Originally posted by MacSwainHoo hum. I prefer to pay attention to what bills are actually proposed and have a chance of passage rather than what bloggers say.
Yes, I have read what is included in the particular bill you reference. However, here is just one discussion I had saved after read.
http://www.thecorporatecounsel.net/blog/archive/001976.html
Indications appear to be the governments reach has not neared an end and thoughts to institute limitations with 'non-bailouts' to prevent future pay exploitation ...[text shortened]... working 52 days and receiving over $5 millions...? What happened to: "The Tinbergen Norm?"
Your idea that the President has "no restraints" is ridiculous. The "head of a private corporation" was able to be forced out because his corporation has received tons of and wants even more, public money. If not for that, the President couldn't "fire" the head of a private corporation as I hope you are aware. But when you come begging for cash, the lenders acquire a certain amount of leverage over the internal structure of the corporation and this would be true of any lender, private or public. The corporation was free to keep whoever it pleased as CEO; all it had to do was not borrow the money from a lender that wanted that particular executive out.
I don't recall Summers being "lauded" for how much money he made in the employment you reference. It's seem to be just another irrelevant red herring trying to be drummed up by right wingers who's policies have now been rejected by a solid majority of the public and now seek to focus on such banalities.
Originally posted by no1marauderno1m, your reply to "paranoid" MacSwain is correct -- government does not reach further than the bail-out money in this country, for the time being.
Hoo hum. I prefer to pay attention to what bills are actually proposed and have a chance of passage rather than what bloggers say.
Your idea that the President has "no restraints" is ridiculous. The "head of a private corporation" was able to be forced out because his corporation has received tons of and wants even more, public money. If no ...[text shortened]... rejected by a solid majority of the public and now seek to focus on such banalities.
And yet you are always far to the front reminding us that Venezuelan democracy as bamboozled by Saint Chavez can vote "anything it damn well pleases."
So one wonders what your "true colors" are...!
Speeches are a convenient way to pay a bribe and keep it legal and above the surface. Bill Clinton made millions giving speeches as well. I'm sure there are others.
We can all argue whether or not that amount of money is justified for the service and I'm sure many will debate that. I personally think they are overpaid and that is why I think it is a cover for a bribe.
I think people should be more cynical, not less.
Originally posted by Metal BrainMan, you see a conspiracy everywhere. Why would an investment bank bank pay Summers "a bribe?"
Speeches are a convenient way to pay a bribe and keep it legal and above the surface. Bill Clinton made millions giving speeches as well. I'm sure there are others.
We can all argue whether or not that amount of money is justified for the service and I'm sure many will debate that. I personally think they are overpaid and that is why I think it is a cover for a bribe.
I think people should be more cynical, not less.
Originally posted by telerionHere is a joke I heard once.
Man, you see a conspiracy everywhere. Why would an investment bank bank pay Summers "a bribe?"
An economist walks in for a job interview and the interviewer asks the economist several sensible questions and finally asks the economist "what is 2 plus 2? The economist quietly walks over and shuts the door and then asks the interviewer with a whisper, "what do you want it to be"?
Originally posted by Metal Brainwe're doomed.
Here is a joke I heard once.
An economist walks in for a job interview and the interviewer asks the economist several sensible questions and finally asks the economist "what is 2 plus 2? The economist quietly walks over and shuts the door and then asks the interviewer with a whisper, "what do you want it to be"?
Originally posted by spruce112358You state agreement with no1m - until the last bit "for the time being." showing you doubt Obama will restrain his reach. This is exactly the point I was making, so I am pleased to welcome you to the paranoid club! 🙂
no1m, your reply to "paranoid" MacSwain is correct -- government does not reach further than the bail-out money in this country, for the time being.
Originally posted by no1marauder
“Your idea that the President has "no restraints" is ridiculous. The "head of a private corporation" was able to be forced out…..”
Strange you choose to say Wagoner was, “forced out,” when it’s known by everyone (who reads) he was sacked by Obama.
April 06, 2009 by Alex Good - - General Motors CEO Fired by Obama
“In case you haven’t heard, President Obama and the White House has fired the General Motors CEO, Rick Wagoner.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by no1marauder
“…. because his corporation has received tons of and wants even more, public money If not for that, the President couldn't "fire" the head of a private corporation as I hope you are aware.”
Piffle! I certainly am not aware bailout monies (even “tons” of it) necessitates or grants Presidential sacking of private company CEO’s in a capitalist country. US history indicates this is not the case there. Are you aware Lee Iacocca, President, CEO and Chairman of Chrysler 1978 to retirement 1992 was bailed-out during Carter administration. He was not sacked, to the contrary, he was kept in his position(s).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by no1marauder
“But when you come begging for cash, the lenders acquire a certain amount of leverage over the internal structure of the corporation and this would be true of any lender, private or public.”
How cavalier of you, referring to Presidential power to sack companies CEO in a capitalist nation as “a certain amount of leverage over internal structure.” While basic directions for loan money usage by private lenders isn’t unusual, your intimation that presidential power to sack private company officials isn’t unprecedented and completely new is unfounded. Where does US history indicate crop failures, followed by government loans, resulted in those farmers being sacked?
