Really Hate to Post this DP

[toppop52]

Don87, first things first. STOP BEING A CONDESCENDING SOB! Good, now we can talk like normal people.
Before you assume, know what assuming make can you look like. I'm a conservative, don't like bailouts, etc..., My dad was a union man, worked for Ford until he died at the Norfolk assy. Plant.
Blaming GM for poor management is correct, but blaming them for your mother's poor financial decision is pure poo poo, though. Everyone that buys stock is rolling the dice, snake eyes are as likely as 7.
Unions helped break these companies and the greed of the companies to keep building what was selling and avoid standing on principle contributed to the downfall. But to give your business to an Asian company that took advantage of our government's lack of enforcement of trade laws that allowed them to dump both cars and steel on our market at a loss with support of their own government in order to build market share and destroy our steel industry and bring serious damage to our manufacturing base, well that's just criminal!
So before you anoint yourself Mr. High And Mighty, learn a little history.

 

[Martian]

Don87, first things first. STOP BEING A CONDESCENDING SOB! Good, now we can talk like normal people.
Before you assume, know what assuming make can you look like. I'm a conservative, don't like bailouts, etc..., My dad was a union man, worked for Ford until he died at the Norfolk assy. Plant.
Blaming GM for poor management is correct, but blaming them for your mother's poor financial decision is pure poo poo, though. Everyone that buys stock is rolling the dice, snake eyes are as likely as 7.
Unions helped break these companies and the greed of the companies to keep building what was selling and avoid standing on principle contributed to the downfall. But to give your business to an Asian company that took advantage of our government's lack of enforcement of trade laws that allowed them to dump both cars and steel on our market at a loss with support of their own government in order to build market share and destroy our steel industry and bring serious damage to our manufacturing base, well that's just criminal!
So before you anoint yourself Mr. High And Mighty, learn a little history.

Whoa here. Never recalled blaming my mom poor financial decisions for any of this, my mom had looked at the way gm was going and actually reinvested the stock given to her by the company elsewhere. Never recalled saying the unions where a bad thing. Never recalled saying that I'd agreed with the bail out and the path it took gm. Second, speaking of history, one of the original unionizations occurred at one of Andrew Carnegie's steel mills in Pennsylvania. Before he was sure to not hire union workers and make them sign that they wouldnt. He bought a mill that was mainly unionized. Tried to make cuts that didn't appease the people. They striked, Carnegie locked them out, started to rebel so he sent a private militia where they were the militia suffered its first defeat in history. All seemed good for the unions until the government told them they had no power. The government took the rights out of the people's hands. If they had let private industry run its course we could have peaceful negotiation. But now we have an nba lockout over of we get 1 million or 1.2 million. I feel unions serve their place. I don't feel that government needs to mico manage them as they have.

 

[yooper1]

Whoa here. Never recalled blaming my mom poor financial decisions for any of this, my mom had looked at the way gm was going and actually reinvested the stock given to her by the company elsewhere. Never recalled saying the unions where a bad thing. Never recalled saying that I'd agreed with the bail out and the path it took gm. Second, speaking of history, one of the original unionizations occurred at one of Andrew Carnegie's steel mills in Pennsylvania. Before he was sure to not hire union workers and make them sign that they wouldnt. He bought a mill that was mainly unionized. Tried to make cuts that didn't appease the people. They striked, Carnegie locked them out, started to rebel so he sent a private militia where they were the militia suffered its first defeat in history. All seemed good for the unions until the government told them they had no power. The government took the rights out of the people's hands. If they had let private industry run its course we could have peaceful negotiation. But now we have an nba lockout over of we get 1 million or 1.2 million. I feel unions serve their place. I don't feel that government needs to mico manage them as they have.

His reply was to Don87, not you

 

[Don87]

Don87, first things first. STOP BEING A CONDESCENDING SOB! Good, now we can talk like normal people.
Before you assume, know what assuming make can you look like. I'm a conservative, don't like bailouts, etc..., My dad was a union man, worked for Ford until he died at the Norfolk assy. Plant.
Blaming GM for poor management is correct, but blaming them for your mother's poor financial decision is pure poo poo, though. Everyone that buys stock is rolling the dice, snake eyes are as likely as 7.
Unions helped break these companies and the greed of the companies to keep building what was selling and avoid standing on principle contributed to the downfall. But to give your business to an Asian company that took advantage of our government's lack of enforcement of trade laws that allowed them to dump both cars and steel on our market at a loss with support of their own government in order to build market share and destroy our steel industry and bring serious damage to our manufacturing base, well that's just criminal!
So before you anoint yourself Mr. High And Mighty, learn a little history.

