It is a leading question because you wrongly assume that I believe there is an usurpation. Either yes or no would be incorrect. I am, however, suggesting that the quest for oil in unstable regions results in huge monetary pressure, the results of which are not always favorable or therefore not in our best interest. These huge pressures and demands sometimes result in conflict.
I'm not leading into anything. I am conservative, but I'm not on some sort of Republican agenda. I agree that alternatives to getting oil in unstable regions are a positive and something we should be actively seeking. I WHOLE HEARTEDLY support drilling for oil in Anwar (if you want to get into an environmental debate, I'd be happy to take you on). I do not however, support off-shore drilling near the coast of Florida. There are ALREADY several hundred drilling areas that are available for lease presently in the gulf (not immediately off shore). The reason why no one drills there is because the oil is not profitable when the commodity is trading at under $50 a barrel. It's for this same reason why Hugo Chavez is quickly losing popularity in Venezuela right now, where as before (when it was well over $50 a barrel) he was widely popular. Their country is going heavily into debt right now and there's significantly less work available.
Where we get oil from exists as the cheapest supply of oil right now (although we could almost completely eliminate our Russia or middle east supply with oil from Anwar).
There's no pressure, demands, or pending war if we were to drill in Anwar. The underground pockets with which we would drill are already feeding the underground fields that Canada is pulling from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sahein
Now it is my turn to question. What evidence or facts do you have that there has been a usurpation by the U.S. Government (We The People), for the illegal control of private industry?
What evidence and facts do I have? The debt for equity program that the auto task force has been pushing.
Here is from the UAW website:
"MARCH 16, 2009: Advisers to GM bondholders say they presented a framework plan to President Obama’s autos task force and GM that provides the company’s best chance for an out-of-court restructuring. They say the plan for a debt-to-equity exchange is consistent with U.S. government restructuring requirements."
There are other links, but I figured one from the UAW would meet your bias requirements.
Obama's Auto Task Force have REQUESTED a "debt-to-equity" exchange. This isn't hear-say, this is fact... this is what gives the US government a 50% ownership stake in the corporation. This debt to equity exchange, more specifically... means trading the debt for OWNERSHIP of the company through corporate shares. When you own shares of General Motors (or any stock for that matter), you are entitled to a VOTE (one per share) for a variety of things. These include firing or hiring members of the board of directors, executives, and direction of the company as they are presented to the board. Since GM will have 50% ownership (under the plan PROPOSED by the requirements set forth by the auto task force), that means they will have the MAJORITY voting by the board of directors. This means they can (and have said that they will) seat their own board members.
This is speculative, but it ALSO means they will have control on the direction of the company... IE: choose to make fuel efficient cars, and eliminate cars they don't like. (They meaning the White House).
Now, you're referring to this as illegal, NO ONE SAID this was illegal. It is however Socialism in it's most purest evil form. I mean, that's not up for discussion, it simply is... and I for one will NOT support this. Hence my former statement that I hope GM fails miserably, and this becomes an example to all future socialist presidents that medling in the private sector simply doesn't work.
As much as a I hate to admit it... had Hilary become president, I don't think the government would be taking ownership of GM...
Quote:
Originally Posted by sahein
The government is US "We The People". This is the basis of the Constitution. When you are against the government, you are against yourself. The problem is not the Government, but the abuse thereof.
I did NOT vote for this. And I guarantee that if this auto bailout had been presented in an emergency ballot, I guarantee it would have failed. I can also guarantee to you that had it specified (government will take 50% ownership in GM) that that would also have been rejected as well. The government is not "We The People". I get the impression that you equate socialistic viewpoints with being the people's government. The United States started out as a Democratic Republic. A small federal government who's sole purpose was protection for the city-states.
That has grown significantly over the past 232 years...
__________________
Todd,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Automobiles
@ http://www.PETACar.ORG
------------------------------------------- 2006 Pontiac Solstice (#1267)
- GM Cold Air Intake
- Clear Image Hi-Flow Cat
- Clear Image Shorty Header
The government is US "We The People". This is the basis of the Constitution. When you are against the government, you are against yourself. The problem is not the Government, but the abuse thereof.
Really? I guess you would be correct as long as the actions being taken by said government are truly “of the people, by the people, for the people”.
