The Treasury Department announced late Wednesday it plans a $3.8 billion capital infusion into GMAC, the troubled lender that has already received $12.5 billion in government bailout funds.
The additional funds, as well as the restructuring of the government's commitment to GMAC, will be used to "protect taxpayers and put GMAC in a position to raise private capital and pay back taxpayers as soon as practicable," a release from the agency said.
The money is actually $1.8 billion less than previously anticipated, according to Treasury.
The funds will be provided in the form of $2.54 billion of Trust Preferred Securities [TRUP] and $1.25 billion of Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock [MCP]. Treasury will receive warrants to purchase an additional $127 million of TRUPs and $63 billion of MCP.
Treasury will also increase its ownership of GMAC from 35% to 56% through a conversion of $3 billion of existing convertible preferred stock. As a result, Treasury will appoint two additional directors to the GMAC board, giving the agency four of nine.
As a result of the past and current bailouts, GMAC will remain under the oversight of the administrations' pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg, and will continue to be subject to limits on executive pay.
On a related note, the Treasury confirms that it has the other 5 members of the boards' cajones in a lockbox in Obama's office. Posted by raybond on :
GM went to the Government plain and simple. The tax payers have a right to monitor what is going on. And put there 2 cents in
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
This is exactly what many of us feared, Ray...
A publically traded company with an (apparently) unlimited faucet of money 'competing' against other companies that do not have such financial backing.
This isn't going to serve the american public through competition. This is going to create an unstoppable governmental presence in a huge commercial sector\employer.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Only until they pay the loans back.
I have faith in our republican appointees to very quickly raise awareness if GMAC starts turning profits without seeing returns made on the loans.
I'm sure those who invested in March aren't complaining. Looking at near a 300% return with room to climb.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: This is exactly what many of us feared, Ray...
A publically traded company with an (apparently) unlimited faucet of money 'competing' against other companies that do not have such financial backing.
This isn't going to serve the american public through competition. This is going to create an unstoppable governmental presence in a huge commercial sector\employer.
you do realise that GMAC is a lender not a car maker right? and quite frankly? the lenders have been government subsidized since the Fed was created in 1913. it si offically a bank now named Ally Bank, and competition with the govt in banking is sort of an oxymoron.
As of June 2009, approximately 40.1% of GMAC was owned by Cerberus Capital Management and related investors, 35.4% by the United States Treasury, 9.9% by General Motors, and the remaining in a blind trust
Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. is one of the largest private equity investment firms in the United States. The firm is based in New York City, and run by 49-year-old financier Steve Feinberg. Former U.S. Vice President Dan Quayle has been a prominent Cerberus spokesperson and runs one of its international units.
funny it seems like GOPs are getting bailed out here huh?
Feinberg has been noted to be a very private person. Despite his considerable personal wealth (Feinberg reportedly made $50 million in 2004), his lifestyle is notably less extravagant than his peers in private equity.[2] He lives on Manhattan's Upper East Side with his wife Gisela and their three daughters.
His hobbies include game hunting, chess, skiing, and riding his Harley-Davidson motorcycle. Steve and Gisela Feinberg are prolific donors to the Republican Party and related organizations. Former Republican Vice President of the United States Dan Quayle works for Cerberus as Chairman of Global Investments, and former United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was a client.
OMG, it's the Socialist Republican Party
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
quote:you do realise that GMAC is a lender not a car maker right? and quite frankly? the lenders have been government subsidized since the Fed was created in 1913. it si offically a bank now named Ally Bank, and competition with the govt in banking is sort of an oxymoron.
I do actually, but thanks for the clarification for others.
This one hits home for me because I have a good friend of the family that was hit by this. He was a VP of a local bank here and lost his job when the Feds came in and shut them down without explanation. Why is it that GMAC which is partly Goverment owned, as you showed, gets $BILLIONS while other lending institutions get the axe? Where is the competition value? Why are GMAC jobs more valueable than the jobs at other banks?
