Bain Capital closing Illinois Plant

[FA_Q2]

Stinking troll. Yea, from the 70s until today, the list of CEOs that given up their salaries during hard times is long. Now scurry back under the rotting pile of refuse from which you came.

Neg'd for being a troll. Barb the idiot too...

Except when they "give up" their salaries, they still take their stock options...

So they really aren't giving up anything.

Except that you said:

And when there are hard times, the CEO's never give up their bonuses and salaries. Nope, we need to cut wages and benefits and payroll...

Denoting that CEO’s ‘never’ give up salaries. Then when shown that they do, in fact, give up salaries you do what we call ‘moving the goalposts’ and redirect to stock option. Stock options that actually have nothing to do with the ability to make payroll.

Hell, their salaries actually have nothing to do with making payroll either; the figures they earn are not even close to saving those jobs.

Your problem is that you have to see everything as a function of labor vs company. That is horse shit. There is no labor vs company. The labor NEEDS the company to write the damn paychecks and the company NEEDS the labor to exist. Then you make asinine statements like:

move to a slack-jaw "right to work state"

Because you seem unable to conceive of actual workers being successful without your petty union ‘protecting’ them. Here is a newsflash for you: 90 percent of workers are not part of a union not because they need those unions, they are not part of a union because they need no such protection. Of course you go off on a tangent about outsourcing to countries that don’t care about clean air and water when the current administration (the one you are supporting) has done nothing to abate that problem. In fact, he is ever increasing it. All your asinine accusations sting of bigotry like almost every post you make here in this message board.

 

[JoeB131]

Because you seem unable to conceive of actual workers being successful without your petty union ‘protecting’ them. Here is a newsflash for you: 90 percent of workers are not part of a union not because they need those unions, they are not part of a union because they need no such protection. Of course you go off on a tangent about outsourcing to countries that don’t care about clean air and water when the current administration (the one you are supporting) has done nothing to abate that problem. In fact, he is ever increasing it. All your asinine accusations sting of bigotry like almost every post you make here in this message board.

90% of workers aren't part of unions because Unions already acheived ends to child labor, unsafe working conditions, established a 40 hour work week, and all the other benefits these non-union workers enjoy.

But the Plutocrats have been chipping away at it for the last 30 years, and the slack jaws rubes in the red states say, "yup, I be working for lower pay, Cleetus, but them Republicans are Right with Jay-a-zus. They won't let them queers get married."

Then they sit there like idiots when their jobs go further south. Like Mexico.

 

[eflatminor]

Stinking troll. Yea, from the 70s until today, the list of CEOs that given up their salaries during hard times is long. Now scurry back under the rotting pile of refuse from which you came.

Neg'd for being a troll. Barb the idiot too...

Except when they "give up" their salaries, they still take their stock options...

So they really aren't giving up anything.

Way to move the goalposts. Coward. On top of that, you're still wrong. Several CEOs, some on the list I provided, also gave up stock options. So....stupid coward!

 

[thereisnospoon]

Stinking troll. Yea, from the 70s until today, the list of CEOs that given up their salaries during hard times is long. Now scurry back under the rotting pile of refuse from which you came.

Neg'd for being a troll. Barb the idiot too...

Except when they "give up" their salaries, they still take their stock options...

So they really aren't giving up anything.

Especially if the salary they've "given p" is actually deferred, in which case the tax on that income is ALSO deferred, all the while that money sits in escrow, not in the economy, and not even in the r&d that mere mortals pension funds often are [researching and developing technologies that put them out of a job before they can collect on contract promises], gaining interest. It's also a huge tax dodge, as taxes paid in real time are more expensive than those paid at some future date, after it was allowed to sit and grow.

Poor corporate CEOs. Maybe someone should host a benefit.

Commenting on the photos you decided to place in your post, this is the scourge that liberalism has become.
First, you people do not view taxation as a means to raise revenue for the operation of government, you view at a means to punish those who make you uncomfortable with achievement and success. As far as you are concerned, they "have more than their (sniffle whine) fair share of "the wealth".
Second, your side has demonized and at times attempted to criminalize wealth achievement and success.
Most Americans view is "go to school, get an education, work hard and you can be successful enough to own the things you see"..
New age libs: "See that wealthy person? He or she got that way by taking my ( sniffle whine) fair share of "the wealth"...
Your side does not believe in hard work, the entrepreneurial spirit or the will to achieve at what one does best.
You scoff at these ideas. You despise those who do believe in them.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Which "republican" Name him or her.
BTW, the crash started the day Fannie/Freddie was allowed to get out of control and the federal government interfered in the lending market when it told banks they must lend to previously unqualified buyers.
It amazed me when I would meet a single person making no more than $30k per year buying a $120k house with no money down and a spotty credit report. A good loan officer would NEVER allow such a transaction to take place. However, that underwriter was told by his boss "make the loan"..
Congress warned the federal government that Fannie Freddie was going to result in a negative result.
In any event

I'm not sure where you are finding someone getting a loan with no money down.

