On Feb 25, 9:56*pm, BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
jps wrote:
Needs to make a guest appearance on 30 Rock.

This is the Republican savior?

Steele, Boner (sic), Cantor and Jindal.

The Dream Team

After the big buildup the Repubs and some in the media gave him, I
thought his presentation was laughable. His one idea for revitalizing
the economy: cut taxes. In other words, the same old crap that has not
worked for the last eight years,.

It's worked over the previous 6 or so recessions in the preceding 90 years.

FDR tried to spend us out of the depression and he only succeeded in
lengthening the depression. The only thing that got us out of the
Depression was WWII.

where we spent alot of money.

On Feb 26, 8:16*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:57:53 -0800 (PST), wf3h
wrote:

It's worked over the previous 6 or so recessions in the preceding 90 years.

FDR tried to spend us out of the depression and he only succeeded in
lengthening the depression. The only thing that got us out of the
Depression was WWII.

where we spent alot of money.

The big difference after 1940 was we were contracting private industry
to build things instead of paying government workers to do everything
and we stopped taxing the corporations into bankruptcy.

now the corporations have gotten even; they've taxed us into
bankruptcy

wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:31:00 -0800 (PST), wf3h
wrote:

On Feb 26, 8:16 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:57:53 -0800 (PST), wf3h
wrote:

It's worked over the previous 6 or so recessions in the preceding 90 years.
FDR tried to spend us out of the depression and he only succeeded in
lengthening the depression. The only thing that got us out of the
Depression was WWII.
where we spent alot of money.
The big difference after 1940 was we were contracting private industry
to build things instead of paying government workers to do everything
and we stopped taxing the corporations into bankruptcy.
now the corporations have gotten even; they've taxed us into
bankruptcy

Yeah, lets get rid of all of those evil corporations. We could be like
the Soviets and the Cubans. Let the government hire everyone.
We know how well that worked out for them.


So, you are in favor of welfare for corporate losses. Fascinating.

wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:01:27 -0500, HK wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:31:00 -0800 (PST), wf3h
wrote:

On Feb 26, 8:16 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:57:53 -0800 (PST), wf3h
wrote:

It's worked over the previous 6 or so recessions in the preceding 90 years.
FDR tried to spend us out of the depression and he only succeeded in
lengthening the depression. The only thing that got us out of the
Depression was WWII.
where we spent alot of money.
The big difference after 1940 was we were contracting private industry
to build things instead of paying government workers to do everything
and we stopped taxing the corporations into bankruptcy.
now the corporations have gotten even; they've taxed us into
bankruptcy
Yeah, lets get rid of all of those evil corporations. We could be like
the Soviets and the Cubans. Let the government hire everyone.
We know how well that worked out for them.

So, you are in favor of welfare for corporate losses. Fascinating.

Not at all but simply condemning all corporations for the flaws of a
few is short sighted.


It's more than a few.

wrote in message
...

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:19:52 -0500, HK wrote:

So, you are in favor of welfare for corporate losses. Fascinating.


Not at all but simply condemning all corporations for the flaws of a
few is short sighted.


It's more than a few.


Not in the grand scheme of things. There are probably 100,000 thousand
corporations in the US, not counting the Type S guys.
The government is cutting bailout checks for a handful of them, mostly
banks including a lot of foreign banks. I am one of those who think GM
and Chrysler could go into chapter 11 and it wouldn't be the end of
the world as we know it. They certainly need a better business plan
than they are showing us to deserve all the money we are talking about
throwing at them.


Harry has a very broad paint brush because it serves his POV.

You are 100% correct in your analysis.

Good on you.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:

wrote in message
...

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:19:52 -0500, HK wrote:

So, you are in favor of welfare for corporate losses. Fascinating.


Not at all but simply condemning all corporations for the flaws of a
few is short sighted.


It's more than a few.


Not in the grand scheme of things. There are probably 100,000 thousand
corporations in the US, not counting the Type S guys.
The government is cutting bailout checks for a handful of them, mostly
banks including a lot of foreign banks. I am one of those who think GM
and Chrysler could go into chapter 11 and it wouldn't be the end of
the world as we know it. They certainly need a better business plan
than they are showing us to deserve all the money we are talking about
throwing at them.


Harry has a very broad paint brush because it serves his POV.

You are 100% correct in your analysis.

Good on you.

Eisboch




Not a day goes by without one or two significant corporations either
going teats up or coming close to it. Maybe the corporate model we have
is...flawed.

HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:

wrote in message
...

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:19:52 -0500, HK wrote:

So, you are in favor of welfare for corporate losses. Fascinating.


Not at all but simply condemning all corporations for the flaws of a
few is short sighted.


