Main Page | Report Page

 

  Politics Forum Index » USA (Congress) Politics Forum » Pensions wiped out by the White House...

Author Message
Lifsabsurd...
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 8:56 am
 
On Sep 25, 12:49 pm, rfisc... at (no spam) sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Quote:
Lifsabsurd  <lifsabs... at (no spam) charter.net> wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how this type of thing
is fundamentally different than fascist Mussolini's corporate statism.

One was reality.  The other is right-wing propaganda.

Who wanted GM and Delphi to go under?

If they had gone under with a *normal* bankruptcy proceding would the
non-union emloyees like those at Delphi, the stockholders of GM, and
some GM dealers too, have been screwed so badly? And the company
would likely have re-emerged more sound than it is now.


Quote:
--
Ray Fischer        
rfisc... at (no spam) sonic.net  

 
...
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 9:48 am
 
On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 08:04:14 -0700 (PDT), Lifsabsurd
<lifsabsurd at (no spam) charter.net> wrote:

Quote:
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how this type of thing
is fundamentally different than fascist Mussolini's corporate statism.

It's completely opposite. In a progressive constitutional republic
it's The People that are in charge via the election booth (assuming
the right wing is not stealing elections still). In a fascist
(corporatist) statist government it is a small ultra wealthy ruling
elite that are in charge Leftism in America in not totalitarian
communism. We are a democratic constitutional republic and our
government is what we make it. If we want to take control of our
country back from the fascists then we must do so at the polling
booths and tell them the ultra wealthy are not going to control us any
more.
 
Ray Fischer...
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 11:48 am
 
Last Post <last_post at (no spam) primus.ca> wrote:
Quote:
Pensions wiped out by the White House

Michelle Malkin

The White House believes it can win back depressed and economically
stressed voters by turning President Obama into the storyteller-in-
chief again. But consider the real-life horror story of 20,000 white-
collar workers at Delphi, a leading auto-parts company spun off from
GM a decade ago.

Wow.

Let's recall that the rightards afre still insisting that GM and all
of its suppliers (including Delphi) should have been allowed to
collapse, wiping out tens of thousands of jobs and eliminating all of
their pensions.

Quote:
As Washington rushed to nationalize the US auto industry with $80

And there's the code phrase of the right wing lunatic.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer at (no spam) sonic.net
 
Ray Fischer...
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 11:49 am
 
Lifsabsurd <lifsabsurd at (no spam) charter.net> wrote:
Quote:
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how this type of thing
is fundamentally different than fascist Mussolini's corporate statism.

One was reality. The other is right-wing propaganda.

Who wanted GM and Delphi to go under?

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer at (no spam) sonic.net
 
Beam Me Up Scotty...
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 3:54 pm
 
Quote:
Fascism and socialism are opposites.

As opposite as black and white paint..... they are both paint.
 
Bob LeChevalier...
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 3:54 pm
 
Lifsabsurd <lifsabsurd at (no spam) charter.net> wrote:
Quote:
Secondly, since when did this become a "PROGRESSIVE" constitutional
republic?  Since Obama?  

Since our Founding Fathers decided we could throw off the shackles of
the aristocracy and govern ourselves.  The Constitution of the United
States of America is what established a progressive liberal government
in America.  You should know that.  

I know no such thing. The term 'progressive', and the modern,
American usage of the term 'liberal' refer to forms of socialism to
me.

That is your problem. You ideologically redefine words in the English
language.

Progressivism is primarily a populist movement supporting change and
reform.

The progressive movement a century ago produced the initiative process
whereby citizens can override their legislature. Nothing socialist
about that. Teddy Roosevelt ran for president as a Progressive, the
most successful third party run in American history. Teddy rejected
the support of the socialists, and it might have cost him the
election.

Quote:
The Constitution established a republic, a representative
government, with our representatives *mostly* democratically (majority
rules) elected. I find progressivism, socialism, liberalism nowhere
in the Constitution.

A silly argument, because the words were not in use in 1787. You
won't find the words "space program" in the constitution either.

Quote:
Absolutely not in my book. Democracy simply references majority rule
of the people. Progressives are socialist elitists, who rule like
authoritarians and couldn't care less what the majority wants. Obama
and the Clintons are good examples.

Obama and the Clintons are centrists.

lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab at (no spam) lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
 
Bob LeChevalier...
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 3:57 pm
 
Lifsabsurd <lifsabsurd at (no spam) charter.net> wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 25, 12:49 pm, rfisc... at (no spam) sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Lifsabsurd  <lifsabs... at (no spam) charter.net> wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how this type of thing
is fundamentally different than fascist Mussolini's corporate statism.

