|
|
|
|
Damn, I thought I was so clever with my John Kerry line.
Obama was in favor of same-sex marriage before he was against it — and before he was for it again.
|
On May 22 2012 08:31 xDaunt wrote:Damn, I thought I was so clever with my John Kerry line. Show nested quote +Obama was in favor of same-sex marriage before he was against it — and before he was for it again.
Meh, you know what I mean. There's a difference between being evasive and just flat out lying, is all I'm trying to say.
In the case of Obama on gay marriage, he shifted positions on gay marriage over the span two decades. Mitt Romney changed his mind -- or more accurately, outright lied about his current and past stance -- on the Auto Bailout in less than 6 months, and is now laughably trying to take credit for it.
|
On May 22 2012 08:46 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 08:31 xDaunt wrote:Damn, I thought I was so clever with my John Kerry line. Obama was in favor of same-sex marriage before he was against it — and before he was for it again.
Meh, you know what I mean. There's a difference between being evasive and just flat out lying, is all I'm trying to say. In the case of Obama on gay marriage, he shifted positions on gay marriage over the span two decades. Mitt Romney changed his mind -- or more accurately, outright lied about his current and past stance -- on the Auto Bailout in less than 6 months, and is now laughably trying to take credit for it.
I haven't looked closely at what Romney said about the auto bailout, but my understanding is that he has always been against the bailout but has been for a managed chapter 11 bankruptcy, which are two different things. The auto industry got the bailout first, which did not work. Then it went through managed bankruptcy, which did work.
|
Yeah, I used to think I understood a lot about politics and the ilk from watching the Colbert Report/the Daily Show, and they're still pretty entertaining albeit obviously mostly liberal, I think? I don't value my own opinion or understanding regarding political or societal affairs as highly anymore and just read/mull over what others say (though Internet denizens tend to be very liberal afaik) 
At this point, though, I don't particularly like Obama or Romney. It's like the giant douche versus turd sandwich situation; obviously not that terrible, but neither of them are particularly amazing candidates for me personally, more like a lesser of two not-so-evils choice :x
|
On May 22 2012 10:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 08:46 Defacer wrote:On May 22 2012 08:31 xDaunt wrote:Damn, I thought I was so clever with my John Kerry line. Obama was in favor of same-sex marriage before he was against it — and before he was for it again.
Meh, you know what I mean. There's a difference between being evasive and just flat out lying, is all I'm trying to say. In the case of Obama on gay marriage, he shifted positions on gay marriage over the span two decades. Mitt Romney changed his mind -- or more accurately, outright lied about his current and past stance -- on the Auto Bailout in less than 6 months, and is now laughably trying to take credit for it. I haven't looked closely at what Romney said about the auto bailout, but my understanding is that he has always been against the bailout but has been for a managed chapter 11 bankruptcy, which are two different things. The auto industry got the bailout first, which did not work. Then it went through managed bankruptcy, which did work.
To be more exact, the Bush Administration basically gave the auto industry big three a bridge loan of 14 billion at the end of his campaign, which that they burned through. The Obama Administration then took over with their task force, which put the industry through a managed bankruptcy.
So Mitt Romney basically argued against the auto bailout, preferring a managed bankruptcy which the Obama Administration was already doing.
It's very similar to Mitt Romney demanding harshing sanctions on Iran, or more oil drilling ... as if oil drilling in America isn't at it's peak and there aren't already harsher sanctions in Iran. Bizarre.
|
On May 22 2012 10:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 08:46 Defacer wrote:On May 22 2012 08:31 xDaunt wrote:Damn, I thought I was so clever with my John Kerry line. Obama was in favor of same-sex marriage before he was against it — and before he was for it again.
Meh, you know what I mean. There's a difference between being evasive and just flat out lying, is all I'm trying to say. In the case of Obama on gay marriage, he shifted positions on gay marriage over the span two decades. Mitt Romney changed his mind -- or more accurately, outright lied about his current and past stance -- on the Auto Bailout in less than 6 months, and is now laughably trying to take credit for it. I haven't looked closely at what Romney said about the auto bailout, but my understanding is that he has always been against the bailout but has been for a managed chapter 11 bankruptcy, which are two different things. The auto industry got the bailout first, which did not work. Then it went through managed bankruptcy, which did work.
