• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate passes sweeping Wall Street reform

obvious Child said:
Wow. I didn't know you were trying to take the Ignorant King's throne.

First of all, TARP related pay caps are a good thing as it creates incentive NOT TO TAKE GOVERNMENT MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE. Frankly, IMO, if you ran your company into the ground, you should not even be paid. That said, taking over car companies does not equate to having some say on the board.

I guess you think the government is telling GM and Chrysler what models to make, what lines speeds they can run, what parts they can use, so and so forth.

It amuses me how people who ignorantly defended Bush now ignorantly attack Obama.
Click to expand...

Don't want to be labeled as ignorant here, but doesn't being a major shareholder of a company by definition me that you "have a say on the board"...?


.
 
Cole said:
Don't want to be labeled as ignorant here, but doesn't being a major shareholder of a company by definition me that you "have a say on the board"...?
.
Click to expand...

Not with preferred stock. Unless it's convertible and then you convert which the government has not. True, you could get a board seat by mandating that any loans taken give you a seat, but preferred stock itself does not grant that.
 
RightinNYC said:
This is true as applied to many of the recipients, but doesn't really work for those firms that were ordered to accept TARP money.
Click to expand...

Of course, but as we've seen, those who were ordered to take it came out like Kings. Effectively, it was an investment. Lower pay for higher returns later. I wonder what GS's ROI is on that. It's got to be massive considering their position now.
 
obvious Child said:
Wow. I didn't know you were trying to take the Ignorant King's throne.

First of all, TARP related pay caps are a good thing as it creates incentive NOT TO TAKE GOVERNMENT MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE. Frankly, IMO, if you ran your company into the ground, you should not even be paid. That said, taking over car companies does not equate to having some say on the board.

I guess you think the government is telling GM and Chrysler what models to make, what lines speeds they can run, what parts they can use, so and so forth.

It amuses me how people who ignorantly defended Bush now ignorantly attack Obama.
Click to expand...

The government put their CEO in place so yes the government is running the company.


A federal reserve board will now control what companies can do. Next you will say Obama will have no say who is on the board and Obama will have no influence on the board.

I say this is more control from a control freak in the White House.
 
obvious Child said:
Remember, anything ptif219 believes is true to him. Owning preferred stocks = managerial control.

LOL. There's a reason i'm not a Republican. I refuse to associate myself with the crazy lot of that party.



Yes.
Did GM and the Banks get told how to run their procedures? No.
Did GM and the Banks get told who they can and can't sell to? No.
Did GM and the Banks get their corporate structure redone by the government? No.

Tell me, does preferred stock give you voting rights? Let's see just how little you understand of the subject.
Click to expand...

So firing CEO'S and saying who replaces them is not taking control?
MG_107.gif
 
hazlnut said:
That may have happened in a movie or a dream, but we're all talking about REAL LIFE.
Click to expand...

Which was this, movie or dream?

General Motors Corp. Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner will step down after more than eight years running the largest U.S. automaker, people familiar with the situation said.

The Obama administration asked Wagoner, 56, to leave the company and he agreed, said an administration official who declined to be identified before the move was announced. The likely replacement, unless the government hires from outside the company, would be Chief Operating Officer Fritz Henderson, said John Casesa, managing partner at New York-based consulting firm Casesa Shapiro Group.
Click to expand...

General Motors Chief Rick Wagoner Said to Step Down (Update4) - Bloomberg.com


GM chief Wagoner ousted by Obama

The chief executive of struggling US car company General Motors has been ordered to step down by US President Barack Obama.

Rick Wagoner will leave immediately, a government official confirmed.
Click to expand...

BBC NEWS | Business | GM chief Wagoner ousted by Obama
 
ptif219 said:
The government put their CEO in place so yes the government is running the company.
Click to expand...

By that measure the stockholders who vote for the CEO are running the company. :confused:

Excuse me for a second while I go out side and fall down laughing at you.

A federal reserve board will now control what companies can do.
Click to expand...

Since when....?

So firing CEO'S and saying who replaces them is not taking control?
Click to expand...

Not in the aspect you are implying.
 
obvious Child said:
By that measure the stockholders who vote for the CEO are running the company. :confused:

Excuse me for a second while I go out side and fall down laughing at you.



