I am a Democrat BUT

[Timsterino]

I absolutely oppose this move:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081113/ap_ ... to_bailout

When does this end exactly?

[gsabc]

I want more than stock, even senior preferred. I want Congress to demand at least a third of the seats on the boards of directors of all these companies as well. Maybe half. Hand 'em out like ambassadorships if you want, but hold them to the same standards and liabilities as a regular board member and give them guidelines on looking out for the taxpayers' interests first and foremost.

The directors, IMO, are just as liable for the problems we're seeing as the CEOs and other managers. They're the ones who voted in favor of the obscene salaries, who approved (at least tacitly) of the creation of the mortgage bonds and other incomprehensible financial dealings, who didn't pay attention (or willfully ignored) to the man behind the curtain. I don't understand why there haven't been lawsuits or even charges brought against the directors of some of these banks.

[Flybrick]

Tim, agreed, sir. Very much agreed.

[nitrah55]

Tom Friedman nailed this in yesterday's NY Times:

How to Fix a Flat

Last September, I was in a hotel room watching CNBC early one morning. They were interviewing Bob Nardelli, the C.E.O. of Chrysler, and he was explaining why the auto industry, at that time, needed $25 billion in loan guarantees. It wasn’t a bailout, he said. It was a way to enable the car companies to retool for innovation. I could not help but shout back at the TV screen: “We have to subsidize Detroit so that it will innovate? What business were you people in other than innovation?” If we give you another $25 billion, will you also do accounting?

How could these companies be so bad for so long? Clearly the combination of a very un-innovative business culture, visionless management and overly generous labor contracts explains a lot of it. It led to a situation whereby General Motors could make money only by selling big, gas-guzzling S.U.V.’s and trucks. Therefore, instead of focusing on making money by innovating around fuel efficiency, productivity and design, G.M. threw way too much energy into lobbying and maneuvering to protect its gas guzzlers.

This included striking special deals with Congress that allowed the Detroit automakers to count the mileage of gas guzzlers as being more than they really were — provided they made some cars flex-fuel capable for ethanol. It included special offers of $1.99-a-gallon gasoline for a year to any customer who purchased a gas guzzler. And it included endless lobbying to block Congress from raising the miles-per-gallon requirements. The result was an industry that became brain dead.

Nothing typified this more than statements like those of Bob Lutz, G.M.’s vice chairman. He has been quoted as saying that hybrids like the Toyota Prius “make no economic sense.” And, in February, D Magazine of Dallas quoted him as saying that global warming “is a total crock of [expletive].”

These are the guys taxpayers are being asked to bail out.

And please, spare me the alligator tears about G.M.’s health care costs. Sure, they are outrageous. “But then why did G.M. refuse to lift a finger to support a national health care program when Hillary Clinton was pushing for it?” asks Dan Becker, a top environmental lobbyist.

Not every automaker is at death’s door. Look at this article that ran two weeks ago on autochannel.com: “ALLISTON, Ontario, Canada — Honda of Canada Mfg. officially opened its newest investment in Canada — a state-of-the art $154 million engine plant. The new facility will produce 200,000 fuel-efficient four-cylinder engines annually for Civic production in response to growing North American demand for vehicles that provide excellent fuel economy.”

The blame for this travesty not only belongs to the auto executives, but must be shared equally with the entire Michigan delegation in the House and Senate, virtually all of whom, year after year, voted however the Detroit automakers and unions instructed them to vote. That shielded General Motors, Ford and Chrysler from environmental concerns, mileage concerns and the full impact of global competition that could have forced Detroit to adapt long ago.

Indeed, if and when they do have to bury Detroit, I hope that all the current and past representatives and senators from Michigan have to serve as pallbearers. And no one has earned the “honor” of chief pallbearer more than the Michigan Representative John Dingell, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee who is more responsible for protecting Detroit to death than any single legislator.