You've apparently confused my post with several others on here, so until you can carry on a cohesive conversation, there isn't anything anyone can do for you.

May help you to actually quote the post you are referring to in the future so you can keep yourself focused.

With the way you got all confused, typing this responce, I can understand your line of non-thinking.

 

[toppop52]

Sorry for the confusion, I was reading it on my iPhone while in a dark room without my glasses, however, when the info is assigned to the correct parties, I stand by what I said.

Unions helped break these companies and the greed of the companies to keep building what was selling and avoid standing on principle contributed to the downfall. But to give your business to an Asian company that took advantage of our government's lack of enforcement of trade laws that allowed them to dump both cars and steel on our market at a loss with support of their own government in order to build market share and destroy our steel industry and bring serious damage to our manufacturing base, well that's just criminal!

 

[jeffsw6]

Please. Don't hold back with your opinion or insight.

I joined this forum to talk about trucks and tools so I am trying to stick to that, but ..

My problem is not gm or the union but this government that is trying to do way to much and failing at everything where if it where in the hands of the people they could bargain, they bailout would've either never happened or a bank would've taken the risk and won big.

Banks took too much risk and then were forced to pull back lending too suddenly for our economy to keep working. That is why even healthy businesses could not borrow money in 2008. If not for government intervention, I think it is likely that there would be no Chevrolet trucks coming off the line now. If banks wanted to take on the risk they had plenty of opportunity to do so, wouldn't you agree?

In my opinion, our economic problems have been created by one basic fact: the more risk a bank can take, the more money it has the potential to earn; but since banks are now able to risk depositors' money (that's you and me and our normal accounts, not just wealthy investors with a zillion dollars in the bank) if a bank risks too much and goes over the edge, depositors can be wiped out (if not for the FDIC and other similar programs, and extraordinary intervention by the Fed.)

If you were a bank, you would save as little money as possible "just in case," because every dollar you don't invest in something that earns you more money is a dollar that isn't working. They don't think of it as a cushion, they think of it as idle dollars they should be lending out to whoever wants to pay them interest. So if you had $10k in case your business slowed down, you needed to repair some equipment, you got injured, etc. that would be $10k you could otherwise spend on tools, equipment, whatever, to grow your business, whether your business is landscaping, a farm, trucking, or whatever.

A bank can't easily just decide to be more conservative than its peers, having a bigger cushion and taking on slightly less risk, because of two factors. First, that bank then earns less money, pays out less interest to depositors (and has less deposits) and has its investors screaming for new management. Second, even if one bank takes on less risk, macro-economic, systemic risk built up by companies like Countrywide, AIG, GMAC, etc. harmed the whole system to such an extent that even the more conservative banks were in trouble once things started to slow down even a little.

As long as the only way to run a bank is to take the maximum risk possible, well, banks are going to do that. Depositors are always going to want to put their money into the interest-bearing accounts that pay the most interest, so the deposits will naturally always go toward the banks that take on more risk.

This is actually why it is illegal to pay interest on regular checking accounts, except as you may know, in the 90s, banks all started getting around that law by making checking accounts into different sub-accounts for regulatory purposes (your money in your checking is not really all in one account if you write more than 6 checks in a month) and government regulations didn't move to stop it because regulating banks is somehow unpopular in congress.

Now to understand just how much systemic risk there is, even the most conservative banks took a hit when banks started failing. How? The FDIC had to spend billions upon billions to replace lost depositors' money when banks started going under. The FDIC didn't actually have enough money to do that. How did they get it? They raised the rates that all banks pay for FDIC protection of depositors' accounts and made all banks pay in advance the raised rate going forward several years. Basically, they said, okay, your whole banking industry is screwed up, and even if your bank made all the safe bets, you still have to pay for the risks everyone else took.

