Link Stats
Added By: Alex
Added on: 03/18/2009 @ 12:34:36 PM
Link View Count: 422
Economics
Economics
Rate this Link
Yours:

Rated 0 times.

AIG

I didn't realize we owned 80% of the company.
View External Link [news.yahoo.com]
Back to Link List
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - What the F@#$ am I being arrested fo?
03/18/2009 @ 03:28:55 PM
 Quote this comment
Hail Socialism!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - 3610 Posts
03/19/2009 @ 11:31:21 AM
 Quote this comment
Obama said his administration was consulting with Congress on creating a new "resolution authority" to seize giant institutions like AIG — including all their toxic assets — whose collapse in normal bankruptcy could cause calamity in the financial markets.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090319/ap_on_go_co/aig_outrage
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - I was too weak to give in Too strong to lose
03/19/2009 @ 11:43:10 AM
 Quote this comment
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090319/ap_on_go_pr_wh/auto_bailout
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - Who controls the past now controls the future
03/24/2009 @ 12:59:40 PM
 Quote this comment
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090324/ap_on_bi_ge/bailout_bernanke_geithner
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8821 Posts
03/24/2009 @ 01:14:00 PM
 Quote this comment
I'm sick of hearing about the damn bonuses. The taxpayers gave a private company 180 billion, and the only thing we can get upset over is 165 million in bonuses that AIG was contractually obligated to pay? That's .09% of the money we gave them, and the employees could have sued to get it anyway. It would be like me threatening to kill Sarah because she spent $50 on a couple tanks of gas. You might not like the deals these places made, and yes, they are symbolic of why they are in this mess to begin with, but these bonuses aren't a "hey, nice work, here's a tip" type thing. Bonus, as far as I know, is just a classification of a way you're paid, with its own tax rules and everything. Either way, it's NOT a tip, it's a sum of money worked out in advance, just like your paycheck. Part of showing these people the door is settling up the debts you agreed to, just like how Sprint wouldn't let you off the hook for your overage charges just because you switched to Verizon, or decided you couldn't afford a phone anymore.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 3 times, last at 03/24/2009 1:18:35 pm
matt.jpgMatt - 3222 Posts
03/25/2009 @ 10:53:00 AM
 Quote this comment
I think this is a must read.

Resignation letter from an AIG executive


There are many things in this letter that jibe with similar points I've read about the whole AIG bonus issue, and why the politician-stoked outrage is so ridiculous. For starters, many people, like this guy, who received bonuses had nothing to do the actions that got AIG into trouble in the first place. Secondly, once it was known that AIG was in trouble, there was a real risk that many good workers would bolt for more stable jobs, hence the need for retention bonuses. I read that many of these people were needed to try and clean up as much of the mess as they could, and, if my memory is correct, they were able to reduce the AIG's (and thus the taxpayers) exposure (I think this is the right word) from something like $2.7 trillion to about $1.4 trillion. Maybe this could have been done without giving bonuses to any of the workers, maybe not, but it's not a decision I want politicians making.

This goes to a bigger reason why the big show of anger by politicians was so stupid. Taxpayers now own 80% of AIG, and if we ever hope to get anything back, we need AIG to do well. However, because of the actions of the politicians, people are going to think twice before working with/for AIG and needed business decisions may not be made for fear of political reactions. This goes to other companies as well. Many banks are now trying desperately to give bailout money back rather than be at the whim of populous backlash. You can argue about whether there should have been a bailout in the first place, but obviously those in power felt is was necessary, and are now reducing the chances that it can be effective.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Matt screwed with this at 03/25/2009 10:54:04 am
jeremy.jpgJeremy - I believe virtually everything I read.
03/25/2009 @ 11:08:52 AM
 Quote this comment
Well, politicians "have" to be an extension of the electorate, and as far as 99% of the general population is concerned every one of these people were people who's greed knows no bounds and who are single-handedly responsible for all our economic woes, and on top of that they're getting a "tip" for doing such a "great job".

Like many other things congress/the president can't just say to the public "Look idiots, shut the mass hysteria machine down for a second and listen..." because there's always an election around the corner, so instead they take turns grandstanding against windmills.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
03/25/2009 @ 11:12:21 AM
 Quote this comment
I read the whole thing. More power to this guy.