Except there was not enough liquidity in the country to choose the private chapter 11 option, so the right way to do it was exactly what Obama did and certainly not what Romney was saying.
|
On May 23 2012 05:10 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 10:12 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2012 08:46 Defacer wrote:On May 22 2012 08:31 xDaunt wrote:Damn, I thought I was so clever with my John Kerry line. Obama was in favor of same-sex marriage before he was against it — and before he was for it again.
Meh, you know what I mean. There's a difference between being evasive and just flat out lying, is all I'm trying to say. In the case of Obama on gay marriage, he shifted positions on gay marriage over the span two decades. Mitt Romney changed his mind -- or more accurately, outright lied about his current and past stance -- on the Auto Bailout in less than 6 months, and is now laughably trying to take credit for it. I haven't looked closely at what Romney said about the auto bailout, but my understanding is that he has always been against the bailout but has been for a managed chapter 11 bankruptcy, which are two different things. The auto industry got the bailout first, which did not work. Then it went through managed bankruptcy, which did work. Except there was not enough liquidity in the country to choose the private chapter 11 option, so the right way to do it was exactly what Obama did and certainly not what Romney was saying.
Wrong on all counts. First, capital infusions are not necessary components of chapter 11 bankruptcy. All chapter 11 does is restructure, reduce, and (in some cases) eliminate debts while allowing the business to continue as a going concern. Second, the auto-industry bailout was only $14 billion, which isn't that much. Facebook just launched roughly a $100 billion IPO. Ford did just fine on its own without a bailout, and secured its own private investment. There's no reason why GM and Chrysler couldn't have done the same.
Here's the bottom line: Obama used the government to get his union pals sweetheart deals rather than merely letting the companies go into bankruptcy and get their debt issues fixed. It was an unnecessary, expensive, and corrupt move.
|
Should bush have let the banks and freddie and fanny go bankrupt as well then in 2008?
|
On May 23 2012 08:59 Rassy wrote:
Should bush have let the banks and freddie and fanny go bankrupt as well then in 2008?
Their answer was initially yes and that's why they let Lehmen Brothers die. But then the whole financial system started imploding and it was clear there wouldn't be any banks that would survive the crisis, so the answer became no.
|
On May 23 2012 08:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2012 05:10 kwizach wrote:On May 22 2012 10:12 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2012 08:46 Defacer wrote:On May 22 2012 08:31 xDaunt wrote:Damn, I thought I was so clever with my John Kerry line. Obama was in favor of same-sex marriage before he was against it — and before he was for it again.
Meh, you know what I mean. There's a difference between being evasive and just flat out lying, is all I'm trying to say. In the case of Obama on gay marriage, he shifted positions on gay marriage over the span two decades. Mitt Romney changed his mind -- or more accurately, outright lied about his current and past stance -- on the Auto Bailout in less than 6 months, and is now laughably trying to take credit for it. I haven't looked closely at what Romney said about the auto bailout, but my understanding is that he has always been against the bailout but has been for a managed chapter 11 bankruptcy, which are two different things. The auto industry got the bailout first, which did not work. Then it went through managed bankruptcy, which did work. Except there was not enough liquidity in the country to choose the private chapter 11 option, so the right way to do it was exactly what Obama did and certainly not what Romney was saying. Wrong on all counts. First, capital infusions are not necessary components of chapter 11 bankruptcy. All chapter 11 does is restructure, reduce, and (in some cases) eliminate debts while allowing the business to continue as a going concern. Second, the auto-industry bailout was only $14 billion, which isn't that much. Facebook just launched roughly a $100 billion IPO. Ford did just fine on its own without a bailout, and secured its own private investment. There's no reason why GM and Chrysler couldn't have done the same. Here's the bottom line: Obama used the government to get his union pals sweetheart deals rather than merely letting the companies go into bankruptcy and get their debt issues fixed. It was an unnecessary, expensive, and corrupt move.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/27/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-obama-gave-away-car-companies-uni/
Take you pithy Karl Rove diarrhea and get out!
|
On May 23 2012 09:06 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2012 08:52 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2012 05:10 kwizach wrote:On May 22 2012 10:12 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2012 08:46 Defacer wrote:On May 22 2012 08:31 xDaunt wrote:Damn, I thought I was so clever with my John Kerry line. Obama was in favor of same-sex marriage before he was against it — and before he was for it again.