One was reality.  The other is right-wing propaganda.

Who wanted GM and Delphi to go under?

If they had gone under with a *normal* bankruptcy proceding would the
non-union emloyees like those at Delphi, the stockholders of GM, and
some GM dealers too, have been screwed so badly?

Worse.

Quote:
And the company would likely have re-emerged more sound than it is now.

The company would have been broken up and sold at fire sale prices,
with the bondholders getting all the assets and ALL of the employees
getting screwed. And the US auto industry would likely be close to
dead.

lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab at (no spam) lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
 
Ray Fischer...
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 4:00 pm
 
Lifsabsurd <lifsabsurd at (no spam) charter.net> wrote:
Quote:
rfisc... at (no spam) sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Lifsabsurd  <lifsabs... at (no spam) charter.net> wrote:

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how this type of thing
is fundamentally different than fascist Mussolini's corporate statism.

One was reality.  The other is right-wing propaganda.

Who wanted GM and Delphi to go under?

If they had gone under with a *normal* bankruptcy proceding would the
non-union emloyees like those at Delphi, the stockholders of GM, and
some GM dealers too, have been screwed so badly?

More so.

Quote:
And the company
would likely have re-emerged more sound than it is now.

LOL! Chapter 7 bankruptcy eliminates the company. Chapter 11 allows
them to "restructure" their debts, including pensions, and that's what
we got.

You rightards wanted the corporation to be gone.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer at (no spam) sonic.net
 
Lifsabsurd...
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 4:26 pm
 
On Sep 25, 4:54 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj... at (no spam) lojban.org> wrote:
Quote:
Lifsabsurd <lifsabs... at (no spam) charter.net> wrote:
Secondly, since when did this become a "PROGRESSIVE" constitutional
republic?  Since Obama?  

Since our Founding Fathers decided we could throw off the shackles of
the aristocracy and govern ourselves.  The Constitution of the United
States of America is what established a progressive liberal government
in America.  You should know that.  

I know no such thing.  The term 'progressive', and the modern,
American usage of the term 'liberal' refer to forms of socialism to
me.

That is your problem.  You ideologically redefine words in the English
language.

I don't think that I was the one who redefined them, but I accept what
you call redefinitions. Everything I have read about classical
fascism for example convinces me that it was of the left, meaning to
me socialist in nature. What characteristics of fascism convince you
that it is of the right (meaning consistent with modern conservative
thinking)?


Quote:
Progressivism is primarily a populist movement supporting change and
reform.
The progressive movement a century ago produced the initiative process
whereby citizens can override their legislature.  Nothing socialist
about that.  Teddy Roosevelt ran for president as a Progressive, the
most successful third party run in American history.  Teddy rejected
the support of the socialists, and it might have cost him the
election.

First of all, can we agree to use the word according to its *current*
meaning in this country and not according to past historical
meanings? T. Roosevelt's Progressive Party ceased to exist. Other
Progressive Parties were later founded in America. Progressivism
became a movement or ideology, not a party. So, of what relevance are
the platform of the accomplishments of a defunct party? The liberals
of today in this country are not classical liberals of the past.
Current progressives (a political ideology, not a party) include
people like Obama, like the Clintons, like Pelosi, Barney Frank, even
like Bernie Sanders (who also *calls himself* a socialist). They are
some of the most extreme leftists of the Democrat Party. They are not
moderate Democrats. They are not populists. They are far left
liberals. They are socialists.

Quote:
The Constitution established a republic, a representative
government, with our representatives *mostly* democratically (majority
rules) elected.  I find progressivism, socialism, liberalism nowhere
in the Constitution.

A silly argument, because the words were not in use in 1787.  You
won't find the words "space program" in the constitution either.


I suspect that the word "socialism" was, actually. But your point
supports my contention that the founders did not create a
"progressive" Constitution, as "No Name" contended.

Quote:
Absolutely not in my book.  Democracy simply references majority rule
of the people.  Progressives are socialist elitists, who rule like
authoritarians and couldn't care less what the majority wants.  Obama
and the Clintons are good examples.

Obama and the Clintons are centrists.

Hillary has certainly called herself a progressive. Obama has too.
From: http://www.progressive.org/mag/nichols0109.html
--------------
Obama continued: "I am somebody who is no doubt progressive. I believe
in a tax code that we need to make more fair. I believe in universal
health care. I believe in making college affordable. I believe in
paying our teachers more money. I believe in early childhood
education. I believe in a whole lot of things that make me
progressive."
---------------------

Currently, progressives are the most liberal of the liberal. Ted
Kennedy was a progressive. They use the word I think mostly to avoid
the currently negative connotations of the word liberal. But people
are catching on to that.

