[GTAHVIT]

Merged.

[Angrybird 12]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

I was wondering if any of you guys had thoughts or horror stories of what a "Car Czar" would do if put into a position of power over the "Big 3".

I'm terrified of some dope with no auto experience and connections with some of the wacky lobby groups to come along and ruin the industry by "designing" the cars for the big 3.

I can forsee UBER-CAFE standards being dictated.
I can see new laws forcing minimum recycling content being imagined.
I can see new safety mandates like "automatic collision avoidance" being promoted.
I can imagine even bizarre "political correctness" standards killing "performance" cars too.
I can also envision corruption of the "czar" (bribes, etc.) causing unforseen problems.

What do you guys expect to happen (in your worst nightmares)

P.S. I am depressed about this whole situation... feel free to interject some humorous comments here if you'd like!

I got to thinking, alot of positions being appointed are being called "Czar"
I don't know about you but dosent that sound a little Communistic?
I know it is an Old Russian term for an Emporer or someone with great power, but to me it is a sign of the direction our once great country is headed..

[Mr. Wyndham]

The "czar"...is simply an overseer. Try to keep that up front when referring to the postition.

He/She can't DO anything. He/She cannot...CANNOT...dictate anything the automakers do or tell them what types of vehicles they build. He/She can ONLY authorize and approve (or reject) restructuring efforts and costs/payments associated with the $15 Billion loans. He/She also reports to congress periodically on the status of the companies.

Secondly, don't read to deeply into the "czar" title. It's unofficial, and thankfully appears nowhere in the bill. They refer to this person as the "President's designee".

The only thing that's scary to me...is that according to the Bill drawn up by congress, the President's designee requires no experience in the auto Industry...at all. This is quoted from the document:

"The President shall designate 1 or more officers from the Executive Branch having appropriate expertise in such areas as economic stabilization,financial aid to commerce and industry, financial restructuring, energy efficiency, and environmental protection..."

But then again...this could be a good thing; because this person will have no proper authority over anything other than how they conduct their businesses and operations.

[Angrybird 12]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

The "czar"...is simply an overseer. Try to keep that up front when referring to the postition.

He/She can't DO anything. He/She cannot...CANNOT...dictate anything the automakers do or tell them what types of vehicles they build. He/She can ONLY authorize and approve (or reject) restructuring efforts and costs/payments associated with the $15 Billion loans. He/She also reports to congress periodically on the status of the companies.

Secondly, don't read to deeply into the "czar" title. It's unofficial, and thankfully appears nowhere in the bill. They refer to this person as the "President's designee".

The only thing that's scary to me...is that according to the Bill drawn up by congress, the President's designee requires no experience in the auto Industry...at all. This is quoted from the document:

"The President shall designate 1 or more officers from the Executive Branch having appropriate expertise in such areas as economic stabilization,financial aid to commerce and industry, financial restructuring, energy efficiency, and environmental protection..."

But then again...this could be a good thing; because this person will have no proper authority over anything other than how they conduct their businesses and operations.

From what I saw about the bill the Car Czar will have total control over the car companies meeting the restructuring plan requirments by March 31st, if in HIS opinion they don't meet them he can either force them to repay the loans, or he can submit his own plan to the companies and if they accept it they don't have to repay the money right then. He has plenty of power under this bill they are trying to pass for the loan money... He will also have the authority to approve or reject any expence over 25 Million.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Skyman 08

From what I saw about the bill the Car Czar will have total control over the car companies meeting the restructuring plan requirments by March 31st, if in HIS opinion they don't meet them he can either force them to repay the loans, or he can submit his own plan to the companies and if they accept it they don't have to repay the money right then. He has plenty of power under this bill they are trying to pass for the loan money... He will also have the authority to approve or reject any expence over 25 Million.

