I really like it when diversity-loving, tolerance-preaching liberal/progs show their true natures - the latent bloodlust to be a member of the Committee of Public Safety.
I like OUR odds too, dave, because the reality is that we both don't want to see socialism take any sort of root in this country. Socialist utopias fail just like libertarian ones do. Now, if you can just set aside your bias and warped perception about Democrat, about me and about many of the OWS folks who are sick and tired of our plutonomy, perhaps we can all prevent the anarchists from destroying 60+ years of free trade and global markets.
The Treasury Department yesterday revised its loss estimate for the Government Motors bailout from $14.33 billion to $23.6 billion, thanks to the company’s sinking stock price. GM’s Sept. 30 closing price, on which the new estimate is based, was $20.18, about $13 less than its December IPO price and $35 less than what is needed for taxpayers to break even.
So much for M trumpeting about Obama the Magnificent and the mighty power of govt to generate prosperity!
This is a great example of why we have the problems we have right now. Everything to the left of the 1 yard line is not socialism. Having a balance between social programs and a capitalism is not socialism. This is why I can't take you guys seriously when you say that words have meanings. Start with the word "socialism." Define it and then compare it to what we have now. Explain to me how Steve Jobs could have done what he did under a socialist government. We don't have it and we never will.
Oh, cruel fate!
Tell me again how you don't care about "proving me wrong" and "winning the argument." Then explain the meaning of confirmation bias. After that, let's see a critical examination of what would have happened (using all relevant data) if GM would have gone through normal bankruptcy. Be honest and fair in your assessment which includes all data leading up to this latest story. This means, of course, that you are going to somehow have to get access to all the information the president and his staff had. Good luck!
One other small note: did you check reason.com for bias? I don't think they'd make the juris test for reliable sources. If they somehow do, then can I post a link from the Daily Kos or TPM about the GM bailout?
Tell me again how you don't care about "proving me wrong" and "winning the argument."
Reality - what a bitch it is, huh? It just doesn't give a shit about anyone's faith.
This means, of course, that you are going to somehow have to get access to all the information the president and his staff had.
Ah, gnosticism - now that is an interesting twist. Could that be the first doubt to subvert thy faith?
If they somehow do, then can I post a link from the Daily Kos or TPM about the GM bailout?
Of course you ignore that reason is discussing the Treasury Dept's own data - it must be wrong if it doesn't come from one of your approved sources. You will post from any dumbass leftie site that says something you like - I just get to call you on doing that.
One other small note: did you check reason.com for bias? I don't think they'd make the juris test for reliable sources. If they somehow do, then can I post a link from the Daily Kos or TPM...
You already did that. You didn't bother to offer any sources, you just lifted a graphic from Daily Kos and then started chiding anyone who challenged it on the bias of their sources.
Monday, 10/24/11.
The graphic shows up on a Google search here, and so far, only here:
Let's talk about sourcing, shall we? The article mentioned above sources to 4 polls, PPP, Pew, Gallup and AP-Gfk. Fair enough for making its point, the amount of support shown for OWS vs. supprt shown in those polls for the Tea Party. For the claims made by the graphic, the only part you considered worthy of copying to here? No sourcing whatsoever for any of its claims.
Now, let's look at someone you constantly dismiss as lying, regardless of what she says: Michelle Malkin.
Lead story this past weekend, "The Accountability Charade":
Okay, fine and good, you get to make your claims of "it only links to other places in the right wing blogosphere"...except for Bloomberg Business Insider and Washington Post... But wait, there's more!
One other small note: did you check reason.com for bias? I don't think they'd make the juris test for reliable sources. If they somehow do, then can I post a link from the Daily Kos or TPM...
You already did that. You lifted a graphic from Daily Kos, offering no sourcing, and chided others about their bias when they rebutted it.
Note that while they provide links to the poll results, they provide no sources whatsoever for the claims made in the graphic... the only part you considered worthy of copying.
Compare and contrast with someone you always assume is lying, no matter what she says, Michell Malkin. Her lead story this last weekend:
You have to chase links to find this out, as she'll link to other pieces she's written rather than copy all the source links every time. But if you follow them out to their sources, you find she draws her data from:
ABC News Washington Post NY Times LA Times Bloomberg Business Insider NPR Real Clear Politics C-SPAN
I didn't bother to include Hot Air, Fox News, Washington Times, etc. because I know in advance you'll dismiss them as "all lies" regardless, just as you do Michelle Malkin.
Perhaps the reason people have so little respect for your "critical thinking" is because of the examples of it you give. You, nobody else and with no pressure, chose the Daily Kos piece as an example of objective journalism with good sourcing. Or at least you acted as if it was, complaining of the bias of anyone who disagreed with it. You, nobody else and with no pressure, choose to dismiss anything Michelle Malkin says as lies and bias, thinly sourced or with no reliable sources at all.
In short, you demand that anything be considered "objective" if it agrees with your points, but the exact same sources (such as NY Times or WaPo) are "right wing blogosphere" and "lies" if they do not.
And it's a "personal attack" if anyone dares to use your own choices and your own words to illustrate it.
Again, I must ask, is it reality if I go out and find the left equivalent of a "libertarian monthly magazine published by the Reason Foundation." I'm not going to bother wasting my time if you won't accept my source but we do accept yours as reality.
ignore that reason is discussing the Treasury Dept's own data
What if the left leaning site is discussing the Treasury Department data?
You will post from any dumbass leftie site that says something you like - I just get to call you on doing that.
Just like I'm calling you on it now. Reason is going to post only the information it wants to support its libertarian slant. They would never admit any sort of success with the GM bailout nor would they engage in critical thinking and be honest about all relevant information.
You didn't bother to offer any sources, you just lifted a graphic from Daily Kos
No comment at all on GM?
Boy, you guys really blew a bowel over that comparison chart. For the most part, I think the chart is accurate with the possible exception of the fascism line about the Tea Party. It is true that the TP and supporters are very anti state power and fascism is obviously pro large state so that doesn't really jibe exactly. But all the anger, hate, and fear that goes along with the otherism and jingoism is very fascist like so...
As opposed to the anger and hate and otherism the OWSers direct at the 1% and even more so at any of the so-called 99% that they claim to represent that thinks they're just a bunch of losers and misguided fools at best. While Mark brings up the spectre of the horrors of the French Revolution with just a hint of, "but really, you can't say they didn't deserve their fates. They should've known."
is it reality if I go out and find the left equivalent of a "libertarian monthly magazine published by the Reason Foundation."
That isn't TPM or Kaos. I read some Mother Jones from time to time, so I wouldn't complain about that (not because they are unbiased - but they are upfront about where they are coming from).
However the real gist of my reality comment is that it doesn't give a shit about your feelings or faith. It simply is - and if you are not in accord with it, then you are "wrong" as far as the reality-based community goes. If you believe in creating your own reality (just as those dreaded neo-cons claimed they were doing) then so be it! Of course that would tend to confirm my belief that you are fundamentally the same as them - just from a different angle.
What if the left leaning site is discussing the Treasury Department data?
Sounds reasonable to me. You see, I don't apply your double standards.
Here is an article I also read, and I even agree with a couple of parts (despite some really egregious errors). The world really is more interesting when you aren't invested in viewing it as black-and-white. I strongly suggest you try that out.
...so that doesn't really jibe exactly.
So much non-jibing that it demolishes the equivalence you so desperately attempted to create. Funny how you can see that without admitting it.
After that, let's see a critical examination of what would have happened (using all relevant data) if GM would have gone through normal bankruptcy. Be honest and fair in your assessment which includes all data leading up to this latest story. This means, of course, that you are going to somehow have to get access to all the information the president and his staff had. Good luck!
People do this all the time, there are people who make a living at it. That's what things like bankruptcy laws are for, to allow people to make projections and plans, calculate probabilities, that sort of thing.
No, I don't have access to all the information the President and his staff did, nor the education or ability to make such an assessment. Neither do you. The difference is that you are willing to let him ignore bankruptcy law based on nothing but his say-so of how necessary it is, and I am not. I think bankruptcy laws are there for a reason, but you think a President of your party shouldn't be bound by such things, because "it was a unique situation." Here's a clue for you, Mark: Every situation is "unique."
That's what things like bankruptcy laws are for, to allow people to make projections and plans, calculate probabilities, that sort of thing.
the real gist of my reality comment is that it doesn't give a shit about your feelings or faith.
Let's take the data from reason at face value and pretend that it operates completely in a vacuum. We're talking about a 9 billion dollar difference in loss, right?
Now let's compare this 9 billion (or the 14 or 23 billion total) to the mammoth losses to the economy that would have occurred if GM went through normal bankruptcy. I doubt very seriously that any of you have considered the many connected businesses that would have also failed had GM gone bankrupt. This is one of the main points that the president made in support of this bailout. What happens if these businesses all fail? Higher unemployment, erosion of aggregate demand, consumer spending (70 percent of the economy) down...billions lost. That's reality, juris, and your faith in your ideology is preventing you from seeing that the best choice, given the situation, was taken.
You guys have thought this through, right? Where is your data that shows that the losses from all of this would have been less than 9/14/23 billion dollars? Or less adverse overall than a bailout? This is a big example of what I'm talking about when I say that the president and his team had these numbers and we don't. So, even on a very general level, your opinions are quite uninformed.
GM’s Sept. 30 closing price, on which the new estimate is based, was $20.18,
This is, of course, assuming that the stock stayed at one price frozen in time so let's come out of the vacuum to show why this data is misleading.