Given the road “we” are going down, then the next election cycle will tell the tale if your evaluation is accurate or not.
And I don’t really see where you alleging that I am an anarchist is really a very constructive criticism. I laid out just one very specific example of why the founding fathers believed in LIMITED GOVERNMENT and why that philosophy is so applicable to the situation at hand. And the best you can do is flame a personal accusation against me? I would assume that a well-educated US citizen and voter would have a much more constructive and rational response to alleviate my genuine concerns that our supposedly representative government may be overstepping their mandate.
Yesterday (May 1) on Detroit’s Frank Beckman’s morning talk show (WJR), bankruptcy attorney Tom Lauria made the incendiary accusation that the members of the White House had threatened to use the “the full force of the White House Press Corps to destroy” his client’s reputation if it didn’t acquiesce to highly unfavorable terms of the government’s proposed Chrysler restructuring plan. Because of the strongarm tactics, Lauria’s client dropped its opposition.
Yesterday (May 1) on Detroit’s Frank Beckman’s morning talk show (WJR), bankruptcy attorney Tom Lauria made the incendiary accusation that the members of the White House had threatened to use the “the full force of the White House Press Corps to destroy” his client’s reputation if it didn’t acquiesce to highly unfavorable terms of the government’s proposed Chrysler restructuring plan. Because of the strongarm tactics, Lauria’s client dropped its opposition.
The news of strongarm tactics is what enraged shareholders at the BOA meeting in Charlotte last week. Then as the market ticked up, analylists speculated the evil fund managers were driving the rally as a hedge against pressure on bond holders to capitulate at the behest of the White House.
On thursday the chatter on XM even on CNBC was the strong arm tactics and the coverage was very negative to the Administration.
The news of strongarm tactics is what enraged shareholders at the BOA meeting in Charlotte last week. Then as the market ticked up, analylists speculated the evil fund managers were driving the rally as a hedge against pressure on bond holders to capitulate at the behest of the White House.
On thursday the chatter on XM even on CNBC was the strong arm tactics and the coverage was very negative to the Administration.
That is tame compared to the after hours rants on the street blogs
Honestly, these strong arm tactics, or at least the indications of them have been muted, at best. I haven't really heard much about them at ALL on the local or national news stations. I don't really have much time to watch news, but I do go to CNN.com and FoxNews.com, and I haven't really seen much with respect to this.
As a matter of fact, the only places that I've seen this have been on MarketWatch.com (absolutely EXCELLENT financial web site for anyone who cares).
I had suspected this was the case as I did hear rumors that the banks were being encouraged not to pay it off that quickly... that it was in their "best interest" to retain the debt.
I really don't think Obama can hide behind the media much longer. Once the media finally latches onto something, they go full force... but it takes anything short of a smack in the station owner's face before they sometimes do it.
__________________
Todd,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Automobiles
@ http://www.PETACar.ORG
------------------------------------------- 2006 Pontiac Solstice (#1267)
- GM Cold Air Intake
- Clear Image Hi-Flow Cat
- Clear Image Shorty Header
I'm not leading into anything. I am conservative, but I'm not on some sort of Republican agenda. I agree that alternatives to getting oil in unstable regions are a positive and something we should be actively seeking. I WHOLE HEARTEDLY support drilling for oil in Anwar (if you want to get into an environmental debate, I'd be happy to take you on). I do not however, support off-shore drilling near the coast of Florida. There are ALREADY several hundred drilling areas that are available for lease presently in the gulf (not immediately off shore). The reason why no one drills there is because the oil is not profitable when the commodity is trading at under $50 a barrel. It's for this same reason why Hugo Chavez is quickly losing popularity in Venezuela right now, where as before (when it was well over $50 a barrel) he was widely popular. Their country is going heavily into debt right now and there's significantly less work available.
Where we get oil from exists as the cheapest supply of oil right now (although we could almost completely eliminate our Russia or middle east supply with oil from Anwar).
There's no pressure, demands, or pending war if we were to drill in Anwar. The underground pockets with which we would drill are already feeding the underground fields that Canada is pulling from.
What evidence and facts do I have? The debt for equity program that the auto task force has been pushing.