Right. He's the "oversight board" for lack of a better term...in fact (the word "board" reminded me), the President can appoint multiple people to do this job - it doesn't have to be one person (as quoted above). So long as the companies have this government money flowing through thier corporate veins, they have to answer to him. But he's not in direct control of anything. Also, he's not the be-all, end-all. The President's designee answers to the Comptroller General, and there's a "Special Inspector General" who also watches over him/her/them.

I'm not saying he's a nobody...but he's certainly not a "czar" in the literal sense of the word.

[BigRigMike]

Since this person(s) is appointed from the Executive branch does that mean that Obama can replace him(them) on January 20 if he so chooses?? And if so then does Bush even need to appoint anyone since he will not have much time to do anything? I thought that the designee does not report back to Capitol Hill until 45 days after the bill is signed which would be after the 20th.

This is a technical question and I do not want a response that involves politics because it is not allowed on this site anymore.

[Mr. Wyndham]

It's not directly addressed in the Bill...so I'm assuming there's some other law ragarding appointments that applies.

It does say this regarding the "President's designee", though:

"who shall serve at the pleasure of the President."

This could mean that Obama could replace the person (or people) if he feels like it.

[Georgie]

Originally Posted by FirstLSK

Think about government dependency from a financial standpoint. Need a good example of financial dependence on a government? Take a trip to New Orleans.

The only thing that you should DEPEND upon the U.S. government to do, is to defend the rights guaranteed to you by the U.S. Constitution and the bill of rights.

The primary purpose of the U.S. government is defense of the free people, foreign and domestic – NOT to be your counselor in life or manipulate your choices as a free individual.

amen brother. that was the whole idea behind american

[Georgie]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Ah. I see.

What advantage would there be to that?
Whether we like it or not, the gov't NEEDS money to run, and whether we like it or not, we NEED the government.
If I listened right in history class...they tried a no-tax policy when the states were formed in the late 1700s. But it failed miserably.

balogney! the government needs us more than we need it! the point is not not paying any taxes but how much, we pay too d--m much and the government is too d--m big! the whole point of america is limited government because government was aknowledged to be not an absolute good but instead a necessary evil

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Georgie

government was aknowledged to be not an absolute good but instead a necessary evil

Indicating NEED.

Lets face it, we're a stupid species...without government, there can be no societal organization, and more than likely, no sustainable civilization.

As for taxes...I don't have the time to post specifics right now...but take some time and look up the income, sales, etc tax rates in other countries.....you'll find we rate average to low...

And just to clarify...I'm not advocating for large government...or that I want to pay any more in taxes than I already do...I'm just sayin'............

[Georgie]

man i don't want to add up all the taxes i pay because its scary. i've done it before and it was baffling, especially in the People's Republic of Chicago. we pay to d--m much without even looking at other countries

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Indicating NEED.

Lets face it, we're a stupid species...without government, there can be no societal organization, and more than likely, no sustainable civilization.

As for taxes...I don't have the time to post specifics right now...but take some time and look up the income, sales, etc tax rates in other countries.....you'll find we rate average to low...

And just to clarify...I'm not advocating for large government...or that I want to pay any more in taxes than I already do...I'm just sayin'............

Many would argue, that this is the very reason we are the successful country we are in spite of our "problems" The biggest contributor to our companies leaving and our jobs getting outsourced is our ridiculously high corporate tax. In the Anheuser Bush deal, the difference in corporate tax gave the buying company over 25 million dollar advantage over AB. That was corporate tax alone....

low taxes = more consumer/business spending = more gov revenues. It's worked over and over again. The problem is when the gov gets that revenue they just out spend it instead of balancing the budget... Dorks.

Edit:

Dammit Dragon,

Quit roping me into this conversation...

[BigRigMike]

Originally Posted by gtahvit

Many would argue, that this is the very reason we are the successful country we are in spite of our "problems"

yes and this is the reason that I am not worried about China catching up but that sneaky Liechtenstein with their low taxes. They will take the world by storm any day now.

[GTAHVIT]

^Sarcasm or serious?