Meh, you know what I mean. There's a difference between being evasive and just flat out lying, is all I'm trying to say. In the case of Obama on gay marriage, he shifted positions on gay marriage over the span two decades. Mitt Romney changed his mind -- or more accurately, outright lied about his current and past stance -- on the Auto Bailout in less than 6 months, and is now laughably trying to take credit for it. I haven't looked closely at what Romney said about the auto bailout, but my understanding is that he has always been against the bailout but has been for a managed chapter 11 bankruptcy, which are two different things. The auto industry got the bailout first, which did not work. Then it went through managed bankruptcy, which did work. Except there was not enough liquidity in the country to choose the private chapter 11 option, so the right way to do it was exactly what Obama did and certainly not what Romney was saying. Wrong on all counts. First, capital infusions are not necessary components of chapter 11 bankruptcy. All chapter 11 does is restructure, reduce, and (in some cases) eliminate debts while allowing the business to continue as a going concern. Second, the auto-industry bailout was only $14 billion, which isn't that much. Facebook just launched roughly a $100 billion IPO. Ford did just fine on its own without a bailout, and secured its own private investment. There's no reason why GM and Chrysler couldn't have done the same. Here's the bottom line: Obama used the government to get his union pals sweetheart deals rather than merely letting the companies go into bankruptcy and get their debt issues fixed. It was an unnecessary, expensive, and corrupt move. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/27/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-obama-gave-away-car-companies-uni/Take you pithy Karl Rove diarrhea and get out!
Wow, that article is laughable. How is giving the auto companies to the UAW trust fund any different from giving it to the union? It was a fucking bailout for out-of-control union pensions and benefits, which is little different than giving the money directly to the unions. False my ass.
|
I think both Obama and Romney are awful and villainous with no redeeming qualities. Both encourage policies that lead to fascism.
However, I think Obama will take more steps and more quickly in the fascist direction especially since a second consecutive term allows for avenues of pushing through policies with more ease.
That's why I support voting against Obama and using Romney as that tool. Because Romney is the only one that stands a chance against Obama.
And I just found this which is consistent with my view. (I was looking for his previous support for the democrats and came across this.) Leonard Peikoff discusses.
http://bit.ly/aYkbqW
|
I hope xDaunt does something bannable sometime soon. ffs
|
On May 23 2012 09:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2012 09:06 Defacer wrote:On May 23 2012 08:52 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2012 05:10 kwizach wrote:On May 22 2012 10:12 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2012 08:46 Defacer wrote:On May 22 2012 08:31 xDaunt wrote:Damn, I thought I was so clever with my John Kerry line. Obama was in favor of same-sex marriage before he was against it — and before he was for it again.