Here is from the UAW website:
"MARCH 16, 2009: Advisers to GM bondholders say they presented a framework plan to President Obama’s autos task force and GM that provides the company’s best chance for an out-of-court restructuring. They say the plan for a debt-to-equity exchange is consistent with U.S. government restructuring requirements."
There are other links, but I figured one from the UAW would meet your bias requirements.
Obama's Auto Task Force have REQUESTED a "debt-to-equity" exchange. This isn't hear-say, this is fact... this is what gives the US government a 50% ownership stake in the corporation. This debt to equity exchange, more specifically... means trading the debt for OWNERSHIP of the company through corporate shares. When you own shares of General Motors (or any stock for that matter), you are entitled to a VOTE (one per share) for a variety of things. These include firing or hiring members of the board of directors, executives, and direction of the company as they are presented to the board. Since GM will have 50% ownership (under the plan PROPOSED by the requirements set forth by the auto task force), that means they will have the MAJORITY voting by the board of directors. This means they can (and have said that they will) seat their own board members.
This is speculative, but it ALSO means they will have control on the direction of the company... IE: choose to make fuel efficient cars, and eliminate cars they don't like. (They meaning the White House).
Now, you're referring to this as illegal, NO ONE SAID this was illegal. It is however Socialism in it's most purest evil form. I mean, that's not up for discussion, it simply is... and I for one will NOT support this. Hence my former statement that I hope GM fails miserably, and this becomes an example to all future socialist presidents that medling in the private sector simply doesn't work.
As much as a I hate to admit it... had Hilary become president, I don't think the government would be taking ownership of GM...
I did NOT vote for this. And I guarantee that if this auto bailout had been presented in an emergency ballot, I guarantee it would have failed. I can also guarantee to you that had it specified (government will take 50% ownership in GM) that that would also have been rejected as well. The government is not "We The People". I get the impression that you equate socialistic viewpoints with being the people's government. The United States started out as a Democratic Republic. A small federal government who's sole purpose was protection for the city-states.
That has grown significantly over the past 232 years...
Do you believe that there should have been no pressure applied to the CEO of a corporation that lost 95% of its value? Why would applying pressure to succeed be considered as a hostile government takeover in lite of the fact that GM requested the loan and agreed to the terms?
Frank Beckman is another media clown like Rush, has zero credibility and is not a reliable source of factual information.
Socialism is brother caring for brother, it is not communism. Remember the song "He ain't heavy, He's my brother? HOLLIES - HE AIN'T HEAVY, HE'S MY BROTHER LYRICS If you don't want socialism, you don't want your social security, medicare, retirement benefits, help from family, etc. A job is also social.
Do you really desire to be anti-social and go it alone with nobody's help? Is this the direction that you want to take the country and the world?
Socialism is brother caring for brother, it is not communism. Remember the song "He ain't heavy, He's my brother? HOLLIES - HE AIN'T HEAVY, HE'S MY BROTHER LYRICS If you don't want socialism, you don't want your social security, medicare, retirement benefits, help from family, etc. A job is also social.
Do you really desire to be anti-social and go it alone with nobody's help? Is this the direction that you want to take the country and the world?
That's exactly what I desire. Take your socialist platitudes and stick 'em where the sun don't shine. I care not to live my life by some pop song lyrics. And I don't want some altruistic do-gooder telling me how to live mine, or what I must do with my money that I worked hard for.
When I take care of my brother, or my neighbor, which I do, it will be one on one, man to man, as he and I work it out together. Or through the church where I know how my money is being used to help. Not under the terms and the guns of some two-faced self serving beauraucrat. I don't want some Wesley Mouch reaching into my pocket to give my money to some lazy, worthless,unmotivated bum who won't or can't provide for himself. I worked for all that I have. Let him do the same, and if I care to help him, I will. If not, let him find another way.
__________________ Carpe Diem
'Mysti' - '08 Mysterious 5-spd GXP, BSR tune, Hahn I/C, K&N drop-in filter, DDM ProBeam & Backbone, splash guards, and a few other things.
One by one, our government is chipping away at our individual liberties. Don't let it happen.
