Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Cafe > General

General Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #5571  
Old 12-11-12, 19:40
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,470
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhubroma View Post
Unions don't exist without it. Is this a question of which came first the chicken or the egg?
Quote:
Unions don't exist without it.
Which is a point sadly lost on most unions.
__________________
"It makes no sense. Fire the electorate let the people speak for themselves"
Reply With Quote
  #5572  
Old 12-11-12, 20:16
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,026
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
No. An alternative was liquidation. Another alternative was reorganization, which is what would have and did happen.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...3e09068c58d.01

Quote:
But economists say that the $80 billion rescue was unavoidable because, with the financial system also crumbling at the time, there was no private capital ready to pick up the pieces. Moreover, without the rescue, they say, the chain of auto suppliers could have imploded, possibly even bringing tottering Ford -- the third major Detroit automaker -- with them.

But most economists dismiss Romney's argument that private capital could have done the job, and done it better. Both GM and Chrysler were ready to enter bankruptcy under Chapter 11 proceedings, which protect firms from creditors while they reorganize their finances. But they needed billions of dollars in bridging financing to do that, and it was not available, said Gary Burtless of Brookings Institution. "There was no creditor in the private sector that could step up with the amount of money that Chrysler and General Motors needed if they were to keep on functioning," Burtless told AFP. "The only outcome if the government didn't step in was that those companies were going to be liquidated."
There was no money to see GM and Chrysler through the bankruptcy phase. It was bailout or liquidation.

Quote:
I would not have happened the way you hypothesize.
I'm not the one hypothesizing it, it's the economists, auto industry experts, and the heads of GM, Chrysler, and Ford who are the ones hypothesizing it.

Quote:
Yeah, we secretly hate business.
No, but you do hate Obama enough that you'd rather see the country take a hit than to give Obama anything. The Rs idiotic stance on the debt ceiling, for eg - it was more important to them to try and make Obama look bad than it was to do what was right for the country. They couldn't give a **** that our credit rating was downgraded as a result. And now they're threatening to do it all over again. Think that's good for business?

Quote:
Was that 7.6 billion pre-tax, or post-tax. Oh yeah, they aren't paying taxes.

The U.S. Treasury is giving up $14 billion in tax revenue because of a sweetheart deal it's giving General Motors.


Lessee, Treasury will sell the stock at $32, which will equate to a tax payer loss of about $13 billion. We lose tax revenue of about $14 billion.

Yeah, it's a sweet deal. For the life of me I don't know why you are defending it. Normally you'd rail against corporate welfare but since Barack did it, I guess it's okay.
The auto bailout started under Bush, remember? Even an idiot like Bush understood better than the cons do that it was absolutely necessary for the country at the time. Maybe if we hadn't been in the midst of a recession it could have been worked out differently - maybe then you even let them go under - but at the time the choice was either the feds step in or the economy, already in a horrible recession, takes a hit that we couldn't afford.

Quote:
In retrospect, Mulally is kicking himself in the ***. He could have got the same deal GM did and he didn't take it. All in all, stupid move.
Mulally is telling it like it is (or was, at the time). You just don't want to hear it.

Quote:
EDIT: Did you see that AIG paid back the feds, ahead of time, on the TARP program with something like $27 billion in Federal profit? But AIG are insurance scum....

Oh well, make $27 billion on AIG, lose $27 billion with GM... but only the loser is a success I guess.
They haven't lost anything on GM yet. You keep talking as if it's a sure thing GM will fail. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, although they're not doing too badly so far. But one almost gets the sense that you'll be very, very disappointed if they don't.
Reply With Quote
  #5573  
Old 12-11-12, 20:20
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,026
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Which is a point sadly lost on most unions.
Unions only exist because of the way workers have historically been exploited by business. Business created the conditions that led to the need for unions; business created unions. It was their own damn fault. Which is a point sadly lost on most pro-business, anti-union conservatives.
Reply With Quote
  #5574  
Old 12-11-12, 20:29
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,026
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Unions are an industry.
Quote:
Right-to-work laws protect workers who decline to join a union from having to pay union dues as a condition of employment, even if the union also represents them in negotiations. http://www.politico.com/story/2012/1...918.html?hp=l1
Uh huh. Hadn't seen that before. It's all about choice, eh Scott?