Political "prevailing winds" are not dissimilar to the screaming, fainting youth of Beetle Mania. Just a bunch of BS. I hate politics. Can we start over?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
matt.jpgMatt - 3222 Posts
03/25/2009 @ 11:44:04 AM
 Quote this comment
Congressman wants to kill naming rights deal for new Nets arena

This is getting ridiculous. Barclay's (a British bank) wants its name on the new Nets arena to be built in Brooklyn. They got money from AIG which got money from the Government.

Again, its not like Barclays (or Citi with the Mets park) decides to spend lots of money for just an ego trip. This is advertising!!! What is the point of trying to bail out banks if you then make it tougher for them to make money in the future.

Now, it should be pointed out that the Congressman who is behind this is from New Jersey, and that the fact that the Nets are moving from NJ to Brooklyn may have played a part in this. Not that this fact would make his actions any better.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Matt perfected this at 03/25/2009 12:08:26 pm
matt.jpgMatt - 3222 Posts
03/25/2009 @ 11:47:57 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:08:52 AM
Well, politicians "have" to be an extension of the electorate, and as far as 99% of the general population is concerned every one of these people were people who's greed knows no bounds and who are single-handedly responsible for all our economic woes, and on top of that they're getting a "tip" for doing such a "great job".

Like many other things congress/the president can't just say to the public "Look idiots, shut the mass hysteria machine down for a second and listen..." because there's always an election around the corner, so instead they take turns grandstanding against windmills.


Which is just another reason why we should go back to limited government. The less government is allowed to meddle in things, the less they will be influenced by an uninformed populace to make bad decisions.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
reign_of_fire.jpgMicah - Bring down the Beast!!!
03/25/2009 @ 12:07:23 PM
 Quote this comment
Matt Wrote - Today @ 12:44:04 PM
Congressman wants to kill naming rights deal for new Nets arena

This is getting ridiculous. Barclay's (a British bank) wants its name on the new Nets arena to be built in Brooklyn. They got money from AIG which got money from the Government.

Again, its not like Barclays (or Citi with the Mets park) decides to spend lots of money for just an ego trip. This is advertising!!! What is the point of trying to bail out banks if you then make it tougher for the to make money in the future.

Now, it should be pointed out that the Congressman who is behind this is from New Jersey, and that the fact that the Nets are moving from NJ to Brooklyn may have played a part in this. Not that this fact would make his actions any better.


As long as we're all getting along, I completely agree on this point. Except for letting some British company sponsor a basketball stadium. Stadium's should have good American companies sponsoring them, like Busch or Miller or....oh crap.

My contacts in New Jersey also tell me that the deal for this stadium is basically falling apart anyway. So no LeBron to Brooklyn.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8821 Posts
03/25/2009 @ 12:14:08 PM
 Quote this comment
Matt Wrote - Today @ 11:47:57 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:08:52 AM
Well, politicians "have" to be an extension of the electorate, and as far as 99% of the general population is concerned every one of these people were people who's greed knows no bounds and who are single-handedly responsible for all our economic woes, and on top of that they're getting a "tip" for doing such a "great job".

Like many other things congress/the president can't just say to the public "Look idiots, shut the mass hysteria machine down for a second and listen..." because there's always an election around the corner, so instead they take turns grandstanding against windmills.


Which is just another reason why we should go back to limited government. The less government is allowed to meddle in things, the less they will be influenced by an uninformed populace to make bad decisions.


Right, and as soon as someone/anyone in government starts putting their money where their mouth is in that regard, maybe I'll listen. It seems to me Republicans were perfectly fine with a gigantic spend-happy government when they were in charge, now all of a sudden they're back to playing the small government card. It's an interesting strategy. Claim government doesn't work, get in power, F everything up, stand back, tell the world "See? It just doesn't work."
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - Nutcan.com's MBL
03/25/2009 @ 12:56:43 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:14:08 PM
Right, and as soon as someone/anyone in government starts putting their money where their mouth is in that regard, maybe I'll listen.


That seems a little backward to me.

Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:14:08 PM
It seems to me Republicans were perfectly fine with a gigantic spend-happy government when they were in charge, now all of a sudden they're back to playing the small government card.


There were plenty of conservatives who were not happy with the big government policies of Bush and Congressional Republicans. It was a big reason that Republicans lost seats in the last two elections.

Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:14:08 PM
It's an interesting strategy. Claim government doesn't work, get in power, F everything up, stand back, tell the world "See? It just doesn't work."