I know I had a hard time getting a loan for 90K for my condo, making 46K a year at the time in 2004, and with a credit score in the high 700's. The only reason I was able to swing it was I qualified for a VA loan.

But it wasn't the government that made them do it. It was the thinking that, hey, if they default, we foreclose and resell the house for even more money after taking five years of interest.

It's only when the bubble burst that this ran into trouble.

But you'll ignore the 50 or so privately owned banks paying their execs seven figure bonuses to zero in on Fannie Mae...

No one can do that now. Credit standards have been dramatically tightened.
Our loan was an FHA loan. 3% down. Then we had to carry PMI until we had built 20% equity in the loan. We also had to pay closing costs which cost us another 4% of the loan.
I was working for two production builders doing alarm wiring and installing.
I was friendly with all of the superintendents. Some of these people told me the terms of the mortgages were very favorable to the buyer. In fact, I went to look at homes in one of these projects. I sat with the sales person and discussed terms. We needed only a credit check. No money down closing costs covered. It was a joke. We knew what we could afford. We were pre qualified at a number that was shockingly high. My wife looked the loan officer in the eye and said "are you crazy?"
These builders were handing out loans like candy. Many were fraudulent in that NO income verification was performed. The banks didn't care, the federal government told them to make the loans and the govt would back them in case of default.
The federal government indeed DID mandate banks make these loans. Otherwise, the govt would threaten a bend over and grab your ankles audit. And a potential lawsuit accusing the banks of "red lining"...
In return the government assured the banks the loans would be backed by government securities. The SAME securities now being sold to fund QE III.
The bubble as you say, burst because so many loans with adjustable rates OR were no interest for a fixed period of time defaulted simultaneously.
Not fearing a hit on their credit, people who could not make their new payments which came when the interest rate rose OR the no interest term ended, simply walked away from the home. This left the lender with a home that was worth far less then what was owed.
This all can be traced back to the federal government insisting that banks boost home ownership. The federal government manipulated the marketplace.
THAT is where the problem started.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Because you seem unable to conceive of actual workers being successful without your petty union ‘protecting’ them. Here is a newsflash for you: 90 percent of workers are not part of a union not because they need those unions, they are not part of a union because they need no such protection. Of course you go off on a tangent about outsourcing to countries that don’t care about clean air and water when the current administration (the one you are supporting) has done nothing to abate that problem. In fact, he is ever increasing it. All your asinine accusations sting of bigotry like almost every post you make here in this message board.

90% of workers aren't part of unions because Unions already acheived ends to child labor, unsafe working conditions, established a 40 hour work week, and all the other benefits these non-union workers enjoy.

But the Plutocrats have been chipping away at it for the last 30 years, and the slack jaws rubes in the red states say, "yup, I be working for lower pay, Cleetus, but them Republicans are Right with Jay-a-zus. They won't let them queers get married."

Then they sit there like idiots when their jobs go further south. Like Mexico.

SO you admit unions are no longer needed. Thanks.
Oh, if you expect us to kneel at the union altar, forget it. Unions did nothing for any of us.
The fact is the states and the federal government reacted to the disadvantage workers were in and corrected the problems. This would have happened with or without unions.
Oh, since you opened the door...What could a union possibly do to prevent a business from opening a plant in another country, in this case Mexico?
If anything, it is BECAUSE of unions certain businesses just gave up and set up shop outside the US. The federal government made the rules that allowed them to do that.
Your problem is that you refuse to allow yourself to be awakened to the facts..These are, jobs were moved from the Rust Belt in order to escape unions. The jobs went out of the country because unions made labor so expensive, that US Based companies could not compete in a global economy.

 

[JoeB131]

Stinking troll. Yea, from the 70s until today, the list of CEOs that given up their salaries during hard times is long. Now scurry back under the rotting pile of refuse from which you came.

Neg'd for being a troll. Barb the idiot too...

Except when they "give up" their salaries, they still take their stock options...

So they really aren't giving up anything.

Way to move the goalposts. Coward. On top of that, you're still wrong. Several CEOs, some on the list I provided, also gave up stock options. So....stupid coward!

Still horseshit and you know it. That's the biggest scam around meant to fool stupid people like you.

