mnealtx 0 #26 November 30, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteOk, so it's back down where it was in winter/spring..... I guess it was Bush's fault when the dollar was almost at parity with the German mark in 97-ish, too.. No- that was due to the Reagan - Bush (41) deficit. Once we got in surplus it went up. Now we're in deficit it goes down again. Simple economics. This time even Greenspan's worried. money.cnn.com/2004/11/19/news/economy/fed_greenspan/ Wow... so let me make sure I have this straight: A slump in the economy in the middle of Clinton's second term was the fault of the two preceeding Presidents.... ....but a slump that started before GW's FIRST term is all GW's fault? Ok, thanks for LE 101 (Liberal Economics) No slump in deficit reduction until Bush took over. In 96-97 we went from getting about 2.5-3 DM to the dollar down to about 1.3 DM to the dollar - and you're saying that was the fault of Reagan and GHW Bush? It was some sort of "stealth deficit" or something? I'd like the hear the explanation of just HOW that came about, 5 years into Clinton's presidency.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #27 November 30, 2004 Bill, name one CEO who hasn't had to have layoffs at their company. And don't give me some bullshit 5 employee company as an example. Any good CEO, if faced with a enterprise-wide crisis where the only solution is eliminating costly and inefficient divisions would have to do it. Like it or not. That's their job. I didn't hear you crying when financial firms were laying off people every month in numbers as high as 5,000. But 550 is way more important since you think it makes Bush look like he made a bad choice, right? For you to apply this to how his duties in office will look is silly. You just took the anti-Bush newsletter argument against Gutierrez because that is what you do. Predictable.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #28 November 30, 2004 > The Commerce Secretary doesn't dictate to US companies how they do business. He dictates quite a few things. He helps negotiate trade agreements, determines what unfair trading practices are, determines interstate trade restrictions etc. He sets the tone for commerce in the country, and often creates the very rules that control commerce in the US. >if you don't streamline and minimize your costs, you go under in today's business environs. Agreed. And part of Gutierrez's recipie for business success, as demonstrated by the very actions Bush was talking about, is to get rid of US workers. Like I said, I wish good luck to all the US workers who will lose their jobs so companies can be more profitable. If you think I'm saying that everyone should have a job, or that companies are evil, you're mistaken. There are many ways to make companies more profitable, and one way is surely to remove expensive American labor and replace it with cheaper overseas labor, and making companies more profitable is a good thing for those companies. US workers will suffer the effects of such a policy, though, and thus any "we're helping the american worker; we're in it for the little guy!" nonsense is nothing more than propaganda. They are in it for big business, as their records have shown. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #29 November 30, 2004 >Any good CEO, if faced with a enterprise-wide crisis where the only >solution is eliminating costly and inefficient divisions would have to do it. I would say that a good CEO keeps his company profitable enough so that he doesn't need to lay off people. A mediocre CEO has financial troubles that neccessitate layoffs; poor CEO's have layoffs AND lose profitability. >But 550 is way more important since you think it makes Bush look like >he made a bad choice, right? No. And had he said "Gutierrez knows how to grow business" I wouldn't even have posted anything. But it's ironic that a man who achieved success by cutting US jobs is lauded as someone who will grow them. But by all means keep blindly supporting Bush no matter what he does! That way you never have to question anything, and the world becomes much simpler. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #30 November 30, 2004 QuoteGee, I guess it would have been better for the company to go bankrupt and EVERYONE lose their jobs? This goes beyond the individual business, it's about the gov offloading jobs via Bush so things get more lean at home. BTW, I would rather companies go bankrupt, turn their assets over to their creditors and teh gov, and let the gov handle things than some greedy, corrupt corporate scumbag. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #31 November 30, 2004 QuoteThis goes beyond the individual business, it's about the gov offloading jobs via Bush so things get more lean at home. No, Bills gripe was this guy doing his job and keeping a company above water. QuoteBTW, I would rather companies go bankrupt, turn their assets over to their creditors and teh gov, and let the gov handle things than some greedy, corrupt corporate scumbag. So, you would rather companies go bankrupt? You think all business people are greedy scumbags? Let me guess...Democrat, and you voted for Kerry?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #32 November 30, 2004 QuoteQuoteThis explains volumes: Flying a Raven-M at 1.34 being used to 1.12. Ok, so is this more misdirection, counselor? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #33 November 30, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteOk, so it's back down where it was in winter/spring..... I guess it was Bush's fault when the dollar was almost at parity with the German mark in 97-ish, too.. No- that was due to the Reagan - Bush (41) deficit. Once we got in surplus it went up. Now we're in deficit it goes down again. Simple economics. This time even Greenspan's worried. money.cnn.com/2004/11/19/news/economy/fed_greenspan/ Wow... so let me make sure I have this straight: A slump in the economy in the middle of Clinton's second term was the fault of the two preceeding Presidents.... ....but a slump that started before GW's FIRST term is all GW's fault? Ok, thanks for LE 101 (Liberal Economics) Hardly middle of second term, more likely the last 6 months. "....but a slump that started before GW's FIRST term is all GW's fault?" How about giving away the surplus to throw the country into a recession when it was operating much better with a surplus? How about cutting unemployment benefit extensions when the working people were hurting? That shows compassion for the corps, none for the people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #34 November 30, 2004 QuoteI would say that a good CEO keeps his company profitable enough so that he doesn't need to lay off people. A mediocre CEO has financial troubles that neccessitate layoffs; poor CEO's have layoffs AND lose profitability. Ummm... so you're saying that Gutierrez was a good CEO, right? He did what he had to do to keep the company profitable, making it a better company in the long run. I wonder... does Kellog now provide MORE jobs since that layoff and closing? QuoteBut it's ironic that a man who achieved success by cutting US jobs is lauded as someone who will grow them. Well, when you find the CEO that hasn't had to make the decision to lay people off because he's perfect, or even when you find the CEO that hasn't fired ANYONE. Let Bush know. We wouldn't want someone who eliminated even 1 job working for us, would we? QuoteBut by all means keep blindly supporting Bush no matter what he does! That way you never have to question anything, and the world becomes much simpler. I never said I supported Bush's decision in this situation, did I Bill? I think he hired someone that we all know little about. I'll wait and see what Gutierrez does in his new role before I accuse Bush of... well... whatever it is that you're trying to use this appointment to accuse him of. But keep getting your political views from all the anti-Bush newsletters, thinking that you're making up your own arguments. It makes it much easier to debate you.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #35 November 30, 2004 Or, perhaps there could be another thought to this. Gutierrez knows many of the reasons why jobs are being shipped overseas. Many of these reasons are institutional. Maybe this guy can say, "You know, 15 CFR 2011.107 is one crucial reason why we are losing so much commercial business, especially due to considerations of cheap foreign sugar. I'll work to change those regulations to make a better business environment." Of course, that is pure speculation. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #36 November 30, 2004 QuoteQuoteThis goes beyond the individual business, it's about the gov offloading jobs via Bush so things get more lean at home. QuoteBTW, I would rather companies go bankrupt, turn their assets over to their creditors and teh gov, and let the gov handle things than some greedy, corrupt corporate scumbag. "No, Bills gripe was this guy doing his job and keeping a company above water." That's fine, but my gripe, which contributes to all this glee, is that the offloading of jobs is largely at the crux of the domestic employment woes in the US for the last 20 years or so. "So, you would rather companies go bankrupt? You think all business people are greedy scumbags? Let me guess...Democrat, and you voted for Kerry?" Yes. Genrally most business owners/CEO's are profit-seeking scum. Wanna tell me about the post 9/11 bailout where taxpayers gave 100's of millions to airlines to keep them afloat, then the airlines laid people off. The idea was to keep the people employed and company solvent - Fascism kids, that's why there weren't strings attached to that money where the gov said 'take the money - keep the people employed.' As for Dem and all the rest of your garbled guess in the dark. I registered in AZ in 94 as a Repugnican, voted Dole in 96 (don't aske me why), got an education and now generally vote Dem. Am I a flaming liberal? No. I'm pro-gun and am not hard leaning left, but I am left of center. Let me make an equally stupid generalization of you..... naw, I'm not about that..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #37 November 30, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteOk, so it's back down where it was in winter/spring..... I guess it was Bush's fault when the dollar was almost at parity with the German mark in 97-ish, too.. No- that was due to the Reagan - Bush (41) deficit. Once we got in surplus it went up. Now we're in deficit it goes down again. Simple economics. This time even Greenspan's worried. money.cnn.com/2004/11/19/news/economy/fed_greenspan/ Wow... so let me make sure I have this straight: A slump in the economy in the middle of Clinton's second term was the fault of the two preceeding Presidents.... ....but a slump that started before GW's FIRST term is all GW's fault? Ok, thanks for LE 101 (Liberal Economics) Hardly middle of second term, more likely the last 6 months. "....but a slump that started before GW's FIRST term is all GW's fault?" How about giving away the surplus to throw the country into a recession when it was operating much better with a surplus? How about cutting unemployment benefit extensions when the working people were hurting? That shows compassion for the corps, none for the people. How about if you answer my actual question, instead of twisting things around so you can Bush-bash? FYI: Late 96-early 97 (the time period that I am referring to) was in the FIRST half of Clinton's second term, not 6 months before the end...