Look at the list of banks that got closed and guesstimate how many jobs were lost...all while the faucet keeps pouring for GMAC.
quote:I'm sure those who invested in March aren't complaining. Looking at near a 300% return with room to climb.
That return isn't based on government handout, Big. Look at Ford. They traded as low as $1.58 in march and opened today at $10.00. They turned down the handout and went it alone because when things got ugly in '06 they mortgaged their properties...instead of buying a tin cup.
Posted by jordanreed on :
was anyone, here, insightful enough to get it at 1.58?///..not me , of course....
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Not I, Jordan...I only wish I had. Posted by glassman on :
He was a VP of a local bank here and lost his job when the Feds came in and shut them down without explanation.
sorry, dude, but i don't beleive your friend is telling you the truth.
actions like that are BIG NEWS, and while i truly dislike the Fed, and do not trust he Govt no matter who is running it, i don't beleive they shut down your buddy's bank for no reason...
Morley Safer would have a blast with that story.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
The return is for the most part immaterial to the subject. I was merely pointing out that it is not only the company that benefits from a secured funding source. Indeed GMAC is the primary lender for most GM and Chrysler dealers so these loans have a direct effect on them and their customers as well.
Your point about Ford being able to get private funding in large enough quantities to keep the company going is a good one SF, but I think it misses the mark. If you look at the articles from way back when you will see that GMAC received the second government bailout because they said they were unable to secure private funding. Maybe they didn't try as hard as Ford or maybe they just didn't have as many assets on the books.
The question here though goes well beyond private verses public funding. The whole of the GMAC bailout provides a lot of fodder for speculation when you dig a little.
It seems that GMAC's capitalization issue doesn't have anything to do with auto industry troubles at all, that part of their business is hurt but sustainable.
GMAC is the parent of ResCap LLC which is (or was as of 2007) the 8th largest home lender in the nation. (Unfortunately it is a Minneapolis based unit, sucks to know it is in my neighborhood.)
Since 2007 ResCap LLC has reported losses of 10.8 Billion(as of Nov 4, 2009). When the first bailout was announced a number of watchdog groups suggested that rather than provide a government bailout, that GMAC should cut ties with ResCap LLC and have that branch declare bankruptcy and fold. This is something that GMAC has shown no intention of doing nor has the government shown any interest in having happen. One has to ask oneself if the government foresaw consequences of ResCap filing for bankruptcy that they believed had to be avoided much as the AIG collapse was averted? Instead three things of note have taken place over the past year or so.
First off, the three injections of bailout money which now amounts to 16.3 Billion dollars in government loans.
Second, on November 4th GMAC announced that ResCap will no longer be providing public filings. The parent company says it is in an effort to save money and the ResCap homepage says they are no longer obligated to provide filings by the SEC. This is a very strange move for an NYSE listed company and will save only a drop in the bucket, not plug the hole at the bottom...One can't help but wonder what ulterior motives are at work?
Third item of interest came just a couple weeks ago when right before Christmas the New York Post reported speculation from an unnamed source that Warren Buffet (richest man in the world legally speaking and one of the presidents top economic advisers) is in talks with GMAC regarding the possible purchase of ResCap.
I don't have any answers here but I thought the puzzle pieces were significant enough they should be added to the discussion.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: He was a VP of a local bank here and lost his job when the Feds came in and shut them down without explanation.
sorry, dude, but i don't beleive your friend is telling you the truth.
actions like that are BIG NEWS, and while i truly dislike the Fed, and do not trust he Govt no matter who is running it, i don't beleive they shut down your buddy's bank for no reason...
Morley Safer would have a blast with that story.
Whether or not there was a leverage\asset to liability issue with his bank is irrelevant in the discussion. Let's say for the sake of arguement that they were in trouble. Who's decision was it to sieze their company and give its assests to another entity in stead of propping them up with public funding?
This is where I and others find issue...why are there no objective metrics here and consistency in applying them. Relative performance is a poor way to judge who lives and who dies in any industry when applied by Big Brother...
