your bailout dollars at work
10-15-2008, 08:00 PM
#1
LS1Tech Sponsor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
your bailout dollars at work
__________________
https://ls1tech.com/forums/image.php...ine=1194732633
Free Cooler, Free shipping always, 2 year warranty Trans/Coverter combos, No Core or Core charge, $150 LS1 core buy back, All trans Dyno Tested to Be sure it works when you get it.Customer videos, Tech Thread, Open 7 Days a Week! Call or http://opi.yahoo.com/online?u=performabuilt&m=g&t=2
Click Banner for Website.
Not Just Built.....PerformaBuilt!
https://ls1tech.com/forums/image.php...ine=1194732633
Free Cooler, Free shipping always, 2 year warranty Trans/Coverter combos, No Core or Core charge, $150 LS1 core buy back, All trans Dyno Tested to Be sure it works when you get it.Customer videos, Tech Thread, Open 7 Days a Week! Call or http://opi.yahoo.com/online?u=performabuilt&m=g&t=2
Click Banner for Website.Not Just Built.....PerformaBuilt!
10-15-2008, 11:30 PM
#3
TECH Fanatic
woohoo! Glad to see they are spending it wisely! 
I dont buy this "it was a preplanned trip" BS. Just like the first event they blew on entertaining whoever. Complete
.
Like saying, I almost had to foreclose my house until federal aid saved it... Oh, bye the way, I'm still taking my 'preplanned' $10,000 trip to the hawaiian islands since I dont want to lose the $500 deposit.
Yeah yeah, I know they are 'entertaining' exec's/customers with rewards for selling policies and making money yada yada yada... Really though, if the only way you can encourage people to sell **** is to send them or the customers to exotic resorts and ellaborate hunting excursions blowing through tax payer money..... your product or service must really suck and doesn't deserve the aid.
I dont buy this "it was a preplanned trip" BS. Just like the first event they blew on entertaining whoever. Complete
. Like saying, I almost had to foreclose my house until federal aid saved it... Oh, bye the way, I'm still taking my 'preplanned' $10,000 trip to the hawaiian islands since I dont want to lose the $500 deposit.
Yeah yeah, I know they are 'entertaining' exec's/customers with rewards for selling policies and making money yada yada yada... Really though, if the only way you can encourage people to sell **** is to send them or the customers to exotic resorts and ellaborate hunting excursions blowing through tax payer money..... your product or service must really suck and doesn't deserve the aid.
10-16-2008, 01:36 AM
#5
Originally Posted by crooked BASTERDS
Company officials said the hunting trip in the English countryside was an annual event for customers that had been planned months before the bailout.
But anyways, i still dont remember getting a paid vaca by them. hell i didnt even get lube. They could have at least spit on it, jeez...
10-16-2008, 07:42 AM
#7
TECH Addict
iTrader: (21)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Port Saint Lucie,Florida
Posts: 2,767
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I just got done reading Ted Nugents book Ted,White and Blue.If you want to know more about this country & Politics you have to read this book.Here is one of his quotes (The shattered skulls of tyrants should be used for traction under the boots of justice ).
Trending Topics
10-16-2008, 10:13 PM
#10
Ok, some of you guys seem to have this a little wrong. First of all, I'm not a supporter of the bail out plan....or Obama's socialistic "change" he wants to bring to America. But you all aren't getting the whole story here.
First off, these "Executives" aren't actual employees of AIG. They are the big time salesman of their Insurance. They have plenty of other insurance companies that they can chose from to sell to potential customers, hence why they were referred to as "customers" in the story. This is normal practice by AIG and insurance companies to "win" support by these agents who are then swayed to sell AIG more than the next company. Granted, I don't agree with this type of practice, but it's the way it has been for awhile now. All these trips happen multiple times EVERY year. It's almost an "advertisement" budget type of expense. To quote the article which was quoting AIG "all nonessential conferences, meetings and activities that do not clearly maximize value and service given the current conditions." I bolded the part that was important. As while from the outside it seems as careless spending, it's something that brings about extra business to the company, by swaying those big time agents to sell AIG.
So, I ask you what's worse? Loaning a crap ton of money to this business and make it stop these trips, and inturn lose business, and then lose profit? Or, have them continue this advertising and keep business profits normal, or higher? Which in turn, will help them payback the money quicker.
And btw....I'd definitely vote for Ted!
