how government runs things

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Yep, and he was a nincompoop when he did it too

I though you, following the nice tradition set up by Fox News, gonna now tell us GWB was Democrat.

Well, you are wrong yet again I guess.

Fiscally, he acted like one as did the rest of his party when he was in office

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

And this is what they accomplished with out money.



http://www.republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=150826

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

that would be correct, wether you are a board member or a stock holder you have the right to vote on what or how the company is run, if you vote and the company fails you loose, if you don't vote and the company fails you loose, if you don't like the way things are going you can sell then if the company fails you won.

Sp what if you vote for the right thing, but the company still loses because your vote is overturned by majority, or just because someone in the company middle management did some major fuck-up? You supposed to still lose, as the company loses, correct? So much for personal responsibility.

Quote

This is called personal responsibility, something the left knows nothing about. they feel that if the company fails they can hide behind the corporate vail and walk away with their money and screw the rest.

Left?
Isn't it exactly what GWB started?
I'll be even more specific: wasn't it GWB administration which gave $85B to AIG (whose executives also got some nice bonuses around the time)?

$85B was just the first installment. We (taxpayers) sure paid those execs with our tax $$$.

Then there were tens of $Billions to BoA, Citigroup, etc.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Yep, and he was a nincompoop when he did it too

I though you, following the nice tradition set up by Fox News the AP, gonna now tell us GWB was Democrat.

Fixed that for you.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Sp what if you vote for the right thing, but the company still loses because your vote is overturned by majority, or just because someone in the company middle management did some major fuck-up? You supposed to still lose, as the company loses, correct? So much for personal responsibility.

If you don't like the way things are going, leave or go down with the ship

Quote

Left?
Isn't it exactly what GWB started?
I'll be even more specific: wasn't it GWB administration which gave $85B to AIG (whose executives also got some nice bonuses around the time)?

You mean the shitty bill wrote by the democrats that Bush signed out of stupidity. the democrats gave out the bail out money aided by 2 a few republicans. the dem's have wrote almost all the spending bills that have been passed over the last 3 years, if they were really worried about fiscal responsibility would they not hand the president a fiscally responsible bill to sign?

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>Anyone that earns the money without defrauding others . . .

You're changing your tune now! Bankrupting a company is not the same as defrauding someone. One is a business approach (or failure thereof) - the other is a crime.

>What the left wants is to take the honest peoples money and
>redistribute as they see fit and that is wrong.

That is exactly what you want to do. You just want to do it to different people than Lucky does. I'll let you two fight it out as to who is the more evil rich person, and whose money should be redistributed to who.

No I did not. When you run a company you pay your bills, when you bankrupt a company you don't. If you have bills to pay your money is used to pay the bills that you created. this is not the government redistributing wealth, it is holding those that created the deficit responsible for they bills they created.

Lucky thinks it is ok to take the profits and income earned and give it to those that didn't earn.

[billvon 2,998]

>Lucky thinks it is ok to take the profits and income earned and give
>it to those that didn't earn.

So do you.

Let's take an example. You start a company. It goes public and you become the CEO. It is successful for a while; you make millions, and you buy a bigger house, really nice car etc.

Then you make a bad strategic decision and the company starts to flounder. You manage to keep it going for another two years before it finally folds and declares bankruptcy. During that time you manage to keep most people employed, but you just can't recover your market position. Everyone (including you) gets a final paycheck before it goes to the lawyers. Debts are on the order of $200 million.

How much money should the government take from you? How about the CFO? The president of engineering? The product managers?

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

If you don't like the way things are going, leave or go down with the ship

So basically you're saying that "personal responsibility" means "when the things go south, and you feel like it's not your fault, leave"?

Quote

You mean the shitty bill wrote by the democrats that Bush signed out of stupidity.

You're making a strong statement; now I'd like to see the facts. Especially for the part that "Bush signed out of stupidity".

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[marks2065 0]

Quote

So basically you're saying that "personal responsibility" means "when the things go south, and you feel like it's not your fault, leave"?

no, personal responsibility means pay your bills, if you are in a corporate setup and the shareholders vote against you you should resign and let those that voted for the demise of the company pay for the loss with their invested money. either way the person or people that ruined the company pay the bills until their money is gone.