Please. Don't hold back with your opinion or insight.

So I really do not mean to go off ranting about how the banking system is fatally flawed and our government is doing a terrible job of regulating it, I meant to point out that this is a very complex issue that is larger than GM.

The more I learn the more I learn that I don't know.

I do know that my next truck will be whatever truck suits my needs for a price I can afford. This is most likely GM or Ford but if Toyota had a good product for my needs I would certainly consider them. I think Nissan is a really good value in cargo vans right now, for example; and if I was going to buy a brand new cargo van it would probably be that one, not an E350 or the Chevy.

Again just my $0.02.

 

[Don87]

Sorry for the confusion, I was reading it on my iPhone while in a dark room without my glasses, however, when the info is assigned to the correct parties, I stand by what I said.

And you still only know half of what you think you know.

I don't care if your entire family worked for Ford, GM or Chrysler. It has zero bearing on the discussion at hand, or on the topic as a whole.

I started a business once, it didn't take off..........I got no government bailout.

GM was bailed out by us taxpayers, then the stock was recently sold for a major loss.......Another taxpayer bailout for a failed business model.

This is twice I've had to type this because of your inability to understand what is typed.

I suggest that you find some light, get your glasses..........and get a device that you are capable of using so you can correctly respond to posts.

If you want to look at 1920's history......be my guest......as it has no bearing in 2011. Catch up with the rest of the world.

 

[Don87]

I joined this forum to talk about trucks and tools so I am trying to stick to that, but ..


Banks took too much risk and then were forced to pull back lending too suddenly for our economy to keep working. That is why even healthy businesses could not borrow money in 2008. If not for government intervention, I think it is likely that there would be no Chevrolet trucks coming off the line now. If banks wanted to take on the risk they had plenty of opportunity to do so, wouldn't you agree?

In my opinion, our economic problems have been created by one basic fact: the more risk a bank can take, the more money it has the potential to earn; but since banks are now able to risk depositors' money (that's you and me and our normal accounts, not just wealthy investors with a zillion dollars in the bank) if a bank risks too much and goes over the edge, depositors can be wiped out (if not for the FDIC and other similar programs, and extraordinary intervention by the Fed.)

If you were a bank, you would save as little money as possible "just in case," because every dollar you don't invest in something that earns you more money is a dollar that isn't working. They don't think of it as a cushion, they think of it as idle dollars they should be lending out to whoever wants to pay them interest. So if you had $10k in case your business slowed down, you needed to repair some equipment, you got injured, etc. that would be $10k you could otherwise spend on tools, equipment, whatever, to grow your business, whether your business is landscaping, a farm, trucking, or whatever.

A bank can't easily just decide to be more conservative than its peers, having a bigger cushion and taking on slightly less risk, because of two factors. First, that bank then earns less money, pays out less interest to depositors (and has less deposits) and has its investors screaming for new management. Second, even if one bank takes on less risk, macro-economic, systemic risk built up by companies like Countrywide, AIG, GMAC, etc. harmed the whole system to such an extent that even the more conservative banks were in trouble once things started to slow down even a little.

As long as the only way to run a bank is to take the maximum risk possible, well, banks are going to do that. Depositors are always going to want to put their money into the interest-bearing accounts that pay the most interest, so the deposits will naturally always go toward the banks that take on more risk.

This is actually why it is illegal to pay interest on regular checking accounts, except as you may know, in the 90s, banks all started getting around that law by making checking accounts into different sub-accounts for regulatory purposes (your money in your checking is not really all in one account if you write more than 6 checks in a month) and government regulations didn't move to stop it because regulating banks is somehow unpopular in congress.

Now to understand just how much systemic risk there is, even the most conservative banks took a hit when banks started failing. How? The FDIC had to spend billions upon billions to replace lost depositors' money when banks started going under. The FDIC didn't actually have enough money to do that. How did they get it? They raised the rates that all banks pay for FDIC protection of depositors' accounts and made all banks pay in advance the raised rate going forward several years. Basically, they said, okay, your whole banking industry is screwed up, and even if your bank made all the safe bets, you still have to pay for the risks everyone else took.


