New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Hey ! I'm AOC and I just cost New York 27 Billion in Tax dollars !

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Do you have any "facts" as to why he was ousted? I am interpreting the events using logic. You DO know that Obama stood a hundred years of bankruptcy law on its head to protect the UAW, right?

Where did that money go? Mainly, it went to paying off debts owed by GM and Chrysler, and – in an historic distortion of our bankruptcy proceedings – to securing the pensions and livelihoods of UAW workers. It turns out the real debt was that of Mr. Obama to organized labor, which had ponied up some $400 million to help him defeat John McCain.

The Obama administration strong-armed the auto companies’ creditors into accepting undeniably unfair terms – terms that saw pensions obliterated for non-union workers but saved for those carrying a UAW card. Terms that saw non-UAW shops close but UAW factories stay open. Terms that doled out ownership in GM with political favoritism as a guiding principle.

These charges are not at issue. In the government-managed reorganization of GM, bond holders (secured bond holders, who normally are at the top of the pay-out chart) were given equity in the carmaker at a price of $2.7 billion per one percent ownership. The government ended up paying $834 million for every one percent it claimed; the UAW paid only $629 million.


https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/10/17/Obamas-Auto-Bailout-Was-Really-a-Hefty-Union-Payoff
You'll notice the article you linked to has a heading of "OPINION"....you do that a lot. You don't care how much sense the opinion represents...as long as it agrees with yours.

The alterenatives to what happened were that bond holders could collect their share of what money was made by parting out the company. A few thousand bond holders get some portion of their investment, but 1 million workers lose their jobs. The fact is that if those bond holders had held on to the equity shares they got in the transaction they'd have made out far better than the 25% of their investment they'd have gotten in a liquidation.

You still have not offered any evidence that Waggoner was forced out because of a demand from the UAW, so that is pure conjecture.

So what would a million workers have cost the federal government if they went on unemployment, food stamps and other forms of federal and state welfare?
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
You'll notice the article you linked to has a heading of "OPINION"....you do that a lot. You don't care how much sense the opinion represents...as long as it agrees with yours.

The alterenatives to what happened were that bond holders could collect their share of what money was made by parting out the company. A few thousand bond holders get some portion of their investment, but 1 million workers lose their jobs. The fact is that if those bond holders had held on to the equity shares they got in the transaction they'd have made out far better than the 25% of their investment they'd have gotten in a liquidation.

You still have not offered any evidence that Waggoner was forced out because of a demand from the UAW, so that is pure conjecture.

So what would a million workers have cost the federal government if they went on unemployment, food stamps and other forms of federal and state welfare?
"Opinions" is what we are all doing here each and every time we hit the post button. There were facts cited in that "opinion" piece, as there is in almost every post of mine here. And the fact is that:

In the government-managed reorganization of GM, bond holders (secured bond holders, who normally are at the top of the pay-out chart) were given equity in the carmaker at a price of $2.7 billion per one percent ownership. The government ended up paying $834 million for every one percent it claimed; the UAW paid only $629 million.

Bullshit - do you even understand math? They would have (should have) gotten a bigger share of the equity. It is mathematically impossible for them to have made out worse by walking away with a bigger share of the business. And what would the UAW have ended up with? Bupkis. Obama can't turn nothing into something, no matter how much you think he walks on water. So he took "something" from the (secured) bondholders (and the taxpayers, for that matter) and simply turned around and handed it to the (unsecured) UAW. That is "redistribution of wealth" any way you slice or dice it. And that, quite frankly, is his "thing."
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
"Opinions" is what we are all doing here each and every time we hit the post button. There were facts cited in that "opinion" piece, as there is in almost every post of mine here. And the fact is that:

In the government-managed reorganization of GM, bond holders (secured bond holders, who normally are at the top of the pay-out chart) were given equity in the carmaker at a price of $2.7 billion per one percent ownership. The government ended up paying $834 million for every one percent it claimed; the UAW paid only $629 million.

