18

3/25/2009 8:17:44 AM

AIG employees threatened...

Quote :

"-- If the bonuses don't stop, it will be very likely that every CEO @ AIG has a bulls-eye on their backs."

Quote :

"-- All the executives and their families should be executed with piano wire around their necks --- my greatest hope."

Quote :

" I don't hope that bad things happen to the recipients of those bonuses. I really hope that bad things happen to the children and grandchildren of them! Whatever hurts them the most!! "

Quote :

"-- All you motherf***ers should be shot. Thanks for f***ing up our economy then taking our money."

Way to go president Obama. Way to go Barney Franks. You could've prevented this, but it was more important to gin up that hatred to get the heat off of you, wasn't it?

3/25/2009 10:42:11 PM

why is that in this thread.....

As the reporters repeatedly reminded Obama last night, he was well behind the curve on making any inflammatory comments on the AIG business, and therefore was not one of the ones "ginning up hatred"


if you want to get mad at someone, how about the mentally unstable people making death threats to people they don't know or even understand exactly what they're angry about

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 10:50 PM. Reason : .]

3/25/2009 10:48:10 PM

^ I'm mad at moveon.org. Has anyone heard this filth? Vilify AIG Execs so Obama can make a power grab. I don't agree with the AIG bonuses, but then again I didn't agree with bailing them out in the first place either.

http://s3.moveon.org/audio/budget_mcintyre.mp3

[Edited on March 28, 2009 at 11:58 PM. Reason : Vilify]

3/28/2009 11:56:13 PM

Don't legitimize moveon.org.

They're like children. Once the adults stop giving them the attention they want they'll probably go away.

3/29/2009 12:01:48 AM

moveon.org is like gary birdsong except backwards

3/29/2009 12:21:40 AM

There's a whole lot of whining over speculative, theoretical, or hypothetical outcomes in this thread.

If people could actually reliably say that X economic policy would lead to Y results, they would be getting rich off of their predictive prowess rather than blathering about it.

3/29/2009 1:55:09 PM

GENERAL MOTORS! GENERAL MOTORS!

[Edited on March 29, 2009 at 10:14 PM. Reason : SOCIALISM! SOCIALISM!]

3/29/2009 10:08:29 PM

Not sure what to think about this one. Obama has branded the latest proposals from GM and Chrysler as "unacceptable", and yet the administration will provide them with more working capital while they continue to restructure. Apparently Chrysler has 30 days and GM 60.

Not sure what message this sends except more of the same from Obama: tough talk but zero accountability. When you look at all the bailouts, from AIG to the GSE's to the banks to defaulting homeowners to automakers, it's the same old song. Obama criticizes those who made bad decisions, and then gives them money because "the alternative would be disasterous", or something along those lines. The moral hazards are piling up.

3/30/2009 1:22:49 AM

he made that one guy quit

3/30/2009 1:23:39 AM

Yeah, that Rick Wagner CEO guy.

3/30/2009 5:50:36 AM

^^^

I don't think that's what's going to happen.

^,^^ that's going to play well for Obama, and if this is true:

Quote :

"President Barack Obama and his top advisers have determined that neither company is viable and that taxpayers will not spend untold billions more to keep the pair of automakers open forever. In a last-ditch effort, the administration gave each company a brief deadline to try one last time to convince Washington it is worth saving, said senior administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to more bluntly discuss the decision."

That's going to work for him too. I'm more concerned about what actually WILL happen as fallout from this, especially as the economy seems to have stabilized a little. I think optimism alone boosts consumer spending, which is what has been "good" recently for the economy, what will this news bring? So far, the stock market doesn't like it.

[Edited on March 30, 2009 at 10:33 AM. Reason : http://www.kansascity.com/444/story/1113305.html]

3/30/2009 10:33:07 AM

President Obama hasn't fired any bank CEOs. He hasn't called for the head of the UAW to step down. Seems like he has the least patient for the auto industry.

Geithner:
"The issue of excessive compensation extends beyond AIG and requires reform of the system of incentives and compensation in the financial sector."