O.K., now that I have all that off my chest, what do we do? I am as terrified as anyone of the domino effect on industry and workers if G.M. were to collapse. But if we are going to use taxpayer money to rescue Detroit, then it should be done along the lines proposed in The Wall Street Journal on Monday by Paul Ingrassia, a former Detroit bureau chief for that paper.

“In return for any direct government aid,” he wrote, “the board and the management [of G.M.] should go. Shareholders should lose their paltry remaining equity. And a government-appointed receiver — someone hard-nosed and nonpolitical — should have broad power to revamp G.M. with a viable business plan and return it to a private operation as soon as possible. That will mean tearing up existing contracts with unions, dealers and suppliers, closing some operations and selling others and downsizing the company ... Giving G.M. a blank check — which the company and the United Auto Workers union badly want, and which Washington will be tempted to grant — would be an enormous mistake.”

I would add other conditions: Any car company that gets taxpayer money must demonstrate a plan for transforming every vehicle in its fleet to a hybrid-electric engine with flex-fuel capability, so its entire fleet can also run on next generation cellulosic ethanol.

Lastly, somebody ought to call Steve Jobs, who doesn’t need to be bribed to do innovation, and ask him if he’d like to do national service and run a car company for a year. I’d bet it wouldn’t take him much longer than that to come up with the G.M. iCar.

[danielh41]

I absolutely oppose this move:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081113/ap_ ... to_bailout

When does this end exactly?

I can't believe that I agree with Timsterino, but I do. Where will all the bailouts end?

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Just another sign our leadership is out of touch with the majority of voters

It may not surprise you that the survey found import cars to be a more popular choice among Democrats than Republicans, with 71% of Dems claiming to drive one. But another piece of data may be a surprise -- imports outnumbered domestics even among the Republicans, where about 57% claimed to drive one. In the survey, Republicans endorsed Ford and GM cars by almost a two-to-one margin compared with Democrats, who preferred Hondas and Toyotas. Chrysler (including its Dodge and Jeep brands) appeared to be common ground, where voters on either side of the aisle were equally likely to own one.

Going upmarket, however, voters in the survey again start to differ: More Democrats chose Acura, while Republicans preferred Lexus. Republicans were also slightly more likely than Democrats to drive German cars. Within the German brands, Republicans reported being partial to BMW and Porsche, while Democrats were more likely to choose Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen.

The survey may be unscientific, but it does give you something to think about. Next time you want to know someone's political affiliation, don't go looking for a bumper sticker--check out the bumper itself instead. A few clues that may help:

Top 5 Signs Your Car is a Republican

1. It's any brand of pickup

2. It's a Ford

3. It's a Chevy

4. It's a Porsche

5. It's any brand of sports car

Top 5 Signs Your Car is a Democrat

1. It's any brand of hatchback

2. It's a Volkswagen

3. It's a Subaru

4. It's an Acura

5. It's a Mercedes

http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/ca ... -Democrat/

[danielh41]

Just another sign our leadership is out of touch with the majority of voters

It may not surprise you that the survey found import cars to be a more popular choice among Democrats than Republicans, with 71% of Dems claiming to drive one. But another piece of data may be a surprise -- imports outnumbered domestics even among the Republicans, where about 57% claimed to drive one. In the survey, Republicans endorsed Ford and GM cars by almost a two-to-one margin compared with Democrats, who preferred Hondas and Toyotas. Chrysler (including its Dodge and Jeep brands) appeared to be common ground, where voters on either side of the aisle were equally likely to own one.

Going upmarket, however, voters in the survey again start to differ: More Democrats chose Acura, while Republicans preferred Lexus. Republicans were also slightly more likely than Democrats to drive German cars. Within the German brands, Republicans reported being partial to BMW and Porsche, while Democrats were more likely to choose Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen.