Since when....?



Not in the aspect you are implying.
Click to expand...

No the government did this not stock holders
 
obvious Child said:
LOL. I see you understanding of corporate structure is on par with your understanding of quantum mechanics.

Please review corporate organization structure 101 before replying.
Click to expand...

Obama fired the CEO and put in who he wanted. Stock holders had no say
 
ptif219 said:
Obama fired the CEO and put in who he wanted. Stock holders had no say
Click to expand...

Do you know what "analogy" means?

Considering your extreme ignorance of this subject, I bet you don't know the size of the securities owned by the government of the firms involved do you?
 
obvious Child said:
Do you know what "analogy" means?

Considering your extreme ignorance of this subject, I bet you don't know the size of the securities owned by the government of the firms involved do you?
Click to expand...

Not the point Obama abused his power. The government should not be running private companies as they did here
 
Chappy said:
Another piece of landmark legislation ready to be reconciled and delivered to the White House for the president's signature. Obama's first two years in office have been decisive in addressing chronic failings of the American system. Not since LBJ have we seen a president affecting so many areas of our society. These are extraordinary political achievements.
Click to expand...

Chappy,

What specific provisions of the bill do you think address the "failings" of the "American system"?

And could you clarify what you mean by "failings" and "American system"?
 
digsbe said:
Thank goodness.

Now let's hope that the House can reconcile the bill so real work can be done! We need this reform badly.
Click to expand...

digsbe,

Specifically, what needs to be reformed, and what provisions of this bill address it?
 
digsbe said:
Much needs reform from CEO salaries to how loans are given.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with CEO salaries, and which CEOs are you talking about?

What's wrong with how loans are given?

The government isn't going to own the banks, they are just passing regulatory measures to help insure that we don't go through another financial crisis.
Click to expand...

You think the government can prevent "financial crises" from occurring?

The banks will still be run by CEOs and staff members, they just can't hurt the American people anymore with foolish business and having the rich CEOs as the priority.
Click to expand...

What "foolish business" are you referring to, specifically?
 
Chappy and digsbe, are you going to answer my questions?
 
ptif219 said:
Not the point Obama abused his power. The government should not be running private companies as they did here
Click to expand...

lol. Cute. You really have no idea what happened did you?

Tell me, did the government tell GM how to run its production line?
Did the government change their vacation rules?

You have this insane notion that government providing material help = takeover.
 
I'm going to assume, since neither Chappy nor digsbe answered my questions, that they don't actually know what problems exist or how this bill addresses them, and were merely touting something they didn't actually understand.

If they think I'm wrong, then I await their responses.
 
obvious Child said:
Not with preferred stock. Unless it's convertible and then you convert which the government has not. True, you could get a board seat by mandating that any loans taken give you a seat, but preferred stock itself does not grant that.
Click to expand...
That is very interesting in that I own preferred stock with voting rights and I did not have to convert to common to vote. Seems you may not be as bright as you try to lead everyone to believe concerning this subject. :roll:

.
 
obvious Child said:
lol. Cute. You really have no idea what happened did you?

Tell me, did the government tell GM how to run its production line?
Did the government change their vacation rules?

You have this insane notion that government providing material help = takeover.
Click to expand...

Did Obama get rid of the CEO and put his man in place?
 
ptif219 said:
The Bill gives government control of the economy and banks.
Click to expand...

Says the unsophisticated...

Seriously. It does nothing of the sort. So, I'm assuming that you picked that up from Beck or Rush?

Is it imperfect? Yes. But it does NOTHING of the sort that you claim.

The level of debate in this nation is now officially below the level of decent bumper stickers.
 
Another bill that has more to do with closing tax loopholes that it does anything else.

Has everyone enjoyed their mortgage interest deduction? I hope so, because you can kiss it good buy.
 
apdst said:
Another bill that has more to do with closing tax loopholes that it does anything else.

Has everyone enjoyed their mortgage interest deduction? I hope so, because you can kiss it good buy.
Click to expand...

Based upon what? The 2nd amendment will go away before the mortgage interest deduction.....

ok, wackos, that is a statement of how entrenched the mortgage interest deduction is, not an indictment the 2nd amendment
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom