|
|
On May 23 2012 10:14 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2012 10:09 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
If you want to blame the execs, fine. The fact remains that the UAW should have born the brunt of the bankruptcy, and would have, if not for the 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.
Ahh yes, blame the American working middle class for the unforeseen effects of a massive international cheapening of labor that continues on today? I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of laid off auto workers were made fully aware of how the Asian markets would undercut their employment benefits massively. That old man who worked and supported his family his entire life who just got his healthcare and pension cut out from under him sure deserves that shit. And the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. A wonderful world.
|
On May 23 2012 10:21 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2012 10:09 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Ahh yes, blame the American working middle class for the unforeseen effects of a massive international cheapening of labor that continues on today? I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of laid off auto workers were made fully aware of how the Asian markets would undercut their employment benefits massively. That old man who worked and supported his family his entire life who just got his healthcare and pension cut out from under him sure deserves that shit. And the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. A wonderful world.
And where is it written that I, the taxpayer, must subsidize the wages and benefits of the UAW?
|
Do politics and the news media in this country make anyone else wish they were born on a different planet or is it just me? Please tell me it's not just me.
|
On May 23 2012 10:35 DamnCats wrote:
Do politics and the news media in this country make anyone else wish they were born on a different planet or is it just me? Please tell me it's not just me.
I don't think I've seen a single ad yet saying "vote for me because I did X"; instead I've just seen "romney destroyed companies" and "obama bankrupted this country".
|
On May 23 2012 10:34 xDaunt wrote:
And where is it written that I, the taxpayer, must subsidize the wages and benefits of the UAW?
No where - but this begs the question if it should/shouldn't be.That's another issue all together since both candidates both accept the idea that it's ok to redistribute wealth.
|
Haha the American auto industry's problems are well known to be management by anyone who is serious. Did the employees decide to build hummers and big, inefficient SUVs and trucks and market them as being, "REAL AMERICAN POWER!" or was that the management?
Oh yeah, and who signs agreements with the autoworkers? The management.
|
On May 23 2012 10:21 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2012 10:09 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Ahh yes, blame the American working middle class for the unforeseen effects of a massive international cheapening of labor that continues on today? I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of laid off auto workers were made fully aware of how the Asian markets would undercut their employment benefits massively. That old man who worked and supported his family his entire life who just got his healthcare and pension cut out from under him sure deserves that shit. And the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. A wonderful world.
GM, as the most prominent example, used just that argument repeatedly in the mid and late 1990s during its (lost) battles with the UAW over pension and benefit plans. They said time and again that they wouldn't be able to compete with cheaper foreign labor. Didn't matter one bit to the UAW, which turns out to have been rather lucky on their part as the Obama Administration broke the law to guarantee they got their money first and foremost when GM was bailed out.
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer is a lazy crutch to fall back on when there's no actual argument to be made. It's not reasoning, it's rhetoric. Screw the completely predictable collapse of an industry hobbled by weights thrown on its shoulders by greedy union bosses, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The ultimate argument answer to everything and nothing. As is the emotional appeal about that hardworking family man who was getting screwed over harder by his mobbed up 'friends' among the UAW higher-ups than he ever was by GM.
Take the 19th century class warfare rhetoric back to where it belongs, the ash heap of history.
Haha the American auto industry's problems are well known to be management by anyone who is serious. Did the employees decide to build hummers and big, inefficient SUVs and trucks and market them as being, "REAL AMERICAN POWER!" or was that the management?
Oh yeah, and who signs agreements with the autoworkers? The management.
What were the best selling vehicles ? Trucks and SUVs? Are trucks still not among the best selling vehicles? Why was the auto industry so crippled by a downturn in SUV sales where other downturns had not hurt it so badly? Huge money sinks for bloated UAW contracts? No, not possible. If you're serious you completely forget ~1995-2006 when SUVs were king.
Who was beaten down by the UAW during the contract brawls? Management's fault because management is always at fault. Heartless bastards if they try to remain competitive by not throwing more and more money into the union maw, stupid incompetents if they give in. Which side refused to compromise on anything important and basically demanded unconditional surrender? The union bosses, of course. It was management that caved. The unions deserve zero blame, that's a serious position for serious people.
Haha anyone who is serious.
|
LOLOL, yup, it's totally the UAW's bloated pensions and wages that caused sales to decline before the '08 crisis. Totally not because of rising gas prices, nope. Can't be the fault of management, gotta be those damned unions.
|
They were king, then they realized they entered in to a terrible long run strategy when gas prices spiked and the financial system started to tumble. Housing worked really well for a short while too! Management makes the decisions and they get credit for when shit goes good or when it goes poorly. Like I said, if they signed bad contracts and caved that is entirely their fault.
|
Didn't GM dip into pension funds in order to fund salaries and bonuses of executives?
|
What none of you lefties realize is that the unions had such insane power within GM that the execs were pretty much puppets to them. Couple that with the laws on the books regarding collective bargaining, if the union wants it, they will get it, no matter what happens to the guys who actually call the shots. They were in a position to bully for larger wages and used their power to obtain unsustainable benefits. Whenever a business is unsustainable, its fucked. Completely fucked. And with the laws on the book that protect this kind of ridiculous behavior, management really has no other choice than to give the mob what it wants, because their hands are pretty much tied if the workers strike.