Bullshit - do you even understand math? They would have (should have) gotten a bigger share of the equity. It is mathematically impossible for them to have made out worse by walking away with a bigger share of the business. And what would the UAW have ended up with? Bupkis. Obama can't turn nothing into something, no matter how much you think he walks on water. So he took "something" from the (secured) bondholders (and the taxpayers, for that matter) and simply turned around and handed it to the (unsecured) UAW. That is "redistribution of wealth" any way you slice or dice it. And that, quite frankly, is his "thing."
For one thing you seem to think Obama designed the GM bankruptcy plan. He did not. He specified certain criteria as requirements for the loans. GM management went away and came back with a bankruptcy plan. Obama was not part of any negotiation with bond holders. His requirements to GM were that they increase investment in greener cars, changes in management, discontinuation of unprofitable models and product lines...like Saturn, Oldsmobile, Hummer...Did you know that the retired union workers lost access to the more expensive health care plan? The union also agreed to job cuts.

This post was in reply to an anecdote about a guy named Crowe.

If GM had gone under the bondholders would have gotten nothing until all the assets of the company were sold. That would take years. Instead they got 225 shares in the new GM for every $1000 in debt. In one case a guy named Crowe had $13,000 invested. He got 2,925 shares. GM is selling at $38.29 today. Still think he got screwed?


Under President Barack Obama's April plan to rescue GM, bondholders like Crowe would get 225 shares of common stock for every $1,000 in debt they hold.

GM's 8.375% bonds maturing in 2033 are trading at 5 cents on the dollar, according to junk bond specialist KDP Investment Advisors. That's plunged from more than 20 cents in late March and more than 90 cents two years ago.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/gms-small-bond-holders-hope-for-bankruptcy-break
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
For one thing you seem to think Obama designed the GM bankruptcy plan. He did not. He specified certain criteria as requirements for the loans. GM management went away and came back with a bankruptcy plan. Obama was not part of any negotiation with bond holders. His requirements to GM were that they increase investment in greener cars, changes in management, discontinuation of unprofitable models and product lines...like Saturn, Oldsmobile, Hummer...Did you know that the retired union workers lost access to the more expensive health care plan? The union also agreed to job cuts.

This post was in reply to an anecdote about a guy named Crowe.

If GM had gone under the bondholders would have gotten nothing until all the assets of the company were sold. That would take years. Instead they got 225 shares in the new GM for every $1000 in debt. In one case a guy named Crowe had $13,000 invested. He got 2,925 shares. GM is selling at $38.29 today. Still think he got screwed?


Under President Barack Obama's April plan to rescue GM, bondholders like Crowe would get 225 shares of common stock for every $1,000 in debt they hold.

GM's 8.375% bonds maturing in 2033 are trading at 5 cents on the dollar, according to junk bond specialist KDP Investment Advisors. That's plunged from more than 20 cents in late March and more than 90 cents two years ago.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/gms-small-bond-holders-hope-for-bankruptcy-break
"If" GM went under? GM was "going under" for decades before the bailout. And GM is still "going under" - the bailouts just prolonged the process.

A long read but worth it:

We know from the bailout of GM in 2009 that the asset specificity regime entrenched in the US automobile industry from the 1970s onward was stronger than any need for GM to compete with user-oriented design in a market with creative destruction characteristics. Heskett’s “arrogance and amnesia” appear to have replaced value creation and consumer sovereignty.61 And the results of the 2009 intervention also show that the pecuniary habit had replaced the instinct of workmanship, and politically based asset allocationdecisions at the firm level replaced decisions towards creating value in the competitive market.

Despite losing more than $69 billion in 2007 and 2008, GM was rescued from bankruptcy and liquidation through US governmentnationalization in 2009. By forcing bond holders to take equity shares less than the value of the bonds,62 nationalization violated bond-holder rights, and wiped out all existing shareholder claims, while at the same time giving majority equity ownership to the US government—61% of post-restructuring shares—with the next largest portion of equity going to the UAW (17.5%).63...

...In the specific case of GM, the US national system of Keynesian stability policies towards special interests won out. Creative destruction through civil bankruptcy typically gives way tomacroeconomic stability and continued rents to regime stakeholders.67 However, the 2009 intervention shows that although the rent-seeking asset regime is even stronger today than it was in the 80s and 90s, there has been a shift in power away from the management class in the auto companies—who earned consistent bonuses despite decreasing market share in the years leading up to 2009—toward the UAW and the US government. President Obama fired GM CEO Rick Wagoner in March 2009, after GM did not live up to the reorganization plan conditions of the TARP loan required by the Bush administration. And in July 2009, the administration replaced half of the GM board.68

...Goolsbee and Krueger conducted a survey of the cost differentials between US manufacturers and the foreign transplants in the US around the time of the nationalization/bailout. Their findings illustrate just how solidified the asset specificity regime for the US automaker market—and the other special interests up and down the supply chain—has become since the mid-1970s. Big Three labor costsare 25% higher than the transplants, and 45% higher when legacy costs are accounted for. In addition, the UAW established that workers receive 95% of their salaries when laid off—making labor a fixed rather than variable cost.