Iaccocca, for instance, walked away from Chrylser with millions for essentially going hat in hand to the government.

 

[JoeB131]

SO you admit unions are no longer needed. Thanks.
Oh, if you expect us to kneel at the union altar, forget it. Unions did nothing for any of us.
The fact is the states and the federal government reacted to the disadvantage workers were in and corrected the problems. This would have happened with or without unions.
Oh, since you opened the door...What could a union possibly do to prevent a business from opening a plant in another country, in this case Mexico?
If anything, it is BECAUSE of unions certain businesses just gave up and set up shop outside the US. The federal government made the rules that allowed them to do that.
Your problem is that you refuse to allow yourself to be awakened to the facts..These are, jobs were moved from the Rust Belt in order to escape unions. The jobs went out of the country because unions made labor so expensive, that US Based companies could not compete in a global economy.

Horseshit.

German and Japanese autoworkers are unionized, and their unions are stronger than ours. In fact, they even have a vote on who the CEO of Volkswagon or Toyota is.

If it weren't for unions, you'd all be working 60 hour work weeks for a pittance, replaced the minute you got sick.

If someone has done nothing for you, it's the plutocrats...

 

[JoeB131]

No one can do that now. Credit standards have been dramatically tightened.
Our loan was an FHA loan. 3% down. Then we had to carry PMI until we had built 20% equity in the loan. We also had to pay closing costs which cost us another 4% of the loan.
I was working for two production builders doing alarm wiring and installing.
I was friendly with all of the superintendents. Some of these people told me the terms of the mortgages were very favorable to the buyer. In fact, I went to look at homes in one of these projects. I sat with the sales person and discussed terms. We needed only a credit check. No money down closing costs covered. It was a joke. We knew what we could afford. We were pre qualified at a number that was shockingly high. My wife looked the loan officer in the eye and said "are you crazy?"
These builders were handing out loans like candy. Many were fraudulent in that NO income verification was performed. The banks didn't care, the federal government told them to make the loans and the govt would back them in case of default.
The federal government indeed DID mandate banks make these loans. Otherwise, the govt would threaten a bend over and grab your ankles audit. And a potential lawsuit accusing the banks of "red lining"...
In return the government assured the banks the loans would be backed by government securities. The SAME securities now being sold to fund QE III.
The bubble as you say, burst because so many loans with adjustable rates OR were no interest for a fixed period of time defaulted simultaneously.
Not fearing a hit on their credit, people who could not make their new payments which came when the interest rate rose OR the no interest term ended, simply walked away from the home. This left the lender with a home that was worth far less then what was owed.
This all can be traced back to the federal government insisting that banks boost home ownership. The federal government manipulated the marketplace.
THAT is where the problem started.

Again, you must have been living in fantasy land. I've bought two houses in my lifetime, once in 1987 and again in 2004.

Making the banks follow the law wasn't the problem.

It's when the banks took these bad loans and then sold them off as "investments" that we ran into the problem. It wasn't that they gave Johnny Foodstamp a 100K loan, it was that they then claimed that mortgage was a million dollar investment.

Quit making excuses for the banks... what they did was inexcusable, and you know it.

 

[eflatminor]

Except when they "give up" their salaries, they still take their stock options...

So they really aren't giving up anything.

Way to move the goalposts. Coward. On top of that, you're still wrong. Several CEOs, some on the list I provided, also gave up stock options. So....stupid coward!

Still horseshit and you know it. That's the biggest scam around meant to fool stupid people like you.

Iaccocca, for instance, walked away from Chrylser with millions for essentially going hat in hand to the government.

You lied. Read your own damn post. Pathetic.

 

[naturegirl]

Joey must be Biden's son. They have the same minor brain waves.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Except when they "give up" their salaries, they still take their stock options...

So they really aren't giving up anything.

Way to move the goalposts. Coward. On top of that, you're still wrong. Several CEOs, some on the list I provided, also gave up stock options. So....stupid coward!

Still horseshit and you know it. That's the biggest scam around meant to fool stupid people like you.

Iaccocca, for instance, walked away from Chrylser with millions for essentially going hat in hand to the government.

