The orgasmic bliss of the DNC didn't last long:
QuoteFor several years the left and their media minions have claimed that by bailing out Chrysler and General Motors, President Obama saved Detroit.
On Friday, the perilously liberal schlockumentarian Michael Moore debunked this in an article at the Huffington Post astonishingly saying, "No, he didn't."
"Last week, I said on the HuffPost Live webcast that we had all better start practicing how to say 'President Romney' because, living in Michigan, I can tell you that there's trouble here on the two peninsulas and it's not just because Romney is a native son or that we like to watch kids from Cranbrook chase down gay kids and chop their hair off," Moore wrote. "One recent poll here showed Romney leading Obama by four points! How can that be? Didn't Obama save Detroit?"
Moore answered his own question, "No, he didn't. He saved General Motors and Chrysler."
"'Detroit' (and Flint and Pontiac and Saginaw)," continued Moore, "are not defined by the global corporations who suck our towns dry and then split town to make more money elsewhere (except, of course, they continued to design and built crap cars, so eventually they didn't make the money at all). These cities in Michigan are about the people who live here, and in the process of 'saving Detroit,' Mr. Obama had to fire thousands of these people, and reduce the benefits and pensions of those who were left."
(Damn, sounds like those awful vulture capitalists!)
Inconvenient truths the Obama-loving media don't want the public to know. But Moore wasn't finished.
"There's a lot of pissed off people in Michigan (and Wisconsin and Ohio), people who weren't saved even though the corporation was. I'm just stating a fact, and those of you who don't live here should know this."
Actually, those that don't live in these areas would know this if America had an honest media.
Sadly, we don't leading to almost unthinkable ignorance about such matters and many other crucial issues facing the nation.
How extraordinary that an avowed Obama supporter would be willing to let this cat out of the bag two months before Election Day.
If only the rest of the so-called journalists out there would follow suit.
Don't hold your breath.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/09/07/michael-moore-no-obama-didnt-save-detroit#ixzz25oYhaVIH
Read the entire article from Huffpaint here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/president-romney-how-to-p_b_1863818.html
For those of you who don't care to link through, he's also miffed about all the contributions Obama got from Wall Streeters and what a gift Obamacare is to the insurance companies.
Obama's minions aren't happy with him but it's almost as if they'd be willing to see the country go though 4 more years of misery just so they don't have to do anything about their buyer's remorse.
First off I have as much use for Michael Moore and Bill Maher as I have for Rush Limbaugh (which is none), they are attention hounds that want the cameras and attention on them. But I can't say he is entirely wrong. Detroit is not saved; the housing market there is still terrible.
What Mike forgets to mention is all of the other companies that are dependent on the auto industry that we would have lost if these companies were allowed to fail. If he is unhappy with his lot in life now, I can't imagine how loudly he would have complained if his major industry and all dependent industries had vanished.
It's nice to see that Moore is critical of the president for the same reason that many liberals should be critical of him. The President has been a big Wall Street partner but not so much a Main Street partner. Moore is very critical of the "1%" and the "Evil Rich." He has a big heart.
Consequently, he keeps his big heart in his 10,000 sf lakefront mansion.
I dismiss Moore's criticism of President Obama because he is a hypocrite.
(http://nationalpostcomment.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/moorehouse1114.jpg?w=620)
(http://celebrityhousegossip.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/michael-moore-mansion.jpg)
Maher is much more entertaining than those other two ....
QuoteObama's minions aren't happy with him but it's almost as if they'd be willing to see the country go though 4 more years of misery just so they don't have to do anything about their buyer's remorse.
If you are not prepared to go through 20 more years of misery then best you either come to Jesus or learn not to complain so much. No President and no congress will together or separately make things better. Seek mindfulness...and get a grip on the anger.
oh, now take a diarrhea pill for those fingers. Too much coffee today?
He's an Obama fanboy.....
QuoteOK, so people like me, just once in our lifetime, would like to get our way all the time! Is that too much to ask? Of course, there is a different question that is in the air now -- shall we give the country back to the crowd who gave the country to the 1%? I think not. So let's join in with our liberal majority and be fierce and relentless in these next two months. Let's spend this time educating people what we mean when we say things like "single-payer" and "Blackwater." Politics and the fate of the nation (and the world -- sorry, world) are on the front burner and those of us who want to wrestle control of our society out of the hands of the few can take healthy advantage of these coming weeks. Don't sit it out. Don't try to convince anyone Obama has magically transformed us -- just tell them four years is simply not enough time to undo all the hurt caused by biggest economic crash since the Great Depression and the biggest military blunder/lie in our history.