First off, these "Executives" aren't actual employees of AIG. They are the big time salesman of their Insurance. They have plenty of other insurance companies that they can chose from to sell to potential customers, hence why they were referred to as "customers" in the story. This is normal practice by AIG and insurance companies to "win" support by these agents who are then swayed to sell AIG more than the next company. Granted, I don't agree with this type of practice, but it's the way it has been for awhile now. All these trips happen multiple times EVERY year. It's almost an "advertisement" budget type of expense. To quote the article which was quoting AIG "all nonessential conferences, meetings and activities that do not clearly maximize value and service given the current conditions." I bolded the part that was important. As while from the outside it seems as careless spending, it's something that brings about extra business to the company, by swaying those big time agents to sell AIG.
So, I ask you what's worse? Loaning a crap ton of money to this business and make it stop these trips, and inturn lose business, and then lose profit? Or, have them continue this advertising and keep business profits normal, or higher? Which in turn, will help them payback the money quicker.
And btw....I'd definitely vote for Ted!
10-17-2008, 12:15 AM
#11
12 Second Club
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Dallas, TX/Orlando, FL
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, some of you guys seem to have this a little wrong. First of all, I'm not a supporter of the bail out plan....or Obama's socialistic "change" he wants to bring to America. But you all aren't getting the whole story here.
First off, these "Executives" aren't actual employees of AIG. They are the big time salesman of their Insurance. They have plenty of other insurance companies that they can chose from to sell to potential customers, hence why they were referred to as "customers" in the story. This is normal practice by AIG and insurance companies to "win" support by these agents who are then swayed to sell AIG more than the next company. Granted, I don't agree with this type of practice, but it's the way it has been for awhile now. All these trips happen multiple times EVERY year. It's almost an "advertisement" budget type of expense. To quote the article which was quoting AIG "all nonessential conferences, meetings and activities that do not clearly maximize value and service given the current conditions." I bolded the part that was important. As while from the outside it seems as careless spending, it's something that brings about extra business to the company, by swaying those big time agents to sell AIG.
So, I ask you what's worse? Loaning a crap ton of money to this business and make it stop these trips, and inturn lose business, and then lose profit? Or, have them continue this advertising and keep business profits normal, or higher? Which in turn, will help them payback the money quicker.
And btw....I'd definitely vote for Ted!
First off, these "Executives" aren't actual employees of AIG. They are the big time salesman of their Insurance. They have plenty of other insurance companies that they can chose from to sell to potential customers, hence why they were referred to as "customers" in the story. This is normal practice by AIG and insurance companies to "win" support by these agents who are then swayed to sell AIG more than the next company. Granted, I don't agree with this type of practice, but it's the way it has been for awhile now. All these trips happen multiple times EVERY year. It's almost an "advertisement" budget type of expense. To quote the article which was quoting AIG "all nonessential conferences, meetings and activities that do not clearly maximize value and service given the current conditions." I bolded the part that was important. As while from the outside it seems as careless spending, it's something that brings about extra business to the company, by swaying those big time agents to sell AIG.
So, I ask you what's worse? Loaning a crap ton of money to this business and make it stop these trips, and inturn lose business, and then lose profit? Or, have them continue this advertising and keep business profits normal, or higher? Which in turn, will help them payback the money quicker.
And btw....I'd definitely vote for Ted!
Now THAT deserves an amen!
10-17-2008, 05:35 PM
#13
On The Tree
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cantonment, FL
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, some of you guys seem to have this a little wrong. First of all, I'm not a supporter of the bail out plan....or Obama's socialistic "change" he wants to bring to America. But you all aren't getting the whole story here.
First off, these "Executives" aren't actual employees of AIG. They are the big time salesman of their Insurance. They have plenty of other insurance companies that they can chose from to sell to potential customers, hence why they were referred to as "customers" in the story. This is normal practice by AIG and insurance companies to "win" support by these agents who are then swayed to sell AIG more than the next company. Granted, I don't agree with this type of practice, but it's the way it has been for awhile now. All these trips happen multiple times EVERY year. It's almost an "advertisement" budget type of expense. To quote the article which was quoting AIG "all nonessential conferences, meetings and activities that do not clearly maximize value and service given the current conditions." I bolded the part that was important. As while from the outside it seems as careless spending, it's something that brings about extra business to the company, by swaying those big time agents to sell AIG.
So, I ask you what's worse? Loaning a crap ton of money to this business and make it stop these trips, and inturn lose business, and then lose profit? Or, have them continue this advertising and keep business profits normal, or higher? Which in turn, will help them payback the money quicker.