Speaking of telling horseshit stories, dude you are sniffing it.
Iaccocca kept Chrysler from going out of business. The company was building shitty unreliable vehicles and people hated them. That idiotic K-Car line almost destroyed the company.
I am no fan of golden parachutes or people who get to be fired and it actually enriches them. However, credit must be given where credit is due.
Also, as a lib and union thug, you have no room to talk when it comes to government handouts. But for a HUGE handout to GM, that company would have gone bankrupt( IMO should have anyway) but no, Obama was in no way ever going to let an opportunity to pay back his union constituency. So he took OUR money and bailed out GM...NO different with the Chrysler story.
So you can take your righteous indignation and cram it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

No one can do that now. Credit standards have been dramatically tightened.
Our loan was an FHA loan. 3% down. Then we had to carry PMI until we had built 20% equity in the loan. We also had to pay closing costs which cost us another 4% of the loan.
I was working for two production builders doing alarm wiring and installing.
I was friendly with all of the superintendents. Some of these people told me the terms of the mortgages were very favorable to the buyer. In fact, I went to look at homes in one of these projects. I sat with the sales person and discussed terms. We needed only a credit check. No money down closing costs covered. It was a joke. We knew what we could afford. We were pre qualified at a number that was shockingly high. My wife looked the loan officer in the eye and said "are you crazy?"
These builders were handing out loans like candy. Many were fraudulent in that NO income verification was performed. The banks didn't care, the federal government told them to make the loans and the govt would back them in case of default.
The federal government indeed DID mandate banks make these loans. Otherwise, the govt would threaten a bend over and grab your ankles audit. And a potential lawsuit accusing the banks of "red lining"...
In return the government assured the banks the loans would be backed by government securities. The SAME securities now being sold to fund QE III.
The bubble as you say, burst because so many loans with adjustable rates OR were no interest for a fixed period of time defaulted simultaneously.
Not fearing a hit on their credit, people who could not make their new payments which came when the interest rate rose OR the no interest term ended, simply walked away from the home. This left the lender with a home that was worth far less then what was owed.
This all can be traced back to the federal government insisting that banks boost home ownership. The federal government manipulated the marketplace.
THAT is where the problem started.

Again, you must have been living in fantasy land. I've bought two houses in my lifetime, once in 1987 and again in 2004.

Making the banks follow the law wasn't the problem.

It's when the banks took these bad loans and then sold them off as "investments" that we ran into the problem. It wasn't that they gave Johnny Foodstamp a 100K loan, it was that they then claimed that mortgage was a million dollar investment.

Quit making excuses for the banks... what they did was inexcusable, and you know it.

Nice try at revisionist history. What you posted is not true. The banks had no choice but to make these loans. The government set up the system where by the loans could be sold ,repackaged into mortgage based securities which were then sold to "investors". All with the backing of the US Government.
Don't try telling me or anyone else what you think you might know.
The convenient narrative to protect the people who protected Fannie/Freddie( Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Mel Watt) was "blame Wall Street"...
The underlying action that made this all possible is that the federal government unwittingly attempted to manipulate the housing market and set in motion the chain of events that led to the housing meltdown.
I was just in a neighborhood last week that was built between 1999 and 2003. I call it a "foreclosure hood"...Most of the homes sold for between $100 and $130K. Most homes were purchased by first time buyers. The racial makeup of this development is about 70% Black and the rest mixed mainly White and Latino..
Here's the time line on this one home I worked in....
2000 Home purchased for $128k from Beazer Homes Inc
2003 Countywide Revaluation. $114,940
2007 Countywide Revaluation, $127,300.
2011 Countywide Revaluation. $75,500.
Now these people the original owners are stuck with this house for probably the next 20 years. Why? Because fully FIFTY percent of the homes in this 400 home neighborhood were lost due to foreclosure.
These people are upside down in their home over 100%. IN other words, they owe more than twice what the house is worth based on a 30 year fixed rate loan.
The blame for this rests squarely on the shoulders of all those in Washington who came up with these schemes.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Way to move the goalposts. Coward. On top of that, you're still wrong. Several CEOs, some on the list I provided, also gave up stock options. So....stupid coward!

Still horseshit and you know it. That's the biggest scam around meant to fool stupid people like you.

Iaccocca, for instance, walked away from Chrylser with millions for essentially going hat in hand to the government.

Speaking of telling horseshit stories, dude you are sniffing it.
Iaccocca kept Chrysler from going out of business. The company was building shitty unreliable vehicles and people hated them. That idiotic K-Car line almost destroyed the company.

Talk about a steaming pile: the K-car SAVED the company. The K-car and the (K-car based) minivan saved Chrysler. This is not in dispute, no thinking person with even cursory knowledge of the facts disputes this at all.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Still horseshit and you know it. That's the biggest scam around meant to fool stupid people like you.

Iaccocca, for instance, walked away from Chrylser with millions for essentially going hat in hand to the government.

Speaking of telling horseshit stories, dude you are sniffing it.
Iaccocca kept Chrysler from going out of business. The company was building shitty unreliable vehicles and people hated them. That idiotic K-Car line almost destroyed the company.