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
This goes back to the Auto Industry Takeover in my opinion, Big. Let's look at an older article from Bloomberg...
GMAC Granted Bank Status as U.S. Seeks to Save GM (Update1)
Dec. 24 (Bloomberg) -- GMAC LLC won Federal Reserve approval to become a bank holding company, enabling the auto lender to tap U.S. financial industry bailout programs and help keep General Motors Corp. in business.
The Fed is using emergency powers to grant Detroit-based GMAC’s request because of the “unusual and exigent circumstances affecting the financial markets,” according to a statement from the central bank today. To comply with rules about who can own a bank, GMAC’s majority owner Cerberus Capital Management LP agreed to distribute its stake to its investors and minority owner GM will cede all control.
The Fed order said the plan “would benefit the public by strengthening GMAC’s ability to fund the purchases of vehicles manufactured by GM.”
Saving GMAC may improve the chances of salvaging GM, which received $9.4 billion in U.S. loans this month to stave off collapse at least until January. The package didn’t include support for GMAC, which finances about 75 percent of the inventory at GM dealers. The lender also served as a major source of loans to GM car buyers until it was frozen out of credit markets after losses totaling $7.9 billion.
GMAC’s survival “is critical to the future of the dealers,” said Kimberly Rodriguez, principal of Grant Thornton’s automotive practice, in a Dec. 19 statement on the bailouts for GM and Chrysler LLC. The lending arms of automakers “need to be able to finance GM and Chrysler dealers, and support vehicle financing to customers in order for the parent auto companies to be viable.”
The article continues about how 'New Rules' were being created to allow this travesty to occur.
New Rules
The Fed and GMAC didn’t say what will happen to the mortgage unit, known as ResCap, which also faced speculation about bankruptcy. GMAC has said the debt swap was needed to meet demands from the Fed. Proia said the Fed was aware of the status of the swap before the application was approved, and the company still plans to try to raise $2 billion of additional capital.
“They’ve obviously been modifying the rules as they’ve gone along to deal with the exceptional circumstances,” Fridson said.
All of this tax payer funded take over instead of allowing Ford (and others) to survive and thrive while others who had made poor choices should have payed the price...
Posted by glassman on :
Who's decision was it to sieze their company and give its assests to another entity in stead of propping them up with public funding?
you are correct to ask that question.
there's alot of crimes being committed.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
So you are thinking taking over the auto industry is the ultimate goal here SF? That is why the gov bought in to GMAC?
As to your friend's bank...bank seizures are nothing new. We aren't talking about specifics here so I obviously don't know anything about this particular situation but it seems to me the bank seizures are following generally accepted protocol. What is out of the ordinary here are the few large companies that are getting exemptions. So to me the true question is why are those few being exempted from generally accepted practice and are the reasons sufficiently sound enough to justify the irregular action?
Unfortunately given the nature and complexity of the issue we are likely never to hear a definitive answer to that question and even if we did, given the powers granted to the Fed, it would likely be a moot point whatever the answer ended up being.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Are there a lot of crimes being committed Glass? I'm not sure that is true. We are in uncharted waters for sure but just because it isn't spelled out as legal doesn't mean it is illegal. Drastic times really do sometimes call for drastic measures.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
quote:So you are thinking taking over the auto industry is the ultimate goal here SF?
Yes, and no. I think that the current administration, aided by a far left leaning, liberal Congress, intends to take over every bit of the U.S. private sector that it can. The banking\mortgage crisis was simply the means by which the public was made to think that it was necessary. Just as the 9/11 attack was a means to get the monstrosity of the Patriot Act passed.
The 'Ultimate Goal' is to control as much of the individuals life as to allow them to remake the U.S. in a manner that allows them to live out a Utopian fantasy where all are equal and noone is 'better' or at least 'better rewarded' than any other.