“To summarize, the problems facing the automakers included long-term falling market share, compounded by a massive short-term drop in aggregate demand, with large fixed costs. This combination resulted in huge short-term losses. But even if the automakers could reduce their fixed cost and even if the recession ended and aggregate demand returned to normal levels in the short-run, unless they could stop the persistent decline in market share, these automakers would soon be back in trouble.”70

The bailout and restructuring conditions of the GM deal required the firm to reduce costs, to be more in line with the foreign transplants—while preventing GM from opening foreign plants, which would replace US workers—and shut down unprofitable dealers. Given the politics of the US auto asset specificity regime, the efficiency and efficacy of these mandates remains to be seen.71 Although GM has been operating profitably since 2010—no doubt more than $65 billion in ‘free’ financing for almost five years has been helpful to GM’s recovery— only time will tell whether arrogance and amnesia will again be in evidence with the next macroeconomic downturn. We do know that the goal of “stability” has been achieved in the near-term, as GM’s market share has been consistently near 18% of the US market share of late (see Figure 6).72 It is not yet clear whether this result is due to quality or the bailout.73


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405872616300375

So lets revisit GM to see how well the bail out "stabilized" it:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2018/11/26/gm-general-motors-plant-closures-job-cuts/2113275002/

https://www.ft.com/content/6ffca03e-e936-11e8-a34c-663b3f553b35

https://www.autonews.com/sales/gm-2019-starts-decline
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
"If" GM went under? GM was "going under" for decades before the bailout. And GM is still "going under" - the bailouts just prolonged the process.

A long read but worth it:

We know from the bailout of GM in 2009 that the asset specificity regime entrenched in the US automobile industry from the 1970s onward was stronger than any need for GM to compete with user-oriented design in a market with creative destruction characteristics. Heskett’s “arrogance and amnesia” appear to have replaced value creation and consumer sovereignty.61 And the results of the 2009 intervention also show that the pecuniary habit had replaced the instinct of workmanship, and politically based asset allocationdecisions at the firm level replaced decisions towards creating value in the competitive market.

Despite losing more than $69 billion in 2007 and 2008, GM was rescued from bankruptcy and liquidation through US governmentnationalization in 2009. By forcing bond holders to take equity shares less than the value of the bonds,62 nationalization violated bond-holder rights, and wiped out all existing shareholder claims, while at the same time giving majority equity ownership to the US government—61% of post-restructuring shares—with the next largest portion of equity going to the UAW (17.5%).63...

...In the specific case of GM, the US national system of Keynesian stability policies towards special interests won out. Creative destruction through civil bankruptcy typically gives way tomacroeconomic stability and continued rents to regime stakeholders.67 However, the 2009 intervention shows that although the rent-seeking asset regime is even stronger today than it was in the 80s and 90s, there has been a shift in power away from the management class in the auto companies—who earned consistent bonuses despite decreasing market share in the years leading up to 2009—toward the UAW and the US government. President Obama fired GM CEO Rick Wagoner in March 2009, after GM did not live up to the reorganization plan conditions of the TARP loan required by the Bush administration. And in July 2009, the administration replaced half of the GM board.68

...Goolsbee and Krueger conducted a survey of the cost differentials between US manufacturers and the foreign transplants in the US around the time of the nationalization/bailout. Their findings illustrate just how solidified the asset specificity regime for the US automaker market—and the other special interests up and down the supply chain—has become since the mid-1970s. Big Three labor costsare 25% higher than the transplants, and 45% higher when legacy costs are accounted for. In addition, the UAW established that workers receive 95% of their salaries when laid off—making labor a fixed rather than variable cost.

