Why Citi Group, but not GM

Tim > wrote in
:

> fred wrote:
>> Tim > wrote in
>> :

>>
>> Once again with reality engaged? The US auto companies can't even
>> compete with foreign companies making cars with US union employees in
>> the US. They're badly run pure and simple. Too much of a monopoly does
>> that. Look how pathetic their explanations were to congress on what
>> they would *do* with the money. And they aren't even accountants or
>> economists. Just politicians. Friendly ones. I as a Canadian will be
>> glad to see them go. Maybe we can have our *own* auto companies again
>> instead of the poorly suited crap that comes out of Detroit.
>
> Sure. Do you realize how much money and R&D it takes to build a car
> these days?

With or without the US companies stopping you? Who says you have to
pay someone *else* to "design" it out of half a ton of clay? There's
plenty else you don't have to do that Detroit wastes their money on.
Too many models is a big one.


> The car companies in the US can compete easily with the foreign cars
> made in Canada and the US.

We don't *have* car companies. We have the exact same manufacturers you
do. The big three, and the japanese. There's a *couple* of small business
making things like electric cars but nothing even close to a competitor.

> That is not the problem.
> And the cars are just as good.
>
No they're not. Haven't been since the 70's. Along with the unions
getting too much power over the companies - another sign of weak
managment. Not that I have anything *against* unions, it's been a long
time coming and far too many people dead and injured bringing it about.

"Tim" > wrote in message
>
>
> Who contributes to Republican election campaigns. I think someone should
> be doing some research.


That would take about 2 seconds. The big donors give to both parties so
they can cover their ass in any situation.

"Tim" > wrote in message news:74b78$492b3102$cef8ac46
>
> By whom? Ronald Reagan?

**** no, bro. This is the result of the great financial minds of our time.
Reagan, bless
his heart, had no mind left.

I am not saying I agree with the evaluation, but that is what is believed in
high economic
circles..

HLS wrote:
>
> "Tim" > wrote in message news:74b78$492b3102$cef8ac46
>>
>> By whom? Ronald Reagan?
>
> **** no, bro. This is the result of the great financial minds of our
> time. Reagan, bless
> his heart, had no mind left.
>
> I am not saying I agree with the evaluation, but that is what is
> believed in high economic
> circles..
>

High economic circles worry about GDP, not individual's standards of living.
It is the Wall St. people who benefit from all of this, not the worker,
as we are seeing now with the Wall St. bailout and disregard for the
manufacturing industry.

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 12:54:09 -0500, C. E. White cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:

> Seems the Republicans are more than willing to give Citi Group as much
> money as they want, but won't lend GM a dime....where is the fairness
> in that?

Fairness? Come on Ed - I like your posts, but this sounds like elementary
school.

>
> Having dealt with Citi credit cards, I can assure you anything bad you
> can say about GM is a drop in the pocket compared to Citi Group's
> dishonest practices. Citi Group is one of the financial organizations
> that is directly responsible for the current financial crisis.

Agreed. Should let them sink.

>
> As I see it the Republicans are punishing Detroit automakers as a
> roundabout way of whacking the UAW.

Ed - you're killing me. Don't do this. Sure they want to whack Detroit -
but rightfully so. The Detroit executive mindset has been so full of
themselves and has foisted so much of bean counter design on the American
public for so long, that it's time they paid the piper. This has nothing
to do with the UAW - this is the good old boys club in Detroit being called
to task - finally.

> They are willing to risk
> destroying a major US industry because the UAW is in the Democrat's
> pocket.

Bull**** Ed. Detroit destroyed a major US industry. The unions only rode
on the same gravy train that the good old boys rode on. It's a Detroit
thing - not a Congressional thing. It applies to the UAW and to the
executive ranks.



--

-Mike-

"Roger Blake" > wrote in message
. org...
> On 2008-11-24, C. E. White > wrote:
>> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
>> Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
>> Defence and general Welfare of the United States.....
>
> That attaches to the specific powers delegated to the federal
> government
> under Article 1, section 8. So I repeat, under what section of the
> Constitution would such a bailout be authorized under?