Quote

You're making a strong statement; now I'd like to see the facts. Especially for the part that "Bush signed out of stupidity".

by this statement are you saying Bush was smart? The last year of bush's administration was a financial dissaster wrote by the democrats. If I missed something please tell me.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

no, personal responsibility means pay your bills, if you are in a corporate setup and the shareholders vote against you you should resign and let those that voted for the demise of the company pay for the loss with their invested money. either way the person or people that ruined the company pay the bills until their money is gone.

It's hard what is considered "paying your bills" here.
If you are in the position to vote, and everyone but you voted for a new spending project, which at the end bankrupted the corporation, how much should you pay at the end? You're part of the corporation, and you were in position to vote, so you must pay, right?

Quote

by this statement are you saying Bush was smart?

No, I'm saying that your statement that Bush signed this bill because he was stupid, and not just because he was a Republican president, needs to be proven by facts. Then it's a question why the whole party wanted so much to elect a stupid president, and whether we could trust them in future at all?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>Lucky thinks it is ok to take the profits and income earned and give
>it to those that didn't earn.

So do you.

Let's take an example. You start a company. It goes public and you become the CEO. It is successful for a while; you make millions, and you buy a bigger house, really nice car etc.

Then you make a bad strategic decision and the company starts to flounder. You manage to keep it going for another two years before it finally folds and declares bankruptcy. During that time you manage to keep most people employed, but you just can't recover your market position. Everyone (including you) gets a final paycheck before it goes to the lawyers. Debts are on the order of $200 million.

How much money should the government take from you? How about the CFO? The president of engineering? The product managers?

all of the money you have should be taken to pay the bills. when the bills are paid, you get what is left. Bunkrupcy court doesn't do this and therefore when a company goes under the ceo(and others in control) move as much as they can out of the company and protect it.

[billvon 2,998]

>all of the money you have should be taken to pay the bills.

So just to be clear - all the money, all the homes, all the savings of the CEO, the CFO, the executives and the managers should be taken to pay the debts? Should we have a Federal home seizure czar to go into the homes of those managers, kick their families out and sell the houses?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

>Lucky thinks it is ok to take the profits and income earned and give
>it to those that didn't earn.

So do you.

Let's take an example. You start a company. It goes public and you become the CEO. It is successful for a while; you make millions, and you buy a bigger house, really nice car etc.

Then you make a bad strategic decision and the company starts to flounder. You manage to keep it going for another two years before it finally folds and declares bankruptcy. During that time you manage to keep most people employed, but you just can't recover your market position. Everyone (including you) gets a final paycheck before it goes to the lawyers. Debts are on the order of $200 million.

How much money should the government take from you? How about the CFO? The president of engineering? The product managers?

all of the money you have should be taken to pay the bills. when the bills are paid, you get what is left. Bunkrupcy court doesn't do this and therefore when a company goes under the ceo(and others in control) move as much as they can out of the company and protect it.

This is all unclear. What Bill gave you was basically a loose Enron scenario; creating a shell corporation to absorb the bad debt while running away with the loot, his was more innocent tho.

Quote

all of the money you have should be taken to pay the bills.

All of the money that you removed from the company before and as it was tanking should be given to the company's creditors? Is that what you're saying?

Quote

when the bills are paid, you get what is left.

Per the scenario, there would be none.

Quote

Bunkrupcy court doesn't do this ...

BK court doesn't do what?

Quote

..and therefore when a company goes under the ceo(and others in control) move as much as they can out of the company and protect it.

HUH? Too many it's and they's; clarify.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>all of the money you have should be taken to pay the bills.

So just to be clear - all the money, all the homes, all the savings of the CEO, the CFO, the executives and the managers should be taken to pay the debts? Should we have a Federal home seizure czar to go into the homes of those managers, kick their families out and sell the houses?

yep send them to a nice apartment, sell their assets, seize there bank accounts and pay the bills. If I loose my shop I loose my house, why shouldn't they? How many that held stock lost alot or even all? why should the ceo get to go to florida and spend his days in his million $ house with a yacht in the gulf with a maid serving him.

Also you don't need a czar, we already have the courts set up to handle the mess. It is called bankrupcy court.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

>all of the money you have should be taken to pay the bills.