I will look up Bill, but I am pretty sure he would agree with his
wife's position for himself.


But of course, if you want to use the word to mean what the first
Progressive Party believed in....



Quote:
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj... at (no spam) lojban.org   Lojban languagewww.lojban.org

 
Lifsabsurd...
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 4:33 pm
 
On Sep 25, 5:00 pm, rfisc... at (no spam) sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Quote:
Lifsabsurd  <lifsabs... at (no spam) charter.net> wrote:
rfisc... at (no spam) sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Lifsabsurd  <lifsabs... at (no spam) charter.net> wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how this type of thing
is fundamentally different than fascist Mussolini's corporate statism..

One was reality.  The other is right-wing propaganda.

Who wanted GM and Delphi to go under?

If they had gone under with a *normal* bankruptcy proceding would the
non-union emloyees like those at Delphi, the stockholders of GM, and
some GM dealers too, have been screwed so badly?

More so.

 And the company
would likely have re-emerged more sound than it is now.

LOL!  Chapter 7 bankruptcy eliminates the company.  Chapter 11 allows
them to "restructure" their debts, including pensions, and that's what
we got.

You rightards wanted the corporation to be gone.

--
Ray Fischer        
rfisc... at (no spam) sonic.net  

This conservative wanted the company to face failure through
bankruptcy. Instead Obama essentially dictated it his way. In his
ways the unions that were one of the principal causes of the failure
were greatly rewarded despite the very large share of the blame they
had. When an enterprise fails it is for a reason.
 
John Galt...
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 5:31 pm
 
On 9/25/2010 4:57 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Quote:
Lifsabsurd<lifsabsurd at (no spam) charter.net> wrote:
On Sep 25, 12:49 pm, rfisc... at (no spam) sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Lifsabsurd<lifsabs... at (no spam) charter.net> wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how this type of thing
is fundamentally different than fascist Mussolini's corporate statism.

One was reality. The other is right-wing propaganda.

Who wanted GM and Delphi to go under?

If they had gone under with a *normal* bankruptcy proceding would the
non-union emloyees like those at Delphi, the stockholders of GM, and
some GM dealers too, have been screwed so badly?

Worse.

And the company would likely have re-emerged more sound than it is now.

The company would have been broken up and sold at fire sale prices,
with the bondholders getting all the assets and ALL of the employees
getting screwed. And the US auto industry would likely be close to
dead.

And it is worth discussing if that would have been a "good" or "bad"
outcome.

Your first statement is correct --- GM would have been broken up and
sold. So is the second -- the bondholders would have been first in line,
which is part of the reason why they lent the company money in the first
place, even in the 05-08 timeframe when it was obvious that things were
getting dicey.

Would the employees have been screwed? Hell, no. Who would have bought
those assets at fire sale prices? Intel? Cisco? No, it would have been
foreign auto makers looking to avail themselves of an easy way to enter
(or grow their presence) in the world's largest auto market. And, then,
who would they have employed? The same guys that worked for GM. The
opportunity to re-open a plant with EXACTLY THE SAME GUYS who had been
working it for decades would have been a very nice inducement.

Would the US auto industry be close to dead? Depends how you define it.
Ford would be the last commercial-vehicle, domestically-owned
manufacturer. However, dozens of models would still be domestically
produced by American workers. And defense vehicles would still be
produced by the same contractors who have been producing them for years,
with any GM contracts quickly picked up by them (in that we are still at
war, after all.)

JG


Quote:

lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab at (no spam) lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org

 
Ray Fischer...
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:33 pm
 
John Galt <kady101 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
On 9/25/2010 4:57 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Lifsabsurd<lifsabsurd at (no spam) charter.net> wrote:
On Sep 25, 12:49 pm, rfisc... at (no spam) sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Lifsabsurd<lifsabs... at (no spam) charter.net> wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how this type of thing
is fundamentally different than fascist Mussolini's corporate statism.

One was reality. The other is right-wing propaganda.

Who wanted GM and Delphi to go under?

If they had gone under with a *normal* bankruptcy proceding would the
non-union emloyees like those at Delphi, the stockholders of GM, and
some GM dealers too, have been screwed so badly?

Worse.

And the company would likely have re-emerged more sound than it is now.

The company would have been broken up and sold at fire sale prices,
with the bondholders getting all the assets and ALL of the employees
getting screwed. And the US auto industry would likely be close to
dead.

And it is worth discussing if that would have been a "good" or "bad"
outcome.

Only an ideological extremist would consider that to be good.