I'm going to go with my optimistic side here (sorry, cynics, you know I love you) and imagine a Second Term Obama (and a Democratically-controlled Congress) who will go after all the good that our people deserve and put the power of our democracy back in our hands. There's good reason why the Right is terrified of a Second Term Obama because that is exactly what they think he'll do: the real Obama will appear and take us down the road to social justice and tolerance and a leveling of the economic playing field. For once, I'd like to say I agree with the Right -- and I sincerely hope their worst nightmare does come true.
QuoteCostco Founder Nails Romney - He Best Return Those Shirts!!!
...at Costco, we recognize that job creation requires time and investment and commitment to the long term. *** It Requires Companies that Plant and Grow, NOT executives who REAP and RUN. ***
We're proud that Costco pays the highest wages among our peers, that we provide benefit and health care plans that are second to none, that we've grown our business by promoting from within. So we're not just giving Costco people jobs, we're empowering them to build careers and support middle-class families.
At Costco, we know a thing or two about what it takes for businesses to succeed, for a company to do well by its shareholders and to do right by its employees at the same time. We don't want one set of rules for ourselves and another for our employees.
Business needs a president... who takes the long view and makes the tough decisions. And that's why I am here tonight supporting President Obama, a president making an economy built to last.
America needs to be a nation where everyone follows the same rules of the road so that small businesses can compete with the big, so that small businesses can become big, so that breakthrough ideas and hard work are rewarded MORE than speculation.
...Here's the thing about the Costco story: we did not build our company in a vacuum, we built it in the greatest country on earth. We built our company in a place where anyone can make it with hard work, a little luck and a little help from their neighbors AND THEIR COUNTRY.
I'm here tonight because Costco's story is the American story. Because it's a story that President Obama is helping millions of dreamers and doers to write anew for themselves. And I'm here tonight because I believe he deserves four more years to help us write the next chapter.
Jim Sinegal
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125187852
Be nice and they might build some stores here in Sam's backyard.
Been thinking the same thing as Moore for a while (I think I need to take a bath now). The auto industry didn't get bailed out, GM & Chrysler got bailed out. Two companies that made bad decisions (while some may have seemed good at the time) were bailed out. Ford wasn't. Does anyone really think the U.S. auto industry would just completely shut down if GM were to go under? Unlikely. Now if people stop buying cars, maybe. But as it sits, GMs stake in U.S. manufacturing would more than likely been eaten up by some not so vulnerable competitors. Even if all three were to go under (unlikely) we would still have auto manufacturing in the U.S. thanks to our foreign competitors such as Honda, Toyota, & BMW. They all have significant assets in the states (just not in Michigan).
Quote from: erfalf on September 07, 2012, 08:30:10 PM
(just not in Michigan).
I wonder why. Seriously, BMW is from Germany where there are very favorable laws for workers.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 07, 2012, 09:33:32 PM
I wonder why. Seriously, BMW is from Germany where there are very favorable laws for workers.
There are also very favorable laws for employers, they just don't operate at the expense of workers.
Quote from: erfalf on September 07, 2012, 08:30:10 PM
Been thinking the same thing as Moore for a while (I think I need to take a bath now). The auto industry didn't get bailed out, GM & Chrysler got bailed out. Two companies that made bad decisions (while some may have seemed good at the time) were bailed out. Ford wasn't. Does anyone really think the U.S. auto industry would just completely shut down if GM were to go under? Unlikely. Now if people stop buying cars, maybe. But as it sits, GMs stake in U.S. manufacturing would more than likely been eaten up by some not so vulnerable competitors. Even if all three were to go under (unlikely) we would still have auto manufacturing in the U.S. thanks to our foreign competitors such as Honda, Toyota, & BMW. They all have significant assets in the states (just not in Michigan).
On the one hand, it's easy for us to say "To Hell with Shysler and Genital Motors!" However, there are untold hundreds of thousands of jobs which exist because of those two manufacturers. They have many suppliers, vendors, companies which do their plant improvements and all sorts of jobs created from that income stream throughout the economy.
Had Bush and Obama not gotten the wheels going to save both companies, we'd be heavily criticizing Obama for doing nothing about GM and Chrysler when he had the chance to save them. I really do shudder to think how far reaching the effects could have been. Certainly some jobs would be assimilated into other companies as car sales rebounded, but I don't think you would have managed to save near as many jobs. As well as making some of those cities heavily dependent on the big 3 even bigger ghettos than they have become already.
Conan pretty much wins the thread.
I do have to disagree with one thing in the OP, though. People on the left aren't supporting Obama so they don't have to feel buyer's remorse. Many of them already do, as Obama has not turned out to be the leftist they hoped he was and the Republicans paint him as. They support Obama because they find the alternative completely untenable. At least the folks who aren't voting for whoever the Green is this year.
Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2012, 09:45:59 PM
There are also very favorable laws for employers, they just don't operate at the expense of workers.