Bernanke:
"If a federal agency had had such tools on September 16, they could have been used to put AIG into conservatorship or receivership, unwind it slowly, protect policyholders, and impose haircuts on creditors and counterparties as appropriate."

These statements show a prediliction for more control of the private sector. Do we really want the president replacing a company's board of directors in deciding executive pay, and who gets fired?

This bail-out fiasco has been a hellish experience. We have opened the door to a stronger unholy mixing of big gov't and big business.

3/30/2009 10:39:50 AM

Quote :

"These statements show a prediliction for more control of the private sector."

If you think this is merely a predilection, you have not been paying attention. It's obvious this is the way the Obama admin wants things to be, and they feel they have the right to use congress to do this in accordance with article I section 8 of the constitution.


[Edited on March 30, 2009 at 10:47 AM. Reason : ]

3/30/2009 10:45:52 AM

I haven't heard any Obama people refer to any authority in the Constitution for any of their dealings. Can you guess why?

Great Op-Ed today from our man Mark Steyn:

Quote :

"Writing in the Chicago Tribune last week, President Obama fell back on one of his favorite rhetorical tics: “But I also know,” he wrote, “that we need not choose between a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism and an oppressive government-run economy. That is a false choice that will not serve our people or any people.” Really? For the moment, it’s a “false choice” mainly in the sense that he’s not offering it: “a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism” is not on the menu, which leaves “an oppressive government-run economy” as pretty much the only game in town. "

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YjBlNjQyNzYzNzk2YjBhNjg4NDM2Y2I5MjJkMDYzNjQ=

3/30/2009 11:16:54 AM

^ Umm... Geithner was asked by Michelle Bachman, and he responded his authority came from the constitution.

[Edited on March 30, 2009 at 11:38 AM. Reason : ]

3/30/2009 11:23:08 AM

that michelle bachmann video is one of the dumbest lines of questioning i've ever seen from our congress about an actual important issue.

here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQRmiWuwe2Y

3/30/2009 11:33:46 AM

^ Bachmann is batshit insane. She represents exactly why democracy can fail.

3/30/2009 11:36:57 AM

she's nuts anyway - she was the one during the election who thought it would be a good idea to start a full-scale investigation on "anti-american" people in the Congress and press. She asked for that with no sense of irony, or history.

those questions would have been better directed at herself or her fellow members of congress. if I was Secretary Geithner, i would have lost my cool - "LOOK, you dumb bitch - you gave us the authority. The fact that you gave it to us makes it legal, since you make the fucking laws. If the law is unconstitutional, then that rests on your head and you can take it up with the Supreme Court"

3/30/2009 12:02:17 PM

3/30/2009 12:22:20 PM

Obama passing new law to allow searching of PC's, Laptops, and media devices
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yPmtQDWZ1s

I hope that this is just speculation and that this really isn't happening.

3/30/2009 9:33:29 PM

check out that guys other sweet videos

http://www.youtube.com/user/Searchingformarkb2

3/30/2009 9:42:41 PM

"Hey everyone, Barry Obama here- the farmer’s neighbor and the city-folks friend … here for Barry Obama Buick-Pontiac-GMC. I’ve fired the CEO and everything has got to go!

No credit? No problem. I will do whatever it takes to put you into a new Yukon. We’ve got Biden balloons for the kids and telepromptor bobble-heads for anyone who comes on down and test drives a Sierra. I’m taking over the industry, and directing congress to declare war on high prices!

Come join us for “Presidential Pardon Daze” You take any Buick off my lot and you get one free presidential pardon. That’s right folks. Use it for yourself, give it as a gift. Total immunity sure comes in handy!

And remember if your Barry Obama Buick-Pontiac or GMC car or truck breaks down, you are protected by the full faith and credit of the whole United States…that’s every State…even the ones in the middle.

Look at this shiny new 2009 G5…what a beauty. 5 Speed manual, Leather-wrapped steering wheel, Airbags, Sunroof and Stabil-Trac. 5 Star safety rating and the best warranty in the country…. All for just Nineteen, five hundred! And cause I’m all about Hope and Change, I’m gonna throw in one free year of ONSTAR.

