Obama already felt failure?

Scofflaw

Trouser_Press wrote: »

Is that a verse from a Hank Williams Jr ballad or an extract from a Rush Limbaugh speech?

(I'm guessing you have posters of both on your bedroom wall?)

That is the third or fourth post which contains nothing but snarky remarks to other posters. I'll give you this one warning, after which you will be asked to leave.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Manic Moran

Meanwhile, on the international trade side...

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/new-indian-stealth-warship-halted-by-us-barge/351062/

The Indian Navy chose to power its indigenously designed, cutting-edge stealth warship, the INS Shivalik, with gas turbines from American company General Electric (GE). But even as the Shivalik readies for sea trials, the US State Department has ordered GE to stop all work on the turbines it has supplied.

Vice Admiral HS Malhi (Retired), chairman and managing director of Mazagon Dock Limited (MDL), which built the Shivalik, has confirmed to Business Standard that GE has received instructions to stop operationalising (making ready for operations) the two new LM 2500 gas turbines that it supplied for the Shivalik. GE has told MDL that there could be up to three months delay, while the new US administration reviews its military relations with several countries. India is not alone in facing this ban; GE has been told to stop work even with close US allies like the UK and Australia.

"We shall renew our ties with our allies"... and completely screw with their budgets and schedules.

NTM

Black Swan

CaraFawn wrote: »

Time for a real change, real skilled professionals managing the economy and public finances, not stupid politicians with no skills. Time has come for technocracies.

Like the "real skilled" AIG chief executive officers? How many different CEOs did AIG have in just one year? Three? And one threw a $400,000 dollar party at the Marriott resort in California with $23,000 in massages right after getting bailout monies last year? Or how about the "real skilled professionals" that allowed Washington Mutual to fail last year? The biggest bank failure at $500 billion in US history at the time? Or the CEOs of Bank of Amercia or Citi Group, all needing bailout funds to stay afloat? Those "real skilled professionals" (and the list is very long in terms of corporations getting bailout monies in 2008 and 2009), FAILED in their financial responsibilities to their stock holders, employees, and customers. These are the same "skilled" executives that are rewarded by their corporations for FAILURE, and are given multi-million dollar golden parachuttes when they are asked to leave their positions?

These "real skilled professionals" FAILED, and now you want to put them in charge of the nation?

Manic Moran

On the other hand, the politicians are running the nation right now, and don't seem to have done any better.

Not all the CEOs are that bad.

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not all the CEOs are that bad.

Well I would not want to say "all the CEOs" are bad (that being a sweeping generalisation), but here's a list of 473 corporations with 473 CEOs that were FAILURES? The list sourced below reads like the Who's Who of American corporations too, not all unknowns.

"Here’s our running count of the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), the $700 billion bill passed and signed in October. We'll update as more names come in. And if you've heard of new recipients, drop us a line.

Number of financial institutions: 473

Total amount committed for investment as of Mar 03, 2009 03:52:19 PM: $332.82 billion

Total amount actually invested: $301.62 billion"

List: http://www.propublica.org/special/show-me-the-tarp-money

thebman

It is what happens ineffective regulation IMO.

CEO's are there to increase profits for shareholders by whatever means they can. They will do this whatever way they legally can (and illegally once all legal means have been exhausted). The never ending desire for higher profits puts an impossible task on CEO's eventually and they have to restort to these dishonest means of doing business to hold their positions and then it all starts to come crashing down around them.

It is a problem of the system and not necessarily the respective CEO's. Don't ask me for the fix for this issue as I've not thought of it yet :P I guess the only real fix is that companies should remain privately owned if at all possible with owners that actually care about the welfare of the business they built and the employees that helped get them to where they are today. Going public and selling shares essentially makes the owner the slave of the shareholders desire for higher dividends and he/she will ultimately be forced out when they inevitably fail to deliver.

Black Swan

thebman wrote: »

It is what happens ineffective regulation IMO...

It is a problem of the system and not necessarily the respective CEO's.

So on the corporate playground the teachers have to watch the boys closely, ready to slap them with their rulers if they get out of line? Whatever happened to trust, honesty, integrity, and ethics? Money talks and ethics walks?

Pocono Joe

And how about those AFL-CIO Union Executives holding their winter meeting a few days ago at the swanky luxury Fontainebleau Miami Resort, as nearly 1 million union jobs have been lost. I can’t wait for Obama to condemn their actions and John Kerry demanding legislation stopping these abhorred excessive practices.

WAIT, THIS JUST IN… Oh, Joe Biden spoke there… Oh, the AFL-CIO is a labor union… NEVER MIND!

thebman

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

So on the corporate playground the teachers have to watch the boys closely, ready to slap them with their rulers if they get out of line? Whatever happened to trust, honesty, integrity, and ethics? Money talks and ethics walks?