The survey may be unscientific, but it does give you something to think about. Next time you want to know someone's political affiliation, don't go looking for a bumper sticker--check out the bumper itself instead. A few clues that may help:

Top 5 Signs Your Car is a Republican

1. It's any brand of pickup

2. It's a Ford

3. It's a Chevy

4. It's a Porsche

5. It's any brand of sports car

Top 5 Signs Your Car is a Democrat

1. It's any brand of hatchback

2. It's a Volkswagen

3. It's a Subaru

4. It's an Acura

5. It's a Mercedes

http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/ca ... -Democrat/

My Toyota Prius is probably one of the few with a "Pro-Life. Voter. Nobama" bumper sticker.

[MarleysGh0st]

I want more than stock, even senior preferred. I want Congress to demand at least a third of the seats on the boards of directors of all these companies as well. Maybe half. Hand 'em out like ambassadorships if you want, but hold them to the same standards and liabilities as a regular board member and give them guidelines on looking out for the taxpayers' interests first and foremost.

The directors, IMO, are just as liable for the problems we're seeing as the CEOs and other managers. They're the ones who voted in favor of the obscene salaries, who approved (at least tacitly) of the creation of the mortgage bonds and other incomprehensible financial dealings, who didn't pay attention (or willfully ignored) to the man behind the curtain. I don't understand why there haven't been lawsuits or even charges brought against the directors of some of these banks.

I agree.

I wonder how many people, besides misers like myself, know what preferred stock is? It's a class of stock that's really gone out of style in recent decades; preferred stock shares are paid a fixed dividend, which is guaranteed before any dividend is paid to the common stock shares, but after the bondholders are paid what they're owed. If the company does well and profits grow, the preferred stockholders don't benefit from any of that. If the company runs into trouble, OTOH, they might not get anything.

[nitrah55]

I absolutely oppose this move:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081113/ap_ ... to_bailout

When does this end exactly?

I can't believe that I agree with Timsterino, but I do. Where will all the bailouts end?

With the guy ahead of me on line. That's how it always works.

[silverscreenselect]

The idea of a financial bailout in my view was a necessary evil as a last resort because if the financial system in this country collapses, we could face a major crisis of confidence spreading to every industry.

Having said that, failures in some industries are not a bad thing, and are in fact quite natural, as success breeds imitation until markets get saturated. In that situation, the weaker and poorer run companies will disappear, either merged or bankrupt.

We've survived airline mergers, bankruptcies and failures before. Remember Eastern? We've survived them in other industries before. It's definitely going to be bad for the auto workers, but if there's a glut of labor and manufacturing capacity available in the Michigan, someone will move in to take advantage of it. And it's not as if we're going to have a shortage of cars to drive in the forseeable future.

What bothers me is that the people most responsible for the mess, the executives of these companies, emerge virtually unscathed with huge severance packages, to get another job somewhere else, either as an executive officer or as a "consultant" while the employees, stockholders, customers, and creditors are left holding the bag. True, their incentive packages aren't worth quite that much, so they only do really, really well rather than really, really, really well, but they are rewarded handsomely for utter failure.

I don't know what Obama is going to do since there is going to be a lot of pressure from typical Democratic constituencies like the unions, but I do know that we will be hardpressed to deny anyone a bailout if we go along with this one.

[BackInTex]

I absolutely oppose this move:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081113/ap_ ... to_bailout

When does this end exactly?

You are a Democrat, not a socialist or communist. That is why you find it distasteful.

This is nationaliation of insdusty. Not forced like in Veneuela, but after it is all said and done, its the same thing.

[Estonut]

I absolutely oppose this move:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081113/ap_ ... to_bailout

When does this end exactly?

There are a few posters who, had they posted this Subject, I would have pointed out that they had left the final "T" off of their Subject line.

[gotribego26]

I was watching CNBC this morning and they were talking about this and I heard a great line.

Somebody asked a question about whether we needed a vibrant auto industry in the USA - one of the others commented that we have one - it just isn't the one run by GM, Ford, Chrysler and the UAW.