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/gm
The article from Reason is (of course) looking at the lowest point in time. What if the estimate was done on October 30th? On that date the price was 26 dollars, not 20. We're not exactly talking about something set in stone, right. From your link..
Although GM will never, ever make taxpayers whole, taxpayer losses could be mitigated if GM’s stock price rises before the Treasury sells its remaining equity, something it was supposed to do by year-end but has postponed under the circumstances
and
GM actually has been doing quite well in North America and China with profit margins of 10 percent, among the best in the industry. How long that will last is an open question.
This is what I mean by looking at the whole picture here and (ahem) thinking critically. Instead, you childishly rushed to "win the argument" and "prove me wrong"...again!
Now let's compare this 9 billion (or the 14 or 23 billion total) to theimaginarylosses to the economy that [I have no ability to estimate but am sure] would have occurred if GM went through normal bankruptcy.
Reality M doesn't care about your belief. You are just like those neo-cons - eating your own puppy chow about what you want you can make real.
This is one of the main points that the president made in support of this bailout.
How would you know? You said none of us have the same info and are therefore unable to do anything but take it on faith. That may work for you - but don't even dream about shoving that shit down my throat. Never mind that rule of law stuff - we now have the rule of Obama the Magnificent and his cadre of Wise Men [and Women]. It's the right people in charge motherfuckers! You seem to believe we elected a dictator not a President.
I doubt very seriously that any of you have considered the many connected businesses that would have also failed had GM gone bankrupt.
This is just like how you equate "fewer regulations" with "NO regulations". You blandly assume that if GM had "gone bankrupt", it and all the businesses that interact with it would have utterly ceased to exist. Nobody would have bought any of those companies and/or those assets, everything would have been closed and the workers laid off forever.
That's nothing at all like how the real world works. Spreading that perception is a deliberate lie on the part of the Obama Administration (and you.) Here's another clue for you, Mark: GM DID go bankrupt. So the only real difference between the normal legal process of bankruptcy and reorganization that companies go through every day, and the illegal bankruptcy deal Obama forced on GM's investors, is that he rearranged things so that the investors take all the hit and the unions take none of it.
You know, kind of like how he rearranged the Solyndra loan so the big Obama donor doesn't take the hit, the taxpayers do instead.
It's cronyism and influence peddling, and that's all it is. And that's what you personally and your political party are willing to go to any lengths to support. Which I suppose is why you have no trouble with someone who's famous for his cronyism, Chris Dodd, being the primary author of financial reform legislation. You know it's bound to be filled with loopholes and sweetheart deals for those he favors... you just don't care.
"The Tea Party is trying to take the cronyism out of crony capitalism. OWS is trying to take the capitalism out of crony capitalism."
. You blandly assume that if GM had "gone bankrupt", it and all the businesses that interact with it would have utterly ceased to exist.
No, that's not what I said. I'm saying that I'd like to see an analysis from each of you on the impact that a normal bankruptcy of GM would have had on the interconnected businesses and on the economy as a whole....a critical analysis. No problem if you don't want to but that means that your view on the GM restructuring is not rooted in critical thought and is simply an emotional reaction based on your ideological opinions and views.
Even if any of us did that, you'd impudently wave your hands and say some juvenile knock on it.
Oh come on, Juris. What reason do we have to think that Mark would actually do that? I mean, other than him doing exactly that? Over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again?
I'm saying that I'd like to see an analysis from each of you on the impact that a normal bankruptcy of GM would have had on the interconnected businesses and on the economy as a whole....a critical analysis.
You're the one defending Obama ignoring the law, why don't you do an analysis?
...that means that your view on the GM restructuring is not rooted in critical thought and is simply an emotional reaction based on your ideological opinions and views.
Exactly. All I'm doing is saying generalities about "the interconnectedness of business" aren't sufficient for me to condone ignoring the law and favoring your campaign donors over everyone else, regardless of what party you belong to. And if the analysis has been done, well he apparently hasn't shared it with the general public. But he doesn't need one to convince you, does he?
No, that's not what I said.
It isn't?
I doubt very seriously that any of you have considered the many connected businesses thatwould have also failedhad GM gone bankrupt.
(Emphasis mine.)
Not could have, not might have, but would have. Not had a slump, not forced to cut back,failed.
You're the one stating absolutes here, not me. Is it "a personal attack" when I expect you to defend those absolutes? Where's the analysis that justifies those statements, and thus justifies ignoring the law?
So what you're saying is that you don't care what the law says, so long as the trains run on time, right?
You're the one defending Obama ignoring the law, why don't you do an analysis?
I'm not the one who brought up GM. Juris did. This was a post about how tone deaf some people are in regards to the OWS folks. So, the onus is on him, not me. I thought you guys were all critical thinking wizards. So is that true or not? It seems to me that you have a different standard for yourselves than you do for me.
Yet you defend the Obama Administration ignoring well established law for GM. You place the President above the law. I recall the uproar from the left when Bush's Administration argued it was above the law. Is there anything you aren't a hypocrite about?
how tone deaf some people are in regards to the OWS folks.
Oh, I commented about that first - the irony of someone making an allusion to the French Revolution. I guess that one sailed right over your head.
I thought you guys were all critical thinking wizards.
I'm sure to you that "critical thinking" is indistinguishable from magic.
It seems to me that you have a different standard for yourselves than you do for me.
Thanks for making me blow my sense of fellowship today - you lying, shit-eating hypocrite. I have the same standard for myself as I have for you - you are the one that has double standards for everyone but yourself (to which you reserve a null standard).
If that's the case, then why don't you guys offer the same level of analysis that Mark does? All I see here are personal attacks and very light substance.
I can't lower myself to that. I guess you don't have a problem with President Obama operating outside of the law. After all, he is all hopey and changey and makes you feel all warm and gooey. Do you have even the slightest capacity for thought - or do you just live based on how you feel?
I have a problem with a President who ignores the law - like on GM, or on killing people (including American citizens) without a hint of due process, who expands the surveillance state from what Bush did, and on and on.
I am more than happy to talk about those substantial topics - but neither M, N, or the yippee little dog posse here seems to be into such. They just want to be fucked over by the govt as long as the Democrats are in power - that is all that matters (well and the hope that the people they really dislike will get fucked over more than themselves).
Well a hardy FUCK YOU ALL for that this fine day. Maybe it is better that you sit quietly rather than speaking up and demonstrating what pathetic fools you are.
So what? It is you who is making the case for someone to be allowed to ignore the law. Are you really saying that in order to consider ignoring the law unacceptable someone first has to make a stronger case for obeying it? That's how it appears.
You claim he is justified in ignoring the law because it's a unique situation. You offer no analysis to defend that, but you expect everyone else to offer analysis defending the proposition that laws should be obeyed? Really?
...why don't you guys offer the same level of analysis that Mark does?
On this subject he has offered no analysis whatsoever, just generalities about "the interconnectedness of markets" and the bland assumption that bankruptcy means businesses will fail in a domino effect. I know a business that has gone through bankruptcy twice in the last 20 years... and it's still around today, so yeah I'd like to know why he thinks that assumption is valid.
I've only been visiting this site for a few months but so far you seem like a very unhappy person, Juris. All I was asking was that you lay off the anger, the attacks and offer some serious substance. When the numbers fit your view, you quote them. When they don't, you attack Mark. It's pretty sad.
Sorry, Juliet, but you're dealing with some very irrational people here. Example:
On this subject he has offered no analysis whatsoever, just generalities about "the interconnectedness of markets" and the bland assumption that bankruptcy means businesses will fail in a domino effect.
Yet, if you look at Mark's comment above at 10:22AM you will see a serious analysis. It's maddening but that's all part of the plan. Redirect, distract, drive crazy-all to avoid answering for their numerous shortcomings.
And, yes, they are obviously terribly unhappy in their lives.
All I was asking was that you lay off the anger, the attacks and offer some serious substance.
I have a longer history with M than you do, and the vast majority of my goodwill and benefit-of-the-doubt has been used up. What I truly hate are people that are so ignorant, and so blind to the corruption of both parties (only blaming one of them) and presuming that if I don't support them I must be their enemy (and they may then demonize any way that suits them). And I do indeed get set off when one of those insipid beings accuses me of not offering substance. Did you read either of the links I provided in this thread? I don't provide substance? No Juliet, what I neither provide nor consume is partisan pablum. If that is all it takes for you, more's the pity.
And another member of the yippee little dog posse is heard from, as substance free as usual. Tell me, are double standards required to be a believer in liberal/progressive politics?
Is there not one of you that has even the slightest qualm about the lawlessness of the Obama Administration?
You are OK with killing people - including American citizens - because the anonymous intelligence bureaucracy says to do it? You have no problem with a Republican President doing the same?
You have no problem with an Administration that strong-arms deals in defiance of well established law, policy and procedure? You have no objections to the exact same behavior by a Republican Administration?
There J and S - there is your substance. Can you deal with it, or will you choke on it? Prove that I am wrong to think you merely Democrat sycophants and first-rank hypocrites. I would love to be proved wrong, but I doubt that you can do it, or that you will even try.
Wow, this thread really took a turn that I didn't expect. juris, I'll always allow whatever comments you want to make but you do seem like you are having a tough time of it lately. Taking things like this so personally seems counter productive in many ways.
I'm not sure what Juliet meant by substance but I'm wondering if it had anything to do with GM. Your other points here certainly warrant a discussion and I've said as much before (re: the killing of an American citizen). I would have no problem with a Republican administration taking out bin laden or Al Awlaki. But that may not be the right point of view. That's why I told you the last time we talked about this that we need to hear more voices like yours. In the final analysis, my hard line view may be entirely wrong and set a precedent that could have unforeseen circumstances.
