http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/30/gm.ceo.compensation/index.html
From what I can tell, General Motors is a terribly run company. They has been losing market share for to both foreign and domestic competition for years, have been forced to downsize their operations, have under-invested in energy efficient cars, and had to take billions in federal bailout money just to survive. More importantly, their products have a terrible reputation. When I went to buy a car in 2006, I barely even gave the Cobalt a chance for fear it would just end up back at the dealer before my payments were through.
But for all the failures former CEO Wagner has presided over, you can not take away the credit he deserves for personally sacrifice. According to this article, upon receipt of federal bailout money, Wagner agreed to drop his salary to $1.00. Seeing as how many CEOs and top executives from big corporations are hell-bent on ripping off the tax payer as much as possible, I thought it only fair to give some credit where credit is due.
Until we meet again, goodbye!
How bad would it suck to be told by the President of the United States, effectively, "you're fired?"
Monday, March 30, 2009
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Interesting Source
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29912977/
Well, at least Iran is contributing something to society besides oil! Do you hear that, Great Britain?!?!
Its 5:30am on Saturday morning; my choices were to post this or talk about North Korea getting ready to test fire a missile that could reach Hawaii with a nuclear warhead. Sweet Jesus, what is this world coming to! Besides labeling North Korea as part of the "axis of evil" and taking away Kim Jong Il's iPod accessibility, I do not really think we have done much of anything unilaterally to deserve this!
I was going to look up some statistics on the amount of humanitarian aid we give this country, but I stopped after reading this article. Apparently, our humanitarian assistance to North Korea is no longer required: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2009/03/north-korea-can.html. At least they will not send missiles over our food shipments.
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Well, at least Iran is contributing something to society besides oil! Do you hear that, Great Britain?!?!
Its 5:30am on Saturday morning; my choices were to post this or talk about North Korea getting ready to test fire a missile that could reach Hawaii with a nuclear warhead. Sweet Jesus, what is this world coming to! Besides labeling North Korea as part of the "axis of evil" and taking away Kim Jong Il's iPod accessibility, I do not really think we have done much of anything unilaterally to deserve this!
I was going to look up some statistics on the amount of humanitarian aid we give this country, but I stopped after reading this article. Apparently, our humanitarian assistance to North Korea is no longer required: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2009/03/north-korea-can.html. At least they will not send missiles over our food shipments.
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Thursday, March 26, 2009
The Republican Proposal
The President stated in his press conference Tuesday night that Republicans have failed to propose their own budget. I knew it, everyone else listening knew it, and I am sure Obama knew it was coming as well; the Republicans unleashed their own budget today.
While very short on details, the differences between the two plans are startling. Obama's plan places a key emphasis on government spending to get the economy rolling again ($3.6 trillion in proposed spending with a conservatively estimated $1.2 trillion deficit, compared with Bush's final budget proposal of $3.0 trillion with a $400 billion deficit), while the Republican plan calls for massive tax cuts across the board.
How massive? Under the Republican plan, the tax rate would drop to 10% for people making $100,000 or less (I assume that means household income). Republicans also promise to lower capital gains taxes and give a 20% tax break to companies employing less than 500 people. The plan also promises to cut government spending below current levels, but does not give specifics as to which programs could be cut (I assume there will have to be some cuts).
Although I am not familiar with the details (and apparently either are the Republicans), I think it is a better long term strategy to cut taxes and government spending. Doing so will promote business growth here in the United States (companies will have more money to employee people and spend on research and development), and people will have more money at their disposal, allowing the free-market economy to work its magic. Less money going to the government will mean a better chance at increasing wealth in the country, and will help pay down the national debt and raise the value of our currency.
I do hope the Republican plan does not cut energy and education. In fact, I still maintain the position that I would be OK with increases in spending in these two areas (as I view them as essential to a strong economy).
Here are some pretty cool sites I stumbled upon:
1) United States total debt (updated daily): http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
2) History of United States budgets: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/
3) Where the money went in fiscal year 2008: http://www.federalbudget.com/
Until we meet again, goodbye!
While very short on details, the differences between the two plans are startling. Obama's plan places a key emphasis on government spending to get the economy rolling again ($3.6 trillion in proposed spending with a conservatively estimated $1.2 trillion deficit, compared with Bush's final budget proposal of $3.0 trillion with a $400 billion deficit), while the Republican plan calls for massive tax cuts across the board.