Do you believe that there should have been no pressure applied to the CEO of a corporation that lost 95% of its value? Why would applying pressure to succeed be considered as a hostile government takeover in lite of the fact that GM requested the loan and agreed to the terms?
Frank Beckman is another media clown like Rush, has zero credibility and is not a reliable source of factual information.
Socialism is brother caring for brother, it is not communism. Remember the song "He ain't heavy, He's my brother? HOLLIES - HE AIN'T HEAVY, HE'S MY BROTHER LYRICS If you don't want socialism, you don't want your social security, medicare, retirement benefits, help from family, etc. A job is also social.
Do you really desire to be anti-social and go it alone with nobody's help? Is this the direction that you want to take the country and the world?
Wagoner does not get a gold star next to his name for performance and nobody is suggesting as such. He was CEO of GM and served at the pleasure of the board. Yes, he was also chairman of that same board. Some of us who follow corporate governance think that's a conflict of interest, but that's a tangent I don't wish to pursue at this time. The board and its chairman are elected by the shareholders of the company. It is their right and their right only to select the board members who would then choose an executive team. Many certainly were trying to pressure him out for years and others were engaged in proxy battles, yet none were successful since the majority of GM shareholders (by votes/shares) still voted to maintain the status quo.
As for the Fed's new, hands-on approach to fixing companies, have you read the actual terms of the loan? It was posted by SD in this thread as a PDF. It mentions nothing of powers to remove CEOs or other officers. It does, however, make plenty of mention of compensation restrictions, forced divestiture of private aircraft, etc. The other point to note is that part of the deal was for the companies seeking the loan to provide warrants to the government for common stock, exercisable at their request. If you read down through the terms to page 12 you'll see an interesting tidbit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by we da peoplez
Voting: Prior to the occurrence of a Termination Event or an Event of Default, the UST will agree not to exercise voting power with respect to any shares of Equity Interests of the Company issued to it upon exercise of the Warrants.
That's pretty clear that the common stock issued would be non-voting. So what does the new administration do? It's rewriting the rules as it goes and is now talking about taking on common stock in a recapitalized GM and Chrysler in deals outside of the existing terms. These shares then could very well be voting shares, but since all we have are leaks coming out of the auto task force and respective companies, we simply don't know. As previously mentioned, this is an insane situation to be in. Debt itself is never fun to be in, but when the lender moves in and begins to dictate your entire life because you owe them money, that's... wait, didn't we fight a war about this almost 140 years ago?
That's exactly what I desire. Take your socialist platitudes and stick 'em where the sun don't shine. I care not to live my life by some pop song lyrics. And I don't want some altruistic do-gooder telling me how to live mine, or what I must do with my money that I worked hard for.
When I take care of my brother, or my neighbor, which I do, it will be one on one, man to man, as he and I work it out together. Or through the church where I know how my money is being used to help. Not under the terms and the guns of some two-faced self serving beauraucrat. I don't want some Wesley Mouch reaching into my pocket to give my money to some lazy, worthless,unmotivated bum who won't or can't provide for himself. I worked for all that I have. Let him do the same, and if I care to help him, I will. If not, let him find another way.
We are all socialists and cannot survive without it. This forum is social.
Other than that, you have pretty much the same sentiment as I do except without the hatred.
That's exactly what I desire. Take your socialist platitudes and stick 'em where the sun don't shine. I care not to live my life by some pop song lyrics. And I don't want some altruistic do-gooder telling me how to live mine, or what I must do with my money that I worked hard for.
When I take care of my brother, or my neighbor, which I do, it will be one on one, man to man, as he and I work it out together. Or through the church where I know how my money is being used to help. Not under the terms and the guns of some two-faced self serving beauraucrat. I don't want some Wesley Mouch reaching into my pocket to give my money to some lazy, worthless,unmotivated bum who won't or can't provide for himself. I worked for all that I have. Let him do the same, and if I care to help him, I will. If not, let him find another way.
We are all socialists and cannot survive without it. This forum is social.
Other than that, you have pretty much the same sentiment as I do except without the hatred.
I am a BARBARIAN turned into a changeling by an evil princess, becoming a troll who likes to live among HERMITS. if I have too much exposure to Wobblies, Marxists, Leninists, Maoists and SOCIALISTS!
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
Linear Mode