That being said, I trust Democrats more than I trust Republicans with matters of national security. In comparing the track records, the Dems have proven themselves to be far more responsible. Not perfect but more responsible. In my view, the GOP has always used national security for their own "pet" projects in addition to the concerns that are necessary.
I also think that your view of a "lawless" Obama administration is exaggerated. Issues of immigration, bankruptcy, and health care are more nuanced when it comes to the law. They simply aren't that black and white. Again, you have to look at all the information that figures into these decisions. Changing existing immigration law isn't "breaking the law," for example. We have a government that is made to change laws when they aren't feasible anymore. Clearly, that's where we are at with immigration given the massive degree in which undocumented workers have become a part of our society.
Regarding GM, I'm wondering if its possible for you to look at it from a non "right wing blog" point of view. If not, we really can't go anywhere further on this one.
I said and presuming that if I don't support them I must be their enemy,
And M replies look at it from a non "right wing blog" point of view
Same as it ever was. You would think M might try to disguise it, just a little, so that he could plausibly claim innocence. Then again that might mean admitting that words have meanings.
I wasn't really throwing that my last comment your way M - I already know where you stand. My challenge was to the yippee little dog posse to speak up - to openly proclaim their unthinking devotion to all things Democrat, or to admit that they have some reservations about what Obama is actually, you know, doing.
BTW, it is consistent for you to accept the govt executing it's enemies with or without the niceties of due process (which is where this thread started). I'm sure we will see your support for such when the next President is a Republican.
Disguise what? You rage on here all the time about how I mis-characterize you but your view is right in line with the right wing blogsphere. Do you deny this?
That is your world view M; you and George W. Bush.
Black and white. Them or us. The tribe or the other.
I dislike Michelle Bachmann as much as you, but you can't grok that I also dislike Nancy Pelosi. Any lack of love for Pelosi on your part is because she isn't more of a champion for liberal/progressivism.
What really does annoy me with you is that you see it when I recognize that you are not dogmatic - e.g. when you praise Reagan, or disagree with teachers unions. For your part you only see me as part of some monolithic "them" (even when I break harder from the right than you do from the left, e.g. legalizing drugs, opposing unConstitutional actions by the President [Bush or Obama]). You just go right back to lumping me into the "right wing blogosphere". Then to cap that off you claim I'm a black-and-whiter and you see the shades of gray. What is it you about projection and flipping?
And of course neither Juliet nor sasquatch have crawled back into the light of day to either defend or disown the unlawful actions of President Obama. As expected. Cowardice piled atop dishonesty.
Yet, if you look at Mark's comment above at 10:22AM you will see a serious analysis.
Actually no I don't, I see a bunch of assertions with no supporting evidence.
Now let's compare this 9 billion (or the 14 or 23 billion total) to the mammoth losses to the economy that would have occurred if GM went through normal bankruptcy. I doubt very seriously that any of you have considered the many connected businesses that would have also failed had GM gone bankrupt.
The only solid facts here are what did occur according to Reason. The rest is "would have"... with no support, no links, no nothing except for
This is one of the main points that the president made in support of this bailout.
in other words, "it must be true because Obama said so."
Is that what you call serious analysis? Just throw out numbers and chain them together, without anything to support the idea that those numbers are actually true and that they interact in the fashion indicated, besides "Obama said so?"
Should "because Bush said so" be enough to declare anything true for a Republican? Or a Democrat, even? I know the Democrat tendency is to claim that Bush saying anythign at all is reason enough to assume that it's a lie. So why is it "childishly dishonest" to think that just because Obama said something isn't sufficient reason by itself to assume it's true?
juris, first of all, it's a holiday weekend so cut them some slack. Also, I wouldn't blame them if they didn't post again given the fact that you and a few others berate new commenters as much as you do...and, yes, I know that's part of your strategy to not let me "win by default" whatever that means.
You're either with us or against us.
I was talking about GM here and not anything else. I recognize that you and I dislike Bachmann and share a few common views. In fact, I will continue to stipulate that your views on torture and targeted assassination are needed and, perhaps, wider and deeper than mine. Using Nancy Pelosi in the same sentence as Bachmman is ridiculous, though. Disagree with Ms. Pelosi all you want but the two do not live on the same planet. But that's the "Cult of Both Sides" again..
Actually no I don't, I see a bunch of assertions with no supporting evidence.
Once again...I didn't bring up GM. juris did. It's his responsibility to critically examine the way GM was handled, not mine. Actually, I did more than I should have. I went to his source and found pieces of information he did not include in his assertions. I also researched the stock price of GM on Sep 30 and compared it to Oct 30-relevant data for the purposes of this discussion.
So, enough with the game playing, MFFB. I'll put the challenge to you as well: critically examine the GM bankruptcy and the president policies towards it. Let's see your data and supporting evidence. If you don't have time, that's fine but that also means you have no real basis to criticize me for fauz inadequacies.
So, enough with the game playing, MFFB. I'll put the challenge to you as well: critically examine the GM bankruptcy and the president policies towards it. Let's see your data and supporting evidence. If you don't have time, that's fine but that also means you have no real basis to criticize me for fauz inadequacies.
It has nothing to do with having the time. It has to do with who is saying X circumstances justify ignoring the law, and who says no the law should be followed, that's what they wrote it for. I don't care who brought up what, when, and I don't see why you think it should matter. If you don't think Obama should have to obey the law like everyone else, you should have to justify that position. I don't see why it should be contingent on everyone who disagrees with you "proving" that no, Obama should have to follow the law just like everyone else first.
In short, you aren't making any sense. What's the point of having laws at all if legally justifying following them is no different from legally justifying breaking them?
Since M seems to think my case against the GM bailout needs clarification, I will repeat what I said above:
Yet you defend the Obama Administration ignoring well established law for GM. You place the President above the law. I recall the uproar from the left when Bush's Administration argued it was above the law.
Bankruptcy law was perfectly adequate to handling GM. There is no reason to think GM would've gone Chapter 7 (dissolution) as you claim - in all likelihood they would've gone Chapter 11 (reorganization). The only reason the Obama Admin and it's compliant Congressional majority did what they did was because they wanted to make sure labor got a better deal than ownership/creditors.
Now, I believe the President should obey the law, not make arbitrary decisions above it. I don't believe you would have supported the Bush Admin ignoring the law, which means your only basis for giving Obama a pass is that you are a partisan hack and complete hypocrite. If you wish to defend your position on some other basis, by all means do so.
I'll tell you what, guys. We can sidestep the original point that juris brought up about GM, stock prices, estimates, and comparisons to what would have happened to the overall economy. But I don't want to hear anymore lyin' BS about me running away from threads etc. ever again.I completely understand if neither one of you has the time to do a full analysis of this issue. Who would? In other words, apply the same standards to me that we are now applying to each of you.
So, now we are looking at this issue from a legal standpoint, right? Both of you have made the claim that the president broke, skirted or placed himself above the law. Alright, let's see the evidence and it had better be from unbiased and reliable sources. No Brietbart, Malkin, Erickson, or Baker. In addition, Saikrishna Prakash should also be considered a biased source as he is a self admitted conservative scholar.
Essentially, you are going to have to refute this information
as it directly contradicts the statements that you have made above.
The General Motors Chapter 11 sale of the assets of automobile manufacturer General Motors and some of its subsidiaries was implemented through section 363 of Chapter 11, Title 11, United States Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.
Looks to me like they did go through Chapter 11.
A new entity with the backing of the United States Treasury was formed to acquire profitable assets, under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, with the new company planning to issue an initial public offering (IPO) of stock in 2010. The remaining pre-petition creditors claims are paid from the former corporation's assets.
Further, the Supreme Court at the time refused to hear the case regarding possible illegality of the Chrysler bailout-the CONSERVATIVE court, mind you.
Here's a piece that looks at the bailout in a pretty even handed way.
So, your assertions that the presidents (both Bush and Obama) place themselves above the law are murky at best, in my view. It wouldn't be the first time that you guys moaned about the Constitution but we've had this debate before (the first national bank dealio) and out of that we saw that even the Founding Fathers were "placing themselves above the law" from day one.
You like to make a lot of hay about the National Bank (a cause that ultimately was lost). What do you say about the Alien & Sedition Act that was also passed by the Founders (i.e. the Federalists)? The fact that they passed a law that trampled all over the 1st Amdt means that our contemporary govt can also do that?
As for GM - your authoritative source is wikipedia, again?
This is an excellent summary. See if you can contend with what the article says - or will you find some fault with author and/or venue [i.e. the usual genetic fallacy]? Now, if you want to argue that the Obama Admin didn't illegitimately muscle the agreement you could of course find another bankruptcy case where the federal govt became the majority stockholder of the reorganized company.
I'll use Wikipeida if their sources are sound at the end of the articles. Take a look at them and tell me what you think.
or will you find some fault with author and/or venue [i.e. the usual genetic fallacy]?
Ah, yes, the genetic fallacy BS again. When it's a contributor (Zywicki) to the Volokh conspiracy (see: right wing blog), then it's a genetic fallacy. When it's Michael Moore, it's an unreliable source. Got it:)
Either way, you have to check for bias, right? Especially in an opinion piece like Zywicki's. But let's just forget about that for a moment and simply look at the facts. They are listed in the Wiki link above. Do you deny any of these facts occurred? For example, was it or was it not implemented through section 363 of the bankruptcy code? Were the pre-petition creditors claims paid from the former corporation's asset or not? More importantly, how do you account for SCOTUS refusing to hear the case?