When the result of ethics is you lose your job and maybe entire professional career that you worked for probably at least a decade to achieve, you'd be surprised how flexible some peoples ethics become.

Yes they have to be watched closely IMO because they are incapable of acting honestly on their own.

The only problem as donegalfella would rightly point out is who ensures that the teachers are teaching properly :P I don't see that as a reason to get rid of the teachers but those in favor of no regulation think we should have little or no regulation and let the market take its course.

While this may prevent government interference, it does not result in a stable market IMO which is what we should be trying to achieve since people work for these companies. I don't believe the no regulation trial (since that is what it would be as nobody as ever really had no regulation) is worth the risk because we are messing with the lives of all the citizens in the country by giving companies free rule to do whatever they want as most IMO will act irresponsibly.

Pocono Joe

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

So on the corporate playground the teachers have to watch the boys closely, ready to slap them with their rulers if they get out of line? Whatever happened to trust, honesty, integrity, and ethics? Money talks and ethics walks?

If only congress would have listened to repeated Republican warnings over the years, and put regulatory measures in place for the financial institutions. Well at least they tried!

Black Swan

Pocono Joe wrote: »

If only congress would have listened to repeated Republican warnings over the years, and put regulatory measures in place for the financial institutions. Well at least they tried!

Which "Republicans?" Certainly not the GW Bush Republicans that backed his appointments to the SEC?

Didn't the Republicans control both houses of the US Congress during the second half of Clinton and the first 6 years of GW Bush? Are you implying that they, the Republicans, didn't listen to themselves?

thebman wrote: »

by giving companies free rule to do whatever they want as most IMO will act irresponsibly.

This occurred when the GW Bush appointed SEC (lead by Chairman Cox) loosened credit regulation for investment banking in a 2004 decision, while at the same time cutting back federal employees involved in bank oversight, and allowing the investment banks to largely self-oversee themselves (Like asking foxes to care for the chickens). This move towards investment bank deregulation (and free market) was a major factor contributing to the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression that the USA now is experiencing.

Manic Moran

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Well I would not want to say "all the CEOs" are bad (that being a sweeping generalisation), but here's a list of 473 corporations with 473 CEOs that were FAILURES? The list sourced below reads like the Who's Who of American corporations too, not all unknowns.

"Here’s our running count of the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), the $700 billion bill passed and signed in October. We'll update as more names come in. And if you've heard of new recipients, drop us a line.

Number of financial institutions: 473

The government is giving away free money (or at least, low interest money) to financial institutions. Any financial institution with a lick of sense is going to make an application for some of it regardless of how good a condition they're in. Why wouldn't they?

NTM

Nodin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

If only congress would have listened to repeated Republican warnings over the years, and put regulatory measures in place for the financial institutions. Well at least they tried!

As theres been majorities and presidents from both parties over the last few decades leading up to this, I think it fair to say that no-one was/is innocent.

Pocono Joe

Nodin wrote: »

As theres been majorities and presidents from both parties over the last few decades leading up to this, I think it fair to say that no-one was/is innocent.

To that we agree.

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

The government is giving away free money (or at least, low interest money) to financial institutions. Any financial institution with a lick of sense is going to make an application for some of it regardless of how good a condition they're in. Why wouldn't they?

Which raises the larger question, why did the Bush and Obama administrations give solvent financial institutions bailout tax money when they didn't need it? For example, Citi was screaming that they were in trouble late last year and then declares a profit for Jan-Feb 2009? Does anyone see the craic? The US version of capitalism is all hype? What will the American people go for next? Was the P.T. Barnum misquote true? "There's a sucker born every minute?"

Non-existent weapons of mass destruction to scare the people into the 2nd Gulf War, now investment banks claiming failure at a Great Depression-like panic just to get free or low interest bailout monies, while working and middle classes have their futures mortgaged by the historic federal deficit?

thebman

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Which raises the larger question, why did the Bush and Obama administrations give solvent financial institutions bailout tax money when they didn't need it? For example, Citi was screaming that they were in trouble late last year and then declares a profit for Jan-Feb 2009? Does anyone see the craic? The US version of capitalism is all hype? What will the American people go for next? Was the P.T. Barnum misquote true? "There's a sucker born every minute?"

Non-existent weapons of mass destruction to scare the people into the 2nd Gulf War, now investment banks claiming failure an a Great Depression-like panic just to get free or low interest monies, while working and middle classes have their futures mortgaged by the historic federal deficit?