They need to go Chapter 11 and rebuild the industry with a business model that will work.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

They keep talking about foreign and domestic cars, when the real issue is foreign car nameplates and domestic nameplates.

[dodgersteve182]

I want more than stock, even senior preferred. I want Congress to demand at least a third of the seats on the boards of directors of all these companies as well. Maybe half. Hand 'em out like ambassadorships if you want, but hold them to the same standards and liabilities as a regular board member and give them guidelines on looking out for the taxpayers' interests first and foremost.

The directors, IMO, are just as liable for the problems we're seeing as the CEOs and other managers. They're the ones who voted in favor of the obscene salaries, who approved (at least tacitly) of the creation of the mortgage bonds and other incomprehensible financial dealings, who didn't pay attention (or willfully ignored) to the man behind the curtain. I don't understand why there haven't been lawsuits or even charges brought against the directors of some of these banks.

I agree.

I wonder how many people, besides misers like myself, know what preferred stock is? It's a class of stock that's really gone out of style in recent decades; preferred stock shares are paid a fixed dividend, which is guaranteed before any dividend is paid to the common stock shares, but after the bondholders are paid what they're owed. If the company does well and profits grow, the preferred stockholders don't benefit from any of that. If the company runs into trouble, OTOH, they might not get anything.

I might know what PS is? or maybe not, LOL! Usually Corporations buy these shares because they offer tax advantages on the dividends they pay but only to domestic corps! I only buy Convertible Preferred Shares at times for my clients, because as you stated above, Preferred Shares don't offer Equity Participation but Convertible Preferred Shares do participate in the increases in share price (although the price you pay for the participation is that you accept a lower coupon rate than regular preferred stock). No free lunches on Wall Street (although the good thing about my biz is that you always have a free banquet circuit available to advisors through the wholesalers networks). No I don't corrupt myself in that way, I maintain 100% non bias at all times.

[MarleysGh0st]

I might know what PS is? or maybe not, LOL!

Well, I did think you might have one of those who knew the answer.

So corporations might invest in preferred shares for some tax advantage, but that really wouldn't be applicable to any purchases made by the Treasury Department as part of this bail-out, would it?

[dodgersteve182]

I might know what PS is? or maybe not, LOL!

Well, I did think you might have one of those who knew the answer.

So corporations might invest in preferred shares for some tax advantage, but that really wouldn't be applicable to any purchases made by the Treasury Department as part of this bail-out, would it?

No the Treasury needs no tax breaks or incentives since they collect all of our hard earned tax dollars!

[Bob78164]

I absolutely oppose this move:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081113/ap_ ... to_bailout

When does this end exactly?

I wonder if Timsterino still feels the same way about this now that the books are more or less closed on the deal. --Bob

[MarleysGh0st]

You resurrect a nearly seven year old thread and don't even provide a link, Bob?

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

http://donsurber.blogspot.com/2015/04/t ... works.html

[silverscreenselect]

http://donsurber.blogspot.com/2015/04/t ... works.html

This guy didn't "save" Twinkies.

He bought a trademarked brand name, probably at a very steep discount, and started a new business that employs far fewer people than the older business did. And my guess is that the "new" Twinkies will probably be even crappier than the old ones were.

That's typical Republican progress.

[Bob78164]

You resurrect a nearly seven year old thread and don't even provide a link, Bob?

I ran into this thread while search for something else and it caused me to wonder and reflect.

We often form political opinions of a similar nature by predicting the result of a certain policy. I wonder how often voters go back and reexamine their judgment in light of how things actually turned out. --Bob

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

http://donsurber.blogspot.com/2015/04/t ... works.html

This guy didn't "save" Twinkies.

He bought a trademarked brand name, probably at a very steep discount, and started a new business that employs far fewer people than the older business did. And my guess is that the "new" Twinkies will probably be even crappier than the old ones were.

That's typical Republican progress.

Why do you hate poor people, shouldn't they be able to afford Twinkies?