Quote:
Your first statement is correct --- GM would have been broken up and
sold. So is the second -- the bondholders would have been first in line,
which is part of the reason why they lent the company money in the first
place, even in the 05-08 timeframe when it was obvious that things were
getting dicey.

Would the employees have been screwed? Hell, no.

No jobs, no pensions, no opportunities.

Quote:
Who would have bought
those assets at fire sale prices?

Ford, maybe. Maybe the factories would just have rotted.

Quote:
No, it would have been
foreign auto makers looking to avail themselves of an easy way to enter

Nope. Toyota already shut down one US factory. They weren't about to
buy any. The others already have all the production they need, and
more.

No, most likely the factories would go unsold.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer at (no spam) sonic.net
 
Bob LeChevalier...
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 8:00 pm
 
Lifsabsurd <lifsabsurd at (no spam) charter.net> wrote:
Quote:
To consider capitalism itself as evil is definitely wrong.

You are up against the Bible on that one.

Thou shalt not covet is part of the 10 commandments worshipped by the
religious right.

Jesus commanded the rich man to give all his wealth to the poor, if he
wanted to go to heaven.

----

Your definition of the "right" and "left" focuses solely on economics.
The traditional definitions are not based on the politics of any one
country, and include social and cultural aspects as well as economic
ones. While the left in this country may arguably be more
"authoritarian" in economic matters, in social and cultural matters
the situation is reversed, and even more extreme (the left tends to
regulate that which they wish to control, the right tends to simply
forbid behaviors that they don't approve of).

lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab at (no spam) lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
 
Bob LeChevalier...
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 8:41 pm
 
John Galt <kady101 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
Would the employees have been screwed? Hell, no. Who would have bought
those assets at fire sale prices?

Scrap metal dealers.

Quote:
Intel? Cisco? No, it would have been
foreign auto makers looking to avail themselves of an easy way to enter
(or grow their presence) in the world's largest auto market.

Foreign auto companies that enter our markets do not buy our
obsolescent factories. They build new ones.

Quote:
And, then, who would they have employed? The same guys that worked for GM.

Nope. They would have built new plants in the right-to-work south
where wages are lower and they don't have to deal with unions. And
even if they did, they would have employed far fewer of them at much
lower wages. And they would have used parts made overseas rather than
American made parts.

lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab at (no spam) lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
 
John Galt...
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 9:19 pm
 
On 9/25/2010 9:41 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Quote:
John Galt<kady101 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Would the employees have been screwed? Hell, no. Who would have bought
those assets at fire sale prices?

Scrap metal dealers.

Intel? Cisco? No, it would have been
foreign auto makers looking to avail themselves of an easy way to enter
(or grow their presence) in the world's largest auto market.

Foreign auto companies that enter our markets do not buy our
obsolescent factories. They build new ones.

This is the other reason why GM should have been allowed to fail -- not
only did the taxpayers bail out a public company, but they bailed out
one with obsolescent factories.
Quote:

And, then, who would they have employed? The same guys that worked for GM.

Nope. They would have built new plants in the right-to-work south
where wages are lower and they don't have to deal with unions. And
even if they did, they would have employed far fewer of them at much
lower wages. And they would have used parts made overseas rather than
American made parts.

None of that is relevant to the assertation. The point is that there
still would have been jobs, even if GM were permitted to fail. Those
jobs weren't going to "go away." That's nonsense, due to the following
facts:

The US domestic automobile market requires somewhere around 13 million
to 14 million units per year in order to prevent the existing fleet from
moving into inefficiency. Ford's manufacturing capacity, at maximum
(which they have not run at for years), is perhaps half that. Those
units need to come from someplace. What would have occurred is
relatively clearcut:

1) Ford would move to three shifts a day to reach maximum output. Those
positions would be filled immediately by workers local to the plants,
e.g., the GM workers.

2) Other foreign plants based in the US would also have moved to add
shifts to increase unit output.

3) After all that , there still would have been a *substantial* unit
shortfall. You're correct in pointing out that there is no guarantee
that any foreign manufacturer would have purchased the existing plants,
but it is likewise undebatable that it would be very difficult and
inefficient to try to make up a 3-4 million unit shortfall by shipping
units from foreign plants. If some foreign manufacturer DIDN'T take over
the existing plants, both Ford and the other manufacturers already here
would have quickly moved to expand production.

Supply and demand. There is simply no way that US manufacturing capacity
could meet demand without GM; thus, other companies would have moved to
make up the supply deficit.

JG




Quote:

lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab at (no spam) lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org

 
 
Page 1 of 8    Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Aug 22, 2014 8:45 am