It's better than the Democrats strategy: Screw with free market, watch market fail, claim market needs more government intervention, watch market fail even more, claim capitalism doesn't work, socialism.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Matt edited this at 03/25/2009 12:57:47 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - No one's gay for Moleman
03/25/2009 @ 01:09:02 PM
 Quote this comment
Not really, because, at the very least, people know that's what they're getting. People often vote democrat expressly for those "socialist" types of ideas. They aren't doing the exact opposite of what they claim is the core belief of the party. Sure, both might be equally misguided, but at least in this case we're getting the product we ordered.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
matt.jpgMatt - 3222 Posts
03/25/2009 @ 01:38:37 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, the problem is that when Obama/Reid/Pelosi drive right past "big government" into "gigantic government" even "big government" conservatives are going balk.

Besides, I don't see whats wrong with a party that goes back to its principles after being punished for straying from them.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - 3610 Posts
03/25/2009 @ 01:44:10 PM
 Quote this comment
Like Matt, said, this situation is exactly the reason that the government shouldn't have gotten this involved in the first place. And I agree with Jeremy that the Republicans who have been in power recently at least, have been just as "big government" as Democrats, just in different ways. Which is why I voted 3rd party.

And to the point of political grandstanding and jumping at the crack of the whip so to speak, I'm often reminded by the powers that be at my privately owned company that we have an advantage over our publicly traded competitors whose stock holders are only interested in short term financial reports. We can have a "bad" quarter or 2 or 3 if it's because we're positioning ourselves for the long term. Government owned/run corporations have that short-term performance issue times 1000 compared to publicly traded private sector businesses.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8821 Posts
03/25/2009 @ 01:47:19 PM
 Quote this comment
Matt Wrote - Today @ 01:38:37 PM
Besides, I don't see whats wrong with a party that goes back to its principles after being punished for straying from them.


Nothing inherently, it's just disingenuous to act like the sky is falling in regard to how big of a national debt Obama/Democrats are going to create, when you were the ones in charge of the store for 8 years and let it go in the red. (Not to mention let it grow out of control during one of the biggest "booms" in our history during the 80s.)

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 03/25/2009 1:49:51 pm
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - Ombudsman
03/25/2009 @ 02:00:05 PM
 Quote this comment
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8821 Posts
03/25/2009 @ 02:02:31 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - Today @ 01:44:10 PM
Like Matt, said, this situation is exactly the reason that the government shouldn't have gotten this involved in the first place. And I agree with Jeremy that the Republicans who have been in power recently at least, have been just as "big government" as Democrats, just in different ways. Which is why I voted 3rd party.

And to the point of political grandstanding and jumping at the crack of the whip so to speak, I'm often reminded by the powers that be at my privately owned company that we have an advantage over our publicly traded competitors whose stock holders are only interested in short term financial reports. We can have a "bad" quarter or 2 or 3 if it's because we're positioning ourselves for the long term. Government owned/run corporations have that short-term performance issue times 1000 compared to publicly traded private sector businesses.


It's a catch 22. Big organizations require a big inefficient bureaucracy to get things done. Busting that organization up would speed up getting things done, but would increase the number of things that needs to be done. In a big company someone can just rule from on high, and that's that. He might not understand that his decision isn't the best thing for each individual branch, but each individual branch coming up with their own solution, with their own R&D, that doesn't necessarily jive with other branches, isn't necessarily the best either.

For example, the Eau Claire city planners have a better understanding of what is going on at a local level here, likewise the mayor of somewhere else in Wisconsin knows their needs more intimately than someone in the state legislator. It isn't necessarily best to leave every decision up to "as local as possible" because both Eau Claire and Somewhere Else will have to spend time and money (which, on some level, comes from the same pot) battling over the same issues that could be decided once at a higher level.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - I believe virtually everything I read.
03/25/2009 @ 02:06:12 PM
 Quote this comment


Well, that's a the budget deficit, which is different. It's also not really the point at all.

Edit: The point is they are acting like a) They never spent one dime and had a budget in the black for 8 years and b) There aren't any extenuating circumstances happening right now.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 03/25/2009 2:11:32 pm
matt.jpgMatt - Nutcan.com's MBL
03/25/2009 @ 02:13:30 PM
 Quote this comment
You increase the debt by running deficits. If the rate Bush was increasing the debt was a problem, then massively increasing that rate is a big problem. As for the source, if you read the thing, you would know that the numbers and the graph were from the Washington Post, not exactly a conservative stronghold.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - Washington Bureau Chief
03/25/2009 @ 02:20:24 PM
 Quote this comment
To address your edit: a) I don't think they are, and even if they were, it doesn't make them wrong. b) If anything, the current problems would favor restraint on long term tax and spend policies.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8821 Posts
03/25/2009 @ 02:29:57 PM
 Quote this comment
I understand how money works, but we're on different pages. Yes, spending more money than you have is a big problem, and spending tons of money you don't have is a bigger problem, you don't need an econ degree to understand that. I'm talking about the fact that for 8 years Republicans bought jetskis and rims and now that we're sick and homeless, they are baffled by Obama's "reckless spending" and are suddenly the financial experts.