It's more than a few.


Not in the grand scheme of things. There are probably 100,000 thousand
corporations in the US, not counting the Type S guys.
The government is cutting bailout checks for a handful of them, mostly
banks including a lot of foreign banks. I am one of those who think GM
and Chrysler could go into chapter 11 and it wouldn't be the end of
the world as we know it. They certainly need a better business plan
than they are showing us to deserve all the money we are talking about
throwing at them.


Harry has a very broad paint brush because it serves his POV.

You are 100% correct in your analysis.

Good on you.

Eisboch




Not a day goes by without one or two significant corporations either
going teats up or coming close to it. Maybe the corporate model we have
is...flawed.

There is nothing wrong with the model except that nobody want to let the
model work by utilizing its self correcting feature. Bad corporations
fail by going bankrupt. Too bad bad employees can suffer the same
correction by being fired.

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:45:20 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:19:52 -0500, HK wrote:

So, you are in favor of welfare for corporate losses. Fascinating.


Not at all but simply condemning all corporations for the flaws of a
few is short sighted.


It's more than a few.


Not in the grand scheme of things. There are probably 100,000 thousand
corporations in the US, not counting the Type S guys.
The government is cutting bailout checks for a handful of them, mostly
banks including a lot of foreign banks. I am one of those who think GM
and Chrysler could go into chapter 11 and it wouldn't be the end of
the world as we know it. They certainly need a better business plan
than they are showing us to deserve all the money we are talking about
throwing at them.


Harry has a very broad paint brush because it serves his POV.

You are 100% correct in your analysis.

Good on you.

There are many honest, ethical corps, and they make nearly all the
wheels go round.
When they become publicly traded and in thrall to Wall Street
"analysts" they often become corrupt.
No sense of their product, their community, nor of company "culture."
The concept of "shareholder value" distorts their original purpose and
intent.
There are many here who worked in publicly traded companies and saw it
happen real time.
That original intent and purpose of a corporation is usually tied to a
product(s) and the communities the corps operate in.
Once Wall Street gets their hooks in, it's only about short term
money. That's all. Money.
Didn't used to be like that. Shares were sold to raise capital to
expand and improve the original products of the corp.
Corporations had a set of ethics and culture engendered by the
founders, and carried on by successors.
Most here are old enough to remember when you bought stocks in a good
company to provide you with dividend returns when you retired.
Not to make 15-20% yearly return in share price escalation.
Some dabbled a little side money in speculating, but it wasn't a way
of life.
Globalism and 401k contributions allowed the sharks to get out of
hand.
But I think we've seen the last of that kind of bubble.
It will be interesting to see what kind of turns the 401k program
takes now.
I might be wrong about all that though.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:45:20 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:19:52 -0500, HK wrote:

So, you are in favor of welfare for corporate losses. Fascinating.


Not at all but simply condemning all corporations for the flaws of a
few is short sighted.


It's more than a few.


Not in the grand scheme of things. There are probably 100,000 thousand
corporations in the US, not counting the Type S guys.
The government is cutting bailout checks for a handful of them, mostly
banks including a lot of foreign banks. I am one of those who think GM
and Chrysler could go into chapter 11 and it wouldn't be the end of
the world as we know it. They certainly need a better business plan
than they are showing us to deserve all the money we are talking about
throwing at them.


Harry has a very broad paint brush because it serves his POV.

You are 100% correct in your analysis.

Good on you.

There are many honest, ethical corps, and they make nearly all the
wheels go round.
When they become publicly traded and in thrall to Wall Street
"analysts" they often become corrupt.
No sense of their product, their community, nor of company "culture."
The concept of "shareholder value" distorts their original purpose and
intent.
There are many here who worked in publicly traded companies and saw it
happen real time.
That original intent and purpose of a corporation is usually tied to a
product(s) and the communities the corps operate in.
Once Wall Street gets their hooks in, it's only about short term
money. That's all. Money.
Didn't used to be like that. Shares were sold to raise capital to
expand and improve the original products of the corp.
Corporations had a set of ethics and culture engendered by the
founders, and carried on by successors.
Most here are old enough to remember when you bought stocks in a good
company to provide you with dividend returns when you retired.
Not to make 15-20% yearly return in share price escalation.
Some dabbled a little side money in speculating, but it wasn't a way
of life.
Globalism and 401k contributions allowed the sharks to get out of
hand.
But I think we've seen the last of that kind of bubble.
It will be interesting to see what kind of turns the 401k program
takes now.
I might be wrong about all that though.

--Vic

I agree with everything you said. The question now is who is to blame. Is
it the management or is it the expectations of the stockholders?

Eisboch