“To summarize, the problems facing the automakers included long-term falling market share, compounded by a massive short-term drop in aggregate demand, with large fixed costs. This combination resulted in huge short-term losses. But even if the automakers could reduce their fixed cost and even if the recession ended and aggregate demand returned to normal levels in the short-run, unless they could stop the persistent decline in market share, these automakers would soon be back in trouble.”70

The bailout and restructuring conditions of the GM deal required the firm to reduce costs, to be more in line with the foreign transplants—while preventing GM from opening foreign plants, which would replace US workers—and shut down unprofitable dealers. Given the politics of the US auto asset specificity regime, the efficiency and efficacy of these mandates remains to be seen.71 Although GM has been operating profitably since 2010—no doubt more than $65 billion in ‘free’ financing for almost five years has been helpful to GM’s recovery— only time will tell whether arrogance and amnesia will again be in evidence with the next macroeconomic downturn. We do know that the goal of “stability” has been achieved in the near-term, as GM’s market share has been consistently near 18% of the US market share of late (see Figure 6).72 It is not yet clear whether this result is due to quality or the bailout.73


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405872616300375

So lets revisit GM to see how well the bail out "stabilized" it:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2018/11/26/gm-general-motors-plant-closures-job-cuts/2113275002/

https://www.ft.com/content/6ffca03e-e936-11e8-a34c-663b3f553b35

https://www.autonews.com/sales/gm-2019-starts-decline
We do know that a million workers kept their jobs when it would have been a disaster to have added them to the rolls of the unemployed.

We also know that if bond holders kept the shares they received they'd have made far more than they'd have gotten if GM had been liquidated.
 

sear

Mayor
If you'll pardon a GM anecdote:

I used to drive a Chevy Cobalt:



It was a dandy little car. But my mechanic totaled it.
So I checked the GM Internet site to see if the Cobalt was still available as a 2D coupe.
Apparently not.
If GM makes it at all it's sold in Europe under the Opel brand.

So I got a Honda. Too bad.

 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
We do know that a million workers kept their jobs when it would have been a disaster to have added them to the rolls of the unemployed.

We also know that if bond holders kept the shares they received they'd have made far more than they'd have gotten if GM had been liquidated.
We "know" no such thing. Maybe the bond holders would have lost money (why should they be "rewarded" by the government for lending money to a dying company)? But at least they very very likely would have sold the controlling interest in GM they would have received to venture capitalists who would have been able to abrogate the UAW contracts and resurrect GM as a non-union entity that could better compete with its foreign rivals.

But regardless, if you read the piece I linked to in its entirety, it illustrates how the US auto industry (as were others) was effectively captured by "rentiers" (unions, regulators, etc.) in the 1970s, and it has been downhill ever since. And it's implications correct, the UAW is doomed by the growing use of robotic manufacturing techniques (and government regulatory overreach). The question is - is it better to allow these doomed companies (and, in fact, industries) to go under due to market based "creative destruction," and allow new companies/industries to emerge, or should we use taxpayer money and government coercion (by the way, did you notice the writer categorically states that Obama "fired" Rick Wagoner?) to allow them to continue indefinitely as wounded (or zombie) entities due to government largess. You obviously despise the free market, and prefer government (central planning) with respect to all economic endeavors. How'd that work out for the Soviets and Chinese commies?
 
Last edited:

reason10

Governor
I made the news ! !!!

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Cringeworthy Reaction to Amazon’s HQ2 Pullout Proves How out of Touch She Really Is

Amazon had scrapped the spacious campus it had planned to build in Long Island City, Queens, which would have created roughly 25,000 well-paying jobs. The residual job creation was estimated to be an additional 67,000 jobs.


Jobs that could have created salaries of at least $115,000 jobs each.

We were subsidizing those jobs so for… the city was paying for those jobs. So frankly, if we were willing to give Amazon three…if we were willing to give away $3 billion for this deal, we could invest those $3 billion in our district ourselves if we wanted to.”

Now, with Amazon staying out of NYC, that $3B will never exist, nor will 25K directly created jobs with a starting salary of $115K, which, by the way, is $21K *higher* than the median income for a 3-person household in NYC


YEAH !!! ! VICTORY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A few hosts on OUTNUMBERED gave us a warning that we probably should take seriously. Ocasio-Cortez is empowered every time a conservative humiliates her with facts. It gives her nutty cause oxygen. It puts her in the news and rallies her low information and illegal alien followers.

The worst thing that could happen to her would be if people just ignore her. She is just ONE ignorant Democrat voice in hundreds.
 

sear

Mayor
Topic title:
Hey ! I'm AOC and I just cost New York 27 Billion in Tax dollars !

"every time a conservative humiliates her with facts." r1 #128
Many conservatives prefer that approach.