Previously, US government has not used 7(a), 504, disaster assistance and small business loans to allow the US President to call for sacking company management. Your statements indicate these actions may now be expected, and accepted by those of your ilk, under Obama – in this, I agree with you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by no1marauder
“I don't recall Summers being "lauded" for how much money he made in the employment you reference. It's seem to be just another irrelevant red herring”
“Hoo Hum”[sic] I can help you…I can’t see how you missed them…they are from the first page of this thread:
”Can't condemn the guy, if given the chance I'd take that deal and laugh like hell.”
“Impressive as that might sound, it is all the more considering that Mr. Summers worked there just one day a week.”
“Its all about quality, not quantity, right?”
“I don't care that he made good money. He's a very smart economist so it's not surprising that he cleaned up in the financial market.”
Originally posted by MacSwainYou base your entire argument that Wagoner was fired on the words used by a newspaper columnist? You really are nuts.
[b]Originally posted by no1marauder
“Your idea that the President has "no restraints" is ridiculous. The "head of a private corporation" was able to be forced out…..”
Strange you choose to say Wagoner was, “forced out,” when it’s known by everyone (who reads) he was sacked by Obama.
April 06, 2009 by Alex Good - - General Motors CEO [ conomist so it's not surprising that he cleaned up in the financial market.”[/b]
Wagoner actually resigned, though that was a precondition of further government aid. Your raving and ranting doesn't change the accuracy of my statement and the incorrectness of your "fired" language. Perhaps you could explain the exact mechanism used by Obama to "fire" Wagoner. In reality, the President has no power to "sack" anybody in the private sector.
Or you could read Wagoner's own statement:
On Friday I was in Washington for a meeting with Administration officials. In the course of that meeting, they requested that I "step aside" as CEO of GM, and so I have.[emphasis added]
http://www.mlive.com/auto/index.ssf/2009/03/statement_from_rick_wagoner_ab.html
Originally posted by no1marauder
You base your entire argument that Wagoner was fired on the words used by a newspaper columnist? You really are nuts.
Well, well, well - nuts is it then? Say we examine your post with your own “Nutters” measurement. IF you did not attend the Friday meeting your Wagoner quote is from, that would mean you based your Wagoner quote, ”on the words used by a newspaper columnist.”
Obviously, by your measure, this means YOU, (to quote you) ”really are nuts.” How brilliant of you to belittle me for something that you immediately employ yourself. Get a grip man, that’s self-degradation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by no1marauder
“Wagoner actually resigned, though that was a precondition of further government aid.”
In your world - an ultimatum of, “your resignation on my desk or I let your corporation slip away,” constitutes voluntary quit? Who is nutters now? 🙄
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by no1marauder
“You really are nuts” “your raving and ranting doesn't change the accuracy…” “another irrelevant red herring trying to be drummed up…”
Why not support your argument and show examples of a US President ever using granting of government loans to empower him to replace company, corporate or farm management to prove Obama is not treading on new ground? After all I provided Iococca to support my opinion. I assume you can’t.
Instead of supplying facts to support your viewpoint and refute mine, you resort to name calling and accusations. I assume this is your standard method of discussion and I have become bored with you. Suddenly, I don’t miss FMF at all. 😴
Originally posted by MacSwainYour repeated claim was that Obama "fired" Wagoner. This is clearly untrue. Why not just admit you lied and/or were badly misinformed by the right wing clowns you get all your info from?
[b] Originally posted by no1marauder
You base your entire argument that Wagoner was fired on the words used by a newspaper columnist? You really are nuts.
Well, well, well - nuts is it then? Say we examine your post with your own “Nutters” measurement. IF you did not attend the Friday meeting your Wagoner quote is from, that would mean you ba ...[text shortened]... d method of discussion and I have become bored with you. Suddenly, I don’t miss FMF at all. 😴[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderIt is true.
Your repeated claim was that Obama "fired" Wagoner. This is clearly untrue. Why not just admit you lied and/or were badly misinformed by the right wing clowns you get all your info from?
http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/panelists/2009/03/why-was-wagoner-fired.html
Originally posted by Metal Brain🙄
It is true.
http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/panelists/2009/03/why-was-wagoner-fired.html
I think I'll take his word that he resigned over a bunch of ignorant bloggers' uninformed assertion that he was fired.
The only people who can fire a CEO of a corporation is the Board of Directors. Perhaps you could link me to an article giving details of the GM BOD vote that fired Wagoner.
EDIT: Gupta seems confused over what the word "fired" means. From his second dentence:
When the government takes the enormous step of asking a top CEO to resign,
That ain't "firing" someone.
Originally posted by no1marauderDoes anybody in the executive branch get fired? No, they are asked to resign. To say they leave voluntarily is a stretch.
🙄
I think I'll take his word that he resigned over a bunch of ignorant bloggers' uninformed assertion that he was fired.
The only people who can fire a CEO of a corporation is the Board of Directors. Perhaps you could link me to an article giving details of the GM BOD vote that fired Wagoner.
EDIT: Gupta seems confused o ...[text shortened]... enormous step of asking a top CEO to resign,
That ain't "firing" someone.
The CEOs to the big banks kept their jobs. Jennifer Granholm says Rick Wagoner got a raw deal because of the double standard with the banks. Whether or not he resigned does not say he was not forced out.
How about forced to resign? Is that a more acceptable term for you?