How massive? Under the Republican plan, the tax rate would drop to 10% for people making $100,000 or less (I assume that means household income). Republicans also promise to lower capital gains taxes and give a 20% tax break to companies employing less than 500 people. The plan also promises to cut government spending below current levels, but does not give specifics as to which programs could be cut (I assume there will have to be some cuts).
Although I am not familiar with the details (and apparently either are the Republicans), I think it is a better long term strategy to cut taxes and government spending. Doing so will promote business growth here in the United States (companies will have more money to employee people and spend on research and development), and people will have more money at their disposal, allowing the free-market economy to work its magic. Less money going to the government will mean a better chance at increasing wealth in the country, and will help pay down the national debt and raise the value of our currency.
I do hope the Republican plan does not cut energy and education. In fact, I still maintain the position that I would be OK with increases in spending in these two areas (as I view them as essential to a strong economy).
Here are some pretty cool sites I stumbled upon:
1) United States total debt (updated daily): http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
2) History of United States budgets: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/
3) Where the money went in fiscal year 2008: http://www.federalbudget.com/
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
A Word on Persistance
I watched Obama's entire press conference tonight, taking notes throughout. I was impressed by the leadership Obama is demonstrating with our budget. I hate the idea of our budget deficit expanding to anywhere from $7 to $9 trillion in ten years. But it was rewarding to feel Obama's vision when he said it is necessary to fix health care, education, and energy in order to grow the economy, and that failure to do so risks the same budget deficits in the future, but with no investment in these growth areas.
I completely agree with Obama on fixing all three items. I simply question the best way to go about doing that, particularly when it comes to health care. I am worried about giving benefits to those who are not paying into the system, and until I see that worry addressed, it will be hard for me to be behind his plan. And I am worried about an unprecedented increase in government spending and financial responsibility at a time when the country is getting older. But I am still listening.
Obama claims the 3.6 trillion budget will "lay the foundation for a lasting prosperity." In short, Obama is basically proposing a short term hit of trillions of dollars for a more solid economic foundation. I think the principles of this spending are sound (forgetting about the fact we do not actually have the money), but I do not see how the economy can grow without a tax code that favors business. It is my opinion, as discussed in previous posts, that our economy primarily suffers from having (in some states) the highest tax rate in the world (literally).
If Obama would try to mesh together these two ideas (laying a sound groundwork on domestic necessities while providing a more competitive business climate) it would be much easier to swallow the hikes in the deficit.
Obama closed his press conference by speaking of persistence, saying "we are moving in the right direction". He talked of "staying with it as long as I am in office." And he said, "If it was an easy decision, it would not make it to my desk." I am hopeful mine and other Republican's persistance on the issue of a pro-business tax code will make its way to his desk soon.
Until we meet again, goodbye!
I completely agree with Obama on fixing all three items. I simply question the best way to go about doing that, particularly when it comes to health care. I am worried about giving benefits to those who are not paying into the system, and until I see that worry addressed, it will be hard for me to be behind his plan. And I am worried about an unprecedented increase in government spending and financial responsibility at a time when the country is getting older. But I am still listening.
Obama claims the 3.6 trillion budget will "lay the foundation for a lasting prosperity." In short, Obama is basically proposing a short term hit of trillions of dollars for a more solid economic foundation. I think the principles of this spending are sound (forgetting about the fact we do not actually have the money), but I do not see how the economy can grow without a tax code that favors business. It is my opinion, as discussed in previous posts, that our economy primarily suffers from having (in some states) the highest tax rate in the world (literally).
If Obama would try to mesh together these two ideas (laying a sound groundwork on domestic necessities while providing a more competitive business climate) it would be much easier to swallow the hikes in the deficit.
Obama closed his press conference by speaking of persistence, saying "we are moving in the right direction". He talked of "staying with it as long as I am in office." And he said, "If it was an easy decision, it would not make it to my desk." I am hopeful mine and other Republican's persistance on the issue of a pro-business tax code will make its way to his desk soon.
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Monday, March 23, 2009
Great Day for the Economy!