But this pretty much sums it up:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...&type=1&ref=nf

Why did Snyder put it up now? Because it wouldn't have passed in Jan. Why did the Rs add an unrelated appropriations to the bill? So that it couldn't be recalled.

Rs, democracy, let the people decide.

Last edited by VeloCity; 12-11-12 at 20:36.
Reply With Quote
  #5575  
Old 12-11-12, 21:14
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,470
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...3e09068c58d.01

There was no money to see GM and Chrysler through the bankruptcy phase. It was bailout or liquidation.

I'm not the one hypothesizing it, it's the economists, auto industry experts, and the heads of GM, Chrysler, and Ford who are the ones hypothesizing it.

No, but you do hate Obama enough that you'd rather see the country take a hit than to give Obama anything. The Rs idiotic stance on the debt ceiling, for eg - it was more important to them to try and make Obama look bad than it was to do what was right for the country. They couldn't give a **** that our credit rating was downgraded as a result. And now they're threatening to do it all over again. Think that's good for business?

The auto bailout started under Bush, remember? Even an idiot like Bush understood better than the cons do that it was absolutely necessary for the country at the time. Maybe if we hadn't been in the midst of a recession it could have been worked out differently - maybe then you even let them go under - but at the time the choice was either the feds step in or the economy, already in a horrible recession, takes a hit that we couldn't afford.

Mulally is telling it like it is (or was, at the time). You just don't want to hear it.

They haven't lost anything on GM yet. You keep talking as if it's a sure thing GM will fail. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, although they're not doing too badly so far. But one almost gets the sense that you'll be very, very disappointed if they don't.
Quote:
There was no money to see GM and Chrysler through the bankruptcy phase. It was bailout or liquidation.
Yes. Okay. They fix the union problem they get what they need. It's really very simple.

Quote:
I'm not the one hypothesizing it, it's the economists, auto industry experts, and the heads of GM, Chrysler, and Ford who are the ones hypothesizing it.
Nameless economists and involved industry people. Okey dokey.

Quote:
No, but you do hate Obama enough that you'd rather see the country take a hit than to give Obama anything.
I rather see a thriving economy and I don't give a **** who gets the credit. How about you?

Quote:
The Rs idiotic stance on the debt ceiling, for eg - it was more important to them to try and make Obama look bad than it was to do what was right for the country.
What's idiotic is to give free-wheeling Barack Obama a blank check. How is THAT right for the country?

Quote:
They couldn't give a **** that our credit rating was downgraded as a result. And now they're threatening to do it all over again. Think that's good for business?
Our credit rating will be downgraded again. Do you know why? The idiot in the White House won't pull back the reins on spending and Obama has no interest whatsoever in bipartisan solutions to fiscal issues. That and Moody's et al are less than impressed with Bernanke and his monetary policy.

Quote:
The auto bailout started under Bush, remember? Even an idiot like Bush understood better than the cons do that it was absolutely necessary for the country at the time. Maybe if we hadn't been in the midst of a recession it could have been worked out differently - maybe then you even let them go under - but at the time the choice was either the feds step in or the economy, already in a horrible recession, takes a hit that we couldn't afford.
You know, the bailout could have been structured in a way that actually made GM viable long-term. What ****es me off is not the bailout as much as the give away. One more time, the structural problems that existed at GM still exist today.

A Lemon Under the GM Bailout Hood

Quote:
During a routine bankruptcy, companies like GM that have saddled themselves with uncompetitive wages are reorganized to bring those costs to market levels so they can succeed. That's exactly what happened with the recent bankruptcy reorganization of American Airlines.

In a handout to his powerful cronies at the United Auto Workers, the bailout resulted in a new, artificial classification of workers in which all the sacrifices were made by new hires, not existing UAW employees, who continue even now to draw salaries and benefits that average $56 per hour.