Getting back to the whole genetic fallacy malarky...when Michael Moore makes a film, he has an ax to grind, right? For example, many of his films rip MNCs for "oppressing" citizens in the Global South. Many do, of course but Moore fails to mention that it has been the direct investment by MNCs (as well as foreign aid) that has caused life expectancy to rise in Africa, for example. The world is becoming a more prosperous place as a result of free market ideals and liberal economic theory. But Moore leaves that stuff out of his films because he has an ax to grind.
Like Moore, Zywicki has an ax to grind as well. He's a libertarian who starts from the point of less government which means you have to question his motivations. So he will point out only the information that will suit his argument. Saying that it was "illegal" is an opinion, not a fact, based on ALL relevant information. Compare Zywicki's piece with the COP report.
In such circumstances, the court noted it had “long recognized that considerable weight should be accorded to an executive department‟s construction of a statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer, and the principle of deference to administrative interpretations.”338 This deference, known now as “Chevron deference,” reflects the judiciary‟s respect for the specialized and superior skill and knowledge that an executive agency brings to its area of expertise. A court will therefore honor an agency‟s interpretation of such a statute as long as the interpretation “represents a reasonable accommodation of conflicting policies that were committed to the agency‟s care by the statute,” and will not disturb such interpretation “unless it appears from the statute or its legislative history that the accommodation is not one that Congress would have sanctioned.
So, that's another opinion or interpretation of the law. But it's likely that this will go in one of your ears and out other because, like Zywicki, you think that the government should never do this. You will always have your ax to grind as well regardless of the circumstances. This is ideology trap in which you always fall and I've said this many times...when you start from such a rigid place, it's hard to think critically about an issue.
That's where we are at here. There are likely no facts I could present to you that would change your mind. The GM bankruptcy was illegal and the president acted above the law. The End. From where I sit, it's barely murky and, given all relevant information, not illegal as it went through bankruptcy proceedings detailed in the above link and saw SCOTUS not even bat an eye.
You really shouldn't mischaracterize something you don't even read. Particularly when it wasn't even the source of the article. Once again - anything that isn't "liberal" must be "right-wing" - isn't that tiresome?
Predictably you didn't refute a single point in the article. I'm sure you spent more time tracking down Zywicki's ties than actually reading it.
Your COP link does not work. It redirects, which leads me to believe that you copied that not from the Senate site itself but from somewhere else (without noting that or checking if it existed).
As for SCOTUS, they often punt on hot political issues.
Show me any previous bankruptcy handled like GM and Chrysler. Not even the original Chrysler bailout (you remember that one don't you?).
Lastly, there is a simple difference between Zywicki and Moore. Moore is a serial liar (which you don't mind because he lies for 'good causes'). To the best of my knowledge Zywicki isn't.
Second, I don't see much refuting from you yet regarding the facts so I'm done unless you start looking at this issue more critically.
Moore is a serial liar
Ah, yes, another ol' ditty from TSM...seems awfully hypocritical to me when you bring up genetic fallacies.
Here are a few lines from Zywicki's post that I found interesting.
The bailouts of GM and Chrysler at the end of 2008 — and the extension of those bailouts in the beginning of 2009 — were therefore both unnecessary and very likely illegal.
"Very likely?" Well, that's not definitely illegal as you claim, right? He kinda covered his ass there a bit.
The highly irregular bankruptcies and re-organizations of General Motors and Chrysler left the White House and Congress with enormous power over the subsequent operations of both companies.
Huh? He doesn't really prove that other than with his own opinions up to this point.
The bailout was not absolutely necessary and was pursued by means of dubious legality; the bankruptcies were highly irregular and inefficient; and the companies that have emerged from bankruptcy are far from lean and fit. They are certainly in no position to repay taxpayers for the generous loans they were given.
Dubious legality? Again, not the same as definitely illegal. The rest of his paragraph here doesn't seem to fit either considering the other information I've presented on GM in the past. Look at both together and what do you see?
Through their actions, both the Bush and Obama administrations have set dangerous precedents — and made it much more difficult to reverse the trends of executive overreach and excessive government entanglement with private business..
Also really not true but then again "excessive" is anything to the left of the 1 yard line on the right side of the field. The government's actions to this point show me that they want to get out of GM in a timely fashion.
The Obama administration's economic policy, therefore, returns us to the thinking of the 1950s and '60s — to an economy in which big business, big labor, and big government are tied together in a relationship of mutual succor and support..
You mean when our economy was booming? The mention of "big labor" here and above by you is very telling as well. Are unions ever a good thing? Again, your bias...
All in all, I found his entire post to be based in Randian paranoia and standard libertarian dogma. Essentially, just opinions with your typical buzz words to attract those engaging in confirmation bias.
...seems awfully hypocritical to me when you bring up genetic fallacies.
Wrong, if Moore posted a piece on HuffPo and I were to say that since Moore is a liar, all content at HuffPo must be lies - that is closer. Moore himself is a serial liar, and you don't care because you have stated repeatedly that his lies are for a good cause.
That quote was used in the Time link above.
So why didn't you quote/link Time?
Huh? He doesn't really prove that other than with his own opinions up to this point.
The govt being majority owner of GM and Chrysler is only an opinion? What drugs are you on?
Dubious legality? Again, not the same as definitely illegal.
Dude is a lawyer, not a jack-ass teacher-pundit-wannabe. Certainly Moore wouldn't pull his punches, but then he throws them pretty wildly too.
You mean when our economy was booming?
Manzi. My how quickly you forget - particularly when it is convenient to do so.
Randian paranoia and standard libertarian dogma
Okay Marxy. If that is as deep as you are going to go.
BTW, thanks for the correction on the COP link. This was an interesting summary there on a later report than you cited.
The Congressional Oversight Panel's January oversight report, "An Update on TARP Support for the Domestic Automotive Industry," found that, although it remains too early to tell whether Treasury's intervention in the U.S. automotive industry will prove successful, the government's ambitious actions appear to be on a promising course. Even so, the companies that received automotive bailout funds continue to face uncertain futures, taxpayers remain at financial risk, concerns remain about the transparency and accountability of Treasury's efforts, and moral hazard lingers as a long-run threat to the automotive industry and the broader economy. [13 Jan 2011]
Alright, so Moore's out. What about Krugman? Rachel Maddow? David Brooks? Are they all serial liars as well?
What's happened here is that you've conveniently set up Zywicki as being above anyone on the left. It's not surprising because you obviously think that libertarians are smarter and better than liberals. That's what we call a "bias."
So why didn't you quote/link Time?
I went to the original source.
What drugs are you on?
That wasn't his point. From his ideology, he wrote an opinion piece on why government involving themselves is always bad. Snore...
I hold the belief, quite strongly, that the net effect of the GM bailout will be negative. More precisely, I hold the belief that over a series of many such decisions, a mindset that would have been stringent enough not to have sanctioned the GM bailout is likely to lead to better overall economic outcomes for America. This belief is ideological — not in the sense that I just hold it for inexplicable reasons that cannot ever be changed by empirical analysis, but in the sense that I don’t believe that human beings currently have the capability to conduct the kind of analysis that should convince a rational observer to change his mind about the GM bailout in isolation from a more profound paradigm-shift-like change in his beliefs about the world.
No, it is quite possible for them to be wrong without being liars.
That wasn't his point.
Yes, it was exactly his fucking point. You are attempting to create an alternate reality; in this reality words have meanings and you don't get to make that up as you go. Stop acting like a neo-con.
that human beings currently have the capability to conduct the kind of analysis
Dude. Your argument is exactly that - that Obama and his advisors conducted that analysis. Do you not realize that? Either you agree with Manzi, or you agree with yourself.
Now, it's simply that the government owns part of GM?
simply?? part of?
The govt owns the fucking majority of stock - meaning they have controlling interest. Followed by the block of ownership granted, by the govt, to the UAW - granted, not purchased. And please, fucking please tell me what other bankruptcy has ever ended up with the govt owning all, the majority or even a minority stake in a private company? Not even the original Chrysler bailout - not even close. But to you it's all okay because your guy did it. You better hope I lose interest, because if not, the minute you bitch about the next Repub President - you will be reminded of all this shit.
52 comments:
Based on your use of "let them eat cake", you apparently have not.
Thinking there might be some revolution? I like our odds.
I love Fidelity. they make my money grow.
I really like it when diversity-loving, tolerance-preaching liberal/progs show their true natures - the latent bloodlust to be a member of the Committee of Public Safety.
I like our odds.
I like OUR odds too, dave, because the reality is that we both don't want to see socialism take any sort of root in this country. Socialist utopias fail just like libertarian ones do. Now, if you can just set aside your bias and warped perception about Democrat, about me and about many of the OWS folks who are sick and tired of our plutonomy, perhaps we can all prevent the anarchists from destroying 60+ years of free trade and global markets.
You know M you really should add that "managing fantasies" tag to all of your posts on OWS.
…we both don't want to see socialism take any sort of root in this country.
Then why do you keep arguing in favor of it?????
Uh-oh!
The Treasury Department yesterday revised its loss estimate for the Government Motors bailout from $14.33 billion to $23.6 billion, thanks to the company’s sinking stock price. GM’s Sept. 30 closing price, on which the new estimate is based, was $20.18, about $13 less than its December IPO price and $35 less than what is needed for taxpayers to break even.
So much for M trumpeting about Obama the Magnificent and the mighty power of govt to generate prosperity!
Oh, cruel fate!
Then why do you keep arguing in favor of it?????