So come on down this weekend, enjoy a presidential Seal donut, kick a few tires, try your luck at the “Timmy Geithner Dunk Tank” Hit the bullseye, Timmy takes dunk and I’ll let you pick anyone you want for a complete IRS audit!

That’s Barry Obama Buick-Pontiac-GMC. The farmer’s neighbor and the city-folk’s friend!"

[Edited on March 30, 2009 at 9:56 PM. Reason : .]

3/30/2009 9:55:35 PM

you're a fuckin' kook

3/30/2009 9:58:14 PM

^ That may well be, but you have to admit, the president of the us asking the CEO of any private business to resign, and using tax payer money to influence that decision is the antithesis of what this country was founded on.

3/30/2009 10:08:14 PM

^^^ Barry Obama the used car salesman. LoL

^ I think they axed some people from Freddie Mac and Fanny May when they took those businesses over too.

[Edited on March 30, 2009 at 10:12 PM. Reason : -]

3/30/2009 10:10:09 PM

^ Note the term "private business". Freddie and Fannie were never private businesses in any true sense.

3/30/2009 10:31:34 PM

Quote :

"^ That may well be, but you have to admit, the president of the us asking the CEO of any private business to resign, and using tax payer money to influence that decision is the antithesis of what this country was founded on. "

GM could have said "we don't want the bailout money" and clung to their failed leadership, if they so chose.

When Chrysler was bailed out in 1979, their Board Chairman stepped down too, giving Iaccocca the reins, who was able to turn the company around.

3/30/2009 10:44:40 PM

i think earthdogg is well on his way to becoming the most annoying sb poster.

3/30/2009 11:13:05 PM

^^ They could have indeed. And the government could also not be passing out tax payer money like so much candy at a parade. But since neither one of them are true, I'm deeply disturbed at the idea of the president of the US using tax payer money to bribe a CEO into resignation. Especially when it seems like a good part of his plan is to have them go through the same bankruptcy procedures they would have gone through anyway if we weren't propping them up.

3/31/2009 7:40:28 AM

Quote :

"the farmer’s neighbor "

you do know that the GOP has been the party a long time champion of farm subsidies that have kept certain crops growing long after
"free market" pressure would have shut bubba down. It's cool though i know you need to fabricate reasons to hate the president since
there is not a "-R" next to his name.

Quote :

"Barry Obama Buick-Pontiac or GMC"

Take for a moment to picture your stereotypical GMC truck driving red neck or to imagine your little souther christian grandma getting
in her Buick to attend church. LISTEN HERE FUCKSTICK I DON'T AGREE WITH OBAMA's DECISIONS REGARDING THESE COMPANIES BUT WE ALL KNOW
DON'T TRY TO DENY IT THAT BUSH (if still in office) OR ANY OTHER REPUBLICAN CANDIDIATE WOULD BE DOING THE EXACT SAME SHIT IF NOT MORE
to save their USA #1 flag waving automobile manufacturers. After all we know how paranoid republicans are about the axis of evil
thus we better have our car guys running good in case WW3 breaks out (kinda the same reason why the GOP is a champion of farm subsidies).
Inaction on the part of the republicans would piss off a lot of their white blue-collar voting base to which either works for one of these companies
including suppliers or only drives Real American cars. Surely billy bob would be pretty upset if he had to buy a Toyota
instead of a F150 SuperDuty if McCain let Ford tank cause he only buys Amurican autos.

Quote :

"They could have indeed. And the government could also not be passing out tax payer money like so much candy at a parade. But since neither one of them are true, I'm deeply disturbed at the idea of the president of the US using tax payer money to bribe a CEO into resignation."

So we were outraged that we gave AIG bailout money while keeping the same leadership who used tax-payer money to go to "disney world"...

A month later we are outraged b.c we stipulate that GM must go in a "new" direction with a new CEO if they are to get bailout
emergency loans to prevent insolvency money. Honestly I am surprised the gov't did not request the stock holders replace more
of the C-level executive staff.