I am not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, and I didn't stay at a
Holiday Inn Express last night, but even I can see how lawyers can and
have interpreted the part that states "The Congress shall have Power
to....provide for ...the general Welfare of the United States..." to
mean Congress can do damn near anything if it is claimed to be for the
general welfare of the country. Obviously you want to claim that this
clause has never before been used to do things that some people don't
like. Fine, you are just being silly. When you take your seat on the
Supreme Court, you can correct the misuse of this phrase. Until then,
get over it. Congress has been bailing out companies, or setting up
special commercial arrangements for years. Land speculation, railroad
building, annexation of territory, canal building, etc. have all been
promoted by the US Congress despite their being no air tight perfectly
clear clause permitting such activities. It seems some people want to
pretend the US Constitution is a solid steel document that is
unbending and all powerful, while others look at it as a scrap of
paper of little meaning. The truth is in between somewhere. The
precedent for the US Government lending money to corporations or
individuals was made long ago. If you don't like it in this case,
fine, argue against it because it is a bad idea, in this case. Arguing
that the Government doesn't have the authority to do it is a waste of
time. They clearly can do it.

Ed

"C. E. White" > wrote in message

"The Congress shall have Power
> to....provide for ...the general Welfare of the United States..." to mean
> Congress can do damn near anything if it is claimed to be for the general
> welfare of the country.


Yes, they can, if they dont get caught doing something illegal or extremely
unpopular.

Those pimps in Washington would sell their mothers to stay in office.

"Roger Blake" > wrote in message
...
> On 2008-11-25, C. E. White > wrote:
>> I am not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, and I didn't stay at a
>> Holiday Inn Express last night, but even I can see how lawyers can
>> and
>> have interpreted the part that states "The Congress shall have
>> Power
>> to....provide for ...the general Welfare of the United States..."
>> to
>> mean Congress can do damn near anything if it is claimed to be for
>> the
>> general welfare of the country. Obviously you want to claim that
>> this
>> clause has never before been used to do things that some people
>> don't
>
> I don't claim it has never been misused that way by seditionist
> judges and polititicians, however the fact remains that the original
> intent of that clause was to be restrictive rather than expansive.
> In fact, James Madison assured the States that this was the case,
> they
> were wary of overly-powerful central authority and would not have
> ratified the constitution otherwise.
>
> Looking at the original intent of the "general welfare" clause,
> there is simply no authority there for a bailout of the automobile
> industry, or any other industry. The auto companies should avail
> themselves of Chapter 11 reorganization if they cannot otherwise
> continue, that's what the bankruptcy laws are for.
>
>> fine, argue against it because it is a bad idea, in this case.
>> Arguing
>> that the Government doesn't have the authority to do it is a waste
>> of
>> time. They clearly can do it.
>
> Just because "they can do it" does not mean they have the lawful
> authority to do so. Throughout history governments have frequently
> exceeded their lawful authority. In the instant case it is simply
> another indication of rampant, out-of-control government that has
> escaped the "chains of the constitution" that Thomas Jefferson
> wrote about.

Jefferson didn't mind ignoring the Constitution when it suited him to
do so.

Original intent; now that is a catchy phrase. Who's original intent?
Do you think that every person/state that ratified the constitution
shared the same original intent as Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson? Do
you think even Mr. Hamilton shared it? I think you want the authority
to decide which "original intent" counts the most. This makes you a
prime candidate for the Supreme Court. For better or worse they get to
make such decisions. And the truth is, long ago your interpretation
was rejected. Trying to argue against long established precedents is
just foolish. Why is it the "Conservatives" always seem to be trying
to argue that they know the original intent of the people who wrote
the constitution? The people that wrote the constitution included a
group (the Supreme Court) who get to make such decisions. And clearly,
the people that wrote the Constitution couldn't see the future.

