Lotus CEO Danny Bahar Axed

[AutoGuide.com]

Image Deleted

After a recent suspension for misconduct, CEO of Lotus Danny Bahar has been officially cut from the company.

Lotus has been in the media a lot recently after the announcement that the company was supposed to be sold, followed by a rebuke and announcement that everything was fine. Then, word went out saying that production was halted indefinitely due to funding issues. Clearly a lot has been happening at the company, although most of it was held under relatively tight wraps.

Adding to the media frenzy surrounding Lotus is the dismissal of CEO Danny Bahar. There is no official word on why, the only clue we have is the ‘misconduct’ that he was suspended for. Apparently he was being investigated for refurbishing several personal houses on the companies dollar.

Lotus has already named Aslam Farikullah as the new CEO of the company.

Read the complete Lotus CEO Danny Bahar Axed story at AutoGuide.com

[fitfan]

mods - please merge the threads...

autoguide.com - please learn to use the "search" function - you keep re-posting existing threads....

[Hello Kitty]

Bahr lowered the percieved quality of Lotus with his stupid advertizing crap like the "boxer vs lotus", and "there are no problems at lotus", and the whole shiz thing. I am so glad he is gone.

[FistHammer]

Someone had to take the blame!

[robains]

Glad to see the abuse of funds for personal gain/improvement is confirmed to be a International philosophy. Nothing we didn't already know, but it's a shame Lotus was abused in this manner (probably not the first time).

I mean what type of reconciliation goes thru someone's head when they know they are taking money out of a failing company to fund upgrades to their personal homes (plural)? I'm guessing they somehow think the deserve it??

Money for nothing and your chicks for free.

And again, why is our economy still in the crapper?

1. Ever increasing desire for "higher returns" on investments
2. People over value their worth

Fingers crossed that Lotus survive.

[pistolpete]

Originally Posted by robains

Glad to see the abuse of funds for personal gain/improvement is confirmed to be a International philosophy.

And again, why is our economy still in the crapper?

1. Ever increasing desire for "higher returns" on investments

No, corruption is only in America. Only in big business and not in government.
And I look for the smallest returns on my investments, as should any smart person with any economical sense.

[robains]

Ah satire ... yes corruption is big business only in America does the government makes it legit. At least internationally they avoid extreme measures to hide ... it's just more cost effective corruption

Bingo, so at what point in our quest for ever increasing returns do you stop to think why a ham sandwich costs $100? Because your expectations on your investment on that ham sandwich making company is now 300% because you're a smart person?

[pistolpete]

The free market will dictate the price of a ham sandwich. When the competition makes a $3 sandwich, who will pay $100 for one.

With the free market (read, "minimum regulations"), people/business compete to make the best product or service for the best price. It's a win for the consumer.

Government has a crystal clear track record of being the ultimate corrupt big business that is incredibly inefficient and wasteful. And yet people keep voting for more and more of it. Hook, line, and sinker.

[robains]

I guess you have to believe there IS a free market ... I don't subscribe, only things people don't really want end up in the "free market" (in most cases, not all). I see little difference between big business and our government ... they are one in the same feeding each other.

I gave up long ago the feeling that my vote actually mattered ... I see voting as more like lip service, give the masses a sense of power they ultimately don't have.

[B33 ENN]

Since watching Brewster's Millions, I've always belived we should have a "None of the above" on our ballot papers. Then you'd see how much legitimacy any government really has from the populace.

[viloprods]

Well. I for one think my vote counts. And you will pay higher taxes, your
fair share........ You'll throw a lot of money at your Lotus, but when it
comes to education, healthcare, police and fire measures on the ballot you
whine, complain and vote "No"
Wa wa wa!

[pistolpete]

George Costanza - YouTube

George Costanza - YouTube

[Dylan]

Originally Posted by viloprods

Well. I for one think my vote counts. And you will pay higher taxes, your
fair share........ You'll throw a lot of money at your Lotus, but when it
comes to education, healthcare, police and fire measures on the ballot you
whine, complain and vote "No"
Wa wa wa!