Talk about a steaming pile: the K-car SAVED the company. The K-car and the (K-car based) minivan saved Chrysler. This is not in dispute, no thinking person with even cursory knowledge of the facts disputes this at all.

Oh Bullshit....Initially the K-car models did sell. However the models almost took down the company. The vehicles had horrible resale value and non stop reliability issues.
It was a throw away vehicle line. The cars sold about 150,000 units per year from 1981 thru 1989 the last model year for the K.
Since the early 80's Chrysler has been a third rate auto manufacturer.
Now it's no longer an American car company. Majority owned by Fiat.

 

[Jarlaxle]

WHACK, WHACK, WHACK! Hello, McFly! Anyone home?!

Once more, from the top: the K-car saved Chrysler. The K-car based minivans (1984) turned Chrysler into a money machine. (Two years after introducing the minivans, they bought AMC to get the Jeep brand.) This is not debatable.

 

[thereisnospoon]

WHACK, WHACK, WHACK! Hello, McFly! Anyone home?!

Once more, from the top: the K-car saved Chrysler. The K-car based minivans (1984) turned Chrysler into a money machine. (Two years after introducing the minivans, they bought AMC to get the Jeep brand.) This is not debatable.

Yeah. Ok....And there were none on the road by the mid 90's.
Real saver. Like I said. These cars had no resale value.
The point is the OP trashed Lee Iaccocca. He saved the Chrysler Corp. The K-Car line was the car the company made. It served a niche. Rom for 5 or 6 basic transportation and decent fuel economy. When the cars worked.

 

[thereisnospoon]

WHACK, WHACK, WHACK! Hello, McFly! Anyone home?!

Once more, from the top: the K-car saved Chrysler. The K-car based minivans (1984) turned Chrysler into a money machine. (Two years after introducing the minivans, they bought AMC to get the Jeep brand.) This is not debatable.

Whack whack whack..Is there any reason why you have to be a wise ass?
Look, do us a favor. Put me on ignore. Cuz I'm through with you....Wise ass.

 

[Barb]

Because you seem unable to conceive of actual workers being successful without your petty union ‘protecting’ them. Here is a newsflash for you: 90 percent of workers are not part of a union not because they need those unions, they are not part of a union because they need no such protection. Of course you go off on a tangent about outsourcing to countries that don’t care about clean air and water when the current administration (the one you are supporting) has done nothing to abate that problem. In fact, he is ever increasing it. All your asinine accusations sting of bigotry like almost every post you make here in this message board.

90% of workers aren't part of unions because Unions already acheived ends to child labor, unsafe working conditions, established a 40 hour work week, and all the other benefits these non-union workers enjoy.

But the Plutocrats have been chipping away at it for the last 30 years, and the slack jaws rubes in the red states say, "yup, I be working for lower pay, Cleetus, but them Republicans are Right with Jay-a-zus. They won't let them queers get married."

Then they sit there like idiots when their jobs go further south. Like Mexico.

You have to love how the right accepts corporations maximizing their profits off the labor of others as economic freedom, but when workers join unions to maximize their profits off their OWN labor:

 

[Barb]

Except when they "give up" their salaries, they still take their stock options...

So they really aren't giving up anything.

Especially if the salary they've "given p" is actually deferred, in which case the tax on that income is ALSO deferred, all the while that money sits in escrow, not in the economy, and not even in the r&d that mere mortals pension funds often are [researching and developing technologies that put them out of a job before they can collect on contract promises], gaining interest. It's also a huge tax dodge, as taxes paid in real time are more expensive than those paid at some future date, after it was allowed to sit and grow.

Poor corporate CEOs. Maybe someone should host a benefit.

Commenting on the photos you decided to place in your post, this is the scourge that liberalism has become.
First, you people do not view taxation as a means to raise revenue for the operation of government, you view at a means to punish those who make you uncomfortable with achievement and success. As far as you are concerned, they "have more than their (sniffle whine) fair share of "the wealth".
Second, your side has demonized and at times attempted to criminalize wealth achievement and success.
Most Americans view is "go to school, get an education, work hard and you can be successful enough to own the things you see"..
New age libs: "See that wealthy person? He or she got that way by taking my ( sniffle whine) fair share of "the wealth"...
Your side does not believe in hard work, the entrepreneurial spirit or the will to achieve at what one does best.
You scoff at these ideas. You despise those who do believe in them.

I do scoff, because we aren't living in our parent's America anymore. They were convinced to pull up behind them the ladders to success and TRUE economic freedom they had the advantage of, all for "our own good." But I don't hate you for your ignorance. I pity you.