I think the reason for that is if they did not the bank would have posted a loss. Rather than do that they probably would have forced people to pay loans back sooner and caused companies to default making the US economy even worse but gaining assets themselves to make their books look better.

Anglo Irish bank which has recently been nationalised also posted a profit for last year.

Or you can go the other route (which is probably worthy of CT) and say that this is like the rebuilding contracts in Iraq where its money for the boys rather than an actual attempt to save the economy for the people.

It could be a combination of both. Some needed rescuing and the government decided to help out their invested interests in banking that weren't in trouble while at it all at the tax payers expense.

However I imagine that would have been Bush's call and since it was the end of his second term, he has no reason to pander to invested interests and he could just do the right thing for the people. It also depends on whether you think Obama would pander to these interests (hint: he would). So it depends on whether the politicians did the right thing or caved to invested interests yet again at the expense of the taxpayer.

Black Swan

thebman wrote: »

I think the reason for that is if they did not the bank would have posted a loss. Rather than do that they probably would have forced people to pay loans back sooner and caused companies to default making the US economy even worse but gaining assets themselves to make their books look better.

I've heard this explanation, but I am not buying it. Not when million dollar bailout parties occur right after receiving bailout monies, followed by laying off 450 employees. Does anyone see the inconsistency about NTB that may point to the underlying hidden agenda in dialectic fashion?

"The Chicago-based Northern Trust bank may have received $1.6 billion in federal bailout funds, but that did not dampen the lavish long weekend featuring a golf tournament and headliner music the bank threw in Los Angeles last week..."

"But the bank took a strikingly different tone in December when it announced it would eliminate 450 jobs."

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/WallStreet/Story?id=6948510&page=2

"As for the golf tournament, a rep from the PGA told us Northern Trust wrote one big fat check in order to sponsor the event. That check covers part of the $6.3 million purse..."

Source: http://www.tmz.com/2009/02/24/northern-trust-bank-bailout/

thebman

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

I've heard this explanation, but I am not buying it. Not when expensive bailout parties occur right after receiving bailout monies. Does anyone see the inconsistency in the below two facts about NTB that may point to the underlying hidden agenda in dialectic fashion?

"The Chicago-based Northern Trust bank may have received $1.6 billion in federal bailout funds, but that did not dampen the lavish long weekend featuring a golf tournament and headliner music the bank threw in Los Angeles last week..."

"But the bank took a strikingly different tone in December when it announced it would eliminate 450 jobs."

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/WallStreet/Story?id=6948510&page=2

Well the only positive that can be taken is banks that accept the money lose credibility when it comes to opposing reforms and can be ignored and the necessary reforms can be forced through even if some of these banks oppose them on the grounds that they have no right to complain.

You'll find a lot of these banks will use their crisis to shed dead weight from their companies too.

Can't really stop that unfortunately. They could at least make an attempt to hide their refusal to adjust their lifestyles though. There should really be more restrictions placed on them when accepting a bailout such as no job cuts.

Black Swan

thebman wrote: »

There should really be more restrictions placed on them when accepting a bailout such as no job cuts.

Indeed! No bailout parties, no $23,000 in massages for AIG executives, and no WEALTHFARE for the rich as in the below:

"You know the reason they did it this way was because, if Bear Stearns had to declare bankruptcy, you'd realize that Bear Stearns paid out billions of dollars in bonuses in January - six weeks ago. If he let them go into bankruptcy, they all would have had to send back their bonuses."

"This is what they're doing, they're doing it so they don't have to give back their bonuses. That's why they didn't put them into bankruptcy. Jamie Dimon has gotten a great deal because the Federal Reserve is paying for it. The Federal Reserve is using taxpayer money to buy a bunch of Bear Stearns traders' Mazeratis."

Source: http://seekingalpha.com/article/69005-jim-rogers-on-the-bear-stearns-bailout

Manic Moran

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Which raises the larger question, why did the Bush and Obama administrations give solvent financial institutions bailout tax money when they didn't need it? For example, Citi was screaming that they were in trouble late last year and then declares a profit for Jan-Feb 2009?

Given the rates that some of the institutions were haemorraging money at the time, they very well may have needed the money in order to survive, even if it was only for those two months.

Plus, the backing of the banks by the government may have had the psychological effect of reassuring people that the government wasn't going to let the company fall. It wasn't so much the economic condition that caused Northern Rock bank in the UK to collapse (Not a small institution itself), as much as the fact that there was a run on the bank, which finished it off.

A third reason to give solvent institutions money is because they were giving insolvent institutions money. Why should solvent institutions be penalised from obtaining government assistance to an industry just because they happened to have been better managed to that point?