What better way to do that than to tell you where you can and can't bank (by closing those they don't like and pumping money into those that play ball) and controlling what cars you can and can't drive (by subsidizing manufacturers that they control and can dictate what they produce)?
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
I will not deny that the number of eyes the government has on the general public and private sector has grown considerably in a number of areas as evidenced by the patriot act allowances and the restrictions attached to TARP funds and other dispensations.
The first question is are they attempting to diminish the freedoms of the public to control the public or are they responding to the desires of the public for physical and financial security and trying to create oversight in targeted problem area's?
Determining intent is paramount to finding if the actions prove malevolent or benign. If a clear determination of malevolent intent can be ascertained then it leads to the next question. That question is "Who are they?"
Rule #1 when preparing to marshal forces against an opponent. "Know thy enemy."
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Another question when rereading your latest post. You say this Utopian society is meant to remove the better rewarded from society. Are you certain you are not looking at the actions of those you disagree with from the reflection of a mirror? Perhaps if you were to shift your position and look at those actions from another prospective you would see not an attempt to bring down the tallest but rather an attempt to bring up the smallest. Is not the life of the smallest man a better indicator of the health of a country than how expansive the view of the tallest?
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Originally posted by Jordanreed:
"was anyone, here, insightful enough to get it at 1.58?///..not me , of course...."
_________________________________________________
Got in at low and bought and sold many times on the ride up.
But i would have been better holding solid all the way up, its still been a nice ride and looks like it's still going strong.
I would not touch a penny stock with as many shares as Ford has, at least at first entering a stock.
But i guess they have so much potential profits, that the potential profits outways the share count.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
quote:The first question is are they attempting to diminish the freedoms of the public to control the public or are they responding to the desires of the public for physical and financial security and trying to create oversight in targeted problem area's?
Franklin had a little something to say about diminishing freedoms in order to acquire security, Big.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
It's as true today as the day he uttered it. Allowing the Gov. to play on our financial fears in order to effectively 'buy' a market and mandate it's commercial actions with our own money and for our own good is even more ludicrous than I can possibly make it sound.
quote: Determining intent is paramount to finding if the actions prove malevolent or benign.
I'm not sure how to politely say this...so...no it doesn't. Intent actually has little bearing on the eventual repercussions of a single or set of actions. Hence the (usually sarcastically used) term, law of unintended consequences.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions and all that.
Actions have to be judged based on their consequences, not on the intended effects.
Setting aside the obvious defects and (imo) unconstitutionality of the Patriot Act, there are many who were involved with it's creation and passing that would swear their only desire was a more secure nation. Their intentions do not change the fact that we are, as a people, less free then we were prior to it's passing.
On a more inflammatory note, population control sounds wonderful when crouched in terms of the need to conserve resources and quality of life for the society as a whole. What higher goal can there be than protection of mother earth and making those that are allowed to live happier? And yet, when it gets down to forced sterilization or infanticide (both natural ends to accomplish said goal) we start to lose the luster of the brilliant intentions.
This administration (and all others) will have to be judged not based on whether they intended to do the right thing, but rather on whether the actions they are taking (or took) did more to better this nation or to harm her.
Rule of Law, not of Mob, is what helped make this nation great. To the Founding Fathers, it was important that especially the Government be bound by laws that ALL had to abide by. Legality, as raised by Glass, is almost a joke anymore. Constitutionality invokes snickers from our elected officials...
I may be near sighted here, (insert joke of choice), but I don't see how many of these policies can end well. Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: Another question when rereading your latest post. You say this Utopian society is meant to remove the better rewarded from society. Are you certain you are not looking at the actions of those you disagree with from the reflection of a mirror? Perhaps if you were to shift your position and look at those actions from another prospective you would see not an attempt to bring down the tallest but rather an attempt to bring up the smallest. Is not the life of the smallest man a better indicator of the health of a country than how expansive the view of the tallest?
I truly hope you're just waxing philosophical, Big, because that's a load of horse manure.
