Contributors

Sunday, June 17, 2012


17 comments:

juris "bully weasel" imprudent said...

How fun it is to demonize the others.

Keep reinforcing that tribal identity - and if the conservatives get too slippery think about making them wear some kind of marker so you know them when you see them.

juris imprudent said...

Maybe this is why you can't post why anyone should vote for Obama.

"The White House and the Obama re-election campaign -- one and the same, actually -- continue to tout how the president saved the domestic auto industry. And after all, they argue, the proof is in the pudding: The Big Three, two of which were directly bailed out, are doing just fine, thank you, and national economic calamity was averted.

But a not-so-funny thing has been exposed with all of this political self-congratulation. The administration's gross perversion of the normal reorganizational bankruptcy process was cover for a direct subsidy to the United Auto Workers union.
"

Mark Ward said...

juris, there aren't any facts I can present to you that will convince you that this was a legal and normal bankruptcy process so what's the point in discussing it?

This is what I find to be enormously frustrating in talking with someone on the right (or however you pretend to define yourself). You start with an emotion (I don't like government) and then use that emotion and make something up (this was not a normal bankruptcy). Then other people who feel the same way as you do believe it and before you know it, it's "fact."

This is why I use the word "Cult."

juris imprudent said...

there aren't any facts I can present to you that will convince you that this was a legal and normal bankruptcy process so what's the point in discussing it?

That's because there are no facts stating that, but there are to the contrary. I just like to point that out to you.

As for the rest of it - don't project yourself onto me. It makes me feel like a need a shower.

Mark Ward said...

That's because there are no facts stating that

Of course there are and I have presented them to you. You called Judge Gerber an idiot, stomped your feet, and acted like a juvenile. Here it is again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_bankruptcy#Chapter_11_protection

Here is another list of facts that my help see where you are wrong.

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/201202170006

Very simple fact, juris. There was no private financing available to save GM. So what would have the alternative have been? Let it fail? It's easy to say that now but you know full well what would have happened.

Now it's your turn to get mad and make something up.

juris imprudent said...

I turn to scholars and you turn to wiki. Those are hardly equivalent 'facts'.

You called Judge Gerber an idiot, stomped your feet, and acted like a juvenile.

I said it should never have been in his jurisdiction - that was blatent 'shopping' for a friendly judge. Even the sources you cite admit it was not normal bankruptcy. Is your reading comprehension really that bad? [That is a rhetorical question, for you have done this many times - linked to something that ran counter to your argument as supporting evidence. Truly amazing that.]

The article I referenced pointed out how the UAW got the most favorable treatment - including quoting the Admin's car czar that more should have been demanded in union concessions. Yet still you defend your most holy hero. You will only concede the most trivial of Democrat indiscretions/errors - never anything of substance.

Mark Ward said...

Scholars have opinions. Facts aren't opinion based. The wiki article is supported by well sourced evidence.

Funny, even your scholars said that there was nothing illegal about it. Just not "normal." What does that mean, anyway? It smells an awful lot like the same garbage that's peddled on a daily basis about how the president isn't normal. Yeah...he's some leftist born in Kenya who thumbs his nose at the law and the American way, right juris? And you say that you aren't like them...

It's really convenient being able to bitch and not offer any solutions of your own. In this situation, there was no other choice. The credit markets were dry and the alternative would have made the economic situation far worse. Instead, it was a success and that really fucking sucks for you because that means your ideology was proven wrong. The government helped to save the economy. Quick! Hide the white women!!!

Anonymous said...

not offer any solutions of your own. In this situation, there was no other choice

How about let it fucking fail?

That's the free market.

That's the business version of darwinism.

That's natural selection.

That is how the market provides feedback on which business practices work and which don't.

juris imprudent said...

What does that mean, anyway?

It means that rather than the rule of law, we got the rule of men. It is much the same as the President deciding who to kill via drone. You may argue that it isn't a matter of legal black and white - fair enough. It is a gray area - but is that what we want? You sure as hell aren't going to quietly sit there when the next Republican President is killing people with no due process of law. That makes you a little pissant partisan lapdog. A tool for the Democrat power-brokers to use. I hope you at least know your place and purpose.

In this situation, there was no other choice.

That is the whole point of contention - not some established fact.

Instead, it was a success and that really fucking sucks for you because that means your ideology was proven wrong.

A "success" that has cost the taxpayers $20B. A "success" that screwed many for the benefit of the UAW. You have some weird concept of "success". I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

rld said...

"You sure as hell aren't going to quietly sit there when the next Republican President is killing people with no due process of law. That makes you a little pissant partisan lapdog. A tool for the Democrat power-brokers to use. I hope you at least know your place and purpose."

Pure genius right there. 100% correct.

Mark Ward said...

It is a gray area - but is that what we want?

It's not a matter of what we want. It's a matter of the reality the world presents us. GM wasn't going to be able to go through a privately financed bankruptcy because the credit market was dry. Can we at least agree on that point? Now, if you accept that, what do you suppose would have happened after that? It fails and hundreds of thousands of jobs are lost. Connected markets began to fail at a time when the economy is shedding hundreds of thousands of jobs a month. What happens then?

You sure as hell aren't going to quietly sit there when the next Republican President is killing people with no due process of law.

Wrong. I supported President Bush's initial efforts in Afghanistan. Then he went whirring out of control in Iraq (like Johnson did in Vietnam) and that's where he lost me. Actually, he lost me when he said (6 months after 9-11 that bin Laden "didn't matter" and pursued a policy that actually made the Al Qaeda problem worse. Now we have a president that is making the problem go away. So, it really doesn't matter to me if there is a D or R next to their name. In fact, it doesn't with any sort of policy. As long as they are competent and pursue the best course of action given the challenges faced and not let ideology get in the way. Funny, most of the people I know who are pretty serious lefties think Obama is no different than Bush.

Of course, you (and rld) have prescribed to me each of your own failings. That's how YOU guys think because that's how the right thinks.

juris imprudent said...

GM wasn't going to be able to go through a privately financed bankruptcy because the credit market was dry.

No, that isn't a clear hard fact at all. What is unquestioned is that the circumvention of normal bankruptcy benefited the UAW extraordinarily. Nor was anyone talking liquidation bankrupcty in place of reorganization. That tells you right there that it wasn't necessary to go outside the realm of normal bankruptcy - except as the worst kind of crony capitalism. Not that that should be shocking for a politician that came up through the Chicago Democratic Machine.


I supported President Bush's initial efforts in Afghanistan.

Talk about damning with faint praise - it is a very short list that didn't. And mind you, Bush did not order the murder of people, including American citizens - yet the leashed left utters not a word against Obama's actions. Yet again it isn't wrong when our side does it hypocrisy at its finest. Credit to most Republicans on this - they aren't criticizing the President on this because you can bet they are salivating at the prospect of disappearing people in a future Republican Admin.

Funny, most of the people I know who are pretty serious lefties think Obama is no different than Bush.

I wouldn't normally credit lefties with clarity of thought - but by gawd they are right on that.

Mark Ward said...

No, that isn't a clear hard fact at all.

So, all those people that study this stuff for a living...all of them...were wrong. Is that what you are saying? If so, tell me who or what entity would have put up the money.

juris imprudent said...

So, all those people that study this stuff for a living...all of them...were wrong.

All of them agree with you? What kind of dope are you smoking? You could read what I've linked - but I kinda wonder if you can really read.

Who would've invested? Anyone who believed that GM could be profitable again - you have been bragging about how they are profitable, haven't you? Or are you arguing that the govt just got lucky bailing them out?

Mark Ward said...

But how would these imaginary investors have gotten credit to invest at a time when the credit market was bone dry?

juris imprudent said...

But how would these imaginary investors have gotten credit to invest at a time when the credit market was bone dry?

Assumes facts not in evidence.

GM could obviously be turned around. It could have been turned around cheaper (to the taxpayer) in a normal Chapter 11 bankruptcy. But the UAW would not have gotten nearly as good a deal. You, like the Administration, favor fucking over all of the taxpayers to benefit a sliver of the workforce.

juris imprudent said...

By the way - your MM link includes an Economist blog entry. The "apology" offered by the Economist can be found here; I suggest you read it all (I know, more than 3 sentences of leftie populism is a strain, but do try). Then remind yourself of the date of that - almost two years ago, and the taxpayers have most assuredly not made a profit on bailing out GM since then.

I swear, a fact could hit knock you on your ass and you would just get up and pretend that nothing happened.