The stock markets had a great day today, experiencing an upswing of just over 497 points (the biggest one day gain in over four months and the fifth best day ever on Wall Street). The gains came as a result of stronger than expected housing numbers. Existing home sales were up 5.1% in February compared with the previous month. The price of those sales, however, was down over 15% from a year ago.
I think these conflicting numbers are an overall positive. Total sales are up on lower price points. This means the prices of homes are falling, but falling to a range lower than market value (which indicates more buyers will join the market). As time goes on, either more people will buy homes, or the prices of those homes will go up; either scenario is good for sellers in the housing market, making everyone happy.
On top of the great housing news, stocks were buoyed by the Treasury Department's plan to buy so-called "toxic assets" from banks. Under the government's plan, private investors and the federal government would invest 7% each toward assets that banks need off their books (I do not know how this will be determined). The remaining 86% would be covered by a government loan. I do not know the amount of time the loan will need to be paid back in, or what the interest rate is. The government's 7% contribution will be paid for by already approved bailout money.
Government is shouldering most of the risk under this plan, covering 93% of the money used to buy the toxic assets. However, I still support this plan. Banks today are unwilling to loan money to consumers due to the amount of risky investments (like homes in foreclosure) they have on their balance sheets. This plan will help eliminate those risky investments and give banks the confidence they need to begin lending again, as opposed to sitting on their money and waiting out the storm. When something bad happens to your car, you are afraid to spend money again until either you figure out how much you will need to pay to have your car fixed, or you are done paying for the car. This is the same situation banks are currently in (except they own millions of cars). Secondly, while I am against government handouts, I am not against government loans. Unlike a government handout, which will be paid back by people not even born yet, these loans will be paid by consumers who choose to get them (in a structured time frame, as opposed to Congress' manta of "whenever feel like it"). That seems like a responsible balance between government and the private sector.
Yes, we are shouldering a lot of debt on the taxpayer's dime. But hey, we have already spent this bailout money; it is good to see it being used for something truly constructive. A big part of this economic crisis involves credit. Now that the creditors will be more confident to give credit out, we just need to wait for consumers to pay down their individual debts and adjust to living in their means before all facets of the economy take off again. I predicted last year that would happen around September of this year (a year after the crisis really began), and it appears many in economics and government share my views!
Until we meet again, goodbye!
I think these conflicting numbers are an overall positive. Total sales are up on lower price points. This means the prices of homes are falling, but falling to a range lower than market value (which indicates more buyers will join the market). As time goes on, either more people will buy homes, or the prices of those homes will go up; either scenario is good for sellers in the housing market, making everyone happy.
On top of the great housing news, stocks were buoyed by the Treasury Department's plan to buy so-called "toxic assets" from banks. Under the government's plan, private investors and the federal government would invest 7% each toward assets that banks need off their books (I do not know how this will be determined). The remaining 86% would be covered by a government loan. I do not know the amount of time the loan will need to be paid back in, or what the interest rate is. The government's 7% contribution will be paid for by already approved bailout money.
Government is shouldering most of the risk under this plan, covering 93% of the money used to buy the toxic assets. However, I still support this plan. Banks today are unwilling to loan money to consumers due to the amount of risky investments (like homes in foreclosure) they have on their balance sheets. This plan will help eliminate those risky investments and give banks the confidence they need to begin lending again, as opposed to sitting on their money and waiting out the storm. When something bad happens to your car, you are afraid to spend money again until either you figure out how much you will need to pay to have your car fixed, or you are done paying for the car. This is the same situation banks are currently in (except they own millions of cars). Secondly, while I am against government handouts, I am not against government loans. Unlike a government handout, which will be paid back by people not even born yet, these loans will be paid by consumers who choose to get them (in a structured time frame, as opposed to Congress' manta of "whenever feel like it"). That seems like a responsible balance between government and the private sector.
Yes, we are shouldering a lot of debt on the taxpayer's dime. But hey, we have already spent this bailout money; it is good to see it being used for something truly constructive. A big part of this economic crisis involves credit. Now that the creditors will be more confident to give credit out, we just need to wait for consumers to pay down their individual debts and adjust to living in their means before all facets of the economy take off again. I predicted last year that would happen around September of this year (a year after the crisis really began), and it appears many in economics and government share my views!
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)