So I'll now "humiliate" the topic author "with facts."

a) AOC is a low ranking freshman MOC (member of congress).
Yet AOC critics have elevated her well beyond her station, as legends such as JFK, LBJ, MLK, & IBM.

b) NYS governor & NYC mayor arranged a $3 $Billion corporate welfare deal to benefit one of the world's most wealthy $Billionaires.

c) All of congress combined, including the leaders of both houses have the authority to over-rule the decision.
The decision to locate in NY was Amazon's.
AND !!
The decision to NOT locate in NY was ALSO Amazon's.

Crediting a freshman congressman is fantasy.
"every time a conservative humiliates her with facts." r1 #128
Consider yourself humiliated.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
If you'll pardon a GM anecdote:

I used to drive a Chevy Cobalt:



It was a dandy little car. But my mechanic totaled it.
So I checked the GM Internet site to see if the Cobalt was still available as a 2D coupe.
Apparently not.
If GM makes it at all it's sold in Europe under the Opel brand.

So I got a Honda. Too bad.

damn you sure love stock imagines and never post actually phots from your phone, why?
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
Topic title:
Hey ! I'm AOC and I just cost New York 27 Billion in Tax dollars !


Many conservatives prefer that approach.

So I'll now "humiliate" the topic author "with facts."

a) AOC is a low ranking freshman MOC (member of congress).
Yet AOC critics have elevated her well beyond her station, as legends such as JFK, LBJ, MLK, & IBM.

b) NYS governor & NYC mayor arranged a $3 $Billion corporate welfare deal to benefit one of the world's most wealthy $Billionaires.

c) All of congress combined, including the leaders of both houses have the authority to over-rule the decision.
The decision to locate in NY was Amazon's.
AND !!
The decision to NOT locate in NY was ALSO Amazon's.

Crediting a freshman congressman is fantasy.

Consider yourself humiliated.
Not according to AOC

https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/ocasio-cortez-fires-back-feinstein-says-charge-now

There's a new bartender in DC and she's dumber than a box of rocks

https://townhall.com/columnists/scottmorefield/2018/11/26/the-seven-craziest-things-alexandria-ocasiocortez-has-said-so-far-n2536456
 
Last edited:

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
We "know" no such thing. Maybe the bond holders would have lost money (why should they be "rewarded" by the government for lending money to a dying company)? But at least they very very likely would have sold the controlling interest in GM they would have received to venture capitalists who would have been able to abrogate the UAW contracts and resurrect GM as a non-union entity that could better compete with its foreign rivals.

But regardless, if you read the piece I linked to in its entirety, it illustrates how the US auto industry (as were others) was effectively captured by "rentiers" (unions, regulators, etc.) in the 1970s, and it has been downhill ever since. And it's implications correct, the UAW is doomed by the growing use of robotic manufacturing techniques (and government regulatory overreach). The question is - is it better to allow these doomed companies (and, in fact, industries) to go under due to market based "creative destruction," and allow new companies/industries to emerge, or should we use taxpayer money and government coercion (by the way, did you notice the writer categorically states that Obama "fired" Rick Wagoner?) to allow them to continue indefinitely as wounded (or zombie) entities due to government largess. You obviously despise the free market, and prefer government (central planning) with respect to all economic endeavors. How'd that work out for the Soviets and Chinese commies?
GM still owes taxpayers $Billions
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Topic title:
Hey ! I'm AOC and I just cost New York 27 Billion in Tax dollars !


Many conservatives prefer that approach.

So I'll now "humiliate" the topic author "with facts."

a) AOC is a low ranking freshman MOC (member of congress).
Yet AOC critics have elevated her well beyond her station, as legends such as JFK, LBJ, MLK, & IBM.

b) NYS governor & NYC mayor arranged a $3 $Billion corporate welfare deal to benefit one of the world's most wealthy $Billionaires.

c) All of congress combined, including the leaders of both houses have the authority to over-rule the decision.
The decision to locate in NY was Amazon's.
AND !!
The decision to NOT locate in NY was ALSO Amazon's.

Crediting a freshman congressman is fantasy.

Consider yourself humiliated.
1. Once again, not me you are "replying" to.