So just to be clear - all the money, all the homes, all the savings of the CEO, the CFO, the executives and the managers should be taken to pay the debts? Should we have a Federal home seizure czar to go into the homes of those managers, kick their families out and sell the houses?

yep send them to a nice apartment, sell their assets, seize there bank accounts and pay the bills. If I loose my shop I loose my house, why shouldn't they? How many that held stock lost alot or even all? why should the ceo get to go to florida and spend his days in his million $ house with a yacht in the gulf with a maid serving him.

Also you don't need a czar, we already have the courts set up to handle the mess. It is called bankrupcy court.

An interesting FANTASY, Mark, but while that's the way it is if you or I screw up, it will never be that way for the truly rich because they have the clout to ensure that their assets are always protected REGARDLESS of which party is in power.

We have some of the truly rich on our board of trustees and I get to meet them a few times each year. They really are not like you and me.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[marks2065 0]

so they have the right to screw up and walk away a winner while everyone else looses. kinda takes the fear out of making the right choice.

[billvon 2,998]

>yep send them to a nice apartment . . .

So now you're proposing to take away the homes of managers, install them in apartments and take all their assets? Glad you're not in charge, then.

>why should the ceo get to go to florida and spend his days in his million
>$ house with a yacht in the gulf with a maid serving him.

Envy of the rich is a poor basis for deciding policy. If you want to make a million dollars, get a job that makes you a million dollars. Tearing down others will not make you any richer.

>Also you don't need a czar, we already have the courts set up to handle the
>mess. It is called bankrupcy court.

Yes. But they (fortunately) do not do such absurd things.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

so they have the right ability to screw up and walk away a winner while everyone else looses.

Yes, and it's unlikely to change in my lifetime.

Quote

kinda takes the fear out of making the right choice.

Yep.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>yep send them to a nice apartment . . .

So now you're proposing to take away the homes of managers, install them in apartments and take all their assets? Glad you're not in charge, then.

>why should the ceo get to go to florida and spend his days in his million
>$ house with a yacht in the gulf with a maid serving him.

Envy of the rich is a poor basis for deciding policy. If you want to make a million dollars, get a job that makes you a million dollars. Tearing down others will not make you any richer.

>Also you don't need a czar, we already have the courts set up to handle the
>mess. It is called bankrupcy court.

Yes. But they (fortunately) do not do such absurd things.

I am not envious of the rich nor did I say managers, I said ceo's and board members. I am all for people becoming millionairs and having great lives, that is the american dream and those that earned it should have it. nor do I want their money to be given to me through wealth redistribution, but I do want them held accountable for when they screw up and pay for their mistakes just like everyone else.

Many corperate board members walked away after destroying the company they worked for by making bad choices and many people suffered, they should suffer also. Maybe if they needed to start over like the common person that trusted them they would make better descissions and everyone would be better off.

[billvon 2,998]

> nor did I say managers, I said ceo's and board members.

Where do you draw the line? Managers make bad decisions too, and clearly you want the government to punish people who make such decisions. Indeed, managers as a whole have a lot more to do with the success or failure of a corporation than board members do.

>Maybe if they needed to start over like the common person that trusted them . . .

"Common persons" who own stock in a company are part owners of that company. They elected the board members. They do in fact share the responsibility, and indeed do so directly by losing valuation in their shares of the company.

Don't like that? Don't invest.

>they should suffer also.

I find this attitude pretty common. "That guy is smoking cigars while I can barely afford my rent! Fuck him! Make him feel my pain!" It feels good, but isn't really a rational decision.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

"Common persons" who own stock in a company are part owners of that company. They elected the board members. They do in fact share the responsibility, and indeed do so directly by losing valuation in their shares of the company.

Don't like that? Don't invest.

I have lost in the market and I understand the risks and accept them, but the board members need to be held accountable for the loss also.

Quote

>they should suffer also.

I find this attitude pretty common. "That guy is smoking cigars while I can barely afford my rent! Fuck him! Make him feel my pain!" It feels good, but isn't really a rational decision.

no not feel my pain, I took the risk and accept the outcome, but the ones making the wrong descissions would be less likely to make those poor choices if they had consequences to deal with if they screw up. If they do thing right they get to sit back and smoke the big cigar, otherwise take his cigar.

you seem to think I am upset because they have more than me, i am not. I am glad many people have found they way to have the good lives they enjoy and hope someday maybe I will enjoy some of those things also. what I don't like is how they seem to get paid for messing things up and not get held accountable for their actions.