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #38 November 30, 2004 QuoteThere are many ways to make companies more profitable, and one way is surely to remove expensive American labor and replace it with cheaper overseas labor, and making companies more profitable is a good thing for those companies. US workers will suffer the effects of such a policy, though, and thus any "we're helping the american worker; we're in it for the little guy!" nonsense is nothing more than propaganda. They are in it for big business, as their records have shown. Um, Bill? How many of those 550 jobs went overseas? We're talking about a loss of the demand side in the economy coupled with bad business decisions in the past, not Chinese-made frosted flakes (although store brands cut into Kellogg's profits and added other jobs to the economy in the process ). So, how do you connect the dots from shipping jobs overseas to it as the basis for workers losing their jobs under Gutierrez's yet to be determined policies? -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #39 November 30, 2004 QuoteI would say that a good CEO keeps his company profitable enough so that he doesn't need to lay off people. A mediocre CEO has financial troubles that neccessitate layoffs; poor CEO's have layoffs AND lose profitability. Gutierrez took the hand he was dealt. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #40 November 30, 2004 QuoteBTW, I would rather companies go bankrupt, turn their assets over to their creditors and teh gov, and let the gov handle things than some greedy, corrupt corporate scumbag. Since when does the government make anything, let alone cereal? They don't run anything; they sell it off for $0.20 per dollar. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #41 November 30, 2004 QuoteThat's fine, but my gripe, which contributes to all this glee, is that the offloading of jobs is largely at the crux of the domestic employment woes in the US for the last 20 years or so. *** Genrally most business owners/CEO's are profit-seeking scum. Yes, it is the government's fault from Jimmy Carter through Bush that we did not engage in a protectionism for our workers. While big bloated US companies sat on their asses, the Japanese killed us in the auto industry. The reason why Japan now takes a helluva a lot of money home from cars is because Ford and GM couldn't comprehend making what the customer wanted and the Japanese listened and made it cheaper. We failed to stay competitive and it cost us dearly. How many jobs did we lose with the status quo? How much money? -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #42 November 30, 2004 That plant was 93 years old and out dated. He did something none of the other previous CEO's had the courage to do: close that plant. Lay-offs are horrible, but it wasn't his fault. He was handed a company who got side swiped in the whole 'eat and run' life style we have. Kellog didn't see that coming. Before Guiterez Kellog derived 75% of its profits from breakfast cereal (a market that was and is still declining). Talk about putting all his eggs in one basket. Then he purchased Keebler Foods for 4.4 billion and brought that down to 40% of its profits from breakfast cereal. It use to take Kellog close to 2-3 months to roll out new products, now they can do it in less than a month. Overall I think he's a good choice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #43 November 30, 2004 QuoteQuoteBTW, I would rather companies go bankrupt, turn their assets over to their creditors and teh gov, and let the gov handle things than some greedy, corrupt corporate scumbag. Since when does the government make anything, let alone cereal? They don't run anything; they sell it off for $0.20 per dollar. Agreed, so why has Bush presided over a HUGE increase in the size of government and a HUGE increase in the deficit? Conservative values? Hardly.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #44 November 30, 2004 QuoteThat plant was 93 years old and out dated. He did something none of the other previous CEO's had the courage to do: close that plant. Lay-offs are horrible, but it wasn't his fault. He was handed a company who got side swiped in the whole 'eat and run' life style we have. Kellog didn't see that coming. Before Guiterez Kellog derived 75% of its profits from breakfast cereal (a market that was and is still declining). Talk about putting all his eggs in one basket. Then he purchased Keebler Foods for 4.4 billion and brought that down to 40% of its profits from breakfast cereal. It use to take Kellog close to 2-3 months to roll out new products, now they can do it in less than a month. Overall I think he's a good choice. So now it's the workers' fault that the plant was outdated?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #45 November 30, 2004 This guy knows what it takes to run and grow a business and I can tell you the government needs to get out of the way and let the marketplace do its work. Ebb and flow is the natural way of a free market economy. "As CEO of the Kellogg company, he has been an effective visionary executive. He understands the world of business from the first rung on the ladder to the very top. He knows exactly what it takes to help American businesses grow and create jobs," Bush said during an announcement in the Roosevelt Room at the White House. I think this is an excellent choice.