2. Teachers are indoctrinating kids as we speak with AOC's contention that we're all going to die in 12 years if we don't elect socialists in every election.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/431238-kids-confront-feinstein-over-green-new-deal

3. Bezos is (far and away) THE wealthiest billionaire.

4. True, but what is your point.

5. She may be a "freshman" but it's hard to deny her policy agenda hasn't "captivated" the Democrats.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/7/18203910/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-2020

6. Here's a clue for you - when you claim you are "humiliating" someone, first be accurate about who it is you are claiming to "humiliate" and second, make sure you are, well, actually "humiliating" someone.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
1. Once again, not me you are "replying" to.

2. Teachers are indoctrinating kids as we speak with AOC's contention that we're all going to die in 12 years if we don't elect socialists in every election.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/431238-kids-confront-feinstein-over-green-new-deal

3. Bezos is (far and away) THE wealthiest billionaire.

4. True, but what is your point.

5. She may be a "freshman" but it's hard to deny her policy agenda hasn't "captivated" the Democrats.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/7/18203910/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-2020

6. Here's a clue for you - when you claim you are "humiliating" someone, first be accurate about who it is you are claiming to "humiliate" and second, make sure you are, well, actually "humiliating" someone.
The only one sear humiliates is SEAR
 
Do you have any "facts" as to why he was ousted? I am interpreting the events using logic. You DO know that Obama stood a hundred years of bankruptcy law on its head to protect the UAW, right?

Where did that money go? Mainly, it went to paying off debts owed by GM and Chrysler, and – in an historic distortion of our bankruptcy proceedings – to securing the pensions and livelihoods of UAW workers. It turns out the real debt was that of Mr. Obama to organized labor, which had ponied up some $400 million to help him defeat John McCain.

The Obama administration strong-armed the auto companies’ creditors into accepting undeniably unfair terms – terms that saw pensions obliterated for non-union workers but saved for those carrying a UAW card. Terms that saw non-UAW shops close but UAW factories stay open. Terms that doled out ownership in GM with political favoritism as a guiding principle.

These charges are not at issue. In the government-managed reorganization of GM, bond holders (secured bond holders, who normally are at the top of the pay-out chart) were given equity in the carmaker at a price of $2.7 billion per one percent ownership. The government ended up paying $834 million for every one percent it claimed; the UAW paid only $629 million.


https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/10/17/Obamas-Auto-Bailout-Was-Really-a-Hefty-Union-Payoff
Under Wagoner, GM Lost $82 Billion, But RWNJs Say "Dindu"

As usual, the GOP (Greedheads Out on Parole) worships these Sissies in Suitcoats as much as the unDemocrats worship the wild-animal equivalent, the gang-bangers. The guillotine-fodder duopoly is controlled by the same spoiled and arrogant class. Their meaningless flunkies, the slavish bootlicking class-climbers, have nothing to be proud of. If real Americans want to have a future, Populists must overthrow both the Commie dictators in the government and their prep-school classmates, the Cappie dictators in the boardroom.
 
A few hosts on OUTNUMBERED gave us a warning that we probably should take seriously. Ocasio-Cortez is empowered every time a conservative humiliates her with facts. It gives her nutty cause oxygen. It puts her in the news and rallies her low information and illegal alien followers.

The worst thing that could happen to her would be if people just ignore her. She is just ONE ignorant Democrat voice in hundreds.
Saying That the Rich Create Jobs Is Like Saying That Vampires Create Blood

The rulers' media play up these idiots to make an incompetent privileged pig like Wagoner look good if the narrative swings into illogical alternatives. The publicized Leftist and Rightists are ugly-alike puppets painted up to not only look pretty, but to look different.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
We "know" no such thing. Maybe the bond holders would have lost money (why should they be "rewarded" by the government for lending money to a dying company)? But at least they very very likely would have sold the controlling interest in GM they would have received to venture capitalists who would have been able to abrogate the UAW contracts and resurrect GM as a non-union entity that could better compete with its foreign rivals.

But regardless, if you read the piece I linked to in its entirety, it illustrates how the US auto industry (as were others) was effectively captured by "rentiers" (unions, regulators, etc.) in the 1970s, and it has been downhill ever since. And it's implications correct, the UAW is doomed by the growing use of robotic manufacturing techniques (and government regulatory overreach). The question is - is it better to allow these doomed companies (and, in fact, industries) to go under due to market based "creative destruction," and allow new companies/industries to emerge, or should we use taxpayer money and government coercion (by the way, did you notice the writer categorically states that Obama "fired" Rick Wagoner?) to allow them to continue indefinitely as wounded (or zombie) entities due to government largess. You obviously despise the free market, and prefer government (central planning) with respect to all economic endeavors. How'd that work out for the Soviets and Chinese commies?
You keep pretending that the federal government was not the lender of last resort. In the absence of the bailout, GM would have liquidated. GM bonds were selling at $.05 on the dollar and nobody was buying.