The only way some of you would be happy would be if Obama decides use executive powers to declare his election fradulent and give
the presidency to the true winners letting McPalin take office. (even if unconstitutional b.c we don't care about this anyway)

3/31/2009 8:44:06 AM

Quote :

"But since neither one of them are true, I'm deeply disturbed at the idea of the president of the US using tax payer money to bribe a CEO into resignation. Especially when it seems like a good part of his plan is to have them go through the same bankruptcy procedures they would have gone through anyway if we weren't propping them up."

Look...GM failed. No one at the table from the unions to the bondholders want to see Chapter 11. The lender of last resort said, ok, we'll play ball, but you have to remove your CEO (btw, I think this is a terrible idea at this point in the game). Having no other lenders that want to give them aid, they do the only thing they can do, which is play by the new rules.

What's wrong? You like the free market when it behaves in ways you approve up, but then start crying "antithesis of blah blah blah" when it doesn't?

3/31/2009 8:47:43 AM

Obama tuk err CEO's

3/31/2009 9:52:15 AM

Quote :

"So we were outraged that we gave AIG bailout money while keeping the same leadership who used tax-payer money to go to "disney world"..."

You clearly haven't been paying attention. If you had you would note that my problem is, and has been since this whole mess started, that we are using tax payer money to prop up failed companies that should be allowed to go bankrupt. Bailing them out and keeping the CEOs or bailing them out and firing the CEOs its the same damn thing. We're wasting tax payer money on failed businesses that should be eliminated.

Quote :

"A month later we are outraged b.c we stipulate that GM must go in a "new" direction with a new CEO if they are to get bailout emergency loans to prevent insolvency money. Honestly I am surprised the gov't did not request the stock holders replace more of the C-level executive staff."

I'm outraged more because in addition to using tax payer money to prop up failed companies (an outrageous action to begin with) we've decided since as long as we're ignoring the principles of capitalism and the constitution, that we might as well use the tax payer money as bribes to get the companies to fire their CEOs too.

Quote :

"Look...GM failed. No one at the table from the unions to the bondholders want to see Chapter 11. The lender of last resort said, ok, we'll play ball, but you have to remove your CEO (btw, I think this is a terrible idea at this point in the game). Having no other lenders that want to give them aid, they do the only thing they can do, which is play by the new rules. What's wrong? You like the free market when it behaves in ways you approve up, but then start crying "antithesis of blah blah blah" when it doesn't?"

Because the "lender of last resort" is using TAX PAYER MONEY to bribe a company into behaving the way they want. If this was the terms from wells fargo or the first national bank of uzbekistan I wouldn't give a shit. But it's not, it's tax payer money being used to bail out and manipulate a company. That is plain wrong.

How would we like it if the government decided that in order to provide federal aid to NC next hurricane, we had to get rid of our rightfully elected governor? Or if Bush decided that Katrina money would only be forthcoming once Nagin was out an a Republican elected, or perhaps until Haliburton was awarded the rebuilding contract?

And for not wanting to see Chapter 11, that is essentially what Obama's plan amounts to, its just going to cost the tax payer a shit load of money so that we don't have to call it that.

3/31/2009 12:52:43 PM

Quote :

"How would we like it if the government decided that in order to provide federal aid to NC next hurricane, we had to get rid of our rightfully elected governor? Or if Bush decided that Katrina money would only be forthcoming once Nagin was out an a Republican elected, or perhaps until Haliburton was awarded the rebuilding contract? "

Simply isn't the same. You're comparing a private entity with unions and bondholders that would very much like to keep their current investment to a State. It's so retarded I can't believe I am replying to it, however I am not surprised, the root of your libertarian politics doesn't seem to come so much from their ideals, but rather a real latent fear that we are on a 89 degree slippery slope to a police state before the Obama administration is up.

3/31/2009 1:22:05 PM

haha, that was funny earthdogg.

You forgot to add, if you bring in yorur neighbor who makes more than you to the lot, ill make your neighbor pay your first months payment.