Meh, you know what I mean. There's a difference between being evasive and just flat out lying, is all I'm trying to say. In the case of Obama on gay marriage, he shifted positions on gay marriage over the span two decades. Mitt Romney changed his mind -- or more accurately, outright lied about his current and past stance -- on the Auto Bailout in less than 6 months, and is now laughably trying to take credit for it. I haven't looked closely at what Romney said about the auto bailout, but my understanding is that he has always been against the bailout but has been for a managed chapter 11 bankruptcy, which are two different things. The auto industry got the bailout first, which did not work. Then it went through managed bankruptcy, which did work. Except there was not enough liquidity in the country to choose the private chapter 11 option, so the right way to do it was exactly what Obama did and certainly not what Romney was saying. Wrong on all counts. First, capital infusions are not necessary components of chapter 11 bankruptcy. All chapter 11 does is restructure, reduce, and (in some cases) eliminate debts while allowing the business to continue as a going concern. Second, the auto-industry bailout was only $14 billion, which isn't that much. Facebook just launched roughly a $100 billion IPO. Ford did just fine on its own without a bailout, and secured its own private investment. There's no reason why GM and Chrysler couldn't have done the same. Here's the bottom line: Obama used the government to get his union pals sweetheart deals rather than merely letting the companies go into bankruptcy and get their debt issues fixed. It was an unnecessary, expensive, and corrupt move. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/27/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-obama-gave-away-car-companies-uni/Take you pithy Karl Rove diarrhea and get out! Wow, that article is laughable. How is giving the auto companies to the UAW trust fund any different from giving it to the union? It was a fucking bailout for out-of-control union pensions and benefits, which is little different than giving the money directly to the unions. False my ass.
It would appear that your conception of "little different" is remarkably flawed.
"What tips Romney’s claim even further from reality is the fact that the union itself does not own any GM or Chrysler stock. The trust that manages health benefits for retirees is the stockholder, and it is independent from the UAW. It is not a majority shareholder in either company, nor does it have a vote on the board."
|
On May 23 2012 09:26 Epocalypse wrote:I think both Obama and Romney are awful and villainous with no redeeming qualities. Both encourage policies that lead to fascism. However, I think Obama will take more steps and more quickly in the fascist direction especially since a second consecutive term allows for avenues of pushing through policies with more ease. That's why I support voting against Obama and using Romney as that tool. Because Romney is the only one that stands a chance against Obama. And I just found this which is consistent with my view. (I was looking for his previous support for the democrats and came across this.) Leonard Peikoff discusses. http://bit.ly/aYkbqW
To put it pithily, he's the "for the lesser evil guy". Gotta love the positiveness.
Oh god, Ayn Rand was almost as bad a philosopher as a writer. So is this guy. I'm gonna go all ad hominem on him and throw out this guy thinks that the Palenstinians don't deserve their own state because back in the Biblical times they had no concept of land ownership. Y'know, so its ok to "take their land", just like the US screwed over the Amerindians.
|
On May 23 2012 09:42 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2012 09:13 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2012 09:06 Defacer wrote:On May 23 2012 08:52 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2012 05:10 kwizach wrote:On May 22 2012 10:12 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2012 08:46 Defacer wrote:On May 22 2012 08:31 xDaunt wrote:Damn, I thought I was so clever with my John Kerry line. Obama was in favor of same-sex marriage before he was against it — and before he was for it again.
Meh, you know what I mean. There's a difference between being evasive and just flat out lying, is all I'm trying to say. In the case of Obama on gay marriage, he shifted positions on gay marriage over the span two decades. Mitt Romney changed his mind -- or more accurately, outright lied about his current and past stance -- on the Auto Bailout in less than 6 months, and is now laughably trying to take credit for it. I haven't looked closely at what Romney said about the auto bailout, but my understanding is that he has always been against the bailout but has been for a managed chapter 11 bankruptcy, which are two different things. The auto industry got the bailout first, which did not work. Then it went through managed bankruptcy, which did work. Except there was not enough liquidity in the country to choose the private chapter 11 option, so the right way to do it was exactly what Obama did and certainly not what Romney was saying. Wrong on all counts. First, capital infusions are not necessary components of chapter 11 bankruptcy. All chapter 11 does is restructure, reduce, and (in some cases) eliminate debts while allowing the business to continue as a going concern. Second, the auto-industry bailout was only $14 billion, which isn't that much. Facebook just launched roughly a $100 billion IPO. Ford did just fine on its own without a bailout, and secured its own private investment. There's no reason why GM and Chrysler couldn't have done the same. Here's the bottom line: Obama used the government to get his union pals sweetheart deals rather than merely letting the companies go into bankruptcy and get their debt issues fixed. It was an unnecessary, expensive, and corrupt move. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/27/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-obama-gave-away-car-companies-uni/Take you pithy Karl Rove diarrhea and get out! Wow, that article is laughable. How is giving the auto companies to the UAW trust fund any different from giving it to the union? It was a fucking bailout for out-of-control union pensions and benefits, which is little different than giving the money directly to the unions. False my ass. It would appear that your conception of "little different" is remarkably flawed. "What tips Romney’s claim even further from reality is the fact that the union itself does not own any GM or Chrysler stock. The trust that manages health benefits for retirees is the stockholder, and it is independent from the UAW. It is not a majority shareholder in either company, nor does it have a vote on the board."