I'm not talking about who's right or wrong, I'm talking about the pot calling the kettle black.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8821 Posts
03/25/2009 @ 02:39:30 PM
 Quote this comment
Also, all debt is not created equal. The merits are certainly open to debate, but it's not always apples to apples. Owing $100,000 on your mortgage and owing $100,000 to visa are not the same thing. One can be a responsible investment on your future and the other was likely caused by being fiscally irresponsible.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 3 times, last at 03/25/2009 2:48:57 pm
matt.jpgMatt - Ombudsman
03/25/2009 @ 02:53:04 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:29:57 PM
Yes, spending more money than you have is a big problem, and spending tons of money you don't have is a bigger problem


Yeah, so its not exactly disingenuous for Republicans to balk at the new spending. If you run up a $5,000 in debt, and then Sarah wants to run up $20,000 more, you wouldn't be out of bounds calling that a bad idea even though you also ran up a debt.

Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:29:57 PM
I'm talking about the fact that for 8 years Republicans bought jetskis and rims and now that we're sick and homeless, they are baffled by Obama's "reckless spending" and are suddenly the financial experts.


I don't even know what the hell this is supposed to mean.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - I hate our freedoms
03/25/2009 @ 03:07:51 PM
 Quote this comment
Matt Wrote - Today @ 02:53:04 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:29:57 PM
Yes, spending more money than you have is a big problem, and spending tons of money you don't have is a bigger problem


Yeah, so its not exactly disingenuous for Republicans to balk at the new spending. If you run up a $5,000 in debt, and then Sarah wants to run up $20,000 more, you wouldn't be out of bounds calling that a bad idea even though you also ran up a debt.


Not necessarily. However, if I hit the talk shows and start talking like I'm the world's greatest financial expert because I "only" spent $5K more than I had, I might look a tad ridiculous. I'd look especially douchey if I have nothing but charter and sprint bills to show for my $5K and Sarah spent her $20K on health insurance, the mortgage, landscaping, and paying to repair our road.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 03/25/2009 3:08:31 pm
matt.jpgMatt - 3222 Posts
03/25/2009 @ 03:20:25 PM
 Quote this comment
If you really think that Bush drove up the deficit on jetskis, rims, cable and text messages, while all of Obama's spending is going to bring back returns greater than its investment, then I think you'll be in for quite a surprise in the next decade.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - Nutcan.com's MBL
03/25/2009 @ 03:23:18 PM
 Quote this comment
What is more accurate is that Bush spent money on programs he liked, while Obama is going to spend money on programs he likes. The difference is that Obama's are going to cost a lot more and potentially stunt the economy more as well.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Super Chocolate Bear
03/25/2009 @ 03:32:34 PM
 Quote this comment
I don't think they all will, but a lot of them are overdue projects anyway. If we need a road to be built somewhere we may as well do it when people need jobs. I also never meant to imply "everything republicans spend money on is stupid and everything democrats spend money on isn't," but the opposite certainly isn't true. The point is that if you got demoted at Target for being a terrible manager you're not in much of a position to tell the new guy how to do his job, and you'll just look like a disgruntled jackass to everyone else if you try to do it too long.

I don't think it's fair at all to say these are programs Obama "likes," or at least that it was his intention to pay for everything he did want to do all at once.

Obviously anything Obama does could backfire, or be a waste of money, the point is you don't know, I don't know, and "experts" don't know, so, while voicing an opinion is fine, to act like he's just flat out wrong, and to not factor in the unprecedented situation he's in, isn't.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 3 times, last at 03/25/2009 3:34:08 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - No one's gay for Moleman
03/25/2009 @ 03:51:04 PM
 Quote this comment
Our problem is really that neither party does it right, because neither party has the balls to do the half of their policy that people don't like. Republicans are supposed to cut taxes and cut spending, except people don't like spending cuts, so they don't do that. Democrats beleive in more spending, the flip side of which should be raising taxes, but people don't like having their taxes raised, so they don't do that.