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #46 November 30, 2004 >He did something none of the other previous CEO's had the courage to >do: close that plant. I agree, and it turned out to be a good business decision, if not great for the people he laid off. >Lay-offs are horrible, but it wasn't his fault. That's nonsense. It's part of the "nothing's anyone's fault" culture we've got going on here, a culture I despise. If he takes credit for turning around Kellogg then he takes the blame for the layoff. It was part of the plan. It's great that he turned Kellogg around. CEO's have many ways to do that; clearly one of his tools is to lay people off. That's often good for the company, but bad for the people being laid off. I wish them good luck, as I wish the people who will be laid off to make additional companies more profitable good luck. In this business climate they will need it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #47 November 30, 2004 Quote"No, Bills gripe was this guy doing his job and keeping a company above water." That's fine, but my gripe, which contributes to all this glee, is that the offloading of jobs is largely at the crux of the domestic employment woes in the US for the last 20 years or so. While I agree sending jobs overseas is bad for the US as a whole....I also can understand why a CEO of a company forced to make the choice between sending jobs overseas and keeping the company in business is better than letting the company go bankrupt. Besides as others have pointed out, Kellogs plant was out dated, and needed removed. I can't fault a business guy for making good business choices. QuoteYes. Genrally most business owners/CEO's are profit-seeking scum Why else have a company? Why work so much if not for profit? I get up everyday and got to work for money...Does that make me a profit seeking scum? QuoteWanna tell me about the post 9/11 bailout where taxpayers gave 100's of millions to airlines to keep them afloat, then the airlines laid people off. Yes, please tell me about it...Since I work for an airline I'd love to hear your side of it. QuoteThe idea was to keep the people employed and company solvent - Fascism kids, that's why there weren't strings attached to that money where the gov said 'take the money - keep the people employed Thats not facsim. Thats the government giving money to try and protect the economy. The companies took that money and tried to stay afloat. An airline is not exacty a good business to be in. When you fiqure pilots make close to 100/hr, and MX guys make 30-40/hr. Here at my company the lowest paid Capt makes 140,000 a year. Thats for a 727. I know some guys making 250,000 a year working 2 days a week. Salaries in aviation are inflated. Trust me QuoteAs for Dem and all the rest of your garbled guess in the dark. I registered in AZ in 94 as a Repugnican, voted Dole in 96 (don't aske me why), got an education and now generally vote Dem. Am I a flaming liberal? No. I'm pro-gun and am not hard leaning left, but I am left of center. Seems like I was right on target with my guess. I'd further guess you work in aviation and were laid off.....And as I check your profile.....Snap! I see you listed as an Av MX....I call 'em like I see em."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #48 November 30, 2004 Never said that. What would you have done with a plant that was out dated and losing at least 50+ mill a year. You're also in a market that's decling with 75% of your profits coming from that market. You're competitors are literally kicking your a$$ with products that suit the 'eat and run' lifestyle. A trend in the market which previous CEOs ingnored. Lay-offs are horrible, never did I say the workers were at fault. On the contrary they are the ones who usually pay for bad management decisions. Overall from what I've read about Guiterez and the corporate culture at Kellog he is a good CEO. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #49 November 30, 2004 QuoteThat's nonsense. It's part of the "nothing's anyone's fault" culture we've got going on here, a culture I despise. If he takes credit for turning around Kellogg then he takes the blame for the layoff. It was part of the plan. I agree with you there, you have an excellent point. I wonder though if Kellog offered them some sort of retraining program. I know some companies offer it, others just hang 'em out to dry. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #50 November 30, 2004 QuoteBTW, I would rather companies go bankrupt, turn their assets over to their creditors and teh (sic) gov, and let the gov handle things than some greedy, corrupt corporate scumbag. OK, who wants to disect this particular position for their own personal entertainment? I'll start with a simple one - Playing to these strereotypes (I suspect that the government has just as big a proportion of 'greedy corrupt scumbag's as any other industry or societal factor) is right out of the playbook and compares to the stereotypes of 'godless foreigners' presented by the religious right (just to keep on equal footing by political party). People just plain don't fit into these simple-minded little boxes (it's no better than stereotyping races or religions or ethnicity or gender). Just as well say you hate him because he's Hispanic. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)