So I really do not mean to go off ranting about how the banking system is fatally flawed and our government is doing a terrible job of regulating it, I meant to point out that this is a very complex issue that is larger than GM.

The more I learn the more I learn that I don't know.

I do know that my next truck will be whatever truck suits my needs for a price I can afford. This is most likely GM or Ford but if Toyota had a good product for my needs I would certainly consider them. I think Nissan is a really good value in cargo vans right now, for example; and if I was going to buy a brand new cargo van it would probably be that one, not an E350 or the Chevy.

Again just my $0.02.

You forgot to add in the 'Community Redevelopement Act', or maybe you are unaware of it.(I would bet on the latter)

Most people are totally unaware of it, and are also unaware that the Community Redevelopement Act is what caused the financial melt down in our country.

The "risk taking" you speak of was forced on the banking institution as a whole, by the government, under the Community Redevelopement Act.

 

[timswi]

You forgot to add in the 'Community Redevelopement Act', or maybe you are unaware of it.(I would bet on the latter)

Most people are totally unaware of it, and are also unaware that the Community Redevelopement Act is what caused the financial melt down in our country.

The "risk taking" you speak of was forced on the banking institution as a whole, by the government, under the Community Redevelopement Act.

Don, I'd probably replace the word forced with heavily encouraged...CRA was a factor, but the ability for a few bad actors to dump their known risk on an unregulated and non-understood CDO/MBS etc market caused most of this.

The banks that balance-sheeted their loans and didn't securitize everything where much more cautious of their risk. These institutions escaped the crisis mostly unscathed. There were many more of the good actors than the bad ones...Unfortunately, the few bad ones were exponential in size.

 

[two_bit_score]

You forgot to add in the 'Community Redevelopement Act', or maybe you are unaware of it.(I would bet on the latter)

Most people are totally unaware of it, and are also unaware that the Community Redevelopement Act is what caused the financial melt down in our country.

The "risk taking" you speak of was forced on the banking institution as a whole, by the government, under the Community Redevelopement Act.

>>>The same Federal banking agencies that are responsible for supervising depository institutions are also the agencies that conduct examinations for CRA compliance.[10] These agencies are the Federal Reserve System (FRB), the FDIC, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS). In 1981, to help achieve the goals of the CRA, each of the Federal Reserve banks established a Community Affairs Office to work with banking institutions and the public in identifying credit needs within the community and ways to address those needs.[6]<<<

Signed into law by President Jimmy Carter October 1977. Should be repealed immediately.

 

[toppop52]

And you still only know half of what you think you know.

I don't care if your entire family worked for Ford, GM or Chrysler. It has zero bearing on the discussion at hand, or on the topic as a whole.

I started a business once, it didn't take off..........I got no government bailout.

GM was bailed out by us taxpayers, then the stock was recently sold for a major loss.......Another taxpayer bailout for a failed business model.

This is twice I've had to type this because of your inability to understand what is typed.

I suggest that you find some light, get your glasses..........and get a device that you are capable of using so you can correctly respond to posts.

If you want to look at 1920's history......be my guest......as it has no bearing in 2011. Catch up with the rest of the world.

Being an arrogant a$# isn't that appealing generally, but my goodness it fits so well on a narrcissist, such as yourelf. Who exactly appointed you king know it all, anyway? Oh nobody, because only you could do that as the Omnipotent.
I know this will come as a shock to you, it always to does to guys like you, but you really are unlikely the brightest human to ever live. I know, I know, you're certain you are.....
Anyway, I stand by what I said. The bailouts were not how it should go down, however, the events leading to it were not all the fault of the unions or poor management, though they get their dues. Illegal trade practices played a major roll, as did other factors.

 

[rasimmo]

I can't believe I read all this, and really can't believe I am posting in it. I just had to thank everyone for the knowledge I have gotten from this. It was only really two things.

1. Don87 knows everything.:thumbsup:
2. The rest of yall are idiots.:confused2:

Just in case there may be some confusion, I am kidding.

 

[CinderSchnauzer]

I can't believe I read all this, and really can't believe I am posting in it. I just had to thank everyone for the knowledge I have gotten from this. It was only really two things.

1. Don87 knows everything.:thumbsup:
2. The rest of yall are idiots.:confused2:

Just in case there may be some confusion, I am kidding.