Edit: The only thing that ever changes is screwing with the amount of taxes the richest 1% pay since one side sees them as humanity's only possible saviors and the other sees them as cesspools of unmitigated greed.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 2 times, last at 03/25/2009 3:54:28 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Robots don't say 'ye'
03/25/2009 @ 04:08:26 PM
 Quote this comment
I read a figure a while back about what (pathetically small) percentage of americans actually pay more in taxes than they "cost" in taxpayer money/benefits.

I haven't found it yet, but this is an interesting read.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
matt.jpgMatt - Nutcan.com's MBL
03/25/2009 @ 04:11:36 PM
 Quote this comment
If you get demoted at Target for being a terrible manager, and your replacement makes the same mistakes you made but even "bigger", then you have cause to complain.

As for the situation he's in, its a recession. Most likely it will end at the end of this year or sometime next year. There is debate as to whether stimulus plans work, but plenty of Republicans were for some sort of stimulus package. Obama gave them a massive "stimulus" bill where most of the money wouldn't be spent until the recession would most likely be over. He and Congress used it to shove money to causes they "liked" under the guise of stimulus. As I mentioned in another thread, the CBO estimated that the stimulus bill would hurt the economy more in the long run than without a stimulus plan at all.

More to the point though, is that we are way past the "stimulus" spending here. First there was the Omnibus spending bill loaded with earmarks, and now there is his budget which is much more long term spending and which counts on dubious levels of economic growth. We're at a point here where European leaders are starting to say that the spending is irresponsible, and the Chinese are talking about creating a new reserve currency because they are worried about the weakening dollar. Even other Democrats are concerned about the budget. Many of his plans (e.g. cap & trade/expanded health care) will certainly cause harm to the economy while potential benefits are dubious at best. While it may be ok to take that risk in good times, now is not the time with high unemployment and massive debt.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Matt messed with this at 03/25/2009 4:14:29 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8821 Posts
03/25/2009 @ 04:37:12 PM
 Quote this comment
I think we're getting a little far away from the point here with our analogy, and I think we'll have to leave Target for a place where a manager could actually make decisions, but:

Let's say you were fired because the store was hemorrhaging money for some time. Your approach was to spend as little on running the store as possible. You cut out the drive up guy, knowing some elderly people couldn't shop here any more because they couldn't load up their cars themselves, but you made a calculated choice. You made similar decisions all over the store. In the end you ended up with a relatively cheap to run no frills store, but it turned out maybe people like frills, even if it means paying an extra $2 on their final bill. So, in the end you got demoted.

The first thing the new guy does is address the complaints from soon to be ex customers that the lines are too long by hiring 2 more people for up front, he addresses the complaints about the store's appearance by having it painted, and hiring a guy to clean it at night. He also decides to run an expensive ad campaign.

You MIGHT look at that and say "Hey, I was fired for spending too much money, and the first thing this guy does is spend $15 grand, what gives?!." It's not the same thing though, because it's a whole different approach. Although, in the end, it might not work to get the store in the black either, it's not fair to say "it's the same mistake" or that the new guy is flat out wrong in his approach, it's also unfair to expect instant results with his method. (Whereas with your method you got, for lack of a better term, false instant results. The cost savings of the drive up guy was immediate, the loss of customers over time as a result was what took a while.)

Edit: Which isn't to say one method is better than the other. A store that profits $1000 a day off of 100 customers is just as well off as a store that profits $1000 a day on 500 customers. The point is neither is "wrong," so acting like one or the other is is kind of stupid. One approach might be better for the time/area, it's also entirely possible that the store is just doomed period. It's also possible the owner made a rash/emotion/I-have-to-do-something based choice in demoting you.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 3 times, last at 03/25/2009 5:01:58 pm
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - Ombudsman
03/25/2009 @ 05:38:08 PM
 Quote this comment
I don't really see how this is analogous to the Bush/Obama economic situation at all though. Maybe if you tell me how Obama's plans are so revolutionary that we won't have to worry about huge debt, I'll know how to respond.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8821 Posts
03/25/2009 @ 06:31:20 PM
 Quote this comment
What in the hell are you talking about? First off, it couldn't be more clear what I'm saying. Secondly, not only did I not call anything Obama is doing "revolutionary," I flat out stated that neither approach to running things fiscally (Which was more aimed at R vs D than Bush vs Obama, fyi) was right or wrong, or better/worse. Stop looking for insults that aren't there.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 03/25/2009 6:31:36 pm
2887.gifAlex - I was too weak to give in Too strong to lose
03/25/2009 @ 10:00:45 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:02:31 PM
Alex Wrote - Today @ 01:44:10 PM
Like Matt, said, this situation is exactly the reason that the government shouldn't have gotten this involved in the first place. And I agree with Jeremy that the Republicans who have been in power recently at least, have been just as "big government" as Democrats, just in different ways. Which is why I voted 3rd party.