This is a great example of why we have the problems we have right now. Everything to the left of the 1 yard line is not socialism. Having a balance between social programs and a capitalism is not socialism. This is why I can't take you guys seriously when you say that words have meanings. Start with the word "socialism." Define it and then compare it to what we have now. Explain to me how Steve Jobs could have done what he did under a socialist government. We don't have it and we never will.
Oh, cruel fate!
Tell me again how you don't care about "proving me wrong" and "winning the argument." Then explain the meaning of confirmation bias. After that, let's see a critical examination of what would have happened (using all relevant data) if GM would have gone through normal bankruptcy. Be honest and fair in your assessment which includes all data leading up to this latest story. This means, of course, that you are going to somehow have to get access to all the information the president and his staff had. Good luck!
One other small note: did you check reason.com for bias? I don't think they'd make the juris test for reliable sources. If they somehow do, then can I post a link from the Daily Kos or TPM about the GM bailout?
oh, wait. TP has zero arrest for weapons yet OWS - keep counting.
You are the 'Baghdad Bob' of the lefty blogosphere! Congrats!
Tell me again how you don't care about "proving me wrong" and "winning the argument."
Reality - what a bitch it is, huh? It just doesn't give a shit about anyone's faith.
This means, of course, that you are going to somehow have to get access to all the information the president and his staff had.
Ah, gnosticism - now that is an interesting twist. Could that be the first doubt to subvert thy faith?
If they somehow do, then can I post a link from the Daily Kos or TPM about the GM bailout?
Of course you ignore that reason is discussing the Treasury Dept's own data - it must be wrong if it doesn't come from one of your approved sources. You will post from any dumbass leftie site that says something you like - I just get to call you on doing that.
One other small note: did you check reason.com for bias? I don't think they'd make the juris test for reliable sources. If they somehow do, then can I post a link from the Daily Kos or TPM...
You already did that. You didn't bother to offer any sources, you just lifted a graphic from Daily Kos and then started chiding anyone who challenged it on the bias of their sources.
Monday, 10/24/11.
The graphic shows up on a Google search here, and so far, only here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/25/1029863/-Occupy-Wall-Street-already-has-at-least-as-much-support-as-tea-party
Let's talk about sourcing, shall we? The article mentioned above sources to 4 polls, PPP, Pew, Gallup and AP-Gfk. Fair enough for making its point, the amount of support shown for OWS vs. supprt shown in those polls for the Tea Party. For the claims made by the graphic, the only part you considered worthy of copying to here? No sourcing whatsoever for any of its claims.
Now, let's look at someone you constantly dismiss as lying, regardless of what she says: Michelle Malkin.
Lead story this past weekend, "The Accountability Charade":
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/11/18/the-accountability-charade/
Links:
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/11/17/open-thread-energy-secretary-testifies-to-house-committee-on-solyndra/
http://www.gop.com/index.php/research/comments/4535/
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/there-much-secretary-chu-unaware
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/11/08/fast-and-furious-holder-regrets-lies-condemns-distraction-redistributes-the-blame/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/15/former-holder-chief-staff-nomination-to-court-imperiled-over-fast-and-furious/
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-18/solyndra-funds-mostly-lost-to-taxpayers-chu-tells-lawmakers.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/steven-chus-solyndra-testimony/2011/11/17/gIQAvIRkVN_blog.html#pagebreak
Okay, fine and good, you get to make your claims of "it only links to other places in the right wing blogosphere"...except for Bloomberg Business Insider and Washington Post... But wait, there's more!
(con't)
One other small note: did you check reason.com for bias? I don't think they'd make the juris test for reliable sources. If they somehow do, then can I post a link from the Daily Kos or TPM...
You already did that. You lifted a graphic from Daily Kos, offering no sourcing, and chided others about their bias when they rebutted it.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/25/1029863/-Occupy-Wall-Street-already-has-at-least-as-much-support-as-tea-party
Note that while they provide links to the poll results, they provide no sources whatsoever for the claims made in the graphic... the only part you considered worthy of copying.
Compare and contrast with someone you always assume is lying, no matter what she says, Michell Malkin. Her lead story this last weekend:
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/11/18/the-accountability-charade/
You have to chase links to find this out, as she'll link to other pieces she's written rather than copy all the source links every time. But if you follow them out to their sources, you find she draws her data from:
ABC News
Washington Post
NY Times
LA Times
Bloomberg Business Insider
NPR
Real Clear Politics
C-SPAN
I didn't bother to include Hot Air, Fox News, Washington Times, etc. because I know in advance you'll dismiss them as "all lies" regardless, just as you do Michelle Malkin.
Perhaps the reason people have so little respect for your "critical thinking" is because of the examples of it you give. You, nobody else and with no pressure, chose the Daily Kos piece as an example of objective journalism with good sourcing. Or at least you acted as if it was, complaining of the bias of anyone who disagreed with it. You, nobody else and with no pressure, choose to dismiss anything Michelle Malkin says as lies and bias, thinly sourced or with no reliable sources at all.
In short, you demand that anything be considered "objective" if it agrees with your points, but the exact same sources (such as NY Times or WaPo) are "right wing blogosphere" and "lies" if they do not.
And it's a "personal attack" if anyone dares to use your own choices and your own words to illustrate it.
Reality - what a bitch it is, huh?
Again, I must ask, is it reality if I go out and find the left equivalent of a "libertarian monthly magazine published by the Reason Foundation." I'm not going to bother wasting my time if you won't accept my source but we do accept yours as reality.
ignore that reason is discussing the Treasury Dept's own data
What if the left leaning site is discussing the Treasury Department data?
You will post from any dumbass leftie site that says something you like - I just get to call you on doing that.
Just like I'm calling you on it now. Reason is going to post only the information it wants to support its libertarian slant. They would never admit any sort of success with the GM bailout nor would they engage in critical thinking and be honest about all relevant information.
You didn't bother to offer any sources, you just lifted a graphic from Daily Kos
No comment at all on GM?
Boy, you guys really blew a bowel over that comparison chart. For the most part, I think the chart is accurate with the possible exception of the fascism line about the Tea Party. It is true that the TP and supporters are very anti state power and fascism is obviously pro large state so that doesn't really jibe exactly. But all the anger, hate, and fear that goes along with the otherism and jingoism is very fascist like so...
As opposed to the anger and hate and otherism the OWSers direct at the 1% and even more so at any of the so-called 99% that they claim to represent that thinks they're just a bunch of losers and misguided fools at best. While Mark brings up the spectre of the horrors of the French Revolution with just a hint of, "but really, you can't say they didn't deserve their fates. They should've known."
is it reality if I go out and find the left equivalent of a "libertarian monthly magazine published by the Reason Foundation."
That isn't TPM or Kaos. I read some Mother Jones from time to time, so I wouldn't complain about that (not because they are unbiased - but they are upfront about where they are coming from).
However the real gist of my reality comment is that it doesn't give a shit about your feelings or faith. It simply is - and if you are not in accord with it, then you are "wrong" as far as the reality-based community goes. If you believe in creating your own reality (just as those dreaded neo-cons claimed they were doing) then so be it! Of course that would tend to confirm my belief that you are fundamentally the same as them - just from a different angle.
What if the left leaning site is discussing the Treasury Department data?
Sounds reasonable to me. You see, I don't apply your double standards.
Here is an article I also read, and I even agree with a couple of parts (despite some really egregious errors). The world really is more interesting when you aren't invested in viewing it as black-and-white. I strongly suggest you try that out.
...so that doesn't really jibe exactly.
So much non-jibing that it demolishes the equivalence you so desperately attempted to create. Funny how you can see that without admitting it.
No comment at all on GM?
Sure, okay. You said,
After that, let's see a critical examination of what would have happened (using all relevant data) if GM would have gone through normal bankruptcy. Be honest and fair in your assessment which includes all data leading up to this latest story. This means, of course, that you are going to somehow have to get access to all the information the president and his staff had. Good luck!
People do this all the time, there are people who make a living at it. That's what things like bankruptcy laws are for, to allow people to make projections and plans, calculate probabilities, that sort of thing.
No, I don't have access to all the information the President and his staff did, nor the education or ability to make such an assessment. Neither do you. The difference is that you are willing to let him ignore bankruptcy law based on nothing but his say-so of how necessary it is, and I am not. I think bankruptcy laws are there for a reason, but you think a President of your party shouldn't be bound by such things, because "it was a unique situation." Here's a clue for you, Mark: Every situation is "unique."
That's what things like bankruptcy laws are for, to allow people to make projections and plans, calculate probabilities, that sort of thing.
the real gist of my reality comment is that it doesn't give a shit about your feelings or faith.
Let's take the data from reason at face value and pretend that it operates completely in a vacuum. We're talking about a 9 billion dollar difference in loss, right?
Now let's compare this 9 billion (or the 14 or 23 billion total) to the mammoth losses to the economy that would have occurred if GM went through normal bankruptcy. I doubt very seriously that any of you have considered the many connected businesses that would have also failed had GM gone bankrupt. This is one of the main points that the president made in support of this bailout. What happens if these businesses all fail? Higher unemployment, erosion of aggregate demand, consumer spending (70 percent of the economy) down...billions lost. That's reality, juris, and your faith in your ideology is preventing you from seeing that the best choice, given the situation, was taken.
You guys have thought this through, right? Where is your data that shows that the losses from all of this would have been less than 9/14/23 billion dollars? Or less adverse overall than a bailout? This is a big example of what I'm talking about when I say that the president and his team had these numbers and we don't. So, even on a very general level, your opinions are quite uninformed.
GM’s Sept. 30 closing price, on which the new estimate is based, was $20.18,
This is, of course, assuming that the stock stayed at one price frozen in time so let's come out of the vacuum to show why this data is misleading.