Hmmm. Fair share. Can you define that? According to the Congressional Budget Office, for the latest 2007 figures, the top 10% of incomes (which began at $102,900 at that time) paid 55% of the total Federal taxes paid. I suspect that these folks also live in nice homes, so they probably pay a disproportionate share of property taxes; they buy expensive things, so a disproportionate share of sales taxes, etc. (Note I didn't say a disproportionate share of their income; I'm not insensitive to the fact that taxes weigh heavily on the poorer people in our society, and I fully agree we need to do more.)

Many of them are happy to support the services we need as a society - police, education, etc. - but perhaps their enthusiasm wanes when they see things like last week's news about the failed attempt to create a version of Sesame Street for Pakistan. Budget - $20,000,000. Luckily, after corruption siphoned off the first $10,000,000 (that's about 286 nicely used Lotuses, or 100 teachers), the project was suspended.

Maybe instead of calling the very top the 1%, we should call them the 28%, as that's the share of taxes they paid.

[pistolpete]

Dylan,
Really? You're going to bring facts and logic to this debate?

[Dylan]

I figured it was a quiet Friday afternoon, so I'd lighten things up!

[lotusforsale]

Originally Posted by Dylan

Hmmm. Fair share. Can you define that? According to the Congressional Budget Office, for the latest 2007 figures, the top 10% of incomes (which began at $102,900 at that time) paid 55% of the total Federal taxes paid. I suspect that these folks also live in nice homes, so they probably pay a disproportionate share of property taxes; they buy expensive things, so a disproportionate share of sales taxes, etc. (Note I didn't say a disproportionate share of their income; I'm not insensitive to the fact that taxes weigh heavily on the poorer people in our society, and I fully agree we need to do more.)

Many of them are happy to support the services we need as a society - police, education, etc. - but perhaps their enthusiasm wanes when they see things like last week's news about the failed attempt to create a version of Sesame Street for Pakistan. Budget - $20,000,000. Luckily, after corruption siphoned off the first $10,000,000 (that's about 286 nicely used Lotuses, or 100 teachers), the project was suspended.

Maybe instead of calling the very top the 1%, we should call them the 28%, as that's the share of taxes they paid.

Actually, the most recent IRS figures, in terms of looking at where taxpayers fall, have the top 1% paying about 38% of all federal income taxes collected. The top 10% pay about 70% of all federal income taxes collected. The bottom 48% pay, on average, no federal income taxes.

The so-called 'rich' also pay far more sales, real estate, personal property, state, local, inheritance, capital gains and other taxes. Disproportionately so. They are also far more charitable in their giving. Just ask hospitals, colleges, universities, museums and even local school systems how much they rely on the generosity of those 'not paying their fair share.'

IRS figures also show that of tax returns with an income of $250,000 or more for a household, which is the threshhold the current administation wants to use to raise taxes for that fair share (contrary to the oft quoted millionaires and billionaires), 60% come from small business, where both sides agree the needed jobs are to come from.

The governor of my state, Martin O'Malley has national aspirations and has been inviting himself to all the national talking heads shows. Maryland has spent itself into a hole, but has a constitutional requirement to balance its budget. O'Malley is one of the biggest water carriers for the current administration, and he's been there all along in echoing the 'tax the millionaires' mantra. Then, just this year, he's raised income taxes on households making $150K, individuals making $100K. That means a husband and wife, each making $75K, are now part of the evil rich. He wanted to add 6% sales tax to gas, in addition to another 15 cents a gallon tax on gas. He doubled the flush tax. Doubled the car registration fees, doubled all tunnel and bridge tolls. All regressive taxes that hit the poor and middle class the hardest. And let's not forget Maryland has gone 'all in' with gambling. It was an early adopter of lotteries, and now has approved up to 6 Casinos throughout the state. And again, this type of gambling hits middle and lower class the hardest.

Capitalism ain't pretty, there are plenty of warts. But it beats all other alternatives.

And there IS one big difference between Big Business and Big Government. Big Business must be competitive and produce things to grow. Big Government can only grow by taxing, printing money, or borrowing. It does not actually produce anything of value that brings in more than it costs. In other words, no organic growth.

[viloprods]

Guess that's why we need Bain Capitol.
Take over the Co. Sell the assets then out source the jobs to a country
with no unions or oversight for workers,
and the 1% pays zilch. Entitlements are something I have paid into.
They want social security. Wa Wa Wa! Mitt Romney is probably what this
country deserves. Lay off big Business! "The Job creators"
Oh yeah? WHERE ARE THE JOBS?