And to the point of political grandstanding and jumping at the crack of the whip so to speak, I'm often reminded by the powers that be at my privately owned company that we have an advantage over our publicly traded competitors whose stock holders are only interested in short term financial reports. We can have a "bad" quarter or 2 or 3 if it's because we're positioning ourselves for the long term. Government owned/run corporations have that short-term performance issue times 1000 compared to publicly traded private sector businesses.


It's a catch 22. Big organizations require a big inefficient bureaucracy to get things done. Busting that organization up would speed up getting things done, but would increase the number of things that needs to be done. In a big company someone can just rule from on high, and that's that. He might not understand that his decision isn't the best thing for each individual branch, but each individual branch coming up with their own solution, with their own R&D, that doesn't necessarily jive with other branches, isn't necessarily the best either.

For example, the Eau Claire city planners have a better understanding of what is going on at a local level here, likewise the mayor of somewhere else in Wisconsin knows their needs more intimately than someone in the state legislator. It isn't necessarily best to leave every decision up to "as local as possible" because both Eau Claire and Somewhere Else will have to spend time and money (which, on some level, comes from the same pot) battling over the same issues that could be decided once at a higher level.


So in other words, the federal government should make all decisions so that no one else has to spend anytime thinking about anything, we'll all just do what we're told to when we're told to.

Anyway, my point about privately owned vs publicly traded vs government run is in no way related to the size of the company. The point is that with 24/7 media reports, instant jumping to conclusions, political mud slinging and constant campaigning, "the government" doesn't have the fortitude to make decisions for the long run. Both parties. If Dems do something now that even Repubs think is for the long term benefit, but someone somewhere can spin it as bad Dem policy then poo storms like this whole AIG bonus thing happen and everything goes to hell. If AIG was privately owned and run by competent people they could realize that the bonuses were best for the company and go ahead with them and that would be that.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - Refactor Mercilessly
03/25/2009 @ 10:10:28 PM
 Quote this comment
As far as Republicans telling Democrats how to run the show you know what they say: those who can't do, teach emoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - I don't need to get steady I know just how I feel
03/25/2009 @ 10:16:42 PM
 Quote this comment
At any rate, from the extremely small amount I know about the new budget, I'd say we already spent a crapload of money we don't have in the stimulus bill, so the Dems need to scale it back. We aren't going to spend our way out of debt. They need to find a way to do more with less, not just do more with more and hope that multiplies exponentially so that eventually the benefits start to outweigh the spending.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - I believe virtually everything I read.
03/25/2009 @ 10:55:07 PM
 Quote this comment
I agree, some major efficiency/whatever changes need to take place. As far as I'm concerned it isn't all the programs they want to fund that's the issue, it's that a dollar doesn't do nearly as much as it should.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - But let history remember, that as free men, we chose to make it so!
03/30/2009 @ 01:04:03 PM
 Quote this comment
This guy knows what I'm talking about

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=macgregor/090330&sportCat=ncb
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - 3610 Posts
07/28/2009 @ 08:13:42 PM
 Quote this comment
Yep

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20090728/ts_usnews/wherebailoutmoneygoestodie
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated
07/30/2009 @ 01:51:00 PM
 Quote this comment
Banks paid out more in bonuses than their net income, after receiving bailout money

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090730/bs_nm/us_bonuses_cuomo
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Alex screwed with this at 07/30/2009 1:51:26 pm
2887.gifAlex - 3610 Posts
10/21/2009 @ 08:15:19 PM
 Quote this comment
Administration plans big pay cuts at bailout firms

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_executive_pay
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - Since 1980!
10/22/2009 @ 07:55:30 AM
 Quote this comment
I'm up for a raise. Wonder if I'll get it?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated
10/22/2009 @ 03:12:34 PM
 Quote this comment
Only if you have a government job.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Leave a Comment of your very own
Name:
Comment:
Verify this code
Verify the Code in this box, or sign in, to post a comment.
click me!
There's an emoticon for how you feel!
click me!
My Files
Sign up, or login, to be able to upload files for Nutcan.com users to see.