It is not 'the life of the smallest man' that indicates anything about a nation. It's the 'opportunity of the smallest man' that matters. No Utopia can ever exist where all men are equally rewarded because all men are not equally gifted, motivated, or capable. You cannot force equality on people.
Human nature will not allow it.
At some point the achievers\workers get tired of providing for those that are neither. While they may be charitable with their own means when they choose to be, they chafe at their work being forcefully taken to be used as bread and circus.
This is why no communistic, socialistic, or monarchical system has EVER existed without military force being exerted against it's own people to maintain order.
Posted by raybond on :
I hate to break your bubble but under socialism there is class differences. We are so far away from a communist state in the world you could never see one in our life time . The means of production are not advanced enough to support a communist state.
Posted by glassman on :
even in the US military force has been used against it's own people "to maintain order".
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
quote:Originally posted by raybond: I hate to break your bubble but under socialism there is class differences. We are so far away from a communist state in the world you could never see one in our life time . The means of production are not advanced enough to support a communist state.
Class difference exist in every culture, Ray. It is a natural extension of the natural differences in apptitude, ability, and motivation that exists in ALL human beings. The difference in most cases is whether the system is a fixed class system or mutable. If the opportunity to advance is present, then no matter how many challenges exist, hope also exists. When all are equally rewarded for inequal effort, the motivation to exert ones self more than the lowest possible degree is gone.
Posted by glassman on :
i don't think anybody is expecting equal rewards.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Equalization...
Wealth Redistribution...
Universal Healthcare...
Seems that similar terms are being floated around alot if that's true, Glass. (shrug)
Posted by glassman on :
i've seen quite a few quotes taken out of context.
fact is? "the wealthy" need paying customers to get wealthy and stay wealthy.
Posted by raybond on :
You seem to think that health care is some where located in a society that is class less. You are in a very small group.
The health of all humans has noithing to do with class it is a moral issue and its time is coming to America. It is very long over due. You may not like it and I really don't care or give a damn. You have your reasons I have heard them from you and others. And I don't like what I hear so rather than fight about it I continue to work for what I believe in and that is what we should all do.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
quote:fact is? "the wealthy" need paying customers to get wealthy and stay wealthy.
That's a false premise for wealth redistribution or equalization of assets.
The wealthy will always consume resources to satisfy their desires. That money is spent on products or services that are filled by others that must pay wages to the 'customer base.' That money is then used to satisfy their desires\needs by purchasing products\services that had to be produced using labor that must be payed as well.
In this Circle of Commerce, the wealthy remain so by following one simple rule: spend less than you make. While this is overly simplistic (intentionally so), this is (imo) the greatest factor in determining financial success or failure.
Debt = Slavery
The poor are those that consumer more resources than they produce. Their lifestyle (whatever that entails) cannot be sustained and thus they become slaves to those that provide for their appetites to be satisfied anyway. This is why credit card debt\government dole programs are ever increasing.
Posted by raybond on :
And sf you are right class difference does exist every where after we left tribalism that is why you have never seen a communist country on earth all you have ever seen is socialism.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
quote:You seem to think that health care is some where located in a society that is class less. You are in a very small group.
Not sure what you mean by this part, Ray, could you elaborate?
quote:The health of all humans has noithing to do with class it is a moral issue and its time is coming to America.
I have to disagree with this part on one specific point. Healthcare is a service, Ray. It is provided by people that have worked to acquire the knowledge to perform the required skills. Like any other service providers, they must be recompensed for their time.
Who pays for their time? Who decides who's time is worth more or less than that of others?
This is something that in a 'free market' system, you and I get to decide. If I feel one doctor is better able to care for me and my family I am fully within my rights to use him or her over another. If enough of us feel the same way, the doctor is within their rights to charge more for their time to offset the increased demands.
This isn't immoral. It's freedom of choice in action.
If I feel that the increase in cost outweighs the increase in skill, I can choose to go to another source of care or to not pay for care at all. It's MY choice.