Ed

"Tim" > wrote in message
...
> HLS wrote:
> >
> > "Tim" > wrote in message news:74b78$492b3102$cef8ac46
> >>
> >> By whom? Ronald Reagan?
> >
> > **** no, bro. This is the result of the great financial minds of our
> > time. Reagan, bless
> > his heart, had no mind left.
> >
> > I am not saying I agree with the evaluation, but that is what is
> > believed in high economic
> > circles..
> >
>
> High economic circles worry about GDP, not individual's standards of
living.
> It is the Wall St. people who benefit from all of this, not the worker,
> as we are seeing now with the Wall St. bailout and disregard for the
> manufacturing industry.

Tim,

The problem isn't what the government has done, it's what the consumers
have done.

Look at import penetration into the US market, now compare that to the
rest of the world. In most countries the people prefer to buy
locally-designed
and locally-produced. In the US the people prefer to buy imports.

If there's demand in the US for import cars, nothing the US government can
do is going to prevent those cars from being sold here. People will buy
them
illegally and ship them in if they have to, if there's demand.

The big-3's biggest mistake is in not running their operations so that they
had a) a full spread of product, both small and large and b) made sure that
all product lines they offered were profitable. They assumed that they
could
subsidize some product lines with other product lines, and did this for many
years. Then market tastes changed and now the market only wants to buy
the cars the big 3 make that cost them money to make.

But, the fact is that the Big-3's mistake pales in comparison to the typical
US consumer's mistake that they can continue to buy foreign-designed,
foreign-made products, sold in big-box chains like Lowes & Walmart, and
not have it affect their own economy.

To give you an example - check out the upcoming switch to HDTV from
NTSC in Feb. 2009. Now, name me ONE manufacturer of HDTV's that
is owned and based and manufactured in the United States.

Now imagine how many TV sets there are in the US and that within 2 years,
most will be replaced with HDTV's. What country will get the lion's share
of the money for this conversion? It WON'T be the US, I can tell you that!

And the US consumers will be perfectly happy about it.

Ted

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:01:10 -0800, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
> wrote:

>
>"Tim" > wrote in message
.. .
>> HLS wrote:
>> >
>> > "Tim" > wrote in message news:74b78$492b3102$cef8ac46
>> >>
>> >> By whom? Ronald Reagan?
>> >
>> > **** no, bro. This is the result of the great financial minds of our
>> > time. Reagan, bless
>> > his heart, had no mind left.
>> >
>> > I am not saying I agree with the evaluation, but that is what is
>> > believed in high economic
>> > circles..
>> >
>>
>> High economic circles worry about GDP, not individual's standards of
>living.
>> It is the Wall St. people who benefit from all of this, not the worker,
>> as we are seeing now with the Wall St. bailout and disregard for the
>> manufacturing industry.
>
>Tim,
>
>The problem isn't what the government has done, it's what the consumers
>have done.
>
>Look at import penetration into the US market, now compare that to the
>rest of the world. In most countries the people prefer to buy
>locally-designed
>and locally-produced. In the US the people prefer to buy imports.
>
>If there's demand in the US for import cars, nothing the US government can
>do is going to prevent those cars from being sold here. People will buy
>them
>illegally and ship them in if they have to, if there's demand.
>
>The big-3's biggest mistake is in not running their operations so that they
>had a) a full spread of product, both small and large and b) made sure that
>all product lines they offered were profitable. They assumed that they
>could
>subsidize some product lines with other product lines, and did this for many
>years. Then market tastes changed and now the market only wants to buy
>the cars the big 3 make that cost them money to make.
>
>But, the fact is that the Big-3's mistake pales in comparison to the typical
>US consumer's mistake that they can continue to buy foreign-designed,
>foreign-made products, sold in big-box chains like Lowes & Walmart, and
>not have it affect their own economy.
>
>To give you an example - check out the upcoming switch to HDTV from
>NTSC in Feb. 2009. Now, name me ONE manufacturer of HDTV's that
>is owned and based and manufactured in the United States.
>
>Now imagine how many TV sets there are in the US and that within 2 years,
>most will be replaced with HDTV's. What country will get the lion's share
>of the money for this conversion? It WON'T be the US, I can tell you that!
>
>And the US consumers will be perfectly happy about it.
>
>Ted
>
Lots of truth there, Ted.
You can't consume more than you produce - in the long run.

--Vic