Apparently this concept is very difficult for some people to understand, so I'll explain why there is no difference:
The UAW represents all of the union workers who are members of the UAW. The UAW is funded by the union dues paid by the individual members. It really isn't any different than a tax, particularly because UAW membership mandatory for autoworkers in many states. The purpose and singular goal of the UAW is to advance the interests of the union and its workers. Politically, it is no different than any other special interest group. Using the resources of its members, the UAW donates to and campaigns for politicians who will advance the interests of its members. If the politicians do not return the favor and do something for the UAW members (for example, giving a bailout to bankrupt union pension funds), then the UAW obviously will stop contributing.
So let's fast forward to the height of the auto industry crisis, where, under weight of obscene pensions and health benefits promised to UAW members under collective bargaining, the auto companies were so debt-laden that they needed to enter bankruptcy to restructure the obligations. The UAW saw the writing on the wall and knew that, because the union members benefits and pensions constituted such a large percentage of the auto company's debts, that they were about to take a huge financial hit. So what does the UAW do? The only thing it can do to protect its members: call Obama and other politicians and start calling favors. This is how they got the bailout. The money and stocks constituting the bailout went to the trust fund that guards union pensions and benefits as the politifact article points out. What this effectively means is that the union members' obscene benefits were protected -- which is little different than sending the money directly to the individual members of the UAW.
Here's the bottom line: the lobbyist group (the UAW) did not get the bailout, the people whom the lobbyist group represented did. It's a shell game, which is why I say that there's no difference between the UAW and the trust fund getting the money. This is K street 101 stuff, and I'm shocked that some of you don't get it.
|
On May 23 2012 09:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2012 09:42 farvacola wrote:On May 23 2012 09:13 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2012 09:06 Defacer wrote:On May 23 2012 08:52 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2012 05:10 kwizach wrote:On May 22 2012 10:12 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2012 08:46 Defacer wrote:On May 22 2012 08:31 xDaunt wrote:Damn, I thought I was so clever with my John Kerry line. Obama was in favor of same-sex marriage before he was against it — and before he was for it again.
Meh, you know what I mean. There's a difference between being evasive and just flat out lying, is all I'm trying to say. In the case of Obama on gay marriage, he shifted positions on gay marriage over the span two decades. Mitt Romney changed his mind -- or more accurately, outright lied about his current and past stance -- on the Auto Bailout in less than 6 months, and is now laughably trying to take credit for it. I haven't looked closely at what Romney said about the auto bailout, but my understanding is that he has always been against the bailout but has been for a managed chapter 11 bankruptcy, which are two different things. The auto industry got the bailout first, which did not work. Then it went through managed bankruptcy, which did work. Except there was not enough liquidity in the country to choose the private chapter 11 option, so the right way to do it was exactly what Obama did and certainly not what Romney was saying. Wrong on all counts. First, capital infusions are not necessary components of chapter 11 bankruptcy. All chapter 11 does is restructure, reduce, and (in some cases) eliminate debts while allowing the business to continue as a going concern. Second, the auto-industry bailout was only $14 billion, which isn't that much. Facebook just launched roughly a $100 billion IPO. Ford did just fine on its own without a bailout, and secured its own private investment. There's no reason why GM and Chrysler couldn't have done the same. Here's the bottom line: Obama used the government to get his union pals sweetheart deals rather than merely letting the companies go into bankruptcy and get their debt issues fixed. It was an unnecessary, expensive, and corrupt move. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/27/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-obama-gave-away-car-companies-uni/Take you pithy Karl Rove diarrhea and get out! Wow, that article is laughable. How is giving the auto companies to the UAW trust fund any different from giving it to the union? It was a fucking bailout for out-of-control union pensions and benefits, which is little different than giving the money directly to the unions. False my ass. It would appear that your conception of "little different" is remarkably flawed. "What tips Romney’s claim even further from reality is the fact that the union itself does not own any GM or Chrysler stock. The trust that manages health benefits for retirees is the stockholder, and it is independent from the UAW. It is not a majority shareholder in either company, nor does it have a vote on the board." Apparently this concept is very difficult for some people to understand, so I'll explain why there is no difference: The UAW represents all of the union workers who are members of the UAW. The UAW is funded by the union dues paid by the individual members. It really isn't any different than a tax, particularly because UAW membership mandatory for autoworkers in many states. The purpose and singular goal of the UAW is to advance the interests of the union and its workers. Politically, it is no different than any other special interest group. Using the resources of its members, the UAW donates to and campaigns for politicians who will advance the interests of its members. If the politicians do not return the favor and do something for the UAW members (for example, giving a bailout to bankrupt union pension funds), then the UAW obviously will stop contributing. So let's fast forward to the height of the auto industry crisis, where, under weight of obscene pensions and health benefits promised to UAW members under collective bargaining, the auto companies were so debt-laden that they needed to enter bankruptcy to restructure the obligations. The UAW saw the writing on the wall and knew that, because the union members benefits and pensions constituted such a large percentage of the auto company's debts, that they were about to take a huge financial hit. So what does the UAW do? The only thing it can do to protect its members: call Obama and other politicians and start calling favors. This is how they got the bailout. The money and stocks constituting the bailout went to the trust fund that guards union pensions and benefits as the politifact article points out. What this effectively means is that the union members' obscene benefits were protected -- which is little different than sending the money directly to the individual members of the UAW. Here's the bottom line: the lobbyist group (the UAW) did not get the bailout, the people whom the lobbyist group represented did. It's a shell game, which is why I say that there's no difference between the UAW and the trust fund getting the money. This is K street 101 stuff, and I'm shocked that some of you don't get it.
So the auto workers, who bore the brunt of the industries downturn with major threats to pensions, wages, benefits, and factory shutdowns, got the relief they needed to make the change from a flourishing american auto market to a market in contraction. This was the correct decision. Your wordy condescension can't hide your overwhelming bias I'm afraid.
|
On May 23 2012 10:04 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2012 09:59 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2012 09:42 farvacola wrote:On May 23 2012 09:13 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2012 09:06 Defacer wrote:On May 23 2012 08:52 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2012 05:10 kwizach wrote:On May 22 2012 10:12 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2012 08:46 Defacer wrote:On May 22 2012 08:31 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Damn, I thought I was so clever with my John Kerry line.