Under Universal Healthcare, as it's being touted, everyone is going to HAVE to pay for care. The choice is taken from you. The government will dictate what kind of plan you can buy through the Exchange and then force you to pay for one.
No (or little) Choice
Is that seriously more moral to you than what we currently have?
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
It appears what ever way we turn the average or below average income person will get the shaft.
But we have to have a way for the one's that can not afford health insurance to have it.
The ones that can't afford it increases day by day.
One thing that is really ticking me off is those drug companies, you know the ones that hope this stem cell stuff doesn't work.
Seems like everytime i get prescription filled the bill is between 30-40 dollars out of my pocket.
I asked what the total cost of the perscription was since i have good insurance and they say 120-140 dollars.
Today it for a acid drug which i don't use much.
But the point is that whether i get 30 pills or 100 pills the cost is the same, but they will only write a 30 day prescription.
I know get the doctor to write for more pills a day, possible but why should i have to.
The pills appear to cost very little but the companies are getting what they can,because they can and many doctors seem to know this is happening.
Seems to be getting worse over the last few years.
Had to vent, had this happen to many times over last year and there shafting us because they can!
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
quote:fact is? "the wealthy" need paying customers to get wealthy and stay wealthy.
That's a false premise for wealth redistribution or equalization of assets.
The wealthy will always consume resources to satisfy their desires. That money is spent on products or services that are filled by others that must pay wages to the 'customer base.' That money is then used to satisfy their desires\needs by purchasing products\services that had to be produced using labor that must be payed as well.
In this Circle of Commerce, the wealthy remain so by following one simple rule: spend less than you make. While this is overly simplistic (intentionally so), this is (imo) the greatest factor in determining financial success or failure.
Debt = Slavery
The poor are those that consumer more resources than they produce. Their lifestyle (whatever that entails) cannot be sustained and thus they become slaves to those that provide for their appetites to be satisfied anyway. This is why credit card debt\government dole programs are ever increasing.
i have to beleive you want to oversimplify.
the fact that you are ignoring is that the credit card co's, the mortgage co's, and Bush's advisors that told everybody that it was patriotic to go ut and spend money they don't have. (they did say this and even gave people money they didn't have to do it with)
Debt equals slavery? That's what the Bible says, and usury is literally forbidden in the books of the three main faiths, yet it is practiced.
There are very few people that have ever become truly wealthy without going into to debt, and there are actually fewer every year simply because the bigger the system gets, the more it becomes needed to accomplish goals. Even if you build a company from scratch and go public with the perfect offering? You will go into serious debt along the way more than once.
In this country we have destroyed our economy over and over again- they call them bubbles now, because it sounds innocuous, but the reality is that every one of these bubbles cost more than just money to alot of people. Acceptance of that type of economy erodes more and more as individual people who did nothing wrong get hurt more and more. people remember when they lose thier job and home thru no fault of thier own, simply because some lenders got stupid. That's what has caused every bubble, even the internet bubble which was probably the least detrimental bubble ever.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
quote:i have to beleive you want to oversimplify.
Usually, yes. Otherwise you risk going into too much detail for a resonable post. (shrug)
quote:the fact that you are ignoring is that the credit card co's, the mortgage co's, and Bush's advisors that told everybody that it was patriotic to go ut and spend money they don't have. (they did say this and even gave people money they didn't have to do it with)
Question: When they did tell us to go spend...did you? Did anyone here on this board go out and max out their credit lines because it was the 'patriotic' thing to do? I'll wager dollars to pesos that noone here did. Why? Because it was a stupid idea. People don't have to go into debt (with rare exceptions). They choose to because of poor money management choices.
quote:There are very few people that have ever become truly wealthy without going into to debt, and there are actually fewer every year simply because the bigger the system gets, the more it becomes needed to accomplish goals. Even if you build a company from scratch and go public with the perfect offering? You will go into serious debt along the way more than once.