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/gm
The article from Reason is (of course) looking at the lowest point in time. What if the estimate was done on October 30th? On that date the price was 26 dollars, not 20.
We're not exactly talking about something set in stone, right. From your link..
Although GM will never, ever make taxpayers whole, taxpayer losses could be mitigated if GM’s stock price rises before the Treasury sells its remaining equity, something it was supposed to do by year-end but has postponed under the circumstances
and
GM actually has been doing quite well in North America and China with profit margins of 10 percent, among the best in the industry. How long that will last is an open question.
This is what I mean by looking at the whole picture here and (ahem) thinking critically. Instead, you childishly rushed to "win the argument" and "prove me wrong"...again!
Now let's compare this 9 billion (or the 14 or 23 billion total) to the imaginary losses to the economy that [I have no ability to estimate but am sure] would have occurred if GM went through normal bankruptcy.
Reality M doesn't care about your belief. You are just like those neo-cons - eating your own puppy chow about what you want you can make real.
This is one of the main points that the president made in support of this bailout.
How would you know? You said none of us have the same info and are therefore unable to do anything but take it on faith. That may work for you - but don't even dream about shoving that shit down my throat. Never mind that rule of law stuff - we now have the rule of Obama the Magnificent and his cadre of Wise Men [and Women]. It's the right people in charge motherfuckers! You seem to believe we elected a dictator not a President.
That's MY IMAGINATION, juris,
Sorry, but the edits were necessary for clarity.
I doubt very seriously that any of you have considered the many connected businesses that would have also failed had GM gone bankrupt.
This is just like how you equate "fewer regulations" with "NO regulations". You blandly assume that if GM had "gone bankrupt", it and all the businesses that interact with it would have utterly ceased to exist. Nobody would have bought any of those companies and/or those assets, everything would have been closed and the workers laid off forever.
That's nothing at all like how the real world works. Spreading that perception is a deliberate lie on the part of the Obama Administration (and you.) Here's another clue for you, Mark: GM DID go bankrupt. So the only real difference between the normal legal process of bankruptcy and reorganization that companies go through every day, and the illegal bankruptcy deal Obama forced on GM's investors, is that he rearranged things so that the investors take all the hit and the unions take none of it.
You know, kind of like how he rearranged the Solyndra loan so the big Obama donor doesn't take the hit, the taxpayers do instead.
It's cronyism and influence peddling, and that's all it is. And that's what you personally and your political party are willing to go to any lengths to support. Which I suppose is why you have no trouble with someone who's famous for his cronyism, Chris Dodd, being the primary author of financial reform legislation. You know it's bound to be filled with loopholes and sweetheart deals for those he favors... you just don't care.
"The Tea Party is trying to take the cronyism out of crony capitalism. OWS is trying to take the capitalism out of crony capitalism."
. You blandly assume that if GM had "gone bankrupt", it and all the businesses that interact with it would have utterly ceased to exist.
No, that's not what I said. I'm saying that I'd like to see an analysis from each of you on the impact that a normal bankruptcy of GM would have had on the interconnected businesses and on the economy as a whole....a critical analysis. No problem if you don't want to but that means that your view on the GM restructuring is not rooted in critical thought and is simply an emotional reaction based on your ideological opinions and views.
I'm saying that I'd like to see an analysis from each of you
The fuck you actually want that. Even if any of us did that, you'd impudently wave your hands and say some juvenile knock on it.
Enough of your childish dishonesty - grow the fuck up.
Even if any of us did that, you'd impudently wave your hands and say some juvenile knock on it.
Oh come on, Juris. What reason do we have to think that Mark would actually do that? I mean, other than him doing exactly that? Over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again?
I'm saying that I'd like to see an analysis from each of you on the impact that a normal bankruptcy of GM would have had on the interconnected businesses and on the economy as a whole....a critical analysis.
You're the one defending Obama ignoring the law, why don't you do an analysis?
...that means that your view on the GM restructuring is not rooted in critical thought and is simply an emotional reaction based on your ideological opinions and views.
Exactly. All I'm doing is saying generalities about "the interconnectedness of business" aren't sufficient for me to condone ignoring the law and favoring your campaign donors over everyone else, regardless of what party you belong to. And if the analysis has been done, well he apparently hasn't shared it with the general public. But he doesn't need one to convince you, does he?
No, that's not what I said.
It isn't?
I doubt very seriously that any of you have considered the many connected businesses that would have also failed had GM gone bankrupt.
(Emphasis mine.)
Not could have, not might have, but would have. Not had a slump, not forced to cut back, failed.
You're the one stating absolutes here, not me. Is it "a personal attack" when I expect you to defend those absolutes? Where's the analysis that justifies those statements, and thus justifies ignoring the law?
So what you're saying is that you don't care what the law says, so long as the trains run on time, right?
You're the one defending Obama ignoring the law, why don't you do an analysis?
I'm not the one who brought up GM. Juris did. This was a post about how tone deaf some people are in regards to the OWS folks. So, the onus is on him, not me. I thought you guys were all critical thinking wizards. So is that true or not? It seems to me that you have a different standard for yourselves than you do for me.
I'm not the one who brought up GM. Juris did.
Yet you defend the Obama Administration ignoring well established law for GM. You place the President above the law. I recall the uproar from the left when Bush's Administration argued it was above the law. Is there anything you aren't a hypocrite about?
how tone deaf some people are in regards to the OWS folks.
Oh, I commented about that first - the irony of someone making an allusion to the French Revolution. I guess that one sailed right over your head.
I thought you guys were all critical thinking wizards.
I'm sure to you that "critical thinking" is indistinguishable from magic.
It seems to me that you have a different standard for yourselves than you do for me.
Thanks for making me blow my sense of fellowship today - you lying, shit-eating hypocrite. I have the same standard for myself as I have for you - you are the one that has double standards for everyone but yourself (to which you reserve a null standard).
If that's the case, then why don't you guys offer the same level of analysis that Mark does? All I see here are personal attacks and very light substance.
the same level of analysis that Mark does.
I can't lower myself to that. I guess you don't have a problem with President Obama operating outside of the law. After all, he is all hopey and changey and makes you feel all warm and gooey. Do you have even the slightest capacity for thought - or do you just live based on how you feel?
I have a problem with a President who ignores the law - like on GM, or on killing people (including American citizens) without a hint of due process, who expands the surveillance state from what Bush did, and on and on.
I am more than happy to talk about those substantial topics - but neither M, N, or the yippee little dog posse here seems to be into such. They just want to be fucked over by the govt as long as the Democrats are in power - that is all that matters (well and the hope that the people they really dislike will get fucked over more than themselves).
Well a hardy FUCK YOU ALL for that this fine day. Maybe it is better that you sit quietly rather than speaking up and demonstrating what pathetic fools you are.
I'm not the one who brought up GM. Juris did.
So what? It is you who is making the case for someone to be allowed to ignore the law. Are you really saying that in order to consider ignoring the law unacceptable someone first has to make a stronger case for obeying it? That's how it appears.
You claim he is justified in ignoring the law because it's a unique situation. You offer no analysis to defend that, but you expect everyone else to offer analysis defending the proposition that laws should be obeyed? Really?
...why don't you guys offer the same level of analysis that Mark does?
On this subject he has offered no analysis whatsoever, just generalities about "the interconnectedness of markets" and the bland assumption that bankruptcy means businesses will fail in a domino effect. I know a business that has gone through bankruptcy twice in the last 20 years... and it's still around today, so yeah I'd like to know why he thinks that assumption is valid.
I've only been visiting this site for a few months but so far you seem like a very unhappy person, Juris. All I was asking was that you lay off the anger, the attacks and offer some serious substance. When the numbers fit your view, you quote them. When they don't, you attack Mark. It's pretty sad.
Sorry, Juliet, but you're dealing with some very irrational people here. Example:
On this subject he has offered no analysis whatsoever, just generalities about "the interconnectedness of markets" and the bland assumption that bankruptcy means businesses will fail in a domino effect.
Yet, if you look at Mark's comment above at 10:22AM you will see a serious analysis. It's maddening but that's all part of the plan. Redirect, distract, drive crazy-all to avoid answering for their numerous shortcomings.
And, yes, they are obviously terribly unhappy in their lives.
All I was asking was that you lay off the anger, the attacks and offer some serious substance.
I have a longer history with M than you do, and the vast majority of my goodwill and benefit-of-the-doubt has been used up. What I truly hate are people that are so ignorant, and so blind to the corruption of both parties (only blaming one of them) and presuming that if I don't support them I must be their enemy (and they may then demonize any way that suits them). And I do indeed get set off when one of those insipid beings accuses me of not offering substance. Did you read either of the links I provided in this thread? I don't provide substance? No Juliet, what I neither provide nor consume is partisan pablum. If that is all it takes for you, more's the pity.
And another member of the yippee little dog posse is heard from, as substance free as usual. Tell me, are double standards required to be a believer in liberal/progressive politics?
Is there not one of you that has even the slightest qualm about the lawlessness of the Obama Administration?
You are OK with killing people - including American citizens - because the anonymous intelligence bureaucracy says to do it? You have no problem with a Republican President doing the same?
You have no problem with an Administration that strong-arms deals in defiance of well established law, policy and procedure? You have no objections to the exact same behavior by a Republican Administration?
There J and S - there is your substance. Can you deal with it, or will you choke on it? Prove that I am wrong to think you merely Democrat sycophants and first-rank hypocrites. I would love to be proved wrong, but I doubt that you can do it, or that you will even try.