NTM

thebman

Manic Moran wrote: »

A third reason to give solvent institutions money is because they were giving insolvent institutions money. Why should solvent institutions be penalised from obtaining government assistance to an industry just because they happened to have been better managed to that point?

NTM

Its no about whats fair FFS.

Which part of the bailout is fair on the ordinary tax payer?

Only instituitions critical to the economy that were about to go under should be bailed out. If you can survive on your own or are non-critical, hard luck.

Pocono Joe

I have a math question. President Obama’s administration and the Democratic Congress (along with 3 RINO's) passed a $787,000,000,000 economic stimulus package that was to create 4 million jobs create or save 4 million jobs create or save some 3.5 million jobs over two years.

Now I am hearing that another stimulus package might be needed as the Democrat estimates were too high and there might only be 2.5 million jobs created or saved by the 787Billion stimulus dollars. Is my math right, that the new estimates indicate Obama, Pelosi, Reed, and Mr. "Uniquely Qualified" Geithner are spending roughly $314,800 per job created or "saved."

Wow, by changing our company’s marketing and sales focus I recently saved 4 jobs, and possibly created another position. Do you think Obama should send me at least $1,259,200?

Overheal

I think for that kinda money, everyone in america deserves a box of girl scout cookies.

dibs on the tagalongs.

thebman

Pocono Joe wrote: »

I have a math question. President Obama’s administration and the Democratic Congress (along with 3 RINO's) passed a $787,000,000,000 economic stimulus package that was to create 4 million jobs create or save 4 million jobs create or save some 3.5 million jobs over two years.

Now I am hearing that another stimulus package might be needed as the Democrat estimates were too high and there might only be 2.5 million jobs created or saved by the 787Billion stimulus dollars. Is my math right, that the new estimates indicate Obama, Pelosi, Reed, and Mr. "Uniquely Qualified" Geithner are spending roughly $314,800 per job created or "saved."

Wow, by changing our company’s marketing and sales focus I recently saved 4 jobs, and possibly created another position. Do you think Obama should send me at least $1,259,200?

The figures going round in America's stimulus packages are scary. How the hell is America going to pay for it's national debt? It seems to be getting to a very dangerous level.

Pocono Joe

thebman wrote: »

The figures going round in America's stimulus packages are scary. How the hell is America going to pay for it's national debt? It seems to be getting to a very dangerous level.

I think the most we can expect (or hope) to get is 1/7 of what is needed from loans to China and Saudi Arabia. The remainder will be "printed up" (on that new high-speed currency printing machine located in the basement of the Whitehouse). Look out for runaway inflation as a consequence of this.

thebman

Pocono Joe wrote: »

I think the most we can expect (or hope) to get is 1/7 of what is needed from loans to China and Saudi Arabia. The remainder will be "printed up" (on that new high-speed currency printing machine located in the basement of the Whitehouse). Look out for runaway inflation as a consequence of this.

Runaway inflation and a damage to American's reputation as a country to lend to if it prints the money to pay its loans.

The curreny had a value when you received the loan and America would be intentionally printing money and devaluing the loan so it could afford to pay it back.

Why would anyone lend to America again knowing the same thing could happen?

Pocono Joe

I wish I had an answer, but I guess I just don’t understand this crisis. Apparently in order to combat the excesses of too much borrowing and spending, that caused the economic crisis, is to commit to a lot more borrowing and spending. :eek:

thebman

Unfortunately I don't have an answer either.

The scariest thing is I'm not sure there is one! :eek:

I guess printing money won't be the worse thing for America since a lot of its loans are in China. They export their goods to America so it might actually pay them to let America away with devaluing their currency to that extent to pay its loans in order to keep their own economy growing.

Who knows though. Unprecetented times, America needs to talk to the people it has its loans with IMO to discuss what they are going to do.

Sand

Who knows though. Unprecetented times, America needs to talk to the people it has its loans with IMO to discuss what they are going to do.

Well, theyve got that uber military lying around....and a load of people they owe money to. Whose coming to collect again? Start making a list.

Mr.Micro

thebman wrote: »

Its no about whats fair FFS.

Which part of the bailout is fair on the ordinary tax payer?

Only instituitions critical to the economy that were about to go under should be bailed out. If you can survive on your own or are non-critical, hard luck.

A win win situation for the banks and financial institutions getting bailouts, hard cash, for them giving away loans in the past years from money they did not have. Incredible really, what a reward for incompetence,negligence,criminality, and all USA made, but pain for the world.

I guess printing money won't be the worse thing for America since a lot of its loans are in China. They export their goods to America so it might actually pay them to let America away with devaluing their currency to that extent to pay its loans in order to keep their own economy growing.

Of course the other way round would be totally unacceptable.