I think there needs to be a clarification here. There is a huge difference between manageable\asset building debt and consumer debt. The first is a tool, the second is a ball and chain. With that distinction in mind, noone ever becomes weathly utilizing the latter. The former? While necessary to start getting wealthy, it is a dangerous road to pursue for too long.
quote:Acceptance of that type of economy erodes more and more as individual people who did nothing wrong get hurt more and more.
And therein lies the problem, Glass. Too many accept that this is the way things HAVE to be because it is the way things have been. Living in debt is what kills most families. They pay up to half of their income just to pay interest on money that they have borrowed from londing institutions.
This doesn't have to be the case if we are willing to sacrifice now for better returns later. Our lifestyles have to change if we want the results to be different.
Posted by glassman on :
When they did tell us to go spend...did you?
i was saving for and builing a studio of my own, so i did what i was doing regardless.
and no i have not gone into debt to do it, BUT, it's a much slower process, which brings me to the point, all of these bubbles are due to get rich quick schemes, and i use the word scheme intentionally it is the American Dream after all.
Living in debt is what kills most families
dude, my life experince does not tell me that. granted i grew up inside the DC beltway, my family was antique dealers, so you can say that i have been exposed to the creme de la creme so to speak, but i saw just as many families miserable because of too much money. Trust fund babies that well, i don't want to go into details, all i can say that if money is the only thing peopl live for? having it or not having makes no difference.
poor man wanna be rich, rich man wanna be king and hte King ain't satisfied till he rules everything...
realistically, the only serious problem with our economy IMO, is what you were saying here:
The poor are those that consumer more resources than they produce.
guess what? that's our national economy and it has nothing to do with too many govt subsidies. It is all about US doing business with the Chinese and other third world countries.
do you realise that people here don't even respect work/labor anymore?
they think of it as something the poor people do?
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country; corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in High Places will follow, and the Money Power of the Country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the People, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed."
"The government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of government, but it is the government’s greatest creative opportunity. The financing of all public enterprise, and the conduct of the treasury will become matters of practical administration. Money will cease to be master and will then become servant of humanity."
Abraham Lincoln
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
SF OYE
I have tried twice to respond to your post and deleted it both times because it got so far out of context.
First off the Franklin quote. Three points. Point number one, as you so love to point out the gov is of the people by the people and most often majority rules. The gov is doing what it feels it needs to in order to fulfill the desires of the public. Which leads to point two which is that the Franklin quote was not directed against the government but towards the people. If you think the gov is overstepping the audience that deserves your ire is the populace not the gov. Point three, any power that the government has obtained in the Tarp actions or treasury disbursements were power structures already controlled by institutions. If it is inappropriate for the government to hold such power over the populace it is equally inappropriate for us to have given up that power to the institutions in the first place according to the tenets of Benjamin Franklin. Hands off capitalism is to blame here, not the gov.
I don't mind you telling me I am wrong but I appreciate your desire to do so politely. I disagree. Consequences can only be fairly judged after the fact. When dealing with current or future subjects intent is just as important because it can influence the outcome of consequence. And yes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but the road to heaven ain't paved with Zeppelin lyrics.
I have had much to say about population control but I will save it for another debate as it always throws me off the path here.
I admit to waxing poetic on occasion but I think EOE is a very poor benchmark for you to place your standards of national health SF. The general populace in Haiti have an Equal Opportunity to eat mud cakes for lunch in order to stave off starvation. The general populace in Tibet has an equal opportunity to be subjugated by a militant Chinese presence. You think since the opportunity is equal then the life of the humblest men in those countries have no bearing on the welfare of the nation's as a whole?
You are wrong about why socialism fails. It is not the producers who cause the downfall of the society because they tire of the circus. It is the privileged who cant help but take more than their fair share of the national resources and thereby corrupt the system from the top down until it buckles under its own corpulence that causes socialist structures to fail.
I am not trying to force equality on anyone. Nor do I believe Obama is interested in forcing you into Equality of transportation with the new move in GMAC. Availability of transportation maybe, but not equality without choice.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)