The ones I am thinking of require an employer (in Germany) to keep employees skilled in an older technology, using that older technology, rather than train them in a newer technology.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 07, 2012, 09:53:54 PM
On the one hand, it's easy for us to say "To Hell with Shysler and Genital Motors!" However, there are untold hundreds of thousands of jobs which exist because of those two manufacturers. They have many suppliers, vendors, companies which do their plant improvements and all sorts of jobs created from that income stream throughout the economy.
Had Bush and Obama not gotten the wheels going to save both companies, we'd be heavily criticizing Obama for doing nothing about GM and Chrysler when he had the chance to save them. I really do shudder to think how far reaching the effects could have been. Certainly some jobs would be assimilated into other companies as car sales rebounded, but I don't think you would have managed to save near as many jobs. As well as making some of those cities heavily dependent on the big 3 even bigger ghettos than they have become already.
Do you think that a normal bankruptcy proceeding would have led to far more devastating effects? I mean how many times have the big airlines gone through bankruptcy, and yet we still have a aerospace industry. That's all I'm saying.
Quote from: erfalf on September 07, 2012, 10:11:57 PM
Do you think that a normal bankruptcy proceeding would have led to far more devastating effects? I mean how many times have the big airlines gone through bankruptcy, and yet we still have a aerospace industry. That's all I'm saying.
The problem was that there could have been no "normal" bankruptcy, as nobody was willing to put up the necessary DIP and exit financing. You have to remember that the proximate cause of the bankruptcies was the failure of the commercial paper market and consequent almost total credit freeze. GM and Chrysler were certainly on the road to BK years before the crisis hit, but the crisis is what pushed them into bankruptcy at that particular moment.
If GM had failed and closed, it would have a far reaching effect other than here in the US. They own Holden, Vauxhall, and Opel as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holden)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vauxhall_Motors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vauxhall_Motors)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opel)
They also manufacture Chevy in most of the world.
Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2012, 10:24:28 PM
The problem was that there could have been no "normal" bankruptcy, as nobody was willing to put up the necessary DIP and exit financing. You have to remember that the proximate cause of the bankruptcies was the failure of the commercial paper market and consequent almost total credit freeze. GM and Chrysler were certainly on the road to BK years before the crisis hit, but the crisis is what pushed them into bankruptcy at that particular moment.
Fair enough. To be honest the events are something that I have not had the desire to really delve into. However, it seems hard to argue that the "bailout" seems to have favored the administrations supporters far more than a standard bankruptcy would have. Quid pro quo?
First of all, when the Dems claim that "Obama saved Detroit", they are referring to the US auto industry, not literally the city of Detriot. Kind of like when people refer to the entertainment industry as "Hollywood".
Although Moore's statement may be proven wrong anyway as Detroit's housing market is rebounding rapidly- prices have risen the most of any major market and their unemployment has dropped 2.4 percent in one year. They've still got a very long way to go, but Detroit's economy is moving in the right direction for the first time in years.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realtorcom/2012/06/14/detroit-real-estate-comeback-kid/
Also, Moore predicted a win for Kerry in 2004, so what the hell does he know?
Quote from: erfalf on September 08, 2012, 04:44:58 PM
However, it seems hard to argue that the "bailout" seems to have favored the administrations supporters far more than a standard bankruptcy would have. Quid pro quo?
Other than that the standard bankruptcy couldn't have happened, not really, as best I can tell. The unions saw pay cuts and pension freezes, so it's not like they came through unscathed. Equity holders were wiped out, and creditors were no less screwed than they would have been in a normal bankruptcy. I suppose it's possible that a private lender would have insisted on even less favorable terms for other stakeholders, but I haven't seen any evidence of that. (not that I've been looking recently)
Quote from: nathanm on September 08, 2012, 11:22:28 PM
Other than that the standard bankruptcy couldn't have happened, not really, as best I can tell. The unions saw pay cuts and pension freezes, so it's not like they came through unscathed. Equity holders were wiped out, and creditors were no less screwed than they would have been in a normal bankruptcy. I suppose it's possible that a private lender would have insisted on even less favorable terms for other stakeholders, but I haven't seen any evidence of that. (not that I've been looking recently)
Um, I believe the employees & the government ended up with a bigger chunk of the companies than did the bond holder, who would have had first dibs in this whole deal. Remember, the company was going bankrupt, it should hurt most everyone involved, no matter how much they may have not deserved it. It is what it is. But you can't seriously say that this didn't favor the union workers of these companies with a straight face.
That's how bankruptcy usually works. Equity gets wiped out completely, bondholders usually take a big haircut if they get anything at all, as do former suppliers who won't be suppliers going forward. Employees got a share because they agreed to take ultimate responsibility for insurance and other benefits, as in taking on future obligations that would otherwise have been the company's. The company supplies a lump sum and the employees have the hard task of making the numbers add up. Given how much folks were complaining about GM's legacy costs, it seems like a good deal to me.