Wow, this thread really took a turn that I didn't expect. juris, I'll always allow whatever comments you want to make but you do seem like you are having a tough time of it lately. Taking things like this so personally seems counter productive in many ways.
I'm not sure what Juliet meant by substance but I'm wondering if it had anything to do with GM. Your other points here certainly warrant a discussion and I've said as much before (re: the killing of an American citizen). I would have no problem with a Republican administration taking out bin laden or Al Awlaki. But that may not be the right point of view. That's why I told you the last time we talked about this that we need to hear more voices like yours. In the final analysis, my hard line view may be entirely wrong and set a precedent that could have unforeseen circumstances.
That being said, I trust Democrats more than I trust Republicans with matters of national security. In comparing the track records, the Dems have proven themselves to be far more responsible. Not perfect but more responsible. In my view, the GOP has always used national security for their own "pet" projects in addition to the concerns that are necessary.
I also think that your view of a "lawless" Obama administration is exaggerated. Issues of immigration, bankruptcy, and health care are more nuanced when it comes to the law. They simply aren't that black and white. Again, you have to look at all the information that figures into these decisions. Changing existing immigration law isn't "breaking the law," for example. We have a government that is made to change laws when they aren't feasible anymore. Clearly, that's where we are at with immigration given the massive degree in which undocumented workers have become a part of our society.
Regarding GM, I'm wondering if its possible for you to look at it from a non "right wing blog" point of view. If not, we really can't go anywhere further on this one.
I said and presuming that if I don't support them I must be their enemy,
And M replies look at it from a non "right wing blog" point of view
Same as it ever was. You would think M might try to disguise it, just a little, so that he could plausibly claim innocence. Then again that might mean admitting that words have meanings.
I wasn't really throwing that my last comment your way M - I already know where you stand. My challenge was to the yippee little dog posse to speak up - to openly proclaim their unthinking devotion to all things Democrat, or to admit that they have some reservations about what Obama is actually, you know, doing.
BTW, it is consistent for you to accept the govt executing it's enemies with or without the niceties of due process (which is where this thread started). I'm sure we will see your support for such when the next President is a Republican.
You would think M might try to disguise it
Disguise what? You rage on here all the time about how I mis-characterize you but your view is right in line with the right wing blogsphere. Do you deny this?
Disguise what?
You're either with us or against us.
That is your world view M; you and George W. Bush.
Black and white. Them or us. The tribe or the other.
I dislike Michelle Bachmann as much as you, but you can't grok that I also dislike Nancy Pelosi. Any lack of love for Pelosi on your part is because she isn't more of a champion for liberal/progressivism.
What really does annoy me with you is that you see it when I recognize that you are not dogmatic - e.g. when you praise Reagan, or disagree with teachers unions. For your part you only see me as part of some monolithic "them" (even when I break harder from the right than you do from the left, e.g. legalizing drugs, opposing unConstitutional actions by the President [Bush or Obama]). You just go right back to lumping me into the "right wing blogosphere". Then to cap that off you claim I'm a black-and-whiter and you see the shades of gray. What is it you about projection and flipping?
And of course neither Juliet nor sasquatch have crawled back into the light of day to either defend or disown the unlawful actions of President Obama. As expected. Cowardice piled atop dishonesty.
Yet, if you look at Mark's comment above at 10:22AM you will see a serious analysis.
Actually no I don't, I see a bunch of assertions with no supporting evidence.
Now let's compare this 9 billion (or the 14 or 23 billion total) to the mammoth losses to the economy that would have occurred if GM went through normal bankruptcy. I doubt very seriously that any of you have considered the many connected businesses that would have also failed had GM gone bankrupt.
The only solid facts here are what did occur according to Reason. The rest is "would have"... with no support, no links, no nothing except for
This is one of the main points that the president made in support of this bailout.
in other words, "it must be true because Obama said so."
Is that what you call serious analysis? Just throw out numbers and chain them together, without anything to support the idea that those numbers are actually true and that they interact in the fashion indicated, besides "Obama said so?"
Should "because Bush said so" be enough to declare anything true for a Republican? Or a Democrat, even? I know the Democrat tendency is to claim that Bush saying anythign at all is reason enough to assume that it's a lie. So why is it "childishly dishonest" to think that just because Obama said something isn't sufficient reason by itself to assume it's true?
juris, first of all, it's a holiday weekend so cut them some slack. Also, I wouldn't blame them if they didn't post again given the fact that you and a few others berate new commenters as much as you do...and, yes, I know that's part of your strategy to not let me "win by default" whatever that means.
You're either with us or against us.
I was talking about GM here and not anything else. I recognize that you and I dislike Bachmann and share a few common views. In fact, I will continue to stipulate that your views on torture and targeted assassination are needed and, perhaps, wider and deeper than mine. Using Nancy Pelosi in the same sentence as Bachmman is ridiculous, though. Disagree with Ms. Pelosi all you want but the two do not live on the same planet. But that's the "Cult of Both Sides" again..
Actually no I don't, I see a bunch of assertions with no supporting evidence.
Once again...I didn't bring up GM. juris did. It's his responsibility to critically examine the way GM was handled, not mine. Actually, I did more than I should have. I went to his source and found pieces of information he did not include in his assertions. I also researched the stock price of GM on Sep 30 and compared it to Oct 30-relevant data for the purposes of this discussion.
So, enough with the game playing, MFFB. I'll put the challenge to you as well: critically examine the GM bankruptcy and the president policies towards it. Let's see your data and supporting evidence. If you don't have time, that's fine but that also means you have no real basis to criticize me for fauz inadequacies.
So, enough with the game playing, MFFB. I'll put the challenge to you as well: critically examine the GM bankruptcy and the president policies towards it. Let's see your data and supporting evidence. If you don't have time, that's fine but that also means you have no real basis to criticize me for fauz inadequacies.
It has nothing to do with having the time. It has to do with who is saying X circumstances justify ignoring the law, and who says no the law should be followed, that's what they wrote it for. I don't care who brought up what, when, and I don't see why you think it should matter. If you don't think Obama should have to obey the law like everyone else, you should have to justify that position. I don't see why it should be contingent on everyone who disagrees with you "proving" that no, Obama should have to follow the law just like everyone else first.
In short, you aren't making any sense. What's the point of having laws at all if legally justifying following them is no different from legally justifying breaking them?
Since M seems to think my case against the GM bailout needs clarification, I will repeat what I said above:
Yet you defend the Obama Administration ignoring well established law for GM. You place the President above the law. I recall the uproar from the left when Bush's Administration argued it was above the law.
Bankruptcy law was perfectly adequate to handling GM. There is no reason to think GM would've gone Chapter 7 (dissolution) as you claim - in all likelihood they would've gone Chapter 11 (reorganization). The only reason the Obama Admin and it's compliant Congressional majority did what they did was because they wanted to make sure labor got a better deal than ownership/creditors.
Now, I believe the President should obey the law, not make arbitrary decisions above it. I don't believe you would have supported the Bush Admin ignoring the law, which means your only basis for giving Obama a pass is that you are a partisan hack and complete hypocrite. If you wish to defend your position on some other basis, by all means do so.
I'll tell you what, guys. We can sidestep the original point that juris brought up about GM, stock prices, estimates, and comparisons to what would have happened to the overall economy. But I don't want to hear anymore lyin' BS about me running away from threads etc. ever again.I completely understand if neither one of you has the time to do a full analysis of this issue. Who would? In other words, apply the same standards to me that we are now applying to each of you.
So, now we are looking at this issue from a legal standpoint, right? Both of you have made the claim that the president broke, skirted or placed himself above the law. Alright, let's see the evidence and it had better be from unbiased and reliable sources. No Brietbart, Malkin, Erickson, or Baker. In addition, Saikrishna Prakash should also be considered a biased source as he is a self admitted conservative scholar.
Essentially, you are going to have to refute this information
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization
as it directly contradicts the statements that you have made above.
The General Motors Chapter 11 sale of the assets of automobile manufacturer General Motors and some of its subsidiaries was implemented through section 363 of Chapter 11, Title 11, United States Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.
Looks to me like they did go through Chapter 11.
A new entity with the backing of the United States Treasury was formed to acquire profitable assets, under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, with the new company planning to issue an initial public offering (IPO) of stock in 2010. The remaining pre-petition creditors claims are paid from the former corporation's assets.
Further, the Supreme Court at the time refused to hear the case regarding possible illegality of the Chrysler bailout-the CONSERVATIVE court, mind you.
Here's a piece that looks at the bailout in a pretty even handed way.
http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/12/08/did-the-auto-bailout-break-the-constitution/
So, your assertions that the presidents (both Bush and Obama) place themselves above the law are murky at best, in my view. It wouldn't be the first time that you guys moaned about the Constitution but we've had this debate before (the first national bank dealio) and out of that we saw that even the Founding Fathers were "placing themselves above the law" from day one.
You like to make a lot of hay about the National Bank (a cause that ultimately was lost). What do you say about the Alien & Sedition Act that was also passed by the Founders (i.e. the Federalists)? The fact that they passed a law that trampled all over the 1st Amdt means that our contemporary govt can also do that?
As for GM - your authoritative source is wikipedia, again?
This is an excellent summary. See if you can contend with what the article says - or will you find some fault with author and/or venue [i.e. the usual genetic fallacy]? Now, if you want to argue that the Obama Admin didn't illegitimately muscle the agreement you could of course find another bankruptcy case where the federal govt became the majority stockholder of the reorganized company.
I'll use Wikipeida if their sources are sound at the end of the articles. Take a look at them and tell me what you think.
or will you find some fault with author and/or venue [i.e. the usual genetic fallacy]?
