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Government can't be run as a business as long as there are no consequences for poor decisions and income isn't attached to frugality.[/QUOTE]
Ummm....good? I'd rather the government not be run as a business. Especially since, you know, it never has been
 
[quote name='Msut77']I kind of wonder what thrust thinks he knows about business or whatever he thinks he is saying.[/QUOTE]
I don't think he got that my comment was sarcastic, either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top