[quote] Meh, you know what I mean. There's a difference between being evasive and just flat out lying, is all I'm trying to say. In the case of Obama on gay marriage, he shifted positions on gay marriage over the span two decades. Mitt Romney changed his mind -- or more accurately, outright lied about his current and past stance -- on the Auto Bailout in less than 6 months, and is now laughably trying to take credit for it. I haven't looked closely at what Romney said about the auto bailout, but my understanding is that he has always been against the bailout but has been for a managed chapter 11 bankruptcy, which are two different things. The auto industry got the bailout first, which did not work. Then it went through managed bankruptcy, which did work. Except there was not enough liquidity in the country to choose the private chapter 11 option, so the right way to do it was exactly what Obama did and certainly not what Romney was saying. Wrong on all counts. First, capital infusions are not necessary components of chapter 11 bankruptcy. All chapter 11 does is restructure, reduce, and (in some cases) eliminate debts while allowing the business to continue as a going concern. Second, the auto-industry bailout was only $14 billion, which isn't that much. Facebook just launched roughly a $100 billion IPO. Ford did just fine on its own without a bailout, and secured its own private investment. There's no reason why GM and Chrysler couldn't have done the same. Here's the bottom line: Obama used the government to get his union pals sweetheart deals rather than merely letting the companies go into bankruptcy and get their debt issues fixed. It was an unnecessary, expensive, and corrupt move. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/27/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-obama-gave-away-car-companies-uni/Take you pithy Karl Rove diarrhea and get out! Wow, that article is laughable. How is giving the auto companies to the UAW trust fund any different from giving it to the union? It was a fucking bailout for out-of-control union pensions and benefits, which is little different than giving the money directly to the unions. False my ass. It would appear that your conception of "little different" is remarkably flawed. "What tips Romney’s claim even further from reality is the fact that the union itself does not own any GM or Chrysler stock. The trust that manages health benefits for retirees is the stockholder, and it is independent from the UAW. It is not a majority shareholder in either company, nor does it have a vote on the board." Apparently this concept is very difficult for some people to understand, so I'll explain why there is no difference: The UAW represents all of the union workers who are members of the UAW. The UAW is funded by the union dues paid by the individual members. It really isn't any different than a tax, particularly because UAW membership mandatory for autoworkers in many states. The purpose and singular goal of the UAW is to advance the interests of the union and its workers. Politically, it is no different than any other special interest group. Using the resources of its members, the UAW donates to and campaigns for politicians who will advance the interests of its members. If the politicians do not return the favor and do something for the UAW members (for example, giving a bailout to bankrupt union pension funds), then the UAW obviously will stop contributing. So let's fast forward to the height of the auto industry crisis, where, under weight of obscene pensions and health benefits promised to UAW members under collective bargaining, the auto companies were so debt-laden that they needed to enter bankruptcy to restructure the obligations. The UAW saw the writing on the wall and knew that, because the union members benefits and pensions constituted such a large percentage of the auto company's debts, that they were about to take a huge financial hit. So what does the UAW do? The only thing it can do to protect its members: call Obama and other politicians and start calling favors. This is how they got the bailout. The money and stocks constituting the bailout went to the trust fund that guards union pensions and benefits as the politifact article points out. What this effectively means is that the union members' obscene benefits were protected -- which is little different than sending the money directly to the individual members of the UAW. Here's the bottom line: the lobbyist group (the UAW) did not get the bailout, the people whom the lobbyist group represented did. It's a shell game, which is why I say that there's no difference between the UAW and the trust fund getting the money. This is K street 101 stuff, and I'm shocked that some of you don't get it. So the auto workers, who bore the brunt of the industries downturn with major threats to pensions, wages, benefits, and factory shutdowns, got the relief they needed to make the change from a flourishing american auto market to a market in contraction. This was the correct decision. Your wordy condescension can't hide your overwhelming bias I'm afraid.
You're right, I firmly believe that the auto workers should have born the brunt of the bankruptcy because it was their pensions and benefits that were bankrupting the auto companies. Sure, the auto industry execs deserve their share of the blame for agreeing to those stupid deals in the first place, but it doesn't change the fact that the auto workers were getting way too much and still are (go look up what their effective hourly wage is including benefits; it will shock you).
I'm just glad that you actually understand now why it's appropriate to say that the UAW got a bailout.
|
On May 23 2012 10:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2012 10:04 farvacola wrote:On May 23 2012 09:59 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2012 09:42 farvacola wrote:On May 23 2012 09:13 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2012 09:06 Defacer wrote:On May 23 2012 08:52 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2012 05:10 kwizach wrote:On May 22 2012 10:12 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2012 08:46 Defacer wrote:
[quote]
Meh, you know what I mean. There's a difference between being evasive and just flat out lying, is all I'm trying to say.