And btw....I'd definitely vote for Ted!
First off, these "Executives" aren't actual employees of AIG. They are the big time salesman of their Insurance. They have plenty of other insurance companies that they can chose from to sell to potential customers, hence why they were referred to as "customers" in the story. This is normal practice by AIG and insurance companies to "win" support by these agents who are then swayed to sell AIG more than the next company. Granted, I don't agree with this type of practice, but it's the way it has been for awhile now. All these trips happen multiple times EVERY year. It's almost an "advertisement" budget type of expense. To quote the article which was quoting AIG "all nonessential conferences, meetings and activities that do not clearly maximize value and service given the current conditions." I bolded the part that was important. As while from the outside it seems as careless spending, it's something that brings about extra business to the company, by swaying those big time agents to sell AIG.
So, I ask you what's worse? Loaning a crap ton of money to this business and make it stop these trips, and inturn lose business, and then lose profit? Or, have them continue this advertising and keep business profits normal, or higher? Which in turn, will help them payback the money quicker.
And btw....I'd definitely vote for Ted!
Do you really think AIG is going to repay the loan? The execs are now going to scavenge and distribute their own parachutes different ways, then do their own "bail out" and head to vegas or something.
another vote for uncle Ted
/rant
10-17-2008, 10:32 PM
#14
TECH Fanatic
Ok, some of you guys seem to have this a little wrong. First of all, I'm not a supporter of the bail out plan....or Obama's socialistic "change" he wants to bring to America. But you all aren't getting the whole story here.
First off, these "Executives" aren't actual employees of AIG. They are the big time salesman of their Insurance. They have plenty of other insurance companies that they can chose from to sell to potential customers, hence why they were referred to as "customers" in the story. This is normal practice by AIG and insurance companies to "win" support by these agents who are then swayed to sell AIG more than the next company. Granted, I don't agree with this type of practice, but it's the way it has been for awhile now. All these trips happen multiple times EVERY year. It's almost an "advertisement" budget type of expense. To quote the article which was quoting AIG "all nonessential conferences, meetings and activities that do not clearly maximize value and service given the current conditions." I bolded the part that was important. As while from the outside it seems as careless spending, it's something that brings about extra business to the company, by swaying those big time agents to sell AIG.
So, I ask you what's worse? Loaning a crap ton of money to this business and make it stop these trips, and inturn lose business, and then lose profit? Or, have them continue this advertising and keep business profits normal, or higher? Which in turn, will help them payback the money quicker.
And btw....I'd definitely vote for Ted!
First off, these "Executives" aren't actual employees of AIG. They are the big time salesman of their Insurance. They have plenty of other insurance companies that they can chose from to sell to potential customers, hence why they were referred to as "customers" in the story. This is normal practice by AIG and insurance companies to "win" support by these agents who are then swayed to sell AIG more than the next company. Granted, I don't agree with this type of practice, but it's the way it has been for awhile now. All these trips happen multiple times EVERY year. It's almost an "advertisement" budget type of expense. To quote the article which was quoting AIG "all nonessential conferences, meetings and activities that do not clearly maximize value and service given the current conditions." I bolded the part that was important. As while from the outside it seems as careless spending, it's something that brings about extra business to the company, by swaying those big time agents to sell AIG.
So, I ask you what's worse? Loaning a crap ton of money to this business and make it stop these trips, and inturn lose business, and then lose profit? Or, have them continue this advertising and keep business profits normal, or higher? Which in turn, will help them payback the money quicker.
And btw....I'd definitely vote for Ted!
10-18-2008, 11:44 AM
#17
Teching In
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Gulfport MS
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10-19-2008, 12:17 PM
#20
12 Second Club
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Dallas, TX/Orlando, FL
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally believe that if us Americans need to pay a lil more in taxes so that the government can give some money to banks so that they can start lending again and therefore start getting this country's economy back on track, then Im all for it. I dont think its a perfect plan, but its a plan that has the possibility of stopping a depression!
And I personally believe that its the Americans that caused this and at fault. THEY took out loans they cant afford. Its the point of having a business to try and sell and make a profit. Its up to the buyer to be responsible enough to know what they can or cannot afford, not take the word of the seller.
And I personally believe that its the Americans that caused this and at fault. THEY took out loans they cant afford. Its the point of having a business to try and sell and make a profit. Its up to the buyer to be responsible enough to know what they can or cannot afford, not take the word of the seller.