3/31/2009 1:49:33 PM

^^ You're right, it isn't the same, at least with those examples, we'd be using tax payer money on rebuilding part of the country rather than insuring people's bad investments. Think about this, we're using tax payer money not only to prop up a dead company, one that should have gone out of business years ago, but we're also using it to bribe the CEO and we're doing it all so that the bondholders don't lose their investment and so that unions don't have to come face to face with the reality of the situation they helped create. I don't give a crap what the bondholders and the unions WANT. If they want GM to survive, than they can put up their own money for it, otherwise, tough shit.

The fact that you see nothing at all wrong with this is precisely why I and others are very much justifiably afraid that we are slipping quickly away from a strong capitalist economy. It's not a police state I fear, it's an overly large state interfering with peoples lives and livelihoods making things worse for all.

And to reiterate, from day one I have decried this wasteful abuse of tax payer money, for all of the businesses. But I suppose you're too wrapped up in looking for Neo-Con Blind Obama™ to see that I have been completely consistent on this, even before Lord Hope and Change was coronated.

[Edited on March 31, 2009 at 3:33 PM. Reason : asdf]

3/31/2009 3:28:46 PM

GM simply won't get the concessions they need from UAW and bondholders through threats of bankruptcy. The past 6 months have demonstrated as much. Now it's time to pull the trigger and start a fast-track, controlled bankruptcy proceeding with financing and guarantees provided by the government. We can do it now, in 60 days, or whenever the government decides to pull the plug. But for GM to become viable again, they need a court-supervised process to shed contracts and debt.

Nice work Gettelfinger, you put the nail in the coffin by refusing to budge on key issues over the past few years. Wagoner had to go, now it's time for Gettelfinger to get the pink slip.

[Edited on March 31, 2009 at 4:32 PM. Reason : 2]

3/31/2009 4:30:20 PM

Just to clarify, Obama has stated countless times that all the tax revenue collected in a cap and trade scheme will be given back to the citizens to offset increased energy bills, which were mandated by the utility companies b/c of their new tax, I mean carbon trading scheme with the government.

Soo, money ---> gov't ----> people ----> utility companies ---> gov't. Fantastic!

though I'm sure Obama will "redistribute" that income to the populace as he sees fit.

4/1/2009 12:42:14 PM

obama tuk err monies

4/1/2009 12:45:20 PM

that's never been funny

4/1/2009 1:13:34 PM

who wants to tell me why I should be happy that Obama's nominee for State Dept Legal Advisor is someone with strong transnationalist beliefs who thinks some set of international laws should supercede our own constitution. He's also been quoted as saying Sharia law could apply to disputes in US courts.

Wow, I love this guy!

4/1/2009 1:37:18 PM

Quote :

"He's also been quoted as saying Sharia law could apply to disputes in US courts."

i'd like to see this quote.

4/1/2009 1:43:38 PM

well, it was supposedly said at a speech given to the Yale Club of Greenwich in 2007. I can't find the exactly quote atm though

[Edited on April 1, 2009 at 1:59 PM. Reason : k]

4/1/2009 1:57:12 PM

that's what i thought.

4/1/2009 2:01:16 PM

Quote :

"A March 21, 2007, blog posting on National Review's Web site shows a letter written by New York attorney Steven J. Stein to Koh, challenging Koh for supposedly saying during a speech to the Yale Club of Greenwich that year that Islamic law could apply to disputes in U.S. courts. "In your discussion of 'global law' I recall at least one favorable reference to 'Sharia,' among other foreign laws that could, in an appropriate instance (according to you) govern a controversy in a federal or state court in the U.S.," Stein wrote in his letter addressed to Koh. Cherlin said Stein's version of events is "not accurate," and that the host of the event in question disputed the account. Stein could not be reached for comment."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/31/obamas-appointment-koh-state-department-legal-adviser-stirs-controversy/

4/1/2009 2:05:57 PM

your point?

who knows if this was said or in what context?

4/1/2009 2:08:44 PM

Quote :

"that's what i thought."

4/1/2009 2:13:39 PM

huh?

hey look someone made an unsubstantiated claim whose veracity has been challenged by others! i guess i should post it as fact!

4/1/2009 2:17:54 PM

fine, take off the weaker point. The first point is much more worrisome anyway. Now get to work trying to debunk that...

4/1/2009 2:24:51 PM