In the case of Obama on gay marriage, he shifted positions on gay marriage over the span two decades. Mitt Romney changed his mind -- or more accurately, outright lied about his current and past stance -- on the Auto Bailout in less than 6 months, and is now laughably trying to take credit for it. I haven't looked closely at what Romney said about the auto bailout, but my understanding is that he has always been against the bailout but has been for a managed chapter 11 bankruptcy, which are two different things. The auto industry got the bailout first, which did not work. Then it went through managed bankruptcy, which did work. Except there was not enough liquidity in the country to choose the private chapter 11 option, so the right way to do it was exactly what Obama did and certainly not what Romney was saying. Wrong on all counts. First, capital infusions are not necessary components of chapter 11 bankruptcy. All chapter 11 does is restructure, reduce, and (in some cases) eliminate debts while allowing the business to continue as a going concern. Second, the auto-industry bailout was only $14 billion, which isn't that much. Facebook just launched roughly a $100 billion IPO. Ford did just fine on its own without a bailout, and secured its own private investment. There's no reason why GM and Chrysler couldn't have done the same. Here's the bottom line: Obama used the government to get his union pals sweetheart deals rather than merely letting the companies go into bankruptcy and get their debt issues fixed. It was an unnecessary, expensive, and corrupt move. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/27/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-obama-gave-away-car-companies-uni/Take you pithy Karl Rove diarrhea and get out! Wow, that article is laughable. How is giving the auto companies to the UAW trust fund any different from giving it to the union? It was a fucking bailout for out-of-control union pensions and benefits, which is little different than giving the money directly to the unions. False my ass. It would appear that your conception of "little different" is remarkably flawed. "What tips Romney’s claim even further from reality is the fact that the union itself does not own any GM or Chrysler stock. The trust that manages health benefits for retirees is the stockholder, and it is independent from the UAW. It is not a majority shareholder in either company, nor does it have a vote on the board." Apparently this concept is very difficult for some people to understand, so I'll explain why there is no difference: The UAW represents all of the union workers who are members of the UAW. The UAW is funded by the union dues paid by the individual members. It really isn't any different than a tax, particularly because UAW membership mandatory for autoworkers in many states. The purpose and singular goal of the UAW is to advance the interests of the union and its workers. Politically, it is no different than any other special interest group. Using the resources of its members, the UAW donates to and campaigns for politicians who will advance the interests of its members. If the politicians do not return the favor and do something for the UAW members (for example, giving a bailout to bankrupt union pension funds), then the UAW obviously will stop contributing. So let's fast forward to the height of the auto industry crisis, where, under weight of obscene pensions and health benefits promised to UAW members under collective bargaining, the auto companies were so debt-laden that they needed to enter bankruptcy to restructure the obligations. The UAW saw the writing on the wall and knew that, because the union members benefits and pensions constituted such a large percentage of the auto company's debts, that they were about to take a huge financial hit. So what does the UAW do? The only thing it can do to protect its members: call Obama and other politicians and start calling favors. This is how they got the bailout. The money and stocks constituting the bailout went to the trust fund that guards union pensions and benefits as the politifact article points out. What this effectively means is that the union members' obscene benefits were protected -- which is little different than sending the money directly to the individual members of the UAW. Here's the bottom line: the lobbyist group (the UAW) did not get the bailout, the people whom the lobbyist group represented did. It's a shell game, which is why I say that there's no difference between the UAW and the trust fund getting the money. This is K street 101 stuff, and I'm shocked that some of you don't get it. So the auto workers, who bore the brunt of the industries downturn with major threats to pensions, wages, benefits, and factory shutdowns, got the relief they needed to make the change from a flourishing american auto market to a market in contraction. This was the correct decision. Your wordy condescension can't hide your overwhelming bias I'm afraid. You're right, I firmly believe that the auto workers should have born the brunt of the bankruptcy because it was their pensions and benefits that were bankrupting the auto companies. Sure, the auto industry execs deserve their share of the blame for agreeing to those stupid deals in the first place, but it doesn't change the fact that the auto workers were getting way too much and still are (go look up what their effective hourly wage is including benefits; it will shock you). I'm just glad that you actually understand now why it's appropriate to say that the UAW got a bailout.
No, they should get all of the blame. Of course people will advocate for better wages for themselves/their people, but it's the idiots that agreed to it (using your point) that should get all of the blame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