Former bondholders did get 10% in the new GM, FWIW.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/316379/democrats-gm-fiction-editors
Where is this article off base? I think in general, the lay person thinks that bankruptcy means a company goes out of business. And that government intervention alone kept GM and Chrysler from completely shutting down. Obviously that isn't the case (pretty much every airline has gone through it at some point or another). That's not to say they both definitely would not have shut down had another option been taken, but it doesn't mean they would have either.
I know it is sometimes pointless to argue about what has already happened and the hypotheticals that could never be measured. But it is also important to reflect on decisions made so that when the time comes, that knowledge can be applied.
Quote from: erfalf on September 10, 2012, 03:14:38 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/316379/democrats-gm-fiction-editors
Where is this article off base? I think in general, the lay person thinks that bankruptcy means a company goes out of business. And that government intervention alone kept GM and Chrysler from completely shutting down. Obviously that isn't the case (pretty much every airline has gone through it at some point or another). That's not to say they both definitely would not have shut down had another option been taken, but it doesn't mean they would have either.
I know it is sometimes pointless to argue about what has already happened and the hypotheticals that could never be measured. But it is also important to reflect on decisions made so that when the time comes, that knowledge can be applied.
You are arguing with the wrong people. All of the lessons, medicare, social security, the post office, GM, Solyndra, and many more loom in front of them, but they still feel that government is always the answer and government can rescue businesses. When they fail, and they always do, they attempt to fictionalize success, and shed blame. When GM ends up back in the shi++er, it and the tax payer's investment is gone, it will be your fault, or management's fault, or Europe, or China. They will never consider the fact that government is not nimble enough to manage business. Government does not anticipate or react to market forces with any degree of speed or efficiency. Government is force, and by it's very nature slow and clumsy. Government's only advantage is that it is big. It's a bully with little restraint, fueled with everyone else's lunch money.
Reminds me of Dr. Barbara Bellar's comments on Obamacare:
Let me get this straight. We're to be gifted with a healthcare plan that we're forced to purchase and fined if we don't, which purportedly covers at least 10 million more people without adding a single doctor but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that didn't read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a President who smokes, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, for which we will be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government that has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a Surgeon General who is obese and finally, financed by a country that's broke. -Dr. Barbara Bellar
The government is not running GM. In fact GM is barely running GM.
Quote from: carltonplace on September 10, 2012, 03:43:04 PM
The government is not running GM. In fact GM is barely running GM.
GM is the product of what happens when Government plays favorites. Posponed failure. Had they been allowed to go into a structured bankruptcy they may well be on their way to health now without the taxpayer liability. There is no leadership left at GM. They have been used as a poster-child, sitting in the dirt with flies around their eyes. Feed the unions.
When you buy someone a Chevy, they just don't appreciate it as much as if they had purchased it for themselves. ;)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/10/us-generalmotors-autos-volt-idUSBRE88904J20120910
Quote from: erfalf on September 10, 2012, 03:14:38 PM
Where is this article off base?
The article is off base because GM and Chrysler had been looking for someone to provide BK financing and could not find it. If you run out of money, you shut down. The article also argues that the government is somehow running GM, when that is not the case. Treasury still owns part of it, but they're a silent investor. There's a reason Ford, who saw nothing from it other than continued competition, was in favor of the government financed bankruptcies.
Gaspar, what part of frozen credit market do you not understand?
Quote from: nathanm on September 10, 2012, 03:58:51 PM
The article is off base because GM and Chrysler had been looking for someone to provide BK financing and could not find it. If you run out of money, you shut down. The article also argues that the government is somehow running GM, when that is not the case. Treasury still owns part of it, but they're a silent investor. There's a reason Ford, who saw nothing from it other than continued competition, was in favor of the government financed bankruptcies.
Gaspar, what part of frozen credit market do you not understand?
First, I don't think anyone is saying that it necessarily shouldn't have been done. Just that it was done in a very shady way.
If GM was so out of money, how did they pay back their loan to the government so fast? Why did the UAW get such a sweetheart deal (in comparison to what they would have gotten otherwise that is)? Why did they get to carry forward their losses on their taxes? While the alternative may have hurt Ford, the current model may hurt them as well, just somewhat less maybe. I understand the credit wasn't there, and I wouldn't have had a problem with the government stepping in and taking the place of BK financing, however, that's not what happened. GM appears to have gotten far more than a hand up. You know, that helping out the rich that most of you can't stand when it has anything to do with every other company. In the end it doesn't seem to be making a difference as GM may end up right where it started. Bankrupt. They just aren't making autos that people want as well as their competitors.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/08/15/general-motors-is-headed-for-bankruptcy-again/