While the downturn of the market for large vehicles definitely did put a dent in the profits of GM and Chrysler, you cannot ignore the fact that labor is every businesses biggest cost. All of the benefits in addition to the salaries add up stupid fast, especially if your workforce is unionized. This gives you minimal flexibility as upper level management, which is terrible in market conditions such as the ones we're in now. The union doesn't let you cut hours, it doesn't let you fire shitty employees, it doesn't let you drop wages when times are tough, and it doesn't allow you any freedom to navigate your business through a difficult time.
|
Look guys. There were many contributing factors. GM was made inefficient by UAW, but there were many poor management decisions. With only one of the above occurring, they probably could have stayed afloat. But the two in tandem hurt a ton.
Although people need to realize UAW is pretty much impossible to break as a union. Although I doubt it had executive power, it could pretty much say no to any changes regarding personnel, and the auto employees were compensated far beyond what others in relatively unskilled labor positions were. And true, labor is around 70% of costs for most businesses. Not sure exactly what it is for the automakers.
I think the argument however has strayed fairly far from its origins.
|
Howard Dean for prez
User was warned for this post
|
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0522/Romney-still-finding-his-legs-on-Bain-attacks
"If your main argument for how to grow the economy is 'I knew how to make a lot of money for investors,' then you're missing what this job is about," Obama said during a news conference at an international summit in Chicago. "It doesn't mean you weren't good at private equity, but that's not what my job is as president. My job is to take into account everybody, not just some. My job is to make sure that the country is growing not just now, but 10 years from now and 20 years from now."
He added: "This is not a distraction. This is what this campaign is going to be about — is what is a strategy for us to move this country forward in a way where everybody can succeed?"
I know the gist has been posted before.
So in SCtoo terms, Toss managed a pretty vicious timing push taking advantage of Zerg's really greedy 3base without roaches. It took out the third, and cost a lot of larvae, basically nullifying the economic advantage Zerg was trying to get. Now Zerg needs to respond.
|
On May 23 2012 13:39 ticklishmusic wrote:http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0522/Romney-still-finding-his-legs-on-Bain-attacksShow nested quote +"If your main argument for how to grow the economy is 'I knew how to make a lot of money for investors,' then you're missing what this job is about," Obama said during a news conference at an international summit in Chicago. "It doesn't mean you weren't good at private equity, but that's not what my job is as president. My job is to take into account everybody, not just some. My job is to make sure that the country is growing not just now, but 10 years from now and 20 years from now."
He added: "This is not a distraction. This is what this campaign is going to be about — is what is a strategy for us to move this country forward in a way where everybody can succeed?" I know the gist has been posted before. So in SCtoo terms, Toss managed a pretty vicious timing push taking advantage of Zerg's really greedy 3base without roaches. It took out the third, and cost a lot of larvae, basically nullifying the economic advantage Zerg was trying to get. Now Zerg needs to respond.
I find it really funny that this story is being reported this way given that the real story is the democrats shitting themselves after that Newark mayor said that these attacks against "private equity" were "nauseating."
|
2 names, one badass. Ron Paul
User was warned for this post
|
On May 23 2012 14:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2012 13:39 ticklishmusic wrote:http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0522/Romney-still-finding-his-legs-on-Bain-attacks"If your main argument for how to grow the economy is 'I knew how to make a lot of money for investors,' then you're missing what this job is about," Obama said during a news conference at an international summit in Chicago. "It doesn't mean you weren't good at private equity, but that's not what my job is as president. My job is to take into account everybody, not just some. My job is to make sure that the country is growing not just now, but 10 years from now and 20 years from now."
He added: "This is not a distraction. This is what this campaign is going to be about — is what is a strategy for us to move this country forward in a way where everybody can succeed?" I know the gist has been posted before. So in SCtoo terms, Toss managed a pretty vicious timing push taking advantage of Zerg's really greedy 3base without roaches. It took out the third, and cost a lot of larvae, basically nullifying the economic advantage Zerg was trying to get. Now Zerg needs to respond. I find it really funny that this story is being reported this way given that the real story is the democrats shitting themselves after that Newark mayor said that these attacks against "private equity" were "nauseating."
He then backed off his statements because they were politically damning. He was the one shitting himself, not the "democrats"
|
Eh, the private equity stuff isn't gaining traction anyways. Obama should campaign on pushing more government stimulus through, on the fact that the state level public workforce is the root behind the high unemployment numbers now.
|
On May 23 2012 23:11 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2012 14:15 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2012 13:39 ticklishmusic wrote:http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0522/Romney-still-finding-his-legs-on-Bain-attacks"If your main argument for how to grow the economy is 'I knew how to make a lot of money for investors,' then you're missing what this job is about," Obama said during a news conference at an international summit in Chicago. "It doesn't mean you weren't good at private equity, but that's not what my job is as president. My job is to take into account everybody, not just some. My job is to make sure that the country is growing not just now, but 10 years from now and 20 years from now."
He added: "This is not a distraction. This is what this campaign is going to be about — is what is a strategy for us to move this country forward in a way where everybody can succeed?" I know the gist has been posted before. So in SCtoo terms, Toss managed a pretty vicious timing push taking advantage of Zerg's really greedy 3base without roaches. It took out the third, and cost a lot of larvae, basically nullifying the economic advantage Zerg was trying to get. Now Zerg needs to respond. I find it really funny that this story is being reported this way given that the real story is the democrats shitting themselves after that Newark mayor said that these attacks against "private equity" were "nauseating." He then backed off his statements because they were politically damning. He was the one shitting himself, not the "democrats"
Of course the mayor backed off on what he said. He shat so hard on Obama's political strategy that I'm sure that he received phone calls from DNC/Obama campaign heads saying, "WTF are you doing, moron? You better retract what you said or your political career is effectively over" within about 30 seconds of walking off of the set of that Sunday talk show. Hell, if you watch the video clip closely, you can actually see other people around the table squirming as he made the comments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