Which one are you kidding about? #1? #2?

it was just a matter of time before things went downhill...............

 

[Don87]

Don, I'd probably replace the word forced with heavily encouraged...CRA was a factor, but the ability for a few bad actors to dump their known risk on an unregulated and non-understood CDO/MBS etc market caused most of this.

The banks that balance-sheeted their loans and didn't securitize everything where much more cautious of their risk. These institutions escaped the crisis mostly unscathed. There were many more of the good actors than the bad ones...Unfortunately, the few bad ones were exponential in size.

Wrong answer. Study up a bit, then you will understand the 'force' that was involved.

 

[Don87]

>>>The same Federal banking agencies that are responsible for supervising depository institutions are also the agencies that conduct examinations for CRA compliance.[10] These agencies are the Federal Reserve System (FRB), the FDIC, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS). In 1981, to help achieve the goals of the CRA, each of the Federal Reserve banks established a Community Affairs Office to work with banking institutions and the public in identifying credit needs within the community and ways to address those needs.[6]<<<

Signed into law by President Jimmy Carter October 1977. Should be repealed immediately.

You are sooooooooo right, and most don't know this.

They also don't know that the program was put on steroids by the Clinton administration, nor do they know that G.W. Bush tried 7 times to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac(because he saw what was coming). Every attempt was blocked by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who said the housing sector was fine.

I wonder how many on here know that Freddy Mac has just hit the government up for another 1.2 billion dollar bailout??? More taxpayer dollars down the toilet.

 

[Don87]

Being an arrogant a$# isn't that appealing generally, but my goodness it fits so well on a narrcissist, such as yourelf. Who exactly appointed you king know it all, anyway? Oh nobody, because only you could do that as the Omnipotent.
I know this will come as a shock to you, it always to does to guys like you, but you really are unlikely the brightest human to ever live. I know, I know, you're certain you are.....
Anyway, I stand by what I said. The bailouts were not how it should go down, however, the events leading to it were not all the fault of the unions or poor management, though they get their dues. Illegal trade practices played a major roll, as did other factors.

I'm not intending to sound arrogant.

As I stated, most people don't understand what actually happened, that could be the fault of your news sources, or inability to read between the lines then investigate yourself.

I've put out the facts, and a few others have also. You can investigate the stuff yourself, and gain knowledge. Or you can be like the Wall Street protestors and blame all the wrong people for what has happened, and what will happen in the future.

Elections have consequences..............Think long and hard about that.

 

[Don87]

I can't believe I read all this, and really can't believe I am posting in it. I just had to thank everyone for the knowledge I have gotten from this. It was only really two things.

1. Don87 knows everything.:thumbsup:
2. The rest of yall are idiots.:confused2:

Just in case there may be some confusion, I am kidding.

Don definitely doesn't know everything, but, Don has investigated certain things and does have knowledge about certain subjects.

You also can learn a few things............all ya gotta do is search for the truth.

I do want to say that I consider no one an idiot...............just uninformed.

 

[toppop52]

Do you really believe only you are aware of the Bush Administration trying to stop the loans to people who couldn't pay them back, or that the liberals, Like Frank were responsible for the biggest part of the housing loan mess? I hope you aren't thinking just because we don't all see the GM situation as black and white that we are all some kind of left wingers. You assume waaaaay too much. Lighten up, pay attention and recognize what's being said in total, not just "Bailout bad all liberals, therefore all die."
Know what I mean Vern?

 

[whodat526]

Do you really believe only you are aware of the Bush Administration trying to stop the loans to people who couldn't pay them back, or that the liberals, Like Frank were responsible for the biggest part of the housing loan mess? I hope you aren't thinking just because we don't all see the GM situation as black and white that we are all some kind of left wingers. You assume waaaaay too much. Lighten up, pay attention and recognize what's being said in total, not just "Bailout bad all liberals, therefore all die."
Know what I mean Vern?

and that bush and chenny was the ones to put us in to wars that has wasted trillions of dollars with no cause

 

[Martian]

and that bush and chenny was the ones to put us in to wars that has wasted trillions of dollars with no cause

Except protect us from the terrorists who killed more Americans in single attack than ever before...