Not sure why you bring up Wagoner...as if that proves something. A lender has every right to list requirements for the loan. One was that Wagoner had to go.

https://www.forbes.com/2009/03/30/rick-wagoner-gm-jerry-flint-business-autos-backseat-driver.html#6d9ea52ad65b

If this had all happened in a normal economy the circumstances would have been entirely different. Given the loss of millions of jobs in 2008 and the GDP decline of 8%...it was unacceptable to stand back and let GM go, both politically and economically.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
You keep pretending that the federal government was not the lender of last resort. In the absence of the bailout, GM would have liquidated. GM bonds were selling at $.05 on the dollar and nobody was buying.

Not sure why you bring up Wagoner...as if that proves something. A lender has every right to list requirements for the loan. One was that Wagoner had to go.

https://www.forbes.com/2009/03/30/rick-wagoner-gm-jerry-flint-business-autos-backseat-driver.html#6d9ea52ad65b

If this had all happened in a normal economy the circumstances would have been entirely different. Given the loss of millions of jobs in 2008 and the GDP decline of 8%...it was unacceptable to stand back and let GM go, both politically and economically.
Nobody was buying because the government had already stepped in. In the absence of a bailout GM would now be a non-union auto maker using newer technology to produce cars the public actually wants (and expanding market share). As it is they are treading water, making "green" cars the government wants, and waiting for the depression to end, hoping for market share growth that is never going to come.

You insisted Obama did not "fire Wagoner." Remember?
 

sear

Mayor
"1. Once again, not me you are "replying" to." RL #133
If it happened before I apologize again.
But your #133 is in error. My comment attribute was not RL, but r1, the author of the also attributed #128.
"2. Teachers are indoctrinating kids as we speak with AOC's contention that we're all going to die in 12 years if we don't elect socialists in every election." RL #133

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/431238-kids-confront-feinstein-over-green-new-deal
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/431238-kids-confront-feinstein-over-green-new-deal
Have you not ever seen "the daisy spot"? iirc it was political ad about the stakes for a 1960's era U.S. presidential election.
I don't remember a U.S. federal election where one or more candidates portrayed the election as dire.

I don't know the name of the Republican that ran against AOC. She's not my district.
But it's a safe bet that she won.
If Republicans want to win, they've got a lot of work to do to clean up their party of ostensible "family values".
"5. She may be a "freshman" but it's hard to deny her policy agenda hasn't "captivated" the Democrats.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli.../alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-2020
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/7/18203910/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-2020
Dandy.
But popularity is not the same as authority.
And the issue in Amazon reversing itself after having chosen New York pivots on authority, not popularity.

His holiness Pope Francis doesn't routinely carry a loaded gun. He's got a great funny hat collection, but I've never seen him in a Stetson. Pope Francis leads by charismatic example.

Perhaps you're inadvertently accusing AOC of being charismatic.

- OR -

Perhaps you're indicating AOC's policy position/s so superior that they trump the competition.
"6. Here's a clue for you - when you claim you are "humiliating" someone, first be accurate about who it is you are claiming to "humiliate" and second, make sure you are, well, actually "humiliating" someone." RL
I hope I've now clarified that the ID error is yours.

And you may have inferred rather less than I implied.
For I don't actually subscribe to r1's (please note lower case, followed by the unity numeral) perspective. My comment was intended to ridicule it.
"every time a conservative humiliates her with facts." r1 #128
It's an offensively arrogant and unearned insult.
And ironically, it's liberals that earn the "facts" patent.

Anthropogenic climate change is the obvious example.
"Global warming" is the layman's term.
But there are mountains of "facts" to support their predictions. And current measurements not only verify many of those predictions, but in some cases reveal that the predictions not over-estimated, but under-estimated.

No. r1 was being smug with little if any justification for it.
The only discipline I know of that got a lock (though not an exclusive lock) on "facts" is science.
Neither Democrats nor Republicans can hold a candle to science in that regard.
 
Top