Ah, yes, the genetic fallacy BS again. When it's a contributor (Zywicki) to the Volokh conspiracy (see: right wing blog), then it's a genetic fallacy. When it's Michael Moore, it's an unreliable source. Got it:)
Either way, you have to check for bias, right? Especially in an opinion piece like Zywicki's. But let's just forget about that for a moment and simply look at the facts. They are listed in the Wiki link above. Do you deny any of these facts occurred? For example, was it or was it not implemented through section 363 of the bankruptcy code? Were the pre-petition creditors claims paid from the former corporation's asset or not? More importantly, how do you account for SCOTUS refusing to hear the case?
Getting back to the whole genetic fallacy malarky...when Michael Moore makes a film, he has an ax to grind, right? For example, many of his films rip MNCs for "oppressing" citizens in the Global South. Many do, of course but Moore fails to mention that it has been the direct investment by MNCs (as well as foreign aid) that has caused life expectancy to rise in Africa, for example. The world is becoming a more prosperous place as a result of free market ideals and liberal economic theory. But Moore leaves that stuff out of his films because he has an ax to grind.
Like Moore, Zywicki has an ax to grind as well. He's a libertarian who starts from the point of less government which means you have to question his motivations. So he will point out only the information that will suit his argument. Saying that it was "illegal" is an opinion, not a fact, based on ALL relevant information. Compare Zywicki's piece with the COP report.
http://cop.senate.gov/documents/cop-090909-report.pdf
In such circumstances, the court noted it had “long recognized that considerable weight should be accorded to an executive department‟s construction of a statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer, and the principle of deference to administrative interpretations.”338 This deference, known now as “Chevron deference,” reflects the judiciary‟s respect for the specialized and superior skill and knowledge that an executive agency brings to its area of expertise. A court will therefore honor an agency‟s interpretation of such a statute as long as the interpretation “represents a reasonable accommodation of conflicting policies that were committed to the agency‟s care by the statute,” and will not disturb such interpretation “unless it appears from the statute or its legislative history that the accommodation is not one that Congress would have sanctioned.
So, that's another opinion or interpretation of the law. But it's likely that this will go in one of your ears and out other because, like Zywicki, you think that the government should never do this. You will always have your ax to grind as well regardless of the circumstances. This is ideology trap in which you always fall and I've said this many times...when you start from such a rigid place, it's hard to think critically about an issue.
That's where we are at here. There are likely no facts I could present to you that would change your mind. The GM bankruptcy was illegal and the president acted above the law. The End. From where I sit, it's barely murky and, given all relevant information, not illegal as it went through bankruptcy proceedings detailed in the above link and saw SCOTUS not even bat an eye.
Volokh conspiracy (see: right wing blog),
You really shouldn't mischaracterize something you don't even read. Particularly when it wasn't even the source of the article. Once again - anything that isn't "liberal" must be "right-wing" - isn't that tiresome?
Predictably you didn't refute a single point in the article. I'm sure you spent more time tracking down Zywicki's ties than actually reading it.
Your COP link does not work. It redirects, which leads me to believe that you copied that not from the Senate site itself but from somewhere else (without noting that or checking if it existed).
As for SCOTUS, they often punt on hot political issues.
Show me any previous bankruptcy handled like GM and Chrysler. Not even the original Chrysler bailout (you remember that one don't you?).
Lastly, there is a simple difference between Zywicki and Moore. Moore is a serial liar (which you don't mind because he lies for 'good causes'). To the best of my knowledge Zywicki isn't.
Predictably you didn't refute a single point in the article.
First of all, I did. That was the point of the COP link which does work fine for me. It simply points you here.
http://cybercemetery.unt.edu/archive/cop/20110401223205/http:/www.cop.senate.gov/
That quote was used in the Time link above.
Second, I don't see much refuting from you yet regarding the facts so I'm done unless you start looking at this issue more critically.
Moore is a serial liar
Ah, yes, another ol' ditty from TSM...seems awfully hypocritical to me when you bring up genetic fallacies.
Here are a few lines from Zywicki's post that I found interesting.
The bailouts of GM and Chrysler at the end of 2008 — and the extension of those bailouts in the beginning of 2009 — were therefore both unnecessary and very likely illegal.
"Very likely?" Well, that's not definitely illegal as you claim, right? He kinda covered his ass there a bit.
The highly irregular bankruptcies and re-organizations of General Motors and Chrysler left the White House and Congress with enormous power over the subsequent operations of both companies.
Huh? He doesn't really prove that other than with his own opinions up to this point.
The bailout was not absolutely necessary and was pursued by means of dubious legality; the bankruptcies were highly irregular and inefficient; and the companies that have emerged from bankruptcy are far from lean and fit. They are certainly in no position to repay taxpayers for the generous loans they were given.
Dubious legality? Again, not the same as definitely illegal. The rest of his paragraph here doesn't seem to fit either considering the other information I've presented on GM in the past. Look at both together and what do you see?
Through their actions, both the Bush and Obama administrations have set dangerous precedents — and made it much more difficult to reverse the trends of executive overreach and excessive government entanglement with private business..
Also really not true but then again "excessive" is anything to the left of the 1 yard line on the right side of the field. The government's actions to this point show me that they want to get out of GM in a timely fashion.
The Obama administration's economic policy, therefore, returns us to the thinking of the 1950s and '60s — to an economy in which big business, big labor, and big government are tied together in a relationship of mutual succor and support..
You mean when our economy was booming? The mention of "big labor" here and above by you is very telling as well. Are unions ever a good thing? Again, your bias...
All in all, I found his entire post to be based in Randian paranoia and standard libertarian dogma. Essentially, just opinions with your typical buzz words to attract those engaging in confirmation bias.
...seems awfully hypocritical to me when you bring up genetic fallacies.
Wrong, if Moore posted a piece on HuffPo and I were to say that since Moore is a liar, all content at HuffPo must be lies - that is closer. Moore himself is a serial liar, and you don't care because you have stated repeatedly that his lies are for a good cause.
That quote was used in the Time link above.
So why didn't you quote/link Time?
Huh? He doesn't really prove that other than with his own opinions up to this point.
The govt being majority owner of GM and Chrysler is only an opinion? What drugs are you on?
Dubious legality? Again, not the same as definitely illegal.
Dude is a lawyer, not a jack-ass teacher-pundit-wannabe. Certainly Moore wouldn't pull his punches, but then he throws them pretty wildly too.
You mean when our economy was booming?
Manzi. My how quickly you forget - particularly when it is convenient to do so.
Randian paranoia and standard libertarian dogma
Okay Marxy. If that is as deep as you are going to go.
BTW, thanks for the correction on the COP link. This was an interesting summary there on a later report than you cited.
The Congressional Oversight Panel's January oversight report, "An Update on TARP Support for the Domestic Automotive Industry," found that, although it remains too early to tell whether Treasury's intervention in the U.S. automotive industry will prove successful, the government's ambitious actions appear to be on a promising course. Even so, the companies that received automotive bailout funds continue to face uncertain futures, taxpayers remain at financial risk, concerns remain about the transparency and accountability of Treasury's efforts, and moral hazard lingers as a long-run threat to the automotive industry and the broader economy. [13 Jan 2011]
Alright, so Moore's out. What about Krugman? Rachel Maddow? David Brooks? Are they all serial liars as well?
What's happened here is that you've conveniently set up Zywicki as being above anyone on the left. It's not surprising because you obviously think that libertarians are smarter and better than liberals. That's what we call a "bias."
So why didn't you quote/link Time?
I went to the original source.
What drugs are you on?
That wasn't his point. From his ideology, he wrote an opinion piece on why government involving themselves is always bad. Snore...
Interesting that you bring up Manzi
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/268637/inherently-ideological-evaluation-gm-bailout-jim-manzi
I hold the belief, quite strongly, that the net effect of the GM bailout will be negative. More precisely, I hold the belief that over a series of many such decisions, a mindset that would have been stringent enough not to have sanctioned the GM bailout is likely to lead to better overall economic outcomes for America. This belief is ideological — not in the sense that I just hold it for inexplicable reasons that cannot ever be changed by empirical analysis, but in the sense that I don’t believe that human beings currently have the capability to conduct the kind of analysis that should convince a rational observer to change his mind about the GM bailout in isolation from a more profound paradigm-shift-like change in his beliefs about the world.
At least he admits it:)
Are they all serial liars as well?
No, it is quite possible for them to be wrong without being liars.
That wasn't his point.
Yes, it was exactly his fucking point. You are attempting to create an alternate reality; in this reality words have meanings and you don't get to make that up as you go. Stop acting like a neo-con.
that human beings currently have the capability to conduct the kind of analysis
Dude. Your argument is exactly that - that Obama and his advisors conducted that analysis. Do you not realize that? Either you agree with Manzi, or you agree with yourself.
Yes, it was exactly his fucking point.
So, his point wasn't to say that the GM chapter 11 was illegal? Now, it's simply that the government owns part of GM? I'm really lost now!
Now, it's simply that the government owns part of GM?
simply?? part of?
The govt owns the fucking majority of stock - meaning they have controlling interest. Followed by the block of ownership granted, by the govt, to the UAW - granted, not purchased. And please, fucking please tell me what other bankruptcy has ever ended up with the govt owning all, the majority or even a minority stake in a private company? Not even the original Chrysler bailout - not even close. But to you it's all okay because your guy did it. You better hope I lose interest, because if not, the minute you bitch about the next Repub President - you will be reminded of all this shit.
Post a Comment