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

Speaking of Irony

M

mark14

Council Member
How about when Bain indebted companies to give themselves bonus then when the companies went bankrupt the creditors got stiffed, the workers lost their paychecks and had to on unemployment, and the government had to pick up the pension obligations and also lost the tax revenues. That sure was creative destruction.
 
I was sitting on that info until the general elections

I'll ge t back to you with the reference.

LOL & best regards
Lobato1

mark14 said:
How about when Bain indebted companies to give themselves bonus then when the companies went bankrupt the creditors got stiffed, the workers lost their paychecks and had to on unemployment, and the government had to pick up the pension obligations and also lost the tax revenues. That sure was creative destruction.
Click to expand...
 
From my reference I was sitting on & I was going to give Mark14 now

Even worse, however, Romney seems to have been unfazed by excessive borrowing when he worked in the private sector.

For instance, Bain piled debt on a steel company it acquired, took the borrowed proceeds as "dividends,"

and left the workers and the government to cope with the subsequent bankruptcy.​
Click to expand...

My reference: http://www.nationalmemo.com/article/bain-subsidies-romney



Best Regards
Lobato1
 
Say..what's the story with cash strapped GM (read: taxpayer bailed-out)?

CEO not making 9 million in compensation? Executives (many of theeir top tiers not pulling in 500K + in salaries...? Pensioners not taking a hit? dealerships not shuttered...jobs not lost.... all to support thie largesse on the taxpayer dime?

ironic...too?
 
oh..it's about looting.... here i thought it was a comment on... 'companies went bankrupt the creditors got stiffed, the workers lost their paychecks and had to on unemployment, and the government had to pick up the pension obligations and also lost the tax revenues'...which I gather you are saying is not what happened at GM?
 
GM did go bankrupt but the workers did not loose their paychecks and did not have to go on unemployment, and the government did not have to pick up the pension obligations and also did not lose the tax revenues and Obama didn't make $200 million but the government turned a profit. .
 
mark14 said:
GM did go bankrupt but the workers did not loose their paychecks and did not have to go on unemployment, and the government did not have to pick up the pension obligations and also did not lose the tax revenues and Obama didn't make $200 million but the government turned a profit. .
Click to expand...

really?

on unemployment... http://www.carseek.com/articles/Janesville-auto-worker-layoffs.html
on pensions: http://www.pbgc.gov/news/testimony/page/tm062011.html
on tax revenue: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704462704575590642149103202.html

meanwhile, we're in a thread positing irony in the context of earnings...

hmm.....
 
PhilFish said:
really?

on unemployment... http://www.carseek.com/articles/Janesville-auto-worker-layoffs.html
on pensions: http://www.pbgc.gov/news/testimony/page/tm062011.html
on tax revenue: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704462704575590642149103202.html

meanwhile, we're in a thread positing irony in the context of earnings...

hmm.....
Click to expand...

GM had to do some downsizing, but there are still a million workers, suppliers, dealers and parts houses still employed because of the bailout, letting the last of our manufacturing collapse was not the best plan for the long term. But I am willing to listen to your arguments about how much better off I would be, unemployed.
 
Boehner was just here at an auto parts factory in Hamilton blaming Obma for all the regulations costing jobs.
Chri Redfern, (head of the Democratic pary,) answered him.
"Gee Whiz, Obama saved 10,000 auto jobs in Ohio alone. How can he be blamed for costing jobs?"
 
would be happy to, if only

I had argued that you or anyone would be better off unemployed. Seems your addition, so I think it a better idea that you argue it.

OldGaffer said:
GM had to do some downsizing, but there are still a million workers, suppliers, dealers and parts houses still employed because of the bailout, letting the last of our manufacturing collapse was not the best plan for the long term. But I am willing to listen to your arguments about how much better off I would be, unemployed.
Click to expand...
 
PhilFish said:
really?

on unemployment... http://www.carseek.com/articles/Janesville-auto-worker-layoffs.html
on pensions: http://www.pbgc.gov/news/testimony/page/tm062011.html
on tax revenue: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704462704575590642149103202.html


meanwhile, we're in a thread positing irony in the context of earnings...

hmm.....
Click to expand...


good points, though the pension story was on Delphi auto parts, not GM per se. I was over the top in my claims. Bankruptcy was declared. Some jobs were lost, some created, some pensions lost lost, others saved but overall our auto industry was preserved to the benefit of our people, our economy and long term federal and state revenue for which the government did have to assume some of the risk which was necessary without the goal being the enrichment of a small group of investors. Do you deny it was successful and far more spectacular at job creation than anything Romney has ever done for America through Bain?
 
Arguably I think that we can agree that some proportion of our auto industry was saved by the measured GM and the govt took. on the flip side...Ford went it alone..and saved a goodly portion too.

I'm not sure that i can agree as to how spectacular the job creation piece was (for GM) considering that it was premised on cuts, closures, layoffs in the first place.

I think the difference here is that in the one instance (bain) the actions were predicated on an assumption of earnings for the invested (Romney, et al) and in the other instance on a return on investment for GM (and the government) in the form of revenue realized... both as the result of attritions realized..

neither is inherently bad. my disagreement is in the casting of one (bain) as untoward and the other not, even though the C class and top tiers of GM are also reaping huge salary packages..and that, too, was eked out on the backs of the displaced, downsized, etc..
 
Ford was supportive of the bailout too. I think the difference is that Bain is predicated on simply maximizing profits for its investors regardless of the social effects while our government is concerned about the "general welfare" of our people. Some think the former is synonymous with the latter but I think it is a poor argument. The irony to me is Romney is running around saying he know how to create jobs because that is what he did but GM is an example of government doing what he never could and doesn't want to do. It is also slightly ironic that his father was a big money auto executive.
 
yet GM's profitability today exists because of the very 'social effects' you seemingly want to insulate them from... Same actions...different vantage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top