As the UAW giddily told its members, "For our active members these tentative changes mean no loss in your base hourly pay, no reduction in your healthcare, and no reduction in pensions." In hindsight, even Mr. Obama's auto czar, Steven Rattner, has ruefully acknowledged that that "we should have asked the UAW to do more. We did not ask any UAW member to take a cut in their pay."

Mr. Obama's GM overseers were even more ruthless in their handouts to UAW members who had worked for the company's parts supplier, Delphi, which GM had spun off in 2009. While GM had no obligation in bankruptcy to supplement Delphi workers' pensions, it did so anyway, to the tune of $1 billion of taxpayer money -- but only the pensions of unionized employees. Under new management by the White House, non-unionized Delphi retirees were told that their pensions would not be supplemented.

The biggest whopper by Mr. Obama, however, is that his bailout deal created and saved American jobs.

While Obama's auto czars shuttered hundreds of small GM auto dealerships across the United States, the company is now aggressively opening new ones in China, with 600 new dealerships already planned by the end of this year and more in the offing. So much for skilled American dealership mechanics, parts managers, clerical staff -- not to mention the folks on the sales floor.

Even before the bailout, GM assembled 70 percent of its autos overseas and nearly two out of every three GM workers was employed outside the United States. Those numbers have not changed under the president's management, and for the Delphi workers, the outsourcing is even worse. Today, 95 percent of Delphi employees are overseas, compared with just 86 percent before the president took over the U.S. auto industry in an effort to save their jobs.

When you look under the hood of President Obama's auto bailout and take it for a test drive, you learn it's a lemon.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-p...b_2067264.html
__________________
"It makes no sense. Fire the electorate let the people speak for themselves"
Reply With Quote
  #5576  
Old 12-11-12, 21:20
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,470
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
Unions only exist because of the way workers have historically been exploited by business. Business created the conditions that led to the need for unions; business created unions. It was their own damn fault. Which is a point sadly lost on most pro-business, anti-union conservatives.
I'm not sure anyone disputes this.

So, why do we need unions now? To direct mandatory dues from members to democratic causes is a big part of the answer to the question. It's not about the worker and hasn't been for some time.
__________________
"It makes no sense. Fire the electorate let the people speak for themselves"
Reply With Quote
  #5577  
Old 12-11-12, 21:25
rhubroma's Avatar
rhubroma rhubroma is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,037
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Which is a point sadly lost on most unions.
This is your point.
Reply With Quote
  #5578  
Old 12-11-12, 21:27
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,470
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
Uh huh. Hadn't seen that before. It's all about choice, eh Scott?

But this pretty much sums it up:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...&type=1&ref=nf

Why did Snyder put it up now? Because it wouldn't have passed in Jan. Why did the Rs add an unrelated appropriations to the bill? So that it couldn't be recalled.

Rs, democracy, let the people decide.
I honestly don't understand what you guys are so afraid of. If the unions provide value to the workers they have absolutely nothing to worry about.

Of course, not all union members are rabid leftists like their leadership and I'd guess that a decent portion of the members resent how their union dues are used to further political causes they may not agree with.

If the necessity of unions are on business then the necessity of right to work laws are on the unions. Deal with it.
__________________
"It makes no sense. Fire the electorate let the people speak for themselves"
Reply With Quote
  #5579  
Old 12-11-12, 21:37
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,470
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhubroma View Post
This is your point.
I said
Quote:
Unions are an industry
You replied
Quote:
Unions don't exist without it.
Then I said
Quote:
Which is a point sadly lost on most unions
__________________
"It makes no sense. Fire the electorate let the people speak for themselves"
Reply With Quote
  #5580  
Old 12-11-12, 21:46
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,470
Default

Cooler heads are prevailing

Democrats threaten violence on Michigan House floor

Quote:
“There will be blood,” State Representative Douglas Geiss threatened
http://washingtonexaminer.com/articl...9#.UMe2BKx62Sq

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_F3o...ature=youtu.be


These your people Velo?

How civilized.
__________________
"It makes no sense. Fire the electorate let the people speak for themselves"

Last edited by Scott SoCal; 12-11-12 at 21:50.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:12.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.